It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why must we believe we should kill all 'terrorists'?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Are they not able to be rehabilitated as criminals are? Wouldn't we think this about child criminals? We would try to help them, not execute them.

Take for example 'God's Army' in Myanmar The Army is headed by 12-year old twin brothers Johnny and Luther Htoo. Unlike most of the estimated 300,000 child combatants in Third World conflicts around the world, they rule their unit.

The question isn't what makes us any different if we just go out and slaughter those who are against our 'freedom' or 'way of life' as G.W. Numbnuts Bush has told us. The question is have we lost all values of our own society that we cannot believe people can be rehabilitated or even philosophically swayed back from extremism into more moderate and peaceful coexistance with eachother.

Why must we murder those who wish to murder us. Why cannot we rise above the sickess. Why must we perpetuate the cycle of violence instead of liberating ourselves and others from it? And for all you military gruffs, going into a country by force and dropping bombs and shooting guns is not liberating people, it is repeating the cycle of violence.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by 00PS]




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Well, a person can be a dreamer and think the terrorists will drop their weapons if we preach brotherhood and love to them, but that is just not reality.
The only thing a violent criminal understands is violence. The whiney peaceniks and Greens can think that by trying to reason with these people, they will make a breakthrough. It's kind of sad, really. I wish for peace. I wish for brotherhood. But it is just not the real world.

Child soldiers are a different story. The are getting the short end of the stick, for man's need for violence. I pray for those children, and hope it wouldn't be like that. But that is just the way things are in certain parts of the world.

The way I see it, if every terrorist and violent criminal and war-mongorer were wiped from the face of the earth, then maybe we would have peace. But once again, that will never happen. At least not in our lifetimes.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I have no problem eliminating and killing all terrorists. No, i dont believe they can be rehabilitated.

The problem is, actually going after real terrorists, instead of assuming everyone who wears a funny hat and prays to allah is a terrorist. Why, for instant, we have a very prominent bunch of terrorists int his country, living in Washington DC. Thier names are Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney.

I support hunting down REAL terrorists and being specific and directed hunting them, instead of bombing the # out of a bunch of non-terrorist people because there "might" be a terrorist living in there somewhere.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
why is it that a reasonable question like the threadstarter has asked, cannot be debated and reasoned out, ideas voiced etc. Instead each one immediatly gets an extreme sarcasm relpy like this:

Well, a person can be a dreamer and think the terrorists will drop their weapons if we preach brotherhood and love to them, but that is just not reality.
The only thing a violent criminal understands is violence. The whiney peaceniks and Greens can think that by trying to reason with these people, they will make a breakthrough. It's kind of sad, really. I wish for peace. I wish for brotherhood. But it is just not the real world.


Wheres the reason and intelligence in that. why not ask, "how could this be acheived"? "how do you prpose this might be acheived"? Do folk who write nothing but sarcasm have nothing of intellect to share?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Are they not able to be rehabilitated as criminals are?

They are not citizens of the US or any of the other nations, and thus international terrorists don't need to be imprisoned or rehabilitated. Are you suggesting that say the US goes to a foreign country and kidnaps a bunch of people and puts them in jail? No government is under obligation to do so. In fact, its possibly that its not allowed. The terrorists declared war, and the US and other countries have also declared war on the terrorists. I am not so certian that prisoners of a war are allowed to be held permantently, even after the war is over, to 'rehabilitate' them. And, even if it is permisible, why shoud they? Are the terrorists imprisoning westerners and rehabilitating them? No. They are killing.




The question is have we lost all values of our own society that we cannot believe people can be rehabilitated or even philosophically swayed back from extremism into more moderate and peaceful coexistance with eachother.

What? No nation needs to have lost its way to kill the soldiers and terrorists trying to kill it. This is absurd. How exactly are they supposed to be captured anyway? They aren't giving up until they are shot dead. The US Army has regulations about taking prisoners, if it could, I'm sure it'd prefer to take everyone prisoner, however the terrorists seem to prefer fighting back. Ask the terrorists why they aren't being taken prisoner, tell them to give up and submit to rehabilitation. Otherwise its going ot be a battle. In fact, thats exactly whats happening now.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

Why must we murder those who wish to murder us. Why cannot we rise above the sickess. Why must we perpetuate the cycle of violence instead of liberating ourselves and others from it? And for all you military gruffs, going into a country by force and dropping bombs and shooting guns is not liberating people, it is repeating the cycle of violence.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by 00PS]


Those that refuse to murder, and want to rise above the sickness, and not continue the cycle of violence can still be killed by those that don't subscribe to such things. Those that live by the sword die by the sword. True, but those that don't live by the sword still die by it too.

You do have a point though. We should pull all the troops back home, and instead, send those that really want only peace without using any means of violence. They can go here and there, and just talk it out. Maybe come up with some sort of compromise. I nominate you to lead this. If you, or anyone else who goes with you to accomplish this make it back alive, please tell the rest of us how it went.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

They are not citizens of the US or any of the other nations, and thus international terrorists don't need to be imprisoned or rehabilitated


There not? are they whizzing around in ufo's then?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
This is a very tough philosophical and ethical question, and one that has been raised many times between my friends and I, with widely-differing opinions.

Firstly, though, you must definte what constitutes a Terrorist versus La Resistance...

National Geographic did a GREAT article on this a month or two ago, because "Terrorism" has been around almost as long as Government. The thing is, it's only been in the last few decades that Terrorists have decided that taking innocent lives is perfectly acceptable and in some cases, encouraged. Before about 1970 or so, it was considered dishonorable and shameful for a terrorist organization to harm anyone who was "innocent" of their cause. Mostly because these organizations were trying to appeal to the masses in order to evoke some major political change, and slaughtering innocents is a good way to get the masses to hate you, rather than support you. So while it might have been okay for La Resistance to firebomb a police station, it was not okay for them to firebomb a restaurant with innocents inside.

And such organizations still exist, that try to avoice shedding innocent blood, and are fighting their oppressors in the only way they have left, violence... but for the most part, terrorists have gone the way of rabid dogs.

So, first you must determine, is this a Resistance Group (do not kill innocents), or New Terrorists (happily kill innocents). It won't always be black or white, but the gray will be light or dark enough to usually decide.

If the group is composed of New Terrorists, then I say let them all die. I have absolutely no moral issues killing someone who has cold-bloodedly premeditated and successfully achieved the murder of innocent lives.

If the group is a Resistance Group, then I think it largely depends on the groups motives as to whether or not they should be helped. More detail would be required.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Even if they could be rehabilitated you should have to pay to try to rehabilitate them? Rehabilitation cost money should the same people they are trying to kill have to foot the bill to try to change these people?

I personally think anyone that commits a act of terrorism or plans one has no hope of rehabilitation. Those people are to far gone a better use of money and effort should be trying to prevent people from becoming terrorist in the first place.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Even if they could be rehabilitated you should have to pay to try to rehabilitate them? Rehabilitation cost money should the same people they are trying to kill have to foot the bill to try to change these people?

I personally think anyone that commits a act of terrorism or plans one has no hope of rehabilitation. Those people are to far gone a better use of money and effort should be trying to prevent people from becoming terrorist in the first place.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]


erm.....Bombs and missiles and bullets are cheaper? lives of innocent civilians are cheaper?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Who exactly is going to rehabilitate these "terrorists"? Surely not some "infidel" American. You honestly think a "terrorist" would see the error of their way and let some American rehabilitate them when they can become martyrs and get their celestial virgins in the after life? HELL NO! These people are so wrapped up around their religion, that if they do try to sway from it, they are considered outcasts and shunned. I'm sorry to say this, but they aren't called extremists and fanatics for nothing you know. They stick with their belief until the end my main man. So, can a "terrorist" be rehabilitated? I'm strongly leaning towards, NO! Think what you like, but remember that the majority of them hated Americans before they knew what hate was. It's instilled in their heads by other extremists from birth.

On a side note, I quoted terrorists in my post because I don't agree with the methods of labeling someone a terrorist. If they haven't committed a terrorist act, how can you call them a terrorist? Intent to commit an act doesn't make them a terrorist just yet. They have to actually commit an act to be labeled a terrorist. So you mean to tell me that we can "prove" they committed an act first? I think not, so we are pretty much jumping the gun on who we label a terrorist. I guess they think that guilt by association works.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by lost1]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
We shouldnt kill them all there should be as in any war pows, although where some pows are released after the war is over and the bulk of the enemy destroyed and the threat neutralized the terrorists should be imprisioned for their crimes.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Agree with the vicious cycle point. But this is an age old conundrum. Terrorists aside, the apparently conflicting concepts of punishment VS rehabilitation has dogged sentencing jurists since the beginning of time. Foreign policy is not immune to conflicting concepts. The Old Testament VS The New Testament. ..Absolute and immediate prevention is better than an uncertain cure,..... the list can go on and on... If the stakes were less painful and horrendous, possibly re-education and re-habilitation on their own could be tried. There is much to be said about the doctrine of fear as the best teacher. Terrorists strike to hurt and more importantly create a climate of fear, all in the hope of sending a clearly understood message. So, they understand the sheer power of fear. Japan was stopped in its tracks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fear. Having said that, with modern terrorists, the fear doctrine seems to be a one-way street. They know no fear. They have overcome mortal fear. All precepts of love, emotion, reason, logic, kindness have gone and they are prepared to kill as many as possible, using their human void as a weapon. Maybe, just maybe a punishment on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is needed. The Japanese too had their legendary Kamikaze bombers. It worked before and we can only learn from history. Cruel ? Barbaric ? Terrorism is not a simple inconvenience that my children have to live with. My children should not have to live with terrorists planning their next attack.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
But our soldiers arn't in the middle right now, they are on the extreme. Shooting civilians, and terrorists 'resistance fighters' who pretend to be dead in islamic churches. Or how about just the torture and abuse of captees. Point is, that we are not operating on a basis of catch and retain, we are operating on a basis of exterminate! Lead by our commander in chief in war, we follow his thought and he orders us to fight the crusade of extreme warfare to obliterate all and any obstacles to his agenda.

The other side, of course the happy hippies will want peace to come from talking and discussion but the realists here know that without a dterrance of force nobody stops to listen - hence peacekeepers.

Going back to the Geneva convention would be the first step in the right direction.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
why is it that a reasonable question like the threadstarter has asked, cannot be debated and reasoned out, ideas voiced etc. Instead each one immediatly gets an extreme sarcasm relpy like this:

Wheres the reason and intelligence in that. why not ask, "how could this be acheived"? "how do you prpose this might be acheived"? Do folk who write nothing but sarcasm have nothing of intellect to share?


And where is your intelligent response?

I wasn't being sarcastic, and wasn't pointing any fingers at the thread starter. Relax.

How can peace be achieved? How can we put an end to violence in the world? Don't you think people have been discussing this since the beginning of time? As long as there are humans, there will be violence. That is just the way of the world. You can bury your head in the sand and hope and pray the problems will go away, but they won't. I wish to God there was no violence, terrorism, crime, etc. But there is. That is a fact of life. And those people he perpetuate such, must be dealt with in one way or another. We, as Americans, can sit here on our hobby horse and proclaim " Those people are sooo violent, we must reason with them, phsycoanalyze them, to determine why they are so violent". And all the while they are laughing at you, with a gun in your back. That is all they understand. That is how it is. We understand peace(supposedly), but we still perpetuate violence. Our country is not at war on the homefront, but murders happen everyday. And it will continue to happen. No psyco-babble and analysis will stop it. It is part of human nature. The only difference is most of us can control our urge for violence.

If terrorists weren't directing their anger towards us, it would be towards someone else. Not excluding members of their own organization. Murder and violence are their tools of the trade.

I also ask myself, if Israel were to say today: " We want an end to the violence, we will pull out of Gaza, hand over the Golan Heights, and return the West Bank", would there really be peace in that part of the Middle East? Would that be ebough to satisfy Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the PLO? I don't believe so. I think those organizations would find another reason to fight, to maim and to kill.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
There not? are they whizzing around in ufo's then?

Whats puzzling about it? Bin laden isn't a citizen of saudi arabia or afghanistan. Most of these people wouldn'tbe protected as citizens of any country.


OOPS
But our soldiers arn't in the middle right now, they are on the extreme. Shooting civilians, and terrorists 'resistance fighters' who pretend to be dead in islamic churches.

So instead of being able to kill the people trying to kill them, these same soldiers should be sent out and invade other countries to capture them?

honestly, how would it work any different that whats being done now? The US gov and Military requires that prisoners be taken.Effectively, they are doing exactly what you are saying shoudl be done, but the terrorists are, obviously, resisting, and the result is death.


Going back to the Geneva convention would be the first step in the right direction.

Where has the US left teh Geneva convention?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

I also ask myself, if Israel were to say today: " We want an end to the violence, we will pull out of Gaza, hand over the Golan Heights, and return the West Bank", would there really be peace in that part of the Middle East? Would that be ebough to satisfy Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the PLO? I don't believe so. I think those organizations would find another reason to fight, to maim and to kill.


I disagree...Conflict is Conflict. Psychological Disorders of the brain are Psychological Disorders. I don't think we can group these organizations who fight one side of a conflict of all having Psychological Disorders that promt them to fight, maim and kill. And even if they did, aren't Psychological Disorders treatable, their victims rehabilitable?

If it is that they are just combatatants on one side of a Conflict wouldn't we think that when the Conflict is solved there would be some people who feel an emptiness because they faught for a cause now over? But wouldn't this vacume be filled with positive leadership in place to facilitate the moving from fighting for a state for fighting for the development of the state, a much more longterm issue than the previous...



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Are they not able to be rehabilitated as criminals are? Wouldn't we think this about child criminals? We would try to help them, not execute them.

Take for example 'God's Army' in Myanmar The Army is headed by 12-year old twin brothers Johnny and Luther Htoo. Unlike most of the estimated 300,000 child combatants in Third World conflicts around the world, they rule their unit.

The question isn't what makes us any different if we just go out and slaughter those who are against our 'freedom' or 'way of life' as G.W. Numbnuts Bush has told us. The question is have we lost all values of our own society that we cannot believe people can be rehabilitated or even philosophically swayed back from extremism into more moderate and peaceful coexistance with eachother.

Why must we murder those who wish to murder us. Why cannot we rise above the sickess. Why must we perpetuate the cycle of violence instead of liberating ourselves and others from it? And for all you military gruffs, going into a country by force and dropping bombs and shooting guns is not liberating people, it is repeating the cycle of violence.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by 00PS]


Let me see you try to rehibilitate someone with a gun barrel pointed at your head, or while they're flying your plane into a building, or while they're driving a suicide boat into your ship, or while they're blowing up trains in Madrid. These people can't be reasoned with, that's why they're called extremists and fanatics. It's a good idea you have, but don't you think it's been tried before? Muslim extremists have been around pretty much since the biblical days...a couple thousand years of terrorism, just in different forms. This will never go away, so you might as well try and stop them with fear and might, because words haven't done a thing in a couple thousand years.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Where has the US left teh Geneva convention?


I don't want to go and get all the data of the Geneva convention but let's just say that the treatment of prisoners by the USA has not been following the guidelines set by the fourth Geneva Convention. This includes Camp X Ray, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also the indiscriminate effect of civilian populations such as displacement and conditions set up in effect on the basis of marshall law are in no way justifiable. These are the effects of war, they are horrible and the Geneva Convention worked to balance the effects of war and the undeniable fact that war exists and has existed since the dawn of time.

These are the points where I feel the US has majorly abandoned the Geneva Convention.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Nathraq, for a start, the us refuses any negotiation. There were never any summits about the issues that caused the islamic folk to become extreme in the first place. what is it they want or dont want exactly? were is tradeoff, mutual agreement about whatever the hell it is if it aint about oil? this is what im talking about. Why no cease fire and lets discuss stuff/make a deal or two? George and his old man never comprimised, arrogance dosent lead to peace. Why was it allowed to escalate into violence/terrorism ? lack of any comprimise! Sure you might say, they wouldnt comprimise either, good point, but comprimise has to start somewhere or else you go loggerheads and things escalate as they have.
Someone has to swallow their mighty pride first, if not the mid east then why not the u.s.? both are like my young daughters, neither will comprimise even though the older one knows better, I expect the older one to comprimise to teach the younger by example. when the older one will make a comprimise the younger one will do likewise, eventually they have a mutual agreeement both are happy with. surely this is better than no comprimise by either party and stubborn refusal to see the logic in it.
Why cant the us cease fire and make a good will guesture towards negotiation by removing trade sanctions or something ? make an official announcement that we want to sort it out, enuff is enuff. with a little comprimise, down the road their may be no need to rehabilitate terrorist because there will be none, they will have no need or desire to fly planes into buildings. The excuse that to do so will send a message of defeat is simply an excuse to remain stubborn and refuse comprimise. you dont get to your destination until you first get off your arse and put one foot infront of the other!

[edit on 10-12-2004 by instar]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join