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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
aren't Psychological Disorders treatable, their victims rehabilitable?

Who says that these people on either side have psychological problems? For the israeli-plaestinian example, I don't think any palestinian is insane or distrurbed to want their homeland back. I think that they're nuts to go about it the way they are, but irregardless you don't need insane people to have war.


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.

I'll agree that what happened in abu garaib was against the rules, but that wasn't an action of the US government, and as far as gitmo, those people are not covered under the geneva convention.


Also the indiscriminate effect of civilian populations such as displacement and conditions set up in effect on the basis of marshall [sic] law are in no way justifiable.

Irrelvant, even if they were unjustifiable. The geneva convention does not forbid martial law nor displacement like that in, say, falluja.




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   


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

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.


Here's all I can say, and this is my personal opinion only. If my family's life was being threatened and was in jeapordy of death, and I ended up in a position to either kill the individual or individuals responsible, or capture and rehabilitate them (knowing that rehabilitation may not work), It would be a simple solution for me. They would be dead without a thought about it.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by mpeake]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   


So are we rehabilitating or punishing in the picture above?

It's strange, my position is almost un-american, but. I do believe Iraqi's or any other country in conflict with the US has the rights to kill infidel Americans who engage in fighting on their soil.

Just like America has the right if the situation was vice versa.

We are invading their country so they do have the right to fight/protect whats belongs to them with or without Saddam and his regime.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
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.


Yeah, I can see the headline now:

Terrorists Bomb the Sears Tower
President shakes the hand of mastermind at world summit

Why SHOULD we talk to people like this? They didn't bother to ask US what the deal was before they blew up our buildings. If someone attacks me, I'm sure not going to ask them if we can sit down and talk about it.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdanand as far as gitmo, those people are not covered under the geneva convention.


You covered all the other points fine but there is that last one...Why aren't they covered under the Geneva Convention...because the U.S. left it...


I was not insinuating that they have psychological problems I think it was inferred by the other poster I quoted who said even after Israel gives back all territories to the palestinians that their organizations would still fight, kill and maim.....I disagree....Only if they had Psychological Disorders would they do that, I propose only they are combatants one one side of a conflict and without the conflict there will be no need for them and under effective leadership their energies will be refocused towards the development of their newly founded state, not in creating more conflict because the development of the state is a conflict in itself, thefore the cycle of violence may not be broken but change tracks so to say. Every state has their own violence within their borders. But Conflict between neighboring states is more complicated to diffuse than from within.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I am for the death of any in bin laden's group, he's the one who started this mess right? We are never going to kill them all no matter what bush says. Don't you think these people's children are going to grow up wanting us dead even more! I'll beleave in this country again when I see our troops killing people that need to be dead maybe the terrorists who actually attacked us!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I stand corrected. But I do not think Iraq is relevant to terrorism. There are no WMDs, don't think any single one of those cretins who carried out 9/11 was Iraqi.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There ya go jaruselah, typical stubborn refusal to see logic. no comprimise! I rest my case!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

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.


I didnt post that!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
OOPS - 00PS didn't meant to make an OOPS....... OK sorry about that I think that was from Nygden....Good response to the Sears Tower guy...You have the right idea...

The USA does not hold peace talks...they do not negotiate with terrorists of course, but they don't even go to the Arab leaders summitts to do anything substantial in the way of making progress...Wasn't Colin Powell the least travelled secretary of state....Point is USA doesn't talk, we DO



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
There ya go jaruselah, typical stubborn refusal to see logic. no comprimise! I rest my case!


you missed the question in my post: Why would you want to compromise with these people? No one has been able to compromise with them for generations, for starters. Even if we COULD compromise with them, that's like trying to compromise with someone who just broke into your house, and shot your wife in the head. You're telling me you want to sit down with that person, and be civil and ask them why they just shot your wife in the head?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I agree with you, Instar. There should be compromise. Someone has to be the 'bigger' person here.

But the fact is, some people can't or won't back down. They see violence as a way of life. It is that cut and dry. I would back down, and if you are as eloquent as you seem to be, you would back down too, to preserve peace.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
you missed the question in my post: Why would you want to compromise with these people? No one has been able to compromise with them for generations, for starters. Even if we COULD compromise with them, that's like trying to compromise with someone who just broke into your house, and shot your wife in the head. You're telling me you want to sit down with that person, and be civil and ask them why they just shot your wife in the head?


You could be right, the Bush administration in August of 2001 refused to "compromise" in the deal of constructing the UNOCAL pipeline in Afganistan with the Taliban/Al-qeada. Talks turned sour real quick when the Taliban became frustrated with the small slice America offered from the big profit pie.

So a couple of smashed buildings and about 3000 deaths later the consultant on the board of directors of UNOCAL (Hamid Karzai) becomes president of Afganistan.

Neo-cons in power reaction: Booyah!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
so you're saying that the best way to deal with not getting what you want is to blow up a couple buildings? But yet you want US to compromise with THEM? Why would you side with them on this?

You are right, they got screwed out of some cash, but this thread is all about compromising, which they clearly decided against.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
so you're saying that the best way to deal with not getting what you want is to blow up a couple buildings? But yet you want US to compromise with THEM? Why would you side with them on this?

You are right, they got screwed out of some cash, but this thread is all about compromising, which they clearly decided against.


Those are questions we should be asking the cowboys in the oval office. Why was America compromising when they decided to negotiate/bargin with the terrorist Taliban regime? Or did they refuse to compromise and give the Taliban a fair equal share? We could sit here all day and ask a million of these questions.

Got cheetos?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Actually, I have Fritos.


I guess what I'm trying to say is, no matter how hard you got screwed monetarily, is no excuse to ram a jet into a building. If we're talking diplomatics, that is a horrible way to present a case, which leads me to believe, these people don't WANT to negotiate. They don't care what we have to say anymore.

It's so hard for us to comprehend the way those people think and act over there. When the jets crashed into the towers, there were some muslims arrested and detained for dancing and cheering as the towers fell. That's the difference between us and the terrorists. We're both taking lives, but we don't relish and wallow in it...at least not the loss of civilian lives. I supposed I'd be pretty happy if I just offed a guy who was shooting at me...



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
``
the topic is too complex as::

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

i.e. [ Why must (USA population) believe (our USA military forces)
should "Kill All Terrorists"? ]

-> #1 the USA population or govt does not slay or cause others to slay
any IRA or PLO or Basq Separatists? or those free Congo warriors and
any number of other 'Freedom fighters/ Insurrectionists/ et al' in many regions on the globe. ........................................ (so lets discard 'all' )


-> #2 even having an internment area like camp x-ray or Abu G.
nulls the idea that the we (USA) intends to kill all 'terrorists' en masse,
witness the slow but ongoing 'repatriation' of 'detainees' in the course of time............(engaging the 'process of law' with detainees- not terrorists)

~~

there is however the 'psychological' warfare, which necessitates that
the 'enemy, terrorists' be de-humanized and demonized to the point
to which the average citizen and more importantly the troops on the ground
are in the frame of mind to willingly accept and embrace the idea that
death to the 'enemy-terrorist' is justified, warrented and unavoidable.

I have clearly heard that our present 'enemy-terrorist' has a religious drive
a political drive
a social drive-
to similarly annihliate us ?(western-christian-democracies)

~~the only real answer was to not have gotten to the point
where the opposing worldviews made conflict the entree-de-jour.

thats my fractile sworl



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

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?


By "Psychological Disorders of the brain" do you mean to call terrorism and murder an 'illness'. If that was the case, do you have or know of a cure for these illnesses? I guess not.

Well, the sad truth about serious illnesses is that people do die from them. In this case, the terrorists die from bullets brought on by their 'illness', and not toxins from viruses or bacteria.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Rehabilitation (which i do not believe is possible) costs tens of thousands of dollars each year, including their imprisonment and care. A bullet, on the other hand, costs about 1 dollar. They estimate that there about 2 million terrorists world wide. You do the math!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Let's take this scenario:

Tonight the president announces a truce in the war on terror. He announces that he wants to sit down and negotiate with _________?

Ok so you've filled in the blank, with, Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Who?

We arrive at an agreement, which of course will involve the US injecting massive amounts of money into their coffers. What do you think they will use the money for?
a) Humanitarian aid
b) procuring weapons
c) personal financial gain
d) other

The terrorists are now able to freely walk the globe and openly negotiate with North Korea and Iran for nuclear weapons. Do you think that their signature on a piece of paper would stop them from doing so?

How safe would you feel with this newly negotiated peace?





top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join