Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (53025)	11/5/2006 6:32:42 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Keep it civil.

To: Cogito who wrote (53025)	11/5/2006 7:57:03 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"But if you actually meant to say that I thought they WON'T be free to plot against us if captured or killed, then I don't understand why you would disagree with me." I believe that the inability of essential leaders to lead the goals of terrorism (because they are dead) is prima facie evidence that Bill's remark that "killing terrorists lessens their ability to attack" is not challengeable. I believe, however, that you did challenge said assertion (with qualification to follow) in spite that you agree with me that the death of essential terrorist leaders would compromise their personal ability to plot against us. I believe that their personal ability to plot against us is linked to the overall ability of terrorists carte blanche to instigate attacks. To put it another way: I believe that ten terrorists are likely to present less danger than 10,000 terrorists--and I think that was the gist of what Bill was saying. In going back over some posts, I agree that you did not directly say to Bill that killing terrorists does not in some way lessen terrorism. But neither did you take many opportunities to say that it did. However, you DO seem to be saying it is a useless or futile endeavor. You DID say: "Trying to hunt them down and kill them there is obviously completely ineffective and wasteful, both in terms of money and human life. We haven't even been able to hunt down bin Laden or Zawahiri. I think it's naive to believe that anything we choose to do on one or two battlefronts can have a real effect on an organization that spans the globe. It certainly didn't stop the attacks in England and Spain." So I guess what confuses me, Allen is this: If you don't believe that killing terrorists is an effective tool in the struggle to stop terrorists from having the ability to kill us (in spite that you acknowledge that dead terrorists no longer have the ability to direct terrorist goals), then what is an alternative? If we stop hunting down terrorists and destroying their camps, is it likely they will downsize and decide they are no longer savage and primitive human beings with goals and aspirations entirely at odds with equality of persons and a peaceful planet?? You are opposed to their goals, I assume, and would stop them from plotting the destruction of western civilization if you had the power or the knowledge? Right? So what is the alternative to killing them and destroying their camps?