DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**shieclulaweew** · 12-11-2008, 03:55 PM

The Soviets used to kill all the family members of terrorists who committed acts against them. Blow up some Russians and your whole family dies. Your hometown is seiged. Walk softly, carry a big stick sort of thing.

Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed.
The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response.

Fighting terrorism with terrorism? Maybe effective, but what about the fact that you're confronted with the choice between (1) being able to claim no moral high ground or (2) spending a lot of money on misleading propaganda in order to be able to claim moral high ground?

Thats exactly the point I was making. What is the difference when the US applies terrorism tactics to fight terrorism. Some here dont believe the US has killed civilians at all. They deny that they support Israel who punishes the whole family of a Hamas fighter after an attack. Heck they punished the whole of Gaza. They finance this state of terrorism.

So the US cannot claim the moral high ground. They pissed on it and pissed on UN Resolutions and told the UN to ef off when they confronted them about Iraq War ... they told International Law to ef off when it came to Guanatano Bay and the rest of the secret CIA prisons around the world.

Whats the friggin difference? The US killed and continues to kill civilians in both wars to show its "working hard on this war against terror"... where infact its a WAR OF TERROR. It calls it "collateral damage" and "we will conduct investigation".

Alot of views here are pro all of this,...alot here have said they are in support of a strong response..... a hard stick approach.... etc.

But its also good to see that alot have suggested they wouldnt go to war in Iraq and would have handled Afghanistan differently. Its good to see intelligent American minds at work.

WS.

12-11-2008, 03:55 PM	#28
shieclulaweew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	The Soviets used to kill all the family members of terrorists who committed acts against them. Blow up some Russians and your whole family dies. Your hometown is seiged. Walk softly, carry a big stick sort of thing. Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed. The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response. Fighting terrorism with terrorism? Maybe effective, but what about the fact that you're confronted with the choice between (1) being able to claim no moral high ground or (2) spending a lot of money on misleading propaganda in order to be able to claim moral high ground? Thats exactly the point I was making. What is the difference when the US applies terrorism tactics to fight terrorism. Some here dont believe the US has killed civilians at all. They deny that they support Israel who punishes the whole family of a Hamas fighter after an attack. Heck they punished the whole of Gaza. They finance this state of terrorism. So the US cannot claim the moral high ground. They pissed on it and pissed on UN Resolutions and told the UN to ef off when they confronted them about Iraq War ... they told International Law to ef off when it came to Guanatano Bay and the rest of the secret CIA prisons around the world. Whats the friggin difference? The US killed and continues to kill civilians in both wars to show its "working hard on this war against terror"... where infact its a WAR OF TERROR. It calls it "collateral damage" and "we will conduct investigation". Alot of views here are pro all of this,...alot here have said they are in support of a strong response..... a hard stick approach.... etc. But its also good to see that alot have suggested they wouldnt go to war in Iraq and would have handled Afghanistan differently. Its good to see intelligent American minds at work. WS.
	Quote