"the barrel of terrorism has a bottom."

[mr-pirk]

A long readbut athought provoking article.

A moral dilemma, considering that Hamas wouldn"™t have hesitated using the biggest bomb.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14536281/

But they had emerged with different conclusions. For Dichter, "the barrel of terrorism has a bottom." If you captured or killed enough terrorists, Dichter believed, the problem would be solved. "They deserved a bomb that would send the dream team to hell," Dichter said. "I said, 'If we miss this opportunity, more Israelis will die.' "
Yaalon disagreed: "We won't get to the bottom of the barrel by killing terrorists. We'll get there through education. Dichter thinks we'll kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. That's it -- we've won. I don't accept that."

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[smokeman]

Terrorists are like drug dealers they will never be eliminated,,and that war can't be won by man..

[Champlain Islander]

A thought provoking article which shows the human side of the war on terrorism. I agree with smoky that there will never be a way to totally eliminate it. Kill one and three more pop up. What is the answer? Sit idly by and watch them infiltrate and take over everything in sight or fight back to keep them the minority. I guess my vote goes to fighting until you can't fight any more either directly or through diplomacy. Freedom doesn't come easily and the Fundamental Islam movement is like a never-ending cancer destined to eliminate any ideology different from theirs.

[Whitehorse]

I also don't think we can completely wipe out islamic terrorism, just like we can't totally wipe out racism or any other bad thing. We can destroy the major islamic terror organizations that foment & organize on a large scale. Just because we can't totally eliminate islamic terrorist thought does not mean we shouldn't do everything we can to eliminate their threat to us & the rest of the world.

[CtHunter8]

Terrorists can never completely be whipped out, but we can always fight and kill as many of those low-lives as possible. As for captured terrorists, to hell with keepin em at Guatanamo and usuing our money to feed em, string em up right then and there, find a big tall lightpost or tree and a short peice of rope, watch em swing till the sun goes down. I think we should be using soft-point bullets in our M-16s and everything too, it'd do more damage obviously, one of them gets shot in the arm, they loose the arm. We dont because it "goes against" the geneiva convetion, but I think that's wrong and I'll tell ya why. The Geneiva Convention isfor combat soldiers of a country, people who recognize themselves as soldiers with a uniform and ect. Well terrorists hide in with the civilian population and everything else, and do not recognize themselves as soldiers with a uniform, so why give them Geneiva Convention status? They're just low-dong mangy animals who need to be put down as far as I'mconcerned


-Travis-

[petasux]

Ct, the geneva convention and those pesky little rules about not executing prisoners on sight are what keep us above there level.If we started wacking prisoners and using banned weaponery then weve stooped to there level, a public hangings not any different then a public beheading, the outcomes about the same.A large percentage of the muslim people arent hell bent on killing all of us, that would change in a heartbeat if we started doing what were fighting the extremist element for doing and we would see an unprecedented amount of violence towards any westerners in the area.Like it ornot while they might not openly support the terrorists a lot of the population sure as hell sympathizes with them over there.Not to mention the very fact that they hide out in civilian populations would mean innocents being accidently killed as terrorists.Theres a reason for all these rules of warfare, they may not play by them but thats why were killing them.

[CtHunter8]

so wait, you're comparing a beheading to a hanging?? We'd be hanging terrorists, murderers, and tehy behead American soldiers, soldiers who fight for their country and to protect innocent men women and children, not to murder them. we wouldnt "be at their level" if we hung them, we'd just be killing murderers, we do the same over here in the United States, only be lethal enjections, gas chamber, and the elctric chair and ect. I always hear that..."stoop to their level"...the only way we can "stoop to their level" is to start purposely targeting innocent men women and children and murdering them, that's what they do. And why should the United States spend money to feed and clothe and bed these animals in a prison? why waste our money keeping these scum alive?



-Travis-

[petasux]

well, lets see where to start.

your comparing what you said here

As for captured terrorists, to hell with keepin em at Guatanamo and usuing our money to feed em, string em up right then and there, find a big tall lightpost or tree and a short peice of rope, watch em swing till the sun goes down

To executing criminals in the US after a fair trial and appeals.You really dont see the difference in that?

We'd be hanging terrorists, murderers, and tehy behead American soldiers, soldiers who fight for their country and to protect innocent men women and children, not to murder them. we wouldnt "be at their level" if we hung them, we'd just be killing murderers,

Deads dead, dont matter if your beheaded on hung, its the same outcome.killing murderers i dont have a problem with, doing it on sight to everyone thats suspected of terrorism as youve suggested however is another ball game all together.There are levels to what governments can stoop to, like it not, if we act just like they do then weve already lost what were fighting for.

the only way we can "stoop to their level" is to start purposely targeting innocent men women and children and murdering them, that's what they do.

And how do you know we wouldnt wind up killing innocent men, women and children ourselves if we started hanging them on sight without finding anything out about them?Id be willing to bet there would be a lot of innocent deaths in this martial law strategy of yours.You either didnt put much thought into your post when you made it or your incapable of looking at the bigger picture, what you seem to want is revenge, not justice.

[CtHunter8]

I want justice, its called quick justice. If they're a terrorist, then they're a terrorist, they're committed to murderous acts, its what they do. I dont think we should hang em "on the spot" but we should still hang em none the less. We can put em through a trial, or whatever, and if they are members of Al-Queda or Taliban or any other terrorist group, we kill em, end of story. What else are we supposed to do with them? let em sit around in a jail cell, while we spend money to feed them?? You are for killing murderers, but not terrorists you say? but they are one in the same, it's basically their job. They are worthless scum of the earth, and instead of protecting women and children like REAL soldiers do, they hide behind the, they are cowards, they are murders, and they are scum, and the only thing to do to them is to kill em.


-Travis-

the difference between a coward and a hero:

[petasux]

Now Ct, you just changed the entire premise of your post with that last one.

As for captured terrorists, to hell with keepin em at Guatanamo and usuing our money to feed em, string em up right then and there

I dont think we should hang em "on the spot"

Do you see the difference in what you said there?

You are for killing murderers, but not terrorists you say? but they are one in the same, it's basically their job

Never said that, and if theyre one in the same I dont know where you got that idea from.It just completely contradicts itself if you read it closely.I never stuck up for terrorists in any form, your putting words in my mouth again.

We can put em through a trial, or whatever, and if they are members of Al-Queda or Taliban or any other terrorist group, we kill em, end of story.

And finally, thats exactly what I said all along, you were the one with the hang em on the spot theory