Want to make money killing innocent people?

[Nelson]

...here's your chance! Now, if one was to plant a bomb but did not kill himself, would that person get the money, or is there a stipulation that you have to blow YOURSELF up?

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=&ncid=721&e=5&u=/ap/20020403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_bomber_money_3" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=&ncid=7 21&e=5&u=/ap/20020403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_bomber_money_3</a>

[Jim Pappas/Jabba]

I have suggested this before, and I still think it is a viable, useful, sure way to end terrorism. We simply round up EVERY living relative of anyone who commits a terrorist act, and execute them. I wonder how many families will have to be erased from existence before there is just no more terrorism? I bet it won't be many, if any, as the mere promise to do that should be a pretty powerful deterent.

[Adam Price-qatsi]

Well, I'd say that'd be lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorists. On the other hand, I heard a pretty good suggestion from some guy on CNN tonight, he suggested the Israelis round up the family and friends of suicide bombers and deport them and/or evict them and demolish their house. If the Israelis make that their standard, I can see that as a possible productive idea. However, you KNOW the Palestinians would just turn it into yet another reason to bitch and whine and make themselves into the victims. And that just gives them more leverage in world opinion, which we don't want them to have.

[imported_Adam Warren]

jabbadonut:
I have suggested this before, and I still think it is a viable, useful, sure way to end terrorism. We simply round up EVERY living relative of anyone who commits a terrorist act, and execute them. I wonder how many families will have to be erased from existence before there is just no more terrorism? I bet it won't be many, if any, as the mere promise to do that should be a pretty powerful deterent.You do realize that this is exactly what the terrorists think they're doing—killing the family members of Israeli terrorists, and so on.

[raoul duke]

jabbadonut:
I have suggested this before, and I still think it is a viable, useful, sure way to end terrorism. We simply round up EVERY living relative of anyone who commits a terrorist act, and execute them. I wonder how many families will have to be erased from existence before there is just no more terrorism? I bet it won't be many, if any, as the mere promise to do that should be a pretty powerful deterent.How would you feel if your cousin you've met once blew up a building and the cops smashed down your door and whisked you off to ole sparky? Just because I'm related to someone, doesn't mean I am them.

[Jim Pappas/Jabba]

Well Raoul, I'd be plenty pissed off. That is the point. If a relative of someone knew their kin was contemplating a terrorist act, they would work extra hard to keep them from doing it, n'est pas?

I support the Palestinians right to have a country. I believe they have a legitimate grievance, and that something needs to be done to help them. But, to tie bombs to yourself and walk into crowded areas and blow yourself and anyone else you can into bits is insanity and alienates those who could help them. The terrorism must cease, period.

The only way to rid the world (and terrorism occurs in many other places than the Middle East) is to eliminate it as an option. That will only be done by making the penalty for terrorism so severe, that no one will seriously contemplate using it.

[CTDeLude]

Jabba...dont take this wrong as I love your persistence and the passion you seemingly give to your ideas.

But your awfully starting to sound like Dev...just on the right.

Not that I don't think what you said had its place...once. But in today's scoiety in order to change men's ways we must not seek to snuff out their lives but instead snuff of the fire of their ideas. only then will it begin to end. Only then.

[Ben (formally Ned Fats)]

Great IDEA JABBA. You could be the one who gets to kill the baby sisters/brothers/daughters/cousins of the terrorists. That would give some real meaning to your weekends, right?

[raoul duke]

jabbadonut:
Well Raoul, I'd be plenty pissed off. That is the point. If a relative of someone knew their kin was contemplating a terrorist act, they would work extra hard to keep them from doing it, n'est pas?

I support the Palestinians right to have a country. I believe they have a legitimate grievance, and that something needs to be done to help them. But, to tie bombs to yourself and walk into crowded areas and blow yourself and anyone else you can into bits is insanity and alienates those who could help them. The terrorism must cease, period.

The only way to rid the world (and terrorism occurs in many other places than the Middle East) is to eliminate it as an option. That will only be done by making the penalty for terrorism so severe, that no one will seriously contemplate using it.First of all, how exactly do you plan on enforcing your scheme of family for a family justice? If a Canadian were to blow up a building in Idaho, would Navy SEALs raid small towns across Canada to hand out "justice"? Not on my watch, I don't believe in the death penalty in the first place and killing perfectly innocent people for no good reason in the name of fighting terrorism makes your worse than the terrorists.

Secondly, just what is terrorism? Could protesting, even unlawfully, be described as an act of terrorism and therefore be punishable by not only your death, but that of your entire family? Your plan sounds a lot like what totalitarian countries do with dissenters. Also, couldn't murdering someone be deemed a terrorist act? What if someone were wrongfully accused and he and his familly slaughtered for no reason?

Thirdly, this probably won't deter terrorists very much. If someone is an orphan, doesn't care about their family or believes their family will be safe after they commit their act of terrorism, this probably won't do jack shit and this will probably make people EVEN angrier than they were before.

Fourthly, you say "If a relative of someone knew their kin was contemplating a terrorist act, they would work extra hard to keep them from doing it, n'est pas?" So, I'm basically supposed to keep track of what my relatives are doing and be extra certain they're not building bombs? According to that logic, I should know what Captain Supermarket (My cousin) is doing at this very moment in order to prevent him from becoming a terrorist.

Finally, as I've already said, you'd be killing innocent people who had nothing to do with what happened. I can't justify that no matter how hard I try.

Face it, your plan is stupid and unworkable. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to attack its root causes using preventative measures. We can never get rid of it completely, as it is an idea, unless you want to start newspeaking and edit it out of the world's languages.

[Kronos]

Adam Price:
Well, I'd say that'd be lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorists. Yes. That's exactly what needs to be done. Sure we may view ourselves as "above" the terrorists -which is a bit arrogant- but in order to deal with them you have to be on the same level. So what's wrong with getting your hands a bit bloody to accomplish an end? That's generally what I do to defend myself from people who attack me. I don't get up on any high horse, declare myself "above" and then expect to be respected by whomever wants me or my family dead!. I tear my jacket off and go toe-to-toe, knife-to-knife, and muzzle-to-muzzle.

And I have the facial scars, knife wounds and gunshot wound to prove it.

Hell, with all the fans of Fight Club around here you'd think they'd understood what it really means to "liberate".

Lowering ourselves to their level means that we temporarily relieve ourselves of our humanity and destroy the evil that's trying to destroy us. Then climb out of that filthy dung-heap, hose ourselves off and carry out the rest of our lives in relative peace(if possible).

Or let them continue killing our neighbors undaunted.

You decide.

[Jim Pappas/Jabba]

Well said, Kronos. We must make a deterent to this sort of action. The fucks that flew into the Pentagon and WTC didn't give a rats ass about human life, did they? However, I bet they cared about their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Well, someone's mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers are victims of terrorists, aren't they? The only way to end this insanity is to make the cost too high. No, I wouldn't like to be the one killing the children of a terrorist, but I bet a child of a a terrorists victims wouldn't mind as much. Like I said, if we made a VERY PUBLIC announcement that that was our intention, it might deter one or more terrorists without even having to harm anyone. If, as was suggested, the people who use terrorism as a means to their ends begin using orphans as the weapons, well, they'll just have to do that, won't they?

Again, the only defense against terrorism is to make the price for using it too high. Then, maybe the lunatics responsible will try and seek an alternative, like, maybe, dialogue?

[MrLittlejeans]

"Lowering ourselves to their level means that we temporarily relieve ourselves of our humanity and destroy the evil that's trying to destroy us. Then climb out of that filthy dung-heap, hose ourselves off and carry out the rest of our lives in relative peace(if possible)."

While I agree with the actions you would be proposing I don't agree that this would necessarily be "lowering ourselves" to the levels of the terrorists. In fact, I believe it entirely moral and just to defend ourselves from terrorists by killing them. By standing up for what we believe in, by placing our lives on the line we show ourselves, as well as the rest of the world, what we truly value in our society.

[El-Topo]

I have suggested this before, and I still think it is a viable, useful, sure way to end terrorism. We simply round up EVERY living relative of anyone who commits a terrorist act, and execute them. I wonder how many families will have to be erased from existence before there is just no more terrorism? I bet it won't be many, if any, as the mere promise to do that should be a pretty powerful deterent. This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to totalitarian regimes. That was General Pinochet's policy to anyone who disagreed with him (with America's blessing).
This policy is also the surest way to turn an explosive situation into a war. Look at what is happening in the middle-east: the Israelis systematically destroy the houses of the terrorists' families, which makes the Palestinians even more angry. Now if you were to kill those families, you would have to kill EVERY family in Palestine, for they would all be justifiably angry at this genocide. Are you ready to do that?

[Kronos]

Curious though...Arafat -the duly appointed leader of the Palestinian people- turned down the offer of over 95% of what he was asking for.

You tell me...who's the one trying to start a war?

[Nelson]

El-Topo:
[QUOTE] ]This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to totalitarian regimes. That was General Pinochet's policy to anyone who disagreed with him (with America's blessing)Excuse moi, but Chile was in better shape post-Pinochet than pre-Pinochet. Lord forbid, if Pinochet would've not risen to power in Chile, this country would've been a mess, a FUBAR country. Their economy would be like Argentina's and Chile would've been the South American version of the old USSR. There was a thirst for communism when Allende was around. that's not to say Pino was a saint, but a man had to do what a man had to do.

Sorry for going off topic.

[raoul duke]

nelson:
Excuse moi, but Chile was in better shape post-Pinochet than pre-Pinochet. Lord forbid, if Pinochet would've not risen to power in Chile, this country would've been a mess, a FUBAR country. Their economy would be like Argentina's and Chile would've been the South American version of the old USSR. There was a thirst for communism when Allende was around. that's not to say Pino was a saint, but a man had to do what a man had to do.

Sorry for going off topic.Methinks you're painting Pinochet in far too positive a light. The man was a dictator who banned political parties, arrested and killed many opponents and restricted freedom of the press. Allende was a democratically elected Marxist, who was appointed by the Chilean congress after he received the most votes in the election. Allende hadn't done a great job in office and from what I understand probably should have resigned, but I would much rather have a democratically elected Marxist in office, instead of a right-wing general who overthrew the president.