Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » the solution to all this shit.

Forum: The Classroom
Topic: the solution to all this shit.
started by: Dark Knight Bob

Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Sep. 12 2001,19:09

my opinion on this all this has been changing significantly over the last hours. i started out saying yeah lets kill them all.

because of such a massive loss of life people seek some sort of answer of retribution. well it may be hard to hear this but killing more people wont bring them back. and eye for an eye doesnt work. why nuclear war is so despised? because if one country starts throwing nukes at us we should throw more back? no one really wants that and yet they still seem to think that they should. if you listen to the people who have delt with terroism in the past they will tell you that fighting terrorism with more terrorism doesnt work. terrorists dont exist via borders and nationalities they exist via ideology and opinion. if we start throwing weapons of desturction at certain countries we will just show ourselves to be as bad as they are.

the source to this problem may sound pretty boring and non-aggressive but it really isnt. if we were to try and implement such a treaty that would say that harbouring any terrorist for whatever reason is illegal and have this made as geneva convention then you can cut terrorism off at its heart as there is nowhere for them to hide. the whole deal with the IRA has shown britain that you cant fight terrorists. even though they kill hundreds of people for their ideals you cant fight back. its taken many years to even get close to peace here and to be honest we have had to just sit and take what they dish out at us but we are finally getting close to resolving this.

the quick fix NEVER works people. this moight not be over for a while and mabye more people will die because of it but trying to stop this by acting in desperation will cause more harm. people have said that if the choice had to be made they would rather shoot the planes down than let more people die. well i think this stance really should be taken to this situation as a whole. we need to accept which is worse small sacrifice or massive sacrifice

you dont want somehting like this to happen again. then why do you insist on calling for action that will enrage people to do even worse! these are the reason that terrorism works because we react the way that they know we will. bush is in for a real surprise if he REALLY thinks that he has universal approval of retribution. he is trying to fight a battle where there is none. slobadan melosavich is responsible for thousands of deaths too but we dont seek his blood because we arent as affected. we give him trial and whatever happens to him we know that the right thing has been done. we should catch these monsters but we should NOT stain our hands with blood to do so.

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

This message has been edited by Dark Knight Bob on September 13, 2001 at 02:13 PM

Posted by SLATE on Sep. 12 2001,19:21

Well put. I agree.

Posted by CatKnight on Sep. 12 2001,19:28

the quick fix ALWAYS works, if it is done right. DKB, fuck you. You are in the UK. Fuck NATO. This wasn't an "attack on freedom around the globe". This was an act of WAR on the UNITED STATES. It is up to US to strike back. If you don't like it, fuck off.

Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Sep. 12 2001,19:51

quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
the quick fix ALWAYS works, if it is done right. DKB, fuck you. You are in the UK. Fuck NATO. This wasn't an "attack on freedom around the globe". This was an act of WAR on the UNITED STATES. It is up to US to strike back. If you don't like it, fuck off.

need i remind u CK that u despise people who think about nuclear power via their emotions and gut reaction exactly the way you are doing right now. and also i dont know if ur head has been up ur ass the last 48 hours but it wasnt JUST american people who died theres some 200 confirmed dead british people in there. there isnt a way to get a quick fix to work right! you've just shown that u are in no way thinking straight

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

Posted by StanVanDam on Sep. 12 2001,20:52

I fully agree with DKB. Catknight what the hell is wrong with you man? I think you just got really pissed from the recent events. You're not thinking straight.

Posted by WillyPete on Sep. 12 2001,20:59

So by your standards CK, you're saying it's ok if the UK should bomb Boston and other cities with lots of American Irish for their support of the IRA for several decades?

You act as though you were the first people to ever get bombed by terrs. Wake up sunshine! Coffee's cold. I dare you to be able to deliver ONE valid instance where the quick fix worked. I double dog dare you.

What you are now experiencing is how the other half of the world lives day to day.
My sister lives in South Africa. Do you realise what it's like knowing that she pays 'rape' insurance just so she can afford HIV treatment if the unthinkable occurs? That's how prevalent it is. The odds are 2 to 1 that a women gets raped over there.
Everyone bitches in the UK because there's no trash cans in the underground. Why? Cause overseas funding lets the IRA put bombs in bins in places like that.
I am no-one, yet my fathers store was bombed twice while I grew up. I was about 200 meters from the London docklands bombing. My own mother has been held at gunpoint and knifepoint in her own home. She even owned a fucking gun. We had a company hired guard at our front door 24/7 foor 3 months once when my dad had to fire a store union steward. The guy swore revenge. Who the fuck needs to live like that? And I count myself one of the fortunate ones in this world.

You have NO idea what the fuck you're talking about when you talk of terrorism and how you should deal with it. For most of the world this type of action is a daily occurence. Not on the same scale obviously, but it's just as personal and it makes you just as dead.

Do you have ANY pillowcases at home that don't have eyeholes cut out of them?

Posted by CatKnight on Sep. 12 2001,22:29

No no no no NO. you are just twisting what I said around so that it sounds irrational. I didn't say that out of anger. It's a strategy, and one that is necessary.

You want one example? Bombing Libya, against Omar Kadafi.

Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Sep. 12 2001,22:38

ok CK this is twisting your words. "twat am big i fat a"

notice how the opinions of people who have actually lived with terroism are different to yours and re apply your "theory"

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

Posted by incubus on Sep. 12 2001,23:18

quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
the quick fix ALWAYS works, if it is done right. DKB, fuck you. You are in the UK. Fuck NATO. This wasn't an "attack on freedom around the globe". This was an act of WAR on the UNITED STATES. It is up to US to strike back. If you don't like it, fuck off.

Two words: Fucking dickhead.

Posted by nobody on Sep. 13 2001,03:22

I have lived with terrorism before this incident. When I was in elementary school the father of one of my friends was kidnapped and killed by middle eastern terrorists. A few years ago, a terrorist gunman shot and killed several people outside the CIA headquarters, under a mile from my house. Therefore my opinion is not based only on the recent tragedies. I've had a while to think about these things.

What is important to remember is that when people die, they are gone for good. No retaliation will change that. But if we can kill Osama bin Laden and as many of his associates as we can find, then they too are gone for good. We will not be able to eliminate every single person who would consider committing an act of terrorism, but by eradicating known terrorists and destroying their resources, we can give their would-be followers a huge setback. It is imperative that we destroy the networks, leadership, financial backing, and technical expertise that facilitate large scale terrorism. We need to show that no place on Earth is safe for terrorists - and that countries (like Afghanistan) that support terrorists will not be allowed to exist.

This is not about "dropping down to their level," it is not about morals or justice or revenge. It is about protecting our national security and our survival. Free nations cannot co-exist with terrorists. Period.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Sep. 13 2001,03:26

All of you people who think this can be solved through some other means than an offensive are fooling yourselves. Terrorists do not negotiate, and the US should no negotiate with them. The quick fix is the only viable solution. I say again, if you don't feel the need to defend the Free World, go live in China where you aren't free.

The simple fact is, the UK is not missing four thousand people and two national landmarks. I appritiate the Star Spangled Banner being played at the palace, but I really doubt you feel the same way as 86\% of the people in the states.

Also, as a point of reference, in the Vietnam war (whatever you opinions are on it), the United States lost about 54 thousand people over the course of about 10 years. In one hour, we could have lost approximately 1/2 that number.
------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

This message has been edited by TheTaxMan on September 13, 2001 at 10:31 PM

Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Sep. 13 2001,11:32

quote:
Originally posted by TheTaxMan:
The simple fact is, the UK is not missing [b]four thousand people and two national landmarks. I appritiate the Star Spangled Banner being played at the palace, but I really doubt you feel the same way as 86\% of the people in the states.
.[/B]

your right we're only missing half of northern ireland, we only had canary wharf blown to shit, nail bombs placed on trains and in shopping centres, car bombs placed outside places JUST because they are adjacent to military barracks (a pub got blown up in the night at the top of my road jutt because it was opposite the barracks).

plus i've said it already but not everyone who died in the WTC was american a large majority were british.

we probably dont feel the same way as you but i doubt you felt the same way about us when people were being killed over here.

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

Posted by Frosty on Sep. 13 2001,14:32

It's so nice how people are all ready to take up arms but there's no one to fight. It's extremely difficult to launch a military operation on a small group which is not only extremely spread out, but furthermore we haven't ever know where they were in the first place. We *think* Afhghanistan, and i'm all for teaching them a lesson with some cruise missles, but sending people over there to stand around is just retarded. That's actually just bringing our people over to them so they don't have to come to all the trouble to fly over here to suicide bomb us. Taking these people out is going to be the job of the Special Forces, not the general army.

Posted by toes on Sep. 13 2001,14:56

People claim Britain hasnt had to deal with horrific terrorism - imagine this.

Going back to what DKB said about terrorism in the UK - a pub bombing in Soho left many dead, and a very young infant with a 2 inch nail imbedded into his head. I dont mean hanging out - i mean fully in his head. I think he survived, but im saying you need to take a step back and realise just what W is trying to do.

Don't get me wrong - Tuesday was horrific and whoever did it does need to be brought to justice, but i'm saying that W is currently going with the public at this point in time. Afghanistan said that they where horrified, but if they could successfully find out who did it, find them, and then possilby the country in question could extradite them over to the US and possilby something good will happen. Carpet bombing an entire country over 30 people is not a good thing. A hell of a lot of people died on Tuesday, Some brits, most americans, but how many innocents will die if we decide to carpet bomb an entire city? What would it cause other terrorists to do? In my opinion Bush is trying to keep the invulnerable look of the US up - even though it has had a terrible blow delt to it. By declaring war on an invisible enemy, he has declared war on the nation who harbours them. No matter how many innocent people died in the WTC - more will die in war.

What would the US have to gain from war? In my opinion, a brief taste of revenge for Tuesday. They could go in and wipe out every terrorist in Afghanistan, but that would cause other groups to go Ape, launching more attacks upon the US - and then it starts again. It's a vicious circle and it looks like Bush is falling into it.

It's my opinion - feel free to insert rants here...

-toes

Posted by ic0n0 on Sep. 13 2001,15:37

I just thought I would mention that under 15\% of I.R.A funding over the years has come from American Irish, that is fact (According to Sinn Fein) they could be distorting this to protect American supports but really the Irish here are not all about bombing people I should know I am one.

------------------
"Genitalia, while fun to play with, are rarely peasent to look at"

Posted by TheTaxMan on Sep. 13 2001,15:47

Ok, take all the IRA conflicts and put it in one day.

A large majority is a large bit more than 51\%.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think that the US government funds the IRA (like the Taliban funds other terrorists). I really can't make a view point out of the IRA though, I'm not informed enough about it.

------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

Posted by Jynx on Sep. 13 2001,16:23

Hmm, I seem to see that most of the non-American sentiment expressed on these boards is that the U.S. should just roll over and allow this atrocity to happen (if not in these exact words). Am I right?

Let's consider a few points here:

-- It has been said by many that several nations live with this every day. These other nations are not, as far as I can tell, fighting back against the terrorism, for a variety of reasons, from lack of a military to corruption to fear. So, you are suggesting that we accept a similar response, and just ignore it and allow it, and it will go away? It hasn't before, why should it now? What possible evidence can you give me that the terrorists would say "Oh, you're not fighting back, so I must be wrong?" And the IRA is not a good example for reasons stated below.

-- From what I have heard, a terrorist group usually has a motive behind the killing, and an ultimate goal that they are fighting towards. For example, the IRA was (is?) fighting towards a united Ireland. Because of this goal, it was possible for the British Government to negotiate with the heads of the IRA to attempt to form a treaty. Once the goal of the group is met, then in theory the terrorism will stop. There was NO given reason for the attack on us, except for blind, unreasoning hate towards the U.S. The only perceived goal that I can see is the destruction of the U.S., and since that goal is unacceptable to us, we must take action to remove the source of that hatred, so that it cannot harm any more U.S. citizens.

-- Normally, an act of terrorism is committed, a group takes responsibility (and usually a reason for the attack, see above). Why has no one taken responsibility? My only guess is that it was a potshot at us, and if we don't respond then we just become a juicier target.

One more thing that I'm surprised no one has mentioned: Despite the frothing-mouthed expressions of desire to carpet-bomb entire nations, does anyone notice that the U.S. hasn't acted yet? We have suspicions and indications that Bin Laden (sp?) is behind this, and yet we have done nothing aside from arresting (not killing, but arresting) some very hard suspects. The U.S. is treating this just like a crime (albeit very large-scale), and I think that it's obvious, despite current public opinion, that the U.S. is holding itself in tight restraint right now. Why are we being faulted for an action we haven't taken yet, and by all accounts won't take soon?

Because of the nature of the attack and the attacker, a tightly-controlled and precisely guided military response is very appropriate.

------------------
--Jynx

I used to be a kleptomanicac, but I took something for it.

Posted by EvilGenius on Sep. 13 2001,17:16

i'm afraid the real world has finally caught up to america. the real world lives with terrorism everyday... it's just now being realized in my great nation: the untouchable nation. well, if we're now to play a role in all the terrorism that goes on around the world, and in every country where things are burned, bombed, raided all a good bit of the time, I say we come out of the gates running... other countries want us to shit our pants when we think of retaliating.. well guess what, we didn't shit in our pants.. but we bowed up our ripped chest, steroided on the ideals of freedom as we know it... they attempted to make us fear them, now it's only certain we'll attempt to make them fear us... the one true thing is, we'll actually succeed for the most part...

i have no doubt they'll figure some way of terrorising the US again.. we're not as impervious as we'd like to think we are... but once again, if they want to play this game with the world's most undeniable bad asses... bring it on.

terrorism isn't funny, what's happened to UK in the past from the IRA isn't cool, and other nations from other terrorist groups... but I beleive the Giant that once was awakened by another nation has fallin asleep yet again, but this time, readily alert to wake up yet again, and prove it's dominance.

Posted by EvilGenius on Sep. 13 2001,17:19

i must rephrase the terms i used in the first paragraph when i say "nations" i mean the terrorist groups either as a whole, or singled out...

Posted by CatKnight on Sep. 13 2001,18:30

killing osama bin laden will do nothing. killing every single one of his terrorist cells around the world will do NOTHING. these people are already willing to die. They have followers. You kill bin laden, and someone else will step up and take his place. This will never end until the price they have to pay for terrorism is something that they are not willing to pay. That is, their cities, their families, their nations. Did you see the head of the taliban, or arafat for that matter, on tv? Did you for even one millisecond believe that they were sincere in their apologies? These nations have been coddling these terrorists for decades. They aren't sorry.

Posted by cr0bar on Sep. 13 2001,19:24

quote:
Originally posted by Jynx:
There was NO given reason for the attack on us, except for blind, unreasoning hate towards the U.S

What a claim! Back that up. Just because our news media isn't keeping us up to date on the atrocities we've committed elsewhere doesn't mean that there's "no reason". Go read the interview with Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Sep. 13 2001,19:40

Explain to me what would be said to get these people to stop terrorising the world? What would be said to even get the to negotiate? Large sums of money? Yeah, right. Keep dreaming if you think some magic words are going accomplish very much.

And if the reason is, "Get out of our land!" they just go back to killing each other and invading countries, like Iraq did to Kuwait.
------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

This message has been edited by TheTaxMan on September 14, 2001 at 02:41 PM

Posted by Jynx on Sep. 13 2001,20:37

quote:
Originally posted by cr0bar:
Just because our news media isn't keeping us up to date on the atrocities we've committed elsewhere ...

Okay, cr0, back that up! I find it odd that you take Bin Laden, a known terrorist and crackpot (Islam does NOT condone terrorism, folks!), over the same media that loves to break stories about government corruption.

By the way, which atrocities are you talking about? And don't try the "I could give you hundreds but I won't", please enlighten my ignorance by giving me one or two instances that I can search for.

Posted by incubus on Sep. 13 2001,21:46

Not that he needs backin up, but dont you think that the US selling both sides of their war WEAPONS TO KILL EACH OTHER AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN on both sides for a tidy profit just a LITTLE FUCKED UP?

In the UK we do this too.

I'm sorry, but profiting from human misery is in my omnipotent opinion a fucking atrocity from a "civilised" western world, so you can go suck my balls.

< Yes, SUCK MY BALLS >.

I'm not belittling the tragedy that has transpired but everyone needs to take their thumb outta their asses and smell the fucking roses.

Our WORLD is fucked up.

If we want shit like this to stop, we need to SIT DOWN AND SORT SHIT OUT, not throw petrol on the mutherfucking fire.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Sep. 13 2001,21:49

You honestly think that any nation makes more than a few million selling arms? That is one way to look at it. Another way is that it is helping people who can't help themselves.

Oh yeah, in case you don't know, a few million dollars is shit.

------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

Posted by Hellraiser on Sep. 13 2001,23:48

Since when is selling weapons to other nations that get used in wars between those nations an atrocity?

Hypothetical to put things into perspective: I buy a gun at the gun shop. Someone else buys a gun at the same gun shop. We have a fight, and shot our guns, and people die, and the gun shop sold the weapons to both sides in the fight. That makes the gun shop evil, and party to the crimes right? And the fact that the gun shop profitted on the lives of those dead people is fucked up. Notice the sarcasm....

Posted by Frosty on Sep. 14 2001,01:35

quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Hypothetical to put things into perspective: I buy a gun at the gun shop. Someone else buys a gun at the same gun shop. We have a fight, and shot our guns, and people die, and the gun shop sold the weapons to both sides in the fight. That makes the gun shop evil, and party to the crimes right? And the fact that the gun shop profitted on the lives of those dead people is fucked up. Notice the sarcasm....

If your quarrel with this person was all around town and it was well known that you didn't need this weapon for HUNTING (in other words it was obvious what it was going to be used for) then yes, that would make them evil.

Posted by StanVanDam on Sep. 14 2001,02:03

Cr0bar is fuckin right, he is one of the VERY few (are u American?) that knows what SHIT the US does and has been doing to other countries for the past 50 some years. There have been MANY incidences, and I'm sure I mentioned a few of them more than once already in other posts.

Posted by just_dave on Sep. 14 2001,02:13

Didnt know where to post this but I think its cool and well you all probablly seen it already.

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Sep. 14 2001,02:24

No offense, but I think it's quite ignorant to think Sept 11th, or any other Muslim-extremist terrorist act, is "unprovoked."

One of the major roots of fundamentalist Muslim hatred is grounded in the USA's dealings with Arab and other Mideast states during and after the cold war.

To make a long story short, you can see this in the USA's capricious ally policy with the region. For example, the US was once allies with Iraq, and enemies with Iran. (Remember the Iran-Iraq war of 8 years length? Guess who we gave military aid to? I'll give you a hint: Iran took Americans hostage in the 70s.) I won't even get into Ollie North and the Iran contra affair.

Regardless, I'm sure we all know where the US-Iraq relationship lies today.

Still asking why? I think a lot has to do with the US's choice to consistently support Israel over any Arab state as well. After Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, and the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan over (the Soviets lost their version of Vietnam), the US had no more immediate need to support the Arabs to any degree. Sure, the Taliban was funded and placed into power, but I believe this all proved to be moot as more and more money and resources were pumped into Israel. Remember, Israel has F15s. Palestinians have rocks. (Please note that I'm not taking sides in that conflict, I'm just stating relevant facts)

Due to the previous (and several other reasons), the Arabs felt double crossed. Now, they live in the shadow of Israel, aka the "US of the Mideast." And you know how the Israelis and Mideast Arabs get along...

I leave you to piece together the rest.

This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on September 14, 2001 at 09:36 PM

Posted by TheTaxMan on Sep. 14 2001,03:36

I would just like to say, that the people of Israel were awarded that state after what they suffered during WWII, and the fact that people want to take a piece of it away from them is appauling to me. Whiskey is right. The Israeli's have F-15's. So, if they were really conserned with killing off Palestinians, they'd all be dead already.

------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Sep. 14 2001,05:45

putting ur finger on the map randomly and saying kill everyone there isn't the only course of action you seem to think that the only thing that involves not sitting around is killing everyone. you're not willing to listen to other options cos you're being too emotional and just dismiss them as political bullshit. well its politics thats gonna solve this. just because you dont know how the higher powers that be work in this world doesnt mean caveman joe is the only man to solve all this with his big bad club "caveman joe go smash!"

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

Posted by WillyPete on Sep. 14 2001,09:15

Jynx, this is a bit late but, what you're detecting here is not 'anti-american' sentiment, but people tired of hearing that violence is the ultimate answer. We'd all love to see it solved, but the western world is a little too used to drive-in banking and drive-in shopping. This is going to have to be a roll up you sleeves and get filthy till it's done affair. Button pushing and trigger pulling are not answers. That's what the terrs do best.

We're tired of hearing 'kill em all' and 'nuke em'. It's not rational, it solves nothing and is essentially a waste of your energy and emotions.

As for atrocities committed by the US? Pick one. How about slavery? Yeah, I know it's gone now, but it was done. And you still see people with a grudge about it.

Taxman, as for Isreal being given to them for the second world war, the zionist process for an isreali nation state was in action before the war. A lot of jews fled there before Krystalnacht and before Hitler started his extermination campaign against them. Prominent British statesmen like Benjamin Disreali (jewish) were very influential in Britain relinquished the Palesinian protectorate to the Isrealis instead of the isrealis.
We just handed it to 'em. Granted, there's a bit more to it than that, some of the early isrealis actually carried out their own terror campaign to speed it up. Check it out for yourself. You have internet access. Note: this is just a correction post, not a 'you're wrong I'm right' thing. Made me realise I don't even know all of the facts properly.

Posted by incubus on Sep. 14 2001,13:55

quote:
Originally posted by Jynx:
-- From what I have heard, a terrorist group usually has a motive behind the killing, and an ultimate goal that they are fighting towards. For example, the IRA was (is?) fighting towards a united Ireland. Because of this goal, it was possible for the British Government to negotiate with the heads of the IRA to attempt to form a treaty. Once the goal of the group is met, then in theory the terrorism will stop. There was [b]NO given reason for the attack on us, except for blind, unreasoning hate towards the U.S. The only perceived goal that I can see is the destruction of the U.S., and since that goal is unacceptable to us, we must take action to remove the source of that hatred, so that it cannot harm any more U.S. citizens.
[/B]

You think blowing the fuck out of each other is striving for an united Ireland?

I think you'll find the people round the table are the ones striving for an united Ireland, not the ones planting carbombs, nailbombs, plastic explosives and blowing the fuck out of each other with Armalites. They're in it for the violence. You'll always get people like that.

EG. Recently one side wanted to walk through the others street to go to school. Some people jeered. Some others threw PIPEBOMBS. At women and children.

What's the point in having something united if everyone is dead?

These people are more along the lines of destroy a section of the population and take the island for ourselves.

They're nothing more than terrorists and we over here have to live with that every day*

So before you run your mouth off, take those US-funded blinkers off your eyes and smell the coffee.

* I don't live in NI or Eire, but I'm half-irish and have friends affected by all this shit.

Posted by incubus on Sep. 14 2001,13:56

And you don't think selling arms to both sides of a war is an atrocity?

Then your fucked up, capitalistic greed-motivated lifestyle has made you numb.

Posted by Hellraiser on Sep. 14 2001,14:07

Here's an interesting question: Which do you think would encourage terrorists around the world to strike at US targets more, and put them in order from most likely to least likely:

1. a missplaced/widespread assault on terrorism that doesn't get the terrorists,

2. no action at all, or

3. surgical strikes that get most of the terrorist organizations around the world without much loss of civilian human life?

I say: most likely 1, somewhat likely 2, and least likely 3. Thus I am supportive of finding a way to do number 3 as a means of combatting terrorism. I don't think this should be a kneejerk reaction, but I still think that we should blow the fuckers off the face of the earth who did this, and any other terrorist action in the past, and any people or government that supported them.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.