Forums

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ok, Bilmorski, we'll try to lay it all out for you.

Your point is that you would kill anyone who in any way indicated a willingness to accede to Islam; kill them before they convert.

First, you kill the terrorist.

Then, you kill the brother of the terrorist who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in because he was his brother.

Then, you kill the neighbor who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in out of fear for his life.

Then you kill the Egyptian politician who makes an accomodation with radical Islam because if he doesnt, they'll kill him and make sure he's replaced with someone more radical.

And don't forget to kill the Harvard professor who discusses radical Islam as a rational reaction to Western imperialism.

OK, do I have your point right initially? Or do you draw the line before the Harvard professor?

Don't you dare let any professor go b.

If you want my reaction to this, even setting Wonk's point that you're turning yourself into an advocate of terrorism to combat the terrorists, it is that you will create a whole new generation of terrorists by following this approach.

How to eliminate terrorism? Infiltrate and undermine the terrorist cells, deal severely with the guilty, and, most importantly of all, separate the terrorists from the broader community, don't drive them together. Starve them of resources and don't let them have any impact. And you won't separate them from their community if your attitude toward the community is to "kill them all".

This thread started with people saying that the Islamic people themselves need to do something in those countries to turn things. Osama has become an extremely popular name in Islamic countries (at least some). Do you think it'll be hard for US to "separate the terrorists from the broader community?"