# Large Hadron Collider nuclear scientist charged with terror offences



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2009)

Oooh, lovely.  Terrorists at the switch of the doomsday machine.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...charged-with-terror-offences-115875-21743486/



> Large Hadron Collider nuclear scientist charged with terror offences
> A physicist who works at a nuclear facility has been charged with terror offences.
> 
> A French judge filed preliminary charges against the scientist who works at the Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest atom smasher.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 13, 2009)

*James Gillies, of CERN, which operates the collider on the French-Swiss border, said: "There's nothing in there that people can steal and use for terrorist ends."*

The fellow has been charged for association with a terrorist group via the Net; there is no indication that he planned any terrorist acts nor, indeed, that any such act at the LHC would do more than cause yet another long delay in the repairs to it.

Gotta love the Mirror, sensationalist by implication is their stock in trade.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 13, 2009)

He was planning to screw with some dials and create a black hole that would swallow the infidels.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oooh, lovely. Terrorists at the switch of the doomsday machine.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...charged-with-terror-offences-115875-21743486/


 
The scientist was large? thats how it reads lol!

Certain newspapers here will be trying for sensationist stories to save their friends, the MPs from having to read about the on-going, still, stories of the MP's expenses scandal. Letters were sent this week telling the 
MPs to cough up and pay back some of the money they had claimed for, so a good terrorist story to scare us all and fall on our knees begging said MPs to help us is a good idea, no? 

I understood the collider hadn't actually worked yet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I understood the collider hadn't actually worked yet.



Correct.  Does that make a difference?  Seems to me that terrorists ought to be kept away from such things.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct. Does that make a difference? Seems to me that terrorists ought to be kept away from such things.


 

All they could do is break it.....


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 13, 2009)

Id be worried about some poor shmuck turning 40, having marital problems, having no friends, having his teenagers act like teenagers, deep in debt, going off his meds, losing his tin foil hat and thinking the government is watching him through his computer screen. This is the guy who will snap one day and decide to take some people with him. Homegrown terrorists are the ones we cant see until its too late.

Hey, anyone see my tinfoil hat around.I put it down somewhere around here


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 13, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> *James Gillies, of CERN, which operates the collider on the French-Swiss border, said: "There's nothing in there that people can steal and use for terrorist ends."*
> .


 
OH YEAH!!!! What about sharp pointy things that might be laying around and bits of wire that you can poke people with and ooooo what about paper...paper cuts can REALLY hurt you know


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 13, 2009)

:shriek:  Terror!  I know all too well how bad paper cuts can be.

The real thing to take away from this story is that sometimes even bumbling and draconian security measures do make a 'hit'.

Not to give terrorists (or the Chinese government) any ideas but someone could do far more damage to a country in my line of work than someone working on the Collider.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 13, 2009)

I would think that the biggest threat from terrorists here is that they would sabotage the thing, wasting MORE millions of dollars.  OR, the thing has to have a pretty substantial power source....I mean, if you know enough about it and could cause widespread catastrophy, the thing could be used as a weapon, in its own destruction, kind of like going to a nuclear power plant and causing a melt down.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 13, 2009)

A terrorist could do real damage TO the collider, not WITH the collider.
And that would be bad enough.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 13, 2009)

What would terrorists gain by messing with the Collider?

A news story perhaps, which is of some importance to terrorist organizations, but beyond that...what?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct. Does that make a difference? Seems to me that terrorists ought to be kept away from such things.


 
You mean like nukes? 

Hell, it seems to me most of the world couldn't care less if they blew it up or not. :shrug:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oooh, lovely. Terrorists at the switch of the doomsday machine.


 
Wait a minute

The Collider isn't the doomsday machine...

This is


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Wait a minute
> 
> The Collider isn't the doomsday machine...
> 
> This is



I must respectfully disagree.  The doomsday machine was a 1968 Chrysler Imperial that contained NBC 'Network Executives" that came to terminate Star Trek on Saturday Night Live.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75vstartrek.phtml

They took Spock's ears.  Bastiches!


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct. Does that make a difference? Seems to me that terrorists ought to be kept away from such things.


 
Well if it doesn't work he can't use it lol!
There's a lot of people in jobs they really shouldn't be not just terrorists!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well if it doesn't work he can't use it lol!



Certainly not whilst it is broken, but it's like saying a bank robber can have a shotgun as long as it is unloaded.

My thought would be that a bank robber ought not have a shotgun at all.

And that is not to mention the technology that he would be exposed to working in such an environment, and what use that might have outside of CERN.



> There's a lot of people in jobs they really shouldn't be not just terrorists!



But perhaps we could agree that it is still a problem when a terrorist is found to be working in a highly scientific environment with exposure to cutting-edge technology.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And that is not to mention the technology that he would be exposed to working in such an environment, and what use that might have outside of CERN..


 

Magnets, detectors-a bunch of other stuff that he couldn't lift, could obtain elsewhere, and most of which couldn't be particularly destructive if he did.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 14, 2009)

Doesn't the thing need a realtively large power source??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Magnets, detectors-a bunch of other stuff that he couldn't lift, could obtain elsewhere, and most of which couldn't be particularly destructive if he did.



I must be the only person with any imagination here.  If I am a bad person with control over, say, a fork lift, I can think of lots of nasty things I can do with it besides what it was intended for, or even by using it as intended but to ill effect.  I could imagine that this collider can be used for purposes other than intended.  Likewise, it can be sabotaged, to damage it or to cause collateral damage, one would imagine.  And again, one would imagine a rather large amount of technical knowledge surrounds such things.  Why it would be "OK" for a terrorist to have it is a bit beyond me.  Perhaps it is not useful to terrorists.  Or perhaps it is.  My thought would be to err on the side on _"Hell NO the terrorists cannot run our big machine!"_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Doesn't the thing need a realtively large power source??



I wasn't proposing it would be stolen.  It would be like stealing a nuclear power plant.  On the other hand, a terrorist at the controls of a nuclear power plants stikes me as, oh, I dunno, a BAD THING.  I realize that the super collider is not a nuclear power plant, but it does manipulate some rather intense energies.  What could be done with them by a person who wished us ill, I do not know - I propose not finding out.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I must be the only person with any imagination here.


 
_Hardly_. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If I am a bad person with control over, say, a fork lift, I can think of lots of nasty things I can do with it besides what it was intended for, or even by using it as intended but to ill effect. I could imagine that this collider can be used for purposes other than intended.


 
Nope. It's the nature of such machines that they are either varying degrees of "on," or, quite simply, *"off"*. I suppose one could introduce a variety of materials into it that might prove dangerous-like explosives, but their danger wouldn't be particularly enhanced by it, nor would they represent much of a danger to anything except the collider and its personnel.

I mean, if a terrorist wanted to blow up Geneva, they'd be better off putting the explosives in......_Geneva._



Bill Mattocks said:


> I mean,  Likewise, it can be sabotaged, to damage it or to cause collateral damage, one would imagine. And again, one would imagine a rather large amount of technical knowledge surrounds such things. Why it would be "OK" for a terrorist to have it is a bit beyond me. Perhaps it is not useful to terrorists. Or perhaps it is. My thought would be to err on the side on _"Hell NO the terrorists cannot run our big machine!"_


 
See above. As for his being a terrorist, it seems the scientist is guilty of one of many forms of guilt by association that can come about these days-the collider is hardly a tool or the means to tools for destruction-_though one of its associated experiments might be, _or at least allow access to nuclear material. THough the LHC might be a target itself....


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 14, 2009)

Nah... you're all wrong.

They're going to use the LHC to create a tunnel through time, then go back, and convert all the Founding Fathers to Islam!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Nah... you're all wrong.
> 
> They're going to use the LHC to create a tunnel through time, then go back, and convert all the Founding Fathers to Islam!



What do you mean, 'convert'?  They were all Muslims!  I mean...oops....wrong universe.  Sorry.  Forget I said anything.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 14, 2009)

Actually I am more concerned about this.

Scientist: WOW!!!! So that is how the Big Bang..









And the whole damn thing starts all over again


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 14, 2009)

Bill - I'm totally with you here.  My large, I meant in power supply, not in size.  You're right, a terrorist can't steal a nuclear power plant, but if he gets near the right component can cause some nasty damage.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 14, 2009)

There's a lot more productive places from a terrorist's point of view to work.


----------



## Knives (Oct 14, 2009)

Sounds like someone was trying to re-create _Angels and Demons_.  Tut tut.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 14, 2009)

Gentlemen and ladies, please.  

The lack of scientific and engineering understanding on display here is frightening.  I really hope you are playing the 'alarmism' for laughs.

The Collider will only function if everything is perfectly aligned, perfectly connected and at the perfect temperature.  The failure that has kept it silent for a year was *one* not-perfect soldered joint in one of the interlinks between magnets.

The scientist who worked there and had foolishly linked with groups determined to be terrorist by the security services would know better than anyone here just how little he could do to cause any other incident than 'failure to operate' at the installation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Gentlemen and ladies, please.
> 
> The lack of scientific and engineering understanding on display here is frightening.  I really hope you are playing the 'alarmism' for laughs.
> 
> ...



The LHC does not sit in a box all alone.  It is connected to massive infrastructure, including computing resources and power in large quantities.   This infrastructure has the potential for misuse.  It's not so much the LHC as everything that surrounds it.  Sabotage, data theft, theft of resources, etc and etc.  This is top of the line stuff, and having a terrorist in amongst it alarms me - I think it should alarm others too.

Interesting how quickly some are to pooh-pooh the notion of a scientist being a terrorist - he probably just read the wrong newspapers or chatted on the wrong websites, right?  Yet in the UK, it was medical doctors who carried out their most deadly terrorist attacks, was it not?

Why is it difficult to imagine a scientist having bad intent?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Gentlemen and ladies, please.
> 
> The lack of scientific and engineering understanding on display here is frightening.  I really hope you are playing the 'alarmism' for laughs.
> 
> ...


OK... a moment of seriousness.

The real concern is that the guy has a pretty extensive physics/engineering education, and was in communication with terrorists.  It's not his current job that's a worry -- it's that he can help them do other things with that knowledge.  What exactly?  I don't know since I don't know his background in detail.  It'd be the same concern if the guy in question was a tactical instructor for some security academy or a chemist working for GE.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> OK... a moment of seriousness.
> 
> The real concern is that the guy has a pretty extensive physics/engineering education, and was in communication with terrorists. It's not his current job that's a worry -- it's that he can help them do other things with that knowledge. What exactly? I don't know since I don't know his background in detail. It'd be the same concern if the guy in question was a tactical instructor for some security academy or a chemist working for GE.


 
How is the mans education an issue?

If you have the money, and if you have the qualifications, anybody from almost any country can get into some serious programs at some good schools. Every Western country is training hundreds of thousands of students from all over the world. I wouldnt be surprised if several thousand of them were from Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc, etc, etc not to mention the good universities in countries like China, Russia, or dozens of other places. People are studying advanced physics, Chemistry and many other things that can be nasty. 

That genie has been out of the bottle for decades, and its not going back in.

Most of the students will be normal, boring people, hoping to make a buck, and raise a family, but some are probably nasty, nasty men and women.
We dont have a monopoly on knowledge or learning.


----------



## Carol (Oct 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> OK... a moment of seriousness.
> 
> The real concern is that the guy has a pretty extensive physics/engineering education, and was in communication with terrorists.  It's not his current job that's a worry -- it's that he can help them do other things with that knowledge.  What exactly?  I don't know since I don't know his background in detail.  It'd be the same concern if the guy in question was a tactical instructor for some security academy or a chemist working for GE.



Agreed.  CERN may not be the most efficient place for terrorists, but it does not look like this scientist is an Al-Qaida plant.  Instead he appears to be someone reaching out to them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Agreed.  CERN may not be the most efficient place for terrorists, but it does not look like this scientist is an Al-Qaida plant.  Instead he appears to be someone reaching out to them.



All I want this guy to have access to is a cigarette and a blindfold.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I want this guy to have access to is a cigarette and a blindfold.


 

Interesting that the guy is condemned without actually knowing much about him and we all know mistakes are never made when accusing people.
Does anyone want to wait and see if he goes to trial and what the evidence is? Filing preliminary charges only means the investigators want more time to look at whats going on, nothing else. There is some evidence but there whether it's enough to actually go to trial or not isn't determined yet.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 15, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> OK... a moment of seriousness.
> 
> The real concern is that the guy has a pretty extensive physics/engineering education, and was in communication with terrorists.  It's not his current job that's a worry -- it's that he can help them do other things with that knowledge.  What exactly?  I don't know since I don't know his background in detail.  It'd be the same concern if the guy in question was a tactical instructor for some security academy or a chemist working for GE.



There are so many way in which terrorists could cause mayhem that it is unbelievable they haven't done so yet. Being a scientist they would have a better grasp of tech infrastructure, but there is an enormous amount of low-tech dead simple attacks with huge casulty rates or destruction potential, not to mention psychologically effective.

Being in CERN, he is either a math, physics or engineering whiz. Not much they could misuse their education for that otherc can't do better. Nuclear terrorism is limited by the lack of raw materials and engineering requirements. Sure, he could make a dirty bomb, but you need no scientific background for that. Even with a support infrastructure, it is hard enough to build a bomb, as proven by the fact that NK's first one was a sizzle.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The LHC does not sit in a box all alone. It is connected to massive infrastructure, including computing resources and power in large quantities. This infrastructure has the potential for misuse. It's not so much the LHC as everything that surrounds it. Sabotage, data theft, theft of resources, etc and etc. This is top of the line stuff, and having a terrorist in amongst it alarms me - I think it should alarm others too.


 
Other than the 'alarm' sentiment for that speciifc environment, I completely agree. A terrorist anywhere is not on my list of things I consider good.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Why is it difficult to imagine a scientist having bad intent?


 

It isn't - I'll leave it at that as *Tez*'s post above said it all about automatic presumption of guilt.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2009)

It's not so much people in these type of jobs that worry me so much as those who work in 'invisible' jobs. The chaps who work in the sewers, school caretakers, taxi drivers,the utility workers...not sure what you call them but the ones who we see everyday but take no notice of at all so can go practically anywhere without suspicion. Postmen, waiters,bus drivers that sort of job. How often do you notice them in the street or are they basically invisible? have you been in the back of a taxi chatting with your mates and totally forgotten the driver was there, could you recognise him again? would you take much notice of a postman walking down the street, they go into every building as do delivery drivers, normal evryday business but the access they have to buildings is amazing, people just don't take any notice if someone looks as if they should be there.

We have a joke that you can walk around all day where we work doing nothing as long as you have a file or some papers in your hand and look busy, great way to waste a whole shift but it's true.
As we learned with the IRA the best defence against terrorists is the people being vigilant, noticing what should be there and what shouldn't and reporting it asap. Not to get paranoid and becoming snitches btw but use common sense and stay vigilant. It's often stated as being needed for SD but it's also useful for anti terrorism.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It's not so much people in these type of jobs that worry me so much as those who work in 'invisible' jobs. The chaps who work in the sewers, school caretakers, taxi drivers,the utility workers...not sure what you call them but the ones who we see everyday but take no notice of at all so can go practically anywhere without suspicion. Postmen, waiters,bus drivers that sort of job. How often do you notice them in the street or are they basically invisible? have you been in the back of a taxi chatting with your mates and totally forgotten the driver was there, could you recognise him again? would you take much notice of a postman walking down the street, they go into every building as do delivery drivers, normal evryday business but the access they have to buildings is amazing, people just don't take any notice if someone looks as if they should be there.
> 
> We have a joke that you can walk around all day where we work doing nothing as long as you have a file or some papers in your hand and look busy, great way to waste a whole shift but it's true.
> As we learned with the IRA the best defence against terrorists is the people being vigilant, noticing what should be there and what shouldn't and reporting it asap. Not to get paranoid and becoming snitches btw but use common sense and stay vigilant. It's often stated as being needed for SD but it's also useful for anti terrorism.


 

Yup, how many high profile jobs did the terrorist of 9/11 have? How many high profile jobs did the terrorists that first tried to blow up the World Trade center in 1993 have? How high profile was Timothy McVeigh?

I know this is going off post but if anyone is interested here are a few good books on terrorism

Terrorism 4th Edition
2002 Update
Jonathan R. White.

It is a good historical over view

Another book focusing on domestic terrorism in America is

Understanding Terrorism on America
From the Klan to Al Qaeda
Christopher Hewitt.
Domestic Terrorism and Incident Management, Issues and Tactics
Miki Vohryzek-Bolden
Gayle Olson-Raymer
Jeffrey O. Whamond


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm thinking this scientist was probably one of the 'idealists' and a sympathiser, if he had information or knowledge useful to a terrorist group they would have been very anxious for him not to have any links to them or any Islamic site for that matter.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 15, 2009)

It is also worth noting that contrary to general perception, 'scientists' can't do much damage. It's the engineers and technicians that can do real damage. As an engineer, I have done many interesting tech projects where a lot was at stake. There have been cases where someone who knew what they were doing could have caused tens of millions of dollars in damages with a single blow of a hammer. Scientists may know the principles, but engineers know the plumbing.

Other job types would be janitors (who usually have access to everything and the kitchen sink) and various administrators and logistics people who can move stuff and control access. Or HR workers who can get other people in.

Scientists are pretty low on the ladder when it comes to damage potential, unless they have a pyramid of very skilled people underneath them to turn their ideas from theory into reality.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Scientists are pretty low on the ladder when it comes to damage potential, unless they have a pyramid of very skilled people underneath them to turn their ideas from theory into reality.



Scientists, engineers, technicians, doctors, and janitors all share some similarities.  One of them is access to facilities.  One that they do not all share access to is access to data and information systems.  And it would appear that just because a medical doctor and an engineer are involved in a terrorist attack, it may be no more technical in nature than driving a Jeep loaded with propane tanks into a garage and detonating it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafeel_Ahmed



> He was an engineer who was studying for a PhD in computational fluid dynamics.





> As an aeronautics engineer, Ahmed was able to secure employment, from December 2005, to August 2006, with Infotech, an Indian outsourcing company servicing clients such as Airbus and Boeing, before resigning abruptly.[12] It could be possible that he had access to sensitive design information about various aviation companies.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack



> Police identified the two men as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital,[11][12] and Kafeel Ahmed, also known as Khalid Ahmed, the driver, who was treated for severe burns at the same hospital.[13] The newspaper, The Australian, alleges that a suicide note indicated that the two had intended to die in the attack.[14] Ahmed did eventually die of his injuries, on 2 August.[15] Bilal Abdullah was later found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to 32 years in prison.



Again, I do not think scientists who are terrorists should have access to the LHC.  And whilst I agree that this current arrestee should be tried and found guilty before the cigarette and blindfold, if the accusations turn out to be true, then I'm all for it.  I am surprised at how blase everyone seems to be about it, but OK, whatever.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 15, 2009)

Not blase. It's just that there is a large gap between being a sympathizer, and actively killing people in an act of terrorism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Not blase. It's just that there is a large gap between being a sympathizer, and actively killing people in an act of terrorism.



Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes?  I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC.  I don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and sympathy.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes? I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC. I* don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and* *sympathy.[/*quote]
> 
> Guess thats where we have the advantage if that's the word, we've been dealing with terrorists for decades and how to tell who is what and who is a sympathiser. It's a science in it's self. there are lots of indicators and of course profiles for who will be and do what, that'll be how they caught this guy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes?* I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC. I don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and sympathy.


 
Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.


 

Absolutely, look at all the Americans that fund raised for the IRA, are they terrorists?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Absolutely, look at all the Americans that fund raised for the IRA, are they terrorists?



Same-same.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.



If someone is giving money to terrorists, I'm all for lining them up against a wall and ventilating them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If someone is giving money to terrorists, I'm all for lining them up against a wall and ventilating them.



Not going to work. I know this is a popular view in the US, but in reality, it won't do any good. It would make things worse. Hard line stances don't work.
By killing all sympathizers, you only create more of them.

If the Brits had shot everyone who sympathized with the IRA, the Northern Irelands population would have been halved. And as a result of those draconian actions, there would have been no peace yet, unless they managed to kill every catholic and relative of someone who'd been shot. Peace only came to Ireland when they started talking and compromising.

If he did something wrong, it should be proven and he should be sentenced to a reasonable punishment, in line with the crimes he committed. And just killing everyone who has ever been involved in any way with al qaeda will do more harm than good.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 16, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Id be worried about some poor shmuck turning 40, having marital problems, having no friends, having his teenagers act like teenagers, deep in debt, going off his meds, losing his tin foil hat and thinking the government is watching him through his computer screen. This is the guy who will snap one day and decide to take some people with him. Homegrown terrorists are the ones we cant see until its too late.
> 
> Hey, anyone see my tinfoil hat around.I put it down somewhere around here


 
Dude, Has somebody been talkin` about me behind my back?
:boing2:


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Not going to work. I know this is a popular view in the US, but in reality, it won't do any good. It would make things worse. Hard line stances don't work.
> By killing all sympathizers, you only create more of them.
> 
> If the Brits had shot everyone who sympathized with the IRA, the Northern Irelands population would have been halved. And as a result of those draconian actions, there would have been no peace yet, unless they managed to kill every catholic and relative of someone who'd been shot. Peace only came to Ireland when they started talking and compromising.
> ...


 
Exactly and the truth! 
Though the population if Northern Ireland would have to have been wiped out completely as the sympathisers of the Protestant terrorists would also have had to been wiped out! Incidentally we still have bombs and terrorist activity there, it's just not 'news' anymore.

Remember the old saying...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. America has supported groups in several countries that are widely regarded as terrorists, the Taliban for one, so lynch mob talk is hardly appropriate now. Ask yourself how this situation all came about first.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Exactly and the truth!
> Though the population if Northern Ireland would have to have been wiped out completely as the sympathisers of the Protestant terrorists would also have had to been wiped out! Incidentally we still have bombs and terrorist activity there, it's just not 'news' anymore.
> 
> Remember the old saying...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. America has supported groups in several countries that are widely regarded as terrorists, the Taliban for one, so lynch mob talk is hardly appropriate now. Ask yourself how this situation all came about first.



Oh dear, tea and sympathy for people who want to kill me.  Well, whether it will work or not, I'm still in favor of it.  I am not interested in finding common ground with extremists who think I ought to be dead.  I'm much happier if they're dead instead.  Appropriate or not, that's my opinion, and I do not think it will change.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2009)

Ever since you joined MT, you've always been fond of argument for arguments sake, Bill and, it is true that there's a certain pleasure that can be garnered from intelligent debate.

There seems to be an increasing combativeness to your tone over the past couple of weeks tho', accompanied by an appearance of less flexability.  Is everything alright in the 'real world'?

Regardless, in addressing your last point, I am struck by the notion that simple solutions *are* attractive in the short term but tend to cause more problems down the line.  

However, as I take what you say to mean you don't care about the ineffectiveness of draconian solutions as long as they are satisying emotionally and, thus by inference, dismiss any other approaches, it's rather pointless to debate it further.  

So I wont.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 16, 2009)

I have no problem punishing someone who carries out a terrorist act. To punish someone who is just a supporter of a terrorist group, is punishing a thought crime. Most of them will not have done anything physical to support a terrorist organization expect to tell the pollsters they support the group.  

Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides dont lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Ever since you joined MT, you've always been fond of argument for arguments sake, Bill and, it is true that there's a certain pleasure that can be garnered from intelligent debate.



OK...



> There seems to be an increasing combativeness to your tone over the past couple of weeks tho', accompanied by an appearance of less flexability.  Is everything alright in the 'real world'?



I appreciate your concern, but as far as I know, everything is normal.  Which is not to say optimal, but then what is these days?



> Regardless, in addressing your last point, I am struck by the notion that simple solutions *are* attractive in the short term but tend to cause more problems down the line.



I don't know if it is a 'simple solution' as much as it is a basic lack of desire on my part to 'understand' a person who has stated that he wants to kill me and actively tries to do so.  I tend to see that as a direct threat and react accordingly.



> However, as I take what you say to mean you don't care about the ineffectiveness of draconian solutions as long as they are satisying emotionally and, thus by inference, dismiss any other approaches, it's rather pointless to debate it further.



I understand, of course, that there is always a bigger picture to be considered.  The question _'why do they hate us'_ is important to be asked.  

On the other hand, I find it difficult to consider a solution that involves either conversion to a radical brand of Islam or acceptance of _dhimmi_ status, which the most dangerous of the current crop of Islamic terrorists currently claims as the only solution they would find acceptable.  At a certain point, one has less interest in finding out why a person wants you dead and simply doing what is necessary to prevent them succeeding, which would presumably mean killing them first.



> So I wont.



Your choice, of course.  I'm sorry if you find my posts to be increasingly combative.  I'll take a look at my behavior and see if I can find a reason you would feel that way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> I have no problem punishing someone who carries out a terrorist act. To punish someone who is just a supporter of a terrorist group, is punishing a thought crime. Most of them will not have done anything physical to support a terrorist organization expect to tell the pollsters they support the group.
> 
> Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides dont lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.



By 'supporter', I am referring to people who send money or lend aid to terrorists intentionally.  I fully understand that a person with no desire to hurt anyone can have sympathetic feelings towards terrorists without posing a risk themselves.

I would not, for example, want to kill people who donate money to what they think are Islamic charities, if the money is actually being funneled off to fund terrorist activities.  I would have no hesitation to ask for a death sentence against a person who knew that they were giving money to terrorists who wanted to kill me.  Why would I want such a person to have the opportunity to pay for the bullet or bomb or grenade used to kill me?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from? How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.
I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I. 
Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides dont lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.



Like WWII?  You have a point about some of our more modern conflicts, but I'd hesitate to say 'most conflicts' end in stalemate and negotiation for face-saving terms to end the conflict.  I'd actually say few of them end that way.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 16, 2009)

The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.

It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.

Personally, I prefer long term solutions.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

It's not showing sympathy for someone wanting to kill you. 

Do you want to create martyrs galore? 

Do you want to drum up even more sympathy for the groups you oppose? 

I don't agree with people funding terrorist either, but there is a difference between those that sympathize with a cause and those that carry out the actual operations. 

I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions, but lining hundreds of thousands of people up and machine gunning them down isn't the answer to achieving your goal.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.
> 
> It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.
> 
> Personally, I prefer long term solutions.


 
Bruno, it says I have to spead some more rep around before I can give you more so heres a public appreciation of your posts! sanity must rule if we aren't to descend into the chaos some are trying to take us into.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from?



I am quite aware of the recent history of Afghanistan, and even the fact that bin Ladin got his first exposure to combat fighting Soviets using our money.

The fact that the CIA covertly supported the Muj is a far cry from me personally putting a check in the mail to some guy who wants to build a bomb with it to kill somebody I don't like.

I do not dispute that in the history of the world, the USA has done questionable things, even evil things, supported dictators, etc.  And had our own revolution ended in defeat, our Founding Fathers would of course be considered traitors and terrorists by the American citizens of Great Britain.  History does tend to show that nations do all the things they decry when it suits their interests.

My concerns are more mundane than the overall goodness of the world, however.  If a group declares their intention to murder me, demonstrates that by killing thousands of my countrymen, and some guy thinks that's great and sends them a check, I have no trouble declaring that the check-writer is a no-good bad guy and must die.  I don't really give a crap that he is just expressing his legitimate anger or dismay or whatever that we did this or did that to his culture, religion, general state of well-being, etc.  He may have a legitimate grievance, and I'm not averse to hearing it and trying to understand it.  But I will not sit by whilst he pays some guy to drive a plane into my house and wonder why he did it.  I don't care much at that point, I just want him not to do it.



> How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.



I don't absolve my country of anything.  We've done great things and horrible things.  I think that on the whole, my country is a good one, or I would not be proud to be an American.  I don't think that matters when it comes to guys trying to kill me.

I am sure that muggers have their reasons, and my own society might well have contributed in some way to their current state.  But when I am being mugged, I'm not terribly interested in understanding the mugger's point of view.   I just want not to be mugged.



> I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I.
> Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.



Of course.  A trial, and if found guilty, then the cigarette and blindfold.

I do not want people who want to kill me roaming around loose, or even locked up temporarily, and the same goes for people who write checks to intentionally fund those who want to kill me.  If they want to kill me, I want them to be dead.  Clearly, I have no ability to wave my arms and make that so, but it is my opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill now you've added that after a trial and if they are found guilty you want them dead, thats a far cry from what you were saying in the first place. All the rest of us were saying is that we mustn't jump to conclusions and have this guy guilty when he may not be. We don't know if he was a sympathiser, a terrorist or an innocent caught up in something, we were suggesting waiting to find out. That's not giving tea and sympathy btw thats called being humane and right. We don't know at this point whether he wants anyone dead let alone you! Very little in the way of facts have been released, there may be little evidence to prove he's done anything, it could be a case of over zealousness on the part of the authorities or a misunderstanding. These happen, for example when I say I'm a liberal, Americans assume I'm the same as their liberals and  tend to condemn me for beliefs I don't hold but they think I do but it's a totally different thing here, it's a cultural misunderstanding. We have to wait and see before ranting that the chap should be dead!


----------



## Kajowaraku (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know if it is a 'simple solution' as much as it is a basic lack of desire on my part to 'understand' a person who has stated that he wants to kill me and actively tries to do so. I tend to see that as a direct threat and react accordingly.


 
A bit further back you yourself were advocating a cigarette and a blindfold. I guess the blindfold wasn't to help him appreciate the cigarette more?

Point is, you can't just pre-emptively execute people for having dangerous ideas. It is as has been pointed out in this post before; many of the groups that now cause trouble and have turned terrorist, actually started out in the employ of the united states, being trained and armed by them. I'd say training and arming such a radical group is a step or two worse than sympathising, don't you agree? And they never were anything but radical, they just happened to turn radical on the wrong people in the end. 

Now don't get me wrong, terrorism is catch all phrase for a collection of terrible crimes, and should be prevented and prosecuted accordingly. However, this talk of "terrorists" as one unified enemy is just awkward. These aren't "Ze Germans" (no offense to any German readers), these are a bunch of scattered groups, individuals or organisations that share a desire to do damage. Nowadays it seems being Muslin is an informal requirement for being a real terrorist. How awkward is that. I'm sure you're eager to make the world a better place by executing every person out there that (sympathises with people that) is (/are) looking to kill you. Thank you for your concern. Unfortunatly violence tends to spawn more violence, and it won't really do much good, except perpetuate the violence. Terrorists generally became terrorists for a reason. We would probably disagree with their reasons, but the fact is only very few risk their life out of boredom. Tackle the underlying motivations and perhaps we might be getting somewhere in the way of a more durable solution. It has to be dealt with, i fully agree. But I really think executing people for "evil ideas" and "bad friends" is a bad, bad idea.


As for scientists being able to do their share of threat and damage, sure. Look at what aum shinrikyo was setting up in Japan. They manufactured sarin gass, and intend to use helicopters to spray it over the metropolitan, to help the apocalypse get started. the plan failed, some gass was used in the subway, but nothing near the scale they had planned. Still, they came pretty close on a conceptual level, but lacked... technicians and engineers for mass production. Still, the labcoats were a crucial part of the plan.

just my 5ct


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from? How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.
> I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I.
> Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.


 


Bruno@MT said:


> The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.
> 
> It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.
> 
> Personally, I prefer long term solutions.


 
Not wanting to start a blame game her folks but historically speaking much of the mess in the Middle East that we are dealing with today can be historically link directly to the actions (contradictory promises to various groups [Zionist vs Muslims and Muslim vs Muslim] with a dash of social Darwinism) of the British Government pre through post WW I into WW II with the later help of the UN. I will give you the historical references if you like, the book is at home and I am not at the moment. But then again I do believe it is somewhere here on MT from a previous post of mine already.

As for the US handling of the situation after that (which we inherited) we have not done so well either.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bruno, it says I have to spead some more rep around before I can give you more so heres a public appreciation of your posts! sanity must rule if we aren't to descend into the chaos some are trying to take us into.



Damn. So close, and yet so far... (to my 4th green dit )
Thanks Irene.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not wanting to start a blame game her folks but historically speaking much of the mess in the Middle East that we are dealing with today can be historically link directly to the actions (contradictory promises to various groups [Zionist vs Muslims and Muslim vs Muslim] with a dash of social Darwinism) of the British Government pre through post WW I into WW II with the later help of the UN. I will give you the historical references if you like, the book is at home and I am not at the moment. But then again I do believe it is somewhere here on MT from a previous post of mine already.
> 
> As for the US handling of the situation after that (which we inherited) we have not done so well either.


 
Being a Zionist myself (now that should alienate a few lol), I know my history and Britain's part in the whole mess, hell we were even in Afhanistan well before the Soviets way back in the early 19th century!
The point wasn't to blame so much as to point out that going around killing people because you think they want to kill you is not only a bad idea but it may also be your fault they want to kill you because they think that you want to kill them which of course you do! See how complicated and how much of a vicious circle it is? It has to be broken somewhere if we are to have some sort of peace if not a real one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bill now you've added that after a trial and if they are found guilty you want them dead, thats a far cry from what you were saying in the first place.



I corrected myself some time ago:
_
"Again, I do not think scientists who are terrorists should have access to the LHC. And whilst I agree that this current arrestee should be tried and found guilty before the cigarette and blindfold, if the accusations turn out to be true, then I'm all for it. I am surprised at how blase everyone seems to be about it, but OK, whatever."_

It was pointed out to me - repeatedly - that a trial is generally necessary before a sentence, and yes, of course I agree.  I also agree, for the record, that if he is found innocent, he should go free.



> All the rest of us were saying is that we mustn't jump to conclusions and have this guy guilty when he may not be.



No, with respect, that's not what most of you have been saying at all.

First, some of you said that scientists generally are not terrorists, so there is no cause for concern.  I pointed a number of instances where that was wrong - no one replied.  Apparently unable to contradict my statement.

Then, some of you said that so what if he was a 'sympathizer', since that was not at all the same as being a terrorist.  I said there was a difference between someone who generally supported a cause and someone who sent money to bombers so they could bomb some more.

Then, some of you said that the USA has done awful things, so we're not free of guilt when it comes to creating the conditions that cause people to send money to terrorists.  And my reply to that is, yes, you're right.  And I don't care when a person points a gun at me why he's justified in doing it, I just don't want him to do it at that particular moment.



> We don't know if he was a sympathiser, a terrorist or an innocent caught up in something, we were suggesting waiting to find out.



If you had been suggesting that, I somehow missed it.  I apologize for my lack of ability to read that in what was said.  I somehow mistook _'so what if he was a sympathizer'_ for meaning '_so what if he was a sympathizer'_ and _'scientists are unlikely to be terrorists'_ to mean _'scientists are unlikely to be terrorists'_.  I really need to work on those reading comprehension skills.



> That's not giving tea and sympathy btw thats called being humane and right. We don't know at this point whether he wants anyone dead let alone you! Very little in the way of facts have been released, there may be little evidence to prove he's done anything, it could be a case of over zealousness on the part of the authorities or a misunderstanding.



If he is, then I'm perfectly fine with letting him go.  As I noted, I corrected my previous statement and said that only if he is found guilty should he be offered the blindfold and cigarette.



> These happen, for example when I say I'm a liberal, Americans assume I'm the same as their liberals and  tend to condemn me for beliefs I don't hold but they think I do but it's a totally different thing here, it's a cultural misunderstanding. We have to wait and see before ranting that the chap should be dead!



To be clear, one can rant about anything one wishes to rant about.  I have no power to make the man dead, and I'm entitled to an opinion (or a 'rant', which would be an 'opinion' if you agreed with it), regardless of how much you think I ought to wait and see.  I happen to agree with you that we should wait and see, however, and I did earlier amend my statement with regard to that.

We're not in disagreement that if the man did nothing, he should not be punished.

However, your statements regarding what _'we have been saying to you'_ in this thread are not correct as far as I can tell.  What '_we have been saying to you'_ has morphed considerably throughout the thread.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Kajowaraku said:


> A bit further back you yourself were advocating a cigarette and a blindfold. I guess the blindfold wasn't to help him appreciate the cigarette more?



I did correct myself.  Perhaps at some point, we could move past my earlier transgression?



> Point is, you can't just pre-emptively execute people for having dangerous ideas.



I can't execute anyone for anything, I haven't the power.  However, I see nothing wrong with executing people who send terrorists money or give them aid and comfort.  That's not the same as having 'dangerous ideas', that is taking dangerous actions.  I harbor ill will towards those who have ill will towards me, but I agree that they should not be executed unless they act on those intentions.  If they do, however, I want them dead and I make no apology for that.  



> It is as has been pointed out in this post before; many of the groups that now cause trouble and have turned terrorist, actually started out in the employ of the united states, being trained and armed by them.



If I train a dog to do bad things to others and it does my bidding then it turns on me, I will put it down for my own safety.  Yes, it's my fault that the dog was trained as it was, and I bear the fault of having had to put it down.  Yes, I'm a bad person.  But I'm not going to let it attack me just because the fault was originally mine. I am going to defend myself, and that's too bad for the dog.



> I'd say training and arming such a radical group is a step or two worse than sympathising, don't you agree? And they never were anything but radical, they just happened to turn radical on the wrong people in the end.



What I care about is who is trying to kill me, not assigning blame on myself when the wolf is at the door.  Screw recriminations, we can have those later.  First need is to defend one's own life.

Or apologize to your killer as you kneel down, I guess.  Your choice.



> Now don't get me wrong, terrorism is catch all phrase for a collection of terrible crimes, and should be prevented and prosecuted accordingly. However, this talk of "terrorists" as one unified enemy is just awkward.



Terrorists are not one unified enemy, and I am not aware of anyone talking about them that way.



> These aren't "Ze Germans" (no offense to any German readers), these are a bunch of scattered groups, individuals or organisations that share a desire to do damage. Nowadays it seems being Muslin is an informal requirement for being a real terrorist. How awkward is that. I'm sure you're eager to make the world a better place by executing every person out there that (sympathises with people that) is (/are) looking to kill you.



Only the ones who give aid or comfort to those who are looking to kill me.  And the ones actually trying to do it too, of course.  How that makes me the bad guy is beyond me, but I don't really care if it does.  I'm into being alive, and I'm not fond of being dead.  So what my country did to deserve what we are getting is not really something I care much about right now. I just want not to be dead.  And if that means killing people who are trying to kill me, goody.



> Thank you for your concern. Unfortunatly violence tends to spawn more violence, and it won't really do much good, except perpetuate the violence. Terrorists generally became terrorists for a reason. We would probably disagree with their reasons, but the fact is only very few risk their life out of boredom. Tackle the underlying motivations and perhaps we might be getting somewhere in the way of a more durable solution. It has to be dealt with, i fully agree. But I really think executing people for "evil ideas" and "bad friends" is a bad, bad idea.



I did not advocate executing people for having evil ideas or bad friends.  Send a terrorist your kind regards, and I suppose that even though I find that repugnant, it's not an offense worthy of death.  Send them a check and ask them to buy a bullet or two for you, and yeah, I want you dead.  Spawn more violence?  All I can deal with is the threat in front of my face when it is in front of my face.



> As for scientists being able to do their share of threat and damage, sure. Look at what aum shinrikyo was setting up in Japan. They manufactured sarin gass, and intend to use helicopters to spray it over the metropolitan, to help the apocalypse get started. the plan failed, some gass was used in the subway, but nothing near the scale they had planned. Still, they came pretty close on a conceptual level, but lacked... technicians and engineers for mass production. Still, the labcoats were a crucial part of the plan.



I think I said that.  No disagreement there.  The argument was that scientists just aren't given to terorrism, and I disagreed.  Clearly they can be.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Being a Zionist myself (now that should alienate a few lol),


 
 I'M SHOCKED 




Tez3 said:


> I know my history and Britain's part in the whole mess, hell we were even in Afhanistan well before the Soviets way back in the early 19th century!
> The point wasn't to blame so much as to point out that going around killing people because you think they want to kill you is not only a bad idea but it may also be your fault they want to kill you because they think that you want to kill them which of course you do! See how complicated and how much of a vicious circle it is? It has to be broken somewhere if we are to have some sort of peace if not a real one.


 
I figured that you knew the history and I know it is rather complicated. They still tell stories, about the Crusades, in the Middle East about killing the invaders who came to kill them. 

I guess I am just a bit sensitive of late since it appears many in the world blame all their problem on the US... that and I am a stickler for historical correctness


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Bottom line: You can't kill everyone so you need to find another solution.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> I guess I am just a bit sensitive of late since it appears many in the world blame all their problem on the US... that and I am a stickler for historical correctness


 
It's human nature to blame those that are more prosperous for your problems. 

"Why do they have it so good and I don't?" 

I think that's probably why in a lot of cases. Of course, it doesn't help that many Americans come off as arrogant arses either. That just adds to it. And yes, I admit to being one at times...GUILTY!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Bottom line: You can't kill everyone so you need to find another solution.



In the larger sense, yes.  In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen,  I see no reason not to kill them.  Can we get them all?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition.  So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's human nature to blame those that are more prosperous for your problems.
> 
> "Why do they have it so good and I don't?"
> 
> I think that's probably why in a lot of cases. Of course, it doesn't help that many Americans come off as arrogant arses either. That just adds to it. And yes, I admit to being one at times...GUILTY!


 

It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got! 
I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the larger sense, yes. In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen, I see no reason not to kill them. Can we get them all? I don't know, but I doubt it. However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition. So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.


 
Should we then have sent people to America to kill all those supporters of the IRA who wanted me and my countrymen dead?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Should we then have sent people to America to kill all those supporters of the IRA who wanted me and my countrymen dead?



I think arresting them, trying them, and if found guilty, executing them would have been appropriate, yes.  I am referring to those who knowingly sent money or gave aid and comfort to the IRA.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think arresting them, trying them, and if found guilty, executing them would have been appropriate, yes. I am referring to those who knowingly sent money or gave aid and comfort to the IRA.


 
Including the Kennedys?

it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
http://www.noraid.com/


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got!
> I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!


 
As for me I do not believe that everyone wants to be an American or live the American way of life nor do I believe that many envy us, they are quite happy where thay are, I have relatives in China that are rather happy living in China and have no desire to live anywhere else (and before the China bashing starts... they could if they wanted to).

However there are those that do blame us for all thier problems and there are those that expect us to solve all thier problems and if we go try we are told we are wrong (and sometimes we are) and if we do nothing again we are told we are wrong, but this is stuff of a different post.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the larger sense, yes. In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen, I see no reason not to kill them. Can we get them all? I don't know, but I doubt it. However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition. So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.


 
Why stop there? Why not go out and kill everyone that's ever purchased heroin? I mean...Afghanistan makes more money off of opium than anything else. Hell, kill everyone that's ever paid for an opiate! That includes anyone that's ever taken vicoden, oxycotin, or had morphine during surgery. 

Sound ridiculous? No more so than killing a guy writing a check. 

Go ahead and kill them all... I wonder how many people would be left? LOL 

Terrorist will get the resources they need regardless of how many people you kill. I'm afraid this isn't necessarily a black & white issue...

Again, I agree there should be cosequences for aiding terrorist. I just don't think that mass killings are the answer and that it would only make matters worse. 

Maybe we should just freeze their assets untill and equal amount of funds is given to a more worthy, peaceful cause? For instance, you get caught giving $100,000 to Al Qeuda and your assets are frozen untill you give $100,000 to the Red Cross.... or even double! 



Tez3 said:


> It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got!
> I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!


 
Considering how many people try to get in to our country annually...well... ...there I go again. LOL

BTW, I don't think we have it better across the board. There's a great deal we could learn from other countries that would better life here. I don't think it's a secret that I often criticize my government. LOL


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Including the Kennedys?
> 
> it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
> http://www.noraid.com/


 
NAH!!! We didn't do anything to the Bush family for aiding the Nazis why do anything to the Kennedys for that, besides we let that whole rum runner thing during prohibition slide so whats the big deal about funding a terrorist organization anyways 

But again historically speaking things get rather touchy with British history and the IRA. But that does not in anyway justify terrorist acts committed by the IRA 

And a lot of people from countries all over the world are helping support terrorists.

And can we PLEASE get away from making the US the wiping boy here? Dont make me pull out historical fact on this stuff the British Empire is far from innocent in any of this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Including the Kennedys?



Why not?  If they gave money to terrorists, then yes.



> it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
> http://www.noraid.com/



Same argument.  I do not play favorites with people who support terrorists.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> NAH!!! We didn't do anything to the Bush family for aiding the Nazis why do anything to the Kennedys for that, besides we let that whole rum runner thing during prohibition slide so whats the big deal about funding a terrorist organization anyways
> 
> But again historically speaking things get rather touchy with British history and the IRA. But that does not in anyway justify terrorist acts committed by the IRA
> 
> ...


 
No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
> Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
> I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?


 
So there would be no problem or complaints if we became isolationist again? :boing2: I'm down with that!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.



Have I said I want to kill everyone who doesn't think the way I do?  At any point?  I think perhaps you're exaggerating a tiny bit, hmm?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Why stop there? Why not go out and kill everyone that's ever purchased heroin? I mean...Afghanistan makes more money off of opium than anything else. Hell, kill everyone that's ever paid for an opiate! That includes anyone that's ever taken vicoden, oxycotin, or had morphine during surgery.



Why stop there is because it becomes _reducto ad absurdem_, is why.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Have I said I want to kill everyone who doesn't think the way I do? At any point? I think perhaps you're exaggerating a tiny bit, hmm?


 

Huh, I've told you a million times I don't exaggerate!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why stop there is because it becomes _reducto ad absurdem_, is why.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
> Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
> I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?


 
Who you calling defensive, :tantrum:Im not defensive, and I will defend my stance on the too 

Actually I do believe Bill, like many, over simplify exactly what terrorism is, means and how it is organized and funded. Lord knows I use to but after a few courses (damn higher education ) and a state in-service or two (damn those bastards for keeping me informed) . And many dont even realize that there is still as domestic terrorism issue in the states as well so over simplifying a global issue as it applies to terrorism doesnt surprise me in the least. 

And I am not defensive actually, just tired with the world in general these days and its propensity for high levels of violent stupidity based on miss understanding and arrogance. Actually the planet would not be such a bad place if it werent for all the people. 

My main point is here that Britain is actually guilty of some of the things you have thrown towards the US in your discussion with Bill. Did the US or some of its citizens do what you say they did? Yup. Does Britain have its share of folks doing the same stuff? Yup. Are Britain, France and Russia absolved from all guilt in the Middle East and terrorism now that the US is there messing things up? No, history says otherwise as it does in the case of the IRA and the British government as well (admittedly the Kennedys are not helping things).  And the EU is not the world by the way; its the EU and has its own agenda but there are parts that are not all too happy about us pulling out of the whole missile shield thing and if we put up the shield we are evil, militaristic, controlling, sticking our nose where it doesnt belong and flexing muscles and if we dont we are abandoning our allies to the possible evils of Russia and its nuclear and military might. 

Do I agree with what Bill is stating as a solution? No, things are way too complicated, as you have shown in your example of the Kennedy family. Terrorist organizations are incredibly complicated to the point were a terrorist cell could be entirely unaware that there is a terrorist cell of the same group just down the street and as for funding who the hell knows who all the people are. So knowing exactly who is aiding and abetting a terrorist organization is next to impossible so unless you are willing to shoot every single person you see then that solution is simply not going to work and it is more than just a little silly. And of course I have not even got into exactly what a terrorist is defined as, go ahead find two major groups in military or law enforcement that agree on a definition, I dare you 

As to clamoring, I never said clamoring I said there are those that want us to fix there problems and they are not all terrorist issues, they are medical, monetary, military and there are those that do not want us to do anything as well and there are those that want us to do what they NEED us to do. And in some (not all and most certainly there is no loud conflagration) we are damned if we do and damned if we dont. What happens if we pull our military out of every place it currently is, globally? What happens if we stop all sorts of humanitarian aid, globally? what happens if we stop spending our dwindling US dollar globally on everything from Tourism to goods and service? Just where do you think all these people will turn next to look for help since we stopped? And do you actually want Japan to have a free reign military again? And what happens between China and Taiwan? What actually would occur in the Middle East? How about Korea? And would Africa be better off or worse off if we stopped absolutely everything we do there? South America anyone, they have terrorists and drug cartels we fight from time to time, does the EU want to handle that one?

Basically we are not all bad, or at least we are no worse than any other world power, we are just a whole lot younger. 

So examples to show Bill the error of his ways works for me but while youre throwing in lists of Americans that aide terrorist why not give equal credit to those that are doing the same thing in the British isles. And if youre going to throw in the history of the US supporting the Taliban (and it did) then you might want to mention the bits about who started this mess in the first place by promising the same land to at least 3 different groups.

And you are absolutely correct we can't absolve your country from the part it played, but then neither can you about yours. 

But to be honest I am way to far into the study at the moment than I want to be ... I would much rather go to the nearest pub for a good beer :drinkbeerand forget all this nonsense and if it helps Tez, I'll buy
.



celtic_crippler said:


> So there would be no problem or complaints if we became isolationist again? I'm down with that!


 
Sure there would, we be poor broke and destitute when all those countries we owe money to called in the marker 

Actually in the world in which we live isolationism can be a very dangerous thing.


----------



## Kajowaraku (Oct 16, 2009)

well, there's no ill will towards Americans here, but there was considerable resentment to the American administration that tried to shove it's policies down our throats. I'm sure the states are a great country, but we have no need to follow it's every example. Quite happy the way we are, indeed. 

Now i'm sensing an awful lot of wild west rhetoric here, which is a bit amusing and frightening at the same time. As for terrorism being a unified enemy, I never said you said this, my reply was more general than just replying to a few of the statements you made, i was referring to the "war on terror" leading to strange consequences such as the invasion of a country lookign for WMD that could be used by terrorists (although that rhetoric changed even more than the one in this thread). What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't. That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise. And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments. And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys. That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Kajowaraku said:


> well, there's no ill will towards Americans here, but there was considerable resentment to the American administration that tried to shove it's policies down our throats. I'm sure the states are a great country, but we have no need to follow it's every example. Quite happy the way we are, indeed.
> 
> Now i'm sensing an awful lot of wild west rhetoric here, which is a bit amusing and frightening at the same time. As for terrorism being a unified enemy, I never said you said this, my reply was more general than just replying to a few of the statements you made, i was referring to the "war on terror" leading to strange consequences such as the invasion of a country lookign for WMD that could be used by terrorists (although that rhetoric changed even more than the one in this thread). What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't. That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise. And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments. And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys. That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...


 
First who are you directing this at; since it came directly after my post and there is no quote I am not exactly sure.

Second but it does seem that you can apparently do damage to a terrorist organization by freezing its assets


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Good grief, I'd already said the British had done a good many things they shouldn't have done, well actually the truth is the British Establishment has, the rest of the UK was very much left out in the cold, something else that the Empire could be blamed for. The home countries have been equally badly treated by the British Establishment which is why we have home grown terrorists,not just the Irish.
The EU has it's hands full with the EU however it does spend a lot of money on aid to Africa and the Far East, it has to, many EU countries had colonies there and feel responsible for those countries still.
Russia is bankrupt at the moment and having had huge losses during the last world war has never been keen to start another war, China isn't interested in taking over the world, Japan isn't either. America is the country that worries us all, it always has starting way back in the 1950s.
_I really don't know if you realise how much America scares the world._

Much of the Middle East problems goes back to the end of the First World War when the Allies carved it up to suit themselves.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Talking of terrorists, a bomb went off today in Belfast. One lady injured when the bomb that was put under her policeman boyfriend's car went off. One of several incidents this week.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2009)

The odd thing is, despite the high level of fear with regard to terrorism that our media does it's best to whip up, the world according to the intelligence arms of the West is less at risk now than it ever has been.

The judgement of MI5 is that a disperate, not very well organised, loose coalition of discontents is a much lower threat on the grand stage than the state sponsored terrorism that preceded it. 

People forget very quickly what things were like in the 70's, for example, with all the bombings, hi-jackings and assasinations that went on. The Stern Gang, Red Brigade, IRA, PFLP, Baader-Meinhoff, Libyan's, Armenians, Bulgarians ... the list was immense.

What has happened that is different in recent times is that there was a spectacular atrocity committed on American soil and, as a significant proportion of the global media exists in America, that has become a 'touchstone of terror'. It has been used by self-serving government to put in place measures that can only be sustained if fear is sustained.

Thus, with such an atmosphere, you end up with the cirumstance we have seen in this thread where a scientist in a high-profile establishment is arrested for suspected contact with a terrorist group and the cry goes out as if the man was Dr. Mengele.

As an aside, the worst thing that I've seen in the thread tho' is the re-interpretation of each others words through our own cultural filters. The main pivot for that was when *Tez* brought up the fact that the IRA has been largely sponsored by American money. To me, that was to give an example that would be tangible for those speaking of the view regarding guilt by association or finance. But it has brought forth quite a bit of protest that hints that such a statement was merely "Yank Bashing" and retaliatory finger pointing at what the Empire got up to.

We are never going to be able to discuss such political matters cogently unless we can overcome such reactions.


----------



## Kajowaraku (Oct 16, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> First who are you directing this at; since it came directly after my post and there is no quote I am not exactly sure.
> 
> Second but it does seem that you can apparently do damage to a terrorist organization by freezing its assets


 
it was directed more at Mr. Mattocks.

And yes, freezing assets would be more effective than brute force. Still, for long term stability just taking the means away will only slow things down. A person bent on doing harm will find a way, regardless. But it certainly will do damage, with a lot less of a backlash than executions and violence. Still on the long run it would be best to take away the reason or motivation for the terror, where-ever possible. It should at least reduce the terror activity to manageble sizes, making it easier to be dealt with by the regular criminal justice system, which may or may not be assisted by a special task force or investigative branch, preferably international.


And a small reply to you Tezz; you are so right... some aspects of the American foreign policy really had people worried here, a lot less now that "that liberal" is in charge by the way. Most people here consider the change of political direction in the states a very welcome thing. (I can hear you guys thinking: 'but you don't have to LIVE here...', although I personally think he's actually doing alot of good for the states too.)

God, i'm erratic!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief, I'd already said the British had done a good many things they shouldn't have done, well actually the truth is the British Establishment has, the rest of the UK was very much left out in the cold, something else that the Empire could be blamed for. The home countries have been equally badly treated by the British Establishment which is why we have home grown terrorists,not just the Irish.
> The EU has it's hands full with the EU however it does spend a lot of money on aid to Africa and the Far East, it has to, many EU countries had colonies there and feel responsible for those countries still.
> Russia is bankrupt at the moment and having had huge losses during the last world war has never been keen to start another war, China isn't interested in taking over the world, Japan isn't either. America is the country that worries us all, it always has starting way back in the 1950s.
> _I really don't know if you realise how much America scares the world._
> ...


 
I will post the history references later as to the middle east. But the bottom-line was a British promise to Zionists they could have their homeland back, British Promise to the Muslim world in having control of their own lands when the war was over and of course asking the Palestinians if they minded at all if the Zionist lived with them, and they didn't. However neither the Zionist, Muslims or the Palestinians were aware that the British had made different promises to different groups in return for help during WW I. Afterwards France, Britain and Russia divided the place up much to the surprise of a whole lot of indigenous people. Britain maintained control of the Palestinian lands that the Zionists wanted (Hell it was promised to them after all) and bingo terrorism in the Middle East was born. I believe it was from the Zionist directed at the British, but I will have to check that one. 
 
And I hate to have to ask this out but were in my question about China and Taiwan did you get China taking over the world? China has never been interested in colonization, invasion or take over in anything that it does not consider historically part of China and. And in that part of the world it is not China I am concerned about doing something stupid it is Taiwan. And I do not think Taiwan wants to take over the world either. As far as Japan goes and a military what do you think they would have done a few months back if they had a free military with North Korea, and where would we all be now? (I know it is speculation based on something that did not and could not have happened, but I find that intriguing and a bit scary)

America Scares the world, so globally we are feared which by the way includes Russia and China and a few other places not just the EU. But I do find this interesting that America worries so many, why? What are you worried about the US doing?

I myself was a bit nervous the last administration would get us into WW III but so far all that concerns me about this one is that we will go flat broke and have to lock the doors turn out the lights and put up the America is Out of Business sign.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2009)

Can we get back on track, ladies and gentlemen? 

Other than aiding in indentifying that the roots of todays problems come from actions committed in the past, we're not going to get very far by taking pot-shots at what our respective countries ruling elites have done 'wrong'. For at the end of the day, they acted within the framework that existed at the time and had the aim of bettering their own countries interests (or rather the interests of the wealthy of their countries}.

We, as individuals might abhor or laud those actions but that has no bearing on the matter at hand.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Kajowaraku said:


> What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't.



Well, you can, if we wish to parse words cutely.  If you kill everyone else, then yes, you've eradicated terrorism.  However, I do quite understand that in real terms, killing the entire world is a bit over the top, and yes, making martyrs of terrorists often has deleterious consequences.



> That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise.



True.  And likewise if you kiss their arses.



> And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments.



The alternative is to tolerate people who give money to terrorist organizations?  I'm sorry, I can't.  I won't.  I'm not interested in winning their hearts and minds.  Screw them.  If they want me dead, I've got no use for them.



> And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys.



There is nothing wrong with guns and bombs and etc when used well.



> That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...



I don't care.  No, really, I don't.  Wild-west or not, if a person states that he wants me dead, and gives money to terrorists to carry that out, I want him dead.  If it has a long-range deleterious effect, that's something to be addressed, but as for that particular mope, I want him expunged.

I would love it if the whole world loved Americans.  But they do not.  Some hate us for no doubt good reasons and some for reasons I don't think are all that valid.  But in the end, of those who hate us, some few want to actually kill us, and those represent an immediate threat to the people of my nation.  They've demonstrated their abilities.

I am interested in long-term solutions, which include finding and addressing base concerns when they are valid (like 'stop pushing our nation around you big bullies') but when they are not valid (like 'you are not a Muslim, so you must die') then I am not interested in making nice with the latter.

In the meantime and alongside of those efforts, whether they are motivated by so-called 'good reasons' or bad, if they represent a direct threat to the people of my nation, I want them dead, and I will not apologize for wanting that.  People who give money to terrorists that try to kill me are such a threat, and I want them dead.


----------



## Kajowaraku (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill, there's a wide gap between "tolerating people who give money to terrorists" (or kissing their arses for that matter) and killing them. It may be a shade of black and white that doesn't fit your picture, but there are actually other sanctions and measures that could be taken, like: freezing the assets of those contributing significant amounts to a known terrorist organisation, incarceration, hell even pitch and feathers for all I care. This isn't about "execution or a hug." 

But I understand your point. All you want to say, is that YOU want those people to die, regardless of long term consequences, although you are not oblivious to them. That, is your good right. You were also absolutely right about the unjustified reasons for terror such as "die heathen, die!" Obviously that sort of fanaticism complicates things immensly. You have some valid points, but we clearly don't share views on how it should be best handled. All the same, this has been an interesting conversation. thank you all.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2009)

Kajowaaku, thank you! Is it danke wel or merci btw for you?


----------

