With the sentencing of Saddam Hussein, we have yet another milestone in the War on Terror accomplished. Hussein, for his crimes against humanity, has been judged by his peers — fellow Iraqis, those who suffered most under his fist — and sentenced to hang by the neck until he is dead.
And with that comes yet more predictions of rises in violence, of riots and terrorist attacks and mayhem in its wake.
But while I always hear about “killing terrorists only makes more terrorists,” I haven’t seen too much evidence of it.
We killed both of Saddam’s sons, the “Scott Evils” of dictators. No real disturbances.
We got Zarqawi with a couple laser-guided love notes. Not much fuss.
We put a lot of Al Qaeda’s leadership in prison or left them pushing up daisies. No major retaliations.
I think it was in a Tom Clancy novel where the characters were discussing the danger of converting a live enemy into a dead martyr. The response, and I’m loosely paraphrasing here:
“Do you know what all martyrs have in common? They’re all dead.”
Killing one’s enemy might inspire more to take up their cause. Or it might show the price of defiance. But the number of terrorists who redouble their efforts after being killed is 0%.
In all of recorded history, I can only think of three figures whose death actually led to more and more support for their cause, eventually leading to the triumph over their oppressors. And all three of them — Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King — were not terrorists or even men of the sword, but men who preached peace and non-violence.
As the people of Texas are fond of saying, “some folks just need killing.”
And if some people take those deaths as inspiration to become terrorists, then they’ve just moved themselves on to that list of folks.
You can only think of 3?
You forgot The Alamo!
I don’t think the Alamo counts since Alamo wasn’t a person. Good try, though.
Socrates?
The Maine, though like the Alamo, not a single person.
Joseph Smith.
The Buddha.
Also, India was already independent when Gandhi was shot dead.
Before Saddam was captured, we lost about 310 Americans in Iraq. Since Saddam was captured we lost about 2,526. Since when is 2.5K US casualties “No real disturbances”?
Hey, where is Mitchell? We need to discuss Ortega!!
Jay,
Excellent placement of hammer on head of nail. One swing and it’s pounded in eloquently.
Cheers……………
Is a Tom Clancy novel the closest you’ve ever come to experiencing combat, Jay?
Jay,
Killing terrorists doesn’t make more terrorists, you’re correct. Blasting tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis into dust while waging an unecessary war does.
…unecessary war…
Tell that to the Shiites and Kurds under Saddam and then try and tell them that this was an “unecessary war”.
Peter,
Maybe they should have fought the war instead of our brothers and sisters.
Great bumper-sticker logic, Jay.
At the current rate of terrorist eradication, then, when do you predict all of them will be killed and Iraq will be terrorist free?
You jackal’s will NEVER learn from history. There are not TWO ways to stop terrorism, only ONE.
If you don’t understand what the answer is, then you should stop embarressing yourselves by flapping your worthless gums.
Oyster, the world will be free of terrorism when it is free of nazism, fascism, imperialism, and drunk drivers. But we don’t allow any of those do we?
I have never seen such stupitity on a blog. Grow up you children.
Jay,
That’s one of the strangest arguments I’ve heard. You state;
“In all of recorded history, I can only think of three figures whose death actually led to more and more support for their cause, eventually leading to the triumph over their oppressors. And all three of them — Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King — were not terrorists or even men of the sword, but men who preached peace and non-violence.”
I agree. They preached peace and non-violence, and they gained more support for their cause.
Your very next sentence which is pretty much in the spirit of your article states;
“As the people of Texas are fond of saying, “some folks just need killing.”
…And you do not understand the contridiction of these two things that you have just said?
You talk about the great contributors to peace and non-violence, and how they had the most impact because of their beliefs, then in the next breath advocate violence and murder.
Your logic needs examination.
John
They tried that. Obviously you don’t recall what happened. Refresh you short-term memory here.
We righted a wrong.
Oyster,
I want to see an answer to your question. I want to see an honest, well reasoned answer, because your question is probably the most important thing I’ve heard asked on this blog in a long time.
You asked;
“At the current rate of terrorist eradication, then, when do you predict all of them will be killed and Iraq will be terrorist free?”
I’d like to know that as well. For that matter, we have a billion muslems in the world. At what rate, and how many will we need to kill before we can be terrroist free?
Who’s got an honest answer?
John
John,
If someone is trying to covert YOU to their thinking, which is better, a gun to your head or a compelling argument.
If they have to do it with a gun to my head, then I hope they die before I do.
Hope that helps.
What they forget to tell you about martyrs is that they’re forgotten as soon as something else new and shiny pops up… They don’t provide a continuous source of fresh inspiration, so they go skunky faster than a cheap pilsner.
Jumpinjoe,
A compelling argument is better. A gun to my head can only persuade me to act in my own best interest, and only for so long as the gun is to my head.
A compelling argument can cause me to change my beliefs, and create long lasting changes in my behavior.
No, I don’t think you’ve helped me. I don’t understand your point, which makes it difficult to find your argument compelling.
John
A few easy questions, but the Democrats have no answers so they CUT AND RUN.
TheExecutioner,
What is the answer to this question?
“At the current rate of terrorist eradication, then, when do you predict all of them will be killed and Iraq will be terrorist free?”
John
Sorry John, it was crystal clear to me.
(Sigh) One more try. If a Muslim wanted “you” to convert to Islam, wouldn’t it be better for them to follow the examples of Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King on using non-violence to convert you?
You are not asking them whether or not you should convert. They approach you with their gun or their argument.
If they approach me in peace and dialog, I may listen and hear what they have to say.
If they approach me with a gun, I don’t want to listen, I will try to kill them before they kill me.
As I poster earlier, bad people will NEVER go away. But just because we will never stop ALL drunk drivers, doesn’t mean that we should give up. Now the Democrats can answer my questions.
Jumpinjoe,
I don’t know what neighborhood you live in, but that hardly ever happens to me.
(I have far more mormons and Jehova’s stop by, allways around dinner time.)
I did answer your question. I think we both agree that a compeling argument is better than a gun for changing someones mind.
So why do we use bombs and guns to fight people. Wouldn’t kindness and bread, and clean water be better?
When we talk about American values, aren’t we really talking about safety, and prosperity and freedom? Not Pax American at the end of a gun barrel? Or bomb craters full of your relatives body parts? Or destruction of your infrastructure?
And that brings us right back to Oyster’s question… Will you answer?
“At the current rate of terrorist eradication, then, when do you predict all of them will be killed and Iraq will be terrorist free?”
John
Clinton tried being nice you moron.
theExecutioner,
So Iraq will never be terrroist free. And the world will never be terrroist free. And the “great” global war on terror will NEVER end. We’ll never get our liberties back. We’ll never stop hemoraging money. We’ll allways be on war footing and forever and ever, people like Bush and Cheney will use this as an excuse to sow fear, profit from chaos, and manipulate the American people.
This my friend has a name. It’s called Fascism.
Damn, where are the American patriots?
John
Groovy concept. I dig it.
Now it’s your turn to delivery your compelling argument on how this groovy plan is going to work on fanatics.
Waiting on the edge of my seat………..
Did I say that the costs were going to continue at the same rate? Get a life. Open your eyes. Answer me.
Do we stop going after drunk drivers and Nazi’s?
Bob,
Both Osama and Saddam were to some extent creations of previous administrations.
Remember that famous picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld arm in arm, buddy buddy.
The Clinton administration warned the Bush administration about Osama, but the worst terrroist attack on the continent occured with Bush in charge, oblivious.
John
You jackal’s will NEVER learn from history. There are not TWO ways to stop terrorism, only ONE.
What is the one way to stop terrorism, exactly? And please point to at least one place where terrorism was stopped using this method (and tell the Israelis while you’re at it, they’ve been dealing with terrorism for a long time).
Bob, stop looking through those rose-tinted glasses. Just who were our enemies at the time?
Joe,
If you feed people, their relatives will thank you.
If you kill people, their relatives will hate you.
One of the reasons the US has (had) so much prestige in the world is because after the WWII, we lifted Germany, Europe, and Japan out of their post war chaos without demanding war reperations.
Our kindness gained us prestige, and long lasting allies.
Scott Ritter, the lead IAEA inspector in Iraq advocated a Marshall plan, which I think would have been a much better solution than the military option.
I really don’t have the time to teach you all the history, especialy since you don’t seem interested. Use “The Google” to search “The Internets”.
John
mantis, thank you for your accurate clarification. It cannot be “stopped”, but the only way to reduce it to a minimum (eg. Nazism) is to penalize the offenders (as we did in WWII). Drunk driving is reduced because we enforce the law. The same is true of terrorism.
“If you feed people, their relatives will thank you.”
Oh, Really?
Then 9/11 never happened?
But while I always hear about “killing terrorists only makes more terrorists,” I haven’t seen too much evidence of it.
How many terrorists were in Iraq before we were? How many are there now?
No answer John?
You jackal’s will NEVER learn from history. There are not TWO ways to stop terrorism, only ONE.
Ah, this must be the same method England used to have the IRA stand down.
“How many terrorists were in Iraq before we were? How many are there now?”
There are less in the world than before. Are you people terrorists? Why do I even waste my time with your idioticy?
Bob,
9-11 happened in large part because the US set up military bases in Saudia Arabia during the first gulf war.
Osama Been Forgotten, went off his nut because he considered those areas sacred holy land. He wanted those bases removed, which we would not do. Interesting side note… Since 9-11 we did do exactly that, and those bases are now gone.
Osama in many parts of the world is a hero, because he’s used his money to feed people (in addition to terrroism).
We hate Osama becaue he killed our “relatives”.
So, yes… If you feed people, their relatives will thank you. If you kill people their relatives will hate you.
Bob, don’t be slow or pretend to not get the point. If I come over to your house with a fruit basket, or if I came over and murdered the first random person to answer your door, don’t you think you’d feel different about me?
John
Brian, you refuse to answer my question, because you cannot without looking like a moron.
John, there is one flaw with your reasoning. Before we got those groovy vibes and world prestige after WW2 we had gone and already kicked the living hell out those people.
Don’t think for a moment that myself or conservatives in general wouldn’t lift those we defeat back up to become functioning members of the world community.
Seriously, I think you hit the point of grasping at straws.
John, your slip is showing.
The one way is to kill them all. Pretty simple and permanent in my book.
The liberal pussies would rather stick their heads in the sand and hope they would go away. Instead they won’t even get a reach around before their heads are cut off.
“There are less in the world than before.”
There are less active, terrorists now than before we went into Iraq? Americans know better than to listen to crap like that any longer. You people are seriously deluded (i.e. morons) or else you know the truth and just lie to further the gains of your own corrupt and lying political party.
Either way, as Americans — you’re useless.
Jeff, I really believe that most of the people in here are terrorists that think they can brainwash ignorant posters. They cannot possibly be Americans.
theExecutioner,
Actualy, there are MORE terrorists in the world. That’s the consensus of the 16 federal agencies in their report last month.
It’s also evident in the number of terrorist attacks over the last few years globaly, or even the monthly death count in Iraq.
Really no point in having this discussion with you, unless you want to accept the facts.
To answer your question, there is no “war on terror” anymore than their is a war on poverty, or a war on hunger, or a war on drugs.
Anytime someone has to tell you 5 times a day that you’re at war – you’re not at war.
Look out the window, and stop being a tool. Do you see a war out there?
There is an occupation, and there is a police action.
The “war on terror” needs to be handled by the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, local and state police. Terrorism is a crime. You can’t bomb people at random to stamp out terrorism anymore than you can bomb drunk drivers into submission.
John
Lee, I have no political affiliation. You, on the other hand, have no common sense. Todays Democrats would have believed that we could have stopped Hitler by being nice too.
To stop drunk drivers enforce tough laws and bust as many as you can. Amazingly, it is one of the real things that righties and lefties agree on. Tough, stiff, painful penalties if you choose to be an idiot and do it. However, it’s impossible to be there for every violation, but we agree that pursuing them and busting them reduces the number. What we don’t do is spend tons of money and resources busting people who knew a drunk driver, possible knew a drunk driver, possibly thought about knowing a drunk driver, or who commended someone who drove drunk driver, or who had alcohol at home and was undoubtedly going to drive drunk, so we pre-emptively strike them.
I would have been happy still pursuing Osama, instead of going after Iraq, whom Bush admitted in a press meeting had NOTHING to do with 9/11. (On august 21,206). I guess on this site I’ll be painted a liberal, but that’s not the case. I am just terribly displeased with how we got to where we are.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering, 2nd in command of the Third Reich at the Nuremberg trials
Ah, this must be the same method England used to have the IRA stand down.
Nice flip remark, but comparing the IRA to the Islamofascist movement is diseneguous.
First and foremost, the IRA leader Sein Finn, at least proposed a truce and talks; the Islamofascists have made no such approaches.
Second. even if negotiations were proposed what exactly would they require of us? Getting out of SA? Already did that? Stop support of Israel? Ain’t gonna happen. Let Iran have nukes? Not going to happen. Leave the ME entirely, oil companies and all? Not gonna happen. Allow Israel to be “wiped off ” the map? Definitely not gonna happen. So, if and when and until the Islamofacists find a leeader who can reasonable and negotiate within reason and reality, the terrorist will continue to die or be captured.