Which do you agree with?

[Angry White Man]

Talk show host Neal Boortz recently said the following:

"Hard to believe, but there are people out there who believe that the best way to handle Islamic jihadist murderers is not to seek them out and kill them, but to say nice things to and about them in hopes that they'll just calm down and go away."

Which do you think is the proper way to deal with Islamic terrorists?

[ANGLOIRISH]

It is war, Gentleman! If you sit back and serve these terrorists tea, they will blow you from here to hell. Just because the low life scum are not wearing uniforms that doesn't mean that they are not the enemy. We are conditioned to identifying the uniform as Allies or Enemies. These monsters wear no identifying uniform, hence I believe our minds are fooling us into not seeing the enemy for what they really are - murderous, evil, sickening and unstoppable. We have to re-condition our preconceived notion of war and get to work at eradicating these maggots!

[Lil Bit]

The proper way to deal with them is not to just be nice and hope they go away, this guy heard too many lullibuys while growing up. the way I would deal with them is probably not very humane and it's probably pretty nasty so I will refrain from freaking anyone out.

[Rascal]

i can't condone just rampant killings. i voted diplomacy and might. some others on this site have said this before, but you can't sink to their level. i'm not saying that we would do terrorist type things, but you can't be at the same level as them and expect to keep any type of self-respect. i would also think that it fuels them and their hate. if something bad happens to them they can point to that incident as a rallying cry. on the other hand you can't sit back ENTIRELY. go out and hunt them down and bring them to justice, capture alive if at all possible and put them to trial, not kill them, not torture them. just my thoughts here...

[GoingNova]

As usual, a touchy subject, discussed with model civility! :eusa_clap

[Lil Bit]

yeah we try.

[Nightwolf04]

I'm not sure. If we went to a full war we could kill more innocent people who don't want to get involved. But then again how are we to stop them otherwise...

I'm undecided on this, but either way we shouldn't beomce murderers ourselves even if they ahev done horrible crimes.

[Damm]

I voted with Rascal on this one. Hunting them down and killing them is a little time-consuming, plus, it just makes martyrs for them and adds fuel to the fire. I'm not saying the other ways are any easier, or any more gratifying, but, I think in the long run they would be better for everyone.

[ANGLOIRISH]

They don't give any thought to the innocent people that they blow up to make a point. We are not saying go to where they live and blast them out of the water. Surely, Intelligence can hone in on these SOBs and erradicate them. Since when does fighting back equate to stooping to their level? They have no level. They are killing their own people in Iraq! Forget afternoon tea, it needs to be an out and out war. Diplomacy be damned! Neville Chamberland tried diplomacy with Hitler and we all know where that put the rest of the world -WW II. There is no reasoning with enemies. Forget trying to be the nice guy. How many more terrorist attacks will it take to understand that these evil spawns are out to dominate and terrorize the entire world! Perhaps Roosevelt had the right idea, nuke them all and start over. Cold? Yes. Callous? Maybe. Practical? You bet. If we continue *****-footing around and skirting the issue, we are all doomed. There is only one way to deal with them and it ain't pretty but it works. Stop them dead in their tracks. Let them know we mean business!

[JGJM]

undecided as i can't help but think of two points of view all the time.

[Damm]

Actually it was Truman who dropped the nuke, Roosevelt was dead at that point. And I agree that Chamberland wasn't smart to negociate with Hitler, but at the time he was under the impression that Hitler was a statesman...which he was not. We KNOW that these terrorists aren't statesmen from the turn of the century. Which is why I'm saying a mixture of Diplomacy and Might. Diplomacy itself is pointless with these people, but you have to use a little disgression on how you DO go about stopping them, as I've said...you don't want to add fuel to the fire, you don't want to increase your enemy's allies. You want to turn their allies against them, until they have no strength left, and THEN you want to move in for the kill.

[Lil Bit]

undecided as i can't help but think of two points of view all the time.

I know what you mean, but if I had those dirty little buggers I would have to torture them with images of what they have done to innocent people.

[ajdean]

Very tricky subject, but I personaly believe that in dealing with terrorist you have to prevent what it is that they are trying to do. First of all, no matter how many troops any nation or groups of nations have if you are fighting terrorist it is a no win war. When you are fighting terrorist it is something that needs to start at home, instead of sending troops all over the world we should bring them back to protect our boarders. It is my opinion if we take half of the bases we have overseas and bring the troops back we could protect the boarder better then we currently do. Second, by going to war with foreign lands and killing terrorist only make new terrorists. It would be the same as fighting fire with fire, instead of using water. If we first protect ourselves, then we are a lot better off then spreading our military to the four corners of the world. This is the rule of thumb by which the founding fathers seemed to have had in mind, they weren't in favor of a large standing army instead the protection came from the citizens themselves. Also, identifing the problem is the big issue that I don't think has been addressed. Why are they fighting us? What are they trying to accomplish? Have we done something that if we were in their shoes that we would be doing the same thing? In asking these questions it isn't a personal one instead you have to look at our government and what it is and may not be sharing with us. Is it possible that our government could do things that we are unaware of, well of course, look at all the evidence over the years that proves that the majority only lookout for themselves and their intrest and not always ours as a country. When faced with an issue as important as this isn't it wise to view all points before concluding one way or the other.

Ok, at the same time, having innocent people being hurt or killed makes me angry and I want revenge at all cost. This of course wouldn't solve anything, but increase the chances of more things happening which would make me more angry and then so on and so forth until when? What I have been trying to get at here is yes we have a problem, but our solution isn't working. It is impossible to defeat an enemy that you can't identify, you have to be right 100% of the time, they only 1%. Wouldn't it be wise to narrow the area in which we have to be right, instead of increasing it in size? We have a limited amount of resourses, shouldn't we first protect ourselves. I think it is a start that if enough nations followed this problem would solve itself faster then the route we are taking. No I don't live in a dream land, my thoughts on this issue are very strong. In saying that I have read and reread what I have written and if you are reading this have choosen to post my thoughts. I have an opinion as do all of you and I hope that I have stated mine clearly and without offense to anyone. Even as stated above I agree I am split on the issue, but instead of just writing that I chose to explore the issue and share my 2 cents. With that I truely hope that my point of view doesn't cause someone undue grief, for that would defeat the purpose of finding a solution to this and any other problem.

[Sicander]

A war with terrorism is not a war of guns and bombs and troops, it is a war of ideologies. It cannot be won with guns and bombs and troops. It can ONLY be won with ideologies. If you want to see an end to terrorism, support the spread of democracy in other non democratic countries. Do not support the ideologies of terror by, subverting the ideologies they fight. I am speaking of many politicians and personalities who have made it their mission in life to act as an impediment to the war effort. How can you possibly expect to beat and enemy if you do not support the actions required to beat them. The answer is you don't. The extreme left in this country doesn't give a flying crap about the outcome of the war, they couldn't care less about the welfare of our troops in harms way, the only thing that drives them is a determination to bring down Bush. They have put political agendas in front of public safety. If we want to beat them we have to stand firm and united in our ideology and not give in to their terror tactics. If we live in fear, they win, if we change our own ideologies, they win, if we don't do anything, they win.

[MrsD]

Seems to me to be a lose-lose situation, Sicander. I KNOW what you're saying is, in a perfect world absolutely right on. Unfortunately this world will never be perfect, and we need to use might AND our ideologies to defeat these cowardly murderers.

[ANGLOIRISH]

Damm, thank you for the history lesson. I stand corrected. I appreciate you catching my error. As for the terrorists, I fail to see what their problem. They have yet to explain. All I hear is their desire to bring down the United States! If these morons want to blow themselves up, hypothetically why can't we round them all up, outfit them with explosive vests, and plant them in a big open field. They are more then welcome to blow themselves to kingdom come! Give them a choice - firing range or TNT! Maybe if they knew we mean business they won't be as eager to commit suicide. They pay the families of suicide bombers; in return we should pay them too. A one way ticket to Hell! Satisfaction guareenteed!

[Damm]

Haha, if only things in life were indeed so satisfyingly possible. Your post reminds me of an article from The Onion that appeared directly after 9/11, it had the title "Terrorists who were promised paradise surprised to find selves in hell"....it just went on from there, and was very satisfying to read.

[MrsD]

I read that article, too Damm. I love The Onion -

[Lil Bit]

I don't agree with just going in and randomly shooting people down, but the known ones, I would love to see them die a slow and painfull death. Mean, I know.