|
Post by Angie on Aug 17, 2006 17:16:04 GMT -5
There's no resolving. If we manage to get rid of one group of terrorists, another group will come up sooner or later. That's the way it's always been, and it always will be that way until the human nature changes. Not saying that we don't fight - we still fight - but that just how I think it's doomed to go. I think it can help to permanently stop even just one group of terrorists. Yes, there will still be a lot of terrorists out there, but it means there a lot of terrorists who have stopped terrorizing. If another group just pops up out of nowhere after the other group is stopped, they had probably already planned on terrorizing in the first place, so it really does reduce the amount of terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Elasticband on Aug 17, 2006 18:36:29 GMT -5
So, if they kill say 500 people, do we go kill the same amount or something? The point isn't which side does more damage, the point is which side is doing it in defense/for good and which is doing it in attack/evil. I'm still not agreeing with the nukes, but your way of refuting that option is fallacious. Mod: oh and by the way, I think it's just flights from Britain that are red alert, but I could be wrong. What al-Qaeda was evil, but so is nuking the cities. And the latter is an act of terrorism in itself. The only thing which could be in defence or for good is stopping al-Qaeda from existing (by killing the members/followers or imprisoning them) but that would be near impossible. For the bit on planes: I think it's all planes going to / coming from the U.K and the U.S.A are on red alert (when I was coming home from Italy there was luggage restrictions and my friend is going to Alaska and he can't take anything electrical onboard). Although in other countries the security hasn't been increased very much if at all.
|
|