All Bets Are ON

[John Hall]

Depending upon the fanatic, taking away his idea that his sacrifice will
make a difference can be helpful.  That is why the idea that creating a few
casualties will lead to your goals is a dangerous one.

For the rest, if you really want to deter it then yes - you go in for
collective responsibility in a big way.  You hunt their families down and
kill them (torture not required).  That is the only historical answer that
works.

1) Note that many of the bombers are promised that their families will be
taken care of.  Yes, I'd expect recruits to drop off if you hunted the
families down.
2) This gives the family a _big_ incentive to turn in uncle Joey when he
starts talking about becoming a suicide bomber.
3) I'm well aware of the violation of Western moral norms involved here.  I
didn't say I liked it.  But I'm afraid I prefer it to the more socially
accepted solution.  Namely: declare war and start destroying towns and the
people who live in them.  War is a form of collective punishment.  Going
after the families is at least theoretically more discriminating.

One more thing.  In case some of those family members happen to be very
young children you adopt them out to nice Jewish families, and let your
target audience know that is what you'll do.


I expect Israel to adopt the 'destroy a city' approach sometime this year.
Either that or just bare their throats and get it over with.




-----Original Message-----
From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Prescod
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 4:49 PM
To: FoRK
Subject: Re: All Bets Are ON

John Hall wrote:
>
> I do believe that past restraint emboldened the terrorists.

How do you threaten suicidal maniacs? Perhaps we should hunt down and
torture their families?

 Paul Prescod


http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork