All Bets Are ON

Paul Prescod
Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:27:04 -0800

John Hall wrote:
> 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).

I see that as neither effective nor moral. The brother or cousin that
you can't find will be on the next set of planes. Once the polarization
of the situation is complete, people will sacrifice their families
because they will see the destruction of the West as a form of
self-defense. This is the usual cycle.

> 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. 

The socially accepted solution is the destruction of organizations
(government or otherwise) that support terrorism. Towns should only get
involved if they are havens for combatants.

 Paul Prescod