• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ethical to hold regions responsible for terrorism perpetrated against US from there?

sear

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
925
Reaction score
122
Location
Adirondack Park, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would it be ethical & legal to hold a region responsible for terrorism perpetrated against the US from there?

During the Cold War Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the planet's two military superpowers at bay.

In the new millennium, Islamist terrorism can and has perpetrated acts that if State sponsored would be considered "acts of war",
thereby automatically legalizing counter-attack, according to long-established standards of international law.

President Trump has appealed in Saudi Arabia for Islam to clean up its own mess.

For though most Muslims may be peaceful, perhaps even pious persons, there are those among them clinging to claim of Islamic affiliation
justifiably or not. That claim degrades the public image of Islam around the world, when such persons murder innocents, destroy irreplaceable historic treasures, etc.

Afghanistan (Taliban) tried the "it wasn't me!" strategy, harboring UBL, providing the terrorist mastermind safe refuge,
and refusing to hand UBL over to the United States.

The United States strategy for continuing GWB's GWOT (Bush's global war on terror) is having only modest success.

Would the following GWOT strategy upgrade be ethical, legal, politically viable, and effective? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Make public around the world formal U.S. federal government notice that we are laying on the table, at U.S. government discretion
that terrorism fomented in various no man's lands around the world, are subject to obliteration.

To what purpose?

The ostensible peaceful Muslim majority seems to be allowing the homicidal Muslim minority to co-exist without challenge.
Understandably so.
They're homicidal maniacs, tolerated living among their peaceful Muslim brethren.

Might this be a way to build the peer pressure necessary for Islam to clean up its own act?
Keep terrorism out of your community, or place your community at risk as a result?


Of course any such firm & absolute commitment to such strategy could be used against US and our friends and allies.

For example, a few suicidal / genocidal drunken teenagers could from Paris, London, & Berlin plot to blow up a mail box in Peoria.

Committing to nuke each of those cities in retaliation would not advance the cause of peace.

So such policy would have to be implemented with discretion.
 
Re: ethical to hold regions responsible for terrorism perpetrated against US from the

sear said:
The ostensible peaceful Muslim majority seems to be allowing the homicidal Muslim minority to co-exist without challenge.
Understandably so.
They're homicidal maniacs, tolerated living among their peaceful Muslim brethren.

Might this be a way to build the peer pressure necessary for Islam to clean up its own act?
Keep terrorism out of your community, or place your community at risk as a result?
Click to expand...

Peaceful Muslims aren't tolerant of terrorists; peaceful Muslims are unwilling subjects of terrorists. Terrorists exist as a matter of power and threat over communities. Your suggestion is like holding the residents of Projects responsible for gang activity.

You're blaming the victims.
 
Re: ethical to hold regions responsible for terrorism perpetrated against US from the

In many cases the one to blame for the terror against the US, is the US it self. So by your logic, the US should blame the whole of North America?
 
Re: ethical to hold regions responsible for terrorism perpetrated against US from the

sear said:
Would it be ethical & legal to hold a region responsible for terrorism perpetrated against the US from there?

During the Cold War Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the planet's two military superpowers at bay.

In the new millennium, Islamist terrorism can and has perpetrated acts that if State sponsored would be considered "acts of war",
thereby automatically legalizing counter-attack, according to long-established standards of international law.

President Trump has appealed in Saudi Arabia for Islam to clean up its own mess.

For though most Muslims may be peaceful, perhaps even pious persons, there are those among them clinging to claim of Islamic affiliation
justifiably or not. That claim degrades the public image of Islam around the world, when such persons murder innocents, destroy irreplaceable historic treasures, etc.

Afghanistan (Taliban) tried the "it wasn't me!" strategy, harboring UBL, providing the terrorist mastermind safe refuge,
and refusing to hand UBL over to the United States.

The United States strategy for continuing GWB's GWOT (Bush's global war on terror) is having only modest success.

Would the following GWOT strategy upgrade be ethical, legal, politically viable, and effective? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Make public around the world formal U.S. federal government notice that we are laying on the table, at U.S. government discretion
that terrorism fomented in various no man's lands around the world, are subject to obliteration.

To what purpose?

The ostensible peaceful Muslim majority seems to be allowing the homicidal Muslim minority to co-exist without challenge.
Understandably so.
They're homicidal maniacs, tolerated living among their peaceful Muslim brethren.

Might this be a way to build the peer pressure necessary for Islam to clean up its own act?
Keep terrorism out of your community, or place your community at risk as a result?


Of course any such firm & absolute commitment to such strategy could be used against US and our friends and allies.

For example, a few suicidal / genocidal drunken teenagers could from Paris, London, & Berlin plot to blow up a mail box in Peoria.

Committing to nuke each of those cities in retaliation would not advance the cause of peace.

So such policy would have to be implemented with discretion.
Click to expand...

Nope. People do things. They are the criminals.
 
Re: ethical to hold regions responsible for terrorism perpetrated against US from the

"Peaceful Muslims aren't tolerant of terrorists; peaceful Muslims are unwilling subjects of terrorists. Terrorists exist as a matter of power and threat over communities. Your suggestion is like holding the residents of Projects responsible for gang activity.
You're blaming the victims." ef #2
Click to expand...
How many Islamist terrorists are there that don't know any peaceful Muslims?

"Aren't tolerant of terrorists"?
If they were two separate and not overlapping universes, I might agree.
Call me omniscient, but I suspect there's some overlap.
"Your suggestion is like holding the residents of Projects responsible for gang activity.
You're blaming the victims." ef #2
Click to expand...
Anonymous tips are supplied to our police departments all the time.
We can do it. But they can't?

And if they are victims (and apparently they are, some stats indicate al Qaida has killed more Muslims than non-Muslims) then all the more incentive for them to root out the evil among them.

SANITY CHECK:
On September 12, 2001 much of the civilized world was in mourning, in solidarity with the loss of ~3,000 innocent terror victims in the U.S.
Yet there was barely a peep from pan Islam.

BUT !!

When a Danish cartoon was published that depicted a bomb in Mohammed's turban, pan Islam rioted so ferociously that human life was lost.

That's quite a stark delineation of principles and priorities within all Islam.

A massacre of ~3,000 innocents warrants practical silence *.
But the publication of a satirical cartoon warrants rioting around the world, including loss of human life.

That's the double-standard you're defending here.

* qui tacet, consentire videtur: The silence of a party implies his consent.
"Nope. People do things. They are the criminals." jG #4

"You're blaming the victims." ef #2
Click to expand...
a) I didn't introduce the word "blame" here.

b) When Germany waged blitzkrieg against our Western European friends, we bombed much of Germany, including Dresden (try reading what Vonnegut had to say about that).

c) When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. bombed Tokyo. Oh! Any need for me to mention Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

NOPE!!

"Blame" doesn't factor in here.
It's simply a practical re-alignment, a 3rd millennium adjustment to the as yet unbridled new monster of freelance terrorism.

A century ago acts of war would be responded to that way.
We're supposed make an exception of Islamist terrorists?

Oh & BTW, it's quite a stretch in some cases to refer to these terrorists as not State sponsored.

Saudi Arabia for example has been quite buddy-buddy w/ Wahhabi radicals.
Saudi Arabia reportedly went so far as to print special copies of the Holy Qur'an that had bogus passages added that disparaged Judaism, and otherwise fomented Middle East unrest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom