Battle erupts @ Russian school....

[jms]

Have a look at the F*CKERS which they think did this. May they BURN IN HELL. Slowly... 322 confirmed dead now according to the news here, 155 of these were children.

[gt40]

and now this:
http://www.mosnews.com/images/g/rizhskaya.shtml

[rylan]

So Duke, you're saying we (and other countries) should just sit around and let terrorists come in and blow us up and kill our children? We might as well offer them free first class tickets to our major cities and provide the explosives too.

Sorry but I can't believe how sitting around and just 'taking it' is a good thing. If there is a gang in my neighborhood that is going down the street house by house killing and robbing, I'm not going to just sit there waiting for it in the hopes that they'll get bored and go away. If its easy to do, it will encourage additional and bolder actions.

[DukeP]

Well, I know that "just sitting around and taking it" is a tough option to face. But lets just consider a few things:

1) No-where in the world is terroism killing more people than drunk driving. Terroism is like plane crashes - its a tragedy sure - but planes are still the safest way to travel - by far. Avoiding terroism (and plane crashes) are a good thing, surely! Avoiding any killing is always a good thing. But lets keep perspective.

2) Gandhi. Some times the only way to win, is NOT to join the fight. What do You think would prove the better for f.ex. the Russians - to have ordered a military strike on the terroists, most likely killing at least the same number of hostages - OR as here, simply wait and try to disarme the situation. Clearly EVERYONE (terroists included) would have wished for a better ending that this - but secure outcomes and explosives rarely go together.

So yes. Lets face it, terroism is here to stay, at least for the foreseable future. Lets not waste more money, fear and disruption on it than needed - there IS a cost/benefit score to keep in mind.

~~DukeP~~

[GT98]

Originally posted by DukeP
Clearly EVERYONE (terroists included) would have wished for a better ending that this - but secure outcomes and explosives rarely go together.

So yes. Lets face it, terroism is here to stay, at least for the foreseable future. Lets not waste more money, fear and disruption on it than needed - there IS a cost/benefit score to keep in mind.

~~DukeP~~ [/B]

The only problem with that is that these people are so desprate or brainwashed that they think the only way they can do anything worthwhile in their life is to give their life up, because some mad man told them to do it.

The Arab way of living and cluture is alot different the Typical western or even Eastern Cluture is and thats where the disconnect is.

[rylan]

Originally posted by DukeP
Well, I know that "just sitting around and taking it" is a tough option to face. But lets just consider a few things:

1) No-where in the world is terroism killing more people than drunk driving. Terroism is like plane crashes - its a tragedy sure - but planes are still the safest way to travel - by far. Avoiding terroism (and plane crashes) are a good thing, surely! Avoiding any killing is always a good thing. But lets keep perspective.

2) Gandhi. Some times the only way to win, is NOT to join the fight. What do You think would prove the better for f.ex. the Russians - to have ordered a military strike on the terroists, most likely killing at least the same number of hostages - OR as here, simply wait and try to disarme the situation. Clearly EVERYONE (terroists included) would have wished for a better ending that this - but secure outcomes and explosives rarely go together.

So yes. Lets face it, terroism is here to stay, at least for the foreseable future. Lets not waste more money, fear and disruption on it than needed - there IS a cost/benefit score to keep in mind.

~~DukeP~~

You're likening drunk driving to terrorism? There is a HUGE differance between some a-hole causing an accident that killed someone, or a plane crashing due to mechanical failure, than a group of scumbag terrorists holding people hostage and killing them or blowing themselves and everyone around them up. Malicious intent is not the same (and is in fact much worse in my opinion) as an accident or bad decision that causes someone else harm. Why do you think people who commit 1st degree murder get a life sentance while 3rd degree (accidental death) is 10-20 years?

Please explain how doing nothing will result in less people being killed, when the terrorists want to kill ALL OF US because we are "infidels" and not muslim extremists and won't convert to their warped view of the religion. Sitting around and waiting will just make their job of wiping western culture off the earth easier.

My head hurts now

[The Rock]

With all due respect Duke, I'm not seeing the logic here either. We've been doing nothing about terrorism for years and look where its got us: watching Russian children get murdered. Non-violence was ok for Ghandi, but Ghandi wanted war to stop and people to stop fighting. His logic could work in that situation since soldiers could theoretically do nothing and refuse to fight, thus solving the problem of war; can't have a war with no one to fight it. I don't see any war here. I see a one-sided war against innocent people. Terrorists aren't going to adopt Ghandis policies anytime soon, and BOTH sides would have to for that solution to work. We cannot simply do nothing. Something MUST be done. What I don't know. This problem could be easily solved, but it would involve mass murder on a scale unheard of. If you slaughtered every religious person on this planet, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc, the problem would instantly disappear (which of course is not an acceptable solution). Too bad we couldn't use the same brainwashing techniques that the muslims use on all the religious folks to convince them to become atheists.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by DukeP
Problem is proof.
Problem is evidence.

You cannot take any action without proof. Hearsay is not proof.

Im afraid that all we can do is sit around and just "take it" as it comes.

blah, blah, blah.....

~~DukeP~~

Poser;

You're sleeping with your wife. The kids are sleeping like angels in the next room. You're awakened by a noise and hear that someone has entered your home. You arise to see in the living room a 2.2 meter tall bald-headed biker-type prowling around with a shiny object in his hand.

Do you;

1. presume he is holding a mirror in his hand and is looking for a comb. You turn on the lights, get him a comb then offer him a cup of Earl Gray. You two now sit down to discuss A Brief History of Time.

or

2. presume he's holding a knife and is up to no good intent. You blow him in half with your trusty 12 guage, which happens to be loaded with 00 buckshot.

You would, according to your expressed logic train, take option #1. You and/or your familiy would likely die while waiting for proof and/or evidence of his ill intent. As such you would be proven an evolutionary dead-end doomed for extinction.

I, and I presume many others here (esp. Americans), would cut him down like the weed he most likely is and not feel a hint of regret. I would get a medal from the local Chamber of Commerce. We and our children will live to pass on our genes to posterity.

Dr. Mordrid

[Greebe]

I leave the doors unlocked all the time with the only exception of when we leave.. always have. But you can trust one thing to be true, you better kill me right off the bat because you will not be leaving without a stretcher. No I won't be killing you, but will mame so badly that you'll feel the pain of your wrong doing for the rest of your natural life.

AND THAT'S A FACT JACK!

[DukeP]

1) Im not likening Drunk driving to Terroism. Im likening dead to dead.
Im completedly indifferent to who or how i died - its the dying parts thats bugging me.

And me not shooting anyone, insures that I at least doesnt kill someone. If its the best I can do, Ill settle for that.

The worst part of terroism isnt the people dying part. People die all the time (mostly from diseases or old age, but). The worst part of terroism is the terror. I will not in any way admit defeat to terror.
I am not afraid.
I will not be made afraid.

Id rather live a short unafraid life, than a long life in terror.




2) Yes, i would prob ask him wtf he was doing in my home. I would NOT shoot him.
Imagine: your in your bed etc.. you shoot this big guy. You turn on the lights. Its your neighbours soon. He have had a bit too much to drink and now he mistook left from right and entered the wrong appartment. You just shot an innocent man. Oh, that shiny thing was prob his keys.


So you can all bolt your doors and load your shotguns. My door is as open as it gets - MY neighbour happen to be tall, broad AND bald. He's also my best friend. He can enter anytime - heck he can bring friends.

~~DukeP~~

[DukeP]

Originally posted by The Rock
With all due respect Duke, I'm not seeing the logic here either. We've been doing nothing about terrorism for years and look where its got us: watching Russian children get murdered. Non-violence was ok for Ghandi, but Ghandi wanted war to stop and people to stop fighting. His logic could work in that situation since soldiers could theoretically do nothing and refuse to fight, thus solving the problem of war; can't have a war with no one to fight it. I don't see any war here. I see a one-sided war against innocent people. Terrorists aren't going to adopt Ghandis policies anytime soon, and BOTH sides would have to for that solution to work. We cannot simply do nothing. Something MUST be done. What I don't know. This problem could be easily solved, but it would involve mass murder on a scale unheard of. If you slaughtered every religious person on this planet, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc, the problem would instantly disappear (which of course is not an acceptable solution). Too bad we couldn't use the same brainwashing techniques that the muslims use on all the religious folks to convince them to become atheists.

Theres nothing wrong with religion. A lot of people need something to believe in (I believe in the love my girlfriend and I have for one andother, and the love of my family and friends. Whatever happens, they will always bail me out).

The problem is loss of hope.
If you loose enough hope in the real world, you will start to believe anything - because anything is better than nothing. Even if this anything involves blowing yourself to bits to get to a better life in heaven.


So to beat terroism, you have to beat hopelessness.
Compassion, aid, time and understanding is the key.
Dont you feel sorry for the poor woman - so lost in her hopelessness that she travels to a foreign land to blow herself up? What history have gone before that, i wonder.
Lost her husband?
Lost her family?
Perhaps pressured, due to family members being kidnapped?

Or just not enough food to support her children (children of martyrs are usually revered and at the very least feed).

Theres no condoning terroism. There cannot be any accept of it, nor support or even understanding.

I do however feel compassion and shame for all victims of terror. Compassion even for those for whom its seen as the only hope left. Shame for me and this world, that in our modern day people are still placed in hopeless situations.

~~DukeP~~

[rylan]

I feel compassion for those in 3rd world countries who feel hopeless... but you know what, if she travels to a foreign land to blow herself up then I no longer give a rats ass about what the background was or why she felt compelled to do it. I draw a very distinct line when it comes to comitting acts of terror and murder against people who have nothing to do with her situation.
Yes it is a shame that in the world there are people put in awful situations throughout the world. However I can't ever see it justified by reverting to killing others 10s of thousands of miles away, especially when those other people try to give food and supplies to other countries.

The radical terrorist groups preach hatred and a single point of view, so I fail to see how patience, kindness and understanding would ever work with them.

[DukeP]

Never justification for terror.

And nothing you can do in the short timespan, can do anything about religious leaders (and i use these words in the vaguest sense) that condone or encourage people to kill other people.

But You might just be able to stop them recruiting more men and women to their cause.

And you know - its really remarkedly.
These leaders never seem themselves to get any urge to blow up.
I wonder why....
Perhaps when they run out of "volunteers" and have to themselves pick up and strap a belt of explosives around their often not inconsiderable girth - perhaps then the killings will stop.

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Greebe
I leave the doors unlocked all the time with the only exception of when we leave.. always have. But you can trust one thing to be true, you better kill me right off the bat because you will not be leaving without a stretcher. No I won't be killing you, but will mame so badly that you'll feel the pain of your wrong doing for the rest of your natural life.

AND THAT'S A FACT JACK!

OMG!! How extreemist can you get??

That would be seriously cruel and unusual!!

[KRSESQ]

No I won't be killing you, but will mame so badly that you'll feel the pain of your wrong doing for the rest of your natural life.

BAD IDEA! The mofo will sue your ass back to the stone age. Better to kill him outright if he's in your house. Over and done with.

Kevin