Wednesday, August 23, 2006

How To Negotiate With Terrorists

Linked from HH Blowhard:

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife....


...Read the whole thing.

6 comments:

Matt said...

You're looking for trouble. That is the most retarded blog entry I think I've ever read. That's all I have to say. You know how I feel about that, KILL EM ALL mentality. It OBVIOUSLY hasn't worked and it never will because the more people you kill, the more people you piss off. Invading Afghanistan: good because they harbored the taliban who in turn harbored Al Qaeda. Invading a country that did not harbor anti-american terrorists, and did not provoke the united states: bad. If you're going to use the KILL EM ALL mentality, at least do it with some reasonability. You have to stop somewhere. Furthermore, what is a terrorist exactly? Bush's definition is open-ended and can include just about anyone. Is it any arab person who opposes U.S. foreign policy? That would include just about every person in the middle-east. Is it any organization that opposes Israel? Is it any organization in the middle-east that seeks to defend itself? WHAT IS A TERRORIST, and how do you suppose that we go about KILLING THEM ALL?

k2aggie07 said...

Come on. Bush's definition of a terrorist is a member of an organization with stated goals to kill Americans. Thats pretty much everyone's definition of a terrorist.

See, the idea is that when someone says "I'm going to kill you" you don't wait around for them to do it. Especially when they have a track record for following through with their threats.

Matt said...

Saddam Hussein didn't have a "stated goal" of killing americans. He didn't have an army, how did you expect him to follow through with this imaginary threat?

You didn't answer my question. How do you suppose we kill them all, when pre-emptively attacking iraq seems to have only emboldened terrorist organizations like hezbollah and made nations like Iran even more powerful than they were before?

Matt said...

Saddam Hussein didn't have a "stated goal" of killing americans. He didn't have an army, how did you expect him to follow through with this imaginary threat?

You didn't answer my question. How do you suppose we kill them all, when pre-emptively attacking iraq seems to have only emboldened terrorist organizations like hezbollah and made nations like Iran even more powerful than they were before?

Matt said...

whoops

k2aggie07 said...

First of all, Saddam did have an army. There were 80-100 thousand soldiers in the Republican Guard, as well as 15-20 thousand in the Special Republican guard, and an unknown number of Baathist loyalists in the fedayeen.

It is very likely that most of the folks we're fighting every day over there are the remnants of his army (and militias like Al-Sadr's are most likely comprised of former Iraqi regulars as well).

Our attacks on Iraq did not embolden Hezbollah. That is a silly statement. Track record prior to Iraq - multiple attacks worldwide per year, attacks on Israel, etc. Post invasion of Iraq and Afghanistatn - 5 years no attacks on the U.S., Iran was stymied from rearming Hezbollah (who will attack Israel no matter what, forever, always).

Iran would have built up to this power with or without or interference. Your assertions are more spun / untrue / based on opinion than anything I've posted on here.