On Retaliation

September 12th, 2001 | MWS

[MWS]

While scanning through FreeRepublic yesterday and today in the wake of the great tragedy that has befallen our nation, I have seen a large number of reactions with many varying views. Everyone is in great shock. Some of you may have lost friends or loved ones in the events which have occured. However, I find myself a tad bit frightened by some of the attitudes which I have come across.

Emotions are certainly running high at the moment. This is understandable. But, I must implore you, my fellow FReepers, not to allow your emotions cloud your good judgement and your logic.

Many of those among us are allowing themselves to buy into broad generalizations about specific groups of people. When I read comments such as "All ragheads must die!", I feel great sadness. Reactions based upon emotion are supposed to belong to the liberals, not to us level headed conservatives.

I am also disheartened to read the posts from some who call for the "mass nuking" of Arab countries, and the destruction of innocents. Do you not see that in calling for these things you become like the terrorists themselves? The lives of innocents in the Middle East are not worth less than the innocents of our own country! Only a fool would call for the destruction of people who are not involved in any action against us! It is illogical tomfoolry to equate innocent men, women, and children with cold-hearted terrorists! It is not justice to destroy those who have not lifted a finger against us.

War is justified. It is certainly not unreasonable to attack and destroy the terrorist who committed these heinous acts, nor is it unreasonable to destroy any government which protects these enemies of our state. It is my opinion that those who would rather fire missles at our enemies rather than fight them face to face in conventional warfare are the true cowards, not those who say that nuclear retaliation is unjustified. If the course of events that started yesterday takes us to battle, it is certainly true that more innocents will suffer and die. But, we must not foolishly glory in that fact, but accept it as a sad collateral effect of action that had to be taken.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Have you who want to rain down the "Wrath of God" upon those who live in countries which harbor our enemies forgotten what this saying truly means? It is a saying of limitation in revenge, not one of revenge at all costs. It means restraining one's revenge to those who have caused harm, and visiting equal harm upon them, not greater. I forsee many people dying before this problem is resolved. We must not glory in death, not even in the death of our enemies. Instead, it is wiser to be saddened by the fact that such is what had to be done.

For those of you who are truly maddened by what has happened and wish for retaliation, all I can say is this: great. Retaliation is deserved. I will be the first to tell you that if this leads to the war that I think it will, you should certainly enlist into the military and fight the good fight against our enemies. I will most likely join you. But, don't just sit here on the the threads cowardly calling for the Middle East to be turned into the world's largest parking lot. If you are enraged, that is great. So are all of the rest of us. But, always keep perspective, and make sure you do not allow your emotions to get the better of your judgement.

When the countries of the world see that Americans are willing to fight tooth and nail and risk our own lives without resorting to weapons of mass destruction to do the job for us, they will realize that we are not as cowardly as they once thought, and they will be more likely to fear our wrath. If we resort to mere missle warfare (nuclear and conventional), we show that we too can be simple cowards who can strike at a distance, albeit cowards who can do much more destruction.

Much blood may be shed in the future- the blood of our own, the blood of our enemies, and the blood of the innocent. Let us be careful in the shedding of the third, unyielding in the shedding of the second, and willing in the shedding of the first, for the sake of our nation and the sake of the world at large.

[MWS]

These are just a few of my own thoughts...

[MWS]

What an astute, well thought out response... I am entitled to my own opinion, you are entitled to yours.

[geaux]

Ask countries who are suspected to have information regarding his whereabouts to 'fess up. If they fail to cooperate within 24 hours, begin raining bombs on their land until it is flat. Plow salt into the earth where their countries once stood. Burn the land until it is scorched. Move in our oil wells and exploit whatever resources they have underneath the ground. Once we're done, spit on the ground before we leave.

[Feckless]

Although I have personally refrained from making the kind of statements you decry I must put my two cents in.... Having served two tours in the Middle East I have some insight into the mindset of the people there. I do not advocate mass extermination or "nuking" of entire Arab countries but we must show ruthless determination in exacting the kind and amount of vengence that will deter these attacks in the future. We must kill those responsible, their allies, their cheerleaders, those who would take their place. We cannot distinguish between "innocents", the normal rules of war and civilization do not apply to this situation. Binding ourselves to them will only delay victory and cost American lives. Anyone who says that Arafat either had nothing to do with this or did not know well in advance is a liar or a fool. We should tell our friends in Israel to keep their heads down and apply some SPF 10,000. I'm sure they will understand.

[MWS]

It is understood that it will be very difficult to differentiate between innocents and enemies... many innocents will certainly die in any battle, because as you said the normal rules of war do not apply (in-villiage guerilla tactics will certainly be expected, as our enemies can easily pose as "innocents"). Still, it is certainly not something to be glad about...

[AlaskaErik]

I am also disheartened to read the posts from some who call for the "mass nuking" of Arab countries, and the destruction of innocents.

There are no innocents in the world of Islam. Either you're a soldier against us, or you're a breeding factory producing soldiers. There are no innocents. All must be destroyed.

[Sender]

I would grieve for the loss of innocent lives as well. But the "guilty parties" are not afraid to die, they welcome it. And we cannot very well inflict an "equal but not greater" tit-for-tat strike against a couple of their buildings. The endless trade of a strike-for-a-strike is what Israel has had to endure for so long.

No, I think we must retaliate massively and decisively. Cry for the innocents if you will. Those innocents are dancing in the streets and chanting "death to America" right now. They may be the ones to fly the next planes or deliver future bombs. I fear that they only understand brutal, overwhelming force, and such is the cost of the mass destruction which they now celebrate.

[Loopy]

If you disagree with enormous disproportionate retaliation tell us all SPECIFICALLY what you want to see. AND DON'T GIVE US SOME CRAP ABOUT BRINGING THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO JUSTICE!!!! Because if you do you are as guilty as those who perpetrated the act. Trials will not work. We tried that after the first bombing of the WTC and we got bombed again for our trouble. There seems to be only one thing these people will understand. It is the one thing we have never tried, namely unrestricted unfettered war upon any nationstate that has "connections" (and I use the word purposely) to terrorists. These people must learn a lesson and now. We cannot fight their war. We can only fight the kind of war we know.

Some say that what happened yesterday is a type of new war. I say it is the oldest type of war known to man. Over the years it was civilized by standing armies. But we have now regressed.

Take a page from history. In the ancient times, when an invader took over a city they slaughtered ALL the men and enslaved all the women. That was civilian war. Assyrians did it. Greeks did it. Maya did it. Everyone. It was only with the advent of standing armies on both sides of a given conflict that this stopped.

The war we find ourselves in is ancient war. We must fight it as did the ancients. We can fight it with our technology. But we must be brutal and merciless. That may mean conventionally bombing and rebombing for years on end with dumb bombs. It may mean putting troops in with orders to shoot any and everything that comes anywhere near them with orders to also destroy EVERYTHING in the enemy land. Only in such ways can we teach the lesson that people cannot commit these types of acts upon us.

[Loopy]

If you disagree with enormous disproportionate retaliation tell us all SPECIFICALLY what you want to see. AND DON'T GIVE US SOME CRAP ABOUT BRINGING THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO JUSTICE!!!! Because if you do you are as guilty as those who perpetrated the act. Trials will not work. We tried that after the first bombing of the WTC and we got bombed again for our trouble. There seems to be only one thing these people will understand. It is the one thing we have never tried, namely unrestricted unfettered war upon any nationstate that has "connections" (and I use the word purposely) to terrorists. These people must learn a lesson and now. We cannot fight their war. We can only fight the kind of war we know.

Some say that what happened yesterday is a type of new war. I say it is the oldest type of war known to man. Over the years it was civilized by standing armies. But we have now regressed.

Take a page from history. In the ancient times, when an invader took over a city they slaughtered ALL the men and enslaved all the women. That was civilian war. Assyrians did it. Greeks did it. Maya did it. Everyone. It was only with the advent of standing armies on both sides of a given conflict that this stopped.

The war we find ourselves in is ancient war. We must fight it as did the ancients. We can fight it with our technology. But we must be brutal and merciless. That may mean conventionally bombing and rebombing for years on end with dumb bombs. It may mean putting troops in with orders to shoot any and everything that comes anywhere near them with orders to also destroy EVERYTHING in the enemy land. Only in such ways can we teach the lesson that people cannot commit these types of acts upon us.

[anothergrunt]

Who are these "innocent" people? Are they the ones that allow their governments to train, fund, protect, and encourage the jihadists? I doubt that either the German or the Japanese population generally wanted a war but that didn't stop us from raining retribution on their heads. And make no mistake, this is a war. Just because we haven't realized it until now doesn't mean they haven't been working at it for years.

How do you face the enemy man to man in conventional warfare when he hides behind people who willingly harbor him? And that's the key. The people of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. agree with the terrorists and stand willing to shelter them from retribution.

I was disappointed that Bush was so diplomatic. I would rather he'd said something along the lines of, "How stupid do you think we are? We know who you are. We may not be able to pick out the 27 faces responsible for this particular act but we know they are among the confederation of fanatical groups that are attacking us. Therefore, you are all guilty in our eyes. You may have bloodied our nose but we are going to tear off your arms and beat you to death with them. And anyone who stands in our way is liable to end up with tank tracks up their chest or nuclear weapons destroying their capitols."

I'm tired of "proportionate responses", group singing of God Bless America, and recycled platitudes from government officials. I want to see gutted burnt bodies and heads on pikes! This is the only language that will be understood and the only way to prevent future attacks.

[Azzurri]

[Long Cut]

To be as "proportional", as "surgical" as possible will indeed save innocent lives. It will also prolong the conflict, embolden the bad guys, and sacrifice closure. Sorry, to win a war, you must NOT HOLD BACK. Sometimes, only the hammer will do, ask Tojo, Hitler, et.al...

[MWS]

I fear that I was not clear enough. I was merely stating that the standard should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Sadly, in real life, things seldom live up to standards. Yes, MASSIVE retaliation is going to have to occur, and it probably will- because the standard is impossible. However, I think that it will have to happen through conventional means (ground units) rather than with missles and nukes. When we are willing to put our own lives on the line to accomplish something, it is much greater than simply firing missles and weapons of mass destruction. THAT is what I was calling cowardly, not the fact of massive retribution. I am sorry if I was unclear.

[griffin]

"Innocents"!??

I recall seeing a Drudge Report headline saying that 85% of the palistinians support suicide bombings.

Your bleeding heart bullshit is EXACTLY what makes acts like that seen yesterday possible.

Your dialog 'saddens' me as well and makes me sick.

Go tell it to someone who cares and want to hear it.

[Loopy]

I get your point, but I want to be completely clear. I do not advocate nuclear weapons either. But I do not advocate ground units except under very sepcific rules of engagement. I advocate massive and continued conventional bombing that is entirely indiscriminate. When ground troops enter they should have orders that they are not trying to control ground or persuade or win hearts and minds, they are they to destroy everything. If anyone comes near them they die. That simple. I have no intention of getting into a guerilla war with the Afghans or anyone else. To preclude that we give our troops carte blanche to wipe out anyone who could even remotely conceivably represent a threat.

Eye for an eye (or more militaristically put "attrition") is unacceptable.

[MWS]

lol... trust me, I am hardly a bleeding heart (and I realize how I could have given the wrong impression, after re-reading my post). If you read further, you would see that I support military confrontation. I also realize that the standard of "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" is IMPOSSIBLE. I just don't support merely "firing missles" or firing nukes- massive retaliation will have to be taken, but through conventional means. Otherwise, we are just cowards, unwilling to risk their own lives for justice.

[MWS]

lol... trust me, I am hardly a bleeding heart (and I realize how I could have given the wrong impression, after re-reading my post). If you read further, you would see that I support military confrontation. I also realize that the standard of "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" is IMPOSSIBLE. I just don't support merely "firing missles" or firing nukes- massive retaliation will have to be taken, but through conventional means. Otherwise, we are just cowards, unwilling to risk our own lives for justice.

[Loopy]

Re: your 17. I think you seem to misunderstand what many here are advocating. We need not risk our people's lives. There is no nationstate to conquer. Only international terrorism. The only way to defeat that is to show such massive destruction to those that sympathize with the perpetrators that the perpetrators cannot have the means to accomplish their deeds.

[MWS]

Yes, I certainly agree with you. Killing will have to be indiscriminate... but, like me, you realize that the killing of innocents is unfortunate collateral damage to actions that must be taken, just as I said above, and not something desireable in itself. I believe that we are in agreement.