Posted on 09/13/2001 3:37:51 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Evil on display
Editor's note: Purchase a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book, "No Spin Zone," autographed and personalized, and receive a free "No Spin Zone" bumper sticker and a free three-month trial offer to Whistleblower magazine. Take advantage of this exclusive offer now.© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
The dictionary defines the story for us – evil, adjective: morally bad or wrong. Causing ruin, injury or pain. So now we know the true nature of anybody who had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on America. Now we know. So what do we do about it?
Well, we punish them, of course. And in this case, there will be few if any who raise questions about insanity, or disease, or trot out the litany of excuses we often use to defend many evil-doers in our society. America has become a nation of excuses – many of us look at heinous acts and apply our own rational standards to the perpetrators. Thus, a person like Andrea Yates who brutally murdered her five little kids has to be mentally ill and not responsible. Of course, she's mentally ill. But not responsible? This is where that kind of thinking breaks down.
In the past the Moslem terrorists who have caused so much destruction and pain to so many innocent people could, in my opinion, be considered mentally ill. They believe their god is going to elevate them to paradise for executing innocent human beings. If that isn't a mental illness, I don't know what is.
But that doesn't mean these monsters didn't know what they were doing. They did. They knew they were killing blameless human beings just as Hitler, Stalin and the other psychopaths of history knew. And for this they have to be brought to justice. Just because a person has a damaged mind doesn't mean we don't punish them.
I have seen evil face to face. I sat down across from Joel Steinberg who brutally tortured and killed his little daughter. Steinberg denied everything to me but his dead eyes told the true story. His is in prison for life but more than one person has told me the man is sick and thus should be "treated."
Evil cannot be "treated" – nor should it be. Evil has to confronted and destroyed and it matters not why the evil is in play. Society has no obligation to try to rehabilitate evil. If a person commits acts that cause pain and destruction, that person must be dealt with harshly.
There are obviously varying degrees of evil but mass terror and murder is at the top of the list. The terrorists who struck America are modern-day SS men. They are no different than the concentration-camp butchers and any nation in the world that harbors them or condones their behavior should be ostracized whether they produce oil or not.
Some commentators have ascribed the motives of these terrorists as trying to "demoralize" America. I strongly disagree with that. These people simply wanted to kill and create mayhem. They know the United States is not going to change its tenets. They know nothing favorable to their perverted cause will be forthcoming.
This action was simply a mass assassination. And they used their god as an excuse. How repulsive is that? How mentally deranged is that? How evil is that? The world deserves to be rid of killers and those who bring misery to human beings. Society needs to see evil for what it is and adopt a "zero tolerance" policy. I could not care less why child killers and terrorists decide to do what they do. They must be eliminated or banished in chains for their lifetimes. That is the only "treatment."
Related offers:
Purchase a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book, "No Spin Zone," autographed and personalized, and receive a free "No Spin Zone" bumper sticker and a free three-month trial offer to Whistleblower magazine.
Check out WorldNetDaily's full line of Bill O'Reilly products at ShopNetDaily.
For Education And Disscussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.
The stench of death is everywhere -- the soot, the dust, the smoke still blankets the air.
On the ground, burnt, bombed-out vehicles litter the streets, a jarring testament to the blazing horror hours earlier.
Where once proudly stood the towering World Trade Center -- till yesterday, that bold symbol of American triumph and achievement, a powerful slice of Americana itself -- now only a smoldering heap of crumpled metal and devastation remains.
Where once tens of thousands lived and worked -- a pulsating, resonating, throbbing tribute to our indomitable spirit, the prowess and grit which makes us uniquely American -- now only charcoal bones and charred bodies remain.
What kind of animals would perpetrate such vile, cowardly, ghastly acts of unspeakable cruelty?
What kind of demented mind would even countenance such demonic doings -- such hideous, gruesome, repugnant and detestable deeds -- let alone carry them out?
The victims of yesterday's exploits were innocent Americans, going about their daily lives; they were not combantants -- they were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles and grandparents -- human beings snuffed out in one swift orgy of senseless carnage.
In one hell hour, thousands of Americans were incinerated -- hurled to their fiery graves for no reason nor purpose.
These were not the acts of religion, for no religion condones the wanton slaughter of thousands of innocents. The Koran utterly condemns the shedding of blood.
Nor were these the acts of soldiers, for there is no courage nor valor in massacring thousands of defenseless civilians.
No, these were the acts of despicable cowards, of lily-livered plotroons. These craven milksops flee their own shadows.
But the biggest coward of all is none other than the gang ringleader himself, Osama Bin Laden. Mounting evidence points to him as the chief culprit.
As the Bush administration confronts what will likely become the gravest crisis of his first term, the unity and support of Americans has never been stronger. A nation has coalesced behind its commander-in-chief with unshakable indivisibility.
This is not the feckless, timorous Clinton administration, after all.
Nor is it the Gore administration (perish the thought).
Chills run up and down my spine merely at the thought of how close Gore came to stealing the election. I can't even begin to fathom how, with Albert Jr. at the helm, our nation would even cope or come to grips of with any of this.
Thank God the adults are back in charge.
Despite yesterday's bloodbath, already one can hear the namby-pamby voices of appeasement.
Their watchword is "Proportionality".
"The retaliation must be proportional to the crime", they insist.
I say balderdash.
That would be a recipe -- an open invitation, in fact -- for more terrorism.
President Reagan summed it up best: Peace through strength.
The Osama Bin Ladens of the world are not diplomats with whom we could reason; they are fringe, homocidal cowards versed in only one language -- that language is brute force.
And brute force is what they shall get.
No nukes -- but swift, incisive, systematic and massive retaliation -- proportional, not to the crime, but proportional to America's conventional military strength.
That's the Bush doctrine -- one which that phony "religionist", Osama Bin Laden, is poised to become intimately familiar with.
But it will not suffice for Kabul -- out of fear of retaliation -- to turn over Osama to U.S. authorities now. For years, the United States government demanded his extradition. The Taliban ignored such requests.
Now, thousands of Americans are dead -- as a result.
Their murders cry out for justice.
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
Ed
Now, the extradition of Bin Laden should not be accepted. Our response, "No, don't bother, we'll come and get him."
Amen.
Blair calls emergency meeting with defence bosses (MPs warn Blair on scale of retaliation)
By Brian Groom, Cathy Newman and Rosemary Bennett, and FT.com staff
Published: September 12 2001
Tony Blair, prime minister, has summoned senior ministers and top defence and intelligence officials to Downing Street for another emergency meeting of the cabinet's Civil Contingencies Committee.
They were expected to discuss whether to maintain heightened security measures, including the flying restriction over central London, instigated after the terrorist attacks on the US on Tuesday.
A special full cabinet session to discuss the crisis and the international response to it, was scheduled for after the committee meeting, before Parliament is recalled on Friday.
Announcing the recall of parliament to debate the implications of an act of "fanaticism and wickedness that is beyond our normal comprehension," Mr Blair would not speculate on what support Britain might offer for US.
However, the debate will allow senior Labour MPs, including former ministers, to warn Mr Blair not to support a "disproportionate" US military response to Tuesday's terrorist outrages.
Mr Blair said Britain, with other democracies, was a potential target for mass terrorism. Jack Straw, foreign secretary, said the country faced an era of tighter security of the kind Northern Ireland had long endured.
The prime minister called on the international community to "identify this machinery of terror and dismantle it as swiftly as possible", and consider "where these groups are, how they operate, how they are financed, how they are supported, and how they are stopped".
Mr Blair, who spoke to President George W. Bush for 20 minutes by telephone on Wednesday, will chair a special cabinet meeting on Thursday.
But Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, spoke for many Labour MPs in warning that Britain should not support indiscriminate US retaliation. He said he would urge Mr Blair to use any influence he has with Mr Bush to urge restraint.
"We must show total solidarity with the US but not an absolute solidarity," he said. "We are capable of having moderating influence on a potential US response. I hope the government will be able to prevent the sort of action that would be regretted in the longer term."
Chris Smith, former culture secretary, also recommended caution. "In a time of such tragedy, when there is understandable anger, now is a time for cool heads and wise counsel and I very much hope that is what we will offer to our American allies."
Peter Kilfoyle, former defence minister, said: "I think we have to be very, very circumspect about exactly what kind of reaction we sign up to. If you are to go after bin Laden and level Kabul to the ground that would not be a proportionate response."
MPs expressed concern that the US would use the atrocity to press Britain into co-operating with its planned missile defence system. Tony Lloyd, former Foreign Office minister, said: "It will not be in Britain's interests to see legitimate grief and pain used to justify a system that will destabilise the world."
Malcolm Savidge, who organised a motion voicing concern about missile defence signed by more than 200 MPs, said: "Our prime minister is in the best position to urge President Bush to stop and think whether in pursuing missile defence in the hope of defeating a relatively minor threat he is actually increasing the risks of attack from elsewhere."
John Heppell, a government whip, backed the prime minister's response, which he described as "support" but not "unqualified support" for America.
He added: "People will want to rally with the US but they will want to make sure it's not just revenge attacks."
Meanwhile Abu Hamza al-Masri, a UK-based Muslim cleric allegedly linked to a bombing campaign in Yemen two years ago, said the hijackers should be hailed as "martyrs" if it emerged they had carried out the attacks in the name of Islam.
But Mr Blair made clear his revulsion for any backlash against Muslims, praising British Muslim leaders for their condemnation of the attack.
Bump!
Finally I have found something on which we disagree.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.