The Lockerbie Bomber

I've said enough but if any good can be "envisioned" developing from this, it might be that it is in some sense a noble gesture* -- not toward a terrorist scumbag who will probably never repent (but will die soon anyway) -- but toward ideals like compassion that do not have to be given up for any price. That is to say, you do not have become like a rattlesnake or a shark, in order to hunt rattlesnakes or sharks, and while sometimes it may be regrettably necessary to deal with them in severe ways, you should also recognize the choices you make. I would even go so far as to say that human beings are not squirrels -- they are potentially very nasty beasts, like sharks and rattlesnakes, who are just existing according to their nature.

The man has already been defanged and his health is too poor to allow him to be a threat to others. It does not matter what happens to him. There is no point in hating him or wanting to exact some vengeance upon him further (as digitalMedia says "overly emotional"). That he might be a rallying point at home, well, how about the idea that those borderline terrorists, who may or may not get serious, might hear about this and think: "Maybe the West is not the mindless evil I thought it to be? Maybe I don't have to be a rabid dog either?" Or if not them, then their families and friends, who would encourage and support them? What if we had hung him on television? What do you think the trickle down of that would be? Better, or worse?

* so congratulations Scotland.

Cheers, mate! To use a vernacular not my own.

Pints are on me.

The guy's going to die a horrible painful death of prostate cancer. He probably can't even take a crap without grinding his teeth anymore.

Let him out, keep an eye on him. I knew a guy with prostate cancer who had to wear a colostomy bag, trust me, that's punishment enough.

In fact, we should find a way to induce prostate cancer, give it to all of the violent criminals, let them out on house arrest, and save a fortune on prison costs.

Now that piques my interest. Could we also test experimental cancer drugs on them?

What happens if they start feeling better and don't tell anybody ?

Ooo, good point.

We could always keep a few of the more violent ones in jail and test it out on them.

I couldn't help just now but to think about parole hearings being changed so that they're held at the beginning of a prison term.



It's not like they're going to be able to do much harm with a bag of crap strapped to their side and being in almost constant pain. People tend to stay away from people who have skid marks in their pants anyway so it's not like it would be a problem if they started popping pain killers and ditching their colostomy bag.

I wish they would pick targets that would just bleed into each other,
But the main difference for an Apache pilot is that he bases his attack on the best intel at the time to reduce collateral damage or loss of innocent life. He does have a viable target. Terrorist pick the target with the greatest 'collateral damage'. It's completed misguided and it's not how you win a war or make a point for that matter. Speaking of WWII, Hitler did the same thing after his Air Force took out the Royal British planes and the door was open for attack. Hitler, instead of attacking viable military targets decided to discourage/de-moralize the English people and changed all the targets to civilian targets. This had an adverse reaction by the English instead of de-moralizing and it gave the English time to rebuild their own Air Force.


Foreign Policy:
The terrorist or even civilians of other countries blame US for these foreign policies that the citizens don't know anything about or allowed to know anything about. Face it, we have a presidential vote but WE're not really electing him. Basically, Obama winning results were already in only after a few states were complete. So, many states were still counting and the US had already decided who the next president would be based on electoral votes cause NY holds more weight than AL because more people live in NY or there's more representatives. Then the media gives you the popular vote for $h1ts and giggles I guess. However, once these 'strangers' take office, we don't know what they do in other countries because we don't even know where they come from or who they are when they're running for office. Ask any civilian walking the streets during the next election anything about one of the candidates platform. I bet they'll be oblivious.

I guess I think terrorist should just pick better targets cause the ones they're hitting aren't changing government policies or defining to the populace the terrorist cause. Plus, why do terrorist think that killing a bunch of innocent people will suede a government to do something? Trust me, politicians really don't care about the people.

If other countries are unhappy with US policy in their country then they should get the word out to the US people instead of letting the US media tell it. They should hire a web developer and make a nice site, work on SEO, maybe put some news clips on youtube. Do they not have reporters/journalist in these countries that are so mad at us? Let the US people know and then they MIGHT be able to do something about it. We have activist groups for everything, but if don't know the problem exists and it's just a conspiracy theory then no one is going to do anything or organize anything. Also, I guess terrorist don't know who Martin Luther King Jr. was. They can accomplish more by picketing, marching, or sitting-in then they could running planes into buildings. They would atleast win the hearts of the PEOPLE and then things can change from there.

Wow! I'm really baffled with some of these posts. I just can't follow a logical flow. Maybe I'm just too stupid and you guys are talking way over my head. I have lots of questions.

So, devilwood, your saying (in regard to US foreign policy?) that our electoral college is controlled by the media? That's how President Obama got elected? Is that how George W. Bush got elected, twice? Is that true of my own state, South Carolina, which is dogmatically arch-conservative?

You're saying that the use of an electoral college prevents us from actually electing a president but only serves as an illusion of electing him or her? Because the media, in fact, makes that decision?

Could you define "The Media"?

Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'strangers'?

You really believe that every US citizen is so stupid that they are completely oblivious - everyone one of them, except for you?

Your also contending that interests opposed to the US (nations, terrorists organizations, etc.) aren't using the internet or their own media outlets to spread their propaganda and/or philosophies?

Of course you don't have to answer any of my questions. However, if you could just state a premise, clearly, at least, that might help me, and others, to understand what it is your saying.

This is what I meant by wearing rose colored glasses when you look one way and a laser scope when you look the other.



And there is plenty of that out there, just look around (google "Shell Oil in Nigeria" for example). But these are two completely different sets of tactics carried out by two completely different sets of people -- altho, no doubt, Shell Oil would like the opposition in Nigeria considered terrorists. While other people might consider some of Shell's operations in Nigeria "terrorist", eg. the hiring of armed forces to execute people. Perhaps everyone is really a terrorist...

In all seriousness, the kind of terrorist we are talking about is not striving for legitimacy in your eyes. As I said, the real core are born violent types who intend to be involved in as much violence as they can for the duration of their (probably not very long) lives. The problem is that (again, for example) it is easy to see how a Palestinian who just had two of his young children shot to death by Israeli soldiers who know they can get away with anything might suddenly want to get violent and begin sympathizing with terrorists for that reason. That would not happen if the Israelis were not brutal and vindictive. That's the cycle. The hard core violent types on both sides -- Israeli and Palestinian -- of course understand this and actively seek to perpetuate it, because they want to be killers until they die. Ultra-violent Palestinians and ultra-violent Israelis are the same in the sense that they are obviously not truly interested in an end to conflict, they are interested in seeing it escalate and continue. So saying "this is the wrong way to fight a war or make a point" misses the point. The Palestinian's children are already dead. He is not getting a gun to "make a point"; he is getting a gun to kill some Israeli soldiers. Wouldn't you?

DM, I'm saying that there is an illusion to some extent of being elected by the people in US and that the 'strangers' are our politicians. I didn't mean to exclude myself as being oblivious to political agendas, but the majority of the US populace has no clue of what is really going on politically and neither do I. So, I venture to say that the majority of people who are victims in a terrorist attack, including their families, never know why or the terrorist's true cause. The media I'm referring to is FOX, C-Span, etc where people tune it to try get an idea of what's going on. However, there's government spokesmen for all of them. So, the 'media' is unwillingly or unknowingly reporting on whatever story is handed to them (creates conspiracy theories) and it never covers the real US presence in other countries that's making them mad at us or the terrorist's true agenda. I did say they should use youtube, but while it's all propaganda there is a difference between a terrorist recruiting advertisement and actual journialistic reporting. I'm talking about the later. And I'm not saying the media controls the electoral college, but the media is the main source for the people to find out about the candidates and the candidates views. My point is that terrorist shouldn't take out on the people what the elected officials do. While there seems to be a small degree of separation it is indeed quite large between commoners and politicians.

MK, I understand what you're saying between the Israelis and Palestinians but they've been in a feud for many, many , many generations and also land plays a role in their conflict. US has closed borders and I'm certain that out of all the terrorist attacks that the terrorist have never actually exacted revenged on any one responsible. I do agree that who is called a terrorist can be a relative term. I mainly use it for someone killing with the greatest amount of collateral damage and the wrong way to fight a war is attacking civilian targets.

To both, thanks for reading and replying. I'm enjoying discussing this topic with everyone. DM, at no time will I ever call you or a question stupid and no one else should on forums but they do. Now, I did tell MK not to be ridiculous about reasons behind hate-mongering but that was not directed towards his character. I don't think he took it that way so I lucked up on that one, but I rarely make remarks like that. My apologies to him nonetheless.