5 Comments

Summary:

On this anniversary of one of the most senseless acts in modern history, many people in the US are asking “Do you feel safer today than 3 years ago?” I think the only answer is- should we feel safer? By that I mean how can anyone […]

On this anniversary of one of the most senseless acts in modern history, many people in the US are asking “Do you feel safer today than 3 years ago?” I think the only answer is- should we feel safer? By that I mean how can anyone be truly safe from fanatics who are willing to commit the most heinous acts of terrorism? How can any agency or government protect everyone from a senseless act whose only purpose is to produce fear in the survivors? Terrorism doesn’t work as an act of war as it doesn’t kill enough people to make a real difference in a wartime situation. Its only purpose is to produce unease and fear in those who are left behind.Do we want our government protecting us from every single possible bad thing that can befall us? The answer is sometimes. Sure we need them to provide basic security and laws that prevent unscrupulous people from doing things that cause us harm. But can they really protect us from someone willing to strap a bomb around their waist and blow innocent bystanders up? I don’t think so for to provide that level of security would require us to give up virtually all freedom that we enjoy in the US today. Why don’t we put the responsibility for the horrible results of terrorism on the maniacal people who perpetrate these cowardly acts? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the government to provide us absolute security from fanatics such as these.It’s important to remember that acts of terrorism are an affront to all humanity and not just the US and our allies. They offend everyone world-wide as they should. But terrorism will continue and flourish as long as the criminals get global publicity which is all that they are after. As I said a terrorist act that results in the deaths of a few people don’t advance whatever cause these people are “fighting” for but the resultant publicity gets them far more than it should. To the mainstream media I would make one request- please stop giving the terrorist what they are after and that is repeated showing of every single terroristic attack. While you certainly have the right to tell that story I find it irresponsible to show over and over the hooded hostage who is about to be mindlessly murdered. This is exactly what these animals want and you are handing it to them every single day.

By James Kendrick

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. I don’t think we will ever see the media act in the best interests of society. There’s a culture that has evolved that makes it okay to shade the truth based on personal biases far beyond what is natural and unpreventable.

    I don’t think very many people at all feel safer in the world than 3 yrs ago, but we do feel safer than in the previous days (the 70′s, I guess) when nuclear obliteration of the world seemed like a very real possibility. It wasn’t by reducing the US strength that others followed along. It was due to strong positions by leaders like Ronald Reagan, who was willing to call evil evil, and who used a position of strength plus aggressive economic policies to reduce the threat. I know not everyone feels like I do, and that’s okay, but I believe freedom and democracy brings safety to the world as well as personal liberty.

    And, most importantly, for the future I believe that terrorists must be pursued or we will see them increase in strength and number. They will be better organized, better supplied, and better armed with weapons of mass destruction. I think that democracy, if it can succeed in the Middle East, is able to bring increased stability and safety not just to the people of the Middle East, but to the people of the world. But just like taking down a wasp’s nest. You spray and then start to knock it down, you don’t just leave it to grow. Even if you get stung in the process, you have to do it to make it safer in the future.

    Now I know this is an important topic with many views. And it is a very emotional issue because it is so very important. I don’t claim to have the corner on knowledge. But I do believe the world is safer in the long run if we go after the terrorist networks and the official organizations that tolerate and support them.

    Best wishes to all this weekend.

    Thanks for a great blog!

    BobR

    Share
  2. BobR, excellent points and very apropos in this election year. The fact that people can voice any POV in the US demonstrates how great a country we live in. And it’s a country that must be firm in the global arena to provide the security that we citizens demand and deserve. Thanks for your comments!

    Share
  3. Anti-terrorism tactic:
    “We will not negotiate with ‘terrorists’”
    Negotiation is used to find a compromised agreement between two parties to a dispute. If you do not negotiate, then the dispute remains and those that have the dispute generally become more agitated as their concerns are not being listened to and still affect them. Disputes erupt all the time as people’s political, social, economic and ecological environment changes. If the world-wide number of disputes is increasing and non-negotiation is followed then disputes must be removed in another way. Thus, one side must remove those they will not negotiate with or just hope that the dispute will go away in the first place. Killing someone would appear to give relatives and friends of that person more reason to be angry. It would suggest that the number of people involved in disputes would increase.
    Non-negotiation is a short term fix to individual disputes. If the reasons for multiple disputes are connected then over the long term, non-negotiation cannot succeed as a method of removing disputes because the number of people involved should increase.

    Anyway, that’s my opinion on the current “War on ‘Terror’”. Happy to hear criticisms.

    Insaa

    Share
  4. I think that negotiation is failing in Iraq. By “negotiating” I’m referring to the US allies that watch their kidnapped citizens murdered on video and then pull the rest of their people out of Iraq. This accomplishes what the terrorists want and will insure these kidnappings and murders continue. I don’t think the answer is to negotiate with people who are willing to commit these atrocities. Many of them are not even Iraqis.

    Share
  5. Negotiating as you point out is a discussion leading in compromises and agreement between two parties. To me negotiating is not “give me what I want or I will kill this innocent bystander”. That is blackmail and illegal in every civilized country in the world.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post