What is the proper response to a terrorist attack?

Not Cool, Butters! You don't shoot a guy in the dick. Way not cool!

 

The specific response depends on the nature of the attack described. However, in a generalized hypothetical scenario, I think a good response would be to understand the motivation for the attack, to strike against terrorists with military force only if we are certain of the location of those responsible and are certain they pose an immediate threat that isn't morally negated by the level of harm any possible response would inflict upon civilians. We should work on effective policing within the limits of the law to prevent further attacks, and most importantly consider addressing those issues that might have motivated said terrorists to commit their atrocities. We should try and win the hearts and minds of those populations that are radicalized through behavior that is morally consistent, and at all times work within the boundaries of international law in order to set a positive example. We should work diplomatically to capture those responsible through use of diplomacy and as little violence as possible.

 

You mean there's good motivations for flying jumbo jets into American buildings?

I don't try to understand cockroaches, I just stomp on them. It's good personal policy and even better foreign policy.

You're quite tone deaf to geo-political realities, aren't you? Our enemies hide within villages, mosques, houses, hospitals, wherever they can. And many of these "civilians" only looked so on the surface, but provide aid and support. Perhaps you've never read about our incursions into Vietnam?

Right. Treat a military matter as a law enforcement issue. What could go wrong?

I have a great way to make them stop being mad at us. It involves napalm, cluster bombs, and other tactical munitions. The dead are too emotionally challenged to be angry at anyone.

I agree with the hearts and minds campaign. Two in the heart, one in the mind does the trick every time.

I'm just glad that Al Gore wasn't at the helm when we were attacked. His response would have mirrored yours.

 

Obama has been doing that for the last 4 years. I suppose you would prefer nukes to drones.

 

There is no single proper response to a terrorist attack. What is 'proper' is morally subjective. A better question is "What is the best response a nation-state can make to a terrorist attack?", with 'best' denoting an response that is feasible and practical in the subjective sense.

 

I prefer nukes to 10 year "hearts and minds" campaigns designed to prolong war and violence and enrich private contractors as we rebuild the infrastructure of goat (*)(*)(*)(*)ers who hate us. George W. Bush showed us precisely how to NOT fight a war.

 

Killing millions with a nuke would make us worse then the terrorists and would not prevent future attacks. All you would do is help recruitment for the terrorists. Come on people a little commen sense here, does anyone know how to ACTUALLY prevent terrorism without mass murder?

 

Hey, look at this: another "Christian" advocating the murder of innocent civilians.

 

Dropping nukes sapps the political will to continue aggressions. I'm sure there's something in our history that taught us that lesson.

 

The proper response to to find the particular people responsible, and anyone who funded, or directly supported them and kill them.

For example, Afghanistan was a perfect example of a proper response. We tracted Bin Laden to the country, the Taliban protected him, so we attacked.

 

Terrorists are not driven by political will. They don't have governments. You can't bomb their factories, because they have none.

The lessons of Japan do not apply to fighting terrorism.

And I would like to point out that the only reason that dropping the atomic bomb was moral was because there were not any other options beyond invasion. Today we have the technology to give us other options. Using nukes is the single most immoral thing that can be done.

It is worse than serial child rape.

 

Violence against terrorists ain't going to accomplish a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing positive, but it sure does feel good, doesn't it? I get all tingly over Hellfires.

But I got an idea. Why don't you organize your own terror cell in, say, Teheran, and go over a blow (*)(*)(*)(*) up. That's a credible alternative.

 

The nukes did not do that they just punctuated the issue. The depletion of all raw materials to the mainland of Jepan was what contributed to their fall. Add to that the complete destruction of their navy and nonchinese based army and the Russians entering manchuria combined to sap the will of the Japanese.

But lets say you are right, unless you plan on nuking every country with a sizable group of Muslims (including the USA) you will not sap anyones will. We are not fighting orginised stated but NGO's and you cannot target an NGO with nukes.

 

No, but we can sure as hell bomb them into the stone age and then do the right thing and NOT rebuild them.

 

No, but we can sure as hell bomb them into the stone age and then do the right thing and NOT rebuild them.

 

Who said violent action was unjustified? It isn't. What is unjustified is tearing apart entire nations to hunt down a few extremists. What is unjustified is to murder suspects. none of that is the American way.

We should handle terrorists the way the constitution tells us: letters of marque and reprisals. Target specific terrorists, not whole nations, and bring them in for trial and sentencing.

 

So as a Christian, how many innocent children are you okay with murdering in order to get your revenge?

 

Withdraw any and all tax monies, humanitarian or otherwise that we generously give to these countries, one and all. Get them in the wallet, where it truly hurts. Let them roil in their self-induced dregs of even further poverty and let them all shoot themselves.

 

That's not at all what I meant. By "nature" I mean, was it a small car bombing or a suitcase nuke? I think any reasonable person would agree that there might be a difference in level of response.

Willful ignorance. You must try to understand your enemy's intentions and motivations. Are you not familiar with Sun Tzu's The Art of War? Does the phrase "know your enemy" mean anything to you?

If destroying a building full of civillians and a handful of terrorists is going to turn a local population against us, then I don't think one should strike. I suggest striking when they are out in the open, and yes I know how difficult that will be. However you will never win the war without the support of the locals.

Are you going to go after sleeper cells with military hardware? Im sure every neighbourhood is going to enjoy the drone strikes. I suggest we go after terrorists who are trying to infiltrate our nations in a similar, but much more prioritized manner in which we go after domestic drug lords, or foreign spies.

That's some extraordinarily one dimensional thinking. You think you can kill everybody who hates us, and the survivors will just take it lying down? The more destruction you reap, the more our enemies will multiply. If you bomb a population, what will their neighbours think? or they're children? How will america look in the eyes of the world, if it solves every problem through mass savagery?

Judging by the actions of the Clinton administration when it came to foreign policy, I find that doubtful.

 

While I believe that foreign subsidies badly need reform, I think withdrawing our support of Israel would be disasterous. We shouldn't be giving money where we're not getting a return. We should have cut off all aid to Pakistan once we figured out they were hiding Osama Bin Laden from us. If they take money from us, they better be our friends and support our anti-terrorist efforts.

 

What exactly do we get from Israel beyond vastly marked up-price technology that we could develop ourselves?

 

My gods, you're like a child on the playground. It's the blazingly stupid actions like what you keep blathering that cause terrorist attacks in the first place.

 

So, it's 'kill 'em all', is it? Just in case, like...? And you wonder why people fly aeroplanes into your skyscrapers.
Oh, and despite all the napalm, cluster bombs and HE you dropped on Vietnam, you still lost. How did that work out? And how old are you? 12?

 

I wonder how this Saint Michael guy would react if another foreign power, in the name of killing a few extremists hiding where he lives, killed or maimed his children. I suspect he might be radicalized in the same way the populations he advocates we attack are. He needs to realize that those he wants to bomb are people too.

 

Uh huh, and what do you get from Israel? They spy on you, steal your military secrets and sell them to third parties, they murder your servicemen (USS Liberty) and call it an 'accident' (which took three hours), their prime minister openly mocks you and calls America an easily manipulated pushover, and to top that you're being fleeced for billions of taxpayers' dollars every year. So, tell me again about what great friends the Israelis are...