South Korean Hostage Beheaded.

[Ben E Lou]

------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC Breaking News
------------------------------------------------------

Arab TV says South Korean captive killed -
The Arab TV network al-Jazeera reports South Korean has been killed by his kidnappers.


=========================================
:mad:

[LionsFan10]

This isn't even surprising anymore so much as it is annoying, we really need to do something about this.

[Ben E Lou]

This isn't even surprising anymore so much as it is annoying, we really need to do something about this.Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.

[Galaril]

I am an American living about 20 miles outside of Seoul and have lived here for a decade.I will say that for certain the Korean reaction to this won't be like Spainnot picking on Spain they had atough situation .Even though there has been alot I mean alot of anti american sentiment over here by the left and center-left lately(nothing new) it may change.My wife is Korean and she thinks do I this might embolden the koreans behind this.I know they are not aworld power but ask antone who served in Vietnam about the Koreans.They wer some mean mothers when they were let loose.The high ranks still physical kick the living shit out of their subordinate troops.I say jsut drop them off in Fallujah and watch the sand start flying.

[Desnudo]

Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.

What would you propose the solution is?

[Ben E Lou]

What would you propose the solution is?I'm not sure there is a viable "solution." I think the following steps would work, but I don't think they're desirable.

1. Openly and unapologetically torture any detainee with real or suspected ties to AQ until we get meaningful information or until we're convinced they have none.--Again, not desirable or remotely likely, but it would work over time. We'd get the needed information, and maybe even discourage others from joining their ranks. When they torture, rape and murder, they are now relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not retaliate in kind.

2. All unarmed citizens of all nations who have troops in Iraq leave the Middle East.--After all, unless they're carrying at all times, it is extremely difficult to protect them from armed thugs who are hell-bent on kidnap and murder.

3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would work over time.

4. Negotiate with terrorists.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would have saved these two men from beheadings.

5. Complete withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East. What is done is done. The troops are there, and our course of action is set. It would be a HUGE mistake now to give in to terroristic tactics.


Apart from these sort of extreme and undesirable courses of action, I really don't see a way to stop this kind of thing from happening. :(

[WSUCougar]

What a peculiar list.

[oliegirl]

Apart from these sort of extreme and undesirable courses of action, I really don't see a way to stop this kind of thing from happening.

I agree with you that these are the steps needed to stop the terrorists, and except for #4 and #5, I think the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't. If the media had been as agressive in their coverage during Truman's administration, do you think he would have dropped the 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I wonder...

I think in the long run people would support the decision because it would (hopefully) end the terrorism, but it wouldn't be an immediate thing and there would be alot of collateral damage...people don't like to see other innocent people killed. The initial backlash of calling the gov't "warmongers" and the like would be strong, and right before an election no president is going to open himself up to that kind of attack. Maybe a few months after the election we might see some of these tactics start, but not until then.

[Ben E Lou]

What a peculiar list.I agree, but please read it in the intended spirit, that of my second post in this thread: Our government and populace do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening. Further, in all likelihood it is a good thing (though not for the families and friends of any others who suffer this fate) that we do not have the stomach to do what it would take to stop this sort of thing from happening.Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that I think they've stumbled onto a tactic that has no good response. :(

[Samdari]

the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't

Of the people, for the people by the people???

Sad how far we have drifted from that principle.

[Maple Leafs]

From the CNN article...
The insurgents had demanded that South Korea cancel plans to send 3,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Overnight, hundreds of South Koreans gathered in central Seoul on to condemn the dispatch of South Korean troops to Iraq...
Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?

[Ben E Lou]

From the CNN article...
Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?Im not *greatly* disturbed by it. I'm assuming it happened before the murder. Now, if their response to the murder is to give in to the terrorists, then there would be cause for concern.

[cthomer5000]

Basically, we gotta get medieval on their ass.

[Ben E Lou]

Basically, we gotta get medieval on their ass.If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)

[sachmo71]

From the CNN article...
Anyone else greatly disturbed by this?

No. It is a very unpopular war to start with, and the average South Korean probably has no idea why they need to send troops there in the first place. Now they see an innocent person from their country die in direct relation to the troop movements. Of course they would protest. What else can they do?

[The Afoci]

I say we start circumsizing their prisoners and then releasing the tape. Bring back that ugly chick to point and laugh at their junk.

[cthomer5000]

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)
And along with you, I believe this would work. Whether or not I could actually support this is a whole other thing though.

But I have no doubt that ruthless, vicious, and relentless torture of those involved would yield some results.

Marcellus would make a nice consultant.


It's just an ugly situation all around. When people start getting beheaded on a regular basis, it's not easy to avoid thinking about this stuff emotionally.

[Lucky Jim]

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.

:D It's that or we send Sam Jackson in with his pocket-sized bible and a gerri curl.

[Maple Leafs]

No. It is a very unpopular war to start with, and the average South Korean probably has no idea why they need to send troops there in the first place. Now they see an innocent person from their country die in direct relation to the troop movements. Of course they would protest. What else can they do?What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)

[sachmo71]

What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)

Yes, they are accomplishing their goals, for sure. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

[Ben E Lou]

(By the way, I may be missing something but where are people seeing that the hostage was beheaded? The articles I see so far only say he was killed.)This is the current headline at MSNBC.com:

Hostage executed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/)
Terrorists holding a South Korean hostage in Iraq have beheaded their captor. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/) • FULL STORY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/) | • VIDEO (javascript:oMvsLink('00','5042f128-f521-4a4f-a698-499b472a5eda'))

[sachmo71]

This is the current headline at MSNBC.com:

Hostage executed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/)
Terrorists holding a South Korean hostage in Iraq have beheaded their captor. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/) • FULL STORY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/) | • VIDEO (javascript:oMvsLink('00','5042f128-f521-4a4f-a698-499b472a5eda'))

He must have escaped, then!

[Hurst2112]

It's that or we send Sam Jackson in with his pocket-sized bible and a gerri curl.

That would work. If somebody sent me Sam Jackson, I would kill myself.

[Ben E Lou]

MSNBC is reporting that Al-Jazeera has received a tape of the murder, and plans to air it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Marcellus could loan us a coupla hard pipe hittin' niggas to go to work on the homes wit' a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps we could get through to them.


(Even if we didn't get through to them, we could be secure in the knowledge that they'd be sure to live the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain.)
Somebody give that man a cee-gar, he's got it.

Although actually, I'm much more an advocate of another of your options
3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.

[clintl]

3. Be willing to attack them with complete disregard for collateral damage.--Again, not a good move, not remotely likely to happen, but it would work over time.


If we are willing to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqis to stop a few terrorists from kidnapping and murdering a few innocent Westerners, what exactly would make the terrorists worse than us?

[KevinNU7]

What if you found out the terrorists were in Monticello, GA. Would you be alright with option #3 then?

[BishopMVP]

What's disturbing is that a group of terrorists threaten to kill an innocent man and demand that a government take a specific action, and hundreds of citizens respond by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do. After seeing reactions like this you can bet that the terrorists are already busy lining up their next victim--they couldn't ask for a better response.Seoul has millions of people. The fact that hundreds gathered is no surprise. You could probably easily find the same number of moonbats in any major US city, or decent-sized college town. If it was tens of thousands marching that would be a problem, but it was hundreds out of millions.

[Ben E Lou]

If we are willing to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqis to stop a few terrorists from kidnapping and murdering a few innocent Westerners, what exactly would make the terrorists worse than us?You're writing as if I'm advocating such a thing.

[KevinNU7]

You're writing as if I'm advocating such a thing.I think clint was responding to John's comments but had to quote you inorder to get the #3 and text in his quote.

[clintl]

Not at all. That solution is completely unacceptable, and if the US pursued it, the proper world response would be to never trust the US as a moral voice in world affairs again. There would be nothing to distinguish us from the hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

[Ben E Lou]

Not at all.This is in response to what?

[oliegirl]

What if you found out the terrorists were in Monticello, GA. Would you be alright with option #3 then?

If I found out that there were terrorists in the town where I lived, first of all I would get the hell out of there immediately. Then they can obliterate the place as far as I am concerned...I'd be more supportive of it in my own town than I am in country I have never been to and never plan to visit.

[oliegirl]

Not at all. That solution is completely unacceptable, and if the US pursued it, the proper world response would be to never trust the US as a moral voice in world affairs again. There would be nothing to distinguish us from the hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

[clintl]

This is in response to what?

Your post, questioning my post. Although Kevin is right that Jon's remarks were the reason I posted in the first place.

[KevinNU7]

If I found out that there were terrorists in the town where I lived, first of all I would get the hell out of there immediately. Then they can obliterate the place as far as I am concerned...I'd be more supportive of it in my own town than I am in country I have never been to and never plan to visit. What if you didn't know they were there until it was too late.

People can't jsut pick up their shit and walk out of Iraq or SA, they have no idea where to turn because not matter where they go they could end up right where anotehr terrorist group is.

[sachmo71]

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

That would require streaching the definition a bit, but some people might see things exactly that way.

[clintl]

So given this train of thought, we are already "terrorists" because we bombed Japan. How is it any different? A specific group of people are threatening other countries, killing innocent people in horrible and inhumane ways...

There has been plenty of soul searching by many people about whether we should have dropped the bombs on Japan, but the supportive arguments always come down on the side that they save more lives than they took, and given that there was a full-scale war on, and the US would have invaded Japan, it's a reasonable argument to make. That's not the case here.

[oliegirl]

People can't jsut pick up their shit and walk out of Iraq or SA, they have no idea where to turn because not matter where they go they could end up right where anotehr terrorist group is.

I know this is going to sound crass, and I'll probably get flamed for it, but sometimes you have to do something horrible in order to insure that things like this won't happen in the future. If someone came to you, and said - you have to make a decision. Either bomb these people and wipe out their terrorist cells (or cripple them beyond effectiveness) so that the rest of the world is safe for the next 50-100 years or so, or do nothing and "hope" that they choose to only keep bombing the other side of the world and beheading hostages one at a time instead of creating mass graves....what do you do? I'd launch the missles in a heartbeat.

[oliegirl]

There has been plenty of soul searching by many people about whether we should have dropped the bombs on Japan, but the supportive arguments always come down on the side that they save more lives than they took, and given that there was a full-scale war on, and the US would have invaded Japan, it's a reasonable argument to make. That's not the case here.

This may not be a way by "traditional" definition, but then again, neither was the cold war. Just because it's not what history books tell us a war is, doesn't mean it's not a war.

[KevinNU7]

I know this is going to sound crass, and I'll probably get flamed for it, but sometimes you have to do something horrible in order to insure that things like this won't happen in the future. If someone came to you, and said - you have to make a decision. Either bomb these people and wipe out their terrorist cells (or cripple them beyond effectiveness) so that the rest of the world is safe for the next 50-100 years or so, or do nothing and "hope" that they choose to only keep bombing the other side of the world and beheading hostages one at a time instead of creating mass graves....what do you do? I'd launch the missles in a heartbeat. What if you did that and then you got bombed too because you either;

A) didn't get all the bad guys
B) didn't realize that country A,B and C were going to be pissed off by this and now they are coming after you.

[Radii]

1. Openly and unapologetically torture any detainee with real or suspected ties to AQ until we get meaningful information or until we're convinced they have none.--Again, not desirable or remotely likely, but it would work over time. We'd get the needed information, and maybe even discourage others from joining their ranks. When they torture, rape and murder, they are now relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not retaliate in kind.


Wouldn't this just make "them" hate us more and encourage more to join their ranks? Morality aside, I honestly think this makes AQ stronger, not weaker.


The fact that we don't do what they do, the fact that we don't do the things on that list, that's why we're the good guys. We can be hurt, and outraged, because we don't do the things they do. Once we start doing it back, we don't have the moral high ground anymore. Once we start doing the things on this list, I'm off to Canada, eh?

You know, we're not losing tons of men here. The men we are losing are trumped up in the press. The beheadings are grusome, but men are going to die. It's war. We're there voluntarily. Many are there earning hazard pay. All should understand the risk. That doesn't make what is happening to these civilians OK, but, they have to understand the risk. As we are constantly reminded, this is a war. Bad things happen in a war. I can't imagine the fact that these few people are dying in this terrible way could sway my opinion in either way on the war. I cannot imagine Joe Average for the war seeing this and changing his mind about us being there, and I can't imagine Joe Average against the war is going to all of a sudden take a kill'em all attitude...

The one exception I think we can start to justify making is the collateral damage. Not in terms of innocent civilians, but when insurgants are hiding in mosque's in fallujah, I can see making this attack. As for collateral damage including numerous innocent iraqi's, that's a decision that our armed forces have to make. If they can take out a target with 1000 Iraqi insurgants, or, back to the forgotten Bin Laden, if we could kill him but 100 innocent afghani's or saudi's or whoever would die... that's the type of decision our armed forces are trained for. there was a lot of talk about urban warfare when we went into Iraq. We didn't have to deal with it during the intial strike, but that's the type of thing we're dealing with now. Our men should be trained for it, and we'll win without spitting in the face of the Geneva Convention or changing our standards because it's difficult.

[clintl]

This may not be a way by "traditional" definition, but then again, neither was the cold war. Just because it's not what history books tell us a war is, doesn't mean it's not a war.

OK, maybe you didn't interpret that completely the way I meant it. But here's what I mean. Japan had a large, capable army that would have fought an invading force very aggressively and head on. It would have been very much like the devastation in Europe.

In Iraq, you have small, clandestine terrorist groups whose capabilities are pretty much limited to car bombs and kidnappings. They are probably attacking at pretty close to the limits of their capabilities now, and even at the rate that they are killing, it would take a really long time before they killed enough to justify the scorched earth policy of Option #3 by actually saving more innocent lives than were cost.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by oliegirl
the government is willing to do it, but the people of the US aren't


Of the people, for the people by the people???

Sad how far we have drifted from that principle.

How so? The unwillingness of the American people to do it is preventing a "willing" government from doing it.

How can you say that we have drifted from that principle?

[oliegirl]

I can't imagine the fact that these few people are dying in this terrible way could sway my opinion in either way on the war. I cannot imagine Joe Average for the war seeing this and changing his mind about us being there, and I can't imagine Joe Average against the war is going to all of a sudden take a kill'em all attitude...

What if instead of the names Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, we were talking about your mother or father, or sister, or me, or Anthony? The fact that these people were civilians makes me more outraged, not less. They were there working, not holidng guns as they walked down the street, not working to institute a new government, just there working. Hazard pay doens't justify being captured, held hostage and then beheaded.

[Ben E Lou]

FWIW, CNN is now reporting it as a beheading as well.

Pentagon: South Korean hostage beheaded (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.hostage/index.html)


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=280 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.hostage/top.hostage.tues.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.hostage/index.html)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kim Sun-il in a photo taken during his captivity.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Iraqi insurgents beheaded the South Korean civilian they were holding hostage, the Pentagon said today. The insurgents, in a video broadcast Sunday, had given South Korea 24 hours to cancel plans to send 3,000 additional troops to Iraq, threatening to behead Kim if it did not.

FULL STORY (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.hostage/index.html)

[oliegirl]

What if you did that and then you got bombed too because you either;

A) didn't get all the bad guys
B) didn't realize that country A,B and C were going to be pissed off by this and now they are coming after you.

Ok, realistically we are never going to get "all" the bad guys. But we can get enough of them to where the ones that are left are not a threat to us or anyone else.

Secondly, what country is going to attack us? They might disagree with us, they might boycott us as a sign of protest, but no country is going to bomb us for fighting terrorists. The world economy depends on us. Someone has to be #1 and we are it. That gives us a lot of responsibility, and a lot of tough decisions to make. Sometimes it sucks being in this position, but I would much rather it be us and not some other country who is less stable economically, militarily, etc...

[Desnudo]

Israel and Russia [USSR] have always followed the eye for an eye mentality. Two of them for every one of us. Looking at their respective histories, has that helped solve their problems with insurgents?

[oliegirl]

Israel and Russia [USSR] have always followed the eye for an eye mentality. Two of them for every one of us. Looking at their respective histories, has that helped solve their problems with insurgents?

I don't know enough about Israel to comment on that, but I would say that from recent history - they tried to be passive, they tried to attain peace, but Palestine continued to bomb them. How did that help them at all.

As for Russia, the reason the soviet empire fell was more economic than anything else. A classless system like communism doesn't work. If they had handled that aspect better I think they might have survived and who knows what the world would be like now.

[Radii]

What if instead of the names Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, we were talking about your mother or father, or sister, or me, or Anthony? The fact that these people were civilians makes me more outraged, not less. They were there working, not holidng guns as they walked down the street, not working to institute a new government, just there working. Hazard pay doens't justify being captured, held hostage and then beheaded.

If someone in my family chooses to go into a war zone as a civilian, then s/he does so a) against my wishes and after a long, lengthy forceful conversation debating why this could possibly be a good idea, and b) we all know exactly how much danger this person is in every day.

If this family member dies it would pain me to no end. Just like if this family member was mugged and killed walking down the streets of downtown Atlanta by a thug one day.

And no matter how much I hurt, it would not for a second justify some of the overboard responses being atlked about here in Iraq, just like it wouldn't justify me as an individual taking the law into my own hands and killing my family member's killer.

Both are equally unjust death's, both stir up terrible emotions, that we must not act on as we keep the high moral ground and remain on the "good side" instead of sinking to the thug's level.

[sachmo71]

Who are you going to "bomb"? The entire country of Iraq? Saudi Arabia? It doesn't make sense to strike out blindly in rage. We have to convince the world that we are right, and they are wrong. The only way I can see to get at these people is to destroy their support base.

[Ben E Lou]

If someone in my family chooses to go into a war zone as a civilian, then s/he does so a) against my wishes and after a long, lengthy forceful conversation debating why this could possibly be a good idea, and b) we all know exactly how much danger this person is in every day. I agree with you, to a certain point. However, there are those working in Saudi Arabia who really didn't have a clue what they were getting into. I cannot imagine the fear that they must be living in right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What if you found out the terrorists were in Monticello, GA. Would you be alright with option #3 then?
Since you want to play in hypotheticals, then yes ... assuming we're talking about the same level of terrorist activity.

If, on the other hand, you'd like me to "keep it real", then I'll say it point blank -- I'd prefer other options be exercised here (at least up to the point they didn't work) since there's at least a few people here I care about.

I don't have that restriction in Iraq (outside of U.S. & Allied troops), and frankly I believe leveling a large portion of the Middle East is likely to be the only way to eliminate the threats that come from the region.

(Remember here ... I'm not among the suppporters of the use of military force in Iraq who pinned their support on some notion of "freeing the Iraqi people". That's some people's bag, but it isn't mine.)

[WSUCougar]

We have to convince the world that we are right, and they are wrong.
About what?

[Radii]

I agree with you, to a certain point. However, there are those working in Saudi Arabia who really didn't have a clue what they were getting into. I cannot imagine the fear that they must be living in right now.

That's a good point, but still,if I were an american living in Saudi Arabia right now, I'd be taking an extended vacation to the good ol' USA. My sense of self preservation takes over most any other sense I have here.

[Ben E Lou]

That's a good point, but still,if I were an american living in Saudi Arabia right now, I'd be taking an extended vacation to the good ol' USA. My sense of self preservation takes over most any other sense I have here.Well, I agree with you, but recall KevinNU7's point: People can't jsut pick up their shit and walk out of Iraq or SA, they have no idea where to turn because not matter where they go they could end up right where anotehr terrorist group is.
Americans (and others from nations who have helped/pledged helped) are sitting in a situation that is unfathomable. I guess the best self-preservation option would be to pack whatever you can get in your car and head straight for the US Embassy, and stay there until you head straight for the airport.

[sachmo71]

About what?

It seems pretty much everything.

[oliegirl]

I think the main issue is this: most of the rest of the world agrees with us that we have to stop terrorism. It's just that there is no "good" way to do it. Not doing anything isn't an option, neither is bombing the country and killing millions of innocent people. So what do we do? Like we have here, everyone knows what shouldn't be done, but there aren't many suggestions for what should be done.

[sachmo71]

I think turning world opinion against them would be a good start. Also, economic warfare would be quite deadly to an organization without it's own resources.

[oliegirl]

Also, economic warfare would be quite deadly to an organization without it's own resources.

I agree, but how do you declare economic warfare on a group that is not a government? We don't do business with these people so we can't boycott them...how do you accomplish this?

[sachmo71]

I agree, but how do you declare economic warfare on a group that is not a government? We don't do business with these people so we can't boycott them...how do you accomplish this?

You cut them off at the source. They are supported by private individuals, but the money (usually) has to be disguised. Indentify the organizations that are used to funnel money to these groups and eliminate them. It won't be easy, and you could probably never eliminate all of them, but you could hurt them. The downside of this is you would have to get the cooperation of foreign governments to be most effective. So repairing our relations with the world is of vital importance.

[oliegirl]

Indentify the organizations that are used to funnel money to these groups and eliminate them. It won't be easy, and you could probably never eliminate all of them, but you could hurt them. The downside of this is you would have to get the cooperation of foreign governments to be most effective. So repairing our relations with the world is of vital importance.

I know for a fact that the gov't is currently doing this. I interviewed for a position about 6 or 9 months after 9/11 working for Equifax in a new division they were setting up to work with the government to audit bank transactions, records, etc. The reason I didn't get the job is because I wasn't bilingual and they needed people to work with similar companies in other countries. So this is being done. But in the mean time, what else can we do?

[sachmo71]

I know for a fact that the gov't is currently doing this. I interviewed for a position about 6 or 9 months after 9/11 working for Equifax in a new division they were setting up to work with the government to audit bank transactions, records, etc. The reason I didn't get the job is because I wasn't bilingual and they needed people to work with similar companies in other countries. So this is being done. But in the mean time, what else can we do?

Yes, I know we are doing this, but I'm saying that I think it's an effective tactic.

Other ideas:

Stay the course, as President Bush likes to stay. We're in this situation, now we have to make sure we leave the contry in a state where it can take care of itself. To do otherwise would cause more problems then we have now, and would be considered a failure in the eyes of the world.

And I think we have to prove to the world that we can show restraint. As angry and disgusted as we get, we cannot punish innocent people for the crimes of a few. We have to avoid collateral damage. We have to try people under the laws of the land. At the same time, we have to eliminate threats that appear, and do it with efficiency.

It's a very fine line, but it is one I think we can walk.

We also have to realize that we don't have to kill all of these people. We have to make people not want to help them. To do this, I think we have to convince the world that our cause is a just one. It's going to take a long time to accomplish, but I think we can do it.

[clintl]

Another thing that could be done is to get the Israelis and Palestinians to get serious about negotiating a peace treaty so the terrorists couldn't use that conflict as a recruiting tool against the West any more.

[Philliesfan980]

Lets just pay 50 cents more a gallon and be done with this whole thing.

I agree with most, if not all, of Radii's points. With all due respect to the beheading victims families and friends, totally changing the course because of 3 innocent killings (which happen in wars) isn't the smart thing to do. If we go crazy and "bomb the entire middle east" we could have a nice world war on our hands and everyone 18-24 should just suit up and go over there, because you know we'll have to.

[Dutch]

I think we should just stay the course.

I am pretty certain that the terrorists aren't pissed at us because we're fucking up. :)