How To Negotiate With Terrorists
This brief blog entry takes you through a series of negotiations over time between peacemakers and terrorists:
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "I'll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us." The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60's whine, "Can't we all just get along?" The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren't going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it'll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor's family.
A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, "Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?" The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker's use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.
A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker's town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.
Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won't work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a ceasefire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also. A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.
There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit.
(No peacemakers or terrorists were harmed during the writing of this blog.)
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "I'll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us." The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60's whine, "Can't we all just get along?" The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren't going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it'll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor's family.
A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, "Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?" The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker's use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.
A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker's town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.
Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won't work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a ceasefire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also. A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.
There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit.
(No peacemakers or terrorists were harmed during the writing of this blog.)
posted by Hurricane Harry | 11:33 AM
90 Comments:
This post was simply brilliant!
No matter what attemps Israel, the U.S. or the Brits do to attain peace, the doves of the world will see us as the aggressors and the terrorists as the oppresed.
This was great. Left it on a comment on my blog with a credit. Good job.
That's so great!
Thanks for stopping by!
Ooops! I think that you've figured it out - and done such a good job explaining it.
We blowhards need to stick together!
Good on ya' mate!
- John
That is probably the best explanation of the terrorism situation in the world today. I am going to take it to work and post it on the wall outside my office (with due recognition of course). Thanks again for your literal ability to get a simple point across in a "complicated" situation in our world.
One small problem. Often, one man's terrorist is another man's peacemaker. And once the peacemaker picks up the gun to shoot the terrorist, the it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two.
Hi njn,
Thanks for the comment!
Personally, I don't have any difficulty distinguishing between the two, but that's not really the point of the article, is it?
It comes down to this: The "nice guys" on the right side of the line want to kill us. They want to completely wipe out Israel and the U.S. We must deal with them swiftly and firmly BEFORE they obtain the means to accomplish their goal. You can call them whatever you like as long as we kill them before they kill us. Problem solved? :)
Or..we could turn them on themselves..there seem to be over a dozen different terrorist groups..and, do you think they want to share power? I have a difficult time distinguishing those, and especially the why.
but that's not really the point of the article, is it?
Thank you so much for this article, it could even be understood by a gradeschooler..and not just people like me:) Blessings
Line? Where is that? Somewhere at the airport?
Good Question!
Unfortunately, the long standing tradition has been that the terrorists decide where the lines will be. They announce their choice by killing innocent civilians until we show up.
The son of the peacemaker used secret NSA wiretaps to learn the next location in advance. (This wasn't mentioned in the story, but it appears now that Time is going to out the program so there's no further harm in revealing it here.)
Thank you:)
Yes, I was actually stunned I thought of that all by myself:) Great blog!
Typo... In my previous comment "time" should be "the times" as in NY Times, not Time Magazine.
ROFLMAO!!!
This should be MUST-READING for every 8th grade American kid... because heaven knows, it would be lost on the UN, the State Department, and any college professor.
EXCELLENT JOB!!!
Would you mind if I linked to this from my site?
www.jonquixoteworld.blogspot.com
Really well done, Harry.
JonQuixote,
Thanks for your comment, and yes to the link -links are good! Thanks again.
F*ckin' brilliant.
You must send this around israeli blogs.
You're good. Excellent. I'll direct all my e-mail list to read this. A work of art. Thanks a million. Jorge Banner, Bs.As., Argentina
Clicking through from Daily Puindit...
That's great! Only thing missing is the bit where the news media only reports on the peacemakers' self-defense.
May I offer in return this old bit of satire:
American Islamic Leaders Warn Of Anti-Muslim Backlash Following Next Month's Nuking Of Tel Aviv
Very nice post. I shall direct the readers of my blog to read it... all 3 of them ;-)
Oh, yeah, the news. Hmmm... I think they deserve their own entry, don't you?
Loved your piece. As I was reading it I thought I heard the sound of brains being fried...
You are like Anne Coulter who writes books only for Anne Coulter fans, closes her mind to anyone else's opinion and then thinks she is the smartest person in the world after basking in the praise of her very like minded fans.
Better yet, a preacher who thinks he is the sh*t because his congregation really responds well when he talks good about Jesus. There is no lesson to be learned here…this is simply a radical pandering to his group of lemmings.
You people need to open your eyes and accept that there are no simple solutions to this problem. Especially one as stupid as…we just need to kill them all.
Seriously, who are we going to kill? Do just wipe out the Middle East, Korea, and Africa. And if this wanton destruction leads to more hate towards the U.S., do we nuke them too? Obviously we have the qualifications to make this kind of moral judgment…I mean after all we are the USA, damns the rest of the world! I am sure all the young Hitlers in this group would agree, genocide does have its charms.
All in all, the nukings will continue until morale improves!
Excellent. It's heading that way too. Meaning that the 'peacemakers' are the ones ultimately responsible for the mass devestation that will occur at the final steps.
I'm like Anne Coulter? Wow! Thanks. (And I thought Anonymous was writing to give me a bad time.)
You made Lucianne.com thanks to
http://myerskatt.blogspot.com/
She loved it!
While death to all terrorists is the answer in ending terrorist attacks, Is it really within man’s power to bring peace and security to the world by destroying a piece of the problem? Or is the issue larger than what man can solve? If so, who will bring justice and when?
While the story was really encouraging to some, and helped give a view of something better. It is unfortunately impossible for imperfect man to direct his own steps. (Jeremiah 10:23) Why leave your faith in its government?
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away…With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:1, 3-4)(New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
Just a thought…
Amen, Brother!
When will people listen to common sense like this?
I hope it's before we're nuked, rather than after
"Seriously, who are we going to kill?"
Disengenuous whiners who say it's a complex problem with no easy solution, yet cheer activist judge rulings against, or N.Y. Times pieces exposing, classified programs designed to identify terrorists and eliminate them as a threat, thereby hamstringing such efforts would be a good start.
Seriously...
Regarding anonymous:
Has anyone ever noticed that people like this are all in favor of critical thinking about everyone else's views... but theirs?
Everyone else, of course, but themselves are "lemmings".
You are indeed a blowhard!
L. Fierman
I love being called a "Like Minded Lemming" when the solution I choose requires the Terrorists to die, not for me to jump off a cliff.
Those that need killing are easily identified, if you care to apply any standards at all. A single standard, not a double standard.
I would have put the Terrorists on the left hand side of the line.
Solutions:
1. Surrender
2. Kill the terrorists.
Negiotiation is not a viable option if there is no principle to base it upon.
Thanks to Kitty Litter, http://myerskatt.blogspot.com/
Links are good. Great links are even better! Thanks again.
No, thank YOU! Your post is worth the attention it's getting.
No need to think hard, just ask what Julius Ceasar or General Titus whould do.
What if the peacemaker offered a rack of Snickers bars, like in the commercial? Maybe they're just grumpy because they're hungry?
Godwin's Law was invoked. Oh, well. :p
Simply sublime.
Even better, it got a few "peacemaker" appeasers' panties in a wad. ;-)
Perfect analysis!
"Louis la Vache"
http://louislavache.blogspot.com
Hey..how many anonymous are there. Wow, you must have a lot of reqaders..ummm..last note here:) That was my clever, original, non stolen comment up there (not the candy-that's someone else). I still can't believe my tiny little brain thought of it.
I didn't read this article as being a comprehensive thesis, but kind of a Cliffs Notes version for the non-elite. This is a great supplement to the 5-10 seconds we get on the evening news before the weather.
Anne-the nice anon
Remind me never to meet you on the right side of the line.
As for killing them all, it will be difficut but not impossible. But you have to do it the way Buffalo hunters killed Buffalo. You kill the lead bull first. Then pick them all off.
We first have to destroy Saudi Arabia. Take their oil [hey, everyone is already blaming us for that] and then Iran, then Syria, then all the others.
Unthinkable? Not after a few more 9/11s - then anything will be thinkable.
Now if there were only a way to put all the liberals into one new ground zero...
Congratulations! You have won a free Internet!*
*No purchase necessary: simply keep writing great insight.
From the Dude who made the Lemmings Comment.
First, let me say that I am not a pacifist. I believe in being proactive and aggressive and I am always for a strong military. If we locate a known terrorist, I am for killing them. However, I feel I need to point out that your “kill’em all way of thinking” just doesn’t pan out in reality. I’ll cover a few of the points made above that sound good in a blog, but just don’t work in reality:
You kill the lead bull first. Then pick them all off.
We haven’t caught Bin Laden yet. We have been searching for five years, with 18,000 troops in a country the size of France? For a while we were dropping off 35,000 troops a day! Still, we never found Osama.
Isreal, with the pound for pound best army and kill’em all attitude in the world, cant kill Hassan Nasrallah. –I guess these armies are just stupid. Maybe you guys with your super internet skills can find them.
Terrorist are easy to identify.
Killing Terrorist is easy, identifying them is hard. You cannot get rid of terrorism with armored personnel carriers and JDAMs. There is no capital city of "Islamic fascism" -- not Kabul, not Baghdad, Beirut, Teheran, Damascus or Pyongyang. THERE IS NO TERRORIST ARMY TO SURRENDER.
It's not at all difficult to kill or capture terrorists. Instead, what makes them dangerous is that they're hard to identify. What makes them doubly dangerous is that because they're hard to identify, the temptation is to target them very broadly…which is what many of you are doing.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That is 22% of the worlds population and they live everywhere. There is over 7 million in the US alone. Which ones are bad? Do they even have to be Muslim?
One suggestion was to simply destroy Iran and Saudi Arabia. This does not answer any of our problems because there are still hundreds of millions of Muslims living in Africa and Indonesia. These are pretty destitute areas, and if you haven’t noticed, most terrorist and suicide bombers are quite poor. Maybe we should target all poor muslims.
I wish I could offer a solution (I have ideas on how to mitigate the situation, but I do not think that there will ever be a solution) but I am not that smart. I will, however, say that what we are doing now is not working. We need new ways to deal with terrorist. We need to re-invent our army and our style of combat. Marching our troops into these countries is a death wish. It is like the British soldiers lined up in formation getting decimated by the Indians fighting an advanced guerilla warfare. They were using old methods and they couldn’t adapt. Luckily, we had disease on our side and we killed them off by proximity.
In the end, its not the liberals that are causing us to loose this war. It is simply that we do not know what to do and it will probably take generations for us to figure out the relationships between terrorist groups and world powers. Until then, we should simply mitigate their disproportionate world influence by cutting off their funding.
Sometimes swinning harder just makes more waves, and doesn't make you go any faster.
When New York City is a pile of radioactive ruin, we will finally start fighting back. It's coming.
NJN said, "One small problem. Often, one man's terrorist is another man's peacemaker..."
Pardon me while I throw the bullshit flag on this comment.
Terrorists TARGET noncombatants. While legitimate armed forces may kill noncombatants, as the Israelis very likely did (we have only biased—or outright lying—reporting and obvious propaganda from Hezbollah in "evidence) in the recent contretemps in Lebanon _because the terrorists were hiding among civilian noncombatants and using them as "shields" while deliberately firing into a civilian noncombatant Israeli population.
The difference is crystal clear to anyone who is not deliberately, willfully, consciously blind to it. ONLY someone who supports terrorists could say telling terrorists from peacemakers is difficult. NJN and his ilk are collaborators with terrorists. Period.
Great post. Nice to see someone that "gets it". This is a matter of good vs. evil and it can be understood in terms that are this clear and this simplistic. I'll never understand the mindset that takes a black and white issue and insists that it be made grey. It's almost like they consider all ideas are equally valuable and have merit and that no one is truly responsible for their actions. Everybody is a victim. Rational people need to strongly resist the movement toward this philosophy. It is invading every aspect of our lives.
To the Lemmings Anon Dude:
Do you play chess? Best to not focus entirely on the situation on the ground today, but try to look ahead 3 to 4 moves... We want to take their queen ASAP, but ultimately their king.
The pawns, while they may seem insignificant, are actually more important than they look. Offensively they represent progress. Defensively, if we allow their pawns to reach our side of the board, they can get their queen back. :)
Sadly there is an alternate ending where the terrorist gets a nuke of his own and kills millions of people while the peacemakers try to undermine each other.
"This is a matter of good vs. evil."
Our sophisticated weapons can't target "evil", only people. That’s what makes clouds this issue.
-Lemmings
Lemmings,
You're right. Our weapons can't target "evil", but fortunately for us they don't have to.
There's a little good and evil in everyone. (In the Christian tradition it's called sin.) The vast majority of people manage to keep it under control. We only have to locate the people who express it by trying to kill us.
Our intelligence gathering agencies are getting better at locating these individuals, and our brave men and women who fire the weapons are pretty darn good at hitting what they shoot at. I'm not ready to surrender quite yet.
Thanks for the comment. Glad to see you got a name!
Either you are saying that people cannot be evil or you are saying that innocent people get hurt when going after the evil ones.
First of all there are evil people in the world. You have to stop this ridiculous moral equivalency. Secondly, I suppose you want a war where no one gets hurt. Well wouldn't that be a special place to live? Come back to reality, Lemmings. The enemy does not drop leaflets when they blow up a bus, crash a plane, or launch a missile at random targets. We make a more than reasonable effort to protect "innocent" civilians which most likely support, aid, hide, protect, and comfort the terrorists THAT WANT TO KILL US! That includes you too. Maybe if you put a daisy in their gun they'll leave you alone to sing Kumbaya.
Remember Serenity/Firefly?
Peacemakers are Mirandans.
Terrorists are Reavers.
You do know what happened to the Mirandans in the backstory, don't you?
What in the world are you talking about? This is real life, not some fantasy science fiction that nobody has ever seen. Perhaps this explains why some people are not grounded in reality.
Here, I'll try to speak your language. If you want to compare terrorist to science fiction, compare them to the Star Trek Borg that want to assimilate everybody into the Radical Islam Collective or kill those who resist. Perhaps you feel resistance is futile?
Of course, before we can think about killing the terrorists, we'll have to work up the collective nerve to actually kill the attacking squirrels and racoons!
Seriously.
Great post! We commented on it here:
http://sammytaylor.net/?p=447.
Right on the money, Scott. It seems that Americans just don't have the stomach anymore for anything that requires them to get off the sofa and/or get their hands dirty.
Maybe in lieu of a mandatory military service requirement like Israel, we could require each person to spend a summer on the farm, and at least one season each of hunting and fishing.
Actually, I take back the part about the hunting. Liberals are already dangerous enough. Liberals with guns? What was I thinking!
May I have your permission to re-post your work at IsraPundit and possibly Omdurman.org?
Yes, anyone can reprint anything on this site - just include credit and a link, ok? Thanks!
Brilliant. :)
Monkeys were "given" religion as a means to inspire correct behavior and instill order. Killing in the "name of god, yaweh, mohammed,etc" proves that we are still basically of primate origin. This planets' problems started with the externalization of "almighty" force. this spot is holy, that one is not. BULLSHI*T!! All of this planet is "holy", including my back yard. There will be no "islamic order" on my land, and the idea of imposing ones "beliefs" on others did not work with the crusades, and will not work now. The word "religion" comes from latin "religio", meaning "to bind"
Any "religion" with "fundamental" attached has read the words, but never listened.
Those who believe women should be shroud in bags and beaten or killed need to go. NOW....
These monkeys have been raised on "sh*t sandwiches" and think they taste great. there is no fixing them; they are like Orwells' "bad units"
I will do anything and everything in my power to hasten their meeting their "72 virgins".....
(what they do not know is that the gender of said virgins is not specified.)
"These monkeys have been raised on "sh*t sandwiches" and think they taste great."
It's funny you'd say that right now... I'm getting ready to publish an article about that in the next few days. (The article is actually finished, I'm just waiting for a break in the current events cycle.)
Thanks for your comment, especially the insight concerning the 72 virgins. :)
I'ld say that was a long winded way of getting to the point but I really liked your point.
Thanks bef,
As for being long winded, that's why I'm called Hurricane!
Go read history before you post your 'brilliant' shit. Who again rapes and kills? did you read about Haditha by any chance? did you read the entire history of the US built on the bodies of the Indians? did you read how Israel was founded? who is the terrorist again? taking someone's land and shoving them out. THAT is the history of Israel.
Go READ before posting stupidity and making the 'victims' appear to be the terrorists and vice versa.
As for the rest of the stupid comments about 72 virgins etc... go read your Biblbe first. Or, better still, read the Talmud. Do you want some examples of the same kind of stupidity? It is ALL stupidity whether it be the virgins or the other. Why are you picking on one and leaving the other? because you are biased, prejudiced, ignorant idiots!
Thanks for your anonymous comment,
Charlie Brown.
I take it you're not planning to join the Nuke 'em Now! campaign?
Nuke 'em Now! Campaign Slogan
this would almost be feasible.....had me going up until the first paragraph where a line was between the two.....the problem with diplomacy is lines....this is mine and this is yours.....well unfortunately that is the way it is....by the way have you ever met a terrorist? guess not because in your mind he would have killed you right....be more open minded, im not sure what is right or wrong, but all i am saying is that this is a very obtruse post....and again the line is where the problem started....the only time a line is drawn is by the opressor, think about it -peace
Thanks for your comment, Charlie Brown. FYI - there's not really a line.
It's a s-t-o-r-y. -peace.
F-ing brilliant.
forgot to tell you how to reach me.
set@coyoteorganics.com
If you're interested let me know and I'll send you the edit password.
I get the feeling you might be good for chap 7.
HH,
If you're interested, since you seem to have the aptitude, you're invited to take on a section of this:
http://www.coyoteorganics.com/abettors/
So you're implication is that Isreal tried doing the right thing.... ever? Remember... if they took your town and gave it to a bunch of people from Brooklyn and Moscow.... you have to just accept it or you are a terrorist.
Zion,
No... the land issue isn't what determines whether someone is a terrorist. Since virtually everyone alive today is living on ground that at one time belonged to some other people, that would make everyone a terrorist and the term would have no meaning.
But that's not what this article is about. It deals with the question of how we should respond when attacked, and outlines reasons why we should NOT negotiate when it's not in our interest. My view of Israel's proper response is here:
Did Israel Violate UN Ceasefire? What Next?
And the world lived happily ever after ???
Sorry but your post looks paradoxical and Anonymous brilliantly tries to shed light.
Doesn't the peacemaker now become a terrorist in the end ?
Besides I dont know who you are referring to in real life, but anyone who kills civilians, journalists and rapes women from whichever side of the line is a terrorist. Anyone who sends out a message of hatred to other sides and coerces others to join him in his blood shedding sprees is also a terrorist.
Eventually the word ceases to have meaning as the world misuses it and misapplies it to only suit a select few. To some of us it is blured and we cant tell the difference between left and right.
Anyone who thought this was brilliant needs to redifine their morals and virtues.
Ken, Thanks for the comment.
The story has nothing to do with who is the peacemaker and who is the terrorist. You can call them anything you like. The story is about learning when it's time to stop talking and start shooting.
If you don't care about your life or the lives of your loved ones, then you can go stand at the left side of the line and try to talk to the "nice guys" on the right side until you're blue in the face or until they kill you, whichever comes first.
Let me know if you decide to do this, so we can send flowers, ok?
Well, I thought this was brilliant, so I must need to redefine my morals and virtues. H.H., this is the smartest, wisest piece of writing on the topic of terrorism that I have ever read. It should come as no surprise that so many liberal readers took exception to your post. Liberalism is a cancer that destroys the poor victim's ability to differentiate between fact and fiction, good and evil, wisdom and foolishness, or right and wrong. You're a great American, H.H.!
HH - your example has worked both ways, most of the time with "peacemakers" killing not only "terrorists" but people that are not even involved thus creating more "terrorists"
Thanks for your comment njfp. I see we've arrived once again at the classic question, "Which came first, the chicken or the peacemaker?"
News Flash: We don't live in a perfect world, and there isn't always a perfect solution to every problem. In the case of terrorism, the government of any nation attacked by terrorists needs to make a choice:
A: Do we defend ourselves, and risk making the terrorists mad and maybe even creating more terrorists? Or,
B: Do we do nothing, and allow the terrorists to continue killing our citizens?
Now, given those choices, which do you think the government should choose?
And in case you're thinking there's a third choice - a negotiated settlement - that's what this story is about. Negotiating with terrorists is not an option.
A terrorist walks up to one side of the line. A friend of the terrorist who does good business with the peacemaker warned the peacemaker before he walks up to the line. The peacemaker and the terrorist's friend both call the British police and warn of the plot. The British police arrest the terrorist just as he is stepping up to the line.
Someone who looks like a terrorist walks up to one side of the line. Bush, fearful of terrorists, nukes his turbined ass. Friends of the dead terrorist looking fellow now become terrorists and develop a genetically targeted biological weapon that wipes out all non-arab populations.
Peace on earth and praise Allah.
Cool. It looks like we have variations on a theme going. Keep 'em coming!
And good luck on that science project...
Thanks for the comment, Chuck!
OK how's this one. Israel walks up to the line and lays down all her weapons...the next day another Holocaust starts. All the Muslim terrorists walk up to the line and lay down their weapons...the next day world peace starts. (paraphrasing Dennis Prager)
Thanks for the comment rmac,
Here's another one along the same line: If you leave two teeth under your pillow the tooth fairy will leave you two dimes instead of just one. :)
Hey, civil weapons like pistols and rifle shells should be replaced by sniper rounds dipped in pig slime and for short range , anything from .410 gauge to 12 gauge shotshells dipped in pig slime. Each corpse should be hosed with pig slime and mosques and hideouts determined to have been havens for Islamist terrorists should be washed down smartly with pig slime as well as the "holy" places where the terrorist Islamist get their "guidance" on terrorism. Next, the birthing places should be regularly doused in pig slime so Islamist terrorist children have nowhere to go when and if they take up arms to become terrorists, i.e., there will be no entrance to their "heaven" as "martyrs" with pig slime on their bodies and no one can complain since taking of lives as they are doing of our innocents and our warriors is contrary to our way of living (we try for good lives only to have them snuffed out against God's will and the Christian ethic. Next-to last, shut down the Dome of the Mosque in Jerusalem and make it into an Israeli landmark and have all Muslim citizens of Israel pledge their allegiance to the country they have chosen to adopt (Israel)and crucify any who forsake that pledge but dip the spikes in pig slime before doing the deed. Lastly, threaten a contamination of all of the city of Mecca and the other "holy" place they claim and do it with an ultimatum from a coalition of countries that have suffered any Islamist Jihad action that caused any loss of life, even one innocent person. Oops, forgot one more: destroy every Muslim-owned vehicle capable of carrying any type of explosive device or health-threatening device. And, since all Muslims will be afoot, use long range laser metal detectors on all civiliants and if they test positive, sniper 'em, with pig slime-dipped shells of course. Put this plan on a time frame of quarters (three months)till whatever Muslim leaders still remain vertical on the green side of the grass, enter into an irrevocable peace treaty where any violation is to be punishable by the Judge Roy Bean type of justice with scaffolds already awaiting the sentencing in the town squares with sundown being the time of execution. Hope none of the above is confusing. If it seems harsh, go have a look at Walter Reed or the hosptial at Ft Sam Houston at the maimed-for-life survivors in their 20's and then think about the nearly 2,700 folks who weren't lucky enough to be just maimed. Any questions?
"News Flash: We don't live in a perfect world, and there isn't always a perfect solution to every problem. In the case of terrorism, the government of any nation attacked by terrorists needs to make a choice:
A: Do we defend ourselves, and risk making the terrorists mad and maybe even creating more terrorists? Or,
B: Do we do nothing, and allow the terrorists to continue killing our citizens?
Now, given those choices, which do you think the government should choose?"
There isn't a Terroristland to invade. There isn't an army of terrorists to defeat. The Peacemaker draws his gun and sees a nation of civilians. Yes, some are terrorists. You want him to kill everyone? I believe theres a word for that, a word that usually goes along with words like "Hitler" and "Darfur"
Anonymous said,
--- There isn't a Terroristland to invade. There isn't an army of terrorists to defeat. The Peacemaker draws his gun and sees a nation of civilians. Yes, some are terrorists. You want him to kill everyone? I believe theres a word for that, a word that usually goes along with words like "Hitler" and "Darfur" ---
1. The sad truth being overlooked here is that civilians are going to die either way. The only question is whether the casualties will be their civilians or ours.
2. Another thing to start considering is the fact that most of the civilians on the terrorist side actually support the terrorists. They are not innocent bystanders.
3. Since the terrorists choose to hide amongst the civilian populations, we need the civilians to expose them. We know we can't bribe them to turn against the terrorists - even $25 million wasn't enough incentive in Iraq. The only way to turn them into "narcs" is to offer them something they want, i.e., their lives and the lives of their loved ones. And while this may not work with many or most, it doesn't have to. It only has to work with one.
Anonymous 2,
Re: Your pig slime idea...
Yeah, that could work. Actually, we wouldn't have to even carry out the plan if we could just convince others (like anon 1) to get on board with the idea.
The terrorists continue to use terror as a method because it works. If we make that tool too costly, or better yet, totally ineffective, they'll stop using it. If the terrorists actually believed that we'd respond using your approach, they'd go back to the drawing board.
I like to talk about stool.
your post is complete rubbish.
has anyone on this blog even wondered why 9/11 even happened. i categorically condemn the actions of the terrorists that acted on that occasion. but things like this don't happen for no reason. for every reaction, there must be an action.
come out from behind your wall mr harry. there's a whole world out here.
Thanks for your comment, Jared H.
Radical Islam was the cause, 9/11 was the effect. And 9/11 was the cause for the effect you see worldwide in the war on terror.
If that's too hard to grasp, try this:
9/11 happened because a group of Muslim terrorists hijacked our planes and flew them into our buildings.
If you want to walk up to the line and try to make peace with the terrorists, you go right ahead. Good luck. We'll miss you.
It is politically incorrect to fight Islamic Terrorism to defeat it. There is only one way to defeat it. There is Truth as there is right and wrong, black and white. The world's religion today is tolerance, even if it is a LIE. Terrorism can not be defeated until we are ready to fight for TRUTH above all things. Mohammed is a LIAR, right or wrong? The Koran is based on LIES, right or wrong? Muslims are dying for what they believe is true, but they are dying for a LIE. The Pope is supposed to be fighting for the TRUTH, but he has fallen victim to deception and political correctness. The Pope has become a TRAITOR to the One whom he is supposed to be serving, true or false? I will leave you hanging no longer, many of you alrady probably know the what the TRUTH is. Jesus Christ said that He was the SON OF GOD. Mohammed LIED and denied this TRUTH. That makes Mohammed a LIAR and the Koran a Book of Lies because it denies that Jesus is the SON OF GOD. The Jews are in collaboration with the Muslims in denying that Jesus is the Son of God and they have worked hard to promote political correctness in the Western World. We must return to our Christian roots and reject political correctness if we want to defeat Islamic Terrorism, otherwise we will lose the war against Islamic terrorism because God will not help us. It is our obligation to help the Islamics to understand that Mohammed is a False Prophet who was sent by Satan to decieve the world by denying that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life". This is the road to victory for us, for Muslims and for Jews!
Thanks for your comment, truthsayer. We do a big problem speaking (or hearing) the truth these days, especially where false religions and cults are concerned. I'd personally go a little easier on the Jewish people though, considering their special place in God's plan. :)
That was completely brilliant. I posted it on a blog with your credit. (There is a peace-nik who just shows up to cause trouble on the site. They won't check out websites that we reference, they just keep spewing the same rhetoric about negotiating.)
Thanks and keep up the good work!
What everyone who can read must learn is that:
1. The war on terrorism will never end, but it must be waged in order to reduce the destructive nature of terrorist acts.
2. No negotiating with terrorists ever ended well. It either ended well and was betrayed, or ended badly - often with the death(s) of those who were sent to negotiate.
3. More war has been waged in the name of various religions than anything else in history.
4. Even Christians should understand that, sometimes, killing is necessary. God Himself commanded war multiple times in the Bible.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home