Explosion New York City Intentional act Suspected

[lvdkeyes]

So you believe in killing innocent people because their relative is a terrorist.?

[Gaybutton]

putting their family at stake is a much greater consequence.

While that may be true, and I would like to put a stop to terrorists as much as anyone, executing innocent people who had nothing to do with it other than being unfortunate enough to be part of the same family is not the way. Do you really think the USA is ready to start executing innocent people - children and babies too? Do you think that would be acceptable to Americans or other countries in the world?

How much of the family do you propose executing? The immediate family? Cousins, aunts, and uncles? Second cousins? Distant relatives? What about in-laws?

Suppose the family lives in another country? Do we petition that country to extradite the family so we can execute them? If the extradition is refused, do we send in commandos to execute them where they live?

How about this? A family somehow finds out a family member is about to set off a bomb in a major metropolitan area, but that family member does not live at home, is not in touch with the family, and gave the family no indication he is going to do this. The family contacts the police and gives all the information they can. But before the terrorist is caught, he still manages to set off the bomb and kill a lot of people. Now the rest of the family will be executed?

How about if a terrorist sets off a bomb, kills a lot of people, but it takes 10 years to figure out who did it and it turns out the family never knew anything about it. Now we execute the family?

What if an American born terrorist sets off a bomb in another country, but his family lives in the USA? Do we execute the family?

How about a terrorist suspect is caught, tried and convicted. Now he and his entire family is executed. Years later it is discovered that whoops, they had the wrong guy all along.

Even if it actually made sense to execute the family, when? A convicted terrorist sentenced to death is going to spend years in prison while the case is appealed before the execution is carried out. Do we execute the family immediately? Do we imprison them too until the appeals are all exhausted?

What do you suggest - changing the Constitution in an effort to prevent terrorism? I have a better idea. We don't have to change the Constitution at all. We could save a lot of money by not even imprisoning and executing the families. Just publish the names and addresses of the families, photos too if they've got them, and let vigilantes hunt them down and kill them. I'm sure some of the gun nuts would love to be the ones to do it - free of charge.

In other words, give me a break . . .

[Undaunted]

So you believe in killing innocent people because their relative is a terrorist.?

An eye for an eye.....Innocent for innocent.

[Gaybutton]

An eye for an eye.....Innocent for innocent.

You didn't address any of the little technicalities I brought up in my post above.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are being serious or just putting us on.

If you're just putting us on and what you are saying is merely what you would like to see if it was actually practical, that's one thing.

If you're being serious, the reaction that comes to me is you had a very interesting mind. I really hate to see it go . . .

[Alex]

I bet he's serious, but it's a ridiculous proposition nevertheless. The obvious moral issues aside, fighting terrorism with terrorism is doomed to fail. Nothing would be gained at all, there would just be more hatred and more slaughter.

Besides, what about orphans? How do we threaten them sufficiently?

[Gaybutton]

what about orphans? How do we threaten them sufficiently?

Good point. I didn't think of that one.

[lvdkeyes]

An eye for an eye.....Innocent for innocent.

That is a despicable attitude.

[Undaunted]

Having heard the comments, just imagine a terrorist with his finger on the button which argument is more likeley to stop him yours or mine?

[Gaybutton]

which argument is more likely to stop him yours or mine?

Neither.

Even if it would stop him, which I doubt, you can't kill innocent people. Well, maybe you can, but I doubt many others would even consider it.

[Undaunted]

which argument is more likely to stop him yours or mine?

Neither.

Even if it would stop him, which I doubt, you can't kill innocent people. Well, maybe you can, but I doubt many others would even consider it.

If a terrorist feels as if he has nothing to lose and much to gain nothing but a bullet will stop him.