Doug,

By adhering to the rhetoric that violence without prejudice is the only solution, you are actually sowing the seed to the same sequence of events that led to this horror. When do you think it will end Doug?

What Len is suggesting is by no means irrational, or unworkable. In fact, thankfully, at last someone is asking the question, why did this happen. As I have mentioned in another post here, we achieve nothing by indiscriminate use of force. In fact it destroys the judicial and moral fabric on which our civilised society is built. Violence is not the means to an end. Its the end of means to a new beginning.

Gandhi once said "We must be the change we wish to see." If we as the educated mass of modern humanity cannot change our stereotypical views of nation, race and creed, what hope is there for others, ...or for humanity?


>Len,
>
>>I hope I am not being misconstrued here (not specifically by you, but by all I have responded to). I want to make it clear that I am disgusted & outraged by what has happened.
>
>I certainly haven't and I appreciate your sense of outrage. Shows you're a normal human... <g>
>
>>
>>But at some point the violence has got to stop.
>
>I think this is where you go completely off the rails.
>
>Don't you understand that those who perpetrated this act do not want to stop?
>
>Thsi cannot be resolved by peaceful means because one side (the Muslim fanatics) simply do not want to. As such we must respond and stop them - finally and without mercy. Not because anyone enjoys this approach but because it is the only one that will work, and poorly at that.
>
>>It could be escalated by an inappropriate response by America, which could lead to a large amount of deaths throughout the world. Or it could be seen as a starting point for full & inclusive international discussions on how such atrocities can be avoided. In the event of escalation, it is likely that such discussions would take place when the violence has exhausted itself, so why not save lives & move to that point now.
>
>No, the US will not escalate this to an inappropriate level. The terrorist have already done that. We're just going to stop them now.
>
>>
>>I emphasise inclusive, because no decision will be made by excluding anyone, including those who harbour terrorists - they are probably the most important groups to be involved, otherwise it will just end in the same situation we have now.
>
>Yep. Go after the governments that harbor terrorists as if they were one and the same - unless they change.

>
>>
>>I might be dismissed as an idealist, but I have my set of moral values & I would rather die knowing I held fast to those values, than live knowing that I had dropped those values when it suited me.
>
>Nothing wrong with being idealistic - until idealism conflicts with reality.
>
>You can have a tea party in the garden with the white rabbit if you think that will make the world a safer place but that will never change the hearts of men. All the idealism does at that point is make you feel self-satisfies at your own moral superiority. That will never stop the fanatics I dare say..
>
>>
>>I have a lot of respect for the views of MK Ghandi, some of which may be appropriate to the current situation.
>>
>>http://www.indiaspace.com/quotes.htm
>>http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/
>
>No comment.