The governments reaction to 9/11

I pretty much agree with KA. I said go after Osama but that's only because I don't think we should have done "nothing."

Turning the other cheek not only looks better for our country but takes a lot more strength to do. Yeah, they killed thousands of Americans. So we kill 600,000 innocent Iraqis. We in turn just piss them off more by not only killing their civilians but twisting their government to our own ideals. It's only a matter of time before the terrorists start retaliating, and it will probably be worse than 9/11 was.

Turning the other cheek not only looks better for our country but takes a lot more strength to do. Yeah, they killed thousands of Americans. So we kill 600,000 innocent Iraqis. We in turn just piss them off more by not only killing their civilians but twisting their government to our own ideals. It's only a matter of time before the terrorists start retaliating, and it will probably be worse than 9/11 was.

I don't think turning the other cheek is appropriate when so many civilian casualties are inflicted, something HAD to be done. It's just like having multiple predators in the same area, allowing something like that to go will only show the others that you are weak and open to attack, which is not acceptable. None of that even includes the general populace's demands for revenge.

The response should have been limited strictly to those responsible for the attack though, instead of using it as an excuse to go rearrange some peoples' countries for them.

I don't think turning the other cheek is appropriate when so many civilian casualties are inflicted, something HAD to be done. It's just like having multiple predators in the same area, allowing something like that to go will only show the others that you are weak and open to attack, which is not acceptable. None of that even includes the general populace's demands for revenge. The response should have been limited strictly to those responsible for the attack though, instead of using it as an excuse to go rearrange some peoples' countries for them.

Like I said, turning the other cheek takes a lot more strength than lashing out at your attacker. I honestly don't think we would have looked weak if we had done so.

And by your same reasoning, Iraq should attack us back right now 100 fold for all of the civilians of theirs that we've killed.

All that will mean to a predator is that we're not willing to pursue them. Honestly, it's pretty much JUST like predatorial (or even scavenger-like) behavior, meaning they only respond to strength. If they perceive us as unable or unwilling to retaliate, it will only make things worse.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Bringing a predator to justice I agree with.

Bringing a predator to justice by any means necessary I disagree with.

Never said by any means necessary, how would it look if we were to violate the Geneva Conventions while persuing perpetrators who have done the same?

My point is that an aggressive response was pretty much required to dissuade further actions against us from others.

All that will mean to a predator is that we're not willing to pursue them. Honestly, it's pretty much JUST like predatorial (or even scavenger-like) behavior, meaning they only respond to strength. If they perceive us as unable or unwilling to retaliate, it will only make things worse. There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Say that to Ghandi. He was completely against fighting. Even as his people were being gunned down, they would not fight. Turned out for the best.

Say that to Ghandi. He was completely against fighting. Even as his people were being gunned down, they would not fight. Turned out for the best.

Ghandi's situation is different, he believed in Civil Disobedience, which works well against establishments that rely upon your cooperation. Yes, it worked for him, but the situations are radically different between the U.S. now and Ghandi's India movements.

First off, nonviolent disobedience is largely just a nonviolent rebellion, which isn't a possibility because the United States would not be rebelling against a governing body, because we're a sovereign nation.

Reasoning with fanatics usually doesn't work out that well, but I'm unsure as to how we've attempted to reason with them thus far. That kind of thing doesn't make the news.

The nation's interest is retaining sovereignty, saving as many of our lives as possible, and deterring any other threats of this type. None of that works if you're being gunned down, bombed, or whatever by fanatics. You'd gain a moral victory, but you'd still be dead. It takes fanatics of your own to find that an acceptable solution. Even the Samurai of Japan had a saying (I forgot where I read it); "Honor is a thin cloak against the chill of the grave."


I'm not saying I don't agree with nonviolent solutions, but there are times where there is no other option. It is always, ALWAYS the last option.