I see your originality is still intact
Why? Because that little fact (that not all terrorists are motivated by the same things) just does not fit your world view.
Therefore, you will reject it. Over and over again.
Well...you see...the problem with you saying that about >my< position (which is that there are many motivations for terrorists...so you can't even guage my position)...is that you continue...in multiple posts...to say only...
But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists.
Oh..I forgot...you have discussed some mythical "root cause"...which it took Another Scott to finally drag out of you.
That's because you don't have one. In other words, you're lieing, again.
Maybe you should watch the video I linked again. Specifically where the terrorist group demanded the release of prisoners. One would hardly have to make a huge leap in thought (maybe too far for you though) to the conclusion that taking prisoners may just have been a motivator for the beheading of Danny Pearl. Maybe not the only one..but certainly on of the reasons...otherwise...why would they demand their release.
[link|http://www.namibian.com.na/2001/August/world/015DB273E.html|It may be to cliche for you...but terrorists often ask for release of their brethren from prison]
Ah, so your point is that the people there would NOT be terrorists if their commrades were NOT in jail.
Quite possibly. All of these "injustices"...prisoners, starvation, cultural imperialism...etc...are used to recruit new terrorists. It is very possible that without those prisoners being taken...the second group would never have been recruited. Logical stretch...but far from your lofty assertion of...
Sorry, Mr. Pathetic, You're wrong.
Oh...and...
Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who cares what your opinion is.You must, loverboy...otherwise you wouldn't spend so much energy trying to prove it wrong...poorly, I might add.
No. What I'm SAYING is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You say that my suggestion would result in even MORE suffering than bombing them. Yet Iraq, after 10 years of such sanctions, STILL exists. Cuba still exists.Not even close. I say that blockades also create collateral damage. You know...hardship and starvation of the general population...or haven't you [link|http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000303/2000030332.html|read ]about the effect of sanctions on the general pop of Iraq.
However..they may create more collateral damage than bombing...depending on what it is you're actually bombing. We did spend alot of time blowing up caves. Before you take that to heart (you have a problem understanding sarcasm) ...I did not say that sanctions create more collateral damage than bombs. You made that up. Creative little devil...aren't you?
BUT...all that aside...you are making a suggestion to ...(let me be very careful with this so you get it)..convince people to turn over terrorists with a tactic that you say will turn children into terrorists. After all...your quote is right up above...wait...I'll bring it down to make it easy on you...
But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists.
Your words. Collateral damage turns children into terrorists.
So...isn't your suggestion just a touch counter-productive?