Terror

[lensman]

This just brings to my mind images and memories from when I was younger. The Day After, Cold war descriptions of nuclear deterants "MAD - Mutually ASSURED Destruction"....

Don't these fucking cowards get it. Don't they realize that the real terror is that they could be living in a future glass crater.

These cowards indoctrinate little kids into doing their bidding when they don't have the balls to fight themselves. Without the courage of their convictions to stand up and say "Yes, I brought about this action".

And what about those who harbor and support them. Do they really think they can just wash their hands of this and say "They didn't knkow". Well once the leaders of this cowardly attack are found their supporters should realize they have two options: Stand with the cowards, or turn them over to the international courts. But if they stand together it should be made abundantly clear that they'll be standing in that future glass crater.

If the cowards want to bring terror into our world let them live with the full terror.

Comments

no, they don't get it, never will get it

[(Anonymous)]

They are willing to obliterate anything/everything -- their own lives, the lives of their own civilians. What we call "collateral damage" when we do it. The price other, always innocent people pay. "Religious" (or political) fanatics are immune to anything we could label "reason." Yet they are convinced their "reasons" are sound, right, and above mortal intervention. If they're not, they'll twist religion or morals or reason to their own ends as a handy rationalization.

I usually subscribe to the "eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth" mode of retaliation. But if we do that, how are we any better? You surprise me in this. I'd say "aggravated" doesn't even come close to how you are feeling today.

There are never any easy answers.

Wish holding you would do any good.

B

Re: no, they don't get it, never will get it

[lensman.livejournal.com]

I can actually understand the logic and reasoning behind being willing to kill and die for your beliefs (be they religious or political). But to my mind those convictions would require you to stand up for them first. To be counted as one of those willing to so defend their beliefs, and to argue those beleifs before fighting anyone.

What angers me are the ones who twist that and convince others that they must die for their beliefs and then say "Wait a minute, WE had nothing to do with that". Who hide in cowardice after the fact so that they can get what they want without any consequences.

With the whole next level of the threat being "see what we did, now imagine what it will be like the next time when we go for something bigger". To play that game out to its only logical conclusion is the really horrifing terror. We know what that conclusion is.

Whoever did this may not like it but the compromises that are made necessary in politics are the only way to live and let live, Which is what I prefer to "eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth". Because what you end up with is a bunch of toothless, blind people.