Monday, November 23, 2009
Of all the stupid arguments...
To be fair, I should note that there are some non-stupid arguments - but I haven't seen any, and I hate to suggest the existence of something for which I have no evidence. For example, some fools think that we'd be exposing New Yorkers to terrorist threats if there was a trial. Now, these fools might have forgotten that, without a trial, New Yorkers were already attacked. And they might think that the US is unable to plan for security. And they might think that it's somehow *easy* to plan a terrorist attack, especially for a specific time, and a specific place, chosen by another person (e.g.: a trial located where Obama and the state of New York choose to place it). But that doesn't mean everyone else has.
Where was I? Oh, yeah, specific stupid arguments.
But of all the stupid arguments being made, the worst is that this will allow the terrorists to "get their message out".
Yes, the terrorists will get to talk. They will be able to talk about how proud they are to murder the innocent. And you know what? It might sway those who want to murder the innocent. But people who want to murder the innocent aren't very nice people to start with, and are vanishingly rare.
I say, let them talk. I say, let them get their message out. And let the world see that, even the most hateful, even the most evil, people on the face of the planet will get a fair trial, will get convicted when the evidence merits it, and will get a fair sentence.
And then, trust that the world will make the right decision: who do they want to be more like? The murderer of the innocent, or the dispenser of justice?
I know that there are cowards would rather keep them incommunicado for life. They think that mere words are so deathly dangerous that we dare not let them speak. But the only time you have to fear letting someone speak is when you think you can't speak a stronger message.
If we can't speak a stronger message than hatred, and murder, then we're already doomed, and keeping a few criminals locked up by the military won't change that.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
I hate this kind of thing...
The article is about how this guy wants a memorial to say that "Muslim terrorists" murdered his son. On the one hand, I understand the guy's anger. And I can't condemn him, as the father of a murder victim, for singling out Islam as part of his anger. It's not right - but it's understandable.
And the mature response is to sympathize with him, while acknowledging that government agencies can not, and should not, single out the religion of the attackers.
Unfortunately, we have people like Bill O'Reilly in this country, so maturity goes right out the window.
Look: here's the thing. Osama bin Ladin wants Muslims to think we're fighting Islam. We're not, but he'd like them to think that, so they harden in opposition against us.
So it's not just a matter of being mature, or of being honest... it's a matter of following a mature, and honest, strategy - telling the truth, that our enemy are the hateful followers of people like Osama bin Ladin, and not the billion plus peace loving Muslims in the world.