Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
I don't believe ANYONE has suggested hugs. To continue saying that degrades the conversation; and putting words in the mouths of others is pretty insulting. How about we all stop doing that?
And to put 'hugs' and 'understanding' in the same sentence degrades the value of 'understanding'. Is that your intent? Do you see NO value in understanding your opponent?
Understanding how they* recruit.
Understanding their* tactical methods.
Understanding their* strategic (specific) aims.
Understanding their* relationships with other organizations.
Understanding the specific flows of money within their* organizations.
*the use of 'they' and 'their' refers those that actually have connection to acts of violence.
I'm sure there are more...
I don't think anyone on this board would argue that getting "understanding" of those things is a bad idea. Or related to "hugs". Anyone on the NCB side of things want to say that understanding those things is bad or usless? If not, then please stop with the rhetoric that "understanding" is a problem.
What I get out of Pacifier/Roachboy's posts is that talking about generalities, and hyping up the fear level is useless. I have no idea why anyone could, or would, disagree with that.
|
Good post, but that's not what he's infering:
Quote:
|
about their motivations and so on
|
What he wants to say is that it's ultimately America's fault in the eyes of terrorists. We cant fight terrorism looking thorugh the enemy's eyes.
Also, you're not correct about the hugs thingy. There are people on the left side of the spectrum who have suggested as such, so it's not a stretch for me to suggest so. Here's one example:
Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy