|
Let's get something straight here: having the desire to commit genocide and having the means to do so are two very different things. On top of that, there are also degrees of genocide. True genocide would require the death of every man, woman and child in the targeted group, an idea whose epitomy was the Nazi's Final Solution. Let me remind everyone that one of the most highly organized and efficient regimes of the 20th century couldn't accomplish true genocide.
What bin Laden and the more militant Palastinians want is not all of our deaths - they want us to stop meddling with their paths to heaven. They want us to stop killing and bombing them, but they also want us to stop exporting what they see as pornography (and we see as "Flightplan" or "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby") and video games that corrupt their youth (in their eyes). Western civilization is an eroding force around the world, and there aren't many places you can go and not be able to order a Coke or someone wearing adidas shoes or clothing. Bin Laden has consistantly said that he wants the West to stop meddling in the Middle East and that he'll do whatever necessary to stop that. He's never said that he wants us all dead.
Let's also remember that the only thing that all Palestinians have in common is that they're all Palestinians. The use of the phrase "all Palestinians" beyond that fact is a misstatement since, just like us, they don't all agree on anything.
Given that "total anhilation" is a logistical impossibility, what are our other options? Is it possible that bargaining with "pre-terrorists" (for lack of a better term) before they commit an act of aggression is a better idea that striking back after the fact?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|