eva05

Veloci,

As an American, I am vehemently against the tactics you are talking about.

I think they reek of fundamentalism and bloodlust. Targeting friends, relatives, etc. where does it end? How many people will you kill? Where do you draw the line between who gets killed at that point? Are not individuals responsible for their own actions?

If someone buys a rifle from a gun store, then goes and shoots up a office building is it the state's right to then go in, kill the man, his family, his friends, the gun shop owner, all the employees of the shop and all of their families? Or worse facilitate vigilante's to go and act on the state's agenda?

Are we trying to bring these people technocracy or are we bringing them more of the same with a different flag?

Brutality didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya, it didn't work for the British in South Africa or the French in Algiers. I personally don't want the United States to be backing people who commit such activities, if for no other reason than it opens the doors for aspiring future Sadam Husseins to act on the behalf of the US and build more emnity against our country.

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

* Translation: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

* Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

This being said, I think the US needs to work with locals to develop a sustainable infrastructure where dissident voices can have representation and not feel that the only way to express themselves is through violence.

I am not naieve. After elections and I do not think that all violence will suddenly cease. It is a long process of education, economic development, and stripping all religious/cults figures out of the government process.

j