Freeze their assets

ignoramuses

Everybody knows that will get them thinking...

If by non-violent you mean tactical nukes I'm all for it.

This is dumber than the proposed Nestle boycott.

Yeah, send them flowers.

A non-violent retaliation? That doesn't sound possible.

If we become friends with the terrorists. There would be a possibility they'd slip in and attack us.

The last thing we need is a ghandi. These savages only determine a threat by the amount of bloodshed. Sadly, we have no choice but to follow suit. If their attention is to be drawn, we must fight fire with fire. There is no other way.

This should mean putting them on trial and accepting and standing by the verdicts.

Chauncey, you live in a dream world. Violent cold-blooded murderous terrorists don't deserve a non-violent, "fair trial." They don't deserve to walk this earth for that matter. Their acts have begged for the harshest physical retaliation (annihilation) imaginable. So you think retaliating with force is terribly wrong and will eventually make us "Hitleresque"?? Wrong. If terrorist bastards know they can get away with violence without any harsh reprimand, there will only be more. Is it really that hard to understand?

Throughout the 1990s, we indeed were retaliating in non-violent ways against terrorists. We imposed economic embargos and sent cruise missiles into empty terrorist camps in the hopes that it would scare the terrorists. However, 9/11 proved that non-violent solutions don't always work. "Those who make peaceful resolutions impossible make violent resolutions inevitable." By killing 3,000 of our own people, the terrorists have made violent resolutions inevitable.

The path of appeasement, vulnerability, and stupidity.

Yep. Lets just sit back and watch the world fall apart and terrorist attacks go by without retaliation. Didnt we try that during Clinton's 8 years in office? These people are going to kill us. They dont care what we or anyone else think. They are just going to keep coming and keep killing, unless we stop them and thier regimes.

Normally, I would say you should never react to violence with violence. However, these are not exactly reasonable people we are talking about. They are certified wackos who have their own agendas to complete and they will probably stop at nothing to reach their gains. Therefore, we may have no choice but to react with violence.

These people are animals and the only thing they understand is violence. The ONLY way we can respond effectively is WITH violence. For far too long Americans have been far too pacifist and we are now paying for that complacentcy.

Yeah! I say we hit 'em with a leaflet campaign, followed by a mass sit-in on the front lawn of the White House! THAT WILL TEACH 'EM!!! GET REAL!!!! Sheesh!

I don't know if they mean non-violent retaliation along with millitary force or instead of. If it's instead of then hell no! I'm rating this as if it's instead of but we need to strike back every way possible and make them as vulnerable as possible. I'm sure it would help. Let's look at a few facts: #1 Terrorists WANT to die while killing americans. I think it was one of the anchors on ABC said that bin Laden told Mohammad Atta that he would have 72 virgins waiting for him if he died while killing americans. #2 They are mindless. They don't respond to reason. They have been brainwashed from birth to hate jews and americans and to devote their entire being to our destruction! There is nothing we can do to change that. We've been trying to reason with them for the last 20 years and you saw how well it worked. #3 Plain and simple - if we don't kill them they will kill us. They are parasites. If you get the flu you wouldn't try to reason with the virus not to make you sick. You attack it with antibiotics. Well terrorists are no different. And in the act of destroying them we will send a message to the rest of the arab nations that this is what will happen to you if you mess with us. Remember Reagan? He dropped the hammer on Libya and they haven't messed with us since. He struck them hard where it hurt and he didn't let the politically correct agenda of the UN stand in his way. However, I'm sure they were tempted to mess with us when Clinton was in office. Hell, everybody was walking all over us when he was in office.

The best way to hurt someone is in the pocket-book - screw with someone's money and you've got total control (just ask the IRS)

Like Spider Man says, you've got to use both - I am no pacifist, in fact I'm glad we are bombing the hell out of them but we also need to strike financially, culturally and morally if we hope to win.

Having bin Laden killed is, in effect, what they want. It will rally more enthusiasm because the U.S. killed their bin Laden and made him a martyr. This can most likely be solved in a non-violent way.

What do you suggest doing by this? lets be so nice to them that they cant take being impolite anymore and decide to invite us to tea? this idea seems incredibly inplausible. Anyway its hard to find milk down there so we would burn our tounges.

I'm sorry. Did I read this question correctly? Should we retaliate in a non-violent way against the Arab Muslim's who have declared a holy war against The United States of America? I can't believe my eyes. There is no way that non-violent retaliation will work. The well organized, well funded, and highly motivated Arab Muslims who have declared war on America think that it is an honor to die in their holy war against "the great satan", The United States. They understand one thing and one thing only: force. We have to rid the world of these barbaric third world animals. Anything less will be the end of The United States as we know it. As for these "pacifists" (i.e. cowards), we'll protect your good for nothing a**** because it is for the good of our country in general. You'd better thank God that not everyone in the country thinks like you. It is imperative that we rid the world of our enemies. They are all over the world and right here in the United States. It will be a long, hard fight; but we will win. We will win by using force.

Long Term Solution: Change our foreign policies. Change who we are in the world. Change our greed and oil consumption. Not an easy answer.

I don't want to kill innocent people (like they did to us), but I don't know what "non-violent alternative" you have in mind. A conversation with Bin Laden at tea time? Don't think so. We're up against people who are more than willing to kill themselves. That's what is weird; they have a different approach to life and death than most of us Americans. So our policies are as alien to them as their's are to us. We don't know what's right, it just seems wrong to me that they don't decide to live a prosperous life here on earth and force others to follow suit. The US needs to take the necessary measures.

As an ardent pacifist, it sickens me to hear our nation's leaders threatening war against the perpetrators of this enormous crime. But I say that responding to violence only escalates the problem. Killing Osama bin Laden will only make him a martyr and will only show our Arab brothers that the U.S., once again, cares only for its own selfish purposes and not about the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims who have already known nothing but a seemingly endless life of war and misery. We need to be more understanding of the Arab psyche and not always respond with the six-shooters a-blazin'. Dialogue and empathy go much farther than tough talk and threats of retaliation.

The only thing these people understand is violence. How in the world would anyone think that a non violent way do any good?

The alternative to violence against these 'humans' is 1.A radical change in our lifesyle in the west, 2. Our support of our allies in the Holy Land must end.,3. The abandonment of 'our' God, 4. The total reform of our constutional form of government. Now if we follow these orders to the letter the terroists will allows us to live our lives in peace. These are the terms that are offered to the west. If we are not willing to obey any of the aforementioned rules then we must terminate at any cost these groups. Its sad, its scary, but to the freedom fighters, terroists or whatever they choose to name themselves, its also self imposed. To coin a military phrase 'Battle Go'!

You have to use both violence and non-violence

I totally agree with thefreak. I would give it five stars, but sadly, it may not work. The terrorist attacks caused immense suffering and distress across the world (not just the US . . several hundred foreigners were also killed) My heart goes out to all the families and communities who lost partners, family members, co-workers or friends during last week's tragedy. Yet, I find it sickening to listen to George Jr. spewing platitudes about war as though it was the only reasonable response. The pro-war, simplistic, flag-waving, naive and extremely short-sighted attitude of the general American public worries me almost as much as the terrorist acts that provoked it. To me as a European, war is the ultimate horror; my mother remembers listening to warning sirens and having to spend almost every night in a basement which served as a bomb shelter, not knowing wether she and my grandparents would survive the next air raid. War is not all about glory and honor. War is about the senseless death and destruction and suffering of human beings, no matter what their nationality. Also, any war in this day and age might very easily escalate into total nuclear disaster. What will we say afterwards, when we are all dead? We showed them that Americans won't tolerate acts of violence?? There simply has to be another way.

We have in the past retaliated in a non-violent way against terrorists. Remember the Kobar apartment bombings in 1996, when U.S. servicemen in Saudi Arabia were killed by a truck bomb, or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. These were all acts of war in the best sense of the word. We did not retaliate in a non-violent way and look at how far it got us? They still continue to attack us, and they become more daring in their actions. Pressure needs to be put on countries who harbor these terrorists or sponsor them to give them up to U.S. authorities. If it will take military action to do so, then that will have to be the case. We will never allow this to happen again. The problem with the terrorists is that their demands are far too outlandish for the United States to meet. They essentially want us to disengage from the Middle East and allow Israel to be knocked into the Meditteranean by her enemies. We gave them the capital to start operation of their oil fields; essentially, the prosperity some of these countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could be directly linked to the capital the U.S. and Britain gave them to start their oil fields...and now here they are sponsoring terrorists that kill thousands of innocent American citizens. Frankly, some of these Arab countries are all ingrateful for all of the things we have done for them in the past. And they still call us imperialists to boot; they don't even know the meaning of the word. Imperialists exploit countries and conquer territories. We here in the United States, with a small exception during the early 20th Century, have never been imperialists. The whole point of this entire diatribe is that the Arabs need to get a dose of reality and realize that we are helping them. If it takes military action to defend our freedoms, then we should attack countries which harbor terrorists.

You must be joking!! I can imagine some gutless creep not wanting to do anything at all, but to "retaliate", but in a, um... "non-violent" way !!!! Sorry, but once these scum are properly identified, they simply must be exterminated. Not one of us is safe as long as they are permitted to live.

It would be great if you could do this. Sadly it hasn't worked yet and I don't think it will ever work. At least not against terrorists. I hate to say 'fight violence with violence' because that would mean to stoop to their level. But in cases of terrorists they would probably not listen to a non-violent approach. The tricky part is that neither will they listen to a violent approach...

No, God no..this is not the answer. I am not a violent person, I do not want to see any other innocent people die. However, I am a proud American, and the answer is NOT to find these terrorists and imprison them, the answer is to eradicate them from the face of the earth. The do not value life, their own or anyone else's. We must fight to preserve our country.

The only reason I gave this a four and not a five is because sadly, this may not work. But dealing with things non-violently is certainly the best way. We should never have to go to war, over anything. But unfortunately, people have yet to realize this. There are better ways to deal with terrorists than blowing the heads off Afghans. If we can give Osama bin Laden or whoever the heck the perpetrator was, a quiet (or as quiet as it can be) arrest and a quick trial, and throw him into the filthiest prison we can find, in our country or not, that will be fine with me. But we have to accept the fact that war, killing (any kind of killing, not just murder of inoocent people), are completely wrong. I hope our president will realize this. If he does, he will gain a minimal amount of my support. If he doesn't, I will not only lower the rating I gave him from a two to a one, but I will personally spit on the ground if I ever hear his silly little name again! And I will do it within his sight!

Does anyone seriously think this would this work? Hasn't it been tried time and again? The difficult thing for most of us to comprehend is that they don't even care if THEY live or die. How can you reason with people who have abandoned their own self-preservation? I find myself wondering just what, if anything, they do care about - their families, their country? It seems the only way these terrorists can communicate is through violence. I doubt very seriously if anything less would even penetrate this strange demonic frenzy they have immersed themselves in. They should be put completely out of their misery for the basic safety of the entire world.