Upon further reflection...

[Yo_Mama]

We really can't go after the terrorists individually. They just aren't afraid of us. They are very willing to die for their beliefs.

We need to target the governments who allow these terrorists to operate. The key to motivate and influence people is find out what they want and give/deny it to them. In the case of leaders and government officials the carrot is power. If we depose a few leaders, the rest will be much more diligent about finding and eradicating terrorists within their borders.

We need to look no further than the Taliban to see proof of this. They immediately issued a statement saying they weren't involved. Of course they weren't personally involved, but they certainly knew that bin ladin was in their country and plotting to kill americans. They need to be removed, quickly yet messily so other countries will know we're serious.

The Palestinians had a press conference to express their condolences. Yet they actively support terrorism. We have the perfect solution for them - the Israelis. Let Israel have the West Bank. Let them have the whole region. Whatever it takes to show the world we're serious about stopping terrorism.

We can't stop them individually, but collectively, we can make the hosting nations afraid, VERY afraid.

/rant off

[Rizzo]

I hope very much that the American government think very hard before taking any action against whole countries. I don't want WW3 to start today, tomorrow, or ever for that matter.

I hope, that in 20 years there will be no need for nuclear weapons, and thus there will be no need to fear a war on a global scale.

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by Rizzo
I hope very much that the American government think very hard before taking any action against whole countries. I don't want WW3 to start today, tomorrow, or ever for that matter.

I hope, that in 20 years there will be no need for nuclear weapons, and thus there will be no need to fear a war on a global scale.

I don't think it could ever get that far, but I am sure what ever happens some toes will get stepped on. This was too much to let go by with a slap on the hand. If allowed it will be open season on everyone. The hand has been forced and I don't think there will be any stepping back.

[Jodie]

I TOTALLY agree with Yo Mama.

As posted here: http://thegenomecollective.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=977&pagenumber=2

It wouldn't take nuclear warfare. Convention Fuel Air bombs in the appropriate quantity would take care of the problem quite nicely. As well as the solution posted giving the Taliban the opportunity to 'do the right thing' as it were.

"There are very few social problems that can't be solved by an adequate application of high explosives"

[eldiablo]

as far as supporting anti-islamic sentiment, allowing the israelis to take the west bank, or whatever, that is not right. that is a different issue. trust me that i know what i am talking about when i say that the taliban do not represent islam or muslims. they are a very, very extreme right wing religious sect that has gone far off the deep end. for that matter i do not believe the taliban even represent the majority of the citizens of afganistan. i am far from a "bleeding heart liberal", but you cannot kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children to punish a relative few. if we do that, we are not much better than terrorists ourselves.

[pelligrini]

I am in total agreement eldiablo.

[dnar]

eldiablo - well said, my heart and thoughts to a tee.

[Bruce]

I, too, know the Taliban does not represent the Afhan people. I lived in Kabul for two years and there are many good people who are certainly not in favor of their government, although there are some differences of opinion as to which of the directives are in accordance with the Qoran and which are, in fact, contrary to Islam.

On the West Bank, my country has generally been more supportive of Israel than Jordan (and quite a few Islamic people hate us for that. (IMHO we should be more neutral in supporting some workable peace plan.)

I did read a newspaper article last week about the differences between the distruction done by those two countries. It said that Jordan strikes against (xxxx) and the damage is spread around the target. Israel strikes are very specifically targeted and only damages the individual or group that is performing the raids. Knowing that this newspaper is, to some degree, biased, I'm not sure if it is true or not, but it doesn't matter here.

I would hope that the US counterstrike is as specific and accurately targeted as the newspaper said Israel is.

If O. BenLaden is responsible, and the Taliban are shielding him, it is time for them to be punished. . . but not the whole city of Kabul. (Our military is too well trained to have to destroy a whole city or a whole country, just to punish a few.)

If somebody else is responsible, then it is they that should be punished. Both the Taliban and Osama will have had plenty of opportunity for fear.

[Bruce]

For those so inclined, here is another perspective. I received this by email this morning.


By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Syndicated columnist / Seattle Times

>
>They pay me to tease shades of meaning from social
>and cultural issues,to provide words that help make
>sense of that which troubles the American soul.
>But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears
>sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to
>say, the only words that seem to fit,must be
>addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.
>
>You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.
>What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's
>attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us?
>What was it you hoped we would learn?
>Whatever it was, please know that you failed.
>
>Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned
>your cause. Did you want to make us fear? You just
>steeled our resolve. Did you want to tear us apart?
>You just brought us together. Let me tell you about my
>people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a
>family rent by racial, cultural, political and class
>division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous,
>yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional
>energy on pop cultural minutiae, a singer's revealing
>dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse.
>
>We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability
>of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of
>that, we walk through life with a certain sense of
>blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent,
>though-peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle
>to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the
>overwhelming majority of us, people of faith,
>believers in a just and loving God.
>
>Some people - you, perhaps - think that any or all of
>this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak.
>Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured
>by arsenals.
>
>Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are
>in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of
>the awful thing you did, still working to make
>ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect
>from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot
>development from a Tom Clancy novel.
>
>Both in terms of the awful scope of its ambition and
>the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely
>to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the
>history of the United States and, indeed, the history
>of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never
>been bloodied before.
>
>But there's a gulf of difference between making us
>bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan
>was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time
>anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought
>us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused,
>we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our
>force. When provoked by this level of barbarism,
>we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any
>length, in the pursuit of justice.
>
>I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know
>my people, as you,I think, do not. What I know
>reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with
>dread of the future.
>
>In days to come, there will be recrimination and
>accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose
>failure allowed this to happen and what can be done
>to prevent it from happening again. There will be
>heightened security, misguided talk of revoking
>basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment
>sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too.
>Unimaginably determined.
>
>You see, there is steel beneath this velvet. That
>aspect of our character is seldom understood by people
>who don't know us well. On this day, the family's
>bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as
>Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will
>rise in defense of all that we cherish.
>
>Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach
>us. It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to
>know the depths of your hatred.
>
>If that's the case, consider the message received. And
>take this message in exchange: You don't know my
>people. You don't know what we're about.
>You don't know what you just started.
>
>But you're about to learn.

[wbierman]

Terrorists don't just say one day, "hey I want to go to heaven next year so I want to kill americans."

They are recruited. They are trained. They are taken care of. They are supported by their families and friends.

If this country is going to stop terrorism world wide which it is now committed to do then terrorists are no longer safe anywhere.

They live in the shadows and darkness. They live amonst their peoples. There is no way to strike with pinpoint accuracy. Yes women and children will die.

Just like they did in WWII when we dropped two attomic bombs on Japan. Our goal was to 1.) Save American lives and 2.) End the war.

It worked on both accounts. The needs of the many out weighed the needs of the few.

We are going to kill the seed of terrorism so that weed will not grow.....

Pray terrorists don't live in your neighborhood!

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by wbierman
Terrorists don't just say one day, "hey I want to go to heaven next year so I want to kill americans."

They are recruited. They are trained. They are taken care of. They are supported by their families and friends.

If this country is going to stop terrorism world wide which it is now committed to do then terrorists are no longer safe anywhere.

They live in the shadows and darkness. They live amonst their peoples. There is no way to strike with pinpoint accuracy. Yes women and children will die.

Just like they did in WWII when we dropped two attomic bombs on Japan. Our goal was to 1.) Save American lives and 2.) End the war.

It worked on both accounts. The needs of the many out weighed the needs of the few.

We are going to kill the seed of terrorism so that weed will not grow.....

Pray terrorists don't live in your neighborhood!

i agree that bin laden and those associated with him need to be eradicated. bomb him? ok, where is he? is he in kubar? ok, level kubar. hm, is he somewhere else in afganistan? ok, level the entire country. oh, wait, maybe he has a shred of intelligence and, knowing that retribution was imminent, he left the country. what now? bomb pakistan, libya, iraq... ??? what if he sneaks into say, canada, is rumoured to be somewhere in say, quebec? do we bomb quebec? are you starting to see my point? we have the means to remove these people from the face of the earth with precision, so i believe that is how it should be done.

[LBaker]

Here is a great place for this kind of discussion http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-politics/index.asp

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by LBaker
Here is a great place for this kind of discussion http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-politics/index.asp

i don't think that's necessary. unlike some of the other threads, this one seems to be remaining civil. i think we can have a discussion about political/social issues and not personally attack one another, and even if we disagree on specific issues, still respect each other. besides, if it does leave the intellectual level and becomes personal, i would just stop participating. that's very easy to do on the internet. :)

[Yo_Mama]

Originally posted by eldiablo
as far as supporting anti-islamic sentiment, allowing the israelis to take the west bank, or whatever, that is not right. that is a different issue. trust me that i know what i am talking about when i say that the taliban do not represent islam or muslims. they are a very, very extreme right wing religious sect that has gone far off the deep end. for that matter i do not believe the taliban even represent the majority of the citizens of afganistan. i am far from a "bleeding heart liberal", but you cannot kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children to punish a relative few. if we do that, we are not much better than terrorists ourselves.

Whatever it takes.

[Rizzo]

Originally posted by wbierman
Just like they did in WWII when we dropped two attomic bombs on Japan. Our goal was to 1.) Save American lives and 2.) End the war.

It worked on both accounts. The needs of the many out weighed the needs of the few.

We are going to kill the seed of terrorism so that weed will not grow.....

Pray terrorists don't live in your neighborhood!

The problem is that now, if you launched a nuclear attack against any country, it has enough allies around the world to fight back... they will just launch their nukes at us, and it goes on and on.

If any NATO country is attacked, the rest of them see it as an attack on them as well. Many middle eastern countries will stand side-by-side in a fight against the west.

I would not like to see the combined power of all the western countries against the power crazed east. It would not be nice.

[wbierman]

Ok so we agree not to use nukes.

We just use Fuel-Air munitions...thats fine by me

[wbierman]

I guess I don't want another another G. Bush senior backing out when he could have gone a little further and taken Sadam out of play for the good of the planet.

[Medic193]

They didn't take him out because the next person in line would've been worse then Saddam himself.

[Virus]

The coalition didn't take him out because of the politics involved. If we would have taken him out, the middle east would've united together.

[Medic193]

Originally posted by Virus
The coalition didn't take him out because of the politics involved. If we would have taken him out, the middle east would've united together.

Yes, there are multiple reasons, I was just quoting what I was told in intel breifings while in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by eldiablo
as far as supporting anti-islamic sentiment, allowing the israelis to take the west bank, or whatever, that is not right. that is a different issue. trust me that i know what i am talking about when i say that the taliban do not represent islam or muslims. they are a very, very extreme right wing religious sect that has gone far off the deep end. for that matter i do not believe the taliban even represent the majority of the citizens of afganistan. i am far from a "bleeding heart liberal", but you cannot kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children to punish a relative few. if we do that, we are not much better than terrorists ourselves.

MY opinion for what it is worth.
The PLO/Jordanians I don't fault in this. They may have had some celebration in the streets. But I don't think they had any involvement. And I can't condemn a group for what they think. The majority of the people in Afganistan I don't fault. The "feudal lords" of the taliban moola (sp?) I believe is in fault. If true they should be the primary target of any retaliation. I believe (Like I said my opinion) it was a group of the moolas that made this happen. Not Just bin laden.

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by Stilgar


MY opinion for what it is worth.
The PLO/Jordanians I don't fault in this. They may have had some celebration in the streets. But I don't think they had any involvement. And I can't condemn a group for what they think. The majority of the people in Afganistan I don't fault. The "feudal lords" of the taliban moola (sp?) I believe is in fault. If true they should be the primary target of any retaliation. I believe (Like I said my opinion) it was a group of the moolas that made this happen. Not Just bin laden.

"mullah" :)

the problem is, there are "cells" in over 50 countries. eradicting this terrorism is going to require a multinational effort, and will take much time.

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by eldiablo


"mullah" :)

the problem is, there are "cells" in over 50 countries. eradicting this terrorism is going to require a multinational effort, and will take much time.

The time required is the frightning thought.:(
I worry if it drags out too long it will just be more and wider acts of terrorism.

[Yo_Mama]

Then perhaps it's time to rid rid of the whole middle east. Has anything worthwhile come out of the middle east in the past thousand years? I can think of a lot of other needy countries who could use the land.


Originally posted by Virus
The coalition didn't take him out because of the politics involved. If we would have taken him out, the middle east would've united together.

[MikeTimbers]

I agree, Yo-Mama.

Let's drop Neutron bombs on the entire Middle-East:

Palestine
Israel
Syria
Jordan
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan

Better take out Turkey, Libya, Morocco, Northern India, Chechnya, Dagistan, anywhere else that ends in -stan.

There are six million Muslims in France, so they'd better go; we've got a few million, so you'd better nuke the UK, too. Malaysia and Indonesia, the Phillipines should all go - bastards!

[Nofinger]

Originally posted by MikeTimbers
I agree, Yo-Mama.

Let's drop Neutron bombs on the entire Middle-East:

Palestine
Israel
Syria
Jordan
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan

Better take out Turkey, Libya, Morocco, Northern India, Chechnya, Dagistan, anywhere else that ends in -stan.

There are six million Muslims in France, so they'd better go; we've got a few million, so you'd better nuke the UK, too. Malaysia and Indonesia, the Phillipines should all go - bastards!

Don't forget the US I believe 30 million Muslims (tv info)

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by Yo_Mama
Then perhaps it's time to rid rid of the whole middle east. Has anything worthwhile come out of the middle east in the past thousand years? I can think of a lot of other needy countries who could use the land.

MY WIFE.

[pelligrini]

Originally posted by Yo_Mama
Has anything worthwhile come out of the middle east in the past thousand years?
And what would the US do without it's black, fossil, blood that runs through it's veins?

[Bruce]

I must disagree.

There are evil things done in the name of religion -- today it seems to be Islam, but history shows it can be any religion. There are many evil things done in the name of nationalism. Just because you're Moslem doesn't make you a terrorist, nor does it mean you support terrorism.

We must focus our hatred on weeding out those who did this, and those that support them, but to condem an entire religion or an entire region is absurd.

Moslem people in California point out that nothing in the Qoran supports what has happened -- although there certainly are groups of mullahs in some countries who preach that it does. They hate this evil just as much as we do and they fully support our efforts to root out this evil.

We are not terrorists. We do not target large groups of innocent people.

I believe our leaders will be deliberate and accurate as they can in our response. There will be collateral damage -- which may satisfy some but will sadden others. But our nation will focus its wrath on the terrorists and those who support them, not on everybody who just happens to look like them.

[wylie]

Originally posted by eldiablo


MY WIFE.
I pray for understanding in these time eldiablo.......
may the anger not be misdirected....

[Yo_Mama]

We are going to run out of fossil fuel eventually, why not get a head start? You know the technology exists to get along without it, there just hasn't been enough impetus to develop it.

Originally posted by pelligrini

And what would the US do without it's black, fossil, blood that runs through it's veins?

[Rizzo]

My feeling is that American's have just woken up to their place in the world. The fact that their are countries that really do hate America, and all it stands for.
This is just one big wakeup call for much of the country.


I also feel that many American's feel that all this can be solved by dropping a few bombs on the middle east.

This can't.

Where would you drop the bombs?

These people don't all congerate in one area ready to fight. They work underground, many probably in America itself.
I also feel that George Bush calling this a 'war' is wrong. It gives the impression, it frankly scares me. I don't want to hear any Western leader saying they are going into war. The possiblities are not worth thinkiung about.

I also feel that many people wonder why you don't just takeout the top man, well if it were that easy then I'm sure someone would have done it allready.

Sorry if my argument seems difficult to understand, I know what I want to say, I just find it hard to say the things in the right order.

[wbierman]

Thanks for your opinion...

America is not your country... I am a citizen here and if my country wants to make monuments of foregin capitals that supported the Islamic Fundementalists, so be it!

That is our right as a nation who is at war. I have calmed down some what since Tuesday. Now I think we should make monuments in foregin countries to honor all those Americans killed on Tuesday.

I don't care if countries stop liking us...I want countries to fear us.

The service of mourning is over.

The Battle Hymn has been sung.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

The ships go to sea. The aircraft are readied. The war begins.

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by Rizzo
My feeling is that American's have just woken up to their place in the world. The fact that their are countries that really do hate America, and all it stands for.
This is just one big wakeup call for much of the country.


I also feel that many American's feel that all this can be solved by dropping a few bombs on the middle east.

This can't.

Where would you drop the bombs?

These people don't all congerate in one area ready to fight. They work underground, many probably in America itself.
I also feel that George Bush calling this a 'war' is wrong. It gives the impression, it frankly scares me. I don't want to hear any Western leader saying they are going into war. The possiblities are not worth thinkiung about.

I also feel that many people wonder why you don't just takeout the top man, well if it were that easy then I'm sure someone would have done it allready.

Sorry if my argument seems difficult to understand, I know what I want to say, I just find it hard to say the things in the right order.

I think most Americans have understood several countries hate the U.S. The thing we did not want to see was the vunerability of our systems and people. Without much thought or preparation I can just take off and go to any state or countries border and cross with out much more then my drivers license. On both borders the few times I have made it across it almost seems like one big country.

As to the feelings of just wanting to drops bombs and have it over with a lot of people would like to see a magic fix and all go away. Most of the U.S. does see the flaw in this. Remember the people as in most news the people you see are going to be the "news worthy" or contriversial. You are not going to see U.S. citizens sitting down and just talking about it.

As too just dropping out the top man there has been a reward for ben laden for some time and it has not helped. Most people recognize it also.

About George Bush's "war" speech you have to remember we also call our drive against drugs a "war on drugs". That did not mean we went out and bomb cities to stop drugs.

End result of this was a strike not only against the U.S. but most of the world. Just skimming over the list of companies housed in the towers. Some of the office names which seem easily identified as international, Government of Thailand, Bank of Taiwan, Korea local Authorities Foundation, Taipei Bank, Nishi-Nippon bank, and several more which appeared to international. This was a crime against the world not just the U.S.

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by wbierman
... I am a citizen here and if my country wants to make monuments of foregin capitals that supported the Islamic Fundementalists, so be it!

they are not "islamic fundamentalists", they are "islamic extremists". in fact, they don't even deserve to be described as "islamic". "Islam" means "peace". these idiots calling themselves "islamic" or "muslim" is an insult to most of the millions of islamic people throughout the world.

furthermore, bin laden himself apparently doesn't even understand what "jihad" means. "jihad" means "strive or struggle against evil". it refers to struggle against temptation on three levels: the individual, community and international level. war is not an objective in islam. it is only used in self-defense or to restore justice. otherwise, muslims are not allowed to harm non-muslims. the prophet Muhammad said: "he who harms a non-muslim under protection (dhimmi) harms me, and he who harms me, harms Allah." warfare in Islam is governed by a strict code of ethics which prohibits: slaying of women, children, religious workers (of all faiths) and all persons who abstain from fighting. The Muslim army cannot steal food, enter places of worship, harm crops, uproot plants/trees or destroy structures. Use of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited. the term "jihad" is often mistranslated into the term "holy war", yet there is no place in the Qur'an or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad where these two terms are used together. in fact, the term "holy war" was a term used by the Christians during the Crusades. Islam never views war as something "holy". it is a necessity that is only reverted to in extreme cases such as self-defense or to stop oppression.

sorry to ramble on, but as you can see, bin laden and his like are very bad examples of Islam, as they are far from practicing the fundamentals of the religion.

[wbierman]

they are not "islamic fundamentalists", they are "islamic extremists".


Call them Tooth Faries for all I care. I want all of them dead! Parents, Grandparents, Cousins, Aunts , Uncles, Brothers and Sisters. I want them ALL dead..I want their seed wiped from the earth.

Just my opinion like it or not.


BTW, my Brother-in-law Kaveh is Iranian.....

[wylie]

I respect your right to voice your opinion on this forum will.
Let no-one now say that this board is censored, policed or oppressive. We all have the right to speak our mind and argue/debate like either adults or children depending on the individual

(I will not respect anyones posts if they are trolling, however.)

[pelligrini]

Originally posted by wbierman
Call them Tooth Faries for all I care. I want all of them dead! Parents, Grandparents, Cousins, Aunts , Uncles, Brothers and Sisters. I want them ALL dead..I want their seed wiped from the earth.

Just my opinion like it or not.


BTW, my Brother-in-law Kaveh is Iranian.....
Yes, it is your opinion.. I like it not.

The more you express your opinion, the more your opinions so closely resemble the people you so despise.

[X-Calibur]

Originally posted by pelligrini

Yes, it is your opinion.. I like it not.

The more you express your opinion, the more your opinions so closely resemble the people you so despise.
Just quoting so it is emphasized... so true.

[wbierman]

whatever

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by X-Calibur

Just quoting so it is emphasized... so true.

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

please, x-calibur, the taliban may be some kind of fundamentalists, but they are NOT islamic fundamentalists. they seriously fail "rigid adherence to those priniciples". i know you do not say "islamic" in your sig., but i would very much like to avoid confusion in this matter.

[dnar]

Originally posted by wbierman
whatever
Arrogant [A]:

~ disdainful
~ haughty
~ insolent
~ supercilious
~ conceited
~ egotistical
~ imperious
~ pompous
~ superior

Arrogant [Ant]:

~ Polite
~ Humble

Will - I dont know why you even bother to post. Go far away and heal mate.

[X-Calibur]

Originally posted by eldiablo


fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

please, x-calibur, the taliban may be some kind of fundamentalists, but they are NOT islamic fundamentalists. they seriously fail "rigid adherence to those priniciples". i know you do not say "islamic" in your sig., but i would very much like to avoid confusion in this matter.

Done. As you said, I did not said Islamic for one good reason, I don,t beleive fundamentalist to be Islamic at all, they could of chosen the BIble and the result would be the same. I have too many Arabs friend, Muslim or not. I had a lot of talk with them, I cannot say I understand ALL of whicht is Islam, but I darn sure understand it is a different religion that longs toward the same as other religion, betterment, peace, human relief of misery.

I am truly sorry you had perceived even an ounce of read-between-the-lines, as there was none.

Regards

X

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by X-Calibur


Done. As you said, I did not said Islamic for one good reason, I don,t beleive fundamentalist to be Islamic at all, they could of chosen the BIble and the result would be the same. I have too many Arabs friend, Muslim or not. I had a lot of talk with them, I cannot say I understand ALL of whicht is Islam, but I darn sure understand it is a different religion that longs toward the same as other religion, betterment, peace, human relief of misery.

I am truly sorry you had perceived even an ounce of read-between-the-lines, as there was none.

Regards

X

merci beaucoup, mon ami. :)

[wbierman]

eldiablo....you can beat your dead horse around the block all you want.

The more you express your opinion, the more your opinions so closely resemble the people you so despise

By God you are right! A couple of differences however....

1.) I don't hide behind any religion to justify my feelings or courage.

2.) If I come for you, you will know it way in advance, I will not sneak up and stab you in the back.

3.) When I come, you have a 50-50 chance to take me first.

4.) When I come, I have a 50-50 chance to take you first.

5.) If you take me first, then I die knowing that I tired to take you in HONOR...

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by wbierman
eldiablo....you can beat your dead horse around the block all you want.

a horse is not what i had in mind...

[Martyn]

Originally posted by wbierman
eldiablo....you can beat your dead horse around the block all you want.



By God you are right! A couple of differences however....

1.) I don't hide behind any religion to justify my feelings or courage.

2.) If I come for you, you will know it way in advance, I will not sneak up and stab you in the back.

3.) When I come, you have a 50-50 chance to take me first.

4.) When I come, I have a 50-50 chance to take you first.

5.) If you take me first, then I die knowing that I tired to take you in HONOR...


I take it this only applies if your enemy observes the same code?

[pelligrini]

Originally posted by wbierman
By God you are right! A couple of differences however....

1.) I don't hide behind any religion to justify my feelings or courage.

2.) If I come for you, you will know it way in advance, I will not sneak up and stab you in the back.

3.) When I come, you have a 50-50 chance to take me first.

4.) When I come, I have a 50-50 chance to take you first.

5.) If you take me first, then I die knowing that I tired to take you in HONOR...
You don't hide behind religion, but you have made many refrences to God and your beliefs, in the majority of your recent posts. That's not a bad thing either. I don't think the people that carried out these heinous, despicable acts of war, hide behind their religion, it is what fuels their actions. We really don't need to split hairs on this subject.

There will be a military action, and I fully expect and demand that one be taken, but it must me measured and calculated. Personally, I would like it to have the support of NATO as well.

It is just your refrences to indescriminate bombings, and especially genocide that I take offence to. Please enjoy your freedom to express your feelings as you choose (I'm sure you don't need my encouragement though;) ) and I'll speak as freely as I choose. I bear you no ill will, Will, but I'd like it to be known that I don't fully agree with you.

[Martyn]

The US has the backing of NATO as well as Russia and a dozen more unexpected sources. I really hope Rambo Bush has someone with a half a brain writing his auto-Q speeches. If the military action that we all expect and demand, is surgical, well targetted and rational, the world will be behind whatever action the US deems fit, that includes our (UK) military resources. If Bush goes on an indescriminate saturation bombing spree, in an atempt to gain a 1 for 1 civillian body count, you'll likely be on your own. Obviously, the US can and will take whatever action it sees fit, internally and without consideration for international opinion, but an international and unilateral response would surely be more effective.

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
The US has the backing of NATO as well as Russia and a dozen more unexpected sources. I really hope Rambo Bush has someone with a half a brain writing his auto-Q speeches. If the military action that we all expect and demand, is surgical, well targetted and rational, the world will be behind whatever action the US deems fit, that includes our (UK) military resources. If Bush goes on an indescriminate saturation bombing spree, in an atempt to gain a 1 for 1 civillian body count, you'll likely be on your own. Obviously, the US can and will take whatever action it sees fit, internally and without consideration for international opinion, but an international and unilateral response would surely be more effective.

not to mention that these terrorists are in 50 countries, many of them nato members, which we couldn't exactly launch air bombings against. :rolleyes:

edit: *including our own.* we didn't exactly bomb florida, now did we?

[pelligrini]

Tril- Yes, Article 5 has been instated, but I'd like to see a more specific endorsement of actions to be taken. I find it odd that Article 5 hasn't been used since it's conception. There are a few nations that it should have applied to in the past. I don't believe Bush will act indiscriminately, in most of his addresses he has said to be patient, and that actions may take some time. I certainly hope the actions will be focused and not just wanton destruction.

eldiablo- There is a big difference between unknowingly having terrorists residing in your country, and knowingly harboring and supporting them. It's the nations that knowingly support these factions that the majority of the world will not condone, and will persecute.

[Rizzo]

Originally posted by pelligrini
Tril- Yes, Article 5 has been instated, but I'd like to see a more specific endorsement of actions to be taken. I find it odd that Article 5 hasn't been used since it's conception. There are a few nations that it should have applied to in the past

The reason it hasn't been used before is because it was only changed to apply to terroist attacks a couple of years ago, and since then there have been no terrorist attacks that apply, except for Tuesday's one.

[eldiablo]

Originally posted by pelligrini
eldiablo- There is a big difference between unknowingly having terrorists residing in your country, and knowingly harboring and supporting them. It's the nations that knowingly support these factions that the majority of the world will not condone, and will persecute.

but i would submit that a majority of afganistanis would not approve of flying two jumbo jets into the world trade center towers. most of those people live in fear of their government. i'm completely in favor of obliterating any and all military and government facilities, even with some collateral damage and loss of innocent life, but not "blanket bombing".

[Martyn]

Originally posted by pelligrini
Tril- Yes, Article 5 has been instated, but I'd like to see a more specific endorsement of actions to be taken.

I think you will pell, just as soon as folks get an inkling of what that action is to be - that's gotta come from Bush. Though likely the first we'll know of it is the smoke rising.

It's difficult to say though, what our governments will do, untill we have a better idea of what it is we are supporting.

I doubt it will be unconditional support. Big Duke has a rep for being a little too pistol happy and has us a little worried he might not be too descriminating. If he chooses atomic weapons, he'll surely be on his own. If he is well advised though, it'll likely be 100% support for any and all "surgical" military action. Just remains to identify a target.

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by tril0Byte


I think you will pell, just as soon as folks get an inkling of what that action is to be - that's gotta come from Bush. Though likely the first we'll know of it is the smoke rising.

It's difficult to say though, what our governments will do, untill we have a better idea of what it is we are supporting.

I doubt it will be unconditional support. Big Duke has a rep for being a little too pistol happy and has us a little worried he might not be too descriminating. If he chooses atomic weapons, he'll surely be on his own. If he is well advised though, it'll likely be 100% support for any and all "surgical" military action. Just remains to identify a target.

I'm not sure who you are talking about Tril. If Bush this one has never been in a position to become pistol happy. (Or get a rep.)

[pelligrini]

Yea, this is Bush Jr., not his pop.

[LBaker]

Bush doesn't get enough credit. He might not be the best speaker but he's not dumb and he's surrounded by a lot of experience. I find it really funny that those people that are calling him a moron are the same one's who's candidate flunked out of school.

[Martyn]

There has been a lot of "soundbyte" analysis, together with reviews of known political positions. It seems that this is the general view of hime o'er here - at least it is in the media. Not in any dertogatary terms you understand, just paints him as a bit "go-getem"! Perhaps I am wrong. Is he not like this?

[Stilgar]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
There has been a lot of "soundbyte" analysis, together with reviews of known political positions. It seems that this is the general view of hime o'er here - at least it is in the media. Not in any dertogatary terms you understand, just paints him as a bit "go-getem"! Perhaps I am wrong. Is he not like this?

It is too soon to tell. His father was (at least to me seemed) more definitive and aggressive. Remember this is his first time out of the box here. Just my opinion, but I think he probably was thinking some pretty harsh thoughts at first, (Like most of us) but understands the way things are and will be moving for support on any plan first. Just remember most just hear part of a story or the sound bites the news media wants. Too may people make too many assumptions on a sound bite. (Both sides of the coin)

[Bruce]

Originally posted by LBaker
Bush doesn't get enough credit. He might not be the best speaker but he's not dumb and he's surrounded by a lot of experience
He's not exceptionally dumb, but he's not exceptionally intelligent either. He does have enough sense to find out what his advisors think before acting.

The last thing that we need to do is to confirm the suspicions of the {misguided} fundamentalists that we really are the evil and powerful country that they fear. The primary objective has got to be to stamp out terrorism in whatever way that works best.

They're asking congress to repeal (or make an exception to) the "no assanation" policy -- which would take care of one or two key players. Unfortunately that won't be enough, so I havn't a clue what else might happen.

---------------

I was chatting, this morning, on the issue of the appropriate response, and I said (jokingly) that we have two choices -- we can bomb Afghanistan (etc) or we can bomb Israel. [The primary reason the terrorists hate us will be taken away.] Either way there will be less terrorism in the future.

I don't, for a minute, really mean to recommend either one as the best alternative.

[MikeTimbers]

No the US shouldn't bomb Israel, but it would be better if the US was more even-handed in its attitudes to the Middle-East.

Placing a UN-controlled buffer zone between Palestine and Israel as in Korea would be a good start.

[Dustin]

Thoght you might like to have a look at this (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=34709834&m=4640913172&p=1).