Jacko
We've crossed swords before, and I've kept my council (more or less) on this subject up to now. But...
Until these conditions are meant (sic), 'hitting back' remains a cynical, vote-grabbing and ultimately cowardly way for Shrub (Bush Jr) to keep the redneck faction on board. Britain should have no part of it under these circumstances.
Find the evidence, make it something more and better than a bit of Moslem bashing and it (and Bush) has my full support.
... is complete a*se! Let me see, you are the President of the most powerful nation in the known universe and a group of fanatics attack your country, kill thousands of people, lay waste a national icon and with an execution that could not have been accidental, attack the wobbly economic foundations of the western world. Do you:
A. Ask Mum what to do? (he probably asked Dad, but that's by the by).
B. Promise to bring the perps to account, by whatever means necessary?
C. Ask those who did it, nicely, not to do it again, coz it smarts?
D. Talk tough to secure the redneck vote?
Would you like to ask the audience?
I would suggest that the families of over 6500 people do not see the current rhetoric as a means to secure their vote. I would also suggest that if this was an excuse to go a-"muslim bashing" (MB), that the striking out blindly bit would have been done last week.
It is precisely the terms that you use, like MB, that inflame and incite those who wish to pick on people because they have different beliefs and fit a partuclar profile. GWB and TB have both made entreaties to Muslims around the world that this is not a fight against them. If you see that as a means to win the votes of the redneck faction, you can ram it, my friend. On the other hand however, certain Muslims, including some in this country who clearly enjoy the benefits of democracy and freedom of expression, have called any reaction as a Holy War on Islam. The act of war (and granted, it may not have been the first), was perpetrated last Tuesday and I would suggest that the evidence thus far leads down a road with 2 forks in it. One sign, in big, f-off writing leads to mountainous terrain in a country beginning with A, and the other, in much smaller words, suggests that the driver may not wish to discount the capital of a country beginning with I.
I cannot see how over 6,ooo people can be mercilessly slain without someone being called to account. Clearly, in a world where killers have more rights than their victims, you and yours will not accept anything but a smoking gun, and even then, it would be preferable if said smoking gun could talk and said, "yep, he did it". I have no stomach for what lies ahead in the next few years, as that's what it will be. I have no desire to see vast areas of desert lain more waste than they are now. Nor have I any stomach to see hundreds if not thousands more people (from all sides) die, because of decisions that are likely to be made soon. However, I do believe that some things are right, and others are wrong and if something smells like a fish a breathes through slits in its neck, then its a fish.
You use the word cowardly. As yet, nobody has accepted responsiblity for last Tuesday. On the other hand, however, GWB will, in all likelihood, accept responsibilty for all that is about to happen, as he will be the one who commits troops to battle and sends a number of people to the next place. I would be grateful, therefore, if you could explain exactly what 'cowardly' actually means.
You may have given yourself an out by suggesting that if all the evidence is there (yeah, right), you graciously give your full support, but once again Jacko my friend, you have, IMHO, talked b*llox on this subject.
And you can quote me on that.
(where is the spellchucker on this thing)
[ 22 September 2001: Message edited by: Didntdoit ]