1st International Air Show and Live Fire Demonstration/Kabul Int'l Airport
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia&Montenegro
Age: 55
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Heloplt,
I almost wanted to apologize for my words at
topic "US tragedy", but, now, you absolutely convinced me that I had been right.
So, I will correct myself: you see as far as you fly high, but, you usually fly covered, I mean IFR.
You remind me of some little fellow jumping arround and screaming:kick him, kick him! while big fellows are having real fight.
All the best!!
I almost wanted to apologize for my words at
topic "US tragedy", but, now, you absolutely convinced me that I had been right.
So, I will correct myself: you see as far as you fly high, but, you usually fly covered, I mean IFR.
You remind me of some little fellow jumping arround and screaming:kick him, kick him! while big fellows are having real fight.
All the best!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RollRoll...have you heard the fighters pilot prayer....
Lord give me the wings of an eagle,
The heart of a lion,
The eyes of a hawk,
and the balls of an Army helicopter pilot!
Me thinks thou doth protest too much!
Lord give me the wings of an eagle,
The heart of a lion,
The eyes of a hawk,
and the balls of an Army helicopter pilot!
Me thinks thou doth protest too much!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heloplt, if you hadn't realised, Britain has been a target for terrorism for years. We seem to have adjusted to it. Would now not be a good time to clear up the 'Northern Ireland' issue once and for all seeings how Dubya has declared war on terrorism. I don't think we would have snivelling senators decrying human rights issues, do you? Ironically funny how things turn out.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heloplt.. I have discussed it with her, and to an extent she agrees with me. She was more surprised at the amount of sympathy she received last week, and how quickly following that anti-American sentiment has started to show. She has stopped wearing her US/UK flag pin on her jacket because she feels uneasy about wearing it now.
Rattus hit it square, there is a diffeence between justice and revenge, and the vitriol seems more revenge than anything else. St Thomas Aquinas first posed the principle of justice in war and justice of war (Jus a bello, Jus a bellum). I cannot see any justice in attacking Afghanistan whatsoever. The Taleban have asked Osama Bi-Laden to leave, and he is culturally obliged to do so. The Arabic culture is very strictly defined and adhered to. Without any hard evidence that he was responsible for the atrocity there can be no justification for laying an impoverished nation to waste. I doubt that there is any retalitory action that the US can take which would be just. If we extended the principle the Smiling One espouses, we would be laying NI to waste every time the IRA bomb London. We haven't. What makes this any different just because the scales is different? So no, Heloplt, if it had been St Pauls, Buck House, or any other London landmark that had been hit, I wouldn't be baying for blood. I didn't advocate bombing the Bogside out of existence when the IRA bombed London (take your pick of the incidents), and i don't advocate the US bombing Afghanistan just because it can. And what justification is there in dragging Pakistan into this? What beef do you have with them? or is the US just up to its F%^k you approach to diplomacy again? The same F%$£ you approach it has had to the ordinary Iraqi people (sanctions really work don't they?), the Kiyoto Accord, Palestine, Vietnam, Colmbia, Grenada, Yalta, the Balkans, or any other event where it has beaten up a country that can't fight back in recent decades. The best thing the US can do is to take stock of recent events, and work out why this has happened and rather than attack a 3rd world country that can't fight back, take a more humble approach and learn that at times discretion can be the better part of valour, and if the US must pick a fight, how about picking on someone who can fight back?
Edited to remove comments written while livid.
[ 20 September 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]
Rattus hit it square, there is a diffeence between justice and revenge, and the vitriol seems more revenge than anything else. St Thomas Aquinas first posed the principle of justice in war and justice of war (Jus a bello, Jus a bellum). I cannot see any justice in attacking Afghanistan whatsoever. The Taleban have asked Osama Bi-Laden to leave, and he is culturally obliged to do so. The Arabic culture is very strictly defined and adhered to. Without any hard evidence that he was responsible for the atrocity there can be no justification for laying an impoverished nation to waste. I doubt that there is any retalitory action that the US can take which would be just. If we extended the principle the Smiling One espouses, we would be laying NI to waste every time the IRA bomb London. We haven't. What makes this any different just because the scales is different? So no, Heloplt, if it had been St Pauls, Buck House, or any other London landmark that had been hit, I wouldn't be baying for blood. I didn't advocate bombing the Bogside out of existence when the IRA bombed London (take your pick of the incidents), and i don't advocate the US bombing Afghanistan just because it can. And what justification is there in dragging Pakistan into this? What beef do you have with them? or is the US just up to its F%^k you approach to diplomacy again? The same F%$£ you approach it has had to the ordinary Iraqi people (sanctions really work don't they?), the Kiyoto Accord, Palestine, Vietnam, Colmbia, Grenada, Yalta, the Balkans, or any other event where it has beaten up a country that can't fight back in recent decades. The best thing the US can do is to take stock of recent events, and work out why this has happened and rather than attack a 3rd world country that can't fight back, take a more humble approach and learn that at times discretion can be the better part of valour, and if the US must pick a fight, how about picking on someone who can fight back?
Edited to remove comments written while livid.
[ 20 September 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Over Here
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the atrocities that have occured in the UK and NI over the past 30 odd years, Dubya hit the nail on the head tonight in his address to Congress: This attack has killed more Americans on American soil than any other single incident in history. Can we, the civilised world, really look on and wait for justice to be done? Remember, there were - at best (worst?) estimates a couple of hundred Brits who had their lives taken away from them in this tragedy.
The answer: Ihave no idea, but opinion here is that the American populus will not stand by and wait for justice to be done in The Hague, or some such equivalent, in ten years when the whole event has become a distant memory. It cannot be coincidence that Tony B was the only world leader highlighted on CNN's coverage this evening. Get ready for some pretty ****ty times chaps.
The answer: Ihave no idea, but opinion here is that the American populus will not stand by and wait for justice to be done in The Hague, or some such equivalent, in ten years when the whole event has become a distant memory. It cannot be coincidence that Tony B was the only world leader highlighted on CNN's coverage this evening. Get ready for some pretty ****ty times chaps.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbf, for once I actually agree with your last post!
I'm scared, not because Terrorists have taken so much life but because Dubya has stated 'whatever weapon it takes in our arsenal'. Could he please clarify that? Deeply concerened that he has his finger firmly on the button. 'F*£k you' diplomacy if ever I've seen it.
The scale of events is attrocious, but finally Dubya has seen what terroism is about.
If only one person dies through terrorism and a million change their way of life because of it, the terrorist has succeded. Instant revenge is not the answer, as has been said before, if this action is not thought out it will just push thousands of people to side against America, Britain or any of their allies. On a scale factor, last Tuesday will pale into insignifigance. Dubya said himself 'your either with us or with the terrorists'. Whos side would you like to be on? Discuss.
I'm scared, not because Terrorists have taken so much life but because Dubya has stated 'whatever weapon it takes in our arsenal'. Could he please clarify that? Deeply concerened that he has his finger firmly on the button. 'F*£k you' diplomacy if ever I've seen it.
The scale of events is attrocious, but finally Dubya has seen what terroism is about.
If only one person dies through terrorism and a million change their way of life because of it, the terrorist has succeded. Instant revenge is not the answer, as has been said before, if this action is not thought out it will just push thousands of people to side against America, Britain or any of their allies. On a scale factor, last Tuesday will pale into insignifigance. Dubya said himself 'your either with us or with the terrorists'. Whos side would you like to be on? Discuss.
KBF makes a good point.
Without evidence retaliation is illegal and immoral, however much we may hate, despise and suspect OBL and the Taliban.
Without evidence, and without concrete action to get the moderate Islamic world on side, it will also only serve to inflame the situation.
Until these conditions are meant, '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.
Without evidence retaliation is illegal and immoral, however much we may hate, despise and suspect OBL and the Taliban.
Without evidence, and without concrete action to get the moderate Islamic world on side, it will also only serve to inflame the situation.
Until these conditions are meant, '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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
We've crossed swords before, and I've kept my council (more or less) on this subject up to now. But...
... 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 ]
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.
Find the evidence, make it something more and better than a bit of Moslem bashing and it (and Bush) has my full support.
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 ]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E. Carefully think out your policy to make sure that what action you take against those accused of such crimes has the backing of solid evidence, is a precise military target and not increasing suffering, and will not pull apart the world order, thus carrying out positive action which achieves long-term results and achieves more than short-term revenge.
Which do YOU think is the correct answer?
Which do YOU think is the correct answer?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luce,
Since you ask, and for what it's worth, I think the answer is 'B', first and foremost, and then 'E'. You forgot the other option:
F. Do nothing.
IMHO, 'B' and 'E' are both being played out now.
Since you ask, and for what it's worth, I think the answer is 'B', first and foremost, and then 'E'. You forgot the other option:
F. Do nothing.
IMHO, 'B' and 'E' are both being played out now.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Assertions about laws, morals, and ethics as concerns the US response:
US law allows for action to be taken against OBL, as does the UN Charter. The US just has to claim to be acting in self-defence.
I suspect, however that OBL and his type see US Law as morally bankrupt and irrelevant.
Personally I've got no problem with hunting down anyone who supports the eradication of every Jew in Palestine, or those who seek to support or justify it.
US law allows for action to be taken against OBL, as does the UN Charter. The US just has to claim to be acting in self-defence.
I suspect, however that OBL and his type see US Law as morally bankrupt and irrelevant.
Personally I've got no problem with hunting down anyone who supports the eradication of every Jew in Palestine, or those who seek to support or justify it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Antonio,Texas,USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heloplt,
I hope you didn’t mind I thought that was so funny that I copied it and put it on the bulletin board in the break room. I have $200.00 accumulated so far, please advise where to send it. Although the posting was put out on humor this is a grave situation. One that will affect all countries of the world. I am certain that before any military insertions take place they will have congressional approval; one man is not making these decisions, no matter how powerful he may be.
Reading through these postings the general consensus does not reflect the support that your PM showed to the president’s address last night. It appeared to me that the UK was behind this approach all the way. After all being recognized as the US’s largest friend. As a country that suffered the most casualties next to the US in the WTC bombing; I would think that some of the people in the UK would share the same sentiments of revenge as many Americans. This is not just a US affair it, already having the UN’s approval among many other countries already choosing sides that have been drawn in the sand.
I do respect anyone’s individual right to believe what he or she chooses concerning the topic of war, for religious reasons or just passive by nature. But actions must be taken and the longer this is drawn out the more difficult and confused the issue will get. Do not believe for a moment that if Bin Laudin surrenders himself to the appropriate authorities that this matter is resolve the entire terrorist organizations are the target not just one individual. It will be interesting to see what will take place in regards to the IRA. I have not seen their names in any newspapers lately, but I feel they are “peas in a pod” all terrorist are the same regardless of their causes or objectives. They prey on the innocent with no remorse.
If we like it or not we are in this together I am sure that the forces that the UK have deployed to the “Training “ exercise are strategically place where they are for a reason. We all know that “Training” exercises are most of the time implemented as a show of force. The US does it China does it, and I feel the UK is doing it right now.This matter will not be resolved quickly, and God bless all that are drawn into this affair, my prayers are with you all.
P.S. I was only kidding about the fund raising, I do not want to offend anyone.
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]
I hope you didn’t mind I thought that was so funny that I copied it and put it on the bulletin board in the break room. I have $200.00 accumulated so far, please advise where to send it. Although the posting was put out on humor this is a grave situation. One that will affect all countries of the world. I am certain that before any military insertions take place they will have congressional approval; one man is not making these decisions, no matter how powerful he may be.
Reading through these postings the general consensus does not reflect the support that your PM showed to the president’s address last night. It appeared to me that the UK was behind this approach all the way. After all being recognized as the US’s largest friend. As a country that suffered the most casualties next to the US in the WTC bombing; I would think that some of the people in the UK would share the same sentiments of revenge as many Americans. This is not just a US affair it, already having the UN’s approval among many other countries already choosing sides that have been drawn in the sand.
I do respect anyone’s individual right to believe what he or she chooses concerning the topic of war, for religious reasons or just passive by nature. But actions must be taken and the longer this is drawn out the more difficult and confused the issue will get. Do not believe for a moment that if Bin Laudin surrenders himself to the appropriate authorities that this matter is resolve the entire terrorist organizations are the target not just one individual. It will be interesting to see what will take place in regards to the IRA. I have not seen their names in any newspapers lately, but I feel they are “peas in a pod” all terrorist are the same regardless of their causes or objectives. They prey on the innocent with no remorse.
If we like it or not we are in this together I am sure that the forces that the UK have deployed to the “Training “ exercise are strategically place where they are for a reason. We all know that “Training” exercises are most of the time implemented as a show of force. The US does it China does it, and I feel the UK is doing it right now.This matter will not be resolved quickly, and God bless all that are drawn into this affair, my prayers are with you all.
P.S. I was only kidding about the fund raising, I do not want to offend anyone.
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I cannot see how over 6,ooo people can be mercilessly slain without someone being called to account."
Quite right. But....
(bit off topic) are the 10,000 plus families of people killed EVERY YEAR in the US by handguns waiting for Bush's 'War on Firearms' to begin? I think not. Aren't we all glad to live in the 'civilised' world!
Like civilisation, terrorism comes in many forms. Sadly the victims rarely get the chance to distinguish.
Quite right. But....
(bit off topic) are the 10,000 plus families of people killed EVERY YEAR in the US by handguns waiting for Bush's 'War on Firearms' to begin? I think not. Aren't we all glad to live in the 'civilised' world!
Like civilisation, terrorism comes in many forms. Sadly the victims rarely get the chance to distinguish.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OBL has declared Jihad on the West, so why should the West insist on due legal process? Why saddle ourselves with the need for unrealistically sringent standards of proof? If Intelligence points to OBL as the most likely perpetrator, lets get on with it and take him and his minions out. Similarly, the police (according to the BBC documentary) know who were the Omagh bombers, but do not have the evidence to make a charge stand up in court. Just remove them from the scene. I have no problem with a "shoot to kill" policy in this sort of situation . The only moral requirement is precision - the need to avoid, so far as possible, "collateral damage". Just shifting the landscape around in Afghanistan with masses of 1,000 kg iron bombs would be stupid, as well as immoral. The Sovs tried that back in the 80s with their BADGERS and got nowhere. Our first requirement is accurate real-time intelligence from people on the ground.
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Flatus Veteranus ]
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Flatus Veteranus ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didntdoit,
Agree with you wholeheartedly, you put into words, fairly eloquently, exactly what I have been thinking and I salute you for it.
To the Americans reading this post, I for one am with you 100%. Like you said, several hundred of my countrymen were killed in this attack, I would be remiss in my duties as a member of HM armed forces if I didn't do something to defend my people. This is not going to stop until we get down and dirty with these b@ast@rds.
Even if the US were to withdraw its support from Israel, this would achieve nothing. Does anybody out there believe that we would hear no more? I have already argued with Jacko about what would happen to Israel without US support. I think that the nations surrounding Israel would see that as a green light and you could expect Yom Kippur mk 2.
Think that is far fetched? then why is it that Syria (1 example) supports financially, and with facilities as well as sanctuary, more than 10 different terrorist groups (including Hamas) that are sworn to destroy Israel and the Jewish race, not very peaceful is it? This is about much more than Israel and the palestinians, this is about our way of life and its deluding yourself to think otherwise. This is not going to stop, and yes, London could be the next target. My home town and family could be victims of the terrorists collateral damage if passengers decided to retake the plane as they did with the fourth aircraft. Think thats far fetched? Remind yourself where you were last Tuesday when you heard the news. We have a duty to protect ourselves and our people (thats what I signed up for anyway). This is a war, and bad things happen. I don't think that Jacko would be happy unless we proved that OBL had bought the plane tickets himself in the Peterborough Thomas Cook, with his L'Qaeda visa card.
I have to admit I find myself incresingly perplexed and upset by the attitude of some of my UK colleagues on this forum. This happened to us as well, not just the US. I watched it happen, the magnitude and the barbarity of it still make me feel ill. How can you sit there and piously state that "the yanks were asking for it a little bit". "However as it was so beastly we will fight with you but only if you have the name and address of the naughty fellow that did it". "Lets all remember though, that he was driven to do it by the evil Zionist conspiracy who are intent on taking over the world with burger bars"
This will happen again, next time it could be your home town. I for one am prepared to fight very hard to stop that. If you aren't interested then b"ggr off to BA. Oh, thats right you can't coz they are about to go bust because of the Zionist conspiracy.
Long boring rant over, soz, got a bit cross.
[ 22 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]
Agree with you wholeheartedly, you put into words, fairly eloquently, exactly what I have been thinking and I salute you for it.
To the Americans reading this post, I for one am with you 100%. Like you said, several hundred of my countrymen were killed in this attack, I would be remiss in my duties as a member of HM armed forces if I didn't do something to defend my people. This is not going to stop until we get down and dirty with these b@ast@rds.
Even if the US were to withdraw its support from Israel, this would achieve nothing. Does anybody out there believe that we would hear no more? I have already argued with Jacko about what would happen to Israel without US support. I think that the nations surrounding Israel would see that as a green light and you could expect Yom Kippur mk 2.
Think that is far fetched? then why is it that Syria (1 example) supports financially, and with facilities as well as sanctuary, more than 10 different terrorist groups (including Hamas) that are sworn to destroy Israel and the Jewish race, not very peaceful is it? This is about much more than Israel and the palestinians, this is about our way of life and its deluding yourself to think otherwise. This is not going to stop, and yes, London could be the next target. My home town and family could be victims of the terrorists collateral damage if passengers decided to retake the plane as they did with the fourth aircraft. Think thats far fetched? Remind yourself where you were last Tuesday when you heard the news. We have a duty to protect ourselves and our people (thats what I signed up for anyway). This is a war, and bad things happen. I don't think that Jacko would be happy unless we proved that OBL had bought the plane tickets himself in the Peterborough Thomas Cook, with his L'Qaeda visa card.
I have to admit I find myself incresingly perplexed and upset by the attitude of some of my UK colleagues on this forum. This happened to us as well, not just the US. I watched it happen, the magnitude and the barbarity of it still make me feel ill. How can you sit there and piously state that "the yanks were asking for it a little bit". "However as it was so beastly we will fight with you but only if you have the name and address of the naughty fellow that did it". "Lets all remember though, that he was driven to do it by the evil Zionist conspiracy who are intent on taking over the world with burger bars"
This will happen again, next time it could be your home town. I for one am prepared to fight very hard to stop that. If you aren't interested then b"ggr off to BA. Oh, thats right you can't coz they are about to go bust because of the Zionist conspiracy.
Long boring rant over, soz, got a bit cross.
[ 22 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Desparado! These other guys who either say these things to stir the pot or at worst actually believe what they say will one day come to understand why wars need to be fought.
Those of us who serve in the defense of our fellow citizens understand the sacrifices that service requires. They all have their freedom , paid for by others ,but unfortunately do not understand why those of us who risk our lifes defending them appreciate that very freedom all the more.
I just wonder what it would take for some of these guys to stand up and make sacrifices for others? Are these the kind of men that would allow a burglar to enter their homes at night, commit unspeakable acts of violence against their family, and merely step to the telephone and call the police? I wonder what kind of attack it will take to get these guys to stand up for their nation? It actually, really, does worry me that they would sit there in the passenger seat and be a witness to their own death sentence being proclaimed by terrorists and go to their end looking for someone else to come to their aid. They are quick to words, slow to action, and make mock of reality when it might require sacrifices by them in support of others.
There is no way I find any mitigation that reduces the sheer evilness of what has been done to well over six thousand people, men, women, children, and infants. They wish to throw the IRA and Northern Island in the argument for what reason I do not understand. Does it matter which terrorist group kills innocent people? They want proof as if we were interested in going to court and hold a trial. There shall be not trial in this unless the accused acknowlege the concept of law,order, justice and surrender to those ideals. They have utter contempt for those ideals...that is why they murder innocent unarmed people.
If kbf and Jacko and that group had loved ones in one of the airplanes or in the Towers...wonder what they would be saying today? Is that what it would take to jog them into an understanding of what this is about? I wonder if the reason the missus doesn't wear her American flag pin is her idea or as a result of the psyops campaign being waged by her hubby?
Those of us who serve in the defense of our fellow citizens understand the sacrifices that service requires. They all have their freedom , paid for by others ,but unfortunately do not understand why those of us who risk our lifes defending them appreciate that very freedom all the more.
I just wonder what it would take for some of these guys to stand up and make sacrifices for others? Are these the kind of men that would allow a burglar to enter their homes at night, commit unspeakable acts of violence against their family, and merely step to the telephone and call the police? I wonder what kind of attack it will take to get these guys to stand up for their nation? It actually, really, does worry me that they would sit there in the passenger seat and be a witness to their own death sentence being proclaimed by terrorists and go to their end looking for someone else to come to their aid. They are quick to words, slow to action, and make mock of reality when it might require sacrifices by them in support of others.
There is no way I find any mitigation that reduces the sheer evilness of what has been done to well over six thousand people, men, women, children, and infants. They wish to throw the IRA and Northern Island in the argument for what reason I do not understand. Does it matter which terrorist group kills innocent people? They want proof as if we were interested in going to court and hold a trial. There shall be not trial in this unless the accused acknowlege the concept of law,order, justice and surrender to those ideals. They have utter contempt for those ideals...that is why they murder innocent unarmed people.
If kbf and Jacko and that group had loved ones in one of the airplanes or in the Towers...wonder what they would be saying today? Is that what it would take to jog them into an understanding of what this is about? I wonder if the reason the missus doesn't wear her American flag pin is her idea or as a result of the psyops campaign being waged by her hubby?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have written 3 responses to your post Heloplt, and scrapped them because at this time I do not want to cause personal offence. I should say now that many of my family have served in the Royal Navy and the British Army, and I have lost a friend to terrorist activity in NI, so yes, I know first hand in excruciating detail what it is like to lose someone close in such circumstances.
My wife is not subject to my "psyops" as you put it. She has a mind and opinions of her own, and we often disagree. We have different reasons for reaching a similar conclusion about what response is or is not appropriate, and I would not claim to agree with everything she believes. However, we are agreed that an attack for an attack's sake is not the way forward, but for very different reasons.
As for making sacrifices for others, believe me I have made many. I do not have to justify my commission in any way as i signed on the dotted line and serve at the pleasure of Her Majesty. That is not to say I would agree with everything that I have been asked to do, but I have done it non-the-less. I am prepared to stand and be counted, however I advocate reason and restraint in responding to last week's atrocity, I am not prepared to be hawkish at this time. I am dissapointed that Despoerado feels the way he does, but that is a matter for him and he is entitled to his views as I am to mine.
I do find it disapointing that you should think that I, a British serviceman, should wish to pass the burden of responsibility of defending society onto others, especially as it is our forces that bear the brunt of peacekeeping operations in the Balkans which America has shyed away from, as well as Northern Ireland which has not seen a single US serviceman in a UN or other helmet patrolling the streets. I wonder how many US servicemen and women have patrolled the streets of their own nation while having petrol bombs and any other home made explosive thrown at them? I wonder how many other US servicemen have come under attack from both sides of a religious devide in their own country. My point with respect is this Heloplt, we the British have had 30 years to become accustomed to terrorist acts on our home soil and we have come to appreciate that an all out attack does nothing to resolve the situation. If anything it produces martyrs and steels resolve, rather like last week's attack has done on the people of NY. You have to be more intelligent in your response to the situation than just retaliating with military power. You will just create martyrs.
What I think the US fails to understand is that Arabic culture is based on folk law. OBL fulfils a prophetic role almost and a folk law has built up around him. He inspires young moslems who feel disenfranchised with the west having deserted them and opressing them after using them to fight their own ideological war with Russia in Afghanistan. They have turned their tribal and fudal society onto the next enemy to be defeated. With the lack of a real, identifiable target country, that fudality has been focussed too on an ideology. That ideology is the purity of Islam and it's place in Arabic society. The disenfranchised moslem sees the west as its opressor, especially in the middle east. Both America and Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and handed it over to the Jews in 1948 to create the state of Israel and Israel has terrorised moslems living in the West Bank ever since. We have starved innocent Iraqis to death in order to remove a leader we dislike from power by usineg sanctions, and we have done this unsuccessfully. So-called Chrisitans have ethnically cleansed moslems from Bosnia-Hertzogovina and all of it with political backing from the west in one form or another.
If the US fails to acknowledge that the Arab world has different values to the West, and if it tries to impose western values on it, then it is doomed to more retaliatory strikes.
Dubya's choice of words has also been vitriolically inappropriate. To describe the "war on terrorism" as a Crusade was at best unwise. It invokes a Christian Vs Moslem ethic, and as many moslems were appalled by last weeks events as Christians. The choice of Infinate Justice as the code name for the operation is as offensive to Arabs as it is ironic to me, as the proposed reaction is far from just.
I would be happier to support any action if the response were measured. If it fulfilled Aquinas' criteria for Jus a Bello, or jusitce of war, I would not have my reservations. Yes, America was attacked. Depending on your point of view, it could be argued that the US provoked this attack. I do not subscribe to that view for a moment. If it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that OBL was behind the atrocity, if action was proportionate, if action was defined, if it had a measured purpose and stated aim, if it did not expose innocent people to danger of collateral damage, if it was lawful in international terms, if it was limited in terms of limits of exploitation, then I would have fewer objections. Bush is talking about a sustained and limitless attack against an undefined target. His words indicate a desire for a wide remit without limits, and that worries me. I do not think that the correct approach is a carpet bombing of Afghanistan which achieves nothing but needless loss of life. Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how angry the US people may be, or how violated they feel.
If we are to talk about evil, we need to understand what that entails. We are gifted with free will. We can choose to do what we wish with that free will. We may choose to enhance life, and give life, or take it in varying degrees of atrocity. We cannot condemn the taking of innocent life as evil, and the take innocent life in return and say that that is good simply because we are replying to what we percieve as evil. If it can be guaranteed that we will not target innocent people, which Bush has so far not done, then we must guard against action. We must, therefore, measure our response.
The we have to think about the implications of any action. If we drag Pakistan into a civil war with the damned if you do, damned if you don't diplomacy that Bush has used against them, and if the government falls to extremists we hand nuclear weapons to the Taliban, expose Kashmir to danger and are likely to spark a war between Pakistan and India, which is equally unstable. As it is agitators from the JUI Islamic Party are subsidising the purchase of rifles to fight the "infidels". In London yesterday militants moslems were baying for blood. one commented to a reported that moslems loved death as much as we loved life and wants to send his 2 daughters to a military training camp to fight the Americans. There are times when because of the implications to others we have no choice but to accept restraint. If the US attacks Afghanistan then the rest of the world will suffer in greater numbers than it did with the losees in the WTC. As a Briton I seek justice for the 500 or so British lives lost, not purely vengence. Finally we must ask the question, what would attacks solve? I would argue not much.
Finally, Blair. If he is so committed to waging war on terrorism, then why has he let bombers, snipers, and murderers out of prison and into the government of NI? I cannot take his resolve seriously when he panders to terrorists at home and talks tough to terrorists thousands of miles away. Perhaps he should concentrate his efforts at getting our own problems sorted out first and foremost.
My wife is not subject to my "psyops" as you put it. She has a mind and opinions of her own, and we often disagree. We have different reasons for reaching a similar conclusion about what response is or is not appropriate, and I would not claim to agree with everything she believes. However, we are agreed that an attack for an attack's sake is not the way forward, but for very different reasons.
As for making sacrifices for others, believe me I have made many. I do not have to justify my commission in any way as i signed on the dotted line and serve at the pleasure of Her Majesty. That is not to say I would agree with everything that I have been asked to do, but I have done it non-the-less. I am prepared to stand and be counted, however I advocate reason and restraint in responding to last week's atrocity, I am not prepared to be hawkish at this time. I am dissapointed that Despoerado feels the way he does, but that is a matter for him and he is entitled to his views as I am to mine.
I do find it disapointing that you should think that I, a British serviceman, should wish to pass the burden of responsibility of defending society onto others, especially as it is our forces that bear the brunt of peacekeeping operations in the Balkans which America has shyed away from, as well as Northern Ireland which has not seen a single US serviceman in a UN or other helmet patrolling the streets. I wonder how many US servicemen and women have patrolled the streets of their own nation while having petrol bombs and any other home made explosive thrown at them? I wonder how many other US servicemen have come under attack from both sides of a religious devide in their own country. My point with respect is this Heloplt, we the British have had 30 years to become accustomed to terrorist acts on our home soil and we have come to appreciate that an all out attack does nothing to resolve the situation. If anything it produces martyrs and steels resolve, rather like last week's attack has done on the people of NY. You have to be more intelligent in your response to the situation than just retaliating with military power. You will just create martyrs.
What I think the US fails to understand is that Arabic culture is based on folk law. OBL fulfils a prophetic role almost and a folk law has built up around him. He inspires young moslems who feel disenfranchised with the west having deserted them and opressing them after using them to fight their own ideological war with Russia in Afghanistan. They have turned their tribal and fudal society onto the next enemy to be defeated. With the lack of a real, identifiable target country, that fudality has been focussed too on an ideology. That ideology is the purity of Islam and it's place in Arabic society. The disenfranchised moslem sees the west as its opressor, especially in the middle east. Both America and Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and handed it over to the Jews in 1948 to create the state of Israel and Israel has terrorised moslems living in the West Bank ever since. We have starved innocent Iraqis to death in order to remove a leader we dislike from power by usineg sanctions, and we have done this unsuccessfully. So-called Chrisitans have ethnically cleansed moslems from Bosnia-Hertzogovina and all of it with political backing from the west in one form or another.
If the US fails to acknowledge that the Arab world has different values to the West, and if it tries to impose western values on it, then it is doomed to more retaliatory strikes.
Dubya's choice of words has also been vitriolically inappropriate. To describe the "war on terrorism" as a Crusade was at best unwise. It invokes a Christian Vs Moslem ethic, and as many moslems were appalled by last weeks events as Christians. The choice of Infinate Justice as the code name for the operation is as offensive to Arabs as it is ironic to me, as the proposed reaction is far from just.
I would be happier to support any action if the response were measured. If it fulfilled Aquinas' criteria for Jus a Bello, or jusitce of war, I would not have my reservations. Yes, America was attacked. Depending on your point of view, it could be argued that the US provoked this attack. I do not subscribe to that view for a moment. If it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that OBL was behind the atrocity, if action was proportionate, if action was defined, if it had a measured purpose and stated aim, if it did not expose innocent people to danger of collateral damage, if it was lawful in international terms, if it was limited in terms of limits of exploitation, then I would have fewer objections. Bush is talking about a sustained and limitless attack against an undefined target. His words indicate a desire for a wide remit without limits, and that worries me. I do not think that the correct approach is a carpet bombing of Afghanistan which achieves nothing but needless loss of life. Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how angry the US people may be, or how violated they feel.
If we are to talk about evil, we need to understand what that entails. We are gifted with free will. We can choose to do what we wish with that free will. We may choose to enhance life, and give life, or take it in varying degrees of atrocity. We cannot condemn the taking of innocent life as evil, and the take innocent life in return and say that that is good simply because we are replying to what we percieve as evil. If it can be guaranteed that we will not target innocent people, which Bush has so far not done, then we must guard against action. We must, therefore, measure our response.
The we have to think about the implications of any action. If we drag Pakistan into a civil war with the damned if you do, damned if you don't diplomacy that Bush has used against them, and if the government falls to extremists we hand nuclear weapons to the Taliban, expose Kashmir to danger and are likely to spark a war between Pakistan and India, which is equally unstable. As it is agitators from the JUI Islamic Party are subsidising the purchase of rifles to fight the "infidels". In London yesterday militants moslems were baying for blood. one commented to a reported that moslems loved death as much as we loved life and wants to send his 2 daughters to a military training camp to fight the Americans. There are times when because of the implications to others we have no choice but to accept restraint. If the US attacks Afghanistan then the rest of the world will suffer in greater numbers than it did with the losees in the WTC. As a Briton I seek justice for the 500 or so British lives lost, not purely vengence. Finally we must ask the question, what would attacks solve? I would argue not much.
Finally, Blair. If he is so committed to waging war on terrorism, then why has he let bombers, snipers, and murderers out of prison and into the government of NI? I cannot take his resolve seriously when he panders to terrorists at home and talks tough to terrorists thousands of miles away. Perhaps he should concentrate his efforts at getting our own problems sorted out first and foremost.
DIDN'T:
Lucifer gives an excellent answer to the question (E. Carefully think out your policy to make sure that what action you take against those accused of such crimes has the backing of solid evidence, is a precise military target and not increasing suffering, and will not pull apart the world order, thus carrying out positive action which achieves long-term results and achieves more than short-term revenge.), but if he was too articulate for you then the answer is G:
Find the right people and punish them hard, while maintaining your morally unassailable position by seeking to minimise innocent casualties and by putting right some of the underlying causes.
If we are going to set ourselves up as judge, jury and executioner then we must at least follow due process. Regardless of the awful scale of this horrifying and tragic outrage, we must not be blinded to what is right. (You asked BTW for a definition of cowardly - anything which is not morally courageous. Thus the terrorists on 11 September were the worst kind of cowards, while any politician who follows the line of least resistance and maximum popularity, and shies away from what may be right but unpopular, is also displaying a lesser form of cowardice.)
Some of you may have been happy to murder whoever you thought were the guilty men of Omagh, and some of you may be happy with the thought of slaughtering any of those who don't agree with you 100% and who perhaps even supported the aims (but not the methods) of those responsible for 11 September. I can understand anyone being angry at the sight of Pakistanis buring Bush in effigy, or Palestinians holding up V signs. But that doesn't make them legitimate targets. Fortunately we live in a civilised society where justice must be seen to be done, not merely revenge.
There are some fairly far-fetched and facile comparisons and illustrations being used, and some fairly offensive assumptions about what kind of people those of us are who feel uncomfortable about the no-brain gung-ho "let's bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age" cliches and neanderthal rhetoric being used here, too. But if it'll please the simple minded, if I was burgled, and my wife and family brutalised, then I hope I'd wait for the law to take its course - or at the very least, I'd make sure I beat the crap out of the right person, and not just pick on someone against whom I had a long-standing dislike. That would just make me a thug, a vigilante and a criminal.
This isn't some half-baked Hollywood movie, and making light of the situation (as the title of this thread does) is unhelpful. Calling these people perps is another indication that immature and inappropriate TV-show metaphors may be being applied. Innocent lives must not be shed in the search to achieve justice for the innocent lives already lost. America sets itself up as the leader of the free world and the shining example of enlightened democracy. Kneejerk revenge is not appropriate from such a great nation, whereas legal retaliation may be. Without following due process, we diminish ourselves and play into the hands of those who seek to destroy what we stand for.
I fully support effective action against the guilty, but like many Brits, I feel uneasy when our PM writes a blank cheque of support to the USA when that nation's language is so (understandably) intemperate, and when justice and retaliation appear to have been put behind the desire for pure unadulterated revenge. This is not Kuwait in 1990, where there was a 'smoking gun', and when I fully supported all actions that were taken (and indeed condemned them for perhaps not going far enough). I am not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks that military action is always wrong (or even regrettable), I just believe in international law.
PS: Desperado. I'll argue with you when your geopolitical outlook progresses beyond about 1975, OK? This isn't 1967, and Israel's neighbours aren't bent on its destruction, 'kay???
Lucifer gives an excellent answer to the question (E. Carefully think out your policy to make sure that what action you take against those accused of such crimes has the backing of solid evidence, is a precise military target and not increasing suffering, and will not pull apart the world order, thus carrying out positive action which achieves long-term results and achieves more than short-term revenge.), but if he was too articulate for you then the answer is G:
Find the right people and punish them hard, while maintaining your morally unassailable position by seeking to minimise innocent casualties and by putting right some of the underlying causes.
If we are going to set ourselves up as judge, jury and executioner then we must at least follow due process. Regardless of the awful scale of this horrifying and tragic outrage, we must not be blinded to what is right. (You asked BTW for a definition of cowardly - anything which is not morally courageous. Thus the terrorists on 11 September were the worst kind of cowards, while any politician who follows the line of least resistance and maximum popularity, and shies away from what may be right but unpopular, is also displaying a lesser form of cowardice.)
Some of you may have been happy to murder whoever you thought were the guilty men of Omagh, and some of you may be happy with the thought of slaughtering any of those who don't agree with you 100% and who perhaps even supported the aims (but not the methods) of those responsible for 11 September. I can understand anyone being angry at the sight of Pakistanis buring Bush in effigy, or Palestinians holding up V signs. But that doesn't make them legitimate targets. Fortunately we live in a civilised society where justice must be seen to be done, not merely revenge.
There are some fairly far-fetched and facile comparisons and illustrations being used, and some fairly offensive assumptions about what kind of people those of us are who feel uncomfortable about the no-brain gung-ho "let's bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age" cliches and neanderthal rhetoric being used here, too. But if it'll please the simple minded, if I was burgled, and my wife and family brutalised, then I hope I'd wait for the law to take its course - or at the very least, I'd make sure I beat the crap out of the right person, and not just pick on someone against whom I had a long-standing dislike. That would just make me a thug, a vigilante and a criminal.
This isn't some half-baked Hollywood movie, and making light of the situation (as the title of this thread does) is unhelpful. Calling these people perps is another indication that immature and inappropriate TV-show metaphors may be being applied. Innocent lives must not be shed in the search to achieve justice for the innocent lives already lost. America sets itself up as the leader of the free world and the shining example of enlightened democracy. Kneejerk revenge is not appropriate from such a great nation, whereas legal retaliation may be. Without following due process, we diminish ourselves and play into the hands of those who seek to destroy what we stand for.
I fully support effective action against the guilty, but like many Brits, I feel uneasy when our PM writes a blank cheque of support to the USA when that nation's language is so (understandably) intemperate, and when justice and retaliation appear to have been put behind the desire for pure unadulterated revenge. This is not Kuwait in 1990, where there was a 'smoking gun', and when I fully supported all actions that were taken (and indeed condemned them for perhaps not going far enough). I am not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks that military action is always wrong (or even regrettable), I just believe in international law.
PS: Desperado. I'll argue with you when your geopolitical outlook progresses beyond about 1975, OK? This isn't 1967, and Israel's neighbours aren't bent on its destruction, 'kay???
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
You appear to feel that if someone disagrees with you then the best solution is to be at best patronising, and at worst pompous and insulting. I am not a teenager, and I can read. I am well aware of what has been going on in the middle east since 1975, indeed I have visited the region a number of times both on and off duty, and spoken to people there from all walks of life and religions (have you?). I repeat my question, why is it that Syria (with it's oh so benevolent dictatorship) supports, trains and harbours more than 10 terrorist groups (including Hamas, one of the groups responsible for suicide bombings) that seek the destruction of Israel, if it were so keen to see Israel's continued existence. Syria is not the only nation in the region with similar issues. You say that my views are based on the issues of 25 years ago, well it was around that time that the US became heavily involved in the region and sponsored the peace process. This was coincidently a time when Egypt started to receive significant western financial, and military aid. Now I am not suggesting that Egypt would return to her ways pre peace, but the withdrawl of US support for Israel is likely to make the threat to Israel from its neighbours and not just the terrorists, much greater. Jacko, these are just my opinions, based on some reading and some real experiences. Perhaps you would come down off your much higher intellectual dais and explain to a poor old comprehensive educated stick monkey where I have got it all wrong, you are obviously much cleverer than I am. By the way I know I harp on about Syria, they are just the best example, not the only one.
KBF,
See where you are coming from. But, I just feel that this was a little bit more than 'just' (my word) a terrorist atrocity. I don't feel the need or the urge to look at this from a few paces back as you do. I believe that we are involved up to our neck and should not shirk from that. But I agree that TB should not be handing over a blank cheque, I guess we just disagree on how much should be on it.
As far as Iraq is concerned, we haven't been responsible for starving the children and people of Iraq. Saddam has it within his means to purchase food and medicine for oil, and always has done, he has just chosen not to because he cares more about the propaganda value than his people.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on NI, we have given in to terrorists, let them out of prison (thereby legitimising their claim that their crimes were political, not criminal), even put them in positions of power, to no avail. I am with TB in his fight against terrorism, but I haven't heard anything from him about our own problem.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]
You appear to feel that if someone disagrees with you then the best solution is to be at best patronising, and at worst pompous and insulting. I am not a teenager, and I can read. I am well aware of what has been going on in the middle east since 1975, indeed I have visited the region a number of times both on and off duty, and spoken to people there from all walks of life and religions (have you?). I repeat my question, why is it that Syria (with it's oh so benevolent dictatorship) supports, trains and harbours more than 10 terrorist groups (including Hamas, one of the groups responsible for suicide bombings) that seek the destruction of Israel, if it were so keen to see Israel's continued existence. Syria is not the only nation in the region with similar issues. You say that my views are based on the issues of 25 years ago, well it was around that time that the US became heavily involved in the region and sponsored the peace process. This was coincidently a time when Egypt started to receive significant western financial, and military aid. Now I am not suggesting that Egypt would return to her ways pre peace, but the withdrawl of US support for Israel is likely to make the threat to Israel from its neighbours and not just the terrorists, much greater. Jacko, these are just my opinions, based on some reading and some real experiences. Perhaps you would come down off your much higher intellectual dais and explain to a poor old comprehensive educated stick monkey where I have got it all wrong, you are obviously much cleverer than I am. By the way I know I harp on about Syria, they are just the best example, not the only one.
KBF,
See where you are coming from. But, I just feel that this was a little bit more than 'just' (my word) a terrorist atrocity. I don't feel the need or the urge to look at this from a few paces back as you do. I believe that we are involved up to our neck and should not shirk from that. But I agree that TB should not be handing over a blank cheque, I guess we just disagree on how much should be on it.
As far as Iraq is concerned, we haven't been responsible for starving the children and people of Iraq. Saddam has it within his means to purchase food and medicine for oil, and always has done, he has just chosen not to because he cares more about the propaganda value than his people.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on NI, we have given in to terrorists, let them out of prison (thereby legitimising their claim that their crimes were political, not criminal), even put them in positions of power, to no avail. I am with TB in his fight against terrorism, but I haven't heard anything from him about our own problem.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, Jbf1,
You speak of not retaliating until enough evidence against OBL is found, Your nervous about US rage turning Kabul into a parking lot, and You both seem very knowledgable concerning the ramifications of poorly executed actions on the part of the US. First, OBL has been fingered for numerous other terrorist acts, and for these alone he needs to be eliminated. A trial would only add to the media circus and further attempts at terror. You both seem to possess the weak-spined attitude of Chamberlain with Hitler. This attack was physically aimed at the US, but all of the Western world is suffering. These people will not negociate in peace, and I believe that even if Israel was eliminated off the face of the earth, these same warring factions would exist. We all know who these guys are, where they are, and who's behind them. Hell, at every intel brief I've recieved in the past 5 years OBL is the star attraction. The difference now is that we are not going to be good "neighbors" and respect tenants of international law, If a country will not turn these criminals over, then we will take them ourselves. If this attitude offends your higher moral values I'm sorry. Also I feel that the IRA terrorists in NI will be a target of this campaign in some fashion. And finally, while You all correctly state that you have endured terrorism for 30 years etc etc, the ferocity of this attack goes beyond past acts, these Assho@#!s have managed to screw up the world economy and airlines all over the world are feeling the impact. Imagine if Buckingham Palace, and Westminster Abbey, or the Eiful tower were the targets. Would you still be asking for such a high level of evidence? By the way, I thank God Bush is the President, with Colin Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on his staff I'm sure they are carefully considering all options and avenues of responce, even without the expert advice of you and Jackonico.
You speak of not retaliating until enough evidence against OBL is found, Your nervous about US rage turning Kabul into a parking lot, and You both seem very knowledgable concerning the ramifications of poorly executed actions on the part of the US. First, OBL has been fingered for numerous other terrorist acts, and for these alone he needs to be eliminated. A trial would only add to the media circus and further attempts at terror. You both seem to possess the weak-spined attitude of Chamberlain with Hitler. This attack was physically aimed at the US, but all of the Western world is suffering. These people will not negociate in peace, and I believe that even if Israel was eliminated off the face of the earth, these same warring factions would exist. We all know who these guys are, where they are, and who's behind them. Hell, at every intel brief I've recieved in the past 5 years OBL is the star attraction. The difference now is that we are not going to be good "neighbors" and respect tenants of international law, If a country will not turn these criminals over, then we will take them ourselves. If this attitude offends your higher moral values I'm sorry. Also I feel that the IRA terrorists in NI will be a target of this campaign in some fashion. And finally, while You all correctly state that you have endured terrorism for 30 years etc etc, the ferocity of this attack goes beyond past acts, these Assho@#!s have managed to screw up the world economy and airlines all over the world are feeling the impact. Imagine if Buckingham Palace, and Westminster Abbey, or the Eiful tower were the targets. Would you still be asking for such a high level of evidence? By the way, I thank God Bush is the President, with Colin Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on his staff I'm sure they are carefully considering all options and avenues of responce, even without the expert advice of you and Jackonico.