evildave
Unregistered
E
Patrick said:
Just that dot, apparently.
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
Patrick said:
Could you make allowances for non-Americans and explain your point? Thanks.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
DanishDynamite said:
If I may DanishDynamite,
it sounds as if Patrick is one of the 10% of Americans who have not heard of the Afganistan invasion that was done in response to the 9/11.
Could you make allowances for non-Americans and explain your point?
9/11 is a monstrous war crime without precedent in the american experience. As terrible as the loss of life is, it represented something much bigger: a direct challenge to the whole of america with the targets being selected as representing its economic system, its defense establishment, and it's democratic form of government. If they had ten or 20 planes, I'm sure they would have added other targets, such as churches representing its religion. The challenge is even bigger than that - although euros appear to find little in common between their own societies and america, 9/11 actually represented a challenge to all of western civilization, america being almost the last country, for many years, being willing to defend the values of that civilization, such as democracy, with force when necessary.
There is absolutely no alternative but to fight back - not take it to the corrupt bureaucrats at the UN, not expect much in the way of help from our "allies" (except the Brits). In his fatwah, Osama specifically declared war against ALL americans and specified them ALL as "targets" - men, women, children, old people, sick people. In doing so, he stooped to a level that even the nazis didn't reach in WWII.
I'm angry that there are still people who don't get it. For eight tears, there was the insane wholesale reality disconnect of the Clinton Administration - generally treating WW4 as if it were an issue of arresting a few people.
Although president Bush understands it's a war, he seems beset by a "Maginot Line" mentality - he wants to spend zillions of dollars to "protect" everything. I just heard a report that they want to handle the SAM threat against passenger jets by installing ECMs - at a cost - just for THAT "defense"! - of $20 billion. There is no "defense" - that's replaceing the Clinton delusions with new delusions. There's only offense, the U.S. has to go on a real war footing, implement completely new strategies, methods, technologies, weapons, and rules, and go after them. They'll stop when they're dead - we need to make them dead.
9/11 is a monstrous war crime without precedent in the american experience. As terrible as the loss of life is, it represented something much bigger: a direct challenge to the whole of america with the targets being selected as representing its economic system, its defense establishment, and it's democratic form of government. If they had ten or 20 planes, I'm sure they would have added other targets, such as churches representing its religion. The challenge is even bigger than that - although euros appear to find little in common between their own societies and america, 9/11 actually represented a challenge to all of western civilization, america being almost the last country, for many years, being willing to defend the values of that civilization, such as democracy, with force when necessary.
There is absolutely no alternative but to fight back - not take it to the corrupt bureaucrats at the UN, not expect much in the way of help from our "allies" (except the Brits). In his fatwah, Osama specifically declared war against ALL americans and specified them ALL as "targets" - men, women, children, old people, sick people. In doing so, he stooped to a level that even the nazis didn't reach in WWII.
I'm angry that there are still people who don't get it. For eight tears, there was the insane wholesale reality disconnect of the Clinton Administration - generally treating WW4 as if it were an issue of arresting a few people.
Although president Bush understands it's a war, he seems beset by a "Maginot Line" mentality - he wants to spend zillions of dollars to "protect" everything. I just heard a report that they want to handle the SAM threat against passenger jets by installing ECMs - at a cost - just for THAT "defense"! - of $20 billion. There is no "defense" - that's replaceing the Clinton delusions with new delusions. There's only offense, the U.S. has to go on a real war footing, implement completely new strategies, methods, technologies, weapons, and rules, and go after them. They'll stop when they're dead - we need to make them dead.
Bush can send a few airplanes loaded with napalm or herbicide to southern AFghanistan, destroy the poppy crops and he would end alQueda's terrorism in one afternoon at a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars. You seriously have to question why he won't do that. Or why he didn't do it on day one....
Just two points. First, I'm pretty sure the nazis stooped this low and much lower, but that's not actually relevant.
Second, who is "them" and how exactly do you distinguish "them" from "their" neighbors and kill "them", without turning "their" neighbors into more of "them"?
Second, who is "them" and how exactly do you distinguish "them" from "their" neighbors and kill "them", without turning "their" neighbors into more of "them"?
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
I'm pretty sure that the enormous majority of people would agree with fighting back against terrorists. Any serious debate revolves around how to do it.
Simply invading other countries on a more or less random basis and without any real idea of what to do with them once you have them, for instance, doesn't do a whole lot to counter terrorism.
Simply invading other countries on a more or less random basis and without any real idea of what to do with them once you have them, for instance, doesn't do a whole lot to counter terrorism.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Donks said:
He won´t, and that´s the problem. He thinks that the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians is the best way to prevent future attacks.
And he doesn´t even realize that he´s stooping to the same level as the terrorists.
Just two points. First, I'm pretty sure the nazis stooped this low and much lower, but that's not actually relevant.
Just two points. First, I'm pretty sure the nazis stooped this low and much lower, but that's not actually relevant.
Second, who is "them" and how exactly do you distinguish "them" from "their" neighbors and kill "them", without turning "their" neighbors into more of "them"?
Of course the nazis selected out civilians for extermination - the jews, the gypsies, the communists, the physically impaired, and were the founders of the modern mass abortion movement. But did they ever say, for example, that "all frenchmen are a target"? Did they kill all frenchmen when they took over the country? No.
As to who "they" are and how you kill the effectively - "they" are Al Qaeda, and how you kill them is the issue to be dealt with, not, e.g., putting one million a copy bomb detectors at every airport that are ineffective because the affirmative action operator fell asleep, frisking Al Gore at the airport, putting Ted Kennedy on a terrorist watch list etc etc etc.
Just two points. First, I'm pretty sure the nazis stooped this low and much lower, but that's not actually relevant.
Second, who is "them" and how exactly do you distinguish "them" from "their" neighbors and kill "them", without turning "their" neighbors into more of "them"?
Of course the nazis selected out civilians for extermination - the jews, the gypsies, the communists, the physically impaired, and were the founders of the modern mass abortion movement. But did they ever say, for example, that "all frenchmen are a target"? Did they kill all frenchmen when they took over the country? No.
As to who "they" are and how you kill the effectively - "they" are Al Qaeda, and how you kill them is the issue to be dealt with, not, e.g., putting one million a copy bomb detectors at every airport that are ineffective because the affirmative action operator fell asleep, frisking Al Gore at the airport, putting Ted Kennedy on a terrorist watch list etc etc etc.
evildave
Unregistered
E
materia3 said:
We already do that herbicide in South America constantly in the name of the 'War on Drugs'.
Makes you wonder.
I'm pretty sure that the enormous majority of people would agree with fighting back against terrorists.
The first step in that would be for you to lose the word "terrorists" - at best an obsolete term left over from isolated incidents of plane hijackings going back to the 60s that doesn't come anywhere near to properly denoting the enemy now, and at worst a politically correct language manipulation term intended to make people think about the enemy the way the Clintonistas (disastrously) did - the word you should use is islamofascists.
Any serious debate revolves around how to do it.
Well of course. What's happening though is money spent fighting the last battle - thinking how to protect airlines and buildings when there are a million new types of attack possible.
Simply invading other countries on a more or less random basis and without any real idea of what to do with them once you have them, for instance, doesn't do a whole lot to counter terrorism.
Have I or has anyone advocated that? No.
The first step in that would be for you to lose the word "terrorists" - at best an obsolete term left over from isolated incidents of plane hijackings going back to the 60s that doesn't come anywhere near to properly denoting the enemy now, and at worst a politically correct language manipulation term intended to make people think about the enemy the way the Clintonistas (disastrously) did - the word you should use is islamofascists.
Any serious debate revolves around how to do it.
Well of course. What's happening though is money spent fighting the last battle - thinking how to protect airlines and buildings when there are a million new types of attack possible.
Simply invading other countries on a more or less random basis and without any real idea of what to do with them once you have them, for instance, doesn't do a whole lot to counter terrorism.
Have I or has anyone advocated that? No.
it sounds as if Patrick is one of the 10% of Americans who have not heard of the Afganistan invasion that was done in response to the 9/11.
It sounds as if you haven't heard that they continue to kill men women and children all over the world, most recently in the australian embassy. They're holding french hostages. They blew up a train in spain. It's as if a midget bully were running around kicking seven foot tall people in the ass with impunity. When is everyone going to say "enough" and get the bastards once and for all?
It sounds as if you haven't heard that they continue to kill men women and children all over the world, most recently in the australian embassy. They're holding french hostages. They blew up a train in spain. It's as if a midget bully were running around kicking seven foot tall people in the ass with impunity. When is everyone going to say "enough" and get the bastards once and for all?
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
It is not a war crime but I agree that it is without precedent in the USA.Patrick said:
That is my understanding as well.
What do you mean by "its" religion? The US isn't supposed to have any religion.
Despite your opinion, Europeans in general know that they have a lot in common with the Americans.
Few Europeans however, would understand your diatribe regarding the defence of the democratic ideals. They would have as little clue as to what you are talking about as I do.
Who cares?
The point is that the only answer you have to attacks on US soil is to make attacks of your own.
The War on Terror is as useless as the War on Drugs.
Your inability to understand, or even begin to consider, the background of the terrorists is what makes you weak.
Likewise, I'm angry that there are people who just don't get it. I'm hopefull that you will at some point understand.
Au contraire, the US needs to realize that no amount of bombing (short of genocide) will eradicate muslim radicalists. Apparently this simple fact is beyond the grasp of many Americans.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Patrick said:
True enough, terrorism of one sort or another has been around for a very long time and does continue to the present day. However, ending terrorism is not as simple as finding "them" and destroying "them" since the "them" is in a nearly constant state of change; in other words there is no single threat to eliminate.
Case in point, many of the 9/11 terrorists were considered to be among the best allies the USA had when the Soviets were in Afganistan. So your good friend today could still be your deadly enemy tomorrow.
evildave
Unregistered
E
True, and the right wingers would claim that it is the de-factor 'official' religion of the United States, and that any argument about 'seperation of church and state' is 'unconstitutional' and never at all what the founding fathers intended. Some of these Christian supremacists at least grudgingly make some concessions for *maybe* Catholics and Jews having some rights, too.
As for the 'unprecedented' nature of 9/11, there was the Oklahoma bombing and the previous bombing of the World Trade Center. There were also previous hijackings, including ones designed to crash aircraft into buildings, such as that attempted by a disgruntled Federal Express employee in 1994.
As for the 'unprecedented' nature of 9/11, there was the Oklahoma bombing and the previous bombing of the World Trade Center. There were also previous hijackings, including ones designed to crash aircraft into buildings, such as that attempted by a disgruntled Federal Express employee in 1994.