Missiles one minute, cheese and crackers the next, bombs out of one plane and wind up radios out the other (what, no MP3 players?). Today I heard that there were no attacks on Friday, because it's a sacred day for the MuslimsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh but of course.. it's a sacred day (I wonder how many American service men are actually Muslims)! This is such a sick 'war' if you can call it a war, (after all no one's fighting back, or hardly). Like some demented Disney fantasy (is Bin Ladin a CGI?). What they need is more pop-corn and new prayer mats next Friday! Big Macs on Saturday. BTW, most of the American food and freebies is being burnt by the hardliners and the Aid agency stuff is collected by merchants who sell it on at war prices!
Hmmmmm.... Well, considering how important this particular religious holiday season is to the Muslims--especially the extremist Muslims--who are using every thing they can to turn this "engagement" into a holy war, (even though moderate Muslims don't want that), I suppose the politicians are covering 'our' butts in ways they think appropriate. They're being choosy about which sore points to poke. Not everything these world leaders do is going please all. But there is some method to their madness. It's a precarious balance. Glad all of these choices aren't left up to me.
I think that the only substanatal opposition President Bush will get will be by anyone who thinks he's being too soft. After Sept. 11, the anti-war crowd was virtually stripped down to its core, and I don't see it growing back any time soon, at least not under these circumastances. Bush and his aides are doing an incredible job of getting their point across, almost genious. By actually being clear in their doctrine that, in fact, they are only hitting the terrorists (and they do that by helping those who critics feared would be negatively affected) they are at once showing that the terrorists are being hit real hard, and that the mission is so efficient that very few others will be hit, only helped. This war is beautiful politics, my friends, brilliant. The fact that Bush is sincere behind the politics makes it incredible.
Official number is 4000. Most of them are black and others are converts from Saudia Arabia. While our forces were there. That number increased rapidly after the deployment in Saudi lands. Info is from NBC meet the press. I am not sure how old was that.
Only hitting the terrorists? Didn't they accidentally wipe out a village and this morning on the radio I heard they had hit a red cross building. OOps... But in a war one must expect "collateral damage"....even if it's a sensitive, New Age war.
Don't forget the UN mine team After all, weren't the first four known casualties of the assault United Nations landmine workers who were "too close" to the target? Ouch. Such is war, such is war. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Congratulations ... (?!) If I might ... It's already happening. * http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134354286_raspberry16.html * http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/289/oped/A_change_for_the_better_or_worse_ .shtml * http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/289/oped/We_re_losing_the_psychological_battle .shtml Mr Raspberry's column I offer without further comment. Mr Carroll writes an interesting piece on what we may or may not accomplish by our actions. Ms Vennochi paints an interesting portrait of the hawkish psychology of the conflict. These are from today, so yes, it is true that these voices had not registered yet when you wrote of the stripped-down peace movement. But that's part of the process. * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8710-2001Oct4.html This piece, written by E.J. Dionne for the October 5 Washington Post reflects on the anti-pacifism that was taking place in the country that week or two. * http://www.arizonarepublic.com:80/opinions/benson/101301benson.html A Steve Bensen cartoon from a few days ago; I think it's rather cute. It speaks for itself. Those who assume such notions as the anti-war movement being stripped down need to recall that we're technically not at war. Nonetheless, the peace movement, composed of pacifists, still has a few problems with the military action undertaken. In the first couple of weeks, activity seemed restricted to reviews of American history (foreign policy especially), appeals for diplomatic solutions, cultural education, cross-cultural solidarity, and other such generally healthy activities that we need more of in our communitites, anyway. Part of the point is that Americans generally don't understand a thing about the people in Afghanistan; another part of that point is that Americans don't understand the full implications of their own history. We treat events as if they are isolated and static, ideals upon which we might reflect. People don't seem to consider the interconnectedness of myriad events. Most of the people I know find no irony in the fact that Poppy Bush's two big military campaigns--Panama and Iraq--both challenged dictators installed by the machinations of the CIA during his own tenure. Why is this? What, did these noble gentlemen corrupt overnight? No, they were vicious and wrong when we built them up. In other words, yes, we need Americans to be more educated and less political in their considerations of war. But there's where your peace movement's been. And they may have held themselves to that if it wasn't for the, uh, brilliant ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) political move of demonizing your own critics during the nation's darkest hour, nor that beautiful ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) maneuver of showing our allies the "evidence" but not the people who asked for it before turning someone over to a bloodthirsty nation with a reasonable reputation for duplicity and idiocy. Well, I don't know about genius. But there's a difference between doctrine and practice, as any Christian can tell you. While it's true that we didn't know about bombing the Red Cross when you wrote your opinion, do you really think we're only hitting the bad guys? The only reason the mission looks so efficient is because they're shooting at fairly obvious military targets, which the citizens should be smart enough to stay the hell away from, and then equipment out in the middle of the desert. We have not, I noticed in today's news, begun attacking "troop concentrations". Besides, it appears we have slammed a few civilian centers by intent or accident, so the efficiency of the mission is only statistically encouraging. You'll notice that when politicians and media talk about the fact that this won't be a "clean war", they're talking about the idea of our military personnel dying in a war. This thought seems to upset some Americans: We should be able to have a war without any of our boys dying! But nobody, it seems, points out that no war is clean, and that "enemy" civilians will die because nobody really cares. The problem with war is that you're killing people for pride. The larger point being that the peace movement is still strong; its leaders watched carefully, and so far I think it's being careful. The rising media voices reflect thought, hope, and also a duty to remind people that just because one thinks it feels good doesn't mean it's right. Jim McDermott, a Democratic Congressman from Washington state, put it well. * http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cg...id=268448406&slug=mcdermott09m0&date=20011009 We'll see if that link works .... Genius politics would have been to bring the Islamic world to our side for the diplomatic push to hand over bin Laden. Brilliant politics would have been to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. Beautiful politics includes securing China's support in the war against terrorism; I recall reading in the AP wire that they intend to do us the favor of taking out the nasty Tibetan terrorists. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And? Brad Rules I'm sure there's a point to that you would like to fill us in on. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The point is..... what kind of person would turn on his brother-in-law? Osama is family, the leader of the Taliban will not turn on him. Brilliant leadership would be to take out the Taliban and replace it with a government that represents all of Afghanistan, treats women as humans and is not a destabilizing force in the region. Your solutions would leave the Afghanis stuck under a ruthless regime. You may not care what happens to the Afghani people, there are people out there who do.....
How well you know them? Well, Brad Rules, what happens when one realizes that one's brother-in-law is endangering one's own vision of fulfilling God's will? We need not here consider that jeopardy coming merely from the idea of sponsoring such evil acts of terrorism, but in the sense that the Taliban will no longer be able to lead their people to God, as such. Are we actually assuming the Taliban has the ability to hand over bin Laden? Al Qaeda can do this to the United States; what can it do to Afghanistan? I agree. We'll call it brilliant when it happens. Not necessarily. You're jumping to conclusions because you don't seem to want to think this through. We have proof that this is bin Laden, right? That is, at the time we started bombing the heck out of things? Now--What is so troubling about the idea of showing that to the Taliban? How is it "negotiating with terrorists" to provide proof of one's accusations? The problem with Bush's approach is essentially one of "I say I have proof and so that's good enough." So, assuming that we have proof, for a president wouldn't lie, right? So, assuming that we have proof, is there not a diplomatic aspect yet untried? Such as presenting it to nations other than those who have agreed to support us? Perhaps then, the "world's problem" could be handled by the world? As Congressman McDermott of Washington state noted, have we really thought this through? Have we really arrived at this last resort so quickly? Is there truly no other way? I think you're well out of line with your assertion; like I noted, it would be brilliant to build a proper government in Afghanistan, and we'll call it brilliant when it happens. In the meantime, it's a farcical pseudo-war. Funny how people didn't seem to care about it before 9/11. What, was it right and proper up until then? If this is about "people" in nations, then take a look at what needs to be done in the world. Or should we wait for those other nations filled with people in need to hurt us so we can show them our compassion with bombs? This isn't just about the present; it reflects heavily on the past and will speak much of the future. And that's why warfare is wrong: violence begets future violence. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, You must have missed Bin Ladens and the Talibans press releases when we started bombing.... in their statements they not only admitted that they were responsible but they made actual demands on our government in order for them to stop the terrorism. One does not have to prove murder to the murderer.... one has to prove it to his peers. The Taliban is controlled by Bin Laden.... you may be the only one on the planet that does not recognize that fact. The proof in the pudding...... http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/diplomacy/1017footsoldiers.html http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,314413-412,00.shtml Tiassa, INFORMED opinions are always superior to UNINFORMED opinions.
I think it is comforting to know that many are still asking questions and wanting answers. Time will tell. Considering the faith that we are placing in our leaders--much of it being blind--I think we should demand a satisfactory outcome: an end to terrorism and democracy in Afghanistan. Americans should expect no less. Yes, we deserve that much satisfaction. I could support and sympathize with such a movement.
NO ONE has admitted liability, where'd you get your news? Bin Ladin praised the perpetrators and said they couldn't have done it if God hadn't willed it. But he did not say that he planned it or gave the order for it. That is not an admittance. Who then? Good question. Today an Israeli minister was shot dead. The Palestinians ANNOUNCED it immediately. Every time a genuine terrorist organisation commits murder/s of a political enemy for its cause, it ANNOUNCES it. Otherwise there'd be NO POINT would there? So far, NO ONE has claimed responsibility for the Anthrax scare. And a scare is all it is, designed to keep the sheep in favour of the continuing 'war' against (Moslim) terrorism, but just who's behind it? If they were serious terrorists, wouldn't they have just contaminated some supermarkets or water systems and affected a few thousand victims at once and announce it? Are we to believe that religious fanatics are now in the business of secretly playing terrorising mind games more suited to the X files and dark American culture? Doh, there's a clue!
Congradulations I got the above quote from an AOL news source. Well, it seems like the word "terror" is quite a liberating platform. A platform upon which unscrutinized governments can justify the use of force. justify it with impunity from the unquestioning masses that stare slack-jawed into the television that bathes their minds in programming designed to promote compliance.
Um ... Brad? Brad Rules Um ... if the proof is in the pudding, did you then post the wrong links by accident? I don't see your point validated in there. Where is that admission of responsibility? I tend to agree. Let me know when you get one. In the meantime, I'm happy to wait for you to fix your links to reflect articles which, uh, "prove" your assertions. But since you're so well-informed, I'm sure it's not too much trouble at all, is it, Brad? Really, man ... I already know you're wrong; I'm just amused by your smugness in light of the fact that you blew the point with citations that don't accomplish anything toward your point. It's why it's better, Brad Rules to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. Let me know when you've got your citations straight. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Machaeon, These animals are flying jets into high rises. These animals are spreading anthrax through the mail.... scaring postal employees so bad that the United States is in danger of losing mail service. Perhaps you will finally get the picture when these animals release small pox (which Iraq is rumored to have) into our society. With a 90+% mortality rate, western civilization would cease to exist and we would devolve back into the dark ages... just like they desire. Kill the fungus now or be consumed by it. Paranoid fanatics like you fighten me much more than our government. Fanatics blow up abortion clinics. Fanatics send anthrax in the mail. Fanatic followers of David Koresch burned themselves up in Waco. A fanatic caused the Oklahoma City bombing. Fanatics are responsible for bombing, murder and mayhem all over the world. The worst thing about a fanatic is that they blame the handiwork of other fanatics on government conspiracies. For example, many middle eastern fanatics are saying that the World Trade Center bombing was the result of an Israeli conspiracy. If I was in charge, I would impose the death penalty on lunatics who promulgate conspiracy theorists. It is they who may in the end bring about the end of the world. They are the cancer. They are the disease. Tiassa, there is no need to be discourteous. Your post was nothing other than a bunch of insults strung together in an attempt to make me feel bad. I will debate you when you decide to be civil again.
Brad brad.... Brad, You have no proof to back up ur statement. There is no official confirmation of Anthrax coming from terrorist groups or and individual like a UniBomber. Who happened to be our countryman. Now every thing we are seeing is from media. None of the so called evidence have been preseneted in front of public. WHY? What is there to hide?? Not enough support to back up their statesments?? I am not saing that he didn't do it but I can't prove that he did either. We are full of S*** right now and using all our BS sources and so called agencies but we can't track the damn mail full of Anthrax. They can track back the postal stamp and then search the whole area for suspects but we are not doing it???or are we?. Now I can assume that we pissed off Jewish lobby so bad during elections I can assume they are taking advantage and doing this??? But I am not. Since there is no backing. Now I have a question for you. Why are you paying for cirmes of Israel??? Why my countrymen pay for some other country? Isn't that one of the main reason that OBL guy is pissed??? Both parties in middle east are wrong but they should let each other live in peace. Let Israel be happy and Let Plastanians live in their own state. I don't know what is so hard about it? I am not sure I think we went after something bigger then OBL or Afghanistan. I think there is more then what we can see. And for you I think i say think for urself too put some thoughtss togather. Don't belive all you see in media. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thus far, the anthrax attacks strike me as similar to the Oklahoma bombing. There has been absolutley no proof of Bin Laden involvement, and the method behind the attacks appears very odd. It is possible, but let's not go blaming anyone before you even have the slightest clue of who's responsible. The worst thing about a government is that it blames the handiwork of fanatics on other governments. For example, the US and Bin Laden (Afghanistan). The US and the anthrax outbreak (Iraq). You seem pretty quick to judge yourself anyway, regardless of evidence. As with the conspiracy theorists you argue are unable to see things clearly, I would argue that you only subscribe to theories which conform to your worldview rather than the 'facts', such as they are. This is not a conflict about the West v. Islam or Palestine v. Israel or Arabs v. US. It's about all of that, and more. The solution really isn't going to be a military one, and it isn't going to be simple. Tell me, what actually happens when the US gets Bin Laden? String him up, try him, shoot him, imprison him? It makes little difference, he'll become a martyr because the cause if this underlying tension will not be addressed - the symptoms will be treated but that's it. What does the US do? Find someone new to go after? Quietly back off? Retreat into newly unfree US? There's no way to win like this. I know it feels nice to see all your tax dollars falling on Red Cross depots and disused airfields in Afghanistan. All that sexy hardware and talk of surgical strikes and cool jets with tough, disciplined men in the world's best military doing a man's job. Probably sends a tingle down your spine when you see the nightly video on CNN. Fade in US flag and square jawed American soldier saluting as the star-bangled banner plays. These are powerful images. They have to be, it's nationalism. It's hard to get around the emotion and togetherness when you feel under siege. But ask youself this, will it really, REALLY make you safer? Deal with the roots of the problem? If yes, we disagree, but try to see an alternative. It's not just about a bunch of wimpy, haven't got the balls, Arab, Bin Laden sympathisers. It's a response to how we can achieve security for all. I'd be first in line to fight Hitler's Germany and show no mercy, there was no other option. But that doesn't mean a military response is ALWAYS the only, or right option. I think in this case it's more harmful than beneficial, and plays right into Bin Laden's hands.
Captain, What could the American government done to prevent Tim McViegh from blowing up a federal office building in Oklahoma City? What change in their behaviour would have prevented that horror? The way I see it, the only thing they could have done to prevent it was to imprison or kill McVeigh. Terrorists are terrorists. There is only way to stop them.... The terrorist group Osama is part of has been linked to attacks in many countries all over the world. Indonesia, the Phillipines, India, Somalia, Britain, France, etc.... Your explanation seems ignorant to the world wide spread of terror brought by Osama. His goal is to create a world which is ruled by Islam. He wants nothing less than global domination. There is no negotiation possible with a person/organization that has this mind set. Kill him and all his top advisors. Let those who lead terrorists organizations know that it is they who will die!!! They are used to their followers dying, not themselves. When the financiers, planners and leaders of terrorist organizations die.... they are not nearly as replacable as the rabble which they employ. Crush some governments along the way, this will re-emphasize the point that payback for attacks on America are something to fear. If middle eastern government leaders believe that they will be killed by American forces due to sponsership of terrorism.... terrorist networks in that country will wither and die. It is all about consequences. Enough talking, it is time for the towel-headed camel-jockeying women-beating baby-killing islam-spewing sheep-humping terrorist-loving gutter scum to die.... preferably in massive quantities. Time for America to show the world the kind of carnage and terror a superpower can lay on a third world nation. I am hoping for kill ratios on the order of 10,000 to 1.
