America, America, land of the free

[Toaster]

Hello folks,
Today (Tuesday), a second rate , third world sheet heap of a nation killed hundreds of American men women and children. This cowardly act of is without honor or remorse. No doubt, they did this as the word of thier god.
Now, America, home of the free, must go to meet this cowardly foe on the battlefield. This shall be an easy task as these cowards who hide behind women and children should prove to be cannon fodder.
I for one, firmly believe that should the US go abroad to do battle, we should have say over the land we bleed upon.
Americans, your nation needs your support. Your America needs to know how you would respond. Your America needs what you have given so many times in the past, blood, bucks and balls.
These cowards need to be informed of how honorable peoples of the world shall handle such lessor "terrorists".
I have no respect what so ever nor remorse for a peoples that would do such things. Hitler garners more respect.

Its time to pay the tab and Americans plan on presenting the check for payment in full.


"Americans love to fight. Americans love the sting of battle and Americans will not tolerate a looser" George Patton

[reboot]

Nice sentiment, and I sympathize, but...
You (and we) do NOT know it has anything to do with a "third world sheet heap of a nation".
We also do not know it has anything to do with "the word of thier god".

Sorry toaster, I really do understand your anger, but, until the world is informed of what (and who), based on facts, don't automatically blame the (possibly) innocent.

[figarowa]

I kinda agree with toastie here...I my self am tired of being sterotyped as an "american", having a huge home, a million cars, that i'm fat, lazy, eat mc Donalds all the time and watch insurmountable television. As a whole, it seems us as a nation has gotten too soft and cuddly on foreign policy since the ending of the cold war. We basically took it up the rear yesterday as terrorists used our own planes to commit this act...Theres a few questions that ponder my mind in that, sure the terrorists supposedly used ceramic or polyproplene knifes and that there was at least 2 per plane. Why would no one take a stand? I know im not the biggest guy or the quickest, but heck i'm not going to let someone indimidate me with a knife, knowing that this person now has my life in his hands. Another point is why Osama is still alive today following the origional bombing of the WTC. I doubt the american public would have minded if he "dissappeared" before the catastrophe happened yesterday. I think that these acts of terrorism have gone on long enough, we need to return to the "carry a big stick" nation, not the nice little peace keepers.
I'll get off the soap box for now, hopefully bushie can follow in his fathers footsteps and take some corrective action.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by figarowa
...Theres a few questions that ponder my mind in that, sure the terrorists supposedly used ceramic or polyproplene knifes and that there was at least 2 per plane. Why would no one take a stand? I know im not the biggest guy or the quickest, but heck i'm not going to let someone indimidate me with a knife, knowing that this person now has my life in his hands.
No one took a stand on the first 3 planes because the history of hijackers is to fly us to cuba and get off. No one had an idea they were on a suicide mission. Now the last flight (Pennsylvania crash), they DID know thanks to cell phone conversations, that hijacked planes had flown into the WTC. In that instance brave souls did overpower the attackers.... suicide in itself, but resulting in saving who knows how many other innocent lives. I don't know if I've ever heard of a larger act of bravery.

[SARGE]

I agree with the bootman. When I was in the 8th grade here in Dallas, JFK was shot. Everyone immediately blamed the Russians and Cubans, but then the whitewash began and Oswald was blamed for the history books. When Oklahoma City was bombed, the Arab world and even militias were blamed. Ended up being one of us. This latest event does have evidence pointing toward the East, and despite warnings of "justice", will end up with some paper tiger, or threats. If'n we get too rough, the Arabs may embargo us, and we don't want that.

My beef with our own gov't is that their #1 job in Constitution is defending us; they failed. Then, I hear that it took an hour for the first fighter jet to launch after the twin towers were hit. I say blame them all... Notice how "coalitions and resolutions" are being formed (as usual) and the Prez must get Congress' approval before committing any assaults? Why not just telegraph the bad guys and say we're coming.

[Tiretool]

Reguardless of who did it, they will come to bear the punishment for this evil deed they have commited. If not in this lifetime, then most definitely in the next.


Innocent casualties of this terrible act, you are not forgotten.

http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0109/terror/images/nyc/our.lady.liberty.ap.jpg

[SARGE]

Unfortunately, toolman, we may be wrong about "getting them". The following takes a minute to read, but it says much:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/gerecht.htm

[Toaster]

Hello folks,
Afganistan today told world reporters that the multi-million dollar terrorist (I forgot this bozo`s name) in under "house arrest" and they begged the US "not to bomb them". Now all these cheezy, second rate, third world sheet holes are cowering because NOW they pissed us off bigtyme and we seek BLOOD.
Now...NOW, their "cause" isn't so damned important but rather their meaningless lives.
IRAN, IRAQ and others cower by saying "we should assist in any way possible and put aside our differences".
C'mon! You killed probably THOUSANDS of women, children, elderly and NOW your too bit cause needn't be mentioned?
This coward exiled into Afganistan said very recently to the BBC and English newspapers: "Something very big will happen soon"
Afganistan assisted this unholy goof and offered him protection right up till this past tuesday. Now thier story has changed.
This reminds me of a bully in any school, corner him/her and they back down to save thier collective a$$.

And to "KILL" THOUSANDS in a "holy war" ?

Give me a break! He went on to say recently:
"The US is a mortal enemy and when justice is done and upon the day I die, I will be a martyr and "see" God."

Old Klingon proverb:
" Revenge is a dish thats best served cold"

As an American, I can say clearly and loudly:
" I want blood! " and i`ll give it to get it!

[bob]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/index.html

[Smoke24]

I personally think that our military should imediately go capture this Bin Laden guy and bring him to New York and hang him from the Statue of Liberty and Televise it on every channel world wide as a warning to the rest of the crazy ragheads in the world that we won't stand for any of their crap. If any country persists in protecting him they should destroy that country and while they're at it they could go finish the job started with Desert Storm and rid the world of Sadam and all of his followers.
I am afraid that our politicians are going to end up doing nothing for fear of offending someone and trying to be politically correct with the rest of the world. They need to get real for once.
I also think that if air traffic had not been shut down that this would have continued across the nation. I believe they had a much bigger plan to do major destuction in all major cities in the U.S. using the same means. I don't know why that possibility hasn't been mentioned by the media or anyone within our government.
There are thousands of these ragheads that have been planted in the U.S. for years, many of them naturalized citizens that own and run businesses and work for major companies that are here to destroy the U.S. from within. They are just waiting for their instructions as to what to do and when from those like Sadam and Laden. Believe it or not.

[Statica]

I know this is in defiance of logic, that people say all over, about identification and targetted attacks. I disagree .. even as the bastard said .. you kill one Osama bin Laden 10 others will rise .. I say do a systematic extermination of every one of them even suspected to be linked to them.

I've lived through a similar attack, the terrorist bombing of the Bombay Stock Exchange and a series of such blasts in India, and hoped I'd never again had to be witness to something as horrible (300+ death toll 1200+ injured). The perpetrators were terrorists based in Islamic fundamentalist and they still hide in the countries that you have seen mentioned above, and havent even been extradicted. At the beginning of the year, the terrorists hijacked an Indian Airlines jet and got the release of 3 islamic terrorists and killed a couple of passengers at a plane commandeered to Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to let Indian forces to go and secure the release, under the pretext that they would take the requisite action and negotiation. Israel has unfortunately had to live through these unnamed horrors on a daily basis.

It really is time to form a global consortium, perhaps even with absolute powers to eradicate these roaches. I am glad that my country has pledged its support. Hopefully some good will come out of it.

[WJWheels]

We will rebuild if just to send a message to these bastards:
<img src="http://wjwheels.com/flipwtc.jpg">

[LawyerRon]

I believe legal authority exists for the capture and arrest of members of the Taliban if they're deemed to share responsibility. Remember General Noriega? The U.S. Supreme Court has held time and again that the Constitutional protections enjoyed by people in American territory do not exist in foreign countries. Wouldn't these so-called "leaders" of these countries be surprised if they knew they could be arrested by U.S. forces and returned to the U.S. for trial? I'll bet the thought has already crossed the minds of those in the Taliban.

I remember a case a few years ago about law enforcement agents who tracked a fugitive into Canada. They entered his motel room under circustances that would have clearly violated the 4th Amendment (no warrant) here in the U.S. When the defendant raised the lack of a warrant (and 4th Amendment violation) to suppress all evidence, the U.S Supreme Court said, "Sorry, it didn't happen in the U.S., thus the 4th. Amendment does not apply".

[Statica]

Originally posted by Toaster
Hello folks,
Afganistan today told world reporters that the multi-million dollar terrorist (I forgot this bozo`s name) in under "house arrest" and they begged the US "not to bomb them".

It is unconfirmed. The news came from the UAE not from the Taliban/Afghanistan. I think they'd rather sooner let Bin Laden flee than hold him.

[Smoke24]

Hey Ron,
I don't want to take anything away from your profession but I would think that these act of terror should preclude and not require the use of our legal system. Just kill them on the spot and don't clog up our courts with their garbage. They are backed up with enough useless junk already from all the rights our own criminals here have. Our justice is definitely not swift and many times not just. Could a criminal not get set free due to his inability to get a fair and speedy trial? Our system is absolutely not speedy even if it is fair.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Statica
I know this is in defiance of logic, that people say all over, about identification and targetted attacks. I disagree .. even as the bastard said .. you kill one Osama bin Laden 10 others will rise .. I say do a systematic extermination of every one of them even suspected to be linked to them.

I've lived through a similar attack, the terrorist bombing of the Bombay Stock Exchange and a series of such blasts in India, and hoped I'd never again had to be witness to something as horrible (300+ death toll 1200+ injured). The perpetrators were terrorists based in Islamic fundamentalist and they still hide in the countries that you have seen mentioned above, and havent even been extradicted. At the beginning of the year, the terrorists hijacked an Indian Airlines jet and got the release of 3 islamic terrorists and killed a couple of passengers at a plane commandeered to Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to let Indian forces to go and secure the release, under the pretext that they would take the requisite action and negotiation. Israel has unfortunately had to live through these unnamed horrors on a daily basis.

It really is time to form a global consortium, perhaps even with absolute powers to eradicate these roaches. I am glad that my country has pledged its support. Hopefully some good will come out of it.

The problem is, unless you identify and exterminate, you leave yourself open to massive retaliation.

If we attack people and groups NOT responsible, we could find many more groups openly attacking US targets. The majority of terrorist organizations dislike the US, but limit their activities to shouting obscenities and the like. If they actively sought to harm the US, we could have a lot more than a few thousand deaths.

Stupid thing is, all we had to do to avert the whole thing was not keep troops in the mideast. Bin Laden dislikes that our military has never withdrawn from Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War 10 years ago.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Stupid thing is, all we had to do to avert the whole thing was not keep troops in the mideast. Bin Laden dislikes that our military has never withdrawn from Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War 10 years ago.
Your drivel is beginning to sicken me Paul. The mere fact that bin Laden "dislikes" it is probably reason enough to be there. Do you really believe that if we'd left this monster completely to his own wishes that he'd be less of a problem? He and his kind MUST be sought out and exterminated. They have no more right to wend their will on this planet than did Hitler.

[Carl Price]

I was listening to "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on the drive in to work. It was reported by a law enforcement officer that he was in the store ran by one of our "Mid-Eastern" citizens. The Pepsi man came in and asked what he needed. The reply was "10 cases of Pepsi and an airplane". No doubt an attempt at humour but black humor at best.

[Statica]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey

Stupid thing is, all we had to do to avert the whole thing was not keep troops in the mideast. Bin Laden dislikes that our military has never withdrawn from Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War 10 years ago.

That is absolutely <B><FONT COLOR="RED">crazy</B></FONT>!!!!
So what you mean to suggest is that every time a militant S.O.B. decides he doesnt want a stabilizing force in his vicinity, the force should withdraw?

Try this for size, suppose it is Bin Laden who is responsible, you would recommend in using adequate force in getting Bin Laden out. And then stop short of establishing a presence (am not even saying that it be an exclusively US presence, a UN presence, a NATO presence .. whatever!) to keep such elements from popping up, should the situation even demand it, so as to leave ourself faced with another disaster from another fanatic? I dont get it.

Oh wait, Saddam Hussein wants withdrawal of troops from Iraq as well .. how about we do that for him? Hey am sure Milosovic would appreciate an apology or at least a Hallmark card "sorry we busted your genocide"...

There was nothing wrong with the US presence in Saudi Arabia, it wasnt an occupation against the wishes of the majority government (or ruling monarchy). It was adequately ratified by the UNO. That was the important step, not overstepping boundaries that have been done by numerous times, but more often than not the US has been part of a ratified or requested troops presence.

Being non-confrontational is good, but changing your views into advocating docility towards terrorist elements is crazy!

Like it or not, the USA has adopted the role of a leader or at least an active role in most parts in bringing the world to some semblance of order. Sure they have made some bad decisions, but look at the overall track record. You have to look at the situation from both points... and then decide whether it was justifiable, not just on the basis of what happened in the space of an hour. Yes the US doesnt need to do it but (a) it does have vested interests in various areas of the world that it needs to protect and (b) that is the role it has adopted thus far.
I'd rather have a USA in there than a Switzerland.

[LawyerRon]

Smoke,
I'm just discussing options, not necessarily the best one. Of course, if we somehow identified their whereabouts and a tomahawk missile "accidentally" hit their location, I don't think anyone in the legal system would object.

[Toaster]

After the rubble is cleared from the WTC site *and* this Bin Laden jerk is brought to the US, we should construct a gallows and hang this turd on the WTC site. Post via the internet complete coverage. When the threats come in, begin the extermination. Absolute and complete.
Go from country to country collecting ANY terrorist and repeat the above.
No more...time to put a foot down and show no quarter to those in defiance.
Arm the israelies, give them a free hand in the gaza strip areas.
Go into IRAN, IRAQ and stir thier sheet up bigtyme.
Hell, even the Russians will help!

[Jade]

So should USA be some form of world police? Should we be? I would think so. Most small developing democracies need our help. It's would-be dictators like bin laden (and believe me Saudi-Arabia would be under his dictatorship if more people in Saudi were sympathetic to him).

And it is our help to the democractic (or democracy friendly) countries which got us to this point so far. The alternative however; is having more countries that are militant strongholds and anti-democractic.

It's our way of life which the average citzen embraces and would protect with his life vs little dictators and thier armed subordinates. They attacked US govt policies but underestimated the populace.

[WJWheels]

Well, by the consortium of countries that are behind us, including at last count even Pakistan, it's the best chance that will ever be available to stomp out terrorism completely. Either you're with us or against us, and if you're not with us then kiss your sandy butt goodbye!

[Statica]

But look at what's going on the streets... its just like the discrepancy between what Arafat had to say and what we saw from the mood on the streets:

<HR>
<QUOTE><A HREF="http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/130901/dtlfor59.asp" TARGET="_new">Source</A>
"
Osama's war CDs on sale in Pak
ANI
Islamabad, September 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pair of CDs issued by Osama bin Laden' Al-Qaida Organisation showing the Muslim militants being trained at an unidentified location, atrocities in Palestine and bin Laden speaking is being sold in Pakistan.
The filming, done by professional cameramen, includes shots of Palestinian hardships, Israeli atrocities, bin Landen delivering speeches and Islamic militants and children being trained.

The film is filled with a background sound of Quranic verses. The entire film, filled with Quranic verses is aimed at attracting more volunteers to fight against the West.

<A HREF="http://www.go4i.com/htvideo/sep/13/bin.rm">Video (with grim clips of what we are up against!)</A>
<HR>

[figarowa]

back when teddy roosevelt was pres, we were the "police officers" of the world, i think its time to stop being soft and start going after these hot spots of terrorism, how many more innoncents have to die before politicians quit getting in the way.

[mairving]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey

Stupid thing is, all we had to do to avert the whole thing was not keep troops in the mideast. Bin Laden dislikes that our military has never withdrawn from Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War 10 years ago.
So we should have just let Sadaam have Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and any other country that he wanted over there. Bin Laden is just using that as an excuse to kill us 'infidels'. Following that argument why doesn't the US adopt rules similar to Afghanistan where if a man shaves, he goes to jail, women can't work nor ride in taxis and even mentioning another religion besides Islam means death. If we did that he would like us better and probably not terrorize us. Or why don't we just bomb Israel. He would most certainly approve of that. It seems from this and your other posts that we should not support those countries like Israel that are democracies but instead we should support those that are dictatorships and have absolutely no human rights at all. Israel in spite of the fact that they are hated by Arabs, is a stabilizing influence in the area and a good friend of America. They certainly do not do things to win friends and influence people. They do them to survive.

The US can't bury it's head in the sand and pretend that things don't happen. The US will not be bullied by cowards such as Bin Laden nor will we stand for terrorism.

[mbossman2]

I received this in an email this morning:

This is a reprint from a post by Charles Brennen from South Florida
on the Trailer Sailor BB. It pretty much says it all:

"Hit The Buildings, Missed America"

An open letter to a terrorist:

Well, you hit the World Trade Center, but you missed America. You
hit the Pentagon, but you missed America. You used helpless American
bodies, to take out other American bodies, but like a poor marksman, you STILL
missed America.

Why? Because of something you guys will never understand. America
isn't about a building or two, not about financial centers, not about
military centers, America isn't about a place, America isn't even about a
bunch of bodies. America is about an IDEA. An idea, that you can go
someplace where you can earn as much as you can figure out how to, live for the
most part, like you envisioned living, and pursue Happiness. (No guarantees
that you'll reach it, but you can sure try!)

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine, and chant your terrorist
litany: "If you can not see my point, then feel my pain." This concept is
alien to Americans. We live in a country where we don't have to see your
point, But you're free to have one. We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one. Don't know where you got the strange idea that
everyone has to agree with you. We don't agree with each other in this country,
almost as a matter of pride. We're a collection of guys that don't agree,
called States. We united our individual states to protect ourselves from
tyranny in the world. Another idea, we made up on the spot. You CAN make it up
as you go, when it's your country.

If you're free enough.

Yeah, we're fat, sloppy, easy-going goofs most of the time. That's
an unfortunate image to project to the world, but it comes of feeling
free and easy about the world you live in. It's unfortunate too, because
people start to forget that when you attack Americans, they tend to fight like a
cornered badger. The first we knew of the War of 1812, was when England
burned Washington D.C. to the ground. Didn't turn out like England thought
it was going to, and it's not going to turn out like you think, either.
Sorry, but you're not the first bully on our shores, just the most recent.

No Marquis of Queensbury rules for Americans, either. We were the
FIRST and so far, only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in anger.
Horrific idea, nowadays? News for you bucko, it was back then too, but we
used it anyway. Only had two of them in the whole world and we used 'em
both.

Grandpa Jones worked on the Manhattan Project. Told me once, that
right up until they threw the switch, the physicists were still arguing over
whether the Uranium alone would fission, or whether it would start a
fissioning chain reaction that would eat everything. But they threw the switch
anyway, because we had a War to win. Does that tell you something about
American Resolve?

So who just declared War on us? It would be nice to point to some
real estate, like the good old days. Unfortunately, we're probably at
war with random camps, in far-flung places. Who think they're safe. Just
like the Barbary Pirates did, IIRC. Better start sleeping with one eye open.

There's a spirit that tends to take over people who come to this
country, looking for opportunity, looking for liberty, looking for freedom.
Even if they misuse it. The Marielistas that Castro emptied out of his
prisons, were overjoyed to find out how much freedom there was. First thing they
did when they hit our shores, was run out and buy guns. The ones that didn't
end up dead, ended up in prisons. It was a big PITA then (especially in
south Florida), but you're only the newest PITA, not the first.

You guys seem to be incapable of understanding that we don't live
in America, America lives in US! American Spirit is what it's called.
And killing a few thousand of us, or a few million of us, won't change
it.

Most of the time, it's a pretty happy-go-lucky kind of Spirit. Until
we're crossed in a cowardly manner, then it becomes an entirely different
kind of Spirit.

Wait until you see what we do with that Spirit, this time.

Sleep tight, if you can. We're coming.

Charles Brennan

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Statica



Like it or not, the USA has adopted the role of a leader or at least an active role in most parts in bringing the world to some semblance of order. Sure they have made some bad decisions, but look at the overall track record. You have to look at the situation from both points... and then decide whether it was justifiable, not just on the basis of what happened in the space of an hour. Yes the US doesnt need to do it but (a) it does have vested interests in various areas of the world that it needs to protect and (b) that is the role it has adopted thus far.
I'd rather have a USA in there than a Switzerland.

I don't mind our government being proactive NECESSARILY, but I think the govt. has lacked any long-term vision, and has sought only immediate resolutions to immediate problems, which has caused the long-term problems to grow worse, instead of better.

Sometimes, we are simply delaying the inevitable. We continually address the problems, but never the causes. We take sides in conflicts, which alienates one side, and thus further polarizes the warring individuals, and makes any true peace negotiations almost impossible.

Our strategy so far has been to try to "plug the leaks" in high-pressure situations, but this only keeps tensions high, and in some cases, like Israel, leads to decades of repression and terrorism by the different sides. "Peacekeeping" may in the end be a hundred times as bloody as the war we're trying to prevent.

If we do want to take an active part in world events, we must accept a few realities:

1) Going in, guns blazing, will stop immediate problems, but almost invariably creates more problems in the future.
2) In any conflict, people will die. By taking sides, we make ourselves a target. We must accept that by taking sides, we could see thousands, tens of thousands, or even more Americans dead before it's over.
3) Sometimes, we must allow a situation to become worse in the short-term to make long-term peace possible.
4) Just because there is a government under attack does not mean we should support it -- sometimes, people rebel against governments for a good reason.
5) War is sometimes unavoidable, and trying to hold it off may only make it worse in the end.
6) We need to look to a long-term solution to problems, not a "quick fix" which looks good on TV but solves no problems (and may well escalate the problems) in the long run.

I think, if the USA had a well thought out foreign policy, which kept the goal of a LONG-TERM and LASTING peace as the top priority, that we could do a lot of good. If we keep looking for a quick fix, we'd be better off staying neutral because at least we wouldn't make things worse.

Honestly, the Middle East situation, as a whole, has not benefitted from our presence there, in fact, overall, although we've helped in places, we've done more harm than good. We've been taking sides, sending money and troops there for over 50 years, and peace is as far away as ever. Far from stabilizing governments, we've DESTABILIZED them simply because opinions over whether or not their govt. should side with or against us polarizes citizens of nations -- our major Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have had continuous problems because of their ties with America.

America CAN be a strong promoter of peace, but we must alter our methodology. If you had a feud with your neighbor, and I came into your house, shot a few people in your family, then put a gun to your head and told you to be friends, would this help, or hurt? It might stop short-term problems, but it would escalate the hatred which fueled the problems in the first place.

If we truly want peace, we MUST understand that our methods aren't helping -- beating people into submission is not an effective tool of peace.

Now, I'm all for striking back at the terrorists who did this, and I think we must ALWAYS punish those who attack us. But trying to keep peace like we have been doing, by simply forcing people to maintain the illusion that they aren't mortal enemies, is only building further anger, and resentment. This doesn't mean we should give up on the GOAL (peace), but that we need to change the STRATEGY of how we will make the goal a reality.

I don't have any problems with the goals we have, I have problems with how, traditionally, we've pursused this goal. We've spend the past several decades trying to stop problems which we *caused* in the decades before that. We need to deal with the problems, but do so in a way that we PREVENT future problems.

[Gintaras]

Paul is prolly the one who thinks with cold head, logically.

I'm very mad at what happened too.

To strike at Bin Laden could be done if there is evidence that he were involved in Act Of War, and need to be 110% sure about. Even eliminating Bin Laden, won't eliminate problem- it might only cause more problems. Maybe next time would die not 10,000 but 100,000 americans. Would you want this in a year or two?
To catch Bin Laden and to bring him to US to trial- that's a joke for terrorists.

I've watched TV these days, including interview with one former CIA officer who have worked with Bin Laden in Afganistan when russians were there. This guy ISN'T(remeber, guy knows Bin Laden) convinced that Act Of War was Bin Laden's work. I've seen other people discussing about who might be involved in this Act Of War. Most credible, logical opinion I heard
was that there is some country(goverment, their Inteligence) involved, who masterminded Act Of War to precission it was executed. Bin Laden may be a dekoy. Because everyone knows about Bin Laden Myth and it's easy to bait it. It's a job of CIA, FBI, NSA with precission to investigate, find who did mastermind Act Of War and then to strike.
To attack any country without any evidence- only will bring more anger to terrorists and more problems to americans- it even very likely might happen in anyone's here backyard. Remember, next time terrorists might even commit their evil acts using nuke devices. No one expected terrorists to hijack 4 jetliners and crash these causing 1000's of deaths- so, no one can expect/ know what might happen next.

Now, it's time for US, Intellingence to mastermind with cold heads how to strike back with posibillity to eliminate terrorism. It'll be very hard to do that. Don't think anyone here or anywhere wants WWIII or something similar.

If you miss Right targets, very posible terrorists will strike back- it might be worse than tuesday. Security in a month or two will be same as it was before tuesday.

Also, it might need to make a choice: support Israel or Your Own People- don't think there is 3rd choice- get real- there NEVER will be a peace in Middle West.



Don't get my opinions wrong- I'm MAD not less than everyone else here.

[Paul Victorey]

I agree, and I, too, am as angry as anyone at what has transpired. But, lashing out in blind rage will only cause further harm to ourselves. We must focus our anger, and control it. Striking logically, with a clear view of the objective and a clear idea of the long-term ramifications is the best way.

If we killed Bin Laden, but in doing so, created another terrorist leader or leaders that were equally bad, would we have won? I think not. We must consider ALL consequences of our acts, not just the desired consequence, when making a decision.

My whole point was, that we need to think rationally about ALL of our policies toward the Middle East, because solving one problem and creating two more in the process is a less than optimal solution.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
If we killed Bin Laden, but in doing so, created another terrorist leader or leaders that were equally bad, would we have won?
I fail to see any logic here. How does killing bin Laden create another terrorist leader? If other leaders are there, seek them out and kill them also. When Atilla was killed, that movement stopped. When Hitler was killed, that movement stopped. Let's take our chances.

[Hpro]

I think this is not a Question of Amricans troops are in Saudi or alike but this has it's 'birth' much further back - If you evr read the BIBLE chapter by chapter then you may also read the Second Testament and in there the als book of Johannes the Preacher - which used some statements like this - this is not the EXACT Translation because can't find a English Bible here - all I have is my 30 Year old Geramn Written Bible but I hope you will understand and then also find it in the last letter or prophecy of Johannes - I suppose this is John ..

There will be two Kings one in the west and one in the east which fight each other and the king in the west will give reign to his son - this war shall go on for 20 years - and then HE will come down to earth within THUNDER AND FIRE and seperate the ones believing into HIM.. does this ring a bell here and this was written about 2000 years ago ...

Who ever did this attack on NY - he didn't do it for religion Reason though but he did because of Selfishness egotistical reasons and to show his Power which in fact is nothing more than a act of a COWARD..
People like Bin Laden , Kohmeny , Hussein and all those Taliban guys will burn in HELL - be sure of that - thy can't run away forever - God says - To Whom you Forgive I also will..

And if we really go back in time then we also see that this has been going on for several thousend years now - with this I mean the HOLY War between Israel and all the ARAB countries involved - but this was a WAR fought by the means of whatever Rules apply to a war but this what is happening now is a UNNECESSARY UNDECLARED WAR against Women and Children and people which actually don't care about - they have enough to do with making their own dayli live going on.

anyway I hope that American Government will be able to get those responsible for their actions and bring them to JUSTICE -

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WJWheels

I fail to see any logic here. How does killing bin Laden create another terrorist leader? If other leaders are there, seek them out and kill them also. When Atilla was killed, that movement stopped. When Hitler was killed, that movement stopped. Let's take our chances.

Well, terrorists don't just magically appear out of thin air, and there is a REASON they hate us, while they don't hate most other countries.

If, when we kill Bin Laden (and I'm sure we will) we do so in a way that further causes powerful Arabs to hate us (for example, by again leaving a military presence which supports one faction in a power struggle) these powerful people will want revenge. If we kill Bin Laden in such a way that we escalate the tensions in the Middle East (either the Arab-vs-American tension or the Arab-vs-Israeli tension) we will create more terrorists.

The problem is, in many cases, these leaders have ENORMOUS popular support, because America is seen as an overseas power which continually interferes in the internal affairs of their nations. The very presence of the American military itself destabilizes a region where the public opinions on America are hugely varied and very strong.

To us, these people are terrorists. To many Arabs, these people are heroes like George Washington or other freedom fighters are to us. These people are the people who died for their countrymen -- the Taliban themselves were a group dedicated to removing the Soviets from Afghanistan, and have huge respect in their country. You start killing off the heroes, and you'll find that, far from "cut off the head and kill the body" that the people follow them 110%, and their deaths would only enrage them further.

The problem is we're not simply dealing with a band of a hundred or so people. There may only be a hundred or so people who have crossed the line to terrorist, but their ideas are shared, to lesser degrees, with MOST of the population of many of these countries. The more that we appear to be the "evil empire" that they fear us as, the country that makes all others sumbit to its will, the more we will alienate these people and push them over the line to terrorists themselves.

Here's a hypothetical for you: Say the US was at war and our president was killed by the other side. Would we simply lay down and surrender, or would we become enraged, and redouble our efforts to win? Given how we respond when attacked, I'd say we'd triple our efforts to avenge our fallen leader.

Cases when cutting off the head works is when people truly DON'T want to follow their leaders, or are neutral about the leader. Many Nazis, by the end of WW2, truly did NOT believe in their cause anymore. When a group of people truly LOVE their leader, they'd seek vengeance until their death.

So, we SHOULD seek the death of Bin Laden, because he has pushed us so far that we can do no else. But, we should also be mindful of the ramifications of our acts in the Middle East, and we should seek a way to unify the Middle East, not further drive a wedge between the factions. We must seek not only to combat the current terrorists, but also, and perhaps, more importantly, to create an environment in which terrorists rarely emerge.

[Smoke24]

I don't understand Paul Victory and all the other bleeding heart liberals like him. They need to be allowed the privledge and honor of living the rest of their lives among those they profess to defend. I think their tune would change in a big hurry and we would see a much different attitude on their part. These rag heads don't understand anything but death and destruction as that is all they have ever known since time began and if allowed they will still be fighting at the worlds end. They have no regard for life to include their own and have no clue what human rights are and the entire world will be better off without them. Let God sort them out if by chance there are any good ones.

[WJWheels]

Ah, but it is a band of only a hundred or so that rise up out of the "people" of these countries. I just saw on CNN an English journalist talking from Kabul. Anyone in those countries that is not a soldier or of the ruling class cares only IF he's going to get his nightly meal. They don't have any idea, thought, or feeling what's happening in the civilized world.

Strip the terrorist leaders of their guns and their finances and they have nothing left.... including armies and followers.

[Hpro]

Your statement
If, when we kill Bin Laden (and I'm sure we will)

I think there are more worse things than DEATH - Who tell whoever that this guy must be killed?

Take him in to custody and make his life to HELL - find his weak points - and attack him there 24 hours a day - He will ask to be killed.!But just don't do him this favor.! Let him remember all his entire life what he did - I'm sure this will keep of his followers ..

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by Smoke24
I don't understand Paul Victory and all the other bleeding heart liberals like him.

Let me try to help you understand something.

Bin Laden as/if you know was targeted once in Afganistan. Result of that strike-a few innocent people dead. Outcome of that strike- TUESDAY MORNING!!!

Not long ago in NYC were sentenced a few terrorists. Outcome- TUESDAY MORNING!!!

Clinton did strike at Iraq/Sadam. Outcome of that strike- TUESDAY MORNING!!!.


Do you want tomorrow to kill Bin Laden? Do you know what's going on in heads of other terrorists(not all have a name like Bin Laden, but there are many fanatics)? NSA did not know nothing about preparing to Act Of War, you think, you know that?

Bin Laden is a myth, I bet there are many similar to him who can easily replace Bin Laden once he's dead. Bin Laden also, might be just a bait, there might be even foreign goverment with Intelligence behind him. If it is- think, what may happen once you kill Bin Laden.


There MUST be VERY PRECISSION INVESTIGATION and VERY PRECISSION PREPARATION to strike at Bin Laden and other MAIN terrorist organizations. If Bin Laden is a dekoy and behind him is foreign goverment- to strike at that country(just not like was done with Iraq). But there have to be VERY PRECISSION(110%) Preparation. It may take months.


Act Of War wasn't prepared with HOT/ANGRY heads, otherwise people were all alive. You have now very good evidence of what these fanatics are capable of.
And I, believe me, don't want that to happen NEVER EVER.


Don't understand me wrong- I'm mad as you're. I just don't want more innocent people dead in the FUTURE!

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Smoke24
I don't understand Paul Victory and all the other bleeding heart liberals like him. They need to be allowed the privledge and honor of living the rest of their lives among those they profess to defend. I think their tune would change in a big hurry and we would see a much different attitude on their part. These rag heads don't understand anything but death and destruction as that is all they have ever known since time began and if allowed they will still be fighting at the worlds end. They have no regard for life to include their own and have no clue what human rights are and the entire world will be better off without them. Let God sort them out if by chance there are any good ones.

This doesn't even deserve a response. Believing that because someone is of a different race, ethnic background, or religion than you that somehow they're evil is one of the most backwards ideas I've ever heard.

For your information, I'm not a liberal at all, in fact, I'm quite conservative. But, there are only 3 ways to approach a problem like this:

1) Carefully, with logical and well-planned steps to ensure our goals.
2) Running off half-cocked, and creating more problems than we solve.
3) Genocide.

You seem in support of option 3, which I find reprehensible. You talk about how they have no respect for human rights, and yet you'd make yourself a worse monster than them. The sheer hypocrisy of your statement absolutely blows my mind.

Bottom line is, people are people. Some are better, some are worse, but the day we look at another and fail to recognize their humanity is the day we lose our own. How quickly the lessons of a half century ago are forgotten.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Hpro
Your statement


I think there are more worse things than DEATH - Who tell whoever that this guy must be killed?

Take him in to custody and make his life to HELL - find his weak points - and attack him there 24 hours a day - He will ask to be killed.!But just don't do him this favor.! Let him remember all his entire life what he did - I'm sure this will keep of his followers ..

Why in the world should we sink to that level? It won't bring back the dead to torment the living, and torture kills the torturers more than it does the tortured.

Also, if we did do this, how could we make any claims of being better than he is? If we are willing to give up all our laws and ideals, we give up what makes America special, and we cheapen everything we claim to stand for.

Plus, if someone YOU loved was tortured, would YOU stop fighting to save them? We want to punish a man, not a martyr!

Sometimes, the harder you push someone down, the stronger their urge to get back up is.

[Hpro]

May you are right - I wasn't talking about Physical Torture here -

[Smoke24]

Hey Gintaras,
Looks like the point you're making is very clear. It is that once a job like each of those you mention is started, to go ahead and finish it which never happened in any of those cases due to the sentiments of the bleeding heart liberals. That is the very reason our entire world is as screwed up as it now is and even our own children are carrying guns to school and killing their classmates. They seem to know that nothing will ever be done to them that warrants any fear for the actions they commit. That seems to be the sentiment thoughout the world because the punishment is never swift enough or severe enough to involk a sense of fear on the part of those who would do such acts of terror.
For your information it was George Bush #41 that was President at the time of Desert Storm and being retired military I had many friends that were involved in that conflict that was never actually finished due to political pressure from the liberal side.
Sorry if my attitude offends any of you guys but now is the time to get tough and forget your pansy ways unless you would like to live under the reign of terror of one or more of these radical leaders and give up all of our current freedoms.

[Paul Victorey]

Well, I must say I at least somewhat agree with this. Punishment SHOULD be swift, and severe. But punishment must serve a dual purpose, too -- retribution for crimes committed, and a means of deterring similar crimes in the future. This means that punishment must be carefully considered, to best meet both demands.

And, we must be sure we punish the guilty, because harming innocents is a) horribly wrong, and b) isn't exactly the kind of behavior that will decrease crime or decrease anti-US sentiments.

Punishment MUST be severe, and swift, but it must also be targetted towards the right people, and must be designed to minimize future problems. Too often the last, especially, is forgotten. People seek quick fixes to problems that HAVE no quick fixes. Problems aren't one-sided, and they're usually far more complex than they seem. Care must be taken, and I think that we, as a nation, have become too careless, and haven't paid close enough attention to what we were doing.

Failure is forgiveable, but carelessness is not. We need to act, and act responsibly, as a nation, to ensure our national goals by the optimal means.

[Smoke24]

Just a few more comments to ponder. Our country survived for over 200 years without having to put our kids through metal detectors to go to school, for us to go through those detectors to go into the courthouses and other public buildings to conduct our business and we could board a commercial airliner without going through the security and metal detectors and our luggage did not have to be X-rayed for bombs and such to be loaded on those aircraft. Just look around and you will see how many of your liberties have been taken away by those on the liberal side that have chosen to treat crime so lightly. It is your rights being taken away in favor of the rights of the criminal.

[Paul Victorey]

Well, some of this is the fact that it's simply so much EASIER to kill today than ever before. I mean, you can't exactly sneak a huge remington rifle into a school, whereas a pistol can be.

Many/most schools have no problems and no metal detectors. And kids are still something like 150 times more likely to be murdered by their parents than by anyone else.

And, we have good news -- crime in America has been on a steady decline for the past several years. Crime actually seems to go in cycles -- the 1920s were, per capita, more violent than the 1990s.

I do agree that criminals need to be punished. I favor a system whereby a third offense of a violent crime would mean automatic life in prison, where you CANNOT get out, can't get probation, can't do anything but rot in a cell awaiting death.

Some news just sickens me -- like there was a case of an 80something year old man, arrested for molesting a child -- something like his twentieth conviction for molestation over the course of some 60+ years. Now, what the HELL are we doing letting him out? He's proven he's never going to reform, he's a criminal to the core, and they either need to lock him away and throw away the key, or shoot him in the head and put him out of everyone's misery.

[SARGE]

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Afghanistan. Some say it's the Only way to get their attention. In a war, you KILL, or be killed. I seriously doubt some "surgical strikes" against Japan would have ended the War. In war, innocents die; it's the nature of the beast. We're already approx 5,000 lives behind, innocent ones at that. Sending their side to Allah, with regards, seems quid pro quo to many. Personally, I'm still debating how forcefully I'd do it, if'n I was the Prez.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by SARGE
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Afghanistan. Only one way to get their attention. In a war, you KILL, or be killed. I seriously doubt some "surgical strikes" against Japan would have ended the War. In war, innocents die; it's the nature of the beast. We're already approx 5,000 lives behind, innocent ones at that. Sending their side to Allah, with regards, seems quid pro quo to many. Personally, I'm still debating how forcefully I'd do it, if'n I was the Prez.

Yes, but we're not fighting WW2 anymore. Japan was a weakened nation, with no allies. They are not weakened by years of trade embargoes and economic sanctions, they have allies and they have many people who would take up arms on their behalf.

Sometimes, a huge blow wins the war; sometimes, it only makes the people want to fight even more. Pearl Harbor would be an example -- the Japanese seriously dealt a blow to our Pacific fleet. For many battles they had decisive victory after decisive victory. Yet, far from losing hope, we fought harder.

Plus, we are no longer the only nation to have access to nuclear weapons. Terrorism is already a huge threat, what happens if we had nuclear terrorism?? 250,000 people killed with a single swoop would be a LIGHT casualty estimate.

No, we MUST defuse this situation, and we must do it before it escalates to that level. During the Cold War, for a few days the world stood on the brink of nuclear holocaust -- we don't want to stand there again, especially because our enemies just might push the button, even though they'd all die, too.

[Smoke24]

Darn Paul if they shoot him in the head someone will be offended that such action could be taken on their behalf. Your three strikes idea has some merit but there are many violent crimes that don't deserve even a second chance especially crimes against our children or the elderly and even crimes that would undermine the security of our nation. If we are to put them in prison until death then why not just take their life and rid the taxpayer of the burden of housing and feeding them. They would be there till death anyway. Problem is the costs and time involved of all of the appeals processes to envolk the death penalty is more than housing and feeding them for a lifetime. I saw a study for our state of Alabama that says it costs about $29,000 each year to house and feed a prisoner. We have many in this state that don't even earn that much to live on for their entire family each year, some of those with two or more incomes, this is a poor low pay area you know. The study was conducted due to prison overcrowding and the state of Alabama has contracted the housing of prisoners to Georgia and Mississippi and many of those to private firms in those states.

Amen Sarge! When the inocents must die in a war situation, the Good Lord will take care of the good and Satan will handle the rest.

[WJWheels]

I don't think an atom bomb is necessary to blow a tyrant out of a hillside bunker, but the threat of one may be necessary to coax his whereabouts out of a Taliban, Irani, or Pakastani contact.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WJWheels
I don't think an atom bomb is necessary to blow a tyrant out of a hillside bunker, but the threat of one may be necessary to coax his whereabouts out of a Taliban, Irani, or Pakastani contact.

Actually, from what it appears, the Arab world as a whole is really pushing for Bin Laden to be turned over (or they claim so, anyway). I guess they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an all-out war with the USA, so they'll do whatever to make sure they don't get dragged down with him.

I don't think even a nation like Afghanistan wants to openly side with Bin Laden. Hell, the Taliban can't even control the totality of Afghanistan, the last thing they need is a war -- in the chaos that would ensue, the Taliban would stand to lose a lot, and you can bet the other factions wouldn't sit idly by.

[Toaster]

The reasons "why" the US is disliked by so many in the mid-east is nothing short of fanatical. Thier "primary" reasons are:
1. Our women dress like whores. In thier culture(s), women are treated as animals and are to be fully clad in clothing when in public. No skin, no face, no talking.
2. The US doen`t "bay and howl" towards "Mecca" as they do.
The bottom line is quite simple, "religious prosecution". We don't worship or believe in the same fashion that they do and thier aim is to change that.

It's the same story told over and over through human history "religious beliefs".
However, in the middle east, "thier" God deserves violence, bloodshed, murder.


These fanatics need to be treated much as they are, a simple infection in the human race. Slap them down very hard and give them this warning:
"Any type of violence directed toward the United States, or it's citizens, either here or abroad, from ANY country that either hires or harbors persons commiting such acts will be delt with in the most harsh mannor imaginable. This includes any American interests of any and all types"

"We want blood!"
proclaimed by millions of Americans.

[troysvihl]

Paul, I'm glad at least one cool head prevails here. The stuff I've seen posted by fellow Americans on various boards around the net the last few days is pretty scarey.


The reasons "why" the US is disliked by so many in the mid-east is nothing short of fanatical. Thier "primary" reasons are:
1. Our women dress like whores. In thier culture(s), women are treated as animals and are to be fully clad in clothing when in public. No skin, no face, no talking.
2. The US doen`t "bay and howl" towards "Mecca" as they do.
The bottom line is quite simple, "religious prosecution". We don't worship or believe in the same fashion that they do and thier aim is to change that.

Sorry Toaster, but I don't think those are even close to being the main reasons. They hate use because we keep funding thier mortal enemy, Isreal. And now Isreal is the only ally we have over there. So now we have to keep funding them. (It's a vicious cycle, started by our own stupidity. But it will have to end someday if there is ever going to be peace over there.)




It seems from this and your other posts that we should not support those countries like Israel that are democracies but instead we should support those that are dictatorships and have absolutely no human rights at all.

Why is it necessary to support either side?

And Isreal a democracy? Yeah right. Tell that to the Palestinians that have lived thier all their life, and can't even vote. Isreal is a Zionist state. (Which is pretty much the same as Apartied, yet isn't denounced....strange) Isreal's hands are as dirty as any of the Arab countries.

[Smoke24]

Had the U.S. not sided with Israel and Saudi that entire region of the world would have ended up under the control of Iran and Iraq who were at the same time being funded and supplied with military hardware by the Soviets. It was almost a given that the U.S. had to befriend those countries and supply them with equal or greater military might. If all there were left to the Soviet Union it would be that they would have controlled about 70% of the worlds oil supplies and your gasoline might cost so much you would even need anything that would burn it. The Soviets would have then become the only economic power in the entire world and their military control would have spread over the world at an unbelievable pace.
I agree that every war has begun over cultural differences and it will probably always be that way. We need to do what is required to protect our culture of freedom as we know it. If that means to supply the military of countires like Israel and Saudi, so be it. Another thing to consider is that many of the companies here that build military hardware have sold to those countries with our governments blessing and brought some of that oil money back here and created jobs for our citizens in the process.

[troysvihl]

I don't really agree with your analysis Smoke. Even if that entire region was controlled by one country, it's only a difference of having five or six less members in OPEC. And I don't think that would have made much of a difference in the production level that OPEC decides to set. Even if they had tried to reduce production more than they already did, it would just have drove up productions in non-OPEC countries. (not to mention that our domestic production would not have been allowed to dercease as dramatically as it has in the last decade.) So I really don't think that it would have made a difference in the world's oil prices.

And I really don't buy into your point that it's important jobs for the defense industry. The capital tied up in the defense industry would just be reallocated to different industries and that would counter any job losses.

[bob]

Republican’s blaming Democrats or Democrat’s blaming Republicans - that is not happening at all. Americans know when to unite and stop arguing. Seems it may take longer for some from what I am reading. Some here seem to want to be different - that’s all right.
I just wonder if they felt shock, sorrow, and anger (like most) or they felt guilt, shame, and remorse for Americas wrongs. Could it just be they had that feeling that covers all that can only be expressed as : "I told you so - my philosophy is correct"?

[Smoke24]

I don't know where you guys think I would stand in this little argument here. We just have some different views of things. Yes, I was shocked watching all this unfold on TV, I feel a sorrow and sadness in my heart for those who died or are seriously injured and their families and yes, I am mad a hell at those who did this and any who support them. I would still pick up my M-16A1 and fight right next to any one of you or any other American to preserve the freedoms and rights that we have in this country.

[mairving]

Bin Laden is quite different from a lot of the other terrorists in that he is very rich. No other terrorist organization in the world could have afforded to pay the $25,000 per pilot for aviation school and tremendous other monies that was spent carrying this out. Not only do we have to take out Bin Laden but we need to seize the quarter billion dollars that he has and distribute to the victims of his work. This act as bad as it is , is still not as bad as it could be if we do nothing. Next they will release some biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that will take out hundreds of thousands. Sure we are going to make some people angry by our actions but we can't sit idly by and do nothing. Terrorists are not made by our actions or by Israel's actions. They are only made into potential terrorists. Bin Laden and his ilk fund them, train them and organize them into terrorists. This is what we have to combat. If we dry up their funding and destroy their leaders and camps, they may hate us but their only action would be rock-throwing not bombing.

Troy, you might as well quit your rant against Israel. The US will always be allies with Israel.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by bob
Republican?s blaming Democrats or Democrat?s blaming Republicans - that is not happening at all. Americans know when to unite and stop arguing. Seems it may take longer for some from what I am reading. Some here seem to want to be different - that?s all right.
I just wonder if they felt shock, sorrow, and anger (like most) or they felt guilt, shame, and remorse for Americas wrongs. Could it just be they had that feeling that covers all that can only be expressed as : "I told you so - my philosophy is correct"?

But, we ARE united, in many ways, at least. I think everyone agrees what the short term solution should be. We merely disagree on he long-term approach the US should take towards the Middle East.

To get Machiavellian, the US has often been the Lion, when the situation called for the Fox.

Nobody disagrees on the core issues, but also, people have diverse ideas. This is STRENGTH. Instead of blindly following the popular ideas, new ideas are generated, new ways of thinking tried. THIS is the very core of American life -- taking many diverse races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, and ideas, and from this diversity, drawing strength. Unity is important, but in moderation. If we all agreed TOO much, we'd lose diversity and weaken ourselves. If we all agreed too little, we'd never get anything done.

Plus, the people who disagree with each other are disagreeing because they love this country, and because they want what is best for the country. People just hold different ideas about what really IS best.

Of course everyone's shocked, sorrowful, and angry. But simply being angry is no excuse to go off half-cocked. Emotions should be respected, should be understood, but in the end, we must guide our actions with more than a thirst for blood, we must guide our actions with a logical and well-constructed plan, because this is the best means to punish our enemies without simply digging ourselves deeper in this whole Arab/Israeli conflict. A cold fury will serve us better than blind rage.

[troysvihl]

Troy, you might as well quit your rant against Israel. The US will always be allies with Israel.

You can still be an allie without giving financial assistance. We're allies with the UK and France, but we don't give them billions of dollars every year.

[Smoke24]

Hey Troy,
The U.S. only forgave the 30 billion plus dollar debt that France owed us a few years ago and wiped their slate clean so they could start over borrowing again. They did however give us the Statue of Liberty.

[troysvihl]

forgiving a debt that has existed for over 50 years isn't the same thing as direct annual financial aide.

[Toaster]

Hello folks,
While my previous statement was somewhat misleading as being a "primary" reason, it is a reason none the less. Aiding Isreal was simply the straw that broke the camels back. It still boils down to religious persecution.

At any rate, on my drive to work today, I saw countless Americans waving our flag and proclaiming something the rest of the world cannot: "I am an American"
With this, all offered condolences and a warning:
"When the shock of this cowardly act lessens, America will seek blood, the blood of the terrorists the world over. Leave no stone unturned, leave no doubt in the eyes of the world, America will finnish this fight once and for all."


To this bin laden turd I have only this to say:
Sleep tight in knowing your days are numbered and all those that may follow in your footsteps. Your God forsake you. See you in hell.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, Toaster, I think the reasons are reversed from what you say. People very often tend to use religion as a justification for their own personal agendas, but the agendas are usually the reason for the act. The anger with the US began FIRST because of the role we played in keeping the Israelis in power, and they used their religion to justify it.

A good analogy would be the Crusades -- in a large part (in fact, almost in entirety) their goal was to increase the power and influence of the Roman Catholic church. The justification was religious.

And, there are really only a few groups of people (a minority of Muslims) which even feel that way. These groups base their ideas on an insanely strict reading of the Koran, and are analagous to the ultra-right wing Christians we have here -- a very vocal but relatively small percentage of the population. Most Muslims have no problems at all with Christians or members of other religions.

[Gintaras]

Begin- former terrorist,
Sharon- suspect and being investigated for war crimes.

If it's ok to support Israel, then...

[WNeill]

I can understand what Paul is saying but vengence is an inherint part of human nature, whether we like to admit it or not. Political astuteness, and political correctness, are thing we humans are still coming to terms with. I think it is essential that the US and others keep a presence in the Middle-East as the aim of Bin-Laden and others is to inflict their warped kind of fundamentalist Ismamic belief on the whole of the area. Imagine Bin-Laden in control of a huge proportion of the world's oil reserves? Let's remember folks although the vast majority of the innocents murdered In New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania were American citizens there were approx. 200-500 British casualties and many hundreds, if not thousands, from at least 21 other nations. This was definately an attack on the free world and as such I hope the nations of the world get behind the US in dispensing "justice". Let's hope that it is not left to the US and the UK to to actually do all the combata, has happened in the past.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WNeill
I can understand what Paul is saying but vengence is an inherint part of human nature, whether we like to admit it or not. Political astuteness, and political correctness, are thing we humans are still coming to terms with. I think it is essential that the US and others keep a presence in the Middle-East as the aim of Bin-Laden and others is to inflict their warped kind of fundamentalist Ismamic belief on the whole of the area. Imagine Bin-Laden in control of a huge proportion of the world's oil reserves? Let's remember folks although the vast majority of the innocents murdered In New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania were American citizens there were approx. 200-500 British casualties and many hundreds, if not thousands, from at least 21 other nations. This was definately an attack on the free world and as such I hope the nations of the world get behind the US in dispensing "justice". Let's hope that it is not left to the US and the UK to to actually do all the combata, has happened in the past.

Well, saying vengeance is "human nature" is no excuse. Everyone has violent urges, everyone has dark thoughts or ideas, but we control them, and control ourselves. If we are ruled by our passions we are only animals, and an animal is quite easy for a rational man to manipulate or defeat.

I agree, we should punish the guilty, but we must look at the situation logically, instead of acting without thinking.

And, Bin Laden's goal was to usurp the throne of Saudi Arabia; his new goal is to attack the US because they prevented him from succeeding, which ultimately cost him the majority of his assets (he was worth some $300 million or such once) and got him exiled from his country. Bin Laden himself is not a religious fanatic, he's a power-hungry former resistance fighter. He may recruit religious fanatics, but you'd never see HIM on a suicide mission. He, really, could probably care less about religion, except that it has proved a useful tool to him to get recruits and money. Religion has often been the tool used by powerful men to control their people.

Now, distinctions like this may seem like splitting hairs, but it is critical that we realize the situation as it is, and acknowledge our opponents are human, with human emotions and human logic guiding their actions. Only by understanding the enemy, by understanding their goals, by understanding ther methods, and by understanding their origins can we ever hope to defeat them. If we don't understand a situation, if we don't pay attention to the dynamics and details of a population, we can find ourselves in far worse situations than we're in now.

[WJWheels]

The fact remains that this was an insane barbaric act. It had no hope whatsoever in getting Palestinians what they've always claimed they want, whether it's rightful or not. Palestine claims to want ONLY a land to call their own... a reclamation of what Jews/Zionists took from them. Of course what they want MUST also include a major part of Jerusalem - not negotiable with Israel. In reality the Jews purchased this land from Arabs, who "registered" it as theirs way back when. The Jews then began the removal of Palestinians from their "new" homeland. There's no way blowing up U.S. buildings and killing citizens of the world could in any way serve that end.

The perpetrators also had no reason to believe that this act even tenfold would cause the U.S/Israel (I'm sure the radical Islamic sees us as one) to roll over and play dead. If they've got the brains to execute a deed such as this, then they have the brains to know it would only serve to anger the entire free world and there'd be retribution and then some.

No, it's got nothing to do with religion or territory rights... it's only a game that poor, nothing-else-to-live-for barbarions get a rise out of. I wonder how many Muslims were also killed in this act.

Some of the terrorists were last seen in a Daytona titty bar getting drunk... certainly both activities in direct conflict with their religious teachings. It's plain this was ONLY a crime against humanity and nothing more. These people and those that harbor/support them deserve to and must be exterminated for the good of the entire planet.

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by mairving

Troy, you might as well quit your rant against Israel. The US will always be allies with Israel.

Mairving with all the respect to you,

Is this support to terrorists:
Begin is well known terrorist,
Sharon- suspect and being investigated for war crimes.
Make no mistake- September 11th happened because of what you're willing to support.

Not taking this personally, but here in NY 1000's who suffering from Act Of War.

Personally, I'm in NY, about 1hr. from NYC, I worked in NYC, 5 weeks ago I was on the top of WTC.

Do you understand what your support for war criminals and terorrists might mean?

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WJWheels
The fact remains that this was an insane barbaric act. It had no hope whatsoever in getting Palestinians what they've always claimed they want, whether it's rightful or not. Palestine claims to want ONLY a land to call their own... a reclamation of what Jews/Zionists took from them. Of course what they want MUST also include a major part of Jerusalem - not negotiable with Israel. In reality the Jews purchased this land from Arabs, who "registered" it as theirs way back when. The Jews then began the removal of Palestinians from their "new" homeland. There's no way blowing up U.S. buildings and killing citizens of the world could in any way serve that end.

The perpetrators also had no reason to believe that this act even tenfold would cause the U.S/Israel (I'm sure the radical Islamic sees us as one) to roll over and play dead. If they've got the brains to execute a deed such as this, then they have the brains to know it would only serve to anger the entire free world and there'd be retribution and then some.

No, it's got nothing to do with religion or territory rights... it's only a game that poor, nothing-else-to-live-for barbarions get a rise out of. I wonder how many Muslims were also killed in this act.

Some of the terrorists were last seen in a Daytona titty bar getting drunk... certainly both activities in direct conflict with their religious teachings. It's plain this was ONLY a crime against humanity and nothing more. These people and those that harbor/support them deserve to and must be exterminated for the good of the entire planet.

Where did you hear the Jews bought Israel?? It's completely untrue.

Pre-WW1, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. During WW1, Britain began negotiating with the Arabs (to incite the Arabs against the Turks who had allied with Germany), and afterwards, when the Ottoman Empire fell, they ended up ruling Palestine. The Palestinians rebelled against them (circa 1936-39) but were put down by the British. After WW2, in 1947, the newly formed United Nations ruled that Palestine be partitioned into two parts; the Zionists agree on the idea but not the boundaries, the Palestinians do not recognize the UN's authority to split the country. The UN quickly withdraws, and the US pretty much remains the only nation to support Israel through the 6 or so wars they fight with their neighbors.

And, actually, the terrorists probably WANT us to openly attack them. Right now, the Arab world is far from unified -- many of their leaders are on the verge of conceding peace with Israel, and the popular support for continuing fighting just isn't there. Even the Palestinians in Israel, who have been kept with almost no civil rights for 50 years, are talking about peace. And the rest of the Arab world is as sick of conflict as they. So, those who still want war will try to get the attention of the US, and try to get us to attack them. They feel if we attack them, and kill a lot of innocents in the Arab nations, that the nations will polarize against us, that the governments which support us will be swept away by an uprising of the people.

And, Bin Laden isn't Palestinian, he's a Saudi. Although many of his terrorist organizations fight on behalf of the Palestinians, they themselves aren't Palestinian nor do they necessarily have the same agendas as Palestinian leaders. Most are Saudi, Pakistani, Egyptian, and Afghani, I believe.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Where did you hear the Jews bought Israel?? It's completely untrue.

How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine."

Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens

But to go on further......

Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

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

As I previously said, who rightfully belongs in Palestine really has nothing to do with this barbaric act. It serves no purpose whatsoever other than the destruction of property and humanity. It's a crime of the highest degree.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WJWheels

How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine."

Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens

As I previously said, who rightfully belongs in Palestine really has nothing to do with this barbaric act. It serves no purpose whatsoever other than the destruction of property and humanity. It's a crime of the highest degree.

Well, Palestine WAS taken from the Arabs by the British.

At the time of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, there WERE many Jews in the area that would eventually become Israel, and many Jewish landowners, but they did not form Israel themselves; Israel was formed 30some years after all this happened.

As to it being a crime, of course it is, and nobody has the right to kill others, but yet it happens. In all likelihood, the whole attack was designed to provoke us into open warfare with at least one Arab nation, to the benefit of the anti-American radicals.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Gintaras
Begin is well known terrorist
Kindly expand on your statement Gintaras....

[Gintaras]

Try here:
Jewish Terrorists (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-terrorists-folder.html)

[WJWheels]

Well, I see no link there for Menachem Begin, but I assume you're referring to his actions re: Deir Yassin in conjuction with Plan Dalet. Depending on one's perspective, I guess he certainly could be considered a terrorist as well as merely a soldier carrying out an order.

Thanks for the prompt reply...

btw - The site you link to, <b>Jew Watch</b>, is hardly an objective source of information.

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by WJWheels
Well, Depending on one's perspective, I guess he certainly could be considered a terrorist as well as merely a soldier carrying out an order.

Thanks for the prompt reply...

With respect to you,

don't you feel ashamed before 1000's of killed in an Act Of War with your message?

I would.
Do you have any respect do those who died, to those who lost loved ones?

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by WJWheels
Depending on one's perspective, I guess he certainly could be considered a terrorist as well as merely a soldier carrying out an order.

Thanks for the prompt reply...

You meant that jewish terrorists different than any others?

Now, you explain this.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Gintaras


With respect to you,

don't you feel ashamed before 1000's of killed in an Act Of War with your message?

I would.
Do you have any respect do those who died, to those who lost loved ones?
I truly have no idea what you're talking about... nor what you meant in your reply to Mairving.

[WNeill]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey


Well, saying vengeance is "human nature" is no excuse. Everyone has violent urges, everyone has dark thoughts or ideas, but we control them, and control ourselves. If we are ruled by our passions we are only animals, and an animal is quite easy for a rational man to manipulate or defeat.

I agree, we should punish the guilty, but we must look at the situation logically, instead of acting without thinking.

And, Bin Laden's goal was to usurp the throne of Saudi Arabia; his new goal is to attack the US because they prevented him from succeeding, which ultimately cost him the majority of his assets (he was worth some $300 million or such once) and got him exiled from his country. Bin Laden himself is not a religious fanatic, he's a power-hungry former resistance fighter. He may recruit religious fanatics, but you'd never see HIM on a suicide mission. He, really, could probably care less about religion, except that it has proved a useful tool to him to get recruits and money. Religion has often been the tool used by powerful men to control their people.

Now, distinctions like this may seem like splitting hairs, but it is critical that we realize the situation as it is, and acknowledge our opponents are human, with human emotions and human logic guiding their actions. Only by understanding the enemy, by understanding their goals, by understanding ther methods, and by understanding their origins can we ever hope to defeat them. If we don't understand a situation, if we don't pay attention to the dynamics and details of a population, we can find ourselves in far worse situations than we're in now.

Please do not mis-understand me, I concur with you that we must fully understand the whole background to these problems in order to even attempt to solve them. But as you already know, and can see from some comments in this posting, it is very difficult to get the opposing sides to agree on any fundamental truths as to the historic and indeed present facts. I would also say that vegeance needs no "excuse" as it is simply "punishment or retribution for a wrong-doing or injury"(Oxford Eng. Dictionary) and I think Tuesday's act fits that criteria. This vengeance must of course be directed at the correct "wrong-doers" that is why I am thankful that the authorities seem to be taking their time in gathering as much evidence as possible before anything is done.

[Jomama]

..and the beatings will continue until morale improves!

[Jade]

Originally posted by Gintaras
Bin Laden as/if you know was targeted once in Afganistan. Result of that strike-a few innocent people dead. Outcome of that strike- TUESDAY MORNING!!!

Not long ago in NYC were sentenced a few terrorists. Outcome- TUESDAY MORNING!!!

Clinton did strike at Iraq/Sadam. Outcome of that strike- TUESDAY MORNING!!!.


if Clinton did nothing you would still be complaining either way...


The fact is we have been at war with the terrorists of the Middle East for a long time... [-modified covered above-]. Every thing else that came later is just an escalation on thier part.

___________
There MUST be VERY PRECISSION INVESTIGATION and VERY PRECISSION PREPARATION to strike at Bin Laden and other MAIN terrorist organizations. If Bin Laden is a dekoy and behind him is foreign goverment- to strike at that country(just not like was done with Iraq). But there have to be VERY PRECISSION(110%) Preparation. It may take months.
___________

I would agree with you here but for different reasons. I would let Bin Laden live and kill everyone around him. Especially the Tailban! Take away his Martyr status if we do kill him hang him upside down naked.

Suppose we pull out of Isreal? what do you think would happen?
[B]

[Jade]

Originally posted by Toaster
The reasons "why" the US is disliked by so many in the mid-east is nothing short of fanatical. Thier "primary" reasons are:
1. Our women dress like whores. In thier culture(s), women are treated as animals and are to be fully clad in clothing when in public. No skin, no face, no talking.
2. The US doen`t "bay and howl" towards "Mecca" as they do.
The bottom line is quite simple, "religious prosecution". We don't worship or believe in the same fashion that they do and thier aim is to change that.

It's the same story told over and over through human history "religious beliefs".
However, in the middle east, "thier" God deserves violence, bloodshed, murder.


These fanatics need to be treated much as they are, a simple infection in the human race. Slap them down very hard and give them this warning:
"Any type of violence directed toward the United States, or it's citizens, either here or abroad, from ANY country that either hires or harbors persons commiting such acts will be delt with in the most harsh mannor imaginable. This includes any American interests of any and all types"

"We want blood!"
proclaimed by millions of Americans.

Are you sure??? Reruns of Baywatch is pretty popular over there. More popular than news

[Jade]

Originally posted by Smoke24
Had the U.S. not sided with Israel and Saudi that entire region of the world would have ended up under the control of Iran and Iraq who were at the same time being funded and supplied with military hardware by the Soviets. It was almost a given that the U.S. had to befriend those countries and supply them with equal or greater military might. If all there were left to the Soviet Union it would be that they would have controlled about 70% of the worlds oil supplies and your gasoline might cost so much you would even need anything that would burn it. The Soviets would have then become the only economic power in the entire world and their military control would have spread over the world at an unbelievable pace.
I agree that every war has begun over cultural differences and it will probably always be that way. We need to do what is required to protect our culture of freedom as we know it. If that means to supply the military of countires like Israel and Saudi, so be it. Another thing to consider is that many of the companies here that build military hardware have sold to those countries with our governments blessing and brought some of that oil money back here and created jobs for our citizens in the process.

Actually we supplied Iraqi with weapons and funding for 11 years. I thought you said you were in the military???

Once again from a military point of view; can't you see Saudi is next to go in a possible civil war? Yet we are going to arm them too? they are also in debt. Do you support funding them as well?

[mairving]

Gintaras, I would try to argue with you but you are sounding a bit too much like Sadaam Hussein in your incoherence. It sounds like you are blaming me or Begin or anyone else but the terrorists for what took place this week. Begin, a terrorist, eh? How many people has he murdered through car bombs, hijacked planes, etc? The answer is 0. It is beside the point anyway. Even if he was a terrorist, doesn't make him one now. We support Arafat now, who has been a terrorist that has murdered innocents.

But getting back to the point. The point is that terrorists attacked our country. They did it without provocation from us. One can try to blame others or bad policies but the same answer is given that we are not to blame, the people that did this are. Bin Laden has said that he took up this campaign against us because we had troops in his country. Well these troops were invited into his country by his countrymen. If we would have said no to defending Saudi Arabia, he probably would have used that as his excuse.

[WNeill]

Originally posted by Jade


Actually we supplied Iraqi with weapons and funding for 11 years. I thought you said you were in the military???

Once again from a military point of view; can't you see Saudi is next to go in a possible civil war? Yet we are going to arm them too? they are also in debt. Do you support funding them as well?

When the US supplied Iraq with arms it was in return for oil, Suppling the Saudis with arms is so that the US has a foothold in the area which is drowning in oil too. Let us also remember that every country in the world is in debt and America has one of largest debts outside of the third world countries. That's just the way the world works. Although I would say that the US is owed more money than anybody else. For centuries the dominant country(empire) in the world has armed various countries to fight it's neighbour. The reasons have always been selfish. The Romans done it, Britain done it and now the US does it. America must now show the world that it will not be pushed around. Personally I think America will rise to this challenge and after all is said and done the US will have tightened it's grip on it's place in history and hopefully begin the process of ridding the world of some of the most dangerous factions in the world.

[Jade]

That's great but the point I was making was in light of 'Smokes' point that the Soviet Union was supplying Iran and Iraq to take over Saudi Arabia and Israel. I know what we did and the politics behind it and it probably was right at the time. JUST as it seems right at the time now to arm Saudi and a possible Alliedship with Pakistan.

However just a thought:
If more radical muslims take over Saudi Arabia; that arming 'them' will have meant arming a possible anti-american muslim country. And befriending Pakistan (becoming thier allies) will become "sleeping with the enemy' in India's eyes ( which has nuclear capabilities which I am pretty sure everyone here knows).

I am still for, actually blowing Bin Laden and his buddies out of thier holes but just keep in mind this may cost us allies and even more hard feelings.

[SARGE]

The US of A had Laden as our "CIA boy" in Afghanistan. He also has/had his money in the World Capital Bank in New York. Seems we choose bad friends.