All I am trying to say

Post #137,664 by orion 1/25/04 12:17:57 PM Reply	All I am trying to say is that we should join up to fight the Terrorists and locate them and put them into jail and try to stop them before they do more killings. Otherwise they are going to run unchallenged and keep on striking terror and keep on killing. Don't you want the people who did these evil deeds behind bars or executed? Or would you rather that they kill off more Thai Buddhist Monks? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #137,668 by ben_tilly 1/25/04 2:00:25 PM Reply	And how do you tell a radical muslim from a non-radical one? I assure you, after you have killed off most of the radical ones, the non-radical ones will all be radical. How many hundreds of millions of people are you prepared to kill? (I'm not kidding here.) Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #137,669 by deSitter 1/25/04 2:04:22 PM Reply	Hmm, the resistant bacteria theory of terrorism -drl
Post #138,143 by jb4 1/27/04 2:39:38 PM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #138142 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=138142\|ICLRPD] jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #137,673 by orion 1/25/04 2:18:11 PM Reply	By their actions the radical ones that are doing the killings. Also who says we have to kill all the radical ones? You catch them in the act, gather evidence on them, put them on trial, if found guilty they go to jail. Note that there are radical ones that talk about it, but do not do the killings. They need to be monitored in case they decide to take action. Only by the sharing of information between different countries and cultures can we get an accurate picture of what is going on and what we need to look out for. How many hundreds of millions of people are you prepared to kill? I am not prepared to kill anyone, if done right hardly anybody has to die. Of course those who did the killings should be punished in some way and might have to be executed, if that is what a court decides on. There may be jail time for those others found guilty. The wholesale slaughter of millions that you speak of is not something I believe in. I believe this can be done with minimum bloodshed. If done that way, we can prevent other Muslims from turning into terrorists. We have to spread the word that terrorism is what we are fighting, and not a religion. These terrorists just happen to be radical Muslims, they are not being captured or tried for being Muslim, but for their actions. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #137,681 by ben_tilly 1/25/04 2:35:25 PM Reply	Nice theory Too bad our president doesn't want to follow it. But on the other side, I'd suggest having an in-depth talk with someone who served in Vietnam. Acting in accord with civil principles only works if you still have the foundations of a civil society in place. When you make potential targets out of too much of the population, you don't. When the people providing firepower (US soldiers) are not trained for police work, are unable to tell people apart very well, and can't understand their speech in the first place, you have a bloody, bad mix. Imagine how well Chinese-speaking troops would do at attempting to impose order on a fundamentalist Christian movement in The Bible Belt. Don't imagine a disarmed population either, the Middle-East has for decades been one of the best weapons markets in the world. In fact it is probably easier for insurgents there to put their hands on APGs than it is for us. This is a fair assessment of what we face if we want to forcibly occupy a lot of Muslim countries over the long haul. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #137,699 by orion 1/25/04 5:20:34 PM Reply	It is an alternative and remember that the election for President happens in Nov 2004. :) But on the other side, I'd suggest having an in-depth talk with someone who served in Vietnam. Acting in accord with civil principles only works if you still have the foundations of a civil society in place. When you make potential targets out of too much of the population, you don't. When the people providing firepower (US soldiers) are not trained for police work, are unable to tell people apart very well, and can't understand their speech in the first place, you have a bloody, bad mix. In my theory we would create an International Task force and let the countries police their own countries for terrorist activities and share information with them. Who better to know their territory and language and culture and find those that are committing terrorist acts locally? We need to be careful here because killing the wrong people will result in more Radical Muslims wanting our blood. Then they will start to recuit more. Those 10 year old kids with the "I Luv Osama" T-shirts won't be 10 years old forever and eventually will be recruited. We would work with the native government, but not force them or control them or occupy them. This would also cost us a lot less money. Imagine how well Chinese-speaking troops would do at attempting to impose order on a fundamentalist Christian movement in The Bible Belt. Don't imagine a disarmed population either, the Middle-East has for decades been one of the best weapons markets in the world. In fact it is probably easier for insurgents there to put their hands on APGs than it is for us. I can imagine that quite well. The training our troops would need to get in the different languages and cultures would be costly, but would be more effective. Many countries sell weapons to middle-east countries. Amazing that their people are poor and starving, yet they can afford to buy machine guns and APGs. Where are their priorities? If we empower the native government to handle the arrests and trials of terrorists, it would not only cost us less but also be a much better diplomatic situation between the Muslim population and our country. In my humble opinion, I think that Bush has poor advisers that have not thought this thing through. If someone of my mental challenges can think this up, I wonder why those advisers cannot? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #137,737 by ben_tilly 1/25/04 11:02:44 PM Reply	And you trust the native governments? Remember, the local government often means the thugs that most effectively repressed everyone else. Funnel foreign aid in and they'll cheerfully redirect large fractions to private Swiss bank accounts. In fact they will get quite offended if you try to object to them doing it. (They will also claim not to be while proceeding to do it anyways.) Furthermore many of these governments don't much like us, or if they do like us, don't see their goals as being aligned with ours. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #137,743 by orion 1/25/04 11:16:36 PM Reply	You have a point there in that how can we trust some governments? Some may be just like Iraq was, with a dictator running it pretending to be a Democracy. We would have to involve the United Nations to create an International Task Force that can find the terrorists and bring them to justice. Maybe people who are familiar with the language, customs, and government of that country that can work within it to find them without doing collateral damage like US Troops would? Some sort of International Delta Force. ;) In the case of Thailand, I am sure that they want to get rid of the terrorists in their country too. The Thai Buddhist Monks are highly respected there, and I am sure they will want to bring those guilty to justice. They may need more information on how the terrorists operate, etc. Can't do that without sharing information with other countries and monitoring suspicious individuals. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #137,761 by Ashton 1/26/04 4:41:59 AM Reply	Given such a milieu One would think thrice before embarking upon a project fraught with so many unknowns. Wouldn't one? (Let us hope that the 0.3% Linux-users, per Google (and Andrew's correction of their exaggeration to 1%) - does not also represent the %Muricans who might share such a POV.) Ashton Gawd it's lonely at the bottom of the oil/$ chain; there's plenty of company, but - all ya can do is watch that tar baby with all those hands firmly affixed.

Welcome to IWETHEY!