No.

Post #14,881 by addison 10/23/01 11:48:16 PM Reply	No. The context is very plain. "They" is the same context, every time, there. And what I said, stands. Addison
Post #14,911 by dmarker2 10/24/01 4:18:43 AM Reply	No. No No For the sake of clarity let me illustrate a point re 'they' ... If we see a TV report that shows a bearded muslim being interviewed and he is asked what he thinks of the Sept 11th attack & he obviously is anti US & replies "America got what was coming to them - they were asking for it" (I use these words because they are exactly what one idiot said) We would both be justified in arguing that this guy was ill informed & really doesn't know what he is saying. He obviously doesn't know who 'they' really are that he is specifically referring to or, is just too stupid to really think about what he said. His 'they' turn out to be women, children men, pilots, passengers, wives, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and from many nations. No armed soldiers, no leaders & not all Americans. So in his logic just who does he really mean deserved 'it' ??? - I doubt it is those just mentioned, especially the muslims. ********************************** You say I am nit-picking in criticising your broad use of 'they' - what I am attemting to point out is that the 'they' in Afghanistan are many groups as explained elsewhere and also this thread was to do with Ramadan and the possible hostility that might erupt if the west is seen as causing collateral damage & mayhem to innocent 'collaterals' during a special period in these peoples lives. Your use of they clearly covers more than just the terrorists. My further accusation is that you are forgetting that US has gone into Afghanistan to destroy terrorist bases & try to capture Bin Laden. The Taliban are a pheripheral target because their leader wouldn't hand over OBL. But even Colin Powell is saying that the next governement may need to contain Taliban moderates** so lets cut out any argument that implys all Taliban are US enemies or should be hunted & killed - the only Taliban that are our legitimate targets are those that get in the way of the real goal of attacking terrorism & getting OBL. It doesn't mean that it is a turkey shoot. US is not invading Afghanistan. US is conducting raids in Afghanistan in pursuit of its legitimate goals as stated. Even accidentaly pissing on Afghan citizens during Ramadan is not a clever neither a friend winning tactic neither is it neccesary in winning these anti-terrorist goals. The cynical motive here is not love of humanity but self-preservation, our self-preservation. Applying black-white rules such as - 'they' are enemy, fu Ramadan, bad luck mr & mrs collateral, will whip up a sh load of Muslim reaction that might just be enough to topple Pakistan, Indonesia & drag in India, etc: etc: etc: (Bin Laden's dream come true). I don't want to be dragged into fight WW3 or a Muslim vs West war or any war, if it can be avoided by sensibly pusuing our goals. In summary I repeat how grateful I am that Colin Powell is calling the shots. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #14,916 by Ashton 10/24/01 5:43:19 AM Reply	Alas, I'm afraid that in US - it will likely be about amorphous theys. It is the easier path, and the one most often followed in politics here (in what now replaces: what was once actual debate - long ago - with real speakers and real debate rules. Orators even, understood by listeners with a vocabularly of more than 200 words). Remember - our actual President can only manage about two-syllable words, extemporaneously - 90% of those.. slogans. (He can read longer ones, though) I suppose that it shall devolve on the usual Luck, and the hope that faith in Colin Powell was not misplaced (and that he possesses sufficient moxie in the reborn Bush-I executive branch - to prevail). {sigh} I don't look for there being lengthy and profound congressional debate, consultation with open-minded Admin chiefs -- just sound bytes intoduced by the Popular talking heads on Tee Vee and.. slogans. Lots of slogans with they in them. The inanity of local talking-heads has to be experienced, to believe. They speak almost entirely in cliches (as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon). And action. Must be action or - well, there's got to be an election coming up, and 'being soft on Islam' is not an unthinkable next slogan. Here. Sorry - it's gonna be a crap shoot - no matter what is at stake in this mine field. Subtlety is not typically us. (This could be a first, though. Many thought precipitate action would already have occurred...) Ashton
Post #14,933 by addison 10/24/01 10:03:00 AM Reply	Re: No. No No The Taliban are a pheripheral target because their leader wouldn't hand over OBL. No. They're a main target because they've protected, sponsored, and nurtured him. How much was who running who is obviously, in some debate. The Taliban as it stands now, must fall, according to US doctrine. And I don't really disagree with that. Taliban moderates I really suggest you read up on the Taliban you want to spare. Of course, your use of "Taliban" is subject to question, but I won't get into that contest with you, since there are bigger issues on the table. Applying black-white rules such as - 'they' are enemy, fu* Ramadan, bad luck mr & mrs collateral, will whip up a sh** load of Muslim reaction that might just be enough to topple Pakistan, Indonesia* Which isn't what I've said, and your inability to read that isn't my fault. But not doing what we're there to do because its Ramadan makes no sense. Not even from a standpoint that you're taking it. The "moderates" understand the attack. Anybody who doesn't, wouldn't care. I'll ask you again: How will the US definately benefit - no "mights" or anything, what part of the Islamic world would be "impressed" with us not attacking? And so you're saying its OK to bomb as long as its NOT a holiday? Addison
Post #14,953 by dmarker2 10/24/01 11:40:51 AM Reply	Re: No. No No "No. They're a main target because they've protected, sponsored, and nurtured him. " We will never make progress in any discussion as long as generic labels gat applied and there are no boundaries around the. "The Taliban as it stands now, must fall, according to US doctrine. And I don't really disagree with that." That is an given !!! - this whole thread is about how & when & who gets included - during Ramadan!!! Applying black-white rules such as - 'they' are enemy, fu Ramadan, bad luck mr & mrs collateral, will whip up a sh load of Muslim reaction that might just be enough to topple Pakistan, Indonesia "Which isn't what I've said, and your inability to read that isn't my fault." You are saying that bombing should continue no matter what special time it is. I have agreed except I added that civillian areas should be avoided during Ramadan so as to clearly avoid collateral casualties - you countered that that makes no difference as Taliban are moving their soldiers into civillian areas and any one who does that & any civilians that let it happen are bad luck targets - I reminded you that the US went into Afghanistan to attack terrorist bases & capture Bin Laden. So I restated the case bluntly - now contradict the above paragraph. "But not doing what we're there to do because its Ramadan makes no sense. Not even from a standpoint that you're taking it. The "moderates" understand the attack. Anybody who doesn't, wouldn't care." I certainly never said we shouldn't stop hitting OBL bases & going after Bin Laden during Ramadan. I have said that we need to show sensitivity to the effect on civillians. You have ignored the points re the instability of Pakistan & the potential to trigger a wider crisis if we don't show care during Ramadan **re the civilians*** You keep stating that Taliban are all targets but you won't qualify why you believe the assault should switch from terorists & OBL & el qaeda - since when did ordinary Taliban soldiers attack New York. No one is arguing that if they try to stop the pusuit of primary goals they will have to be dealt with. US plan is to weaken Taliban & allow other groups to move in but to allow a settlement that includes moderates if Bin Laden is handed over. It seems you would rather burn all our negotiating bridges as well as risk a wider crisis by allowing collateral casualties during Ramadan. I will again say thank god Colin Powell is calling the shots. He has the maturity and experience to deal with the Ramadan issue. I am willing to bet on it. Cheers Doug
Post #14,961 by addison 10/24/01 12:09:27 PM Reply	Re: No. No No I certainly never* said we shouldn't stop hitting OBL bases & going after Bin Laden during Ramadan. I have said that we need to show sensitivity to the effect on civillians.* So... What's the difference then? We're showing sensitivity now? But its OK not to, as long as its not a Holiday? Addison
Post #15,034 by dmarker2 10/24/01 8:00:02 PM Reply	Re: No. No No Good boy !! 'Your' sensitivity overwhelms me. Again - thank god Powell is in charge.

Welcome to IWETHEY!