Re: Fool me twice, shame on me.

Post #14,708 by addison 10/22/01 11:06:09 PM Reply	Re: Fool me twice, shame on me. But we shouldn't be the first to violate the holy month. Holy to who? We've made our stand that OBL etc al aren't fighting for Islam. So why would we honor their choice of holidays? If the enemy attacks during Ramadan, then we are free to attack them, whenever we see fit. If anyone objects, we remind him of the facts. So.. say they blow up another 5000 people. THEN we get to attack? They already did that. Addison
Post #14,734 by dmarker2 10/23/01 4:54:45 AM Reply	Re: Wakeup call: So many missing the point OK go for it smash the Taliban, terrify ordinary Afghan citizens, go gunning for OBL during ramadan - yea this is war against Afghanistan !!!! EXCEPT! - only the US & UK has declared it - this is not a Vietnam!. YES!!! terrorists 'declared war' by the Sept 11th attack but remember that those people came from many countries - the US has accused OBL (not Afghanistan) and has argued that the Taliban by harbouring OBL & El Qaeda is a legitimate target to the USA resulting from the Sept 11 attacks. But not everyone sees it quite that way. Try telling it to the millions of Muslims who rightly or wrongly are not convinced that the the people of Afghanistan deserve to be terrified by bombing attacks during Ramadan. If 100,000s of Afghans are fleeing during this period & starvation starts to kill many, the US will have some real problems with large segments of the Muslim world. Remember 'the US is not at war with Afghanistan!'. Some of you guys have lost your sense of direction - comparing this campaign to Vietnam just doesn't wash. That was an out-and-out ground war between two mostly well defined groups who knew who their enemies were. That is not quite the case here. There is an unplesant streak of aggression showing up in some of your posts that ignores the realities and sensibilities of the current situation. Armchair generals at it yet again. By all means go after terrorism during Ramadan but make bloody well sure that we understand who they are and that we communicate this well to everyone & make bloody well sure that no collateral damage occurs to ordinary Afghan citizens during the period by way of bombs or starvation. Doug Marker
Post #14,740 by kmself 10/23/01 6:39:46 AM Reply	!Vietnam Both ObL and the Taliban have declared war, holy or otherwise, on the US in words and deeds. I'm seeing increasing evidence that there's not much that divides the two. And while the Taliban may not be widely recognized as a legitimate government, they're the head thugs at the moment (OK, quick etymology: where do thugs come from?). I'll also remind you of a number of other points, fine or otherwise: Vietnam was a US intervention in a foreign civil war (with Cold War implications), and in hindsight was largely unjustified. This is no Vietnam. Al Qaeda have been active in numerous nations, and plots have been reported in numerous nations, aimed at nationals of those countries. This is not just about the United States. The death toll at the WTC appears to be majority non-citizens. Actions in Kenya and Tanzania similarly killed a significant number of nationals, significantly more than the American citizen toll. Appearances from early actions are that this is not an all-out war, though the US and its allies are using their military assets to their advantage. While you're decrying US-induced casualties among Afghan citizens, note that the Afghans themselves are looting offices and warehouses of relief agencies. The campaign is targeting military targets and is hitting some civilians (by contrast: WWII bombing accuracy was on the order of 1%). Al Qaeda struct directly at civilian targets and killed 7,000. Earlier attempts on NYC sought as many as 250,000 dead. Accountability for the dead of Afghanistan rests squarely on the Taliban. They can stop the killing, on both sides, by aquiesing. The US can only stand down and continue to absorb hits from Al Qaeda so long as it remains active. This is not acceptable, self defense is a recognized national right. The Taliban have repeatedly distorted or outright lied about casualties -- both on themselves and civilian populations, and their own victories over the US. Zaeef has been known to change casualty counts several times over the course of a press conference. The hospital bombing reported yesterday is being denied by independent relief workers (Swiss, IIRC). Take any and all casualty reports with a large helping of salt, until confirmed, preferably by multiple independent sources. I'm not a flag-waving yahoo. I'm pissed as hell at what's being done to civil liberties in the name of covering up for bureacratic incompetence in the US. I'm concerned about potential fallout in Pakistan, India, the Arabian penninsula, Israel, and Indonesia. I wish to hell the Israelis and Palestinians would realize they're going to have to learn to live with each other or die trying. And yes, we've got to clean up our relations with the world. I have an idiot for a president, though the advice he's getting seems relatively decent. I wouldn't mind a job either. But stop a war in the name of a religion that's been tarnished by this millenium's first crop of merchants of hate and destruction? It would be more an insult to Muslims -- bin Laden is not of them, nor the Taliban. They started this. We'll finish it. This is less a war than a cancer treatment. There are no terms of settlement. The medicine is harsh, the treatment can be as bad as the disease. And when it's over, you're never sure it's all gone, you just start counting the aniversaries without recurrance. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #14,745 by dmarker2 10/23/01 7:50:19 AM Reply	Re: Not the same debate ??? "But stop a war in the name of a religion that's been tarnished by this millenium's first crop of merchants of hate and destruction? It would be more an insult to Muslims -- bin Laden is not of them, nor the Taliban." I thought the point was stopping disruption & terror to the Afghan population during Ramadan??? I think the points are getting both crossed and lost. My last para was very clear. Cheers Doug
Post #14,747 by ben_tilly 10/23/01 8:05:07 AM Reply	Death toll majority non-citizens? Do you have supporting documentation on that? I find it very hard to believe. Cheers, Ben
Post #14,836 by kmself 10/23/01 6:57:41 PM Reply	Wikipedia I get a count from [link\|http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Foreign_Casualties\|there] of 2750, slightly less than half of the 6,000+ number I've seen, but well over half the 4,515 missing + 458 dead [link\|http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Casualties\|claimed]. Numbers are pretty seriously disorganized though. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #14,840 by Another Scott 10/23/01 7:14:11 PM Reply	The numbers are in flux. AP story. It'll probably be many more weeks before a final tally is agreed-upon. [link\|http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-attacks-the-toll1023oct23.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines\|Here] - the URL will change. N.Y. Still Working on Death Toll By RITA BEAMISH Associated Press Writer October 23, 2001, 5:54 AM EDT NEW YORK -- After more than a month of cross-checking and detective work, police and city officials believe they are closing in on a reliable figure for the number of people missing and dead in the attack on the World Trade Center. They are still far from giving a final toll, but they say have culled most of the duplicated names that have caused the numbers to fluctuate daily, sometimes by hundreds at a time. On Tuesday, the number of missing and dead reported by the city stood at more than 4,700, including those in the trade center and those aboard the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the twin towers. "I think we're in the ballpark," said Police Chief Charles Campisi, who heads the missing-persons effort. Still, he cautioned: "The list is in a state of flux and it will continue to be." If anything, the number will drop. For example, Campisi said he expects police will continue to discover that some families who filed early missing-person reports neglected to notify police when loved ones turned up safe. Duplicate missing-person reports and overestimates from some foreign consulates also contribute to the swings. The city's total as of Tuesday consisted of 4,339 missing, plus 425 identified dead. [...] Police say they are still winnowing duplicates from an enormous list that initially contained scores of names reported by more than one well-meaning source. "You get different spellings, different date of births. You don't want to definitely say that this person is not missing or that these two are the same people" without a full investigation for each name, Campisi said. "There's a lot of legwork that goes on." The number of missing has jumped, sometimes erratically, while the legwork goes on. The number of missing stood at 5,422 on Sept. 20, only to balloon to 6,453 three days later as the police database was flooded with reports from a dozen sources, including family members, the Red Cross, airlines, employers and law enforcement agencies. Early on, foreign consulates accounted for a lot of the overcount, Campisi said. One nation reported some 400 people missing, but the number gradually shrank to just over 100. [...] The accounting raises other questions, too. Why does the city medical examiner consistently count around 100 fewer identified bodies than the mayor does? Most of the difference involves the identification of firefighters and police who perished in the trade center, Deputy Police Commissioner Thomas Antenen said. The Police Department uses "a police standard" for identification, while the medical examiner relies on scientific evidence, he said. For instance, an officer's unrecognizable remains were found with his clothing and an identification card, "so we knew it was him," Antenen said. The medical examiner's office makes positive identifications only when relatives visually identify a body or when remains are matched to hard proof such as dental records, fingerprints or DNA, spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said. Police must notify relatives before those names are released. This week, the medical examiner started using DNA to identify remains, a process that will cause the number of identified bodies to jump considerably. An ongoing Associated Press tally of the victims at the trade center, including those on both the planes, stood at 2,553 late Tuesday. Of those, 1,377 had been confirmed dead by a coroner or declared dead by a court; 329 were reported dead by employers, airlines or families, or had memorial services; and 847 were reported missing by families, employers or other officials. Names on the AP tally came from various official sources; no news organizations have access to the city's full list of missing. [...] I'd be surprised if nearly half of the victims weren't US citizens, but either way it's clear (from your cite) that hundreds of foreign nationals perished. :-( Scott.
Post #14,749 by Silverlock 10/23/01 8:38:10 AM Reply	Where thugs come from From mama and papa thugs of course. Unless you really were just looking for the derivatiion of the word. If so, I believe it came from a Indian tribal/religious group known as the Thuggee who were wiped out by the British in the early twentieth century. No? Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #14,755 by admin 10/23/01 9:19:44 AM Reply	Yep. But not as late as the 20th century 19th maybe. The problem was that the Thuggees lived amongst the villages as normal villagers, and their neighbors didn't even know what they were up to. They killed thousands of people in India for cult reasons (ritual strangulation), until wiped out by a career British commander who made it his personal mission to do so. The East India company and the British army could care less about the Indians who were being killed. There's even a town named after him with a statue, out in the middle of India somewhere. I can't recall his name, unfortunately. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #14,758 by Silverlock 10/23/01 9:32:38 AM Reply	to google or not to google Sheesh. Why do I keep relying on my faulty memory? Thuggee is the practice of the Thugs. Very good explanation found [link\|http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/yale/9.1roy.html\|here]. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #14,765 by admin 10/23/01 9:49:14 AM Reply	My own faulty memory... ... was refreshed last week by watching a show on the Learning Channel about this very same subject. :-D Regards, -scott anderson
Post #14,771 by Silverlock 10/23/01 10:09:59 AM Reply	Vaguely remember a movie about this Yep. IMDB helps out my leaky memory. [link\|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094979\|[link\|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094979\|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094979]] Not a very good movie if I remember correctly. Hell, if it had been good, I'd remember it better now wouldn't I? Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #14,754 by jb4 10/23/01 9:17:16 AM Reply	Tremendous analogy! This is less a war than a cancer treatment. There are no terms of settlement. The medicine is harsh, the treatment can be as bad as the disease. And when it's over, you're never sure it's all gone, you just start counting the aniversaries without recurrance. Can we use it elsewhere? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #14,828 by kmself 10/23/01 6:11:27 PM Reply	Cancer Yes, the analogy is free for use. I watched the disease and treatment kill my own younger brother, eleven years ago. I've got some rather vivid images of both. Being the intellectual slut I am, I've studied the topic some, and have worked in the healthcare / pharmaceuitical fields. Cancer is a disease of organization, and isn't characterized by a need to propogate the initiating agent, as in most communicable diseases. It's a turning of the body's own systems against itself -- judo assault, if you will. The one major distinction between cancer and terrorism is that cancer is not volitional: terrorism is, to the extent that there's a sentience guiding some portion of the attacks. However, this control can itself be relativley weak -- it's a channeling of energies and inclinations, not a directing of them. Note the weak control terror leaders have over their "followers" when they attempt to move them to more peaceful grounds: Arafat, Adams, Malcom X. So the analog to cancer may be stronger than this caveat would indicate. Another is that terrorism such as we're seeing in the case of Al Qaeda does have some need for covert channels of communication. Cancer is complete anarchy. Terror as we're seeing it does require a level of internal organization, which itself may be the subject of attack, and likely represents the enemy's weak point. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #14,756 by marlowe 10/23/01 9:27:54 AM Reply	You make me look moderate by comparison! There's a dynamic tension between respect for sincere spirituality and getting a very important job done. We have to draw the line somewhere. I'm drawing it favor of what Islam could be, and in favor of not expanding the war beyond necessity. If they commit an outrage during Ramadan, I will modify my position in an eyeblink. Tension implies a somewhat unstable equilibrium. But in the meantime, my position is: don't initiate or perpetuate a hostile exchange during Ramadan. If there's going to be violence, let them start it. Think of the propaganda implications. Whoever starts hostilities during a holy period has lost credibility among, for lack of a better word, "moderate" Muslims. Who would you rather see lose this credibility? Us, or them? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #14,782 by addison 10/23/01 11:33:54 AM Reply	Its a common sense approach. There's a dynamic tension between respect for sincere spirituality and getting a very important job done. Not really. We've already handicapped ourselves. (Laws to protect the "innocent", even though we're straining those in some cases, certainly there's nothing like that in Afghanistan.... not using all the weapons in the arsenal, not blindly targetting). There's no real reason not to continue after the criminals/opposition, just because its a holy time. Who's spirituality are we respecting? If they commit an outrage during Ramadan, I will modify my position in an eyeblink. So what they've already done wasn't an outrage? They've not proposed a truce. They've not indicated a williness to even BEGIN to come to terms with what's happend (OBL/Taliban). There's no reason we need to handicap ourselves because they want to claim they've got a holy agenda. The obvious parallel to that is police in your town not chasing criminals during Christmas.. and I don't think that's what you're really wanting. :) If there's going to be violence, let them start it. They did. Whoever starts hostilities during a holy period has lost credibility among, for lack of a better word, "moderate" Muslims. Who would you rather see lose this credibility? Us, or them? Nope. The true Moderates will understand the US attacking. The ones that don't, won't care that the US didn't attack. And then after Ramadan, when the attacks start, any pause would be ignored. There's really no benefit there for us, no reason. Besides, we don't give a damn about the Islam OBL preaches. (pun intended). Why would we indicate that we do? We're limiting our strikes, our attacks, to the Taliban and OBL - and they've had plenty of warning. The timing is on OBL/Taliban shoulders - not ours. Addison
Post #14,870 by dmarker2 10/23/01 11:09:41 PM Reply	Re: who is the 'they' you write of ? >If they commit an outrage during Ramadan, I will modify my position in an eyeblink. So what they've already done wasn't an outrage? They've not proposed a truce. They've not indicated a williness to even BEGIN to come to terms with what's happend (OBL/Taliban). There's no reason we need to handicap ourselves because they want to claim they've got a holy agenda. >If there's going to be violence, let them start it. They did. Who is this 'they' that keeps being talked about ??? - there are clearly more that one 'they' but the wording used here has merged them into one - warping the real target. 'they' is a classic label for lumping together different people. It makes it easy to be used to justify a single response to all (likely to be inappropriate against some of the 'they's). The 'they' being talking about are four or more quite different peoples who deserve quite different treatment and who need to be understood in terms of how other peoples see them and their plight as Afghanistan comes under attack because of the direct actions of 1 & the indirect actions of 2. They 1 are the murderous perps who did Sept 11th - these are not Afghans They 2 are the Taliban & OBL. Taliban are accused of harbouring OBL & providing facilities for OBL training that probably supplied 1 above They 3 are the Taliban controlled Afghans - including the 17-year olds given guns & told to go defend They 4 are the ordinary Afghan citizens who are none of the above Using the word 'they' is a poor way of justifying a common response to all the groups above when their culpability for Sept 11th varies dramatically (guilty to innocent) and that this fact is seen by people in other countries especially in Muslim ones. The Ramadan issue cuts across all groups & affects millions of people. We all know what needs to be done to They 1. We westerners have strong opinions on what we want to do to They 2. But the They 3 deserve more careful treatment, and They 4 deserve every respect & consideration else be accused rightly of being blatant hypocrites. We need to maintain a sensible balance in our perspectives and on what is taking place. War on TV screens is a lot different to the horror on the ground We have to make quite sure that the only people we visit this horror upon are those that truly deserve it. I fear that that distiction is now being blurred and the attitude is becoming 'they are just getting what they deserve' (without caring about who 'they' really are anymore !!!). Please assure me I am wrong. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #14,873 by addison 10/23/01 11:27:04 PM Reply	They is somewhat fluid, depending on context. But mainly, "they" are the people who would claim religious perogative, and who commited this atrocity. warping the real target. The warping is bending our needs to those of a claim of religion. The Ramadan issue cuts across all groups & affects millions of people. No more than anyone "innocent" who's "collateral damage". Same thing. Accidents happen, we've said that its the Taliban who's to blame. Attacks, if needed, during Ramadan are exactly the same issue. Talk to the Taliban. They 4 deserve every respect & consideration else be accused rightly of being blatant hypocrites. Which they're getting, as far as I can tell. I fear that that distiction is now being blurred and the attitude is becoming 'they are just getting what they deserve' (without caring about who 'they' really are anymore !!!). No more than the ordinary Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays were affected by that attitude. Its not personal, its not about religion, and making a distinction on religion, for whatever reasons, hurts, rather than helps our reasoning. Addison
Post #14,882 by dmarker2 10/23/01 11:54:10 PM Reply	Re: I think you have lost sight of who the target is in Afghanistan. This is a war against terrorism not against Afghanistan - the way you speak of it is directly as a war against Afghanistan with acceptable collateral casualties. "Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays " They were declared wars between nations. Your use of 'they' is appallingly inaccurate in identifying who the US administration is really after & why and in considering the wider implications of military action affecting the citizens of a country. Repeat after me: "America is not at war with Afghanistan, America is at war with global terrorism" Cheers Doug
Post #14,883 by addison 10/24/01 12:21:37 AM Reply	No, its not I with the lost sight. This is a war against terrorism* not against Afghanistan - the way you speak of it is directly as a war against Afghanistan with acceptable collateral casualties.* It is a war against terrorists and their protectors, who are currently in power in Afghanistan. We are bombing Afghans, we are inflicting "collateral damage". You keep losing sight of that. WHAT do you propose, is a "proper" action in this case? "Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays " They were declared wars between nations. Irrelevant. The Taliban (who control most of Afghanistan) were warned that strikes were coming as a result of their harboring of OBL, et al. This was not a surprise attack. And the parallel is as such, unrefuted. We bombed on holidays in the past, explain the difference between that, and now. Your use of 'they' is appallingly inaccurate No. You're just ... actually, I don't know what you're advocating. If you don't like what we're doing in Afghanistan, say so, or volunteer to go over, or something. You're trying to nit-pick at "they're" - which isn't anywhere near as amorphous as your position here. Repeat after me: "America is not* at war with Afghanistan, America is at war with global terrorism"* Which has absolutely nothing to do with Ramadan. Repeat that 10 times. Addison
Post #14,898 by dmarker2 10/24/01 1:57:45 AM Reply	Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap Can't add anything useful to the earlier part of the reply. Couldn't make much sense of it. But >Repeat after me: "America is not at war with Afghanistan, America is at war >with global terrorism" ">Which has absolutely nothing to do with Ramadan. Repeat that 10 times." Not so! It sure as hell does matter when 100,000s of Afghans are fleeing their homes (don't you get the UN news reports on the refugee numbers !!!) - facing starvation, disruption, breakdown in law and order, rioting, onset of winter. The final death toll attributable to 'collateral damage' will way beyond the piddling figure of 100 you put forward as casualties thus far. You keep implying that the collateral effects are and will be all Taliban's blame. That is one wierd bit of logic. I want to see deserving terrorists and their supporters squashed flat but I'm not so insensitive as to lump Afghan citizens as being included in the 'they' to be hit deliberately or accidentaly (be they Taliban followers or anti-Taliban). And if citizens are suffering as collateral damage during Ramadan, it does matter. To see it otherwise attracts the accusation of springing Osama Bin Ladens west vs Islam trap. Cheers Doug
Post #14,930 by addison 10/24/01 9:57:24 AM Reply	Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap Can't add anything useful to the earlier part of the reply. Couldn't make much sense of it. Then you really shouldn't be in this discussion. You keep implying that the collateral effects are and will be all Taliban's blame. That is one wierd bit of logic. I'd point out exactly how much sense that made, but you'd just ignore that, and keep going on and on. I've given you parallels you've not refuted, or have just said they're wrong. I really think you need to sit and think about the "nature of war". Because if you can't understand the part you said you didn't - you really need to. Addison
Post #14,939 by dmarker2 10/24/01 10:32:55 AM Reply	Re: Consider this ... Here we are unable to agree that we even understand what each other is saying. But this thread was always about bombing Afghans during Ramadan. I know that. So if we who are on the same side can't see eye-to-eye about the importance of some sensible handling of the Ramadan period, how the f*** do you imagine Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. Doesn't that worry you ? - Doesn't it smell like the OBL trap ?. Are you not concerned about how volotile Pakistan is ? Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Cheers Doug (PS I won't get personal if you don't - I can see the temptation for both of us is there but lets just keep this level)
Post #14,948 by addison 10/24/01 11:19:18 AM Reply	Re: Consider this ... But this thread was always about bombing Afghans during Ramadan. I know that. Its not always obvious. So if we who are on the same side can't see eye-to-eye about the importance of some sensible handling of the Ramadan period, how the f*** do you imagine Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. "Sensible handling"? That's what its about. There's no "sensible handling". The fact its Ramadan shouldn't affect our plans much. Slightly, yes. But not much. Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. The requirements for the US to stop the attacks have been quite clearly laid out. Doesn't that worry you ? - Nope. The issue is, as I keep telling you, irrelevent. There aren't any fence sitters who will be changed one way or the other. Doesn't it smell like the OBL trap ?. Nope. Are you not concerned about how volotile Pakistan is ? Not really. Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will castrate the US mission. And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"? I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly more attacks on the US. Again, we didn't stop on Japanese holidays during WWII. The point of war is you don't get to choose the time and place, often. Furthermore, we're already hamstrung by our notions of "justice" and things like "fair treatment". You've yet to show any plausible reason that "stopping" during ramandan - until somebody kills hundreds more Americans (or anybody else) is logical at all. Because its not. So its a holiday. How does that change anything**? How is it better when we kill civilians during non-holidays? Addison
Post #15,033 by dmarker2 10/24/01 7:58:28 PM Reply	Re: stick to the facts " Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will castrate the US mission. And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"? I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly more attacks on the US. 1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists. Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ?? 2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing. You put up a pathetic case for 100 civillian casualties due to the precision bombing but never responded to the collateral issue of these people's plight during winter and the image seen by other countries if bombing was impacting civillians during Ramadan. 3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised. Cheers Doug "
Post #15,045 by addison 10/24/01 9:19:23 PM Reply	I'm not the one moving away from them 1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists. Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ?? 2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing. Those two are exclusive. If the Taliban/terrorists aren't near civilian areas, then we wouldn't be bombing near there. We're not bombing civilians just to do it - you imply that we are. That's the facts. The airstrikes and commando raids are - for all evidence - avoiding civilian casualties. Therefore, there's no reason to change anything - and you are advocating that. 3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised. I'm not worried about it. More importantly, you did not explain how not bombing targets near civilian areas would decrease that instablity*. You're pulling isolated (and sometimes exclusive ideas) and attempting to make a stand with them. Addison
Post #15,084 by dmarker2 10/25/01 5:22:16 AM Reply	Re: wrapping up Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other. We don't even seem to have been able to agree to disagree. We haven't managed to reach an end where we can see each others point-of-view and respect it. That has been a dissapointment to me and I take it as my failure to adequately convey my views & to see yours clearly. I do consider discussing these issues to be very valuable and constantly rediscover the satisfaction when we here can put differing views and respect them as well as debate them. Occasionaly such discussions can seem to lead nowhere as it appears to me this line has. Irrespective of this outcome I trust we can debate other issues in the future and manage to earn each other's respect no matter if we disagree. Cheers Doug Good minds are extremely valuable to other good minds
Post #15,160 by addison 10/25/01 8:59:45 PM Reply	Re: wrapping up Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other. No, Doug, we've not. Mainly because you've started with something I consider to be somewhat illogical - and are expecting me to agree with you 1/2 way. Your insisting I'm a bloodthirsty killer didn't help, either. :) In short: We're not targeting civilians now. You've yet to explain how that should change during Ramadan. The people who are "on the fence" won't be influenced by Ramadan - and most people have already made up their mind. So insisting that it will make Pakistan fall is irrelevent.... And so no, there's no agreeing to disagree. Whether we bomb or not is utterly irrelevant, and there's no upside to not bombing. In order to agree to disagree, you'd have to show me where there is one. Though I appreciate your tone, I think its unnecessary, but thanks for the polite wrap up. Addison
Post #15,171 by dmarker2 10/25/01 10:20:55 PM Reply	Re: wrapping up - another try I was trying to reach out. My post didn't try to lay blame at either your or my feet other than my failure to make myself better understood - my fault!. I won't respond the the new points raised as they are not making the thread any clearer nor helping us understand each other better. Probably achieve the opposite. Let us both hope that we can do better on other topics. Let this one die a natural well earned death. Cheers Doug
Post #15,208 by wharris2 10/26/01 2:49:02 AM Reply	Retch out? If you start with illogical premises, you reaching out doesn't make me want to hold out my hand so you can pull me into your twisted pit of viprous snarled logic. 1+1 = 2. If you say differently, there's no amount of reaching out or meeting halfway. There are many things that are, indeed, black and white with no shades of grey in between. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,217 by Ashton 10/26/01 3:11:02 AM Reply	Ah.. the 1+1 certain logic of the unwarranted kewl buttinski
Post #15,227 by dmarker2 10/26/01 6:36:21 AM Reply	Re: Retch out? Go screw yer boots (grin) Cheers Doug
Post #14,802 by Another Scott 10/23/01 3:08:35 PM Reply	OT: thugs. And comments. Interesting. Thanks for the brain tickler. It's roots are in Sanskrit and it is derived from a Hindi word for "a deceiver, robber". [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=thug\|Neat]: thug \\Thug\\, n. [Hind. thag a deceiver, robber.] One of an association of robbers and murderers in India who practiced murder by stealthy approaches, and from religious motives. They have been nearly exterminated by the British government. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, \ufffd 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Dictionary.com is a wonderful resource. Back on topic, I think your writeup is right on the money. A minor nit though, the latest death (and missing) toll (excluding the anthrax stuff) as of 10/18/01 is: [link\|http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--attacks-majordeve1018oct18.story\|Source]: WTC in NYC:....4569 missing, 458 dead Pentagon:.......189 dead PA crash:........44 dead Total:.........5260 souls. A horrific number. There's little doubt that the toll could have been far worse. Their apparent original plan in the WTC bombing in NYC was to make one tower fall over onto the other tower and other buildings to quickly kill tens of thousands. Presumably that was a goal in this attack as well. :-( Scott.
Post #14,753 by jb4 10/23/01 9:14:19 AM Reply	Getting into possible Godwin territory, but... YES!!! terrorists 'declared war' by the Sept 11th attack but remember that those people came from many countries - the US has accused OBL (not Afghanistan) and has argued that the Taliban by harbouring OBL & El Qaeda is a legitimate target to the USA resulting from the Sept 11 attacks. But not everyone sees it quite that way. Not everybody saw that Hitler was bad, either. Some actually joined him. I don't recall that we paid much attention to the sympathizer's sensibilities then, did we? Why should this be different? Oh, yeah...I forgot...this is the age of political correctness. My bad. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #14,759 by marlowe 10/23/01 9:34:55 AM Reply	Also, Nazism wasn't backed by an ancient and venerable... religious tradition. No, Aryanist neo-paganism doesn't qualify. It meets neither of the criteria. And no, Hitler wasn't a Catholic in any meaningful sense, no matter what he or anybody else claims. I don't trust Islam as it currently exists. But I hate to turn my back entirely on a tradition that brought about the civilization of the Caliphs. Algebra, astronomy, and all that. Yes, it was a long time ago. But it happened, and with help, maybe it could happen again. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #14,773 by dmarker2 10/23/01 10:19:49 AM Reply	Re: Getting into possible Godwin territory, Headfirst !!! What is incorrect about the quote ??? What does hitler have to do with it ??? US has a right to go after anyone who did the Sept 11th attack - only blind freddy would disagree with that !!! This thread is about avoiding a potentially disaterous situation occuring between west & muslims during Ramadan. But! Perhaps it would be far smarter if we all get off our hobby horses & wind down a bit & just wait & see what happens. In balance I have considerable confidence that Powell will do what is right. Doug Marker
Post #14,850 by Ashton 10/23/01 8:15:27 PM Reply	Point of order. Godwin. Godwin is Not about mentioning Hitler, his personality, deeds, cohorts or all those events, in context of illustrating patterns of behavior or some salient point. It is IIRC when a person ad hominem attributes to another: [some form of] a Hitler mindset, parentage, er even admiration? I'm not sure but suppose: even if the attributee is one of the characters only mentioned in a thread (but neither the poster nor his antagonist). A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!