That type of thought process used to amaze me.

Post #40,980 by Brandioch 6/3/02 2:51:42 PM Reply	That type of thought process used to amaze me. If they cannot "respect" us, they can at least fear us. I hope that we will take whatever measures are needed to instill that fear - even including neutron bombs if needed. It makes no difference to me as an American. All I'm interested in is a decent future for my own children. You're willing to nuke thousands of innocents to get a few "bad" guys. And you're worried about the safety of YOUR children? These boys were cultivated into non-empathetic haters. Well, it seems that they weren't the only ones. Allow me to phrase this in a more personal manner. You live in a house, on a block, in a city. Now, someone comes to your house and kills your family because someone living a couple blocks over pissed him off. Would you be "empathic" to the person who just killed your family? Or would you be angry at the person who just killed your family? What would you teach your future children? And THAT is the crux of the issue. We have a problem with SOME SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS over there. So we "accidentally" kill innocents. But the families of those innocents are NOT supposed to hate us for our actions. They're supposed to feel empathy for us. Why do you expect the families of the people we've murdered to be more understanding than OUR OWN PEOPLE? Yes, it's easy to live in a world where everyone else is a saint.
Post #40,981 by Simon_Jester 6/3/02 3:14:57 PM Reply	But Brandioch... And THAT is the crux of the issue. We have a problem with SOME SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS over there. So we "accidentally" kill innocents. But the families of those innocents are NOT supposed to hate us for our actions. They're supposed to feel empathy for us. <sarcasm mode> If they continue to hate us, and they refuse to learn, then we'll be forced to kill them too. It won't be our fault. I really don't understand your complaint. Nothing less that complete security is acceptable -- do you want MORE planes flying into buildings? More deaths of Americans? Genocide is a perfectly acceptable answer. If they're all dead, they can't fly planes into our buildings. And...if anyone wants to complain, they're with the terrorists...and we can kill them too. </sarcasm mode>
Post #40,984 by boxley 6/3/02 3:39:11 PM Reply	what to do "Now, someone comes to your house and kills your family because someone living a couple blocks over pissed him off." "Would you be "empathic" to the person who just killed your family?" Yes I would tell him G_d understands his error just before his execution "Or would you be angry at the person who just killed your family?" No anger and retribution are two different things. One is to allow the folks that dont know you that it is a bad idea to mess with you. Also be sure and kill the ahole that started the whole mess, and maybe a few family members of both then adopt their kids. "What would you teach your future children." Only you can protect yourself, everyone else can examine the postmortem and come to conclusions. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #40,986 by bepatient 6/3/02 3:49:09 PM Reply	Close The person who just killed my family would lose his family, his in laws and anyone who visited him over the course of the past year...slowly...and with alot of pain. And just because...the neighbor that he was fighting with...and possibly their entire family as well. The Chicago way. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,995 by Brandioch 6/3/02 4:26:46 PM Reply	Now put some names to those people and you'll see the prob. So, the US does something that Osama doesn't like. So Osama strikes at the US. So the US kills innocent Afghans. In my example, your family would be one of the Afghans. Now, you will want to strike back at the US. How do you do so? And the cycle continues.
Post #41,014 by screamer 6/3/02 6:40:05 PM Reply	Yes I do not expect that you will agree. You may be basing your logic on a flawed assumption. You are assuming that this is a "criminal" matter (as evidenced in many of your posts) that should be dealt with using a non-military solution. This is, in fact, logical only if you can assume that countries where terrorists live and operate have police forces and governments that have the means or will to accomplish the criminal prosecution of these individuals. You have implied that our actions against the Taliban government were "unjust" by claiming that we have not achieved our objective of "getting" Bin Laden. I think that you either are being coy or missed a basic point - that the Taliban government which housed Bin Laden was uncapable of "policing" him, so we either went in ourselves or let it go... IMHO, we did what we had to do.. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die, But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives" ... "We all know success, when we all find our own dreams And our love is enough to knock down any walls And the future's been seen, as men try to realize The simple secret of the note in us all in us all" P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
Post #41,015 by Brandioch 6/3/02 7:00:10 PM Reply	Can you locate the USofA on a map? You are assuming that this is a "criminal" matter (as evidenced in many of your posts) that should be dealt with using a non-military solution. That is true. This is, in fact, logical only if you can assume that countries where terrorists live and operate have police forces and governments that have the means or will to accomplish the criminal prosecution of these individuals. Considering that the CIA knew for 18 months that terrorists were living here, does that make the US one of those countries? Or did you mean something different by "live and operate"? You have implied that our actions against the Taliban government were "unjust" by claiming that we have not achieved our objective of "getting" Bin Laden. No. It was "unjust" because we killed innocent people. It was stupid because we didn't get Osama. I think that you either are being coy or missed a basic point - that the Taliban government which housed Bin Laden was uncapable of "policing" him, so we either went in ourselves or let it go... IMHO, we did what we had to do.. Really? I recall the Taliban asking for our "proof" that Osama was behind it. Never that they said they WOULD NOT surrender him. I'm glad that you have an opinion. That we "had" to kill innocent civilians. It makes their death so much more noble than people killed by terrorists. Of course, you can ask Osama and he'll say that they "have" to kill us. What I'm questioning is that mindset. WHY do you think that we "have" to kill them? And don't tell me that it is "them" or "us". We killed INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Once again, my point is that they have to LEAVE those countries and TRAVEL to other countries to strike at us. All we have to do is ARREST them when they leave. We freeze their assets. If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US. We are allies with most of the developed world. If we have proof that a country is harbouring a known terrorist, why wouldn't our allies support our blockade and such until such a person is turned over? No. I see this as pure, misguided vengence. We were hit so we "had" to hit back at something. Anything. It seems to work out a lot better when you THINK through a situation rather than just letting your emotions go.
Post #41,030 by bepatient 6/3/02 10:55:06 PM Reply	Doesn't work If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US. We are allies with most of the developed world. If we have proof that a country is harbouring a known terrorist, why wouldn't our allies support our blockade and such until such a person is turned over? Why? Because a blockade hurts women and..of course...the cheeldrun...in those countries. And of course...as your argument goes...they are INNOCENT people caught in the struggle. So...you have a country that supports them and will not police them. What do you do? What we did. We could have turned Afghanistan into a very large sheet of glass. That would have killed quite a few more innocent people. Did innocent people die in Afghanistan. Yep. We had a few innocent folks die ourselves. Now the terrorists have to find somewhere else to train...and I'm sure that the other governments in the regoion will think once or twice before they allow it on their soil. And what...by chance...do you arrest a suicide bomber for BEFORE he's blown himself up? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,032 by screamer 6/3/02 11:14:22 PM Reply	Yeah... Okay, I'm with you on a number of points, not on a number of others. I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists. We payed a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings? It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine... Shame on me. You write: "Once again, my point is that they have to LEAVE those countries and TRAVEL to other countries to strike at us. All we have to do is ARREST them when they leave." To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about the poor bastard jouralists that is trying to make a living? As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries... Weren't they there already? It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies? I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair... Natch Natch... I think you have a very simplistic answer for a very complex problem... Unless... We just all agree to stay here in the good old USA and never go abroad for any reason... And once proven in a court of law (Argentina?), and found to be a harboring terrorist country, we blockade them and make the poor suffering bastards poorer... They'll like us then. The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were pawns in a larger game that their government played. You claim to have been in intelligence? Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country. We were there in a month. Our bombs could have been there in days, if not hours. How long should we have waited. What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. We gave them a choice, turn him over or cease to be a government. They chose. It was quite simple. Think about it before you post. The concept of a "just" war is really a throughback to the First Wave Warfare style of chivalry and other medieval nonsense. Even in medieval warfare, the victors routinely sacked the town and killed all the women and children. The weapons have changed, the game has not. The numbers have just gotten magnified immensely. As a human being, I am deeply concerned with human suffering. As an American, I am most concerned with American suffering. We did not take this conflict to the poor bastard fanatic Muslims. They brought it to us... I will not allow myself to find any moral equivalencies between us and them. It is completely irrelevent to me at this time. YMMV. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die, But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives" ... "We all know success, when we all find our own dreams And our love is enough to knock down any walls And the future's been seen, as men try to realize The simple secret of the note in us all in us all" P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
Post #41,049 by Brandioch 6/4/02 1:30:46 AM Reply	Ummm, did you miss the heading of this forum? I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists. No, they were living here. We payed a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings? Check the title of this forum. Or are you proposing that we settle for the "justice" metted out by the terrorists? It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine... Shame on me. Yes. Because you are now willing to kill innocent women and children to statisfy your need for vengence. Accourding to our sources there is ONE man "responsible" for this attack. Instead of working to capture/kill him, we're spending time killing women and children. But that is okay with you because you don't know those women and those aren't your children. To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about the poor bastard jouralists that is trying to make a living? What about them? Are you concerned about attacks on them? Maybe you can expand on that concept? With examples? As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries... Weren't they there already? In two words FUCK NO! Shall I say it again to make it clear to you? FUCK NO! Osama's funds were NOT frozen. In fact, the current regime decided to NOT pursue that course when they took control. The same thing with Taliban funding. Definately not frozen. It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies? No, that is the reason SOME of them resort to terror attacks. Not all of them. Osama definately isn't hurting for cash. I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair... Natch Natch... Okay, if I have to explain to you that Osama is a millionaire then you, obviously, do not have the background knowledge to hold a rational discussion. Why don't you do a bit of research and try again when you're better informed? The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were pawns in a larger game that their government played. Strange how it was US bombs dropped by US troops on a US mission that killed them then. Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country. Gee, and we could have just provided the "proof" and had their permission to go get him. Instead, we didn't waste any time waiting for him to escape to another country and went right in and........ Let him escape to another country. Ah, I see how your solution would have resulted in the capture/killing of Osama while mine would not have. What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. I think that says enough right there. Buh bye.
Post #41,092 by screamer 6/4/02 10:58:33 AM Reply	Nope... I say: *I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists.* To which you reply: *No, they were living here.* What the heck is the difference, Kiddo? Are you implying that they were citizens? Pedantic R We... Score: Child = 1? Me = 0 I say: We paid a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings? To which you reply: Check the title of this forum. Or are you proposing that we settle for the "justice" meted out by the terrorists? I'm not the one proposing that we find some type of moral equivalence between - to quote Dick Gebhart - [link\|http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020604/D7JUB6580.html\|"There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them."] Which is what you have been childishly screaming for the last 6 months in these fora. I write: It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine... Shame on me. To which you reply: Yes. Because you are now willing to kill innocent women and children to satisfy your need for vengeance. You are making a huge assumption there, child. One, that I am willing or want to see the death of women and children and two that I feel a NEED for vengeance (sp) In your own words, BACK UP THAT CLAIM! Score - Child = 2? Me = 0 You write: *According to our sources there is ONE man "responsible" for this attack.* Who or what is your DIVINE Source? BACK UP THAT CLAIM! You may have assumed in your childish mind that this is some sort of fact, but I have not seen any documents saying that Bin Laden acted or plotted alone. Which plane was he on? Earth to Khasim... If you repeat something enough you think it becomes fact? You further pontificate: Instead of working to capture/kill him, we're spending time killing women and children. But that is okay with you because you don't know those women and those aren't your children. No, sir. You can't get away with that shit. BACK UP THAT CLAIM. We are spending our military resources routing out -cave by cave- men-soldiers/terrorists. The women and children are not targets. You are an asshole to even suggest that the women and children are targets. Your rhetoric in this area is continually offensive to me and any thinking person. Shame on you. And it is not okay with me that innocents are killed which is why I wrote in this thread to begin with. To protest the death of an innocent reporter. Although I'm sure it would have been better somehow in your sense of equivalency had he been a woman or child? Score - Child = 3? Me = 0 (You are really starting to rack up the points). I write: To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about the poor bastard journalists that is trying to make a living? To which you reply (stupidly, I might add): What about them? Are you concerned about attacks on them? Maybe you can expand on that concept? With examples? Examples that come immediately to mind: African Embassies, USS Cole, Daniel Pearl, Philippines, Kashmir (man, you are making this easy). Your childish suggestions about sanctions and freezing bank accounts imply that we never under any circumstance TRAVEL or Work abroad. Come on. If we freeze their assets, they will simply change to barter or cash economy. You do remember that they at one time had access TO POPPIES? HEROIN? The key being, at one time, before we went over and didn't achieve anything in Afghanistan. Which is why Bill Patient's Capone analogy makes a lot more sense than you gave him credit for. I'm sure that all their bank accounts are in their own names and they list their occupation as INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST or Al-Quaida enthusiast? Score - Child = 4? Me = 0 (Man, I can't win) I write: As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries... Weren't they there already? To which you ooze: In two words FUCK NO! Shall I say it again to make it clear to you? FUCK NO! Osama's funds were NOT frozen. In fact, the current regime decided to NOT pursue that course when they took control. The same thing with Taliban funding. Definitely not frozen. Yo, Rainman, I may be really stoopeed, but I don't remember calling Bin Laden a country. Definitely, definitely not a country...(Context, my child, read for context). I was referring to a country called AFGHANISTAN and indeed, not only were sanctions in place, we (along with every nation in the world save 3) didn't even recognize them as a legitimate country. Are you really trying to annoy me with your lack of reading ability and comprehension? Or are you just happy to say fuck repeatedly? I write: It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies? To which you coo, No, that is the reason SOME of them resort to terror attacks. Not all of them. Osama definitely isn't hurting for cash. You sort actually have a point here, YEAH! (Child = 1) And because I forgot to put the word "worked" into "It (sanctions) really worked well before", I'll give you yet another point! You are on a roll now. But fighting a war with the free world costs more than a few million bucks, bucko. Running an international terror ring isn't cheap, especially if you are trying to take on the United States and Israel and the rest of the free world... How much money do you think Bin Laden has? Enough? Enough to buy guns and Ammunition for all his buddies and put out training videos and pay for flight schools and ad nauseum? But, in your mind he has enough and acted alone, so... I guess that's that. I sarcastically write in deference to your root cause threads (with apologies to Ashton): I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair... Natch Natch... To which you obfuscate: Okay, if I have to explain to you that Osama is a millionaire then you, obviously, do not have the background knowledge to hold a rational discussion. Why don't you do a bit of research and try again when you're better informed? Pot - kettle - black. No, you don't have to explain to me that Bin Laden is a millionaire again (unless you really feel like it) unless you want me to explain to you that he isn't rich enough to fund even the ammo for his "troups". This was my feeble attempt to show how ridiculous your oversimplifications of complex problems are. You must think this guy has godzillions of bucks... But, I'll do some more research on how to communicate with children (or chimpanzees) and get back with you with an abstract that is appropriate for your cognitive skills. Kay? I write: The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were pawns in a larger game that their government played. Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country. to which you reply: Strange how it was US bombs dropped by US troops on a US mission that killed them then. Gee, and we could have just provided the "proof" and had their permission to go get him. Instead, we didn't waste any time waiting for him to escape to another country and went right in and........ Let him escape to another country. I actually was stating, and you have a right to disagree, that we should have acted within days, not months, carpet bombing the last known areas he was in. The Taliban government was in no position to require anything from us. We didn't even recognize them as a government. Again, if you want to beat the moral righteousness of the poor misunderstood Taliban horse, go for it. You'll get no points from me for it though. You further scribe: Ah, I see how your solution would have resulted in the capture/killing of Osama while mine would not have. What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. I think that says enough right there Buh bye. I think it says it right there too. Triumphant bit of pure crap on your point... Whatever you POINT is? Buh Bye backatcha. Oh, and final score - child = 4? Me = 0 I guess you win! Oh, and by the way, your new style of debate is quite refreshing... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die, But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives" ... "We all know success, when we all find our own dreams And our love is enough to knock down any walls And the future's been seen, as men try to realize The simple secret of the note in us all in us all" P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
Post #41,135 by Brandioch 6/4/02 2:20:32 PM Reply	Score it however you want to. Whether you claim you're right or not does not change whether you were right or not. I'm not the one proposing that we find some type of moral equivalence between - to quote Dick Gebhart - "There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them." Which is what you have been childishly screaming for the last 6 months in these fora. Ah, and I'm sure that those children we killed in Afghanistan were terrorists who were threatening us. You see, I have no problem defending against terrorists. We've been over this. You can claim whatever you want. It's the actions you take that tell the truth. Killing children in Afghanistan is NOT "defending against terrorists". Except in your mind. You are making a huge assumption there, child. One, that I am willing or want to see the death of women and children and two that I feel a NEED for vengeance (sp) In your own words, BACK UP THAT CLAIM! Read your post. Note the use of BOLD. If you are not willing to see us killing women and children in Afghanistan, then you had better start protesting our killing women and children in Afghanistan instead of trying to portray such killing of women and children in Afghanistan as "defending against terrorists". You advocate the killing of people who were in NO WAY involved in the attack and you then claim that this isn't because of your need for vengence? Whatever. Who or what is your DIVINE Source? BACK UP THAT CLAIM! George W. Bush. President of the USofA. You may have assumed in your childish mind that this is some sort of fact, but I have not seen any documents saying that Bin Laden acted or plotted alone. I am willing to say that you have not seen ANY documents related to the attack. As for acting alone, you will recall that there were 19 hijackers. So "acting alone" with 19 other people? Whatever. Ah, again, your problem with language. When I say "responsible" you translate it into "acted alone". Typical. No, sir. You can't get away with that shit. BACK UP THAT CLAIM. What claim? That we killed women and children in Afghanistan? Are you questioning that? Tell me if you question that. Then, when I provide proof that we did, you will admit that you are uninformed on the situation and apologize, right? Or are you just going to keep demanding that I substantiate every fact that should already be known by anyone familiar with the situation? We are spending our military resources routing out -cave by cave- men-soldiers/terrorists. We started with a bombing campaign. During that campaign, we killed women and children. The women and children are not targets. I did not say they were targets. They are "collateral damage". You are an asshole to even suggest that the women and children are targets. Okay, so, I'm pedantic when I correct your usage of language, but if I don't correct it, you have problems understanding what I say. To clarify, I never said that women and children in Afghanistan WERE TARGETS. They are people killed because our bombs EXPLODE and take out an AREA. If they're in that AREA, they are damaged (collaterally). YOU are the one with the language problem who keeps assuming I'm saying we're TARGETING women and children. We just don't CARE if they happen to be in the area when we drop the bombs. Your rhetoric in this area is continually offensive to me and any thinking person. Well, I'm glad that every thinking person has finally managed to get together and elect YOU as spokesperson for them. Did they have cookies and juice during the election? And it is not okay with me that innocents are killed which is why I wrote in this thread to begin with. So, what are you going to do about it? To protest the death of an innocent reporter. Ah, once again, when it is one of OUR'S it is an "innocent". When it is one of THEIR'S, it doesn't exist. Although I'm sure it would have been better somehow in your sense of equivalency had he been a woman or child? Actually, I see a great difference between someone who leave the US, flies to a foreign country, knowing that it is dangerous and then seeks out dangerous people -and- someone living in the same city she's always lived in suddenly getting some hot shrapnel in her guts courtesy of Unka Sam. But you won't see that difference. All you'll see is "one of our's" and "", well, you won't even see her, will you? She doesn't exist. Examples that come immediately to mind: African Embassies, USS Cole, Daniel Pearl, Philippines, Kashmir (man, you are making this easy). That's good. When it's easy, you can learn. Now, Kashmir. I know that name, location and that India and Pakistan are fighting over it. What does Kashmir have to do with terrorist attacks against the US? Your childish suggestions about sanctions and freezing bank accounts imply that we never under any circumstance TRAVEL or Work abroad. Really? I see absolutely no problem with travelling and working in Britain. Or Germany. Or Australia. and so on and so forth. Perhaps you can explain to me how freezing Afghanistan's accounts would result in problems for US citizens working or living in Britain. Hmmmm? Come on. If we freeze their assets, they will simply change to barter or cash economy. Cool. Good for them. What was your point? Ahhh, do you think that they will be able to trade goods for aircraft training in the US? Hmmmmm? You do remember that they at one time had access TO POPPIES? HEROIN? The key being, at one time, before we went over and didn't achieve anything in Afghanistan. Hmmmm, you seem to have a severe mental disorder. Perhaps you would care to link to the post where I said we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan? I can provide links showing where I said we destroyed their existing government and so on. Ahhhh, once again, your translation is flawed. What I said is that we did not get Osama. You read that as "we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan". Your fault. Not mine. Which is why Bill Patient's Capone analogy makes a lot more sense than you gave him credit for. Considering that you have, repeated, in this very post, illustrated how you misread what I've posted, I don't think I'll take your word on whether someone else's analogy was correct or not. Thanks anyway. I'm sure that all their bank accounts are in their own names and they list their occupation as INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST or Al-Quaida enthusiast? Actually, one of them was. In California. Ah, I see, your ignorance extends to modern criminal investigations. Don't you find it strange that we had the information we needed to freeze those accounts AFTER the attack? Particularly when you claim that we would not be able to identify them? Yes, we did freeze the accounts after the attack. Yo, Rainman, I may be really stoopeed, but I don't remember calling Bin Laden a country. That's right, you didn't. I was referring to a country called AFGHANISTAN and indeed, not only were sanctions in place, we (along with every nation in the world save 3) didn't even recognize them as a legitimate country. Are you really trying to annoy me with your lack of reading ability and comprehension? Or are you just happy to say fuck repeatedly? Ah, I understand now. You're off on a "tangent". While I was talking about terrorist attacks against the US and how to halt future ones, you were off about Afghanistan. No, we didn't freeze Osama's accounts. We didn't freeze al Queda accounts. We didn't freeze accounts used by people in Afghanistan. "Afghanistan" itself doesn't have any accounts. Banks usually don't let rocks open them. The Taliban has accounts. Some may have been frozen, others were definately not frozen. Ah, I see you've also managed to miss the part where I talk about a blockade. Allow me to refresh your memory. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41015\|Can you locate the USofA on a map?] If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US. But fighting a war with the free world costs more than a few million bucks, bucko. The price of flight training and 19 plane tickets. I don't see that as costing very much at all. Running an international terror ring isn't cheap, especially if you are trying to take on the United States and Israel and the rest of the free world... Actually, it is far less expensive than you imagine. Also note that al Queda is leaving Israel to others. Like I said, flight training and 19 tickets isn't very expensive. How much money do you think Bin Laden has? Enough? Enough to fund the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC? Yes. Why do you ask? Do you think he didn't have enough to fund those? Enough to buy guns and Ammunition for all his buddies and put out training videos and pay for flight schools and ad nauseum? Okay, I see you've lapsed into the "I'm out of facts so I'll ask rhetorical questions". #1. M16A2 is $800 on the open market. #2. Flight training is under $25,000. [link\|http://www.airmanflightschool.com/pricing.htm\|Here] #3. A ticket from NYC to LAX depends upon when you purchase it. So, someone with a million dollars (only) could fund HOW MANY attacks? Or do you have as much trouble with math as you do with reading? But, in your mind he has enough and acted alone, so... I guess that's that. Hmmm, I think you have another problem here. I didn't say that I thought he was the one behind the attacks. I said that GEORGE W. BUSH said so. And that Osama was our TARGET when we attacked. Pot - kettle - black. No, you don't have to explain to me that Bin Laden is a millionaire again (unless you really feel like it) unless you want me to explain to you that he isn't rich enough to fund even the ammo for his "troups". Hmmm, I guess that you do have trouble with math. Or is that reality? Osama doesn't have "troops". "Troops" imply "military". Osama is part of al Queda. He has "operatives". Ammo costs for "operatives" are very low. An excellent example would the the WTC attack. 19 people, box cutters, etc. All easily finance by Osama. You must think this guy has godzillions of bucks... But, I'll do some more research on how to communicate with children (or chimpanzees) and get back with you with an abstract that is appropriate for your cognitive skills. Kay? No. And I've already shown, with clear examples, how much it would cost to fund the attack. You're off on some tangent (again) about his "troops" and their ammo costs. No "ammo" was expended during the attack. In fact, I can't think of any terrorist attack that used more than a couple hundred rounds. The Taliban government was in no position to require anything from us. We didn't even recognize them as a government. Strange how, since we didn't recognize them, that we dealt with them as if they were the government. That we even went to them first. Again, you say one thing, but the facts of the situation seem to show something else. Let me put it to you in a clear example. I don't recognize you as owning the floor above me. So I'm not ever going to ask you if I can go there. That's what "not recognized" means.
Post #41,043 by Andrew Grygus 6/4/02 12:55:02 AM Reply	No, I cannot locate the USofA on a map. The USA is everywhere in the world. If we bomb someone, we bomb ourselves. If we blockade someone, we blockade ourselves. The USA is everywhere in the world, and the world is here in the USA as well. Perhaps that's not so obvious in Podunk, but you certainly can't miss it in Los Angeles. Crooks, criminals and warloards love blockades. It increases the price they can demand for the goods they control the flow of, and it increases their control over the innocents within their sphere - in fact, the only people hurt by blocades and "economic sanctions" are those sainted innocents. Notice how quickly our blockade removed Castro from power in our own back yard, and how much it benefitted the innocent people of Cuba. The only reason that moronic blockade stands is to please a strong block of votes in a state upon which presidential elections sometimes hinge. Sure we are allies with most of the developed world. We have also been at war with most of them at one time or another. Their cooperation with our blocades has been on a par with our cooperation with their blockades - approaching Zero as a limit - often as the upper limit rather than the lower. Freezing assets works even better than blockades. As often as not we find the assets we are freezing are our own assets as well. And if we get too liberal with freezing assets within our reach, everyone will become accustomed to keeping assets out of our reach, which will not work at all to our advantage. You cannot (we hope, anyway) legally arrest people on speculation, nor just because they associate with people of whom you do not approve, or because you disagree with their political opinions. We tried that once or twice and it's called McCarthyism and witch hunting. People can't even be arrested because they come from a hostile country - most of us have at one time or another, and when this has been done it is soon revaled as needless persecution of innocents and allies. Yes, killing innocents is unjust - but justice is a conceit of human society, it does not exist in nature. Unfortunately it is the nature of innocents to be killed - that, in fact, defines innocents. If they hadn't been killed they'd probably be found to be just a guilty as the rest of us. Life exist by killing life. Even if you are a vegetable, you strive to block out the sun and suck up the moisture, to your neighbor's detriment. Forest trees strive for harder wood so their limbs can saw down their neighbors in the wind - while that neighbor grows soft wood to accelerate growth so as to shade the hardwood to death. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other depending on circumstances. If you are not a vegetable you live by killing life and eating it. As humans we strive for a "higher" ideal, which is of our own design and craft, and has nothing to do with nature - but we still must live as creatures of nature, "red of tooth and claw". Sometimes we have to make the hard choices in violation of our self made ideals. Sometimes we have to kill innocents - before they get a chance to kill us. In life, nobody is a non combatant.* Please pardon me for jumping into the middle of a thread I haven't read all of, but it looked too tedious for my very limited attention span. * See Ambrose Beirce: Non Combatant, n. A dead Quaker. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #41,052 by Brandioch 6/4/02 1:52:34 AM Reply	Minor disagreement. Notice how quickly our blockade removed Castro from power in our own back yard, and how much it benefitted the innocent people of Cuba. Blockades do NOT work to remove an existing government. That's why Castro and Saddam are still in power. Freezing assets works even better than blockades. As often as not we find the assets we are freezing are our own assets as well. Eh? What do you mean? And if we get too liberal with freezing assets within our reach, everyone will become accustomed to keeping assets out of our reach, which will not work at all to our advantage. Ummm, Andrew, check that logic. If we take the money from the criminals often enough, then the criminals won't leave their money where we can take it? Damn, they're some lazy criminals if they haven't moved what money they can already. You cannot (we hope, anyway) legally arrest people on speculation, nor just because they associate with people of whom you do not approve, or because you disagree with their political opinions. Eck-fucking-zactly! We need PROOF. (or a legal rendition thereof). Otherwise, we're just another bully warlord with the biggest stick on the planet. Yes, killing innocents is unjust - but justice is a conceit of human society, it does not exist in nature. Again, eck-fucking-zactly! And "hypocrisy" is another human conceit. Claiming it is "just" for you to kill innocents but "unjust" for someone else to do so. As humans we strive for a "higher" ideal, which is of our own design and craft, and has nothing to do with nature - but we still must live as creatures of nature, "red of tooth and claw". I'll agree. But only with the basis. Sometimes we have to make the hard choices in violation of our self made ideals. And this is the part that I disagree with. If you "violate" your "ideals"...... Well, in MY opinion, you can NEVER violate your ideals. You just haven't CORRECTLY stated your ideals. Which is why I keep hammering on how our actions are identical to the terrorist's actions. OUR ideals are EXACTLY the same as THEIR'S. Kill anyone who opposes us. Be they soldiers, women or children. We can find it within ourselves to rise above the law of the jungle. Yet there will always be those who will not. The problem with morals and ideals is that they RESTRICT your actions. Not that they demand recompensation AFTER you've performed the action. Having morals and ideals mean that there are actions you will NOT perform. If you will perform such actions, no matter how you justify them or rationalize them or claim that you "had" to do them... It is still the same. You claimed ideals and morals you did not posses. And all such human conceits as "justice" and "freedom" and "equality" are ONLY available as long as we NEVER try to rationalize setting them aside. No matter WHAT the provocation. Please pardon me for jumping into the middle of a thread I haven't read all of, but it looked too tedious for my very limited attention span. No problem. But I think we've gone off of the thread and into philosophy.

Welcome to IWETHEY!