Post #42,340
6/14/02 10:15:40 AM
|
They want blood? give it to them
I once worked with a man who at the age of 17 went ashore into one of the japanese held islands in WW2. 10 thousand left the ships, 700 remained. We have paid the price before and hoped we wouldnt have to pay again but these folks think we will continue kiss their burnoosed asses are going to wish they hadnt disturbed the insane jingoistict tyrant that we can be,
thanx,
bill
We got folks chained in Alabama basements waiting for times like this
Richard Prior
|
Post #42,401
6/14/02 9:02:18 PM
|
We shall fight them in the sea, the air, the land
and on their own turf if need be. If I was able to serve in the military and didn't have my medical issues, I'd go in there, and right after basic training go right into the war and take out as many terrorists as I could before they kill me.
These terrorists are as bad as the Nazis ever were, they seek nothing but the extermination of the Jewish people and those that support them. They have started their own "Holy War" or Crusade against other religions and have taught their children how to hate and use weapons at a very young age.
They attacked us, over and over again, how long before we get into a ground war with them and wipe them out?
This is not a war against Religion, as they are going against Islamic teachings to do this to us, it is a war against people who are terrorists.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,415
6/15/02 3:37:38 AM
|
No can do.
They hide behind the religion, and they hide among people of that religion, and look like people of that religion. We can't simply go in and wipe them out because we can't tell one from the other on short notice. The only real option we have is to make it so hot for the people among whom they hide, those people fear us more than they fear them. Only then will they roust them out.
Further, we have to make it very clear that the reason they must fear us is because of those who hide among them, and if the hiders are ejected, they have little to fear. Otherwise, we'll just be a recruitment service for more terrorists.
This is all a very difficult business, and will be damned nasty at times.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #42,431
6/15/02 5:12:10 PM
|
Yes can do
invade the terrorist training camps. Use intelligence to find their location and then raid them and take prisioners, if the prisoners are innocent, let them go, if they fire at you, fire back.
This is almost as stupid as Police officers being too afraid to bust Crack Houses in their neighborhoods they patrol. You know the damn thing is there, but would rather give out tickets for traffic violations than bust up a Crack House.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,436
6/15/02 5:36:51 PM
|
But you see...
Our concept of Modern War is that: the boys must not be placed in actual danger, except in carefully orchestrated scenarios.
B-52s, helicopters, missiles (some believe that Missals will help too) - anything which provides Action-at-a-Distance and costs at least $10K/# are our preferred tools.
I think your analogy of the "known Crack House in a neighborhood which promises too many Cop casualties if we actually storm it" is not far off the mark. (Though as to why the use of the white-man's Yuppie cocaine in a sl. altered form: should merit the Death penalty? - is another thread)
Of course in WW-II, at Tarawa, Guadalcanal.. and many others - we indeed threw legions of astoundingly valorous semi-trained and underequipped 'boys' at stubbornly entrenched opposition: determined to die with surrender not being an option. We did this because it was the best 'we' could manage in a war on 2 fronts, etc. - not because we were stupid or uncaring [well, there was enough of that, too, but it's also another thread].
This current bugaboo is simly too Large a one to be entrusted to the sloganeering and simplistic thinking of a Selected Village Idiot - WITHOUT a National debate upon our aims and the methods we *would* employ to attain them. In any 'next' event.
I do not expect that such a debate shall *actually* be allowed, of course. We live by Spin, maudlin talking heads.. dissembling under Patriotic-like slogans in all things, today.
(We did also in WW-II! but *then* there was an identifiable 'enemy' - it was an actual war and not a hysterical flailing-out at.. an invisible collection of dispersed, camouflaged God-besotted wackos)
Ashton
|
Post #42,495
6/16/02 5:14:42 PM
|
But you see part 2
What do you think the S.W.A.T. team is for? We can bust crack houses, yet they continue to let them operate and bust the users of the drug instead of taking down the house that cooks it.
In the same sense, if we take out the camps that are training terrorists, we can prevent terrorism before it starts. Many of these people are brainwashed at the camps anyway, the kids are shown puppet shows that teach them to hate and fight.
Congress has to declare war before we can do anything serious to them. Right now it is just a police action?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,438
6/15/02 6:02:56 PM
|
So you are saying . .
. . we should ignore the sovereignty of any nation that contains within it what we think is a terrorist training camp, despite what they (and anyone else) may think that camp is, in violation of the wishes (airspace and defense forces) of that nation. The thing is, just about anywhere you put a training camp, it's going to be within the borders of one country or another.
Given our intelligence departments' excellent track record for selecting targets we should soon be reading about it in the newspaper.
"Department of Defense confirms smart bombing of Boy Scout encampment in Morocco".
"Bush defends military strike, 'Boy Scout training would be excellent preparation for terrorist action - we must consider this a preemptive strike'".
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #42,444
6/15/02 8:28:48 PM
|
LRPD approves? "Ahead two thirds!"_________:-\ufffd
|
Post #42,455
6/16/02 9:45:24 AM
|
Well we could start by praising Allah
and make a nice glass design at medina and mecca, maybe then they will see the light. If ya work it right you could have a tape saying the bin laden has blessed the work and Iranians carried the load. We have lost the spirit of Bill donovan Im afraid while retaining the worst aspects of Dulles.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #42,477
6/16/02 3:24:33 PM
|
Well . . . its a start . .
Slagging Mecca and Medina, and dynamiting the Dome of the Rock (packing surviving peices of the rock into barrels of pig grease) is a good start . . IF - you want to commit to eternal enmity with, and total destruction of, an entire religion - in this case, a very large and widespread religion with plenty of adherants at all levels of our economic and political structure.
The problem here is that you have to be fully committed to the follow-through. Additional problems are that this goes directly against the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, and also involves certain practical and logistic problems.
I find it very difficult to recommend this course of action.
That's not to say it won't happen, though. A dirty nuke set off in DisneyLand on the 4th of July would probably just about do the trick. A logical next step would be to occupy Saudi Arabia, the depopulation of which would not be a really big job, and it'd be a dandy logistic staging base.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #42,492
6/16/02 5:05:33 PM
|
What I am saying
is to get the terrorists before they do the bombings and attacks. Use intelligence to find out where their camps and bases are and get the cooperation of the governments to verify the terrorist locations, and then attack the terrorist camps and hideouts. If they are not going to turn over the terrorists, the least they can do is point out the terrorists camps and hideouts and let us come in a clean them out.
Or would you rather we wait until they have the attack planned and try to stop it before it happens? Yeah, catch a dozen of them at a time, and have the possibility of not stopping the attacks.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,496
6/16/02 5:17:47 PM
|
So we get to go in and clean them out . .
deep within someone else's territory, in a country that is deeply divided as to whether they are "terrorists" or "freedom fighters".
What are the chances of even our alies (if any) allowing that, never mind a hostile government, like, say France?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #42,500
6/16/02 5:35:54 PM
|
Better than
expecting the governments to clean their own mess, and allowing terrorists to get so far as to do the attacks before we can catch them.
No wonder the CIA and FBI sat on their thumbs after being warned of Hijacked Airplane attacks? Too much beurocracy!
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,503
6/16/02 5:46:15 PM
|
They can be both.
After all, we trained Osama back when we needed them to fight against the Russian invaders.
When they're trying to drive out the "heathens", do they distinguish between the "good" heathens (us) and the "bad" heathens (the russians)?
What would the US have said if it had been a Russian building that they had flown into and it had been back during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?
|
Post #42,521
6/16/02 8:50:31 PM
|
Interesting points
I just don't have the answers for them.
#1 Osama, like many others, seemed at the time to be the lessor of two evils. Now, like Noreaga and the rest, he must be stopped.
#2 Again the lessor of two evils, the good heathens (US) helped to get rid of the bad heathens (USSR). But now they see the good heathens as the bad heathens?
#3 Terrorism should not be condoned at any cost.
Oh yeah, what part of "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" did they not understand? :)
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,525
6/16/02 10:06:07 PM
|
Counter points.
#1 Osama, like many others, seemed at the time to be the lessor of two evils. Now, like Noreaga and the rest, he must be stopped. We, as a nation, need to STOP looking at things like that. Again, I think this gets back to our dependance upon mid-eastern oil. If we aren't supporting a free democracy, we're violating the principles our country is based upon. #2 Again the lessor of two evils, the good heathens (US) helped to get rid of the bad heathens (USSR). But now they see the good heathens as the bad heathens? Nope, we're all heathens. If they can use one group of heathens while fighting another group of heathens, that's okay. As long as they keep focused on getting ALL the heathens out. We aren't "good" in any way except we will supply money, training and weapons (which can then be used against us). #3 Terrorism should not be condoned at any cost. But is it "terrorism" to them? Look at your own next statement. Oh yeah, what part of "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" did they not understand? :) Nukes do NOT specifically target military or terrorists or repressive regimes. They kill EVERYONE. So, what's the difference between us killing civilians indiscriminately and their killing civilians indiscriminately? That's why I keep saying that if we REALLY WANT to end terrorism, we have to target SPECIFIC individuals. We cannot kill innocents, call them "collateral damage" and say we are fighting terrorism. Well, we can say it, but that doesn't make it the truth.
|
Post #42,582
6/17/02 9:42:03 AM
|
Of course...
if we kill civilians indiscriminitely - it's terrorism.
if we kill specific individuals - it's death squads.
if we capture, try and prosecute specific individuals - it's called being soft on terrorism.
|
Post #42,763
6/18/02 1:05:38 PM
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about
The Feds were able to take out Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians and that Cubian boy before things got worse, why not treat the terrorists the same way? Of course the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian people got killed in the process, or most of them anyway. Where are the killa/thrilla *ss whooping Federal Agents when you need them to take out the terrorists?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,858
6/19/02 3:22:14 AM
|
You're right.
You don't see what the fuss is about. You're also right about how simple it would be to 'solve' (meaning win) the problem - if it happened to be the sanitized one in the cartoon.
Unfortunately the cartoon version just may be the one which is addressed, given the oratory about Good and Evil and the recent plans to develop new 'small nukes': a decision which presupposes that we are willing to use them, in scenarios already contemplated.
Then you can talk about real 'fuss'
Ashton
|
Post #42,900
6/19/02 3:12:21 PM
|
The alternative is then
to allow them to train, allow them to make the bombs, and then allow them to make the plans, and then come into our country and then we nail them, hopefully, before they do damage. It may work that way in "G.I. Joe" but not in the real world.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,912
6/19/02 4:48:15 PM
|
Only for those who cannot grasp what a
"complex issue" entails (what the words mean), and will settle for digital Yes/No slogans instead, every time. You want simple?
Kill All Heathen Muslims for Christ, Capitalism and The American Way\ufffd. From this: you can easily open that [Permission to Fire] interlock and Simplify all issues you dare not face (for all the contradictions within the juvenile rote-thinking about them) to:
That "concave surface of radioactive glass" - so fondly-mouthed an Ideal Solution, in the minds of the -what?- People of Certainty?
Here's another pair for you to parse:
Arbeit Macht Frei!
AND
Might Makes Right.
never mind..
|
Post #42,929
6/19/02 6:57:39 PM
|
Complex Issue
Below is the definition of both words: [link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=complex|[link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=complex|http://www.dictiona...ch?q=complex]]
com\ufffdplex (km-plks, kmplks)
adj.
Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite.
Composed of two or more units: a complex carbohydrate.
Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.
Grammar.
Consisting of at least one bound form. Used of a word.
Consisting of an independent clause and at least one other independent or dependent clause. Used of a sentence.
n. (kmplks)
A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts: a complex of cities and suburbs; the military-industrial complex.
In psychology, a group of related, often repressed ideas and impulses that compel characteristic or habitual patterns of thought, feelings, and behavior. No longer in scientific use.
An exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear.
Medicine. The combination of factors, symptoms, or signs of a disease or disorder that forms a syndrome.
[link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=issues|[link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=issues|http://www.dictiona...rch?q=issues]]
is\ufffdsue (sh)
n.
The act or an instance of flowing, passing, or giving out.
The act of circulating, distributing, or publishing by an office or official group: government issue of new bonds.
Something produced, published, or offered, as:
An item or set of items, as stamps or coins, made available at one time by an office or bureau.
A single copy of a periodical: the May issue of the magazine.
A distinct set of copies of an edition of a book distinguished from others of that edition by variations in the printed matter.
A final result or conclusion, as a solution to a problem.
Proceeds from estates or fines.
Something proceeding from a specified source: suspicions that were the issue of a deranged mind.
Offspring; progeny: died without issue.
A point or matter of discussion, debate, or dispute: legal and moral issues.
A matter of public concern: debated economic issues.
A misgiving, objection, or complaint: had issues with the plan to change the curriculum.
The essential point; crux: the issue of how to provide adequate child care.
A culminating point leading to a decision: bring a case to an issue.
Informal. A personal problem or emotional disorder: The teacher discussed the child's issues with his parents.
A place of egress; an outlet: a lake with no issue to the sea.
Pathology.
A discharge, as of blood or pus.
A lesion, wound, or ulcer producing such a discharge.
Archaic. Termination; close.
v. is\ufffdsued, is\ufffdsu\ufffding, is\ufffdsues
v. intr.
To go or come out. See Synonyms at appear.
To accrue as proceeds or profit: Little money issued from the stocks.
To be born or be descended.
To be circulated or published.
To spring or proceed from a source. See Synonyms at stem1.
To terminate or result.
v. tr.
To cause to flow out; emit.
To circulate or distribute in an official capacity: issued uniforms to the players.
To publish: issued periodic statements.
Idioms:
at issue
In question; in dispute: \ufffdMany people fail to grasp what is really at issue here\ufffd (Gail Sheehy).
At variance; in disagreement.
join issue
To enter into controversy.
Law To submit an issue for decision.
take issue
To take an opposing point of view; disagree.
In what part of the definition means we cannot deal with the complex issues by taking out the root cause? Take out the leaders, and the followers will crumble. Find the leaders of the terrorists, get the goods on them, capture or kill them, and then the followers get low morale and ungroup.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,910
6/19/02 4:40:07 PM
|
I know I am right!
They just recently captured a few people they believe to be some of the leaders behind the 9/11 attacks. The bulk of the terrorists are just followers, sheep, we need to go after the shepards that are training the sheep to give up their lives to kill what they believe is the "enemy" or "heathens". We need to capture the leaders or kill them, either way, and then we can prevent some or maybe most of the attacks.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,475
6/16/02 1:29:36 PM
|
Think about that.
So, if they fire upon us, they're the enemy?
Just like if you bust into someone's house in the middle of the night? And they fire upon you. They're the ones wrong?
We jump into their country, we assault their homes, they fire upon us, and we know they're terrorists because if they weren't terrorists, they wouldn't be firing at us?
|
Post #42,494
6/16/02 5:10:42 PM
|
More like
you serve the search warrant in their language and they fire at you. Then you have the right to defend yourself.
yeah sure, let's go soft on them and just let them plan out their attacks and then get them after the attack is over or foiled? Sort of like sending Firefighters to put out the fire after the fire has burned down everything, and not sending them out to prevent the fire from spreading or starting in the first place?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,501
6/16/02 5:39:28 PM
|
Would you accept that from them?
you serve the search warrant in their language and they fire at you. Then you have the right to defend yourself. So, we invade their country, then we serve them with a search warrant from OUR country? Or are you saying that we should get a search warrant from THEIR country? yeah sure, let's go soft on them and just let them plan out their attacks and then get them after the attack is over or foiled? Nope. You can pursue them when they're working on their plans. Remember, the people delivering the bombs aren't the ones in command. If they were, they'd have a continual cycle of leaders. An example for you. Suppose you record a mob boss telling a henchman to hit someone and giving him money to do so. You bust the henchman when he leaves. You have the instructions, the money, the plan, and no one has been hurt yet. Conspiracy to commit murder. Sort of like sending Firefighters to put out the fire after the fire has burned down everything, and not sending them out to prevent the fire from spreading or starting in the first place? But we don't send out firefighters to prevent the fires. I have NEVER had a firefighter show up at my house to turn off my stove or anything.
|
Post #42,523
6/16/02 8:54:22 PM
|
Fire Prevention
But they do send out Firefighters to check houses and make sure that smoke alarms have new batteries and that there are no fire hazards. They can help prevent fires, and teach us how to prevent them.
But I am losing this argument because the IWGM is against me?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,526
6/16/02 10:08:22 PM
|
I've still never seen that.
Around here, we just have occasional (twice yearly) radio and tv spots about replacing the batteries.
I've never had anyone come by and check for fire hazards.
I wonder if it is a regional thing.
|
Post #42,636
6/17/02 2:46:16 PM
|
Fire Marshals
generally do it, at least around here they do. Usually for the new homes and businesses. I admit not that often, but I have seen an inspection.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #42,464
6/16/02 12:28:14 PM
|
That's why the people of that religion...
must cooperate with us. Either they're not all terrorists at heart, or they are. If not, then those who aren't will gladly turn over those that are. Then everybody will be happy except the terrorists and their collaborators.
If anyone fails to cooperate, his failure to cooperate demonstrates what side he's on. It's not like there's any other conceivable reason someone might not work with us on this.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #42,471
6/16/02 1:16:21 PM
|
They're either with us, or they're terrorists.
Can't argue with "logic" like that.
So, where do you live and do you have any organized crime in that city and are you willing to sacrifice you life to get rid of it?
It's easy to talk about what the OTHERS should do when you're safe and sound.
Why is it that the most vocally violent are the ones that never served? From Bush (I wanna be a fighter pilot that never fights) to Marlowe "Rapunzel".
And paying taxes is NOT enough.
SOMEONE has to be willing to risk his/her LIFE.
But it won't be YOU, will it?
|
Post #42,478
6/16/02 3:29:38 PM
|
If you thought this through . . .
. . you'd find plenty of holes in this logic. Big gaping holes. I must admit though, acting without thinking things through is the primary strength of the jingoist.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #42,486
6/16/02 4:32:35 PM
|
Reminds me of a comedian...
who loved to poke fun at one of the tele-evangists who claimed not only to have seen a 900 ft image of Jesus...but to have stood there, looking eye-to-eye with him.
The comedian pointed out with the tele-evangists approximently 6 ft tall....and some simple rules of trignometry...Jesus must have been upside down. :-)
|
Post #42,511
6/16/02 6:42:32 PM
|
Parallax thru his tiny, murky Goldfish bowl, no doubt
|
