They can be both.

Post #42,503 by Brandioch 6/16/02 5:46:15 PM Reply	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 by orion 6/16/02 8:50:31 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/16/02 10:06:07 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 6/17/02 9:42:03 AM Reply	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 by orion 6/18/02 1:05:38 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 6/19/02 3:22:14 AM Reply	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 by orion 6/19/02 3:12:21 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 6/19/02 4:48:15 PM Reply	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 by orion 6/19/02 6:57:39 PM Reply	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 by orion 6/19/02 4:40:07 PM Reply	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.*

Welcome to IWETHEY!