IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New It's a trap.
I'm leaning towards the paranoid view, next.

Given the 'post-NY' plans captured/ planted in Asia - I'd guess they know our style. We may be on schedule to frighten the usual allies and even more so - the real Muslims we'd hope would collaborate.

Dubya is becoming more bellicose and more general in tone - he thought today, dead or alive.. sufficiently clever and appropriate, to - repeat it. Anyone dressing funny - Sikh, Indian whatever is a potential target of our redneck contingent, including a 69 year old man in CA (speculative thus far, on that one).

I wonder if we could.. behave otherwise than is being apparently, counted on (?) Other atrocities could keep us "on schedule": we all know what Else might have been done / can be, next.

:[

A.
New That's my conclusion so far.
And Bin Laden will continue to bait us until we walk into his trap.

He needs us to unite Muslems into a Holy War.

If we can band together with the Muslems to fight him and terrorists worldwide then it will be a great day for humanity.
New Nobody knows. We must be clear-headed about our actions.
Hi Brett and All,

We don't know how the Muslim world will react to any action being planned. Remember that similar warnings were made in the Gulf War - no Muslim state would support us because we supported Israel, there would be tens of thousands of Allied casualties, Sadam had a trap to spring on the Allies, etc., etc.

Yes, we must be careful. Very careful.

Yes, we must carefully consider the possible reactions of Muslim states and groups. We must consider how the populations in Allied nations react. Having Pakistan's government fall to Taliban supporters, and having the Taliban get access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons (at minimum their nuclear weapons technology) is certainly a nightmare scenario...

But we can't be paralized by what might happen. We shouldn't let the terrorists' luck in achieving their goals make us believe that they've considered every contingency. We've got to be clear headed and work toward achieving our long-term goals, not merely strike out at the parties responsible for Tuesday's attacks.

Remember that [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/alqaeda.html|Al-Qaeda] is only a few thousand, or maybe a few tens of thousands of people at most. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. It's a small group. It's not clear that any sort of mass uprising or war between Islam and the West is in the offing.

Remember that the West has defeated terrorist cells before. You don't hear much about the Red Brigades any more, for example. Or the Symbinaese Liberation Army.

We need to understand bin Laden's appeal. [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html#alqaeda|This] interview provides one view.

I'm heartened that we haven't struck back yet. It's going to take a while to get the information necessary to make sure that any actions we take support our long-term goals. I'm confident that the people in the US and Allied governments realize this.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Pakistan has good reasons to support U.S.
  • They see the Taliban gaining strength in Pakastan. If the Taliban takes over, there is no place for the current government. Better to take them on now while help is available.

  • Protection from India. While the U.S. has a major presence in Pakistan, India is unlikely to do anything rash. It would mean a cut-off of their programming and tech support industry at the very least. The protection would probably be long lasting.

  • Boost to economy. If U.S. bases are semi-permanent, there will be money flowing.

  • Debt forgiveness. Do the "right thing" and a few billion in red ink can sort of evaporate.

  • Not getting "colateralized" by the U.S., since it needs to go over someone to get to Afghanistan.

  • "Technology tranfer": might learn a thing or two.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New U.S. has nuclear reasons to support Pakistan
It looks like we need each other.

The terrorists may have hoped to overturn the Pakistan government and get control of the 20 or so nuclear bombs?

They need a united Afghan/Pakistan Taliban group in order to get that control.
Fortunately, the U.S. has not walked into their trap yet and dropped bombs on their soil. They need us to unite their people in a Jihad against all non-Islamic people.
New Er, too late (dropping bombs, that is.)
Fortunately, the U.S. has not walked into their trap yet and dropped bombs on their soil.

You're forgetting the 70 or 80 cruise missiles we sent to bomb the Afghan terrorist camps in 1998 - for less reason.
Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, Thomas, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
     I guess that's a "no". - (addison) - (14)
         Wow...that was a foolish move.... - (Simon_Jester)
         Their Soviet experience made them brave - (tablizer) - (1)
             Living in afganistan made them brave. - (addison)
         It's a trap. - (Ashton) - (5)
             That's my conclusion so far. - (brettj) - (4)
                 Nobody knows. We must be clear-headed about our actions. - (Another Scott)
                 Pakistan has good reasons to support U.S. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                     U.S. has nuclear reasons to support Pakistan - (brettj) - (1)
                         Er, too late (dropping bombs, that is.) - (wharris2)
         Well, now comes the ugly part. - (marlowe) - (4)
             Ummm... - (hnick)
             They declared the jihad...but the question is ... why? - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                 Some terrorist organizations have already denounced Laden - (brettj) - (1)
                     Yeah, they're pissed because he didn't target Statue of Lib. -NT - (tablizer)

Very punk.
99 ms