Sven
September 11th, 2001, 02:30 PM
My deepest sorrows and all of my prayers go to the familys who lost their beloved ones today.I am shocked looking at the magnitude of these cowardly Attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. I pray for the victims and their familys. I hope, no, I KNOW that this cowardly slaughter will not be left unavenged.
with a feeling of deep sorrow
Sven
Germany
with a feeling of deep sorrow
Sven
Germany
hunter
September 11th, 2001, 03:44 PM
The cowards responsible for this will be dealt with, I am sure. My thought is that whoever is responsible and whatever country is harbouring them would make an excellent place to rid ourselves of those nasty nuclear weapons we still possess...
This is a day that I will never forget or forgive...may God have mercy on the souls whose lives were taken or shattered by this event. I know I will be praying for them and their families.
One thing we can all do is give blood. There is a great shortage because of this, so please if you can, donate!
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 11 September 2001).]
This is a day that I will never forget or forgive...may God have mercy on the souls whose lives were taken or shattered by this event. I know I will be praying for them and their families.
One thing we can all do is give blood. There is a great shortage because of this, so please if you can, donate!
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 11 September 2001).]
Spinward Scout
September 11th, 2001, 05:11 PM
If anyone would like to do something to help the survivors of the horrible tragedy that happened this morning, here's a Red Cross number you can call:
1-888-BLOOD88 (1-888-256-6388)
and a web page to find local Red Cross chapters:
http://www.redcross.org/where/chapts.html
as well as the main donation website:
http://www.redcross.org/donate
This is a website for the FEMA organization:
http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/help2.htm
I don't know if any of this will help, but it can't hurt.
Hope all of you are safe and sound on this horrible day,
Scout
1-888-BLOOD88 (1-888-256-6388)
and a web page to find local Red Cross chapters:
http://www.redcross.org/where/chapts.html
as well as the main donation website:
http://www.redcross.org/donate
This is a website for the FEMA organization:
http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/help2.htm
I don't know if any of this will help, but it can't hurt.
Hope all of you are safe and sound on this horrible day,
Scout
MT++
September 11th, 2001, 10:08 PM
Canadian Numbers
Donate blood: 1-888-236-6283 (2 donate)
I agree with Bush 100%:
No distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them.
Donate blood: 1-888-236-6283 (2 donate)
I agree with Bush 100%:
No distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them.
Blue Ghost
September 11th, 2001, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
The cowards responsible for this will be dealt with, I am sure. My thought is that whoever is responsible and whatever country is harbouring them would make an excellent place to rid ourselves of those nasty nuclear weapons we still possess...
This is a day that I will never forget or forgive...may God have mercy on the souls whose lives were taken or shattered by this event. I know I will be praying for them and their families.
One thing we can all do is give blood. There is a great shortage because of this, so please if you can, donate!
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 11 September 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As for nukes; it wouldn't bother me if one of our Boomers were ordered to launch depth.
The cowards responsible for this will be dealt with, I am sure. My thought is that whoever is responsible and whatever country is harbouring them would make an excellent place to rid ourselves of those nasty nuclear weapons we still possess...
This is a day that I will never forget or forgive...may God have mercy on the souls whose lives were taken or shattered by this event. I know I will be praying for them and their families.
One thing we can all do is give blood. There is a great shortage because of this, so please if you can, donate!
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 11 September 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As for nukes; it wouldn't bother me if one of our Boomers were ordered to launch depth.
DaveShayne
September 12th, 2001, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
As for nukes; it wouldn't bother me if one of our Boomers were ordered to launch depth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I respectfully disagree. Death by radiation poisoning isn't nearly as drawn out or painfull as the perpetrators of this act deserve. To misquote Pulp Fiction - "We ought to get midieval on their ass."
David Shayne
As for nukes; it wouldn't bother me if one of our Boomers were ordered to launch depth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I respectfully disagree. Death by radiation poisoning isn't nearly as drawn out or painfull as the perpetrators of this act deserve. To misquote Pulp Fiction - "We ought to get midieval on their ass."
David Shayne
Darium
September 12th, 2001, 01:06 AM
We may tease you some times , but there has always been a strong bond between Canadians and Americans. As only one Canadian I'm sure I can say that all Canadians everywhere weep for the passing of so many lives in such a shocking and stunning day. All our hopes and prayers are with you.
TheRaptor
September 12th, 2001, 01:39 AM
I am an Australian, and I offer my sympathy
and condolences to the families of the victims. And I think that very soon the people behind the WTC and pentagon attacks will get a nice little gift from some marine recon team or a seal team.
and condolences to the families of the victims. And I think that very soon the people behind the WTC and pentagon attacks will get a nice little gift from some marine recon team or a seal team.
DrSkull
September 12th, 2001, 07:18 AM
It will be better to throw the net too wide than too narrow.
Now is not the time for seeking balanced justice, but rather the time for teaching hard lessons that will be remembered for a long time.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Now is not the time for seeking balanced justice, but rather the time for teaching hard lessons that will be remembered for a long time.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Murph
September 12th, 2001, 01:41 PM
In San Antonio they are requesting type "O" blood. Please donate.
And then: The only thing these Muslim fanatics understand is FEAR and we should cause them to FEAR us. In a thousand years, the few pitiful survivors should tell their children not to be bad or Uncle Sam will track them down and exterminate them. We are at war. There is no other word for it. For every one of ours that died, we should exact retribution a hundredfold. Use nuclear weapons, turn their cities into glass lined craters, utterly and forever exterminate the vermin. They wanted Jihad, now let them reap the whirlwind.
And then: The only thing these Muslim fanatics understand is FEAR and we should cause them to FEAR us. In a thousand years, the few pitiful survivors should tell their children not to be bad or Uncle Sam will track them down and exterminate them. We are at war. There is no other word for it. For every one of ours that died, we should exact retribution a hundredfold. Use nuclear weapons, turn their cities into glass lined craters, utterly and forever exterminate the vermin. They wanted Jihad, now let them reap the whirlwind.
DaveShayne
September 12th, 2001, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
It will be better to throw the net too wide than too narrow.
Now is not the time for seeking balanced justice, but rather the time for teaching hard lessons that will be remembered for a long time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne
It will be better to throw the net too wide than too narrow.
Now is not the time for seeking balanced justice, but rather the time for teaching hard lessons that will be remembered for a long time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne
Takei
September 12th, 2001, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree entirely. The sad truth of the matter is that you could launch a score of nukes and flatten a score of cities and not actually get even one of the real people behind this.
Do your intel. Plan your strikes. Then hit all your targets in a very short time period and hit them hard.
Adding more innocent victims never solves problems like this.
------------------
Paul
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree entirely. The sad truth of the matter is that you could launch a score of nukes and flatten a score of cities and not actually get even one of the real people behind this.
Do your intel. Plan your strikes. Then hit all your targets in a very short time period and hit them hard.
Adding more innocent victims never solves problems like this.
------------------
Paul
DrSkull
September 12th, 2001, 07:21 PM
I didn't say immediate, I didn't say retaliation. I want cold, calculated and eye-opening examples to made of the governments who harbor and supply these bastards. The governments are the ones who need to learn a lesson.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
DaveShayne
September 12th, 2001, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
I didn't say immediate, I didn't say retaliation. I want cold, calculated and eye-opening examples to made of the governments who harbor and supply these bastards. The governments are the ones who need to learn a lesson.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the end result is the same; more hatred bred against the US. Our policy ought to be one of seeking justice. Justice in this case may (probably will) require military action against the country or countries guilty of harboring the responsible parties but bombing has a very poor record of altering the behavior of governments and a proven track record for creating zealots for opponents.
David Shayne
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 12 September 2001).]
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 12 September 2001).]
I didn't say immediate, I didn't say retaliation. I want cold, calculated and eye-opening examples to made of the governments who harbor and supply these bastards. The governments are the ones who need to learn a lesson.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the end result is the same; more hatred bred against the US. Our policy ought to be one of seeking justice. Justice in this case may (probably will) require military action against the country or countries guilty of harboring the responsible parties but bombing has a very poor record of altering the behavior of governments and a proven track record for creating zealots for opponents.
David Shayne
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 12 September 2001).]
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 12 September 2001).]
Spinward Scout
September 12th, 2001, 09:32 PM
Well, we've got a good portion of the world behind us - Great Britain, Canada, most of Europe, Russia, China, Australia, Japan, etc... We can pretty much do what we want if we have their blessings. And now NATO is behind us as if they were attacked, too. We have a couple of options:
Nuke 'em & let Allah sort them out (which makes us look like jerks for killing innocents).
Invade and sort them out one by one to find who's responsible - with all of these countries behind us and helping us, that shouldn't take too long
Find out who's responsible and where they are at and then find some terminally ill pilots and ask them to volunteer on a suicide run with a fully fuel-loaded 767...
Scout (in a very depressed mood)
Nuke 'em & let Allah sort them out (which makes us look like jerks for killing innocents).
Invade and sort them out one by one to find who's responsible - with all of these countries behind us and helping us, that shouldn't take too long
Find out who's responsible and where they are at and then find some terminally ill pilots and ask them to volunteer on a suicide run with a fully fuel-loaded 767...
Scout (in a very depressed mood)
hunter
September 12th, 2001, 09:57 PM
I vote for giving them 24-48 hours notice to evacuate and them nuke their capital city. We give them enough time to evacuate the civilians, they lose their capital, we risk no US lives. Then we ask them to hand over the suspects for trial.
Works for me. I don't want to destroy civilians indiscriminately, hence the warning. Hell drop leaflets written in Arabic. But these bastards must pay hard and understand the penalty for such attacks against humanity.
Do you really think it will stop through diplomacy or negotiation? So we arrest and try those directly responsible. We have done that before. It doesn't work.
The only way to deal with a bully it to clean his clock and make him taste the fear his has continued to dish out to others.
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 12 September 2001).]
Works for me. I don't want to destroy civilians indiscriminately, hence the warning. Hell drop leaflets written in Arabic. But these bastards must pay hard and understand the penalty for such attacks against humanity.
Do you really think it will stop through diplomacy or negotiation? So we arrest and try those directly responsible. We have done that before. It doesn't work.
The only way to deal with a bully it to clean his clock and make him taste the fear his has continued to dish out to others.
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 12 September 2001).]
Blue Ghost
September 12th, 2001, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
I vote for giving them 24-48 hours notice to evacuate and them nuke their capital city. We give them enough time to evacuate the civilians, they lose their capital, we risk no US lives. Then we ask them to hand over the suspects for trial.
Works for me. I don't want to destroy civilians indiscriminately, hence the warning. Hell drop leaflets written in Arabic. But these bastards must pay hard and understand the penalty for such attacks against humanity.
Do you really think it will stop through diplomacy or negotiation? So we arrest and try those directly responsible. We have done that before. It doesn't work.
The only way to deal with a bully it to clean his clock and make him taste the fear his has continued to dish out to others.
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 12 September 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. Only I'm not sure I'd give them a warning. One Ohio Class SSBN aught to be able to do the trick.
They wanted a fight. Let's give them one.
I vote for giving them 24-48 hours notice to evacuate and them nuke their capital city. We give them enough time to evacuate the civilians, they lose their capital, we risk no US lives. Then we ask them to hand over the suspects for trial.
Works for me. I don't want to destroy civilians indiscriminately, hence the warning. Hell drop leaflets written in Arabic. But these bastards must pay hard and understand the penalty for such attacks against humanity.
Do you really think it will stop through diplomacy or negotiation? So we arrest and try those directly responsible. We have done that before. It doesn't work.
The only way to deal with a bully it to clean his clock and make him taste the fear his has continued to dish out to others.
Hunter
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 12 September 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. Only I'm not sure I'd give them a warning. One Ohio Class SSBN aught to be able to do the trick.
They wanted a fight. Let's give them one.
MT++
September 12th, 2001, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reagan's 2000 lb HE howdy on Moammar shut him up for ten years. This is a war.
This ends now.
Imediate retaliation for terrorist attacks have been used by Israel for the last 30 years or so. It hasn't worked. It only helps to promote the atmosphere of hatred that leads to further attrocities. I understand your feelings but indescriminate retribution is a recipe for escalation of terror.
David Shayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reagan's 2000 lb HE howdy on Moammar shut him up for ten years. This is a war.
This ends now.
TimAllan
September 13th, 2001, 07:40 AM
Hitting a mosquito with a sledge hammer is very difficult. The operation the terrorists carried out was so low tech as to not need government backing and obviosly didn't show up on the intelegence communitys early warning system. If an oversized retaliation is made causing masive civilian casualties, who then is the terrorist? The organisation that carried out the terrorist attacks needs to be positivly identified, and evry one of its members need to be eliminated with one bullet.
Artikid
September 13th, 2001, 07:58 AM
I add my simpathy to the families of the victims and to all the US in this tragic moment.
President Bush is right: retaliation MUST come on the terrorists and those who harbour them.
No one should be allowed to do such a thing and go on unscathed.
But I would also like to add that what the US (andthe world) needs most now is Justice, not simple revenge.
Revenge would only bring water to the terrorist's mill.
President Bush is right: retaliation MUST come on the terrorists and those who harbour them.
No one should be allowed to do such a thing and go on unscathed.
But I would also like to add that what the US (andthe world) needs most now is Justice, not simple revenge.
Revenge would only bring water to the terrorist's mill.
kafka47
September 13th, 2001, 01:57 PM
As much as I am appaulled by the events in NYC & Washington. I am even more appaulled by this thread. The solution is not an eye for an eye, for that only means the whole world becomes blind. I understand your pain and fustration. However, terrible these bombings are there are no excuse to launch nuclear or other weapons of mass distruction.
When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.
Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.
Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.
When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.
Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.
Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.
David
September 13th, 2001, 03:51 PM
I think that if afganistan is implicated in this the army should certainly invade and seize the government. The actual culprits should be found and tried while the contry is controled (this would be very difficult and likely produce a lot of really traumatic stories of intruige, ambush, fanatacism and atrocity.) It would also be a good time to get some people into afganistan and feed that half of the country that is starving to death. Free elections should be held and the US forces should then just leave. In a nutshell I think that the Taliban should be replaced (except in the unlikely event that they manage to win a free election after whats happened) if it turns out that they had anything to do with the attacks on NY and DC. I certainly do not want to hear about some lady who is already one of the most oppressed people on earth get a bomb dropped on her head just because she lives in afganistan (that will happen often enough even without meaning to do it).
I hope that a US soldier of afgan descent will walk through down town Kabul and say to the locals, "don't let this happen again." Because I imagine that those that hear him/her will probably take it to heart.
I hope that a US soldier of afgan descent will walk through down town Kabul and say to the locals, "don't let this happen again." Because I imagine that those that hear him/her will probably take it to heart.
Blue Ghost
September 13th, 2001, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kafka47:
As much as I am appaulled by the events in NYC & Washington. I am even more appaulled by this thread. The solution is not an eye for an eye, for that only means the whole world becomes blind. I understand your pain and fustration. However, terrible these bombings are there are no excuse to launch nuclear or other weapons of mass distruction.
When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.
Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.
Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
State terrorism?
No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.
My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.
They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.
In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.
This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.
As much as I am appaulled by the events in NYC & Washington. I am even more appaulled by this thread. The solution is not an eye for an eye, for that only means the whole world becomes blind. I understand your pain and fustration. However, terrible these bombings are there are no excuse to launch nuclear or other weapons of mass distruction.
When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.
Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.
Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
State terrorism?
No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.
My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.
They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.
In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.
This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.
Gatsby
September 13th, 2001, 04:05 PM
Hey..got a new rule..
The country who has terrorists fighting for it IS the country responsible.
So, if the USA decides to release our imprisioned serial killers with a "you kill as many Whomevers as you can and we'll give you some holy salvation/monetary reward/parade" then the USA is responsible.
Since some think that simple US policy is reason to strike, so should a country's 'handling' of some people striking in their name.
We all KNOW that it would be demanded that USA make reparations if some supposedly 'Rouge' people started blowing up Mecca.
Responsibilty is the first of societies rules.
If we have enough proof for NATO to admit country 'X' is responsible, then country 'X' has a whole lot of ofiicail military whoop-ass and CIA covert ops coming their way.
If NATO doesn't think it is enough proof, then it's up to the US government to make the call and then the USA'll be, likewise, responsible....
I think nations might stop terrorist actions in their name when they are held responsible.
That's not an eye for an eye...that's punsihment where due. Everyone will know the rule: stay at the diplomatic table, 'cause if you use violence, you accept violence in return - your choice.
The country who has terrorists fighting for it IS the country responsible.
So, if the USA decides to release our imprisioned serial killers with a "you kill as many Whomevers as you can and we'll give you some holy salvation/monetary reward/parade" then the USA is responsible.
Since some think that simple US policy is reason to strike, so should a country's 'handling' of some people striking in their name.
We all KNOW that it would be demanded that USA make reparations if some supposedly 'Rouge' people started blowing up Mecca.
Responsibilty is the first of societies rules.
If we have enough proof for NATO to admit country 'X' is responsible, then country 'X' has a whole lot of ofiicail military whoop-ass and CIA covert ops coming their way.
If NATO doesn't think it is enough proof, then it's up to the US government to make the call and then the USA'll be, likewise, responsible....
I think nations might stop terrorist actions in their name when they are held responsible.
That's not an eye for an eye...that's punsihment where due. Everyone will know the rule: stay at the diplomatic table, 'cause if you use violence, you accept violence in return - your choice.
Gatsby
September 13th, 2001, 04:11 PM
Also, it is the culture of terrorism that needs to be killed. The only way to do that is to show it does not work. The only way to do that, without MASSIVE casualties on your side, is to deny the goals of the terrorists EVEN MORE SO and punish them. When the country, itself, tells their people that terrorism will not be of any use and they die needlessly and without reward, then terrorism begins to scale back. Terrorist using nations MUST be forced into the conclusion that terrorism is regressive.
They don't think that now. Their people don't think that now.
That's the problem, kids, now are there any other solutions? Simple diplomacy is being called, by the terrorists, as the REASON for thier actions: "It is the policies of the US that makes them our enemies."
[This message has been edited by Gatsby (edited 13 September 2001).]
They don't think that now. Their people don't think that now.
That's the problem, kids, now are there any other solutions? Simple diplomacy is being called, by the terrorists, as the REASON for thier actions: "It is the policies of the US that makes them our enemies."
[This message has been edited by Gatsby (edited 13 September 2001).]
DrSkull
September 13th, 2001, 04:37 PM
“The enemy still lives. They want to run away, to hide in their caves so they can creep out and kill and maim and destroy. It’s all they know. We see what they do and we say that’s inhuman. Brothers and Sisters! It is inhuman. They do inhuman acts because they are no longer human themselves!
For every one you kill today you’ll save the life of a Spartan, a dozen Spartans….Too many live and while they live they threaten our homes. Every one of them killed is a victory. Every one that escapes is a defeat for us….
Now we must hunt them down and kill them. Hunt them down like the wolves they are. For our homes. For our country. Kill them.�
From “Go Tell the Spartans�
By Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, 1991.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
For every one you kill today you’ll save the life of a Spartan, a dozen Spartans….Too many live and while they live they threaten our homes. Every one of them killed is a victory. Every one that escapes is a defeat for us….
Now we must hunt them down and kill them. Hunt them down like the wolves they are. For our homes. For our country. Kill them.�
From “Go Tell the Spartans�
By Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, 1991.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
kafka47
September 13th, 2001, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
State terrorism?
No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.
My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.
They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.
In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.
This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.
State terrorism?
No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.
My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.
They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.
In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.
This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.
Blue Ghost
September 13th, 2001, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kafka47:
Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you're wrong. You are invoking your own persona into my words. You are projecting your personality on myself.
My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth.
What part of that don't you understand?
Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you're wrong. You are invoking your own persona into my words. You are projecting your personality on myself.
My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth.
What part of that don't you understand?
DaveShayne
September 13th, 2001, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only lesson that anybody is likely to take from a nuke retaliation strike is that we are actually as bad as the terrorists claim we are. To be effective our retaliation must be much more selective. We must capture, try and (though I am usually an opponent of the death penalty) kill all of those responsible for planning, supporting, and hosting the organization or organizations responsible for this act of barbarism. Our cause will not be forwarded by resorting to barbarism in return. Those who are behind these attacks (and the many others in other lands that share their political beliefs and evil tactics) are no more likely to surrender because we have bombed the crap out of Kabul than we are to alter our foreign policy because they have attacked the WTC and the Pentagon.
I understand and share your rage but your proposed course of action is wrong. Wrong because it requires us to stoop to the same level as the terrorists. Wrong because even a liberal application of firepower (say nuking the capitols of every state we suspect of ever harboring any terrorist organizations) would not guarentee the deaths of all of the guilty parties but mostly wrong because it just wouldn't stop this kind of attack in the future.
Military action could very well be required in this instance but let us hope (and those who are of a religious bent may choose to pray) that the leaders of this nation have the wisdom to see beyond grief and anger to craft a response worthy of the greatest democracy ever rather than just a terrorist strike of our own.
David Shayne
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 13 September 2001).]
My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only lesson that anybody is likely to take from a nuke retaliation strike is that we are actually as bad as the terrorists claim we are. To be effective our retaliation must be much more selective. We must capture, try and (though I am usually an opponent of the death penalty) kill all of those responsible for planning, supporting, and hosting the organization or organizations responsible for this act of barbarism. Our cause will not be forwarded by resorting to barbarism in return. Those who are behind these attacks (and the many others in other lands that share their political beliefs and evil tactics) are no more likely to surrender because we have bombed the crap out of Kabul than we are to alter our foreign policy because they have attacked the WTC and the Pentagon.
I understand and share your rage but your proposed course of action is wrong. Wrong because it requires us to stoop to the same level as the terrorists. Wrong because even a liberal application of firepower (say nuking the capitols of every state we suspect of ever harboring any terrorist organizations) would not guarentee the deaths of all of the guilty parties but mostly wrong because it just wouldn't stop this kind of attack in the future.
Military action could very well be required in this instance but let us hope (and those who are of a religious bent may choose to pray) that the leaders of this nation have the wisdom to see beyond grief and anger to craft a response worthy of the greatest democracy ever rather than just a terrorist strike of our own.
David Shayne
[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 13 September 2001).]
Blue Ghost
September 13th, 2001, 08:20 PM
Oh, give me a break.
Do you think we lust to do this?
Do you think we've been waiting for an opportunity to do this?
Do you think that were some trigger happy war mongers?
Get it through your head. These acts will only continue to escalate. People of strong character perform neccesary actions regardless of what people think. Your "We'll look bad" attitude is demonstrable of your own. You may want to find a "clique" to hang out with, because then you won't have to worry about your friends passing judgement on you.
The whole point of war is to destroy the opposition, and to establish one's dominance. The reasons for this remain upon those who are involved, but do not dictate the form of force to be used. The immediacy of tactics and objectives do.
Our actions must be decisve, complete, and overwhelming. The other alternative is to get mired in a long protracted desert engagement where it will be rifleman to rifleman type of combat.
Arrest them? Put them on trial? I got news for you, you're living in a dreamworld.
This is it.
This is conflict in the raw.
If you're not willing to commit yourself to what is neccesary, then go hide. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Not all conflicts are nice neat clean affairs like our actions in the Gulf, Kosovo, and the Dominican Repulic. There are times when men, women and children die at the business end of weapon.
Nobody likes it. Nobody cherishes it. Nobody savors nor lusts after this. No sane person has any type of desire for this, but there comes a time when you need to crush the enemy. If they want to surrender, then great. Otherwise their lives are forfeit.
What part of this are you not understanding?
Do you think we lust to do this?
Do you think we've been waiting for an opportunity to do this?
Do you think that were some trigger happy war mongers?
Get it through your head. These acts will only continue to escalate. People of strong character perform neccesary actions regardless of what people think. Your "We'll look bad" attitude is demonstrable of your own. You may want to find a "clique" to hang out with, because then you won't have to worry about your friends passing judgement on you.
The whole point of war is to destroy the opposition, and to establish one's dominance. The reasons for this remain upon those who are involved, but do not dictate the form of force to be used. The immediacy of tactics and objectives do.
Our actions must be decisve, complete, and overwhelming. The other alternative is to get mired in a long protracted desert engagement where it will be rifleman to rifleman type of combat.
Arrest them? Put them on trial? I got news for you, you're living in a dreamworld.
This is it.
This is conflict in the raw.
If you're not willing to commit yourself to what is neccesary, then go hide. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Not all conflicts are nice neat clean affairs like our actions in the Gulf, Kosovo, and the Dominican Repulic. There are times when men, women and children die at the business end of weapon.
Nobody likes it. Nobody cherishes it. Nobody savors nor lusts after this. No sane person has any type of desire for this, but there comes a time when you need to crush the enemy. If they want to surrender, then great. Otherwise their lives are forfeit.
What part of this are you not understanding?
AndreaV
September 14th, 2001, 02:23 AM
I've lurked on this thread for two days waiting for emotions to cool a little. I've seen calls for massive reprisals, nuclear strikes, all to put the fear of god into those responsible. These will not work. Fear works only if your target has any.
People call this attack "cowardly", it was not. The people who committed this act (I've not been able to find an adequate adjective to describe it) are not cowards, they are fanatics. A coward fears death, the fanatic awaits it with eager anticipation. There is no point trying to scare the fanatic, it is doomed to fail and in the process is guaranteed to create even more fanatics.
This is not to say that force has no place in the solution. It does. Precision strikes against the fanatics to reduce their ability to act. Precision strike against those who support terrorism as an arm of policy, those people do fear (though the west would do well to put its own house in order first here). But all the military power in the world can not end terrorism. Israel has tried for 53 years and failed, the UK for 40 years and failed, the list just goes on. No amount of force will stop terrorism, you can stop some, most perhaps, but the suicide bomber will always get through sometimes. What is needed is to address the root cause of the fanatics.
Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. For every terrorist there is a real problem that feeds them. To end terrorism you must solve the problem and that can only be done by diplomacy and negotiation. Yes you can not negotiate with the fanatic, but for every fanatic there are many more moderates who you can negotiate with. Solve the problem and the fanatics will wither and die. Don't solve the problem and you are forever doomed to live with a gun in your hand.
And now I will turn over the soapbox and retire to don my absestos underware.
[This message has been edited by Andrewmv (edited 14 September 2001).]
People call this attack "cowardly", it was not. The people who committed this act (I've not been able to find an adequate adjective to describe it) are not cowards, they are fanatics. A coward fears death, the fanatic awaits it with eager anticipation. There is no point trying to scare the fanatic, it is doomed to fail and in the process is guaranteed to create even more fanatics.
This is not to say that force has no place in the solution. It does. Precision strikes against the fanatics to reduce their ability to act. Precision strike against those who support terrorism as an arm of policy, those people do fear (though the west would do well to put its own house in order first here). But all the military power in the world can not end terrorism. Israel has tried for 53 years and failed, the UK for 40 years and failed, the list just goes on. No amount of force will stop terrorism, you can stop some, most perhaps, but the suicide bomber will always get through sometimes. What is needed is to address the root cause of the fanatics.
Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. For every terrorist there is a real problem that feeds them. To end terrorism you must solve the problem and that can only be done by diplomacy and negotiation. Yes you can not negotiate with the fanatic, but for every fanatic there are many more moderates who you can negotiate with. Solve the problem and the fanatics will wither and die. Don't solve the problem and you are forever doomed to live with a gun in your hand.
And now I will turn over the soapbox and retire to don my absestos underware.
[This message has been edited by Andrewmv (edited 14 September 2001).]
Gatsby
September 14th, 2001, 07:49 AM
I just wrote a long rambling 'thoughts on terrorism'....then I started getting involved in cases and 'what ifs'...but I am a straightforward guy:
If, for whatever reason, you plan to kill an unsupecting innocent human who could not defend himself, and plan to keep doing it, you NEED to be stopped with whatever means possible. If you cannot be arrested, you will be killed.
Terrorists are simple MURDERORS. War is against military and infrastructure targets.
It is admitted to by the agressor or the agressors host.
This was cowardly murder...and appropriate actions, despite some of the letters on this board, MUST be taken. Until a foe declares himself and admits it - until innocent targets - NOT collateral damage BUT TARGETS and those whose destruction CANNOT help a war effort- are not chosen, it is cowardly murder.
THAT IS THE TRUTH.
If the terrorists AND THOSE THAT AGREE with such acts wish to depart from the rules of society, then they cannot cry 'foul' for any reason or act suffered upon them. If you can't take responsibility for your acts, you are a coward and, purposefully, not a reasonable adult.
THAT IS FAIR.
You can argue about 'policy driven hardships' and such things, but the above is the boiled down TRUTH. The rest is just excuses for acting on hatred in a violent manner. If you allow such excuses then think of this:
IF AMERICAN POLICY CAUSES HARDSHIPS WHICH MUST BE REPAID BY SUCH A LOW ACT, THEN THE HARDSHIP SUFFERED FROM SUCH A LOW ACT CAN BE REPAID IN KIND....AND TERRORISM HAS NO RULES.
So you either play by the rules:
Imprisonment or death for Murder [note that terrorism IS Murder not War, as defined above] and the SAME JUSTICE for those that harbor and reward such acts, be they religions or governments.
Or you don't:
One can use whatever means necassary to attack your percieved opponenet.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
If, for whatever reason, you plan to kill an unsupecting innocent human who could not defend himself, and plan to keep doing it, you NEED to be stopped with whatever means possible. If you cannot be arrested, you will be killed.
Terrorists are simple MURDERORS. War is against military and infrastructure targets.
It is admitted to by the agressor or the agressors host.
This was cowardly murder...and appropriate actions, despite some of the letters on this board, MUST be taken. Until a foe declares himself and admits it - until innocent targets - NOT collateral damage BUT TARGETS and those whose destruction CANNOT help a war effort- are not chosen, it is cowardly murder.
THAT IS THE TRUTH.
If the terrorists AND THOSE THAT AGREE with such acts wish to depart from the rules of society, then they cannot cry 'foul' for any reason or act suffered upon them. If you can't take responsibility for your acts, you are a coward and, purposefully, not a reasonable adult.
THAT IS FAIR.
You can argue about 'policy driven hardships' and such things, but the above is the boiled down TRUTH. The rest is just excuses for acting on hatred in a violent manner. If you allow such excuses then think of this:
IF AMERICAN POLICY CAUSES HARDSHIPS WHICH MUST BE REPAID BY SUCH A LOW ACT, THEN THE HARDSHIP SUFFERED FROM SUCH A LOW ACT CAN BE REPAID IN KIND....AND TERRORISM HAS NO RULES.
So you either play by the rules:
Imprisonment or death for Murder [note that terrorism IS Murder not War, as defined above] and the SAME JUSTICE for those that harbor and reward such acts, be they religions or governments.
Or you don't:
One can use whatever means necassary to attack your percieved opponenet.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Blue Ghost
September 14th, 2001, 03:49 PM
Precision weapons; super against a mechanized force, like the Soviet military, or an armed force utilizing Soviet hardware.
When you're dealing with a guerilla force things beomce a little dicier. There're very few hard targets (tanks, artillery, apcs and so forth) to hit.
So, no, there really isn't a way to execute the type of precision bombing that we have done in past conflicts, particularly against a force like the Taliban.
On the taking of innocents.
I hope people will remember past conflicts where we fire bombed places like Dresdin, Tokyo and so forth. We killed people, and made life miserable for those who survived, as well as hitting vast industrial and military centers, and the economy that supports them.
You people somehow think that only the Afghani military are the bad guys.
That somehow if we just take away their weapons they'll see the error of their ways and give up.
That somehow really no one wants to kill anyone.
This is wrong. The evidence is so stark, so plain, so astoundingly IN YOUR FACE, that they want us DEAD.
Not only do they want us dead, but they're willing to KILL THEMSELVES to achieve this.
And not only do they want to kill us, but they want to kill AS MANY OF US AS THEY CAN.
And it's not just the AK-47 wielding supporter, but his personal supporters who are in the form of his family and friends; the people who give him hugs and kisses when comes home. The people who feed him and keep his bed warm. They encourage him. They tell him how great he is for being part of the cause.
Again, what are you not understanding about this?
What do you need to get this driven into your skulls? A colored diagram with big lettering arrows?
They don't care about us. They don't like us. They think we're inferior. They want us dead.
Additionally NPR is now reporting that Pakistan has publicly stated that no one makes war with them without using nuclear weapons.
And you people want to arrest them? Christ almighty, what are you going to do? Call Kabuls finest and have them issue a search warrant of bin Laden's home?
You people are living in a fantasy.
Acts of war do not always entail attacks on military targets. The whole point of war is to conquer the other side through destructive means.
Again, why are you NOT understanding this?
Stop role playing for once and go outside and great a breath of fresh air! Go to a park, sit down, and REALLY THINK about the history of conflict, and what has proven to work, and what has not.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 14 September 2001).]
When you're dealing with a guerilla force things beomce a little dicier. There're very few hard targets (tanks, artillery, apcs and so forth) to hit.
So, no, there really isn't a way to execute the type of precision bombing that we have done in past conflicts, particularly against a force like the Taliban.
On the taking of innocents.
I hope people will remember past conflicts where we fire bombed places like Dresdin, Tokyo and so forth. We killed people, and made life miserable for those who survived, as well as hitting vast industrial and military centers, and the economy that supports them.
You people somehow think that only the Afghani military are the bad guys.
That somehow if we just take away their weapons they'll see the error of their ways and give up.
That somehow really no one wants to kill anyone.
This is wrong. The evidence is so stark, so plain, so astoundingly IN YOUR FACE, that they want us DEAD.
Not only do they want us dead, but they're willing to KILL THEMSELVES to achieve this.
And not only do they want to kill us, but they want to kill AS MANY OF US AS THEY CAN.
And it's not just the AK-47 wielding supporter, but his personal supporters who are in the form of his family and friends; the people who give him hugs and kisses when comes home. The people who feed him and keep his bed warm. They encourage him. They tell him how great he is for being part of the cause.
Again, what are you not understanding about this?
What do you need to get this driven into your skulls? A colored diagram with big lettering arrows?
They don't care about us. They don't like us. They think we're inferior. They want us dead.
Additionally NPR is now reporting that Pakistan has publicly stated that no one makes war with them without using nuclear weapons.
And you people want to arrest them? Christ almighty, what are you going to do? Call Kabuls finest and have them issue a search warrant of bin Laden's home?
You people are living in a fantasy.
Acts of war do not always entail attacks on military targets. The whole point of war is to conquer the other side through destructive means.
Again, why are you NOT understanding this?
Stop role playing for once and go outside and great a breath of fresh air! Go to a park, sit down, and REALLY THINK about the history of conflict, and what has proven to work, and what has not.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 14 September 2001).]
Gatsby
September 14th, 2001, 08:34 PM
I meant 'arrest', for that is the considered, humane option to do. I DO know beyond doubt that these people will not allow themselves to be 'arrested'. Which, I guess, leaves us with the other option....and I have no qualms about it.
Shadow Bear
September 14th, 2001, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheRaptor:
I am an Australian, and I offer my sympathy
and condolences to the families of the victims. And I think that very soon the people behind the WTC and pentagon attacks will get a nice little gift from some marine recon team or a seal team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While many do not realize you folks down under have been a strong supporter of our country for many years, there are some that remember. Always happy to have the folks down under with us.
I am an Australian, and I offer my sympathy
and condolences to the families of the victims. And I think that very soon the people behind the WTC and pentagon attacks will get a nice little gift from some marine recon team or a seal team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While many do not realize you folks down under have been a strong supporter of our country for many years, there are some that remember. Always happy to have the folks down under with us.
Shadow Bear
September 14th, 2001, 11:40 PM
It is long past the time when we should care about what another country thinks about us. Do they like us? Don' they like us. It does not matter whether or not they like us what matters is they should fear us above anything else. They should fear us so much that the thought of giving aid or shelter to our enemies make they soil they pants.
No amount of nuclear force is going to stop terrorism. What nuclear force will do is stop any other government for giving aid or shelter to terrorists. If you know a nuclear attack will be the result of helping or sheltering a terrorist it will be something you will not do.
We must deal with the terrorists in one way and the governments that give them shelter and aid in another. Terrorists only understand death and that is what they should get. Governments understand fear of nuclear strikes and that is what they should get.
They have had their warning from President Bush, they need no further warning. The way to avoid a nuclear strike is to exterminate any terrorist within their boarders.
No amount of nuclear force is going to stop terrorism. What nuclear force will do is stop any other government for giving aid or shelter to terrorists. If you know a nuclear attack will be the result of helping or sheltering a terrorist it will be something you will not do.
We must deal with the terrorists in one way and the governments that give them shelter and aid in another. Terrorists only understand death and that is what they should get. Governments understand fear of nuclear strikes and that is what they should get.
They have had their warning from President Bush, they need no further warning. The way to avoid a nuclear strike is to exterminate any terrorist within their boarders.
AndreaV
September 15th, 2001, 12:35 AM
You people are starting to scare me. How does raining nuclear death on countless innocent civilians for the actions of their government (which btw is not chosen by said civilians) make us any better than the terrorist? How does hunting down and murdering terrorists make things better? Israel has been trying it for decades and all they've achieved is to create two new suicide bombers for every one they kill.
Mass death and destruction brought down on a percived enemy may well be cathartic, but it goes nowhere towards actually solving the problem and probably makes things worse.
We must never abandon our principles and freedoms, even when fighting terrorism. Hunt them down, arrest them (if possible) and give them a fair trial. Isolate and strike with precision against the governments who support them. But never, never must we use the methods of the terrorists themselves. If we sink to their level then they have truly won. One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".
Mass death and destruction brought down on a percived enemy may well be cathartic, but it goes nowhere towards actually solving the problem and probably makes things worse.
We must never abandon our principles and freedoms, even when fighting terrorism. Hunt them down, arrest them (if possible) and give them a fair trial. Isolate and strike with precision against the governments who support them. But never, never must we use the methods of the terrorists themselves. If we sink to their level then they have truly won. One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".
Shadow Bear
September 15th, 2001, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.
Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.
One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.
Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.
AndreaV
September 15th, 2001, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow Bear:
I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.
Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay I can well understand how in light of the thousands of dead, people will be angry and want to see blood. But please just stop and think.
Subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to nuclear anhilation will not bring a single one of the dead back. It will not achieve anything that can not be achieved through other far less dramatic and destructive means. It is guaranteed to create thousands of new suicide bombers. And above all it will reduce us to the same level as those who committed this act in the first place.
As to Israel, this is not the place to discuss that topic, but for the past 53 years Israel has responded to terrorism by ever increasing levels of force and violence, and still its citizens live in fear of the terrorist's bomb. Force alone will never solve this problem.
I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.
Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay I can well understand how in light of the thousands of dead, people will be angry and want to see blood. But please just stop and think.
Subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to nuclear anhilation will not bring a single one of the dead back. It will not achieve anything that can not be achieved through other far less dramatic and destructive means. It is guaranteed to create thousands of new suicide bombers. And above all it will reduce us to the same level as those who committed this act in the first place.
As to Israel, this is not the place to discuss that topic, but for the past 53 years Israel has responded to terrorism by ever increasing levels of force and violence, and still its citizens live in fear of the terrorist's bomb. Force alone will never solve this problem.
Murph
September 15th, 2001, 07:49 AM
I have avoided this thread as well since I am still pretty mad. However on tanknet. www.tanknet.org (http://www.tanknet.org) in the forums, they have some powerful arguments going on as well. Andrew, the founding father was Benjamin Franklin IIRC. I personally think a multi-tiered approach using few (if any) nuclear strikes, massive conventional bombing using FAE to collapse the caves, and insertion of Ranger/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/SAS teams to eradicate the guilty would work. I have personally backed off of the "nuke 'em till they glow" outlook of a few days ago. If nukes ARE used, they need to be small tactical weapons, under 10 kt, directly targeted on very High priority targets (such as Baghdad). However the use of special weapons needs to be agonized over, and only used if the target cannot be gotten any other way.
A reminder: Donate blood, blankets, money to the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Star of David organizations. Please.
A reminder: Donate blood, blankets, money to the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Star of David organizations. Please.
MT++
September 15th, 2001, 01:11 PM
People are worrried that strikes now would make them hate us even more:
There is a Roman phrase I like in this circumstance: oderint dum metuant
Let them hate, so long as they fear
There is a Roman phrase I like in this circumstance: oderint dum metuant
Let them hate, so long as they fear
Shadow Bear
September 16th, 2001, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
Okay I can well understand how in light of the thousands of dead, people will be angry and want to see blood. But please just stop and think.
Subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to nuclear anhilation will not bring a single one of the dead back. It will not achieve anything that can not be achieved through other far less dramatic and destructive means. It is guaranteed to create thousands of new suicide bombers. And above all it will reduce us to the same level as those who committed this act in the first place.
As to Israel, this is not the place to discuss that topic, but for the past 53 years Israel has responded to terrorism by ever increasing levels of force and violence, and still its citizens live in fear of the terrorist's bomb. Force alone will never solve this problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Japan's fanatic suicide pilots were only stopped by a nuclear strike. We have not had a problem with them since.
Okay I can well understand how in light of the thousands of dead, people will be angry and want to see blood. But please just stop and think.
Subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to nuclear anhilation will not bring a single one of the dead back. It will not achieve anything that can not be achieved through other far less dramatic and destructive means. It is guaranteed to create thousands of new suicide bombers. And above all it will reduce us to the same level as those who committed this act in the first place.
As to Israel, this is not the place to discuss that topic, but for the past 53 years Israel has responded to terrorism by ever increasing levels of force and violence, and still its citizens live in fear of the terrorist's bomb. Force alone will never solve this problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Japan's fanatic suicide pilots were only stopped by a nuclear strike. We have not had a problem with them since.
Elliot
September 16th, 2001, 07:58 PM
My condolences to my American friends, we in London suffered the IRA, now you have suffered an enemy who beggars disbelief. Let us rid the world of terrorism together.
BUT: Let's be surgical, not rash!
I love you all.
Elliot
BUT: Let's be surgical, not rash!
I love you all.
Elliot
MT++
October 2nd, 2001, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
You people are starting to scare me. How does raining nuclear death on countless innocent civilians for the actions of their government (which btw is not chosen by said civilians) make us any better than the terrorist? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As opposed to say, Germany in 1933-1945?
Admittedly they were elected, at some point but many supported the Taleban because they promised an end to the endemic corruption
You people are starting to scare me. How does raining nuclear death on countless innocent civilians for the actions of their government (which btw is not chosen by said civilians) make us any better than the terrorist? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As opposed to say, Germany in 1933-1945?
Admittedly they were elected, at some point but many supported the Taleban because they promised an end to the endemic corruption
MT++
October 2nd, 2001, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
But the end result is the same; more hatred bred against the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear.
But the end result is the same; more hatred bred against the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear.
DaveShayne
October 3rd, 2001, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MT++:
oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Didn't work for the Romans. No reason to expect it to work for us.
David Shayne
oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Didn't work for the Romans. No reason to expect it to work for us.
David Shayne
Blue Ghost
October 4th, 2001, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Didn't work for the Romans. No reason to expect it to work for us.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NO, it DID work.
It worked for many HUNDREDS of YEARS. A timespan which you personally are apparently unable to comprehend.
All empires eventually fall. Particularly if your citizens stop giving a damn about society.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 04 October 2001).]
Didn't work for the Romans. No reason to expect it to work for us.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NO, it DID work.
It worked for many HUNDREDS of YEARS. A timespan which you personally are apparently unable to comprehend.
All empires eventually fall. Particularly if your citizens stop giving a damn about society.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 04 October 2001).]
DaveShayne
October 4th, 2001, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
NO, it DID work.
It worked for many HUNDREDS of YEARS. A timespan which you personally are apparently unable to comprehend.
All empires eventually fall. Particularly if your citizens stop giving a damn about society.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 04 October 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That Rome lasted as long as it did is a testament to the fact that they were - after defeating Carthage (which took three rather bloody wars) the only power on the mediteranean basin. (Due in large part to the infighting amongst the heirs of Alexander.)
Whenever they fought a people who *hated* them they wound up fighting long and bloody wars. Wars that definitely hastened the decline of the power of the city of Rome and it's empire. See Rome's campaigns in Spain, and to a lesser extent Judea for proof that hatred trumps fear.
Historical ignorance is an ugly ailment. I sugest you get your case treated.
David Shayne
NO, it DID work.
It worked for many HUNDREDS of YEARS. A timespan which you personally are apparently unable to comprehend.
All empires eventually fall. Particularly if your citizens stop giving a damn about society.
[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 04 October 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That Rome lasted as long as it did is a testament to the fact that they were - after defeating Carthage (which took three rather bloody wars) the only power on the mediteranean basin. (Due in large part to the infighting amongst the heirs of Alexander.)
Whenever they fought a people who *hated* them they wound up fighting long and bloody wars. Wars that definitely hastened the decline of the power of the city of Rome and it's empire. See Rome's campaigns in Spain, and to a lesser extent Judea for proof that hatred trumps fear.
Historical ignorance is an ugly ailment. I sugest you get your case treated.
David Shayne
DrSkull
October 4th, 2001, 10:38 PM
On the other hand, Roman slaves learned a permanent lesson after the whole Spartacus business.
Rome fell when the Germans ceased to fear Rome and it was greed that trumped the fear, and perhpas greater fear of the eastern savages.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Rome fell when the Germans ceased to fear Rome and it was greed that trumped the fear, and perhpas greater fear of the eastern savages.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Blue Ghost
October 5th, 2001, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
That Rome lasted as long as it did is a testament to the fact that they were - after defeating Carthage (which took three rather bloody wars) the only power on the mediteranean basin. (Due in large part to the infighting amongst the heirs of Alexander.)
Whenever they fought a people who *hated* them they wound up fighting long and bloody wars. Wars that definitely hastened the decline of the power of the city of Rome and it's empire. See Rome's campaigns in Spain, and to a lesser extent Judea for proof that hatred trumps fear.
Historical ignorance is an ugly ailment. I sugest you get your case treated.
David Shayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whatever pal. It may have been over a decade since I took my courses in ancient western civ, but the reasons you're citing are inaccurate at best.
It was the lack of the support for the both the ethic and political state in general. Said mindset thinned the ranks, which allowed the Germanic tribes to eventually overcome the Roman lines.
BUT even then the Empire did not fall.
I don't know what version of history you've been reading, but I would suggest that you quit projecting your own ignorance onto myself, and instead go do a bit of reading yourself.
That Rome lasted as long as it did is a testament to the fact that they were - after defeating Carthage (which took three rather bloody wars) the only power on the mediteranean basin. (Due in large part to the infighting amongst the heirs of Alexander.)
Whenever they fought a people who *hated* them they wound up fighting long and bloody wars. Wars that definitely hastened the decline of the power of the city of Rome and it's empire. See Rome's campaigns in Spain, and to a lesser extent Judea for proof that hatred trumps fear.
Historical ignorance is an ugly ailment. I sugest you get your case treated.
David Shayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whatever pal. It may have been over a decade since I took my courses in ancient western civ, but the reasons you're citing are inaccurate at best.
It was the lack of the support for the both the ethic and political state in general. Said mindset thinned the ranks, which allowed the Germanic tribes to eventually overcome the Roman lines.
BUT even then the Empire did not fall.
I don't know what version of history you've been reading, but I would suggest that you quit projecting your own ignorance onto myself, and instead go do a bit of reading yourself.
hunter
October 5th, 2001, 12:38 AM
Lets keep it civil folks.
Hunter
Hunter
Murph
October 5th, 2001, 10:53 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Murph:
[B]Whoa, missed this one. I've been busy over on tankersnet, where I moderate the Free Fire Zone putting out some serious flamewars. Rome did last through both fear, and superior internal mobility of its legions. The ability of the legions to move and fight as they did ensured the survival of the empire for many centuries.
http://63.99.108.76/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true
[B]Whoa, missed this one. I've been busy over on tankersnet, where I moderate the Free Fire Zone putting out some serious flamewars. Rome did last through both fear, and superior internal mobility of its legions. The ability of the legions to move and fight as they did ensured the survival of the empire for many centuries.
http://63.99.108.76/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true
jb
October 5th, 2001, 01:33 PM
Sep 11th was awful! No arguements on that score from anyone over this side of the pond.
But, having served in the British army for 16 years, with service in Northern Ireland, the Gulf War and various parts of the former Yugoslavia not to mention a few other places around the world, I have some experience in this game and in my experience extremism breeds extremism! You only have to look at the highly extreme reaction from some contributors to this site to see that.
What I have been reading here makes me almost as sick to my stomach as the events of 11th Sep. As someone who may still have to go do his bit to support your right to able to spout this sort of rubbish, I for one would appreciate it if either you moved to some other forum to sound off, or alternatively moved the arguement onto a more rational level.
On this site we discuss Traveller and I for one would like to keep it that way.
My thoughts and prayers go to all those who have lost friends and family, particularly those of the emergency services who have my undying admiration. Their sacrifice makes my limited service look like a walk in the park.
------------------
JB
Variety is the Spice of Life
But, having served in the British army for 16 years, with service in Northern Ireland, the Gulf War and various parts of the former Yugoslavia not to mention a few other places around the world, I have some experience in this game and in my experience extremism breeds extremism! You only have to look at the highly extreme reaction from some contributors to this site to see that.
What I have been reading here makes me almost as sick to my stomach as the events of 11th Sep. As someone who may still have to go do his bit to support your right to able to spout this sort of rubbish, I for one would appreciate it if either you moved to some other forum to sound off, or alternatively moved the arguement onto a more rational level.
On this site we discuss Traveller and I for one would like to keep it that way.
My thoughts and prayers go to all those who have lost friends and family, particularly those of the emergency services who have my undying admiration. Their sacrifice makes my limited service look like a walk in the park.
------------------
JB
Variety is the Spice of Life
DaveShayne
October 5th, 2001, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
Whatever pal. It may have been over a decade since I took my courses in ancient western civ, but the reasons you're citing are inaccurate at best.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did those courses even mention Rome's 100 year attempt to pacify the Spanish coastland? I suggest you read a little further than your civ101 sylabus to get an idea of just how ineffective fear was as a tool in Rome's wars of pacification.
Rome had a lot of other things going for it and a lot of other reasons for it's success. To sugest that a demonstrably inefective tactic was the sole basis of that success is evidence of a lack of understanding of history.
I do apologize for the lack of civility of my last post and any lack of civility that has crept into this one. This will be my last statement on the subject and I wish you well in your studies.
David Shayne
Whatever pal. It may have been over a decade since I took my courses in ancient western civ, but the reasons you're citing are inaccurate at best.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did those courses even mention Rome's 100 year attempt to pacify the Spanish coastland? I suggest you read a little further than your civ101 sylabus to get an idea of just how ineffective fear was as a tool in Rome's wars of pacification.
Rome had a lot of other things going for it and a lot of other reasons for it's success. To sugest that a demonstrably inefective tactic was the sole basis of that success is evidence of a lack of understanding of history.
I do apologize for the lack of civility of my last post and any lack of civility that has crept into this one. This will be my last statement on the subject and I wish you well in your studies.
David Shayne
DaveShayne
October 5th, 2001, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Lets keep it civil folks.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My appologies for failing to maintain the proper level of decorum.
David Shayne
Lets keep it civil folks.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My appologies for failing to maintain the proper level of decorum.
David Shayne
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét