911: Nuke'em until they glow! [Archive]

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 12:59 PM

Nukes? No!

"Love thy enemy"?

Was this not the other cheek?

If a man sees his neighbor being beaten, should he pray for the aggressor, or should he come to the aid of his friend? Have we not suffered this blow in response to our defense and support of Israel? (Assuming etc...) Are these people not intent on the outright and complete destruction of Israel?

Perhaps we should pray for those who hate us. Yet, we cannot stand by while they continue to brandish swords and spears against us. And what swords and spears they carry - they form their own innocent children into suicidal instruments of hate, death, and destruction!

Yes, we should be forgiving of those who hate and sin, because we know all too well that we sin and are capable of hatred. However, it is quite another thing to stand by and condone those who actively promote hatred and murder as a virtue.

Those responsible must be punished. We may pray for them to repent and seek God's forgiveness, even as the axe falls upon them; but the axe must fall.

Laocoön

09-12-2001, 01:35 PM

If a boy pokes a dog with a stick, and the dog bites the boy, maybe it is appropriate for the dog to be destroyed because it is too vicious, but certainly the boy should learn not to poke dogs with sticks.

JMO

09-12-2001, 01:38 PM

L-

Proof positive that sticks ought to be more strictly regulated. Owners should register them. There should be background checks whenever somebody wants to buy one. I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't provide any protection for stick-owners, so let's crack down.

//irony mode off//

Laocoön

09-12-2001, 01:47 PM

Are you poking me with a stick, Carol?

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 01:51 PM

Didn't register at home -- Doodad

The problem with nukes is the radioactive fallout. Europeans couldn't eat certain foods (like blueberries) for more than a decade after Chernobyl, because of the radioactivity.

By all means, retaliate. But--since no-one knows for sure how fast or how far the effects of a nuke will spread, we might end up like the foolish bird which fouls its own nest.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 02:07 PM

Laocoon:

These are neither boys, nor dogs, nor sticks, not bites.

These terrorists are not instinctively lashing back at a child that is taunting them.

Rather, they have pre-meditatively murdered thousands of people with the intent to convince the United States not to support Israel so that they can in turn set about the destruction of Israel.

They are rational and they are evil, and they have now demonstrated the extent of their ability and willingness to perpetrate their evil. Up to this point, U.S. citizens had not understood what was made so clear yesterday. Interestingly, perhaps many in Europe had not understood this, either.

If terrorism is part of political discourse (as is war?), I would say they made a big mistake yesterday.

In the meantime, if someone could find a home for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians could consent to accepting that home and the Israeli's, that would be a good thing.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 02:13 PM

"Rather, they have pre-meditatively murdered thousands of people with the intent to convince the United States not to support Israel so that they can in turn set about the destruction of Israel. "

I'm not sure. I think they just hate the United States and want to destroy it as much as they want to destroy Israel...they just have a harder time striking us.

Laocoön

09-12-2001, 02:33 PM

On 2001-09-12 14:07, Anonymous wrote:

"These are neither boys, nor dogs, nor sticks, not bites."

Which makes it all the more important that the "boy" learns not to "poke dogs with sticks," doesn't it?

Enough Exams Already

09-12-2001, 02:47 PM

Given Putin's vocal support, if evidence enough exists to tie the attacks back to Osama bin Laden, I bet we could get the Russians' help in a ground war through Afghanistan. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. We start on one side, they start on the other, and we meet in the middle. Whoever gets him first gets to choose how he's executed.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 02:55 PM

Great idea!! Split Afghanistan into two administrative zones.

Gets our revenge, eliminates the Taliban and bin Laden, get Russia's revenge for their defeat, and improves political ties with them.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 03:25 PM

How will this effect the situation in Chechnya?

Extreme Extremist

09-12-2001, 03:56 PM

On 2001-09-12 14:47, Enough Exams Already wrote:
Given Putin's vocal support, if evidence enough exists to tie the attacks back to Osama bin Laden, I bet we could get the Russians' help in a ground war through Afghanistan. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. We start on one side, they start on the other, and we meet in the middle. Whoever gets him first gets to choose how he's executed.

Sounds like what Hitler and Stalin did with Poland in 1939. Everyboy should calm down. We are paying the price for our attempt at hegemony. Did anyone seriously not expect this sooner or later.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 04:06 PM

On 2001-09-12 15:56, Extreme Extremist wrote:
Sounds like what Hitler and Stalin did with Poland in 1939. Everyboy should calm down. We are paying the price for our attempt at hegemony. Did anyone seriously not expect this sooner or later.

Or like what we did with Germany...they turned out ok, didn't they?

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 06:49 PM

L -

I don't know much about Middle Eastern relations. How have we been "poking the dog"?

saucywench

Laocoön

09-12-2001, 06:58 PM

saucywench:

"I don't know much about Middle Eastern relations. How have we been 'poking the dog'?"

We bankroll Israel to the tune of $4-6 billion a year, we block all efforts to condemn their treatment of Palestinians in the UN, and we repeatedly look the other way when they violate international law.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 09:59 PM

Yes. Recently the whole world came out and called Israel a racist state for their treatment of Palestinians.

Israel walked out, naturally.

The US also walked out, due to the Israeli lobby's influence in the American political system. Had they not walked out, Bush could have been assured of losing Jewish support, and having the Jewish infrastructure (made up of many media figure) start a smear campaign against him.

Anonymous

09-12-2001, 11:19 PM

Lao: you are correct about our support for Israel...I say cut them off, and let them deal with the towelheads themselves

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 12:38 AM

OK, Lao, I take back one point: They ARE dogs.

In your worst nightmares, I guess that you dream about waking up and finding that Pat Robertson and the "Moral Majority" have taken power, suspended the constitution, and are preparing to brainwash you and your children with the 700 Club version of the Bible.

Well, these terrorists would make Pat Robertson look like a Gay Pride parade leader in comparison.

So, go ahead, cut off aid to Israel and see how it turns out.

Extreme Extremist

09-13-2001, 09:06 AM

On 2001-09-13 00:38, Anonymous wrote:
So, go ahead, cut off aid to Israel and see how it turns out.

The result would be that America would no longer be a target.

Another thing we have done to anger the muslim world/middle east: Embargo on Iraq that has caused the deaths of up to 1/2 million Iraqis.

Read this interview with Bin Laden:
http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=107212

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 09:19 AM

O+:

If I thought it were right to support Israel in the first place, I'd agree with you. However, it was wrong to support Israel when it only cost us $4-6 billion a year and a lot of international respect, and it is wrong to support Israel now that it has cost us perhaps 5,000 lives. The attacks of September 11 were thoroughly avoidable, and had we been less stupid in our international relations -- note, that's less stupid, not more appeasing -- we would never have suffered these attacks. Our support of Israel is and has been immoral, contrary to our national interests (to a degree, we see now, that exceeds what most people could have imagined), and it is destabilizing. We should no more act to spite our enemies than we should act to appease them.

E. Blackadder

09-13-2001, 09:52 AM

"...and it is wrong to support Israel now that it has cost us perhaps 5,000 lives."

I'd say we haven't been made an offer we can't refuse, rather, we've been made an offer we can't understand. Maybe the Poles were involved.

"The attacks of September 11 were thoroughly avoidable..."

If we close down our borders, yes, and shoot down airliners that go out of bounds. If we stripsearch everyone and tie passengers down during flight.

"and had we been less stupid in our international relations -- note, that's less stupid, not more appeasing -- we would never have suffered these attacks."

Has it occured to you that there's only one way to avoid suffering attacks from someone who is willing to kill you? And it's not giving him what he wants. I leave it as an excercise for the new student.

"Our support of Israel is and has been immoral, contrary to our national interests (to a degree, we see now, that exceeds what most people could have imagined), and it is destabilizing. We should no more act to spite our enemies than we should act to appease them."

Who's unstable?

When the enemy indroctronates its school-children in the joys of committing glorious suicide, then yes, we should not act to spite that society. We should act to utterly destroy the underpinnings of that society. Or we shall be conquered by that society.

Our support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt has been immoral and terribly counterproductive. The assumption of moral superiority of Islam (as for instance, when our troops were putting themselves in harms way )is not astonishing, merely sad. And the willingness of the Islamic clergy to kill those with whom they disagree, is nothing less than an abomination of the human spirit.

This shall not stand, lest humanity revert to the dark ages.

Rockhound

09-13-2001, 10:35 AM

So L. thinks its America's fault that 10,000 were murdered on Sept. 11.

Sorry Skippy, that ain't so. The murderers are responsible--the issue is black and white. And there is only one way to deal with unrepentent murderers.

By the way L.--how many friends and relatives have YOU lost?

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 10:42 AM

On 2001-09-12 21:59, Anonymous wrote:
Recently the whole world came out and called Israel a racist state for their treatment of Palestinians.

NO. Only the Muslim states called Israel racists, but in the 1 vote per country insanity that is the UN, it just SEEMED like a lot of countries did.

Very curious how the intolerant, unfree, racist countries of Islam try to call Israel (where the Arab minority can vote and pray haw they wish) a "racist" country.

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 10:47 AM

Kindly educate me with the ``destruction of israel''. From American and Canadian TV news that I see, I learned that people (palastine) are against for settling more jews in Arab (occupied) lands.

Also tell me it was not the CIA who helped Afganisthan!

I like American interpretation of things.

Who helped Sadam and Noriega?

The American politicians like to keep foreign leaders as pets, when there are things to get from them. As soon as they stray, all hell break!

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 10:51 AM

On 2001-09-13 09:19, Laocoön wrote:
Our support of Israel is and has been immoral, contrary to our national interests (to a degree, we see now, that exceeds what most people could have imagined), and it is destabilizing.

Lacoon: You are full of horse sh**. According to your head-up-your-ass logic, we shouldn't support Taiwan, should we? After all, it is contrary to our national interests, and it sure is destabilizing! Heck, it's only a few million Chinese that will be absorbed by a billion more Chinese, what would be the difference if we let them go?

And tough sh** for South Korea, we'll pull our military out, it isn't really in our national interest, is it?

How about way back in WWII, when we supported the immoral bombing of German civilians? How is our national interest tied to that of England? After all, the Germans were quite content to leave us alone.

IT'S DEMOCRACY, YOU JACKASS! We stand as a beacon to democracy and freedom to the whole world! Yes, we're a target for it, but if we didn't do it, we wouldn't be Americans! We were bombed as the largest symbol of the free world!

If the US didn't exist, the remaining free countries would support the democracy in Israel, and England would've been bombed, or Canada, or someone else. Instead it was us, the most powerful country in the world, precisely because we are seen as the single biggest threat to a fundamental Islamic world.

For your idiocy, you hereby cease to exist for me. You are dead. Any thread with your post will die. f*** you if you blame anyone but the psycho brainwashed cowards who did this.

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 10:54 AM

Has it occured to you, Grasshopper, that best of all would be to have no one who is willing to kill you?

"Who's unstable?"

Grasshopper, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. The Arab populations around Israel are thoroughly, vehemently anti-Israel, not because their governments have indoctrinated them to be that way, but because they have spontaneously become that way. If any of the nations around Israel were to become truly democratic, Grasshopper, they would enter into a state of perpetual war against Israel. It is necessary to Israel's survival that these nations remain dictatorships of one sort or another.

And, while some might think that this justifies wholesale slaughter of the Arab populations around Israel (do you, dear, sweet, Grasshopper?), anyone in those Arabs' position would feel much the same way: if someone decided, against our will, that Connecticutt should be the homeland for the Shamimbo Tribe, and forcibly set up a state for them there, we would be pissed beyond any reckoning for dozens of generations, don't you think?

The US is still very, very much respected throughout the Arab world. Like anywhere else, most people are not overly religious nor overly political, and they want to enjoy the freedom and properity that America has. But we're screwing them by bankrolling Israel, and in doing so we are basically treating them as sub-human, and not entitled to the respect of full humans. And they are, quite understandably, deeply offended by this, and drawn for that reason to radical Islam and to anti-Western Arab nationalism. A lot of that would go away if we would just stop insulting them with our support of Israel.

I guess that you are Jewish, Grasshopper, and so Israel means something much more to you than it does to me. But don't be blinded by your attachments: Israel cannot survive for much longer through the means it has used so far. There are simply too many Arabs. Israel itself is likely to become majority Arab in about 30 years, due only to disparate fertility rates. Ulimately, Israel has to decide between attempting genocide against the Arabs around it or negotiating peace. And there will be no negotiated peace if Israel cannot acknowledge that many, many wrongs were committed against the Palestinians in the creation and continued existence of Israel. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 11:02 AM

Rockhound, will you think that it is only the US's fault if we bomb Afghanistan and kill innocent civilians?

After all, no one claims that Afghanistan attacked us. The US has surely done more for Israel than Afghanistan has done for bin Laden.

Or do you think that different rules apply to the US as opposed to the rest of the world?

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 11:08 AM

The Palestineans lost out.

Time to get over it and get a life.

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 01:13 PM

There is some very slim possibility that this whole thing is completely unrelated to the Middle East situation. But, barring that, can anyone seriously doubt that attacks such as these are a predictible consequence of our support of Israel? This does not mean that our support of Israel is wrong -- though I think it is -- but certainly it should be recognized in our decision to support Israel. If there were some overwhelming moral or political reason to accept attacks such as these, or to undertake the very constraining effort to avoid them, in order to continue our support of Israel, then we should do so. But I suspect that most Americans, if they considered the matter very much at all, would decide that there is no such reason. We probably have a moral obligation to help Israel achieve a sustainable situation for its people, given our support in getting them into the situation they are currently in, but Israel is right now showing no inclination toward that end.

Oh, and BTW, I love you too, "Anonymous."

Grits N Gravy

09-13-2001, 04:03 PM

"No one? I thought a large number of people claim that Afghanistan has attacked us."

They most certainly had a part in all of this. The US has asked that he be turned over in the past and the Taliban refused. If it turns out that Osama definitely did this, then in providing him safe harbor after prior attacks, they share responsibility.

E. Blackadder

09-13-2001, 04:27 PM

Lao, I must disagree. You reason well from the facts in some - alternate - evil universe. It's likely that this post addresses your posts in several threads.

1: International law? A joke. Who, for instance, has tried the current Chinese leadership? Or even Castro? Instead, judges go after Pinochet and Kissinger in the dead of night.

2: If I agreed with you regarding US support of Israel, I'd probably use your methods as a model. You really are quite good. You should write children's stories. The problem is that based on any reasoning process, if Israel is non-legitimate, then so is just about every nation.

3: Calling Palestinian violence spontaneous may now be correct. It took a lot of work on the part of their leaders and other terrorists to get things this far. As always, the Islamic moderates were the first to get shot by Arafat. Once unopposed internally, he began his war in earnest.

4: And of course, your prediction of the demographic future of Israel is on target. In this region, demography is war by other means: "Make Love = Make War."

5: It's just too bad that the events of this week have indelibly equated Islam with offal. Not that the Islamic community as a whole, or even in general is comprised of murderous, sadistic, madmen. It's just that the Islamic community seems unwilling to expel or even credibly denounce this hateful minority. A Fatwah, to start with, would be apropos. Against the terrorists and their network of little helpers.

6: Yet the capricious application of Fatwah is part of the problem. Write a book; get a sentence of death. Convert out of Islam; get a sentence of death. Such is the nature of Islam. Is this the kind of religion that the world should tolerate? Can tolerate? I think not.

But that's standard for life under modern Islam. Were life under Islam only as it were in the golden age, then all of Israel would kiss the feet of Arafat and beg to be incorporated into Palestine. Indeed, Jews have mourned the death of enlightened mullahs. But that was when such mullahs existed.

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 04:32 PM

The recent terrorist attacks are crimes against humanity. Clearly, the attacks were aimed at maximizing civilian casualties. For example, this was not an attack against the US military. It was an attack on civilians.

US has in the past retaliated against such attacks sending missiles but only when the terrorists were clearly identified (often times terrorists claim responsibility). However, I know that Regan did not retaliate against significant terrorism (I think a few hundred Marines died) at least once because responsibility could not be determined.

However, if you notice we did not go as far as to eliminate Sadam Hussain. The difference here is between establishing proper authority and an act of justice for a crime against humanity. I am positive that after we identify who is responsible for the recent terrorist attacks – and we will do that -- we will launch an attack like never seen before in history. This attack will be of a different nature than Desert Storm but perhaps of comparable magnitude or force.

I don’t see the need for troops like we did in Desert Storm because we are not moving a people group out and establishing the prior and proper people group. But that is not to say that troops will not be used. I think troops will just be in a different capacity and probably on a much smaller scale. As far a nuclear, well, although Isalm clearly teaches that hatred and killing to promote their cause is acceptable (not just acceptable but rewarded in the after life by Alah, something about many wives) – practically promoting crimes against humanity – I don’t think we will use the country breaking power of thermal nuclear weapons. Although many in the country subscribe to the same beliefs as the terrorists probably just a small portion of the country is responsible, directly. If this group directly responsible is significantly large then, perhaps, small scale nuclear weapons may be used. If however, it looks the government is significantly involved, then, well, this takes it to a whole higher level. I this case, I can see the eradication of a country.

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 05:37 PM

On 2001-09-13 15:56, Type O+ wrote:

"Actually, it was right to support Israel before Tuesday, and it is even more right to support Israel today."

Okay. Why was and is it right for us to support Israel?

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 05:39 PM

Because we are the agent that will let freedom ring throughout the world.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Traci on 2001-09-13 17:56 ]</font>

Anonymous

09-13-2001, 05:39 PM

This link is informative:
http://www.casact.org/students/forums/noncgi/Forum14/HTML/002064.html

Here are some excerpts:

On August 7, 1998, eight years after the U.S. deployment in Saudi Arabia, a pair of truck bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Bin Laden has denied responsibility, but prosecutors allege his culpability is evident on faxes sent by his London cell to at least three international media outlets. They also point to incriminating statements by certain alleged embassy bombers who are admitted al Qaeda members.
Fourteen days later, on August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks against suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.

In a Tuesday night address to the nation, President Bush said, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

This quote of President Bush really says a lot. I think the use of nuclear weapons in not just a political issue in terms of the message it sends but also a tactical one. In other words the US may want to actually use it even if there are other means of obtaining similar degrees of force.

Laocoön

09-13-2001, 05:52 PM

On 2001-09-13 16:27, E. Blackadder wrote:

"1: International law? A joke. Who, for instance, has tried the current Chinese leadership? Or even Castro? Instead, judges go after Pinochet and Kissinger in the dead of night."

I agree: international law is a joke. But the reason that it is a joke is that the most powerful nation in the world -- that would be us -- thumbs its nose at international law. We clearly have no moral authority when we suggest that anyone else should be accountable to international law. It's truly very shameful.

"2: If I agreed with you regarding US support of Israel, I'd probably use your methods as a model. You really are quite good. You should write children's stories. The problem is that based on any reasoning process, if Israel is non-legitimate, then so is just about every nation."

Okay. Why is just about every nation non-legitimate if Israel is non-legitimate?

"3: Calling Palestinian violence spontaneous may now be correct. It took a lot of work on the part of their leaders and other terrorists to get things this far. As always, the Islamic moderates were the first to get shot by Arafat. Once unopposed internally, he began his war in earnest."

You're simply mistaken.

"6: Yet the capricious application of Fatwah is part of the problem. Write a book; get a sentence of death. Convert out of Islam; get a sentence of death. Such is the nature of Islam. Is this the kind of religion that the world should tolerate? Can tolerate? I think not.

"But that's standard for life under modern Islam. Were life under Islam only as it were in the golden age, then all of Israel would kiss the feet of Arafat and beg to be incorporated into Palestine. Indeed, Jews have mourned the death of enlightened mullahs. But that was when such mullahs existed."

You may be unaware that in about 1954, Iran had a democratically elected, liberal democracy. But the US, in its ignorant wisdom, decided that this government was not anti-communist enough, so we imposed the Shah upon them. He was not quite as brutal as Saddam, but still managed to make his people yearn for the leadership of the dissident cleric Khomeini. Maybe you know the rest of that story.

Anonymous

09-14-2001, 12:46 PM

On 2001-09-13 00:38, Anonymous wrote:
In your worst nightmares, I guess that you dream about waking up and finding that Pat Robertson and the "Moral Majority" have taken power, suspended the constitution, and are preparing to brainwash you and your children with the 700 Club version of the Bible.

Hasn't this already happened? Yesterday, Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell explained that the true cause of this tragedy: feminists, homosexuals, and pro-choice people who have brought the wrath of God down upon us. :roll:

Laocoön

09-14-2001, 02:00 PM

O+, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why it is and was right for the US to support Israel. Does the fact that the Palestinians tend to have darker skin than the Israelis have something to do with it?

Anonymous

09-14-2001, 02:22 PM

TO+

Bravo, leave the fool be to wallow in his idiocy. Take comfort in the fact (found on the CDBoard) that the fools aren't numerous, just vocal. They are a tiny minority. Most of the country agrees with you.

Laocoön

09-14-2001, 02:38 PM

My apologies, O+. Why do you think it is and was right for the US to support Israel?

Aaron Brachowitz

09-14-2001, 03:48 PM

Retaliation, even of the nuclear variety, does not cut it here. If we had simply wanted to retaliate against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, the Pacific War would have ended after the Battle of Midway.

1. We are in a war. Our enemies have publicly and repeatedly declared this to be true. Congress needs to formally declare war also.

2. Our enemy is radical Islam. It pains many of us to say that a religion (or a subset of a religion) could be an enemy, but it is true. Modern terrorism and radical Islam are inseparably linked. Pinning the blame on specific individuals, even killing them, will accomplish nothing.

3. The object in war is not to inflict pain or retaliation on your enemy. The object is to destroy his ability to make war against you. Cruise missile strikes won't do it. It will require the full military effort of all the Western nations and must be a waged from the air, on land, and from the sea, over many years. The targets will be anything that sustains radical Islam and its murderous campaign -- people, organizations, buildings, and governments.

4. If we choose to fight this war, we will unintentionally kill many innocent civilians. This should not deter us in any way. The blame for this falls squarely on the terrorist organizations and the countries who shelter them. German and Japanese civilians paid a horrible price for the war their governments started. As it stands now, only American civilians are dying.

5. If we continue as in the past, with pinprick strikes and meaningless criminal prosecutions, we deserve more of the same. We will pretend to be at peace while radical Islam continues to wage war against us.

6. To those who say such an approach will only make things worse and create more terrorists: How does it get worse than Tuesday? If our current approach brought us this catastrophe, how do we stay on that course?

anon789

09-14-2001, 03:57 PM

Very well said.

On 2001-09-14 15:48, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
3. The object in war is not to inflict pain or retaliation on your enemy. The object is to destroy his ability to make war against you. Cruise missile strikes won't do it. It will require the full military effort of all the Western nations and must be a waged from the air, on land, and from the sea, over many years. The targets will be anything that sustains radical Islam and its murderous campaign -- people, organizations, buildings, and governments.

This has become clear to many. The toughest part will be when the moderates attempt to slow down the process. It must be made clear to the moderates that if they stand in the way they will suffer the same fate.

E. Blackadder

09-14-2001, 05:58 PM

Sorry, guys. This isn't exactly a normal military mission. Unless you can read the minds of people, you will have enormous difficulty fighting the war against radical Islam. And even if you could read the mind of the enemy, and single them out, others would be convinced that you were singling out the faithful to be executed.

I don't want to rain on your parade, folks, but war against this group is not... going... to... be... easy. Or fast. Or fun.

And as long as much of radical Islam chooses to be outraged by the existence of Israel as it exists, the war will not completely end.

As for the moderates, (And I assume you mean US moderates), it seems unlikely that one can do other than politically marginalize them.
While I regard this as desirable, the question becomes: Will this turn "us" into "them?"

Anonymous

09-14-2001, 06:29 PM

The war will be waged with political pressure to arrest and hand over all militant Islamic fundamentalists, and with bombs to those countries that won't (aka Afghanistan).

And it's not just US pressure, but NATO pressure. The moderate Islamic countries will accede, because they are too fragmented not to.

09-14-2001, 06:47 PM

To Aaron B.:

I agree with most of your post (although I'm not really sure the religion itself is the enemy). I think the biggest challenge will be finding a way to distinguish between the radicals and the moderates. As I have stated in other posts, I think we need to use the next few days/weeks to drive a wedge between them.

But I have to comment on your rhetorical question "how does it get worse than Tuesday". How about when terrorists start targeting nuclear facilities instead of office buildings?! E.B. said it best: this war is not going to be easy or fast or fun. Let's hope everybody has the stomach to stick with it when the going gets tough.

Anonymous

09-14-2001, 11:26 PM

The terrorists want to establish Islamic states where possible and destroy all non-Islamic states. Unless we are willing to accept destruction or Islamic rule we must fight them.

Laocoön

09-15-2001, 09:21 AM

It's probably a mistake to think that this war is only with radical Islam. Some of the hijackers, for example, were clearly not even devout Moslems: they drank alcohol.

Moderate Arabs are polite to us mostly out of fear, or at least out of an awareness that they can't do much about it without great cost. If they were our military peers, they would have insisted that we end our support of Israel. Think Cuban Missle Crisis. Out of fear, they will not openly condemn us, but we will have little idea of what they really think.

The terrorists were likely hoping for a vicious response from us, which, if it happens, will radicalize more Moslems and turn the terrorists' endeavors into a growth industry. But even a pin-point response will not seal up the problem. The terrorists have demonstrated that Moslems and Arabs are not powerless against the US, and that alone will attract a next generation of terrorists more bold than the current one.

Our existence is not in danger, but otherwise we are now in Israel's situation: to end this militarily would probably require a broad genocide. We are probably in for a decades-long shadow war with fluctuating levels of violence, the main beneficiaries of which will be those not involved, notably China.

It is heartening to see that many, though of course not Rockhound, are going out of their way to make clear that American Moslems are not blamed. This might not last.

The Mister

09-15-2001, 09:43 AM

On 2001-09-15 09:21, Laocoön wrote:
It's probably a mistake to think that this war is only with radical Islam. Some of the hijackers, for example, were clearly not even devout Moslems: they drank alcohol.

<font size=2>...and we all know that the most devout radicals are NEVER hypocrites. :wink:

Anonymous

09-15-2001, 03:27 PM

(I'm Anonymous from 2001-09-14 18:29.)

Oh, to be right! To bad it's over such a serious issue.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010915/ts/attack_dc_58.html

Here's a quote:

"Washington's message to other nations, including Arab and Islamic states, is that they must choose sides. In the coming storm, they are being told they must either back the United States or risk diplomatic and economic isolation."

Like I said, you can help us smoke out the buggers, or face our wrath.

Anonymous

09-16-2001, 12:56 AM

I believe that the terrorists would say something like:

Israel has stolen the Palestinian's land, killed the residents, and continues to expand. Each minor provocation from the Arabs results in Israeli retaliation against civilians.

The US has aided and abetted them in every way except ground troops - with money, technology, weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic muscle.

The US and Europe were embarrassed by their treatment of the Jews, so they salved their guilt with Arab lands.

You may say that's a bunch of half-truths, but there are people who believe it fervently enough to turn themselves into human bombs trying to change US actions.

Anonymous

09-16-2001, 01:54 AM

The question continues to be asked - why does the US support Israel?

That is not the right question.

The questions are: if the US immediately ended its support of Israel, would that prevent this from happening again? Would that make OBL content? Would that make Hussein or Arafat content? Would the US no longer be the "great Satan"? Would the holy war that the terrorists have called for against the US be finished?

The answer to all these questions is no.

We must do whatever it takes to ensure that this cannot happen again. Whether our support of Israel is right or wrong, our next course of action must be to unite with Israel and NATO and Russia and China and everyone else who doesn't want to live in fear for the rest of their lives and wipe out the threat.

This has gone far beyond the Muslims versus the Jews. This is now about freedom versus those who want the free world to live in fear, hiding in our homes, afraid to go to work or get on an airplane or go to a baseball game. The threat must be removed at any cost. We (the free world) have tried political and economic methods as well as surgical military strikes. We have failed and we have paid the price. Now the enemy must pay the price for their actions.

openminded

09-16-2001, 02:34 AM

...

Anonymous

09-16-2001, 10:53 AM

The enemy is a who, not an idea.

The enemy is the terrorists - the people who plan and train and carry out terrorist attacks.

The enemy is those who fund the terrorists - the people who give money and weapons and training and a place for the terrorists to hide.

The enemy is those who hide the terrorists - the people and governments that turn a blind eye to the fact that the terrorists are living in their borders or in their cities or in their villages.

The enemy is those who support terrorism by standing in the way of our efforts to defeat it.

Before September 11th, terrorist incidents had been on a relatively minor scale. As long as terrorism remained on that scale, it would have been a greater evil to wage a military campaign against all the enemies listed above than it was to use other means - political, economic, intelligence, and surgical military strikes - to combat the terrorism.

On September 11th, the scale of the terrorism was increased to a level that we now have no choice. If we do not attack the enemies listed above in order to remove the ability for the terrorist individuals to wage their war on the free world, we are doomed to live in fear every day of our lives that horrible fiery death lurks around every corner.

Anonymous

09-16-2001, 12:14 PM

IHAH:

Another great post. The war against terrorism is winnable. No, we can't catch EVERY nut who wants to blow up a building, but we can catch MOST of them.

And, we can make it VERY difficult for anyone who harbors them, trains them, finances them, supports them, or even looks the other way when they operate nearby.

Without such support, the hijackings never would've happened.

Aaron Brachowitz

09-17-2001, 09:46 AM

Many are asking, how do we fight this war? I can think of one thing right off the top of my head:

During wartime, you do not grant "tourist" or "student" visas to people from countries where your enemy is known to be operating. I'll wager that every one of the hijackers was allowed into the US legally, at least initially. This would obviously have a major negative effect on many moderate Arabs in these countries, which is good -- maybe they will finally take action to eliminate the terrorists in their countries, since they are better positioned to do it than we are. The effectiveness of this action would be multiplied if all of the NATO countries followed suit. You want your children to study medicine or engineering at a good Western school? Do something about the terrorist groups in your country.

Anonymous

09-17-2001, 05:39 PM

IHAH, you miss my point. You cannot destroy terrorism any more than you can destroy gorilla warfare or hand-to-hand combat. Terrorism has been shown to be an extremely effective method of damaging a free society. Military strategists thoughout the world have rebalanced their scales. All we can do to throw them back in our favor is to prove that ANY terrorist act will be followed by massive retribution, thus leaving the choice of terrorism to only the most desperate. The choice will still be there.

As long as we have a free society we will be open to attack. We cannot hope to eliminate all risk and still remain free. Free to our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness. But also free to be targets for any psycho with a few million dollars and a score of devout followers.

We can, should and will destroy this current batch of terrorists and their support structure. Once this is done, do you plan on destroying any group that MAY use terrorism because they hate us? Won't that turn us into the authoritarian demon so many in the world fear? I suggest we police and remain vigilant, but that will not eliminate the threat, but only greatly reduce it.

We must not become what we abhor.

Tell me, IHAH, do you support terrorist actions in retaliation to terrorists? The Israeli's do with there assassin squads, should the US waive our 30 year ban?

The Mister

09-17-2001, 06:41 PM

On 2001-09-17 17:39, Anonymous wrote:
You cannot destroy terrorism any more than you can destroy gorilla warfare ...

Oo! Oo! Oo-oo-oo-AAH-AAH-AAH!!! <font size=2>[beats chest in show of dominance] :grin:

Huki

09-17-2001, 06:47 PM

"The Israeli's do with there assassin squads, should the US waive our 30 year ban?"

25 year ban.

Anonymous

09-17-2001, 07:39 PM

Since you are Anonymous, I am not sure quite which point I am missing.

You are right, of course. Terrorism can never be destroyed without giving up all the freedoms we are trying to protect. We will always be targets for any nut with a lot of money and followers and a place to train and plan.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. We must make certain that these terrorist groups do not have a place to train and plan. We must make sure that all the governments of the world agree to work together to monitor these groups BEFORE they attack. As it stands, certain governments welcome these groups and allow them to stay and do whatever they want while the rest of the world wonders what they are up to. If we punish the governments that turn a blind eye to the terrorists within their borders, we can force them to act responsibly and not allow this activity to go on.

We shouldn't destroy "any group that MAY use terrorism" but we should instead punish the governments and individuals that support and harbor these terrorists. Without a support structure, the terrorists' ability to carry out attacks will be severely limited.

Yes, we will always be vulnerable to terrorism, but we can greatly reduce the threat.

I do not support terrorism in response to terrorism. I do not support taking hostages or bombing civilians randomly to create terror and fear in otherwise free countries. I do not support hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. I do support any action in defense of freedom, including assassinations when necessary. Assassinations are NOT the same as terrorism.

openminded

09-17-2001, 09:02 PM

...

Aaron Brachowitz

09-18-2001, 10:55 AM

On 2001-09-17 17:39, Anonymous wrote:
We can, should and will destroy this current batch of terrorists and their support structure. Once this is done, do you plan on destroying any group that MAY use terrorism because they hate us?

Yes, we should. When Pearl Harbor was bombed (a declaration of war) we did not simply hunt down the ships and planes and commanders involved in that specific attack. Nor did we did spare the other Japanese forces that MAY have been used in future attacks against us.

War has been declared (we just haven't formally recognized it). The standards are all different now. If we have a pretty good idea that a group represents a threat to us, we have a duty to destroy them. That's how things are in war. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and you don't have to wait until they shoot at you.