BREAKING NEWS
The BBC is reporting that the Taliban, Afghanistans Islamic ruling body, has placed Osama Bin Laden under house arrest.
Nic'
by nicolaou 85 Replies latest jw friends
BREAKING NEWS
The BBC is reporting that the Taliban, Afghanistans Islamic ruling body, has placed Osama Bin Laden under house arrest.
Nic'
Just dragging this to the new page...I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask if we can all TRY to see things from a larger perspective.
The following is one of Jelly's posts adapted to read as if presented by one of Tuesday's terrorist aggressors. See how little editing is required then re-read some of the posts in this thread. Sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Simply put this is war.
We cannot be concerned about the other side’s civilian population. The only way to end American sponsored terrorism and the spread of Western influence is to reduce the countries that support it to the level that they are no longer able to support those activities with money, transportation, equipment, and intelligence........
..............Where would the world be now if Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had been too concerned with the innocent Germans (and many were) to effectively fight a war. So it is with the loss of a few thousand innocent Americans. My point being that WWII proved that, unfortunately, sometimes violence is the only appropriate answer.
In order for us to maintain our way of life as faithful Muslims, the threat of Western and, in particular, American imperialism and capitalism must end and we must be the ones to end it.
I hope everyone understands I hate writing this. The necessary violence we inflicted on Tuesday sickens me and the thought of war makes my stomach turn. I don’t write these things because ‘I want vengeance’ or because I get a thrill out of watching a war on CNN. I write these things because I see this as the only realistic and honest solution."
XXXXXXXXX
Allah be praised.
"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state but certainty is a ridiculous one." --Voltaire
Just bringing this back to the top because I think Mike and Fedeja need to respond to my questions:
Another couple of points to remember, Bin Laden has made no demands he is attacking America because he feels we are evil, and Bin Laden could not have completed these acts with out the support of some nations. Appeasement will not work; it will just create the situation where these attacks will be continued. This is why I feel that appeasement is the morally reprehensible path to take and will create a situation where attacks like this just continue and will kill more people and disrupt more lives than solving the problem now. FOR A HISTORICAL PRECIDENT JUST THINK OF HITLER AND WWII. I stand by my statements because I feel America and every nation has the right to defend themselves and Bush’s first priority, as president is to protect the American people, whatever the cost.
MIKE, please don’t change my stuff and then quote it. If you change my words its no longer a quote. If you want to quote me please keep it in the original form.
Thank God Harry Truman did not think like you people, if he did we would probably still be fighting the Japanese. One last thing I will respond to any of your arguments and I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)
[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)
[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot.
[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives
[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
Jelly
[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)
Yes. Sometimes war is necessary.
[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)
No. Sometimes war can provide a solution.
[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
Limited strikes are ineffective when they are ineffective. The rest of the time, they are effective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot.
Wrong.
[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives
The postman who gets mad at his boss goes to the post office and mows down everyone there. Voila! A precedent has been set, and he will no longer have to live with his boss' atrocities. Your reasoning is identical.
[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
Your assertions are the emotional rantings of a angry man with no self-control and no outlet for his frustration. You throw down the expression "everything in your power" as if it actually meant something reasonable. When you use it, it does not. You are the modern-day lynch-mob instigator. No need for investigation. No need for evidence. No need to be certain. Just a blood-lust for instant gratification. If we can't find the people who did this, then kill everybody in the first country fingered as a possible home of the enemy. It may not get the killers, but by god, it'll make ME feel good.
COMF
Comf,
Agreed on [1] and [2].
[3] Limited strikes have been repeatedly attempted against this man to no effect. History speaks you refuse to listen. Limited strikes have worked against other groups and nations, not him.
[4] Your argument is pointless. If you cant see the difference in scale between this and other terrorist attacks then any attempt to reason with you is pointless. This attack has been repeatedly called unprecedented, not only by the media but also by the representatives of many different countries. If we do not make acts like this prohibitively expensive for countries that export terrorism then we are doomed to live with it for our entire lives.
[5] I am not emotionally ranting, I make the distinction between not only the separate Arab countries, many of which are completely shocked and likewise outraged by what happened, but I am also quick to remind people that Arabs living here are just as ‘American’ as you are me and should not be harassed.
When did I say there was no need for an investigation? Where did I mention that there was no need for evidence? Instant gratification?! Where have I placed a timeline outlining that the precedent should take place before its proper time. Honestly we may not be able to find Bin Laden but I assure you with the aid of a map we can find the countries that have given him safe haven. And I have seen nothing written by you are anyone else that makes me feel we should not eliminate those countries abilities to govern themselves.
Respond to my arguments not you own prejudice.
Jelly
And I have seen nothing written by you are anyone else that makes me feel we should not eliminate those countries abilities to govern themselves.
OK, how about this. Let's shove aside all those sissy "humanity" arguments for a second.
1) The US transform, say, Afghanistan, into a parking lot. As suggested by some people here. Many people who are suspected to be in some connection with terrorists die. Many, many more innocents die.
2) Anti-American hate flares up on a scale like you've never seen it before. While the governments of Arab countries do not express it, the people on the street are filled with hate.
3) Some terrorists move to, say, Syria.
4) The US wipe out the better part of Syria.
5) Anti-American hate flares up on a scale like you've never seen it before. Even in America - many of Arab descent are likely to still have relatives in the Middle East.
6) Some terrorists move to, say, Sudan.
7) The US wipe out the better part of Sudan.
8) Anti-American hate flares up on a scale like you've never seen it before.
9) Some terrorists move to, say, Germany.
10) The US wipe...oops, that's one of our NATO allies!
(Okay, forget 9 and 10). Anyway, what's left? Devastated, destabilised countries. More hate than ever before - and this time, understandable hate.
As opposed to many commentators, I don't think that the attack on Tuesday needed such a huge support network (everyone keeps talking about a sophisticated "logistics" network - for what? These guys didn't even need tons of TNT!). It required a relatively small group of very determined fanatics, money, and a plan. These three things are available in relative abundance, travel easily and are hard to catch. They are impossible to nuke out of existence.
These people are not operating like the Wehrmacht, they are modernised guerillas, and all the Napalm you could drop won't eliminate them completely. As you said, learn from history.
Respond to my arguments not you own prejudice.
Your list contains assertions, not arguments.
...but I assure you with the aid of a map we can find the countries that have given him safe haven.
*LOL* Sorry, I couldn't help laughing. Yes, I think it's time that some people use a map. There seems to be much confusion of Palestine, Afghanistan and whatever else is considered Middle East (hint: it's not the pendant of Midwest).
..feel we should not eliminate those countries abilities to govern themselves.
Who else should govern these countries? Who else, jelly? America?
f.
p.s.: BTW jelly, you know that mike wasn't quoting you, he was trying to show something. The same thing that I've been trying to tell you.
Fodeja,
Bin Laden is not going to stop, he has made no demands it does not want anything from America he only wants to destroy it. More Americans are going to die unless we eliminate his threat.
Its interesting, in another thread people brought up the dropping of the atomic bomb, do you know how many millions of lives (American and Japanese) that saved? Point being some times it takes a large scale act to bring about a better world, Harry Truman showed his strength of character and manhood by dropping that bomb. You should maybe pick up his biography, the thought of dropping that bomb weighed heavily on him but he knew he had to do it so he did. I understand on a small scale of what Harry Truman felt, I do not enjoy seeing people getting killed (If you and Comf cant understand that it shows you both to be small people) but I do believe a massive retaliation is necessary. Its also interesting how I point out historical events to support my argument, you only provide what you believe will happen, no precedent and no evidence provided. It seems like your whole post is one of fear, ‘we shouldn’t attack them or they will bomb us again’. I have no respect for that mentality; once again I state it is morally bankrupt. Your appeasement will just result in more innocent Americans getting killed, for my evidence I give you WWII. Limited attacks will not work, for my evidence I give you the last decade.
‘Some terrorists move to Germany…..’
Once again you manage to show how you completely misunderstand the situation. We would not have to bomb Germany they would do everything they can to get the terrorist themselves. Do you really see no difference in countries like Germany or Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?
Also terrorist need a base to operate from, you assertion that these people did not have a large support network shows you will only believe what supports your preconceived ideas, even if it is obviously wrong.
If mike is not quoting me he should not put my words in quotes.
Jelly
P.S. At least Comf addressed my arguments. And by the way I have been very clear I am against the use of NBC weapons. Both you and Comf brought up and attacked issues that I never raised. You don’t have to turn a country into a ‘glass parking lot’ to remove its ability to Govern.
I'm late in on this thread, but as they are 'unanswered questions';
"[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)."
Hell, I think it's sometimes neccesary.
War against whom, may I ask? Let's assume the current prime suspect is demonstably linked to the attacks.
The Taliban reigeme may have already put him under house arrest; they might not offer him up on a plate, but if it was found out where he was, and putting him under house arrest might be a 'political' way of offering him up on a plate. If he was in a known location, a full-scale attack aimed at taking him into custody or killing him in the process could take place. The Taliban might wring their hands a bit, but would not stand in the way.
No war, minimal casualties, big message to terrorists mad reigemes like the Taliban will offer you on a plate if you are linked to terrorism.
Now, if the Taliban don't offer him up in some way, well, what makes you think the USA canwin a land war that the USSR couldn't win? The US have been sensitive to taking casualties in extra-territorial conflicts since Vietnam. That will change in light of Tuesday's events. But for how long? How many years will the US public put up with seeing young men and women come home in body bags."
Afghanistan is very rough terrain, inhabited by a people that for hundreds of years have been reknowned as warriors. They are some of the best guerilla fighters in the world, historically and through the past decade and a half.
You can hide in the Khyber fo ever and a half, and probaby escape detection.
Nothing short of a full-scale invasion would have any chance of success, and even a full scale invasion would take time and cost lives.
As for covert ops, well, he's has a $5M tag on his head for a few years now. He's been trained by the CIA to do what he does, and he does what he does very well. I wouldn't bet on him being compromised by betrayal... people fly into buildings full of civilians on his orders.
Would anyone do that for George W. Bush?
Of course, you could line women and children up in market places and start shooting them until he gives himself up, but that would just get your shoes dirty. It would get you the bossman.
"[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)."
Yeah, sometimes a masectomy can be a solution too. But chemo or (eventually) gene therapy are bbetter solutions. Black and white, simplistic thinking is not suitable for this situation.
"[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot."
Again, as has been pointed out, black and white simplistic thinking. It sounds like something the stereotypical hard-line 'hawk' general takes in a cold-war era drama.
"[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives"
I agree.
"[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant."
I think that is arrogant. To assume that pacifism is "cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant" is just throwing meaningless insults at someone who has had the temerity to disagree with you, which is, as you so nicely put it "immature, and ignorant". If you can construct a sentence without stooping to that level it might be worth replying to.
Also terrorist need a base to operate from, you assertion that these people did not have a large support network shows you will only believe what supports your preconceived ideas, even if it is obviously wrong.
Well, that's not obvious to small people like me. Care to elaborate without calling me stupid? You know, I wasted some two or three sentences to elaborate my point.
Your appeasement will just result in more innocent Americans getting killed, for my evidence I give you WWII.
I am obviously not in favour of "appeasement", and I stated specifically that this situation is VERY different from WWII. The enemy is VERY different from the enemy back then. From your statements, it seems that US intelligence is in the possession of maps with certain areas marked hic sunt dracones, and these areas are where the enemy sits. If it's so simple, I'm wondering why there has been so little success against that enemy so far.
f.
Hello everyone,
thanks for the post. Personally among many
reasonable comments I did find some "...strange " ones.
Here in Europe the position is tha " no action will be taken unless
the other NATO nations are informed and in agreement".
Cooperation from all NATO's nations is essential at every stage
of any future military action.
Let's wait and see what will be next.
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp