how would you feel if next terrorist attack is on christmas eve?

[Patti Jones]

Just wanted to know...answer...and try to know how will Afgans feeling this Ramadam...

------------------
Patti
-Pride Girl-

[Amna]

Yep, I'm a Muslim, and Rammadhan has always been a very important holiday.... Very spiritual time for us..... I think their should be a more peaceful way during this time to attack the "terrorists", rather then bombing.....

[melon]

I'm sure the Taliban would be equally merciful during Ramadan, right?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[zooropamanda]

i relaly dont see the date making a difference if thats what you were getting at.

a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack

[U2Bama]

Sure, maybe we (U.S. & Allies) should take a break during Rammadhan so that the Taliban and Al Qaeda can regroup and "recruit" more soldiers by going around to villages and forcing youngsters to join up or kill them if they resist.

But if we give them a break, does that mean we can follow Senator Lieberman's suggestion, and start our attacks on Iraq? Hussein is a "secular" dictator after all, so that should be okay, right?

~U2Alabama

[80sU2isBest]

Does the Taliban give up their reign of terror during Ramadan? No. Do Muslims who are in wars stop during Ramadan? No. If we stopped bombing for a month would the Taliban be able to largely regroup/ get better prepared for when we resume? yes.

[mug222]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
If we stopped bombing for a month the Taliban [would] be able to largely regroup/ get better prepared for when we resume.

Yes, I'm afraid of that, too. If we stop killing civilians for a few days, the Taliban leaders might be able to crawl out of their caves and assemble a few camels onto which we can drop a 15,000 pound daisy cutter bomb. We need to create as many huge craters as possible.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Patti Jones:
Just wanted to know...answer...and try to know how will Afgans feeling this Ramadam...

Yup, I should feel the same way the Afghans should: pissed off at the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-09-2001).]

[speedracer]

Originally posted by mug222:

Yes, I'm afraid of that, too. If we stop killing civilians for a few days, the Taliban leaders might be able to crawl out of their caves and assemble a few camels onto which we can drop a 15,000 pound daisy cutter bomb. We need to create as many huge craters as possible.

Let's take turns poking holes in this statement. I'll start.

Ramadan is a month long, not a few days.

[bonofnattic]

Well, if a terrorist attack happened on Christmas Eve, it would undoubtedly be a surprise & probably attack a civilian target, or at least kill a ton of innocent folks who have absolutely NO ill feelings towards Afghanis. Bombing of Al-Qaeda targets are specific, & if done correctly will only result in Taliban casualties.
Now, if the AlQaeda gave us a month's warning, like we gave them....oh, never mind.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by mug222:

Yes, I'm afraid of that, too. If we stop killing civilians for a few days, the Taliban leaders might be able to crawl out of their caves and assemble a few camels onto which we can drop a 15,000 pound daisy cutter bomb. We need to create as many huge craters as possible.

Originally posted by speedracer:
Let's take turns poking holes in this statement. I'll start.

Ramadan is a month long, not a few days.

I'll go next. Rather than "crawling out of their caves and assembling a few camels" if we stopped bombing for an entire month, that would CERTAINLY give the Taliban enough time to regroup enough to drive back the Northern Alliance and negate any gain the Northern Alliance has made. Not only that, but the Taliban supports Al Qaeda, a very strong network of terrorists, in which there are many many members. That would actually give the Taliban and Al Qaeda chance to coordinate new terroristic attacks without having the distraction of having to defend themselves against bombs dropping all around them.

[mug222]

Of course I know the length of Ramadan-I have studied it in numerous courses on Islam, and have spent years in Middle Eastern countries. I suggest you take a few courses on Islam, and one on sarcasm, before you try to debate, speedracer.

80's, let's not be naive here. The infrastructure of Kabul is utterly destroyed. The forces of the Taliban are is disarray. The Northern Alliance, a ragtag group themselves, has just taken Mazar-e Sharif, a crucial supply city for the Taliban. The Taliban is essentially isolated, cut off from military, food, oil and other supplies.
New terrorist attacks are likely, and right now are the main source of possible danger. Their occurence from this point, however, is completely unrelated to the Taliban.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by mug222:

Of course I know the length of Ramadan-I have studied it in numerous courses on Islam, and have spent years in Middle Eastern countries. I suggest you take a few courses on Islam, and one on sarcasm, before you try to debate, speedracer.

It was a poor use of sarcasm, then; it was laid on so heavily (Ramadan being "a few days", the Taliban forces being reduced to "a few camels") that it made you appear to be a demagogue--someone who uses only rhetorical techniques, but not precision of facts or of thought, in his arguments. I mean, your original post was as big a meatball as I've ever seen in this forum, and it is the sworn duty of all members of this forum, when faced with a meatball, to ding it, spike it or smash it (depending on one's favorite sport).

And I don't see how what I wrote reveals any lack of knowledge of Islam on my part.

80's, let's not be naive here. The infrastructure of Kabul is utterly destroyed. The forces of the Taliban are is disarray. The Northern Alliance, a ragtag group themselves, has just taken Mazar-e Sharif, a crucial supply city for the Taliban. The Taliban is essentially isolated, cut off from military, food, oil and other supplies.
New terrorist attacks are likely, and right now are the main source of possible danger. Their occurence from this point, however, is completely unrelated to the Taliban.

Okay, now here's a quality argument.

But if we halted attacks for a month, isn't it entirely possible that the Taliban would recapture Mazar-e-Sharif? I'm not a military analyst, but the ones who supply CNN with reports agree with you that it is a strategically important city.

And even if we stop attacking Afghanistan in an attempt to gain favor with the Islamic world, there's no reason we should stop the manhunt for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. If they're taking Ramadan off, I'll eat my hat.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-10-2001).]

[mug222]

Originally posted by speedracer:
It was a poor use of sarcasm, then; it was laid on so heavily (Ramadan being "a few days", the Taliban forces being reduced to "a few camels") that it made you appear to be a demagogue--someone who uses only rhetorical techniques, but not precision of facts or of thought, in his arguments.

That is not at all the definition of a demagogue (it is, rather, a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace). The heavily layered sarcasm was in fact an attempt to convey my disgust at some of the arguments I've been presented with about these attacks on the Taliban (and, though not officially, on Afghanistan itself.) My original post was obviously not meant to be a technically sound and strategically insightful comment. Understand the tone of the post before applying a label to the one who posted it.

But if we halted attacks for a month, isn't it entirely possible that the Taliban would recapture Mazar-e-Sharif? I'm not a military analyst, but the ones who supply CNN with reports agree with you that it is a strategically important city.

My point is not that it is a turning point in the "war", but instead I wanted to show the relative ease with which a very important city was taken, and by the Northern Alliance no less. I hoped that you would understand that ceasing bombing for a month (and thereby avoiding countless more civilian casualties) would have little effect on the tide of the war itself- Firstly, the Northern Alliance, who took the city, would continue to fight and defend it. Secondly, even if the city were retaken, we have the capability to grab it back any time that we have the desire to. With respect to the fight with the Taliban (and not the terrorists), time is only of the essence when considering Bush's public approval rating.

And even if we stop attacking Afghanistan in an attempt to gain favor with the Islamic world, there's no reason we should stop the manhunt for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. If they're taking Ramadan off, I'll eat my hat.

I agree that the search for the terrorists must continue: they pose the real threat to our nation at this time. However, if you or anyone else actually considers dropping bombs the size of trucks onto the heads of thousands in Kabul and elsewhere a "manhunt", I'll eat my hat.




[This message has been edited by mug222 (edited 11-10-2001).]

[Bathtime Fun Whortense]

i think the word, 'demagogue,' had damn well get retired in this forum!!!!111111 whomever uses it is a hypocrite, because then you yourself start trying to sway people using impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace by trying to dismiss your opponent as a fanatic, rather than criticizing him on the basis of facts. it seems, quite honestly, a lot of people are throwing around big words that probably are ill-used at best.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Bathtime Fun Whortense:
i think the word, 'demagogue,' had damn well get retired in this forum!!!!111111 whomever uses it is a hypocrite, because then you yourself start trying to sway people using impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace by trying to dismiss your opponent as a fanatic, rather than criticizing him on the basis of facts. it seems, quite honestly, a lot of people are throwing around big words that probably are ill-used at best.

Melon, perhaps you'd like to tell me what the proper word for a person who argues with rhetorical techniques but not precise facts and thought is? I honestly don't know. Demagogues are certainly included in this class of people, but not the other way around.

And mug222, I didn't actually call you a "demagogue". I did think, on the basis of your original post, that you were a "demagogue," but your further clarifications clearly demonstrate that you are, in fact, not a "demagogue".

Enough "demagoguery" for now; I'll continue addressing mug222's arguments.

-I'm totally waving my hands here, but it seems like that it's harder to make progrees in war during winter, and so it makes sense for the US not to want to relinquish any advantages it has right now.

-mug, if I understand your argument correctly, you're not saying that we should avoid desecrating Ramadan by pausing the war; you're only arguing that we've hit the point of diminishing returns with respect to bombing. So how about if we sent in a bunch of ground troops and special agents to Afghanistan to attack the Taliban and hunt down al-Qaeda during Ramadan?

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-10-2001).]

[melon]

What is our fanatical obsession with having to label everything? Argue with mug222 and everyone else on the basis of arguments. Check in the namecalling at the door.

Last I heard, no one on this forum is really privy to "precise facts and thought," especially where "precise facts and thought" are dictated to us via the Pentagon.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[mikal]

Yeah, let's stop bombing! That would be REAL smart. Give me a break.

That's all from me.

------------------
Schabow

[speedracer]

Originally posted by melon:
What is our fanatical obsession with having to label everything? Argue with mug222 and everyone else on the basis of arguments. Check in the namecalling at the door.

Last I heard, no one on this forum is really privy to "precise facts and thought," especially where "precise facts and thought" are dictated to us via the Pentagon.

Melon

Uh, my fanatical obsession with labeling everything comes from a desire to compress certain definitions and terms so that they're more manageable, and nothing to do with smearing anyone.

Hence my fumbling about for a compression of "person who argues by using rhetorical devices, but not with precise facts or thought," and my retraction of any description of mug222 as a "demagogue".

And in that vein, "precise" means "well or sharply defined," while "accurate" means "free from error." So, Melon, are you complaining that the information the Pentagon discloses about the war is vague, or flat-out wrong, or both? (Sorry, sometimes I enjoy being annoyingly pedantic. )


[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-10-2001).]

[melon]

Hmm...let's see.

In the last decade, it was all about the horrors of big government, and how we cannot trust the government to tell us the entire truth. Hence, the push for deregulation and privatization.

Now, all of a sudden, the government is now more trustworthy? I doubt it. I think the Pentagon does a fine job of "selective truth." For instance, it's funny this is brought up now, because on PBS, there was a discussion on this with a roundtable of journalists, and they brought up a recent incident, where the Pentagon released that special forces had just been dropped on Afghanistan and it happened with no injuries or casualties. In fact, however, after a journalist was tenacious enough with the Pentagon, it was revealed that there were, in fact, some injuries. None from enemy fire, but from the dangerous nature of parachuting from an airplane--i.e., some parachutes not working like they're supposed to. This may be a minor enough incident to be excusable, but the reality is that I do not trust our government to give us the whole truth. As they have stated that this war has a diplomatic and "public opinion" aspect to it, I fear that the same tactics are being used us to quelch any discontent. The only way I will be able to say, "I trust this," is if Western journalists are allowed to independently go into Afghanistan and report. It may be dangerous, but, as a journalist from the Washington Post said on PBS, there are always those dedicated to their job that they will willingly put themselves in danger to report what's going on. As it stands, this war in Afghanistan is as much of a war against terrorism as it is a war with potential for severe government propaganda, as currently structured.

Overall, I think that the Pentagon is reporting actual events, but is selectively holding back elements that may look unfavorable. I really doubt this war is happening as perfectly as we are being told. No wars are this perfect.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 11-10-2001).]