War On 'Terror' ?

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by Patti Jones:
I read today that Powell want to bomb Irak after Afganistan 'cos US does not want that a country that has developed great arms thinks that they dont count on it, or something...wasnt it about terrorism?...

I think you misinterpreted what you read: Powell (along with other U.S. leaders, including Senator Lieberman, D-CT) want to go after Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime due to the fact that they have developed CHEMICAL weapons, not "great" weapons, although Intelligence fears that he may also have access to "great" weapons of mass destruction. Also, more and more evidence is coming in that Saddam Hussein was in some capacity involved in the 9-11 attacks.

~U2Alabama

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Patti Jones:
So, as you can see everything the US is doing is making Ossama Bin Laden think that he should stop killing unitedstatians...now he is REALLY scared...that's why he is laughing his fucking ass off in front of your faces. C'mon ppl! (Oups I should not talk, i remembered that im anti US)

Uh, it's not quite our intent to convince ObL to stop attacking us.

I think our intent is to eliminate him.

[Angela Harlem]

Speedracer, do you mean that even if you could stop him from attacking again, its still not enough cos the real purpose is to eliminate him?

I didnt think fighting terrorism was to employ proscription tactics.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Speedracer, do you mean that even if you could stop him from attacking again, its still not enough cos the real purpose is to eliminate him?

I didnt think fighting terrorism was to employ proscription tactics.

Having him locked away will suffice, yes. Perhaps I should have said "our real purpose is to eliminate the threat he presents."

[Marko]

The point is that you will never get him locked up by doing what youa re doing. Make some plan how to catch him and don't go on killing civilians. And don't even mention "colateral damage" - that's the sickest expression I ever heard - called it for what it is -plain old murder!
Catch bin laden and kill all the terorists if you ask me - but you are not doing that. The terorists are just a little bit wors than the people who are throwing cluster bombs (forbiden by the Geneva conventions - so you are doing a war crime).
And about the number of people who died in WTC - it's not realy important. It's about the act and not about the numbers. I also read (washington post and some other US newspapers) that the count is much less than they thought in the beggining. That at the end it would come to 2000-3000. The real problem about counting the dead are all the non-Us citizens who worked for foreign firms - it's hard to get all the info about them.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Marko:
And about the number of people who died in WTC - it's not realy important. It's about the act and not about the numbers.

Huh? The numbers aren't important? That many deaths and the numbers aren't important? Thousands of people dead is a lot of people dead. Don't tell me the numbers aren't important.

[Marko]

80's you got me wrong. I didn't say that it doesen't matter. What I meant was that the WTC was a terible terible thing, and it would be terible if there was just 1 dead. My point was that smaller number of killed can not diminish or lessen the monstuocity of the act. It that aspect the number is not important. I hope that I'm clear thi time and that you won't misinterpate me this time.
And I would say that it would be better if the number was smaller then the first estimates. Less civilians dead the better!

[speedracer]

Marko (and Crashed),

Are you saying that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanistan, or that we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan at all? Because I think there are some very good reasons why the Taliban has to go.

[Salome]

Originally posted by Johnny Swallow:
One thing that you must consider is what would happen if America and the world did nothing.

but are we just going to keep on bombing Afghanistan until we have figured out what we can do about the taliban thread?

or is there a certain goal we are trying to achieve?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[The Wanderer]

cute

[Marko]

Originally posted by speedracer:
Marko (and Crashed),

Are you saying that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanistan, or that we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan at all? Because I think there are some very good reasons why the Taliban has to go.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't bomb it like this. You shouldn't throw cluster bombs and kill civilians. I know it's though, but you have to figure out a way to trace and kill only terorists and noone else. As I said in some other posts - it's the standard of war crimes that YOU set up for others so you should stick with it.
Did you even know that cluster bombs are banned by geveva conventions? think about it for a minute and you'll see that I'm not anti american or pro-taliban. I'm just pointing out the wrong things that you are doing by this kind of bombing. You should rise up above them, and we all know that if you don't the history will not take a note. But right now I have a right to speak up about your mistajes too.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by speedracer:
Uh, it's not quite our intent to convince ObL to stop attacking us.

I think our intent is to eliminate him.

Yes.. Speedracer, don't go back on your statement, eliminating him and his aides/counterparts, means to Kill him.. Locking him away will not suffice, if he were to be jumped by some of the prisoners in the shower and plugged until he died, then maybe, hah... sick sense of humor, but these people need to die, it was just announced today that .. and i forget the details, but an inspirational leader of al queda helped plan and institute attacks from Prison.. Sadly, they need to be killed,.. or they'll find ways to kill more of us... And I am Extremely proud of our bombing during ramadan, because it is strictly a military point of view that is causing it.. If bin laden hadn't run three planes into our buildings then we wouldn't have to be bombing at all, and they could have their fasting in peace.. Rumsfeld knows what he is doing, I don't think there is anyone else on this planet who ismore qualified, as he is working with chaney and powell too... The statement of 'bombing on christmas eve'... would be a retalitory attack, in which case, we should just annihilate all involved, with a ridiculous amount of force.. Sadly, sometimes its worse that afghanistan is one of the nation's toilets, because there is hardly anythign to bomb, or take out in return.. but oh well.. the man hunt is ongoing, but it is under the cover of the bombing... i sure don't want to see hundreds of us soldiers dying in unprotected zones because bush bowed down to the liberal peace fanaticism and gave them opportunities to gun our men down without us doing al we can to protect them...

[Klodomir]

Ahh, I'm beginning to understand what's really going on here. Lemonite, could it be that you are in fact fiercely against the bombings and cleverly trying to make the people who are for military retaliation look like radical crazies who get off on bombing? Shrewd, very shrewd.

[Lemonite]

No.. I'm truly for it, and there is method to my madness, logic for my sweeping generalizations, and reason for my ramblings, but I must head off to class.. Hah.. Paranoia and 20th Century literature .. Kafka freaks me out.. maybe i'll watch Babe 'pig in the city'.. darn.. that's jsut as bleak a movie... ok.. give me Caddyshack.. that's always a spirit lifter

[sv]

Scenario: So John Wayne Gacy (a serial child rapist/murderer from the late 1970s in Chicago - 33 killed) flees from the police and hides in a classroom of 50 schoolchildren. You are the chief of police and you arrive at the school in hot pursuit. You enter the classroom, and Gacy has surrounded himself with children. It doesn't seem possible to get him (alive or dead) without killing lots of children.

Do you get a machine gun and open fire, killing everyone in the room including Gacy and the children?

If you say yes, in my opinion you are a brutal human rights abuser and child-murderer - your basic goal was to punish Gacy and not to prevent innocent deaths. Your thirst for punishment far outweighed your stated aim of making the world safer for innocent people.

If you say no (and I certainly hope all of you said no), WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT IF THE CHILDREN ARE FROM AFGHANISTAN?????????

Do you think the women and children of Afghanistan voted to have Osama spend a few years in their country? Did they vote to have him murder 5000 Americans? Did these civilians have any choice whatsoever? If not, why is his murder/capture considered adequate justification to murder them? Since when does our thirst for vengeance outweigh the right of an Afghani child to live?

If you say this is about deterrance not vengeance, making the short-term deaths worth the long-term lives saved, let's first remember that these were suicide bombers - apparently fear of death is not a particularly strong deterrant. The U.S. has been bombing someone or other for years - doesn't seem to have scared these people. History shows that murder doesn't deter.

If you say we can take away their technical capabilities to commit such acts, that argument might hold water if the U.S. (and the other Security Council nations) wasn't selling every possible form of arms to the highest bidders all over the world. General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed, Honeywell . . . lots of money in murder. America's best companies, right? Murderers tend to find weapons if they are being offered for sale. Ask the veterans of the Gulf War, who were expecting fire from bows and arrows, not the sidewinder missiles they got. So as long as there are terrorists, they will find weapons.

So murdering innocent civilians to prevent terrorism has little chance of working, on pragmatic grounds. On moral grounds, this plan fails miserably.

The best way to honor the 5000 dead in New York would be to find a way to prevent terrorism in the future - and this isn't it.

[speedracer]

Does anyone have an estimate for the number of innocent civilians the US and the Northern Alliance have killed? I don't know, but I suspect it's not nearly as bad as the wholesale slaughter that some pacifists say has happened.

[Lilly]

war is a tough subject...for a long time the u.s were the defenders of democracy. then we laid off that for a while when we realized we haven't got a clue what democracy is, so how couldwe actually preach it? but the taliban does need to be stopped, they killed 30% of their population in 2 years! not to forget they picked a fight with the u.s (who DOES that?!). Anyways, I could say a thousand more reasons why it's ok that we are at war, but think of two thousand more reasons why we shouldn't be bombing them day and night. but aren't you happy that you CAN talk about it like this? gotta love America

------------------
Go lightly down your darkened way.

[stagman]

Just face it war is a part of life and always will be, it's never fair and never was meant to be.
I just hope they fry every last terrorist around, so they can't do anything nasty again. Saddam Hussain and most of his supporters have earnt their early tickets to hell as well!!!

[sv]

Stagman, and does Ronald Reagan also qualify as a terrorist for the bombing of Nicaragua, which was done to remove a democratically elected government? Shall we fry him? Who decides which murder is a terrorist act and which murder is OK? What criteria are used and are you so sure we are qualified (either in terms of morality or knowledge) to judge? Who becomes the judges? The most powerful or the most just?

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by sv:
Scenario: So John Wayne Gacy (a serial child rapist/murderer from the late 1970s in Chicago - 33 killed) flees from the police and hides in a classroom of 50 schoolchildren. You are the chief of police and you arrive at the school in hot pursuit. You enter the classroom, and Gacy has surrounded himself with children. It doesn't seem possible to get him (alive or dead) without killing lots of children.

Do you get a machine gun and open fire, killing everyone in the room including Gacy and the children?
If you say no (and I certainly hope all of you said no), WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT IF THE CHILDREN ARE FROM AFGHANISTAN?????????

The best way to honor the 5000 dead in New York would be to find a way to prevent terrorism in the future - and this isn't it.

It's not the same. Yes, the people of Afghanistan were being held hostage by the Taliban, but they were indeed the self-proclaimed acting government. To strike at a country sometimes unfortunately means civilian casualties. Has been that way in every war in history. This is not the same as shooting at a room full of unprotected children. Yes, the loss of civilian life is sad. But, the USA is taking every precaution to ensure as few civilian deaths as possible.
And if war isn't the way to prevent terrorism in the future, what is? Do you have any workable ideas at all?
Diplomatic measures don't work with madmen.