posted on September 12, 2001 02:10:12 PM new
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. b. The period of such conflict. c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
War is an accurate definition of the state of affairs between the U.S. and Osama Bin Laden.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:13:34 PM new
Islamic fundementalists have a great regard for terrorism, as long as it is directed towards the West or Israel. It is the unofficial foreign policy arm of these Islamic countries.
What difference does it make if Bin Laden wants Saudi Arabia or Hong Kong ? None. He and the other Islamic FTO's and their supporters will continue their brand of destruction until the U.S. and Israel are destroyed.
Our destruction is a tenent of fundementalist Islam. It preached in the mosques and taught in the schools.
I wish you folks who seem to want to play patty-cakes with these countries would go there and get a first hand look at what is going on. The whole culture is infected with hatred towards Israel and the West.
Make no mistake, once they have the capability to hit us with nuclear or bio weapons, they will. Our hesitation and reflection will sow the seeds of our own destruction.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:15:01 PM new
By the second definition, yes, IF he did the thing, but "parties" was probably put in place of "tribes". It IS the American Heritage Dictionary.
Another less nationalistic dictionary has it:
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict
between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) :
STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete :
weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and
equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or
competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class
war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
[ edited by krs on Sep 12, 2001 02:17 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2001 02:16:01 PM new
Today the Taliban are saying how sorry they are and A\rafat must be so scared he is dumping in his drawers - he even went and donated blood for the New Yorkers. What a bunch of hypocrites. They have played the game of taunting the lion and now they've turned and found the gate latched. It's too late to back up. At least they are consistant in Iraq and affirm they still hate our guts.
They rest of them are just worried that a line has been crossed - opps.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:19:06 PM new
By the words of his own fatwa he feels that he is at war with America.
Also, (for others) there is a big difference between a fundamentalist Islamic beleiver and a radical fundamentalist Islamic beleiver. It may seem to be hair splitting but just because someone would like to return to their religion's fundamental beliefs doen't make them a terrorist.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:19:49 PM new
In response to the comments about my Pandora's box statement: I will admit the box has be unlocked and opened a crack for years, but NO I do not believe it has had the lid thrown back wide open and that is what many appear to be advocating now! As already pointed out, there could be a lot worse....we have only seen the tip and I, for one, do not want to see it all!
As I have already asked: Whom do we seek retribution against???? Those who physically commited the heinous act are dead. What if nobody else was involved? What if this was one small group of lunatics? Do we seek retribution against any person who might be associated with these zealots? Of course, we don't even know, at this point, what nationality they were or who they were much less what group they could belong to. So do we just pick a group?
I think we must discover positively who is responsible and then we decide what to do about it. We are a giving nation. We give a lot to everyone. I hate to see that stopped. We could however, refuse to deal on any level with any country or government that supports or provides sanctuary to any known terrorist. We still can't smoke Cubian cigars legally can we?????
That is probably too simplistic, but I have a simple mind so I can only think on a simple level. Luckily our fate does not rest on my providing a solution!
krs-I will accept the fact I am a fruitcake, but I don't know if I can accept glowing in the dark too!
posted on September 12, 2001 02:20:29 PM new Someone committed this crime, but wars are fought between nations.
That's why what I think is needed is more in line with "Police Action" (Yeah, we've heard that one before, but in this case, I think it's the most appropriate <sp?> )
posted on September 12, 2001 02:22:17 PM new
Arafat is a puppet for the Palestinian terrorists.
His strings are pulled from behind the scenes. He controls no one. If he were the leader Israel would have taken him out a long time ago. But they do go after his handlers.
His handlers probably told him if he didn't convince the US that the PLO wasn't involved, they'd kill him themselves.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:26:15 PM new"That's why what I think is needed is more in line with "Police Action" (Yeah, we've heard that one before, but in this case, I think it's the most appropriate"
Yes, the people involved must be caught, prosecuted, and (I hope spazmodeus is sitting down) executed without equivocation, barter, or delay.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:27:28 PM new
While not desiring to engage in a definition war with you KRS I will risk a parting shot in our engagement by pointing out that both my Encyclopedia Britannica and my Oxford English Dictionary contain definitions allied to my cause.
Dr. Beetle
God bless the brits, always our friends when we are in need!
posted on September 12, 2001 02:50:34 PM new
I can’t remember the author or the book but a recent techno-thriller I read had a unique concept. In this book the United States does declare war on an individual and his organization. The plot was obviously patterned on Osama Bin Laden and his organization.
The author’s research pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution that restricted declarations of war to another nation. I have done zero research along this line so I don’t know if that is true. I have wondered if an actual declaration of war against Osama Bin Laden and his organization is a legally preferred situation from an international law perspective.
While treating his actions (assuming his responsibility for this latest horror) as a crime and thinking of addressing it in terms of police actions we will be restrained by the conventions of international law. By treating it as an act of war, and openly declaring that a state of war exists, we are legally granted far wider powers in the methods we choose to use in resolving the situation.
We shift from gathering evidence sufficient to determine guilt in a court of law to gathering enough evidence to determine guilt in the court of world opinion. You no longer have to arrest the man (or his accomplices) and extradite them for trial. Now all you have to do is locate any of their members, their support structures, financial resources and render them ineffective by whatever means necessary.
A declaration of war does not necessary mean that all the resources of the military, particularly weapons of mass destruction, must be used in the persecution of the war. But it does grant the warring factions much greater latitude in their means of waging war. A latitude that Bin Laden’s group are already using in the war they have declared on America.
posted on September 12, 2001 02:52:38 PM new
Catching and executing a terrorist may make some feel better, but it does nothing for our security. These guys don't care if they die.
You kill one terrorist and 2 more pop up to avenge and take his/her place.
Israel has been catching them and killing them for 50 years.
posted on September 12, 2001 03:09:46 PM new
[quote]We are dealing with people who do not have the reverence for life that Christian countries do[/quote]
You're kidding, right? Christianity, that wonderful religion which spawned the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Nazis, and other "fun" historical events that cost millions their lives, is squeaky clean?
I guess anyone who doesn't swear fealty to the Christian God-and are we selecting any particular denomination here? I'd like to know, just in case I'm in the wrong denomination and should brace myself-is less than "we" are or suspect simply because "they" believe differently.
It's nonsense like that which is being used BY AMERICANS-members of a Christian country according to the quoted definition-as an excuse to persecute and terrorize those who are suspected of being Middle Eastern or Muslims.
Get a grip.
While I'm all for removing the scum which caused yesterday's attacks from the face of the earth, I am not about to automatically condemn anyone who is not "us" as being "them".
Hold those who did the act responsible, not just everyone who isn't "us".
posted on September 12, 2001 03:13:15 PM newYou kill one terrorist and 2 more pop up to avenge and take his/her place.
If you believe that to be true, then I'm a little unclear on what you're advocating. Kill everyone who might grow up to be a terrorist?
-gaffan- [email protected]
posted on September 12, 2001 03:19:04 PM new
I have come to the conclusion that the Islamic religion and culture is one of COWARDS. When the Soviet Union occupied Afganistan, where were the Islamic nations of the world? Where was their support? Nix, nada, nowhere. Remember, the Russians shoot back. When the Serbians were murdering the Bosnians, who are Islamic, by the thousands, where were the Islamic Nations of the world, where was their support. Nix, nada, nowhere. Serbians had guns and could shoot back.
BUT WHEN THERE IS AN INNOCENT, UNARMED AND DEFENSELESS PERSON TO KILL, you will find an Islamic "martyr" at the middle of it.
[ edited by mark090 on Sep 12, 2001 03:54 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2001 03:35:21 PM new
"If you believe that to be true, then I'm a little unclear on what you're advocating. Kill everyone who might grow up to be a terrorist?"
No, I mean kill the terrorists and take out the the entire Islamic fundementalist infrastructure, which will include several entire countries and the "innocent" people there as well.
However, if you want to go in first, as a man of your own principles, and sort out the good from the bad, I'll pay for your passport. But you'd probably rather have our servicemen risk their lives in these countries doing the sorting wouldn't you ?
posted on September 12, 2001 04:17:44 PM new
They just ran a segment on the news saying that Muslim/Arab populations in this country are living in fear. They even played one of the death threats.
It's very sad. These people are just as shocked and confused as the rest of us and now they have to put up with this garbage.
posted on September 12, 2001 04:44:03 PM new
It is not right for them to be scared or threatened.
But it is also naive of us not to think that some of them here in the US are supporting terrorists by sending money or are terrorists.
The first bombing of the WTC was carried out by Islamic terrorists living here in the US.
One of the best bomb makers in the PLO lived here in the US and received his Electrical Engineering degree here before going to "work" in the Middle East.
However, if we're not willing to take out the Islamic fundementalist infrastructure in the Mid East, then I guess they'll have to suffer through the scruntiny of a police state that the rest of us will have to suffer through.
posted on September 12, 2001 04:49:33 PM new
I'm mildly surprised this thread has been permitted to continue. If someone started a thread that bashed Christianity as bad as this one trashes Islam, I bet it would be closed before it even got off page one.
posted on September 12, 2001 04:58:17 PM new
I read today in the Guardian newspaper that Middle Eastern people studying here could face reprisal attacks from angry Americans. I thought that it was an exaggeration until I read the posts in this thread.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:03:51 PM newHowever, if you want to go in first, as a man of your own principles, and sort out the good from the bad So God said to Lot concerning saving the cities IF he could find 10 people that would follow. Good luck.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:13:13 PM new
Christianity or any other religion I am aware of doesn't have as one of its tenents the destruction of Israel and the U.S.
Islamic Fundementalism is more of a terrorist political organization that crosses national boundaries than a religion. Religion is only used to produce zealots to fund and carry out terrorism.
CNBC
Sen.Kerry 'There are no half way measures... you (Islamic countries)either help with the problem or you are part of the problem'.
Sen McCain 'these groups could not exist without the help of these countries'. He then named several nations including Syria.
By Jing, 2 US Senators must be privy to the same information I am and are considering the same targets.
Either we go after the whole ball of wax in the Mid East with overwhelming force, or the ones left over will be murder more Americans right here on our own soil.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:14:17 PM new
What I'd like to know is whether any of the bloodthirsty blowhards in this thread has been personally affected by this tragedy? Are they are sitting at home waiting for word of a family member or a friend who is lost or missing in New York or Washington?
That's the situation in thousands of homes this evening, yet I don't see any of the people who are personally hurting from this on the television or radio or at the Round Table crying for vengeance.
Further, I'd like to know whether the people demanding we go to war are males of draft age (I suspect they aren't), or whether they have sons or daughters who are either in the military, National Guard, or who are eligible to be drafted should a major conflict erupt.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:17:38 PM new
Everyone,
Please.
This thread has been allowed to continue because anger and blame and thoughts of violence are predictable reactions to the kind of events that took place yesterday. Given time to reflect, many will take a calmer approach. In the meantime, everyone needs an outlet to vent and have people to share emotions and opinions with, whether they agree or not.
I started this day with a plan to allow as much freedom in speaking one's mind as I possibly could. However, I will have no choice but to lock this thread if it becomes more combative.
On a personal note, not as a moderator but as a citizen: We will bury our dead and we will mourn and we will not feel safe, but we are Americans and we have seen war and destruction before and we have fought before and we have prevailed with our freedoms largely intact. I truly believe that it would be awful to allow the terrorists to see us in chaos and fighting with each other.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:18:54 PM new
Spaz, those "blowhards" are pert near ready to go to war, yessirree bob. Why, they can take 'em easy! Blow them there Eyeranyans and heathens from cant see to cant see, uh huh, yep.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:20:16 PM new
Sorry Pat. You were typing as I was. Again, sorry. Just got a bit ticked for a second there and didnt self moderate.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:26:47 PM new
Reamond, Even if you believe in retaliation, this is retaliation on a disproportionate scale. You want to level countries?
How can you justify killing this many innocent people for the crimes of a few.
It seems that you are fighting evil with evil rather than justice.
posted on September 12, 2001 05:28:03 PM new
Spaz- You will here from the victims families soon enough, but not until the search and rescue is done. Ask the Lockerbie families how they felt. They were all dumb struck by the lack of action and justice in their case.
American office workers have been attacked on American soil. We are all now combatants. We are all in the line of fire.
I have 2 family members in the military, and a friend from college at the Pentagon.
Those of us that have family in the services know what it means when people want to "just go in and get the bad guys". It means sending our family members into a land where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform or a badge or target. It means being shot at or suicide bombed by "civilians" that no soldier dare draw a bead on. It means a futile mission that will cost some of them their lives. Some of them will be captured and tortured. Some of their corpses will be paraded through the streets in celebration and on shown on CNN.
