posted on September 16, 2001 12:37:56 AM new
I was reading somewhere else in a news topic thread a discussion about Christians being held in Afganistan and the possibility of their being used as a shield. Two are reportedly Americans.
Adding the only link I could find: http://www.persecution.org/humanrights/afghanistan.html
Then I read that machine guns were stolen from a Nebraska nuclear facility. This one actually had a link but the tv station updates news daily and it vanished in 24 hours.
I can't find them in a search. Am I missing some news? I haven't heard these things in mainstream news.
(adding link above)
T
[ edited by jt on Sep 16, 2001 12:46 AM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 12:49:30 AM newkrsWe attacked Iraq, who had done absolutely nothing to us, and we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians there since then with repeated bombings when they failed to adher to rules that we imposed, and through economic policies that have brought starvation level conditions which have killed more hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely uninvolved citizens.
interesting view of that conflict. You feel we should have let Saddam have Kuwait? Do you feel that Saudia Arabia, or Jordan, or Egypt opposed or welcomed our involvement in that conflict? Did France, or Britain, or Germany, or Canada, or Australia sit on the sidelines during that conflict?
posted on September 16, 2001 01:11:59 AM new
I said, I think, that Iraq had done absolutely nothing to us. The politics of oil have a widespread importance and influence decisions on national scale around the world, as do preexisting alliances and treatied or negotiated comittitments.
posted on September 16, 2001 01:31:25 AM newOh, call it a conflict, or a war? It was a turkey shoot, fun and games for everyone except the subjects.
I'll call it a conflict or war if you like, I wasn't aware of the importance of the term. I know it wasn't fun and games when I walked in the office and I found my boss crying. His son was the only Alaskan killed in Desert Storm (Mr. Douthit), but that was enough to make it very sobering for me.
posted on September 16, 2001 06:47:01 AM new
An editorial published today in The Guardian urged Mr. Bush to consider diplomatic coercion, painstaking investigation, and interdiction of terrorist funds and economic punishment before "sending his enormous bombs."
"There is another way," the newspaper said. "It is less dramatic, less visceral, more statesmanlike."
...And, in the long run will be more effective than bombs. Bush refers to the planned military action as "smoking the terrorists out of their holes".
A better way to find these "holes" is improved intelligence, special operations and working with a coalition of countries throughout the world.
Helen
Another priority right now should be on improved civil defence preparedness.
posted on September 16, 2001 07:09:25 AM new
Helen, I agree that we need to improve our civil defence. Perhaps some of us around the target cities or cities in general are jumpier, but we face a lot of hurdles if we come under attack again - just the logistics of evacuation, protection of our water and electrical supplies, etc. are daunting. I feel that an all out strike without very specific targets at this point is just a bombastic call of "Bring it on - we're ready!" And my concern is that the average person or his/her local government isn't ready for the reprecussions at all.
posted on September 16, 2001 07:30:43 AM new
On the news last night, they were talking about smaller groups of special units, lean and mean, able to flush out of hidey holes.
Im still bummed about Germany and France. Im sure France would not be happy campers if it was their eiffel tower that smacked into thousands of their citizens. Ah well...we will just have to do without them. I was very impressed with Tony Blair's speech last night at the parliament meeting. They are standing side by side with us.
posted on September 16, 2001 08:36:27 AM new
If the Eiffel Tower had been hit, the government of France would have surrendered to Afghanistan by sunset.
(edited to modify to read "government of France"
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 16, 2001 01:51 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 10:38:03 AM newBecause they're p*ssies.
France has always been useless
[i]France and Germany have a well-worn terrorist policy.
They capitulate. France and Germany wrote the book on negotiating with terrorists and fulfilling terrorist demands.[/i]
From personal experience I have found out during the difficult times, one finds out who exactly is their friend.
How very true!
If the Eiffel Tower had been hit, the French would have surrendered to Afghanistan by sunset.
The level of hatred I am sensing, and the total lack of sensitivity from posters toward other posters , who JUST HAPPENED TO BE BORN in another country, is putting this entire war thing into focus: when push comes to shove, I have NO friends here, just as the Japanese, the Arabs, the Mexicans, ALL emigrants, have no friends here.
My Synagogue is being threatened: heavy security was there Thursday night to escort us safely back to our cars. I was there to PRAY FOR YOUR PEOPLE... YOURS....OURS
I too, am terribly angry at France and Germany, at their GOVERNMENT, and at any other country who will now think of backing out of the deal...BUT I AM ONE INDIVIDUAL...who has lived here for 40 years.
If America wants to dig deep, America should not forget that THE FIRST SHIP-LOAD OF REFUGEES, FROM THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS, WAS turned back! Yes, AMERICA THE GOOD turned it's back on us. And those poor people found themselves back in Europe, with no more family, no home, NOTHING.
So, please, drop the broad brush...
Deep in my heart, I retain emotional ties with my country of birth: it does NOT mean that I endorse the French Government's views. If I wanted to endorse France's views, I would HAVE STAYED in France...
But still, I WAS BORN THERE!
Thank you for showing what you think of us, emigrants...Enjoy your carnage. I never thought I would make a manifesto...I was wrong..
posted on September 16, 2001 10:50:34 AM new
Don't you dare {{{{Shosh}}}}. You'll have to accept that at this time in our lives, we're all going to say things that a week ago were OK but might take on new meaning in the time ahead. We all have to be careful. The anger is just hitting alot of people right now, but the enemy isn't clear yet. Where do you go with all that anger? You take it out on people you know and love but without thinking. You talk out your anger. That's where we have to take a step back and see that's it's not with each other but at this hidden enemy we ALL face, regardless of color or race.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:29:43 AM new
I cannot see where France and Germany are "backing out". Can someone directly link to, or quote, where this information is coming from?
Its headline is "France calls for American 'reason'".
It includes quotes such as:
-------------------------------------------
M Jospin said: "We must vigorously condemn and combat terrorism. But we must not allow ourselves to be led into considerations of a conflict between the western world and the Islamic world, where we have many friends and partners."
The remarks from the Socialist prime minister were aimed at reassuring both the France's political Left and its Muslim population, which numbers six million. But they will be seen as further evidence of disagreements between France and America on big foreign policy issues.
-------------------------------------------
and:
-------------------------------------------
Rudolf Scharping, the German defence minister, also cautioned against launching swift military strikes. "I hope we all remain calm and do not now speak of a state of alarm. We do not face a war.
"We face the question of what is an appropriate response," he told German television. "Not in the sense of revenge and retribution, but in order to be able to fight and break international terror."
-------------------------------------------
Where is the "backing off"? Because they do not advocate wholesale slaughter? Because they wish to ensure that the hatred is not perpetuated through the use of revenge attacks?
To speak so of your potential allies shows just how much regard you have for anyone else's concerns other than your own. To be a superpower gives America a great ability to lead the world. It is accompanied by a high level of responsibility to act in a way that is not dominated by self-absorption.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:36:34 AM new"......But we must not allow ourselves to be led into considerations of a conflict between the western world and the Islamic world, where we have many friends and partners."
AWrocks, it looks like that's what they're saying to me??
posted on September 16, 2001 11:39:09 AM new
It simply sounds like they're not going to agree to anything until they know what it entails. Maybe not to our taste, but sensible from their POV.
Oops...
[ edited by toke on Sep 16, 2001 11:41 AM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 11:47:23 AM new
Kraftdinner,
That is because the conflict is NOT between the Islamic World and the West.
It is between the terrorists and the West.
There are significant numbers of people who adhere to the Islamic faith in France, and in Germany, I believe. There are also large numbers of Muslims in the U.K.
It is clearly of importance to many, many people around the world that the U.S. clearly differentiate between the innocent and the guilty. Those that are guilty are not guilty because they are Muslims. They are guilty because they are criminals.
If you see Muslims as one cohesive, faceless group, you are making the same kind of grievous error that the terrorists did, as seeing all of America as evil.
posted on September 16, 2001 12:00:41 PM new
AWrocks, thanks for saying it so well I agree with what you're saying. That's why I wonder how this battle is going to be fought. Bombing a few places in Afghanistan seems silly, but I have no idea what the government knows.
Because of the way terrorism works, the "guilty" parties could be your next door neighbour making everone suspicious. That's what's so terrorising. But I think the call to rid this world of terrorism has to come from every country, not just the U.S. and has to be fought by every country or it'll be futile.
posted on September 16, 2001 12:03:26 PM new
Shosh... come back. There are lots of people with thick skulls here (always has been ). What you have to say, is worth saying. Don't silence your perspective. You can't hope to change anything if you aren't willing to speak up and spell things out for those who don't see.
posted on September 16, 2001 12:04:44 PM new
AWrocks,
I think the point comes from the last paragraph which reads "Meanwhile, America's European allies, led by France,
were backing away from offers of full military support
after Nato's show of solidarity. "We know that we
can only rely on Britain, not France and Germany"
I seems that the U.S. had taken the NATO proclamation of an attack against one member is an attack against all and the pledge to provide full military support to mean that all countries in agreement thereby agreed to provide military support as directed by the U.S. The subsequent statements of qualification by both France and Germany do back away from that, but perhaps the U.S. was optimistically assuming that they meant what they collectively said in error.
posted on September 16, 2001 12:05:56 PM new
Shosh is surely in an understandably delicate condition after having to get security to escort her after going to her Temple for heaven's sake. I hope she'll feel better soon. When she thinks about it, I'm sure she won't want to let "Bushytail" off this easy...
posted on September 16, 2001 12:09:42 PM new
Shosh, dont make krs sheesh you again. A sheeshing shosh is not a site to see. So please...know that you do have friends here. I know you know that. I KNOW you do.
Are we reading the same page? I cannot find a paragraph that says: "Meanwhile, America's European allies, led by France, were backing away from offers of full military support
after Nato's show of solidarity. "We know that we can only rely on Britain, not France and Germany"
"Senior figures in the Bush administration said the response to Tuesday's horrifying attacks on New York and Washington that killed thousands of people would be sophisticated, bloody and without mercy.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Pentagon chief, spoke of a "broad and sustained campaign" of retaliation. He said: "It is not just a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states which sponsor terrorism."
----------------------------------------
Without knowledge of what will be seen as a legitimate target by the US, I believe that France and Germany's response is appropriate. They have committed their support, but are not willing to attack just anything without knowing the extent of that commitment.
There is a growing number of Britons who are beginning to also question of unconditional support when there are so many calling for the bombing of Afghanistan, and ordinary Afghanis as legitimate targets.
interesting view of that conflict. You feel we should have let Saddam have Kuwait? Do you feel that Saudia Arabia, or Jordan, or Egypt opposed or welcomed our involvement in that conflict? Did France, or Britain, or Germany, or Canada, or Australia sit on the sidelines during that conflict?
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 16, 2001 01:51 PM ]