posted on June 1, 2002 08:25:22 AM new
Would like anyone who'd might care to share their views/opinions on this Talking Point Memo from Bill O'Reilly [Fox News] to do so.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:00:50 AM newWe can invade Iraq, we can hurt other countries that play with the terrorists, but unless we eliminate the terrorist leadership -- eliminate them -- these killers will continue to function.
HOw does one know who is a terrorist and who is not? Killing off the leaders doesnt make it go away. Its a mindset. Its a "faith". Its the same as wanting to kill off all the christians by romans. Aint gonna happen. We cant "eliminate" them because we dont know who they are, nor from whence they come. The old saying "the only good indian is a dead indian" comes to mind. It was a wrong mindset then, as it is now.
Just my humble opinion of course. Putting on my flame suit.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:06:10 AM new
A flame suit ....from me??? I like reading those with opposite opinions.
One example I can think of to answer your question would be the leaders of the Hamas group. They openly share there are responsible for the killings they carry out. Other groups do the same. If they are proudly taking credit for these actions, then I'd say that's pretty good evidence they'd be the ones we could start with.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:21:13 AM new
>>Once you are faced with that kind of threat, and there's no hope of diplomacy or reason, then assassination is the only answer.<<
I wonder from time to time why nobody has simply taken Hussein out.
Now I wonder why there is so much mention of Iraq when it is Iran that is the terror-funder.
Regardless of what we think Bush et al will do what the hell they want.
Assassination (leaders, money-guys, etc.) sounds nice and clean to me but no way would I vote Go Covert because it will come back to bite us on the buttocks.
"Someday they'll have nukes" is a wimpy defense. Might as well take on Mexico with that reasoning. However, that India and Pakistan have them and the Arabs don't? I can't wrap my mind around that one.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:30:34 AM new
hepburn101- I very rarely agree with O'Reilly about anything. But I strongly do so here. To say that since "we don't know who they are" that no attempt should be made is suicide,literally. The fact is we do know who many of them are. The problem is locating them amongst the women and children they hide behind. Then there are the ever present concerns of collateral damage and international scrutiny. I have a feeling that we will have some degree of success very shortly. O'Reilly is correct in that the rules have changed when your enemy does not value his life. Would you feel the same way if a nuclear device was detonated here? If you kill the roots the tree will die.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:37:46 AM new
While the policy of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" is morally repugnant, it was effective.
The muslim culture that the terrorists spring from and the populations that support them are on a collision course with the West.
We will have to destroy enough of them until their infrastructure is so depleted they can no longer support the terrorism.
The West lacks the political will to do what is necessary to stop terrorism.
Apparently the terrorists will have to inflict more and greater damage before we have the political will to unleash the hounds of hell.
India is presently at the brink of doing just that.
The Russians aren't terrorized because the terrorists know that the Russians won't mess around.
Terrorists will only use terror tactics if they work.
Unless and untill world opinion changes on hitting terrorist populations and hitting them hard, the terrorism will not end.
The "innocent" family next door to the terrorist bomb factory who knows full well what their neighbors are doing is just as guilty as the terrorist. The people supplying money to the terrorists are just as guilty.
These "innocents" must be made to know that their fate will be the same as the terrorists if they continue to implicitly and indirectly support the terrorists.
By the way, Rome never tried to wipe out christians, anymore than they tried to wipe out the barbarians or Greeks. Rome was trying to resurrect their pagan religion and bolster a crumbling empire. Christianity "triumphed" only because it was the only thing left when the empire collasped.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:39:30 AM new
It is not physical inability to do it - it is lack of will to act. Most feel that to act that way would be to lose self identity.
Is it better to be monsters and live or be killed and pass off the scene true to your own standards of behavior?
As long as Bush gets up and says it is not the US against the Muslim religion then he still "Does not get it."
They are spreading terror and hatred in the mosques and he insists they are no enemy.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:47:53 AM new
Actually, I agree with the analogy that if you kill the roots, the tree will die, but doing it without killing the other trees around the "diseased" one is what is hairy and hard to do. If we sent in special forces that are the secret of all secrets and they could do it one by one, without harming the saplings, then by all means go for it. But until a plan can be made up to protect those other trees surrounding the one, I dont see how it can be done without mass killings.
I lost my train of thought..will try to grab it again as I type. I think what I am trying to say is, if we drop bombs on who we THINK are the leaders and wipe out the ones that are innocent, then we are doing no different in the "collateral damages" we are b!tching about them doing with our people in our country. Right?
[ edited by hepburn101 on Jun 1, 2002 09:50 AM ]
posted on June 1, 2002 09:53:08 AM new
Christianity "triumphed" only because it was the only thing left when the empire collasped.
I used that as a sample. In other words, christianity was not wiped out because there were "believers" and fanatics that kept it alive. YOu can kill off the "leader" of Jesus, or Paul, or Simon or whomever (Im not knowledgeable, so pardon if I got some names wrong), but it still wont die. Do you see? KIlling off terrorist leaders wont make it "go away". Weeds are everywhere. You can kill them, but they will just sprout in another section of the yard.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:56:35 AM new
It is rumored that the FBI is opening a large regional office here in South Florida. As there are many Muslim mosques, businesses and remnants of trails from the WTC terrorists, it will be interesting to watch the headlines particularly in light of their new powers of investigation.
posted on June 1, 2002 10:28:50 AM new
>>As long as Bush gets up and says it is not the US against the Muslim religion then he still "Does not get it."<<
Gravid: Are you saying Muslim=Terrorist, bottom-line?
posted on June 1, 2002 11:23:54 AM new
Yes I really do believe that the religion is largely composed of people who embrace using force to spread it and have NO tolerance for other religions. You can listen to all the protests of how peacable and tolerant they are - but go to the source - go to Saudi Arabia and see how many people live there that practice another religion. Islam IS the state religion and if you do not practice it you have no protection of law or social standing in that country. If you make any statements supporting your choice it is illegal preaching and the penalty is death.
If there are individuals here who have become Americanized and tolerant I believe they would not be regarded with favor back in their home country for their views.
In theory Jews and Christians are "people of the book" and not infidels by some moslem theology - but that does not seem to hold a lot of merit when you get right down to asking for freedom and acceptance.
I am going by what they DO not by what they say. Face it they slaughter each other over the various sects of Islam that look 99% the same to outsides - just like the Protestants and Catholics do for "Christianity" in Ireland. How can you expect them to treat outsiders better?
posted on June 1, 2002 11:25:10 AM new
hep....for when you have time....trying clicking on the different pics and see what they're accused of or have been indicted for..."HOw does one know who is a terrorist and who is not."
Edited to add: When the linked page comes up, you'll need to look on the right hand side under "Background information" and click on "Wanted Terrorists" to view. Then click on their pics.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 1, 2002 11:29 AM ]
posted on June 1, 2002 11:31:59 AM new
Its colder than a witches t!t here, so Im in front of the heater and watching movies today. Watching RainMan now..then its going to be Abyss...then I might watch another one. BBL.
posted on June 1, 2002 11:37:20 AM new
You know I still keep thinking how the middle east parallels pre-WW2 Europe:
people carry on about how we must "open dialogs", "elevate the poor", on and on and on.
In Europe it was "give the Germans more respect", "they are only casting off the indignities of Versaille", "he's a man we can do business with", peace in our time. Meanwhile, Hitler had published a book outlining his aims exactly.
the Muslim fanatics have also declared their main problem: we exist. We could give the Palestinians Oklahoma, but that ain't gonna work because we would still be alive.
O'Reilly got it exactly right, we have to stop pussy-footing around. We should require monthly check-ins and ID checks of aliens, even if it isn't "nice". A cop should be able to walk up to that nervous looking Arab in an airport and question him. I know he's probably a "nice" Arab, but it isn't OUR fault many of his fellows are members of murder cults. The CIA should be unshackled and covertly report to the NSA. First and foremost go after the money, even if it involves our "friends". You need money to fund this stuff.
If we had been doing any of this stuff before, 9/11 would never of happened.
In the past we had no trouble taking a stance and saying what it was. I'm tired of being politically correct. The whole Arab world supports these murderers and thinks Israel is our 51st state. We should say, you know you're right. Israel is a democracy surrounded by oligarchal dictatorships. We believe what they believe, TOUGH.
We should fix the problem or stop whining about it, because no matter what we do there will always be somebody whining.
posted on June 1, 2002 08:48:12 PM new
It seems to me you can argue about rights of terrorists until 20 million people are murdered in a single shot. Or you can do something about it. In the past, Americans have procrastinated until it was too late, and surely we will do the same again. With covert ops, there is a danger that one or two individuals will be taken out by mistake. But the alternative is unthinkable.
Americans have nothing to believe in. CYA is our philosophy. So what if Saddam is gassing his citizens; what do we care? That philosophy will work until someone drops a nuke on us.
Just about the time the space program starts developing a viable biodome, we will make this world uninhabitable.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:03:02 PM new
If we go blasting every country that houses terrorists, then we will be blasting everywhere and nothing will be left TO blast. I dont see any solution at all, and thats what the terrorists are counting on. Get rid of one cell, another pops up. Blasting everything and everywhere is not the answer. I dont know what is, but if we do that, then we are just as bad.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:15:44 PM new
>>With covert ops, there is a danger that one or two individuals will be taken out by mistake.<<
Giving the gov't the aok on covert ops squicks me because what is to prevent them to take Borillar, Helen, me, or anybody out then?
Ideally I believe in covert ops. But we are currently living in a democracy whose leaders decide which art and/or humor is okay to display as an example of Taliban-esque thinking.
Recent cases in point: The comic on fireman's widows that was pulled from the papers--one I welcomed. Another comedy show whose star or host was threatened with being yanked for similar "poor taste" if he proceeded with his intended show. A local artist who did a video loop of the planes crashing into the towers was yanked from a gallery. (Take out a few commentaries and commercials and that's all the media did for a few days.) One of Casper Citron's last radio shows was yanked because it was about how unssafe NYC airports were. And I'm not watching *that* closely.
posted on June 1, 2002 09:28:43 PM new
You do not blast countries that "house" terrorists, you blast the ones that "support" terrorists. You cannot carry on operations of any significant nature "living" in a country. You have to have training, lots of cash, and above all else no interference from the authorities.
There is the add'l factor of deterrence. Many countries "support" these guys to prevent them from de-stabilizing their own countries. When we remove Iraq from the chessboard at the end of the year, perhaps the Iranians will decide it might be better NOT to send all of those arms. If they don't, at least the troops will be there already.
The Saudis and others are deathly afraid of these groups, they should be MORE afraid of US.
They all play upon our reluctance to act. Could you imagine any of these cowards seizing a Russian ship, or taking over a Russian embassy 20yrs ago??? They worry so much about the power of God they should be made to see what kind of power can be projected on Earth.
posted on June 1, 2002 10:12:13 PM new"As a student of history, I've analyzed the threats posed by Hitler, the Soviet Union, and the Chinese. It's my opinion that the Islamic fanatics are more dangerous. They are bent on killing the infidels -- us -- in the name of their god, and there is nothing worse than an enemy who does not care if he or she lives or dies. They have nothing to lose but their lives."
When FoxNews first went on the air years ago, I watched it a lot - mainly because of Bill O'Reilly's show. At first - believe it or not, FoxNews was "fair and balanced reporting" and Bill's show did great. But within a month or so, the network owner decided to become a mouthpiece of those with a far-right agenda and any loudmouthed Republican or General who wanted to get a name by bashing Clinton. That began to sour me.
But that did not stop me from watching Bill's show, because he was largely left alone to do his own thing. But, one night, as I watched his show, it became clear to me that he had been told to stick to a new profile or go find another job, said job never to be in news or entertainment again. After that, Bill became The Liberal, not just a token Liberal any longer. His job since then has been to spew "liberal nonsense" at serious-looking Republicans and Quarterbacking Generals, who then turn and blast him out of the water - sort of the epitome of Rush Limbaugh's targets. Worse still, he was forbidden to use his own wits and has had to stick strictly to a script prepared well in advance, with the other side knowing just what he will say.
posted on June 1, 2002 11:13:41 PM new
Hep- I don't think we would have to blast them all. Maybe just one or two. But if we don't demonstrate the political will to take them all out, then lighting up one or two will not work.
I don't agree with your moral equivilence of using force against force.
Twin pointed out in another post that when we use organized military force, we give the possible targets an opportunity to surrender, or even come to the table with substantive actions that show their willingness to end the terrorism.
The terrorists do not give these opportunities to their targets.
For that reason, I could not equate our use of force with those of the terrorists and those that support them.
Everyone in the WTC could have come out of the buildings with their hands up and the terrorists would still kill them, just as Israeli victims could have raised their hands and even offered to be taken prisoner, the terrorists would still blow them up.
I can not equate the intent of terrorists with that of the US armed forces or that of the IDF. I can't even equate the moral standing with terrorists when our military or the the IDF unintentionally causes civilian casualities.
I have seen video of the IDF taking prisoners. I have yet to see a suicide bomber or hi-jacker take prisoners.
This is the difference between war and murder. The goals and intentions are different, eventhough the means may at times look the same.
posted on June 2, 2002 01:16:47 AM new... what is to prevent them to take Borillar, Helen, me, or anybody out then?
Above you asked, what is the difference between terrorists having nukes, and Mexico having nukes? Are you being argumentative, or do you really need an answer to that question?
Much as some here might like to sidestep the issue, WE (not THEY) are the government. You can criticize Bush & Co. until you're blue in the face, but some facts are undeniable:
1) Weapons of mass destruction are proliferating
2) Terrorist organizations will soon posess those weapons
3) Those weapons will be used against Americans on American soil
The above predictions are a SURE THING. When New York is hit with a nuclear holocaust, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowlege that you helped protect civil rights. Somehow I doubt it though.
posted on June 2, 2002 02:57:16 AM new
Borillar- "O'Reilly became the Liberal-not just the token Liberal..." I understand him quoting a Liberal to kickstart his show, but exactly when was he a token(actual) Liberal?
