We Are All Spaniards

[Jay Honeck]

We are all Spaniards today.

As a percentage of Spanish population, the horrendous terrorist attack on
Madrid has now actually injured and killed more people than the World Trade
Center attacks did to America in 2001.

Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost. Whether it was Basque
separatists or Muslim extremists is irrelevant -- the animals who take
pleasure in this kind of carnage must be hunted down and killed.

I have searched in vain to determine how many airplane pilots are in Spain,
but I'm sure there must be at least one of you lurking on this newsgroup
today. Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
remember our allies, and that we will help you find the swine who
perpetrated this atrocity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:47:47 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK. First you surrender your pilot certificate, next your plane will be
confiscated. Eehh. It's for security, for the homeland. Then we will make
plans for the Hotel. What about a camp?

>Whether it was Basque
>separatists or Muslim extremists is irrelevant -- the animals who take
>pleasure in this kind of carnage must be hunted down

true.

> and killed.

>(...) Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
>remember our allies,

what if it happened in Germany? They didn't agree with the invasi^err
liberation of Iraq and have not signed this ominous letter to the leader of
the western world.

>and that we will help you find the swine who
>perpetrated this atrocity.

ah well. I just jumped on another OT post. sorry.
(And BTW you are not spaniard. Your roots are in central Europe, most
likely in Germany.)

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Jay Honeck]

> >Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> OK. First you surrender your pilot certificate, next your plane will be
> confiscated. Eehh. It's for security, for the homeland. Then we will make
> plans for the Hotel. What about a camp?

I was referring to financial costs, not personal freedoms.

> >(...) Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
> >remember our allies,
>
> what if it happened in Germany? They didn't agree with the invasi^err
> liberation of Iraq and have not signed this ominous letter to the leader
of
> the western world.

I suspect such an attack on Berlin would so shock the German people that
they would realize their misjudgment regarding the war on terrorism. In
the end, we would support them as allies.

> ah well. I just jumped on another OT post. sorry.
> (And BTW you are not spaniard. Your roots are in central Europe, most
> likely in Germany.)

Symbolism and metaphor escape you yet again. Keep working on it -- you'll
get it sooner or later.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DzJ4c.6689$_w.233787@attbi_s53...
>
> We are all Spaniards today.
>
> As a percentage of Spanish population, the horrendous terrorist
> attack on Madrid has now actually injured and killed more people than
> the World Trade Center attacks did to America in 2001.
>
> Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost. Whether it was Basque
> separatists or Muslim extremists is irrelevant -- the animals who take
> pleasure in this kind of carnage must be hunted down and killed.
>
> I have searched in vain to determine how many airplane pilots are
> in Spain, but I'm sure there must be at least one of you lurking on this
> newsgroup today. Rest assured that all Americans stand with you,
> that we will remember our allies, and that we will help you find the
> swine who perpetrated this atrocity.
>

Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost? Oh, I don't think so. Some
prices are just too high. If stopping terrorism means surrendering freedom
the price is too high.

[Teacherjh]

>> (re: "whatever the cost"
>> I was referring to financial costs, not personal freedoms.

There is a point at which financial costs become limits on personal freedoms.
Perhaps not for you, but for many. And then, soon, even for you.

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> There is a point at which financial costs become limits on personal
freedoms.
> Perhaps not for you, but for many. And then, soon, even for you.

So, your alternatives are...what? Declare victory and come home? Give the
terrorists what they want? (Whatever that is?)

It was this kind of thinking that gave the world Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam...

We need to close ranks on the issue of terrorism, both nationally and
internationally, or the terrorists have already won.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

> If stopping terrorism means surrendering freedom
>the price is too high.

There is no such thing as "stopping terrorism". It is a fantasy . . . an
illusion . . . an impossibility.

"Terrorism" (the euphamism for attacks on civilians designed to wreak havoc and
cause fear among the target population) is a tactic. It is here to stay.

I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.

I wish that it were not so.




www.Rosspilot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no such thing as "stopping terrorism". It is a fantasy . . . an
> illusion . . . an impossibility.
>
> "Terrorism" (the euphamism for attacks on civilians designed to wreak
> havoc and cause fear among the target population) is a tactic. It is
> here to stay.
>

There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics will not
yield their desired result?


>
> I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
> effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
> waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.
>

Where do you get your figures from?

[John Harlow]

> There is no such thing as "stopping terrorism". It is a fantasy . .
> . an illusion . . . an impossibility.

Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.

What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

[Jay Honeck]

> What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
> stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

An interesting perspective, John. I suggest you explain it to the people of
Madrid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
> effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
> waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.

Well, Lee, I understand that the POTENTIAL for terrorism will always be with
us. That is a sad fact of life.

However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to a
large degree. Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

When it becomes obvious that their barbaric tactics have accomplished
precisely nothing -- AND they are picked off, one by one, and are jailed or
dead -- then (and only then) will terrorism cease to be a significant
threat.

To think otherwise plays completely into the terrorist's hands.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:BYL4c.7889$_w.240908@attbi_s53...
> > There is a point at which financial costs become limits on personal
> freedoms.
> > Perhaps not for you, but for many. And then, soon, even for you.
>
> So, your alternatives are...what? Declare victory and come home? Give
the
> terrorists what they want? (Whatever that is?)
>
> It was this kind of thinking that gave the world Hitler, Tojo, Stalin,
Mao,
> Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam...
>
> We need to close ranks on the issue of terrorism, both nationally and
> internationally, or the terrorists have already won.

Like the closing in of the ranks against Irish terrorism? Americans were the
biggest funders of the Irish terrorists along with Col Gadaffi.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EdN4c.8278$po.151155@attbi_s52...
> > I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
> > effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
> > waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.
>
> Well, Lee, I understand that the POTENTIAL for terrorism will always be
with
> us. That is a sad fact of life.
>
> However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to a
> large degree. Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
> demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
> despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
> diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.
>
> When it becomes obvious that their barbaric tactics have accomplished
> precisely nothing -- AND they are picked off, one by one, and are jailed
or
> dead -- then (and only then) will terrorism cease to be a significant
> threat.
>
> To think otherwise plays completely into the terrorist's hands.


Terrorist / freedom two sides of the same coin.

The world is full of them - and it is totally dependent on which end of the
telescope you look out from.

After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to overthrow the
legitimate government?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
> you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
> the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.
>

Why not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to overthrow
the
> legitimate government?
>


Seeking to overthrow the legitimate government? Yes. Terrorists? No.

[S Green]

Incidentally, someone's informed me that the attack in Spain was 911 days
after "911". I haven't bothered to do the maths, but it's apparently only
911days if you include the time difference in the calculation. (911 x 24hrs
previously at that time of day was 11/09/01 in NY).

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics will not
>yield their desired result?


In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is offensive
or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive criticism might (and
hopefully does!) contain insights that are valuable, and by
disregarding the entire criticism, you are throwing away that
insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes does pay to listen to
a person that is not as friendly as you'd like her to be.
-- Tobias Dussa >

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
> necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is offensive
> or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive criticism might (and
> hopefully does!) contain insights that are valuable, and by
> disregarding the entire criticism, you are throwing away that
> insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes does pay to listen to
> a person that is not as friendly as you'd like her to be.
> -- Tobias Dussa >
>

That's swell, but what's it got to do with my message?

[Rosspilot]

>Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
>despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
>diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

I don't agree, Jay. I doubt the perpetrators of the explosions in Madrid give
a damn what the Spaniards think of them. Do you think they expected their
actions to endear them?

www.Rosspilot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:20:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>That's swell, but what's it got to do with my message?
>

Oops. Wrong quote.

That should have been:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics
>will not yield their desired result?


Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,



Your question implies rational thought. Oh well... :-(

[Rosspilot]

>There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics will not
>yield their desired result?
>

Nope.
> For every one you kill, therMy "figures"e are 10,000 more
>> waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.
>>
>
>Where do you get your figures from?
>

My "figures"? What are you talking about?


www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

>Your question implies rational thought. Oh well... :-(
>

About as rational as this one from the same poster:

"where do you get your figues from?"
Good grief.

www.Rosspilot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oops. Wrong quote.
>
> That should have been:
>
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics
> >will not yield their desired result?
>
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,
>
>
>
> Your question implies rational thought. Oh well... :-(
>

By me or the terrorists?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> About as rational as this one from the same poster:
>
> "where do you get your figues from?"
> Good grief.
>

Well? Where do you get them?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope.
>

What do you base that on?


>
> My "figures"? What are you talking about?
>

You wrote; "For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
his place with greater fervor and comittment." Where did you get those
figures?

[Rosspilot]

>You wrote; "For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
>his place with greater fervor and comittment." Where did you get those
>figures?

Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World Almanac
and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook, and from
.. . .
you gotta be kidding me.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World
Almanac
> and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook, and
from
> . . .
> you gotta be kidding me.
>

In other words, you don't have a clue.

[Michael 182]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World
> Almanac
> > and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook,
and
> from
> > . . .
> > you gotta be kidding me.
> >
>
> In other words, you don't have a clue.
>
>

Steven:

Do you work at being so obtuse, or does it come naturally to you?

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:41:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
t>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Oops. Wrong quote.
>>
>> That should have been:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> et>:
>>
>> >There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics
>> >will not yield their desired result?
>>
>>
>> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
>> -- Larry Dighera,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your question implies rational thought. Oh well... :-(
>>
>
>By me or the terrorists?
>

Your question seems to presume that the behavior of those who commit
irrational acts is guided by successful results. I'm not so sure that
is the case. Terrorists are obviously not constrained by rationality,
so expecting a rational response seems unwarranted.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:58:37 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<h%O4c.2953$KO3.19822@attbi_s02>:

>
>Do you work at being so obtuse, or does it come naturally to you?

Mr. McNicoll is just using the Socratic method to force "ross" to
admit that he has no credible support for his contention.

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't agree, Jay. I doubt the perpetrators of the explosions in Madrid
give
> a damn what the Spaniards think of them. Do you think they expected their
> actions to endear them?

If not to rally men to their cause, for what purpose then?

Ultimately, this is about who is in control. Without the masses, the
terrorists lose.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>> So, your alternatives are...what?

Realistially? None.

We need good surveillance, but in such a way that it is not easy enough (and
won't become easy enough) to simply watch everyone, lest we start to gather up
drug lords, child molesters, nudists, litterbugs, journalists, and athiests in
the same net, to be fed to the next administration, whose beliefs may differ
from present ones.

We need good defenses, but not so good that it takes longer to get on the
subway than it does to walk the length of Manhattan.

We need the freedom to fly where we want, but it must be impossible to fly over
a train in a 150 and drop ordnance on the lead car, in sync with fifty other
150s (and a manly Tomahawk up in Alaska).

We need to keep an eye on our neighbors, for anything unusual, but at the same
time keep their beady eyes out of our own living rooms, bedrooms, and studies.
We need to be able to borrow books out of the library without fearing that our
reading habits will become known to the government, the insurance company, the
bank, and the medical profession.

And we need to actually have the time to do all of these things after working
another sixteen hour day, fifteen hours of which go to pay the taxes for having
two hundred million people try to find sixteen who have blended in with our
society for twenty years and who, when they receive a cell phone call, are
ready for their seventy nine virgins.

In short, we must find a number that is both greater than six and less than
four.

IT is not sufficient to find a number that is greater than four and less than
six. That's what we have now, and is why we are dealing with TFRs that cover
thousands of cubic miles and don't do squat.

Think of it this way. You are being attacked. You have a gun. What do you do
with it? Shoot the attacker? (Oh, the attacker is a bacterium and it's been
multplying in your system for a while now)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
"For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
his place with greater fervor and comittment."
<<

I took "10,000" to be "myriads", IOW "lots and lots". Hyperbole, not
calculation.

I think that it is true that for every one you kill, more will come... until
everyone is dead. It is self limiting. But if you are not holding the last
gun, you're dead. If you are, it's going to be pretty lonely.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Mar 2004 05:13:21 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I think that it is true that for every one you kill, more will come...

What makes you think you have to kill anyone to make more come?

[Rosspilot]

>>>
>"For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
>his place with greater fervor and comittment."
><<
>
>I took "10,000" to be "myriads", IOW "lots and lots". Hyperbole, not
>calculation.
>

But of course . . .
www.Rosspilot.com

[S Green]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:41:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> t>:
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Oops. Wrong quote.
> >>
> >> That should have been:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >> et>:
> >>
> >> >There's no point where the terrorists will realize their tactics
> >> >will not yield their desired result?
> >>
> >>
> >> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> >> -- Larry Dighera,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your question implies rational thought. Oh well... :-(
> >>
> >
> >By me or the terrorists?
> >
>
> Your question seems to presume that the behavior of those who commit
> irrational acts is guided by successful results. I'm not so sure that
> is the case. Terrorists are obviously not constrained by rationality,
> so expecting a rational response seems unwarranted.

Sucessful results - seems the 911 terrorists achieved a great amount of
success. Our lives have never been the same again and even the most simplest
of tasks has to be do with someone looking over our shoulder.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:06:18 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> >Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> OK. First you surrender your pilot certificate, next your plane will be
>> confiscated. Eehh. It's for security, for the homeland. Then we will make
>> plans for the Hotel. What about a camp?
>
>I was referring to financial costs, not personal freedoms.

oh. so you was unclear.
then: 40% tax on avgas and 50% tax on lodging. The money will be spent on
security measures. You then must wear a special GPS device (you have to buy
it) so that you can be tracked down. You must also have an ID card with
biometrical data stored. Any problems with that? Sure not. It is for
security and for the homeland.

>I suspect such an attack on Berlin would so shock the German people that
>they would realize their misjudgment regarding the war on terrorism.

*hehe* I see, you don't read much on foreign politics.
German politicans try to impose many "security measures" in the name of war
against terrorism. Glad we have some people here trying to fight against
most of the stupid actions they take.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On 13 Mar 2004 22:56:41 GMT, Rosspilot wrote:

>"Terrorism" (the euphamism for attacks on civilians designed to wreak havoc and
>cause fear among the target population) is a tactic. It is here to stay.

And now they only have to name it to bring the system to a halt.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:47:48 -0500, John Harlow wrote:

>What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
>stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

o-ooohhhh.

:-)

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:53:10 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> stop thinking they know what's best for the world.
>
>An interesting perspective, John. I suggest you explain it to the people of
>Madrid.

:-))

well, I bet President Bush and many Americans are not able to find Spain on
a map. And I bet most Americans give a sh*t what happens outside the US
border.

Panem et circensem. Bush does a great job .. well, maybe a little bit too
little bread (jobs) and a bit too much games (war).

Jay, sometimes a reality check helps.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:57:24 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to a
>large degree. Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
>demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
>despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
>diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

This already happened before (in similar relative numbers to the attack) in
Spain. What are you trying to tell us? There is nothing new to it (this
does not mean that it was not cruel and can be played down).

Jay, what so you know about Spanish history?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Rosspilot]

>you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
>> the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.
>>
>
>Why not?

Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
There is nothing to "wipe out".











www.Rosspilot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
> There is nothing to "wipe out".
>

Tactics cannot be defeated?

[Rosspilot]

>
>> Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
>> There is nothing to "wipe out".
>>
>
>Tactics cannot be defeated?

No. You can defeat the ENTITY that is using a particular tactic in a specific
instance. But you cannot defeat the tactic, since it can be used again and
again.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Jay,

> > I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible
or
> > effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
> > waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.
>
> Well, Lee, I understand that the POTENTIAL for terrorism will always
be with
> us. That is a sad fact of life.

Yes.

> However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to
a
> large degree.

It can and should be be fought, whether it can be crushed by force
alone I dispute that.

> Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
> demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate
and
> despise the terrorists worse than ever before

Yes.

-- a reaction that is
> diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

No, not at all. They know and even relish the fact, that they are hated
for what they do.

> When it becomes obvious that their barbaric tactics have accomplished
> precisely nothing

What makes you think that this would be their asessment of
accomplishment? Do you really think they expected people to come over
and bow to Islam as a result of terrorist attacks? Face it, both 9/11
and Madrid were a tremendous success to them. They destroyed what they
hate and caused tremendous grieve to people they consider to have done
them great harm. And as added bonus they are convinced that they will
be rewarded for what they did in the afterlife. What else could they
wish for?

> -- AND they are picked off, one by one, and are jailed or
> dead -- then (and only then) will terrorism cease to be a significant
> threat.

No, not at all. These - should I even call them human beings - have
reached a state of hatred that makes them practically imune against any
reasoning. It makes no difference whatsoever to them, if they are
"picked off one by one" or jailed or dead, as long as in their death
they can wreck havoc and take many more infidels with them.

> To think otherwise plays completely into the terrorist's hands.

It is very important to understand the way these sick minds are
working, and how the reasoning you put forward just doesn't occur to
them. Otherwise you arrive at false conclusions about effectiveness of
any considered countermeasures.

Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society. Some
people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already. From
what I read on this newsgroup about TFRs and other ever increasing
restrictions on GA anyway.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, what so you know about Spanish history?

Well, with a minor (that's a secondary college degree, in case that doesn't
translate) in history (albeit 24 years ago), I suspect I know enough to get
me through this discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>>Tactics cannot be defeated?
>
>No. You can defeat the ENTITY that is using a particular tactic in a
>specific
>instance. But you cannot defeat the tactic, since it can be used again and
>again.
>

Maybe this will help explain it, Steven . . .

Let's say your favorite football team uses a "nickel defense" . . . a tactic.

An opposing team figures out how to beat it, and in so doing, they win the
game.

They have defeated your team (the entity), but have not "wiped out" the nickel
defense, as it can be used again and again against other teams, on other days.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Some
> people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
> sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
> what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.

That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay?

Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic
freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to root out
Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing could
be further from the truth.

Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what has
really changed in our day-to-day lives:

1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly
commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.)
2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels.
3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else?

Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two items
impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans don't
notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because there
ARE no meaningful changes.

Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has* changed -- but
these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way. And most
of THAT impact is philosophical.

> Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
> threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
> increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
> destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society.

I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese in World
War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society in the
history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them. Hell, if
*that* can happen, anything can.

In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing -- fight
terrorists where *they* live. If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or
the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until the
*******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school kids in
Des Moines.

Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't just
kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain
they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists.

Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were terrorists
in 1948.

Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...

Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.

When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or
a failed coup-de-tat...

The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
Independence took place in America. The war for Israeli independence took
place in Israel. The war for Irish independence takes place in Ireland.
The war for Indian independence took place in India.

The modern-day Arab terrorists hide in the corners of Islamic nations
like Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan and attack countries like
Israel, America, and Spain.

Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda
of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of
their own countries...

Or, worse yet, perhaps the AGENDA is pretty clear, but the coutries they
are fighting for control of are not...



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to
>> overthrow the legitimate government?
>>
>
>
> Seeking to overthrow the legitimate government? Yes. Terrorists? No.
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Teacherjh" wrote:
> Realistially? None.
[snip]
> Think of it this way. You are being attacked. You have a gun.
> What do you do with it? Shoot the attacker? (Oh, the attacker
> is a bacterium and it's been multplying in your system for a
> while now)

Well put. There is no effective defense against determined terrorists
who have worldwide support, short of a massive security clampdown at
home affecting every phase of life. Every inhabitant of the country
would have to be intimately available to the government security
apparatus, perhaps via imbedded micro chips or similar technology.
Border security would need a colossal budget. Anything short of that
(invading other countries, putting TFRs around football stadiums, hiring
more airport security, etc.), is vain political window dressing.

We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.
These barbarians cannot be appeased, even should we be so foolish as to
try. They don't want peace, they want power: they want hegemony over
the entire Muslim world, including enclaves like Chechnya and Kashmir;
they want the total exclusion of Western cultural influence from every
Islamic country.

As you said, there is no realistic, i.e. practical, way to defeat these
murdering fanatics. We will keep hunting them down and killing them,
but there will always be plenty of eager replacements in the pipeline.

This is going to be a very ugly period in history. The spokesman
claiming responsibility for the Spanish bombings said "You love life, we
love death." That pretty neatly sums up the two sides in this war. In
such a struggle, the side that loves life is at a tactical disadvantage.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > I doubt the perpetrators of the explosions in Madrid
> > give a damn what the Spaniards think of them. Do
> > you think they expected their actions to endear them?
>
> If not to rally men to their cause, for what purpose then?
>
> Ultimately, this is about who is in control.
> Without the masses, the terrorists lose.

Exactly, but the masses they care about are Muslims. Attacks against
Western countries are carried out for their propaganda effect in the
Islamic world.

The terrorists are cultivating their hero image among their constituency
to broaden their political base; they couldn't care less what the
infidels think, as long as they are afraid.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[C J Campbell]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > There is no such thing as "stopping terrorism". It is a fantasy . .
> > . an illusion . . . an impossibility.
>
> Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
> you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
> the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.
>
> What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
> stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

Every country in the world suffers from terrorist attacks. It is not just
America or countries that support Bush. Nor is Bush the cause of every
problem in the world. Sure, Spain might not have supported the US in Iraq.
They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
Germans. They would still be attacked by numerous other terrorist groups,
from Basque separatists to violent anarchists. If nobody had attacked Iraq,
we would still be attacked by Kurdish separatists seeking support for their
cause, Palestinians, Croats, American Indian separatists, political
extremists within our own borders, Iraqi agents trying to get us to do
something else, etc.

The fact is that there will always be people who oppose what we do -- no
matter what it is that we do -- and who will be willing and able to use
violence to express that opposition. Therefore there will always be
terrorists. There have always been terrorists.

Frankly, I think that opposing thugs like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
is worth doing. I suppose we might have convinced those guys to like us more
if we had given them all our money and bent over and grabbed our ankles.
Really, though -- do you want the respect of people like that? I just don't
see the point of trying to score high on the popularity meter of
organizations and people like the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weathermen
wing of the Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, or
Timothy McVeigh.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DzJ4c.6689$_w.233787@attbi_s53...
> We are all Spaniards today.
>

Well, Jay -- your post succeeded in one thing. It brought all the usual
apologists for terrorism out of the woodwork.

I guess there are plenty of people even on this news group who somehow think
terrorism is justified if it opposes the United States or its allies.

[C J Campbell]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Terrorist / freedom two sides of the same coin.
>
> The world is full of them - and it is totally dependent on which end of
the
> telescope you look out from.
>
> After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to overthrow
the
> legitimate government?

Terrorists are not interested in freedom, and it is ugly of you to pretend
that it is so.

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda
> of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of
> their own countries...
>
> Or, worse yet, perhaps the AGENDA is pretty clear, but the coutries they
> are fighting for control of are not...

It has always struck me as the ultimate in obnoxiousness to claim that
fighting for democracy and the rule of law is somehow morally equivalent to
deliberately attacking non-combatants in an attempt to impose totalitarian
rule.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing
> -- fight terrorists where *they* live.

They'll simply move and disperse. And plenty of terrorists recruits
already live in the U. S., and in Britain, France, Canada, etc.

> If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or
> the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure
> beats waiting until the *******s put bombs on trains
> in Chicago, or kill a busload of school kids in
> Des Moines.

The entire Middle East? What do you think the effect of such an
operation will be on the American economy? How long will we have to
occupy the entire Middle East? What effect will such an operation have
on the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere? To whom would go the
propaganda victory?

> Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't
just
> kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.

Spoken like an innkeeper! :) But we're talking about an infestation
with nests worldwide, not just in our kitchen. Your insect metaphor is
not very comforting when one considers the struggle against fire ants in
the U. S.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

>They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
>Germans.

to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
stick a finger up your ass and whistle.

§$%&§$/&$&$§"%$!!!!!

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:G9N4c.8196$_w.243103@attbi_s53...
> > What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
> > stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

Yeah..especially when it's the Islamic fundementalists that KNOW what's
right for the world, and are under strict and explicit order to kill
everyone who says otherwise.

>
> An interesting perspective, John. I suggest you explain it to the people
of
> Madrid.

Indeed!! I guess only a thug can understand another thugs "reasons".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >> Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
> >> There is nothing to "wipe out".
> >>
> >
> >Tactics cannot be defeated?
>
> No. You can defeat the ENTITY that is using a particular tactic in a
specific
> instance. But you cannot defeat the tactic, since it can be used again
and
> again.
>
Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?

[Jay Honeck]

> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain
> they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists.

Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
unrelated locales.

> Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
> fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.
>
> When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or
> a failed coup-de-tat...

To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the world,
for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and suffering in
mind, all in the name of Allah.

If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it.

> Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda
> of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of
> their own countries...

Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
in the name of God.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The terrorists are cultivating their hero image among their constituency
> to broaden their political base; they couldn't care less what the
> infidels think, as long as they are afraid.

An excellent, well-stated point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Spoken like an innkeeper! :) But we're talking about an infestation
> with nests worldwide, not just in our kitchen. Your insect metaphor is
> not very comforting when one considers the struggle against fire ants in
> the U. S.

Dan, we'll never defeat them all -- anymore than we can wipe out cockroaches
or fire ants.

But we can keep 'em out of our homes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
> >Germans.
>
> to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
> stick a finger up your ass and whistle.

Truth hurts, doesn't it, Martin?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > We are all Spaniards today.
>
> Well, Jay -- your post succeeded in one thing. It brought all the usual
> apologists for terrorism out of the woodwork.
>
> I guess there are plenty of people even on this news group who somehow
think
> terrorism is justified if it opposes the United States or its allies.

No, just a few misguided souls.

America will stand with Spain, and our other allies, in this bizarre
religious/fascist war. I suspect my children will be fighting these stupid
*******s for a long time to come, but eventually freedom will win out over
oppression.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?

We don't, actually. We fight criminals.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Teacherjh]

>>
>I think that it is true that for every one you kill, more will come...

What makes you think you have to kill anyone to make more come?
<<

The statement implied by yours (a necessary condition) doesn't follow from my
statement (a sufficient condition) More will come anyway.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.


Really? Maybe we should take "separation of church and state" more
seriously here and break that link. Say what you will about these people
attacking us, but they are not stupid and they see the strong Christian
leaning of the US government administration.

Yes, I blame them for these cowardly acts, and no, I do not think they have
any justification for their barbaric acts against innocents, which is
against even their own religion. But let's be realistic here - anybody who
doesn't see the Bush administration, with its "faith-based" initiatives and
connection to the very right wing Church as crossing the line toward making
the US a Christian country must be fairly blind or strongly believe that
this direction is the Right Thing To Do.

There are Islamist extremists who see it very much as a religious war. They
twist their religion's desire for "justice" to justify their acts. But the
way we respond, and the very nature of our government, affects how Muslims
see us and impacts very directly on the extremist's support structure and
thus whether this war winds down or grows.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
>> you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
>> the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.
>
>Why not?

Jumping in hear. The problem with the drug war is that we are
attacking it from the supply side and as a criminal problem (which it is).
However the real problem with drugs is more on the demand side. As long
as teh demand exists people will use and get drugs. Some drugs are easier
to obtain than others (eg. meth vs. cocaine) but if there's a will there's
a way. Further we do very little in prevention and treatment, which has a
small (in fact very small) reduction in demand.
Terrorist are not overly concerned about the legalities of their
actions. Laws ONLY affect people that actually CHOOSE to obey them. And
while we can put in place laws/procedures to make it more difficult to
commit acts of terror (much like drugs) we can not eliminate them. Even
if we lived in a police state you can not control every human's
actions24/7.
There are battles you win, battles you lose and some battles that you
just have to forever keep fighting. Drugs of abuse of existed nearly as
long as record history. And when one looks at human history it is often a
collection of wars (and the mating habits of the nobility). We can no
more stop terrorist than we can stop war, or future wars, or acts of mans
disreguard for the life of other men.
What we can do is attempt to minimize the damage that these people
can inflict on our lives. The question becomes were do we as a society
and each person as a citizen want to draw the line of personal freedom vs.
safety. Some don't mind living in a police state, I do. And I believe
that the USA is not, was not and should not become a police state. I
believe that a free nation should have free citizens and as much as
possible open doors. I believe that part of THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is that
some people will choose to abuse that freedom to commit criminal acts
including terrorism. But _I_ would rather live in a nation that is most
free with risk, even high risk; than a well 'controlled/planned' society
with lower risk, risk never reaches zero.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
>
> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.

Careful, boys. This kind of incontrovertible logic is going to upset Martin
and John to no end...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
>>
>> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>
>Careful, boys. This kind of incontrovertible logic is going to upset Martin
>and John to no end...
>
>;-)
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
>>
>> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>
>Careful, boys. This kind of incontrovertible logic is going to upset Martin
>and John to no end...
>

What about Abraham? :-)



www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, I blame them for these cowardly acts, and no, I do not think they
have
> any justification for their barbaric acts against innocents, which is
> against even their own religion. But let's be realistic here - anybody
who
> doesn't see the Bush administration, with its "faith-based" initiatives
and
> connection to the very right wing Church as crossing the line toward
making
> the US a Christian country must be fairly blind or strongly believe that
> this direction is the Right Thing To Do.

While I am uncomfortable with the religious right wing of the Republican
Party, I'm hard-pressed to list anything concrete Bush has done in their
favor.

I suppose you could list the ban on partial-birth abortion as happening
under his watch, but this procedure is so barbaric that most people --
Democrat or Republican -- shudder at this type of abortion. I see that law
as being outside of partisan politics -- but that's just me, I suppose.

And the Judge who tried to place the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of
the town courthouse (down South somewhere -- I forget) was summarily drummed
out of office...

While it is true that Bush is obviously a devout Christian, which may change
the *perception* of the U.S., I don't see that the country -- or the laws of
the U.S. -- have changed in any pro-Christian way under his watch.

If anything, the country went waaaaay conservative during the Clinton
presidency.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:45:54 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Truth hurts, doesn't it, Martin?

with a little brain left on your side you rather haven't had posted that.
well, I guess it is only ignorance. it can be cured.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:30:27 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> > What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
>> > stop thinking they know what's best for the world.
>
>Yeah..especially when it's the Islamic fundementalists that KNOW what's
>right for the world, and are under strict and explicit order to kill
>everyone who says otherwise.

So now there are 2 very confronting positions clashing together. Every side
is in the strong believe that only he holds the only truth.

How can it be solved? The stronger survives? War, bloodshed, economical
decrease?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:38:43 +0100, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
>threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
>increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
>destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society. Some
>people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
>sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
>what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:
> > We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.
>
>
> Really? Maybe we should take "separation of church and state"
> more seriously here and break that link. Say what you will about
> these people attacking us, but they are not stupid and they see the
> strong Christian leaning of the US government administration.

We can't break that link no matter what we do, short of becoming a
fundamentalist Islamic republic. I contend that Al Qaeda would not have
changed a thing had Al Gore been elected.

>
> - anybody who doesn't see the Bush administration, with its
> "faith-based" initiatives and connection to the very right wing
> Church as crossing the line toward making the US a Christian
> country must be fairly blind

In fact I do see that, but it's mostly irrelevant to our terrorism
problem.

> There are Islamist extremists who see it very much as a religious war.
> They twist their religion's desire for "justice" to justify their
acts. But
> the way we respond, and the very nature of our government, affects
> how Muslims see us and impacts very directly on the extremist's
> support structure and thus whether this war winds down or grows.

I agree completely. We face the challenge of making shrewdly calculated
responses against our enemies, lest we hand them cheap propaganda
victories.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Dan, we'll never defeat them all -- anymore than we can wipe out
> cockroaches or fire ants.

That's my point. Attempting to wipe them out will be a doomed strategy.

> But we can keep 'em out of our homes.

Yes, we have to fight these rotten *******s, but it will take more
brains than brawn to stay on top of them.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> We can't break that link no matter what we do, short of becoming a
> fundamentalist Islamic republic. I contend that Al Qaeda would not have
> changed a thing had Al Gore been elected.

I find it disturbing when the chief executive of our republic proposes a
constitutional amendment based upon his faith. However, Dan's assertion is
correct. The terrorists would be no more pleased with us were we truly
nonsectarian. In fact, I suspect that we'd be considered even more of a
threat to the terrorists were we to actually live up to that ideal.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>> Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
>
> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.

There's no expectation that crime will cease.

- Andrew

[Dan Luke]

Seconded.

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Terrorists are not interested in freedom, and it is ugly of you to pretend
> that it is so.

I don't care whether or not terrorists are interested in freedom. They're
still criminals that murder. With means such as these, the ends become
irrelevant.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> > We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>
> There's no expectation that crime will cease.

Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
meant to be a deterrent.

In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:45:54 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >Truth hurts, doesn't it, Martin?
>
> with a little brain left on your side you rather haven't had posted that.
> well, I guess it is only ignorance. it can be cured.
>

I used to think that ignorance could be cured. We have been trying to cure
you of ignorance for a long time now. Perhaps you are the exception that
proves the rule.

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
> >Germans.
>
> to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
> stick a finger up your ass and whistle.
>
> §$%&§$/&$&$§"%$!!!!!

Truly, sir, I would be willing to meet you at any place of your choosing,
except that I would be afraid to soil myself with the blood of the likes of
you, while you would simply soil yourself.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> > We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>>
>> There's no expectation that crime will cease.
>
> Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
> meant to be a deterrent.
>
> In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

There's no word such as "incorrigible" in your dictionary <grin>?

However, you're mixing two related but different concepts. We do hope that
increasing the cost of crime will dissuade some [potential] criminals. But
laws falling under the "three strikes" concept acknowledge that some people
will commit crimes forever.

If we'd a way to identify these people at birth, then perhaps...but we
don't.

So we fight criminals with the goal of keeping crime as infrequent as we can
manage.

- Andrew

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Jay,

> > Some
> > people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
> > sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom
is
> > what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.
>
> That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay?

The above statement is greatly exaggerated as of today, I will agree on
that. That's why I choose not to adopt it by myself but to attribute it
to other people :-)

The warning it holds is however valid in my point of view. Trying to
extinguish terrorism by a constant increase in security measures WILL
affect our freedom long before it will achieve to make terrorist
attacks virtually impossible.

> Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic
> freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to
root out
> Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing
could
> be further from the truth.

see above. Greatly exaggerated as of today, but not unthinkable to come
true if certain people have their way.

> Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what
has
> really changed in our day-to-day lives:
>
> 1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly
> commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.)
> 2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels.
> 3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else?

You might be surprised to know how precisely security forces are able
to track your whereabouts already today. To me, this causes uneasy
feelings, although, of course, I have "nothing to hide".

> Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two
items
> impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans
don't
> notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because
there
> ARE no meaningful changes.
>
> Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has*
changed -- but
> these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way.
And most
> of THAT impact is philosophical.
>
> > Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
> > threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome
by
> > increasing security and military action more and more will lead to
the
> > destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society.
>
> I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese
in World
> War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society
in the
> history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them.
Hell, if
> *that* can happen, anything can.

Willingness to suicidal combat manouvres is only a small part of the
problem with fighting terrorism. After all, the Japanese still had a
country where you could hit them. As was already pointed out, the
terrorists are just about everywhere.

> In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing --
fight
> terrorists where *they* live.

That is exactly where the problem lies. Where DO the terrorosts live??
See above.

As the Madrid attack sadly proves, neither the war in afghanistan nor
in Irak did the "trick".

> If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or
> the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until
the
> *******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school
kids in
> Des Moines.

That is not the alternative in question. No one says we should just
wait. I just question whether military action in the middle east or
elsewhere is going to stop the *******s (who, to be sure, already are
resident in the US and Europe) from putting bombs on trains and buses.
It also has been proven time and again, that it is still possible to
place weapons or explosives on airplanes in spite of the security
measures put in place since 9/11.

On the other hand, as far as my knowledge goes, even the 9/11 attacks
could have been prevented by more solid intelligence work, for example.
The information was there, only noone took notice because the amount of
data aquired was just to much to be thoroughly evaluated. How is
aquiring even more data (taking fingerprints from every tourist, e.g.)
going to help that?

> Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't
just
> kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.

I have no problem with that, as long as you know where it is. But I
don't think it is wise to nuke your neighbours house, because you
suspect the roaches nest in his basement.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain
> they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists.
>
> Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were terrorists
> in 1948.
>
> Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...
>
> Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
> fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.
>
> When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or
> a failed coup-de-tat...
>
> The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
> Independence took place in America.

So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters
were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a genocidal
assault on the native Americans.
Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.

Maybe that does not count?

[S Green]

> Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
> independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
> unrelated locales.

like how those American rebels went on to destroy Indian reservations
through slaughter and starvation

[S Green]

>
> I suppose you could list the ban on partial-birth abortion as happening
> under his watch, but this procedure is so barbaric that most people --
> Democrat or Republican -- shudder at this type of abortion. I see that
law
> as being outside of partisan politics -- but that's just me, I suppose.
>

We call the terrorists barbaric for killing innocents?

[Judah]

I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If
the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans, their
own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic
Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after
attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered.

If we sit back and wait for it to happen, we will be written off in history
as the once great, but now fallen American Imperialist Empire.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the
>> agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and
>> control of their own countries...
>>
>> Or, worse yet, perhaps the AGENDA is pretty clear, but the coutries
>> they are fighting for control of are not...
>
> It has always struck me as the ultimate in obnoxiousness to claim that
> fighting for democracy and the rule of law is somehow morally
> equivalent to deliberately attacking non-combatants in an attempt to
> impose totalitarian rule.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
> > Independence took place in America.
>
> So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters
> were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a
genocidal
> assault on the native Americans.
> Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
> trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.
>
> Maybe that does not count?
>
>

I know of no Americans who excuse what was done to the Indians. However,
your description of what happened is extremely simplistic, ignoring efforts
by European powers to arm the Indians and foment uprising by them.

Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting for
the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If
> the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans,
their
> own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic
> Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after
> attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered.
>

Where is Islam being opressed by a western nation?

[Judah]

Jay,
I can probably find sources that would indicate that innocent people
were killed in many wars for independence. But that is not the point.

I think you missed my point. People like you and I absolutely recognize
the agenda of the Arab terrorists, and the Arab nations that sponsor them
(some of whom we call "allies"). But the agenda of these terrorists must
not be clear to many people because there are still people out there,
like the poster to whom I replied and at least one other in this thread,
who believe that the way to stop terrorism is to change foreign policy
and "keep our nose out of other country's business."

At the end of it all, if that were our position, the Arab nations would
very possibly accomplish their goals, or at least some of them. And it
would be documented in the Arabic History Books as the Great War of
Islamic Independence, where Arab Nations sent freedom fighting martyr
after martyr to attack the Imperialist Western Infidels in the former
nation of Bush until they surrendered and the Radical Islamic nations
ruled the world...

Of course I might be exaggerating just a bit, but I do believe that
history is slanted in favor of the author...

And I'm not quite ready to hand over the pen yet...



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54:

>> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
>> certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
>> terrorists.
>
> Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
> independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
> unrelated locales.
>
>> Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
>> fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.
>>
>> When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
>> or a failed coup-de-tat...
>
> To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
> independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the
> world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and
> suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah.
>
> If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it.
>
>> Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the
>> agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and
>> control of their own countries...
>
> Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western
> civilization, in the name of God.

[Judah]

I think you've got it backwards...

I would say that the Native Americans were the Freedom Fighters, trying to
win back their land from the Oppressive colonialists. However, because we
won that war, for the next 150-200 years, American Indians were portrayed
in US History books and media as scary, stupid mostrosities who gave away
their land for a few beads and fur pelts, and then terrorized frontiersmen
and their families by taking their scalps in the dead of night, for
"absolutely no reason at all".

Had the Indians been able to repel the Colonialists, their history books
would have written of the events and of the characterizations of the people
of the time very differently.

I can't go through and cite every single example of terrorists in history.
And I can't quantify to what level innocent people were killed by
terrorists in wars. I'm not a history expert or even a history buff.

All I can tell you is that it seems to me that the current Arab Terrorist
tactics are working, and there is not much I can think of to do about it,
except perhaps to call upon our "allies" in the Arab Nations to stop
supporting them and harboring them or suffer a price. But the thought of
"keeping our nose out of other country's business" as suggested by a prior
poster, is repulsive because I don't want to go down in history as a member
of the Fallen Imperialist Bush Empire.


"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
>> certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
>> terrorists.
>>
>> Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were
>> terrorists in 1948.
>>
>> Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...
>>
>> Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
>> fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.
>>
>> When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
>> or a failed coup-de-tat...
>>
>> The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
>> Independence took place in America.
>
> So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom
> fighters were the colonialists. They secured independence and then
> began a genocidal assault on the native Americans.
> Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
> trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.
>
> Maybe that does not count?
>
>

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article <vl15c.12593$_w.289553@attbi_s53>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> > We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>>
>> There's no expectation that crime will cease.
>
>Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
>meant to be a deterrent.
>
>In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

Perhaps as an academic theory, but even then only on paper. The key
thing to remember is that criminals (most at least) break the law because
they do not think that they will be caught. They know that they could be
caught, but commit the actually crime assuming that they will not.
For example, most of us speed. But we do NOT do so when we see a cop
on the side of the road.
If you mean that punishment of criminals that have been caught and
convicted is meant to be a punishment against future crime the states
don't really show that either. And even if they did new criminals would
only appear.
Throughout the history of the human race murder has basically been
illegal (note murder is often defined differently in different culture).
Yet murders still happen. In the US will even excute people for murder,
some nations (esp in the past) really tried to prevent murders from
happening. But like war in 'part of the human condition.' That doesn't
mean that we do nothing, but what it does mean is that it's a battle we
can't win/defeat.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> But let's be realistic here - anybody
> who
> doesn't see the Bush administration, with its "faith-based" initiatives
> and
> connection to the very right wing Church as crossing the line toward
> making
> the US a Christian country must be fairly blind or strongly believe that
> this direction is the Right Thing To Do.

or they don't see boogey men behind the actions of those they hate.

--
Bob Noel

[mike regish]

Steve never kids...

mike regish

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >You wrote; "For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
> >his place with greater fervor and comittment." Where did you get those
> >figures?
>
> Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World
Almanac
> and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook, and
from
> . . .
> you gotta be kidding me.
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Mike Rhodes]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:47:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>We are all Spaniards today.

Hi Jay,

That alliance is probably what the terrorists are fighting. And you
also know this, so would want to make them angry by using it. But it
is now a more pained relationship. This could continue, and likely
will.

But not all of us consider ourselves Spaniards. It isn't that we have
something against Spain; but that we don't have the time, nor the
internals to become so emotionally involved. And it isn't just Spain
with whom we might want to limit our personal relationships.
Commitment of militaries is not the only cost; and that is a cost.

You make the statement grandly, to anger the terrorists; believing
they have no valid complaint. (I am not without sympathy for Spain.)
But are the terrorists acting out of only insanity? Is no one
discussing their motives at all?

Our habit of ignorance developed out of the Middle East troubles, to
protect Israel. (We know what the trouble is there. It is religion.
Huh?) But now we're stuck in this 'quiet' mode, and ignoring a
complaint which some might believe to be valid. We choose to be
silent about what? Sovereignty, for it would interfere with our
vision of the world; which is ours to mold. We are NOT for
sovereignty (at least, the World Trade Center is not), and that is
what those oil-rich, sand-bound terrorists are so insecure about.
They are not the only ones.

Mike

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
>>They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
>>Germans.
>
>
> to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
> stick a finger up your ass and whistle.

Be that as it may he is correct.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

Nobody expects that in the general sense; only in the specific. If the Bible is
to be believed, we've had crime with us since the second generation of man. Even
back when God himself was levying the punishments, it didn't go away.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Judah]

I need to take up one more point with your comments...

In principal, I do selfishly agree with you that American values of
freedom are preferred to Radical Islamic values of, well, whatever
Radical Islamic values are. However, I would tend to say that you are
naive if you truly believe that innocents don't die in most wars. The
difference is that the winner of the war generally doesn't talk about it
because it is not honorable. And at least with respect to American
History - we don't generally admire our heroes killing innocent people.
Perhaps Radical Islamists will honor and recall the names of their
"martyrs". More likely, the suicide bombers will be categorized as an
attack method, and only the names of the political and military leaders
will be remembered.

However, I would categorically point out that innocents have died at the
hands of Americans in many wars... And in other democratic countries,
innocents have died during wars too... It's war. That's what happens.

Of course, we've all heard about the innocent Vietnamese that were
killed. But we lost that war, so the heroes aren't portrayed for their
winning war tactics.

One of the other posters brought up the Native Americans... Do you think
any innocent Native Americans might have been killed back then? I haven't
read much about it in the history books, so maybe it didn't happen...

Do you think that no innocents died by American hands in World War II?
How about at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think the A-Bomb of death
distinguished between civilians and military personnel when it liquidated
everyone there?

The problem is that the terrorists today give themselves scary sounding
names, pretend to be poorly organized, and hide their infastructure in
the shelter of countries who claim to be our allies, like Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and Morroco. Our problem is the same with Foreign Policy as it is
with TFRs - sure the Prez will pull the trigger on Iraq - it's easy and
he's just finishing Dad's work anyway. But if he's too afraid to pull the
trigger on the nations who harbor and train our terrorists, he may as
well give up now because it's just a big show to make people feel safe
when they are not...


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54:

>> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
>> certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
>> terrorists.
>
> Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
> independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
> unrelated locales.
>
>> Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
>> fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.
>>
>> When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
>> or a failed coup-de-tat...
>
> To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
> independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the
> world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and
> suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah.
>
> If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it.
>
>> Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the
>> agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and
>> control of their own countries...
>
> Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western
> civilization, in the name of God.

[Don Tuite]

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:47:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>>We are all Spaniards today.

If today's election results and the rhetoric around them in Spain
represent what Spaniards think, the subject header for this thread may
qualify for Usenet's "Unintended Irony of the Week" award.

Don

[Judah]

In the eyes of Radical Islamists? Are you kidding?

Israel - it exists
UK - it gave the land to Israel
America - it supported Israel
Spain - it supported America

and the list goes on. Remember - the history books I am talking about were
(or will have been) written in the new Arabic Empire...

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and
>> history. If the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in
>> their plans, their own history books will write it off as the Great
>> War for Islamic Independence during which their freedom fighters
>> performed attack after attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were
>> finally conquered.
>>
>
> Where is Islam being opressed by a western nation?
>
>
>
>

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If
> the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans,
their
> own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic
> Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after
> attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered.
>
> If we sit back and wait for it to happen, we will be written off in
history
> as the once great, but now fallen American Imperialist Empire.
>
And if we win we will be the bringers of light and freedom to the world.
The winner always writes the history so what

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>> One of the other posters brought up the Native Americans... Do you think
> any innocent Native Americans might have been killed back then? I haven't
> read much about it in the history books, so maybe it didn't happen...

Let me think - that's a hard one - umm, umm, umm. I think every native
American was innocent until the white man came and began robbing them, then
killing them. Do you suggest that when the American Indian began to fight
back they stopped being innocent and then as a whole became guilty and
worthy of extermination? Genocide in today's parlance.

I don't suppose there is too much in the history books. It is not going to
say that the US people in building the nation were guilty of ethnic
cleansing, on a scale that make criminals out of today's ethnic cleansers.

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> In the eyes of Radical Islamists? Are you kidding?
>
> Israel - it exists
> UK - it gave the land to Israel
> America - it supported Israel
> Spain - it supported America
>
The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).

[Tony Cox]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:30:27 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >> > What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need
to
> >> > stop thinking they know what's best for the world.
> >
> >Yeah..especially when it's the Islamic fundementalists that KNOW what's
> >right for the world, and are under strict and explicit order to kill
> >everyone who says otherwise.
>
> So now there are 2 very confronting positions clashing together. Every
side
> is in the strong believe that only he holds the only truth.
>
> How can it be solved? The stronger survives? War, bloodshed, economical
> decrease?

Your questions aren't relevant. All nations owe their very existence
to strife and injustice, so in that sense of course only the strong
will survive. As an Austrian, you'll ought to find the concept
quite familiar. We are all 'winners' and to put any nation
under the microscope will quickly reveal the skeletons in the
closet. This is as true for America as it is for Pakistan, for
Saudi Arabia as it is for South Africa . It wasn't the white man
who crushed the buddist kingdoms of Sind, nor forced the
bushmen from their farms.

But the western world has come a long way in the last 500 years;
we are both a model and a magnet for those who have not. Despite
what OBL and his misogynist pedophile buddies strutting around
in their pajamas might think, most Muslims would give an arm
and a leg just to live in a country which respects property and
human life. They come in droves - and good luck to them too.
When Chirac visited Algeria last year, he was greeted with
chants of "Visa! Visa!". When the BBC interviewed Muslims
in Peshawar, 90% said they would apply for a US visa if they
thought they could get one.

And here you are, enjoying the good life, flying your plane, yet
having the guile to proffer the smug 'observation' that the two
sides are somehow morally equivalent. Of course, Jay and the
rest of us would agree with you, the neutral arbitrator, if only
we took more notice of foreign affairs and could be bothered
to locate Spain on the map and read about its history. Shame
on you.

Lets see now. On the one side is the power to destroy the
entire middle east but one that chooses not to; on the other a
desperate striving for nuclear weapons which if acquired would
be unleashed without hesitation on us all. On one side we have
tolerance and respect for people regardless of their religion or
race; on the other, people who believe that being a homosexual
is a capital offense, and that women who don't shuffle around
in a sack deserve to get raped. And you, safe in your western
bed at night, can't quite make his mind up as to who is right
and who is wrong.

This is not some abstract high-school debate. Thanks to
OBL, it is up-front and central, and soon *you* may have
to decide exactly whose side you're on. America has never
claimed to know what is best for the world, but it certainly
knows what isn't. And what isn't is being blown up or
gassed or nuked. If you could put aside your fervent
anti-Americanism for once, you might start to see exactly on
which side your bread is buttered.

[Dan Luke]

"Tony Cox" wrote:
> to put any nation under the microscope will quickly
> reveal the skeletons in the closet.

Tee-hee!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Tony Cox]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DzJ4c.6689$_w.233787@attbi_s53...
>
> Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
> remember our allies, and that we will help you find the swine who
> perpetrated this atrocity.

The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
like last time.

[Tony Cox]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" wrote:
> > to put any nation under the microscope will quickly
> > reveal the skeletons in the closet.
>
> Tee-hee!
>

That's the trouble with rants; sometimes one gets
too carried away to proof read!

[Jay Honeck]

> The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
> People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).

Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.

Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> like how those American rebels went on to destroy Indian reservations
> through slaughter and starvation

No, by then the Americans were "conquerors" -- again, not to be confused
with "terrorists" -- on their way to capturing the continent.

The reservations came later, after the Indian conquest was complete.

You really should carefully study the fine distinctions between the words
"rebel," "terrorist," "defender," and "conqueror," in the English language,
as these differences are critically important in any cogent discussion of
world history.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Let me think - that's a hard one - umm, umm, umm. I think every native
> American was innocent until the white man came and began robbing them,
then
> killing them. Do you suggest that when the American Indian began to fight
> back they stopped being innocent and then as a whole became guilty and
> worthy of extermination? Genocide in today's parlance.

The Indians were here first.

They had no effective weapons, and the new settlers out-numbered them 1000
to 1.

They lost the land. It's called "conquest."

They'll get over it. My people did.

Yours probably did, too.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:49:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>You really should carefully study the fine distinctions between the words
>"rebel," "terrorist," "defender," and "conqueror," in the English language,
>as these differences are critically important in any cogent discussion of
>world history.

One thinks of Eskimos and snow.

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> > I suppose you could list the ban on partial-birth abortion as happening
> > under his watch, but this procedure is so barbaric that most people --
> > Democrat or Republican -- shudder at this type of abortion. I see that
> law
> > as being outside of partisan politics -- but that's just me, I suppose.
> >
>
> We call the terrorists barbaric for killing innocents?

Yes. And your point is...?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I find it disturbing when the chief executive of our republic proposes a
> constitutional amendment based upon his faith.

Which one is that? The marriage thing?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> How can it be solved? The stronger survives? War, bloodshed, economical
> decrease?

Sadly, I'm afraid so.

If Radical Islam continues down this illogically confrontational and violent
path, I only see terrible hardship and bloodshed throughout the Middle East.
The U.S. and Western Europe are not about to roll over and die, nor will
they continue to allow terrorist attacks in their countries.

That seems to leave only one alternative.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Lets see now. On the one side is the power to destroy the
> entire middle east but one that chooses not to; on the other a
> desperate striving for nuclear weapons which if acquired would
> be unleashed without hesitation on us all. On one side we have
> tolerance and respect for people regardless of their religion or
> race; on the other, people who believe that being a homosexual
> is a capital offense, and that women who don't shuffle around
> in a sack deserve to get raped. And you, safe in your western
> bed at night, can't quite make his mind up as to who is right
> and who is wrong.

Martin is a moral relativist. There is no "right" and no "wrong" in his
world -- only shades of gray.

Sooner rather than later, he'll have to make a choice.

I suspect he'll choose correctly, if grudgingly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.
>
> Nobody expects that in the general sense; only in the specific. If the
Bible is
> to be believed, we've had crime with us since the second generation of
man. Even
> back when God himself was levying the punishments, it didn't go away.

Punishment alone doesn't always work, true enough.

However, I'm probably the wrong person to talk to about rehabilitating
criminals, as I have no patience with dishonorable people.

I've always subscribed to the "life imprisonment without parole" school of
criminal justice for virtually every major crime.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
> pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
> down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
> like last time.

With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.

This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ev85c.13233$Cb.306915@attbi_s51...
>
> With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very
attackers
> they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.
>
> This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

How did you get from electing socialists to legitimizing Islam
fundamentalists?

Michael

[Judah]

If the Arab Empire wins the war and rewrites history, I would pretty much
guarantee that you are wrong... They will claim all Americans were western
imperialist infidels who treaded upon the Nation of Islam, and the only
ones who weren't were the converts who supported and helped them win the
war.


"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> One of the other posters brought up the Native Americans... Do you
>>> think
>> any innocent Native Americans might have been killed back then? I
>> haven't read much about it in the history books, so maybe it didn't
>> happen...
>
> Let me think - that's a hard one - umm, umm, umm. I think every native
> American was innocent until the white man came and began robbing them,
> then killing them. Do you suggest that when the American Indian began
> to fight back they stopped being innocent and then as a whole became
> guilty and worthy of extermination? Genocide in today's parlance.
>
> I don't suppose there is too much in the history books. It is not going
> to say that the US people in building the nation were guilty of ethnic
> cleansing, on a scale that make criminals out of today's ethnic
> cleansers.
>
>

[Judah]

So the world is full of terrorists, and has been for thousands of years.

The only way to deal with terrorists is to put the fear back into their own
hearts...




"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and
>> history. If the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in
>> their plans, their own history books will write it off as the Great
>> War for Islamic Independence during which their freedom fighters
>> performed attack after attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were
>> finally conquered.
>>
>> If we sit back and wait for it to happen, we will be written off in
>> history as the once great, but now fallen American Imperialist Empire.
>>
> And if we win we will be the bringers of light and freedom to the
> world. The winner always writes the history so what
>
>

[Rosspilot]

>
>The only way to deal with terrorists is to put the fear back into their own
>hearts...
>

It's not easy to frighten people willing to blow themselves up.

www.Rosspilot.com

[Roy Epperson]

legitimizing might have been the wrong word. However, it demonstrated to
them that terrorist acts can affect the elections of a sovereign nation.


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:hE85c.8720$J05.102917@attbi_s01...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ev85c.13233$Cb.306915@attbi_s51...
> >
> > With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very
> attackers
> > they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.
> >
> > This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.
>
> How did you get from electing socialists to legitimizing Islam
> fundamentalists?
>
> Michael
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the eyes of Radical Islamists?
>

In reality.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
> People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).
>

I believe the UN partitioned the land for separate Jewish and Arab states.
The Arabs objected to the Jewish state and attacked it. They lost.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the Arab Empire wins the war and rewrites history, I would pretty much
> guarantee that you are wrong... They will claim all Americans were western
> imperialist infidels who treaded upon the Nation of Islam, and the only
> ones who weren't were the converts who supported and helped them win the
> war.
>

Well, then, we'll have to make sure the Arab Empire doesn't win the war.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
>
> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.

Crime is fought often not even knowing who the criminal IS.


--
"It's said that criminals behave as they do
because of their lack of economic opportunities.
Actually, it's more that they have no economic
opportunities BECAUSE they are criminals."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
> >>
> >> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
> >
> >Careful, boys. This kind of incontrovertible logic is going to upset
Martin
> >and John to no end...
> >
> >;-)
> >--
> >Jay Honeck
> >Iowa City, IA
> >Pathfinder N56993
> >www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >"Your Aviation Destination"
> >
>
> >> > Why, pray tell, do we fight crime in general?
> >>
> >> We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
> >
> >Careful, boys. This kind of incontrovertible logic is going to upset
Martin
> >and John to no end...
> >
>
> What about Abraham? :-)
>
Dammit!! Now that tunes going to be running through my head all damn night.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vl15c.12593$_w.289553@attbi_s53...
> > > We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
> >
> > There's no expectation that crime will cease.
>
> Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
> meant to be a deterrent.
>
> In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

I don't think anyone said we'd ever _completely defeat_ terrorism, any more
than we expect a completely crime free society (even without 2.6 million
laws defined as crimes).

Imagine, though, surrendering. (No..surrender does not produce PEACE.)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ul85c.13930$1p.261741@attbi_s54...
> > > In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.
> >
> > Nobody expects that in the general sense; only in the specific. If the
> Bible is
> > to be believed, we've had crime with us since the second generation of
> man. Even
> > back when God himself was levying the punishments, it didn't go away.
>
> Punishment alone doesn't always work, true enough.
>
> However, I'm probably the wrong person to talk to about rehabilitating
> criminals, as I have no patience with dishonorable people.
>
> I've always subscribed to the "life imprisonment without parole" school of
> criminal justice for virtually every major crime.

Which of the unlimited crimes would you consider major?

Murder? Robbery? TAx "evasion"? Cutting the weeds on your "wetlands"?
Improper paperwork?


>
> ;-)

I hope you're not on jury duty when I roll into the court.... :~)

[Newps]

>>Let me think - that's a hard one - umm, umm, umm. I think every native
>>American was innocent until the white man came and began robbing them,


Nobody was innocent. The white man didn't do anything the indians
weren't already doing to each other for thousands of years. We were
just better at it.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:03:19 GMT, "Roy Epperson" >
wrote:

>legitimizing might have been the wrong word. However, it demonstrated to
>them that terrorist acts can affect the elections of a sovereign nation.
>

Too simple. The Spanish have resisted the Basques for decades.

Don

[Teacherjh]

>> Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>> Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.

(oops, sorry about the prevous incomplete post)

Terrorists don't kill indiscriminately. They employ a very effective tactic of
killing and maiming the enemy. WE say they kill innocents, because it sounds
good. But it is not true. Those who died (and those who survived) the attacks
were guilty, most of them, of not supporting Islamic ideals in the eyes of the
terrorists.

Now, being guilty of that is not (in my eyes) a bad thing. But when one says
"innocent" it is important to say "innocent of what?" and align the answer with
the goals and ideals of the terrorists. Otherwise we are just saying, in
different words, that it was our ox that was gored, and that doesn't really say
much.

The way to defeat terrorism is to have it not work any more. This means
accepting the death and destruction without changing our policy. It means not
being afraid. When you were younger and people taunted you didn't people tell
you "ignore them and they'll go away"? Or if you were on the other side, if
you found that your taunts were ineffective, did you eventually give up?

That's the only way to "win" the war against terrorism. It involves accepting
the losses they inflict, while not inflicting more losses on ourselves.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Don Tuite]

On 15 Mar 2004 05:30:35 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


>That's the only way to "win" the war against terrorism. It involves accepting
>the losses they inflict, while not inflicting more losses on ourselves.
>
>Jose

WWJD?

Don

[Cub Driver]

That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:26:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
>> pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
>> down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
>> like last time.
>
>With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
>they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.
>
>This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:21:28 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>Too simple. The Spanish have resisted the Basques for decades.

He's not talking about Basques. He's talking about Islamic terrorists,
who have just succeeded (as they will interpret it) in forcing Spain
to pull out of Iraq.

Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
think of that. What they are going to think is this:

1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.

2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.

3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.

4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Rosspilot]

>That's the only way to "win" the war against terrorism. It involves
>accepting
>the losses they inflict, while not inflicting more losses on ourselves.

We do as much to "terrorize" ourselves as they do. I agree with Jose. We
constantly dwell on it, we are riveted to Fox News which exploits it for
ratings, we hold candlelight vigils for "victim's families", and politicians
yap about "keeping us safe" like they can do anything about it.

I simply refuse to be terrorized. If we all did that, we could just declare
the war over.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
> Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
> targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.

More worrisome are the U.S. elections in the fall, IMHO.

The terrorists have seen what can be accomplished in Spain; they may assume
Kerry is the equivalent of the Socialists?

Nothing good can come of this.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The way to defeat terrorism is to have it not work any more. This means
> accepting the death and destruction without changing our policy.

Agree 100%. We must stay the course, fight the good fight, and not flinch.

Unfortunately, the Spanish just showed that terror will influence elections,
policies, treaties, and troop deployments.

A very, very bad precedent. I fear the world will pay a terrible price for
Spain's actions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>> WWJD

IDCWJWD.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Judah wrote:
> Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...

The IRA *are* terrorists.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:YRa5c.9395$J05.110561@attbi_s01...
>
>
> >>Let me think - that's a hard one - umm, umm, umm. I think every native
> >>American was innocent until the white man came and began robbing them,
>
>
> Nobody was innocent. The white man didn't do anything the indians
> weren't already doing to each other for thousands of years. We were
> just better at it.

Quite so, and after the white man came, theft of property was strictly the
domain of common criminals or the IRS.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >That's the only way to "win" the war against terrorism. It involves
> >accepting
> >the losses they inflict, while not inflicting more losses on ourselves.
>
> We do as much to "terrorize" ourselves as they do.

Yeah, only 98% of us just go about out days in peace...

> I agree with Jose. We
> constantly dwell on it,

We're in a freaking war, man. Do we need another, more severe kick in the
ass to get that through some peoples heads?

>we are riveted to Fox News which exploits it for
> ratings,

And CNN (and Peter Arnett), CNBC, ABC ABC, NY Times, LA Times,... don't
exploit it for THEIR ratings? Your credibility just took a nosedive.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
> Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
> targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:26:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >> The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
> >> pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
> >> down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
> >> like last time.
> >
> >With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very
attackers
> >they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.
> >
> >This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

One report earlier this morning gave rise to the possibility it was locals,
not any Islamic terrorists. Another gave a possible link back to the
Socialists.

[Tony Cox]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
> Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
> targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.
>

I disagree. Britain has always been a target. An attack would not
change government policy (even if Labour were kicked out, the
Conservatives are even more bullish). And the UK have a clearer
sense of their global responsibilities than Spain. Of course, this
doesn't preclude an attack out of spite, but that is as likely now as
it was before the weekend. The most likely enhanced targets are
France and Germany (over the hajib issue), and in fact these two
have today called for an EU-wide emergency security conference.

The big loser in this is not the coalition forces in Iraq; rather it is
the institutions of the EU. The idea of a common defense force is
exposed as a farce (with Spain turning tail after just one bloody
nose), and continent-wide unity dealt a further blow (as the Spanish
political establishment is clearly not in the least concerned that their
actions have made life more dangerous and difficult for the rest of
the people of the EU).

[Rosspilot]

>
>> I agree with Jose. We
>> constantly dwell on it,
>
>We're in a freaking war, man. Do we need another, more severe kick in the
>ass to get that through some peoples heads?
>

What this has to do with my statement escapes, me. I think everyone is aware
of it without the need for incessant harping on it.

>>we are riveted to Fox News which exploits it for
>> ratings,
>
>And CNN (and Peter Arnett), CNBC, ABC ABC, NY Times, LA Times,... don't
>exploit it for THEIR ratings? Your credibility just took a nosedive.
>

Because I didn't reel off the names of ALL the media? Fox is just the one that
came to mind as most representative. I agree that they are all obscessed by
it. In a way, you make my point.




www.Rosspilot.com

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:30:15 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:


>Your question seems to presume that the behavior of those who commit
>irrational acts is guided by successful results. I'm not so sure that
>is the case. Terrorists are obviously not constrained by rationality,
>so expecting a rational response seems unwarranted.

Larry, please don't take this as an attack because I don't intend it
that way, but you should not assume that because the Islamic
terrorists have had a series of successful attacks against civilian
targets that they are not rational.

To them, the attacks are extremely rational. It's literally the only
attack they can be successful at. It doesn't matter if western
thinking cannot comprehend the point of such attacks. THEY think they
are useful, or they would not be making them.

In a way it's like the Kamakaze attacks on US Navy shipping during
WWII, only worse, because the Japanese weren't attacking because of a
religious fervor and they only attacked military targets. This thing
is religion based, but it's based on an apparently warped
interpretation of the Koran. But that doesn't matter to them. To the
people who believe in this Islamic Jihad, it's the most rational thing
on earth, or they could not be persuaded to die for the cause.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:18:03 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> > We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
>>
>> There's no expectation that crime will cease.
>
>Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
>meant to be a deterrent.
>
>In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"

I think there is, or are plans to attack "crime" as a concept. Crime
has long been thought by psychologists to be frequently the result of
horrifyingly poor parenting. Such things as families without both
parents around, or emotional and or physical abuse. The existance of
adicting drugs also plays a part. Wipe out the root causes and
eventually crime should fade. Not die out entirely, but gradually
diminish. The problem is that poor parenting begats poor parenting.
It's a vicious circle that's very difficult to break.

Corky Scott

PS, there are many opinions about the root causes of crime. For sure
it's not going to be "cured" in the next 20 years.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Dan,

> Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
> would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
> think of that. What they are going to think is this:
>
> 1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.
>
> 2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.
>
> 3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.
>
> 4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
of the war on terror, I have to agree with you and Jay here. To pull
out as what must be seen by the terrorists as a reaction to the bombing
is a very bad thing.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email, please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DzJ4c.6689$_w.233787@attbi_s53...
> We are all Spaniards today.
>
> As a percentage of Spanish population, the horrendous terrorist attack on
> Madrid has now actually injured and killed more people than the World
Trade
> Center attacks did to America in 2001.
>
> Terrorism must be stopped, whatever the cost. Whether it was Basque
> separatists or Muslim extremists is irrelevant -- the animals who take
> pleasure in this kind of carnage must be hunted down and killed.
>
> I have searched in vain to determine how many airplane pilots are in
Spain,
> but I'm sure there must be at least one of you lurking on this newsgroup
> today. Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
> remember our allies, and that we will help you find the swine who
> perpetrated this atrocity.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jay,

Noble sentiments to be sure,

However, the Spanish people themselves don't seem to want to "be Spaniards"
as they promptly gave the "bum's rush" to the ruling party that has been
perceived as getting them attacked in the first place.

I think the attackers got exactly what they were aiming for in Spain and
IMO, if John Kerry gets elected President, they will have acheived a similar
gain in the US.

My $0.02 worth,

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
4.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Cub Driver]

This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
Iraq, and is more vulnerable than either the U.S. or Britain (and
perhaps more susceptible to blackmail).

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:44:17 GMT, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
>> Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
>> targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.
>>
>
>I disagree. Britain has always been a target. An attack would not
>change government policy (even if Labour were kicked out, the
>Conservatives are even more bullish). And the UK have a clearer
>sense of their global responsibilities than Spain. Of course, this
>doesn't preclude an attack out of spite, but that is as likely now as
>it was before the weekend. The most likely enhanced targets are
>France and Germany (over the hajib issue), and in fact these two
>have today called for an EU-wide emergency security conference.
>
>The big loser in this is not the coalition forces in Iraq; rather it is
>the institutions of the EU. The idea of a common defense force is
>exposed as a farce (with Spain turning tail after just one bloody
>nose), and continent-wide unity dealt a further blow (as the Spanish
>political establishment is clearly not in the least concerned that their
>actions have made life more dangerous and difficult for the rest of
>the people of the EU).
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tony Cox]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
> to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
> Iraq, and is more vulnerable than either the U.S. or Britain (and
> perhaps more susceptible to blackmail).
>

Are there actually Muslims in Poland? I doubt Al-Qaida has
the infrastructure to mount an attack.

[Jay Beckman]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
> > to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
> > Iraq, and is more vulnerable than either the U.S. or Britain (and
> > perhaps more susceptible to blackmail).
> >
>
> Are there actually Muslims in Poland? I doubt Al-Qaida has
> the infrastructure to mount an attack.
>
>

Who says they have to be Moslems?

Unfortuantely, sympathies toward a movement are all that are required.

Jay Beckman

[Tony Cox]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:Ixo5c.16719$Nj.11356@fed1read01...
>
> Who says they have to be Moslems?

Because Rasterfarians aren't particularly interested in
reestablishing the Kaliphate.

[Judah]

Exactly. But the poster who got me onto my soapbox was the one that said
that the way to do that was to stop making foreign policy decisions that
****ed off Arab terrorists so that they would leave us alone...

I was just trying to help him see the endgame of his plan...

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If the Arab Empire wins the war and rewrites history, I would pretty
>> much guarantee that you are wrong... They will claim all Americans
>> were western imperialist infidels who treaded upon the Nation of
>> Islam, and the only ones who weren't were the converts who supported
>> and helped them win the war.
>>
>
> Well, then, we'll have to make sure the Arab Empire doesn't win the
> war.
>
>
>

[Judah]

Sure it is.

The way to do it is to show them that the families they left behind will
not be rewarded for their actions. The way to do it is to show that the
punishment for suicide bombing is, for example, the destruction of their
home and the exile of their families.

Another alternative is to show their leaders what happens when they attack
our innocents...

That's what worked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...


(Rosspilot) wrote in
:

>>
>>The only way to deal with terrorists is to put the fear back into their
>>own hearts...
>>
>
> It's not easy to frighten people willing to blow themselves up.
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>
>

[Judah]

Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting for
the British to give back their land.

If they win, history will write that they were warriors and bravehearts...

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >, Judah wrote:
>> Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...
>
> The IRA *are* terrorists.
>

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting for
> the British to give back their land.
>

Who said the land was ever theirs? This is a minority population demanding
secession from Britain for religious reasons. The majority of people living
in Northern Ireland like things the way they are.

(Of course, me ancestors were orange...)

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GT75c.14199$po.186891@attbi_s52...
> > The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
> > People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).
>
> Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.
>
> Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.

The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers. But by your definition the
Palestinians are rebels too and what they are doing is legitimate, fighting
for their native soil.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5ri5c.16535$_w.340261@attbi_s53...
> > The way to defeat terrorism is to have it not work any more. This means
> > accepting the death and destruction without changing our policy.
>
> Agree 100%. We must stay the course, fight the good fight, and not
flinch.
>
> Unfortunately, the Spanish just showed that terror will influence
elections,
> policies, treaties, and troop deployments.
>
> A very, very bad precedent. I fear the world will pay a terrible price
for
> Spain's actions.

Alternatively the world will pay a terrible price for the US's actions.

[S Green]

"Roy Epperson" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> legitimizing might have been the wrong word. However, it demonstrated to
> them that terrorist acts can affect the elections of a sovereign nation.
>

Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911
what's your point?

[Dan Luke]

"Judah" wrote:
> Sure it is.

> The way to do it is to show them that the families they left
> behind will not be rewarded for their actions. The way to
> do it is to show that the punishment for suicide bombing is,
> for example, the destruction of their home and the exile
> of their families.

No. That is precisely what the terrorists are attempting to goad us
into doing. Their goal is the radicalization of the whole Ialamic
world. The destruction of their homes and the exile of their families
would be an immense propaganda victory for them.

Indiscriminate vengeance and retaliation are their game; we'd be fools
to play it.

> That's what worked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Not analagous. For one thing, no one is in a position to "surrender"
for the terrorists. If Bin Laden, for instance, were to reach an
accomodation with the U. S., he would be denounced as a sellout and
replaced by other radicals eager to assume the title of Supreme Defender
of Islam.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[S Green]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
> Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
> targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.
>
Don't worry about the British. They have been dealing with American funded
Irish terrorists for years.
Also with Libyan funded Palestinian terrorists
and Israeli government terrorists blowing up Palestinians, not to mention
Iranians. They don't need patronising Americans who have only recently
discovered what terrorism is about warn them.
Lets face it the FBI and the CIA fu*ked it up well between them.

[S Green]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
> > to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
> > Iraq, and is more vulnerable than either the U.S. or Britain (and
> > perhaps more susceptible to blackmail).
> >
>
> Are there actually Muslims in Poland? I doubt Al-Qaida has
> the infrastructure to mount an attack.

No but there are Chechen (muslim)terrorists operating in Russia and a lot of
Russians in Poland. It would be easy for the Chechens who are in alliance
with OBL to strike.

Think about it.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:7Z75c.14221$po.186605@attbi_s52...
> > like how those American rebels went on to destroy Indian reservations
> > through slaughter and starvation
>
> No, by then the Americans were "conquerors" -- again, not to be confused
> with "terrorists" -- on their way to capturing the continent.
>
> The reservations came later, after the Indian conquest was complete.
>
> You really should carefully study the fine distinctions between the words
> "rebel," "terrorist," "defender," and "conqueror," in the English
language,
> as these differences are critically important in any cogent discussion of
> world history.

Still does not change the fact that the conquerors operated a policy of
genocide. By modern standards a crime against humanity which would not be
tolerated today.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:y585c.14265$po.186714@attbi_s52...
> > > I suppose you could list the ban on partial-birth abortion as
happening
> > > under his watch, but this procedure is so barbaric that most people --
> > > Democrat or Republican -- shudder at this type of abortion. I see
that
> > law
> > > as being outside of partisan politics -- but that's just me, I
suppose.
> > >
> >
> > We call the terrorists barbaric for killing innocents?
>
> Yes. And your point is...?
> --
res ipsa locutor

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting for
> the British to give back their land.
>
> If they win, history will write that they were warriors and bravehearts...
>
Thats the way, just pick and chose who you want to be terrorists and who are
not.

With your logic, the Al Quida probably dont think they are terrorists
either. They are fighting to secure a fundamental muslim homeland in a
muslim world corrupted or stolen by the west.
What's wrong with that. Except that it does not fit in with American
interests.
Whereas because of the Irish lobby in the US, support for the British
fighting Irish terrorists who did the majority of their bombing on the
mainland NOT Ireland was halfhearted.

A clear case of double standards.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the
> very attackers they supposedly revile, and endangered
> us all in the process.

True, but not the real story. The Spanish public was overwhelmingly
against the Iraq war before the bombings. The bombings may have
affected the margin, but the election results are really payback to a
party that ignored its constituents.

> This election will encourage the terrorists like
> nothing else has.

Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
one for the bad guys.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[S Green]

Apologies to Kenny Rogers, and also to the original author of this piece
whose name I don't know.


Everyone considered him the coward of the country
He never went to Vietnam though he thought it a just war
His mamma named him Georgie, the folks just called him Dubya
But something always told me he was looking for a war


He spent Vietnam safely hidden in the air guard
Life looked after Dubya, cause he was his father's son
I still recall the fateful words when his Daddy lost to Clinton
"Son, my career's over, but yours is just begun

Promise me son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from danger if you can
They can't call you weak if you slaughter men like sheep
I hope you're smart enough to understand
If lots of others die you'll be a man"

There's some war for everyone and Dubya's was bin Laden
As commander in chief they'd have to treat him like a man
No matter how hard he tried he just couldn't get bin Laden
But he'd bomb other countries ...there was lots of them!

Dubya watched the TV and he saw his soldiers dyin'
The crying wives, civilian lives, a devastated land
He reached above the fireplace and took down his daddy's picture
As his pride grew on his smiling face, he heard these words again

"Promise me son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from danger if you can
They can't call you weak, if you slaughter men like sheep
I hope you're smart enough to understand
If lots of others die you'll be a man"

The other leaders laughed at him when he gave up diplomacy
Even his allies said they wouldn't support him no more
When Dubya he gave up they said, "Hey, look old Dubya's failing."
But you could have heard a bomb drop when Dubya started a new war

Fifty years of failure, was bottled up inside him
He wasn't holdin nothin back, he let 'em have it all
When Dubya finished bombing, not a country was left standing
He said, "I've a big penis" as he watched the last bomb fall
And I heard him say,

"I promised you Dad, not to the things you done
I walk away from danger when I can
Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't try diplomacy
And Papa I sure hope you understand
When lots of others die you are a man

Everyone considered him the coward of the country


"

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> (Of course, me ancestors were orange...)

And, as I once told a third generation Irish-American friend of mine, "Kevin,
you forget. *My* ancestors *took* Ireland for the British in the first place."

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tony Cox]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are fighting to secure a fundamental muslim homeland in a
> muslim world corrupted or stolen by the west.

They are fighting to reestablish the Caliphate, last seen in the
11th century. They believe that any lands once conquered by
Muslims should be included in this part of this Caliphate. This
encompasses present day Spain, southern France, and
south-eastern Europe up as far as Vienna. The more loony
branches include the US in this too, since they believe that the
new world was discovered by Arab sailors in the 13th century.

They already have a fundamentalist Muslim homeland. It is called
Saudi Arabia. The west actually assured its creation; the British
and French defeating the invading Egyptians in the early 19th
century & the British aiding the Saud family in the Hijaz during WWI
against the Ottomans. Their corruption is a home grown affair.

> What's wrong with that. Except that it does not fit in with American
> interests.

Nothing, if you feel like living in the 7th century again.

> Whereas because of the Irish lobby in the US, support for the British
> fighting Irish terrorists who did the majority of their bombing on the
> mainland NOT Ireland was halfhearted.

It was never the official policy of the US government to support IRA
terrorists, although it did influence thinking in the 30's (when JFKs
father was ambassador). Jack Kennedy, an ardent Irish Nationalist
supporter, counseled Roosevelt to keep out of the war by sending
reports back that the UK was on the verge of collapse prior to
WW2. Thanks Jack. Who knows how many millions died because
of his bias and stupidity.

>
> A clear case of double standards.

I really can't see any similarities, except perhaps that you
seem to have a rather superficial understanding about both.

Had a great flight yesterday here in Las Vegas. A warm spring
day without the spring winds for a change. Managed to get routed
straight over the Strip, for an excellent view of the Bellagio and
Paris hotels, much to the excitement of my passengers.

[Judah]

You're totally missing it, man!

It's not my choice to make. Do you think the Al Queda terrorists think
that what they are doing is morally irreprehensible? Is that why they
call it a Holy War?

"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting
>> for the British to give back their land.
>>
>> If they win, history will write that they were warriors and
>> bravehearts...
>>
> Thats the way, just pick and chose who you want to be terrorists and
> who are not.
>
> With your logic, the Al Quida probably dont think they are terrorists
> either. They are fighting to secure a fundamental muslim homeland in a
> muslim world corrupted or stolen by the west.
> What's wrong with that. Except that it does not fit in with American
> interests.
> Whereas because of the Irish lobby in the US, support for the British
> fighting Irish terrorists who did the majority of their bombing on the
> mainland NOT Ireland was halfhearted.
>
> A clear case of double standards.
>
>

[Judah]

So what do you suggest?

I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...


"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" wrote:
>> Sure it is.
>
>> The way to do it is to show them that the families they left
>> behind will not be rewarded for their actions. The way to
>> do it is to show that the punishment for suicide bombing is, for
>> example, the destruction of their home and the exile of their
>> families.
>
> No. That is precisely what the terrorists are attempting to goad us
> into doing. Their goal is the radicalization of the whole Ialamic
> world. The destruction of their homes and the exile of their families
> would be an immense propaganda victory for them.
>
> Indiscriminate vengeance and retaliation are their game; we'd be fools
> to play it.
>
>> That's what worked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
>
> Not analagous. For one thing, no one is in a position to "surrender"
> for the terrorists. If Bin Laden, for instance, were to reach an
> accomodation with the U. S., he would be denounced as a sellout and
> replaced by other radicals eager to assume the title of Supreme
> Defender of Islam.

[smackey]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<ev85c.13233$Cb.306915@attbi_s51>...
> > The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
> > pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
> > down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
> > like last time.
>
> With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
> they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.
>
> This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

What does this have to do with flying (rec.aviation.piloting, to be
specific), except the very tenuous connection ANY political,
especially international, issue does?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:30:15 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Your question seems to presume that the behavior of those who commit
> >irrational acts is guided by successful results. I'm not so sure that
> >is the case. Terrorists are obviously not constrained by rationality,
> >so expecting a rational response seems unwarranted.
>
> Larry, please don't take this as an attack because I don't intend it
> that way, but you should not assume that because the Islamic
> terrorists have had a series of successful attacks against civilian
> targets that they are not rational.
>
> To them, the attacks are extremely rational. It's literally the only
> attack they can be successful at. It doesn't matter if western
> thinking cannot comprehend the point of such attacks. THEY think they
> are useful, or they would not be making them.

You've got a pretty strange definition of "rational". Don't confuse it with
the verb "rationalize", which is pseudo rationality (i.e., making excuses).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:GT75c.14199$po.186891@attbi_s52...
> > > The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
> > > People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).
> >
> > Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.
> >
> > Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.
>
> The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers.

That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.

> But by your definition the
> Palestinians are rebels too and what they are doing is legitimate,
fighting
> for their native soil.

Nice (but damn lame) attempt at word games.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dan,
>
> > Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
> > would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
> > think of that. What they are going to think is this:
> >
> > 1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.
> >
> > 2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.
> >
> > 3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.
> >
> > 4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.
>
> As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
> of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

[Jeff]

terrorism is not a tactic, its a mindset.

I have been to the middle east (1990-1991), its a **** hole.

Rosspilot wrote:

> >you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
> >> the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.
> >>
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
> There is nothing to "wipe out".
>
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com

[a.d.danilecki]

"S Green" > wrote in message >...
> No but there are Chechen (muslim)terrorists operating in Russia and a lot of
> Russians in Poland. It would be easy for the Chechens who are in alliance
> with OBL to strike.

It would be total stupidity for Chechens, paying back for so many
years of support with terrorist attack.

There are muslims in Poland: Polish tatars and immigrants. They number
is close to nil.

However, Poland unlikely would react similarly to Spain on terrorist
attack.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Judah wrote:
> Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting for
> the British to give back their land.

They have the ballot box for that - there's no need for them to blow up
shopping malls in Manchester. Even though Britain is not part of the
United States, it is (shock horror!) a democracy!

Some people I think just enjoy killing. Now the IRA and Sinn Fein (I
wonder if Gerry Adams had to tick the 'Have you ever been a terrorist?'
box on his visa application form when he went to the US) have called a
cease fire, there's apparently parts of the IRA who aren't happy, and
splintered off calling themselves the 'Real IRA' and continuing to
perpetrate terrorist acts.

It's a great shame, too. Northern Ireland is a beautiful place.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> terrorism is not a tactic, its a mindset.
>
> I have been to the middle east (1990-1991), its a **** hole.
>
Yet Israel is rather nice by any standard...and it's part of the Middle
East.

[Cub Driver]

>> Are there actually Muslims in Poland? I doubt Al-Qaida has
>> the infrastructure to mount an attack.
>
>No but there are Chechen (muslim)terrorists operating in Russia and a lot of
>Russians in Poland. It would be easy for the Chechens who are in alliance
>with OBL to strike.

Good point. It does not appear (at the moment, anyhow) that the
Spanish bombers were Al Qaeda at all, but rather Moroccan sympathizers
with perhaps some links to Qaeda. Indeed, they might well have worked
with the ETA.

It does appear that the war against Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan has
sufficiently disrupted the network that it has operated over the past
couple of years in a very different mode than it did before September
2001. It's more of a high-scale IRA/ETA/Palestianian effort. (Notice
that the Palestinians are shifting toward mass-victim attacks, under
the presumable influence of Al Qaeda's operations?)

Europe is full of guest workers, many of them from Muslim countries.
As Poland joins the EU, its borders become more open.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dan Luke]

"Judah" wrote:
> So what do you suggest?

I suggest we not lash out in anger.

> I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi
> Arabia, Egypt, and Morroco, it will be clear that
> they support the terrorists...

Political and economic pressure on these couintries can be effective.
Invading them would be counter-productive.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Jay Honeck]

> Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911
> what's your point?

An absurd comparison, but -- even if your theory was true -- I doubt the
terrorists were hoping for a Republican majority.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Everyone considered him the coward of the country

Cute, but what does it have to do with this thread?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What does this have to do with flying (rec.aviation.piloting, to be
> specific), except the very tenuous connection ANY political,
> especially international, issue does?

Everything, and nothing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Richard Russell]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:01:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> > We are all Spaniards today.
>>
>> Well, Jay -- your post succeeded in one thing. It brought all the usual
>> apologists for terrorism out of the woodwork.
>>
>> I guess there are plenty of people even on this news group who somehow
>think
>> terrorism is justified if it opposes the United States or its allies.
>
>No, just a few misguided souls.
>
>America will stand with Spain, and our other allies, in this bizarre
>religious/fascist war. I suspect my children will be fighting these stupid
>*******s for a long time to come, but eventually freedom will win out over
>oppression.

Think I'll fly today. Oops, sorry, I thought this was rec.avaiation.
Rich Russell

[S Green]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:GT75c.14199$po.186891@attbi_s52...
> > > > The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish
terrorists.
> > > > People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).
> > >
> > > Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.
> > >
> > > Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.
> >
> > The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers.
>
> That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.
>
> > But by your definition the
> > Palestinians are rebels too and what they are doing is legitimate,
> fighting
> > for their native soil.
>
> Nice (but damn lame) attempt at word games.

But then this whole thread is word games.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:WBD5c.21652$1p.426312@attbi_s54...
> > Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911
> > what's your point?
>
> An absurd comparison, but -- even if your theory was true -- I doubt the
> terrorists were hoping for a Republican majority.

The whole of this thread is full of absurd comparisons why is more absurd
than saying that the Spanish voted in a socialist government because of the
bombing.

The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to war
and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.

The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nDD5c.20998$Cb.466385@attbi_s51...
> > Everyone considered him the coward of the country
>
> Cute, but what does it have to do with this thread?
> --

Everything and nothing

[Newps]

>>>Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911

The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:4cF5c.21773$Cb.469313@attbi_s51...
>
> The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.
>

The Republicans have held the House of Representatives since 1995.

The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left
the Republican party two months later, giving the Democrats the majority.
The Republicans regained the majority with the 2002 election.

[C J Campbell]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:DzJ4c.6689$_w.233787@attbi_s53...
> >
> > Rest assured that all Americans stand with you, that we will
> > remember our allies, and that we will help you find the swine who
> > perpetrated this atrocity.
>
> The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
> pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
> down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
> like last time.

Yep, murder a couple hundred Spaniards and the whole country will do
whatever you want.

[Dan Luke]

"Dylan Smith" wrote:
> ...parts of the IRA who aren't happy, and
> splintered off calling themselves the 'Real IRA'
> and continuing to perpetrate terrorist acts.

After a while, terrorism develops an inertia of its own that's hard to
stop. Terrorists become professionals: it's what they do for a living.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>> This election will encourage the terrorists like
>> nothing else has.
>
>Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
>frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
>one for the bad guys.
>--

And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the
cowardice of the Spanish.

Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in hopes
it would eat you last.'

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>> This election will encourage the terrorists like
>> nothing else has.
>
>Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
>frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
>one for the bad guys.
>--

And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the
cowardice of the Spanish.

Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in hopes
it would eat you last.'

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<5ri5c.16535$_w.340261@attbi_s53>...
> Unfortunately, the Spanish just showed that terror will influence elections,
> policies, treaties, and troop deployments.

I have read this thread with both respect for the (mostly) flame-free
discusion and in awe for the lack of information. You should read more
non-US media...

1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
bell?).

2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
US and its allies, not Christianity.

[Rosspilot]

> You should read more
>non-US media...
>
>1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
>government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
>and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
>bell?).
>
>2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
>US and its allies, not Christianity.
>

can you post a relevant URL please?
www.Rosspilot.com

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54>...
> Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
> independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
> unrelated locales.

US and Spain are not unrelated locales for OBL's people, as Israel is
not unrelated for the palestinian terrorists, etc. And as to
pointlessness, look around you and tell me if WTC hasn't had the
desired effect.

> To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
> independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the world,
> for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and suffering in
> mind, all in the name of Allah.

They invoke Allah as a means to convince the lower ranks, because
religion is one of the very few thinks that can make men blow
themselfs up. But the have politics in mind.

> Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
> in the name of God.

It's thier own freedom from western opresion. Believe it or not, they
don't see America as their saviour, but as their invader.

[Alex]

Judah > wrote in message >...
> If the Arab Empire wins the war and rewrites history, I would pretty much
> guarantee that you are wrong... They will claim all Americans were western
> imperialist infidels who treaded upon the Nation of Islam, and the only
> ones who weren't were the converts who supported and helped them win the
> war.

The terrorists (what is "the arab empire"?) are not after world
domination, but after their nation's freedom from western domination.
They want US and its allies to get out of the middle west.

[Alex]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting for
> the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
> democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
> Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?

Inocents don't deserve to be killed. But when inocents are killed,
those who are left behind naturally seek vengeance. It's only human
(yes, terrorists are human too).

Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
your particular moral system to another culture.

[Alex]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> I don't care whether or not terrorists are interested in freedom. They're
> still criminals that murder. With means such as these, the ends become
> irrelevant.

This could very well be the thinking of the people in Irak about the
US invasion. It is an understandable thing to say from either side.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Alex wrote:
>
> And as to
> pointlessness, look around you and tell me if WTC hasn't had the
> desired effect.

Well, since in one of your other posts, you claim that Al Quaida's aim is to
get the U.S. out of the Middle East, and the WTC attack played a major part in
the establishment of bases in Kuwait, the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan,
and the invasion of Iraq, I'd say that it's had exactly the opposite effect of
what was desired.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<2l%4c.11577$1p.211085@attbi_s54>...
> America will stand with Spain, and our other allies, in this bizarre
> religious/fascist war.

You know, it is that "and our other allies" part that bothers me. The
infamous "either you are with us, or you are against us" BS. Reality
is rarely black and white. Zapatero said he will withdraw his forces
from Irak. Will you stand with Spain after that? Will the victims
still deserve your sympathy? Or will the mother of that student who
was blown to bits become your instant enemy?

> I suspect my children will be fighting these stupid
> *******s for a long time to come, but eventually freedom will win out over
> oppression.

I hope so. What I don't know, is whose freedom will eventually win.

[Jay Beckman]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> terrorism is not a tactic, its a mindset.
>
> I have been to the middle east (1990-1991), its a **** hole.
>

I spent two years in Iran (1976-1978) and actually parts of it are
breathtakingly beautiful.

Whole lot of history there. Persepolis, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom.

The area up around the Caspian Sea is cool too.

I learned to snow ski there on terrain which makes the Alps look like zits.

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
6.0 Hrs - Nowhere to go but up!

[Jay Beckman]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> Judah > wrote in message
>...
> > If the Arab Empire wins the war and rewrites history, I would pretty
much
> > guarantee that you are wrong... They will claim all Americans were
western
> > imperialist infidels who treaded upon the Nation of Islam, and the only
> > ones who weren't were the converts who supported and helped them win the
> > war.
>
> The terrorists (what is "the arab empire"?) are not after world
> domination, but after their nation's freedom from western domination.
> They want US and its allies to get out of the middle west.

Jay H? Can you confirm or deny that we western domination and military
allies in Iowa?

<Sorry, couldn't resist...>

Jay B

[Jay Beckman]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dan Luke"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >> This election will encourage the terrorists like
> >> nothing else has.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
> >frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
> >one for the bad guys.
> >--
>
> And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the
> cowardice of the Spanish.
>

The Aussies already did. The nightclub bombing last year in Bali killed
mosty Aussies.

> Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in
hopes
> it would eat you last.'
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[John Galban]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:GT75c.14199$po.186891@attbi_s52...
> > > > The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
> > > > People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).
> > >
> > > Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.
> > >
> > > Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.
> >
> > The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers.
>
> That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.
>
Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Tom,

> > As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
terms
> > of the war on terror,
>
> And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start. Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
prevented. Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!). Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it? Maybe the bush administration
was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs, i
can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him. They both hated
the US, but for completely different reasons.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> So what do you suggest?
>
> I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
> Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...
>

May not be that simple. For example, my understanding is that Al Queda is
looking to unseat the present government in Saudi Arabia so the government
is fighting Al Queda and their ilk, yet there are people and organizations
in Saudi Arabia that are funding and quite sympathetic of these same groups.

[Cub Driver]

>
>The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
>due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.

Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[S Green]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting
for
> > the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
> > democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
> > Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?
>
> Inocents don't deserve to be killed. But when inocents are killed,
> those who are left behind naturally seek vengeance. It's only human
> (yes, terrorists are human too).
>
> Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
> means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
> case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
> certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
> something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
> your particular moral system to another culture.

How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat through
abusing the democratic processes.

[S Green]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So what do you suggest?
> >
> > I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
> > Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...
> >
>
> May not be that simple. For example, my understanding is that Al Queda is
> looking to unseat the present government in Saudi Arabia so the government
> is fighting Al Queda and their ilk, yet there are people and organizations
> in Saudi Arabia that are funding and quite sympathetic of these same
groups.

A bit like the US government giving the Irish terrorists a "hard" time when
there were US groups sympathetic to the terrorists and happily funding them
through Noraid.

Nothing changes

[David Brooks]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dan Luke"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >> This election will encourage the terrorists like
> >> nothing else has.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
> >frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
> >one for the bad guys.
> >--
>
> And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the
> cowardice of the Spanish.
>
> Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in
hopes
> it would eat you last.'

Although this is dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law: It's
particularly sickening to hear the American right (WD, I'm not addressing
you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your
political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor
and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years
before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies. And
the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini. So, from a
European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming
from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific
points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only
be judged later from a historical perspective.

Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?

-- David Brooks

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.
>

Constitutional? Better check again.


>
> Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
> equally between Dem & Rep?
>

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> > That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.
> >
> Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
> incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
> factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
> Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.

Better get some more info because that's (KD Hotel) one of the worst myths.
British were warned repeatedly and well in advance and arrogantly ignored
all the warnings.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:4cF5c.21773$Cb.469313@attbi_s51...
>
>
>
> >>>Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911
>
> The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.

They had the House and White House, but only a tie in the Senate.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Tom,
>
> > > As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
> terms
> > > of the war on terror,
> >
> > And an effective alternative is...what?
>
> better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

> Or
> choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
> supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
> they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to kill each
other.

Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

> Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
> there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
> prevented.

Prevented how?

> Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
> openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

> Iraq
> was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly funding.
Very likely they would have provided WMD's when developed. As for where WMD
were, remember what Saddamn did with his Air Force in the first Gulf War?
Sent it to Iran. Remember what he did with it during the current war? Sent
it to Syria. Remember the pictures in the papers (NY TImes IIRC) of the
convoy's heading to Syria just before the war? Remember the freighter saling
to North Korea (just before the invasion) that was traveling "dark" in
contravention of maritime law?


>Maybe the bush administration
> was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs,

Well, the so was the rest of the world, and msot of the democrats. Get ahold
of the list of quotes by democras, including Bill and Hillarious Clinton,
making the point that Iraq had WMD and waere ready to use them.

> i
> can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
> he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him.

Funny, isn't it, that the Islamic terrorists were buddies with the
atheistic USSR? Odd how various ethnic crime gangs (Italian, Irish, Jewish
mafias) manage to cooperate when there's a benefit to be gained. Look how
much cooperation there was between the Soviets an the Nazis up until 1941.

>They both hated
> the US, but for completely different reasons.

For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

Negotiation only works with rational people..adn stringiny such process out
over twelve years

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> It's your
> political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor
> and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years
> before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies.

It wasn't our fight. Besides, why were you folks caught with your pants down
in the first place?

> And
> the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini.

So did the left...and they loved Hitler and Stalin as well. They all loved
dictators as being such classy guys.

And why did England adopt so many policies from Hitler and Mussolini after
the war?

> So, from a
> European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming
> from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific
> points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only
> be judged later from a historical perspective.

And maybe some people learn from the experiences of others. So you can shove
YOUR pompous crap up your back side.


> Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative.

Meaning what?

>WD,
> what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
> Harbor? What about after PH?

The libertarian viewpoint would have been my remark above; "It's not our
fight".

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:16:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
>does not constitute a true majority.

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.

If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority. The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.

Beware people who say things like "true majority". The adjective is
trying to write a new definition.

Do you also peddle "real facts"?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:41:52 -0800, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

> American right (WD, I'm not addressing
>you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your
>political forbears who were the master appeasers,

Yes, that's an interesting phenom. The Republicans have become the
Churchills of today, looking outward to the world, while the Democrats
have become the America Firsters.

The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> They had the House and White House, but only a tie in the Senate.
>

Only for two months. In March 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican
party, giving the Democrats a majority in the Senate.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
> wrong.
>

That is essentially what I did say and I was right.


>
> If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
> majority.
>

And when you have the same number as the opposition you do not have a
majority.


>
> The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
> break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.
>

No, it assures the presidential party will have control. To have a majority
requires holding at least one more seat than half of the total.

[Tony Cox]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> > This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
> > to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
>
>
> 14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen on
TV)

You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.

[Rosspilot]

> 14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen on
>TV)
>
>You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.
>

Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various Slavik
and Eastern European, other countries)
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/009600.html

www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each.

This happens in politics, all the time.

And it's not limited to just the two parties.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
> > of the war on terror, I have to agree with you and Jay here.
>
> the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do (at least in the first months) with
> terrorism. It was to enforce the search on WMD and maybe a little bit
against
> Saddam Hussein and his regime (originally fundend by whom?).

Whether we agree on this point or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen that
"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
> government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to
war
> and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.
>
> The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.

True or not, it doesn't matter. (And given the pre-election polls in Spain,
I doubt your conclusions.)

What matters is what the terrorists perceive -- not what you and I believe.
And I don't see how they can learn any lesson but this: "Bombs+Massive
Casualties = Troops out of Middle East."

The actions of Spain have endangered us all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony Cox]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> > 14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen
on
> >TV)
> >
> >You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.
> >
>
> Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various
Slavik
> and Eastern European, other countries)

Bit less now that the 1300 Spaniards have gone AWOL....

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
> vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

NPR's "All Things Considered" was saying the same thing yesterday.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Jay Honeck]

> > No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much
more
> > vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.
>
> NPR's "All Things Considered" was saying the same thing yesterday.

I also heard it on Canadian radio (which, for some inexplicable reason, is
aired on our local public radio station in the evenings) last night, and the
BBC.

For once, liberals and conservatives seem to be in agreement on something.
Too bad it's so awful.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > 14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen
> on
> > >TV)
> > >
> > >You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various
> Slavik
> > and Eastern European, other countries)
>
> Bit less now that the 1300 Spaniards have gone AWOL....
>
The Spaniards are neither Slavic, nor Eastern European.

[Cub Driver]

>What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen that
>"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."
>
>No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
>vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sure the last bit is.
Given that attacking the U.S. resulted in two shooting wars, plus
manifold other actions against terrorism, I don't think that the U.S.
is the next logical target. Surely Italy is. Or, if the message is
"all crusaders bad", then France.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "David Brooks"
> writes:

>
>Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
>what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
>Harbor? What about after PH?
>

There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is now
about Iraq.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends, but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of principle.
Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed individually.
LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of Afghanistan
but see little justification for Iraq.

Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against Islamofascism,
encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and Europe.
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just individual
governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq did
not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2 we
went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.

But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it as
we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would have
been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and the
rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to use
force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Alex) writes:

>
>> Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
>> in the name of God.
>
>It's thier own freedom from western opresion. Believe it or not, they
>don't see America as their saviour, but as their invader.
>
>

Actually, it's all about Brittany Spears.

Their sons, and worse, their daughters, think Brittany is cool. That is death
to their mysogenistic, sixth century culture. For centuries, they could
indoctrinate their sons in madrasas's, and their daughters at their mothers
knees, into their backward, authoritarian feudal culture in isolation, but now,
in the electronic age, Brittany rains down on them from our satelites and their
stick in the mud culture cannot compete for the hearts of the next generation.

And they are ****ed.

They can't win. Their people thirst for information from the outside. As soon
as we struck down the Taliban, satelite dishes buried in back yards sprouted up
like daffodils in the spring. Their culture cannot stand open exchange with the
outside world, and technology will no longer give them a place to hide. So
their culture is dying, but like a snake with a broken back, they are lashing
out blindly.

The sooner we drag them out of the sixth century, the fewer of them we will
have to kill to stop the violence. Dropping the rule of law and self
determination right into the heart of the middle east in Iraq is the quickest
way to bring the struggle to an end.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Alex) writes:

>
>Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
>means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
>case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
>certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
>something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
>your particular moral system to another culture.
>

This would be why everywhere they gain power over the indigents they impose
Sahria?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:U2_5c.32061$po.291135@attbi_s52...
> > The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
> > government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to
> war
> > and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.
> >
> > The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.
>
> True or not, it doesn't matter. (And given the pre-election polls in
Spain,
> I doubt your conclusions.)
>
> What matters is what the terrorists perceive -- not what you and I
believe.
> And I don't see how they can learn any lesson but this: "Bombs+Massive
> Casualties = Troops out of Middle East."
>
> The actions of Spain have endangered us all.

********! The action of the US is the problem. Cruising round the world with
its big dick looking for someone else to screw.
Big dick no brains!

[S Green]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "David Brooks"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
> >what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
> >Harbor? What about after PH?
> >
>
> There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is
now
> about Iraq.
>
> Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
> we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
> begun.
>
> The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
> Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed
individually.
> LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of
Afghanistan
> but see little justification for Iraq.
>
> Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against
Islamofascism,
> encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and
Europe.
> We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just
individual
> governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq
did
> not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2
we
> went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
> Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
> Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.
>
> But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it
as
> we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would
have
> been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and
the
> rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to
use
> force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.

American libertarians make Hitler and his Nazis look like a soft touch.
Says a lot for the American right.

[John Galban]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.
> > >
> > Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
> > incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
> > factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
> > Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.
>
> Better get some more info because that's (KD Hotel) one of the worst myths.
> British were warned repeatedly and well in advance and arrogantly ignored
> all the warnings.

No Tom, it's not a myth. The bombing actually took place and it was
done by a faction of the pro-jewish movement (IIRC, the Irgun). The
bombers admitted their participation publicly.

Using your logic, an action is not a terrorist action if you call
and warn someone in advance.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Tom,

> > > And an effective alternative is...what?
> >
> > better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.
>
> And what could we have done with that intelligence?

arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?

> I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and
for
> information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information
enabling such arrests? I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available.

> > Or
> > choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
> > supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the
moment
> > they are shooting them at people we don't like.
>
> We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
> Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the
Soviets
> with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd
never
> had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to
kill each
> other.

It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West,
nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so
unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us.

> Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

People who share our values, a common conception of human rights.

> > Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option,
if
> > there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can
be
> > prevented.
>
> Prevented how?

arresting (or killing) the terrorists.

> > Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
> > openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).
>
> What would "finish" that job in your view?

To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of
gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.

> > Iraq
> > was never really about terrorism, was it?
>
> They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly
funding.

Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
justification for the war?

But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi
Arabia if that was our motivation.

> For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for
the
> Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
> society.

Yes, I agree with that.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[David Brooks]

Thanks - I concede your post is well argued and nuanced.

-- David Brooks

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...

>
> Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
> we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
> begun.
>
> The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
....snip...go see the parent for all of it

[Alex]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Well, since in one of your other posts, you claim that Al Quaida's aim is to
> get the U.S. out of the Middle East, and the WTC attack played a major part in
> the establishment of bases in Kuwait, the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan,
> and the invasion of Iraq, I'd say that it's had exactly the opposite effect of
> what was desired.

All right, let me try again. The US has been interfering with
governments all over the world for many decades. Some very exceptional
and highly publicized interventions end up well (WW2). But most of
them lead directly or indirectly to poverty, famine and general misery
(Lat.America). In most of these places the people just sigh and go on
in their daily struggle to survive... Some have mixed feelings because
they have the rare privilege of having access to the US-produced
goods.

Maybe the US interventions in the Middle East have been much more
unbearable, or maybe the people there aren't so sheepish and they
fight back. So they don't really care if the US sends the tanks and
fighters. They just want to get even. Of course, the tanks and
fighters just reinforce their reasoning and so it may even serve their
cause.

I remember the day of the WTC attacks. Not only was I horrified and
shocked, but I also feared the spiral of violence that would come
next. Of course the US had the right to retaliate, and of course
whoever got attacked by the US (not the offenders, of course) had the
right to retaliate in turn, and so on. It's happening slower than I
thought, but it is happening, and I don't see an end to it, as much as
I don't see an end to the palestinian/israeli suffering...

So I don't know what has to be done to stop this madness, but one of
the sides should drastically change positions. Of course it is very
difficult for the fighters to step down, forget and forgive and take
the blame, but someone has to do it. Maybe the new JFK is the only
hope.

[Corky Scott]

On 17 Mar 2004 18:22:35 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:

>In article >,
(Alex) writes:
>
>>
>>> Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
>>> in the name of God.
>>
>>It's thier own freedom from western opresion. Believe it or not, they
>>don't see America as their saviour, but as their invader.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, it's all about Brittany Spears.
>
>Their sons, and worse, their daughters, think Brittany is cool. That is death
>to their mysogenistic, sixth century culture. For centuries, they could
>indoctrinate their sons in madrasas's, and their daughters at their mothers
>knees, into their backward, authoritarian feudal culture in isolation, but now,
>in the electronic age, Brittany rains down on them from our satelites and their
>stick in the mud culture cannot compete for the hearts of the next generation.
>
>And they are ****ed.
>
>They can't win. Their people thirst for information from the outside. As soon
>as we struck down the Taliban, satelite dishes buried in back yards sprouted up
>like daffodils in the spring. Their culture cannot stand open exchange with the
>outside world, and technology will no longer give them a place to hide. So
>their culture is dying, but like a snake with a broken back, they are lashing
>out blindly.
>
>The sooner we drag them out of the sixth century, the fewer of them we will
>have to kill to stop the violence. Dropping the rule of law and self
>determination right into the heart of the middle east in Iraq is the quickest
>way to bring the struggle to an end.
>
>
>--
>Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
>PP-ASEL
>Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wow. I never thought of Brittany Spears as a valiant agent of change,
crusader of American "culture". I always thought she was just a
slightly dimwitted so called singer, blessed with a lusty body and
willing to flaunt it.

The things you learn in this group.

Corky Scott

[Alex]

(Rosspilot) wrote in message >...
> > You should read more
> >non-US media...
> >
> >1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
> >government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
> >and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
> >bell?).
> >
> >2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
> >US and its allies, not Christianity.
> >
>
> can you post a relevant URL please?
> www.Rosspilot.com

http://www.prensalibre.com/pls/prensa/detnoticia.jsp?p_cnoticia=83802&p_fedicion=16-03-04
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2004/03/15/i-01616.htm
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2004/mar04/040315/003n2mun.php

You can do your own search.

[Alex]

(Rosspilot) wrote in message >...
> > You should read more
> >non-US media...
> >
> >1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
> >government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
> >and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
> >bell?).
> >
> >2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
> >US and its allies, not Christianity.
> >
>
> can you post a relevant URL please?
> www.Rosspilot.com

Also, in case you can't read Spanish:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4535595/

where you can read:
'Analysts say that Aznar's party lost the race because Spaniards saw
their rush to judgment against the ETA as a politically convenient
deception. "In trying to get an electoral victory, they emphasized the
ETA-theory to such an extent that the manipulation was too obvious,"
says Nuñez. "And, in the end, the population reacted to being
manipulated." A policeman at the end of the island on Line 2 at Atocha
station said it in other words, whispering with repressed anger, "All
the politicians can go to hell."'

[Gig Giacona]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen
that
> >"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."
> >
> >No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much
more
> >vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.
>
> The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sure the last bit is.
> Given that attacking the U.S. resulted in two shooting wars, plus
> manifold other actions against terrorism, I don't think that the U.S.
> is the next logical target. Surely Italy is. Or, if the message is
> "all crusaders bad", then France.
>
>

Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain I
would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the US in
October.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "S Green" > wrote:
>
>
>>How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
>>means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat through
>>abusing the democratic processes.
>
>
> democracy is dictatorship of the majority.



Which is why we don't have that here.

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:50:52 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
>> Yep, murder a couple hundred Spaniards and the whole country will do
>> whatever you want.
>
>
>We want to keep you statement for the Google archive. It is so ... honest.
>

Welll... Look at it this way.
We had 9/11 and it made us angry.
The lost a couple of trains and said if we leave them alone maybe they
won't bother us any more. At least that is what the world wide
financial community is seeing.

In one fell swoop they gave the terrorists a tremendous boost in
incentive and moral that repeating such operations will eventually let
them win.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>#m