The next attack (On Topic)

[Roger Long]

Why is this on topic for this forum? Face it, even if the next terrorist
action is carried out with trained hamsters marching down 42 ND street with
little explosive backpacks, shutting down general aviation will be a
centerpiece of the response.

Those of us in aviation have followed the security situation more closely
than most so we know that Al Qaeda can pretty much attack at will. The TFR'
s, the chain link fences installed around rural airports, the 2% of shipping
containers inspected, may have lengthened the terrorist planning sessions by
a couple hours but the nation is a colander. Plugging up a dozen holes hasn'
t changed the situation a bit.

The timing of the next attack can be predicted by figuring out what Al Qaeda
would want to achieve at this point. If being stranded away from home or
otherwise losing the use of your airplane would be a problem, you should
give this some thought in the same way you might look at the tropical
weather patterns before planning a late summer flight to the east coast.

One of the very few things that our intelligence (is that the right word?)
apparatus has gotten right is the idea that the election is the big, fat,
juicy target. The ship of state forges on with its great inertia making it
virtually immune to outside influences. Once every four years however, the
wheel is connected directly to a big flapping sail that can be yanked either
way by the gusts of public opinion and fear. Public opinion and fear is what
terrorism is all about. It's an opportunity not to be missed.

If Al Qaeda wants to influence the election, which way are they going to
cast their "vote"? Important question if you are planning a GA trip around
the time of either convention. Before giving it some more thought, I said,
"The republican convention, of course." All the leadership that conceived
and carried out the Iraq war gathered in the most symbolic city and also the
one that by geography and demographics is the easiest in which to mount an
attack. Who could resist?

On the other hand Bush and his administration have made the most basic and
fundamental error in the war on terror. It's the same mistake we made in
Vietnam and that the British made in the revolution. It's best illustrated
by the Israeli struggle with the suicide bombers. Israel thinks that the
struggle is one of whether they can blow up enough safe houses and attack
enough Hamas leaders from the air to force the Palestinians to stop. Hamas
knows that the purpose of the suicide bombing is to get Israel to attack
safe houses and shoot at cars with helicopters so they can build the kind of
society in which martyrdom is taught as part of the first grade curriculum.
So far, they are winning.

The purpose of Al Qaeda is not primarily to influence U.S. or world opinion
or actions. They are taking a much longer view. Their object is to influence
the hearts and minds inside the Muslim world so that their jihad becomes the
kind of irresistible tidal wave of history that took out communism.

I do not question Bush's resolve, toughness, integrity, or patriotism but he
is repeating one of history's oldest mistakes. I just heard a reporter who
has been in close contact with the resistance in Iran since the beginning.
Thousands of former Sadam toughs who, a year ago, were leading lives about
as secular as street hoods in any nation have now given up drinking,
smoking, and become devout and fanatic Muslims dedicated to the Bin Laden
cause. As even people in the Bush administration have said, we are creating
terrorists far faster than we are killing them. We were bailing the boat
with a thimble and then we put a two foot hole in it.

If Bin Laden were an all powerful puppet master who could direct events
precisely, he could not have done better than to create the Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, gang. The Viet Cong were overjoyed when Nixon began bombing the
north. They knew that the war would be won by transporting disassembled
artillery pieces by bike and foot along jungle trails and that a populous
whose homes were being bombed would turn to that task with much greater
will. History repeats itself. If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in office.

How Al Qaeda will attempt to support Bush I'm not sure. Bin Laden is clearly
a student of history though and knows that a panicked electorate will be
unlikely to switch to a new leader in a crisis. An early attack would also
leave time for investigation and recrimination that could lead to a desire
for change. The democratic convention is too early. I'll fly with little
worry this month.

The republican convention is also early but they might feel that this is
outweighed by the effect on their own troops and undecided potential jihad
members of staging a spectacular attack on the perceived enemy. I wouldn't
lay bets on this one.

Both during the republican convention and the last half of October, I'm
going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately will leave me
and my plane at a convenient airport.

--
Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
alternatives in your post.

If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
we to do?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BillC85]

Very good points all.

To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
war.

Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
there for the next 10,000 years.

Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
about that.

This war is a test of will. Theirs against ours. So far we're running it
like a 5th Avenue PR campaign and they're running it like it should be run.

We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest mistake
of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
not work this time.

We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They all
die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.

Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
you know it.

BillC





"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> Why is this on topic for this forum? Face it, even if the next terrorist
> action is carried out with trained hamsters marching down 42 ND street
with
> little explosive backpacks, shutting down general aviation will be a
> centerpiece of the response.

and so on...

> You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
> alternatives in your post.

> If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
> we to do?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

There are a whole bunch of faulty assumptions here, beginning with the idea
that we lost the war in Vietnam. At worst, it was a push, but we did achieve
the primary goal of halting the spread of communism in Asia. Ultimately,
Vietnam demonstrated the abject failure of communism and should be seen as
one of the events that led to the collapse of communism in Russia and
Europe.

The invasion of Iraq has accomplished similar geo-political goals. The
Findlandization of such countries as Iran and Libya has been evident. The
thing we must do is stop allowing terrorists to control our media. The
beheading of a few hostages has absolutely no military consequence, for
example, but the tremendous publicity gained by these actions has inspired
thousands of others.

These people want only one thing: the complete destruction of all infidels.
The thing that people are going to have to understand is that it is possible
to lose this war and they should understand the consequences. Terrorists now
control Spain. Spain will do whatever the terrorists want; all they have to
do is make a few threats or blow up a train. We are in danger of losing the
Philippines.

If we allow the terrorists to gain control of this country then we are
doomed. You are right when you say the terrorists are taking a long view.
Their ultimate goal is to create fundamentalist Islamic states in every
country in the world. But refusing to fight back, refusing to destroy them
wherever they are found, refusing to use every weapon and measure at our
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it. They must understand that
the media will no longer do their dirty work for them. Their shrines and
holy places can no longer remain inviolable. Their religious leaders can no
longer be allowed to maintain private armies. Countries that allow the
transit of fighters should expect a nuclear response. Those who raise money
for terrorist organizations and allow their mosques to be used as forums for
recruiting terrorists should die and their mosques should be leveled, no
matter where in the world those mosques are. Moslems in the United States
should understand that the consequences of shielding terrorists in their
midst and apologizing for them will result in their extermination. They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
democratic protections.

It is time to take this threat seriously and stop using it as a political
football or as an arena for judicial grandstanding. So far I have seen
absolutely no sign that either party is willing to do that.

[Roger Long]

It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot. This situation is only going to be
resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that there
are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
fundamentalism as the only path. These are Islamic societies and nothing
short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change that.
Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity. Unless we
are prepared to kill millions to eliminate thousands of terrorists we will
not solve this problem until the Islamic societies become our allies in the
struggle. Your kind of thinking, and just about everything our government
is doing, works directly against this.

The distortions of culture, society, and government in the mideast that lead
to this are largely of our (the West's) doing. The very borders of the
nations were established by Britain and other powers of the time without
regard to ethnic borders that would create stable nations. We threw the
economies and cultures completely out of whack with oil money and tolerated
and supported brutal dictatorships that would keep the oil flowing.

Bin Laden and Sadam themselves are largely creations of the CIA supported
struggle against Russia in Afghanistan and our meddling in the Iran / Iraq
war. We need to accept that our decades of mistakes and meddling have
created a situation in which terrorism is as inevitable as hurricanes. We
don't go into a tizzy of breast beating, changing of society, and
restriction of civil liberties when a hurricane does millions of dollars in
damage and kills many. Hell, we even give the rich folks on the barrier
beaches money to rebuild (until recently). Hurricanes and earthquakes are
not manhood and virility challenges to our leaders so everyone shrugs and
life goes on.

Israel has proved that terrorism can not be eliminated by force even within
a small geographic area where some of the toughest people in the world have
enormous control and decades of understanding the situation on the ground
and the culture they are dealing with. What chance do we have over a huge
area at the end of a long logistical trail when the Pentagon can't even find
enough translators?

This is now an intractable and long term problem that is going to have to be
managed. The solution will take decades and patience. Thinking of
terrorism as something that has to be eliminated before the next election or
we'll need a new president will make true solutions impossible to pursue or
implement. Nothing constructive will happen until Islamic societies start
to function properly in the modern world, leadership in them is supported by
the population at large, and they see themselves as allies with us in the
struggle against terror. Everything being done now is probably being
cheered by Bin Laden.

It's much like trying to glide to a landing spot after an engine out. Pull
back on the yoke and you will land shorter or even stall and crash. Right
now, all the passengers are screaming, "Pull up, pull up!" and big burly
fellows are struggling to the front to try and grab the yoke to pull it back
further. Kerry isn't going to do any better unless he can become the kind
of leader who can calm the passengers and regain control. I don't have a
lot of confidence that he can do that but I'd rather not have a pilot in
this situation who clearly thinks that how hard he pulls back on the yoke is
the test of his leadership.

--
Roger Long

[Greg Copeland]

Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
question.


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
> sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
> this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

> They
> cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
> democratic protections.
>

Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
it or not, that's where we stand.


Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:02:31 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
> alternatives in your post.
>
> If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
> we to do?


Excellent question. Most experts agree that one of the biggest efforts we
should be making is to not only continue to rebuild, but most importantly,
start social reform programs. We need to be spending money educating the
uneducated. Their most powerful weapon is ignornance. It's the same
weapon that Christian (e.g. Catholic) churches used for hundreds of years.
Breed ignorant, uneducated masses and they are yours to control.
Education on world events, religion, world economy, domocracy and politics
are the weapons which will win the long-war. This is THE weapon and THE
long-view that the fundimentalist are using. It needs to be our weapon
too.

Greg

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
"BillC85" > wrote:

> To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
> war.
>
> Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
> there for the next 10,000 years.
>
> Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
> about that.
>
> We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest mistake
> of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
> not work this time.
>
> We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They all
> die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.
>
> Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
> you know it.

No, sorry, I don't -- it's absolutely not "the only way".

We do have to fight "them" (the bad guys), and do it resolutely,
no question about it.

But we also have to educate and persuade and empower the good guys --
the decent people -- who are a majority in Islamic lands every bit as
much as in Christian or whatever lands.

Failing to do that -- focusing only on "no quarter, no mercy",
abandoning our own Western values -- will in fact accomplish exactly the
opposite, and drive the good guys in the Islamic world the other way.

Christianity at one time, some centuries ago, was nearly as bad as
fundamentalist Islam is today (and so are some of our Christian and
Jewish zealots today). The Western world has progressed a long way
beyond that; Islam and the Arab world can also.

[Roger Long]

Jay,

You'll read my other response I'm sure.

Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and still
do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things like
that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The issue
is how it was done.

The purpose of the invasion was what came after we had control. That part of
it has got to be the most massively mishandled, unplanned, and screwed up
undertaking in human history. Instead of being recognized as just a speed
bump on the way to the real task, the invasion was viewed as the main event.
It was like sending paratroopers out of a plane without ammunition, food, or
a plan.

The scale of what needed to be done post-invasion is something that the U.S.
could never do on its own without significantly screwing up the economy.
Just the fact of our trying to do it alone doomed it politically.

Doing it alone became a test of Bush proving his cowboy toughness. Real men
don't ask for help. There was no compelling reason to invade Iraq last year
or before the next election other than to influence domestic opinion.

Bush et al are like an IFR pilot who needed to make an IFR flight. He felt
that he had to make the flight on time in order to impress his boss (the
voters). There wasn't time to do a preflight, the radios were acting up, and
the vacuum system was erratic. Now he's up in the murk with no
communications and partial panel.

The purposes of the flight are not the issue. Whether the pilot is a fool
for not accommodating the schedule to the realities and conducting the
flight responsibly is.

Look at the international aspect of terror, the camps spread all over the
world, the drug connections, the 911 hijackers living in Germany. This is
something that can only be fought by a world united against it and that has
to include constructive change in the Islamic nations. Sure, we want it to
go away right now but nothing is going to work until that unity of purpose
is achieved. Sometimes you have to just accept that you can't make progress
on your objective until you have first created the means to do so. Bush
skipped that step.

I was in Europe the Summer before 911. Everyone was complaining that Bush
was doing more to isolate the US than any president since before WWII. 911
came along after we had ****ed off just about every friend we ever had. Iraq
then became a giant wedge pounded into the gap.

The only way the US can win this fight alone it to seal our borders,
eliminate GA and everything similar to it, register and control the
movements of all citizens, monitor all mail and other communication, stop
import of most goods, and imprison anyone who appears vaguely different.

Vaporizing the Mideast would also work but the fallout would blow around and
poison us as well.

Many things in life are hard and require the patience and wisdom to endure
problems while you develop the means to solve them. Bush is a guy who always
had the way made easy for him and always took the easy way out. Ordering
invasions is easy and it's easy to look tough when you pick up the phone.
Faced with probably the biggest test a president has faced since Lincoln,
Bush skipped right to the easy part and probably blew our chance to get this
back on track for generations.

I hope GA and a lot of other great and noble things in our society and the
world will survive what is to come.

--
Roger Long

[Roger Long]

Hmm, last I checked the guys who watched the last choppers leave were
running the place.

Ho Chi Minn was actually a nationalist who said that his first choice would
have been to become a client of the US to help his country become a bulwark
against Chinese expansion. He looked too much like a communist to us so we
spurned him and chased him into taking the next best offer.

Sure, we may have checked Russia on several fronts, including Afghanistan,
but we did it in a way that left us with the current mess and the very real
danger of losing the countries you mention to an even more difficult and
intractable enemy.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight but that we should recognize that you
can't build a house with just a hammer. We need to fight and work in a way
that achieves what we want.

You are absolutely right about one thing though. If we don't get control of
our media we won't have the national will to keep on making the mistakes we
are making now. Don't worry, I'm sure Ashcroft is working on that and it
will get taken care of after the election (unless the tough guys lose).

--
Roger Long

[Robert Briggs]

Roger Long wrote:

> Both during the republican convention and the last half of October,
> I'm going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately
> will leave me and my plane at a convenient airport.

That, sir, is a form of giving in to terrorism, albeit not to the
extent that your Department of Fatherland Security and our Home
Office seem intent on depriving us of so much of the freedom for
which our parents fought and died on the beaches of Normandy and
elsewhere some sixty years ago.

[Andrew Gideon]

Roger Long wrote:

> If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
> outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in office.

Would not a "victory" (ie. getting the US to pull out of Iraq, or anything
else "forced" upon us) do wonders for Al Qaeda and its recruiting?

- Andrew

[Gene Seibel]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...

Unfortunatley, terrorist election tampering worked in Spain. They will
try it here. Unfortunatley, our news media will aid them.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jay Honeck]

> Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
> US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

Actually, I believe it's more accurate to portray it as a war between modern
society and RELIGIOUS fundamentalism -- in all forms.

Islam just happens to be the flavor of choice for these nutcases. It could
just as easily have been Christians, as Tim McVeigh demonstrated.

Sadly, the Christian Right in the U.S. is mostly blind to this knowledge.
This fact only enflames the issue, and leads to the erroneous "Christian vs.
Muslim" aspect of the war.

This in no way means that I agree with Roger's approach, however. Although
he makes many good points, he offers no alternatives to fighting other than
"just getting along" with these poor, down-trodden people.

I see no way for this to happen when the poor, down-trodden people are
beheading our hostages on TV, and forcing their women to be mute, and to
wear shrouds in public.

As for Israel not proving that they can eliminate terrorism, I respectfully
disagree. This war has only just begun, and Israel has proven that a small
group of dedicated people can (a) construct a true democracy in the midst of
squalor and terror, and (b) can stand up to almost daily attacks without
breaking.

Although I don't agree with everything Israel has done, or stands for, to
say that they are not an inspiration in our fight against terror would be
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Icebound]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
> > outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in
office.
>
> Would not a "victory" (ie. getting the US to pull out of Iraq, or anything
> else "forced" upon us) do wonders for Al Qaeda and its recruiting?
>


I doubt it. Recruiting peaks when there is a "just cause". If they had a
perceived "victory", there would probably be a letdown, and the
not-so-hard-core would drop off and go back to their life of petty crime.

Also, the USA did them a huge favor by removing one of their non-supporters
and alienating a population... so that now they have allies, land to operate
within, and "foreign" supporters, where they had little or none before.

Once the US pulled out, those temporary allies might be just as prone to
kick the Al Qaeda out as well. Unless the US pull-out included some sort of
threat where the Iraqis felt they needed such alliances for protection.

That having been said, if the US pulls out of Iraq, there are still a lot of
perceived "causes" that would support recruitment, but that would be one
less.

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
> question.
>
>
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> > disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
> > sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of
continuing
> > this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.
>
> Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
> US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?
>

No. It is a war for survival. The only thing these people want is for you to
die. The only way to keep them from killing you, your wife, your children,
and burning your house down so that 'infidels' will not live in it is to
kill them first.

> > They
> > cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and
expect
> > democratic protections.
> >
>
> Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
> saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
> possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
> specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
> it or not, that's where we stand.

It has never been true that the right to advocate violent overthrow of the
government has been protected. Even if it is, these people have forfeited
that right. The Constitution was meant to protect reasonable and rational
discourse. These people cannot be negotiated with. They cannot be reasoned
with. They cannot be bargained with. They have no intention of upholding any
sort of Constitution. If you don't grow your beard just so they want to be
able to drag you out into the street and execute you in front of your family
and neighbors.

We lose the Constitution completely if these guys win. America in time of
war has always suspended certain Constitutional rights. There were far more
restrictions on freedom during WW II than there are now, and after the war
those freedoms were returned. In fact, Americans had more and greater
freedoms after the war than before.

It is time to stop playing games with semantics. We have got to exterminate
these people before they do the same to us.

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, last I checked the guys who watched the last choppers leave were
> running the place.
>
> Ho Chi Minn was actually a nationalist who said that his first choice
would
> have been to become a client of the US to help his country become a
bulwark
> against Chinese expansion. He looked too much like a communist to us so
we
> spurned him and chased him into taking the next best offer.
>

I would like to see a reliable reference for what Ho Chi Minn supposedly
said. A great deal of what Ho Chi Minn 'said' is heavily doctored. Anyway,
the primary objective was to keep communism from spreading to the rest of
the area and we accomplished that.

> Sure, we may have checked Russia on several fronts, including Afghanistan,
> but we did it in a way that left us with the current mess and the very
real
> danger of losing the countries you mention to an even more difficult and
> intractable enemy.

It is time we recognized that we have been fighting this enemy ever since
the fall of Iran. The war did not start with 9/11. It began with the
takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. You could even say it began with the
Olympic games in Munich. It is a fight between civilization and despotism.
It always has been.

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
> You'll read my other response I'm sure.
>
> Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and
still
> do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things like
> that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The issue
> is how it was done.
>

I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of the oil,
then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument of people like
Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan because of oil, despite
the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no pipelines, and no significant
production facilities.

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
> Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot. This situation is only going to
be
> resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that
there
> are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
> fundamentalism as the only path. These are Islamic societies and nothing
> short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change
that.
> Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity.

There is considerable evidence to the contrary. It appears that Islam not
only sponsors terrorism, it is a way of life. More than 90% of the world's
wars are being fought in Islamic countries. That says a lot about Islam. All
the so-called 'moderate' Islamic sects and countries provide enormous
amounts of money as well as shelter and support to terrorists.

Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that should
be explored.

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
"Roger Long" > wrote:

> It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
> Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot.

Wrong. Islam means submission and it is "the" fundamental principle in
Islam that the whole world shall submit or die. Islam is evil.
Everything the terrorists do is supported by basic, fundamental Islamic
beliefs.

This situation is only going to be
> resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that there
> are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
> fundamentalism as the only path.

Wahabism (sp) is the catalyst and it must be destroyed.

These are Islamic societies and nothing
> short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change that.

No. Simply taking the oil fields and stopping the flow of money would do
it. I can think of a lot of options short of nukes.

> Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity. Unless we
> are prepared to kill millions to eliminate thousands of terrorists we will
> not solve this problem until the Islamic societies become our allies in the
> struggle. Your kind of thinking, and just about everything our government
> is doing, works directly against this.

Again you have a basic fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. Anyone
not a muslim is an infidel, barely worthy of enslavement. I challenge
you to prove me wrong scripturally, from the words of Mohammed,
especially his later words which are more important.

>
> The distortions of culture, society, and government in the mideast that lead
> to this are largely of our (the West's) doing. The very borders of the
> nations were established by Britain and other powers of the time without
> regard to ethnic borders that would create stable nations. We threw the
> economies and cultures completely out of whack with oil money and tolerated
> and supported brutal dictatorships that would keep the oil flowing.

So what do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia? or any of the
Emirates? Syria? Iran? This terrorism that we are facing is State
supported and financed. We must make the states that support and
finance terror decide that it isn't in their best interest to do so.
One success that we have had seem to be Libya, and Pakistan seems to be
headed in the right direction. Even Saudi Arabia seems to be rethinking
supporting Terrorists. About the only nations overtly fighting with us
is Syria, Iran and North Korea.

snip

> Israel has proved that terrorism can not be eliminated by force even within
> a small geographic area where some of the toughest people in the world have
> enormous control and decades of understanding the situation on the ground
> and the culture they are dealing with. What chance do we have over a huge
> area at the end of a long logistical trail when the Pentagon can't even find
> enough translators?

Curiously since Isreal has started taking out the Hamas leaders there
hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in quite a while, since
Janruary I think. If Israel took out the palistinian leadership all the
attacks would probably stop, at least until they got new leaders and
eventually new leaders might think twice about killing Jews if they knew
that they were going to die.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Saddam is no longer
giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. $25,000 is a fortune
to people living in real poverty, not fake American poverty.

> This is now an intractable and long term problem that is going to have to be
> managed. The solution will take decades and patience. Thinking of
> terrorism as something that has to be eliminated before the next election or
> we'll need a new president will make true solutions impossible to pursue or
> implement. Nothing constructive will happen until Islamic societies start
> to function properly in the modern world, leadership in them is supported by
> the population at large, and they see themselves as allies with us in the
> struggle against terror. Everything being done now is probably being
> cheered by Bin Laden.

Yeah, I am sure that Osama loves to scurry from cave to cave, if he is
even alive and Saddam must like prison life.

Yeah Osama must love the fact that the money supply and state support is
drying up. That is why all after all his threats and promises nothing
has happened here. Nothing speaks more eloquently about Osama's
abilities to strike at us as silence.

> It's much like trying to glide to a landing spot after an engine out. Pull
> back on the yoke and you will land shorter or even stall and crash. Right
> now, all the passengers are screaming, "Pull up, pull up!" and big burly
> fellows are struggling to the front to try and grab the yoke to pull it back
> further. Kerry isn't going to do any better unless he can become the kind
> of leader who can calm the passengers and regain control. I don't have a
> lot of confidence that he can do that but I'd rather not have a pilot in
> this situation who clearly thinks that how hard he pulls back on the yoke is
> the test of his leadership.
>

So you want a pilot to leave the controls and go back into the passenger
compartment to soothe them and let the plane crash out of control?

Kerry wants to follow the French and let America be overrun by muslims
and take bribes from the Arabs.

LG

[Jay Honeck]

> Once the US pulled out, those temporary allies might be just as prone to
> kick the Al Qaeda out as well. Unless the US pull-out included some sort
of
> threat where the Iraqis felt they needed such alliances for protection.
>
> That having been said, if the US pulls out of Iraq, there are still a lot
of
> perceived "causes" that would support recruitment, but that would be one
> less.

Wow -- that's the most illogical conclusion I think I've ever read in these
groups.

Do you honestly think if we "pulled out" of Iraq now it would help fight
terrorism?
--
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger Long]

>
> This in no way means that I agree with Roger's approach, however.
Although
> he makes many good points, he offers no alternatives to fighting other
than
> "just getting along" with these poor, down-trodden people.
>


Good Lawd Jay, I'm not advocating just getting along. I actually advocate
far, far, more action, military as well as covert. It has to be undertaken
intelligently and with the understanding that it is not the solution itself
but only something that allows you the maneuvering room and freedom to bring
the real solutions to bear.

This is an extension of the kind of lessons that have been learned in recent
decades about the limits of air power. For a while, we thought that we could
"bomb them into the stone age" and win wars from 25,000 feet without
endangering any of our guys. We learned the hard way that air power is just
a tool to get boots on the ground and, until there are GI footprints in the
dust, we haven't won anything.

Military action as a whole, including GI boots on the ground, is just a tool
for getting a lot of other kinds of feet on the ground and doing a lot of
other things. Military power is like surgery, it's counterproductive in the
short term if the goal is health. Sometimes though, it's your only option to
bring more productive forces to bear.

The scale of force, military, developmental, economic, and moral that is
required to win this struggle is so great that even a nation like ours can't
do it alone unless we are willing to go on a WWII like footing of sacrifice.
(No more flying) Even that probably wouldn't be enough. Our military is
already showing the strain and we are borrowing against the future. Iraq
should have been flooded with troops that gradually withdrew leaving behind
an infrastructure that works. We talked the talk but the scale of what we
did was pathetic.

If we had been on military stand down with a 50,000 man army when this
happened, everyone would have understood that we had to build the army and
resources first. Simple head counting and economics made what needed to be
done in Iraq an effort that could only be undertaken by a large and willing
group of nations. The political dynamics absolutely required this as well.

I'm not saying that we've done too much but that we've done far too little.

If Bush had gone in with only a 50,000 army to do this, everyone would have
understood that he was a fool. By buying into the lone cowboy image of the
US, we're blinded to the fact that the effort was equally inadequate and
doomed.

Another point to ponder. Iraq could have waited. It's clear now from what we
are learning about the intelligence that our leaders knew damn well(or were
incompetent if they didn't) that it could have waited. Think what the money
and manpower expended in Iraq could have done for our security if spread
around the world and our borders, especially in the inspection of things
like inbound containers.

It's easy to look tough. It's hard to be tough, smart, and patient at the
same time. We've looked tough but we've actually only undertaken the easy
things. We haven't been the least bit smart and we are up against people
orders of magnitude more patient than we are.

Say, rent the movie about Mohammed Ali and pay attention to the fight at the
end against George Foreman. That's a good example of what toughness
sometimes is.

--
Roger Long

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xfCHc.41517$JR4.8454@attbi_s54...
> > Once the US pulled out, those temporary allies might be just as prone to
> > kick the Al Qaeda out as well. Unless the US pull-out included some
sort
> of
> > threat where the Iraqis felt they needed such alliances for protection.
> >
> > That having been said, if the US pulls out of Iraq, there are still a
lot
> of
> > perceived "causes" that would support recruitment, but that would be one
> > less.
>
> Wow -- that's the most illogical conclusion I think I've ever read in
these
> groups.
>
> Do you honestly think if we "pulled out" of Iraq now it would help fight
> terrorism?


That may be too late.

But what I really said was that it would probably reduce the number of
terrorists recruited.

[OtisWinslow]

No flames, Bill. You are absolutely dead on. They go away .. or we go away.
I
choose them.



"BillC85" > wrote in message
...
>
> Very good points all.
>
> To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
> war.
>
> Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
> there for the next 10,000 years.
>
> Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
> about that.
>
> This war is a test of will. Theirs against ours. So far we're running it
> like a 5th Avenue PR campaign and they're running it like it should be
run.
>
> We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest
mistake
> of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
> not work this time.
>
> We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They
all
> die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.
>
> Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
> you know it.
>
> BillC
>
>
>
>
>

[Roger Long]

--
************************************************** *****************
Roger Long Voice: 207-799-1824
Roger Long Marine Architecture, Inc. Fax: same
19 Scott Dyer Road Cell: 207-232-8823
Cape Elizabeth, Maine, USA 04107

http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma

************************************************** *****************

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:xfCHc.41517$JR4.8454@attbi_s54...
> > > Once the US pulled out, those temporary allies might be just as prone
to
> > > kick the Al Qaeda out as well. Unless the US pull-out included some
> sort
> > of
> > > threat where the Iraqis felt they needed such alliances for
protection.
> > >
> > > That having been said, if the US pulls out of Iraq, there are still a
> lot
> > of
> > > perceived "causes" that would support recruitment, but that would be
one
> > > less.
> >
> > Wow -- that's the most illogical conclusion I think I've ever read in
> these
> > groups.
> >
> > Do you honestly think if we "pulled out" of Iraq now it would help fight
> > terrorism?
>
>
> That may be too late.
>
> But what I really said was that it would probably reduce the number of
> terrorists recruited.
>
>

[Icebound]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> ...
>....
> You could even say it began with the
> Olympic games in Munich.
>


Then why not 1936, or 1931 even??

http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not saying that we've done too much but that we've done far too
little.

I'm still waiting for you to say what you advocate doing now instead of what
we're currently doing.

And I don't want to hear what you think we should have done -- you've stated
that rather eloquently. (And I agree with much of what you say, to a
point.)

This "What should we do now?" question is the one no one seems to ask Kerry,
and it's disturbing. All I ever hear from his camp is how "screwed up" we
are in Iraq -- but I never hear any other positive ideas from him.

What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror right
now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_8DHc.58326$XM6.36990@attbi_s53...
>
> What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror
right
> now?


Forcing a compromise in Palestine.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> > Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and
> still
> > do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things
> > like
> > that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The
> > issue
> > is how it was done.
> >
>
> I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of the
> oil,
> then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument of people
> like
> Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan because of oil,
> despite
> the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no pipelines, and no significant
> production facilities.

details details details...

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article
e.rogers.com>,
"Icebound" > wrote:

> > What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror
> right
> > now?
>
> Forcing a compromise in Palestine.

Even if Israel was wiped from the earth, terrorism will continue.

--
Bob Noel

[Roger Long]

It is too late to do what we should have done. We have to recognize that we
have to move forward now starting far behind where we could have been at
this point and that it is going to be a much, much tougher fight. We will
endure years or decades of chaos that might have been avoided and attacks
that might not have happened.

Where do we go from here? Whatever you think about Bush vs. Kerry on other
issues, looking just at the terrorism issue, we have to have a change of
administration. Bush had already ****ed off just about every friend who
might have stood by us and made America, the lone cowboy, an icon of our
foreign policy before 911. Then he compounded the damage by the way he
handled Iraq.

Most of the rest of the world is now hanging back from offering us help that
they know is in their interest because they don't want to help keep Bush in
the White House. He is deservedly hated in the rest of the world for reasons
far beyond Iraq. Maybe in the full spectrum of issues facing our country he
should be have a second term but, for a plan to deal with terrorism, he has
to go.

Bush will get more help after November if re-elected. The rest of the world
will be resigned then to his presidency and have to follow their own self
interest. It will still be grudging though. The French have decided that
appeasing and pandering to the Islamic radicals is their path to protecting
themselves from attacks. Probably nothing will get them in line. We really
need a fresh start for the others.

The next step is to build the alliances, consensus, and cooperation to
develop a worldwide system of deterrence and containment as a first step.
This is hard, tough, difficult work that pays not domestic dividends in our
sound bite culture. I'm not sure our electoral system would allow a person
with the wisdom and patience to achieve it to ever become or survive as
president.

This would lead into the even more difficult task of influencing the
dysfunctional societies to change so that terrorists are no longer a natural
product.

I'm not saying it's easy, or quick. As pilots, we should know better than
most that doing the wrong thing just because it is easier than the right
thing is stupid. I'm not sure the right thing could ever be explained to our
electorate or that a leader could ever survive long enough to carry it out.

If ending terrorism were building a house the discussion here, and in the
election, would be on the level of, should we be doing more hammering or
less. If you say you are in favor of 2% less hammering, you are less "tough"
than the opponent. Ergo, you are a weak livered liberal who will sell us out
to the enemy.

The real issues are drywall, cement mixing, insulation. Building a house
goes even beyond that. There are messy and unglamorous issues like zoning
board approvals, financing, and insurance. Bush didn't want to deal with any
of that so he just went out and started nailing boards together. We've got
to clear that shack out of the way before we can start on anything real.

Sorry to duck out of this interesting conversation at this point but I'm
going to be away for a few days.

Gotta go pack.
--
Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

> Sorry to duck out of this interesting conversation at this point but I'm
> going to be away for a few days.
>
> Gotta go pack.

Sure, sure.

Just when it's starting to get good!

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

[C J Campbell]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:_8DHc.58326$XM6.36990@attbi_s53...
> >
> > What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror
> right
> > now?
>
>
> Forcing a compromise in Palestine.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the terrorists are not interested in
negotiation or compromise of any kind, except as they can use it to buy time
and material for further attacks. They want Israel gone, not compromised
with. The same goes for everybody else who does not subscribe to their brand
of religion. They have absolutely no intention of abiding by any agreement.

[Roger Long]

Last word

I'm sure you aren't satisfied with my answer. It's like being a movie
critic. I can look at the film and see that the plot isn't consistent, the
acting is wooden, the wires show in the special effects, etc.

You ask how, in 200 words or less, I would make a great film. Well, the key
to much of that is in the unglamorous ground work. There are contract
negotiations to get the good actors, financing to afford the right special
effects, management of the relationships with the cast to that egos don't
intrude and the director can get the acting style to be consistent with the
story. The issues we face are even more complex than this.

I heard Matt Daemon talking on NPR today about how he spent six months
taking boxing lessons so he would have the proper walk and presence for his
next film. That's the kind of invisible ground work that goes into making
complex productions great. Eliminating terrorism from our world without
making big smoking holes is at least that complex.

Bush didn't want to bother with the groundwork. He proved in his former life
that he's lazy by nature and he wanted to appear resolute and confident. We
know that the pilot who rushes off into IMC with out a preflight or weather
briefing isn't resolute and confident. He's a fool.

To be fair, Bush picked up a situation in which the necessary groundwork had
been ignored for decades. Still, if your predecessors didn't do their job,
you still have to start at the beginning, not in the middle. Bush not only
didn't start at the beginning, he started (before 911) by taking apart what
little of the necessary groundwork had been done.

There simply aren't any shortcuts or silver bullets here. The first step in
dealing with any complex and difficult situation is being realistic. What
was that great John Wayne (I think) movie. A soldier asks his Sargent
anxiously, "You know just what to do, don't you Sarge?" Wayne says, "Son,
any man who tells you he knows just what to do in a situation like this is a
fool."

Look at all the great leaders, Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, etc. The common
denominator is their agonizing and questioning. There is no questioning or
indecision in Bush's eerie certainty. That's how I know he's a fool.

--
Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

> Look at all the great leaders, Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, etc. The common
> denominator is their agonizing and questioning. There is no questioning
or
> indecision in Bush's eerie certainty. That's how I know he's a fool.

It's funny, people used to say the same about Reagan.

Then you read his letters, and it's clear that he agonized over many
decisions. He just did so privately, choosing to show a brave face to the
world.

In many ways, this is true leadership. Keeping a poker face when the
stakes are high isn't always easy -- but sometimes the people need that more
than anything during a time of crisis.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Icebound]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> e.rogers.com>,
> "Icebound" > wrote:
>
> > > What *specifically* should the United States be doing to fight terror
> > right
> > > now?
> >
> > Forcing a compromise in Palestine.
>
> Even if Israel was wiped from the earth, terrorism will continue.
>


There is a rather interesting 1986 debate on the causes of terrorism at
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/86jun/obrien.htm

Recall that that was cold-war-era with the Berlin Wall still up.

[SeeAndAvoid]

Not sure why I'm bothering here, politics are a waste of time
talking about as we all have our 'platforms' and stand on one
side or the other and don't waver much. But....

So far I've heard a lot of hemming and hawing and monday
morning quarterbacking here. Shoulda woulda coulda,
whatever. But comon', a guy takes office (January) and
within 9 months 9/11 happens? And now they say they
wanted to do it in June, less than 6 months after taking
office? At times I think (key word THINK, unlike previously
stated "That's how I know he's a fool") he aint workin on
all 4, and the staff he's assembled around him are looking
more and more like a ship of fools. But to lay any of that
9/11 stuff on him is stupid. And what "groundwork" pre
9/11, or June 2001, had he taken apart? If you didn't vote
for him, feel he 'stole' the election, or just hate republicans,
be honest at least and let's try to solve this problem, politics
aside. And if you think an administration change will change
anything, that's laughable.

Like others have said, I'm waiting for Kerry to say what the
hell he plans on doing - and am getting sick of this "well,
I wouldve done things differently, blah blah blah." Oh,
really, thanks for that. It's not politically correct for him,
or anyone, to say that this is going to be something that
we have to be in for the long haul. I dont like the idea of
toppling regimes or dropping nukes in hopes of wiping
out the enemy, one just ****es off a region, the other, well
is genocide, you arent going to convince me all Arabs
are bad Arabs.

It's never "too late", at least not at this stage, talk about
giving up and being so damn apologetic for our country.
If some of our former allies don't like what we are doing,
right or wrong, screw em. This aint pre-9/11 anymore,
this is World War 3. Am I in fear of being drafted, no.
But my kids will be pretty soon. Do I expect this problem
to go away before that? No way, it'll probably go on for
as long as I'm around, which I hope to be a few more
decades. It's gonna be dirty and lots of covert stuff, and
mistakes will be made. Bring out the spies, snipers, and
assasins. And a whole lot better intelligence than we've
received lately.

......but like I said, this is a waste of time, and I really
don't care if you agree with me or not. (not addressed
to any one person or any one platform)

Chris

[Jack]

Icebound wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:_8DHc.58326$XM6.36990@attbi_s53...
>
>> What *specifically* should the United States be doing
>> to fight terror right now?
>
> Forcing a compromise in Palestine.

We _have_ forced a compromise in the area you refer to as Palestine, for
over a half century. As evidence you will note that the Jews have not
removed every last "Palestinian" from their land by what ever means
necessary.

Had we allowed the Israelis to solve their own problems in their own way
there would no longer be a "Palestinian" problem, or anyone but Jews
west of the Jordan river.

The US has been one of the best friends that Arafat could ever have had.



Jack

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:21:41 GMT, Roger Long wrote:

>The only way the US can win this fight alone it to seal our borders,
>eliminate GA and everything similar to it, register and control the
>movements of all citizens, monitor all mail and other communication, stop
>import of most goods, and imprison anyone who appears vaguely different.

you are on your best way to finalize it. You are more than 50% towards the
goal.


>Vaporizing the Mideast would also work but the fallout would blow around and
>poison us as well.


Jesus ... is this all you have to say? "the fallout would harm you as
well?"

most of the people there (mideast) are struggling to survive every single
day, only a very small percentage of the whole polulation of the whole
world are terrorists.

many of your arguments are proving the terrorists and the radical islam's
points: the west always does (in a recless way) what they want. nobody from
the west ever said "please" or "thank you" or "I'm sorry".

what a shame.

#m

--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:01:05 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>There is considerable evidence to the contrary. It appears that Islam not
>only sponsors terrorism, it is a way of life. More than 90% of the world's
>wars are being fought in Islamic countries. That says a lot about Islam. All
>the so-called 'moderate' Islamic sects and countries provide enormous
>amounts of money as well as shelter and support to terrorists.
>
>Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that should
>be explored.


and maybe this will be said to the kids in the middle east:
----------start
There is considerable evidence to the contrary. It appears that the
American idea not only sponsors Christianity, it is a way of life. More
than 90% of the world's wars in the last 200 years are being fought direct
or indirect with the support of America. That says a lot about America. All
the so-called 'moderate' western countries and American allies provide
enormous amounts of money as well as shelter and support the American idea.

Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that should
be explored.
----------end

you get the point? no? I'm not surprised.

#m

--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

[Cub Driver]

>Both during the republican convention and the last half of October, I'm
>going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately will leave me
>and my plane at a convenient airport.

It is good to know that America can fall back on patriots like you in
a pinch.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Roger Long]

Martin Hotze" > wrote > >Vaporizing the Mideast would
also work but the fallout would blow around and
> >poison us as well.
>
>
> Jesus ... is this all you have to say? "the fallout would harm you as
> well?"
>

There was intended to be a note of black humor and satire of extreme
positions there that didn't get through.

The greatest evil and tragedy in all of this has been the misery and
suffering it has brought to the innocent. That misery and suffering is the
primary fuel for the terrorist machine.

--
Roger Long

[Roger Long]

Come on Dan, I don't go far from home when fronts are moving through either.
I probably won't actually curtail my flying significantly but I'll factor
this into my planning just like I do the weather.

If you've followed my other posts you'll know that I'm one of the strongest
advocates of the idea that bending our way out of life is playing right into
the terrorists hands and encouraging more attacks. The best defense is to
appear as unaffected as a society by any attacks as we do by earthquakes and
hurricanes. The response should be where the rubber meets the road and our
government has substituted public relations driven inconveniencing of our
citizens for real action.

It's just like the beginning of the war on drugs. The first response was to
set up Coast Guard boats near all the major yachting centers to board and
inspect yachts. No drugs were going in and out of those ports, they were
all going in and out of small coves in Maine and bayous in the Gulf. The
Coast Guard didn't have the resources to cover all those places so they just
rousted rich, influential folks in their yachts so they would go back and
report that the Guard was on the job.
--
Roger Long

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Both during the republican convention and the last half of October, I'm
> >going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately will leave
me
> >and my plane at a convenient airport.
>
> It is good to know that America can fall back on patriots like you in
> a pinch.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> More than 90% of the world's
> wars are being fought in Islamic countries. That says a lot about Islam.

Sure, CJ, in contrast with the blissful harmony in which Christian nations
have lived together for the past two millennia, or even the past century.

> Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that
should
> be explored.

While you're planning your Final Solution, CJ, keep in mind that most of the
rest of the world, including much of the US, will side against you. So
you'll have to exterminate far more of us than just the Muslim portion of
the world's population. But perhaps that prospect appeals to you.

--Gary

[Teacherjh]

>>
If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
we to do?
<<

Sometimes "nothing" is the right answer. Sometimes, we must just accept that
the price of freedom is risk. Sure, our nation is a colander. But to seal it
up as tightly as would be necessary to stop terrorism would be to suffocate it.

The war is not with people - it is with ideas. But ideas are what we claim to
let free.

Jose



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

[smpharmanaut]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

> I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of
> the oil, then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument
> of people like Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan
> because of oil, despite the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no
> pipelines, and no significant production facilities.
>
>

What about the opium??

[C J Campbell]

"smpharmanaut" > wrote in message
8.51...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> :
>
> > I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of
> > the oil, then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument
> > of people like Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan
> > because of oil, despite the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no
> > pipelines, and no significant production facilities.
> >
> >
>
> What about the opium??

I suspect that the critics of the war may be using a lot of that.

[Wdtabor]

>You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
>alternatives in your post.
>
>If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
>we to do?

To get an idea of what we're up against, i suggest reading the following link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dsouza200407020030.asp

They are not after us for what we do, but for what we are, and unless we are
willing to put Brittany Spears in a Burka and bow toward Mecca 5 times a day,
there isn[t going to be peace short of victory.


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

[Martin Hotze]

On 11 Jul 2004 12:40:13 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>They are not after us for what we do, but for what we are, and unless we are
>willing to put Brittany Spears in a Burka

If she does not stop singing then this will not help very much. :-)

#m

--
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1FE524C8

[Blanche]

>On 11 Jul 2004 12:40:13 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:
>
>>They are not after us for what we do, but for what we are, and unless we are
>>willing to put Brittany Spears in a Burka

And the problem with this is...what?

(*snicker*)

[Icebound]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
> >alternatives in your post.
> >
> >If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what
are
> >we to do?
>
> To get an idea of what we're up against, i suggest reading the following
link:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dsouza200407020030.asp
>

The problem is hugely more complicated that that.

If you want to read something that is actually helful to this debate, try:

http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Root_Causes_report.pdf

This is a report from an international Conference on terrorisim in June 2003
in Oslo, and included American and Israeli particpants, among others.

You need to read the whole thing, but the finding on "religion" as a basis
of terrorism as quoted from the report:

"Suicide terrorism is not caused by religion (or more specifically Islam) as
such....
Many suicide terrorists around the world are secular, or belong to other
religions than Islam. Suicide terrorists are motivated mainly by political
goals –
usually to end foreign occupation or domestic domination by a different
ethnic
group. Their “martyrdom” is, however, frequently legitimised and glorified
with
reference to religious ideas and values."

[Wdtabor]

In article e.rogers.com>,
"Icebound" > writes:

>>
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dsouza200407020030.asp
>>
>
>The problem is hugely more complicated that that.
>
>If you want to read something that is actually helful to this debate, try:
>
>http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Root_Causes_report.pdf
>
>This is a report from an international Conference on terrorisim in June 2003
>in Oslo, and included American and Israeli particpants, among others.
>
>You need to read the whole thing, but the finding on "religion" as a basis
>of terrorism as quoted from the report:
>

I read it. It is just the usual apologist, 'it has to be someone else's fault'
claptrap.

It can be reasonably argued that Islam, in and of itself, is not the cause of
terrorism, but the religion is uniquely succeptable to being siezed upon by
facist ideologues and used as the unifying identity that a fascist expansion
requires.

Muslim holy literature, particularly Sura 9:29, preaches a superiority, and
worse, an entitlement, attached to believers. The Koran itself authorizes
conversion by the sword for pagans and idolators and demands tribute from
'people of the book' (Christians and Jews) for living at peace within Muslim
spheres of influence.

Add to that the lack of a Muslim 'Pope' to settle religious questions, and any
fascist ideologue can waive the Koran and call for Jihad against some presumed
infidel offense and there is no one to state absolutley that he is wrong.

Look around the world and point to a single place where a Muslim theocracy
lives at peace with a weaker non-Muslim neighbor. You can't, there isn't one.
The UN tracks over 130 trouble spots where recurring political violence is a
problem. 6 do not involve Muslims. Are those all cases of discrimination
against Muslims? Are the Phillipines subject to terrorism because they somehow
interferred in Palestine?

The West in general, and the US in particular, tends to introspection, and
looks inward for the source of all wrong. We always ask "What did we do wrong
to deserve their hatred?" Muslims never ask that question. In any dispute, they
are right BECAUSE they have submitted to the will of Allah and we are wrong
because we have not. Understand that one thing and you can understand our
enemy.

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