If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
ospam (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."' |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|