for far too many years we americans have paid our taxes and gone about our peaceful lives believing we lived in the best and safest country in the world.. september 11, 2001 claimed the title of the day that will live in infamy.
the attack on pearl harbor must now relinquish that title, as tuesday's attack was undeniably worse than that military attack on a naval base.
millions of people watched in horror as the second plane crashed into the world trade center tower on live television and thousands of innocent civilians-americans-died before a worldwide audience.. terrorist hijackers, some receiving their pilot training in america.
Well I have been accused of being a terrorist for my thoughts on this matter so I can safely say I am not taking the ‘soft stance’. However the use of NBC (nuke, bio, chem) weapons will cross the line in my opinion. I think we need to eliminate the Taliban’s ability to govern their country and that can be accomplished with conventional weapons if they are delivered without restrictions.
Jelly
wt has to give final witness when end comes.
(a heavy message of doom from jehavhs organization).
*** re 233-4 32 god's anger brought to a finish ***.
Noidea,
You’re beautiful and I want to marry you. Let’s have 15 kids together.
Jelly
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
Just bringing this back to the top because I think Mike and Fedeja need to respond to my questions:
Another couple of points to remember, Bin Laden has made no demands he is attacking America because he feels we are evil, and Bin Laden could not have completed these acts with out the support of some nations. Appeasement will not work; it will just create the situation where these attacks will be continued. This is why I feel that appeasement is the morally reprehensible path to take and will create a situation where attacks like this just continue and will kill more people and disrupt more lives than solving the problem now. FOR A HISTORICAL PRECIDENT JUST THINK OF HITLER AND WWII. I stand by my statements because I feel America and every nation has the right to defend themselves and Bush’s first priority, as president is to protect the American people, whatever the cost.
MIKE, please don’t change my stuff and then quote it. If you change my words its no longer a quote. If you want to quote me please keep it in the original form.
Thank God Harry Truman did not think like you people, if he did we would probably still be fighting the Japanese. One last thing I will respond to any of your arguments and I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)
[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)
[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot.
[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives
[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
Jelly
when nato invokes article v, it is more than just one member asking for support from the other member states, but article v invocation means all member states view the attack as an attack on them all.
in other words, nato aliance is at war with those responsible, and will support the us lead, which will now hold not only the terrorists responsible, but hold those nations that host them as equally responsible.. "brussels, belgium (cnn) -- nato has unanimously declared the hijack attacks on the u.s. to be an assault against all member states.".
"it is the first time in 52 years that the alliance has invoked article v -- the nato self-defence charter that says if one member state is under attack all other member nations would defend it.".
Kent it’s late here so I will be brief.
It was only four planes not eight. The fourth plane that crashed in the middle of a field was not shot down. The passengers were using cell phones to call family members off the plane. This led to the passengers learning about the other two planes striking the WTC. When the passengers learned of this they struggled with the hijackers for control and it appears the plane crashed.
The military would have shot down any planes that were out of communication and flying towards NY or DC, that’s why the sky was full of fighter jets. There is no cover up here because the military was up front with its actions and most people realize that shooting down the jets is better than letting them crash into buildings. In this case they did not have to.
Bin Ladden was trained by the CIA to fight the Russians. It was the Gulf war that turned him against the US.
Will the Americans target civilians? Highly unlikely. What may happen and I believe should happen is that the bombing campaign will be one with many of the traditional rules of engagement lifted. The USAF wouldn’t bomb a housing area because it accomplishes nothing. I could see them however blowing up power plants that happen to be in residential neighborhoods leading to civilian deaths. I think America should use everything but NBC (Nuclear Biological and Chemical) in this one.
It was American bombs that helped eventually solve the Serbian crises.
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
As for sidestepping arguments, you didn't answer my question how you can come up with such a life-and-death decision after a mere 2 days of watching TV news. Apparently, all it takes to have a "very good clue" is to watch Special Reports on CNN.
Fair enough I’ll answer your question. Two days would be to short of a time period to come to such conclusion, however terrorism has been a problem for more than two days. Afghanistan’s and Iran’s support of terrorist groups has been an ongoing problem that has existed for over a decade. I suggest you do a news search under Iran – terrorism – Afghanistan and see what you come up with. There is ample evidence that both of these countries have supported Bin Ladden (sp?) and his group for years, to me this makes them guilty. So to reiterate it is only because of these countries long-term practice of supporting terrorist that I feel they are accountable. The reason I feel the attack must be massive is for two reasons; (1) surgical attacks don’t work. Both Iran and the Taliban government would be more than happy to trade shots with the US, a building here a building there. And most importantly (2) this attack was unprecedented and as such America must now set a precedent. Our actions we do now will determine if an attack like this ever happens again.
All right, have your way. But then, Mr. Armchair General, do the killing yourself. Enlist, get training, kill. Don't call for "action" and "responses" and all that, do it. That's the honest way.
I don’t pretend to be a general, I would have no idea how to accomplish what I feel needs to be done. As an American however I can state my opinion as to what should be done. I notice that you offer no solutions just criticisms.
Neither cute(!?) nor invalid. I see exactly the same type of emotions coming up.
The Nazis demonized members of their own population to make them scapegoats and a focal point for hatred. I have done none of these things. I feel for America’s Islamic community and I have not called for attacks on Arabic countries that have not supported these acts of barbarism. Another thing the Nazis did was to silence people that disagreed with them by violence, threats, and RIDICULE. Read our threads and decide for yourself who has ‘Nazi’ like behavior.
As for sidestepping arguments
[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)
[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)
[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot.
[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives
[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
Jelly
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
Against who? Any county that supported the terrorist in any way; financially, technically, or with training. Your claim that we don’t know who these people are is incorrect. But so you know Afghanistan for sure with a possible tie in to Iran.
Reference to Nazism, cute and completely invalid. I think America needs to protect their own first, this includes their own Muslim population. That’s the only response you’ll get on this.
‘All out wars like the one against Iraq did not seem to have significantly more effect.’ You might have missed this news story but Iraq was actually kicked out of Kuwait. Yes, can you image it the Gulf war actually achieved the purpose it set out to do. My only criticism is that the original goals were not far reaching enough, if we wanted Hussein our to power we could have done it, we chose not to.
Are you arguing against the validity of World War II. Well to answer you question, yes I am glad that the allies stood up to Hitler and his murders. Taking you view of war the allies would have never dared attack Hitler for fear of innocents being killed. You also sidestepped my argument; appeasement only encourages evil people to continue their acts of terror. LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH HITLER. Pacifism is morally bankrupt; it is a way for the weak to appear strong. Only children expect perfect justice in this imperfect world. My hart does ache for what must happen but I am adult and strong enough to realize this war in inevitable.
I am neither desperate nor suicidal, just a realist.
I do have a very good clue who the other side is.
Jelly
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
fodeja,
You managed to respond to my post without addressing any of my points. Brilliant. Here I will put my points in outline for you.
I. we must fight a total war
II. limited strikes are ineffective and actually make the situation worse – hence morally bankrupt
III. World War II is a prime example of the time when appeasement causes more harm than good
IV. Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill had to make the difficult decision to fight a war for the good of humanity
V. Our way of life is threatened and the only way to maintain it is to inact this war
VI. I hate this solution, however it is the only honest and realistic solution available
I could be offended that you compared me with the terrorist but I choose not to. I would however hope that you could at least do me the curtsey of responding to my arguments.
Jelly
when nato invokes article v, it is more than just one member asking for support from the other member states, but article v invocation means all member states view the attack as an attack on them all.
in other words, nato aliance is at war with those responsible, and will support the us lead, which will now hold not only the terrorists responsible, but hold those nations that host them as equally responsible.. "brussels, belgium (cnn) -- nato has unanimously declared the hijack attacks on the u.s. to be an assault against all member states.".
"it is the first time in 52 years that the alliance has invoked article v -- the nato self-defence charter that says if one member state is under attack all other member nations would defend it.".
Ginny asks: (paraphrase)
‘What if people are found in Florida that were aiding the terrorist, should we bomb all of Florida?’
Your simplification is very self-serving. The government of Afghanistan uses its resources to back terrorist groups; this action makes them accomplices. This is much different than a group of people, NOT AFFELIATED WITH THE GOVERNMENT, providing support.
Jelly
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
Simply put this is war. We cannot be concerned about the other side’s civilian population. The only way to end terrorism is to reduce the countries that support it to the level that they are no longer able to support those activities with money, transportation, equipment, and intelligence. The flawed concept of ‘limited strikes’ and surgical operations are not only ineffective they are morally bankrupt. To give in to the idea of a limited strike would only invite more such aggression and the circle of hostility would begin again; in the end causing more bloodshed and pain.
Its interesting you bring up WWII, maybe you should consider the history and realize where appeasement led the world in 1939. Where would the world be now if Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had been too concerned with the innocent Germans (and many were) to effectively fight a war. Also I must ask when is the last time the Germans or Japanese upset the stability of the world. My point being that WWII proved that, unfortunately, sometimes violence is the only appropriate answer.
In order for us to maintain our way of life as Americans terrorism must end and we must be the ones to end it. I hope everyone understands I hate writing this. Violence sickens me and the thought of war makes my stomach turn. I don’t write these things because ‘I want vengeance’ or because I get a thrill out of watching a war on CNN. I write these things because I see this as the only realistic and honest solution.
Jelly
reports are coming in (bbc) of tracer fire and explosions in kabul, afghanistan.. this is of course wher osama bin laden is holed up - have the fbi/cia managed to successfully pin this atrocity on him already?.
nic'
Comf,
Your views are simplistic and flawed. The response America makes to this attack cannot be about justice; nothing can ever be done to ‘even the scales’ after this act. America’s response is all about setting a precedent. If America fails to show the world that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated it will constitute an open invitation for continued attacks. The response America makes must be an overreaction on such a scale that it makes the contemplation of acts like this in the future simply unthinkable.
Jelly
