Osama bin Laden is back at helm of al Qaeda...

[Guest TJH]

Second, Afghanistan and Irag have not attacked or declared war on America. A terrorist faction did. If The IRA decided to plant a bomb in New York to prove a point, would you bomb the crap out of the entirity of Ireland and murder innocents who had nothing to do with that attack in the first place??

 

If this thing in the Middle East escalates, and I believe it will, history will unequivocably record America as the aggressors.

 

Try to reel in the fists and think ahead a little, huh?

If the IRA did attack NY, and the Irish government refused to hand over the people responsible, and helped them to establish it's bases in Ireland, of course we should invade Irealnd. The fact is, innocents die in wars. Innocent Germans had to die for Hitler to be overthrown, and more innocents will have to die for the greater good of the world. Do we have to like it? No. But it is a fact we have to accept.

 

Remember, Germany didn't declare war on Britain + France. Does that mean they were the aggressors? Of course not.

 

You seem to believe that we can just sit down with Osama, Saddam etc. have a cup of tea and work out our differences. That is simply not possible, despit what Eurocrats would have us think, and September 11 proved that. We tried that approach during the Clinton administration, by not doing anything to try and adestroy Al Qaeda after the attacks on the embassies, USS Cole etc.

 

That "evil flourishes when good men do nothing" is completely true.

[Guest DrTom]

First off, this is irresponsible warmongering

No, it's the basic human need for revenge. If someone wants to attack another country, they need to be ready to face the consequences. If they can't, then they shouldn't be attacking anyone. The consequences we could dish out are quite harsh, and have been rather mild thus far.

 

and is the reason why so many people in Europe would like to see Bush and those with similar mindsets out of the White House as soon as possible

Funny, Bush seems to be quite popular among our traditional European allies. I'd also wonder what their mindsets would be had something like this happened to them. It's a lot easier on the other side, I'm sure.

 

Second, Afghanistan and Irag have not attacked or declared war on America. A terrorist faction did.

Afghanistan was harboring the bulk of the gorup responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as its leader. Why we went after them is obvious, especialy when they refused our requests to cooperate. Iraq has been amassing dangerous weapons for years, funds terrorism, and has a history of being ridiculously uncooperative with the US and the UN. The sooner Hussein and his family are gone, the better.

 

If The IRA decided to plant a bomb in New York to prove a point, would you bomb the crap out of the entirity of Ireland and murder innocents who had nothing to do with that attack in the first place?? Actually no, don't anser that.

Too bad, I will.

 

The IRA is a very imprecise comparison. First of all, I don't think such an action would be supported by those who could turn over the responsible parties. In other words, our English allies would take care of the situation for us in that respect. We don't get that level of cooperation from radical Muslim regimes in the Middle East. We get more terrorism, and more support for terrorism.

 

If this thing in the Middle East escalates, and I believe it will, history will unequivocably record America as the aggressors.

History is written by the victors, bub.

 

Whether your country's motivations are based on revenge, ideological conquest or simple paranoia, the world is turning on America's aggressive posturing fast

We don't need them to achieve victory in the Middle East. Any "UN" operation would be about 85% American anyway, so we might as well just go all-out and do it ourselves.

 

Try to reel in the fists and think ahead a little, huh?

We'll see how well you react if your country suffers a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11.

[Guest DrTom]

And what TJH said, too.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I love how people say we shouldn't go to war against Iraq or terrorist "friendly" countries because there isn't enough proof of any wrong doing, yet these people are the first to bitch and complain that Bush and the U.S didn't act on early warnings of the 9/11 attacks. We KNOW of where terrorist organizations call home and we KNOW Saddam poses a threat to the U.S. Shouldn't we, um, act upon these warnings? Such hyprocricy from the thrid-world lovers, gotta love it.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

The fact is, innocents die in wars. Innocent Germans had to die for Hitler to be overthrown, and more innocents will have to die for the greater good of the world.

Woah there, horsey.

 

Americans are scared and paranoid, I can understand that. Nothing like this has happened to them before, the closest thing being Pearl Harbour - and if you could take back the barbaric overreaction that was Hiroshima now, would you? I sincerely hope so.

 

You would destroy Ireland even if the governing body there had done nothing to provoke you, and had merely delayed their decision on whether to extradite a man who may or may not have been responsible to a country baying for his blood and freely practicing the death penalty? This kind of loose cannon attitude is why people are scared of your country.

 

America places itself above answering to the UN and NATO, which completely undermines everything those organisations are trying to achieve. Do these organisations want Bin Laden brought in front of an international court? yes. Do these organisations want to see Saddam Hussein removed from power? yes. But what sort of authority does it have to do such things through the proper channels when America brainlessly charges into situations on its horse with both guns blazing ignoring every protocol there is?

 

You simply can't ignore the rest of the world's opinions if you feel something is right. I'm sure the Nazis believed invading Poland was right despite the global outcry. Practically the entire Arab world are against you, and your former closest allies are refusing to commit to your strike-first aggressive policies? This doesn't give you any clues? Your analogy of Britain & France going to war with the Nazis and not being recorded by history as the aggressors is an interesting one - you've really attached yourself to the wrong side of the metaphor there.

 

There are ways of doing things. Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" while you start World War Three is not one of them.

[Guest J*ingus]

What I don't understand, Tom, is when you, Marney, and others like you say words to the effect of "we should just nuke the entire Middle East" or "bomb Mecca" or what have you, in a serious tone as if it's a completely reasonable idea. I know you're angry, I'm an American too. But to advocate making war on the entire Islamic world is madness on many levels. I don't agree with a lot of what DeputyHawk said, but he was right on the money with his comment about our usually closest allies warning us not to take some of these measures.

 

Or, to use a metaphor, if a member of a cop's family is murdered, that cop is NOT put on the case, even if he happens to be the best homicide detective in the force. America needs to remember that we are the angry, wounded party here. By definition, our thinking will not be the clearest.

[Guest B-X]

This is contributing nothing to this discussion, but I am marking the fuck out right now.

[Guest Moleculo]

This is also adding nothing, but I have to thank BX for pointing this out to me.*marks out*

[Guest TJH]

Americans are scared and paranoid, I can understand that. Nothing like this has happened to them before, the closest thing being Pearl Harbour - and if you could take back the barbaric overreaction that was Hiroshima now, would you? I sincerely hope so.

 

You would destroy Ireland even if the governing body there had done nothing to provoke you, and had merely delayed their decision on whether to extradite a man who may or may not have been responsible to a country baying for his blood and freely practicing the death penalty? This kind of loose cannon attitude is why people are scared of your country.

 

America places itself above answering to the UN and NATO, which completely undermines everything those organisations are trying to achieve. Do these organisations want Bin Laden brought in front of an international court? yes. Do these organisations want to see Saddam Hussein removed from power? yes. But what sort of authority does it have to do such things through the proper channels when America brainlessly charges into situations on its horse with both guns blazing ignoring every protocol there is?

1. Hiroshima was a proper and appropriate reaction to destroy an evil regime. Why would the Americans risk losing hundreds of thousands of troops when a couple of bombs finished the whole thing there and then. And in any case many civilians would have been killed when the Allies took the Japanes main islands.

 

-But that isn't the issue-

 

2. If a country was sheltering and supporting these terrorists of course they deserve to be destroyed; and don't try and claim the Taliban were half decent people anyway. Afghanistan moved forward 10-20 years because of the War on Terrorism.

 

3. America has to do these things because no-one at all respects the U.N in terms of having real world power. How is an organization where ruthless dictatorships and decent democracies have the same power ever going to achieve anything? As for NATO, the U.S practically runs that anyway; and rightfully so, seeing as they provide the vast majority of the military forces.

Your statement about the U.N was true; they have no power.

 

I am grateful that one country (I'm not American) has the guts to actually go in there and fight those that commit evil acts, rather than sitting around waiting for "resolutions".

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I just want to point out that Afghanistan isn't such a "defenseless" country. Al Qaeda and the Taliban had very close ties.

 

And besides, go ask one of the people in Kabul who can watch TV and freely listen to music of their choosing about how they like life now. I'm sure it's much better for them.

 

 

Let me try to sum it up for you..

 

Currently the way the world works is that we all point weapons at each other. These huge weapons are all pointed at each other in case one person launches, we'll launch too and take out them too. Nobody wants their country annihilated, so they don't annihilate anyone else's. It's a bit tense, but 50 years have passed with this method and we've managed to live around it.

 

Frankly, the problem we're seeing today is a faction of Islamic countries are beginning to strike out. This needs to be dealt with quickly or it will become everybody's problem. Governments such as the Taliban need to be removed with a global coalition.

 

Religion is a powerful thing. More people are touchy about their religion than their sexuality, race, or nationality. And there's a number of religions, or divisions of religions that see today's "Don't nuke us to hell or we'll nuke you to hell" philosophy and respond with "Yeah. Sure, that's no problem. Our religion says it's just fine and dandy if we die ourselves in taking you out." The hard-line Islam is just one.

 

Thus, any government with such strong religious ties presents this world a problem. Everything WILL go to hell if we allow a society to fester that does not mind setting off the End of the World.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

3. America has to do these things because no-one at all respects the U.N in terms of having real world power. How is an organization where ruthless dictatorships and decent democracies have the same power ever going to achieve anything? As for NATO, the U.S practically runs that anyway; and rightfully so, seeing as they provide the vast majority of the military forces.

Your statement about the U.N was true; they have no power.

 

I am grateful that one country (I'm not American) has the guts to actually go in there and fight those that commit evil acts, rather than sitting around waiting for "resolutions".

I can see the point you're making, TJH, harsher action does need to be taken with these local thugs. Where I disagree is that it should be up to one country to decide what that action should be. The point of the UN, and the League Of Nations before it, was to stop one country ever becoming too powerful and dangerous again. By disrespecting those principles, the US is constructing huge roadblocks for the rest of the world which will now be difficult to overcome.

 

America are not fundamentally the international bad guys here, they are just marks for themselves way more than they need to be right now. Jingus' comparison to a cop not being put on the case of a murdered family member is a good one - anger is overwhelming judgement and they desperately need to listen to their clear-headed allies. Europeans are not being wishy-washy liberals or fence-sitters, they are just slightly alarmed by one nation attempting to position themselves as international judge, jury & executioner, and disregarding the opinions of their peers. I think that warlike stance is good reason to hold their actions in suspicion.

 

You made the point earlier, or perhaps it was Dr Tom, that Europe cannot know how America is feeling because it didn't happen to them, and thus cannot properly guage the situation. The reverse is also true, kicking off a huge war in the Middle East may seem very far away to you (for both the US and Australia), but bear in mind the Arab world neighbours Europe and you're talking about taking liberties with a volatile region which will affect us greatly. So America announcing that the opinions of Europeans is irrelevant in this only further alienates and alarms us.

 

Simply put, they need to go through the proper channels, even if it will take more time than they would like. By taking such a cavalier attitude to democarcy, the very thing they claim to be fighting for, they are coming off as both hypocrites and an ever-so-slightly unhinged cause for concern.

[Guest DrTom]

Americans are scared and paranoid...

A lot of us are pretty fucking angry, too.

 

I can understand that.

So you've had terrorists fly airplanes into your skyscrapers and federal buildings? Wow, it really is a small world after all...

 

and if you could take back the barbaric overreaction that was Hiroshima now, would you?

Hell no, for the reasons already cited a few replies ago.

 

This kind of loose cannon attitude is why people are scared of your country.

Good. Machiavelli was right, you know.

 

America places itself above answering to the UN and NATO

What would either of them be without America? I'm being serious here, not trying to sound jingoistic. Where would either of those organizations be, and what would they be able to accomplish, without American brainpower, muscle, and reputation behind them?

 

Do these organisations want Bin Laden brought in front of an international court? yes.

I'm sure the Arab world holds the ICJ in very high regard...

 

But what sort of authority does it have to do such things through the proper channels when America brainlessly charges into situations on its horse with both guns blazing ignoring every protocol there is?

What are the "proper channels" to remove a homicidal lunatic dictator from power? Send him a nastygram? Fund the opposition that he'll just butcher and murder anyway? Or do you go in there with "both guns blazing," shoot the fucker and all his cronies in their pointy little heads, and make the world a better place for everyone? Saddam's been living on borrowed time since 1991, and it's about time someone canceled his check.

 

You simply can't ignore the rest of the world's opinions if you feel something is right.

We haven't.

 

Practically the entire Arab world are against you...

Wow, what a surprise. The best thing they could do is try and do something about it, which would save us the trouble of picking and choosing our targets.

 

Your analogy of Britain & France going to war with the Nazis and not being recorded by history as the aggressors is an interesting one

 

They should have done it earlier instead of trying to appease Hitler.

 

There are ways of doing things. Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" while you start World War Three is not one of them.

And putting your fingers in your ears and singing "Give Peace a Chance" while the bombs drop isn't going to do anything, either. This is a war on terror. People DIE in wars. I realize the Western world has lost its stomach for that, but it's true, and it happens. We're responsible enough not to target civilians.

 

Evil WILL prosper if good men do nothing. It's past time we did something.

[Guest DrTom]

What I don't understand, Tom, is when you, Marney, and others like you say words to the effect of "we should just nuke the entire Middle East" or "bomb Mecca" or what have you, in a serious tone as if it's a completely reasonable idea.

I don't think we need to nuke the entire Middle East, Jingus. Heck, I don't think we need to nuke anyone yet. Removing the Hussein clan from power in Iraq and slapping Arabia back into line would be two good places to start. If we suffer another significant terrorist attack, though, then I'd be in favor of the radioactive glass theory of warfare.

 

But if I were going to bomb the Hell out of the Middle East at some point, though, Mecca would be the first place I'd hit. It'd be a big "fuck you!" to the Islamic world, and would repay them nicely for targeting our financial center and a major government building.

[Guest B-X]

Just to clarify, this is a great thread. An intense, factual, intelligent discussion of issues between two posters who don't resort to flaming? Jesus Christ, this is gold.

 

Reminds me of the old Smark Forum (Ezboard era, Janurary - July 2001).

 

 

Good times. Good fucking times.

 

::cries::

[Guest J*ingus]

But if I were going to bomb the Hell out of the Middle East at some point, though, Mecca would be the first place I'd hit. It'd be a big "fuck you!" to the Islamic world, and would repay them nicely for targeting our financial center and a major government building.

But that's my entire point, bombing Mecca would NOT be a fair or reasonable thing to do. It would be exactly as if the UK attacked Vatican City in response to IRA bombings. There are untold millions of Muslims who had nothing at all to do with the terrorist attacks, who are either neutral or friendly towards us right now; but if Mecca was attacked, all of them would become our mortal enemies overnight.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Funny, Bush seems to be quite popular among our traditional European allies.

 

In what world would that be? Do you read European newspapers and periodicals? Bush is EXTRAORDINARILY unpopular and untrusted throughout Europe! The trouble with the American media is that there is very little reportage of outside opinion: this blinkered and biased US reportage isn't quite out-and-out national propaganda, but it's not far off it.

 

Americans are scared and paranoid... I can understand that.

So you've had terrorists fly airplanes into your skyscrapers and federal buildings? Wow, it really is a small world after all...

 

Mature response. Britain has suffered plenty republican terrorist bombings. We are intelligent enough to realise the problem has to be tackled politically, not by giving into the red mist and bombing the crap out of a nation, the vast, vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the attack in the first place.

 

This kind of loose cannon attitude is why people are scared of your country.

Good. Machiavelli was right, you know.

 

'The Prince' was also widely thought to have been written by Satan at the time, though. If by 'Good' you mean that you are glad people are scared of your country, I can only hope you never rise to a position of influence. You prefer your country's international standing to be based on terror rather than respect? And this is different to the Iraqi and old Afghan regimes how?

 

What are the "proper channels" to remove a homicidal lunatic dictator from power?  Send him a nastygram?  Fund the opposition that he'll just butcher and murder anyway?  Or do you go in there with "both guns blazing," shoot the fucker and all his cronies in their pointy little heads, and make the world a better place for everyone?  

 

That's the thing though, you won't just go in there and shoot the little fucker in the head, you'll decimate the entire country because Americans can't do anything without waving their dicks in everyones faces and killing more people than they need to. Are you telling me Navy SEALS couldn't infiltrate Iraq, kill Hussein, his son and his closest aides without bombing the crap out of the country and murdering inncoents? Of course they could. They shouldn't be there in the first place without UN approval, but in the event they were - they could. But for some reason, it's a lot more pallatable to the American public to have a big grandoise war with a country than for Bush to get up on his lectern and say "yeah, uh, we sent some people in, shot the fucker and all his cronies in their pointy little heads and made the world a better place for everyone. Yay!" It's not your friggin place to dictate the politics of other countries - yes if you want the regime changed you should fund the opposition. If you hadn't callously turned your backs on that same opposition ten years ago, you wouldn't even be in this mess today!

 

You're using what happened to you on 9/11 as an excuse to bully the rest of the world whose political and religious ideology doesn't correspond to yours, and that is what BAD countries do.

 

if I were going to bomb the Hell out of the Middle East at some point, though, Mecca would be the first place I'd hit. It'd be a big "fuck you!" to the Islamic world, and would repay them nicely for targeting our financial center and a major government building.

 

Ill though-out and hugely offensive comments like this just undermine the valid points you make elsewhere, Tom. In your mind, what conclusion would you like to see to all these hostilities? Just curious.

[Guest DrTom]

Do you read European newspapers and periodicals?

There's a bit of a delivery fee to get them over here. I know I could read them online, but I dislike reading newspapers on the internet. I always feel like I'm reading a website instead of a newspaper, if that makes any sense. Maybe I need to hear the paper crinkle and have newsprint on my fingers to really enjoy a newspaper.

 

Britain has suffered plenty republican terrorist bombings.

It's not the same. I hate to say something nebulous and Eddie Vedder-ish like, "You don't know my pain," but you DON'T. The fact that I have to watch the 9/11 footage periodically as part of training at work just makes me angrier about it.

 

We are intelligent enough to realise the problem has to be tackled politically, not by giving into the red mist and bombing the crap out of a nation, the vast, vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the attack in the first place.

How exactly would we go after Al'Qaeda politically? The group is scattered among several countries, so we just can's censure one nation. They're not a political body, so diplomacy is out. There is one thing that terrorists understand very well: death. It's all they do, and it's all that will stop them. Politics and diplomacy won't stop terrorists. Killing them does. The complication in the Middle East is that so many people see the terrorists as heroes for attacking "The Great Satan." They're tacitly supporting extremist regimes, who directly fund and support terrorism, so I disagree that have "nothing to do" with the problem. Tacit support is still support.

 

If by 'Good' you mean that you are glad people are scared of your country, I can only hope you never rise to a position of influence.

Shouldn't they be scared? We have the best military and the biggest nuclear arsenal out there. We damn well should induce fear. I'm not saying America should just go out there and bully everyone else into agreement, but there's nothing wrong with people being afraid of you enough that they'll go along with you. What can I say; I'm a believer in gunboat diplomacy.

 

You prefer your country's international standing to be based on terror rather than respect?

Not really, no. Our allies will respect us even if they disagree with us, and that's really all that matters. We shouldn't want them to fear us. Our adversaries, though, should damn well fear us, especially when they murder 3000 of our citizens.

 

Americans can't do anything without waving their dicks in everyones faces and killing more people than they need to.

I don't think that's true. Several times, we have been required to provide the denouement to a war or conflict, and I think we've done it appropriately. There have been cases in wars where we've gotten carried awa, but they're not common occurrences. The thing I don't like is the prick-waving before the battle begins. Ex gratia: Bush Sr, in 1991: "If we get into an armed conflict, Saddam's gonna get his ass kicked." Even if it's true, what's the point of saying it like that? It sounds way too reminiscent of playground trash-talking and has no place on the international stage.

 

Are you telling me Navy SEALS couldn't infiltrate Iraq, kill Hussein, his son and his closest aides without bombing the crap out of the country and murdering inncoents?

If they could do it so easily, don't you think we would have tried that before now? Besides, just getting the Hussein clan out of power isn't enough. We have to make sure that an equally fuckheaded faction doesn't take over in his place. I'm not a big fan of "nation-building," but there are times when you just have to roll up your sleeves and do it.

 

But for some reason, it's a lot more pallatable to the American public to have a big grandoise war with a country

This goes back to the need for revenge. Blood will follow blood, as they say. Americans are justifiably livid over what happened, and want to see the same thing returned on those who caused it. Obviously I have I biased perspective here, but I agree.

 

You're using what happened to you on 9/11 as an excuse to bully the rest of the world whose political and religious ideology doesn't correspond to yours, and that is what BAD countries do.

No, bad countries harbor people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers and government buildings. Good countries stop them from doing it again. If we can stop another significant terrorist attack, whether it would be directed at us or an ally, we should. I definitely believe that evil prospers when good men do nothing, and we can't afford to do nothing.

 

In your mind, what conclusion would you like to see to all these hostilities? Just curious.

The big things we should accomplish:

 

1. Usama bin Laden and every prominent member of Al'Qaeda dead.

2. The Hussein clan removed from power in Iraq, preferably by killing them, and a more tolerant regime brought to power.

3. The abandonment of the very duplicitous Arabia as an "ally."

4. Our commitment to Israel doubled, and a thorough denunciation of all Palestinian terrorist activities issued.

5. Any government in the Middle East that actively supports or engages in terrorism to be removed from power.

 

If we can do those without killing a large number of civilians, so much the better. I really have no desire to see fields of people gunned down by a batallion of Marines with machine guns. But if we can't do those things without casualties, then we'll just have to try and minimize them the best we can. Our cause is right and just, and you do have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. If the world loses a few thousand supporters of terrrorist regimes, I don't think anyone will mourn their passing in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest DrTom]

But that's my entire point, bombing Mecca would NOT be a fair or reasonable thing to do. It would be exactly as if the UK attacked Vatican City in response to IRA bombings.

Not at all. The difference is that the Pope wouldn't be telling Irish terrorists to go out and kill people. Christian faiths do a good job of denouncing abhorrent behavior by their own (the sexual abuse scandal notwithstanding). Moslems never denounce terrorism; they see it as a positive thing to attack and wound "The Great Satan." Their religion is inflexible and directly leads to their behavior. Why not take out the hub of it?

 

I'm not saying we should drop a bomb tomorrow. But if the situation escalates and the other measures we take don't resolve it, then I say bombs away.

 

if Mecca was attacked, all of them would become our mortal enemies overnight.

If a war with the Muslim world is what it takes to rid us of despicable terrorists, then bring it on. The world would be a better place if people who lived only to cause misery and death were no longer a part of it.

 

I guess I'm just angrier than most.

[Guest J*ingus]

Tom, don't you see that you're advocating going to war with millions upon millions of people in dozens of countries around the world, the majority of whom are in all likelihood not hostile towards us, for no other reason than guilt by association?

 

The difference is that the Pope wouldn't be telling Irish terrorists to go out and kill people.

 

There isn't a Muslim version of a Pope, though. There is no guiding central authority.

 

Christian faiths do a good job of denouncing abhorrent behavior by their own (the sexual abuse scandal notwithstanding).

 

An atheist, saying that Christianity does a good job of admitting its mistakes and apologizing for them?

 

Moslems never denounce terrorism; they see it as a positive thing to attack and wound "The Great Satan."

 

Now you're generalizing. Extremist radical violent Muslims do indeed support terrorism. But you're ignoring the countless number of moderate and relatively liberal Muslims around the world. Yes, they DO exist. They're just not given nearly as much press coverage as the wackos. What sells more papers: a poor family living in the desert saying that they're sorry this ever happened, or a crowd of militant assholes burning American flags and firing off weapons in celebration?

 

Their religion is inflexible and directly leads to their behavior.

 

Islam is a fairly strict religion when adhered to in a fundamentalist fashion, yes. But so is Christianity. Odds are, half of the posters in this forum have done something within the past week that the Bible recommends severe punishment or execution for. It is entirely dependent upon the moral choices of the individual practicioner.

 

Why not take out the hub of it?

 

1. There are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in the city of Mecca. To destroy the holy buildings, you could easily end up killing more people than the 9/11 attacks did.

 

2. It would be a slap in the face to EVERY single Muslim around the world, of the worst kind. What would be the point? What would be gained, except the undying hatred of a billion people?

 

I'm not saying we should drop a bomb tomorrow. But if the situation escalates and the other measures we take don't resolve it, then I say bombs away.

 

Unless they're actually launching the attacks from Mecca itself, that is one city which should be off-limits to any kind of violence.

 

If a war with the Muslim world is what it takes to rid us of despicable terrorists, then bring it on.

 

Tom, slow down and think, really think. Forget about 9/11 for just a moment. Forget about your anger. Look at things rationally and logically. Weigh the numbers. There are somewhere near ONE BILLION Muslims around the world. More than three times the population of our entire country. 99% of whom have never, ever had anything to do with any violent attacks. These are not our enemies. Why are you so carefree about making them into our enemies?

 

The world would be a better place if people who lived only to cause misery and death were no longer a part of it.

 

True. But those people are very few in number. What you're doing is like advocating a mass napalm attack on poor inner-city areas: it'll kill off a whole lot of gang members and drug traffickers, and so what if we fry a few babies and piss off entire legions of people?

 

I guess I'm just angrier than most.

 

And my inability to get you to listen to reason is making me more frightened than most.

[Guest TJH]

Tom, don't you see that you're advocating going to war with millions upon millions of people in dozens of countries around the world, the majority of whom are in all likelihood not hostile towards us, for no other reason than guilt by association?

 

The difference is that the Pope wouldn't be telling Irish terrorists to go out and kill people.

 

There isn't a Muslim version of a Pope, though. There is no guiding central authority.

 

Christian faiths do a good job of denouncing abhorrent behavior by their own (the sexual abuse scandal notwithstanding).

 

An atheist, saying that Christianity does a good job of admitting its mistakes and apologizing for them?

 

Moslems never denounce terrorism; they see it as a positive thing to attack and wound "The Great Satan."

 

Now you're generalizing. Extremist radical violent Muslims do indeed support terrorism. But you're ignoring the countless number of moderate and relatively liberal Muslims around the world. Yes, they DO exist. They're just not given nearly as much press coverage as the wackos. What sells more papers: a poor family living in the desert saying that they're sorry this ever happened, or a crowd of militant assholes burning American flags and firing off weapons in celebration?

 

Their religion is inflexible and directly leads to their behavior.

 

Islam is a fairly strict religion when adhered to in a fundamentalist fashion, yes. But so is Christianity. Odds are, half of the posters in this forum have done something within the past week that the Bible recommends severe punishment or execution for. It is entirely dependent upon the moral choices of the individual practicioner.

 

Why not take out the hub of it?

 

1. There are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in the city of Mecca. To destroy the holy buildings, you could easily end up killing more people than the 9/11 attacks did.

 

2. It would be a slap in the face to EVERY single Muslim around the world, of the worst kind. What would be the point? What would be gained, except the undying hatred of a billion people?

 

I'm not saying we should drop a bomb tomorrow. But if the situation escalates and the other measures we take don't resolve it, then I say bombs away.

 

Unless they're actually launching the attacks from Mecca itself, that is one city which should be off-limits to any kind of violence.

 

If a war with the Muslim world is what it takes to rid us of despicable terrorists, then bring it on.

 

Tom, slow down and think, really think. Forget about 9/11 for just a moment. Forget about your anger. Look at things rationally and logically. Weigh the numbers. There are somewhere near ONE BILLION Muslims around the world. More than three times the population of our entire country. 99% of whom have never, ever had anything to do with any violent attacks. These are not our enemies. Why are you so carefree about making them into our enemies?

 

The world would be a better place if people who lived only to cause misery and death were no longer a part of it.

 

True. But those people are very few in number. What you're doing is like advocating a mass napalm attack on poor inner-city areas: it'll kill off a whole lot of gang members and drug traffickers, and so what if we fry a few babies and piss off entire legions of people?

 

I guess I'm just angrier than most.

 

And my inability to get you to listen to reason is making me more frightened than most.

1. Islam. The thing is, when do you ever hear a high ranking Islamic preacher ever come out and say that Osama and his oraganisation is the scum of the earth, and we fully support getting rid them. Ditto for Saddam.

If it happened, it would certainly get attention.

 

2. The Bible does have harsh laws, but Christians nowadays aren't interpreting them as they were in the 14th century. The Bible supports some crazy ideas but no Christian ever acts on them.

 

Islam has many crazy laws, and these are still interpreted as they were 700 years ago. These include repression of women, advocating violence towards non-believers, and stoning to death girls who have been raped.

 

3. I don't agree that Mecca should be destroyed (right now) but I think the Islamic world has to make some pretty major changes to itself, and I can't see that happening.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Everything that Jingus said.

 

Additionally:

 

Do you read European newspapers and periodicals?

There's a bit of a delivery fee to get them over here. I know I could read them online, but I dislike reading newspapers on the internet. I always feel like I'm reading a website instead of a newspaper, if that makes any sense.

 

Well, maybe you should try doing that before you make broad comments about European viewpoints of which you know nothing about. We certainly keep up with the American press.

 

I hate to say something nebulous and Eddie Vedder-ish like, "You don't know my pain," but you DON'T.  The fact that I have to watch the 9/11 footage periodically as part of training at work just makes me angrier about it.

 

I can see that it would. But you are allowing your justifiable hatred of the few to spiral dangerously out of control into a blanket racial hatred of the many.

 

The complication in the Middle East is that so many people see the terrorists as heroes for attacking "The Great Satan."  They're tacitly supporting extremist regimes, who directly fund and support terrorism, so I disagree that have "nothing to do" with the problem.  Tacit support is still support.

 

Many extremist moslems do see the terrorists as heroes. But, as stated, 99% of moslems worldwide were appalled by what happened on 9/11, they just didn't get filmed celebrating because it made for less sensationalistic press coverage. And you would have them all killed? Tom, you need to probe deeper than the spin and propaganda your own government and media feed you, otherwise you are just as much of a mindless clone as the Al-Queda supporter firing his rifle into the air with delight. Both you and he become equally pathetic pawns in a bigger game, one that is going to affect every single living being on this planet.

 

there's nothing wrong with people being afraid of you enough that they'll go along with you.  What can I say; I'm a believer in gunboat diplomacy.

 

Well. What can I say? I think there is something very wrong, and actually very sinister, about that opinion.

 

Our allies will respect us even if they disagree with us, and that's really all that matters.  

 

Again, you show your ignorance of the current political climate abroad.

 

The thing I don't like is the prick-waving before the battle begins.  Ex gratia: Bush Sr, in 1991: "If we get into an armed conflict, Saddam's gonna get his ass kicked."  Even if it's true, what's the point of saying it like that?  It sounds way too reminiscent of playground trash-talking and has no place on the international stage.

 

What point are you trying to make with this? That Bush Sr was dumb?

 

I'm not a big fan of "nation-building," but there are times when you just have to roll up your sleeves and do it.

 

What do you think gives America the right to march into other countries and tell them how to run their affairs without expecting some sort of massive backlash against them?

 

Blood will follow blood, as they say.  Americans are justifiably livid over what happened, and want to see the same thing returned on those who caused it.  Obviously I have I biased perspective here, but I agree.

 

There's no doubt that you have biased perspective, no. You want to see the same thing returned on those who caused it, yes. The problem is that you can't find those who caused it. Killing any old moslems to make up for that fact and give you some sort of closure on the whole affair is just unfathomably short-sighted and stupid.

 

If we can stop another significant terrorist attack, whether it would be directed at us or an ally, we should.  

 

If you want to stop a significant terrorist attack on yourselves or your allies from happening again, then for a start DON'T FRIGGIN' INVADE IRAQ! The hostile response this is going to cause from a united Arab world will come back on not only on yoursleves but your allies as well. Hense why Europe is frightened by your inappropriate revenge-clouded attack plans.

 

If a war with the Muslim world is what it takes to rid us of despicable terrorists, then bring it on. The world would be a better place if people who lived only to cause misery and death were no longer a part of it. I guess I'm just angrier than most.

 

You're damn right you're angrier than most, you are advocating genocide in order to get back at a tiny minority of bad people. Tom, you are obviously an intelligent, albeit very hate-filled, individual and I respect your right to an opinion, but if you can't see that genocide is wrong, then sorry but something seriously ain't right.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well we see here that Dubya Bush has achieved EXACTLY what he wanted from day one. America's paranoia has reached an all-time high. Most people are ready for blood and don't care what country in the middle-east the blood is shed in.....Oh yah, wait, that was about 6 months ago.....fast foward to the PRESENT, and the country is already split 50/50, Bush has no support from congress, we have Cheney on a Soap Box saying, "well who cares what others in the government say, including fellow republicans...if we want war, we will go to war" What a joke this is. Just like Daddy, this war monger attitude is backfiring, and it is only a matter of time until Bush is fully exposed.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Well we see here that Dubya Bush has achieved EXACTLY what he wanted from day one. America's paranoia has reached an all-time high. Most people are ready for blood and don't care what country in the middle-east the blood is shed in.....Oh yah, wait, that was about 6 months ago.....fast foward to the PRESENT, and the country is already split 50/50, Bush has no support from congress, we have Cheney on a Soap Box saying, "well who cares what others in the government say, including fellow republicans...if we want war, we will go to war" What a joke this is. Just like Daddy, this war monger attitude is backfiring, and it is only a matter of time until Bush is fully exposed.

So profound

[Guest DrTom]

There isn't a Muslim version of a Pope, though. There is no guiding central authority.

True, but each country has a few powerful clerics who are the leaders of the faith there. It's not a true central authority, but it's obvious they agree on things often enough.

 

An atheist, saying that Christianity does a good job of admitting its mistakes and apologizing for them?

Hey, it happens. Christianity certainly has a long and bloody history, but they've gotten a lot better about denouncing their extreme elements. Responsible Christians always denounce the fuckheads who bomb abortion clinics, for example. It would be nice if any Moslem in a position of power from the Middle East would come out and say the 9/11 attacks were wrong, and that those who perpetrated them deserve to be punished. I haven't heard of that happening, though, and you KNOW it would make the news.

 

Now you're generalizing.

Ok...

Tom, don't you see that you're advocating going to war with millions upon millions of people in dozens of countries around the world, the majority of whom are in all likelihood not hostile towards us...

Tell me you're not generalizing, too. These people, with whom you associated a quite lengthy qualifier, haven't come out against the attacks. There can be underground movements in Muslim countries that exist as protests of the current regime; Afghanistan's Northern Alliance is probably the best recent and relevant example. But where are the peace-lovers among them? If it's 99%, for chrissakes, I'd expect a few of them to have spoken out and done something by now. My point, Jingus, is that by not speaking out against things like 9/11, the people in Moslem countries give acts like that their implicit support. And tacit support is still support. I'd be sympathetic to your view if there were a movement over there that (pardon the phrase) wanted to stop the violence and increase the peace. But there isn't one. Look at countries like Somalia, where are soldiers were getting shot at by CHILDREN with machine guns. Then tell me a devout Muslim wouldn't try to kill you if he had the chance. It's in the Qu'ran, after all.

 

What sells more papers: a poor family living in the desert saying that they're sorry this ever happened, or a crowd of militant assholes burning American flags and firing off weapons in celebration?

Obviously, the latter. But tell me what would sell more papers and pull in bigger ratings: the second scenario you described, or a group of 10,000 people saying they're sorry it ever happened, that the guilty should be punished, and waving an American flag instead of burning it.

 

Odds are, half of the posters in this forum have done something within the past week that the Bible recommends severe punishment or execution for.

The difference is that the Qu'ran is law in Muslim countries. The Bible doesn't decide who's guilty and how to punish them over here. They're both mythology books that were written to scare ancient peoples into behaving a certain way. Unfortunately, the Muslims never realized that, and they still use the Qu'ran for everything.

 

1. There are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in the city of Mecca. To destroy the holy buildings, you could easily end up killing more people than the 9/11 attacks did.

There were thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in New York and Washington, too. Somewhere along the way, we've forgotten about them, in favor of "innocent" people who rape, beat, and stone their own women, willingly adhere to a holy book that openly advocates murdering non-believers, and let children die in school fires because their ankles were showing. There's a word for that, Jingus: EVIL. I don't know when so many Americans became so tolerant of evil, but I think we have a duty to stop it when we see it threatening us and our allies.

 

2. It would be a slap in the face to EVERY single Muslim around the world, of the worst kind.

Boo-hoo.

 

There are somewhere near ONE BILLION Muslims around the world. More than three times the population of our entire country. 99% of whom have never, ever had anything to do with any violent attacks. These are not our enemies. Why are you so carefree about making them into our enemies?

Fine. If they don't want to be our enemies, let them come out and denounce the terrorism that Usama bin Laden has waged against this country for the last decade. Let them help us find the members of Al'Qaeda and destroy that vile organization. Let them let us help them in making sure their countries aren't ruled by a bunch of fanatics who would rather obliterate the West than try to coexist with it. If they do that, then I'll have some sympathy for them. Until then, I'll presume their tacit support is indeed support.

 

And my inability to get you to listen to reason is making me more frightened than most.

I'm listening, Jingus. I just don't agree with you. I fully believe that evil prospers when good men do nothing. This is the time we must act, and that must consist of more than sitting around the campfire and singing "Give Peace a Chance." We've given it more than enough chances. I never want to see another 9/11 as long as I live, and if going on the offensive now is the best way to prevent it, then we should do it. You want to be frightened? Be frightened by the fact that Al'Qaeda could strike at us again, at any time. Br frightened that Saddam Hussein might have chemical and biological weapons at his disposal, and that getting them into this country wouldn't be difficult. Be frightened that the gospel of hate is repeatedly preached to the one billion people you keep mentioning. But you shouldn't be frightened that someone has decided they've had enough and would like to see it stopped.

[Guest DrTom]

But you are allowing your justifiable hatred of the few to spiral dangerously out of control into a blanket racial hatred of the many.

If the many would denounce, expose, and help us deal with the few, I'd be a lot more positive toward them.

 

But, as stated, 99% of moslems worldwide were appalled by what happened on 9/11, they just didn't get filmed celebrating because it made for less sensationalistic press coverage.

As I stated, if that's true, then at least some of them would have spoken up, and we would have heard about it. I know it would get reported over here, because the liberal element of the American press doesn't want us to go to war, and if they think a story like that would stop it, they'd run with it.

 

Tom, you need to probe deeper than the spin and propaganda your own government and media feed you...

I do. I get a lot of different reports at work, as part of security bulletins. I read every single one of them, beginning to end, and I've even posted some of the public information here. I haven't seen anything in those reports that would change my mind. (You should know that I am an employee of the US government, but my opinions on this matter and all others are entirely my own.)

 

Again, you show your ignorance of the current political climate abroad.

How? Do our allies not respect us? Or do you object to the "that's really all that matters" part? I'll clarify that: as long as we have the respect of our allies, then we're OK. That's all that matters, because our adversaries are going to hate us anyway, and we're not interested in their respect. The opinions of our allies are the ones we should consider, even if we don't agree with them.

 

What point are you trying to make with this? That Bush Sr was dumb?

Basically. You were saying we're irresponsible in battle, and I don't think we are. I think we have a tendency to be irresponsible in front of a camera and a live mike. There's no reason a president, or any other prominent political or military figure, should make so absurd a statement.

 

What do you think gives America the right to march into other countries and tell them how to run their affairs without expecting some sort of massive backlash against them?

I never said we shouldn't expect a backlash. We're definitely the one superpower left in the world. That's a lot of responsibility. Sometimes, the shepherd has to get actively involved in shepherding the lost and the weak. I'm not a big fan of it, but there are times it just has to be done. I'm definitely a believer in the John Adams school of democracy, as opposed to the Woodrow Wilson school.

 

The problem is that you can't find those who caused it. Killing any old moslems to make up for that fact and give you some sort of closure on the whole affair is just unfathomably short-sighted and stupid.

Where we differ is that you perceive 99% of the population over there to be innocent. I don't. I see their abhorrent, evil behavior manifested in the things I mentioned in my post to Jingus. That's not innocent. It's evil. Thus, to me, "any old Moslem" isn't an innocent, but just a cog in the evil machine. Like I've been saying, if the people would speak out against what's been happening, I'd be sympathetic toward them. But they give their tacit support to terrorism and the murder of 3000 Americans. Sorry, but I have no pity for them at all, and I won't shed a tear if they die.

 

If you want to stop a significant terrorist attack on yourselves or your allies from happening again, then for a start DON'T FRIGGIN' INVADE IRAQ!

So we should just do nothing? Play nice with the Arab world? All that got us was 3000 of our people dead. I don't think we need to go down that road anymore. If going into places like Iraq and Arabia, while continuing to hunt bin Laden and Al'Qaeda, cuts off the means for another terrorist attack, then that's exactly what we need to do. I'll say it again: evil prospers when good men do nothing. We don't need to sit around and do nothing. We've already even evil one moment of prosperity. They shouldn't be allowed another.

 

You're damn right you're angrier than most, you are advocating genocide in order to get back at a tiny minority of bad people.

I'm not advocating genocide, and I don't think it would be necessary. If it ever came to pass that we did go to war with the Muslim world, I think they'd eventually be forced to concede. It might take another Hiroshima to make that happen, but I don't think we'd need to just go over there and kill everyone. It doesn't need to come to that, and I don't think it would.

 

Really, I'd love to be able to co-exist peacefully with the Middle East. I don't have some perverse need to see people die in hails of gunfire or pools of Napalm. But I never want to see another incident like 9/11, in this country or in any of our allies' countries. And if we can take decisive action to greatly minimize the chances of that happening again, then we need to do it.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Fair enough, DrT. I don't remotely agree with your outlook (or that of your president), but I respect the way you hold firm to your beliefs and state those beliefs in a controlled and eloquent manner - the posts here are now just starting to repeat themselves though, no one's going to suddenly change their stance on this, and thankfully people can actually agree to disagree on an internet message board without wars being started. This is the first time I dipped into the c-e folder and I hope to start doing so on a more regular basis, so I'm sure our heads may BUTT again. Peace out for now. You psycho.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Forget about 9/11 for just a moment.

No.

 

Never. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not in a million years.

 

I will never forget.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

2. It would be a slap in the face to EVERY single Muslim around the world, of the worst kind.

Boo-hoo.

You know...one would think the same thing could be said from the terrorists' perspective. Just substitute WTC for Mecca.

 

This is a war between the US and certain organizations bent on our nation's destruction. I'm all for at assault against THOSE people, but not against a vague indiscriminate enemy like "The Middle East." or my favorite "The Axis of Evil." just come out and say, "we're attacking Iraq, and here's why." If that reason makes sense, hell, send in the seals and make some surgical strikes. After that's done, we've got to worry about, and I'm quoting Walter Sobczek from Big Lebowski, "A bunch of figeaters wearin' towels on their heads trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank."

 

This is going to be a long complicated war. Yelling gung ho and sending the B-52's in over countries where muslims live is NOT the best approach.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well that is the main reason why this "war" against terrorism, will ultimately fail. It will just produce stronger and more agile terrorists. Cheney said any and all attacks against Hussein/Iraq would be to liberate the Iraqi people, umm yah azif that isn't the biggest LIE so far.

 

If Bush said, "Taliban, Al Qaeda, Sadam, his high ranking officials..etc... need to be taken out for so and so" then fine, I AGREE and would support that attack, but not, Well there are some terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan so we are gonna engage in full scale war to liberate the people.....!?! That just sounds so phony. I mean azif the people didn't need liberation BEFORE sept. 11th, now all the sudden they need to be freed.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

it is phony, self-serving bullshit, yes.