This is a trap and it's obvious
JoJo åŸ æ±—
geoff won't mind me forwarding it on - what are everyone's thoughts on its
contents?
The Path of Least Resistance
Almost as soon as the events of September 11th unfolded to an
unsuspecting America, the words flowed out: 'This means War!' With the
fires still burning and the emergency services unable to cope with the
scale of the tragedy, it was war. The clear and present failure of the
CIA and FBI to foresee this calamity or head it off once the initial
hijacking became known, was strangely juxtaposed against the certain
and absolute knowledge of who was responsible - the Saudi dissident
Osama Bin Laden. On the one hand these planes, hijacked and driven
into symbols of America by persons unknown, without warning. On the
other, the knowledge it could only be one man, living in the remotest
of places. This means war - but what does that mean? We are told this
is a war of civilisations, an attack on freedom but how can anybody
even know enough for these obtuse abstractions? All any of us could
surmise from the horror of the day was this: A sudden and suicidal
strike on the symbols of American economic and military might. Surely
to 'know' any more than this suggests foreknowledge which was so
clearly and tragically absent. Every sane observer to the events of
last Tuesday was shocked by what happened but, if we reach deep inside
ourselves, were we really surprised that the world has come to this?
Last year when George W. Bush became President of the world's last
superpower in the most dubious and acrimonious election the USA has
ever seen, what did you think? I recall, as soon as his cabinet
line-up became known, that it was the same faces as those who brought
us the Gulf War. Bush (albeit Dubya), Cheney and Colin Powell. I
remember, back then, thinking this would mean some kind of 'finishing
off what was started' ten years ago now. I imagine Saddam Hussein felt
some sense of deja-vu as he saw this latest George Bush and the old
Cheney, Colin Powell set take up their positions in Washington. I
remember thinking with certainty there would now be another Gulf War.
Gulf War II - This time it's what? There was much horseplay about
Dubya's lack of any kind of handle on foreign policy and much warning
given that he was little more than a puppet for shadowy, corporate
interests. His amusing yet alarming personal displays of ignorance and
oversimplifications made people wonder how such a man could be
entrusted with the highest office on Earth. I think many believed at
the time of the election it would be somehow proven he had not
actually won the Presidency. Proof that never came.
The one strand of continuity from his father's heralding in of the
'Read my lips, New World Order' was that despite Desert Storm and
Desert Shield and ten years of continuous bombing - Saddam Hussein was
still very much there. Clinton had come and gone, if you'll excuse the
double entendre, and now Bush, Cheney and Colin Powell were back. Ok
so it was Dubya and not Senior but hell, when the election campaign
started a lot of people thought it was Senior anyway!
Coming back to the present - Fifty thousand reservists are called up,
America's young are signing up, the fleets and instruments of war are
being deployed. War it is, and yet, war against whom? A terrorist
organisation is very different to a state. It has no borders, it
operates, can only operate, from the shadows. Just who will the USA
prosecute a war against? 'Whoever it damn well likes' and 'If we
overreact then tough' are simply not good enough. The USA maintains by
far the greatest capacity for destruction our world has ever known and
yet, ironically, these weapons are ineffective against a terrorist
organisation or network of organisations. This is going to be a war
against whoever America wishes to include. Are they going to cherry
pick their enemies? Is this a war against the usual suspects as it
appears to be: Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Sudan, Libya etc. We've already
heard the hijackers and suspects, some at least, were Egyptian, Omani
and from the United Arab Emirates - yet somehow I don't see America
targeting these countries.
It has been said this is a crusade. Will this develop into a war
against Islam? Tony Blair is at pains to assure us it will not.
However, is it really up to him? Or the USA? If the targets of this
war are to be a cherry picked list of Islamic states then surely we
must ask ourselves how will Islam respond. We in the West do not have
a monopoly on crusades, holy wars or Jihad. Isn't this how we got into
this awful mess in the first place? Is this not an increasingly
vicious circle we are now in danger of spiralling around and around?
Historically the crusades that began a thousand years ago achieved
very little apart from lakes of blood in the Middle East. A flashpoint
ever since continuing to demand lives from all those involved. Worse
yet and similar to Spartacus - do we not risk the creation of
thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Osama Bin
Ladens by prosecuting a war on Islam? However much we say this won't
be war on Islam itself it will be Islam itself that decides whether it
is.
If not a war on Islam then, again, the question must be 'A war on
whom?' Will it only be countries without a chain of Macdonalds who are
targeted? Is this what James Rubin means when he calls for a war of
civilisations? We certainly won't be attacking any rich Arab nations
such as Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE or Oman. So does this mean we will only
be attacking poor countries? Only those who can't fight back? Will we
only be attacking unwesternised countries and once all this is over,
if anyone at all is left alive, will these places then be westernised?
If this is to be, as we are told, a war against terrorism then does
this include Northern Ireland and the IRA or the real IRA? Will it
include ETA? I think not. Then this won't be a war against global
terrorism. It will be a selective war against selective targets,
dressed up as a war against terrorism. What then will this 'war' in
fact be? What is the real umbrella these targets will fall under? Who
is the enemy? The rhetoric only serves to confuse the issue further
and this is truly at the heart of problem. How can anyone declare war
on an unknown and potentially unknowable enemy?
If we return to the failure of the most powerful intelligence agencies
in the world we can perhaps begin to see how the shadows are never as
black or the light as white as we would prefer. Billions of dollars
are spent every year on 'Intelligence'. Known terrorist organisations
are exposed to constant satellite, electronic and human surveillance -
including the so called prime suspect and his network of networks.
Yet, out of the blue sky death rained down on America, using its own
domestic objects against them. Heads have not yet rolled in the CIA or
FBI. The sheer amount of shared intelligence through the worlds
agencies didn't flag this up - the largest and most daring terrorist
attack in the world. I am not the only one who finds this hard if not
impossible to believe. There are many interests at stake here. Our own
security services have deliberately not shared everything with the USA
on several occasions. If Mossad, the notoriously ruthless Israeli
intelligence agency, had forewarning would they have passed it on? Or
would they have allowed it to proceed in the certain knowledge it
would ultimately further their own cause by forcing the USA to step up
to the plate and respond. Hypothetical? Perhaps.
The other failure of intelligence, apart from co-operation, continues
as the FBI round up dozens of 'suspects' and then let them go again.
Despite Osama Bin Laden's network having been under such considerable
scrutiny since the first World Trade Centre bombing - None of his
known operatives have been picked up. The FBI have to date released
all but one of these suspects and other countries have followed suit
in Europe. They pick up Arabic suspects, shake them down and let them
go again without charge. The failure of intelligence will continue for
as long as it concentrates on being seen to be doing something,
anything, but is in fact only chasing it's tail. Meanwhile of course,
the perpetrators continue to go undetected and unpunished. Despite the
apparent visibility of the FBI in their media raids on hotels and
planes about to depart - the invisibility of the enemy remains
palpably evident. All the billions, all the personnel, all the
high-tech equipment and weapons of war did not stop what happened on
Tuesday and has achieved absolutely nothing since. In fact it has
managed to deepen the sense of indignation of the wrongly arrested and
falsely accused and stirred up more and more racially motivated
tension.
When this is compared to the sheer evil genius of the perpetrators and
the scale and precision of this act of utter terror it seems the
greatest nation on Earth is being seriously outclassed. The
professionals in this grim scenario, awful truth that it is, have been
the fanatical perpetrators. Unable to tackle the might of the USA head
on they have taken their strategies from 'the Art of War' to prosecute
their attack by other means. Compared to the enormous loss of innocent
life and billions in dollars as well as the inestimable damage to the
human psyche, these people used knives. Fanatics they may have been
but the dark intelligence at work has run rings around the
intelligence community - many of whom were on the West coast holding
their annual conference. The timing, the preparation, the selection of
targets all go to show we are dealing with an enemy capable of such
evil, such stupefying evil genius that it has put the so called
intelligence community at an extreme disadvantage.
To truly understand this we must look at what really happened on
September 11th. We must look beyond the obvious and total horror felt
by us all and we must try and make out this new landscape that
confronts us all. I do not congratulate the brilliance of the
perpetrators in carrying out their plan of terror, only attempt to
'draw attention to their intelligence' because it has been this
ability to strike completely out of leftfield which makes this event
so ominous of further looming dangers. To react in the 'same old way'
is simply not on the menu. This action, death toll shattering that it
is apart, was an act of provocation. This is the first card played
from a poker hand made up of aces. America is being goaded into
action. This invisible enemy has achieved this while remaining largely
invisible. If a message was sent it was this 'Come on. Do your worst!'
in the certain knowledge the USA will now strike out in vengeance and,
as it has done so in the past, against the wrong targets. This leads
to an escalation of incomprehensible consequences because the USA will
embark with their trademark swaggering certainty it is acting 'in the
right' even when it isn't. The USA and its allies will embark on a war
against those it sees as responsible in the absence of those it can't
see who are truly responsible. This is a trap of truly epic proportion
that with every girding and readying of the nation for war, propels us
all forward headlong into it. There will be no turning back as the,
rightfully, indignant targets of this mis-placed aggression will be
forced into a battle for their lives. Both sides believing themselves
to be have been done wrong. Both sides rising to the call of a
righteous war. Meanwhile the real perpetrator looks at its remaining
cards in its hand and selects another ace to play.
This kind of genius puts Adolf Hitler to shame, as at least he was a
visible enemy. This action has been taken while being able to predict,
the comparatively bumbling, responses of Dubya, his warlike cabinet
and his intelligence agencies who must now produce results to an
outraged American public. The ability to predict the enemy, to
manoeuvre them, to force them into action and to strike at their
weakest points has broken America. America lies broken and in pain
with a President in tears and preparing to wage war against an enemy,
any enemy, they do not even know, understand or comprehend. America is
a wounded animal, it's hurt, it's howling and it will lash out and it
cannot see how it has been played. This is not the first time America
has been broken, in fact they have a long history of it beginning with
the bloodiest of civil wars. Somalia, Vietnam, the death of JFK and
others have all been unsatisfactory outcomes that served to break the
American spirit and fuel the will to be the winner. This may well be
yet another unsatisfactory outcome in America's long narrative. It is
however also an opportunity to break this repetitious circle once and
for all. Can America do it? Can they put vengeance aside and turn
inward to face its own conscience?
I have heard it mentioned over the last few days of Americans being
asked to ask themselves why they are so hated by so many in the world.
Some news commentators have even pushed US spokesmen to look at their
own foreign policy as a cause for this weeks events. These requests
have been brushed aside in a 'now is not the time' way when now is
very much the time. The United States of America is built on the
principle of Manifest Destiny where the native Americans were
isolated, persecuted and removed from the land in order to make way
for the pioneers. America is built on blood, this was never a
foundation without consequence. This is now very much reflected in the
policy of backing Israel against the Palestinians. This is also a war
fought with very different weapons on each side, because only one side
has weapons. Israel, a nation-state built upon the suffering and abuse
of the Jewish people, cannot now, like an abused child, now abuse
others. Palestinian suicide bombers are a last ditch, desperate
attempt to withstand the oppression of the Israelis. Just as kamikaze
pilots were a last ditch effort from Japan in the final acts of WWII.
Desperation breeds desperate measures, not fanaticism. The Israelis
have proven to be just as fanatical as the Palestinians but you don't
see them blowing themselves up.
We are about to witness a forced move to the right that nobody
actually wants. Only those who have sprung this trap want that. As
civil liberty is pushed aside in favour of security measures we will
all begin to know what it felt like in pre-war Europe in the thirties.
We will be swapping our multi-racial, multi-cultural society for one
where certain races and religions are viewed with distrust and fear.
We will close our doors to those in need of asylum and sanctuary. We
will focus on our own interests and we will defend our freedom at the
cost of the freedom of others. The gap between the haves and the
have-nots will widen ever further.
We are creating our own 'new Jews' for this generation and they will
be the Muslims. It is with great sadness and tragedy that Israel has
not learned the lessons from the horrors they have suffered but now
project fear and persecution onto another people. I am not anti-Jewish
or anti-Israeli but rather agonise in the hope the Israeli people
would make it their number one priority to live in peace and harmony
rather than conflict. Within hours of the events of September 11th
Israeli tanks and bulldozers entered the town of Jenin, and then
Jericho. Isn't this now the time, more than ever before, to cease and
desist? To find a better way? Violence begets violence, Terror begets
Terror. Rather than cancel the peace talks between Shimon Perez and
Yasser Arafat should it not have been enforced? Is it not time to
finally use the unsurpassed military might of the West to come between
those in conflict and 'break it up?' If it isn't then we will just
march blindly on, into the abyss and into the greatest trap the world
has ever seen.
I heard it said by a Wall Street spokesperson that 'the projection of
war' may well save the economy. It is a sad and terrible incitement on
the 'civilised' world that war is good for a flagging economy. Is
there really no better way? Surely this is a time for justice not
vengeance, can we now make the distinction? The events of 11th
September were a desperate and horrifying tragedy but we must attend
to this desperate world that is willing to batter itself and
annihilate itself and others to be heard. We must all work for a
cessation of global conflict not towards creating the largest example
of it the world has seen to date.
If we don't stop and think and ask ourselves 'are we being manoeuvred?
Is this a trap? Is war what these people want? And isn't the art of
war about denying what the enemy wants?' then we must face the
nightmare scenarios of our time that will make the events of last
Tuesday look minor by comparison and loss of life. The dangers of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are no less real that what
happened on Tuesday just because they haven't happened yet. We risk
ushering in the end of days if we take the wrong path, if we set off
this trap.
The right way is the hardest, the wrong way is the easiest. If we
follow the path of least resistance we risk descent into hell on
Earth.
Adam
the 'trap' you refer to may well be the country of Afghanistan itself. I'm
just old enough to remember the nightmare Russia had there.
For all you gung-ho GIs out there, Rudyard Kipling offers this advice:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your Gawd like a soldier."
(quoted in the Times over the weekend)..
regards,
adam
JoJo åŸ æ±— <jlg...@scotlife.freeserveNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o5p7b$443$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
James W. Glass
Osama - the obvious choice (from US internal conditioning), except he is too
reminiscent of Lex Luthor, the diabolical enemy in Superman comics.
Israel - the clear beneficiary of crystallizing US opinion against mid-east
terrorists. Mossad has a history, after all, of subtle, and not so subtle,
actions like this.
Iraq: Mr. Sadly Insane? I think not. He is Mr. "Direct Action".
US coup d'eta? This is too, TOO, over the top. Nevertheless, it has its
attractiveness, particularly Bush's travails in the air, which could have
been done to prevent unknown INTERNAL elements from assinating him.
My vote is Israel. Mossad, or whatever their deep cover is.
Jim
"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ba66...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
Deborah P. Jackson
Can't eat us"
are you saying they can? AUA JESS! Then all hope is
lost!---(sarcasim)--- These terrorist are not true Muslims, true Muslims
are doing everything they can to get rid of them. No these bastards have
"twisted" themselves into SuperMohammidBinladenMen! They are now capable
of striking terror into the heart of Ala himself. Able to disappear in a
single flash "Boom" along with 5,ooo.oo loving, innocent peace loving
souls. And they're not just simple rapist, and baby killers they're
Father Rapers. They will do what ever SuperMohammidBinladen tells them,
including eat his shit and call it ambrosia!!
Adam <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ba66...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
Cuthslay
do not waste your time....
JoJo åŸ æ±— <jlg...@scotlife.freeserveNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o5p7b$443$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
click here for advanced sending options
ah, yes...also used as a title-card prologue to the excellent film, THE
BEAST(1988) in which a Russian Tank crew get their asses whupped by a
rag-tag bunch of Mujahadeen Rebels. Since these same folks kicked the shit
out of the superior Ruskies and their hi-tech toys, dont think it couldnt
happen again with US...really an engrossing film-see it...
noxes
forgiveness
> of the murders.
>
> Now we unleash the Dogs Of War to hunt down the murders and justice be
done.
As an eyewitness to the tragedy in New York, I must say it is not the
'terrorists' I fear, it is the ignorant fools like you who howl like hyenas
for blood without understanding the greater context of the situation. If
your barbaric thinking [if it can even be called thinking] prevails we will
all be in hell very soon...
llewxamw
> done.
>
> As an eyewitness to the tragedy in New York, I must say it is not the
> 'terrorists' I fear, it is the ignorant fools like you who howl like
hyenas
> for blood without understanding the greater context of the situation. If
> your barbaric thinking [if it can even be called thinking] prevails we
will
> all be in hell very soon...
Not in a religious manner, but "Amen Brother!"
We need to evolve and be "above" these terrorists level. We are a moral and
advanced nation. We need to act like it or we are just like the other
barbarians. And if we don't start now, when?
Damien
humerous in a dark way at times
"Deborah P. Jackson" <jack...@mlec.net> wrote in message
news:3ba694e6$0$2730$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
Damien
what you witnessed and for whatever or whoever you may have lost ...........
those other barbarics who are suffering I can only pity for their naeivity
and bigotry.
"noxes" <no...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FlAp7.26629$n5.33...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Fletch
wrote:
>too long,
So why quote the whole lot in your reply?
-Fletch
#638
To reply, remove the underpants from my email address.
Say NO to spam.
Woden
I too hope that we exercise a rational response. This includes a
significant effort to resolve the real problems that start the terrorism -
our own government included. But at the same time, we do have to deal with
the existing terrorists and it's seems obvious that the only argument that
will sway many of them is the kind that comes from the business end of an
automatic weapon.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Paminifarm
Paminifarm.
Very nice, however the reason for all this is: Corporate Society wants to run an
oil-pipe line through Afghanistan, but Laden willnot let them. Follow the money
. .
Truth Hurts: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/revolution.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/notjew.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/christnation.html
Frank Wustner
(snip all)
Ever watch "Slayers"? I would suggest you do. It's a Japanese tv show.
What do you do when you're surrounded by traps? Stand still and do
nothing? Wrong answer. You pick your trap with your eyes open and look
for the easily-escapable back door.
Well, guess what, friend? The U.S. is surrounded by traps right now. If
we go to war, we'll be playing into their hands. If we do not respond in
a strong and unambiguous way, we'll be playing into their hands.
We have to choose which trap we want to spring and walk into it with our
eyes open. That way, we'll be reacting on *our* terms.
Take your choice. War or weak harumphing gestures? Or worse than either
of them, nothing at all? Which would you prefer we do?
Keep this theme in mind when you watch "Slayers".
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Douglas Berry
"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>far, far too sane Usenet I fear...
>the 'trap' you refer to may well be the country of Afghanistan itself. I'm
>just old enough to remember the nightmare Russia had there.
>For all you gung-ho GIs out there, Rudyard Kipling offers this advice:
Remember that the Afhans had a little help against the Soviets in the
form of millions of dollars in aid and weaponry from the US. Not a
single country is standing with them now.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
click here for advanced sending options <seas...@foxinternet.com>
warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>ah, yes...also used as a title-card prologue to the excellent film, THE
>BEAST(1988) in which a Russian Tank crew get their asses whupped by a
>rag-tag bunch of Mujahadeen Rebels. Since these same folks kicked the shit
>out of the superior Ruskies and their hi-tech toys, dont think it couldnt
>happen again with US...really an engrossing film-see it...
One more time: The reason that tank crew got their asses kicked was
no air cover, since anything that flew was subject to enthusastic and
multiple Stinger launches.
Douglas Berry
"noxes" <no...@nyc.rr.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>As an eyewitness to the tragedy in New York, I must say it is not the
>'terrorists' I fear, it is the ignorant fools like you who howl like hyenas
>for blood without understanding the greater context of the situation. If
>your barbaric thinking [if it can even be called thinking] prevails we will
>all be in hell very soon...
OK, explain this in "context."
My 23 year old roommate will be flying back to New York on Thursday.
She will be going to help try and locate a friend, whose only crime
was working for the Bank of America in Tower 1. If he's dead, he
leaves behind a wife, many friends, and a child barely old enough to
understand why Daddy can't read her a bedtime story again tonight.
Explain that in fucking context.
We have been assaulted, thousands of people killed. The times when we
tolerated terrorists have ended. Weep if you will for these monsters,
but I will remind you that it was howling hyenas that took up the
fight against the horrors of fascism.
Douglas Berry
"llewxamw" <llew...@yahoo.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>We need to evolve and be "above" these terrorists level. We are a moral and
>advanced nation. We need to act like it or we are just like the other
>barbarians. And if we don't start now, when?
When we are all dead? That is ObL's stated goal, you know. Kill as
many Americans as he can, and destroy our nation.
You go sit in a yurt and be evolved. Those of us living in the real
world understand that sometimes war becomes necessary, and must take
place.
Mark Whickman
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:t1meqtkpq5heue683...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:36:58 +0200, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
> >far, far too sane Usenet I fear...
> >the 'trap' you refer to may well be the country of Afghanistan itself.
I'm
> >just old enough to remember the nightmare Russia had there.
> >For all you gung-ho GIs out there, Rudyard Kipling offers this advice:
>
> Remember that the Afhans had a little help against the Soviets in the
> form of millions of dollars in aid and weaponry from the US. Not a
> single country is standing with them now.
>
from the russian retreat. It may be obsolete but it's still dangerous.
JoJo åŸ æ±—
"Karl Hauwser" <kha...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ce8fqtsa5auorl6g5...@5xg.com...> As a participant in two wars in defense of freedom and having been a lot
> closer to hell than you have been or ever will be, I can tell you that
your
> kind of thinking that says surrender to the acts and threats of terrorist
> makes me sick. Rather than live in your frightened little rabbits world,
it
> would be better that we were all in hell just so long as we died fighting.
I
> for one do not plan on living as a slave to every towel head that comes
down
> the pike. I suspect that there are many millions of Americans who
> have the same perspective.
>
You're probably right - last Tuesday, I have to admit my instant reaction
was 'nuke the whole lot of 'em, they're religious f***ing nutters and
they'll kill us all without a shred of conscience' but that post was the
only one that made me think 'are we underestimating them?'. So few of us
know their language, their beliefs, their conviction, their culture - yet
they seem totally at ease using ours for their own ends - they use the
internet to communicate in code, their intelligence is spot on, speak our
language, they make tons of cash selling drug crops that probably end up on
our doorstep, yet claim to abhor the westernised way of living. They've
used our technology, our countries and even our own planes to hit out at us.
I just feel like we're being played and they're one step ahead of us - we
have to get ahead.... and quickly, without warning.
JoJo
Deborah P. Jackson
to these unpatriotic fools babble in fear. We are all afraid but
fighting for our FREEDOM has to be done. These terrorist are not just
going to stop, if we don't stop them they will continue to kill us and
run away!. Like I've been saying it's our FREEDOM they hate, it's
something they can't grasp, they fear FREEDOM. We are lucky, to live in
a country where we are FREE, FREE to make our lives better, to have the
right to choose who we want to be and how we want to live!!!! FREEDOM IS
YOUR BIRTHRIGHT AMERICA!!!! Fight for it, fight for the rights of your
children to be FREE!!
Deb
Karl Hauwser <kha...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ce8fqtsa5auorl6g5...@5xg.com...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:47:33 GMT, "noxes" <no...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
As a participant in two wars in defense of freedom and having been a lot
rktectcdm
You and I share very similar opinions on the matter. This is what I
posted to various newsgroups at the same time as your great thesis...
Paul's Letter to the Romans reads, "Dearly Beloved, avenge not
yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine
enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing
thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil,
but overcome evil with good."
Though I am only vaguely Christian, I include this quote from Paul's
Letter to the Romans as a counterweight to all the calls for war.
People are even saying that Afghanistan should be nuked back to the
stone age, for God's sake. This Bible quote was the inspiration for
Gandhi's "passive resistance" movement against British occupation of
India, and Dr. King's protest movement in support of civil rights in
this country. But the goals in both cases were activist in
nature--using non-violent resistance to wrongs being perpetrated. If
we in the United States are forced into a protracted, unwinnable war,
which most military and terrorist experts believe this to be--a war
that will only serve to bring more and escalated terrorism down on our
heads--then the only winners of this new war will be the
military-industrial complex and George Dubya's re-election campaign in
2004.
Do we want blood vengeance and a new, powerful martyr or do we want
justice? My point in quoting Paul's letter was to remind us all that
vengeance is God's domain. That leaves humanity with the search for
justice. The Constitution and legal structures of the United States
represent the highest expression of man's relationships and
responsibilities to each other. If we resort to military action in a
situation that demands international legal justice in response to the
contemptible acts of one puny subset of Humanity, then we will
sacrifice our highest aspirations of civilization to the emotions of
brute force.
This is a test of our country's character. For some reason that the
scholars can debate, because we are the oldest and most stable country
existing on the face of the earth, the United States has had to face
these tests quite frequently.
Here is my plan:
Afghanistan has been one of the worst places on the globe to live in
the last few years. The country has been enduring horrible droughts,
which have wiped out the country's crops and economy and forced
millions to flee to neighboring Pakistan for basic sustenance. The
Taliban has ruled by the thumb of Theocracy since 1998, though "ruled"
is an exaggeration since the Taliban have no resources and the country
is essentially an anarchy without food, civilized schools, or hope.
One of the few countries to aid Afghanistan in the past year was the
United States, which gave the Taliban $43 million in emergency aid
last spring. If we invade Afghanistan, I believe its people--with
the exception of the young men of the country, who have been trained
as the next generation of true believers in the fundamentalist
twistings of the Islamic faith--would flee into our arms in relief
from the drought and political/economic turmoil they have endured. But
still, many of our sons and daughters would die in battle in search of
a few twisted fugitives.
War is the "legitimized" use of military force for political purposes.
One might say that the primary difference between war and terrorism is
that terrorists target innocent civilians to achieve their goals.
Still, the ghosts of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki might protest
the legitimacy of that differentiation. Perhaps it would be better
stated that terrorists only represent their own narrow minority views
and are not duly elected or appointed government officials. If so,
does it make any sense to go barreling across the globe, ignoring
national borders and ideas of international law and sovereignty, in
search of a couple hundred delusional Islamic fundamentalists? Is the
only way we can justify such rage-blinded madness to call the thing
War, when in fact it would only continue to make us bullies in the
eyes of the world?
How about this logical syllogism instead:
1. Afghanistan desperately needs food, aid, and relief;
2. We are the richest most civilized country on the globe and have
already approved $40 billion to aid our own casualties and to finance
this new protracted, unwinnable war;
3. We desperately want Usama bin Laden dead or alive, though you know
the politicians and intelligence community of this country desperately
want him ONLY dead--a death sentence without any standards of proof
that any "civilized" country should demand;
4. There is nothing else in Afghanistan that we want, as even their
opium crop has been wiped out by the Taliban;
5. War and invasion would only continue to rain terrorism on our
heads, plus it would parade military and civilian body bags before the
media's cameras;
6. Thus, I offer the world a way out of this blood lust: We should
offer to give Afghanistan $5 billion in emergency aid (food,
medicines, infrastructure reconstruction, etc.) and the promise to
stay out of their affairs in perpetuity in exchange for the safe
extradition of Usama bin Laden and, say, ten of his cronies of our
choosing, so that we might put them on trial in front of the world for
crimes committed--certainly the trial of the century though it has
only begun!
America has always used the stick with Middle Eastern countries:
embargoes, for example, that rarely resulted in even a short-term
solution (re: Saddam Hussein). Maybe now it's time to live up to
our reputation as the most civilized and compassionate country in the
land, and try the carrot instead. Let's feed Afghanistan, give
them drink and our guarantee to their national sovereignty, and in so
doing heap coals on the heads of Al-Qaeda. Let's overcome evil with
good.
Curt Marwitz, Architect
http://www.namingthewinds.com
JoJo åŸ æ±—
buy at the Supermarket with your loyalty card, every time you hand over your
credit card, every time you use your bank account, use the internet. You
can be listened to when you speak on the phone, talk face to face with
friends, hell you can be spied on by satellite. The people who illegally
stay in your country, brought there by the illusion of this freedom, the
ones that remain anonymous - they are the ones that are really free. And
these 'free' people are the ones who have done this terrible thing to you.
I'm not disagreeing with your reactions Deborah, they're honest reactions
that everyone who witnessed Tuesday's terror must feel to some degree, but
you've got to know your enemy to defeat it - that is what America needs to
do.
JoJo
"Deborah P. Jackson" <jack...@mlec.net> wrote in message
news:3ba7c618$0$8566$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
JoJo åŸ æ±—
was posted by 'geoff' on the uk-current-events-us-bombing newsgroup. I had
always been of the 'nuke the lot' opinion before I read that one post which
really made me think. There is absolutely no doubt that last Tuesday can go
unpunished - it can never be justified, not by religion, history, hatred,
nothing! But the targets must be accurate and America must show its
compassion towards people who are suffering. I believe (I do not know as I
have not seen it first-hand) that some people in the middle-east are
brainwashed by their leaders into hating the west - can we not show
compassion and gradually inform these people that we are no threat to their
beliefs, their way of living, their choices, their 'freedom'.
I live in the UK and was shamed by the news story that an Afghan taxi-driver
had been beaten so badly in London by three young 'men' that he was
paralysed. This man probably sought refuge in England, a safe haven?, as he
had faced horrors we cannot even think of in Afghanistan. We slag off the
refugees that come to the UK but how difficult must it be to uproot their
families with just the clothes on their back, flee thousands of miles to a
country they know nothing about, whose language they cannot speak. What
horrors have they left behind to make this new life so attractive - because
it would scare the shit out of me.
I'm rambling now, please forgive me. I hope America deals with this
situation wisely and we can all eventually think back and be proud.
JoJo
"rktectcdm" <rkte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f127c48.0109...@posting.google.com...
Mark Borok
<jlg...@scotlife.freeserveNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote:
> "Karl Hauwser" <kha...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:ce8fqtsa5auorl6g5...@5xg.com...
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:47:33 GMT, "noxes" <no...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a participant in two wars in defense of freedom and having been a lot
> > closer to hell than you have been or ever will be, I can tell you that
> your
> > kind of thinking that says surrender to the acts and threats of terrorist
> > makes me sick. Rather than live in your frightened little rabbits world,
> it
> > would be better that we were all in hell just so long as we died fighting.
> I
> > for one do not plan on living as a slave to every towel head that comes
> down
> > the pike. I suspect that there are many millions of Americans who
> > have the same perspective.
> >
>
> You're probably right - last Tuesday, I have to admit my instant reaction
> was 'nuke the whole lot of 'em, they're religious f***ing nutters and
> they'll kill us all without a shred of conscience' but that post was the
> only one that made me think 'are we underestimating them?'. So few of us
> know their language, their beliefs, their conviction, their culture
Um, I think we can dig up a few experts here and there.
- yet
> they seem totally at ease using ours for their own ends - they use the
> internet to communicate in code, their intelligence is spot on, speak our
> language, they make tons of cash selling drug crops that probably end up on
> our doorstep, yet claim to abhor the westernised way of living. They've
> used our technology, our countries and even our own planes to hit out at us.
So could anyone. It don't take too much brainpower.
> I just feel like we're being played and they're one step ahead of us - we
> have to get ahead.... and quickly, without warning.
>
> JoJo
That's exactly how they want you to feel. Because there was a lapse in
our intelligence, don't underestimate its capabilities, esp. when
combined with intelligence from our allies. The whole hogwash about
lashing out blindly with carpet bombings is way off-base. It's been
said many times already that "this will be a covert war". We may want
the Afghanis to think that we are crazy enough to bomb their already
war-ravaged country into even further ruin, but our military is not a
bunch of cowboys and Rambos; these are professionals who have studied
strategy. They have recourse to the expertise of the best minds of two
hemispheres. They're already lining up a coalition, not going it alone.
The stupidity of saying "America has already lost" when we have only
been hit once is unbelievable. Inflating the terrorist threat into some
sinister, unstoppable, invincible force just because they managed to
hijack four planes out of airports with negligible security is sinking
into total, idiotic hysteria. The Japanese bombed our Pacific fleet and
we recovered in record time. Hitler did untold damage to the Red Army,
and they came back with overwhelming force. Some terrorists bomb a few
of our buildings while we were unprepared and suddenly we have to throw
in the towel. They can't be stopped! Sheesh, if that were the case,
then Israel wouldn't exist any more. A group of people who can't deal
with one country the size of New Jersey have brought the entire Western
world to its knees in one day? Get a grip.
--Mark
Lee
noxes
>
> My 23 year old roommate will be flying back to New York on Thursday.
> She will be going to help try and locate a friend, whose only crime
> was working for the Bank of America in Tower 1. If he's dead, he
> leaves behind a wife, many friends, and a child barely old enough to
> understand why Daddy can't read her a bedtime story again tonight.
>
> Explain that in fucking context.
I saw burning people jumping out of buildings to thier death. I witnessed
the towers collapsing. I've been down in the rubble. There is no 'context'
to that in the way you mean - it is horror. What I refer to is the
systematic US foreign policy failure that resulted in this massacre. Anger
is natural on an individual level, but before we go bombing the f*ck out of
people, it might be better to undrstand why this happened. A few pointers to
the uninformed:
1. US backing of autocratic regimes in the Islamic world that keep the
general populace in abject poverty [i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan,
Palestinians, the list goes on...]
2. Being a party to depraved indifference during cold war struggles - see
above list & many others outside the middle east.
3. Continued military occupation of Saudi Arabia ten years after the fact of
the Gulf War.
4. Continued US backing of the Israeli slaughter & occupaction in Palestine.
Need I continue... Diplomatic solutions have been thwarted by this country.
They have no military solution. They are oppressed by our continued idiotic
policies. What can they do?
Again, I will replay the horror in my head for my entire life, but I blame
whose to blame, the US.
Justice must certainly be served - in international courts - but we must end
our swaggering stance, we must seek to build & become part of a world
community.
noxes
> As a participant in two wars in defense of freedom and having been a lot
> closer to hell than you have been or ever will be, I can tell you that
your
> kind of thinking that says surrender to the acts and threats of terrorist
> makes me sick. Rather than live in your frightened little rabbits world,
it
> would be better that we were all in hell just so long as we died fighting.
I
> for one do not plan on living as a slave to every towel head that comes
down
> the pike. I suspect that there are many millions of Americans who
> have the same perspective.
>
For them, this is also a war of liberation. Look at prior response for
details.
noxes
"Deborah P. Jackson" <jack...@mlec.net> wrote in message
news:3ba7c618$0$8566$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
> to these unpatriotic fools babble in fear. We are all afraid but
> fighting for our FREEDOM has to be done. These terrorist are not just
> going to stop, if we don't stop them they will continue to kill us and
> run away!. Like I've been saying it's our FREEDOM they hate, it's
> something they can't grasp, they fear FREEDOM. We are lucky, to live in
> a country where we are FREE, FREE to make our lives better, to have the
> right to choose who we want to be and how we want to live!!!! FREEDOM IS
> YOUR BIRTHRIGHT AMERICA!!!! Fight for it, fight for the rights of your
> children to be FREE!!
> Deb
>
extend the prospect of justice imminent within democracy to the world.
However, that prospect of justice involves the alleviation of the causes of
injustice, not barbaric vengence.
noxes
> It's time to rid ourselves of the barbaric,
Their thinking is no more barbaric then the general tenor of the country
right now.
Adrian Barnett
a...@pacific.net wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:46:32 GMT, Paminifarm <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Very nice, however the reason for all this is: Corporate Society wants to run an
>>oil-pipe line through Afghanistan, but Laden willnot let them. Follow the money
>>
>>
>
> Where do you fucking loons hang out when the conspiracy shops and rumor
> mills are closed? Do you simply lurk in the shadows like a bunch of goddamn
> roaches waiting for something rotten to be thrown your way so you all come
> out and feast - How one's brain could ever reach a point of dipshitedness
> that you crackpots demonstrate is a wonder of human digression.
rotfl. Concise and to the point. :)
--
--
Adrian BAAWA aa#128
Website : http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/
Message boards : http://pub45.ezboard.com/bwastelandofwonders
Joan Broneske
--
/
Joan Broneske /(-\
uni...@softcom.net ,__ / '-'
/()__)
'// \\
'' ''
"Adrian Barnett" <adr...@abarnett.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3BA8B399...@abarnett.demon.co.uk...
rktectcdm
> Good idea give then money Your insane !
Who said money? I said, "$5 billion in emergency aid (food, medicines,
infrastructure reconstruction, etc.)"
You're a poor reader.
Adam
who have died in Iraq over the last 9-10 years as a direct result of US and
British imposed sanctions (not supported anymore by U.N.).
And if you don't believe me on that just go to www.unicef.org and read the
statistics for yourself (type Iraq in search).
I grew up in a town continually bombed by the IRA (significantly funded by
Americans.. should they be attacked?) throughout my childhood. Unlike some
people in this ng, I don't find it funny to print a 'weather forecast'
suggesting Belfast or Dublin should be given the Hiroshima treatment, just
because there are some evil people in that area of the world.
there is evil all over the place, sadly.
adamnews:wzVp7.29899$A5.46...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > OK, explain this in "context."
> >
______________________________________________________________________________
Doug Berry
"Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk>,
wrote thusly:
>Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:t1meqtkpq5heue683...@4ax.com...
>> Remember that the Afghans had a little help against the Soviets in the
>> form of millions of dollars in aid and weaponry from the US. Not a
>> single country is standing with them now.
>>
>But they've still got a lot of equipment. Both from donations and scavenged
>from the russian retreat. It may be obsolete but it's still dangerous.
At this point, no. Remember that the Iraqis had Russian
equipment, first-line stuff, to face us in 1991.
We didn't lose a single armored vehicle, and less than 200 killed
in action. They lost thousands of tanks, and tens of thousands
killed.
I seriously doubt that the Afghans have much of a force that
could resist a conventional war, and since Vietnam, we've honed
our ability to fight guerilla wars.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
"Conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant."
-Richard Grenier
Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Doug Berry
"noxes" <no...@nyc.rr.com>, wrote thusly:
>1. US backing of autocratic regimes in the Islamic world that keep the
>general populace in abject poverty [i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan,
>Palestinians, the list goes on...]
So, we should instead invade and force democracies on them?
Redistribute wealth at gun point? I thought the world didn't
want us to play global cop, that the world wanted us to mind our
own business.
For better or worse, the Middle East is the source of a valuable
resource, oil. And we will do what is necessary to insure that
our nation has enough oil.
>2. Being a party to depraved indifference during cold war struggles - see
>above list & many others outside the middle east.
Oddly enough, I seem to recall that we were in the middle of the
Cold War, being one of the two main participants. Would you have
preferred Soviet-style communism as a world government? You are
the one complaining about autocratic, oppressive governments!
>3. Continued military occupation of Saudi Arabia ten years after the fact of
>the Gulf War.
It isn't an occupation if you are invited in. The government of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia asked us to provide an increased
military presence.
>4. Continued US backing of the Israeli slaughter & occupaction in Palestine.
Israel is a nation. We recognize that nation. And oddly enough,
it seems to be the Palestinians who are doing the atrocities
there.. blowing up cars in crowded markets, hijacking planes,
setting off suicide bombs inside buses. Why don't you comment on
those acts? Tell me, can you legitimize the Munich '72 takeover?
>Need I continue... Diplomatic solutions have been thwarted by this country.
>They have no military solution. They are oppressed by our continued idiotic
>policies. What can they do?
Well, at this point, they can die.
>Again, I will replay the horror in my head for my entire life, but I blame
>whose to blame, the US.
"Your honor, I did rape that woman. But she was asking for it by
wearing a short skirt."
Sorry, but blaming the victim is just sick.
But let's assume for just a moment that you have a point...
there are over 5,000 people missing or dead in New York. How
many of them had direct influence on US foreign policy? How many
of them had served in Saudi Arabia? How many of them are
actually involved?
I used to be a sniper. With a few weeks training, you can learn
to hit a target out to 800m. So if they are so ticked off about
our foreign policy, why not attack the people who make it?
The truth that you don't want to face is that the people who did
this are evil. You have this "noble peasant" filter on, where
anybody poor is the good guy. Well, Osama bin-Laden isn't poor.
He's rich as fuck. and he has stated that his only goal is to
kill Americans.
For that he, and any state that supports him, will be crushed.
Remember Carthage?
>Justice must certainly be served - in international courts - but we must end
>our swaggering stance, we must seek to build & become part of a world
>community.
The crime was committed inside the United States on US flagged
airliners. Please tell why anything but the courts of the US,
the states of New York and Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth of
Virginia would have jurisdiction.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
Doug Berry
"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk>, wrote thusly:
>yes and don't forget the 500,000 (yes that's right, half a million) children
>who have died in Iraq over the last 9-10 years as a direct result of US and
>British imposed sanctions (not supported anymore by U.N.).
>And if you don't believe me on that just go to www.unicef.org and read the
>statistics for yourself (type Iraq in search).
And if the Government of Iraq would live up to the cease-fire
terms in signed in 1991, the sanctions would end. Very simple,
really.
>I grew up in a town continually bombed by the IRA (significantly funded by
>Americans.. should they be attacked?) throughout my childhood. Unlike some
>people in this ng, I don't find it funny to print a 'weather forecast'
>suggesting Belfast or Dublin should be given the Hiroshima treatment, just
>because there are some evil people in that area of the world.
Did the government of the United States knowingly provide
sancturary to the IRA, or was the support hat=passing in Irish
neighborhoods? There is an important difference there.
We are going after those states that willingly provided
terrorists a base of action, and direct support. We are going to
make it clear that we will not tolerate this activity any more,
anywhere.
Did you know that the IRA was sheltered and trained by Libya for
many years? It gave them a place to hide, and learn new ways to
kill people. How many of those bombs do you think would have
gone off if they had no place to run to, no one to shelter them,
no state funneling them supplies and support? If the IRA had to
live on the run in Ireland, how long do you think they's styand
up to a complete assault?
>there is evil all over the place, sadly.
And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
will see and learn.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
Lee
LED
--
LED
www.newyorkled.com
"Be not afraid of growing slowly,
be afraid only of standing still"
<a...@pacific.net> wrote in message
news:r2jfqtsm3tdgi6leg...@5xg.com...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:46:32 GMT, Paminifarm <nos...@newsranger.com>
wrote:
>
> >Very nice, however the reason for all this is: Corporate Society wants to
run an
> >oil-pipe line through Afghanistan, but Laden willnot let them. Follow the
money
> >
>
> Where do you fucking loons hang out when the conspiracy shops and rumor
> mills are closed? Do you simply lurk in the shadows like a bunch of
goddamn
> roaches waiting for something rotten to be thrown your way so you all come
> out and feast - How one's brain could ever reach a point of dipshitedness
> that you crackpots demonstrate is a wonder of human digression.
>
> >Truth Hurts:
>
> That makes us very safe around the likes of you doesn't it. You are not
> likely to hurt anyone. You wouldn't know truth if it stuck its dick in
your
> ear!
Bob's Big Gator
Give me a couple days. I'm gonna paste a pic of bin-boy into a Ford Excursion.
What a riot.
Follow the money.
Bob's Big Gator
Paminifarm wrote:
> Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:04:08 +1200 Hello, from America's Sole, Christian Activist,
> Paminifarm.
> >
> >Correct .......... and all trained and funded by the CIA. Life can be quite
> >humerous in a dark way at times
> >
> >
> >"Deborah P. Jackson" <jack...@mlec.net> wrote in message
> >news:3ba694e6$0$2730$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
> >> OH! Dude, I thought at first of the saying " They can kill us but they
> >> Can't eat us"
> >> are you saying they can? AUA JESS! Then all hope is
> >> lost!---(sarcasim)--- These terrorist are not true Muslims, true Muslims
> >> are doing everything they can to get rid of them. No these bastards have
> >> "twisted" themselves into SuperMohammidBinladenMen! They are now capable
> >> of striking terror into the heart of Ala himself. Able to disappear in a
> >> single flash "Boom" along with 5,ooo.oo loving, innocent peace loving
> >> souls. And they're not just simple rapist, and baby killers they're
> >> Father Rapers. They will do what ever SuperMohammidBinladen tells them,
> >> including eat his shit and call it ambrosia!!
> >>
> >>
> >> Adam <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:3ba66...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
> >> far, far too sane Usenet I fear...
> >> the 'trap' you refer to may well be the country of Afghanistan itself.
> >> I'm
> >> just old enough to remember the nightmare Russia had there.
> >> For all you gung-ho GIs out there, Rudyard Kipling offers this advice:
> >>
> >> "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
> >> And the women come out to cut up what remains,
> >> Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
> >> And go to your Gawd like a soldier."
> >> (quoted in the Times over the weekend)..
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> adam
> >>
> >> JoJo åŸ æ±— <jlg...@scotlife.freeserveNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:9o5p7b$443$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> > This is a newsgroup post I read in uk.current-events.us-bombing,
> >> hopefully
> >> > geoff won't mind me forwarding it on - what are everyone's thoughts on
> >> its
> >> > contents?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The Path of Least Resistance
> >> >
> >> > Almost as soon as the events of September 11th unfolded to an
> >> > unsuspecting America, the words flowed out: 'This means War!' With the
> >> > fires still burning and the emergency services unable to cope with the
> >> > scale of the tragedy, it was war. The clear and present failure of the
> >> > CIA and FBI to foresee this calamity or head it off once the initial
> >> > hijacking became known, was strangely juxtaposed against the certain
> >> > and absolute knowledge of who was responsible - the Saudi dissident
> >> > Osama Bin Laden. On the one hand these planes, hijacked and driven
> >> > into symbols of America by persons unknown, without warning. On the
> >> > other, the knowledge it could only be one man, living in the remotest
> >> > of places. This means war - but what does that mean? We are told this
> >> > is a war of civilisations, an attack on freedom but how can anybody
> >> > even know enough for these obtuse abstractions? All any of us could
> >> > surmise from the horror of the day was this: A sudden and suicidal
> >> > strike on the symbols of American economic and military might. Surely
> >> > to 'know' any more than this suggests foreknowledge which was so
> >> > clearly and tragically absent. Every sane observer to the events of
> >> > last Tuesday was shocked by what happened but, if we reach deep inside
> >> > ourselves, were we really surprised that the world has come to this?
> >> >
> >> > Last year when George W. Bush became President of the world's last
> >> > superpower in the most dubious and acrimonious election the USA has
> >> > ever seen, what did you think? I recall, as soon as his cabinet
> >> > line-up became known, that it was the same faces as those who brought
> >> > us the Gulf War. Bush (albeit Dubya), Cheney and Colin Powell. I
> >> > remember, back then, thinking this would mean some kind of 'finishing
> >> > off what was started' ten years ago now. I imagine Saddam Hussein felt
> >> > some sense of deja-vu as he saw this latest George Bush and the old
> >> > Cheney, Colin Powell set take up their positions in Washington. I
> >> > remember thinking with certainty there would now be another Gulf War.
> >> > Gulf War II - This time it's what? There was much horseplay about
> >> > Dubya's lack of any kind of handle on foreign policy and much warning
> >> > given that he was little more than a puppet for shadowy, corporate
> >> > interests. His amusing yet alarming personal displays of ignorance and
> >> > oversimplifications made people wonder how such a man could be
> >> > entrusted with the highest office on Earth. I think many believed at
> >> > the time of the election it would be somehow proven he had not
> >> > actually won the Presidency. Proof that never came.
> >> >
> >> > The one strand of continuity from his father's heralding in of the
> >> > 'Read my lips, New World Order' was that despite Desert Storm and
> >> > Desert Shield and ten years of continuous bombing - Saddam Hussein was
> >> > still very much there. Clinton had come and gone, if you'll excuse the
> >> > double entendre, and now Bush, Cheney and Colin Powell were back. Ok
> >> > so it was Dubya and not Senior but hell, when the election campaign
> >> > started a lot of people thought it was Senior anyway!
> >> >
> >> > Coming back to the present - Fifty thousand reservists are called up,
> >> > America's young are signing up, the fleets and instruments of war are
> >> > being deployed. War it is, and yet, war against whom? A terrorist
> >> > organisation is very different to a state. It has no borders, it
> >> > operates, can only operate, from the shadows. Just who will the USA
> >> > prosecute a war against? 'Whoever it damn well likes' and 'If we
> >> > overreact then tough' are simply not good enough. The USA maintains by
> >> > far the greatest capacity for destruction our world has ever known and
> >> > yet, ironically, these weapons are ineffective against a terrorist
> >> > organisation or network of organisations. This is going to be a war
> >> > against whoever America wishes to include. Are they going to cherry
> >> > pick their enemies? Is this a war against the usual suspects as it
> >> > appears to be: Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Sudan, Libya etc. We've already
> >> > heard the hijackers and suspects, some at least, were Egyptian, Omani
> >> > and from the United Arab Emirates - yet somehow I don't see America
> >> > targeting these countries.
> >> >
> >> > It has been said this is a crusade. Will this develop into a war
> >> > against Islam? Tony Blair is at pains to assure us it will not.
> >> > However, is it really up to him? Or the USA? If the targets of this
> >> > war are to be a cherry picked list of Islamic states then surely we
> >> > must ask ourselves how will Islam respond. We in the West do not have
> >> > a monopoly on crusades, holy wars or Jihad. Isn't this how we got into
> >> > this awful mess in the first place? Is this not an increasingly
> >> > vicious circle we are now in danger of spiralling around and around?
> >> > Historically the crusades that began a thousand years ago achieved
> >> > very little apart from lakes of blood in the Middle East. A flashpoint
> >> > ever since continuing to demand lives from all those involved. Worse
> >> > yet and similar to Spartacus - do we not risk the creation of
> >> > thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Osama Bin
> >> > Ladens by prosecuting a war on Islam? However much we say this won't
> >> > be war on Islam itself it will be Islam itself that decides whether it
> >> > is.
> >> >
> >> > If not a war on Islam then, again, the question must be 'A war on
> >> > whom?' Will it only be countries without a chain of Macdonalds who are
> >> > targeted? Is this what James Rubin means when he calls for a war of
> >> > civilisations? We certainly won't be attacking any rich Arab nations
> >> > such as Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE or Oman. So does this mean we will only
> >> > be attacking poor countries? Only those who can't fight back? Will we
> >> > only be attacking unwesternised countries and once all this is over,
> >> > if anyone at all is left alive, will these places then be westernised?
> >> >
> >> > If this is to be, as we are told, a war against terrorism then does
> >> > this include Northern Ireland and the IRA or the real IRA? Will it
> >> > include ETA? I think not. Then this won't be a war against global
> >> > terrorism. It will be a selective war against selective targets,
> >> > dressed up as a war against terrorism. What then will this 'war' in
> >> > fact be? What is the real umbrella these targets will fall under? Who
> >> > is the enemy? The rhetoric only serves to confuse the issue further
> >> > and this is truly at the heart of problem. How can anyone declare war
> >> > on an unknown and potentially unknowable enemy?
> >> >
> >> > If we return to the failure of the most powerful intelligence agencies
> >> > in the world we can perhaps begin to see how the shadows are never as
> >> > black or the light as white as we would prefer. Billions of dollars
> >> > are spent every year on 'Intelligence'. Known terrorist organisations
> >> > are exposed to constant satellite, electronic and human surveillance -
> >> > including the so called prime suspect and his network of networks.
> >> > Yet, out of the blue sky death rained down on America, using its own
> >> > domestic objects against them. Heads have not yet rolled in the CIA or
> >> > FBI. The sheer amount of shared intelligence through the worlds
> >> > agencies didn't flag this up - the largest and most daring terrorist
> >> > attack in the world. I am not the only one who finds this hard if not
> >> > impossible to believe. There are many interests at stake here. Our own
> >> > security services have deliberately not shared everything with the USA
> >> > on several occasions. If Mossad, the notoriously ruthless Israeli
> >> > intelligence agency, had forewarning would they have passed it on? Or
> >> > would they have allowed it to proceed in the certain knowledge it
> >> > would ultimately further their own cause by forcing the USA to step up
> >> > to the plate and respond. Hypothetical? Perhaps.
> >> >
> >> > The other failure of intelligence, apart from co-operation, continues
> >> > as the FBI round up dozens of 'suspects' and then let them go again.
> >> > Despite Osama Bin Laden's network having been under such considerable
> >> > scrutiny since the first World Trade Centre bombing - None of his
> >> > known operatives have been picked up. The FBI have to date released
> >> > all but one of these suspects and other countries have followed suit
> >> > in Europe. They pick up Arabic suspects, shake them down and let them
> >> > go again without charge. The failure of intelligence will continue for
> >> > as long as it concentrates on being seen to be doing something,
> >> > anything, but is in fact only chasing it's tail. Meanwhile of course,
> >> > the perpetrators continue to go undetected and unpunished. Despite the
> >> > apparent visibility of the FBI in their media raids on hotels and
> >> > planes about to depart - the invisibility of the enemy remains
> >> > palpably evident. All the billions, all the personnel, all the
> >> > high-tech equipment and weapons of war did not stop what happened on
> >> > Tuesday and has achieved absolutely nothing since. In fact it has
> >> > managed to deepen the sense of indignation of the wrongly arrested and
> >> > falsely accused and stirred up more and more racially motivated
> >> > tension.
> >> >
> >> > When this is compared to the sheer evil genius of the perpetrators and
> >> > the scale and precision of this act of utter terror it seems the
> >> > greatest nation on Earth is being seriously outclassed. The
> >> > professionals in this grim scenario, awful truth that it is, have been
> >> > the fanatical perpetrators. Unable to tackle the might of the USA head
> >> > on they have taken their strategies from 'the Art of War' to prosecute
> >> > their attack by other means. Compared to the enormous loss of innocent
> >> > life and billions in dollars as well as the inestimable damage to the
> >> > human psyche, these people used knives. Fanatics they may have been
> >> > but the dark intelligence at work has run rings around the
> >> > intelligence community - many of whom were on the West coast holding
> >> > their annual conference. The timing, the preparation, the selection of
> >> > targets all go to show we are dealing with an enemy capable of such
> >> > evil, such stupefying evil genius that it has put the so called
> >> > intelligence community at an extreme disadvantage.
> >> >
> >> > To truly understand this we must look at what really happened on
> >> > September 11th. We must look beyond the obvious and total horror felt
> >> > by us all and we must try and make out this new landscape that
> >> > confronts us all. I do not congratulate the brilliance of the
> >> > perpetrators in carrying out their plan of terror, only attempt to
> >> > 'draw attention to their intelligence' because it has been this
> >> > ability to strike completely out of leftfield which makes this event
> >> > so ominous of further looming dangers. To react in the 'same old way'
> >> > is simply not on the menu. This action, death toll shattering that it
> >> > is apart, was an act of provocation. This is the first card played
> >> > from a poker hand made up of aces. America is being goaded into
> >> > action. This invisible enemy has achieved this while remaining largely
> >> > invisible. If a message was sent it was this 'Come on. Do your worst!'
> >> > in the certain knowledge the USA will now strike out in vengeance and,
> >> > as it has done so in the past, against the wrong targets. This leads
> >> > to an escalation of incomprehensible consequences because the USA will
> >> > embark with their trademark swaggering certainty it is acting 'in the
> >> > right' even when it isn't. The USA and its allies will embark on a war
> >> > against those it sees as responsible in the absence of those it can't
> >> > see who are truly responsible. This is a trap of truly epic proportion
> >> > that with every girding and readying of the nation for war, propels us
> >> > all forward headlong into it. There will be no turning back as the,
> >> > rightfully, indignant targets of this mis-placed aggression will be
> >> > forced into a battle for their lives. Both sides believing themselves
> >> > to be have been done wrong. Both sides rising to the call of a
> >> > righteous war. Meanwhile the real perpetrator looks at its remaining
> >> > cards in its hand and selects another ace to play.
> >> >
> >> > This kind of genius puts Adolf Hitler to shame, as at least he was a
> >> > visible enemy. This action has been taken while being able to predict,
> >> > the comparatively bumbling, responses of Dubya, his warlike cabinet
> >> > and his intelligence agencies who must now produce results to an
> >> > outraged American public. The ability to predict the enemy, to
> >> > manoeuvre them, to force them into action and to strike at their
> >> > weakest points has broken America. America lies broken and in pain
> >> > with a President in tears and preparing to wage war against an enemy,
> >> > any enemy, they do not even know, understand or comprehend. America is
> >> > a wounded animal, it's hurt, it's howling and it will lash out and it
> >> > cannot see how it has been played. This is not the first time America
> >> > has been broken, in fact they have a long history of it beginning with
> >> > the bloodiest of civil wars. Somalia, Vietnam, the death of JFK and
> >> > others have all been unsatisfactory outcomes that served to break the
> >> > American spirit and fuel the will to be the winner. This may well be
> >> > yet another unsatisfactory outcome in America's long narrative. It is
> >> > however also an opportunity to break this repetitious circle once and
> >> > for all. Can America do it? Can they put vengeance aside and turn
> >> > inward to face its own conscience?
> >> >
> >> > I have heard it mentioned over the last few days of Americans being
> >> > asked to ask themselves why they are so hated by so many in the world.
> >> > Some news commentators have even pushed US spokesmen to look at their
> >> > own foreign policy as a cause for this weeks events. These requests
> >> > have been brushed aside in a 'now is not the time' way when now is
> >> > very much the time. The United States of America is built on the
> >> > principle of Manifest Destiny where the native Americans were
> >> > isolated, persecuted and removed from the land in order to make way
> >> > for the pioneers. America is built on blood, this was never a
> >> > foundation without consequence. This is now very much reflected in the
> >> > policy of backing Israel against the Palestinians. This is also a war
> >> > fought with very different weapons on each side, because only one side
> >> > has weapons. Israel, a nation-state built upon the suffering and abuse
> >> > of the Jewish people, cannot now, like an abused child, now abuse
> >> > others. Palestinian suicide bombers are a last ditch, desperate
> >> > attempt to withstand the oppression of the Israelis. Just as kamikaze
> >> > pilots were a last ditch effort from Japan in the final acts of WWII.
> >> > Desperation breeds desperate measures, not fanaticism. The Israelis
> >> > have proven to be just as fanatical as the Palestinians but you don't
> >> > see them blowing themselves up.
> >> >
> >> > We are about to witness a forced move to the right that nobody
> >> > actually wants. Only those who have sprung this trap want that. As
> >> > civil liberty is pushed aside in favour of security measures we will
> >> > all begin to know what it felt like in pre-war Europe in the thirties.
> >> > We will be swapping our multi-racial, multi-cultural society for one
> >> > where certain races and religions are viewed with distrust and fear.
> >> > We will close our doors to those in need of asylum and sanctuary. We
> >> > will focus on our own interests and we will defend our freedom at the
> >> > cost of the freedom of others. The gap between the haves and the
> >> > have-nots will widen ever further.
> >> >
> >> > We are creating our own 'new Jews' for this generation and they will
> >> > be the Muslims. It is with great sadness and tragedy that Israel has
> >> > not learned the lessons from the horrors they have suffered but now
> >> > project fear and persecution onto another people. I am not anti-Jewish
> >> > or anti-Israeli but rather agonise in the hope the Israeli people
> >> > would make it their number one priority to live in peace and harmony
> >> > rather than conflict. Within hours of the events of September 11th
> >> > Israeli tanks and bulldozers entered the town of Jenin, and then
> >> > Jericho. Isn't this now the time, more than ever before, to cease and
> >> > desist? To find a better way? Violence begets violence, Terror begets
> >> > Terror. Rather than cancel the peace talks between Shimon Perez and
> >> > Yasser Arafat should it not have been enforced? Is it not time to
> >> > finally use the unsurpassed military might of the West to come between
> >> > those in conflict and 'break it up?' If it isn't then we will just
> >> > march blindly on, into the abyss and into the greatest trap the world
> >> > has ever seen.
> >> >
> >> > I heard it said by a Wall Street spokesperson that 'the projection of
> >> > war' may well save the economy. It is a sad and terrible incitement on
> >> > the 'civilised' world that war is good for a flagging economy. Is
> >> > there really no better way? Surely this is a time for justice not
> >> > vengeance, can we now make the distinction? The events of 11th
> >> > September were a desperate and horrifying tragedy but we must attend
> >> > to this desperate world that is willing to batter itself and
> >> > annihilate itself and others to be heard. We must all work for a
> >> > cessation of global conflict not towards creating the largest example
> >> > of it the world has seen to date.
> >> >
> >> > If we don't stop and think and ask ourselves 'are we being manoeuvred?
> >> > Is this a trap? Is war what these people want? And isn't the art of
> >> > war about denying what the enemy wants?' then we must face the
> >> > nightmare scenarios of our time that will make the events of last
> >> > Tuesday look minor by comparison and loss of life. The dangers of
> >> > nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are no less real that what
> >> > happened on Tuesday just because they haven't happened yet. We risk
> >> > ushering in the end of days if we take the wrong path, if we set off
> >> > this trap.
> >> >
> >> > The right way is the hardest, the wrong way is the easiest. If we
> >> > follow the path of least resistance we risk descent into hell on
> >> > Earth.
> >> ______
> >> Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION =
> >> http://www.binaries.net
> >>
>
> Very nice, however the reason for all this is: Corporate Society wants to run an
> oil-pipe line through Afghanistan, but Laden willnot let them. Follow the money
> . .
>
> Truth Hurts: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/revolution.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/notjew.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/ms/3flrgtbnd/christnation.html
Bob's Big Gator
There is a rat. If you crap on it's churches long enough and plunder its wealth
long enough and give it the distinct impression that it's backed into a corner,
pal, you are gonna see some nasty rat-shit. Real nasty. This isn't rocket
science.
Stay Tuned For More Lessons From The Animal Kingdom: including,
"Fire Ants: Can They Be Exterminated Completely"
Bob's Big Gator
Mark Whickman
Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:j8tkqtk8f5oi6sc2r...@4ax.com...
> And lo, it came to pass on Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:50:22 +0100 that
> "Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk>,
> wrote thusly:
>
> >Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:t1meqtkpq5heue683...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Remember that the Afghans had a little help against the Soviets in the
> >> form of millions of dollars in aid and weaponry from the US. Not a
> >> single country is standing with them now.
> >>
> >But they've still got a lot of equipment. Both from donations and
scavenged
> >from the russian retreat. It may be obsolete but it's still dangerous.
>
> At this point, no. Remember that the Iraqis had Russian
> equipment, first-line stuff, to face us in 1991.
>
> We didn't lose a single armored vehicle, and less than 200 killed
> in action. They lost thousands of tanks, and tens of thousands
> killed.
>
> I seriously doubt that the Afghans have much of a force that
> could resist a conventional war, and since Vietnam, we've honed
> our ability to fight guerilla wars.
>
Fighting these skirmishes could be costly. I know that the tanks they have
(russian MBTs from the '50s) are no match for an Abrams or a Challenger 2 in
a straight fight. But dig them in and ambush supply collumns with them,
which is what they're likely to do, and they may be more effective.
dral...@farside.fr
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>And lo, it came to pass on Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:50:22 +0100 that
>"Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk>,
>wrote thusly:
>
>>Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:t1meqtkpq5heue683...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Remember that the Afghans had a little help against the Soviets in the
>>> form of millions of dollars in aid and weaponry from the US. Not a
>>> single country is standing with them now.
>>>
>>But they've still got a lot of equipment. Both from donations and scavenged
>>from the russian retreat. It may be obsolete but it's still dangerous.
>
>At this point, no. Remember that the Iraqis had Russian
>equipment, first-line stuff, to face us in 1991.
>
>We didn't lose a single armored vehicle, and less than 200 killed
>in action. They lost thousands of tanks, and tens of thousands
>killed.
>
(drala)
at this time, it was a political war, not a religious one: people are
ready to die for their god, not usually for a mere man...
and the irakii hadn't already score a hit against US...
>I seriously doubt that the Afghans have much of a force that
>could resist a conventional war, and since Vietnam, we've honed
>our ability to fight guerilla wars.
>
(drala)
"honed" what???
do you mean that americans where successfull at the end of the Vietnam
war? Guerilla war against religious fanatics is the worst kind of war
you could get: americans have no knowledge of the (difficult) terrain,
they don't don't usually speak the local language, the locals will be
at least warry if not hostiles and the fundies will be fighting for
their country and their god against "evil" oppressors!
ask the russians about fighting against afghan guerilla!!!
>--
>
>Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
>http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
>
>"Conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant."
> -Richard Grenier
>
>Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
The Flying Frenchman
Never forgets Montsegur.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
dral...@farside.fr
wrote:
>Lessons From The Animal Kingdom:
>
>There is a rat. If you crap on it's churches long enough and plunder its wealth
>long enough and give it the distinct impression that it's backed into a corner,
>pal, you are gonna see some nasty rat-shit. Real nasty. This isn't rocket
>science.
>
>Stay Tuned For More Lessons From The Animal Kingdom: including,
>
>"Fire Ants: Can They Be Exterminated Completely"
>
>Bob's Big Gator
>
(drala)
that could be worse: imagine a rat convinced that he would go to
heaven if he manage to bite your dick off...
Scrodo
"police action." Pick your subjects carefully, or you'll fall flat on your
ass.
In article <3bab1483...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com>, "dralasite"
Mark Bradford
"dug in". They are also very maintenance intensive vehicles. You are
assuming that there will be a need for supply convoys. I seriously doubt
it, because there will be no occupation of any territory. Also, the
Talibans' tanks are too busy dealing with the Northern Alliance. This is
something everybody seems to forget about.
The Taliban are not entirely stupid. I believe that they understand just
how tenuous their hold is on their power. They will eventually hand over
whoever the world wants, without force of arms
"Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:9oeqfo$2e$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mark Whickman
Mark Bradford <mark...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zCFq7.9326$2H2.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> Dig those tanks in and they are scrap metal. Tanks are not meant to be
> "dug in". They are also very maintenance intensive vehicles.
A hidden emplacement to blow the tracks of one tank. Or perhaps hidden for
ambush.
You are
> assuming that there will be a need for supply convoys. I seriously doubt
> it, because there will be no occupation of any territory.
Tanks need fuel and ammunition. Ground troops need supplies and ammunition.
The taliban have a lot of anti aircraft missiles.
Also, the
> Talibans' tanks are too busy dealing with the Northern Alliance. This is
> something everybody seems to forget about.
This is their main weakness.
>
> The Taliban are not entirely stupid. I believe that they understand just
> how tenuous their hold is on their power. They will eventually hand over
> whoever the world wants, without force of arms
>
Or get squished.
dral...@farside.fr
>Yes, the American PEOPLE were successful at the the end of the Vietnam
>"police action." Pick your subjects carefully, or you'll fall flat on your
>ass.
>
(drala)
yes, they were successfull, for a given value of "successfull"...
>In article <3bab1483...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com>, "dralasite"
><dral...@farside.fr> wrote:
>
>> do you mean that americans where successfull at the end of the Vietnam
>> war?
Al Klein
<grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>But let's assume for just a moment that you have a point...
>there are over 5,000 people missing or dead in New York.
Over 6,700 direct victims of the atrocity at last count.
>The crime was committed inside the United States on US flagged
>airliners. Please tell why anything but the courts of the US,
>the states of New York and Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth of
>Virginia would have jurisdiction.
Because we don't try enemy soldiers, we just put them in
prisoner-of-war camps until their countries bail them out after the
war is over. (Since they have no "countries" to bail them out, and
since the war on terrorism will never end, they'll just have to remain
prisoners.)
--
Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve freedom.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not peace talks with a madman.
NEVER FORGET THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON!
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Lee <in...@leeboice.com> wrote in message news:<3BA81B82...@leeboice.com>...
>> Good idea give then money Your insane !
>Who said money? I said, "$5 billion in emergency aid (food, medicines,
>infrastructure reconstruction, etc.)"
You're talking about the Afghani people - we're talking about the
terrorists.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
> I am probably more patriotic than you. I believe that our country should
>extend the prospect of justice imminent within democracy to the world.
>However, that prospect of justice involves the alleviation of the causes of
>injustice, not barbaric vengence.
We don't send enemy soldiers to social workers.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>that could be worse: imagine a rat convinced that he would go to
>heaven if he manage to bite your dick off...
Then give him a lit stick of dynamite to bite ...
Adam
>
> And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
> will see and learn.
Douglas,
First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
come from?
Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
Presumably not Spain's exerience with ETA.
Presumably not the apparently endless violence between Israel and Palestine.
Need I go on?
We would all like to eradicate evil in the world, but somehow America now
seems to have the insane idea it can eradicate it in a few months or a
couple of years with big hardware or special forces. Get real.
regards,
adam
>
> --
>
> Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
> http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
>
> "Conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant."
> -Richard Grenier
>
> Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>
>Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
><snip>.
>>
>> And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
>> will see and learn.
>
>Douglas,
>First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
>come from?
>Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
>Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
>Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
>Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
>Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
>Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
>Presumably not Spain's exerience with ETA.
>Presumably not the apparently endless violence between Israel and Palestine.
>Need I go on?
>
>We would all like to eradicate evil in the world, but somehow America now
>seems to have the insane idea it can eradicate it in a few months or a
>couple of years with big hardware or special forces. Get real.
>
Got any specific recommendations?
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Scrodo
In article <3babc2b6...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com>, "dralasite"
Adam
"Bored With The Boring Again" <fire...@god.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:9BE424251702A53B.E437EFE7...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Got any specific recommendations?
>
Only one really: be realistic. Then we may find a way to improve the
situation. But we are not going to totally eradicate the problem, and
certainly not through military action. I feel this specific attack should be
dealt with as an international criminal matter, not a war (although I can
definitely understand the feeling to go with military action against such an
intractable leadership as the Taliban).
In the long term, we need to address the political, social and economic
causes of terrorism if we really want to eradicate it. No trivial matter.
adam.
Mark Whickman
>
> Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> <snip>.
> >
> > And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
> > will see and learn.
>
> Douglas,
> First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
> come from?
> Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
> Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
> Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
> Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
> Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
> Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
Is this some kind of common fault? IT'S BRITAIN!
Adam
England and replaced with Britain. Then I decided not to bother. The whoe NI
problem is fundamentally between England and Ireland; I don't recall
(correct me if I'm wrong) any IRA bombings in Wales or Scotland.
adam
Mark Whickman <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9oiilb$vdc$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Yes I know it's Britain. When I wrote that post I almost erased the word
>England and replaced with Britain. Then I decided not to bother. The whoe NI
>problem is fundamentally between England and Ireland; I don't recall
>(correct me if I'm wrong) any IRA bombings in Wales or Scotland.
They did bomb Birmingham. That's practically Scotland.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>. 45.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Mark Whickman
Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote in message
news:o4rpqt01llf5gke7g...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:39:56 +0200, "Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >Yes I know it's Britain. When I wrote that post I almost erased the word
> >England and replaced with Britain. Then I decided not to bother. The whoe
NI
> >problem is fundamentally between England and Ireland; I don't recall
> >(correct me if I'm wrong) any IRA bombings in Wales or Scotland.
>
> They did bomb Birmingham. That's practically Scotland.
You a Londoner?
Birmingham's only half way up, although the accent is just as impenetrable.
Mark Whickman
> Yes I know it's Britain. When I wrote that post I almost erased the word
> England and replaced with Britain. Then I decided not to bother. The whoe
NI
> problem is fundamentally between England and Ireland; I don't recall
> (correct me if I'm wrong) any IRA bombings in Wales or Scotland.
> adam
>
dral...@farside.fr
wrote:
>
>"Bored With The Boring Again" <fire...@god.airmail.net> wrote in message
>news:9BE424251702A53B.E437EFE7...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>>
>> Got any specific recommendations?
>>
>Only one really: be realistic. Then we may find a way to improve the
>situation. But we are not going to totally eradicate the problem, and
>certainly not through military action. I feel this specific attack should be
>dealt with as an international criminal matter, not a war (although I can
>definitely understand the feeling to go with military action against such an
>intractable leadership as the Taliban).
>In the long term, we need to address the political, social and economic
>causes of terrorism if we really want to eradicate it. No trivial matter.
>adam.
>
(drala)
I'm glad to hear sensible things around here, I just hope there are
more people with some common sense...
why do people think that bombing innocent population and creating
martyrs will make islamists love them? Strange...
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
chri...@the.crossroads.net
wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:46:32 GMT, Paminifarm <nos...@newsranger.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Very nice, however the reason for all this is: Corporate Society wants to
>run an
>> >oil-pipe line through Afghanistan, but Laden willnot let them. Follow the
>money
>> >
>>
>> Where do you fucking loons hang out when the conspiracy shops and rumor
>> mills are closed? Do you simply lurk in the shadows like a bunch of
>goddamn
>> roaches waiting for something rotten to be thrown your way so you all come
>> out and feast - How one's brain could ever reach a point of dipshitedness
>> that you crackpots demonstrate is a wonder of human digression.
>>
>> >Truth Hurts:
>>
>> That makes us very safe around the likes of you doesn't it. You are not
>> likely to hurt anyone. You wouldn't know truth if it stuck its dick in
>your
>> ear!
Hmmm, That puts a different slant on the old threat: "Let me
fuck some sense into you".
Bored With The Boring Again
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:06:10 +0200, "Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bored With The Boring Again" <fire...@god.airmail.net> wrote in message
>>news:9BE424251702A53B.E437EFE7...@lp.airnews.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Got any specific recommendations?
>>>
>>Only one really: be realistic. Then we may find a way to improve the
>>situation. But we are not going to totally eradicate the problem, and
>>certainly not through military action. I feel this specific attack should be
>>dealt with as an international criminal matter, not a war (although I can
>>definitely understand the feeling to go with military action against such an
>>intractable leadership as the Taliban).
>>In the long term, we need to address the political, social and economic
>>causes of terrorism if we really want to eradicate it. No trivial matter.
>>adam.
>>
>(drala)
>I'm glad to hear sensible things around here, I just hope there are
>more people with some common sense...
>why do people think that bombing innocent population and creating
>martyrs will make islamists love them? Strange...
It won't. Part of me thinks this is not about winning friends and
influencing people, but simple revenge. It is the Christian way.
However, my worry is this: Will our erstwhile leaders come up with
some -sensible- plans of thier own, and will they carry them through?
We're understandably not being told everything, and signs are that
there will be a whole lot we will never know about, succeed or fail,
if GWB's speech a little while back is any guide.
dral...@farside.fr
(drala)
my concern is that US politics and military might try to stamp down
Afghanistan so hard that it would be some sort of "lesson" for other
would-be terrorists. That would be really simple minded and lead to a
new Vietnam horror war, but they might just do it...
there would be more intelligent ways to find and punish the real
culprits but that would imply revealing the US responsability in the
eastern events and would prove really impopular for the common
american who just want some rags to be fragged...
US military are ready to bomb Afghanistan civilians before even
knowing who could be the real culprit, that is scarry...
>
>Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
>BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
> | -- Bardic Motto
>Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
>======
>Remove god to respond.
>======
>At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
>our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
>had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
>misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
>---
>Religious people believe IN god.
>The religious right believes they ARE god.
Bob's Big Gator
Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:04:19 +0200, "Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >Douglas,
> >First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
> >come from?
> >Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
> >Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
> >Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
> >Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
> >Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
> >Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
> >Presumably not Spain's exerience with ETA.
> >Presumably not the apparently endless violence between Israel and Palestine.
> >Need I go on?
> >
> >We would all like to eradicate evil in the world, but somehow America now
> >seems to have the insane idea it can eradicate it in a few months or a
> >couple of years with big hardware or special forces. Get real.
> >
>
> Got any specific recommendations?
>
1. Don't give Islamic dudes and dudettes the impression you're taking a dump in
their church. And
2. Don't give Islamic dudes and dudettes the impression you're plundering their
wealth.
How 'bout them apples?
Bob's Big Gator
Rev. Heber Jentzsch
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:29:45 GMT, dral...@farside.fr wrote:
>However, my worry is this: Will our erstwhile leaders come up with
>some -sensible- plans of thier own, and will they carry them through?
>We're understandably not being told everything, and signs are that
>there will be a whole lot we will never know about, succeed or fail,
>if GWB's speech a little while back is any guide.
Sensible plans? Look at who defrauded his way into the Whitee House, look
at that bewildered and befucked expression on his face. With luck his
Cabinet isn't listening to a word he says.
-- You love drugs! You love drugs, don't you?! You better
not say anything about my mother! Don't you DARE say anything
about my mother! -- Scientology's International President
Rev. Heber Jentzsch
>Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
>> Got any specific recommendations?
>1. Don't give Islamic dudes and dudettes the impression you're taking a dump in
>their church.
But Bush et al. _are_ doing just that. The appeals to the Christian
gods by United States officials is nothing less than a confirmation of
the other religious zealots who did these acts. As David Rice said,
faith doesn't move mountains; it levels buildings. And Bush with his
fellow religious zealots are ramping up for a religious war under the
guise of fighting terrorism.
dral...@farside.fr
Heber Jentzsch) wrote:
>fire...@god.airmail.net ("Bored With The Boring Again") wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:29:45 GMT, dral...@farside.fr wrote:
>
>>However, my worry is this: Will our erstwhile leaders come up with
>>some -sensible- plans of thier own, and will they carry them through?
>>We're understandably not being told everything, and signs are that
>>there will be a whole lot we will never know about, succeed or fail,
>>if GWB's speech a little while back is any guide.
>
>Sensible plans? Look at who defrauded his way into the Whitee House, look
>at that bewildered and befucked expression on his face. With luck his
>Cabinet isn't listening to a word he says.
>
(drala)
that is our only hope to avoid a whole country to be carpet bombed.
perhaps that dubyah need a good old war to better his image and get
re-elected later, but the price of several thousand afghan lives is a
bit high to serve the ambition of one moron.
>-- You love drugs! You love drugs, don't you?! You better
>not say anything about my mother! Don't you DARE say anything
>about my mother! -- Scientology's International President
>
Theseus
> Yes I know it's Britain. When I wrote that post I almost erased the word
> England and replaced with Britain. Then I decided not to bother. The whoe NI
> problem is fundamentally between England and Ireland; I don't recall
> (correct me if I'm wrong) any IRA bombings in Wales or Scotland.
> adam
>
You're right - there have never been any IRA attacks in Wales or Scotland
e.g. see http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1201000/1201738.stm
Theseus
Rev. Heber Jentzsch
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:16:34 GMT, HeberJ...@Scatintology.ORG (Rev.
>Heber Jentzsch) wrote:
>>fire...@god.airmail.net ("Bored With The Boring Again") wrote:
>>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:29:45 GMT, dral...@farside.fr wrote:
>>>However, my worry is this: Will our erstwhile leaders come up with
>>>some -sensible- plans of thier own, and will they carry them through?
>>>We're understandably not being told everything, and signs are that
>>>there will be a whole lot we will never know about, succeed or fail,
>>>if GWB's speech a little while back is any guide.
>>Sensible plans? Look at who defrauded his way into the Whitee House, look
>>at that bewildered and befucked expression on his face. With luck his
>>Cabinet isn't listening to a word he says.
>>
>(drala)
>that is our only hope to avoid a whole country to be carpet bombed.
>perhaps that dubyah need a good old war to better his image and get
>re-elected later, but the price of several thousand afghan lives is a
>bit high to serve the ambition of one moron.
I suspect that Dubya is _delighted_ that thee terrorists launched the
United States into a war. I can't think of anything else that was
going to come along and pull the U. S. out of its slide into a recession.
Bubba Clinton
again, for longer than the period since Sept. 11. If you pay much
attention, you will find them regurgitating various bullshit wrapped
around their interpretation of the Koran. It has NOTHING to do with
social and economic causes, these people have been given an
interpretation of the Koran that says non-Islamic peoples are of Satan
and must be eradicated. They want no social justice (in fact, you
just MIGHT look at Taliban policy and see exactly what their ultimate
society should be like, DUH!!). They don't need economic justice,
their leaders, whether royalty, usurped royalty, military dictator or
religious dictator have plenty (read: PLENTY) of money. They need a
nice planet where everyone lives like it is 1200 (BC or AD, they won't
care).
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:29:45 GMT, dral...@farside.fr wrote:
Bubba Clinton
>Religious people believe IN god.
>The religious right believes they ARE god.
Thank you for demonstrating your small-mindedness. If your brain was
capable of holding anything more, you might have noticed a religious
angle to the other end of this equation. That would be (for the
thinking people only) how easily the fundamentalist Muslims have
turned this into a religious crusade. I give them much credit,
though. The evil Muslim "clerics" brainwash their fanatical followers
that this is Jihad, while convincing the pacifist western religion
haters that the issues are socio-economic. They do this right under
the nose of both. Apparently they realize how stupid both are.
Therion Ware
Anything north of Chesterton Road, Cambridge is Scotland. Well known
fact, that.
chri...@the.crossroads.net
<hamme...@fishnet.net> wrote:
>
>>Religious people believe IN god.
>>The religious right believes they ARE god.
>
>Thank you for demonstrating your small-mindedness.
It would seem that I am "Devils Advocate" again.
They only see what we show them, and the majority of
christians who post to these NGs leave me, a christian,
with much the same opinion.
> If your brain was
>capable of holding anything more, you might have noticed a religious
>angle to the other end of this equation.
If you were to take time and read what the atheists post,
you would find that all of them are aware of the religious
connotations. I would go farther, and suggest that they
see, primarily, only the religious link.
> That would be (for the
>thinking people only) how easily the fundamentalist Muslims have
>turned this into a religious crusade.
How easily you fall back on insults.
Do you not see that many fundamentalist christians are trying
to do the same?
> I give them much credit,
>though. The evil Muslim "clerics" brainwash their fanatical followers
>that this is Jihad,
The atheist feels much the same about us, that we are brain
washed by our own "evil clerics".
BTW, talk to a moderate muslim, and ask him to tell you what
"jihad" really is, he will tell you that it has more to do
with, "the right thing to do", than a holy war; So while it
does not "exclude" holy war, that is not its true meaning.
> while convincing the pacifist western religion
>haters
Unless I totally misunderstand these atheists, it is not our
religion, or any other religion that they hate, but the
things that are done in the name of religion;
Any religion.
> that the issues are socio-economic.
I must have missed the posts from atheists who claim that
there is any other reason than religion for these attacks.
> They do this right under
>the nose of both. Apparently they realize how stupid both are.
Both?
Bubba Clinton
wrote:
[snip snip]
>
> Unless I totally misunderstand these atheists, it is not our
> religion, or any other religion that they hate, but the
> things that are done in the name of religion;
> Any religion.
I can agree easily with this in your case, but there are far more
people who just hate religion and religious people purely out of their
prejudice, and the term "religious right" is their catchphrase. Much
evil has been done in the name of religion, but that does not stain
all Christians. It is the usual conspiracy theorists taking the
extreme and pretending that it is the norm.
>> that the issues are socio-economic.
>
> I must have missed the posts from atheists who claim that
> there is any other reason than religion for these attacks.
I don't know what the particular religious beliefs of such people are.
But even if there are atheists among them, I doubt that they all are.
But the people who posted most of the drivel of this type pretend that
the rest of the world is so poor because the US stole everything from
them, the US rubs its riches in the faces of the poor nations, the US
takes advantage of poor nations in order to achieve the high standard
of living it has attained, blah blah blah... They end their tirades
(surely you have seen them by now) with the statements that the WTC
tragedy was a natural occurence, given the circumstances, and that it
is about time the US wakes up to the socio-economic realities of the
rest of the world, and on and on...
>> They do this right under
>>the nose of both. Apparently they realize how stupid both are.
>
> Both?
Yes, the brainwashed Muslims who swallow this silly shit and kill
themselves on behalf of these slime, and the small-minded politically
correct westerners who lament on behalf of the poor abused Arabs who
are just striking back in the only way they can. Some people tell
lies to two parties and have to keep the lies straight. These guys
just lay down one line of bullshit, and both sides (fundamentalist
fanatical Muslims and politically correct westerners) interpret it
according to the way they are programmed. The funniest thing about it
is that many of those politically correct westerners are the same
people spouting the term "right wing religious fanatic" when applied
to Western Christians, but right wing suicide bombing religious
fanatics, when Muslim, appear on their protected species list.
Paradox? (NO!! Hypocrisy!)
chri...@the.crossroads.net
<hamme...@fishnet.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:24:17 +0100, chri...@the.crossroads.net
>wrote:
>
>[snip snip]
>>
>> Unless I totally misunderstand these atheists, it is not our
>> religion, or any other religion that they hate, but the
>> things that are done in the name of religion;
>> Any religion.
>
>I can agree easily with this in your case, but there are far more
>people who just hate religion and religious people purely out of their
>prejudice, and the term "religious right" is their catchphrase. Much
>evil has been done in the name of religion, but that does not stain
>all Christians.
It does when you reflexively blame "the other fellow", instead
of looking at your self, and we are all guilty of that.
> It is the usual conspiracy theorists taking the
>extreme and pretending that it is the norm.
My own observation suggests that it is the extremists,
claiming that they *are* the norm.
snip
> The funniest thing about it
>is that many of those politically correct westerners are the same
>people spouting the term "right wing religious fanatic" when applied
>to Western Christians, but right wing suicide bombing religious
>fanatics, when Muslim, appear on their protected species list.
>Paradox? (NO!! Hypocrisy!)
Perhaps it is because I am not american, that I do not
recognize the people whom you describe.
Bubba Clinton
wrote:
>>I can agree easily with this in your case, but there are far more
>>people who just hate religion and religious people purely out of their
>>prejudice, and the term "religious right" is their catchphrase. Much
>>evil has been done in the name of religion, but that does not stain
>>all Christians.
>
> It does when you reflexively blame "the other fellow", instead
> of looking at your self, and we are all guilty of that.
Blaming the "other fellow" has been taken to the extreme in American
politics.
>
>> It is the usual conspiracy theorists taking the
>>extreme and pretending that it is the norm.
>
> My own observation suggests that it is the extremists,
> claiming that they *are* the norm.
Exactly what occurs by the religion haters above, after they single
out anyone to the right of themselves. It isn't limited to the
religious, everyone to the right (of leftists) are described as
"extremists", killers of women and children, the elderly, poisoners of
water and air, the list goes on and on. It has become quite tiresome
to listen to, but puzzling for the numbers of sheep that spout the
rhetoric. The catchphrase for so long was "mean spirited". You could
tell the sheep right away by the way they obediently mouthed the
phrase. The scary thing was that the rhetoric was designed to paint
the political enemies of these people as evil hate-filled bigots. But
it was funny, because the brainwashed masses were little more than
bigots full of (poorly justified) hate...
>> The funniest thing about it
>>is that many of those politically correct westerners are the same
>>people spouting the term "right wing religious fanatic" when applied
>>to Western Christians, but right wing suicide bombing religious
>>fanatics, when Muslim, appear on their protected species list.
>>Paradox? (NO!! Hypocrisy!)
>
> Perhaps it is because I am not american, that I do not
> recognize the people whom you describe.
Well you are quite lucky. It was tiresome to listen to people who
can't form thoughts on their own, preaching the sermon of another...
For a short time, this has faded from the beliefs of the politicians
that used to lead and feed the ugly lines to the masses. Problem is,
some of their followers don't know that it is time to turn that crap
off.
chri...@the.crossroads.net
<hamme...@fishnet.net> wrote:
To follow from my earlier post.
Take a look at the thread "THEISM IS TO BLAME", both Pastor
Frank, and Al Klein are hurling insults. Neither one doing
anything to resolve the debate, and neither one doing
anything to strengthen his own argument, and from what I
have seen in these groups, that is the norm.
Far from bringing these poor lost souls to God, we are
alienating them from God, from our selves, and from other
christians who may have been able to save them where we
have failed. I don't think that this is what god wants, all
we are creating is strife, where Jesus came to bring Peace.
Alexander Supalov
Long and still very good. Some people may think that the biggest trap was
that apple, but that's uncertain.
Best regards.
Alexander
Scorpius
Wow.
I think I will put off a hasty asset liquidation and relocation to an
easily defended cave with my loved ones.
Thank-you JoJo for forwarding this message, and thank-you all who have
kept this thread alive. Having read many emotional discussions here
which served only reveal our western ideological dichotomy and
carefully veiled primal nature, this thread has caused me to seriously
doubt my long-standing belief that we as a species are doomed to
consume ourselves.
After saturating as much media fluff and web debris that I could, I
found it irresistible to not focus on details;
"Why was the second plane that hit WTC not shot down?"
"Where is Dick Chaney?"
"If I volunteer and then serve as a ground unit in a retaliatory
campaign, will I finally have something to talk about with my
Grand-Father?"
"Was this attack to serve the wants of Corporate/Political
Middle-East? Corporate/Political USA? Religious Extremists? God?"
"Will US(A) get nuked, hurting me and my loved ones?"
"Should I show my friends what you get when you type NYC in notepad,
then change the font to Webdings and Wingdings?"
"who has been brain-washed more successfully, middle-easterners? Or
North Americans?
...and so on...
I started digging through this ng after learning about 'Leo Phoenix'
and his experiences of late, and the myriad of discussions that were
born, hungry for more. So very exciting in an urgent sort of way. It
wasn't until i stumbled across this thread that I was able to 'put out
my own fire' and start to think about what this all means in a
disciplined way, to decide what is and isn't important.
So, again, thank-you all for holding this particular discussion, and,
obviously, thank-you whomever the original poster was. It is this kind
of calm exchange that I believe can save some of us...
...assuming that is possible...
---
Scorpius
---
"Revenge is a dish best served cold."
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:15:38 +0100, "JoJo ˛ēēš"
<jlg...@scotlife.freeserveNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>This is a newsgroup post I read in uk.current-events.us-bombing, hopefully
>geoff won't mind me forwarding it on - what are everyone's thoughts on its
>contents?
>
>
>
>The Path of Least Resistance
>
>Almost as soon as the events of September 11th unfolded to an
>unsuspecting America, the words flowed out: 'This means War!' With the
>fires still burning and the emergency services unable to cope with the
>scale of the tragedy, it was war. The clear and present failure of the
>CIA and FBI to foresee this calamity or head it off once the initial
>hijacking became known, was strangely juxtaposed against the certain
>and absolute knowledge of who was responsible - the Saudi dissident
>Osama Bin Laden. On the one hand these planes, hijacked and driven
>into symbols of America by persons unknown, without warning. On the
>other, the knowledge it could only be one man, living in the remotest
>of places. This means war - but what does that mean? We are told this
>is a war of civilisations, an attack on freedom but how can anybody
>even know enough for these obtuse abstractions? All any of us could
>surmise from the horror of the day was this: A sudden and suicidal
>strike on the symbols of American economic and military might. Surely
>to 'know' any more than this suggests foreknowledge which was so
>clearly and tragically absent. Every sane observer to the events of
>last Tuesday was shocked by what happened but, if we reach deep inside
>ourselves, were we really surprised that the world has come to this?
>
>Last year when George W. Bush became President of the world's last
>superpower in the most dubious and acrimonious election the USA has
>ever seen, what did you think? I recall, as soon as his cabinet
>line-up became known, that it was the same faces as those who brought
>us the Gulf War. Bush (albeit Dubya), Cheney and Colin Powell. I
>remember, back then, thinking this would mean some kind of 'finishing
>off what was started' ten years ago now. I imagine Saddam Hussein felt
>some sense of deja-vu as he saw this latest George Bush and the old
>Cheney, Colin Powell set take up their positions in Washington. I
>remember thinking with certainty there would now be another Gulf War.
>Gulf War II - This time it's what? There was much horseplay about
>Dubya's lack of any kind of handle on foreign policy and much warning
>given that he was little more than a puppet for shadowy, corporate
>interests. His amusing yet alarming personal displays of ignorance and
>oversimplifications made people wonder how such a man could be
>entrusted with the highest office on Earth. I think many believed at
>the time of the election it would be somehow proven he had not
>actually won the Presidency. Proof that never came.
>
>The one strand of continuity from his father's heralding in of the
>'Read my lips, New World Order' was that despite Desert Storm and
>Desert Shield and ten years of continuous bombing - Saddam Hussein was
>still very much there. Clinton had come and gone, if you'll excuse the
>double entendre, and now Bush, Cheney and Colin Powell were back. Ok
>so it was Dubya and not Senior but hell, when the election campaign
>started a lot of people thought it was Senior anyway!
>
>Coming back to the present - Fifty thousand reservists are called up,
>America's young are signing up, the fleets and instruments of war are
>being deployed. War it is, and yet, war against whom? A terrorist
>organisation is very different to a state. It has no borders, it
>operates, can only operate, from the shadows. Just who will the USA
>prosecute a war against? 'Whoever it damn well likes' and 'If we
>overreact then tough' are simply not good enough. The USA maintains by
>far the greatest capacity for destruction our world has ever known and
>yet, ironically, these weapons are ineffective against a terrorist
>organisation or network of organisations. This is going to be a war
>against whoever America wishes to include. Are they going to cherry
>pick their enemies? Is this a war against the usual suspects as it
>appears to be: Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Sudan, Libya etc. We've already
>heard the hijackers and suspects, some at least, were Egyptian, Omani
>and from the United Arab Emirates - yet somehow I don't see America
>targeting these countries.
>
>It has been said this is a crusade. Will this develop into a war
>against Islam? Tony Blair is at pains to assure us it will not.
>However, is it really up to him? Or the USA? If the targets of this
>war are to be a cherry picked list of Islamic states then surely we
>must ask ourselves how will Islam respond. We in the West do not have
>a monopoly on crusades, holy wars or Jihad. Isn't this how we got into
>this awful mess in the first place? Is this not an increasingly
>vicious circle we are now in danger of spiralling around and around?
>Historically the crusades that began a thousand years ago achieved
>very little apart from lakes of blood in the Middle East. A flashpoint
>ever since continuing to demand lives from all those involved. Worse
>yet and similar to Spartacus - do we not risk the creation of
>thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Osama Bin
>Ladens by prosecuting a war on Islam? However much we say this won't
>be war on Islam itself it will be Islam itself that decides whether it
>is.
>
>If not a war on Islam then, again, the question must be 'A war on
>whom?' Will it only be countries without a chain of Macdonalds who are
>targeted? Is this what James Rubin means when he calls for a war of
>civilisations? We certainly won't be attacking any rich Arab nations
>such as Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE or Oman. So does this mean we will only
>be attacking poor countries? Only those who can't fight back? Will we
>only be attacking unwesternised countries and once all this is over,
>if anyone at all is left alive, will these places then be westernised?
>
>If this is to be, as we are told, a war against terrorism then does
>this include Northern Ireland and the IRA or the real IRA? Will it
>include ETA? I think not. Then this won't be a war against global
>terrorism. It will be a selective war against selective targets,
>dressed up as a war against terrorism. What then will this 'war' in
>fact be? What is the real umbrella these targets will fall under? Who
>is the enemy? The rhetoric only serves to confuse the issue further
>and this is truly at the heart of problem. How can anyone declare war
>on an unknown and potentially unknowable enemy?
>
>If we return to the failure of the most powerful intelligence agencies
>in the world we can perhaps begin to see how the shadows are never as
>black or the light as white as we would prefer. Billions of dollars
>are spent every year on 'Intelligence'. Known terrorist organisations
>are exposed to constant satellite, electronic and human surveillance -
>including the so called prime suspect and his network of networks.
>Yet, out of the blue sky death rained down on America, using its own
>domestic objects against them. Heads have not yet rolled in the CIA or
>FBI. The sheer amount of shared intelligence through the worlds
>agencies didn't flag this up - the largest and most daring terrorist
>attack in the world. I am not the only one who finds this hard if not
>impossible to believe. There are many interests at stake here. Our own
>security services have deliberately not shared everything with the USA
>on several occasions. If Mossad, the notoriously ruthless Israeli
>intelligence agency, had forewarning would they have passed it on? Or
>would they have allowed it to proceed in the certain knowledge it
>would ultimately further their own cause by forcing the USA to step up
>to the plate and respond. Hypothetical? Perhaps.
>
>The other failure of intelligence, apart from co-operation, continues
>as the FBI round up dozens of 'suspects' and then let them go again.
>Despite Osama Bin Laden's network having been under such considerable
>scrutiny since the first World Trade Centre bombing - None of his
>known operatives have been picked up. The FBI have to date released
>all but one of these suspects and other countries have followed suit
>in Europe. They pick up Arabic suspects, shake them down and let them
>go again without charge. The failure of intelligence will continue for
>as long as it concentrates on being seen to be doing something,
>anything, but is in fact only chasing it's tail. Meanwhile of course,
>the perpetrators continue to go undetected and unpunished. Despite the
>apparent visibility of the FBI in their media raids on hotels and
>planes about to depart - the invisibility of the enemy remains
>palpably evident. All the billions, all the personnel, all the
>high-tech equipment and weapons of war did not stop what happened on
>Tuesday and has achieved absolutely nothing since. In fact it has
>managed to deepen the sense of indignation of the wrongly arrested and
>falsely accused and stirred up more and more racially motivated
>tension.
>
>When this is compared to the sheer evil genius of the perpetrators and
>the scale and precision of this act of utter terror it seems the
>greatest nation on Earth is being seriously outclassed. The
>professionals in this grim scenario, awful truth that it is, have been
>the fanatical perpetrators. Unable to tackle the might of the USA head
>on they have taken their strategies from 'the Art of War' to prosecute
>their attack by other means. Compared to the enormous loss of innocent
>life and billions in dollars as well as the inestimable damage to the
>human psyche, these people used knives. Fanatics they may have been
>but the dark intelligence at work has run rings around the
>intelligence community - many of whom were on the West coast holding
>their annual conference. The timing, the preparation, the selection of
>targets all go to show we are dealing with an enemy capable of such
>evil, such stupefying evil genius that it has put the so called
>intelligence community at an extreme disadvantage.
>
>To truly understand this we must look at what really happened on
>September 11th. We must look beyond the obvious and total horror felt
>by us all and we must try and make out this new landscape that
>confronts us all. I do not congratulate the brilliance of the
>perpetrators in carrying out their plan of terror, only attempt to
>'draw attention to their intelligence' because it has been this
>ability to strike completely out of leftfield which makes this event
>so ominous of further looming dangers. To react in the 'same old way'
>is simply not on the menu. This action, death toll shattering that it
>is apart, was an act of provocation. This is the first card played
>from a poker hand made up of aces. America is being goaded into
>action. This invisible enemy has achieved this while remaining largely
>invisible. If a message was sent it was this 'Come on. Do your worst!'
>in the certain knowledge the USA will now strike out in vengeance and,
>as it has done so in the past, against the wrong targets. This leads
>to an escalation of incomprehensible consequences because the USA will
>embark with their trademark swaggering certainty it is acting 'in the
>right' even when it isn't. The USA and its allies will embark on a war
>against those it sees as responsible in the absence of those it can't
>see who are truly responsible. This is a trap of truly epic proportion
>that with every girding and readying of the nation for war, propels us
>all forward headlong into it. There will be no turning back as the,
>rightfully, indignant targets of this mis-placed aggression will be
>forced into a battle for their lives. Both sides believing themselves
>to be have been done wrong. Both sides rising to the call of a
>righteous war. Meanwhile the real perpetrator looks at its remaining
>cards in its hand and selects another ace to play.
>
>This kind of genius puts Adolf Hitler to shame, as at least he was a
>visible enemy. This action has been taken while being able to predict,
>the comparatively bumbling, responses of Dubya, his warlike cabinet
>and his intelligence agencies who must now produce results to an
>outraged American public. The ability to predict the enemy, to
>manoeuvre them, to force them into action and to strike at their
>weakest points has broken America. America lies broken and in pain
>with a President in tears and preparing to wage war against an enemy,
>any enemy, they do not even know, understand or comprehend. America is
>a wounded animal, it's hurt, it's howling and it will lash out and it
>cannot see how it has been played. This is not the first time America
>has been broken, in fact they have a long history of it beginning with
>the bloodiest of civil wars. Somalia, Vietnam, the death of JFK and
>others have all been unsatisfactory outcomes that served to break the
>American spirit and fuel the will to be the winner. This may well be
>yet another unsatisfactory outcome in America's long narrative. It is
>however also an opportunity to break this repetitious circle once and
>for all. Can America do it? Can they put vengeance aside and turn
>inward to face its own conscience?
>
>I have heard it mentioned over the last few days of Americans being
>asked to ask themselves why they are so hated by so many in the world.
>Some news commentators have even pushed US spokesmen to look at their
>own foreign policy as a cause for this weeks events. These requests
>have been brushed aside in a 'now is not the time' way when now is
>very much the time. The United States of America is built on the
>principle of Manifest Destiny where the native Americans were
>isolated, persecuted and removed from the land in order to make way
>for the pioneers. America is built on blood, this was never a
>foundation without consequence. This is now very much reflected in the
>policy of backing Israel against the Palestinians. This is also a war
>fought with very different weapons on each side, because only one side
>has weapons. Israel, a nation-state built upon the suffering and abuse
>of the Jewish people, cannot now, like an abused child, now abuse
>others. Palestinian suicide bombers are a last ditch, desperate
>attempt to withstand the oppression of the Israelis. Just as kamikaze
>pilots were a last ditch effort from Japan in the final acts of WWII.
>Desperation breeds desperate measures, not fanaticism. The Israelis
>have proven to be just as fanatical as the Palestinians but you don't
>see them blowing themselves up.
>
>We are about to witness a forced move to the right that nobody
>actually wants. Only those who have sprung this trap want that. As
>civil liberty is pushed aside in favour of security measures we will
>all begin to know what it felt like in pre-war Europe in the thirties.
>We will be swapping our multi-racial, multi-cultural society for one
>where certain races and religions are viewed with distrust and fear.
>We will close our doors to those in need of asylum and sanctuary. We
>will focus on our own interests and we will defend our freedom at the
>cost of the freedom of others. The gap between the haves and the
>have-nots will widen ever further.
>
>We are creating our own 'new Jews' for this generation and they will
>be the Muslims. It is with great sadness and tragedy that Israel has
>not learned the lessons from the horrors they have suffered but now
>project fear and persecution onto another people. I am not anti-Jewish
>or anti-Israeli but rather agonise in the hope the Israeli people
>would make it their number one priority to live in peace and harmony
>rather than conflict. Within hours of the events of September 11th
>Israeli tanks and bulldozers entered the town of Jenin, and then
>Jericho. Isn't this now the time, more than ever before, to cease and
>desist? To find a better way? Violence begets violence, Terror begets
>Terror. Rather than cancel the peace talks between Shimon Perez and
>Yasser Arafat should it not have been enforced? Is it not time to
>finally use the unsurpassed military might of the West to come between
>those in conflict and 'break it up?' If it isn't then we will just
>march blindly on, into the abyss and into the greatest trap the world
>has ever seen.
>
>I heard it said by a Wall Street spokesperson that 'the projection of
>war' may well save the economy. It is a sad and terrible incitement on
>the 'civilised' world that war is good for a flagging economy. Is
>there really no better way? Surely this is a time for justice not
>vengeance, can we now make the distinction? The events of 11th
>September were a desperate and horrifying tragedy but we must attend
>to this desperate world that is willing to batter itself and
>annihilate itself and others to be heard. We must all work for a
>cessation of global conflict not towards creating the largest example
>of it the world has seen to date.
>
>If we don't stop and think and ask ourselves 'are we being manoeuvred?
>Is this a trap? Is war what these people want? And isn't the art of
>war about denying what the enemy wants?' then we must face the
>nightmare scenarios of our time that will make the events of last
>Tuesday look minor by comparison and loss of life. The dangers of
>nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are no less real that what
>happened on Tuesday just because they haven't happened yet. We risk
>ushering in the end of days if we take the wrong path, if we set off
>this trap.
>
>The right way is the hardest, the wrong way is the easiest. If we
>follow the path of least resistance we risk descent into hell on
>Earth.
>
Douglas Berry
"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
><snip>.
>>
>> And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
>> will see and learn.
>
>Douglas,
>First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
>come from?
>Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
*One* op in Iran, which was a cluster fuck from the word go and led to
the creation of the 1st SOCCOM to coordinate specwar ops. In Somalia?
We got bad intel. It happens. The other guys were also using kids as
shields.
>Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
>Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Which showed that we can hit whatever we want.
>Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
For the last time, the Afghans had the massive support of the United
States in that fight. They got money, supplies, and the most advanced
hand-held surface to air missile on Earth at that point. Who stands
with them now?
>Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
Which we didn't fight as a guerilla war. We tried to fight a
conventional conflict. When we did learn to fight them on their own
terms, such as with the SEALS, LRRPs, and Force recon, we did real
damage. And when the VC/NVA came out to fight in the open, we
slaughtered them. See Tet '68.
>Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
>Presumably not Spain's exerience with ETA.
>Presumably not the apparently endless violence between Israel and Palestine.
Which has what to do with the US response?
>We would all like to eradicate evil in the world, but somehow America now
>seems to have the insane idea it can eradicate it in a few months or a
>couple of years with big hardware or special forces. Get real.
Actually, the first blow has been financial. We're going after their
money. To date, not a single missile has been launched. We are
hunting them down, and when we find them, they will be smashed, as
will whomever offers them shelter.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
"Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> warmed
at our fire and told this tale:
>Fighting these skirmishes could be costly. I know that the tanks they have
>(russian MBTs from the '50s) are no match for an Abrams or a Challenger 2 in
>a straight fight. But dig them in and ambush supply collumns with them,
>which is what they're likely to do, and they may be more effective.
Except that we spot them on satellite recon, send over a F-16 to
confirm position, and a flight of Warthogs to reduce them to scrap.
And how would Afghan tanks get into our rear? We do train to prevent
that sort of thing, you know. And dug-in tanks are nothing but
expensive coffins on the modern battlefield.
Douglas Berry
dral...@farside.fr warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>>I seriously doubt that the Afghans have much of a force that
>>could resist a conventional war, and since Vietnam, we've honed
>>our ability to fight guerilla wars.
>>
>(drala)
>"honed" what???
>do you mean that americans where successfull at the end of the Vietnam
>war? Guerilla war against religious fanatics is the worst kind of war
>you could get: americans have no knowledge of the (difficult) terrain,
>they don't don't usually speak the local language, the locals will be
>at least warry if not hostiles and the fundies will be fighting for
>their country and their god against "evil" oppressors!
I used to be an Airborne Ranger. We trained almost exclusively at
night, and learned to fight like the Viet Cong did. Most of the army
learns to fight in the dark, and as close to actual combat as we can
make it without killing people right and left.
No knowledge of the difficult terrain? Every infantryman in the US
Army spends time at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, Ca.
This is in the Mojave Desert, which is hotter and drier than
Afghanistan. And it has its fair share of mountains. Language?
That's what intel weenies are for.
>ask the russians about fighting against afghan guerilla!!!
I have. I spoke with a former Russian Spetsnatz trooper in 1993 at
the World Science Fiction Convention in San Francisco. I asked him
about the fighting in Afghanistan. He told me that in the early going
it was easy.. call in air support. Then we sold them Stingers.
After that, he told me, it became a battle of soldiers. And it was
about even. The Soviets learned from the Muhjadeen the tricks of the
mountains, and the Muhjadeen learned how to use the weapons they stole
off Russian bodies.
The point was that the Soviets were winning until we tipped the
balance. There is no one to do that now.
And before you get too scared of those Stingers still in Afghanistan,
remember that they are all over a decade old, and I doubt that they've
been stored or maintained properly.
Mark Whickman
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nf24rt44jn1ujgv13...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:32:17 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> warmed
> at our fire and told this tale:
>
> >Fighting these skirmishes could be costly. I know that the tanks they
have
> >(russian MBTs from the '50s) are no match for an Abrams or a Challenger 2
in
> >a straight fight. But dig them in and ambush supply collumns with them,
> >which is what they're likely to do, and they may be more effective.
>
> Except that we spot them on satellite recon,
A static tank with heavy camoflage?
send over a F-16 to
> confirm position, and a flight of Warthogs to reduce them to scrap.
>
> And how would Afghan tanks get into our rear? We do train to prevent
> that sort of thing, you know. And dug-in tanks are nothing but
> expensive coffins on the modern battlefield.
>
There are people willing to die. One or two men controlling a concealed tank
and firing at the middle of collumn or into a vehicle moving through a
narrow pass with precalculated trajectory.
geoff
spawned. There's a pt2 (if you search for it) for those who don't
think it's too long and I'm posting pt3 in a day or so. Thanks again,
keep your eyes and minds open! geoff and thanks esp. to JoJo for
forwarding this post about a bit.
Scorpius <a_e_n...@hotmai1.com> wrote in message news:<nnq3rtomh5ei53561...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:15:38 +0100, "JoJo åŸ æ±—"
shroom
Mark Whickman wrote:
>
> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:nf24rt44jn1ujgv13...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:32:17 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
> > "Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> warmed
> > at our fire and told this tale:
> >
> > >Fighting these skirmishes could be costly. I know that the tanks they
> have
> > >(russian MBTs from the '50s) are no match for an Abrams or a Challenger 2
> in
> > >a straight fight. But dig them in and ambush supply collumns with them,
> > >which is what they're likely to do, and they may be more effective.
> >
> > Except that we spot them on satellite recon,
>
> A static tank with heavy camoflage?
>
Infrared sees through camo.
Douglas Berry
>
>Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:nf24rt44jn1ujgv13...@4ax.com...
>> Except that we spot them on satellite recon,
>
>A static tank with heavy camoflage?
Yep. That tank has to get there. It has to run its engine to keep
the batteries alive. That makes for heat, and new shadows.
>> And how would Afghan tanks get into our rear? We do train to prevent
>> that sort of thing, you know. And dug-in tanks are nothing but
>> expensive coffins on the modern battlefield.
>
>There are people willing to die. One or two men controlling a concealed tank
>and firing at the middle of collumn or into a vehicle moving through a
>narrow pass with precalculated trajectory.
Quick question.. have you ever served in the military? Or does your
knowledge of combat come from war movies?
There is a wonderful techniques called "aggressive patrolling" which
consists of sending infantry out to make sure that nobody is setting
up the kind of tricks you mention.
Now, let's tank your average tank. Weighs a couple of dozen tons,
runs on treads.. these things are noisy. In a desert, you can hear
them miles away. They also, by their nature, stir up a lot of dust.
At night, the show up on thermal imagers like bonfires.
For your mythical tank to get into our rear areas to be entrenched and
attack a supply column would require that it get past the front lines,
which are filled with combat soldiers who are looking for things like
enemy tanks! The 120mm gun on the M1A1 and A2 will shred the front
armor of the best Soviet-built tanks. The Afghans don't have the
best. Most of their tanks are T-62s, a design that is *forty years*
old.
Then there is the question of how the Afghans know where to entrench
this tank, and how they do it without our seeing them. We try to
avoid taking the same route whenever possible, and when forced to do
so, we patrol that route aggressively.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they do get a tank
into place, and open up on a supply column. What happens? We lose a
few deuce-and-a-half trucks, they lose a main battle tank and its
crew. We have millions of trucks. They have fewer than 200 MBTs.
Sean
<grid...@mindspring.com> scratched their head and muttered:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:04:19 +0200, a wanderer, known to us only as
>"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>>
>>Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>><snip>.
>>>
>>> And we are going to smack them down so hard that the entire world
>>> will see and learn.
>>
>>Douglas,
>>First let me agree that is a laudable aim. But where does your confidence
>>come from?
>>Presumably not the US's experiences of special ops in Iran and Somalia.
Iran should have been aborted as they had trouble with the helo's very
early, then the sand storm.
Somalia, the guy in charge wanted more equipment, men, etc. He was
denied this because clinton didn't want to appear to have too many
forces.
Did you know it was OBL's men that shot down the choppers and killed
our servicemen?
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/010913_mfe_binladen_1.html
>
>*One* op in Iran, which was a cluster fuck from the word go and led to
>the creation of the 1st SOCCOM to coordinate specwar ops. In Somalia?
>We got bad intel. It happens. The other guys were also using kids as
>shields.
>
>>Presumably not Clinton's cruise missile attacks against bin Laden.
>>Presumably not his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
>
>Which showed that we can hit whatever we want.
>
>>Presumably not the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan.
>
>For the last time, the Afghans had the massive support of the United
>States in that fight. They got money, supplies, and the most advanced
>hand-held surface to air missile on Earth at that point. Who stands
>with them now?
>
>>Presumably not America's other 'guerilla war' in Vietnam.
>
>Which we didn't fight as a guerilla war. We tried to fight a
>conventional conflict. When we did learn to fight them on their own
>terms, such as with the SEALS, LRRPs, and Force recon, we did real
>damage. And when the VC/NVA came out to fight in the open, we
>slaughtered them. See Tet '68.
They didn't call them Devils with Green Faces for 'notin
>
>>Presumably not England's experience with IRA.
>>Presumably not Spain's exerience with ETA.
>>Presumably not the apparently endless violence between Israel and Palestine.
>
>Which has what to do with the US response?
>
>>We would all like to eradicate evil in the world, but somehow America now
>>seems to have the insane idea it can eradicate it in a few months or a
>>couple of years with big hardware or special forces. Get real.
>
>Actually, the first blow has been financial. We're going after their
>money. To date, not a single missile has been launched. We are
>hunting them down, and when we find them, they will be smashed, as
>will whomever offers them shelter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
Sean
during desert storm?
There were 9 of ours, and 49 of theirs or so, basically 5 to 1. Came
around a range and bam, right there everyone was, and as if
pre-ordained, a sand storm hit.
We had thermal imaging, they did not. In less than 10 minutes, there
were 49 tanks destroyed, we did not lose a 1.
The could not target us, they did not have the ability.
One thing I was thinking of though. I would think we would hit at
night, and fight a guerilla style campaign with the special guys. Let
them engage for a few hours at night, we do have night vision. Then
break off a few hours before dawn and disappear.
Do this every night from different locations and of course have them
backed up with choppers. And we do have the .50 cal sniper rifle.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:15:01 -0700, Douglas Berry
<grid...@mindspring.com> scratched their head and muttered:
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:19:13 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
micron5
"Sean" <te...@XYZhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lc5rt8u5lkn4ceg5...@4ax.com...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
> "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
> have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
> for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
Religion is nothing more than an organized philosophy. As bad as it is,
it doesn't begin to approach the evil of the philosophy of money worship.
dp
> --Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
Alexander Supalov
> We are going after those states that willingly provided terrorists a base of
> action, and direct support.
Then you should start with yourself.
Best regards.
Alexander
Mark Whickman
shroom <shr...@zenos.net> wrote in message
news:3BB25D7B...@zenos.net...
Would it be generating enough heat though? If its static with the engine off
for a long time....
Mark Whickman
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:19:13 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "Mark Whickman" <markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> warmed
> at our fire and told this tale:
>
> >
> >Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:nf24rt44jn1ujgv13...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Except that we spot them on satellite recon,
> >
> >A static tank with heavy camoflage?
>
> Yep. That tank has to get there. It has to run its engine to keep
> the batteries alive. That makes for heat, and new shadows.
>
What if the tank is already there? And would it need its batteries all the
time?
> >> And how would Afghan tanks get into our rear? We do train to prevent
> >> that sort of thing, you know. And dug-in tanks are nothing but
> >> expensive coffins on the modern battlefield.
> >
> >There are people willing to die. One or two men controlling a concealed
tank
> >and firing at the middle of collumn or into a vehicle moving through a
> >narrow pass with precalculated trajectory.
>
> Quick question.. have you ever served in the military? Or does your
> knowledge of combat come from war movies?
No, but I have a relative in the SAS and my school had a large CCF
(disturbing my chemistry synoptic with a chinook circling the school), and I
have a friend serving at sandhurst, two friends in the tank regiments and
one of them is a qualified warrior crew member.
>
> There is a wonderful techniques called "aggressive patrolling" which
> consists of sending infantry out to make sure that nobody is setting
> up the kind of tricks you mention.
Afghanistan is hard to patrol. Rugged terrain with high passes (enough to
cause altitude sickness) and hiding places which can't be spotted from far
away.
>
> Now, let's tank your average tank. Weighs a couple of dozen tons,
> runs on treads.. these things are noisy. In a desert, you can hear
> them miles away. They also, by their nature, stir up a lot of dust.
> At night, the show up on thermal imagers like bonfires.
It is already in place..?
>
> For your mythical tank to get into our rear areas to be entrenched and
> attack a supply column would require that it get past the front lines,
> which are filled with combat soldiers who are looking for things like
> enemy tanks!
The front line passes an entrenched tank without spotting it.
The 120mm gun on the M1A1 and A2 will shred the front
> armor of the best Soviet-built tanks. The Afghans don't have the
> best. Most of their tanks are T-62s, a design that is *forty years*
> old.
>
> Then there is the question of how the Afghans know where to entrench
> this tank, and how they do it without our seeing them. We try to
> avoid taking the same route whenever possible, and when forced to do
> so, we patrol that route aggressively.
>
> But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they do get a tank
> into place, and open up on a supply column. What happens? We lose a
> few deuce-and-a-half trucks, they lose a main battle tank and its
> crew. We have millions of trucks. They have fewer than 200 MBTs.
>
They are willing to die. Casualties aren't popular at home.
Mark Whickman
Sean <te...@XYZhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lc5rt8u5lkn4ceg5...@4ax.com...
> during desert storm?
>
> There were 9 of ours, and 49 of theirs or so, basically 5 to 1. Came
> around a range and bam, right there everyone was, and as if
> pre-ordained, a sand storm hit.
>
> We had thermal imaging, they did not. In less than 10 minutes, there
> were 49 tanks destroyed, we did not lose a 1.
>
> The could not target us, they did not have the ability.
>
> One thing I was thinking of though. I would think we would hit at
> night, and fight a guerilla style campaign with the special guys. Let
> them engage for a few hours at night, we do have night vision. Then
> break off a few hours before dawn and disappear.
>
> Do this every night from different locations and of course have them
> backed up with choppers. And we do have the .50 cal sniper rifle.
>
This would probably be the most effective way of beating them. There may be
SAS infiltrators in already.
shroom
It wouldn't be as bright as a running tank, but the thermal difference
between the tank and it's surroundings will paint it. The
countermeasures required to hide it from infrared are impractical in a
battlefield scenario.
Dethstryk
>This would probably be the most effective way of beating them. There may
>be SAS infiltrators in already.
*checks timeline*
On 9-23, there were unconfirmed reports of a brief skirmish between four
SAS agents and Taliban troops. Apparently they encountered each other by
surprised in the foothills of Kabul.
The Ministry of Defence didn't confirm or deny the reports for operational
matters.
--
"At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as our personal lord
and saviour. Unfortunately, we later had to dismiss him for incompetence,
gross negligence, misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work."
- Erikc, alt.atheism
x-----------------------------x
| Dethstryk aa #1884 |
| jema...@tcainternet.com |
| BAAWA Knit |
| ICQ: 9929528 |
x-----------------------------x
Mark Whickman
Dethstryk <jema...@tcainternet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9129CB1A3jema...@207.126.101.100...
> Thus Spake Mark Whickman:
>
> >This would probably be the most effective way of beating them. There may
> >be SAS infiltrators in already.
>
> *checks timeline*
>
> On 9-23, there were unconfirmed reports of a brief skirmish between four
> SAS agents and Taliban troops. Apparently they encountered each other by
> surprised in the foothills of Kabul.
>
> The Ministry of Defence didn't confirm or deny the reports for operational
> matters.
SAS infiltrators integrate with the local populace, being similar in
appearance and being able to speak the dialects. Very effective against
guerillas (poisoning the "water" the "fish" swim in).
dral...@farside.fr
(drala)
I would like to know how they managed to find SAS agents looking like
afghans with a scraggly beard, speaking perfectly arab with the
correct accent and dialect... Blending in a small village where
everyone know each other might be a bit more difficult than in New
York...
the main problem of the CIA is that in 20 years they never had been
able to infiltrate anything there that isn't now their enemy...
The Flying Frenchman
Never forgets Montsegur.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
dral...@farside.fr
<markwh...@blackfortress.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
(drala)
remind me of a joke:
during the cold war, the americans decided to plant an infiltrator in
the USSR: they took their best agent and trained him specially for
this most delicate mission. He was taught russian culture, language,
dialect, accent, mannerism, jokes and everything that could help him
blend perfectly in the russian population. He is fed every bit of
intelligence that had been gathered on russians and trained to lose
any kind of accent, reflex or mannerism that could betray him as an
outsider.
after 5 years of intensive training, he is parachuted in the middle of
communist russia by a stealth plane. After some hours he finally reach
a russian bar, enter and ask for a glass of vodka. (in a perfect
russian)
the barman serves him and asks: "say, aren't you an american secret
agent?"
the super-agent keeps his self-control and asks back: "well, what
could make you think such a thing???"
and the barman answers:"there is no black man in USSR..."