Paddy Ashdown: Voice of Reason??
Maria
the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
This was my first thought when I was watching events unfold on tuesday
when considering what might happen next; I admit that hearing the US
say it was 'at war' and all the other threats of unleashing similar if
not worse on the perpetrators or anyone considered to be sheltering
them frightened the living daylights out of me.
Then we had NATO resolution saying that the US had all of NATO's
support, though I don't know what this means in practice. I read
somewhere else that that meant an automatic right to overfly NATO
countries and the like. I note that some EU countries are now
backtracking a little...maybe concerned that they will be dragged into
a huge global conflict, maybe because they don't want to make targets
of themselves.
What happened tuesday was doubtless horrifying and in scale, the
biggest atrocity committed by 'terrorists' so far...but each country
has its own terrorists to deal with and has for many moons. Each
country has dealt with this terrorism acting in a sovereign manner,
with recourse to foreign intelligence for assistance in catching the
perpetrators, the courts for the purposes of extradition and the Hague
in extreme cases such as Lockerbie and Serbia. This seems reasonable
and civilised to me, whereas revenge attacks are bound to see many of
us wincing once again at the needless loss of innocent civilians.
I'm certain I *will* be shot down in flames for suggesting this, but
should we really be aligning ourselves with the US in this matter to
this extent? Another question is to what extent *are* we pledging
support? The Daily Mail even had a cut-out colour US flag on its back
cover this morning, suggesting that we all stick them in our windows
to demonstrate our support for the US in this matter.
This attack took place on US soil, but people of many different
nationalities and ethnicities were killed in this horror. Should we
(and other countries) attempt to retain our soveriegnty in this
matter, and act as we see fit? To put things in perspective, the Jihad
is against the US, not Britain; we have AIUI had long-standing
diplomatic ties with the Middle-East and also AIUI have never ever
been made a target by Muslims or ME extremists. The really paranoid
part of me feels that America is attempting to drag us all along with
it, on yet another fruitless missile flinging session, and yes, to
possibly make us a target.
On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why? Because the
US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
government think that yes we will become a much more important target
for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
Bush?
For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
Maria
PS. Just seen news that two of the prime suspects traced from the
flying school in Florida and whose pic appeared in the Mail today, are
actually not suspects now after all, given that one is still alive and
the other died last year.
That is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
(Two brothers have been mistakenly reported as being suspected
hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Centre.
CNN reported Adnan and Ameer Bukhari as suspects following a FBI raid
on a home in Vero Beach, Florida.
It has now emerged Adnan is alive and has been interviewed and helped
police with their inquiries, while Ameer died in a light plane
accident last year.
FBI agents raided the home after obtaining a warrant based on evidence
found in a rental car seized in Portland, Maine.
CNN says its mistaken original report was based on information from
multiple law enforcement sources. The CNN website has now published a
correction.
A federal law enforcement source has now reportedly told CNN that
Adnan Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_398921.html)
Since these chaps picures appeared in the press (and presumably in the
US press), the surviving one is possibly lucky that he is still
surviving.
fatClyde
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
news:3ba228b9...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) wrote:
> PS. Just seen news that two of the prime suspects traced from the
> flying school in Florida and whose pic appeared in the Mail today, are
> actually not suspects now after all, given that one is still alive and
> the other died last year.
> That is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
>
> (Two brothers have been mistakenly reported as being suspected
> hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Centre.
They couldn't really ignore the coincidences, could they ?
Maria
No, but they could keep quiet until they know if the suspicion of the
person is justified.
To publish names and photos and connect them with such an outrage
carries a lot of responsibility...
J Jarman
the first shots and have declared us all targets; there is no avenue of
negotiation, no option of surrender, no way out. Like it or not Britain is
as much bound by treaty as we were in 1914 and 1939.
It is scary; as a husband, father and army reservist I like the idea a hell
of a lot less than you do, but it's real, it happened. All we can do now is
hope, pray and support our leaders and our allies.
May God bless us and help us all.
--
Sj
"9mm or .357 - a woman's right to choose"
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
news:3ba221e6...@news.ntlworld.com...
Cliff Morrison
<num...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "We" are at war.
> All we can do now is
> hope, pray and support our leaders and our allies.
Who is that "we", and sez who?
Who's "leaders"... Tony Blair? No way.
What "allies"... their corporate-globalist NWO? No way.
Sunil
You prefer to live under Saddam or Bin Laden?
abelard
>I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
there comes a time in human affairs when playground
rules are no longer relevant.....
several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
>On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
2)he is not brain of britain....
> Because the
>US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
>aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
>passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
>government think that yes we will become a much more important target
>for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
>Bush?
>
>For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
yes...strange it is...
>To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
>for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
>mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
>answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
>exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
revenge has not a thing to do with it....
stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
serfs....
if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
they have perfectly rational choices....
seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
talk and not act.....
you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
ethics and law are luxuries of civilised societies....
they wish to be treated with respect...*first* they act
with respect.....
if they do not...they will be crushed....unless you intend
to sit still for the next effort...and the next effort...etc.....
if you do, then convert to islam and invite bin lardin in to
run your civilised country.....
freedom and affluence has a price.....
pay the...or lose the freedom.....
this is *not* an academic exercise....
the quicker this cotton wool society gets this through
their thik heads...the less will be the long term price.....
pay now...or pay a great deal more in the future....
you also have a choice...and that is it.....
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hammerton
There is an aspect of this that I'm not sure would be covered by such
action. As a result of Tuesday's horrific events, terrorist
calculations will have changed. The perpetrators have redefined what
is do-able by terrorists who are sufficiently resourced, well
organised and determined. There is a need therefore for deterrence of
further such acts.
The sort of legal process you refer to would likely take years to
bring the perps to justice and would be very uncertain as it is likely
to involve multiple countries and jurisdictions. Thus there would be
considerable scope for the perps to evade capture. I'm not sure the
deterrence aspect of this situation will be addressed with such a
process.
> I'm certain I *will* be shot down in flames for suggesting this, but
> should we really be aligning ourselves with the US in this matter to
> this extent? Another question is to what extent *are* we pledging
> support?
The UK government is more or less agreeing to back the US 100% ISTM
from the rhetoric.
> The Daily Mail even had a cut-out colour US flag on its back
> cover this morning, suggesting that we all stick them in our windows
> to demonstrate our support for the US in this matter.
Of course if people do that they'll buy lot's of copies of the Mail
and thus contribute handsomely to the Charitable Fund for the
continued existence of the Daily Mail.
> This attack took place on US soil, but people of many different
> nationalities and ethnicities were killed in this horror. Should we
> (and other countries) attempt to retain our soveriegnty in this
> matter, and act as we see fit? To put things in perspective, the Jihad
> is against the US, not Britain;
I wouldn't be too certain about this. How often has the UK backed the
US in the middle east and elsewhere? What impact will that have had on
how the Islamic fundamentalists view trhe UK?
> we have AIUI had long-standing
> diplomatic ties with the Middle-East and also AIUI have never ever
> been made a target by Muslims or ME extremists. The really paranoid
> part of me feels that America is attempting to drag us all along with
> it, on yet another fruitless missile flinging session, and yes, to
> possibly make us a target.
>
> On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
> now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why? Because the
Indeed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1544000/1544619.stm
> US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> Bush?
I suspect they (or people advising/influencing them) are pushing the
agenda for further curbing of civil liberties under cover of the
recent events. I also supect they will get support for this from the
public.
As to ID cards, I wonder whether a group that is well enough organised
to hi-jack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into major buildings in the US
would really be incapable of forging them or otherwise circumventing
them?
> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
They have been remarkably successful in giving us some signs of
progress over their investigation haven't they? The American people
will be reassured that the investigation is going so well so quickly.
The US/UK and their allies are on a war footing. The rhetoric is
explicit. A war has been declared against terrorism.
I seem to recall a phrase about the first casualty of war...
James
--
James Hammerton, WWW pages: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
PGP Public Key: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/mykey.asc (or: pgp5.ai.mit.edu)
Details of the attack on Britain's civil liberties at:
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/civlib.html
James Hammerton
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
> >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
> there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> rules are no longer relevant.....
> several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
presented with such a stark choice.
> >On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
> >now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
>
> 1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
> 2)he is not brain of britain....
However feelings are running high, and fear of such attacks in the UK
is amongst them. Blunkett and the government may seek to placate these
fears with draconian laws. ID cards are probably not the worst
measures we can expect to be proposed.
> > Because the
> >US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> >aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> >passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> >government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> >for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> >Bush?
> >
> >For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> >Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> >for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> >the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
> yes...strange it is...
>
> >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
> >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
>
> revenge has not a thing to do with it....
Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
> stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
> random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
> serfs....
> if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
> they have perfectly rational choices....
> seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
> talk and not act.....
>
> you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
> not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
I agree, and that is why I think military action may well be necessary
to deter further attacks like Tuesday's.
In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
down with them. Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
ISTM from this posting that you have a realistic understanding of the present
situation. Some civil liberties are indeed going to be infringed. Also, you
can depend that there will be propaganda in upcoming months to keep the
population focused on the fundamentals of the situation and not permitted to
waiver in their present overwhelming support for government action to do
whatever is necessary to bring the present danger under control. This is
natural and necessary in times of emergency. There is a natural tendency
towards wanting/expecting quick solutions. Solving this problem is going to
be at best extremely difficult.
I remember reading stories that when the British enlisted for service at the
outset of the first world war their only worry was that the war would last
long enough for them to have a personal part in it. They needn't have
worried.
Bill
J Jarman
"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote > Who is that "we", and sez
who?
> Who's "leaders"... Tony Blair? No way.
> What "allies"... their corporate-globalist NWO? No way.>
I didn't vote for that smarmy prick either, but there is fuck-all chance of
explaining that to a heavily armed terrorist intent on dying for his beliefs
and taking as many of us as he can with him. Do you honestly think the WTC
was full of Bush Republicans? Or Lockerbie? Did any of these murdering
cunts ask WPC Fletcher what her relgious or political views were? We are
all in this together whether we want to be or not, Wake up, for fuck's
sake!!
Cliff Morrison
<sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
You so servile that they're the only choice you can envisage?
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
> abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
> >
> > >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> > >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> > >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> > >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
> >
> > there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> > rules are no longer relevant.....
> > several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> > problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
>
> For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
> presented with such a stark choice.
You have a point and it is a fact that life isn't always fair. To the extent
that America tolerated IRA assistance within its borders is clearly wrong. By
no means is America immune from committing error and even evil. Britain
responded to American non action regarding IRA support as best it could.
America will respond to this terrorist attack on its territory as best it can.
> > > Because the
> > >US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> > >aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> > >passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> > >government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> > >for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> > >Bush?
I don't understand this fuss about ID cards. As a matter of fact virtually
everyone in the US possesses Identification of some sort all ready. If you
don't have proper ID you are very limited in your ability to function in a
modern society. I imagine much the same is true in Britain. I don't like the
idea of government requiring ID but citizen ID is really virtually defacto
here anyway.
> > >
> > >For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> > >Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> > >for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> > >the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
> >
> > yes...strange it is...
> >
> > >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
> > >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> > >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> > >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> > >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
> >
> > revenge has not a thing to do with it....
>
> Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
I think the American government will be focused. The Clinton response a few
years ago to the embassy bombing was revenge. He wanted to do something quick
and get back to business as usual. This is different IMV.
>
>
> > stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
> > random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
> > serfs....
> > if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
> > like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
> > they have perfectly rational choices....
> > seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
> > talk and not act.....
> >
> > you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
> > not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
>
> I agree, and that is why I think military action may well be necessary
> to deter further attacks like Tuesday's.
>
> In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
> arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
> commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
> down with them. Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
> future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
As I said in an earlier post to you I believe these reasons are well known and
some of them make sense from a Middle East perspective but that cannot be
helped. The fundamental thrust of US policy in the Middle East is correct
from a Western perspective and should not change.
Bill
Cliff Morrison
<num...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote > Who is that "we", and sez
> who?
> > Who's "leaders"... Tony Blair? No way.
> > What "allies"... their corporate-globalist NWO? No way.>
>
> I didn't vote for that smarmy prick either, but there is fuck-all chance of
> explaining that to a heavily armed terrorist intent on dying for his beliefs
> and taking as many of us as he can with him.
Since the New Order which Blair and his masters are steering towards
ultimately amounts to "a heavily armed State terrorist intent on opponents
of the regime dying for their beliefs .... taking as many of us as he can
with him to the gulags" your offered choice of sides doesn't seem much of
a "choice" at all.
)-:
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>
>> >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>> >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>> >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>> >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>>
>> there comes a time in human affairs when playground
>> rules are no longer relevant.....
>> several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
>> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
>
>For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
>presented with such a stark choice.
1)who 'were never presented'?
2)i do not accept this sort of 'moral equivalence'....no way....
a longer outline in another reply to you at this time....
>> >On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>> >now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
>>
>> 1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
>> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
>> 2)he is not brain of britain....
>
>However feelings are running high, and fear of such attacks in the UK
>is amongst them. Blunkett and the government may seek to placate these
>fears with draconian laws. ID cards are probably not the worst
>measures we can expect to be proposed.
afaiac such behaviour is totally dishonest and unacceptable...
a sane politician has the duty to calm hysteria....not abuse it....
>> >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
>> >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
>> >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
>> >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
>> >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
>>
>> revenge has not a thing to do with it....
>
>Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
>blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
which is reasonable afaiac....it is important that the mob is prepared
to defend their way of life....
these matters are judgements and pragmatism....
not neat rules....
>> stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
>> random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
>> serfs....
>> if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
>> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
>> they have perfectly rational choices....
>> seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
>> talk and not act.....
>>
>> you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
>> not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
>
>I agree, and that is why I think military action may well be necessary
>to deter further attacks like Tuesday's.
>
>In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
>arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
>commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
>down with them.
because they are primitive....i cannot emphasise enuf that judgements
have to be made and acted upon.....
the modern world cannot accept this lunatic behaviour.....
> Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
>future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
that maybe unavoidable....it is important that this is fully grasped
....this is not in the end, some academic argument....
this is 'do you intend to keep your modern civilisation and
standard of living and freedom...or do you not....'
the issue is stupidity or advance....
blunkett could well be part of the problem....not the solution....
there are growing numbers of islamists speaking out for sanity.....
that we can live with.....fundamentalist medieval nutters, we
cannot accept....
if the cannot be reasoned with....they must be removed with
full resolve....
crying about it, or worrying about it, is a natural human response...
but it cannot and must not be allowed to distract from the central
issue....
they must be stopped with whatever force it requires.....
the savage dancing around with a spear, however picturesque
can still run you through....
sitting down to discuss his motivations is an entirely irrelevant and
stupid occupation....at least until you have him in a cage....or
squished....
regards.
carldent
> the other died last year.
> That is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
>
> (Two brothers have been mistakenly reported as being suspected
> hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Centre.
They couldn't really ignore the coincidences, could they ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes right, but your missing the full story.
The identities of these persons were so called stollen and used by the hi
jackers of the planes. can you believe they were stollen, a little far
fetched for me.
welsh witch
"carldent" <carl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9nttt5$n9i$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
*****************************
Too far fetched? I understand it happens all the time in this
country....people discovering babies and childre who have died after
being registered nd their identity being used to btain documents
including passports.
>
>
welsh witch
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
news:3ba221e6...@news.ntlworld.com...
***********************
Maria...you can watch the full programme on www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime
NOW...I've just watched it...It wont make you sick like it makes me!!
It was sooooo disgusting.
Tam Dyall gobbling like a turkey his way through his usual claptrap he
spouts. Paddy Pantsdown notable for his great good common sense (in
being caught like so!).... doing a Neville Chamberlain we've all seen
on the films...remember.. waving a paper in triumph saying "We've got
it signed by Herr Hitler"-The """pease"" treaty that is!! Appeasement
is no answer to the terrorist threat.
That awful woman Yasmin Alibhai-Brown saying that the Americans should
ask themselves why everyone hates them.I don't hate them, none of my
friends and relatives don't hate them in fact quite the reverse. They
are in general a warm spontaneous patriotic people.
We're habouring in our country a nest of vipers not the least some of
our own who ought to be "treated" for high treason.
Even Tony Blair says those who harbour and are supporting these
terrorists should be hunted down and brought to justice....is he
deaf...I implore him to listen to the programme put out from a
building a short distance from his own house!
Remember even your Christian Jesus Christ is reported to have said "He
who is not for me is against me"
Guess he'd know which side I am on.
http://members.aol.com/jstokes202/venator.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk
Ian Pegel
>
> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
Courts are for losers. The US don't need courts they've got the military
arsenal to blow the murdering scum off the face of the earth.
Ian
Marc Living
wrote:
>How often has the UK backed the
>US in the middle east and elsewhere? What impact will that have had on
>how the Islamic fundamentalists view trhe UK?
Not that often in the Middle East - British attitudes to Israel have
been ambivalent at best. Stringing up ncos from the Argylls and
Sutherlands is not the best way to win (British) friends and influence
people.
IMO, this incident will have cauterised that wound: and that
long-standing enmities with the Israelis will be completely subsumed
by the (what Americans call) "clear and present danger" from Islamic
militants.
As regards how they already view the UK, surprisingly enough, many
middle easterners take a Farrakhand-type view of Britain - namely that
Britain is a "secret hand" behind everything which happens.
Whilst it is quite flattering for the British to be placed in the
position of the Illuminati/Bilderbergers/Tibetan
masters/Lizards/Insert conspiracy here, it does have practical
effects; since it means (I'm told) that they fear British machinations
even more than US military might.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK." to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
Cliff Morrison
spanos" <kits...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cliffm-1409...@th-gt145-018.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> Cliff- no offence son- but don't get involved in this thread.
> You've got about as much to contribute as a five-year-old sea horse.
Sorry Kit, didn't mean to overfly.
James Hammerton
> James Hammerton wrote:
>
> > pl...@plonk.com (Maria) writes:
> >
[snip]
> > As to ID cards, I wonder whether a group that is well enough organised
> > to hi-jack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into major buildings in the US
> > would really be incapable of forging them or otherwise circumventing
> > them?
> >
> > > For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> > > Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> > > for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> > > the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
> >
> > They have been remarkably successful in giving us some signs of
> > progress over their investigation haven't they? The American people
> > will be reassured that the investigation is going so well so quickly.
> >
> > The US/UK and their allies are on a war footing. The rhetoric is
> > explicit. A war has been declared against terrorism.
> >
> > I seem to recall a phrase about the first casualty of war...
>
> ISTM from this posting that you have a realistic understanding of
> the present situation. Some civil liberties are indeed going to be
> infringed.
It was one of my first thoughts as the shock of Tuesday's events
started to lift. Some of the measures may be justifiable, but I expect
many that are not to be wheeled in under the cover of fighting
terrorism in response to Tuesday's events.
> Also, you
> can depend that there will be propaganda in upcoming months to keep the
> population focused on the fundamentals of the situation and not permitted to
> waiver in their present overwhelming support for government action to do
> whatever is necessary to bring the present danger under control. This is
> natural and necessary in times of emergency. There is a natural tendency
> towards wanting/expecting quick solutions. Solving this problem is going to
> be at best extremely difficult.
Agreed.
> I remember reading stories that when the British enlisted for service at the
> outset of the first world war their only worry was that the war would last
> long enough for them to have a personal part in it. They needn't have
> worried.
It is quite possible this conflict will last for a long time.
James Hammerton
> James Hammerton wrote:
>
> > abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
> > >
> > > >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> > > >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> > > >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> > > >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
> > >
> > > there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> > > rules are no longer relevant.....
> > > several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> > > problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
> >
> > For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
> > presented with such a stark choice.
>
> You have a point and it is a fact that life isn't always fair. To
> the extent that America tolerated IRA assistance within its borders
> is clearly wrong. By no means is America immune from committing
> error and even evil. Britain responded to American non action
> regarding IRA support as best it could. America will respond to
> this terrorist attack on its territory as best it can.
There's not much I can say to that really!
> > > > Because the
> > > >US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> > > >aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> > > >passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> > > >government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> > > >for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> > > >Bush?
>
> I don't understand this fuss about ID cards. As a matter of fact
> virtually everyone in the US possesses Identification of some sort
> all ready. If you don't have proper ID you are very limited in your
> ability to function in a modern society. I imagine much the same is
> true in Britain. I don't like the idea of government requiring ID
> but citizen ID is really virtually defacto here anyway.
I think you're viewing ID cards merely as means of identification
here. But when a government requires you to have them and keep them
with you at all times they become much more. They become a means by
which the state controls its citizens. It enables government officials
to stop you as you go about your business without needing an excuse, a
power which will almost certainly be abused. In the UK however it is
already the case you can be stopped and searched without excuse
Should you forget/lose your card it will at minimum cause you a lot of
hassle -- losing the mainly voluntary forms of ID we have for specific
purposes alreadsy causes hassle for you, but here there'd be the
additional risk of being detained in a police cell for failure to
produce the ID card.
The other aspect of it is that most proposals involve using the cards
to provide access to detailed databases of information about the
individual concerned, and the privacy issues involved with allowing
the state to record and use such information as it deals with its
citizens.
The following FAQ might help clarify things:
http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
Sean Gabb also has some good articles on this at www.whig.org.uk,
however the site appears to be down as I type this.
Which reminds me, abelard (if you're reading this), what's up with
Magna Carta Plus? Each time I've tried to access it over the last few
days it says it has been temporarily disabled...
> > > >
> > > >For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> > > >Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> > > >for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> > > >the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
> > >
> > > yes...strange it is...
> > >
> > > >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
> > > >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> > > >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> > > >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> > > >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
> > >
> > > revenge has not a thing to do with it....
> >
> > Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> > blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
>
> I think the American government will be focused.
I concur. I did fear an almost knee-jerk reaction from Bush, but I get
the impression he's waiting until he feels there is enough evidence
and a solid plan to act on.
I see where you are coming from with that argument, and agree with
parts of it. Rather than attempt a direct response however, I think
the following articles sums up rather better than I can the problems
with America's interventions in the middle east and elsewhere too for
that matter:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
I'm not sure I agree with the apparent implication that a military
response to Tuesday's outrage can be avoided though.
James Hammerton
> On 14 Sep 2001 20:05:37 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> typed:
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
> >>
> >> >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> >> >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> >> >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> >> >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
> >>
> >> there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> >> rules are no longer relevant.....
> >> several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> >> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
> >
> >For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
> >presented with such a stark choice.
>
> 1)who 'were never presented'?
The Irish Americans funding the IRA.
> 2)i do not accept this sort of 'moral equivalence'....no way....
So, you feel there is no moral equivalence between the Irish Americans
funding the IRA and the arab states funding Islamic terrorist groups?
> a longer outline in another reply to you at this time....
I've either missed the post or misunderstood it...
> >> >On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
> >> >now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
> >>
> >> 1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
> >> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
> >> 2)he is not brain of britain....
> >
> >However feelings are running high, and fear of such attacks in the UK
> >is amongst them. Blunkett and the government may seek to placate these
> >fears with draconian laws. ID cards are probably not the worst
> >measures we can expect to be proposed.
>
> afaiac such behaviour is totally dishonest and unacceptable...
> a sane politician has the duty to calm hysteria....not abuse it....
Agreed. But such is the UK's culture, which has already seen a
disgraceful attack on civil liberties prior to all this, that I think
it highly probable that yet more attacks will occur. The noises being
made over ID cards are an example of this.
> >> >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
> >> >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> >> >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> >> >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> >> >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
> >>
> >> revenge has not a thing to do with it....
> >
> >Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> >blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
>
> which is reasonable afaiac....it is important that the mob is prepared
> to defend their way of life....
Agreed, but the current situation is that just about any military
action the US takes on this will be supported because of the feelings
generated by Tuesday's atrocities. An unscrupulous leadership could
exploit the feelings for their own purposes. There's also a danger
that with the pressure to be seen to be responding to the threat being
so great, the politicians will embark on ill-considered actions in
order to be seen to be responding to it. It's down to whether they
react on the basis of emotion (blast 'em all to kingdom come!) or a
rational assessment of what's needed (OK how do we get at these people
effectively and deter further such actions?).
However, these are fears I have in the current situation, not
predictions of what is going to happen. On that we'll just have to
wait and see. This will be the defining period of Bush's presidency as
it will reveal what sort of President he is. I'm not certain yet about
him. I suspect this will change fairly quickly.
> these matters are judgements and pragmatism....
> not neat rules....
Agreed.
> >> stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
> >> random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
> >> serfs....
> >> if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
> >> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
> >> they have perfectly rational choices....
> >> seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
> >> talk and not act.....
> >>
> >> you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
> >> not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
> >
> >I agree, and that is why I think military action may well be necessary
> >to deter further attacks like Tuesday's.
> >
> >In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
> >arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
> >commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
> >down with them.
>
> because they are primitive....i cannot emphasise enuf that judgements
> have to be made and acted upon.....
> the modern world cannot accept this lunatic behaviour.....
Indeed. But I don't think you can ignore the impact of various
policies in creating the conditions under which such fundamentalism
takes root in terms of dealing with it in the long term. I've
referrred Bill Willis to an article in the Times by Simon Jenkins
which covers what I'm trying to drive it here quite well (though there
is an apparent implication that military action might not be needed
which I disagree with):
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
> > Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
> >future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
>
> that maybe unavoidable....
Some such further conflic possibly. But surely we should be trying to
create the conditions under which such conflicts will die down. My
impression of the middle east is that these conditions are not being
created.
> it is important that this is fully grasped
> ....this is not in the end, some academic argument....
Indeed it isn't.
> this is 'do you intend to keep your modern civilisation and
> standard of living and freedom...or do you not....'
Yup -- the conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and the West does
indeed boil down to this.
> the issue is stupidity or advance....
> blunkett could well be part of the problem....not the solution....
Quite.
> there are growing numbers of islamists speaking out for sanity.....
> that we can live with.....fundamentalist medieval nutters, we
> cannot accept....
Agreed. Why has fundamentalism taken hold though? Can that not be
addressed?
> if the cannot be reasoned with....they must be removed with
> full resolve....
> crying about it, or worrying about it, is a natural human response...
> but it cannot and must not be allowed to distract from the central
> issue....
> they must be stopped with whatever force it requires.....
>
> the savage dancing around with a spear, however picturesque
> can still run you through....
> sitting down to discuss his motivations is an entirely irrelevant and
> stupid occupation....at least until you have him in a cage....or
> squished....
I'm not suggesting having discussions with the fundamentalists in
order to ask them to be nice -- I'm suggesting we should find out why
fundamentalism has taken hold. Otherwise efforts to eradicate it with
force risk creating more fundamentalists and more conflict.
hummingbird
> the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
> US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> Bush?
>
> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
> for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
Paddy is perhaps one of the few people in british politics with
any common sense. maybe that's why he scared blair so much
and blair wouldn't have him in the cabinet.
hummingbird
"J Jarman" <num...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W9to7.14422$N01.8...@news1.cableinet.net...
as i said elsewhere, the solution to this problem is for the US
to change its foreign policy. simple as that.
Fight Racism
1.Church is "two bodies, one Black, one white- separate and divided.
2.Sudras (Untouchables Hindus)
The holocaust was sponsored by "Christians".
American slavery was "justified" by "Christians".
Islam is no more guilty of terrorism than "Christianity" is
guilty of the Inquisition, Holocaust, enslaving/brutalizing of blacks in
America,
Please visit:
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Fight White Power
Fight Brahmin Hindu Power
Fight Racism
hummingbird
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> However feelings are running high, and fear of such attacks in the UK
> is amongst them. Blunkett and the government may seek to placate these
> fears with draconian laws. ID cards are probably not the worst
> measures we can expect to be proposed.
everybody to register with local police perhaps
and ID card serial number recorded.? yuk..
> Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
maybe they could be invited over here for a turkey shoot -
or better still an FMD shoot..!
>
> In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
> arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
> commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
> down with them. Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
> future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
actually trigger more terrorist attacks.... the time to halt this
madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
Attila
"hummingbird" <hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:27yo7.54982$TB2.4...@nnrp4.clara.net...
Request denied. Fuck off.
Bill Willis
hummingbird wrote:
it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> ... the time to halt this
> madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
response that the US could possibly make.
Bill
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
> abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
>
> > On 14 Sep 2001 20:05:37 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> > typed:
> >
> > >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
> > >>
>
> Agreed, but the current situation is that just about any military
> action the US takes on this will be supported because of the feelings
> generated by Tuesday's atrocities.
IMV, this is what it has come to.
> An unscrupulous leadership could
> exploit the feelings for their own purposes. There's also a danger
> that with the pressure to be seen to be responding to the threat being
> so great, the politicians will embark on ill-considered actions in
> order to be seen to be responding to it. It's down to whether they
> react on the basis of emotion (blast 'em all to kingdom come!) or a
> rational assessment of what's needed (OK how do we get at these people
> effectively and deter further such actions?).
I too hope this doesn't happen. I don't think it will and while American's are
terribly sad and anger is rising, this will subside. Americans are not by
nature vengeful or take pleasure in the needless suffering of others. We do
demand that this problem be eliminated and will be quite prepared to countenance
the suffering of innocents if it serves the greater purpose of eliminating or
even lessening world terrorism.
>
>
> However, these are fears I have in the current situation, not
> predictions of what is going to happen. On that we'll just have to
> wait and see. This will be the defining period of Bush's presidency as
> it will reveal what sort of President he is. I'm not certain yet about
> him. I suspect this will change fairly quickly.
Indeed. I felt much the same way. Personally I was very much for the other guy
and I was not happy at the outcome of the last election. Since this disaster, I
believe he has risen marvelously to the occasion and he really seems to me to be
right for the job. He has a way of personally responding to America's pain and
I believe he has formed an administration that is capable of of providing a
directed military response that will eventually produce more good than harm.
Recent previous American responses to catastrophe has been sudden forceful (and
frankly rather meaningless) punitive action that has done little to resolve the
problem of international terrorism. The key is persistence and determination.
So called international norms are going to be violated regularly and the world
must realize that this is unavoidable. If our way of life is to continue we
must not allow ourselves this vulnerability..
I read yesterday the article by Simon Jenkins. His POV indeed is similar to
what you are trying to express. There was also another *lead* commentary in
the Times that day. I forget who wrote it but that is the commentary that I
think needs to be emphasized. Please read that comment and tell me what you
think.
>
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
>
> > > Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
> > >future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
> >
> > that maybe unavoidable....
>
> Some such further conflic possibly. But surely we should be trying to
> create the conditions under which such conflicts will die down. My
> impression of the middle east is that these conditions are not being
> created.
Perhaps, but what do you suggest. For myself I would do nothing to change US
policy towards Israel. I would do nothing to change ceaselessly hounding
Saddam Hussein although I would do what is possible to help the Iraqi people as
long as it does nothing to strengthen Saddam. I'm not sure that this is
possible,
>
>
> > it is important that this is fully grasped
> > ....this is not in the end, some academic argument....
>
> Indeed it isn't.
>
> > this is 'do you intend to keep your modern civilisation and
> > standard of living and freedom...or do you not....'
>
> Yup -- the conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and the West does
> indeed boil down to this.
>
> > the issue is stupidity or advance....
> > blunkett could well be part of the problem....not the solution....
>
> Quite.
>
Quite 2.
> > there are growing numbers of islamists speaking out for sanity.....
> > that we can live with.....fundamentalist medieval nutters, we
> > cannot accept....
>
> Agreed. Why has fundamentalism taken hold though? Can that not be
> addressed?
>
Not really IMV, the Islamic fundamentalists are above all else against
modernism and against Western values and civilization. The only way we can
appease this impasse is to change ourselves and I for one do not want to
change. Even after seeing the two proud towers of my beloved New York City
crumble to the ground and thousands of my honored fellow countrymen killed I do
not want to change.
> > if the cannot be reasoned with....they must be removed with
> > full resolve....
> > crying about it, or worrying about it, is a natural human response...
> > but it cannot and must not be allowed to distract from the central
> > issue....
> > they must be stopped with whatever force it requires.....
> >
> > the savage dancing around with a spear, however picturesque
> > can still run you through....
> > sitting down to discuss his motivations is an entirely irrelevant and
> > stupid occupation....at least until you have him in a cage....or
> > squished....
>
> I'm not suggesting having discussions with the fundamentalists in
> order to ask them to be nice -- I'm suggesting we should find out why
> fundamentalism has taken hold. Otherwise efforts to eradicate it with
> force risk creating more fundamentalists and more conflict.
Are you really in doubt why Islamic fundamentalism has taken hold? It is the
classic case of reaction by a displaced culture feeling humiliated at their own
impotence in the presence of a more advanced culture. This is not unique in
history.
Bill
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
> Bill Willis <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
> > James Hammerton wrote:
> >
> > > abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
> > > >
> > > > >I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> > > > >the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> > > > >to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> > > > >bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
> > > >
> > > > there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> > > > rules are no longer relevant.....
> > > > several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> > > > problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
> > >
> > > For a long time Irish Americans assisted the IRA, but they were never
> > > presented with such a stark choice.
> >
> > You have a point and it is a fact that life isn't always fair. To
> > the extent that America tolerated IRA assistance within its borders
> > is clearly wrong. By no means is America immune from committing
> > error and even evil. Britain responded to American non action
> > regarding IRA support as best it could. America will respond to
> > this terrorist attack on its territory as best it can.
>
> There's not much I can say to that really!
Indeed. Because it is the simple truth.
>
>
> > > > > Because the
> > > > >US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> > > > >aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> > > > >passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> > > > >government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> > > > >for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> > > > >Bush?
> >
> > I don't understand this fuss about ID cards. As a matter of fact
> > virtually everyone in the US possesses Identification of some sort
> > all ready. If you don't have proper ID you are very limited in your
> > ability to function in a modern society. I imagine much the same is
> > true in Britain. I don't like the idea of government requiring ID
> > but citizen ID is really virtually defacto here anyway.
>
> I think you're viewing ID cards merely as means of identification
> here. But when a government requires you to have them and keep them
> with you at all times they become much more. They become a means by
> which the state controls its citizens. It enables government officials
> to stop you as you go about your business without needing an excuse, a
> power which will almost certainly be abused. In the UK however it is
> already the case you can be stopped and searched without excuse
Well that is an entirely different matter if you are suggesting that authorities
can interfere with citizens without sufficient due cause. That would be
intolerable.
>
>
> Should you forget/lose your card it will at minimum cause you a lot of
> hassle -- losing the mainly voluntary forms of ID we have for specific
> purposes alreadsy causes hassle for you, but here there'd be the
> additional risk of being detained in a police cell for failure to
> produce the ID card.
>
> The other aspect of it is that most proposals involve using the cards
> to provide access to detailed databases of information about the
> individual concerned, and the privacy issues involved with allowing
> the state to record and use such information as it deals with its
> citizens.
>
> The following FAQ might help clarify things:
>
Enough said. If ID cards carry remotely the implications that you state than I
understand and agree fully.
> http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
>
> Sean Gabb also has some good articles on this at www.whig.org.uk,
> however the site appears to be down as I type this.
>
> Which reminds me, abelard (if you're reading this), what's up with
> Magna Carta Plus? Each time I've tried to access it over the last few
> days it says it has been temporarily disabled...
>
> > > > >
> > > > >For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> > > > >Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> > > > >for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> > > > >the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
> > > >
> > > > yes...strange it is...
> > > >
> > > > >To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
> > > > >for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> > > > >mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> > > > >answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> > > > >exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
> > > >
> > > > revenge has not a thing to do with it....
> > >
> > > Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> > > blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
> >
> > I think the American government will be focused.
>
> I concur. I did fear an almost knee-jerk reaction from Bush, but I get
> the impression he's waiting until he feels there is enough evidence
> and a solid plan to act on.
>
I have said much the same in another response in this same thread.
Again I wrote you in another posting that I have seen this article and I refer
you to the lead commentary in the Times that same day. This is the comment that
I think needs to be emphasized.
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
>
> I'm not sure I agree with the apparent implication that a military
> response to Tuesday's outrage can be avoided though.
>
Well I cannot imagine given the enormity of what has happened any alternative.
What do you think can be done given the realities of America's new awakening to
its own vulnerability? You must take into consideration what will the citizens
of New York and America stand for..
Bill
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
> > I remember reading stories that when the British enlisted for service at the
> > outset of the first world war their only worry was that the war would last
> > long enough for them to have a personal part in it. They needn't have
> > worried.
>
> It is quite possible this conflict will last for a long time.
This is my point. If the US is planning to make a military gesture and then go
back to business as usual I would prefer that we do nothing and just lick our
wounds as best we can. And if other nations in the world are not prepared to stand
with us for the long haul I would prefer that they tell us now rather than later.
I know that when you sign on as an ally you do not always know what you are getting
into and it must be hard when others take the leadership role and to an extent
control your destiny. Still that is the way it has to be. President Bush said
that today at the American Memorial Service for the dead - to the effect that
Others determined when and where this conflict began but that America will
determine the time and place when this conflict is over - and so it will be.
Bill
Maria
<num...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"We" are at war.
With whose consent?
> You, me, everyone in the western world. The 'enemy' fired
>the first shots and have declared us all targets;
When was that?
>there is no avenue of
>negotiation, no option of surrender, no way out. Like it or not Britain is
>as much bound by treaty as we were in 1914 and 1939.
Which Treaty?
>It is scary; as a husband, father and army reservist I like the idea a hell
>of a lot less than you do, but it's real, it happened. All we can do now is
>hope, pray and support our leaders and our allies.
>May God bless us and help us all.
I don't believe in God...
Maria
<julsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Once upon a time "Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> said:
>
>
>>
>> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>>
>
>Courts are for losers.
Why?
>The US don't need courts they've got the military
>arsenal to blow the murdering scum off the face of the earth.
And in doing so, they will probably blow a lot of innocent people off
the face of the earth too.
Why is it important to 'blow them off the face of the earth'? Is this
more satisfying than bringing them to justice through due process
andknowing you have the right person?
I was under the impression that the courts are there to establish the
true guilt of the accused, rather than the imagined guilt.
Of course there is still a possibility that the wrong person will be
punished, but at least the evidence gets to see the light of day and
the accused has an opportunity to make out a defence.
I have no objections to bringing murdering scum to justice; I just
prefer to ensure that the right person is punished.
Given the US history of blaming the wrong person, attacking them
unilaterally, and then refusing to even apologise, the implications of
taking even further action against innocent parties worries and
offfends me.
Maria
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
>>I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>>the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>>to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>>bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
>there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> rules are no longer relevant.....
1) Why are they irrelevant? How can having hard evidence against a
person and bringing them to justice without harming innocents be
irrelevant?
2) If we say that at times, the rules are irrelevant, how can people
know when they are breaking the rules? The children only respond to
the rules when the rules are consistent. If they know there are times
when no-one cares of if you break the rules, then they use that to
their advantage...
2) On the playground, you can see your opponent...you know who he is.
This is not a playground; this real life for grown-ups. This is a time
for keeping the testosterone (and the tears) under control.
>several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
The US assists 'terrorists'. Some people in Britain assist
'terrorists'. 'Terrorists' exist everywhere. If you want to blow up
all countries that assist terrorists, there will be no people left on
the earth. Countries don't make choices; people do. The US government
may not assist the IRA (or maybe it does), but some of the constituent
peoples of the US assist terrorists for it is their choice. Should we
blow up the US for assisting terrorists, or extricate the people who
actually assist the terrorists?
One day, it might sink in that countries are made of people, not
governments or business. Who is mad/bad? Saddam or Iraq? Serbia or
Milosevic? Britain or Bliar?
Bush & Co. are already saying that they believe (and have evidence?)
that Bin Liner is behind the bombings. The poor wretches sitting in
the stinking desert in blanket cities with no food or medicine are the
target? Where is the justice in that? If people are satisfied by
blowing up such people, then what does that say about them? What about
this 'civilisation' you espouse? You have often said (I think!) that
Islam is dark-ages stuff that holds back civilisation; and then we
descend into the dark ages by going on even more crusades?
Surely the modern and civlised thing is the Rule of Law and the even
application thereof; also jaw jaw (which the US was perfectly capable
of when negotiating the installation of an oil pipeline across
Afghanistan)..
If you treat terrorists as being outside the law and refuse to talk to
them, then why should they even attempt to follow due process and
legitimate channels themselves to achieve their ends? They might as
well just fly a plane into the WTC...
And then you have the Palestinian example, where the people did follow
due process, and legitimate channels, and the law found in favour of
them, and they still lost. How can anybody even ask why the
Palestinians have resorted to 'terrorism'? If they used tanks and
planes, would it be a military operation rather than a 'terrorist'
one? Would they earn more respect?
>>On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>>now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
>
>1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
>2)he is not brain of britain....
The people (in general) will be happy to co-operate in this matter
because they can see what happens when your security is compromised by
laxness on the part of business/government.
>> Because the
>>US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
>>aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
>>passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
>>government think that yes we will become a much more important target
>>for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
>>Bush?
>>
>>For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>>Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>>for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>>the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
>yes...strange it is...
And it seems that some of them are wrong already.
Does anybody mind if we mistakenly blow non-murdering-scum off the
face of the earth while making further enemies in the process?
>>To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
>>for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
>>mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
>>answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
>>exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
>
>revenge has not a thing to do with it....
Sorry ab but I don't believe you.
I have seen, read and heard the word 'retribution' so many times this
week....
>stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
Who are 'they'?
>random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
> serfs....
What do you suggest then?
NB. mostly arresting a few serfs has satisfied the people before; what
is different now? The sheer scale of it?
>if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
There is nothing soft about not wanting to punish innocent people.
>they have perfectly rational choices....
>seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
> talk and not act.....
Who are 'they'? How can anybody talk to anybody if they don't know who
they are?
>you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
Do you mean 'my dik is bigger than your dik' (even if I don't know
where your dik is or what it looks like)?
>not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
Surely the nature of ethics and law is that they are constants
(albeint ones that evolve slowly over time) in society that guide
society and attempt to prevent excesses and kneejerk reactions...they
hold the fabric of society together...what is the alternative? If
governments and armies may take this approach, then why not the
individual?
>ethics and law are luxuries of civilised societies....
Use it or lose it, I say.
>they wish to be treated with respect...*first* they act
> with respect.....
Some of them have tried to act with respect; it has got them nowhere.
>if they do not...they will be crushed....unless you intend
> to sit still for the next effort...and the next effort...etc.....
Such is life.
Ok so try to wipe them out; the cause won't go away and fresh humans
will just pop up to replace those you exterminate. Causes are stronger
than people.
>if you do, then convert to islam and invite bin lardin in to
> run your civilised country.....
1) Who says we must do that?
2) That isn't even his aim. AFAIK he has shown no interest in running
other peoples countries; he is against 'the contamination of Islamic
states by Western ideology'. He wants rid of us, not to control our
countries.
>freedom and affluence has a price.....
>pay the...or lose the freedom.....
The freedom to do what?
>this is *not* an academic exercise....
Law and the application of is not either.
>the quicker this cotton wool society gets this through
> their thik heads...the less will be the long term price.....
>
>pay now...or pay a great deal more in the future....
>you also have a choice...and that is it.....
What are the choices? Being civilised or not being civilised? How many
times can we use other peoples behaviour as an excuse to be
uncivilised? Shall we all become anarchists?
Cedric
<num...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"We" are at war. You, me, everyone in the western world. The 'enemy' fired
>the first shots and have declared us all targets; there is no avenue of
>negotiation, no option of surrender, no way out. Like it or not Britain is
>as much bound by treaty as we were in 1914 and 1939.
>It is scary; as a husband, father and army reservist I like the idea a hell
>of a lot less than you do, but it's real, it happened. All we can do now is
>hope, pray and support our leaders and our allies.
>May God bless us and help us all.
>--
>Sj
That is true, I am sure that the NATO forces can blow these countries
to smithereens. But the thing that concerns me is that the principles
that these terrorists stand for will still be present. We may
eliminate the current generation of terrorists, but I can imagine that
20 years down the line we will be facing the same problem, except with
people aggrieved by the 2001 war, and people that may have obtained
more advanced weaponry.
billy
> the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response;
to
> bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
tuesday
Maria the Queer,
Paddy Pantsdown came out with his usual, sanctimonious claptrap about
international courts. International courts are only as effective as
the most powerful nations allow them to be. For instance: What
international court would "dare" attempt putting into effect an
injunction to forbid those in America - who may decide to take
unilateral action against those they believe are responsible for the
NY attack - from taking such action.
And does anyone think that dragging a few Islamics before a court
which the Arabs see as a "Western Institution" will stop other
fanatics from being fanatical? Only an idiot like Paddy Pantsdown (and
yourself) would think so.
The world is the same as it has always been: those with power using
that power in the way they wish it to be used and for their own
advantage; and also full of people who, for the most times, behave
disgracefully and only do anything good when it is in their own
interests to do it.
If you do not believe this is the case, look at history and compare it
with the present time.
There is a story about a Chinese gentleman at Havard University in the
1930s who was asked what was the affect of the French Revolution of
1789. His reply was: "It is too early to tell".
Likewise, if someone asks what is the affect of the Crusades, the
answer is: "It is still being worked out; but one of its affects is
what happened in NY."
The final act will be a war between Islam and what might loosely be
called "The Christian West" (which includes Russia) for final
supremacy. Countries like China and India will have to decide whose
side they are on (we can forget about the basket-case called Africa -
which will always be a basket-case).
In the meantime, America is the powerful guardian of the "Christian
West" and we need to support it in its move to built the Missile
Defence System and every action it takes to give the Islamics severe
punishment for every atrocity they commit.
Forget about the sanctimonious utterances of people like Paddy
Pantsdown. All they will do is look for "excuses" for the Islamic
actions, and thereby encourage further actions, and also encourage the
infiltration of Islam into the West.
And forget about preaching "peace and love for all mankind". That
preaching has been going on for over 2000 years and it has had about
as much affect on human behaviour as preaching about abstaining from
sex.
Our hope is in maintaining what was maintained in the Cold War: the
fear of mutual destruction between opposing ideologies with a Nation
(sharing our values and who is on our side - and we on theirs) who
holds the balancing destructive power.
Peace will only be maintained as it has always been maintained: by a
power willing to enforce it and put down those who threaten it.
Britain, at one time, did this with the Pax Britannica. Now it is the
time for the Pax America. And we are lucky the Pax America is a
continuation of the values which energised the British when it was
Britain's "responsibility" the keep the peace and punish those who
threaten it.
So, if the Chinese gentleman was still around and he was asked if the
world had changed, his answer would be: "Only in its scenery".
If he had become Americanised, he might also add "Get real!"
regards, billy
***********************
Peter Smith
> I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
> the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
> to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
> bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
> This was my first thought when I was watching events unfold on tuesday
> US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
> aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
> passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
> government think that yes we will become a much more important target
> for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
> Bush?
>
> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
> for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
> mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
> answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
> exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
Isn't Pantsdown a Sir now? Anyway, the problem with the courts and
tribunals and whatnot is that no thinking person takes them seriously
because they're all kangaroo courts that would never indict an
American.
J Jarman
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote (in response to) >Like it or not Britain is
> >as much bound by treaty as we were in 1914 and 1939.
>
> Which Treaty?
>
hummingbird
> hummingbird wrote:
>
> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
>
> That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
2, it's debatable if the US is in fact the world's largest deocratic
republic in history - and there is an alternative - as i said earlier.
> > ... the time to halt this
> > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
>
> I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> response that the US could possibly make.
in other words, the US will continue to strut around the world stage
regardless of anybody. expect a lot more attacks of varying forms.
JBennett
UK. I would also mention that before Pearl Harbor, and Germany declaring
war on the US ten days later, the primary reason the US support for the UK
was limited to lend lease, escorting US ship convoys part of the way, and
being the *Arsenal of Democracy,* was that a very large part of our
population had exactly the attitude of you, Maria. W.W.II was, after all, a
European/UK concern; no need for the US getting our boys killed or spending
national treasure beyond our shores. And, of course, after the war we did
fund a thing called the Marshal Plan which went into rebuilding the
economies of European countries......but we didn't give any of that aid to
the UK, I suppose. Then we also fund 1/4 of the UN budget and have been the
knockout punch of NATO which has assured your peace for the last 50 or 60
years or so. Nothing much of value in that, I suppose, Stalin probably
wasn't really a threat to Germany or other European countries. But, you're
right, Maria, if this attack had been upon the UK, the US response would
have been to send you messages wishing you all *good luck* with your country
specific UK terrorists, we wouldn't have loaded up C-5's with men and
equipment and sent them to your island. After all, we've never done that
kind of thing for the countries of South America, Europe, Africa, the
Mid-East, or anywhere else, so why would we lend a hand to the UK. Nothing
special about you guys, as far as we're concerned. Never has been. And
when you had that little thing in the Falklands, you could have managed
quite well without the use of US bases, US intelligence, or US built
sidewinder missiles.......we, for all practical purposes, were of no
assistance to the UK then either, I guess.
But, while we're kicking such thoughts around, let me offer one that you
might not have considered. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this
attack was intended to provoke the US--the leader of western
democracies--into action which the Islamic fanatics can claim is an attack
on their belief, with the intent to unify the Moslem nations, under their
leadership, against the Christian nations in a Holy War. Suppose they are
successful in convincing others of this and, just suppose, that the US loses
it in a protracted war. Suppose that the UK is next on the list of targeted
*Satan* nations.....or take your pick of any other country. And, with the
US out of it, who will help you? The ruling of a court in the Hague? But,
of course........the terrorists have the greatest respect for the rule of
law. Islamic law as THEY interpret it, that is, not your silly assed ones.
Eventually women will get used to the veil and your granddaughters will grow
to think mutilation of the female genitalia is something to take pride in.
A bit painful but part of the right of passage into womanhood.
Bye the way, wasn't it Churchill that had something to say about, if you
will not fight when victory could be easily achieved, why would you fight
when it would cost you your life? Well, it isn't the first time the old boy
didn't know what he was talking about. But that choice of who's fight it is
and when to join it can probably be put off for your children's children to
make......we owe them nothing since we inherited nothing from our
antecedents and did it all on our own.
You can sleep well tonight, Maria, the US is still in business.
Jack B *USA*news:vGqo7.12627$N01.7...@news1.cableinet.net...
> "We" are at war. You, me, everyone in the western world. The 'enemy'
fired
> the first shots and have declared us all targets; there is no avenue of
is
> as much bound by treaty as we were in 1914 and 1939.
hell
> of a lot less than you do, but it's real, it happened. All we can do now
is
> hope, pray and support our leaders and our allies.
> May God bless us and help us all.
> --
> Sj
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
alan goss
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
>>I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>>the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>>to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>>bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>
>there comes a time in human affairs when playground
> rules are no longer relevant.....
Don't be stupid. It's the lack of application of law that gives the
terrorist his reason for action. When the law does not defend you then
what can you do? 35 years of northern ireland should have taught you
that.
>several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
Indeed. If the United States had not assisted terrorists for the last
50 years it is quite possible this tragedy would never have occurred.
The USA now has that choice too.
>
>>On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>>now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
ID cards are magic and will deflect crashing aircraft
>
>1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
>2)he is not brain of britain....
>
>> Because the
>>US had such lax security that these people were not only able to board
>>aeroplanes but hijack them, even though their names were on the
>>passenger lists? Why must we be forced to carry ID cards? Does the
>>government think that yes we will become a much more important target
>>for extremists as a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with
>>Bush?
>>
>>For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>>Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>>for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>>the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>
>yes...strange it is...
>
>>To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
>>for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
>>mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
>>answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
>>exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
>
>revenge has not a thing to do with it....
>stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
>random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
> serfs....
>if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
>they have perfectly rational choices....
>seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
> talk and not act.....
>
>you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
>not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
It *is* about ethics and law.
>
>ethics and law are luxuries of civilised societies....
>they wish to be treated with respect...*first* they act
> with respect.....
>if they do not...they will be crushed....unless you intend
> to sit still for the next effort...and the next effort...etc.....
>if you do, then convert to islam and invite bin lardin in to
> run your civilised country.....
If you don't apply law, then you will just feed more fanaticism. Too
many innocents have been killed by state terrorism financed by the
west and in particular the USA..
>
>freedom and affluence has a price.....
>pay the...or lose the freedom.....
How free are we and how affluent in comparison with others? Have fun
with your ID cards.
>
>this is *not* an academic exercise....
>the quicker this cotton wool society gets this through
> their thik heads...the less will be the long term price.....
>
>pay now...or pay a great deal more in the future....
>you also have a choice...and that is it.....
The price is not what you think it is.
>
>regards...
--
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
abelard
<hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> typed:
>"Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote in message news:3BA2C2B3...@bcpl.lib.md.us...
>
>> hummingbird wrote:
>>
>> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
>> actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
>>
>> That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
>> possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
>> run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
>> spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
>
>1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
>if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
>new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
you don't grasp the reality...this is not negotiation...
this is.......can it, or die....
>2, it's debatable if the US is in fact the world's largest deocratic
>republic in history - and there is an alternative - as i said earlier.
irrelevance
>> > ... the time to halt this
>> > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
>>
>> I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
>> either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
>> will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
>> Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
>> response that the US could possibly make.
>
>in other words, the US will continue to strut around the world stage
>regardless of anybody. expect a lot more attacks of varying forms.
that is mere characterisation.....
if there are more attacks...they up the anti....and it
will cost them more....and more...and more.....
they will lose....and it is vital that they lose....
and that they know they have lost and will lose.....
until they stop...or there are no more of them.....
this is no playground game....
regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
>> 2)i do not accept this sort of 'moral equivalence'....no way....
>
>So, you feel there is no moral equivalence between the Irish Americans
>funding the IRA and the arab states funding Islamic terrorist groups?
that is so...
>Agreed. But such is the UK's culture, which has already seen a
>disgraceful attack on civil liberties prior to all this, that I think
>it highly probable that yet more attacks will occur. The noises being
>made over ID cards are an example of this.
one can only hope they desist...or the british will
resist....
the uk pols are stepping over the line....
i know not whether through rank stupidity or through
venality....
their foolishness will not stick in the long run....and
has the potential to cause many inefficiencies
and much hurt in the short run....
>> which is reasonable afaiac....it is important that the mob is prepared
>> to defend their way of life....
>
>Agreed, but the current situation is that just about any military
>action the US takes on this will be supported because of the feelings
>generated by Tuesday's atrocities.
i am unconvinced....america will undermine its leadership role
if it acts foolishly or impulsively....
i have more fear that they...and others in the west....
will refrain from acting with sufficient will and force.....
> An unscrupulous leadership could
>exploit the feelings for their own purposes.
america is not britain....it is british governments that have
behaved recently in this manner....
the us is a much freer and more open society....
> There's also a danger
>that with the pressure to be seen to be responding to the threat being
>so great, the politicians will embark on ill-considered actions in
>order to be seen to be responding to it. It's down to whether they
>react on the basis of emotion (blast 'em all to kingdom come!) or a
>rational assessment of what's needed (OK how do we get at these people
>effectively and deter further such actions?).
it is essential to understand that 'blast them all to kingdom come',
is a real option if rationality does not prove effective....
>However, these are fears I have in the current situation, not
>predictions of what is going to happen.
understood and agreed....
but there is a world of difference between impulsive ineffective
pin pricks....and 'whatever is required...however violent'......
> On that we'll just have to
>wait and see. This will be the defining period of Bush's presidency as
>it will reveal what sort of President he is. I'm not certain yet about
>him. I suspect this will change fairly quickly.
i have yet to see any reason to seriously worry about bush....
but it is early days yet....there is not yet enuf information.....
also...bush is no elective dictator such as we have in the uk.....
it is poor reasoning to analogise the uk mess with the usa system...
>Indeed. But I don't think you can ignore the impact of various
>policies in creating the conditions under which such fundamentalism
>takes root in terms of dealing with it in the long term.
i regard that as supremely irrelevant....
the relevant issue is to stop them with all necessary force....
fundamentalism is a mental disease in the modern world.....
it comes in many forms.....
it is completely incompatible with advancing civilisation....
it is not negotiable in the longer term....
compromising with it in the shorter term is increasingly
dangerous and foolish....
these primitives may need time to adjust....we may be able
to tolerate them in small numbers as care in the community.....
they must (increasingly) have zero input into policy....
i want franchise by examination.....
> I've
>referrred Bill Willis to an article in the Times by Simon Jenkins
>which covers what I'm trying to drive it here quite well (though there
>is an apparent implication that military action might not be needed
>which I disagree with):
>
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
i'll look...
>> > Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
>> >future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
>>
>> that maybe unavoidable....
>
>Some such further conflic possibly.
this is no party....this is no 'conflict'....
this is either/or....
> But surely we should be trying to
>create the conditions under which such conflicts will die down.
not necessarily.....the message must go home...unequivocally....
not only to the nutters...but also to our own populations.....
> My
>impression of the middle east is that these conditions are not being
>created.
you appear to be suggesting compromise....there is no compromise
possible with those demanding what they cannot have....
first they must submit...fully....
>> it is important that this is fully grasped
>> ....this is not in the end, some academic argument....
>
>Indeed it isn't.
however, your tone does not seem entirely to reflect this....
>> this is 'do you intend to keep your modern civilisation and
>> standard of living and freedom...or do you not....'
>
>Yup -- the conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and the West does
>indeed boil down to this.
yet here you seem clearly to understand the parameters....
have you worked through the consequences of those parameters?
am i misreading something?
>> the issue is stupidity or advance....
>> blunkett could well be part of the problem....not the solution....
>
>Quite.
i am glad that is clear...
>> there are growing numbers of islamists speaking out for sanity.....
>> that we can live with.....fundamentalist medieval nutters, we
>> cannot accept....
>
>Agreed. Why has fundamentalism taken hold though? Can that not be
>addressed?
not really....it is in the nature of the situation....
we are...as bill is also suggesting...dealing with a proud and
backward culture....
>I'm not suggesting having discussions with the fundamentalists in
>order to ask them to be nice -- I'm suggesting we should find out why
>fundamentalism has taken hold. Otherwise efforts to eradicate it with
>force risk creating more fundamentalists and more conflict.
that risk is inherent in the situation.....
more 'fundamentalists' must just end up causing the fundamentalists
increasing pain....
you cannot reason with a young child....
you don't give young children guns to play with.....
if they have guns...you take them away....
if the child points a gun at you...you kill it....
you may weep afterwards....but first you kill it....
these children are playing bumper cars with aeroplanes and tall
buildings...
they are getting vast wealth from appeasing them for oil.....
and attempting to spend the money on suitcase nuclear
bombs and sarin and anthrax....
they are bulls in a china shop....
the bull maybe a magnificent site....but you still shoot it....
regards...
Maria
wrote:
Oh dear....
I'm not going to debate any of that since ISTR that it has been gone
over ad nauseum on Usenet and in this group.
Please note that I did *not* say that it was none of the UK's
business; I said that the attack was carried out on US soil but even
so, people of many nationalities died in it. I am not sure that the
two situations are comparable; Germany is a clearly defined country
with borders and a government; we were at war with Germany.
No one country has declared war on the US (or Britain), neither has
one person. We don't even know who is responsible yet, though it's
apparent that the US considers that Bin Liner is responsible (I do
hope they continue to look for clues, and not only focus on ones with
Arab connections...)
The question was that since it was a terrorist attack, and each
sovereign nation has dealt with terrrorist attacks within it's borders
in its own way, should we be declaring war on an unseen, undefined
person/country (or be standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with a country
that is...) and are we inviting possible reprisals where we have had
none so far (AFAIK). If you are asking me not to be concerned about
the future of my country, then you are being unrealistic; you are
concerned for the future of your country, but many of these issues are
between the US and the perpetrators. Like having a long term barney
with your next-door neighbour and then asking the rest of the town to
get involved when things get out of hand (which they evidently have).
There are other considerations here; the US government has declared
that anyone harbouring terrorists will suffer retaliation; Britain is
(apparently) well known as an operational base for the Taleban.
The majority of suspects on the list so far produced are Saudi's; we
AIUI have a good relationship with the Saudi government; shouldwe be
considering joining in with military action against one of our
long-standing allies?
I am not saying that we should not fight with the US against this
unseen terror, but that I think it is wrong to give unconditional
support for military action that has yet to be defined.
I am also saying that I think it is wrong to punish a country that has
active terrorists within its borders since that country and
individuals of that country are not responsible for the actions of a
tiny minority; that is why I suggest that the courts be used to bring
them to book.
If I say that I think it is correct to bomb countries with active
terrorist cells, does that mean that the US will bomb the UK?
Does the US intend to make an exception for the UK that deviates from
what it has declared?
As much as we might, rightly or wrongly be close allies with the US,
should we overturn our national interests in order to see the US
satisfied?
On top of all that, we have a tense situation with the million odd
muslims living here and racist conflicts going on (which also seems to
be dividing the indigenous population into racists/anti-racists). We
already (as you do) have people being called murderers when they
patently aren't.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, I do not think it as simple as 'you
are either with us, or against us'.
> But, while we're kicking such thoughts around, let me offer one that you
>might not have considered. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this
>attack was intended to provoke the US--the leader of western
>democracies--into action which the Islamic fanatics can claim is an attack
>on their belief, with the intent to unify the Moslem nations, under their
>leadership, against the Christian nations in a Holy War. Suppose they are
>successful in convincing others of this and, just suppose, that the US loses
>it in a protracted war. Suppose that the UK is next on the list of targeted
>*Satan* nations.....or take your pick of any other country. And, with the
>US out of it, who will help you? The ruling of a court in the Hague? But,
>of course........the terrorists have the greatest respect for the rule of
>law. Islamic law as THEY interpret it, that is, not your silly assed ones.
>Eventually women will get used to the veil and your granddaughters will grow
>to think mutilation of the female genitalia is something to take pride in.
>A bit painful but part of the right of passage into womanhood.
I have yet to see any evidence that Britain has/will be targeted, but
if it was, then I guess we would deal with them as we have with the
IRA as we have been doing for the last 30 years.
But then diplomacy was invented to prevent such occurrances (not that
it always will...).
> Bye the way, wasn't it Churchill that had something to say about, if you
>will not fight when victory could be easily achieved, why would you fight
>when it would cost you your life?
If this victory is achieved, it will be extremely long and hard
faught, not 'easy'.
As for it costing our lives, people are wary about going to war,
perhaps because they think that just lately, we have been going to war
in other peoples battles. One single UK forces lad lost his life
recently when some thugs threw a concrete block off a bridge in
Macedonia onto the vehicle he was travelling in. People want to know
what we are doing there. Many would argue that the stability of all of
Europe is in our national interest, but others also wonder why we are
now taking weapons away from the enemy, which was not the enemy just a
couple of years ago in another conflict nearby and who the West seemed
to be arming. Some wonder why we (and the US alone) are still bombing
Iraq regularly, long after other Nato countries have wandered off and
thought about it.
If people are confused, you can't really blame them. If they are
suspicious of Nato operations you can't reallly blame them.
> Well, it isn't the first time the old boy
>didn't know what he was talking about. But that choice of who's fight it is
>and when to join it can probably be put off for your children's children to
>make......we owe them nothing since we inherited nothing from our
>antecedents and did it all on our own.
> You can sleep well tonight, Maria, the US is still in business.
The US will always be in business...
Bill Willis
Maria wrote:
But Oh dear, it all so relevant to your nonsensical and immature posting and it
deserves being posted again.
> Please note that I did *not* say that it was none of the UK's
> business; I said that the attack was carried out on US soil but even
> so, people of many nationalities died in it.
Do you think it would make a difference for the UK if the casualties had been
100% American?
snip a lot more shallow nonsense.
I notice in your postings a frequent trend. First you make a definitive
statement followed in subsequent postings by explanations of what you really
meant (but did not say) in your original posting, These are followed by
backtracking and bobbing and weaving and trying to form a POV where there is
none. Maria you need to post less and read, listen and and above all think and
form a POV. Then, your opinions (whatever they may be) may be useful. You said
below, "if people are confused - you can't really blame them" ;-) Well listen
and learn and become unconfused. Until then you are ridiculous.
Bill
Bill Willis
hummingbird wrote:
> "Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote in message news:3BA2C2B3...@bcpl.lib.md.us...
>
> > hummingbird wrote:
> >
> > it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> > actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> >
> > That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> > possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> > run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> > spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
>
> 1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
> if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
> new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that it will harden the US haters in Britain and elsewhere in the
West either. I can stand them and people like yourself hating the US, I just cannot stand for them
attacking the US.
> 2, it's debatable if the US is in fact the world's largest deocratic
> republic in history -
I didn't say the largest, I said the greatest - and on that there is no debate worth noticing..
> and there is an alternative - as i said earlier.
Not IMO.
>
>
> > > ... the time to halt this
> > > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
> >
> > I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> > either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> > will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> > Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> > response that the US could possibly make.
>
> in other words, the US will continue to strut around the world stage
> regardless of anybody. expect a lot more attacks of varying forms.
No, those are not the correct "other words" The USt will continue to support Israel and it will
continue to use its power to insure that the Middle East is secure and that the West has access to
the oil fields that it developed and paid handsomely for..
You know much is made by people like yourself of how much America is hated around the world. There
is no question that there are many millions who find themselves on the short end of American power
and they do indeed hate the US. I have always known this and if any of my fellow countrymen have
ever doubted it (which I don't think likely), the searing image of the plane crashing into the WTC
will disabuse them. ISTM you fail to realize though how much America is admired, imitated,
respected and in many cases deeply loved and appreciated. I don't think there has ever been a
nation that appeals to people (for good and bad) on an emotional level quite the same way as the
United States.
Bill
Maria
I wanted it to be clear which part I was not going to debate.
>> Please note that I did *not* say that it was none of the UK's
>> business; I said that the attack was carried out on US soil but even
>> so, people of many nationalities died in it.
>
>Do you think it would make a difference for the UK if the casualties had been
>100% American?
No.
>snip a lot more shallow nonsense.
>
>I notice in your postings a frequent trend. First you make a definitive
>statement followed in subsequent postings by explanations of what you really
>meant (but did not say) in your original posting, These are followed by
>backtracking and bobbing and weaving and trying to form a POV where there is
>none.
I stated my POV clearly; I believe at present that recourse to the
International courts is a sensible option; I do not believe that going
to war with an unseen undefined enemy in an undefined manner is
sensible. I may change my mind because I am not entrenched in my own
dogma.
Clear?
> Maria you need to post less and read, listen and and above all think and
>form a POV. Then, your opinions (whatever they may be) may be useful. You said
>below, "if people are confused - you can't really blame them" ;-) Well listen
>and learn and become unconfused. Until then you are ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous to have not made up ones mind; IMHO it is
ridicuous to jump the gun and regret it later, especially if one *is*
undecided. I quite simply do not have sufficient iinformation to
decide what I think is an appropriate response, and I prefer not to be
told where I should stand on such matters.
Still, I'll take heed, clear off and carry on doing what I was doing,
which is reading and learning and developing my opinion.
Bill Willis
Cedric wrote:
Perhaps what you say is true. But what specific response do you suggest that the
US make to the WTC disaster and will that response in your view lead to the
elimination of terrorism both now and in 20 years down the road? My question
isn't rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in specific suggestions of a
response short of war that would lead to solving the problem without compromising
the vital interests of the US and the West. I frankly cannot think of a single
one.
Bill
Maria
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>Perhaps what you say is true. But what specific response do you suggest that the
>US make to the WTC disaster and will that response in your view lead to the
>elimination of terrorism both now and in 20 years down the road?
There isn't one. Kill all the terrorists in the world; there will
always be people who hold those opinions and some will be prepared to
act on them.
That is why I argue for for justice through the courts; it sets a
precedent that is instilled in peoples minds, which may prevent the
majority from acting illegally, and makes acting illegally socially
unacceptable.
> My question
>isn't rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in specific suggestions of a
>response short of war that would lead to solving the problem without compromising
>the vital interests of the US and the West. I frankly cannot think of a single
>one.
That is because you cannot force people to hold different opinions,
not even with threats and bombs.
You might be able to persuade them though...
Just another of my shallow opinions.
Zer0
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> you cannot reason with a young child....
.....as anyone with experience of young children will agree
> you don't give young children guns to play with.....
.....if you do, you are a fool
> if they have guns...you take them away....
.....or be prepared to die
> if the child points a gun at you...you kill it....
.....unless you can reason with it
> these children are playing bumper cars with aeroplanes and tall
> buildings...
.....you have switched to the plural: there is suddenly a classroom full of
children with guns - which makes killing one a dangerous pastime. 29 others
might fire concurrently
> they are getting vast wealth from appeasing them for oil.....
> and attempting to spend the money on suitcase nuclear
> bombs and sarin and anthrax....
The fundamentalists must be stopped before they gain chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. The water of London could be poisoned with great ease;
entire populations could be wiped out with germ warfare, but there is a
danger inherent in killing one and attempting to contain others spread
globally when we cannot even contain asylum seekers marching through the
Channel Tunnel.
To avoid the other children from firing we must ask ourselves what has made
the first child point the gun? A skilled FBI negotiator will not 'reason'
but will 'calm' a child with a gun - in contrast to a state trooper who will
point a gun back at the child's face, shout at him to drop his gun and cause
panic, which will result in confusion, lost control and certain death for
someone (not necessarily the child or the trooper.)
The answer to our question is 'rage.' It is rage that has created the
Muslim terrorists - rage with American involvement in the Middle East. Many
Muslims who are not extremists also resent this involvement.
We may decide to shoot bin Laden and some other children, but to calm all
the children and put the lid back on Pandora's Box - this is the issue we
must eventually address.
Zer0
Cedric
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
Sorry, me neither. I think war is inevitable and well deserved. But I
do not see it drawing a conclusion to the issue.
Maria
>Sorry, me neither. I think war is inevitable and well deserved. But I
>do not see it drawing a conclusion to the issue.
<i'm obviously female>
So what's the point of the war?
</i'm obviously female>
Zer0
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote:
>you cannot force people to hold different opinions,
>not even with threats and bombs.
>You might be able to persuade them though...
>Just another of my shallow opinions.
Quite the contrary, as I attempt to argue elsewhere this thread.
Zer0
Maria
Just this minute read it... :)
(erratic posting/reading due to fractious and inqusitive 14 month
old...aarrgghh)
Bill Willis
Maria wrote:
I expect nothing more. ;-)
Bill
Bill Willis
Cedric wrote:
Neither do I. But I hope it helps but even that cannot be assured but still the war
must and will happen.
Bill
James Hammerton
> hummingbird wrote:
>
> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
>
> > actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
>
> That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
>
> > ... the time to halt this
> > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
>
> I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> response that the US could possibly make.
I'm not sure I'd describe the middle east as "stable". ISTM quite the
opposite.
James
--
James Hammerton, WWW pages: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
PGP Public Key: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/mykey.asc (or: pgp5.ai.mit.edu)
Details of the attack on Britain's civil liberties at:
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/civlib.html
Bill Willis
Maria wrote:
Fair enough but in the meantime and until your opinions are a little more developed,
might I suggest that your postings be a little shorter and more directed.
Bill
Bill Willis
James Hammerton wrote:
> Bill Willis <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
> > hummingbird wrote:
> >
> > it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> >
> > > actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> >
> > That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> > possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> > run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> > spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> >
> > > ... the time to halt this
> > > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
> >
> > I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> > either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> > will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> > Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> > response that the US could possibly make.
>
> I'm not sure I'd describe the middle east as "stable". ISTM quite the
> opposite.
Of course it is not stable but it is probably as stable as can reasonably be
expected given the Israeli situation and the Western words determination to
prevent that area from interfering with world oil supply.
Bill
alan goss
Perhaps if your president made a start by admitting his country was
one of those countries that had financed terrorism over the last 40
years would help. A bit of honesty instead of hypocrisy and
electioneering on the backs of the dead would go a long way to
rebuilding trust.
Then the US could accept the jurisdiction of a world court to try
crimes against humanity. (I understand at least one country in south
america would like to see Henry Kissinger in the dock).
After the US has done this then they could join together with the rest
of the world and apply the principles of truth and justice to catching
terrorists and giving them a fair trial.
We have found in this country that killing only creates more
terrorists. 30 years of fighting and dead people prove that. The last
conservative government and the present government have both
discovered that talking and trying to reconcile differences is the
only way.
If your gunghos get their way then what will they do when someone
willing to die for a cause walks into a few major cities and releases
a plague? The 5000+ who have died in that atrocity last tuesday would
be like a fleabite. For all its power the USA has no defence against
the individuals ready to die for a cause. At the end of the day you
must remove the reason for the attackers to act. That does not mean
surrendering to whatever demands they make but it does mean listening
and talking.
abelard
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> you don't give young children guns to play with.....
>.....if you do, you are a fool
times change...
>> these children are playing bumper cars with aeroplanes and tall
>> buildings...
>
>.....you have switched to the plural: there is suddenly a classroom full of
>children with guns - which makes killing one a dangerous pastime. 29 others
>might fire concurrently
we must deal with what is...not what we might wish....
if there are 29 children with guns...it is very likely that
29 children will die....and quite likely another 30
who were in the wrong place at the wrong time....
>> they are getting vast wealth from appeasing them for oil.....
>> and attempting to spend the money on suitcase nuclear
>> bombs and sarin and anthrax....
>
>The fundamentalists must be stopped before they gain chemical, biological or
>nuclear weapons. The water of London could be poisoned with great ease;
>entire populations could be wiped out with germ warfare, but there is a
>danger inherent in killing one and attempting to contain others spread
>globally
the imperative is to stop them....
> when we cannot even contain asylum seekers marching through the
>Channel Tunnel.
that is a matter of will and organisation....
>To avoid the other children from firing we must ask ourselves what has made
>the first child point the gun?
but is a side issue...
> A skilled FBI negotiator will not 'reason'
>but will 'calm' a child with a gun
that is a luxury available if you have sufficient time
and control....
> - in contrast to a state trooper who will
>point a gun back at the child's face, shout at him to drop his gun and cause
>panic, which will result in confusion, lost control and certain death for
>someone (not necessarily the child or the trooper.)
collateral damage (to irritate the delicate)
>The answer to our question is 'rage.'
dissent....the emotion is a side issue...the actions are
the prime concern and prime focus of attention....
> It is rage that has created the
>Muslim terrorists
rage does not create...therefore this is unclear...
'rage' motivates individuals...and is a very poor councillor....
each person must be held responsible for their own acts....
even if they are crazy....
people are harbouring, training, financing and encouraging
these poor sad sods....they must still be eliminated as a
threat...as clearly must the other nut cases behind them....
>- rage with American involvement in the Middle East.
the involvement is essential and inevitable....
unless the west is not fit to survive...
> Many
>Muslims who are not extremists also resent this involvement.
their problem...their 'resentment' is immaturity....
resentment is another poor councillor...
>We may decide to shoot bin Laden and some other children, but to calm all
>the children and put the lid back on Pandora's Box - this is the issue we
>must eventually address.
i severely doubt that...
regards.
abelard
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:20:04 GMT, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>
>>>I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>>>the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>>>to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>>>bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>>
>>there comes a time in human affairs when playground
>> rules are no longer relevant.....
>
>1) Why are they irrelevant? How can having hard evidence against a
>person and bringing them to justice without harming innocents be
>irrelevant?
because it is not always possible...
(please cut your replies where ever possible)
>2) If we say that at times, the rules are irrelevant, how can people
>know when they are breaking the rules? The children only respond to
>the rules when the rules are consistent. If they know there are times
>when no-one cares of if you break the rules, then they use that to
>their advantage...
whence it becomes an issue of power...
rules are for children....thought is for adults....
>2) On the playground, you can see your opponent...you know who he is.
>
>This is not a playground; this real life for grown-ups. This is a time
>for keeping the testosterone (and the tears) under control.
>
>>several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
>> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
>
>The US assists 'terrorists'.
you could make that case...so what?
> Some people in Britain assist
>'terrorists'.
you would need to be specific...
> 'Terrorists' exist everywhere.
a generalisation....i don't see the content...
> If you want to blow up
>all countries that assist terrorists,
who is 'you'?
> there will be no people left on
>the earth.
you appear to be generalising to the point of irrationality....
> Countries don't make choices; people do.
ok...
>The US government
>may not assist the IRA (or maybe it does), but some of the constituent
>peoples of the US assist terrorists for it is their choice.
i don't see your point....
you appear to be trapped in an aristotelian box...
that is not independent thought..
> Should we
>blow up the US for assisting terrorists, or extricate the people who
>actually assist the terrorists?
>One day, it might sink in that countries are made of people, not
>governments or business. Who is mad/bad? Saddam or Iraq? Serbia or
>Milosevic? Britain or Bliar?
i still don't see where you are going...ho hum...read on....
>Bush & Co. are already saying that they believe (and have evidence?)
>that Bin Liner is behind the bombings. The poor wretches sitting in
>the stinking desert in blanket cities with no food or medicine are the
>target? Where is the justice in that?
this has sweet fa to do with 'justice'...whatever that may be...
>If people are satisfied by
>blowing up such people, then what does that say about them?
that they have taken a decision...
> What about
>this 'civilisation' you espouse? You have often said (I think!) that
>Islam is dark-ages stuff that holds back civilisation; and then we
>descend into the dark ages by going on even more crusades?
no....we protect the advances by going on a crusade...
if that is the necessary price...
>Surely the modern and civlised thing is the Rule of Law and the even
>application thereof; also jaw jaw (which the US was perfectly capable
>of when negotiating the installation of an oil pipeline across
>Afghanistan)..
you are being entirely unrealistic....
your position amounts to.... keep giving them money....
allow them to build nukes and delivery systems....
and then worry about it when the raze london or new york....
it may be intellectually satisfying to absolutist academics....
it is not a sane political option....
>If you treat terrorists as being outside the law and refuse to talk to
>them,
there is no issue of refusing to talk to them....
there is an issue of laying down conditions to them....
you step over this line...and you die....simple....
>then why should they even attempt to follow due process and
>legitimate channels themselves to achieve their ends?
they are not....
> They might as
>well just fly a plane into the WTC...
it that is their point of view....fine....
then wipe them out....
you appear to be proceeding from the false premise that they
are 'equals'....they are not....
>And then you have the Palestinian example, where the people did follow
>due process, and legitimate channels, and the law found in favour of
>them, and they still lost.
i regard that as simplism...verging on the dishonest...
but i don't care for a drag out on details....
you must keep your eye on the ball....it is our oil....full stop....
no discussion....
they don't play bumper cars with aeroplanes...full stop....
if they do...kaput...no discussion...just kaput....
> How can anybody even ask why the
>Palestinians have resorted to 'terrorism'?
who's asking?
> If they used tanks and
>planes, would it be a military operation rather than a 'terrorist'
>one? Would they earn more respect?
no...bigger bombs....
>>>On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>>>now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
>>
>>1)every opportunity to tighten the noose on a complacent
>> population....there is imv no legitimate excuse at this time....
>>2)he is not brain of britain....
>
>The people (in general) will be happy to co-operate in this matter
>because they can see what happens when your security is compromised by
>laxness on the part of business/government.
that is unrelated bollox....
>>>For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>>>Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>>>for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>>>the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>>
>>yes...strange it is...
>
>And it seems that some of them are wrong already.
>Does anybody mind if we mistakenly blow non-murdering-scum off the
>face of the earth while making further enemies in the process?
sorry....you are not seeing straight...i repeat yet again...
this is not the playground....
if you want to be a girl....go back to your knitting....
and let you husband deal with the big bad wolf at the door....
shut your ears and attend to and guard the children....
>>>To anybody that is going to suggest that I obviously don't give a toss
>>>for the victims, I would like to say that yes I do, but that doesn't
>>>mean that I have to agree that blanket bombings or whatever are the
>>>answer, however satsifying some people might find such an action in
>>>exacting revenge for the awful loss of life.
>>
>>revenge has not a thing to do with it....
>
>Sorry ab but I don't believe you.
>I have seen, read and heard the word 'retribution' so many times this
>week....
then the writers are 'talking' through their anuses.....
>>stopping 'them' has....with all and any necessary force....
>
>Who are 'they'?
those who threaten your kids and their future....
>>random hits is every bit as foolish as trying to arrest a few
>> serfs....
>
>What do you suggest then?
minimum required force to achieve the objectives....
stop them dead in their tracks....
>NB. mostly arresting a few serfs has satisfied the people before; what
>is different now? The sheer scale of it?
the will to survive...hopefully the west has not gone soft
when the chips are down....
there comes a right time to act.....it must be taken firmly and
effectively....
this is probably that time...we shall be more certain in a week
or three....
this has been looming for decades....now, you act or your
civilisation may not be fit to survive.....
>>if 'they' behave like cancer...they will have to be treated
>> like cancer....soft hearts not withstanding....
>
>There is nothing soft about not wanting to punish innocent people.
agreed...but punishment is not the issue....
pragmatism and survival are the issues and the foundation
for decisions and actions....
>>they have perfectly rational choices....
>>seems they are foolish enuf to imagine the west will
>> talk and not act.....
>
>Who are 'they'? How can anybody talk to anybody if they don't know who
>they are?
if you have a wasp nest...you wipe it out....you do not
attempt to separate the wasps who have no sting....
these wasps are too irritation to give house room....
if a country decided to breed wasps....then if required....
the country ceases to exist....
>>you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
>
>Do you mean 'my dik is bigger than your dik'
partly...but it is more a matter of my civilisation will survive...
even if it means your dies....
just like the aborigines of australia or the plains indians....
>(even if I don't know
>where your dik is or what it looks like)?
burn the house down to remove the wasps if that is what it takes....
>>not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
>
>Surely the nature of ethics and law is that they are constants
no.
>(albeint ones that evolve slowly over time) in society that guide
>society and attempt to prevent excesses and kneejerk reactions...
yes...
>they
>hold the fabric of society together...
yes...
but this is not 'our' society...this is a competitive culture....
eg, the taliban....there is no place for both on a planet
of nuclear spears....
that seems to be their view also according to what i hear
from interviews with them.....just happens....
1)they are stupid enuf to challenge us..
2)they are stupid enuf to think we are soft...and that they
can win....
braves charging into battle against winchesters....
zulus at rorke's drift.....
cherokee plains indians...or whatever....
magnificent....and ded....
>what is the alternative? If
>governments and armies may take this approach, then why not the
>individual?
try it if you are mad....you will end in a cage.....
you are confusing a modern liberal society with law....
with a competing primitive culture....
>>ethics and law are luxuries of civilised societies....
>
>Use it or lose it, I say.
no...arisotelian simplisms...
http://www.abelard.org/category/category.htm
try to understand it....
>>they wish to be treated with respect...*first* they act
>> with respect.....
>
>Some of them have tried to act with respect; it has got them nowhere.
rubbish...they send their young to eton....
a few years ago they rode flyblown camels...if they were lucky.....
by somewhere you seem to mean they can have our oil...
they cannot...full stop....
you seem to think they can have nuclear weapons...
if so...you are simply mad....
>>if they do not...they will be crushed....unless you intend
>> to sit still for the next effort...and the next effort...etc.....
>
>Such is life.
then you and your civilisation and your progeny will
die or live under sharia....
your choice ducks....
>Ok so try to wipe them out; the cause won't go away and fresh humans
>will just pop up to replace those you exterminate.
like the plains indians?
> Causes are stronger
>than people.
depends on the cause....
>>if you do, then convert to islam and invite bin lardin in to
>> run your civilised country.....
>
>1) Who says we must do that?
in the end..they will....
>2) That isn't even his aim. AFAIK he has shown no interest in running
>other peoples countries; he is against 'the contamination of Islamic
>states by Western ideology'. He wants rid of us, not to control our
>countries.
crap....he/they will say what ever will consolidate their position....
the arabs are not stupid....the brighter loons will wait and plan....
then attack kuwait....then learn....
they are not aborigines.....
you act now...or you will regret at leisure....
their real intent lies smouldering in ny.....
i'll just bet my last pound sterling every bright arab is cursing
the 'plane drivers to allah.....
>>freedom and affluence has a price.....
>>pay them...or lose the freedom.....
>
>The freedom to do what?
to dominate the earth and enjoy a higher standard of
living than a roman emperor....
>>this is *not* an academic exercise....
>
>Law and the application of is not either.
i repeat...it is a luxury of a civilised society and of affluence....
>>the quicker this cotton wool society gets this through
>> their thik heads...the less will be the long term price.....
>>
>>pay now...or pay a great deal more in the future....
>>you also have a choice...and that is it.....
>
>What are the choices? Being civilised or not being civilised?
no...surviving or not surviving...
> How many
>times can we use other peoples behaviour as an excuse to be
>uncivilised?
when necessary...
>Shall we all become anarchists?
who is 'we'.....?
what do you imagine 'we' are?
regards....
abelard
<alan....@ntlworld.com> typed:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:20:04 GMT, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>
>>>I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>>>the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>>>to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response; to
>>>bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>>
>>there comes a time in human affairs when playground
>> rules are no longer relevant.....
>
>Don't be stupid. It's the lack of application of law that gives the
>terrorist his reason for action.
no. your response is naive and shallow....
> When the law does not defend you then
>what can you do? 35 years of northern ireland should have taught you
>that.
northern ireland is different...
>>several of these 'countries' assist 'terrorists'.....that is their
>> problem....they have a clear and easily accessible choice.....
>
>Indeed. If the United States had not assisted terrorists for the last
>50 years it is quite possible this tragedy would never have occurred.
>The USA now has that choice too.
sheer romantic non-sense...
>>>On another note, Blunkett has stated that the issue of ID cards has
>>>now become a necessity for the purposes of security; why?
>
>ID cards are magic and will deflect crashing aircraft
sure...like garlic...
>>you must grasp that this is about winning or losing...
>>not about fine points of 'ethics' or 'law'.....
>
>It *is* about ethics and law.
you wish....time to get the head out of the sand....
>>ethics and law are luxuries of civilised societies....
>>they wish to be treated with respect...*first* they act
>> with respect.....
>>if they do not...they will be crushed....unless you intend
>> to sit still for the next effort...and the next effort...etc.....
>>if you do, then convert to islam and invite bin lardin in to
>> run your civilised country.....
>
>If you don't apply law, then you will just feed more fanaticism. Too
>many innocents have been killed by state terrorism financed by the
>west and in particular the USA..
sorry...your neat warm romantic little world is being
disturbed by nasty hard facts.....
>>freedom and affluence has a price.....
>>pay the...or lose the freedom.....
>
>How free are we and how affluent in comparison with others? Have fun
>with your ID cards.
there is absolutely no demonstrated need for them....
id cards are about suppressing your own population.....
arab terrorism is a genuine serious threat from a medieval
world....
there is no relevant linkage....
those who suggest that there is are lying....
>>this is *not* an academic exercise....
>>the quicker this cotton wool society gets this through
>> their thik heads...the less will be the long term price.....
>>
>>pay now...or pay a great deal more in the future....
>>you also have a choice...and that is it.....
>
>The price is not what you think it is.
you do not appreciate what i 'think'....
regards.
abelard
<jo...@DELETETHISbilly100.freeserve.co.uk> typed:
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3ba221e6...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> I did not hear what Mr Ashdown actually said today wrt the attack on
>> the US, but read in an Ananova report that he said that the best way
>> to deal with the attacker is through a measured and legal response;
>to
>> bring them to justice through trial in the eyes of the world.
>>
>> This was my first thought when I was watching events unfold on
>tuesday
>***************************
>Maria the Queer,
>Paddy Pantsdown came out with his usual, sanctimonious claptrap about
>international courts. International courts are only as effective as
>the most powerful nations allow them to be. For instance: What
>international court would "dare" attempt putting into effect an
>injunction to forbid those in America - who may decide to take
>unilateral action against those they believe are responsible for the
>NY attack - from taking such action.
>And does anyone think that dragging a few Islamics before a court
>which the Arabs see as a "Western Institution" will stop other
>fanatics from being fanatical? Only an idiot like Paddy Pantsdown (and
>yourself) would think so.
>The world is the same as it has always been: those with power using
>that power in the way they wish it to be used and for their own
>advantage; and also full of people who, for the most times, behave
>disgracefully and only do anything good when it is in their own
>interests to do it.
>If you do not believe this is the case, look at history and compare it
>with the present time.
>There is a story about a Chinese gentleman at Havard University in the
>1930s who was asked what was the affect of the French Revolution of
>1789. His reply was: "It is too early to tell".
>Likewise, if someone asks what is the affect of the Crusades, the
>answer is: "It is still being worked out; but one of its affects is
>what happened in NY."
>The final act will be a war between Islam and what might loosely be
>called "The Christian West" (which includes Russia) for final
>supremacy. Countries like China and India will have to decide whose
>side they are on (we can forget about the basket-case called Africa -
>which will always be a basket-case).
>In the meantime, America is the powerful guardian of the "Christian
>West" and we need to support it in its move to built the Missile
>Defence System and every action it takes to give the Islamics severe
>punishment for every atrocity they commit.
>Forget about the sanctimonious utterances of people like Paddy
>Pantsdown. All they will do is look for "excuses" for the Islamic
>actions, and thereby encourage further actions, and also encourage the
>infiltration of Islam into the West.
>And forget about preaching "peace and love for all mankind". That
>preaching has been going on for over 2000 years and it has had about
>as much affect on human behaviour as preaching about abstaining from
>sex.
>Our hope is in maintaining what was maintained in the Cold War: the
>fear of mutual destruction between opposing ideologies with a Nation
>(sharing our values and who is on our side - and we on theirs) who
>holds the balancing destructive power.
>Peace will only be maintained as it has always been maintained: by a
>power willing to enforce it and put down those who threaten it.
>Britain, at one time, did this with the Pax Britannica. Now it is the
>time for the Pax America. And we are lucky the Pax America is a
>continuation of the values which energised the British when it was
>Britain's "responsibility" the keep the peace and punish those who
>threaten it.
>So, if the Chinese gentleman was still around and he was asked if the
>world had changed, his answer would be: "Only in its scenery".
>If he had become Americanised, he might also add "Get real!"
so...you can think.....not at all a bad post.....
abelard
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 00:21:38 +0100, "Ian Pegel"
><julsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Once upon a time "Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>>> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>>> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>>> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>>>
>>
>>Courts are for losers.
>
>Why?
>
>>The US don't need courts they've got the military
>>arsenal to blow the murdering scum off the face of the earth.
>
>And in doing so, they will probably blow a lot of innocent people off
>the face of the earth too.
>
>Why is it important to 'blow them off the face of the earth'? Is this
>more satisfying than bringing them to justice through due process
>andknowing you have the right person?
this is not about one person....
this may be about millions....you cannot put a million loons
in a court room....
the arab leaders will have to catch on damned fast.....
>I was under the impression that the courts are there to establish the
>true guilt of the accused, rather than the imagined guilt.
>
>Of course there is still a possibility that the wrong person will be
>punished, but at least the evidence gets to see the light of day and
>the accused has an opportunity to make out a defence.
>
>I have no objections to bringing murdering scum to justice; I just
>prefer to ensure that the right person is punished.
>
>Given the US history of blaming the wrong person, attacking them
>unilaterally, and then refusing to even apologise, the implications of
>taking even further action against innocent parties worries and
>offfends me.
then you have very little understanding of america or of reality....
Maria
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:55:08 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 00:21:38 +0100, "Ian Pegel"
>><julsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Once upon a time "Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
>>>> Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are there
>>>> for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name many of
>>>> the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Courts are for losers.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>>The US don't need courts they've got the military
>>>arsenal to blow the murdering scum off the face of the earth.
>>
>>And in doing so, they will probably blow a lot of innocent people off
>>the face of the earth too.
>>
>>Why is it important to 'blow them off the face of the earth'? Is this
>>more satisfying than bringing them to justice through due process
>>andknowing you have the right person?
>
>this is not about one person....
That depends if you consider each person to be culpable for his own
actions, or if you consider the driving force behind them at fault...
The first seems to apply to 'terrorists' and the second to 'legitimate
leaders' e.g. Pinochet, Milosevic, Madsam.
>this may be about millions....
Millions are not committing acts of terrorism...unless we are going to
start putting people away or killing them for thought crimes...
>you cannot put a million loons
> in a court room....
Then put the 'leader'/leaders' and those who actually commit the
crimes in the courtroom.
>the arab leaders will have to catch on damned fast.....
>
>>I was under the impression that the courts are there to establish the
>>true guilt of the accused, rather than the imagined guilt.
>>
>>Of course there is still a possibility that the wrong person will be
>>punished, but at least the evidence gets to see the light of day and
>>the accused has an opportunity to make out a defence.
>>
>>I have no objections to bringing murdering scum to justice; I just
>>prefer to ensure that the right person is punished.
>>
>>Given the US history of blaming the wrong person, attacking them
>>unilaterally, and then refusing to even apologise, the implications of
>>taking even further action against innocent parties worries and
>>offfends me.
>
>then you have very little understanding of america or of reality....
The first, I would agree with, the second, I'm trying.
hummingbird
"Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote >
>
> hummingbird wrote:
>
> > > it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> > > actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> > >
> > > That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> > > possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> > > run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> > > spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> >
> > 1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
> > if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
> > new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
>
> I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that it will harden the US haters in Britain and elsewhere in the
> West either. I can stand them and people like yourself hating the US, I just cannot stand for
them
> attacking the US.
i do not hate the US as you say, i have a mixed feelings towards it.
all countries and people have some good/bad things about them.
anyway don't waste time on my views of the US, they're not important.
are you more influenced by the fact bomb-blitzing everybody in sight
will not solve the problem.? there is some scope for measured military
action against culprits 'provable' to the international community but
the main focus must be on the US modifying its foreign policies.
this is so obvious. do ordinary americans want to live in fear from
further attacks against US interests just to prove to the world
they can keep coming back for more.? that sounds like masochism
and crass stupidity. did you learn nothing from Vietnam.?
fortunately, i believe the US will only get support from major
world nations if it dishes out the military in a measured way.
further, i do believe the US govt will review its foreign policies
in the M/E and will hopefully take a stronger stand against the
main perpetrator of terrorism there - Israel.
climb on board Bill, smell the coffee. it's time to call time.
> > 2, it's debatable if the US is in fact the world's largest deocratic
> > republic in history -
>
> I didn't say the largest, I said the greatest - and on that
> there is no debate worth noticing..
democracies should show more tolerance of others.....
> > and there is an alternative - as i said earlier.
>
> Not IMO.
plan to spend your life in fear
> >
> > > > ... the time to halt this
> > > > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
> > >
> > > I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> > > either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> > > will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> > > Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> > > response that the US could possibly make.
> >
> > in other words, the US will continue to strut around the world stage
> > regardless of anybody. expect a lot more attacks of varying forms.
>
> No, those are not the correct "other words" The USt will continue to support Israel and it will
> continue to use its power to insure that the Middle East is secure and that the West has access to
> the oil fields that it developed and paid handsomely for..
and what if the M/E turns off the taps..?
will the US bomb-blitze them.? after all it's their oil.
a policy of madness and a recipe for eventual defeat.
look back in history.
hummingbird
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:c5k6qt83csks6qidq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:27:41 +0100, "hummingbird"
> <hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> typed:
> >>
> >> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> >> actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> >>
> >> That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> >> possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> >> run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> >> spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> >
> >1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
> >if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
> >new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
>
> this is.......can it, or die....
with respect i grasp the reality very well.
this attack is a direct result of US foreign policy.
if they do as i said above, it will have the effect i described above.
simple as that imv.
> >2, it's debatable if the US is in fact the world's largest deocratic
> >republic in history - and there is an alternative - as i said earlier.
>
> irrelevance
well i was simply responding to his assertion - which i don't
entirely agree with.
> >> > ... the time to halt this
> >> > madness is now and for the US to change its foreign policy.
> >>
> >> I don't know what foreign policy you want to change but if it relates to
> >> either US support for Israel or US guarantees that the middle east region
> >> will remain stable to provide a continued orderly supply of oil to the
> >> Western world then the answer is an absolute no. That is the very worst
> >> response that the US could possibly make.
> >
> >in other words, the US will continue to strut around the world stage
> >regardless of anybody. expect a lot more attacks of varying forms.
>
> that is mere characterisation.....
> if there are more attacks...they up the anti....and it
> will cost them more....and more...and more.....
> they will lose....and it is vital that they lose....
> and that they know they have lost and will lose.....
> until they stop...or there are no more of them.....
>
> this is no playground game....
indeed. that's why the US must not go in/around with guns blazing.
it will not solve the problem. the solution to this problem is for the
US to seriously change its foreign policy, especially in the M/E.
your solution is to resolve the problem by brutal oppression
and smacks of the British Empire approach to uprisings against
it. it never works. it only ever brings defeat.
Bruce Tober
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:55:13 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:20:04 GMT, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>>
>>person and bringing them to justice without harming innocents be
>>irrelevant?
>
>because it is not always possible...
Neither is almost any human activity, that doesn't mean we don't have to
try.
>>the rules when the rules are consistent. If they know there are times
>>when no-one cares of if you break the rules, then they use that to
>>their advantage...
>
>whence it becomes an issue of power...
>rules are for children....thought is for adults....
In other words it was okay for who ever did the deed in the states. to
do so. Rules are only for children, and they were adults. As adults they
thought it right to "bomb" those targets. By your alleged logic, they
acted in a perfectly acceptable manner.
>>2) On the playground, you can see your opponent...you know who he is.
>>
>>This is not a playground; this real life for grown-ups. This is a time
>>for keeping the testosterone (and the tears) under control.
Er, rather a non-sequitor. Are you saying that because this is the real
world it doesn't matter if we can see or even know who the enemy is and
we should therefore blow the entire country of every suspect to bits,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, Palestin, Saudi Arabia, The Czech Republic,
most of Africa and Latin America and that of course doesn't include the
us of a where it's not beyond the pale that the so-called militias had a
part in this.
>> 'Terrorists' exist everywhere.
>
>a generalisation....i don't see the content...
I think I do. I interpret it as meaning one man's terrorist is another
man's patriot. The founding fathers (sorry, I can't bring myself to do
the yank thing of always upper casing the term) in the eyes of the
British were terrorists. To the yanks, they were patriots, to today's
yanks they were saints.
>>the earth.
>
>you appear to be generalising to the point of irrationality....
I thnk not.
The USA has a history with the Taleban. They supported covertly and
overtly the Taleban in their fight against the Russians and their
clients the Mujahadin(sp). It is not far fetched and there is some
evidence that the CIA taught bin Laden everything he knows. Likewise
Saddam Hussein and almost all the US's so-called new hitlers of the past
20 years (they seem to find a new hitler every year or two, most of whom
they supprorted with drugs, money and training).
>>Bush & Co. are already saying that they believe (and have evidence?)
>>that Bin Liner is behind the bombings. The poor wretches sitting in
>>the stinking desert in blanket cities with no food or medicine are the
>>target? Where is the justice in that?
>
>this has sweet fa to do with 'justice'...whatever that may be...
Yoiu talk so brave for a little old man in hiding somewhere in some
latin country. Now if you were of fighting age and/or some poor
schlemiel living in a tent amongst the rubble of Afghanistan, simply
minding his business, milking his cow and pulling up roots to make a
soup with, you'd surely be shitting yourself at the prospect and praying
to allah for some justice.
Gawd, I'fve only read half a posting from you and I'm tired of your
drivel already.
Cheers,
--
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk>, Freelance Journalist, |
| My Website <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk/> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) +44-1562-638-704 (Landline)|
| |
| War is not a good thing for children or other living things |
| |
| When Crypto is Criminalised Only Criminals will have Crypto |
abelard
typed:
>Indeed. But I don't think you can ignore the impact of various
>policies in creating the conditions under which such fundamentalism
>takes root in terms of dealing with it in the long term. I've
>referrred Bill Willis to an article in the Times by Simon Jenkins
>which covers what I'm trying to drive it here quite well (though there
>is an apparent implication that military action might not be needed
>which I disagree with):
>
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
finally got to it...
i regard the article as pathetic and stupid immaturity...
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>I read yesterday the article by Simon Jenkins. His POV indeed is similar to
>what you are trying to express. There was also another *lead* commentary in
>the Times that day. I forget who wrote it but that is the commentary that I
>think needs to be emphasized. Please read that comment and tell me what you
>think.
not enuf info for me to locate it...
Cliff Morrison
Welcome back, BT!
Trampus
> > >
> > > > pl...@plonk.com (Maria) writes:
> > > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > As to ID cards, I wonder whether a group that is well enough
organised
> > > > to hi-jack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into major buildings in the
US
> > > > would really be incapable of forging them or otherwise circumventing
> > > > them?
> > > >
> > > > > For the time being, I will (probably as predictable!) support Mr
> > > > > Ashdown's approach in this matter; the International courts are
there
> > > > > for that purpose, and the FBI/CIA seem to have managed to name
many of
> > > > > the suspects in a remarkably short space of time.
> > > >
> > > > progress over their investigation haven't they? The American people
> > > > will be reassured that the investigation is going so well so
quickly.
> > > >
> > > > The US/UK and their allies are on a war footing. The rhetoric is
> > > > explicit. A war has been declared against terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > I seem to recall a phrase about the first casualty of war...
> > >
> > > ISTM from this posting that you have a realistic understanding of
> > > the present situation. Some civil liberties are indeed going to be
> > > infringed.
> >
> > It was one of my first thoughts as the shock of Tuesday's events
> > started to lift. Some of the measures may be justifiable, but I expect
> > many that are not to be wheeled in under the cover of fighting
> > terrorism in response to Tuesday's events.
> >
> > > Also, you
> > > can depend that there will be propaganda in upcoming months to keep
the
> > > population focused on the fundamentals of the situation and not
permitted to
> > > waiver in their present overwhelming support for government action to
do
> > > whatever is necessary to bring the present danger under control. This
is
> > > natural and necessary in times of emergency. There is a natural
tendency
> > > towards wanting/expecting quick solutions. Solving this problem is
going to
> > > be at best extremely difficult.
> >
> >
> > > I remember reading stories that when the British enlisted for service
at the
> > > outset of the first world war their only worry was that the war would
last
> > > long enough for them to have a personal part in it. They needn't have
> > > worried.
> >
> > It is quite possible this conflict will last for a long time.
>
> This is my point. If the US is planning to make a military gesture and
then go
> back to business as usual I would prefer that we do nothing and just lick
our
> wounds as best we can. And if other nations in the world are not prepared
to stand
> with us for the long haul I would prefer that they tell us now rather than
later.
>
> I know that when you sign on as an ally you do not always know what you
are getting
> into and it must be hard when others take the leadership role and to an
extent
> control your destiny. Still that is the way it has to be. President Bush
said
> that today at the American Memorial Service for the dead - to the effect
that
> Others determined when and where this conflict began but that America
will
> determine the time and place when this conflict is over - and so it will
be.
>
> Bill
>
I think it is time for me to interject a note of caution into the
proceedings.
It isn't the size of the dog in the fight, that wins the fight, it is the
size of the fight in the dog!
America had weapons of mass destruction and weapons and men beyond numbers
in Vietnam, but they had no Stomach for the fight.
The Vietnamese had bows and arrows and native guile and an implacable fight
within themselves.
Don't bite off more than you can chew!
Bruce Tober
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>
>Welcome back, BT!
Danke
abelard
<t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> typed:
>In message <ij57qtomutc8bjrf3...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abe...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:55:13 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:20:04 GMT, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:48 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>>>>
>>>1) Why are they irrelevant? How can having hard evidence against a
>>>person and bringing them to justice without harming innocents be
>>>irrelevant?
>>
>>because it is not always possible...
>
>Neither is almost any human activity, that doesn't mean we don't have to
>try.
agreed...of course....
good to see your face...
>>whence it becomes an issue of power...
>>rules are for children....thought is for adults....
>
>In other words it was okay for who ever did the deed in the states. to
>do so. Rules are only for children, and they were adults. As adults they
>thought it right to "bomb" those targets. By your alleged logic, they
>acted in a perfectly acceptable manner.
no.
>>>2) On the playground, you can see your opponent...you know who he is.
>>>
>>>This is not a playground; this real life for grown-ups. This is a time
>>>for keeping the testosterone (and the tears) under control.
>
>Er, rather a non-sequitor. Are you saying that because this is the real
>world it doesn't matter if we can see or even know who the enemy is and
>we should therefore blow the entire country of every suspect to bits,
>Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, Palestin, Saudi Arabia, The Czech Republic,
>most of Africa and Latin America and that of course doesn't include the
>us of a where it's not beyond the pale that the so-called militias had a
>part in this.
not addressed to me...
>>> 'Terrorists' exist everywhere.
>>
>>a generalisation....i don't see the content...
>
>I think I do. I interpret it as meaning one man's terrorist is another
>man's patriot.
of course...
>The founding fathers (sorry, I can't bring myself to do
>the yank thing of always upper casing the term)
good!
>in the eyes of the
>British were terrorists. To the yanks, they were patriots, to today's
>yanks they were saints.
fine...noted...
>>>the earth.
>>
>>you appear to be generalising to the point of irrationality....
>
>I think not.
>
>The USA has a history with the Taleban. They supported covertly and
>overtly the Taleban in their fight against the Russians and their
>clients the Mujahadin(sp). It is not far fetched and there is some
>evidence that the CIA taught bin Laden everything he knows. Likewise
>Saddam Hussein and almost all the US's so-called new hitlers of the past
>20 years (they seem to find a new hitler every year or two, most of whom
>they supprorted with drugs, money and training).
no particular argument....but i hardly see a relevant point here....
we had a bigger fish to fry at that point...now we have the
problem of spilt milk...
>>>Bush & Co. are already saying that they believe (and have evidence?)
>>>that Bin Liner is behind the bombings. The poor wretches sitting in
>>>the stinking desert in blanket cities with no food or medicine are the
>>>target? Where is the justice in that?
>>
>>this has sweet fa to do with 'justice'...whatever that may be...
>
>Yoiu talk so brave for a little old man in hiding somewhere in some
>latin country. Now if you were of fighting age and/or some poor
>schlemiel living in a tent amongst the rubble of Afghanistan, simply
>minding his business, milking his cow and pulling up roots to make a
>soup with, you'd surely be shitting yourself at the prospect and praying
>to allah for some justice.
maybe...so what?
as one of your commie fellow travellers had the sense to write...
As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it’s as universal as sea
sickness, and matters just as little. 1903
>Gawd, I'fve only read half a posting from you and I'm tired of your
>drivel already.
must be 'cos you are getting tired and old...
i once knew a fellow with more drive and spirit!
regards...
abelard
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:03:34 GMT, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>this is not about one person....
>
>That depends if you consider each person to be culpable for his own
>actions, or if you consider the driving force behind them at fault...
>The first seems to apply to 'terrorists' and the second to 'legitimate
>leaders' e.g. Pinochet, Milosevic, Madsam.
mostly the second...but the first hold the guns....
as you are stating...identification is a problem.....
where you strike is very important....
but to destroy the means to inflict serious damage is the objective...
if this is neglected....we may just as well go back to sleep....
>>this may be about millions....
>
>Millions are not committing acts of terrorism...unless we are going to
>start putting people away or killing them for thought crimes...
in this case...if the fish swim in a sea that gives them
sustenance....that may become effectively requisite....
the communities which sustain these primitives have severe
problems...this is not just our problem....
if they do not rise to their problem...there will...if we are
rational...be problems for those communities who
fail to stop their loons....
these people are putting intelligent islamics in severe danger....
it is fools who are the real enemy....not countries...
>>you cannot put a million loons
>> in a court room....
>
>Then put the 'leader'/leaders' and those who actually commit the
>crimes in the courtroom.
i have invented a perfect fly killer....
it consists of 2 hand held blocks of wood....
1 is labelled 'a'....and the other is labelled 'b'.....
it works like this....
first you catch your fly....then you place it on the block
marked 'a'....then you strike it hard with block 'b'......
>>>Given the US history of blaming the wrong person, attacking them
>>>unilaterally, and then refusing to even apologise, the implications of
>>>taking even further action against innocent parties worries and
>>>offfends me.
>>
>>then you have very little understanding of america or of reality....
>
>The first, I would agree with, the second, I'm trying.
ok...that shows a damn sight more sense than most...
abelard
<hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:c5k6qt83csks6qidq...@4ax.com...
>> you don't grasp the reality...this is not negotiation...
>> this is.......can it, or die....
>
>with respect i grasp the reality very well.
dissent...
>this attack is a direct result of US foreign policy.
no....simplistic non-sense....
>if they do as i said above, it will have the effect i described above.
>simple as that imv.
maybe...maybe not...but close to irrelevant...
>> this is no playground game....
>
>indeed. that's why the US must not go in/around with guns blazing.
depends on where they are pointed....
>it will not solve the problem. the solution to this problem is for the
>US to seriously change its foreign policy, especially in the M/E.
not an option...cannot be done....
>your solution is to resolve the problem by brutal oppression
>and smacks of the British Empire approach to uprisings against
>it. it never works. it only ever brings defeat.
crap my friend....it can work very well...
abelard
<alan....@ntlworld.com> typed:
>If your gunghos get their way then what will they do when someone
>willing to die for a cause walks into a few major cities and releases
>a plague?
that is a thinkable option for a loon already....
a loon with no remotely sane motive...eg aum.....
the ability of individuals to extend power is ever growing....
unless you educate effectively....and limit the access to
weapons for the stupid you might as well resign right now.....
franchise by examination.....
(allied to education to sanity)
>The 5000+ who have died in that atrocity last tuesday would
>be like a fleabite. For all its power the USA has no defence against
>the individuals ready to die for a cause. At the end of the day you
>must remove the reason for the attackers to act.
can't be done...some 'reasons' are nuts....
eg...i did it for god....eg sutcliffe....
> That does not mean
>surrendering to whatever demands
good...a step toward sense...
> they make but it does mean listening
>and talking.
all for that...first sit them down....
keep a straight jacket handy....
James Hammerton
> "James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > However feelings are running high, and fear of such attacks in the UK
> > is amongst them. Blunkett and the government may seek to placate these
> > fears with draconian laws. ID cards are probably not the worst
> > measures we can expect to be proposed.
>
> everybody to register with local police perhaps
> and ID card serial number recorded.? yuk..
>
> > Not quite. Much of the American public (and others) will be baying for
> > blood. The American government has no choice but to attend to that.
>
> maybe they could be invited over here for a turkey shoot -
> or better still an FMD shoot..!
>
> >
> > In the longer run however, we must ask why such hatred of the US has
> > arisen and led to the creation of terrorists willing not only to
> > commit suicide for their cause but to take arbitrary numbers of people
> > down with them. Otherwise we will see more such conflict in the
> > future, along with the attendant loss of many innocent lives.
>
> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> actually trigger more terrorist attacks....
If the US does nothing it will invite more terrorist
attacks as it will have shown itself to be unwilling or incapable of
fighting back against those who would attack them.
What do you propose the US should do? Ask them nicely if they would
mind not hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings?
James Hammerton
> On 15 Sep 2001 02:00:42 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> typed:
>
> >Indeed. But I don't think you can ignore the impact of various
> >policies in creating the conditions under which such fundamentalism
> >takes root in terms of dealing with it in the long term. I've
> >referrred Bill Willis to an article in the Times by Simon Jenkins
> >which covers what I'm trying to drive it here quite well (though there
> >is an apparent implication that military action might not be needed
> >which I disagree with):
> >
> >http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
>
> finally got to it...
> i regard the article as pathetic and stupid immaturity...
Why?
My main criticism of it is that he seems to miss the point that the
events of Tuesday demonstrate a serious threat that must be addressed,
must be responded too, or else we invite other such attacks and worse
attacks. This means at minimum bin Laden's organisation has to be
taken out. It is not about seeking revenge but neutralising a serious
threat to the safety and freedom of the Western countries, the US in
particular.
JBennett
have these terrorists at the Hague to stand trial....you can deliver them,
right Maria? Perhaps a plan to make them surrender? Do share it with us.
As for you, Alan, you did receive a copy of their demands to be met we
can negotiate? See, the rest of us didn't receive a copy, didn't hear their
announcement, or any other communication, except, that is, the murder of
thousands of people. Now see, we consider that act a message all by itself.
I can tell you have difficulty with coherent thought so let me lend you a
hand here. The fanatical element of this group, which goes under the guise
of being Moslem, objects to the influence of Western Civilization on their
culture. They reject the idea of representative government outright and
believe political power is vested in the holy men by Allah. Accordingly,
since our cultures are not ruled by their brand of Islamic law, we are
evil--the *Great Satan.* Evidence of our decadence is seeping into their
society and they don't like it. Western rock music, women having rights
equal to men, personal freedoms: free speech, etc. (alcohol is forbidden,
women must be covered). Foreign movies are censored, as well as
publications, to remove "provocative" exposures of female flesh. Women are
not allowed into Islamic courts, the Holy man (think Judge) will hear their
testimony through a window in the courtroom while they stand in the
street....and, it takes the word of 2 women to equal that of one man. They
see our culture as being the source of evil influence in the way they think
their world ought to be and, therefore, our culture needs to be destroyed.
Now, exactly what was it you were going to negotiate? Capitulation?
Your ignorance is monumental about what is at issue and let me save you
some time. You needn't bother with a reply. Frankly, you're so stupid
about the situation, I shall not waste any more of my time on you.
There is work for you, I think. Check with your local terrorist branch
and see if they'll hire you for their *Lord Ha Ha* position. The *Tokyo
Rose* job requires a different gender but, maybe, you can get a price break
on change of gender surgery....since you don't have ANY BALLS.
Jack B *USA*
"alan goss" <alan....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vb47qtkcbef3sids9...@4ax.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
J Jarman
the Hague tribunal, presumably to be locked in a comfortable Dutch prison
for life; how long would it be before the next wave of atrocities happen on
the pretext of releasing their comrades?
How many more will die Maria? Are you prepared to be among them Alan? The
terrorists must be ruthlessly exterminated and their bases removed
permanently. For all our sakes.
--
Sj
"unconditional surrender or extermination - a Muslim's right to choose"
"JBennett" <ben...@mvn.net> wrote in message
news:3ba3d...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Bill Willis
hummingbird wrote:
> "Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote >
> >
> > hummingbird wrote:
> >
> > > > it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> > > > actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> > > >
> > > > That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> > > > possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> > > > run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> > > > spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> > >
> > > 1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
> > > if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
> > > new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
> >
> > I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that it will harden the US haters in Britain and elsewhere in the
> > West either. I can stand them and people like yourself hating the US, I just cannot stand for
> them
> > attacking the US.
>
> i do not hate the US as you say, i have a mixed feelings towards it.
> all countries and people have some good/bad things about them.
> anyway don't waste time on my views of the US, they're not important.
Oh never worry I don't.
> are you more influenced by the fact bomb-blitzing everybody in sight
> will not solve the problem.?
I know that and I hope this doesn't develop into as you say bomb blitzing everyone in sight. What you
need to understand though is that the genie is out of the bottle, these things have a life of their own
and you cannot undo what has already started. This crisis has the potential to develop into a prolonged
World War. It might lead to Pakistan attacking India, it might lead to China invading India or attacking
Taiwan. It might lead to Russia retaking much of its former empire and it might lead to all out nuclear
conflict. I don't know and am not predicting that any of this will happen but forces have been
unleashed and it is going to be like a chain reaction auto accident. There is going to be one reaction
followed by another. President Bush and America as a whole is going to be swept into this reaction
along with everyone else. It is simply not possible for America not to react to this seminal event in
history.
> there is some scope for measured military
> action against culprits 'provable' to the international community but
> the main focus must be on the US modifying its foreign policies.
> this is so obvious.
This is not going to happen. Even if you feel this (and I most certainly do not feel that the US ought
to make even a single fundamental change to foreign policy,) this action has made US foreign policy
absolutely solidify and will be unalterable.
> do ordinary americans want to live in fear from further attacks against US interests just to prove to
> the world they can keep coming back for more.?
The short answer is yes rather than bow to changing US policy in order to accommodate terrorists.
> that sounds like masochism
> and crass stupidity. did you learn nothing from Vietnam.?
Whatever. and yes we learned much from Vietnam.
> fortunately, i believe the US will only get support from major
> world nations if it dishes out the military in a measured way.
I think America will get total support from the West but of course I am not sure. But it doesn't
matter. America is prepared to act entirely alone if it has to. But the world better be prepared for
the worst if it comes to that.
> further, i do believe the US govt will review its foreign policies
> in the M/E and will hopefully take a stronger stand against the
> main perpetrator of terrorism there - Israel.
> climb on board Bill, smell the coffee. it's time to call time.
I think you must be confusing piss for coffee. but we shall see. It really hardly matters what you or
I think will happen. What will happen, we will know soon enough.and what if the M/E turns off the
taps..?
snip
> will the US bomb-blitze them.? after all it's their oil.
> a policy of madness and a recipe for eventual defeat.
> look back in history.
All this is possible. It is possible that the entire world will be plunged into prolonged desolation
and destruction. You don't seem to comprehend how significant and unalterable the present situation
is. Again, I hope and pray that none of this happens and it certainly might not but if you are looking
for the US to change in order to prevent it happening I *know* that that is not going to happen.
Bill
Bill Willis
hummingbird wrote:
> "abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:c5k6qt83csks6qidq...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:27:41 +0100, "hummingbird"
> > <hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> typed:
> >
> > >"Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote in message news:3BA2C2B3...@bcpl.lib.md.us...
> > >
> > >> hummingbird wrote:
> > >>
> > >> it's quite likely that any retribution carried out by the US will
> > >> actually trigger more terrorist attacks.
> > >>
> > >> That is a possibility. I don't think it is likely but it is certainly
> > >> possible. Nevertheless there is no alternative.. The American people who
> > >> run the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known have
> > >> spoken on this matter and their will will prevail.
> > >
> > >1, you obviously have little idea of how these people are driven.
> > >if the US bombs the blitzes off the M/E it will give birth to
> > >new generations of US-haters. do not doubt it.
> >
> > you don't grasp the reality...this is not negotiation...
> > this is.......can it, or die....
>
> with respect i grasp the reality very well.
> this attack is a direct result of US foreign policy.
> if they do as i said above, it will have the effect i described above.
> simple as that imv.
LOL, you don't get it. It doesn't matter whether US foreign policy is at fault or not. He is telling
you that US policy modification is not on the table for negoitiation. He is right.
>
Bill
Bill Willis
abelard wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:57:08 -0400, Bill Willis
> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
> >I read yesterday the article by Simon Jenkins. His POV indeed is similar to
> >what you are trying to express. There was also another *lead* commentary in
> >the Times that day. I forget who wrote it but that is the commentary that I
> >think needs to be emphasized. Please read that comment and tell me what you
> >think.
>
> not enuf info for me to locate it...
All I remember is that it was in the same edition as the Simon Jenkins issue but was
the lead comment.
Have you been reading any of the Guardian commentary? I must say that I was stunned
by some of it.
I feel foolish for even asking as it strikes me as so trivial but what do you think of
Duncan Smith election and his subsequent appointment of Howard as Chancellor. I must
say I had to smile in anticipation of your comment.
Bill
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> writes:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2001 02:00:42 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
>> typed:
>>
>> >Indeed. But I don't think you can ignore the impact of various
>> >policies in creating the conditions under which such fundamentalism
>> >takes root in terms of dealing with it in the long term. I've
>> >referrred Bill Willis to an article in the Times by Simon Jenkins
>> >which covers what I'm trying to drive it here quite well (though there
>> >is an apparent implication that military action might not be needed
>> >which I disagree with):
>> >
>> >http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001310020-2001315244,00.html
>>
>> finally got to it...
>> i regard the article as pathetic and stupid immaturity...
>
>Why?
it is standard middle class pseudo academic wank....
wishful thinking dressed up as 'analysis'....
>My main criticism of it is that he seems to miss the point that the
>events of Tuesday demonstrate a serious threat that must be addressed,
the threat has been there and growing for decades....
>must be responded too, or else we invite other such attacks and worse
>attacks. This means at minimum bin Laden's organisation has to be
>taken out. It is not about seeking revenge but neutralising a serious
>threat to the safety and freedom of the Western countries,
that seems to me to be a serious and accurate critique....
i cannot see how with a context like that you can see the
article as having the slightest merit....
it is just empty headed posture....
>the US in particular.
we are every bit as vulnerable...so is the whole modern world....
there are limits to what i will say here on line at this moment....
Maria
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>I know that and I hope this doesn't develop into as you say bomb blitzing everyone in sight. What you
>need to understand though is that the genie is out of the bottle, these things have a life of their own
>and you cannot undo what has already started.
You can have a measure of self-control...
>This crisis has the potential to develop into a prolonged
>World War. It might lead to Pakistan attacking India, it might lead to China invading India or attacking
>Taiwan. It might lead to Russia retaking much of its former empire and it might lead to all out nuclear
>conflict. I don't know and am not predicting that any of this will happen but forces have been
>unleashed and it is going to be like a chain reaction auto accident. There is going to be one reaction
>followed by another. President Bush and America as a whole is going to be swept into this reaction
>along with everyone else. It is simply not possible for America not to react to this seminal event in
>history.
>
>> there is some scope for measured military
>> action against culprits 'provable' to the international community but
>> the main focus must be on the US modifying its foreign policies.
>> this is so obvious.
>
>This is not going to happen. Even if you feel this (and I most certainly do not feel that the US ought
>to make even a single fundamental change to foreign policy,) this action has made US foreign policy
>absolutely solidify and will be unalterable.
At any cost? Is there any price that you consider isn't worth paying?
Does it matter if the rest of the world has an opinion? Why do you
feel that the US has carte blanche to decide the future for us and
others outside of the US?
>> do ordinary americans want to live in fear from further attacks against US interests just to prove to
>> the world they can keep coming back for more.?
>
>The short answer is yes rather than bow to changing US policy in order to accommodate terrorists.
>
>> that sounds like masochism
>> and crass stupidity. did you learn nothing from Vietnam.?
>
>Whatever. and yes we learned much from Vietnam.
>
>> fortunately, i believe the US will only get support from major
>> world nations if it dishes out the military in a measured way.
>
>I think America will get total support from the West but of course I am not sure. But it doesn't
>matter. America is prepared to act entirely alone if it has to. But the world better be prepared for
>the worst if it comes to that.
Sounds a bit like a threat...
>> further, i do believe the US govt will review its foreign policies
>> in the M/E and will hopefully take a stronger stand against the
>> main perpetrator of terrorism there - Israel.
>> climb on board Bill, smell the coffee. it's time to call time.
>
>I think you must be confusing piss for coffee. but we shall see. It really hardly matters what you or
>I think will happen. What will happen, we will know soon enough.and what if the M/E turns off the
>taps..?
What would they live on without oil revenues?
>snip
>
>> will the US bomb-blitze them.? after all it's their oil.
>> a policy of madness and a recipe for eventual defeat.
>> look back in history.
>
>All this is possible. It is possible that the entire world will be plunged into prolonged desolation
>and destruction. You don't seem to comprehend how significant and unalterable the present situation
>is. Again, I hope and pray that none of this happens and it certainly might not but if you are looking
>for the US to change in order to prevent it happening I *know* that that is not going to happen.
Bloody hell Bill...you talk as if Armageddon has arrived...you even
make it sound as if it doesn't matter if the human world comes
crashing to an end and that it's all unavoidable...that the only thing
that matters is that the US clings to its policy and therefore 'wins',
regardless of world opinion . But wins what?The nuclear deterrent was
all for nothing and in the end, a handful of brownish people with
extreme views could bring down an entire planet.
Ab is right; I don't understand Americans and probably never will;
debate is pointless.
hummingbird
"Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote in message news:3BA396B1...@bcpl.lib.md.us...
> James Hammerton wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'd describe the middle east as "stable". ISTM quite the
> > opposite.
>
> Of course it is not stable but it is probably as stable as can reasonably be
> expected given the Israeli situation and the Western words determination to
> prevent that area from interfering with world oil supply.
the actions your govt persues there are more
likely to increase instability than reduce it.
abelard
<num...@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
>Just for the heck of it, suppose these animals were caught at hauled before
>the Hague tribunal, presumably to be locked in a comfortable Dutch prison
>for life; how long would it be before the next wave of atrocities happen on
>the pretext of releasing their comrades?
>How many more will die Maria? Are you prepared to be among them Alan? The
>terrorists must be ruthlessly exterminated and their bases removed
>permanently. For all our sakes.
>
>--
>Sj
>"unconditional surrender or extermination - a Muslim's right to choose"
very close to precise....
abelard
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:57:08 -0400, Bill Willis
>> <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> typed:
>>
>> >I read yesterday the article by Simon Jenkins. His POV indeed is similar to
>> >what you are trying to express. There was also another *lead* commentary in
>> >the Times that day. I forget who wrote it but that is the commentary that I
>> >think needs to be emphasized. Please read that comment and tell me what you
>> >think.
>>
>> not enuf info for me to locate it...
>
>All I remember is that it was in the same edition as the Simon Jenkins issue but was
>the lead comment.
>
>Have you been reading any of the Guardian commentary? I must say that I was stunned
>by some of it.
no...i rarely look at it....
what 'stunned' you?
>I feel foolish for even asking as it strikes me as so trivial
meet time to return to business....the world cannot be allowed
to be stopped be loons....
>but what do you think of
>Duncan Smith election and his subsequent appointment of Howard as Chancellor. I must
>say I had to smile in anticipation of your comment.
simply...extreme poor judgement....
hague should have resigned inside 2 years.....
d-s will have the same option....if he fails.....
meanwhile....as ever at this stage....i will watch and wait.....
bliar in the meanwhile seems to have the wit to act correctly
in times of requirement for military action.....
a surprise considering his rank stupidity on liberty issues...
and much else....
regards
abelard
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:53:51 GMT, Cedric <Ced...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, me neither. I think war is inevitable and well deserved. But I
>>do not see it drawing a conclusion to the issue.
>
><i'm obviously female>
>
>So what's the point of the war?
to a female....
evil does not go away.....it must be constantly kept
at bay.....
></i'm obviously female>
Bill Willis
hummingbird wrote:
Not IMV.
Bill
Bill Willis
Maria wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:05:09 -0400, Bill Willis
> >This crisis has the potential to develop into a prolonged
> >World War. It might lead to Pakistan attacking India, it might lead to China invading India or attacking
> >Taiwan. It might lead to Russia retaking much of its former empire and it might lead to all out nuclear
> >conflict. I don't know and am not predicting that any of this will happen but forces have been
> >unleashed and it is going to be like a chain reaction auto accident. There is going to be one reaction
> >followed by another. President Bush and America as a whole is going to be swept into this reaction
> >along with everyone else. It is simply not possible for America not to react to this seminal event in
> >history.
> >
> >> there is some scope for measured military
> >> action against culprits 'provable' to the international community but
> >> the main focus must be on the US modifying its foreign policies.
> >> this is so obvious.
> >
> >This is not going to happen. Even if you feel this (and I most certainly do not feel that the US ought
> >to make even a single fundamental change to foreign policy,) this action has made US foreign policy
> >absolutely solidify and will be unalterable.
>
> At any cost? Is there any price that you consider isn't worth paying?
Of course. If I knew the future. But that isn't the point. It isn't about how far you or I or the US or
Afghanistan or Osma Bin Laden are willing to go. America is *not* going to change its policy. That is as
absolute as the sun will set in the west. The US will commence military action. This is absolute. Others
will react and that is absolute. Still more reactions will result and on and on. Do you see what I am
trying to say. How it will end I don;t know. The war has already started and the only choice is to decide
whose side you are on and then do everything you can to make sure your side wins..
> Does it matter if the rest of the world has an opinion? Why do you
> feel that the US has carte blanche to decide the future for us and
> others outside of the US?
It doesn't matter a single bit. When has it ever mattered what the rest of the world thought once a war has
begun.
>
>
> >> do ordinary americans want to live in fear from further attacks against US interests just to prove to
> >> the world they can keep coming back for more.?
> >
> >The short answer is yes rather than bow to changing US policy in order to accommodate terrorists.
> >
> >> that sounds like masochism
> >> and crass stupidity. did you learn nothing from Vietnam.?
> >
> >Whatever. and yes we learned much from Vietnam.
> >
> >> fortunately, i believe the US will only get support from major
> >> world nations if it dishes out the military in a measured way.
> >
> >I think America will get total support from the West but of course I am not sure. But it doesn't
> >matter. America is prepared to act entirely alone if it has to. But the world better be prepared for
> >the worst if it comes to that.
>
> Sounds a bit like a threat...
>
It isn't meant to be.
> >> further, i do believe the US govt will review its foreign policies
> >> in the M/E and will hopefully take a stronger stand against the
> >> main perpetrator of terrorism there - Israel.
> >> climb on board Bill, smell the coffee. it's time to call time.
> >
> >I think you must be confusing piss for coffee. but we shall see. It really hardly matters what you or
> >I think will happen. What will happen, we will know soon enough.and what if the M/E turns off the
> >taps..?
>
> What would they live on without oil revenues?
>
> >snip
> >
> >> will the US bomb-blitze them.? after all it's their oil.
> >> a policy of madness and a recipe for eventual defeat.
> >> look back in history.
> >
> >All this is possible. It is possible that the entire world will be plunged into prolonged desolation
> >and destruction. You don't seem to comprehend how significant and unalterable the present situation
> >is. Again, I hope and pray that none of this happens and it certainly might not but if you are looking
> >for the US to change in order to prevent it happening I *know* that that is not going to happen.
>
> Bloody hell Bill...you talk as if Armageddon has arrived..
It bloody well may have. I don't know, but this might be the first world war of the 21st century and the
world (not just the US) has weaponry that never existed in prior wars. Mind you I am not predicting any of
this, I am merely saying that there *is* a war and it is likely going to be a world war. Wars always have
unintended consequences.
Surely you do not see the bombing of New York City and Washington as simply another terrorist incident which
we will react to and then back to business.
> .you even
> make it sound as if it doesn't matter if the human world comes
> crashing to an end and that it's all unavoidable..
> .that the only thing
> that matters is that the US clings to its policy and therefore 'wins',
You are not getting it. I am telling you what I *know*.. I know that the US is not going to change its
policy. I know that the US is at this moment in a state of total and unconditional war against terrorism. I
don't know where all this will lead. Perhaps there is a solution short of utter disaster, perhaps the world
will come to its senses and realize America's total resolve and cooperate in ending this scourge of
terrorism.
I am not telling you what I want to happen or speculate on how the American response should develop to this
monumental occurrence. These are matters beyond my scope. I hope and pray that those who make the hard
decisions make wise decisions. Personally I think American policy in the Middle East is spot on but that
isn't of any more relevance than what you think of American foreign policy. We are not going to influence
events. In fact no one is going to influence events. The toothpaste is out of the tube..
> regardless of world opinion . But wins what?The nuclear deterrent was
> all for nothing and in the end, a handful of brownish people with
> extreme views could bring down an entire planet.
>
> Ab is right; I don't understand Americans and probably never will;
> debate is pointless.
Again you misunderstand me. I am not trying to tell you my view or an American view. The important thing I
am trying to tell you is what has *already* happened and what *cannot* realistically be expected to
change. Read the article in the telegraph that abelard suggested.
Bill
hummingbird
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:14:14 +0100, "hummingbird"
> <hummi...@beija-flor.no.spam.com> typed:
>
> >
> >"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:c5k6qt83csks6qidq...@4ax.com...
>
> >> you don't grasp the reality...this is not negotiation...
> >> this is.......can it, or die....
> >
> >with respect i grasp the reality very well.
>
> dissent...
>
> >this attack is a direct result of US foreign policy.
>
> no....simplistic non-sense....
if not then please explain reason.
> >if they do as i said above, it will have the effect i described above.
> >simple as that imv.
>
> maybe...maybe not...but close to irrelevant...
not at all - is more terrorism irrelevant.?
> >> this is no playground game....
> >
> >indeed. that's why the US must not go in/around with guns blazing.
>
> depends on where they are pointed....
the american military is not known for it's ability to aim accurately.
> >it will not solve the problem. the solution to this problem is for the
> >US to seriously change its foreign policy, especially in the M/E.
>
> not an option...cannot be done....
not true - it can be done. they need the will.
> >your solution is to resolve the problem by brutal oppression
> >and smacks of the British Empire approach to uprisings against
> >it. it never works. it only ever brings defeat.
>
> crap my friend....it can work very well...
not so. brutal oppression never works in the medium/long term.
in this case it will trigger yet more attacks against US interests.
that's my view.
hummingbird
"Bill Willis" <wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote in message news:3BA3EDD9...@bcpl.lib.md.us...
you shouldn't be laughing Bill, it's YOU who are at risk, not the rest of us.
what you are saying is that the US will continue to provoke more terrorist
attacks and when they occur expect the world to pour out sympathy and tears.
there's a need for the US to grow up..... or suffer the consequences.
remember the US has a lot of blood on its hands going back many years
and the world is full of people with long memories.
hummingbird
>
>
> anyway don't waste time on my views of the US, they're not important.
>
> Oh never worry I don't.
something new.
> > are you more influenced by the fact bomb-blitzing everybody in sight
> > will not solve the problem.?
>
> I know that and I hope this doesn't develop into as you say bomb blitzing everyone in sight. What
you
> need to understand though is that the genie is out of the bottle, these things have a life of
their own
> and you cannot undo what has already started. This crisis has the potential to develop into a
prolonged
> World War. It might lead to Pakistan attacking India, it might lead to China invading India or
attacking
> Taiwan. It might lead to Russia retaking much of its former empire and it might lead to all out
nuclear
> conflict. I don't know and am not predicting that any of this will happen but forces have been
> unleashed and it is going to be like a chain reaction auto accident. There is going to be one
reaction
> followed by another. President Bush and America as a whole is going to be swept into this
reaction
> along with everyone else. It is simply not possible for America not to react to this seminal
event in
> history.
are you saying the US is uncontrollable when angry.?
i think your assessment is exaggerated.
if the US believes any one of these events might occur it further
shows the importance of persuing realistic solutions, not normal US
gung-ho approaches which are not actually solutions.
>
> > there is some scope for measured military
> > action against culprits 'provable' to the international community but
> > the main focus must be on the US modifying its foreign policies.
> > this is so obvious.
>
> This is not going to happen. Even if you feel this (and I most certainly do not feel that the US
ought
> to make even a single fundamental change to foreign policy,) this action has made US foreign
policy
> absolutely solidify and will be unalterable.
this is amazing arrogance.
then the whole world should abandon its support for the US who will then
become the pariah it wants to be. this will bring about a major re-alignment
and the US will be the ultimate loser - unless it chooses to destroy the world.
> > do ordinary americans want to live in fear from further attacks against US interests just to
prove to
> > the world they can keep coming back for more.?
>
> The short answer is yes rather than bow to changing US policy in order to accommodate terrorists.
>
> > that sounds like masochism
> > and crass stupidity. did you learn nothing from Vietnam.?
>
> Whatever. and yes we learned much from Vietnam.
apparently not.
> > fortunately, i believe the US will only get support from major
> > world nations if it dishes out the military in a measured way.
>
> I think America will get total support from the West but of course I am not sure. But it doesn't
> matter. America is prepared to act entirely alone if it has to. But the world better be prepared
for
> the worst if it comes to that.
i thnk you are winding up the anti. for personal ego reasons.
> > further, i do believe the US govt will review its foreign policies
> > in the M/E and will hopefully take a stronger stand against the
> > main perpetrator of terrorism there - Israel.
> > climb on board Bill, smell the coffee. it's time to call time.
>
> I think you must be confusing piss for coffee. but we shall see. It really hardly matters what
you or
> I think will happen. What will happen, we will know soon enough.and what if the M/E turns off the
> taps..?
what yer gonna do Bill.? send in the military.?
consequences.?
> snip
>
> > will the US bomb-blitze them.? after all it's their oil.
> > a policy of madness and a recipe for eventual defeat.
> > look back in history.
>
> All this is possible. It is possible that the entire world will be plunged into prolonged
desolation
> and destruction. You don't seem to comprehend how significant and unalterable the present
situation
> is. Again, I hope and pray that none of this happens and it certainly might not but if you are
looking
> for the US to change in order to prevent it happening I *know* that that is not going to happen.
i think you massively underestimate the influence that US allies
have on your gung-ho Pentagon folks. the US does not want its
future destroyed by isolation.