world trade center tower
kluscombe
outragious cowardly attack on your country today!
i think all of today should forget our differences today and say a
prayer for the victims!
I know i wind some of you up from time to time, but this message
comes from my heart! i hope you find the perpetrators of this evil and
bring them to justice, and until you do no one is in the free world
safe. Im so very sorry.
Keith
JIGSAW1695
From: kluscombe klus...@swissonline.ch
Date: 9/11/01 10:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3B9E1E6F...@swissonline.ch>
===============================
Thanks.
I would say that this ranks right up there with Pearl Harbor in terms of
pushing a lot of political differences aside.
And I have a feeling that Osma Ben Laden's days are numbered.
Mike
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010911112335...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Richard Jackson
Thank you Keith. Whoever did this made a drastic mistake. Americans
fuss and feud among themselves, but the one thing which galvanizes this
nation is a cowardly attack such as this. Rest assured that there will
be a reckoning for this act. If it is a nation, like Iraq, we will
declare war. If it is a person, we will be going after him and anyone
who shelters him. Those nations who are our allies should stand beside
us. Those who are our enemies need to start shaking. Those who want to
remain neutral best stand aside.
The American people will settle for no less.
--
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:3B9E4A40...@lcc.net...
America has suffered grievously; it is possible that
more lives have been lost in New York than in all
the terrorist outrages since 1945. They may even
outnumber the losses borne by Londoners during
the blitz. The temptation to lash out in an indiscriminate
fashion at America's supposed enemies will be enormous
but must be resisted. These crimes though appalling
in their impact were not committed by a country or
a religion. They were committed by a gang of thugs,
thugs like McVeigh, thugs like Gerry Adams. True
the Taliban has harboured some of the most suspect
in Afghanistan. But what will be the point of bombing
Afghanistan? America might get an emotional
release by taking such actions but will only end up
by producing more thugs (freedom fighters!) for
future terrorist raids. Of course America must act
but she must act wisely. The men behind the
bombings must be identified (a task that cannot be
too difficult for the most advanced secret service
in the world); the countries that harbour these
gentlemen must hand them over for trial in the country
where the outrages occurred i.e. the USA; if they refuse
then, and only then, should retribution be exacted.
Personally I have no doubt that they will be handed
over.
dirtdog
wrote:
Oh bloody typical.
The flames haven't even gone out. You don't know how many thousands of
people you have lost. You haven't yet got the slightest clue who did
it, and already you want war declaring on every Arab nation hostile to
the US.
What happens when there is a war, Richard? People die. Civillians die.
Children die.
How would the US bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad, taking with
them many lives who had no part whatsoever in the massacre in the US
today make you any better than the shithead scumbag wankers who did
this?
*sigh*
Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
well.
w00f
Richard Jackson
Exactly right, John. The need is for a measured and well thought
through response. I do not think we should go about attacking anyone
who speaks out against us, but need to identify who is responsible and
then respond. Those responsible, however, should prepare for a response
far beyond what they could ever imagine.
I believe the American people will call for the total and complete
destruction of any responsible party or nation. This type of attack
will unite Americans just as Pearl Harbor did. (Which the attack has
already been likened to) The only question now is who is responsible
and how hard they will be hit.
I believe this act will prove to be one of a coordinated effort by a
fairly large group of terrorist. Unlike the Oklahoma City bombing, this
attack required coordination not only of the suicide crashes, but
someone had to put the weapons in place on the planes. I have ridden
commercial in the US on many occasions, and can tell you with positive
assurance that there had to be someone on the ground who put weapons on
the planes. It is very difficult if not nearly impossible to carry such
weapons on board as a passenger.
I can also theorize there had to be more than one hijacker to be able to
overcome the stewardesses and pilots. Someone had to hold the others at
bay while one flew the aircraft. No professional pilot would willingly
do what the pilots in these airplanes did. If you were going to die
anyway, why would you do such a horrible thing. I personally would fly
the aircraft into the ground rather than into a building with thousands
of people.
To attack in such a method required some resources and a network to
accomplish. Someone will talk sometime, and then will be the time to
act, and act swiftly and decisively.
--
Richard Jackson
JIGSAW1695
>From: "John Rennie" j.re...@ntlworld.com
>Date: 9/11/01 2:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <iMsn7.16857$fA.30...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
For once I agree with John. But I still think there will be a general "purging"
of all active terrorist organizations and cells.
Highimpact1000
> Oh bloody typical.
>
> The flames haven't even gone out. You don't know how many thousands of
> people you have lost. You haven't yet got the slightest clue who did
> it, and already you want war declaring on every Arab nation hostile to
> the US.
>
> What happens when there is a war, Richard? People die. Civillians die.
> Children die.
>
> How would the US bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad, taking with
> them many lives who had no part whatsoever in the massacre in the US
> today make you any better than the shithead scumbag wankers who did
> this?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
> well.
>
>
> w00f
Agreed, we should act with reason. The question entering my mind is:
Is the entire Middle East and Asia a threat to our country? We have
the ability to destroy them now. If we nuke, will Russia nuke us
back? It's something to consider. 50 years from now these guys will
all have intercontinental ballistic missiles and they will destroy us.
It may be time for America to take over and destroy all hostile
countries. We should not act rashly, but today's bombing shows that we
have the right to do whatever we want to protect our world.
Alternatively it may be wise to do nothing but destroy the direct
perpetrators... if we think that the world wide web, globalization,
and economic prosperity will gradually change the world to a better
place. It's a tough scale to balance and decision to make.
A Planet Visitor
in excess of 10,000 citizens, by the most recent estimate. Richard claimed
"IF" Iraq, as only an EXAMPLE (you do know what that is, don't you) of a
nation, which harbors a grudge against the U.S. His comment was in
reference to a NATION (any nation) which harbors those who are proven
to perpetrate such an act.
> What happens when there is a war, Richard? People die. Civillians die.
> Children die.
>
> How would the US bombing xxxx out of Kabul or Baghdad, taking with
> them many lives who had no part whatsoever in the massacre in the US
> today make you any better than the shithead scumbag wankers who did
> this?
>
Wait a minute... suppose it WAS proven that Afghanistan or Iraq or
Norway, as a national force was behind such an act of war on the U.S?
Do you suppose that we should individually pick out those who were
PERSONALLY responsible for these acts? Did England respond in
that manner after THEIR civilian population was bombed by the
Germans in WW II? Or did England respond IN KIND against the
German civilian population?
> *sigh*
>
Yes, *sigh" you might... because through ALL of this I sense that, like
those who celebrated in the streets of Palestine, you find some
sense of satisfaction in these events. It's little wonder that I find you
so morally repulsive. Even keith expresses some sympathy toward those
who have been affected by this tragedy. From you, all we've found is the
same old tired anti-American rhetoric. With a bunch of worthless
question marks responding to various posts.
> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
> well.
>
Clearly, Richard DID NOT say 'bombing any nation you think had something
to do with it." You clearly ignore the 'IF' which was a defining qualification to
his words. You've simply tried to put those words in his mouth, in your
internal anger against anyone who would suppose that the U.S. has been
attacked by a force more deadly than that which precipitated it's entry into
WW II. You make me sick to my stomach. And this has nothing to do
with our past problems. You simply make me sick to my stomach.
PV
> w00f
>
>
Annie Rambo
> True
> the Taliban has harboured some of the most suspect
> in Afghanistan. But what will be the point of bombing
> Afghanistan?
Knowingly withholding information about terrorists, or their whereabouts
is automatically condoning the acts themselves. Which makes the
governments involved in any kind of cover-up directly responsible.
They have fucked with the wrong country.
~~Annie, shocked, saddened and finally....very, very angry
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.o...@w00f.w00f.w00f.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:30:40 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net>
> wrote:
[snip the babblings of the Big Issue vendor]
> >Thank you Keith. Whoever did this made a drastic mistake. Americans
> >fuss and feud among themselves, but the one thing which galvanizes this
> >nation is a cowardly attack such as this. Rest assured that there will
> >be a reckoning for this act. If it is a nation, like Iraq, we will
> >declare war. If it is a person, we will be going after him and anyone
> >who shelters him. Those nations who are our allies should stand beside
> >us. Those who are our enemies need to start shaking. Those who want to
> >remain neutral best stand aside.
> >
> >The American people will settle for no less.
[snippage]
> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
> well.
I'm deeply saddened and shocked by the attacks. I'll say that at the
outset.
At the same time, I am angry about the US Government's response to those
attacks. Bush and his administration have proven themselves to be no
different from the terrorists that they abhor so much.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
[snip John's excellent post]
> For once I agree with John. But I still think there will be a general
> "purging"
> of all active terrorist organizations and cells.
You are correct in both respects. Are you trying to shake the "Silly
Jiggy" moniker? Don't go all sensible on us now!
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-C82F8B....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
What particular response are you referring to? Burying our dead, perhaps?
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > At the same time, I am angry about the US Government's response to
> > those
> > attacks. Bush and his administration have proven themselves to be no
> > different from the terrorists that they abhor so much.
> >
>
> What particular response are you referring to? Burying our dead,
> perhaps?
The senseless, indiscriminate bombing of Kabul springs to mind pretty
readily. I would have thought you to be much better informed than not
to know _that_, PV.
I must reiterate that I was shocked, saddened and angered by the initial
terrorist attacks but any action against Afghanistan is completely
unwarranted and indefensible at present.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 9/11/01 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <diablo-CF0264....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <20010911153211...@mb-fh.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
[snip John's excellent post]
> For once I agree with John. But I still think there will be a general
> "purging"
> of all active terrorist organizations and cells.
You are correct in both respects. Are you trying to shake the "Silly
Jiggy" moniker? Don't go all sensible on us now!
===============================
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
If it is required that I become sensible, it is just a sacrifice that I will
have to make.
John Rennie
> In article <Cqxn7.137824$aZ.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > > At the same time, I am angry about the US Government's response to
> > > those
> > > attacks. Bush and his administration have proven themselves to be no
> > > different from the terrorists that they abhor so much.
> > >
> >
> > What particular response are you referring to? Burying our dead,
> > perhaps?
>
> The senseless, indiscriminate bombing of Kabul springs to mind pretty
> readily. I would have thought you to be much better informed than not
> to know _that_, PV.
>
> I must reiterate that I was shocked, saddened and angered by the initial
> terrorist attacks but any action against Afghanistan is completely
> unwarranted and indefensible at present.
Steady now! It's been a lousy, lousy day but there is no need
to start blaming America for the explosions in Kabul. Explosions
are not a rarity there anyway and this time they have probably been
caused by those who rebel against the Taliban.
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-BA33D6....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <Cqxn7.137824$aZ.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > > At the same time, I am angry about the US Government's response to
> > > those
> > > attacks. Bush and his administration have proven themselves to be no
> > > different from the terrorists that they abhor so much.
> > >
> >
> > What particular response are you referring to? Burying our dead,
> > perhaps?
>
> The senseless, indiscriminate bombing of Kabul springs to mind pretty
> readily. I would have thought you to be much better informed than not
> to know _that_, PV.
>
> I must reiterate that I was shocked, saddened and angered by the initial
> terrorist attacks but any action against Afghanistan is completely
> unwarranted and indefensible at present.
>
helicopters?' Before you jump on the attack which occurred in
Kabul, you should perhaps get your FACTS right. Those attacks
by factions in that country who are part of the INTERNAL struggle
which is ongoing in that country.
If and when the U.S. determines WHO was responsible for the act
of war perpetrated on the U.S., I can guarantee we will not respond
with two helicopters.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Presumably my apology didn't get there in time. Our media initially
speculated that the goings on in Kabul were instigated by the US but
there has been a recent clarification.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:EXxn7.14627$iD.23...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
restraint in identifying those responsible for the acts of war against
the U.S., yet at the same moment, HE knee-jerks in reaction to an
attack in Kabul, quickly blaming THAT attack on the U.S. Might I
suggest some form of a double-standard being demonstrated there?
By and large, however; I'm beyond argument today. The
events beggar description. Can you imagine an attack on
London which results in 30,000 simultaneous murders? I predict
that tomorrow or the next the U.S. will awake with a most terrible
resolve.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-121F86....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
Haven't you demonstrated EXACTLY what you claim the U.S. should
NOT demonstrate? Isn't SPECULATION what you claim the U.S. should
NOT rely on? Sorry, if it seems as if I'm twisting the sword, but it's been
an extremely difficult day for ALL Americans.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > Presumably my apology didn't get there in time. Our media initially
> > speculated that the goings on in Kabul were instigated by the US but
> > there has been a recent clarification.
> Haven't you demonstrated EXACTLY what you claim the U.S. should
> NOT demonstrate? Isn't SPECULATION what you claim the U.S. should
> NOT rely on? Sorry, if it seems as if I'm twisting the sword, but it's
> been
> an extremely difficult day for ALL Americans.
For a cynic, I'm probably too keen to accept much of what the media
tells me. I use the word "speculate" because the reports turned out to
be pure drivel but they were reported as fact, IIRC. I was in the
shower when I was listening and may have misheard, however.
I don't think the magnitude of these events has really registered with
me yet.
Sometimes I'm glad that I live in a backwater.
Richard Jackson
I saw that Kabul had an explosion and fire at an ammo dump. I wasn't
aware our military had announced that they had targeted Kabul. In fact,
I believe the Pentagon denied any military action on our part.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
Just curious. How do you think people down under would react to such a
series of murderous acts if they occurred there?
I know here the initial gut reaction is to "kill them all and let God
sort them out." sort of thing, but that will pass. What will not pass
easily is a united effort on the part of the American people to find and
punish those responsible. America is a funny place is such
circumstances. We tend to pull together and get madder than Hell when
attacked like this. It doesn't matter what or where we live in America,
you are about to see a nation with a single purpose. I just hope we are
cool enough to get the right people when the results of that intent are
weighed.
--
Richard Jackson
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
> Just curious. How do you think people down under would react to such a
> series of murderous acts if they occurred there?
It's damned hard to imagine what the reaction would be. There are
really very few precedents that indicate how Australians have reacted in
the past that I can think of. I can't recall a single act of terrorism
perpetrated on Australian soil. With Aussies being such a laid-back,
laconic bunch, I imagine that the level of rage would peter out very
quickly indeed and be replaced with a pragmatic approach.
> I know here the initial gut reaction is to "kill them all and let God
> sort them out." sort of thing, but that will pass.
I hope so. Intense anger is easily understandable but any action
undertaken must be performed as clinically as possible.
> What will not pass
> easily is a united effort on the part of the American people to find and
> punish those responsible. America is a funny place is such
> circumstances. We tend to pull together and get madder than Hell when
> attacked like this. It doesn't matter what or where we live in America,
> you are about to see a nation with a single purpose. I just hope we are
> cool enough to get the right people when the results of that intent are
> weighed.
That's what I hope. I'm not sure whether I condone the use of lethal
force against the planners and perpetrators. That's largely due to my
principled pacifism, though, and I'm not sure that this incident isn't
an exception to the rule.
Lexham
This is just exactly the kind of limp-wristed sniveling that
encourages more terrorist attacks. It's time for America to wake up
to the new realities of warfare in the 21st century. This is an act
of war, and it is time to unleash the dogs of war.
Lexham
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
lex...@home.com (Lexham) wrote:
And against whom do you unleash these dogs of war, eh Einstein?
Some kind of investigation is probably warranted, I'd wager.
Highimpact1000
Russia will not nuke us or we will nuke them back! The rest of the
world doesn't have the capability to destroy us. If they try.... they
will die!
Lexham
-----------------------------------snip
>
> And against whom do you unleash these dogs of war, eh Einstein?
>
> Some kind of investigation is probably warranted, I'd wager.
>
Of course there will be an investigation, and once we find the ones
who did it (or the government that is harboring them) we have little
choice but to kill a bunch of them. This is just the first shot of
the first battle.
Lexham
dirtdog
Yes, you have lost a lot of people. Hundred of UK citizens are also
dead.
I am apalled by the loss of Americans no less than I am appalled by
the loss of English persons in this tragedy. Or Greeks. Or Germans. Or
French. Or Swiss. They are all people.
Terrorism has been doing the rounds for many years PV. In the UK we
suffered for many years, and continue to worry about isolated
incidents. The French, the Spanish, the Russians and many others have
been suffering at the hands of terrorists.
It is strange, however, that when Syrian agents were shown to have
complied in the attempted crash landing of an airliner in Paris, there
was no declaration of war by the US.
There was no suggestion that we should 'nuke' Syria.
When funds for the murderous IRA were _openly_ allowed to be raised in
the US to satisfy your large Irish population, did you classify
yourselves as being compliant in the bombing of British towns? Of
course you didn't.
When the UK was getting it's arse spanked by the ECHR on account of
the mere suggestion that we had operated a shoot to kill policy
against suspected IRA terrorists, where was the US saying 'we stand
behind our close ally and support any measure they take to combat the
menace of terrorism'?
Bear in mind that a shoot to kill policy against active suspects is
actually a far cry from the full scale invasion/nuking that you and
your countrymen are now advocating.
The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
>
>> What happens when there is a war, Richard? People die. Civillians die.
>> Children die.
>>
>> How would the US bombing xxxx out of Kabul or Baghdad, taking with
>> them many lives who had no part whatsoever in the massacre in the US
>> today make you any better than the shithead scumbag wankers who did
>> this?
>>
>Wait a minute... suppose it WAS proven that Afghanistan or Iraq or
>Norway, as a national force was behind such an act of war on the U.S?
>Do you suppose that we should individually pick out those who were
>PERSONALLY responsible for these acts?
Hypothetical.
At the moment, nothing is proven. Do you consider that you should not
_try_ to pick out those responsible?
Oh, I forgot. It's that old compassionate doctrine of utilitarianism
that you support, isn't it? Why risk letting one terrorist get away to
reoffend when you can just wipe the lot out, eh (along with a few
thousand civillians?
And you didn't actually answer the question I in futility asked
Richard.
"How does indescriminately bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad and
its civillians make you any better than the terrorists?"
>Did England respond in
>that manner after THEIR civilian population was bombed by the
>Germans in WW II? Or did England respond IN KIND against the
>German civilian population?
Now let's get one thing straight.
WWII was a completely different situation and you know it. It was a
state of open war. You and other angry Americans must realise that
things are no longer that simple. This, PV, is terrorism. Much as you
would like to have a target to shoot lots of guns at, you haven't.
I am sorry, but that is a fact at the moment. It may well remain a
fact.
>
>> *sigh*
>>
>
>Yes, *sigh" you might... because through ALL of this I sense that, like
>those who celebrated in the streets of Palestine, you find some
>sense of satisfaction in these events. It's little wonder that I find you
>so morally repulsive. Even keith expresses some sympathy toward those
>who have been affected by this tragedy. From you, all we've found is the
>same old tired anti-American rhetoric. With a bunch of worthless
>question marks responding to various posts.
First, you're talking as the royal 'we' again.
Second, fucking grow up. I have no interest in getting into 'let's see
who can act most outraged' competition. The loss of life has been
immense. I am truly saddened.
However, when I saw those pictures on TV, my thoughts for the first
day or so were with the victims and their families. I imagined the
sheer terror one must feel as passenger of a plane being flown into a
building.
I imagined how it must feel to be crushed by thousands of tonnes of
metal. I imagined the fear of those trapped in a skyscraper which had
just been fucking sliced in half by a 767.
I grieved about the way that the 'human spirit' of which you so
proudly ramble could become so warped and twisted as to allow a person
to do a thing such as this to _anybody_, let alone thousands.
I did not think 'This is an outrage against America. Freedom is under
attack. We must seek revenge. '. Nope, at that stage, such things
didn't cross my mind, and I saw absolutely shocked to hear that moron
president of yours dribbling about seeking vengeance within a bloody
hour of the thing happening.
I was shocked to hear some American politician on TV stating that any
country that did not support _whatever_ action America took against
the perpetrators was complicit in the terrorist acts.
I wonder where he was when some Paddies tried to blow up the entire
British cabinet?
More things like this _will_ happen, PV. America has learnt in a
savage and brutal way what civillian destruction looks like. To use a
cliche, this is the New World Order. I just hope that your government
realises that to go and do unto other what they have done unto you
will not bring anyone back to life.
The US has the strongest (if not the best) armed forces in the world,
and the most complete intelligence network. You must ensure that you
bring those who did this to some form of justice in a manner a little
more subtle than than laying waste to entire cities.
>
>> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
>> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
>> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
>> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
>> well.
>>
>Clearly, Richard DID NOT say 'bombing any nation you think had something
>to do with it."
No. Richard said that 'America's enemies should be shaking' - Clearly
implying that everyone was under suspicion.
Surely if he was suggesting that America should only strike against
those directly responsible, then all of America's 'enemies' need not
be shaking.
> You clearly ignore the 'IF' which was a defining qualification to
>his words. You've simply tried to put those words in his mouth, in your
>internal anger against anyone who would suppose that the U.S. has been
>attacked by a force more deadly than that which precipitated it's entry into
>WW II. You make me sick to my stomach. And this has nothing to do
>with our past problems. You simply make me sick to my stomach.
>
Fuck off PV.
You are acting like a silly twat.
I have said nothing on this topic other than expressing my regrets
that such a thing has happened, but urging caution that raving
lunatics demanding nuclear strikes, invasions and the like must not be
allowed to influence good policy in reaction.
I was going to leave my criticisms of some of the more extreme
American reactions for a few days. you might have noticed from the
strange visitor that I actually took myself off to do a little gentle
trolling in another ng on request for an old friend, where I planned
to stay for a few days until you'd all calmed down a bit.
However, stuff like this does you no favours. What do you want me to
do to show my sorrow? The only person putting words into mouths, PV
is you. This has absolutely everything to do with our past differences
as far as you are concerned, as just like the position US policy will
no doubt adopt, you seek someone, anyone, to strike out against
because the US is hurting. WHat is clear is that you have absolutely
_no_ basis whatsoever for saying ridiculous things like 'you feel
satisfaction', comparing me to Palestinian protesters, or saying I
give you reason to be sick to the stomach
I sincerely hope that you now have things in a slightly more realistic
perspective now. Terrorism is teririble. It is nigh on impossible to
prevent. People die - Innocent people. They are blown apart for doing
absolutely nothing just to make headlines. Perhaps you are now more
aware of whom the 'most despicable types of human' are.
You have many countries who will stand by you who have themselves been
victims of repeated terrorist acts. They may be able to help you come
to terms with your loss, and live with the new danger you will all
feel in your everyday lives. Anyone who lived in London during the
late eighties and early nineties will tell you about that.
w00f
>
>PV
>
>> w00f
>>
>>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of....@w00f.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:52:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >Oh bloody typical is the truth... bloody typical of you, dirt. We've
> >lost
> >in excess of 10,000 citizens, by the most recent estimate. Richard
> >claimed
> >"IF" Iraq, as only an EXAMPLE (you do know what that is, don't you) of a
> >nation, which harbors a grudge against the U.S. His comment was in
> >reference to a NATION (any nation) which harbors those who are proven
> >to perpetrate such an act.
>
> Yes, you have lost a lot of people. Hundred of UK citizens are also
> dead.
>
> I am apalled by the loss of Americans no less than I am appalled by
> the loss of English persons in this tragedy. Or Greeks. Or Germans. Or
> French. Or Swiss. They are all people.
All the more so now that the networks have started examining the "human
interest" stories. I was initially upset in the most abstract possible
fashion but some of the interviews with relatives have left me in tears.
Literally. Yesterday, watching a young man try to come to terms with
the death of his father, I was weeping openly. His grief was one of the
most affecting things that I have ever witnessed.
> It is strange, however, that when Syrian agents were shown to have
> complied in the attempted crash landing of an airliner in Paris, there
> was no declaration of war by the US.
This isn't really the time to bring this up, I feel. There are quite a
few thoughts that I've had about this issue but I also feel that we
should display some kind of deference to those more closely affected by
this monstrous act than ourselves. There are quite a few things that
are worthy of discussion but is this really the time?
> The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
> and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
I have things to say about this, too, but I feel that I should wait
until people are calmer.
> >Wait a minute... suppose it WAS proven that Afghanistan or Iraq or
> >Norway, as a national force was behind such an act of war on the U.S?
> >Do you suppose that we should individually pick out those who were
> >PERSONALLY responsible for these acts?
>
> Hypothetical.
>
> At the moment, nothing is proven. Do you consider that you should not
> _try_ to pick out those responsible?
>
> Oh, I forgot. It's that old compassionate doctrine of utilitarianism
> that you support, isn't it? Why risk letting one terrorist get away to
> reoffend when you can just wipe the lot out, eh (along with a few
> thousand civillians?
>
> And you didn't actually answer the question I in futility asked
> Richard.
>
> "How does indescriminately bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad and
> its civillians make you any better than the terrorists?"
Of course it will degrade Americans. Don't deny people the right to
express their anger, though. It is a part of the grieving process and
it is unreasonable to condemn it.
> >Did England respond in
> >that manner after THEIR civilian population was bombed by the
> >Germans in WW II? Or did England respond IN KIND against the
> >German civilian population?
>
> Now let's get one thing straight.
>
> WWII was a completely different situation and you know it. It was a
> state of open war. You and other angry Americans must realise that
> things are no longer that simple. This, PV, is terrorism. Much as you
> would like to have a target to shoot lots of guns at, you haven't.
>
> I am sorry, but that is a fact at the moment. It may well remain a
> fact.
Yes, and all gut reactions aside, I'm sure that most sensible Americans
will come to a more considered point of view in time. It is hard to
divorce this thing from an act of war and we must acknowledge that
without actually believing it.
> >Yes, *sigh" you might... because through ALL of this I sense that, like
> >those who celebrated in the streets of Palestine, you find some
> >sense of satisfaction in these events. It's little wonder that I find
> >you
> >so morally repulsive. Even keith expresses some sympathy toward those
> >who have been affected by this tragedy. From you, all we've found is
> >the
> >same old tired anti-American rhetoric. With a bunch of worthless
> >question marks responding to various posts.
>
> First, you're talking as the royal 'we' again.
>
> Second, fucking grow up. I have no interest in getting into 'let's see
> who can act most outraged' competition. The loss of life has been
> immense. I am truly saddened.
>
> However, when I saw those pictures on TV, my thoughts for the first
> day or so were with the victims and their families. I imagined the
> sheer terror one must feel as passenger of a plane being flown into a
> building.
>
> I imagined how it must feel to be crushed by thousands of tonnes of
> metal. I imagined the fear of those trapped in a skyscraper which had
> just been fucking sliced in half by a 767.
>
> I grieved about the way that the 'human spirit' of which you so
> proudly ramble could become so warped and twisted as to allow a person
> to do a thing such as this to _anybody_, let alone thousands.
Very similar to my reaction, although I would have stopped short of the
personal abuse on this occasion. I think taht the human tragedy has
been overshadowed by national anger and this worries me in terms of what
the US may decide to do in response.
> I did not think 'This is an outrage against America. Freedom is under
> attack. We must seek revenge. '. Nope, at that stage, such things
> didn't cross my mind, and I saw absolutely shocked to hear that moron
> president of yours dribbling about seeking vengeance within a bloody
> hour of the thing happening.
>
> I was shocked to hear some American politician on TV stating that any
> country that did not support _whatever_ action America took against
> the perpetrators was complicit in the terrorist acts.
Let them express this anger. It's part of the grieving process. If we
condemn it then it becomes far more entrenched and we may well see
retaliation that amounts to no more than terrorism itself.
> >> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
> >> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
> >> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
> >> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
> >> well.
> >>
> >Clearly, Richard DID NOT say 'bombing any nation you think had something
> >to do with it."
>
> No. Richard said that 'America's enemies should be shaking' - Clearly
> implying that everyone was under suspicion.
>
> Surely if he was suggesting that America should only strike against
> those directly responsible, then all of America's 'enemies' need not
> be shaking.
That is one of the things that concerns me. Is America so poorly
regarded that all of its enemies must be shaking as a result of the
threat of an indiscriminate response to this terrorist act?
I sincerely hope not and further hope that Richard and PV (in
particular) are expressing an emotional response.
> > You clearly ignore the 'IF' which was a defining qualification to
> >his words. You've simply tried to put those words in his mouth, in your
> >internal anger against anyone who would suppose that the U.S. has been
> >attacked by a force more deadly than that which precipitated it's entry
> >into
> >WW II. You make me sick to my stomach. And this has nothing to do
> >with our past problems. You simply make me sick to my stomach.
[snip abuse]
You shouldn't really be saying that. You're a bright bugger and I know
that you aren't really condemning people's immediate reactions. Give
'em a break. Even the most conservative will have a more measured
opinion given a little bit of time.
> I was going to leave my criticisms of some of the more extreme
> American reactions for a few days.
I suggest that you live up to that. You've been well and truly
restrained (and most of us know how puckish you can be when required)
and I think that you would do well to remain so for a while.
> you might have noticed from the
> strange visitor that I actually took myself off to do a little gentle
> trolling in another ng on request for an old friend, where I planned
> to stay for a few days until you'd all calmed down a bit.
Good plan. This topic is probably a "troll-free-zone" for a while at
least.
> However, stuff like this does you no favours. What do you want me to
> do to show my sorrow? The only person putting words into mouths, PV
> is you. This has absolutely everything to do with our past differences
> as far as you are concerned, as just like the position US policy will
> no doubt adopt, you seek someone, anyone, to strike out against
> because the US is hurting. WHat is clear is that you have absolutely
> _no_ basis whatsoever for saying ridiculous things like 'you feel
> satisfaction', comparing me to Palestinian protesters, or saying I
> give you reason to be sick to the stomach
>
> I sincerely hope that you now have things in a slightly more realistic
> perspective now.
You know that he has. PV is a few things:
- passionate
- stubborn
- patriotic
- conservative
- bright.
The first three qualities indicate that he will be _extremely_ fucking
angry at the moment. The fourth quality will indicate that he will
regard an expeditious response as being the only response. The last
quality should show that his initial anger will become increasingly
rational and rationalised as time passes. Give the guy a break on this
occasion.
While I disagree with just about everything he has to say, I regard PV
as being a good person above all else. I admire his anger in some ways,
given that it arises from his passion. He'll calm down, I'd guess. He
won't be forgiving but he will be rational and would hardly advocate the
deaths of innocents in the Middle East.
> Terrorism is teririble. It is nigh on impossible to
> prevent. People die - Innocent people. They are blown apart for doing
> absolutely nothing just to make headlines. Perhaps you are now more
> aware of whom the 'most despicable types of human' are.
Yes, this all puts a little bit of obnoxious trolling into perspective.
Come to think of it, right now it puts the significance of the DP debate
into perspective.
> You have many countries who will stand by you who have themselves been
> victims of repeated terrorist acts. They may be able to help you come
> to terms with your loss, and live with the new danger you will all
> feel in your everyday lives. Anyone who lived in London during the
> late eighties and early nineties will tell you about that.
Nothing quite matches the _magnitude_ and immediacy of what has
occurred. I'm sure that Europeans (and Britons) are sympathetic and
more than a little familiar with the impact of terrorism. I am hoping
that much of the response to this act will transcend national boundaries
and those who perpetrated this truly evil, terrible act will be regarded
as sick, twisted individuals rather than representatives of
nationalities.
J., a.k.a.
John Rennie
"dirtdog" <dog.of....@w00f.com> wrote in message
news:trr0qt4fk0vnf9gag...@4ax.com...
There are so many things I agree with in the above that I think
that those who have killfiled you for good and bad reasons
should read them.
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
I am a little surprised at you, QZD
<snipped>
>
>> It is strange, however, that when Syrian agents were shown to have
>> complied in the attempted crash landing of an airliner in Paris, there
>> was no declaration of war by the US.
>
>This isn't really the time to bring this up, I feel. There are quite a
>few thoughts that I've had about this issue but I also feel that we
>should display some kind of deference to those more closely affected by
>this monstrous act than ourselves. There are quite a few things that
>are worthy of discussion but is this really the time?
>
>> The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
>> and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
>
>I have things to say about this, too, but I feel that I should wait
>until people are calmer.
Sorry, QZD, I don't.
Many countless countries have suffered from terrorism. That is a fact.
The impact of terrorism (ie lots of death) is no different when
perpetrated in the US than it was in Afghanistan (with US backing,
BTW).
The fact remains. This is not war. It is terrorism.
>
>> >Wait a minute... suppose it WAS proven that Afghanistan or Iraq or
>> >Norway, as a national force was behind such an act of war on the U.S?
>> >Do you suppose that we should individually pick out those who were
>> >PERSONALLY responsible for these acts?
>>
>> Hypothetical.
>>
>> At the moment, nothing is proven. Do you consider that you should not
>> _try_ to pick out those responsible?
>>
>> Oh, I forgot. It's that old compassionate doctrine of utilitarianism
>> that you support, isn't it? Why risk letting one terrorist get away to
>> reoffend when you can just wipe the lot out, eh (along with a few
>> thousand civillians?
>>
>> And you didn't actually answer the question I in futility asked
>> Richard.
>>
>> "How does indescriminately bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad and
>> its civillians make you any better than the terrorists?"
>
>Of course it will degrade Americans. Don't deny people the right to
>express their anger, though. It is a part of the grieving process and
>it is unreasonable to condemn it.
No. No. No. I am not going to sit here whilst people talk about
actions which might well start another world war and the inevitable
fucking apocalypse that would bring (do you really thing Russia would
tolerate an invasion of Afghanistan - do you think America would back
down if it decided to go that way?) without having my say. Have you
wathced CNN? Do you notice that the only questions being asked are
'when will we strike back?' 'When can we go kick some ass?'
The whole thing is very worrying and I just know that Dubya is going
to do something very silly. You seem to forget over in Tasmania, QZD,
that Britain, given its location and vast stockpiles of American
nuclear warheads will be the very first place to go if it all kicks
off.
I do not see that screaming for thousands more deaths is an acceptable
part of any grieving process.
snipped
Where's the personal abuse?
>
>> I did not think 'This is an outrage against America. Freedom is under
>> attack. We must seek revenge. '. Nope, at that stage, such things
>> didn't cross my mind, and I saw absolutely shocked to hear that moron
>> president of yours dribbling about seeking vengeance within a bloody
>> hour of the thing happening.
>>
>> I was shocked to hear some American politician on TV stating that any
>> country that did not support _whatever_ action America took against
>> the perpetrators was complicit in the terrorist acts.
>
>Let them express this anger. It's part of the grieving process. If we
>condemn it then it becomes far more entrenched and we may well see
>retaliation that amounts to no more than terrorism itself.
This is not a valid expression of anger. Many other countries have
suffered terrorism without declaring that the rest of the world should
give them an blank cheque to unmetered retalliation and the infliction
of civillian deaths.
>
<snipped>
>> > You clearly ignore the 'IF' which was a defining qualification to
>> >his words. You've simply tried to put those words in his mouth, in your
>> >internal anger against anyone who would suppose that the U.S. has been
>> >attacked by a force more deadly than that which precipitated it's entry
>> >into
>> >WW II. You make me sick to my stomach. And this has nothing to do
>> >with our past problems. You simply make me sick to my stomach.
>
>[snip abuse]
>
>You shouldn't really be saying that. You're a bright bugger and I know
>that you aren't really condemning people's immediate reactions. Give
>'em a break. Even the most conservative will have a more measured
>opinion given a little bit of time.
>
Piss off, QZD.
If PV's immediate reaction to a massive tragedy in his country can
only be the unsubstantiated hurling of really very serious abuse
towards anyone he feels like, then he can, quite frankly, go fuck
himself.
What possible warrant is there to say this?
Now, calling someone's mum/wife/dad a slag is one thing. Seriously
(and I mean seriously) trying to shift some form of blame onto someone
completely unconnected to the tragedy is quite another. Read what he
says, QZD. To say that I take satisfaction from the death of 10,000
people is perhaps the most sick and unwarranted thing which has ever
been said in our exchanges. This response was mild compared to what I
thought he deserved, however, given that I am blessed with sensitivity
(yeah, right) and do not believe this to be a topic fit for troll
point scoring, this was toned down.
If PV is going to act like a silly child, I will treat him like one.
>> I was going to leave my criticisms of some of the more extreme
>> American reactions for a few days.
>
>I suggest that you live up to that. You've been well and truly
>restrained (and most of us know how puckish you can be when required)
>and I think that you would do well to remain so for a while.
I will do so unless outright idiocy is expressed such as what was
contained in the drivel PV wrote here.
Everybody has suffered in this. The human race has suffered. I see no
reason to let Americans do and say as they please as a result of this.
>
>> you might have noticed from the
>> strange visitor that I actually took myself off to do a little gentle
>> trolling in another ng on request for an old friend, where I planned
>> to stay for a few days until you'd all calmed down a bit.
>
>Good plan. This topic is probably a "troll-free-zone" for a while at
>least.
Are you telling me to piss off? I might do that for a while. I have
certainly got some good results over in my 'new group' and in one
short day of trolling, have been reported for abuse no fewer than 26
times, been asked to give my phone number so that some meathead could
have a fight with me, and actually been given a poster's genuine
mobile and home phone number with instructions to ring it so that we
can fight! Superb! I have obviously been told a thousand times how I
am obviously 14, how stupid I am, etc. And you won't believe how well
spelling and grammar flames containing spelling mistakes go down.
>
>> However, stuff like this does you no favours. What do you want me to
>> do to show my sorrow? The only person putting words into mouths, PV
>> is you. This has absolutely everything to do with our past differences
>> as far as you are concerned, as just like the position US policy will
>> no doubt adopt, you seek someone, anyone, to strike out against
>> because the US is hurting. WHat is clear is that you have absolutely
>> _no_ basis whatsoever for saying ridiculous things like 'you feel
>> satisfaction', comparing me to Palestinian protesters, or saying I
>> give you reason to be sick to the stomach
>>
>> I sincerely hope that you now have things in a slightly more realistic
>> perspective now.
>
>You know that he has. PV is a few things:
>
>- passionate
>- stubborn
>- patriotic
>- conservative
>- bright.
>
>The first three qualities indicate that he will be _extremely_ fucking
>angry at the moment. The fourth quality will indicate that he will
>regard an expeditious response as being the only response. The last
>quality should show that his initial anger will become increasingly
>rational and rationalised as time passes. Give the guy a break on this
>occasion.
What, like he gave me one? He was given a break, until I read this. If
PV lost someone close to him in this tragedy, then I shall forgive
him for what he said here. Otherwise, he must exercise restraint and
act like an adult, for the repugnance he feels towards what was done
will be not greater than mine. I just don't scream my outrage and
demand more death as a result, and through my failure to do this, I
have been likened to a Palestinian dancing in the street.
>
>While I disagree with just about everything he has to say, I regard PV
>as being a good person above all else. I admire his anger in some ways,
>given that it arises from his passion. He'll calm down, I'd guess. He
>won't be forgiving but he will be rational and would hardly advocate the
>deaths of innocents in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, it is the screaming voices of those demanding more
death that will be heard by the US government, which is hardly going
to wait until people have calmed down and formed rational opinions
before it strikes.
snipped
>> You have many countries who will stand by you who have themselves been
>> victims of repeated terrorist acts. They may be able to help you come
>> to terms with your loss, and live with the new danger you will all
>> feel in your everyday lives. Anyone who lived in London during the
>> late eighties and early nineties will tell you about that.
>
>Nothing quite matches the _magnitude_ and immediacy of what has
>occurred. I'm sure that Europeans (and Britons) are sympathetic and
>more than a little familiar with the impact of terrorism. I am hoping
>that much of the response to this act will transcend national boundaries
>and those who perpetrated this truly evil, terrible act will be regarded
>as sick, twisted individuals rather than representatives of
>nationalities.
Which is exactly my point. This has nothing to do with America. This
has everything to do with people.
Quite frankly, this is being turned into some form of nationalist
crusade - Lots of flags, singing of God Bless America and talk of
crimes against Liberty, Democracy and Justice - not a great deal of
reflection on how fucked up the human race is that such things happen.
America wants to declare war, just as she always does when she is
hurt. Unfortunately, there is at present no one for her to declare war
against. I just hope this frustration doesn't lead to them doing
something very stupid.
>J., a.k.a.
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
>----
>Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
>"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
> Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
> In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
> There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.w00f.net> wrote in message news:8onspt85u4oguuk56...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:30:40 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
<Clipped>
> >>
> >> Oh bloody typical.
> >>
> >> The flames haven't even gone out. You don't know how many thousands of
> >> people you have lost. You haven't yet got the slightest clue who did
> >> it, and already you want war declaring on every Arab nation hostile to
> >> the US.
> >
> >Oh bloody typical is the truth... bloody typical of you, dirt. We've lost
> >in excess of 10,000 citizens, by the most recent estimate. Richard claimed
> >"IF" Iraq, as only an EXAMPLE (you do know what that is, don't you) of a
> >nation, which harbors a grudge against the U.S. His comment was in
> >reference to a NATION (any nation) which harbors those who are proven
> >to perpetrate such an act.
>
> Yes, you have lost a lot of people. Hundred of UK citizens are also
> dead.
>
Is this another of your profundities, such as 'Crack is cocaine?'
Why is it you lack common sense? Of course, hundreds of UK
citizens are also dead. I never claimed otherwise. Nationals of
MANY nations died as a result of these acts of terrorism. Is it
necessary for me to mention EVERY nation affected to lend any
validity to my words? Twenty terrorists who perpetrated these
acts are ALSO dead. Your point is meaningless, and borders on
a claim that some lives are worth more than others.
> I am apalled by the loss of Americans no less than I am appalled by
> the loss of English persons in this tragedy. Or Greeks. Or Germans. Or
> French. Or Swiss. They are all people.
>
No... you NOW wish to appear appalled. Prior to this, you had only
questions marks and criticism of comments which represented
rage over the perpetration of these acts. Look at your four posts on
the day of the act. Nothing reasonable in ANY of those comments.
Nor was there even a HINT of you being appalled by the acts themselves.
You only appeared argumentative toward those who felt rage about
those acts.
> Terrorism has been doing the rounds for many years PV. In the UK we
> suffered for many years, and continue to worry about isolated
> incidents. The French, the Spanish, the Russians and many others have
> been suffering at the hands of terrorists.
>
How you handled terrorism is of course your problem. Would you
expect the U.S. to respond unilaterally to those acts which occur
outside of the U.S? Aren't many of the actions taken by the U.S.
which affect other nations usually seen as interference in the
affairs of those other nations? Hasn't one of the major complaints from
Europeans been that America needs to mind its OWN business?
> It is strange, however, that when Syrian agents were shown to have
> complied in the attempted crash landing of an airliner in Paris, there
> was no declaration of war by the US.
>
Nor was there when the USS Cole was torpedoed by another suicide
terrorist, nor in the Khobar tower attack nor in the Pan Am disaster.
You fail to grasp the gravity of the present attack. It represents a
DECLARATION OF WAR. It far exceeds any expectation of being
a terrorist attack. And if a nation could be identified as specifically
involved in these acts (as was evident in Pearl Harbor), it would
constitute a requirement for a devastating and immediate
response by the U.S. as an act of 'Society self-Defense.' Your
comparison of an act which, while outrageous in itself, constituted not
even 1/100th of the loss of life, and not even 1/10,000th of the impact on
society, is disgusting. You seem to imply that the U.S. should respond
with a declaration of war in EVERY case of terrorism. No wonder I
mention your lack of common sense so often.
> There was no suggestion that we should 'nuke' Syria.
>
Is that... as you've suggested of me... the Imperial 'We?'
> When funds for the murderous IRA were _openly_ allowed to be raised in
> the US to satisfy your large Irish population, did you classify
> yourselves as being compliant in the bombing of British towns? Of
> course you didn't.
>
A rather idiotic comparison. The U.S. as an instrument of government
has worked as hard as the U.K. to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.
The efforts of George Mitchell and other Americans are prominent examples
of that fact. And in most cases those efforts have been regarded as
'interfering' rather than hoping to achieve some degree of rationality in
the religious argument. As in the Middle East, it is a FUTILE process.
All sectarian killings are acts of ZEALOTS. I have mentioned before, in
many posts, as recent as a month ago, that ZEALOTS have been
responsible for more misery to their fellow man, than all acts of God
combined. He who is a zealot in pursuit of religious fervor, is mentally,
morally and emotionally unbalanced.
> When the UK was getting it's arse spanked by the ECHR on account of
> the mere suggestion that we had operated a shoot to kill policy
> against suspected IRA terrorists, where was the US saying 'we stand
> behind our close ally and support any measure they take to combat the
> menace of terrorism'?
>
What nonsense. Had we taken ANY stand it would obviously be seen
as interference. It is the typical 'the U.S. cannot win by being involved'
in ANY argument external to itself. One need only examine the problems
that we HAVE involved ourselves in to realize this 'no win' result. Your
particular example glaringly points out this fact. Are you remarking that
the U.S. SHOULD support a policy that suggests a shoot to kill policy
against 'suspected' IRA terrorists? Is that due process?
> Bear in mind that a shoot to kill policy against active suspects is
> actually a far cry from the full scale invasion/nuking that you and
> your countrymen are now advocating.
>
Is that 'active' or 'suspected?' Certainly NO ONE would claim that
any action taken to stop terrorism in PROGRESS using ANY means,
would be inappropriate. Least of all the U.S.
> The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
> and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
>
If you call the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, The Pan Am disaster, and the
bombing of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa 'luck,' you've obviously even
less 'common sense' than I original ascribed to you. See -- for one SMALL
example of our problem.
http://www.emergency.com/cntrter2.htm
> >
> >> What happens when there is a war, Richard? People die. Civillians die.
> >> Children die.
> >>
> >> How would the US bombing xxxx out of Kabul or Baghdad, taking with
> >> them many lives who had no part whatsoever in the massacre in the US
> >> today make you any better than the shithead scumbag wankers who did
> >> this?
> >>
> >Wait a minute... suppose it WAS proven that Afghanistan or Iraq or
> >Norway, as a national force was behind such an act of war on the U.S?
> >Do you suppose that we should individually pick out those who were
> >PERSONALLY responsible for these acts?
>
> Hypothetical.
>
Jesus... isn't the word 'SUPPOSE' a hypothetical? Whatever does your
one-word comment represent except the obvious?
> At the moment, nothing is proven. Do you consider that you should not
> _try_ to pick out those responsible?
>
What absolute nonsense. Of course we should try to pick out those
responsible. But it seldom comes down to a specific individual, where
we must only respond to THAT particular individual. Consider this
scenario. Usama Ben Laden calls together members of the media
present in Afghanistan. He stands before them, with a follower standing
beside him holding a weapon, and acknowledges that HE is the
mastermind behind these acts. He claims to have done this in the
name of Allah, and states that he now offers HIS life in that cause.
As a final act he shouts -- "God is great, and Down with the U.S."
His follower who has previously been given instructions to do so,
now shoots him dead. WHERE DO WE GO FOR SATISFACTION? Is
that it? Do we now say, 'Terrorism is dead, and Justice has been
served?' Do you really believe that identifying the mastermind behind
this plot (assuming it is him, or even any other ONE individual), will
end in providing Justice to 10,000 dead humans? What of those
who harbored him? What of those who would do the SAME given
the resources? Support comes in MANY flavors... and support for
terrorism is bitter in all of them. Witness the new generation now
being spawned in Palestine. Dancing in the streets over the deaths
of 10,000 humans. Is that sanity? What in general has the U.S. done
to deserve that except try to bring Israel and Palestine together
beginning with the efforts of Carter? Of course, we realize that the
path taken by those two people since Jacob and Esau will NEVER
be intertwined again. But before those events which I saw
on the media, I felt myself more in sympathy to the cause of the
Palestinians then the Israelis. Although I felt them both to be the
typical zealot, who has caused such misery in the past. But that is
no more. No other country, regardless of how deep an enemy, has
shown such a disgusting face as I saw yesterday. Not even those
pictures of Japanese soldiers exalting over the dead in WW II
photos, can compare with what I saw yesterday. Yesterday it was
children and old women exalting over the dead. Do I blame THEM
for the events of September 11th? You damn right I do. I blame
their moral commitment to a policy which would find pleasure in the
death of more than 10,000 humans, most of whom would probably
have difficulty spelling 'Palestine.' Will I EVER be able to believe that
the Palestinians are REASONABLE in any dispute they may have
with ANY other people concerning what they view as rightfully
theirs? NOT A CHANCE. I may still believe that they have such
rights, in some small part. But I will NEVER AGAIN, believe that
they are REASONABLE.
> Oh, I forgot. It's that old compassionate doctrine of utilitarianism
> that you support, isn't it? Why risk letting one terrorist get away to
> reoffend when you can just wipe the lot out, eh (along with a few
> thousand civillians?
>
It seems as if we have been beaten to the punch in respect to
wiping out a 'few thousand civilians.' Are you suggesting that we
SHOULD let one terrorist get away to reoffend (perhaps with a
nuclear weapon the next time?). You have NO comprehension of
how deep the wound inflicted on the U.S. the day before yesterday
actually is. It is simply WAR. What is to be defined is exactly WHO
we are at WAR with. And when that is defined, innocents become
secondary to the need for 'Society self-defense,' as cruel as that
sounds. And that IS utilitarian, and compassionate to the extent
that the benefits we expect to derive by eliminating such vermin
exceeds the liabilities which will occur as a result of such actions.
This was the binding principle behind the U.K. entry into WW II,
BTW.
> And you didn't actually answer the question I in futility asked
> Richard.
>
> "How does indescriminately bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad and
> its civillians make you any better than the terrorists?"
>
Let's look at EXACTLY what Richard said -- "If it is a nation, like Iraq,
we will declare war." Now from THAT statement you have somehow
extrapolated a meaning of what YOU say. The point is, If the
GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan or Iraq is RESPONSIBLE for these acts,
it is the GOVERNMENT which must be retaliated against. Now, HOW
may another country identify exactly what specific individuals in that
government are responsible for these acts? I suppose we could ask
the International Court to convene a special session, and provide a
legal doctrine which we might pursue by ASKING those in power in
those governments to submit to such a court! Fat chance!! The fact is
a declaration of war is nothing less than a 'declaration of war.' It is
where diplomacy ENDS. War makes no one BETTER. It simply hopes
to insure that it does not allow such acts to exist in perpetuity and without
retribution. You should well understand that point, as the U.K. was not
physically attacked when it declared war on Germany. When that
country invaded Poland, the U.K. had both a moral and a written
commitment as a nation to declare such a war, and to its greater
credit it did so. Would you deny the U.S. such a right?
>
> >Did England respond in
> >that manner after THEIR civilian population was bombed by the
> >Germans in WW II? Or did England respond IN KIND against the
> >German civilian population?
>
> Now let's get one thing straight.
>
It would, of course, be a first if you did so.
> WWII was a completely different situation and you know it. It was a
> state of open war. You and other angry Americans must realise that
> things are no longer that simple. This, PV, is terrorism. Much as you
> would like to have a target to shoot lots of guns at, you haven't.
>
Hello... I've just explained the U.K. entry into WW II, in words I was
hopeful that you might understand, but you apparently still do not.
The WORLD IS the same, it just consists of a different group of
humans. No unique fact of nature has changed our world since then.
The sun still rises in the East and sets in the West, and the stars
are as they were then. The U.K. had NOT experienced the
horrendous event which has just occurred in the U.S., yet felt
itself obligated to declare war. This is the problem with you so-called
elitists. You try to OVERCOMPLICATE things that are rather simple.
Something your forbearers did not do. Appeals such as yours
will not accomplish two things - 1) They will NOT bring back the dead,
and 2) They WILL assure that there will be many new dead from the
same type of acts. NOTHING can change point 1), so you apparently
feel that point 2) has no meaning. But we certainly have it in our power
to change point 2), irrespective of our inability to change point 1).
And regardless of how distasteful that task may be, if the end results in
a utilitarian conclusion, it should be pursued. That's generally the
problem with you elitists -- You seem to believe that doing NOTHING is
the same as doing the RIGHT thing. When quite the opposite is usually
the case.
> I am sorry, but that is a fact at the moment. It may well remain a
> fact.
Of course, you're sorry. But of course you're also wrong, if you
believe that terrorism is of such magnitude that NOTHING can
be done about it. The problem will not lessen of its own accord.
The problem is that many of those who think as you do, seem to
believe that nothing can be done, so we must accept that it will
remain a fact. At what point do we acknowledge that
SOMETHING must be done, EVEN if it involves the deaths
of many who you would regard as innocents? Must a nuclear
device first be exploded by terrorists in London, Paris or New
York before that fact is realized?
> >
> >> *sigh*
> >>
> >
> >Yes, *sigh" you might... because through ALL of this I sense that, like
> >those who celebrated in the streets of Palestine, you find some
> >sense of satisfaction in these events. It's little wonder that I find you
> >so morally repulsive. Even keith expresses some sympathy toward those
> >who have been affected by this tragedy. From you, all we've found is the
> >same old tired anti-American rhetoric. With a bunch of worthless
> >question marks responding to various posts.
>
> First, you're talking as the royal 'we' again.
>
I was speaking as the typical American, who does find your rhetoric
to be both 'tired' and 'anti.' Your countrymen may find you interesting,
but I find you as lacking 'common sense.'
> Second, xxxxing grow up. I have no interest in getting into 'let's see
> who can act most outraged' competition. The loss of life has been
> immense. I am truly saddened.
>
Spare me... please, spare me. This is the FIRST instance you've
shown of ANY concern. I invite ANYONE to look at the four posts
you made on the day of the attack. In NONE of them did you express
any concern for the victims. It would have been better had you
remained silent, and I could have understood that. But in your
typical fashion you HAD to express your disgusting behavior once
again. There was NO apparent sadness by you on the day of the
attack. Although I did detect a sense, as I do now, of an attitude of
'I told you so,' when in fact you'd done no such thing.
> However, when I saw those pictures on TV, my thoughts for the first
> day or so were with the victims and their families. I imagined the
> sheer terror one must feel as passenger of a plane being flown into a
> building.
>
Oh, crap. Your first thoughts were how you could act like the typical
idiot you are in responding to posters in this newsgroup.
> I imagined how it must feel to be crushed by thousands of tonnes of
> metal. I imagined the fear of those trapped in a skyscraper which had
> just been xxxxing sliced in half by a 767.
>
> I grieved about the way that the 'human spirit' of which you so
> proudly ramble could become so warped and twisted as to allow a person
> to do a thing such as this to _anybody_, let alone thousands.
>
Blah, blah, blah. Empty and hollow. The words ring empty and
hollow, when weighed against the words you ACTUALLY said on
the day of the tragedy. Now you've suddenly become the great
humanitarian... but before you claimed to not even know what the
'human spirit' WAS. Remember how I trolled you so successfully
in that thread? Suddenly you now seem to recognize a 'human
spirit.'
> I did not think 'This is an outrage against America. Freedom is under
> attack. We must seek revenge. '. Nope, at that stage, such things
> didn't cross my mind, and I saw absolutely shocked to hear that moron
> president of yours dribbling about seeking vengeance within a bloody
> hour of the thing happening.
>
Ah, yes. Our 'moron' President. You worthless sack of shit.
> I was shocked to hear some American politician on TV stating that any
> country that did not support _whatever_ action America took against
> the perpetrators was complicit in the terrorist acts.
>
I would suppose that YOUR government is unfamiliar with words
spoken in 'political' intent?
> I wonder where he was when some Paddies tried to blow up the entire
> British cabinet?
>
Exactly where would you EXPECT him to be?
> More things like this _will_ happen, PV. America has learnt in a
> savage and brutal way what civillian destruction looks like. To use a
> cliche, this is the New World Order. I just hope that your government
> realises that to go and do unto other what they have done unto you
> will not bring anyone back to life.
>
Not that old saw, again!!! We can't bring ANYONE back to life, so
we should just accept it and move on. I don't know whether to laugh
or cry, when you talk like that. I've devoted a large effort in responding
to this post, piece by piece, because I sense that some outside of the U.S.,
who post here feel you express reason (certainly not those IN the U.S.).
We are NOT looking, nor do we expect, to bring anyone back to life.
We are looking for Justice, retribution, and protection against future
attacks of this nature. And we will use whatever instruments we have
at our disposal to insure that (anyway, I hope we do). I'd rather see
this as the beginning of the END of terrorism, rather than an acceptance
that it is part of our 'New World Order.' Acceptance brings NO END.
Acceptance brings only surrender. If this is NOT the beginning of the
END of terrorism, I shudder to think of what event MUST transpire
before we accept that we must begin, regardless of the residual
consequences.
> The US has the strongest (if not the best) armed forces in the world,
> and the most complete intelligence network. You must ensure that you
> bring those who did this to some form of justice in a manner a little
> more subtle than than laying waste to entire cities.
>
>
YOU must learn to shut your little yap, and let the 'big boys' handle this.
When the U.S. intelligence (????) network, resolves who was
responsible for this act, we may well lay waste to entire cities, if
we find that GOVERNMENTS are responsible rather than individuals.
> >
> >> Like John said, the US is purportedly a nation which respects the rule
> >> of law, due process and natural justice. The government is supposed to
> >> be the good guys. You just can't go bombing any nation you think had
> >> something to do with it. That would just make you the terrorists as
> >> well.
> >>
> >Clearly, Richard DID NOT say 'bombing any nation you think had something
> >to do with it."
>
> No. Richard said that 'America's enemies should be shaking' - Clearly
> implying that everyone was under suspicion.
>
No... you certainly have parsed this wrong. If you are NOT our
enemy, you should NOT be shaking. Those who are NOT our
enemy are NOT under suspicion. And you well understand that.
Clearly, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and literally hundreds of
other countries and governments are NOT under suspicion, nor
are they our enemy. You know full well who IS under suspicion,
and if they ARE our enemy and have been complicate in this
attack which constituted an undeclared act of war, they SHOULD
be shaking.
> Surely if he was suggesting that America should only strike against
> those directly responsible, then all of America's 'enemies' need not
> be shaking.
>
Read... read, and understand. Use some 'common sense.'
> > You clearly ignore the 'IF' which was a defining qualification to
> >his words. You've simply tried to put those words in his mouth, in your
> >internal anger against anyone who would suppose that the U.S. has been
> >attacked by a force more deadly than that which precipitated it's entry into
> >WW II. You make me sick to my stomach. And this has nothing to do
> >with our past problems. You simply make me sick to my stomach.
> >
>
> xxxx off PV.
>
Likewise.
> You are acting like a silly twat.
>
Likewise.
> I have said nothing on this topic other than expressing my regrets
> that such a thing has happened, but urging caution that raving
> lunatics demanding nuclear strikes, invasions and the like must not be
> allowed to influence good policy in reaction.
>
NOW you express regrets. Now that you've been rather pinned to
the wall. Once again, I would advise others to READ the four posts
you generated IMMEDIATELY after the attack to see if any sense
of sympathy was contained.
> I was going to leave my criticisms of some of the more extreme
> American reactions for a few days. you might have noticed from the
> strange visitor that I actually took myself off to do a little gentle
> trolling in another ng on request for an old friend, where I planned
> to stay for a few days until you'd all calmed down a bit.
>
Yet you found the time to make four rather foul posts, instead of
staying completely silent. How humane of you. And how typical.
> However, stuff like this does you no favours. What do you want me to
> do to show my sorrow?
I would suggest 'shutting up' would be part of the first step, unless
you have something to express in sorrow, rather than attacks on
people who are naturally enraged by the attacks perpetrated on
this country. Instead, you found it necessary to once again display
your ass for all to see.
> The only person putting words into mouths, PV
> is you. This has absolutely everything to do with our past differences
> as far as you are concerned, as just like the position US policy will
> no doubt adopt, you seek someone, anyone, to strike out against
> because the US is hurting. WHat is clear is that you have absolutely
> _no_ basis whatsoever for saying ridiculous things like 'you feel
> satisfaction', comparing me to Palestinian protesters, or saying I
> give you reason to be sick to the stomach
>
Simple truths, dirt. Simply truths. The fact is that Keith and I have
had more numerous problems than you and I, yet I found his recent
comment to be sincere. I simply find you to be anti-American. And
you see me as the personification of the U.S. mentality (which I
doubt seriously I should be viewed as). Your four posts which
immediately followed the events, and which you are apparently
now trying to distance yourself from, bear witness to your Anti-
Americanism. If you HAD nothing to say (which you obviously
didn't), then that's what you should have said... NOTHING.
> I sincerely hope that you now have things in a slightly more realistic
> perspective now. Terrorism is teririble. It is nigh on impossible to
> prevent. People die - Innocent people. They are blown apart for doing
> absolutely nothing just to make headlines. Perhaps you are now more
> aware of whom the 'most despicable types of human' are.
>
Oh, man. Another dirt philosophic truism. "Crack is cocaine,' "Hundreds
of U.K. citizens are dead," "People die," and now 'Terrorism is teririble (sic)."
Have you perhaps considered writing a small book -- "The 100 truths as
expressed by dirtdog?" It's amazing what a 'classical education' can
provide for you. All those truisms, and then you provide an explanation so
I might realize exactly what a 'most despicable type of human,' actually is.
How can ANYONE find you to have even a modicum of 'common sense?'
> You have many countries who will stand by you who have themselves been
> victims of repeated terrorist acts. They may be able to help you come
> to terms with your loss, and live with the new danger you will all
> feel in your everyday lives. Anyone who lived in London during the
> late eighties and early nineties will tell you about that.
>
>
Apparently, you believe we need to ACCEPT it, and just get on with
our lives. Thanks for the advice, but I think we'll fight back (anyway,
I would hope we do). Not fighting back has been proven to fail in
this most recent instance of the aircraft hijackers apparently using
pocket knives to achieve their ends.
PV
> w00f
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:mV%n7.1334$mj6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "dirtdog" <dog.of....@w00f.com> wrote in message
> news:trr0qt4fk0vnf9gag...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:52:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.w00f.net> wrote in message
> news:8onspt85u4oguuk56...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:30:40 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net>
<clipped>
> > Yes, you have lost a lot of people. Hundred of UK citizens are also
> > dead.
Exactly what is intended by this comment?
> > Terrorism has been doing the rounds for many years PV. In the UK we
> > suffered for many years, and continue to worry about isolated
> > incidents. The French, the Spanish, the Russians and many others have
> > been suffering at the hands of terrorists.
Exactly what does this comment have to do with the present act
in the U.S? Is he ignoring Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the
bombing of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and the Pan Am
disaster, all directed against U.S. interests?
> > It is strange, however, that when Syrian agents were shown to have
> > complied in the attempted crash landing of an airliner in Paris, there
> > was no declaration of war by the US.
Should there have been? Is that his implication?
> > The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
> > and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
Hardly lucky. Dirt is simply ignoring the obvious past events.
> > At the moment, nothing is proven. Do you consider that you should not
> > _try_ to pick out those responsible?
Has anyone so far suggested that we should NOT pick out those
responsible? What of government complicity? What if THEY are
responsible? Is that to be ignored?
> > Now let's get one thing straight.
Right.
> >
> > WWII was a completely different situation and you know it. It was a
> > state of open war. You and other angry Americans must realise that
> > things are no longer that simple. This, PV, is terrorism. Much as you
> > would like to have a target to shoot lots of guns at, you haven't.
> >
An attack of such magnitude is ALSO an open state of war. The only
difference is the identification of those who have declared such a state
is not clear at this moment. Clearly, terrorism is WAR. And if government
complicity is connected to such terrorism, that IS an act of war by that
nation against the U.S. There is simply no other way to view it.
> > I am sorry, but that is a fact at the moment. It may well remain a
> > fact.
So we should simply accept that terrorism is and will remain a fact.
Perhaps until a nuclear device is detonated by a terrorist organization
against a city of 5-10 million inhabitants.
>> I am truly saddened.
Oh, please....
> > I grieved about the way that the 'human spirit' of which you so
> > proudly ramble could become so warped and twisted as to allow a person
> > to do a thing such as this to _anybody_, let alone thousands.
Dirt is apparently learning fast, for one who did not even know what
the 'human spirit' was a few days ago.
> > More things like this _will_ happen, PV. America has learnt in a
> > savage and brutal way what civillian destruction looks like. To use a
> > cliche, this is the New World Order. I just hope that your government
> > realises that to go and do unto other what they have done unto you
> > will not bring anyone back to life.
The 'New World Order.' A rather obscene concept. Apparently an
Order where we accept the loss of 10,000 lives as simply part of
this 'new order.'
> > No. Richard said that 'America's enemies should be shaking' - Clearly
> > implying that everyone was under suspicion.
No, clearly implying that America's enemies should be shaking. And
those not its enemies need not. There is NO implication that
EVERYONE is under suspicion. Dirt has extrapolated the
unbelievable from a simple and clear statement.
>
> There are so many things I agree with in the above that I think
> that those who have killfiled you for good and bad reasons
> should read them.
>
I have responded in depth to dirt's original argument. But I felt it
necessary to pick out certain points that seem to me to be some
rather absurd conclusions in his post, and feel you need to perhaps
examine the words he is actually saying a little more closely.
One glaring example is that he seems to believe that the U.K., since
it was NOT physically attacked on 1 Sep 39, should NOT have
declared war on Germany, regardless of any moral or written
guarantees to the contrary. I'm trying to gauge exactly what dirt
believes WOULD constitute an attack which would be considered
an act of war, requiring a state of war to exist between the two
entities (the attacker and the attacked). So far, I've narrowed it
down to at least MORE than murdering 10,000 innocent civilians
in one murderous day. Perhaps he feels NOTHING short of a
nuclear device exploded in a city of 5-10 million would require
such a declaration. Then again, perhaps he believes even THAT
should be met with stoic acceptance as part of the 'New World
Order.'
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:2b9o7.148686$aZ.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
snipped (and even that took long enough).
I wish only to take you up on one point PV and that is your reaction to the
Palestians dancing in the street when they heard the news of the bombings.
Up to then you say you had been broadly sympathetic to their cause but not
after seeing the pictures. I have had at least 36 hours viewing of TV
since the catastrophe and I have only seen the one televised picture of the
outburst of Palestinian joy. Now pictures never lie do they? Well this
one did. What the camera man did was to close focus on about 10
individuals performing movements - some were dancing but not many. The
centre of the picture was occupied by a Palestinian woman who wasn't dancing
but was thanking Allah for the retribution brought on the Americans.
What do you and I know of this woman? Nothing but I think I am allowed to
make an assumption. She may well be a mother who has lost her child in
the Interfada - she believes, perhaps falsely but I don't think so, that the
USA is the backer of the Israeli enemy. She may be emotionally
disturbed - it would be very surprising if after having a lost a child or a
close relative if she wasn't and emotionally disturbed people do not make
sound judgements. I have obviously studied this picture in depth.
Beyond the 10 or so people in it the Camera could not hide the fact that the
street behind was almost empty. This was a put up job by Islamic
extremists with the willing cooperation of CNN reporters who either want a
sensational picture or who are agent provocateurs. The last suggestion
tho' fanciful shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. A Government who
employs Colonel Norths is quite capable of infiltrating news net works.
Nevertheless on the basis of this picture you have changed your attitude
towards the whole Palestinian problem. Shame on you PV.
This is a message that I sent to another news group about a month ago
actually on the 24th August when a poster asked in despair if their was a
way out of the fighting between the factions in what I still think of as
Palestine:
"There is no way out of it! The creation of the State of Israel
was a tragedy of immense proportions and the effects of this
tragedy will not just impact on the Israelis and Palestinians, both
of which have my deep sympathy, but on your children and
mine"
I never realised then just how quickly my prophesy would come true. Yet of
course the USA will continue to back Israel and many of the young of
succeeding generations of Palestinians will become terrorists or freedom
fighters. What ever show of force Bush puts on to placate the majority of
the American population (and it will be a show and only a show) the suicide
bombers are with us to stay.
Note: I do not blame America exclusively for the creation of Israel.
Britain did her share.
(Balfour declaration 1917).
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:CF9o7.148771$aZ.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
We had a treaty with Poland which we honoured. I think you will find
doggie would have approved of that. You know PV both of us are over 65
and if the conditions are the same in the USA as they are in the UK, we are
not allowed to donate blood. You should be grateful to doggie for
providing you with an emotional release - something we all need now and
then.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of....@w00f.com> wrote:
===== The mostly silly, personal/personality part.
===== Skip to '===== The mostly serious part' for stuff worth reading.
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:30:28 +1000, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I am a little surprised at you, QZD
You shouldn't be. I'm letting a few people get away with stuff that
they wouldn't normally owing to emotions running high. Believe me, some
of the things that I will say about this in the future will make me very
unpopular indeed. For the time being, though, I'll let just about
anyone tear a strip off me if I step out of line - with the notable
exception of Frankie, who used the incident to launch into a racist
diatribe.
> >> The United States has been very lucky so far. That luck has now ended,
> >> and it suddenly dawns on you just how enormous a threat terrorism is.
> >
> >I have things to say about this, too, but I feel that I should wait
> >until people are calmer.
>
> Sorry, QZD, I don't.
Well I can't stop you.
> Many countless countries have suffered from terrorism. That is a fact.
> The impact of terrorism (ie lots of death) is no different when
> perpetrated in the US than it was in Afghanistan (with US backing,
> BTW).
>
> The fact remains. This is not war. It is terrorism.
Give it a couple of weeks and you'll know what my dispassionate,
measured thoughts are. For the moment I'll express my sadness at the
loss of life and cut a little slack to the angry Americans (and others)
out there.
If I were to say some of what I thought, even in laid-back, "she'll be
right" Australia and it was overheard, I'd collect someone's clenched
fist on my nose. While irrational anger is the order of the day, it's
probably a good idea not to provoke further anger.
> >> "How does indescriminately bombing fuck out of Kabul or Baghdad and
> >> its civillians make you any better than the terrorists?"
> >
> >Of course it will degrade Americans. Don't deny people the right to
> >express their anger, though. It is a part of the grieving process and
> >it is unreasonable to condemn it.
>
> No. No. No. I am not going to sit here whilst people talk about
> actions which might well start another world war and the inevitable
> fucking apocalypse that would bring (do you really thing Russia would
> tolerate an invasion of Afghanistan - do you think America would back
> down if it decided to go that way?) without having my say. Have you
> wathced CNN? Do you notice that the only questions being asked are
> 'when will we strike back?' 'When can we go kick some ass?'
My hope is that Dubya will be more considered in his approach. I have
no doubt that the USA will undertake some kind of military action unless
something extraordinary happens.
I am wondering if this will be the case if (provided that he
masterminded it) Osama Bin Liner is given over by Afghanistan...
> The whole thing is very worrying and I just know that Dubya is going
> to do something very silly. You seem to forget over in Tasmania, QZD,
> that Britain, given its location and vast stockpiles of American
> nuclear warheads will be the very first place to go if it all kicks
> off.
>
> I do not see that screaming for thousands more deaths is an acceptable
> part of any grieving process.
Not acceptable for you or I, for sure. I would be horrified if I felt
that way and I don't. I will happily tolerate that response in others
if I feel that they will calm down and look at it all a little more
dispassionately. Some around here who have been _very_ angry have been
slowly moderating their stance and I can only hope that this is
indicative of the general mood of the American public.
> >> I grieved about the way that the 'human spirit' of which you so
> >> proudly ramble could become so warped and twisted as to allow a person
> >> to do a thing such as this to _anybody_, let alone thousands.
> >
> >Very similar to my reaction, although I would have stopped short of the
> >personal abuse on this occasion. I think taht the human tragedy has
> >been overshadowed by national anger and this worries me in terms of what
> >the US may decide to do in response.
>
> Where's the personal abuse?
Just the "royal 'we'" stuff and the exhortation to PV to grow up. I can
only ask you to cut the guy some slack - not make you or expect you to.
He's been unpleasant to you but you're only really someone at whom he
can lash out blindly and without any pangs of guilt (given that there's
not really any love lost between you). You're providing a valuable
social service.
> >> I was shocked to hear some American politician on TV stating that any
> >> country that did not support _whatever_ action America took against
> >> the perpetrators was complicit in the terrorist acts.
> >
> >Let them express this anger. It's part of the grieving process. If we
> >condemn it then it becomes far more entrenched and we may well see
> >retaliation that amounts to no more than terrorism itself.
>
> This is not a valid expression of anger. Many other countries have
> suffered terrorism without declaring that the rest of the world should
> give them an blank cheque to unmetered retalliation and the infliction
> of civillian deaths.
I can't to any more than fervently hope that this all dies down.
> >[snip abuse]
> >
> >You shouldn't really be saying that. You're a bright bugger and I know
> >that you aren't really condemning people's immediate reactions. Give
> >'em a break. Even the most conservative will have a more measured
> >opinion given a little bit of time.
> >
>
> Piss off, QZD.
>
> If PV's immediate reaction to a massive tragedy in his country can
> only be the unsubstantiated hurling of really very serious abuse
> towards anyone he feels like, then he can, quite frankly, go fuck
> himself.
>
> What possible warrant is there to say this?
Well, I can only _ask_ that you give him some room to move.
> Now, calling someone's mum/wife/dad a slag is one thing. Seriously
> (and I mean seriously) trying to shift some form of blame onto someone
> completely unconnected to the tragedy is quite another. Read what he
> says, QZD. To say that I take satisfaction from the death of 10,000
> people is perhaps the most sick and unwarranted thing which has ever
> been said in our exchanges.
Yes, but neither you nor I know exactly how upset (or likely to be
upset) he is at the moment. While I can't condone what he's said, I can
understand it and can only suggest that you do the same. Wait for those
who have reacted vehemently to simmer down and we'll see, once again, a
number of reasonable people.
> This response was mild compared to what I
> thought he deserved, however, given that I am blessed with sensitivity
> (yeah, right) and do not believe this to be a topic fit for troll
> point scoring, this was toned down.
Yes, you were well behaved indeed. I'm keeping mum (so to speak) about
quite a few things because I feel that I'll be universally reviled if I
am to express them at present.
> If PV is going to act like a silly child, I will treat him like one.
I suppose this sums up my response at present - there are lots of
Americans who are going to act like silly children at the moment.
They're upset. They're hurting. Let's hope that those in charge will
not act like silly children when a resolution to this situation is
undertaken.
> >> I was going to leave my criticisms of some of the more extreme
> >> American reactions for a few days.
> >
> >I suggest that you live up to that. You've been well and truly
> >restrained (and most of us know how puckish you can be when required)
> >and I think that you would do well to remain so for a while.
>
> I will do so unless outright idiocy is expressed such as what was
> contained in the drivel PV wrote here.
>
> Everybody has suffered in this. The human race has suffered. I see no
> reason to let Americans do and say as they please as a result of this.
>
> >
> >> you might have noticed from the
> >> strange visitor that I actually took myself off to do a little gentle
> >> trolling in another ng on request for an old friend, where I planned
> >> to stay for a few days until you'd all calmed down a bit.
> >
> >Good plan. This topic is probably a "troll-free-zone" for a while at
> >least.
>
> Are you telling me to piss off?
Certainly not! I'm not _telling_ you to piss of or even _asking_ you to
piss off. I just think it's worth keeping one's vitriol reserved for
the truly offensive posters (Frankie and, of late, HI1k) who are
advocating nothing less than genocide.
> I might do that for a while. I have
> certainly got some good results over in my 'new group' and in one
> short day of trolling, have been reported for abuse no fewer than 26
> times, been asked to give my phone number so that some meathead could
> have a fight with me, and actually been given a poster's genuine
> mobile and home phone number with instructions to ring it so that we
> can fight! Superb! I have obviously been told a thousand times how I
> am obviously 14, how stupid I am, etc. And you won't believe how well
> spelling and grammar flames containing spelling mistakes go down.
And what ng would this be? A reply by mail would be more than adequate
along with an indication of what your handle is. Some quality trolling
would be fun to watch if the subject matter isn't _quite_ as difficult
as it is here.
===== The mostly serious part.
> Unfortunately, it is the screaming voices of those demanding more
> death that will be heard by the US government, which is hardly going
> to wait until people have calmed down and formed rational opinions
> before it strikes.
I hope that my faith in human nature is justified. Perhaps it's just
blind hope. Your cynicism frightens me - not of itself but because
there is something nagging at the back of my head telling me that you're
correct.
> >Nothing quite matches the _magnitude_ and immediacy of what has
> >occurred. I'm sure that Europeans (and Britons) are sympathetic and
> >more than a little familiar with the impact of terrorism. I am hoping
> >that much of the response to this act will transcend national boundaries
> >and those who perpetrated this truly evil, terrible act will be regarded
> >as sick, twisted individuals rather than representatives of
> >nationalities.
>
> Which is exactly my point. This has nothing to do with America. This
> has everything to do with people.
Very true.
> Quite frankly, this is being turned into some form of nationalist
> crusade - Lots of flags, singing of God Bless America and talk of
> crimes against Liberty, Democracy and Justice - not a great deal of
> reflection on how fucked up the human race is that such things happen.
You have hit quite a few nails firmly on the head. I will say no more
on this matter for a little while, though.
> America wants to declare war, just as she always does when she is
> hurt. Unfortunately, there is at present no one for her to declare war
> against. I just hope this frustration doesn't lead to them doing
> something very stupid.
As do I.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"And when I'm dead
If you could tell them this;
What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
Shona
snipped
Just one little point about that particular piece of film. During a
discussion on a local radio station this morning a reporter claimed it was
filmed a while ago, and that the people were celebrating something
completely unconnected to Tuesday's horrifying events. The woman you refer
to apparently died a few weeks ago, and said reporter attended her funeral.
I have no idea if this is true or verifiable, but as you say it is best to
keep an open mind on it's origins.
Shona
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Aeao7.4460$Pm5.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
engaged in dance, driving by with smiles and making the 'V' sign, and
many children dancing in the street. It was NO WAY limited to 10. It's
an absurdity to claim that was a put up, by 10 actors. When I say 100, I am
being CONSERVATIVE in my estimate, in order not to be seen as emotional.
These were NOT repeats of the same scene over and over. Now YOUR
reportage may have limited it to certain smaller groups, but the reportage
that I saw, on Headline News did not.
> This is a message that I sent to another news group about a month ago
> actually on the 24th August when a poster asked in despair if their was a
> way out of the fighting between the factions in what I still think of as
> Palestine:
>
> "There is no way out of it! The creation of the State of Israel
> was a tragedy of immense proportions and the effects of this
> tragedy will not just impact on the Israelis and Palestinians, both
> of which have my deep sympathy, but on your children and
> mine"
>
I have no doubt this is the truth.
> I never realised then just how quickly my prophesy would come true. Yet of
> course the USA will continue to back Israel and many of the young of
> succeeding generations of Palestinians will become terrorists or freedom
> fighters. What ever show of force Bush puts on to placate the majority of
> the American population (and it will be a show and only a show) the suicide
> bombers are with us to stay.
>
I'm confused as to the alternative you would suggest. As I've said, I
previously saw this problem in the view of Palestinians being deprived
of their rights as to land they've lived on for centuries. But the alternative
to disengaging totally from that area is to perhaps perpetrate a greater
tragedy than the holocaust. Would you suggest totally abandoning
Israel to placate terrorist suicide bombers? Is THAT the 'New World
Order?' Certainly, a total disengagement would perhaps create a cohesive
Arab and Muslim effort to totally wipe out Israel. Regardless of any current
claims to the contrary. I find the division to be so deep between those two
people, that I believe NOTHING from either side. Yet there are certainly
innocents on both sides. I've found that some here (I shall keep them
nameless, as it is merely my opinion) seem to believe such would be a
reasonable goal. I am certainly against any such future event. Nevertheless,
I did and still do view a retrenchment by Israel to be reasonable. It is simply
that I no longer hold such great sympathy for the Palestinians as I did before.
Such are the facts of life, and must be accepted by those who would be
seen by me as opposed to the U.S., as a nation. I do not see expressions
of joy over the murder of 5,000 (now the most current estimate), as
having 'reason.' Quite the contrary... no other nation was recognized
as demonstrating in such a manner.
PV
John Rennie
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: world trade center tower
>
You (or I) maybe confused with televised pictures taken in Iraq,
a country that has no reason to love the USA.
>
> > This is a message that I sent to another news group about a month ago
> > actually on the 24th August when a poster asked in despair if their was
a
> > way out of the fighting between the factions in what I still think of as
> > Palestine:
> >
> > "There is no way out of it! The creation of the State of Israel
> > was a tragedy of immense proportions and the effects of this
> > tragedy will not just impact on the Israelis and Palestinians, both
> > of which have my deep sympathy, but on your children and
> > mine"
> >
> I have no doubt this is the truth.
Well done PV. Unfortunately very few of your countrymen
share that point of view.
Alternatives? Well I cant really talk about the USA and what it should do
about terrorism. I can, however, make suggestions about what we
should do here. A ITV news programme tonight illustrates vividly
the New World Order. Three British citizens, a General, a political
scientist with an interest in Afghanistan and an man of Middle Eastern
origin
representing something called Arms for Arabs or something like that,
were pitted against your Mrs Kilpatrick USA Ambassador to the UN.
She poor dear appeared to not be with us but that's not my point.
It is the last member of our triumphate that I wish to concentrate on.
He was very forthright. An attack on Osama bin Laden would treated as
an attack on all Arabs and all Arabs would oppose such an attack.
I wish the presenter had asked him to confirm that he was in fact a
British citizen and that if he was, his first loyalty was to Britain.
But he is only an example of what can become the enemy in our midst
and we have to take measures which will impair civil liberties to
combat this danger. What they are I can only speculate - probably
ID papers might have to be considered. All such organisations
as this young man commands, and there are quite a few, will have
to be disbanded and their activities such as training young men
in this country (UK) or sending them abroad for military training
will have to be made illegal. I am afraid there are many such
measures which may have to be carried out - all of which collide
with our ideas of liberty. This is the state we are now in and we
probably deserve it for helping to create Israel.
.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Vzdo7.6328$Pm5.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com..
<rest clipped>
I only have one mention to comment on --
> It is the last member of our triumphate that I wish to concentrate on.
> He was very forthright. An attack on Osama bin Laden would treated as
> an attack on all Arabs and all Arabs would oppose such an attack.
I can only say that we, as reasonable men, should treat an attack
which results in the murder of 5,000 innocent humans to be an
attack on EVERY reasonable man. Should Bin Laden have been
responsible for such an act, it hardly matters to me if all Arabs would
oppose such an attack. Because they would, in fact, be WRONG to
do so. This is not actually a matter of 'right' and 'wrong' as moral
issues, but a matter of 'right' and 'wrong' as symbols of our progress
as human beings. To accept that ANY person, of ANY origin might
feel it proper to have taken such action, is to fail to recognize that
we exist as humans... each and every one of us. We've come to a
major crossroad of determining who and what we are and what we
expect to become. Failure to recognize the murders of 5,000
innocents as a monstrous act, is hardly civilized. Failure to realize
that those responsible must be made accountable to secular
justice, in whatever form it takes, is far from morally rational.
<Rest clipped>
PV
Van Voordturen
wrote:
Dearest Dirtdog,
Lately you left me wondering what I ever saw in you, but you brought
it all right back. *** may save America, the queen or whatever, as
long as mankind is allowed to save the rest of the world.
Thanks.
FTB
ps. Dutch TV just showed some polemologist from Haifa university, who
seems to have correctly predicted that Saddam wouldn't use chems and
bios in the gulf war, now saying Israel will have to face both when
the USA are to attack Iraq and the Taliban (Assuming they will,
because the Taliban cover Bin Laden, and Saddam is most likely to have
given him order. Based on the circumstance that the Taliban haven't
got the recources nor the motive that Saddam does.)
Problem with this weeks attacks, otherwise than IRA or other
terrorism, is that there may actually be a government behind it so
that "war" really is the appropriate term. This is of course yet to be
proven.
***damn war sucks like a microsoft vacuum cleaner never would.
pps "Keep your filthy hands off my desert" (Pink Floyd)
John Rennie
"Van Voordturen" <kl...@SPAMCOPxs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3ba27b0b...@news.xs4all.nl...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:38:37 +0100, dirtdog <dog.of....@w00f.com>
This what is called snipping - it isn't a complicated art form.
Any chance you might learn how to do it?
> >
> Dearest Dirtdog,
>
> Lately you left me wondering what I ever saw in you, but you brought
> it all right back. *** may save America, the queen or whatever, as
> long as mankind is allowed to save the rest of the world.
> Thanks.
>
> FTB
>
> ps. Dutch TV just showed some polemologist from Haifa university, who
> seems to have correctly predicted that Saddam wouldn't use chems and
> bios in the gulf war, now saying Israel will have to face both when
> the USA are to attack Iraq and the Taliban (Assuming they will,
> because the Taliban cover Bin Laden, and Saddam is most likely to have
> given him order. Based on the circumstance that the Taliban haven't
> got the recources nor the motive that Saddam does.)
Then it appears that Saddam Hussein is asking for his
benighted country to be nuked. I am not joking - the mood of
the American people is such that they would back such extreme
action if Hussein carried out the above threats.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:xkao7.4515$Pm5.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:CF9o7.148771$aZ.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:mV%n7.1334$mj6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > "dirtdog" <dog.of....@w00f.com> wrote in message
> > > news:trr0qt4fk0vnf9gag...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:52:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > > > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.w00f.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8onspt85u4oguuk56...@4ax.com...
> > > > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:30:40 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net>
> >
> > <clipped>
> >
> > One glaring example is that he seems to believe that the U.K., since
> > it was NOT physically attacked on 1 Sep 39, should NOT have
> > declared war on Germany, regardless of any moral or written
> > guarantees to the contrary. I'm trying to gauge exactly what dirt
> > believes WOULD constitute an attack which would be considered
> > an act of war, requiring a state of war to exist between the two
> > entities (the attacker and the attacked). So far, I've narrowed it
> > down to at least MORE than murdering 10,000 innocent civilians
> > in one murderous day. Perhaps he feels NOTHING short of a
> > nuclear device exploded in a city of 5-10 million would require
> > such a declaration. Then again, perhaps he believes even THAT
> > should be met with stoic acceptance as part of the 'New World
> > Order.'
> >
> > PV
>
> We had a treaty with Poland which we honoured. I think you will find
> doggie would have approved of that.
I think that's rather beside the point. Do you not believe we have a treaty
between our government and the 5,000 innocent civilians? Once again,
WHO speaks for them?
> You know PV both of us are over 65
> and if the conditions are the same in the USA as they are in the UK, we are
> not allowed to donate blood. You should be grateful to doggie for
> providing you with an emotional release - something we all need now and
> then.
>
We have no such limitation... here is Florida at least. When I went to
give blood on Thursday with my wife, we were faced with at least a
three hour wait to contribute, such was the response. The community
I live in has now set up a roster for contributions on Monday. This roster
now has at least 100 names from a population in the community of
less than 1000. Practically all of them are over 65 (which causes me
to feel very, very, very old). We will both be contributing on Monday.
The anger and rage may well subside here in the U.S. The THREAT
will not. Until every nation realizes it is threatened by the problem and
must act in concert with every other nation so threatened. It has most
certainly come down to 'them' against 'us.' And the only nations who
support 'them' in ANY fashion are also 'them.' If we allow the pent-up
emotion which can provide an impetus to a genuine attack on the
problem to pass, without a substantial and overwhelming response,
we will have only ourselves to blame for the next seminal event which
most certainly will occur.
PV
Fred L. Wellman
>
> Just one little point about that particular piece of film. During a
> discussion on a local radio station this morning a reporter claimed it was
> filmed a while ago, and that the people were celebrating something
> completely unconnected to Tuesday's horrifying events. The woman you refer
> to apparently died a few weeks ago, and said reporter attended her
funeral.
> I have no idea if this is true or verifiable, but as you say it is best to
> keep an open mind on it's origins.
>
> Shona
>
tape celebrating were a minority and most people shared our sorrow. I say
bullshit. They hated the US before they suddenly are sympathetic? In
Europe public support for the Palestinians was dropping after that tape was
shown. The Philadelphia Inquirer report that Arafat stopped the showing of
the tape. Fred