Terrorism. World Trade Building
Roedy Green
lesser known OSes. It would stand a better chance of surviving
a terrorist attack. Happily, all your java code, will still work, and
any pure java tools. I'm going to stick with NT 4.0. I figure it
should be safer.
http://mindprod.com/unmain.html talks about operation Termite, how
terrorists can hide trojans in poorly written code. Thus, even open
source, won't necessarily protect you.
What may be born of this panic is a new language for application
programmers whose key design principles are terseness, clarity, safety
and maintainability.
For more detail, please look up the key words mentioned in this post in
the Java Glossary at: http://mindprod.com/gloss.html
--
Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
Custom computer programming since 1963.
James A. Robertson
>
> Just a thought. Today might be a good day to switch to one of the
> lesser known OSes. It would stand a better chance of surviving
> a terrorist attack. Happily, all your java code, will still work, and
> any pure java tools. I'm going to stick with NT 4.0. I figure it
> should be safer.
Actually, NT4 is probably less safe based on all the holes. FreeBSD is
probably the best bet (not that I'm running it...)
>
> http://mindprod.com/unmain.html talks about operation Termite, how
> terrorists can hide trojans in poorly written code. Thus, even open
> source, won't necessarily protect you.
>
> What may be born of this panic is a new language for application
> programmers whose key design principles are terseness, clarity, safety
> and maintainability.
>
> For more detail, please look up the key words mentioned in this post in
> the Java Glossary at: http://mindprod.com/gloss.html
>
> --
> Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
> Custom computer programming since 1963.
--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jar...@mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
JTK
>
> Just a thought. Today might be a good day to switch to one of the
> lesser known OSes.
I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
thousands of victims of this insanity.
Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Cat
Hash: SHA1
Couldn't agree more.
Cat
http://www.ratrobot.com/tiger/tigerframeset.htm TradeMark Tiger is an
economic argument for conservation. Why not use nature to save itself?
http://www.ratrobot.com/java/ratrobot.zip FREE APPLETS JARS EDITORS
CHOICE
www.ratrobot.com Articles that challenge your ideas about yourself and
the world you live in.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO54caCh0Y2LcENUAEQK/dQCffvxjl9fBRD3WFx0uTg+NFUJVGRwAniLA
pOAaPupXj3512BwR2Aw7bULk
=uyWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Carroll
I have held for you. Thousands of people have died and you suggest changing
OS's and plug your site.
I am simply dumfounded by your post.
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:i4hspt0i88i5muq28...@4ax.com...
Luc Kumps
> lesser known OSes.
Roedy, I respect you since the early Bix days.
But now you're joining the group of people/organisations using these
terrorist acts to promote their own agenda.
We've seen plenty of political oriented messages (e.g. "kill the islam" -
whatever that's supposed to mean) on 'local' newsgroups here in Belgium, but
this is the very first *technical* newsgroup I read, where a *technical*
person posts a message of this kind.
Luc
Roedy Green
quoted :
>I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
>thousands of victims of this insanity.
>
>Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
If most of the computers in the US stopped working, that would be a
disaster that would make what happened today look minor.
One computer going down is no problem, but large numbers of them going
down could cause panic. MS personal computers are most vulnerable.
Even kids can crack them.
I am not going to switch oses, though I am thinking of turning my
machine off and taking some time off on a quiet island away from the
city.
We Canadians teasingly refer to the USA as the "excited States Of
America". Relax. America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
Steve
have been made.
Lots of folks here are Americans and live on the east coast.
Even for people who do not know people who were killed or who could
have been killed the issue is not a topic for techie jocularity to
them.
Many of us are expecting to see friends, family, and people like us
pulled out of debris heaps.
No offense Roedy.....I *really* mean that
Roedy Green <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message news:<i4hspt0i88i5muq28...@4ax.com>...
Tim Tyler
: [...] this is the very first *technical* newsgroup I read, where a
: *technical* person posts a message of this kind.
Don't mistake c.l.j.a. for a "technical" newsgroup.
--
__________
|im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ t...@iname.com
JTK
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:28:05 -0500, JTK <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote or
> quoted :
>
> >I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
> >thousands of victims of this insanity.
> >
> >Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
>
> If most of the computers in the US stopped working, that would be a
> disaster that would make what happened today look minor.
>
Roedy, I think I speak for each and every citizen of the United States
of America when I say, "shut your God-damned wordhole". Christ.
anoncoward
> We Canadians teasingly refer to the USA as the
> "excited States Of America". Relax.
What an unbelievably crass thing to post!
> America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
> survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
My family did, I have and yes, it was - but, for once, I agree 110%
with JTK.
I've nothing but sorrow for all the families that have lost children,
mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters! A sick and barbaric act.
David Cleary
> America". Relax. America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
> survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
To quote the words of the leaders of the United States you so often belittle
here, "You are and asshole. Big time.".
Maybe if Canada was a little more vigelent in stopping terrorists from
entering the country, this could have been prevented. Obviously, with so
many terrorists flying into Canada to gain access to the United States,
there is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed.
Cat
Hash: SHA1
I have met some idiots in my time on this planet Roedy but you would
have to be the most cold blooded, idiotic buffoon I've ever come
across.
Cat
http://www.ratrobot.com/tiger/tigerframeset.htm TradeMark Tiger is an
economic argument for conservation. Why not use nature to save itself?
http://www.ratrobot.com/java/ratrobot.zip FREE APPLETS JARS EDITORS
CHOICE
www.ratrobot.com Articles that challenge your ideas about yourself and
the world you live in.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO59bNyh0Y2LcENUAEQLMEQCg3S6SlI/VfYcVAi2k5lhgeD+1zYYAnijo
AiLGZyCvycrV53cdn6q9w7TD
=ShaG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
D'Arcy Smith
news:9no91j$66d$1...@progress.progress.com...
> Maybe if Canada was a little more vigelent in stopping terrorists from
> entering the country, this could have been prevented. Obviously, with so
> many terrorists flying into Canada to gain access to the United States,
> there is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed.
Ignoring the fact that it is US Customs - not Canadian Customs
that allows people into the States...
I've actualy been hassled more by Canadian border guards that
US ones... of course they probably were not amused when
I drove to Seattle to go to McDonalds ;-)
..darcy
John Lockwood
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:28:05 -0500, JTK <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote or
>quoted :
>
>>I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
>>thousands of victims of this insanity.
>>
>>Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
>
>If most of the computers in the US stopped working, that would be a
>disaster that would make what happened today look minor.
>
You stupid fucking geek idiot.
>
>We Canadians teasingly refer to the USA as the "excited States Of
>America".
No, only crass, insensitive boors refer to the USA as the "excited
States of America" in the wake of thousands dead. See "moron" in the
Java glossary.
Matt Kennel
>quoted :
>
>>I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
>>thousands of victims of this insanity.
>>
>>Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
>
>If most of the computers in the US stopped working, that would be a
>disaster that would make what happened today look minor.
No it wouldn't.
>We Canadians teasingly refer to the USA as the "excited States Of
>America". Relax. America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
>survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
How bad was it? Big Ben is still there.
And just what did they do to the IRA people they caught?
Mike Leach
comment that could be made that is even somewhat relevant to this newsgroup,
I think it would be "let's hope the Sun employees are all okay".
For all the Java vs. C# and Sun vs. MSFT bashing that goes on in this forum,
today I must admit that I'm proud that Java and Sun are products of America.
Let's not forget the principles and values of our country that created this
framework for intellectual debate.
-Mike
Portland, OR.
Jean-Baptiste Nizet
Everybody should think twice before posting about such a disaster, so
shortly after it. But please calm down. Insults won't help.
I do think that Roedy shouldn't have made this post, at least now.
Trying to share his thoughts about OS choice with people that perhaps
have friends or family members who just died obviously wasn't the right
thing to do.
However, when all this is some time behind us, I also think that we
should think a bit about the ways to avoid such disasters to happen
again. And Roedy, * at this time *, will have a point, I think. Although
my view about it is that we should rather try to avoid terrorism rather
than to protect ourselves against it. And to avoid terrorism, the better
way, IMHO, is that everybody in the world live in peace, comfort and
education...
Just my thoughts.
JB.
Tim Tyler
: On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:48:26 GMT, Roedy Green <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote:
:>[...] Relax. America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
:>survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
: How bad was it? Big Ben is still there.
Quite bad by all accounts. Thankfully there weren't so many big tall
buildings hanging over everyone's heads at that point in history - or
things might have been even worse.
Steve
Most of us have put our foot in our mouths at times, especially those
of us who like a good joke.
Please just admit you flubbed things and apologize.
Everybody does it.
Its really bad when Roedy Green is the ass hole and JTK is the voice
of reason :)
Please don't throw away all of the respect you earned in this group.
Steve
Werner Purrer
>
>
>I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
>thousands of victims of this insanity.
>
>Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
*Amen* to that JTK.
Werner
--
Memory Dragon
Five years of coding java and still sane.
James Carroll
I assume that means that they are all ok.
"Mike Leach" <mi...@cubiccompass.com> wrote in message
news:Y5Wn7.686$Ph3.6...@news.uswest.net...
Kevin Hsu
hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:i4hspt0i88i5muq28...@4ax.com...
Kevin Hsu
this ill-thought-out, self-defending drivel.
Thousands of our fellow Americans have died at the hands of terrorists who
want to deprive us of our basic human rights.
"Relax"? - not likely.
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:jpauptkjd6q7fg0ku...@4ax.com...
Kevin Hsu
this ill-thought-out, self-defending drivel.
Thousands of our fellow Americans have died at the hands of terrorists who
want to deprive us of our basic human rights.
"Relax"? - not likely.
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:jpauptkjd6q7fg0ku...@4ax.com...
Tom Owles
"Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
soldiers) who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh, you
didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
Do you know that people around the world die at the hands of terrorists
every day? You don't? What the hell are you thinking, then? Can't you see
beyond the fence of your backyard?
Don't think that non-US people approve what happened at WTC and Pentagon.
BUT! Don't think that you're the only country that suffers from such acts of
terror, either.
Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
"bring those folks to justice / court"? "Hunting down" sounds like a
classical american procedure: lynch. Not good for your image of world
policemen. Not good at all!
John Lockwood
<tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
>legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
>"bring those folks to justice / court"? "Hunting down" sounds like a
>classical american procedure: lynch. Not good for your image of world
>policemen. Not good at all!
Yes, well, I was going to flame you, but since it's a day of
rememberance for us I thought I'd sing you a little song intead.
Ready?
God Bless America
Land that I love
Stand beside her
And guide her
Through the night with the light from above
From the mountains
To the prairies
To the oceans, white with foam
God Bless America
My home, sweet, home
God Bless America
My home, sweet, home
John Lockwood
>Its really bad when Roedy Green is the ass hole and JTK is the voice
>of reason :)
Right. The correct formula is as follows: Peter van der Linden is
the ass hole and JTK is the voice of reason.
As for me, I'm just here to pick up chicks.
John
Tom Owles
"John Lockwood" <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote in message
news:dtv3qt40kvur519lc...@4ax.com...
> Yes, well, I was going to flame you, but since it's a day of
> rememberance for us I thought I'd sing you a little song intead.
> Ready?
Anytime...
> God Bless America
> Land that I love
> Stand beside her
> And guide her
> Through the night with the light from above
> From the mountains
> To the prairies
> To the oceans, white with foam
> God Bless America
> My home, sweet, home
> God Bless America
> My home, sweet, home
So. Now I know a nice little song.
Tom Owles
> As for me, I'm just here to pick up chicks.
And singing songs... Oh, now I get it: a song was a chick trap! And I fell
into it. Damn!
Kevin Hsu
this ill-thought-out, self-defending drivel.
Thousands of our fellow Americans have died at the hands of terrorists who
want to deprive us of our basic human rights.
"Relax"? - not likely.
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:jpauptkjd6q7fg0ku...@4ax.com...
Mark Mynsted
> "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
>
> Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> soldiers) who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh, you
> didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
Perhaps it was simply a matter of that fact that this forum is
targeted at discussing Java advocacy. This thread is an important
communication about timely and emotional events, but likely should be
carried out someplace else. How about "alt.current-events"?
Perhaps you would be willing to suggest a different news-group or
web-page where everyone may continue this discussion.
--
-MM
/"\
(No un-solicited email please.) \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
See following url, X Against HTML Mail
http://pages.prodigy.net/mmynsted/spamoff.htm / \
saict
The notion that this is a matter for the court is despicable. That
sounds like the Taliban "We hope that this matter can be resolved
through the courts." Sorry. There is no court for this. This is
war. We _will_ hunt them from the rocks to the rivers, from the
deserts to the jungles, from the mountains to the oceans. There will
be no escape. As they tend towards cowardice, we have to hunt them
first, and bring them to justice afterwards.
September 10, 2001 was the last full day for us Americans to be
concerned about our image. We don't much care of what your negative
"image" is of us right now. As for the other atrocities, we don't
approve of them. We never have. We have done more about them than
any other country on the face of the earth. More than any country in
the history of the earth.
There's no more middle ground. Maybe there never was. You're on the
side of terrorists or you're against them. If you're with us who plan
to fight them, show some respect for those suffering, for those who
died. I don't believe Kevin showed disrespect to those who suffered
or died before.
John Lockwood
Oh, NOW I get it about you standing up for Roedy.
John
John Lockwood
wrote:
>
>Perhaps it was simply a matter of that fact that this forum is
>targeted at discussing Java advocacy. This thread is an important
>communication about timely and emotional events, ...
It is? I would have categorized it as a small group of drooling
idiots from also-ran countries scoring cheap debating points off the
blood of perhaps 5,000 American civilians.
As for your suggestion that those Canadians and what nots take it
elsewhere, I'm totally for that. Who's the bleeding heart that let
these people on Arapanet to begin with? I tell you, you can't get
good help these days.
John
John Lockwood
>Luc Kumps <NOkum...@pandora.be> wrote:
>
>: [...] this is the very first *technical* newsgroup I read, where a
>: *technical* person posts a message of this kind.
>
>Don't mistake c.l.j.a. for a "technical" newsgroup.
It's the name. People do that all the time. :)
John
John Lockwood
<tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So. Now I know a nice little song.
Yes you do. Hopefully the tune is so catchy that the next time some
American civilians are killed you'll be distracted by it long enough
to prevent you from rushing out to a keyboard to be a dumb fuck.
Tom Owles
John Lockwood wrote in message ...
I don't think so. For this to work I'd need sheet music (notes) also.
And... Mom, he used an F word!
Sreenivas Reddy
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:jpauptkjd6q7fg0ku...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:28:05 -0500, JTK <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote or
> quoted :
>
> >I'm sure that thought will bring much comfort to the families of the
> >thousands of victims of this insanity.
> >
> >Jesus Christ Roedy, *think* before you post.
>
> If most of the computers in the US stopped working, that would be a
> disaster that would make what happened today look minor.
>
> One computer going down is no problem, but large numbers of them going
> down could cause panic. MS personal computers are most vulnerable.
> Even kids can crack them.
>
> I am not going to switch oses, though I am thinking of turning my
> machine off and taking some time off on a quiet island away from the
> city.
>
> We Canadians teasingly refer to the USA as the "excited States Of
> America". Relax. America has not collapsed. Talk to some Brits who
> survived the London bombings how bad it was, and they STILL prevailed.
>
Roedy,
You are sick.
Sreeni
Tom Owles
news:7eab6777.01091...@posting.google.com...
> The notion that this is a matter for the court is despicable. That
> sounds like the Taliban "We hope that this matter can be resolved
> through the courts." Sorry. There is no court for this. This is
> war.
Saict, even in war there are rules. Prisoners of war are (that is should be)
protected by various conventions.
> We _will_ hunt them from the rocks to the rivers, from the
> deserts to the jungles, from the mountains to the oceans. There will
> be no escape.
That remains to be seen. I think you won't hunt them down. You'll bomb them.
It's easy to push the button and exerminate them. Collateral damage (= dead
inocent civilians) is, of course, another matter that "we" shall not
mention, shall "we"?
> September 10, 2001 was the last full day for us Americans to be
> concerned about our image. We don't much care of what your negative
> "image" is of us right now. As for the other atrocities, we don't
> approve of them. We never have. We have done more about them than
> any other country on the face of the earth. More than any country in
> the history of the earth.
Oh yeah? Define "done more"!
> There's no more middle ground. Maybe there never was. You're on the
> side of terrorists or you're against them.
I'm against them! But I also say "...and justice for all"! Not "justice for
some" and "lynch for others"!
> If you're with us who plan
> to fight them, show some respect for those suffering, for those who
> died.
This is not about showing respect. I have shown respect. I've joined in the
3 mins of silence in remembrance for the victims and their relatives, for
example. Did you that for more than 1 million victims of civil war in Ruanda
few years ago?
Tom Owles
"Mark Mynsted" <mmyn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:m2heu5u...@mmynsted.corp.vha.com...
> "Tom Owles" <tom_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> > > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
> >
> > Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> > posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> > killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> > soldiers) who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh,
you
> > didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
>
> Perhaps it was simply a matter of that fact that this forum is
> targeted at discussing Java advocacy. This thread is an important
> communication about timely and emotional events, but likely should be
> carried out someplace else. How about "alt.current-events"?
>
> Perhaps you would be willing to suggest a different news-group or
> web-page where everyone may continue this discussion.
This NG should be about java advocacy, but is - in fact - about everything
else. So... don't make me seek cover behind certain amendment...
Doug Patterson
this message is not a response to this post in particular; I just had
to place it somewhere.
"Tom Owles" <tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9nsne2$9vr6i$1...@ID-64732.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
>
> Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> soldiers)
"...under the eyes of" is a lot different than "under the command of."
> who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh, you
> didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
Blame the UN and Bill Clinton, our former communist president. We
should not have participated at all. Of course, you can rightly blame
some of the US citizens for electing the man who put us in this
situation.
> Do you know that people around the world die at the hands of terrorists
> every day? You don't? What the hell are you thinking, then? Can't you see
> beyond the fence of your backyard?
Until last week, many didn't. Now the rest of us are awake and realize
life isn't a Nintendo game.
>
> Don't think that non-US people approve what happened at WTC and Pentagon.
Some did. We have the photos of Palestinians dancing in the streets.
Bin Laden said he approved of it. So did Saddam Hussein.
> BUT! Don't think that you're the only country that suffers from such acts of
> terror, either.
It is a normal day in the life of Israel, and for Christians in Sudan
(from their own government). Sadly, America needed a wake-up call,
just like we did in 1941.
>
> Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
> legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
> "bring those folks to justice / court"? "Hunting down" sounds like a
> classical american procedure: lynch. Not good for your image of world
> policemen. Not good at all!
Maybe Churchill should have sent two policemen to arrest Hitler, plea
bargain, and then put him in jail for 25 years (pending appeals, of
course). Come on. I don't believe you said that. This does NOT mean
lynch; it means WAR. I'm sure many of you around the world are
familiar with the concept. Apparently some people from other parts of
the world think the USA is still the Wild Wild West, if it ever was
(talk about stereotyping and bigotry). Who said we are world
policemen? And if you don't like the idea of fighting a war against
terrorists, then what is your solution? Please don't say negotiation.
Remember Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time!"?
We can't fight terrorists on their level, but they can't fight us on
ours. This is why we have Armed Forces.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the quote from a Canadian newspaper. Very well said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FW: From a Canadian newspaper....
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:19:49 -0700
TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES
This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.
America: The Good Neighbor.
Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable
editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian
television
Commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as
printed in the Congressional Record:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most
generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted
out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of
dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its
remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of
collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their
reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was
there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were
flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars
into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing
about
the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other
country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the
Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly
them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American
Planes? Why
does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on
the
moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios You talk
about
German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American
technocracy, and you find men on the moon -not once, but several times
- and
safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the
store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are
not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of
them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American
dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the
Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody
loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000
times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans
in trouble?
I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco
earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian
who is
damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of
this
thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to
thumb
their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
I
hope Canada is not one of those."
Tom Owles
"Doug Patterson" <drpa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ce8310b.01091...@posting.google.com...
> The quote (from a Canadian newspaper) I have inserted at the bottom of
> this message is not a response to this post in particular; I just had
> to place it somewhere.
>
> "Tom Owles" <tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<9nsne2$9vr6i$1...@ID-64732.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> > > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
> >
> > Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> > posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> > killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> > soldiers)
>
> "...under the eyes of" is a lot different than "under the command of."
Of course! They had an order (somebody commanded them) to protect those
people, but instead they looked away, or should I say, they were looking
directly into the slaughterhouse _DOING_NOTHING_TO_STOP_THE_MASSACRE_!
> > who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh, you
> > didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
>
> Blame the UN and Bill Clinton, our former communist president.
That's a new one. Was he a communist? That explains a lot of things. The
Zippergate for example. Only a communist would be so perverted :-)
> We
> should not have participated at all. Of course, you can rightly blame
> some of the US citizens for electing the man who put us in this
> situation.
No, I don't blame them. Who could have predicted that? Nobody!
> > Do you know that people around the world die at the hands of terrorists
> > every day? You don't? What the hell are you thinking, then? Can't you
see
> > beyond the fence of your backyard?
>
> Until last week, many didn't. Now the rest of us are awake and realize
> life isn't a Nintendo game.
Unfortunatelly, you paid a great price for that info. Why didn't you ask
somebody who knew?
> > Don't think that non-US people approve what happened at WTC and
Pentagon.
>
> Some did. We have the photos of Palestinians dancing in the streets.
People were cheering when WWII has come to an end (by throwing two US gizmos
over Japan). Such generalizing never produces correct results.
> Bin Laden said he approved of it. So did Saddam Hussein.
I stand corrected. People minus Bin Laden and Saddam.
> > BUT! Don't think that you're the only country that suffers from such
acts of
> > terror, either.
>
> It is a normal day in the life of Israel, and for Christians in Sudan
> (from their own government). Sadly, America needed a wake-up call,
> just like we did in 1941.
Seems so.
> > Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
> > legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
> > "bring those folks to justice / court"? "Hunting down" sounds like a
> > classical american procedure: lynch. Not good for your image of world
> > policemen. Not good at all!
>
> Maybe Churchill should have sent two policemen to arrest Hitler, plea
> bargain, and then put him in jail for 25 years (pending appeals, of
> course). Come on. I don't believe you said that. This does NOT mean
> lynch; it means WAR.
"Hunting down" doesn't seem like a war to me. It sounds like... hunting. Do
you know what the fox-hunt in Britain looks like? And why there are debates
to ban those hunts?
Don't get me wrong. I think the people who did this deserve a punishment.
But they should be judged according to the "justice for all" principal.
However guilty they may be, they should be brought to justice (using legal
means), judged and, if found guilty, put away for a very very long time. Not
hunted down and killed on the spot just to be found innocent later. Correct
me if I'm wrong but weren't there a lot of cases in USA where - using the
latest DNA analyzing techniques - it was found a-posteriori that many people
sentenced to death (and in fact executed), were innocent? I'm affraid that
"a full-scale-investigation" (as Dubya says) couldn't have been completed in
just four days, yet VP Cheney speaks of Bin Laden as if he were allready
found guilty?
> I'm sure many of you around the world are
> familiar with the concept. Apparently some people from other parts of
> the world think the USA is still the Wild Wild West, if it ever was
> (talk about stereotyping and bigotry). Who said we are world
> policemen?
People around the world think so. You don't have to be very smart to get the
idea. For example: after WWII US helped to liberate Europe. Germany turned
from a deadly enemy to an ally over the years (in fact quite soon after it's
capitulation). Yet, US is still present in Europe. Germany and Italy have
their own powerful armies, yet US has millitary bases there. Why? Millitary
bases in Japan? Aircraft carriers all over the world? Submarines in all the
oceans? Satelites over the whole World? Echelon on all the e-infrastructure?
Just because US can afford it? Or "to make us look tough"?
When some unfortunate accident involving US soldiers in those bases happens,
people of those countries demand that US millitary leaves, yet nothing
happens. For example: few years back a US plane killed 25 people because the
pilot boasted he has the guts to fly under the ski-lift. He did. Cost lives
of 25 innocent people. When the Italianas demanded that he be judged in
Italy under the Italian laws, Americans quickly brought him "home" and
_aquitted_ him! Another example: a US soldier raped and killed a Japanese
teenager (14 I believe she was). People were demonstrating there against US
presence in Japan! Didn't you see that on TV? Or your government pampers you
so much that it wanted to spare you that unpleasant scene?
US is present allover the World! It not only wants to be the World police.
It _is_ the World police!
> And if you don't like the idea of fighting a war against
> terrorists, then what is your solution?
My solution is: United Nations! But not as UN of today. I could write a 1000
page ellaborate on that. I'll spare you the details.
Nowadays US plays the role UN should play. Ironic, isn't it? US practically
invented the UN. But, sadly UN turned into... something "completely
different".
> Please don't say negotiation.
Of course not! That's the first rule: don't negotiate with terrorists.
> Remember Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time!"?
I actually said that in some other posting. That miserable piece of paper
that he waved as proof, is realy legendary.
> We can't fight terrorists on their level,
The point is... if we want to keep an honest apperance, we
_must_not_fight_them_on_their_level_!
> but they can't fight us on
> ours. This is why we have Armed Forces.
...
Mats Olsson
Tom Owles <tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Doug Patterson" <drpa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5ce8310b.01091...@posting.google.com...
>> The quote (from a Canadian newspaper) I have inserted at the bottom of
>> this message is not a response to this post in particular; I just had
>> to place it somewhere.
>>
>> "Tom Owles" <tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<9nsne2$9vr6i$1...@ID-64732.news.dfncis.de>...
>> > "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
>> > > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
>> > > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
>> >
>> > Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
>> > posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
>> > killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
>> > soldiers)
>>
>> "...under the eyes of" is a lot different than "under the command of."
>
>Of course! They had an order (somebody commanded them) to protect those
>people, but instead they looked away, or should I say, they were looking
>directly into the slaughterhouse _DOING_NOTHING_TO_STOP_THE_MASSACRE_!
There were around 200 Dutch soldiers in Srebrenica. The Serbian commander
said "Now, we are going to go in and clean out Srebrenica. We will move
the civilian population back to Sarajevo. We won't harm anyone. You know you
won't stand a chance if you try to fight us - you are outnumbered more than
20-1 - and NATO isn't willing to use airstrikes against us. So, go into your
compound and stay there until you are evacuated - or find yourself
'accidentially' shelled and shot at until you just happen to end up dead."
Ok, what would you do? Remember, as the Dutch commander, you don't know
that the Serbs will murder 7000 bosnians men ... that's still in the future.
So, will you fight and die, or stay in the compound? Remember that it
isn't just your life, but also the 200 Dutch soldiers under you command.
Willing to throw them away for a futile gesture?
/Mats
John Lockwood
wrote:
>Blame the UN and Bill Clinton, our former communist president.
Oh geesh, here we go. Another Republican showing off his brain.
You know, what you guys really hate is that he was a better Republican
than you.
>We
>should not have participated at all. Of course, you can rightly blame
>some of the US citizens for electing the man who put us in this
>situation.
>
Some? Try a large majority. Your boy, "George W. Electoral College",
only started to garner any kind of substantial support after we'd been
bombed.
James A. Robertson
The blame goes a lot wider than Clinton. George Bush the elder helped
by letting Hussein stay around. Clinton just gave us more of the same -
a continuation of existing policy
> >Blame the UN and Bill Clinton, our former communist president.
>
> Oh geesh, here we go. Another Republican showing off his brain.
>
> You know, what you guys really hate is that he was a better Republican
> than you.
>
> >We
> >should not have participated at all. Of course, you can rightly blame
> >some of the US citizens for electing the man who put us in this
> >situation.
> >
>
> Some? Try a large majority. Your boy, "George W. Electoral College",
> only started to garner any kind of substantial support after we'd been
> bombed.
--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jar...@mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Mats Olsson
>news:5ce8310b.01091...@posting.google.com...
>> The quote (from a Canadian newspaper) I have inserted at the bottom of
>> this message is not a response to this post in particular; I just had
>> to place it somewhere.
>>
>> "Tom Owles" <tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<9nsne2$9vr6i$1...@ID-64732.news.dfncis.de>...
>> > "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
>> > > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
>> > > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
>> >
>> > Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
>> > posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
>> > killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
>> > soldiers)
>>
>> "...under the eyes of" is a lot different than "under the command of."
>
>Of course! They had an order (somebody commanded them) to protect those
>people, but instead they looked away, or should I say, they were looking
>directly into the slaughterhouse _DOING_NOTHING_TO_STOP_THE_MASSACRE_!
Read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_675000/675945.stm
for the timeline.
Oh, bw. Note: No US soldiers involved.
/Mats
James A. Robertson
>
> "Kevin Hsu" <kev...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uHtuLvNPBHA.264@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > Excuse me, but thousands of people just tragically died at the
> > hands of terrorists. What the hell are you thinking??
>
In 1995, there were zero US soldiers in that area. Get your facts
straight before you go posting nonsense.
And when the US did get involved in Kosovo, here's a quick quiz question
- did we protect Serbs or Muslims?
If you said Muslims, go to the head of the class.
> Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> soldiers) who should have protected them, but looked away instead? Oh, you
> didn't know that? Far from the eyes, far from the heart, was it?
>
> Do you know that people around the world die at the hands of terrorists
> every day? You don't? What the hell are you thinking, then? Can't you see
> beyond the fence of your backyard?
>
> Don't think that non-US people approve what happened at WTC and Pentagon.
> BUT! Don't think that you're the only country that suffers from such acts of
> terror, either.
>
> Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
> legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
> "bring those folks to justice / court"? "Hunting down" sounds like a
> classical american procedure: lynch. Not good for your image of world
> policemen. Not good at all!
--
Carl Rosenberger
> The blame goes a lot wider than Clinton. George Bush the elder helped
> by letting Hussein stay around. Clinton just gave us more of the same -
> a continuation of existing policy
I assume that the U.S. prefer an insane tyrant like Saddam, that is hated by
his people and sits in his gold chair, to a charismatic leader like Osama,
who is loved by his people and who exchanged his life in wealth for a war
for his religious belief, fighting himself.
I think you still don't know what you might be facing:
United radical fundamentalist terrorism.
Terrorism is neither bound to particular people nor to countries. Killing
leaders only makes them martyrs and attracts more followers. There is *no*
target to fight. It seems that half of the attack was planned in a student's
room in Hamburg, Germany. Bombing that would be approximately the same as
bombing Kabul civilians:
You get more terrorists and kill none.
Have a look at this petition against war that just formed in the last two
days:
http://www.findefux.de/petition/english/
20,000 people signed it in no time and it is only just becoming well known.
Kind regards,
Carl
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > The blame goes a lot wider than Clinton. George Bush the elder helped
> > by letting Hussein stay around. Clinton just gave us more of the same -
> > a continuation of existing policy
>
Sigh. Had we done the right thing, we would have toppled Hussein, and
then set about rebuilding Iraq as we did with Japan and Germany -
potentially ending up with a stable ally in a nasty part of the world.
> I assume that the U.S. prefer an insane tyrant like Saddam, that is hated by
> his people and sits in his gold chair, to a charismatic leader like Osama,
> who is loved by his people and who exchanged his life in wealth for a war
> for his religious belief, fighting himself.
>
> I think you still don't know what you might be facing:
> United radical fundamentalist terrorism.
>
I realize that - and it may end up being a war of civilization against
barbarians (which is what the radicals are). That's what they want, and
they will keep hurting us (more severely each time) until they get it.
If so, we need to destroy them, completely.
> Terrorism is neither bound to particular people nor to countries. Killing
> leaders only makes them martyrs and attracts more followers. There is *no*
> target to fight. It seems that half of the attack was planned in a student's
> room in Hamburg, Germany. Bombing that would be approximately the same as
> bombing Kabul civilians:
> You get more terrorists and kill none.
>
Depends. Killing Hitler at the right moment would have done a lot of
good.
And that petition is well intentioned, but misguided. The radicals
<want> a war. If this act doesn't bring it, then they will continue
(with more vicious actions) until they get one. How many innocents do
we need to sacrifice before we realize that these people simply cannot
be appeased? If they want a war, fine - bring them one.
> Have a look at this petition against war that just formed in the last two
> days:
> http://www.findefux.de/petition/english/
> 20,000 people signed it in no time and it is only just becoming well known.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
--
John Lockwood
wrote:
>Have a look at this petition against war that just formed in the last two
>days:
>http://www.findefux.de/petition/english/
>20,000 people signed it in no time and it is only just becoming well known.
Yeah, well, we're going to have a war. I for one am going to buy war
bonds to support it. If governments and armies can't kick the asses
of people who fly planes into skyscrapers, then what are we paying
them for?
Java Fan -2 + -2
wrote:
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>> The blame goes a lot wider than Clinton. George Bush the elder helped
>> by letting Hussein stay around. Clinton just gave us more of the same -
>> a continuation of existing policy
>
>I assume that the U.S. prefer an insane tyrant like Saddam, that is hated by
>his people and sits in his gold chair, to a charismatic leader like Osama,
>who is loved by his people and who exchanged his life in wealth for a war
>for his religious belief, fighting himself.
>
>I think you still don't know what you might be facing:
>United radical fundamentalist terrorism.
We're already facing that.
What would YOU like to do? Overthrow Saudi Arabia and install Bin
Laden as the new Hitler of the Middle East?
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Luc Kumps
"James A. Robertson" <jar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3BA51CE0...@mail.com...
> Carl Rosenberger wrote:
> > I think you still don't know what you might be facing:
> > United radical fundamentalist terrorism.
> >
>
> I realize that - and it may end up being a war of civilization against
> barbarians (which is what the radicals are). That's what they want, and
> they will keep hurting us (more severely each time) until they get it.
> If so, we need to destroy them, completely.
I'm afraid that you have been watching too many movies. This is _not_ a
movie.
I agree with Carl: there is no "THEY", with "them" sitting together in a
room, waiting for somebody to kill them.
It is like a maffia on world scale. You cut of one head, and 8 more pop up.
> > Terrorism is neither bound to particular people nor to countries.
Killing
> > leaders only makes them martyrs and attracts more followers. There is
*no*
> > target to fight. It seems that half of the attack was planned in a
student's
> > room in Hamburg, Germany. Bombing that would be approximately the same
as
> > bombing Kabul civilians:
> > You get more terrorists and kill none.
> >
>
> Depends. Killing Hitler at the right moment would have done a lot of
> good.
Why? Was Hitler alone? Weren't a lot of German waiting for a revenge after
the humiliations after WWI?
Speaking of WWI, that *also* started by "revenging" a terrorist attack...
> And that petition is well intentioned, but misguided. The radicals
> <want> a war. If this act doesn't bring it, then they will continue
> (with more vicious actions) until they get one. How many innocents do
> we need to sacrifice before we realize that these people simply cannot
> be appeased? If they want a war, fine - bring them one.
More movie talk, IMHO. I.e. completely unrealistic, and it will cause *lots*
of innocent deaths, a *lot* more than the innocents that have been killed in
the recent events. But it sure will make the war "industry" blossom.
Luc
Tom Owles
"Mats Olsson" <ma...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote in message
news:9o3331$sib$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se...
> >Of course! They had an order (somebody commanded them) to protect those
> >people, but instead they looked away, or should I say, they were looking
> >directly into the slaughterhouse _DOING_NOTHING_TO_STOP_THE_MASSACRE_!
>
> Read
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_675000/675945.stm
>
> for the timeline.
>
> Oh, bw. Note: No US soldiers involved.
Just a couple of excerpts from that report (which is BTW not completely
accurate):
"The Dutch commander called UN Headquarters in Sarajevo asking for "close
air support"."
BTW: he was denied.
"The Dutch commander told town leaders that Nato planes would launch massive
air attacks against the Serbs if they had not withdrawn from the safe area
by 0600 the following morning."
Here we go now... the most sad excuse of Nato (e.g. US) millitary I have
ever heard:
"but Nato planes had to return to base in Italy to refuel".
To refuel! My God! They had _all_ the planes airborne at the same time, none
of them with enough fuel on board, and they _all_ had to return to base
(Aviano, Italy, just across the Adriatic) which is just a couple of 100's of
miles away - a matter of minutes for an F-16? That's the most brilliant
planing one can imagine!
BTW: Aviano is an _US_of_A_millitary_base_ in Italy (the largest US aircraft
carrier in Europe).
BTW: F-16's action could actually be replaced by a couple of well aimed
missiles from any of the US ships in the Mediterranean! But, heck, they
weren't fueled at the right time I guess. The gassoline station was closed.
Better luck next time.
I hope you fuel your planes well enough when you send them to Afganistan.
Otherwise you'll get your asses kicked by the Taliban the way the Russians
gor theirs by the former Afgan regime. And BTW: under no circumstances call
for Dutch support. They might have their planes lightly fueled just to "get
back" ;-) to you.
Kevin
> Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> soldiers)
Are you saying we can't feel bad about what happened if we didn't speak out
against some other atrocity? I mean, what does this have to do with
chastizing a poster for not showing a proper amount of sensitivity on a
seriously tragic event?
-Kevin
Carl Rosenberger
> >I think you still don't know what you might be facing:
> >United radical fundamentalist terrorism.
>
> We're already facing that.
I am afraid you haven't seen the tip of the possible iceberg yet. Compare
5000 casualties with 1,5 million in the Iraq to understand the potential for
hatred on the other side.
> What would YOU like to do? Overthrow Saudi Arabia and install Bin
> Laden as the new Hitler of the Middle East?
I have been leading a long discussion with James Robertson and Jason Kratz
under the topic "VPCUS" here already. Here is a repost:
The situation is new and very difficult.
George Bush's "Which side are you on?" hardliner *threat* is very good, I
think. Should it actually come to *fulfill* the threat, bombing raids would
be wrong, if genocide is not the long-term goal.
Better military intelligence with recruits from other cultures is the only
possible long-term-weapon against terrorism.
Terrorism needs to be outlawed, just like biological weapons. Bombing
countries on the first suspicion of hosting terrorists is too radical.
Military intelligence needs to confirm the suspicion of terroristic
activities with a high degree of certainty.
Weapons need more control worldwide. You can start in your own country by
making firearms illegal, just like in other civilized countries. The
government is responsible for your safety, not yourself.
Obvious unjust situations, like what the Israelis are currently doing with
the Palestinians (beginning genocide) need to be resolved by international
organisations.
Most important of all:
Intelligent development aid needs to take place.
In Germany we still have a mandatory year in the Army. A mandatory year to
do development aid in a foreign country with a different culture would be
more civilized. This should be mandatory for young men and women. It would
allow everyone to learn that this world consits of humans, no matter what
their colour or religion is.
Kind regards,
Carl
John Lockwood
<jar...@mail.com> wrote:
>In 1995, there were zero US soldiers in that area. Get your facts
>straight before you go posting nonsense.
But James, facts would "ruin" the nonsense-posting. :)
John
John Lockwood
wrote:
>I'm afraid that you have been watching too many movies. This is _not_ a
>movie.
>I agree with Carl: there is no "THEY", with "them" sitting together in a
>room, waiting for somebody to kill them.
>It is like a maffia on world scale. You cut of one head, and 8 more pop up.
Well, sure, they'll be a learning curve. But we'll get it.
John
James A. Robertson
> movie.
> I agree with Carl: there is no "THEY", with "them" sitting together in a
> room, waiting for somebody to kill them.
> It is like a maffia on world scale. You cut of one head, and 8 more pop up.
Depends on how expensive you make it for sponsoring countries. These
people survive only because they are supported by governments - Syria,
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Remove that support, and you are left mostly
with angry (but powerless to do major harm) people.
It took money to pull this off.
History is full of men and women who were critical to some movement.
Hitler had the charisma necessary to get Nazism moving. Without him, it
would have foundered rather quickly.
> > Depends. Killing Hitler at the right moment would have done a lot of
> > good.
>
> Why? Was Hitler alone? Weren't a lot of German waiting for a revenge after
> the humiliations after WWI?
> Speaking of WWI, that *also* started by "revenging" a terrorist attack...
>
> > And that petition is well intentioned, but misguided. The radicals
> > <want> a war. If this act doesn't bring it, then they will continue
> > (with more vicious actions) until they get one. How many innocents do
> > we need to sacrifice before we realize that these people simply cannot
> > be appeased? If they want a war, fine - bring them one.
>
Not movie talk. They started with bombing buildings, and and moved up.
It will get worse.
What's your solution? Appeasement?
> More movie talk, IMHO. I.e. completely unrealistic, and it will cause *lots*
> of innocent deaths, a *lot* more than the innocents that have been killed in
> the recent events. But it sure will make the war "industry" blossom.
>
> Luc
--
James A. Robertson
>
> Terrorism needs to be outlawed, just like biological weapons. Bombing
> countries on the first suspicion of hosting terrorists is too radical.
> Military intelligence needs to confirm the suspicion of terroristic
> activities with a high degree of certainty.
>
I refer you to the Kellog-Briand pact and the Washington Naval talks
(1921) for a refresher cours eon the utility of such treaties. Say we
outlawed terrorism. Wow. That will sure scare the heck out of Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Exactly how does that stop them from sponsoring the thugs? At what
point are you going to notice that only the republican (lower case r)
governments obey such treaties - and that the totalitarian regimes
cheerfully sign them and ignore them?
> Weapons need more control worldwide. You can start in your own country by
> making firearms illegal, just like in other civilized countries. The
> government is responsible for your safety, not yourself.
>
Follow this point. It states that individuals are not responsible. I
don't think you want to go there. For instance - carried forward, it
would have led the passengers on United 93 (the one that crashed in PA)
to do nothing.
> Obvious unjust situations, like what the Israelis are currently doing with
> the Palestinians (beginning genocide) need to be resolved by international
> organisations.
>
If you call that genocide, you are a clueless moron. Yes, I mean that.
Words have meaning, and you just cheapened that one - a lot. The
Palestinians are treated worse than they should be, but they are not
being slaughtered as a group.
Not to mention that Israel offered Arafat a reasonable deal (Barak) last
year - and Arafat spat on it.
What they (the PA) want is all of that area and the Israelis in the
sea. Don't kid yourself.
> Most important of all:
> Intelligent development aid needs to take place.
> In Germany we still have a mandatory year in the Army. A mandatory year to
> do development aid in a foreign country with a different culture would be
> more civilized. This should be mandatory for young men and women. It would
> allow everyone to learn that this world consits of humans, no matter what
> their colour or religion is.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
--
Carl Rosenberger
> > I agree with Carl: there is no "THEY", with "them" sitting together in a
> > room, waiting for somebody to kill them.
> > It is like a maffia on world scale. You cut of one head, and 8 more pop
up.
>
> Depends on how expensive you make it for sponsoring countries. These
> people survive only because they are supported by governments - Syria,
> Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Remove that support, and you are left mostly
> with angry (but powerless to do major harm) people.
If you threaten the sponsoring countries, you risk that entire countries
will turn against you, not just the few terrorists that you have today.
Pakistan will be risking a coup, if they host American bombers. You might be
headed towards a second Saigon.
> It took money to pull this off.
How much?
30 people 3 years, 10 flight scholarships?
Far less than $ 1 million, I would believe.
Some of the students earned their own living.
Go and collect $ 1 from every man on this world that hates America and you
will be surprised on the sum. Some of the fundraising seems to have taken
place within the United States.
> What's your solution? Appeasement?
Yes.
And weapon control:
No weapons for anyone, no ammunition for anyone, not even for the enemies of
the terrorists.
If the west would unite to stop delivering lethal technology, third-world
countries would end up having to kill eachother with their bare hands.
Kind regards,
Carl
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > Depends on how expensive you make it for sponsoring countries. These
> > people survive only because they are supported by governments - Syria,
> > Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Remove that support, and you are left mostly
> > with angry (but powerless to do major harm) people.
>
Are you under the delusion that those countries aren't already against
the west? They are. What we are demanding at this point is that
nations take a stand - good or evil.
> If you threaten the sponsoring countries, you risk that entire countries
> will turn against you, not just the few terrorists that you have today.
> Pakistan will be risking a coup, if they host American bombers. You might be
> headed towards a second Saigon.
>
> > It took money to pull this off.
>
> How much?
> 30 people 3 years, 10 flight scholarships?
> Far less than $ 1 million, I would believe.
> Some of the students earned their own living.
>
Enough to make it an organized effort that was pulled by someone with
state sponsorship. We know that bin Laden lives in Afghanistan with the
help of the Taliban.
> Go and collect $ 1 from every man on this world that hates America and you
> will be surprised on the sum. Some of the fundraising seems to have taken
> place within the United States.
>
So what? That's unfocused hate, and a lot of it has to do with our
position as a world power - i.e., a lot of people are going to hate any
powerful country.
> > What's your solution? Appeasement?
>
> Yes.
>
Then you are uneducated. The history of appeasement is one of singular
failure.
> And weapon control:
> No weapons for anyone, no ammunition for anyone, not even for the enemies of
> the terrorists.
>
The historical record shows failure for that as well.
Tell you what. Give me an example anywhere in history where either of
these worked.
> If the west would unite to stop delivering lethal technology, third-world
> countries would end up having to kill eachother with their bare hands.
>
Unless you plan to seal borders against trade, it won't happen. Not to
mention that stopping arms trade would also give enemies of the west
(China, for one) a free hand in propping up their kind of pals - who
won't be our kind.
> Kind regards,
> Carl
Carl Rosenberger
> > Weapons need more control worldwide. You can start in your own country
by
> > making firearms illegal, just like in other civilized countries. The
> > government is responsible for your safety, not yourself.
> >
>
> Follow this point. It states that individuals are not responsible. I
> don't think you want to go there. For instance - carried forward, it
> would have led the passengers on United 93 (the one that crashed in PA)
> to do nothing.
O.K. this was completely misleading. Of course everyone is responsible to
work together for peace. My statement was referring to the private
possession of firearms only.
Kind regards,
Carl
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
Have you looked at what happened to crime (especially home invasions) in
the UK after that happened?
Statistical evidence in the US shows that those resisting a burglary
with a firearm are less likely to get hurt, and less likely to lose any
possessions.
> O.K. this was completely misleading. Of course everyone is responsible to
> work together for peace. My statement was referring to the private
> possession of firearms only.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
--
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
>
> > What's your solution? Appeasement?
>
> Yes.
Let's actually look at what appeasement in this situation would mean:
-- withdrawal of US troops from the entire mideast
-- a cutoff of aid to Israel
-- willingness to witness the destruction of Israel
Followed by the probable takeover of Kuwait and Saudi by Iraq, followed
by an attempt by Islamic radicals to topple Iraq and Egypt.
The radicals want all western influences (and that includes Israel) out
of the mideast - especially near Islamic holy sites.
If you think that they will settle for less, you are delusional.
The price is too high.
>
> And weapon control:
> No weapons for anyone, no ammunition for anyone, not even for the enemies of
> the terrorists.
>
> If the west would unite to stop delivering lethal technology, third-world
> countries would end up having to kill eachother with their bare hands.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
--
Carl Rosenberger
> Are you under the delusion that those countries aren't already against
> the west? They are. What we are demanding at this point is that
> nations take a stand - good or evil.
You are painting the world black and white, which it is not.
Peace is a gradual slow process and it can not be reached by force.
Concerning a rough "good or evil" judgement:
If I read your postings I can only see
"kill, kill, kill, kill them all"
I am your ally but if there would be only two sides, I would clearly put
this attitude on the evil side. Now consider an Arab, who is not your ally,
reading your attitude or watching CNN. What would he think?
Consider a government put under pressure:
You *must* commit treason (one of the most detested crimes in moslem
religion) by delivering your brothers.
What would be the perception of good and evil on the other side?
Even if it breaks the resistance of the government it is likely to produce a
coup to replace the government by more radical people.
You are using swearwords against me, although I have not been unfriendly
against you personally. Why?
Isn't freedom of speech one of the rights in the U.S.?
I can only repeat what I have posted before:
You can only live in peace with the other side or fight against the other
side until all are dead. Any war is beginning genocide.
Show me the scenario of peace that bombs on Afghanistan will create. Explain
to me, how many terrorists your are hoping to kill. Give me an estimate on
the number of new terrorist that would be recruited by this act.
You might hope to get revenge.
The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
Please draw the scenario before me.
If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
consequences.
What will the situation be like with this war in 5 years?
What will it be like without a revenge strike?
Kind regards,
Carl
Carl Rosenberger
> > O.K. this was completely misleading. Of course everyone is responsible
to
> > work together for peace. My statement was referring to the private
> > possession of firearms only.
>
> the UK after that happened?
In the UK not even policemen have guns. That might be going too far.
How many people are killed in the U.K. by wild-running madmen?
How many massacres in schools by children with firearms?
What's worth more?
Posession, or lives?
We do have insurances that cover robbery.
We don't have insurances that restore lives.
> Statistical evidence in the US shows that those resisting a burglary
> with a firearm are less likely to get hurt, and less likely to lose any
> possessions.
Those statistics are taken within a firearm civilization.
I could respond by comparing the crime-rate here in Germany with that in the
U.S., *although* we have taken millions of refugees from the east and from
the middle-east.
Kind regards,
Carl
Carl Rosenberger
> > > What's your solution? Appeasement?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Let's actually look at what appeasement in this situation would mean:
>
> -- withdrawal of US troops from the entire mideast
> -- a cutoff of aid to Israel
> -- willingness to witness the destruction of Israel
I did not propose any of the above.
In my opinion the money that is about be spent on a military hit against
Afghanistan would be more wisely used on looking for a solution of the
Palestinian problem:
Building machines to generate salt-free sea-water and creating more fertile
ground in the area than there ever was before.
Kind regards,
Carl
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > Are you under the delusion that those countries aren't already against
> > the west? They are. What we are demanding at this point is that
> > nations take a stand - good or evil.
>
> You are painting the world black and white, which it is not.
> Peace is a gradual slow process and it can not be reached by force.
Peace in Europe was reached by force - absolutely overwhelming force.
>
> Concerning a rough "good or evil" judgement:
> If I read your postings I can only see
> "kill, kill, kill, kill them all"
> I am your ally but if there would be only two sides, I would clearly put
Who said kill them all? I said kill the governments that aid and abet
terrorism. It's a short, well known list
> this attitude on the evil side. Now consider an Arab, who is not your ally,
> reading your attitude or watching CNN. What would he think?
> Consider a government put under pressure:
> You *must* commit treason (one of the most detested crimes in moslem
I couldn't care less what he thinks.
> religion) by delivering your brothers.
> What would be the perception of good and evil on the other side?
> Even if it breaks the resistance of the government it is likely to produce a
> coup to replace the government by more radical people.
>
> You are using swearwords against me, although I have not been unfriendly
> against you personally. Why?
> Isn't freedom of speech one of the rights in the U.S.?
>
Which swear words?
> I can only repeat what I have posted before:
> You can only live in peace with the other side or fight against the other
> side until all are dead. Any war is beginning genocide.
>
Funny, WWII didn't go that way. Neither do most wars. Do you actually
know <any> history, or do you just have a wellspring of silly aphorisms
to draw from?
> Show me the scenario of peace that bombs on Afghanistan will create. Explain
> to me, how many terrorists your are hoping to kill. Give me an estimate on
> the number of new terrorist that would be recruited by this act.
> You might hope to get revenge.
> The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
Most Afghanis are not happy with the Taliban. There's already a
resistance movement ready to help. There's the ground force - native to
the area and Islamic. We help them with air cover and whatever ground
force is necessary to help them achieve their aims.
You think Syrians are happy with the Assad government? Or the Iraqis
with theirs? There are already resistance movements in those places
that can be aided and abetted. We will need to put in serious levels of
military support, but the lead can be taken by the home grown
resistance.
It's a straightforward way of applying a 'back at you' response.
> Please draw the scenario before me.
> If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> consequences.
> What will the situation be like with this war in 5 years?
> What will it be like without a revenge strike?
More terrorism, escalating.
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > > O.K. this was completely misleading. Of course everyone is responsible
> to
> > > work together for peace. My statement was referring to the private
> > > possession of firearms only.
> >
> > Have you looked at what happened to crime (especially home invasions) in
> > the UK after that happened?
>
> In the UK not even policemen have guns. That might be going too far.
For the first time ever, UK police are getting armed. And only after
firearm ownership by the public was mostly banned.
>
> How many people are killed in the U.K. by wild-running madmen?
> How many massacres in schools by children with firearms?
In the US, for all the sensational reporting, that rate has been
dropping for 10 years. As well, the perps in these cases were all
violating laws. More laws wouldn't have stopped them.
>
> What's worth more?
> Posession, or lives?
Using a firearm in a burglary <increases> the liklihood that the victim
will not be hurt.
You might want to look at the statistics before you make assumptions.
John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime") is the only source of actual
statistics on the problem; other advocates tend to make emotional
arguments.
> We do have insurances that cover robbery.
> We don't have insurances that restore lives.
And using a weapon increases the odds.
>
> > Statistical evidence in the US shows that those resisting a burglary
> > with a firearm are less likely to get hurt, and less likely to lose any
> > possessions.
>
> Those statistics are taken within a firearm civilization.
>
So what? Switzerland has a population that is armed to the teeth -
what's the crime rate there?
> I could respond by comparing the crime-rate here in Germany with that in the
> U.S., *although* we have taken millions of refugees from the east and from
> the middle-east.
>
You could, and you would notice that per capita, it's rising faster
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > > > What's your solution? Appeasement?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Let's actually look at what appeasement in this situation would mean:
> >
> > -- withdrawal of US troops from the entire mideast
> > -- a cutoff of aid to Israel
> > -- willingness to witness the destruction of Israel
>
> I did not propose any of the above.
>
Then you have no solution. That's what the radicals want.
> In my opinion the money that is about be spent on a military hit against
> Afghanistan would be more wisely used on looking for a solution of the
> Palestinian problem:
> Building machines to generate salt-free sea-water and creating more fertile
> ground in the area than there ever was before.
The only solution the PA wants is death to Israel. Look at what Arafat
turned down last year; it was everything a reasonable leader could have
asked for, including a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and Palestinian
control of Islamic holy sites there.
What does their refusal tell you?
WesTralia
>
> O.K. this was completely misleading. Of course everyone is responsible to
> work together for peace.
>
> Carl
Carl, I am curious about something. In the US when there is a disaster
in the world (earthquake, war, floods, etc.) the citizens here get
organized and gather food supplies, clothing, and money and send these
items in bulk to the needy country.
Are the people of Germany doing that for us right now?
--
JTK
>
> John Lockwood wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:10:45 +0200, "Tom Owles"
> ><tom_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>So. Now I know a nice little song.
> >
> >Yes you do. Hopefully the tune is so catchy that the next time some
> >American civilians are killed you'll be distracted by it long enough
> >to prevent you from rushing out to a keyboard to be a dumb fuck.
>
> I don't think so. For this to work I'd need sheet music (notes) also.
And probably a suitable kick in the ass.
> And... Mom, he used an F word!
If the shoe fits, it's ugly. Now shut the hell up.
Mats Olsson
Would if USA needed it. However, being the richest country in the
world does mean having all necessary resources on hand. Not much
humanitarian aid needed, it would seem.
Help (in the form of Search&Rescue teams, medical staff etc) was
offered, but this disaster didn't even tax the medical resources of
New York, much less the US as a whole.
/Mats
JTK
Indeed: ballistic curves are a well-understood science.
> John
Mark Smith
>Carl, I am curious about something. In the US when there is a disaster
>in the world (earthquake, war, floods, etc.) the citizens here get
>organized and gather food supplies, clothing, and money and send these
>items in bulk to the needy country.
>
>Are the people of Germany doing that for us right now?
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,311297-412,00.shtml:
Germany has offered medical evacuation planes. Other
nations, including Norway and Japan, also have expressed
a desire to help.
German-American automaker DaimlerChrysler AG said it
would donate $10 million for the children of World Trade
Center victims and set up accounts in both countries for
individual donations.
German insurance giant Allianz AG plans a $1 million
relief fund. The company has predicted that it could face
claims of up to $637 million in the disaster. Media giant
Bertelsmann AG promised $2 million to families of
New York firefighters and police officers killed in the
attacks.
Jason Kratz
"Carl Rosenberger" <ca...@db4o.com> wrote in message
news:9o4hp5$1mc$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> Weapons need more control worldwide. You can start in your own country by
> making firearms illegal, just like in other civilized countries. The
> government is responsible for your safety, not yourself.
>
Hey Carl why not keep your personal issues on gun ownership out of this
conversation as it really has nothing to do with the situation. US gun laws
and gun ownership dont affect policy anywhere else in the world and had no
play in this tragedy. Notice the hijackers didnt have guns. Saying 'the
government is responsible for your safety, not yourself' might be well what
the Europeans believe but not what people in the United States believe. If
you lived here as long as you say you did you'd realize this is a ridiculous
statement to make based on your experience here. And of course your lofty
ideals about law seems to forget one point: only law-abiding citizens follow
the law. You can make firearms illegal here but that doesnt keep criminals
from using firearms. The same follows for terrorism. Criminals dont follow
laws....thats why they're criminals.
Luc Kumps
"WesTralia" <WesT...@house.invalid> wrote in message
news:3BA60A1F...@house.invalid...
My country (Belgium) sent an airplane with medical people. They got stuck in
Iceland for 3 days, because the US didn't allow the airplane. After three
days, the US told Belgium that they didn't need this help. The airplane
returned to Belgium.
Belgium is now sending money instead of people. Let's hope that the plane
with money isn't sent back...
Luc
Robert Hand
> legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
Sure you can. The example is during the Reagan with Nicaragua and El
Salvador.
Carl Rosenberger
> You can make firearms illegal here but that doesnt keep criminals
> from using firearms.
But where would the criminals get the guns from?
If you get that far to realize that possession of a gun is preparation of
murder (which it is) your lawyers will have no problems, to put people in
jail for carrying guns.
> The same follows for terrorism. Criminals dont follow
> laws....thats why they're criminals.
Absolutely true.
You will never be able to protect yourself against someone pouring some
arsenic into a water tank. That's why it won't help against terrorism to
bomb Afghanistan.
Kind regards,
Carl
Roger Lindsjö
In Sweden we are collencting money that will be presentedf to the mayor
of NYC.
Roger Lindsjö
James A. Robertson
>
> Jason Kratz wrote:
> > You can make firearms illegal here but that doesnt keep criminals
> > from using firearms.
>
> But where would the criminals get the guns from?
Where did bootleggers get alcohol from during Prohibition? Where does
the IRA get guns from?
>
> If you get that far to realize that possession of a gun is preparation of
> murder (which it is) your lawyers will have no problems, to put people in
> jail for carrying guns.
Self defense didn't occur to you?
>
> > The same follows for terrorism. Criminals dont follow
> > laws....thats why they're criminals.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> You will never be able to protect yourself against someone pouring some
> arsenic into a water tank. That's why it won't help against terrorism to
> bomb Afghanistan.
>
It takes a lot of arsenic to poison a municipal water supply. What you
can do (as I've said) is make it truly unprofitable to be a government
sponsor of terror. Right now it's cheap
James A. Robertson
>
> > Moreover, you cannot figth terrorism by terrorism. You must fight it by
> > legal means. Why does G.W. want to "hunt down those folks" instead of
>
There's also the early 20th century example of the Phillipines war.
There was also Tito's resistance to the Nazis.
> Sure you can. The example is during the Reagan with Nicaragua and El
> Salvador.
--
Luc Kumps
> Luc Kumps wrote:
> >
> > "James A. Robertson" <jar...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I'm afraid that you have been watching too many movies. This is _not_ a
> > movie.
> > I agree with Carl: there is no "THEY", with "them" sitting together in a
> > room, waiting for somebody to kill them.
> > It is like a maffia on world scale. You cut of one head, and 8 more pop
up.
>
> Depends on how expensive you make it for sponsoring countries. These
> people survive only because they are supported by governments - Syria,
> Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Remove that support, and you are left mostly
> with angry (but powerless to do major harm) people.
>
> It took money to pull this off.
I always thought that terrorism was the cheapest form of warfare...
For example, in recent US history, the terrorist Timothy McVeigh blew up a
complete building.
I'm sure you know his self-fabricated didn't cost a lot of money.
Luc
James A. Robertson
>
The act itself was relatively cheap. The organization required to get
19 hijackers moving in concert (with the ground support they had to have
had) wasn't cheap.
> I always thought that terrorism was the cheapest form of warfare...
> For example, in recent US history, the terrorist Timothy McVeigh blew up a
> complete building.
> I'm sure you know his self-fabricated didn't cost a lot of money.
>
> Luc
--
Carl Rosenberger
> Who said kill them all? I said kill the governments that aid and abet
> terrorism. It's a short, well known list
Whom do you want to put in place as a stable government?
The situation was different with the Germans in world war II. Right now you
are dealing with governments that tolerate terrorists. Wars tend to bring
more radical people to the top. You will end up with terrorists leading
countries.
> > Now consider an Arab, who is not your ally,
> > reading your attitude or watching CNN. What would he think?
> > Consider a government put under pressure:
> > You *must* commit treason (one of the most detested crimes in moslem
> > religion) by delivering your brothers.
>
> I couldn't care less what he thinks.
Exactly this attitude produces hatred against the U.S. among other cultures:
Complete ignorance.
Complete disrespect for the matters of others.
> > You are using swearwords against me, although I have not been unfriendly
> > against you personally. Why?
> > Isn't freedom of speech one of the rights in the U.S.?
> >
>
> Which swear words?
You called me moron in your other posting.
> Most Afghanis are not happy with the Taliban. There's already a
> resistance movement ready to help. There's the ground force - native to
> the area and Islamic. We help them with air cover and whatever ground
> force is necessary to help them achieve their aims.
You haven't learned from pouring oil into fires.
Withdrawing weapons from crisis areas is the only correct measure.
The northern aliance is sponsored by the Russians so you won't need to
support them.
> > Please draw the scenario before me.
> > If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> > consequences.
> > What will the situation be like with this war in 5 years?
> > What will it be like without a revenge strike?
>
> More terrorism, escalating.
And does bombing Afghanistan have the chance of making this better?
Kind regards,
Carl
JTK
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > Are you under the delusion that those countries aren't already against
> > the west? They are. What we are demanding at this point is that
> > nations take a stand - good or evil.
>
> You are painting the world black and white, which it is not.
It is. Far too few people, clearly including you, realize that, and
those that do usually do so after it is too late.
> Peace is a gradual slow process and it can not be reached by force.
>
But it can be reached by bleeding-heart "peace in our time" appeasement
crappola? That's been proven not to work not only in this case, but
throughout history. Give them Austria, they take Czechoslovakia. Give
them the USS Cole, and they take the World Trade Center.
Time to make the donuts.
> Concerning a rough "good or evil" judgement:
> If I read your postings I can only see
> "kill, kill, kill, kill them all"
I'm sure that is all you see. I see (and say) "it's long past due to
keep the munitions flying until terrorism is destroyed."
> I am your ally
No, you're a fence-sitter.
> but if there would be only two sides,
There are. Pick one.
> I would clearly put
> this attitude on the evil side.
And you would put doing absolutely nothing on the good side. Wow.
> Now consider an Arab, who is not your ally,
Why is this hypothetical Arab not James' ally?
> reading your attitude or watching CNN. What would he think?
Hopefully: "Finally, somebody's going to take some action to end this
terrorist scourge!"
> Consider a government put under pressure:
> You *must* commit treason (one of the most detested crimes in moslem
> religion) by delivering your brothers.
> What would be the perception of good and evil on the other side?
> Even if it breaks the resistance of the government it is likely to produce a
> coup to replace the government by more radical people.
>
Meh. We won't run out of 5.56mm NATO ball.
> You are using swearwords against me, although I have not been unfriendly
> against you personally. Why?
> Isn't freedom of speech one of the rights in the U.S.?
>
It is, thanks to our forefathers ignoring the exhortations of people
like you: "Oh, we better not have complete freedom of speech, we might
not appease some kook somewhere!"
> I can only repeat what I have posted before:
> You can only live in peace with the other side or fight against the other
> side until all are dead. Any war is beginning genocide.
>
Germans are still around. Japanese are still around. In fact losing
WWII was the best thing that ever happened to both societies. And we
live in peace with both; in fact both are very strong allies of the
United States of America. How do you reconcile those facts with your
bleeding-heart "let's let the inmates run the asylum" statement?
> Show me the scenario of peace that bombs on Afghanistan will create.
Fewer terrorists, fewer terrorist organizations, more peace.
> Explain
> to me, how many terrorists your are hoping to kill.
Mainly the head ones, however many that ends up being. Cut off the
head, the body dies.
> Give me an estimate on
> the number of new terrorist that would be recruited by this act.
With no organization, it matters little. How many new Nazis were
recruited by destroying Nazi Germany? How many new Kamikaze pilots were
recruited by destroying the Japanese Empire?
> You might hope to get revenge.
Perhaps. The primary goal is to end terrorism.
> The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
Just like it was after WWII? Oh wait, no, it was way better then.
Perhaps you mean just like it was after the Munich Agreement?
> Please draw the scenario before me.
Terrorist organizations including the nation-states which employ them as
part of their "armed services" cease to exist.
> If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> consequences.
Consequences: No more civilian planes crashing into office buildings in
coordinated attacks which were five years in the planning.
> What will the situation be like with this war in 5 years?
Hopefully over by then. If not, I'm sure Alliant will be happy to keep
the shells coming.
> What will it be like without a revenge strike?
>
"Without a revenge strike"? I don't follow.
> Kind regards,
> Carl
WesTralia
I read everyone's reply to my question and I'd like to say
thanks for the effort and for offering a hand to the USA!
--
D'Arcy Smith
news:3BA62D7C...@nowhere.com...
> Carl Rosenberger wrote:
> > Show me the scenario of peace that bombs on Afghanistan will create.
> Fewer terrorists, fewer terrorist organizations, more peace.
More pissed of people, more terrorists, more terror.
You are damned if you do (bombing etc... will create more terrorists)
and damned if you don't (let this act of terrorism go and there will be
more).
> > Explain
> > to me, how many terrorists your are hoping to kill.
> Mainly the head ones, however many that ends up being. Cut off the
> head, the body dies.
...or it sprouts many more heads.
> > Give me an estimate on
> > the number of new terrorist that would be recruited by this act.
> With no organization, it matters little. How many new Nazis were
> recruited by destroying Nazi Germany? How many new Kamikaze pilots were
> recruited by destroying the Japanese Empire?
Bombing won't get rid of the organizations. Also look at Viet Nam and
the Russians -vs- Afghanistan.
> > You might hope to get revenge.
> Perhaps. The primary goal is to end terrorism.
Nope - th primary goal is revenge - you won't end terrorism
(but again damned if you do damned if you don't).
What would help restrict terrorism is lessening personal freedom...
and that won't happen.
> > The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
> Just like it was after WWII? Oh wait, no, it was way better then.
> Perhaps you mean just like it was after the Munich Agreement?
The Nazis and Japanese were clearly defeated... it is a mistake
to compare the Muslims on their Jihad to those groups - bombing
won't defeat them... killing their leaders won't defeat them.
> > If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> > consequences.
> Consequences: No more civilian planes crashing into office buildings in
> coordinated attacks which were five years in the planning.
Dream on.
..darcy
saict
> > September 10, 2001 was the last full day for us Americans to be
> > concerned about our image. We don't much care of what your negative
> > "image" is of us right now. As for the other atrocities, we don't
> > approve of them. We never have. We have done more about them than
> > any other country on the face of the earth. More than any country in
> > the history of the earth.
>
> Oh yeah? Define "done more"!
What country are you from?
JTK
>
> "JTK" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3BA62D7C...@nowhere.com...
> > Carl Rosenberger wrote:
>
> > > Show me the scenario of peace that bombs on Afghanistan will create.
>
> > Fewer terrorists, fewer terrorist organizations, more peace.
>
> More pissed of people, more terrorists, more terror.
>
I bet you a Coke that NATO has more rifle rounds than the number of
"pissed off people" the Taliban can generate.
> You are damned if you do (bombing etc... will create more terrorists)
> and damned if you don't (let this act of terrorism go and there will be
> more).
>
So you say "don't"? So we just sit around and wait for the smallpox
attack, the anthrax, the nuclear bomb in the suitcase? That't your
great anti-terror strategy, D'Arcy?
A time of war, and a time of peace, Mr. Smith. Now is a time of war.
Nobody likes it, but the challenge must be met.
> > > Explain
> > > to me, how many terrorists your are hoping to kill.
>
> > Mainly the head ones, however many that ends up being. Cut off the
> > head, the body dies.
>
> ...or it sprouts many more heads.
>
Then we simply keep cutting.
> > > Give me an estimate on
> > > the number of new terrorist that would be recruited by this act.
>
> > With no organization, it matters little. How many new Nazis were
> > recruited by destroying Nazi Germany? How many new Kamikaze pilots were
> > recruited by destroying the Japanese Empire?
>
> Bombing won't get rid of the organizations.
Right. Bombing plus infantry plus armored divisions plus perhaps a
little fusion power will.
> Also look at Viet Nam
"Escalation".
> and
> the Russians -vs- Afghanistan.
>
With all due respect to the Russians, it's pretty hard to wage war when
your country has fallen apart. The US is rather vigorous right now.
Has been for a long time.
> > > You might hope to get revenge.
>
> > Perhaps. The primary goal is to end terrorism.
>
> Nope - th primary goal is revenge - you won't end terrorism
> (but again damned if you do damned if you don't).
>
It's impossible to stop every single individual nutjob out there,
granted. But it is certainly possible to put an end to terrorist
organizations that are able to pull off the kind of
5-years-in-the-making operations we saw last tuesday.
> What would help restrict terrorism is lessening personal freedom...
> and that won't happen.
>
It's already happened, but long term you're right: people are stupid and
all will be as it was in about three to six months. But don't delude
yourself for a second into thinking that such impingements on personal
freedom will do anything to quell terrorism. At best they'd just shift
it around, and in reality all they'd do is inconvenience the 99.44% of
the non-terrorists of us, and do nothing to stop the few psychopaths
bent on causing havoc even at the cost of their own lives.
> > > The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
>
> > Just like it was after WWII? Oh wait, no, it was way better then.
> > Perhaps you mean just like it was after the Munich Agreement?
>
> The Nazis and Japanese were clearly defeated...
QED.
> it is a mistake
> to compare the Muslims on their Jihad to those groups - bombing
> won't defeat them... killing their leaders won't defeat them.
>
Sure it will.
> > > If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> > > consequences.
>
> > Consequences: No more civilian planes crashing into office buildings in
> > coordinated attacks which were five years in the planning.
>
> Dream on.
>
No D'Arcy, that's your plan. I say instead of dreaming that terrorism
just magically goes away, that something be done about it.
> ..darcy
James A. Robertson
>
> James A. Robertson wrote:
> > Who said kill them all? I said kill the governments that aid and abet
> > terrorism. It's a short, well known list
>
> Whom do you want to put in place as a stable government?
Almost anyone else
>
> The situation was different with the Germans in world war II. Right now you
> are dealing with governments that tolerate terrorists. Wars tend to bring
> more radical people to the top. You will end up with terrorists leading
> countries.
And this is different from now how?
>
> > > Now consider an Arab, who is not your ally,
> > > reading your attitude or watching CNN. What would he think?
> > > Consider a government put under pressure:
> > > You *must* commit treason (one of the most detested crimes in moslem
> > > religion) by delivering your brothers.
> >
> > I couldn't care less what he thinks.
>
> Exactly this attitude produces hatred against the U.S. among other cultures:
> Complete ignorance.
> Complete disrespect for the matters of others.
>
Not disrespect - indifference. So long as people there don't bother me,
I don't care what they think or do. They can run their systems any way
they want - unless it involves acts of war.
> > > You are using swearwords against me, although I have not been unfriendly
> > > against you personally. Why?
> > > Isn't freedom of speech one of the rights in the U.S.?
> > >
> >
> > Which swear words?
>
> You called me moron in your other posting.
>
That's not a swear word. And based on your notion that appeasement
works, it's appropriate.
> > Most Afghanis are not happy with the Taliban. There's already a
> > resistance movement ready to help. There's the ground force - native to
> > the area and Islamic. We help them with air cover and whatever ground
> > force is necessary to help them achieve their aims.
>
> You haven't learned from pouring oil into fires.
> Withdrawing weapons from crisis areas is the only correct measure.
>
Unilateral disarmament never worked before, and won't work now. There
are arms there <already> in the hands of enemies. How do you propose to
peacefully remove them?
> The northern aliance is sponsored by the Russians so you won't need to
> support them.
>
> > > Please draw the scenario before me.
> > > If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> > > consequences.
> > > What will the situation be like with this war in 5 years?
> > > What will it be like without a revenge strike?
> >
> > More terrorism, escalating.
>
> And does bombing Afghanistan have the chance of making this better?
>
Who said bombing?
Jason Kratz
> D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> >
> > Bombing won't get rid of the organizations.
>
> Right. Bombing plus infantry plus armored divisions plus perhaps a
> little fusion power will.
>
So you think military force is the only response the US should use?
Jason Kratz
> Jason Kratz wrote:
> > You can make firearms illegal here but that doesnt keep criminals
> > from using firearms.
>
> But where would the criminals get the guns from?
>
Do you have any idea how many guns exist in this country? do you think the
criminals that have guns now would just turn them in? Do you have any idea
how many they would stockpile if a law were passed banning all firearms?
And what James said. Banning in guns in the US will do nothing to solve
this problem.
> If you get that far to realize that possession of a gun is preparation of
> murder (which it is) your lawyers will have no problems, to put people in
> jail for carrying guns.
>
This is so absolutely ridiculous a statement I shouldnt even respond to it.
You think that every person who owns a gun is planning on murdering
someone?????
>
> > The same follows for terrorism. Criminals dont follow
> > laws....thats why they're criminals.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> You will never be able to protect yourself against someone pouring some
> arsenic into a water tank. That's why it won't help against terrorism to
> bomb Afghanistan.
>
If you're worried about the US flying off the handle I think that time is
past. If we were just going to start bombing people it would have happened
already. Bombing Afghanistan will help a lot if they bomb where Bin Laden
is located. I dont think they will bomb them. I think we'll send troops
and provide help to the Northern Alliance and other groups to get a stable
government installed in Afghanistan. Funny how you automatically assume
the worst when in fact the people in charge know that indescriminate bombing
wont solve anything.
James A. Robertson
<snip>
> > With no organization, it matters little. How many new Nazis were
> > recruited by destroying Nazi Germany? How many new Kamikaze pilots were
> > recruited by destroying the Japanese Empire?
>
> Bombing won't get rid of the organizations. Also look at Viet Nam and
> the Russians -vs- Afghanistan.
>
Vietnam stayed in the fight by being supplied by the Russians and the
Chinese. The Afghan resistance stayed in the fight against the Russians
because we supplied them (proving that history is not without a sense of
irony). Without those external supplies, both would have dried up and
blown away.
The Indian resistance against the US government in the 19th century
illustrates that - no external source of supplies led to surrender. The
way to deal with this situation is to make sure that no one is supplying
the terrorists. make sure that Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, et. al. know
that the game is over, and the armed nut jobs won't have anything but
anger.
> > > You might hope to get revenge.
>
> > Perhaps. The primary goal is to end terrorism.
>
> Nope - th primary goal is revenge - you won't end terrorism
> (but again damned if you do damned if you don't).
>
> What would help restrict terrorism is lessening personal freedom...
> and that won't happen.
>
Not really. It would just transfer it. Unltimately, it would give the
McVeighs of the world an excuse, and we would have organized home brew
idiots.
> > > The situation on this planet will be worse than before for sure.
>
> > Just like it was after WWII? Oh wait, no, it was way better then.
> > Perhaps you mean just like it was after the Munich Agreement?
>
> The Nazis and Japanese were clearly defeated... it is a mistake
> to compare the Muslims on their Jihad to those groups - bombing
> won't defeat them... killing their leaders won't defeat them.
>
Making sure that state support for such groups is <personal> suicide for
the leadership of those states will go a long, long ways
> > > If you want to take military measures you must have a vision of the
> > > consequences.
>
> > Consequences: No more civilian planes crashing into office buildings in
> > coordinated attacks which were five years in the planning.
>
> Dream on.
>
> ..darcy
--
Tom Owles
"saict" <thur...@cscsw.com> wrote in message
news:7eab6777.0109...@posting.google.com...
Does it matter?
Tom Owles
"Kevin" <cay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ew4W7N1PBHA.1304@cpimsnntpa03...> news:9o2rvm$a3pis$1...@ID-64732.news.dfncis.de...
> > Excuse me, Kevin, but could you direct me to some web-page or news-group
> > posting where you condemned massive (more victims than WTC + Pentagon)
> > killings in Srebrenica that occured under the eyes of UN soldiers (_US_
> > soldiers)
>
> Are you saying we can't feel bad about what happened
Not at all! I'm only saying that you only see what you want to see, and
divert your looks away from even worse "cases" if it suits you.
JTK
Not at all Kratzy. I think the US should also find out the true
identites of these anonymous terrorists and emplore the public to harass
them and their employers.
James A. Robertson
>
> "JTK" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3BA63E3B...@nowhere.com...
> > D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Bombing won't get rid of the organizations.
> >
> > Right. Bombing plus infantry plus armored divisions plus perhaps a
> > little fusion power will.
> >
>
What this needs is a combination of military and diplomatic pressure.
The Diplomatic press has been going almost from the beginning; I expect
any military response will depend heavily on how that goes.
> So you think military force is the only response the US should use?
--
Luc Kumps
> Carl Rosenberger wrote:
> > You called me moron in your other posting.
> >
>
> That's not a swear word. And based on your notion that appeasement
> works, it's appropriate.
From everything Carl has been writing up to now, he looks like an educated
person to me.
For example, if he would be a moron, he wouldn't be able to participate in
this discussion in a language that is not his mothers tongue.
IMHO, if you call somebody who doesn't agree with you a moron, that tells
more about your own level of education than about the other person's.
There's no need to insult other people, just fight them with arguments.
Now, to make a link to our subject at hand: I think that funds for
education, both in well-developed and under-developed, will do more for
world peace than warfare. But of course, such funds don't have the added
benefit of paying back the part of industry that has helped funding an
election campaign...
> Unilateral disarmament never worked before, and won't work now. There
> are arms there <already> in the hands of enemies. How do you propose to
> peacefully remove them?
This is exactly what people are trying to accomplish in Northern Ireland.
Didn't happen yet, but you'll have to admit they *do* come quite close. It
took a lot of courage (from both "sides") to get where they are now.
Luc