|
Post by inatent on May 25, 2004 9:42:04 GMT -5
I think the real situation is entirely missed by almost everyone! This war against terrorism is very simply and accurately defined by the question, "Do we fight the terrorists in the countries they control and where they obtain support, or do we fight them in the cities of the United States? " Not fighting is not an option, unless you want to live like those who suffered under terriorist leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan.
No name, what would you look like in a burka anyway? - Oh nevermind, as an educated and politically involved woman you could only survive long enough to put it on prior to your execution.
inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 25, 2004 16:57:41 GMT -5
I think the real situation is entirely missed by almost everyone! This war against terrorism is very simply and accurately defined by the question, "Do we fight the terrorists in the countries they control and where they obtain support, or do we fight them in the cities of the United States? " Not fighting is not an option, unless you want to live like those who suffered under terriorist leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan. No name, what would you look like in a burka anyway? - Oh nevermind, as an educated and politically involved woman you could only survive long enough to put it on prior to your execution. inatent Does anyone think that killing is the solution? If we go to other countries and start killing the terrorists will they stop their attacks? The dead ones probably will but in their place there will be many younger and angerier ones. Would the US give up if there are more terrorists attacks? When people are willing to die killing them is not really a deterrent. The Germans bombed London every day for almost 2 months. It did not bring about a surrender. The Americans and the British bombed German cities into rubble but it only strengthened the German citizens' resolve to continue fighting. The Americans bombed most major cities in Japan, killing 100s of thousands. There was still no thought of surrender until Russia turned down the offer of splitting Asia with Japan and declared war prior to attacking Manchuria. Maybe people who think killing is the solution can explain the rational behind the thinking.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 0:27:04 GMT -5
I mentioned in one of my posts that the military is fighting over there to protect their friends and family over here. I would rather the battle with Islamic terrorists be isolated on their home turf rather than in the streets of America. Agreed. NO thank you! Like someone wearing a burka. I wouldn’t be able to show you what I looked like, b/c if I showed my face in public, I would be severely beaten. Not before they raped me first in order to prevent me from entering heaven after my execution. The above cartoon is all too true; so-called “Peace” protestors who blindly save their anger and rage for the wrong target. As I’ve said before – I haven’t seen any burning effigies of Saddam, Osama, Yassar Arafat, or a suicide bomber. No wild mass marches and loud screams of protest against the real tyrants of our world. Typical. At some point, they have to be confronted and fought, if necessary, to the death. It is either that, or they will kill more innocent people. Well, not stopping/killing them won’t change their mind either! The rational is that there are some people/groups that are not rational, and cannot be reasoned with. Thank the Lord that during the Cold War, leaders on both side were level-headed enough to not head down the path of physical war. But it is not always the case that hostile forces are “rational”, and it is necessary at times to confront them.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 26, 2004 6:53:56 GMT -5
I am not so sure if it is: just have a look at this article:
Occupation has boosted al-Qaida, says thinktank
Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday May 26, 2004 The Guardian
The occupation of Iraq has provided a "potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qaida and probably increased worldwide terrorism, a leading thinktank said yesterday. Despite some losses, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists at large and its ranks are growing, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said, adding that al-Qaida now had a presence in more than 60 countries.
Last night, a new warning emerged from the US that al-Qaida-type terrorists are preparing to launch a major attack in the US this summer. The warning came from a counter-terrorism official who told Associated Press that the intelligence was the most disturbing garnered since the September 11 attacks.
The IISS survey said that despite the death or capture of half of its 30 senior leaders, as well as some 2,000 rank-and-file supporters, a rump leadership of the al-Qaida network was still intact.
"Christian nations' forcible occupation of Iraq, a historically important land of Islam, has more than offset any calming effect of the US military withdrawal from Saudi Ara bia," the IISS said. It added: "With Osama bin Laden's public encouragement, up to 1,000 foreign jihadists have infiltrated Iraq."
The earlier invasion of Afghanistan forced al-Qaida to change its tactics, said the IISS. "While al-Qaida lost a recruiting magnet and a training, command and operations base, it was compelled to disperse and become even more decentralised, 'virtual', and invisible".
It delegated more responsibility to "local talent," with recruits becoming "less religiously absolute in mindset [and] closer to their enemies in background". This could make them more open to penetration by western security and intelligence agencies, the thinktank suggested.
Any security offensive against al-Qaida must be accompanied by political developments, such as the democratisation of Iraq and the resolution of conflict in Israel, it said.
In a report uncharacteristically critical of America, the IISS warned that Iraq is facing a "security vacuum".
Middle-ranking members of the Saddam regime have been able to deploy their weapons, "gain ideological purchase and resonance with a new brand of Islamic nationalism, and to mobilise Sunni fears of Shi'ite and Kurdish domination and a growing resentment at foreign occupation. It is unlikely that there has been a 'hidden hand' centrally coordinating and funding the insurgency".
The IISS report added: "Heavy-handed searches by US troops in hunting for leading members of the old regime have more to do with Falluja's becoming a centre of violent opposition to US occupation than does Ba'ath loyalism."
The priority of a new Iraqi government, John Chipman, director of the IISS, said yesterday, must be a new army and police force.
If you take into account that one of the reasons for attacking Iraq was fighting international terrorism, it might well be that we should change the tactics against terrorist organizations?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 26, 2004 15:30:26 GMT -5
I mentioned in one of my posts that the military is fighting over there to protect their friends and family over here. Did you mention how that works? Exactly how is fighting in Iraq protecting the people in the US? If it is, why did the government just issue yet another warning for attacks this summer? Of course you would. If the fighting was here in America you would have to face the fact that there was a much higher chance that you or your children would be caught in the crossfire. Why is it OK for the civilians of Iraq to be hosts for the war but you seem so against hosting it here in the US, the country that you are seeking to protect? Only is you have religion and government closely joined. Separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. When all you consider using for a tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Gee, really? So there are only two options in your mind. Do nothing or kill them. During the cold war we were faced with a leader who many called irrational. We would have gone down that path had we invaded Czechoslovakia to help Dubèek in 1968. We acted rationally then and we should start now. Confronting is not the same as killing.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 16:30:31 GMT -5
If you research Militant Islamic terrorists/Jihadist terrorists/Radical Islam, etc., etc., you’ll see that their real “beef” is not about Iraq (or about land issues in Israel). The Iraq issue is being used to whip up fervor with those who already agree with/hold the goal of the Jihadist terrorists, which happens to be similar to the goal of what Hitler had in mind – experts estimate that only about 10% of the world’s Muslims subscribe to Militant Islam, but with the world’s Muslim population being about 1 billion, that means there are about 100 million Radical/Militant Muslims. And the “land issue” is a cover – their main goal is very clear; it is the “tie that binds” all the various Islamic terrorist groups together. I’ve posted extensive research about them on the Dark Ages thread under the Christianity and Atheism board.
And it has failed miserably at that goal, just like its predecessor, the League of Nations.
I hope the entire world will wake up to this very real and dangerous threat posed by the ultimate goal of Militant Islamic terrorists. United against them, the world can hopefully fend off the danger.
Do you want the fight against Militant Islam to be carried out over here, or on its home turf?
Okay, now wake up and realize this is what they ultimately want for us. They want to destroy us and establish Islamic rule over the world; for those who don’t “go along”, they’ll either be killed, or will have to pay a tax. Did you not read the over abundance of info I posted on the Dark Ages thread that proved these people aren’t a rational group?
Your continued idea that these are people who can be “reasoned” with proves you have no idea what they’re all about.
We didn’t get involved in a nuclear war with Russia, did we? I’d say there was a good deal of level-headedness on both sides, thank God. There’s no such thing as “level-headed” with Militant Islam. There’s only violence.
Jihadist terrorists are a different group of people with a different fanatacism, more dangerous in many respects.
Standing up to them/confronting them will involve physical battle; these people are not “diplomats” or peaceful people. Wake up to the danger.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 26, 2004 17:04:37 GMT -5
. . . . Gee, really? So there are only two options in your mind. Do nothing or kill them. . . . . If we win, we save millions of people from tyranny. If we lose, we allow ourselves and millions of others to be brought under tyranny. If we do not fight, we lose. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 26, 2004 17:28:33 GMT -5
probably? ummm, your prejudice is showing.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 27, 2004 17:49:09 GMT -5
Do you want the fight against Militant Islam to be carried out over here, or on its home turf? Exactly where is it's home turf? I don't want the fight to be anywhere. I do not want to send a single American to a foreign land to kill the natives. I did read it. Unlike many though, I do not believe everything I read on the internet. This is no different than the Europeans going to the America's to convert the natives. It didn't have to happen. Actually, it proves nothing. Generally speaking, reasoning does not include the threat of a missile attack. I am guessing you were not alive in the 50's and 60's when all of that level headedness was going on. You buy duct tape and plastic. We built concrete bomb shelters with 18 inch walls. You would say there was level headedness because you do not remember Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table in the UN. Another reason there was not a conflict was because the American President was not afraid of engaging in give and take. The Russians did not stop in mid-ocean in October because they were rational. They stopped because they were offered something they wanted - a promise that the US would not invade Cuba and the removal of missiles from Turkey. And this was arranged with a leader who publically stated that the communists would bury the US and predicted that our grandchildren will live under communism. I guess the difference is that there has to be at least one rational person at the discussion. I agree. The administration tends to rush to irrational action. First solution - "Smoke them out of their holes." Make war. People are people. We all share 99+% of DNA. Odd, that is what people said about Khrushchev. Level headed he was not. But the people dealing with him had a clue. They had actually read the newspapers. Without speech writers they were able to debate and make their points. Can you imagine Bush in Nixon's place? I did. This morning. The radio said there was danger. But as I continued listening it turned out that there was no more danger this morning than there had been in the past. The announcement was not the result of any new danger. There was not even increased chatter. Just the same vague warnings that something might happen so keep a look out. Maybe that is what we need in cars. A system that will suddenly and without reason sound an alarm and announce you might be in an accident. Some time. Some where. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 27, 2004 22:16:48 GMT -5
. . . . Only is you have religion and government closely joined. Separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. . . . . Perhaps, but in case you did not know this, contrary to popular opinion our constitution does not support this idea. It merely prohibits outlawing free expression of religion. There is nothing that implies the government cannot condone or support religious activity. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 0:28:12 GMT -5
Perhaps, but in case you did not know this, contrary to popular opinion our constitution does not support this idea. It merely prohibits outlawing free expression of religion. There is nothing that implies the government cannot condone or support religious activity. inatent I don't remember mentioning the constitution. I just said that the separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. I really don't want the government telling me what I need to believe. Why would anyone want the government to support any religion?
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 28, 2004 7:51:39 GMT -5
I don't remember mentioning the constitution. I just said that the separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. I really don't want the government telling me what I need to believe. Why would anyone want the government to support any religion? I agree with your comments, but in the context of your original statement: (from no name) "Like someone wearing a burka. I wouldn’t be able to show you what I looked like, b/c if I showed my face in public, I would be severely beaten." Only if you have religion and government closely joined. Separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. . . . . you used a common expression that is almost universally assumed to be a part of the law in this country, when in fact it is not (though some try to enforce it as though it were). You imply that this concept might prevent the situation "no name" would be worried about, but in fact there is not now any such separation, and under the rule of those who are trying to destroy or enslave us there is certain to be no such separation! Therefore, the fear cannot be dismissed on that basis. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 28, 2004 8:04:11 GMT -5
In the case of the US, the government is for, by and of the people. The people in 1776 just happened to be Christians and contrary to popular belief America was established as a Christian nation. It was the founders desire that no Christian DENOMINATION would be preeminant such as was the case in England where many had fled.
A quick study of actually history will show this. Just make sure to read actual documents of what was done in those days, not the biased textbooks.
I pray for the sake of the land that I love, that America will remain a Christian nation despite the attacks on that idea. And may our president always end his national speeches by saying "... God bless America".
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 9:07:17 GMT -5
. . . . you used a common expression that is almost universally assumed to be a part of the law in this country, when in fact it is not (though some try to enforce it as though it were). Actually, it is part of the law of this country. You may not agree with it but the Supreme Court really has the say in what is and what is not the law and right now they are saying that there is a separation of church and state. Actually there is a separation. No Name will not be punished by the state for religious matters. If she misses Mass, Meeting, or Temple she will not be fined of punished in any way. You may not agree with the current law but it still is the law.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 9:21:45 GMT -5
In the case of the US, the government is for, by and of the people. The people in 1776 just happened to be Christians and contrary to popular belief America was established as a Christian nation. I think if you look you will see that the majority of them were Deists. It would be difficult to classify them as Christians when they did not believe in the devine nature of Jesus. John Adams himself, one of the founders, along with the congress signed a paper that stated the United States was not founded as and was not a Christian nation. Perhaps you too have been reading biased text books. Not really a Christian prayer. With luck there will be another option after Jan 20, 2005
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 28, 2004 11:19:15 GMT -5
In the case of the US, the government is for, by and of the people. The people in 1776 just happened to be Christians and contrary to popular belief America was established as a Christian nation. It was the founders desire that no Christian DENOMINATION would be preeminant such as was the case in England where many had fled. A quick study of actually history will show this. Just make sure to read actual documents of what was done in those days, not the biased textbooks. I pray for the sake of the land that I love, that America will remain a Christian nation despite the attacks on that idea. And may our president always end his national speeches by saying "... God bless America". Robb I agree with everything you wrote, for the continuation of our society. However, I see such a departure from our roots in current behavior, that I strongly suspect God may have other plans than saving the United States from the disaster it is bringing upon itself. inatent
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 28, 2004 11:22:03 GMT -5
Actually, it is part of the law of this country. You may not agree with it but the Supreme Court really has the say in what is and what is not the law and right now they are saying that there is a separation of church and state. The supreme court has no power to make laws. Congress has not changed the constitution yet, so it stands, whether obeyed or not, whether interpreted accurately or not, as the law of the land. inatent
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 28, 2004 11:26:32 GMT -5
. . . . Actually there is a separation. No Name will not be punished by the state for religious matters. If she misses Mass, Meeting, or Temple she will not be fined of punished in any way. . . . . But then, if she were a teacher in school instead of teaching her children at home, let her try leading the children in prayer and watch how the government interfers with her right to free exercise of her religion! Apparently you cannot be punished for avoiding religion, but you sure can be if you love your religion enough to try to tell others about it in the "wrong" place. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 12:26:10 GMT -5
But then, if she were a teacher in school instead of teaching her children at home, let her try leading the children in prayer and watch how the government interfers with her right to free exercise of her religion! Oh I think she is free to practice her religion. What she is not free to do is to use public funds to proselytize to her students. I do not know No Name but from what she has written I think she would take exception if the Radical Muslim teacher in the next room was to lead the children in their prayers. For many people having the state fund religious teaching is fine as long as the beliefs they teach are yours. Exactly. Just as I do not want to hear the Muslim call for prayer (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1130471/posts) I am certain there are some who do not want to listen to Christian preaching or prayers. I think the town in MI was wrong to allow the broadcasts. On the other hand, we do listen to church bells. Are you in favor of state supported religion or state supported Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 12:29:34 GMT -5
The supreme court has no power to make laws. Congress has not changed the constitution yet, so it stands, whether obeyed or not, whether interpreted accurately or not, as the law of the land. inatent That is exactly right but they are the final ones to determine how the laws in place are enforced. Regardless of how anyone wishes to interpret the constitution, how the Supreme Court interprets the constitution is all that matters. Right now public funds will not be used to promote private beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 30, 2004 17:46:56 GMT -5
You don’t know? In a perfect world, no one would have to fight, would they? We don’t live in a perfect world. No, you’d just rather the enemy come here to kill us . . . You can give up trying to make it sound like we went there to target innocent civilians. Actually, I don’t believe “everything I read on the internet", either. But with your above comment, this means you choose to completely ignore the words of the Militant Islamics themselves. Those were documented quotes that reveal the true nature of Radical Islam, but since they came from “internet” sources, you do not “believe” them? Would it be better if I referenced a written book that documents some of those same quotes (and more)? Of course it is different. Yeah, it does. You continue to act like Militant Islamists are a group of people that can be dealt with by diplomacy. Another reason there was not a conflict was because the Soviets knew the possibility of a nuclear war hinged on their decision to turn around, and they didn’t want to die any more than we did. Militant Islamics don’t have this mindset; they don’t even value their own life, or the lives of others. Well, in the current conflict, we do – but since you don’t think Bush is “rational”, you’ll continue to rationalize or minimize the actions of the Jihadist terrorists. Actually, last time I checked, we haven’t “made war” with every nation that has a shady connection with Militant Islam. And after years of attacks on U.S. interests by the Jihadist terrorists, I don’t think there was a “rush” at all. Rather, it was an abrupt awakening that made us realize just what we are up against. But this awakening hasn’t yet occurred with everyone. And some “people” are nothing but pure evil, residing in a human body. He was obviously level headed enough to know it wasn’t wise to instigate a world war with a rival superpower country. You did? After 3/11 in Spain, it’s not that hard to conclude that they will probably attempt another election year attack. By vague – do you mean the specific listing of those wanted individuals . . . ?
|
|