babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Infinite Farce!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Infinite Farce!
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 19 September 2001 09:45 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I begin with some examples of the definition of terrorism:

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by
terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terrorism n :
the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War on terrorism a farce!

It is easy in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th to become outraged, and to band together as a nation to bring the perpetrators to justice. But to unilaterally declare war on terrorism? What is that exactly and how do you fight in that kind of war? Before Bush dons his white hat and rounds up his posse of democratic nations to fight this evil called terrorism, he needs to understand what he is talking about. Even our own Minister of Defence admitted that while he is committed to help the US fight the war terrorism he has no idea how that will be done.

Bush stated that this war is not just about a single individual (Osam bin Laden) or one group, but ALL groups involved in terrorism. This is a ridiculous statement! First of all, he needs to be careful who he is pointing fingers (and missles) at. He may be looking in the mirror. According to the above definitions on what terrorism is, it would be very difficult to not include the actions of the United States, both domestically and abroad. There have been publically released documents from the CIA that admit to destablizing governments, arming, training and funding various dictatorship sponsored death squads such as those in Latin America, and including aiding the Taliban rebels (led by bin Laden) against Russia in Afgahnistan. So does this mean the US has declared war on itself? (what was that saying about living in glass houses?)

Even if the American government was able to successfully spin their innocent pursuit of democracy and freedom to all, logistically it would be impossible to combat terrorism. For the very nature of terrorism is covert. They can live in any country, city or village, and are not fixed to any one location. So what do we do, bomb every suspected village harbouring terrorists (knowingly or not)? Does that include towns in democratic countries such as Canada, EU and the US? Or will they confine themselves only to non-democratic or non-Christian countries? And just as the Americans found out in Vietnam, the British discovered in the 1700's against Americans, and Russia in Afghanistan, it is very difficult to defeat guerrilla armies, to successfully fight against terrorist groups then would be virtually impossible. This will be a war on their terms, since it is their way of life. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause and do anything to achieve it. There are no rules of engagement. They are not a nation so they probably won't fall under the Geneva Convention in terms of war crimes. Further more, by engaging in this activity, the US will only strengthen their resolve and coalesce the fragmented and disparaged radical groups into a united network.

It seems Bush has taken advantage of this tragedy to advance his own imperial agenda in a manner unprecidented. Under the guise of Article V in NATO charter, he has made it legal to hunt down any country or society that does not side with his beliefs or ideology with the blind obligated aid of other NATO countries. And just out of curiosity, what would happen if Canada did not agree to support this PR farce. (because as we all know America needs a war, particularly when the economy is hitting the skids) Will the US then turn to us and claim that we are terrorist sympathizers and that since we may have terrorists living amoung us, are harbourists of terrorists and declare war on us?

We should all be afraid. Very afraid!


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 10:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And just out of curiosity, what would happen if Canada did not agree to support this PR farce. (because as we all know America needs a war, particularly when the economy is hitting the skids) Will the US then turn to us and claim that we are terrorist sympathizers and that since we may have terrorists living amoung us, are harbourists of terrorists and declare war on us?

This has been the very thing that has been scaring me for the last week.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 20 September 2001 08:57 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bravo Wide Eyes, this was an excellent analysis. I would like to hear what you think we could/should do to help things along in the right direction. Being scared is the necessary first step, but we can't stop there. Please see my last Post on "shouldn't we be scared?".

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 06:34 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frankly, I don't know what can be done to move things in the right direction. What should be done - now that's another matter.

I think what needs to be done is that an independent international body should seriously investigate American activities that may fall under the definition of terrorism. I would suggest the U.N. as the group, but there is too much American influence there to get a truly objective investigation. Although it would be ideal if the American government took it upon themselves to seriously question their (past??) questionable activities that have affected millions around the world, before attacking others.

In terms of immediate action, that's a tough one. The US gov't needs to show that they're doing Something! Realistically, the terrorists involved want retaliation. This would validate their existance and give them a purpose.

If only I had a magic wand to find the correct solution!


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 06:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would like to hear what you think we could/should do to help things along in the right direction.

But no pressure.

I don't think there is a solution that the US will actually carry out. I keep praying that Dubya will actually use that heart we've been getting tiny glimpses of in the past week, and think about ways of dealing with this that don't include bombing innocent civilians. I guess I can dream.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 07:49 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wide Eyes, I will repeat my quote from another thread.
quote:
The practical point made by these consequentialists is that we can't stop terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic approach, they argue, is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right about that. But their wisdom falls short of the next insight: Consequentialism is a two-way street. It's true that terrorists can impose consequences on us. But it's just as true that we can impose consequences on terrorists.
Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in terms of the consequences of our own acts. Understanding how we can change the enemy's behavior by changing our own appears to put control in our hands. It also gratifies our egos by preserving our sense of free will while interpreting the enemy's conduct as causally determined. We're the subjects; they're the objects. But the empowerment and the ego gratification are illusory. By accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive response to our offending behavior, we surrender control of the most important part of the sequence.
This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences

The consequentialists present themselves as humanitarians and idealists. They purport to speak up for the plights, principles, and aspirations of people who are driven to commit acts of terror. But their mechanistic analysis dehumanizes these people. Terrorists aren't animals. No law of nature compels them to blow up buildings when they're angry. We don't have to accept their violent reactions to our policies. We can break that causal chain.

How? By turning consequentialism on its head. We can dictate what happens to people who attack us. Suicidal terrorists may be impervious to this logic, but their commanders and sponsors aren't. Launder money for a man who destroys the World Trade Center, and your assets will be confiscated. Shelter an organization that crashes a plane into the Pentagon, and your government buildings will be leveled. Expel terrorists from your country, freeze their bank accounts, and you'll be liberated from sanctions and debt.

Will this approach succeed? We don't know how each would-be terrorist or sponsor will respond. It's an open question. But that's the point. As long as we view it the other way around—ourselves as the actors, and our enemies as the imposers of consequences—the question is closed. Our enemies' reactions, and therefore our options, are rigidly defined. We can have troops in Saudi Arabia, or we can have peace at home, but we can't have both.

Challenging the false objectivity of these dilemmas doesn't require us to ignore the potential consequences of our acts. Some of our Middle East policies do anger many Arabs or Muslims. We ought to worry when others don't like our behavior. But just as surely, they ought to worry when we don't like theirs.


I don't think the Americans threaten to use the force you mention. I think they will not target civillians with military action. Just as they have worked hard not to target civillians in the last 10 years of military actions.

I think the above quote explains the only possible way to stop these terrorists.

I also think your assessment of the U.S. action now as imperialistic is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what is happening. They are obtaining a consensus from most of the world before they act. They are negotiating with countries and asking permission. They waited to receive the support of the 19 member countries of NATO. Everything they have done since tuesday proves they are the opposite of imperialistism.

quote:
There are no rules of engagement.
They are not a nation so they probably won't fall under the Geneva Convention in terms of war crimes.

What are you trying to say, they shouldn't be considered war criminals because they found a "loophole". What ridiculous logic.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 08:17 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, I don't have a degree in philosophy, but if I understand what you're saying about us consequentialists?? that the actions of these extremists not go unpunished, I may have misled you. I'm not saying that by having the Americans look at themselves, we have given the terrorists what they want, but that they should be careful (ie the glass houses saying).

In terms of negotiating and getting permission from other nations...I'm not sure Bush's position of "you're either with us or against us" a legitimate form of negotiating.

Your suggestions of possible actions to take (ie freezing bank accounts, attacking terrorist sympathizers, etc) is a much better alternative to all out war, but you seem a little naive when you mention that America would not kill civilians. I think there are hundreds of thousands that would disagree with you...oh right they can't.

Yes, I agree these terrible actions by the terrorists need to be brought to justice, but according to Bush, he is now after ALL terrorists. If he is absolutely serious about that he, and the rest of the world must look at ALL perpetrators if this war is to be won. Otherwise there is no credibility in this operation, making it for what it really is (I'll leave that up to your own interpretation)


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
VinceRoy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1369

posted 20 September 2001 08:32 PM      Profile for VinceRoy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How is the U.S. going to pick out those groups they deem to be "terrorist organizations" and go after? Will they include the IRA or the Basque Seperatists? Will the U.S. invade Ireland or Spain in order to root them out? And, since one person's "terrorist group" is another's "liberation army", what about the KLA and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, past (and probably future) U.S. associates?

Is the FLQ still kicking around?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 08:40 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In terms of negotiating and getting permission from other nations...I'm not sure Bush's position of "you're either with us or against us" a legitimate form of negotiating.

Why not? Do you think that the rest of the world is that intimidated by him. Listen to the speaches of the U.S. Allies. Do they sound intimidated or equally outraged.

Civillian lives will be lost. The U.S. has done an incredibly great deal more than any country in the history of the world to ensure civillian lives are not targetted in military action.

To paraphrase. They may be the worst superpower, they're just better than all the alternatives.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 08:43 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe the Americans tried this tactic in the 50's, but MacArthy-ism didn't work. Anyone can be made out to be anything by the powers to be, if it's in their best interest. I hope, Markbo, that the Americans don't mistaken you for a terrorist and infringe on your human rights, doing whatever they want in the name of Freedom!
From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 08:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In terms of negotiating and getting permission from other nations...I'm not sure Bush's position of "you're either with us or against us" a legitimate form of negotiating.

quote:
Why not?

Exactly. That attitude sure paid of for the Khmer Rouge after the Cambodian government refused to become involved with America's debacle in Vietnam.
Of course, why would the U.S. care about that? After all, it was the Cambodian civilian population that suffered those consequences.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 08:51 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You figure that all the other countries in the world are being intimidated by Bush. They sounded pretty genuine to me when they expressed their outrage.

This is in no way comparable to Khmer rouge.

These are the Taleban remember. The ones with the virtues you can't seem to find.
Their f***en Nazi's. Why can't you see that?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 08:58 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My dear Markbo, nobody is uggesting that the outrage and sympathy towards the Americans by the other nations was not genuine, but in terms of intimidation, name one American-led Nato or UN operation that was opposed by another NATO member? They may not necessarily be intimidated outright, but diplomatically they are.

And with regard to the Taliban being Nazi's. If you check your history. They were armed, trained and funded by the Americans to battle the Russians during the Afghanistan war. So what does that make the Americans as??

PS. Can someone tell me how to add quotes, I'd hate to mis-paraphrase anyone.


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 09:09 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So you've ruled out the possibility that they just have agreed with the U.S., have you.

quote:
And with regard to the Taliban being Nazi's. If you check your history. They were armed, trained and funded by the Americans to battle the Russians during the Afghanistan war.

As were all other Afghanistans. The Taliban are part of the Pashtun religion which alone accounts only for 40% of the population. I believe the U.S. armed trained and funded all afghanistan soldiers especially the majority that opposed the Taliban.

Regardless of the point your trying to make. Its irrelevent. I could easily argue that by getting rid of the Taleban the U.S. is making up for past mistakes. I can't see how you can argue that because the U.S. supported bad guys in the past they must continue to support them. No one forsaw, including many other muslim countries how bad the Taleban would be. Hindsight is great. The Clinton Administration however could have supported the Northern alliance but they didn't. I think that hindsight is a bit more reasonable than yours.

Remember weakening the Soviets was part of the cold war. we didn't just fight against them, the Soviets fought it against us as well. Apparently the U.S. made allies with some pretty evil guys to defeat the soviets. Now that the soviet union is no longer a threat, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of the Taleban.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 09:15 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think they will not target civillians with military action. Just as they have worked hard not to target civillians in the last 10 years of military actions.

Well put. The bombing of Baghdad was over 10 years ago now.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 09:21 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The targets in Baghdad were military, industrial and communications facilities that were hit at night to ensure most buildings would be emptied of civilians.

Of course civillians died. My point is the U.S. did more to minimize civilian deaths than any other government did in any other military action in the history of the world.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 09:35 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you've ruled out the possibility that they just have agreed with the U.S., have you.

Agreed to what exactly?

quote:
Apparently the U.S. made allies with some pretty evil guys to defeat the soviets. Now that the soviet union is no longer a threat, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of the Taleban.

I take it then, that the end justify the means?


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 09:43 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What do you mean "agreed to what?"

Agreed in their action to support all "American-led Nato or UN operations"

Again the end justifying the means is irrelevent. What does it have to do with the justification NOW of getting rid of the Taleban. They never were recognized by the World as being Legitimate.

Guess what in the war against terrorism we will probably ally with some very unsavory characters. The U.S. will probably have some murderers on the payrolls. I think you should get off your moral high horse and help fight this evil.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2001 12:03 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course civillians died. My point is the U.S. did more to minimize civilian deaths than any other government did in any other military action in the history of the world.

Yeah, it was so well minimized that all the deaths on the "allied" side were due to friendly fire.

And I might remind you that the vicious trade sanctions imposed on Iraq over the last decade make the Great Depression look like a picnic by comparison.

After all, in the Great Depression, there wasn't a hostile power, superior in strength to the USA, imposing sanctions and conducting random bombings of various facilities.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:28 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, it was so well minimized that all the deaths on the "allied" side were due to friendly fire.

Whats your point?

quote:

And I might remind you that the vicious trade sanctions imposed on Iraq over the last decade make the Great Depression look like a picnic by comparison.

Wasn't a military action, in fact I think it is ironic of how many civillian deaths resulted from a "non-violent" response.

Which is why I support military action. I think in this case a military response to focused on the Taleban will probably result in far less civillian lives lost than will imposing sanctions.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 21 September 2001 12:33 AM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo

Quote

>>Why not? Do you think that the rest of the world is that intimidated by him. Listen to the speaches of the U.S. Allies. Do they sound intimidated or equally outraged.<<<

It's called sucking up - it happens a lot around bullies.

Jake


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:37 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again why is it so hard for you to comprehend that they could actually fully support him?
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ntrail
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1295

posted 21 September 2001 01:25 AM      Profile for ntrail     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
if gwb is sincere re: reprisals on states harbouring terrorists, when may we see missiles rain on Florida?
From: penticton | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 21 September 2001 02:52 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Way back there, before the argument over US bullying other nations and controlling civilian casualties in its many far-away wars, the question was:
What should be done that's more effective than war?
I have an idea. Instead of waging war on any nation that might be harbouring terrorists, how about subverting them?
Suppose airlines were promised a bail-out in proportion to their help in bombing Afghanistan with sacks of lentils, powdered milk, soy-burgers, chocolate bars (hold the coke). If the air gets too crowded over there, we can find other targets.
That would astonish the world.
N

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 09:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wide Eyes: To set off quoted passages from others or elsewhere:

- Highlight the passage you want to quote, and copy it.
- Open a reply, and click on the Quote bar below; you will see this appear in your reply:

quote:

.
- Paste your copied passage in between those two sets of bracketed material.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 09:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh dear. That didn't work. You won't see those two lines on your reply form at all; you will see first
quote:
, then a space, then
. But if I just insert them without words in between, they produce the double lines you see above. Got it?

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 09:07 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is ridiculous! If you click the QUOTE button, you'll see -- what you see ... I can't prevent it from formating itself. Sheesh.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 21 September 2001 11:16 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
sort of like:

[QWOTE] [QWOTE]

and then you paste the intended text inbetween.

Except "quote" will be spelled correctly.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 21 September 2001 11:26 AM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The second QUOTE begins with a backslash ( [/QUOTE] ).
From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 11:30 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh my, we've now entered forum hell
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 11:32 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, not at all -- look up at the title of the thread! From me on, we're right on topic!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 21 September 2001 11:32 AM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
good article on collateral damage from naomi klein, posted on rabble.ca in the news section on:
September 19, 2001

Pollsters Don't Make Good Generals


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 21 September 2001 11:32 AM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're right, markbo. And I erred... it should be a forwardslash.
(Collateral damage from all that's going on.)

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 21 September 2001 11:35 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dammit, and I was feeling so clever.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 21 September 2001 03:29 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Agreed in their action to support all "American-led Nato or UN operations"

What action? Nobody knows. The Americans probably don't need any real military help. Especially from Canada who can barely even give a token gesture. What the Americans want, expect and demand from its allies is free access to tromp through their lands, set up bases and do whatever they want without any regard to that country's soveriegnty or culture. In particular Islamic countries who already regard American occupation in their land as an afront to their beliefs. This was bin Laden's biggest beef with America.
I can see countries like India and Pakistan biting their tongues and agreeing to go along with the Americans or else being labelled as a terrorist and face their zealous retribution.
quote:
Again the end justifying the means is irrelevent. What does it have to do with the justification NOW of getting rid of the Taleban. They never were recognized by the World as being Legitimate.

How can that be irrelevant when every nation in the world will be affected by Bush's actions. The Taliban is just the starting point. Iraq may be next then after that who knows? Getting rid of the Taliban will not end this.

quote:
Guess what in the war against terrorism we will probably ally with some very unsavory characters. The U.S. will probably have some murderers on the payrolls.

And you're comforted by this?

quote:
I think you should get off your moral high horse and help fight this evil.

The question of morality is not at issue here. It's a question of legitimate fight against terrorism. Yes, terrorism needs to be defeated, as well as poverty, crime, and homelessness. It's a nice idea, but unrealistic unless the entire globe falls under marshal law and become a global police state. Say or do something that offends the mighty US, and you might disappear without a trace.


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 05:17 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In particular Islamic countries who already regard American occupation in their land as an afront to their beliefs.

I'm Sorry I missed the part about which islamic county that has been taken over by An american occupation.

You couldn't actually mean the American base in Saudi Arabia that was invited in by the government of that country due to the aggression by Iraq?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what in the war against terrorism we will probably ally with some very unsavory characters. The U.S. will probably have some murderers on the payrolls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you're comforted by this?


No just being realistic. But I am comforted by the fact that the U.S. will use all means to eliminate these terrorists. I would not take comfort in tieing their hands when fighting terrorists.

quote:

Yes, terrorism needs to be defeated, as well as poverty, crime, and homelessness. It's a nice idea, but unrealistic unless the entire globe falls under marshal law and become a global police state. Say or do something that offends the mighty US, and you might disappear without a trace.

Thats what the discussion is about. I completely disagree that elimination of terrorism is unrealistic unless the globe falls under marshal law. We should look to Israel to see how a population lives with tighter security and learn how we can preserve our freedoms. ANd even if we don't eliminate terrorism we can greatly reduce the scope and frequency of terrorist attacks.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca