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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
Search | FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the best of babble   » world war declared?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: world war declared?
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 13 September 2001 04:14 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently Bush has now said this is "the first war of the 21st century" and he is going to "lead the world to victory". He is busy trying to put together an international alliance.

I am so scared, and I am wondering how Canada will fit in. I wonder if we will even have a choice. Tony Blair has been a very strong Bush ally, and where Britain goes, there Canada will probably have to follow...I personally don't want to support Bush in this, but will Canada as a whole be forced to?


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 September 2001 04:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Time to get out our bell bottoms and love beads, folks. I don't want any part of this.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 13 September 2001 04:52 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Laura Flanders has already written a response to this. You'll find it in rabble a link to it in rabble news: http://www.rabble.ca/news.shtml
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 13 September 2001 05:05 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judy - Yes, Laura Flanders has pointed out that the Americans she knows in NY right now are more concerned about mourning than about WW, and that the terrorism that occurred is NOT an act of war and shouldn't be considered one, since it is not state sanctioned, not aimed at the military, and no war has been declared. However, Bush is still treating it as such, which is the source of my question. NATO also seems on board with military reprisals, and as Laura notes, Colin Powell (sp?) HAS said that Americans now believe to be involved in a war. So if the administration has already made up its mind, who the hell can stop them? Should we at least be contacting our MPs and letting the PM know where Canadians stand? Michelle, I think I'm with you right now - make love, not war!!

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 13 September 2001 05:40 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, NATO is being somewhat cautious about their declarations. AFAIK, they made a statement that any act of war against the US is an act of war against the entire organization, but they haven't declared war, and they haven't declared that the attacks were, in fact, an act of war. It also doesn't mean that NATO nations will fall into line with anything the US wants. If NATO does get involved, lots of members (especially France) will be vigilant in their efforts to prevent the US from running the show.

That being said, I too am very annoyed by the US government's charactarization of the attacks as an act of war. I won't call it a lie, but it is definitely a misguided statement.

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 September 2001 05:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There will be an interfaith assembly to pray for peace on the south lawn of the legislature in TO tomorrow, from 11 to 12 a.m. Just copied from Radio One.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 September 2001 06:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More level headed Americans are saying this attack should not be called an Act of War as doing so legitimizes the attackers as soldiers or warriors instead of the common criminals they would be considered if the attack is rightly tagged as an act of terrorism.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 13 September 2001 06:57 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's only an act of war if it's directed by some other state. So far as I know, we're far from proof of that.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
pj
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 24

posted 13 September 2001 07:31 PM      Profile for pj   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Andy Carvin of Benton Foundation set up a discussion list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sept11info/
and some of the more thoughtful Americans were asking (yesterday) why anybody would hate their country so much.

This kind of questioning seems to me one of the two silver linings in this catastrophe -- the other being that NMD now looks more ridiculous than ever. Some people want to know what the media *haven't* been telling them. A decade of daily bombing in Iraq? A private war in Colombia? Why didn't anybody tell them? Most Americans just want to wrap themselves in their flag, but at least some of them are asking what their country ever did to trigger such an attack.

Also, the surrealism of watching the WTC towers crumble, over and over in replay, may stimulate some viewers to contemplate the two-dimensional quality of the news they get.
It looked so much like a Hollywood disaster flick. Beyond the reporting of the event, I wonder how many viewers will start to think about how easily their perceptions can be manipulated, and start to look for new sources of news.

But I fear the macho reaction is gathering momentum. A caller on Cross-Country Check-up today talked about "eliminating the terrorists' gene pool" by eliminating all their relatives unto first cousins. Sounded racist to me.

And there seems to be a whole lot of loose talk about how the collapse of the World Trade Center towers was "worse than a nuclear weapon". Even one so-called expert from the Mackenzie Institute said just that, on Peter Mansbridge's live broadcast. Balderdash! If a nuclear weapon had exploded on the WTC site, there wouldn't have been any newscasts to horrify us all.

Results of a 1 megaton bomb: everything vapourized for 1 mile radius(up to the Gugenheim Museum); everything up to 3 miles radius (Central Park) would look like the World Trade Center site does now, and every up to 5 miles radius, flattened. That's pretty much all of Manhattan.

As for reprisals, the options seem limited. Ground war in Afghanistan is futile, not to say suicidal. Ground war in Iraq is redundant. Aerial bombing is probably insufficient to assuage US rage. US military have not in the past come up with anything particularly imaginative or original, not that they've made public anyway.

OTOH, people seem to have forgotten just how extremely hazardous & destructive weapons of mass destruction really are.

I'm worried.


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 13 September 2001 10:06 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Results of polls:

NBN poll:
80 percent approved of the president’s handling of the crisis so far. Eight percent disapproved, 12 percent were not sure.
83 percent supported “forceful military action” against the people responsible, even at the risk of retaliation or the threat of war. Eight percent opposed that, 9 percent were not sure.66 percent felt the attacks were “more serious than Pearl Harbor;” 25 percent felt they were equal, and 5 percent said they were “not as serious.”

ABC-WASHINGTON POST
People were about evenly split on whether the United States could reasonably have done more to prevent the attacks.
Nine in 10 said they had at least some confidence that the United States would find and punish those responsible, with more than half “very confident.”
About nine in 10 support military action against groups or nations responsible for the attacks, even if it means getting in a war.
Nine in 10 said they prayed for the victims of the attacks and almost everyone, 99 percent, said they watched or listened to broadcast news reports.
The poll of 608 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
CBS NEWS
Six in 10 said the attacks were “another Pearl Harbor” and almost that many thought they would result in the United States going to war.
Two thirds said the United States should retaliate even if innocent people are killed. Majorities of men and women favored that step, though men were more likely to favor it.
Almost six in 10 said U.S. intelligence should have known about the attacks in advance and thought the attacks could have been prevented by tighter airport security


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 13 September 2001 10:15 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's unfair to say a world war might erupt, since first, we have to figure out to at least a fair degree of certainty who is behind these attacks. Then we have to figure our where they are.

If it gets waaaaaaaaay out of hand, there may be further terrorist attacks on the US, or NATO members. However, once they find the country where the terrorists are based, IMHO, I think that there are few nations who won't hand over the terrorists (maybe two or three. You can all probably guess which ones) and if they're in one (or more) of these said nations, I think that the military alliance will sweep in like they did in Kosova and eventually make the country help them find the terrorists, and hand them over.

Of course, I think that it will be continually drawn out after that, as a world wide assault against terrorism, and who knows the details of how that operation will be done.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 13 September 2001 10:29 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People speak as if this is not an act of war. I think it is - a jihad, from a fanatical sect. War is NOT only amongst nations. The Crusades were about Christianity. Where in the Koran, or the Bible, does it say that killing is okay? I believe that Osama ben Laden is behind this, after hearing on the news that cell phone calls were intercepted that implicated him. I think he should be punished. Lock him up with the meanest mothers in America. See how much fun he thinks terror is. Everybody here is too scared of being un-PC to get angry.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 13 September 2001 10:39 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Even the US government isn't willing to make such grand declarations. Reuters is reporting that more than one organization may be involved. They will NOT declare who the culprits are.

I find it interesting that, in today's high-speed connected world, we expect investigators to solve this mysery so quickly. It could take a very long time. I hope that a great deal of care is taken to investigate this crime as thoroughly as possible. Knee-jerk reactions are very dangerous.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 13 September 2001 10:42 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He should've been in the tank already over the first bombing and Yemen, not to mention the two embassies.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 13 September 2001 11:03 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, Media Boy - I have to agree. After all, remember Oklahoma city - the media was swearing up and down that the culprits were from the Middle East then too, until the investigation finally turned up Tim McVeigh. Plus, if it is bin Laden, he's actually a protege of the CIA and was created by the States to fight for the States against the Soviets. Surprisingly enough, it's only terrorism if someone else does it.

I'm scared at the stats posted by wagepeace - sounds like a lot of Americans are going for the "an eye for an eye route". I can only hope that many of them WILL begin to question why people hate America - and that they are willing to face the answers, and act on them, demanding some changes in policy. Of course, that requires tuning out the mainstream media for a while and looking at the actions of the U.S. in the past years. I was on an American Internet discussion and someone asked "Why America?" there - any answers which pointed to past American atrocities were flamed repeatedly and accused of being "anti-American" and disrespectful in this time of mourning. Sad.

I have to hand it to the CBC, badmouth them if you wish, but they are currently showing some pretty insightful reports on U.S. funding of bin Laden and of President Bush's definition of this as a war. Good point about NATO not declaring it as such, Media Boy. Canada is a part of NATO and so I guess whatever policy is set there will have an impact on our involvement. Still, with Colin Powell talking about "sustained military action"....I wish someone would just come out and say what the implications of all of this will be - the guessing and the wait-and-see are driving me nuts.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 13 September 2001 11:11 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Dawna - like you said, where in the Bible or the Koran does it talk about killing people? (well, there is a lot of hubbub about bringing back the enemy's foreskins etc. in the "Old Testament" and other little things like that but of course that isn't violent at ALL..but I digress) Cuz that's basically what the States want to do to bin Laden. I don't think they're gonna put him in a nice cozy cell - that's not the kind of thing you do in a war, which according to you, this is.
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 13 September 2001 11:25 PM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Machiavellian, are saying that the Pentagon the Headquaters of the US military is not a military target?
From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 13 September 2001 11:42 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can only hope that many of them WILL begin to question why people hate America - and that they are willing to face the answers, and act on them, demanding some changes in policy.

You think that people hate the U.S. for some noble reason here's a link to what Bin Laden's group's demands. Why people hate the U.S.

There not reasonable demands. They cannot be agreed to. The people who are willing to kill to achieve these demands need to be eradicated.

P.S. Machiavellian you are right on about the Quran. It also states that suicide is, like, very wrong.

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 13 September 2001 11:49 PM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, you are right. It is very hard to find common ground when one group is trying to destory the other. Also one item that should be understood is the way the radicals view all Westerners, not just the Americans.
Time and time again I have seen actual documents such as leafets, posters and books that refer to Westerners as "Crusaders" and "Franks". T.V and other types of media also repeat this view.

From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 September 2001 12:01 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, let's agree. Let's eradicate 'em all.
And then let's eradicate all the white supremacists who want a nation without the kykes, ragheads and mud people. And then let's eradicate the Nation of Islam who want a state without the white devil. Then we can head of to Rwanda and eliminate the Tutsis. Then we have, of course, we have the Balkans not to mention the mid-East.
Why we can be eradicating people for decades. Good fun and socially redeeming, eh?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 14 September 2001 12:02 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think anybody is saying that the Taliban is not a reprehensible group of people who have been indoctrinated into doing terrible things. The atmosphere of severe oppression against women, the terrorism, etc are all facts which turn the stomach. I was responding to an earlier post pointing out the fact that America is not exactly pure as the driven snow either. The American government has been intimately involved in the Mid-East for years, and have killed or supported the killing of many innocent people there. It is not, in other words, a simple case of the evil Islamics disagreeing with Western values. Plenty of Islamics disagree with Western values and don't blow up buildings. It's certainly part of it, but not the whole story. Have you read Noam Chomsky's article on this? There's a link to it here on rabble, I believe.

As for the Pentagon being a military building - I was referring there, if I remember correctly, to the article by Laura Flanders, also linked to on this site, which someone else here (boy the short term memory is starting to smoke a bit) referred me to.

But talking about eradicating people - that's not only useless and morally bankrupt, it completely ignores the fact that the people responsible have not been conclusively named yet. Even when they are, trying to "eradicate them" (shades of the holocaust) will probably only lead to more terrorism - and the cycle will continue.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 12:04 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Panzerleader, some of these people just cant grasp the situation. They think that if someone hates us then there must be some justification. They can't understand that the justification is in itself evil.

Bin Laden gave his justification. He wants all "infidels" out of the middle east. That includes Israel. They say they will kill us as long as we're in the middle east or we give ANY kind of support or recognition to Israel. I don't think we should acquiesce to their demands. I dont think any reasonable person would.

I've listened to their reasons and their justifications. I have then rationally concluded that they are evil monsters. What reasons can people give to the contrary?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 14 September 2001 12:13 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It looks like some American legislators really are discussing the possibility of Congress issuing a declaration of war.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 12:15 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually I just read on CNN that they were going to stop short of a declaration of war but endorse the use of force.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 14 September 2001 12:17 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep, Markbo, pretty rational. Considering there have been no "demands" issued at all to the States, or Canada, which by the way, is where we are. No one has even claimed responsibility, probably because they're scard of getting "eradicated". Evil, good - so black and white. My guess is if you were born in Afghanistan, you'd be telling us all the same thing right now but with the countries reversed. And what a big surprise that you're getting support from a guy with the screen name Panzerleader.
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 14 September 2001 12:19 AM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, I still can't believe some people can not accept such blind hate and fury is typical with so many groups around the world. For many of us we have never pushed so far. But after Tuesday, well I just do not know. I think many people will begin to become more militant towards such groups. Hopefully they will not back-lash against people who just look, talk or pray like the enemy.
From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
pj
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 24

posted 14 September 2001 12:28 AM      Profile for pj   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, you said

You think that people hate the U.S. for some noble reason here's a link to what Bin Laden's group's demands. Why people hate the U.S.

quote:

I suggest you try looking at some non-US sources, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_155000/155236.stm, which is one of many sources that indicate the CIA trained bin Laden.

I don't recall anybody saying that Middle Eastern hatred for "noble" reasons. Understandable reasons, maybe even valid reasons, maybe. Nobility seems precious scarce in politics these days.

But what IS plentiful is propaganda. I took part in a panel on Manufacturing Consent last weekend, about Calgary politics. As the shock wears off in the news media, the propaganda is creeping back in, IMO.


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 12:31 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your link isn't working.

Who cares what the source is in this instance. The quotes came from Bin Laden himself.

They basically said they will continue to kill non islamic civilians in other as long as they have people on islamic territory or support the very existance of Israel.

What basis do you have to deny this?

IT IS AN UNREASONABLE DEMAND.


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

posted 14 September 2001 12:35 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo, I still can't believe some people can not accept such blind hate and fury is typical with so many groups around the world. For many of us we have never pushed so far. But after Tuesday, well I just do not know. I think many people will begin to become more militant towards such groups. Hopefully they will not back-lash against people who just look, talk or pray like the enemy.

I'm sure we won't have to worry about that with the way you and Markbo are shooting your damn mouths off.


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

posted 14 September 2001 12:37 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nor do we have to worry any more about blind hatred of Americans the way you shoot your damn mouth off DrC

quote:
Markbo, most of the more ignorant slobs (Americans) don't give a good goddamn about what Islam is or what the Koran is.

I would remind you about rabbles insult policy and the fact I am an American citizen as well as a Canadian.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


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

posted 14 September 2001 12:50 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it's true. What the average American knows about Islam or even Judaism you could fit into a thimble.

And let's face it. Most Canadians aren't much better.

So while it may be rather get-your-rocks-off-pleasing to hollar that we should pulverize some country way out in the void into so much dust, let's try to keep in mind that these are real people and that collateral damage is likely in any military adventure designed to squash these guys flat.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 14 September 2001 01:02 AM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Deep breaths. Back off. Think before you post. And it's getting late.

Wing Nut (and everyone) this kind of language, used for whatever reason, just ain't cool on this board:

quote:
... kykes, ragheads and mud people ... eliminate the Tutsis.

I know the point you were trying to make, and I think you could have made it without crossing over babble's policy.

And DrC, I've gotta agree with Marko about the "ignorant American" thing. You are an eloquent man. I know you can make your point without going to that level.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 September 2001 01:06 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
my apologies, JudyM. But i do think the word "eliminate" is much the same as "eradicate."

Still, point taken.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
pj
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 24

posted 14 September 2001 01:07 AM      Profile for pj   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, you said


Who cares what the source is in this instance. The quotes came from bin Laden himself.

[Edited to take out a link that didn't work but was very long and causing side scroll. Michelle]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 14 September 2001 01:20 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's all imagine for a minute that the terrorists entered the States through Canada. Let's imagine that they have cells here, that they were living here, planning the attack and/or others like it. That would mean Canada harboured terrorists. Bush has vowed that terrorists and those harboring them will be pursued and treated equally. Would Canada be treated in the same manner as Afghanistan? Should they be? Should we be eradicated, Panzerleader? Markbo?

As DMode said -
People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully..


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 14 September 2001 01:46 AM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, no unless this event was state backed, the Americans will give the country who is protecting them several days to hand them over. If the country is unable to capture them, but is making an effort to do sa, than the West will all it can to help cature them.
As for terrorist cells, they have been here for a long time. Think of the Air India bombing. Also there have attacks on the Turks. Their military att. was killed in 1982 or 1983 just on Island Park Dr. at the the Parkway. And the Embassy was taken over in 1986. A Canadian guard was killed.
They tend do hide out in areas with large ethnic populations. Just think of the major cities with large groups of certain ethnic people. However, every time there has been major attempts to weed out the bad apples, people complain they are being unfairly targeted. Anyone in the business of security will tell you, one always starts with the normal suspects.

This is my last post for the day, I want to go see the sandman.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: PanzerLeader ]


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 14 September 2001 01:51 AM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is called democracy. So darned inconvenient! Gosh, when will we get that new-model Senator McCarthy up and running?

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 14 September 2001 02:04 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough. I was really trying to raise some empathy in the heart of Panzerleader and cohort more than entertaining the actual possibility, anyway.

AS for the sandman, he's not just calling, he's paging me repeatedly -

so this is my last post as well.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 03:12 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really think it would be helpful if we dispensed using the distasteful military euphemism:collateral damage.
It would probably be more accurate to refer to it as it really is "wholesale slaughter of innocents."

I would therefore like to ask Markbo and Panzeleader why the whole sale slaughter of innocents in the interests of America is acceptable whereas the whole sale slaughter of Americans is Evil.
Most of the postings I've seen are suggesting that the wholesale slaughter of innocents is never acceptable. I would also suggest that the antiquated concept of a Just War is made irrelevant considering the context of the wholesale slaughter of innocents. I would also suggest that anyone who believes that the wholesale slaughter of innocents we experienced on Tuesday will be assuaged by further wholesale slaugter of innocents is engaging in foolish blood-lust.

Suggesting people be eradicated because of what they said, thought or whom they associated with is also complete tyranny.

Also if we are advocating punishing those who harbour terrorists shouldn't we start with the CIA.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 03:17 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you saying that two wrongs now make a right? Just because innocents elsewhere were killed we should tolerate it?

The evil monsters who committed these acts must be stopped.

Why would we want to allow Bin Laden to wipe all non islamic people from the Middle East?Are you in favor of ending all ties with Israel? He has said thats the only way he will stop killing civillians in other countries.

No one on these threads can defend Bin Ladens comments. So why should we allow him to remain free when he has threatened us with death?

quote:
Suggesting people be eradicated because of what they said, thought or whom they associated with is also complete tyranny.

We do it all the time, in Canada we have hate laws. In the U.S. and Canada it is criminal to utter death threats.

If your alternative to stopping Bin Laden's organization is to just sit here and die when they kill us. Can't say I'm with you there.

Again No one, I repeat NO ONE has offered a workable alternative to stop this man's organization from threatening the lives of Americans, Canadians and all democratic countries.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 03:23 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have then rationally concluded that they are evil monsters. What reasons can people give to the contrary?


Ummm...EVILeh?
MONSTERS?
RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
I guess I must have slept in and missed that class on Logic.
I think by using terms such as EVIL and Monsters you are more likely to be drifting into a world of Magic and Fantasy. Perhaps you're more comfortable there, who knows.

I am curious though does one have to renounce any sense of irony to become an American citizen.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 03:31 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How would you describe someone who murders thousands of people?

I call them evil. I call them monsters. I am in good company with that opinion.

Its not Ironic, its not even an American Opinion as it is shared by the leaders of Britain, Italy, Germany etc.....

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 03:34 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Markbo

If you have coffee in the house please wake up and smell it...NOBODY IS DEFENDING THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS ACT WHO EVER THEY MIGHT BE OR BIN LADEN FOR THAT MATTER.

I WILL SAY IT ONCE MORE FOR YOU SINCE THE LAST 5 TIMES DIDN'T SEEM TO REGISTER


THE WHOLESALE SLAUGTER OF INNOCENTS IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO ME!!!!!!

It appears to me that it is your self and others that are Saber rattling and arguing that retaliation is necessary even if it results in the deaths of innocents. Well I don't buy it.

I'll leave you with a quote from Phil Ochs "If you ever get a war without blood and gore I'll be the first to go."
sweet dreams


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 03:36 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It appears to me that it is your self and others that are Saber rattling and arguing that retaliation is necessary even if it results in the deaths of innocents. Well I don't buy it.

Oh no, lets just sit here till it happens again.

I'm waiting for your non violent alternative. Problem is that it doesn't exist.

You don't want to see innocents die? What a joke. There would be so much more if we followed your beliefs in this matter.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 03:47 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Contravening Hate laws is not punishable by death.

Also just because your delusions are shared does not stop them from being delusions. If you believe Tony Blair is Good Company God help you.

Thanks for confirming my conclusion about the irony.
I love to see logic so unpolluted by reason.
Maybe you didn't notice that violence begets further violence.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 14 September 2001 03:50 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NR Kist, who ever said there were no perpetual motion machines? I think I've discovered a few right on this thread. Real frictionless planes, too.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 14 September 2001 07:48 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, we certainly have a wide variety of opinions here and that's a good thing.

I had suggested in some earlier threads that the nature of this war, that being, how it will be conducted, is going to be starkly different that what many of us are going to expect.

First: if any of you think that NATO is going to launch a traditional war using Gulf War tactics (air strikes, division sized attacks, fast air, indirect fire, cruise missiles) think again because these kinds of tactics are only useful if you know who the enemy is, if he/she wears a uniform and marches under a flag.

This war, and make no mistake, the US is now at war, will require the US and NATO to develop new tactics, dirty tactics, TERRORIST tactics.

I believe that you will see the US bribe nations, bribe families to sell out their sons and daugters, formationof at least three or four middle-eastern US-led terrorist divisions with budgets and and intellegence cells.

If you are of the feeling that the US is going to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, well, probably at the initial stages they will. However, I believe that you will see the US begin it's own form of terrorist activities in countries such as Iraq, the Sudan, Libya in order to destabilize those governments.

I would also expect a new tactic to emerge, that being, religious warfare. I believe that the new US-led terrorist cells ( I wish I could find a better name for it, but they will emply tactics along the lines of what we saw on Tuesday)will use the Koran to legitimize their tactics and to divide Islamic states.

This is a TREMENDOUS gamble of course because middle eastern countries are one day at war with each other and the next day they are unified in their support of actions against Israel.

If this is to expand into a global conflict, the catalyst and intangible would be Israel. Just as in the Gulf war, you can expect that Israel will be attacked by Iraq or another Islamic state in hopes of causing a full-scale Israeli response.

An attack by Israel on an Islamic state in this conflict could act to unify the Islamic state factions that will be at war with each other, and then the US and it's coalition would have to defend or side with Israel.

Another intangible would be the two war economies: the one in the west that uses traditional defense industries and, more dangerous, the black market where weapons systems, including NBCW agents (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Warfare)would become available through the inevitable unregulated black market economy.

Where do you get a small nuke if you are a fanatic with a large bankroll? Why, Pakistan, India, North Korea, China - basically anyone with a grudge against America and access to weapons of mass destruction.

It's also important to recognize that poor-man's nukes, chemical weapons, can be manufactured inexpensively and delivered in an unpredictable terrorist fashion here at home.

There are just speculative variables I have thrown into the discussion. I won't even try to speculate how the US would respond to a 105 mm battlefield nuke going off in the downtown of a large American city or a subway delivered chemical attack or a biological crop dusting of a medium sized American farm community.


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 09:24 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Contravening Hate laws is not punishable by death.

Hey, I have no problem with only trying to arrest them. But if they resist arrest...

quote:

Also just because your delusions are shared does not stop them from being delusions. If you believe Tony Blair is Good Company God help you.

What delusions? I do believe Tony Blair and the Majority of the leaders, and population of the free and democratic world is good company. God help those that don't.

quote:

Maybe you didn't notice that violence begets further violence.

It's too bad you don't understand that if someone commits an act of war against you, you have every right to defend yourself.

Stop throwing words like logic and reason around as if you fully understand them.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 September 2001 09:45 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stop throwing words like logic and reason around as if you fully understand them.

Doctor heal thyself, please.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 10:21 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I may might not know alot about logic and but I know what I like.

I'll have to check my notes but a statement such as

Democracy is good
Tony Blair was democratically elected
therefore Tony Blair is good

might be considered a classic non-sequitorial syllogism.

On the subject of rational I thought we were suggesting something derived at through reason.
I would appreciate if anyone could show me a zoology text containing a monsterand the last time I looked Evil wasn't listed in the periodic table.
So if you are using constructs that do not actually appear in the observable realm you are not being exactly reasonable. Unless you are using them as metaphors to express hyperbola god forbid.

Yes Rasmus_raven we have entered a realm where normal laws do not apply.
One in which the whole sale slaughter of innocents has no concommitent pain or anger.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 10:28 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Democracy is good
Tony Blair was democratically elected
therefore Tony Blair is good

might be considered a classic non-sequitorial syllogism.


No one made such statements, but I ask you that where is the logic in asking God to help me if I believe Tony Blair is good.

quote:
So if you are using constructs that do not actually appear in the observable realm you are not being exactly reasonable.

I believe ANY person responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people is an evil Monster.

Just to give you some background on this

quote:
e·vil (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


quote:
mon·ster (mnstr)
n.

An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy, that combines parts from various animal or human forms.
A creature having a strange or frightening appearance.
An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities.
Pathology. A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable.
A very large animal, plant, or object.
ONE WHO INSPIRES HORROR OR DISGUST: A MONSTER OF SELFISHNESS


You should try to understand the concept of a dictionary, its a wonderful tool


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 10:30 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's too bad you don't understand that if someone commits an act of war against you, you have every right to defend yourself.

Since you seem so quick to condemn my comprehension please enlighten me as to when self defence included hunting down and killing someone after the event and also killing anyone else who might get in the way.

By using nebulous definitions of what does or does not constitute terrorism and further ill-defined idea about who might be culpable just makes me suspect alot of innocents will be slaughtered.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 10:32 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again I will refer to the dictionary definition of self-defense referring to legal definition

quote:
self-de·fense (slfd-fns)
n.
Defense of oneself when physically attacked: took a course in self-defense.
Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

These people still threaten us.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 14 September 2001 10:38 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For anyone interested, this is what a declaration of war looks like:


Decleration of War on Japan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

Fill in the blanks:

Decleration of War on ????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between ??? and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the ??? has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the ??? which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the ???; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, September ??? , 2001


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 September 2001 10:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone know precisely which countries have got their nuclear reactors from Canada? I'm running on very creaky distant memory here -- Candus -- to India and Pakistan, at least, yes?

Our "national" newspapers refuse to give us the precise names of those on the Team Canada roster as they bop off to, eg, China, but I believe that a number of weapons manufacturers are prominent among them. How do we find out for sure?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 14 September 2001 10:56 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Resorting to dictionary defintions often indicates not only a lazy mind but also a deference to dubious authourity.

The defintion of Monster you provided incluses reference to fantasy creatures,and a distasteful reference to birth defects.What you highlighted was a metaphorical use which I already addressed.

The defintion of evil causing injury or pain. Does that mean birth is evil.
Evil used in the context of an individual or group is a throw-away label with little validity.

Anyways I am getting side-tracked the subject was the whole sale slaughter of innocents which apparently you, Markbo support.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 10:57 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only if you define Terrorists as "innocents"
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 September 2001 11:00 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
You seemed to define "terrorists" as anyone who even thinks about committing acts of terrorism.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 11:44 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh no, why those people are the salt of the earth.

I think that people who use training manuals such as this one Terrorist training manual are terrorists.

Just like any other self defense. We can not only defend ourselves from those commit acts of violence against people but from those who threaten to commit violence against people.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 September 2001 11:58 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Reasonable justifications for self-defense do not include "hmm, I bet that guy wants to hurt me. I'd better hurt him first."

I concede that Markbo does raise an interesting point, though he does it VERY insuccinctly.

The right to freedom of expression does not include the right to utter threats against an individual. Should the right to freedom of expression include the right to utter threats against a State?

Bin Ladin did issue a "declaration of war" for all Muslims to attack the US, and he has publically vowed to destroy the US. He has made these statements on television. This is not disputed. Could that not be considered a criminal act? What would the appropriate punishment be for "uttering threats against a state"?

Could we begin to hope that the US would abide by such a law, and refrain from uttering threats against other states? If it's illegal to utter threats against a state, then the US is guilty on many counts. They've issued threats against Iraq too many times for me to count.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 14 September 2001 01:30 PM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
wagepeace, the tatics you talked about earlier are used quite often overseas. Peacekeeping is perfect
In places like that the West in not dealing with the Germans and Japanese. Most of these will let their personal greed get the better of them. Buying off the tribes is an old method of war. Also killing those who do not take bribes is also an old method. The Americans thought they could deal the Somalians the same way as Europeans.
However, they could not take the step down and deal with them on a lower level. The French are well known for seeking out those who have killed her troops. So have Dutch, Belgians, Brits. If some of you find this hard to believe, then join-up and find out for your self.

From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 14 September 2001 02:07 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Most of these will let their personal greed get the better of them.

PanzerLeader, who exactly are you talking about here? And are you abiding by the policy you agreed to follow when you signed up to participate on babble?


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 14 September 2001 02:14 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judy:

I think he is referring to likely tactics that I had mentioned earlier in the thread:

To quote myself, I earlier wrote:

quote:
This war, and make no mistake, the US is now at war, will require the US and NATO to develop new tactics, dirty tactics, TERRORIST tactics.

I believe that you will see the US bribe nations, bribe families to sell out their sons and daugters, formationof at least three or four middle-eastern US-led terrorist divisions with budgets and and intellegence cells.


I believe he is referring to the above.


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 14 September 2001 02:15 PM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think in line if not please say. Those I am refering are people who lived in countries such as Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon. They have always been bribed, it is cheaper and less costly than fighting them.
From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 September 2001 03:00 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have been absent from babble for these last few days as I have been busy putting out fires on other forums. I was hoping that rabble would be an oasis in the midst of the desert, but that was too optimistic, due credit given to those of you with good sense.

Osama bin Laden (booga, booga, booga!). Of course some of his demands cannot be answered. Some of his demands indeed *can* be answered and *should* be given, not to him, but to the world. But look at what he has done: he has mixed them with other demands that should be unpalatable to all.

So where does that leave the world? If we reject the reasonable demands, we legitimize the unreasonable ones--it begins to look like a complete solution, an only one. Granting the reasonable demands, the actions that should have been obvious all along, may take away the platform he stands on; and I hope it's not too late for that. I guess that when good doesn't work, evil becomes all too tempting for many.

I'm too exhausted and distraught to think this post through carefully enough, but I hope what I'm saying is not too unclear.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 14 September 2001 03:16 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PanzerLeader, as you phrased it, it's very questionable. "These people" are driven by "greed"? Did all of "these people" (as you specify by nationality in your later thread) betray their brothers and sisters?

And, if each of us had to live through what many live through on this earth, would we behave any differently? How can we be so sure?

To lump a whole nation, a whole ethnic group, a whole kind of people into one stereotyped pattern of behaviour, I think, has no place on this board.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 September 2001 04:06 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The right to freedom of expression does not include the right to utter threats against an individual. Should the right to freedom of expression include the right to utter threats against a State?

Actually Bin Laden said he would kill individual American citizens because he holds them responsible for the government they elected. He has made death threats specifically against all individuals who make up the state of America as well as that state.

He needs to be in U.S. custody.

quote:
And, if each of us had to live through what many live through on this earth, would we behave any differently? How can we be so sure?

Yes we would, many have lived through horrors and have not lost their humanity. Some of us might also become evil monsters if subjected to those horrors, but then they also MUST be stopped.

Some of the racist aryans become so because of the poverty they live through. They should also be stopped when they threaten the rest of us.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166

posted 14 September 2001 04:21 PM      Profile for PanzerLeader   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not know their names, but those are some the nations that UN and NATO troops haved used bribes. I have to go on that. What I am talking about is paying these people off so they will not cause problems. More often than not, their goals go right out the window, when they see a wad of cash just for them.
People are greedy and we have to use that. Some will sell out their loved one and firends. Offering Canadian citizenship for information has worked wonders in the past.
Sadly Bin Laden and company are so far gone that bribes would not work. The only way bribes would work is paying off some one close to him to but a bullet through his head.

From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca