posted 10-11- 06:11 PM               

quote:

---

The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said Thursday that American bombs hit a village near the eastern city of Jalalabad, destroying a mosque and killing 100 people. While these figures cannot be independently confirmed, Zaeef added that more than 170 Afghan civilians had been killed since the U.S. bombing began on Sunday. He said the Pentagon is "lying to the world" when it says it is not "targeting civilians." (Full story)

---

Hehehe, if we were targeting civilians I am quite sure you would be dead now you fucking bastard. I hope we get to targeting civilians soon... at least before any Americans die. One of the Taliban leaders has said that the Taliban will have "victory or death." They said it folks, and our answer BETTER be DEATH!!!

Saudi is refusing to freez Bin Laden's assets... they just joined the enemy. I say we target nukes on Mecca and go back to the safety of a cold-war "mutually assured distruction." The Muslims would freak out if they knew that ONE more terror attack = no more Mecca. This is the answer.

[This message has been edited by Sv (edited 10-11-2001).]

posted 10-11- 06:34 PM               

Targeting Mecca (and while we are at it Medina and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem) had occurred to me also. Then we would be fighting against every Moslem in the world.....

posted 10-11- 10:53 PM               

quote:

---

Telling people in one breath to go
about their normal activities and then in the
next issuing a warning that a terrorist attack
may be imminate.

---

posted 10-12- 09:32 AM               

How loudly would you scream if no warnings were given and then another attack occurred?

My brother is a federal agent. These things are not passed out without a reason or viewed lightly....

posted 10-12- 09:16 PM               

1. We've been attacked.
2. We are in a war.
3. We have around 7000 dead because of this war.
4. The stock market is crashed.
5. Unemployment is climbing with 1000000+
jobs lost.

If you ask me I don't think we can take much
more of Bush's great leadership.

He wants to play new world order global cops
and robbers while the other side wants to
kill
us by any means they can. Anthrax now.

He's pissed around until Bin Ladin is probably
no longer in Afghanistan. My guess is he's
hiding in a bunker with Saddam Hussain by
now.

Call me wacko if you want but I'd rather look
at the facts. Most of the people in this
country would rather be bullshitted by pretty
speeches made by a professional politician.

Snickers,
The govt. should have been adapted to this
all ready. Even many intellegence and terrorists
experts admit they should have seen this comming.
That's what we pay them for.

It's a very good point that if the republican
controlled congress of the last several years
had of been taking care of America's business
instead of trying to impeach the president
maybe none of this would have happened, or
at least it wouldn't have been so bad.

posted 10-12- 10:31 PM               

The stock market has NOT crashed, for your information. There was a re-adjustment to make up for the over-valued technology companies, but that was before Bush was in office and it was no one's fault anyway really, it just happens.

posted 10-13- 08:27 AM            

I've been all my life in N.Ireland, 4 mile from a town called Lurgan (do a search, you might find out some of its history) From as early as I can remember, the trouble here has had an impact, nothing too serious, but still an impact on me.

When I was very young, I remember asking my mum on several occassions if we were going shopping today. She said no, that there was a bomb in Lurgan, and it was closed off. This excited me, and and had these vivid images of a great big unexploded bomb, bigger than a bus lying across the main street, tail fins and all as if it had been dropped from a plane.

Next thing I can recall, I think I was 11, was a spate of 'tit for tat' sectarian killings in a local beauty spot, oxford island, close to lurgan. young couples used to go and park there. One day a 20 yr old man was in his car with his girl when a masked man knocked his window, forced him out of the car, brought him into the woods and shot him. For a terrible week or two after this was repeated, with both communities suffering. About 5 or 6 where murdered I think. This sticks in my mind because i was at school with the first victims younger brother, I heard it on the news that morning, went into school and Lenny wasn't in. Rumours spread and we worked it out for ourselfs.

Once two young girls where working in a grocery van in an estate just outside Lurgan, a gunman burst in and sprayed them with bullets. That one made me very sad I remember.

At one stage when I was 15, another spate of tit for tat killings developed, where gunmen would go into bars and riddle the place. This happened 3 or 4 times I remember. about 15 died as a result over the space of a few nights. This was a really bad time, and it really wasn't safe to be out. I remember walking home on country roads and being genuinely terrifed every time a van or a car with several men in it passed; I was only 15, but I was tall, and could pass for 18, a 'legitimate target'. I think this spate of killings may have been caused by the murder of a taxi driver, easy pickings for sectarian murder, you know if the guys a Catholic (a favourite of the Loyalists, this) from the area that the firm operates in, you get him to pick you up, put a gun to his head when your in the backseat, make him drive to a secluded country spot and then shoot him in the head. A lovely way to die.

About six years ago, i was travelling to Donegal, a popular irish holiday resort. We were on a main road, when we heard a loud banging noise, sounded weird, like an exaust exploding. A gravel lorry came by us, the noise got louder. i looked round, a terrorist (IRA) was leaning from the lorry firing an AK47 down the road (I could see this distinctly; he was wearing a white bank bag over his face - not a balaclava) He was firing at an unmarked RUC car (Northern Irish police) I saw the bullets hit the car and smash the windscreen etc, at the time a guy was returning fire from the RUC car with a pistol. i pushed my friends kid brothers head down, a friend beside me was laughing hysterically saying 'Oh Fuck'.
My friends mother swerved over to the side of the road and stopped. Next thing we heard was a voice saying 'get the fuck out!'- we stayed were we were Turns out he was police talking to an IRA suspect. We got out of the car and gave blankets to a guy with his hand shot off and then drove on. We called in to a local police station to give a statement - the army were there and wouldn't let us move away from the car (incase it was a bomb) We wanted a smoke but we didn't want my friends mum to see I gave a statement, got back in the car and went to Donegal. I later talked to my mates kid brother about the sound of the gun - ratatatatatat. Funny how you remember these things.

Only a few weeks back, you may have heard, a journalist was murdered in Lurgan, shot down on his doorstep. Lurgan really is a 'mecca' for this kind of thing

Whats my point? I'm really not sure. I know there won't be a Sectarian divide in the US, but by all accounts it will be worse. We know how ruthless these guys can be,they will stop at nothing, no action to repugnent.Take out the terrorists, help the innocent people, don't give the scum an endless supply of eager recruits. In Ireland, the IRA never had a better recruiting drive than the hunger strikes or Bloody Sunday. Read up on these, its worth your while. The attitude of no compromise, all out force and lack of self awareness and the refusal of guilt, however small the reasons for that guilt may be, does wonders for making these things spiral out of everybodies control.The IRA are scum of the earth, but as always, there campaign is based on a basic truth. Extremists always grow from legitimate grievances, like it or not. If you let this get out of control, you'll have the Irish situation in the states for 30+ years,just like here only 100 times worse, not a place for your children to grow up in. And don't think that you yourself could protect them 100%, because you can't. Thats the frightening nature of this kind of thing. I never understood when I was younger why my dad had to drive me too and from everywhere, didnt like me getting taxis. He always was a worrier.....

posted 10-13- 09:18 AM               

Also, when debating what the best thing to do is, it is best to take extreme points and argue them to see where they go. By being extreme and absolute you can best get to the heart of an argument... maybe there are some things worth thinking of, and some things that are flawed. But bringing all options out on the table helps bring about the best strategy.

I still think people over-estimate these supposed "fearless terrorists." I think they are allot like the Japanese at the end of WW2... they have been built up by their own leaders propaganda to some degree... and they are very earnest in their desire to be victorious, and believe 100% in their cause. But they are still human... and they are quite logical really.

I'm sure many figured that Japan would never lose heart, but they did. If we have any option to get that victory and save so many American lives, should we not at least consider it?

I think that if terrorists knew that each attack on the US meant another of their important places would be destroyed, it WOULD wear on them quickly and we would enter another cold war type of situation.

From there, we can start to deal with what people call the "real" problem, why "they" hate the US. I think the real problem is that they are not well organized over there... lack of organized government causes allot of problems for the rest of us.

I don't know the best answer from there out, but it seems we could operate a little more safely from that "mutually assured destruction" place.

Right now, like the Japanese, our enemy is thriving off of the fact that we do not like to fight... that we are scared to fight. Not that we are cowards, but that we are peace-loving people. To them, that is a great weakness to exploit. That on top of the victory over Russia, you can see their approach clearly... the same approach Hitler used... and Japan.

The tide only turns when we start to fight, then they lose this fuel. Then they have to accept a new reality.

We are not fighting now at all. Bombing radar sites is not fighting. But all ready, they are very upset about this! They see this is a start of possible real retaliation, and that is their worst case scenario.

See, we need to get in their heads and understand what they are trying to accomplish. It is like business, you always are putting yourself in your customer's shoes, and your competition's shoes. It is like playing chess against yourself! If you can know thy enemy, you will know their weakness.

Our enemy needs us to be very tempered in our response in order to keep up their momentum. They need us to treat this like a legal issue.

When someone declares war on you, THEY define the terms of that war, not you! How can WE say that this is not a holy war??? It IS a holy war according to our enemy. It makes no sense for us to wrongly state what kind of war this is.. that is silly talk!

As soon as we admit that this is a war against a culture - a religion - the sooner we will start to make progress towards victory.

I don't want to see us nation-building. I do think we can make our enemy "irrelevant." We need to break their spirit and scare them into submission... not at a personal level, but at a high strategically level - so their leaders realize that terror attacks hurt them MORE than us.

Then we also get real and allow NO middle-east people into our country. This is so important... can you name me one war where we had an open policy towards letting the known enemy into our country???!!???

posted 10-13- 09:21 AM               

He is in charge, he is responsible. It goes
with the job. I'm willing to accept that Clinton
was in the same boat conserning the things
Jerry points out.

If you were ever in the military you would
know that the commander is always responsible,
even if he just took over the unit. If that
unit, whether it be a squad or a regiment,
screws up it is the leader of that unit's responsibility.
It comes with the territory and Bush should
be held accountible for what happens under his
watch.

Burkey,
I'm afraid you're right. As this continues
it will eventually break down as a war between
christans and islamic people. I don't know
what can be done about it.

posted 10-13- 10:18 AM               

Bush is in charge, it is very nice for you to say that... it does mean allot. But accepting that Bush is in charge means that we are his subordinate. To "blame" Bush in a negative way is akin to not accepting your leader.

Now sometimes you need to do this... sometimes your leading is doing very wrong. When this happens, it is fair to fight against him. Maybe you feel this way...

But you don't blame a leader for the challenges that confront him. You can blame him for a failed response, but it is not fair to blame a leader for things outside of his control.

I understand your take though. You feel that the economy and our foreign affairs are completely under the president's control. Once again, it is our ASSUMPTIONS that cause our disagreement! You assume that Bush could have and should have prevented the terrorist attack. That is a view one could have, but I think it is incorrect.

What could Bush have done in his short stint as president (not king) of America to stop the attack? The only sensible answer is that he could have done nothing to guarantee that the attacks did not happen.

Most Americans now believe that we are responding to a new threat, and most think we are doing a pretty good job so far, even though measuring is very hard this early in the war. At least we are taking it seriously!

Most people never understand what has happened you see... most people think that what happens in the world is driven by masses of people and no one person has an effect on the outcome. This is very untrue... what our leaders say and do have a GREAT effect on the media, us, and the world.

We COULD have brushed of the attack and turned it into a political issue... a good leader who felt this was the right tactic could have convinced most of America that this was the best approach. I would disagree, but I could certainly be convinced to give it a try of our leader argued the point with some conviction. I do have trust in our leadership... I am a proud American... even is Al Gore was saying that we would take Bin Laden to court and try him - I would support it. I would disagree, but only in conjecture. I would support it in my heart... (I don't mean at all to suggest that Gore would have done that, it was just an example).

But we have taken the road of taking this VERY seriously and calling it a war. That takes allot of guts.

Also Smokey, you asked what Bush has done? I think we are seeing one of the most powerful and pro-American coalitions ever right now. If you trust Blair at all... Bush is largely responsible for this. I am a Bush fan, I really think know some of his strengths--- and calling leaders up on the phone and selling them on a plan IS his strength... it is a businessman's strength... Bush is a very practical guy. He is a great in small intimate political settings... he is so personable with the leaders.

This is why I love Bush personally... these are the kinds of people I seek to work with.. positive, funny, down to earth - and just sincere. When Bush enters a room, it does not have a heavy serious tone.

I will tell you something I am very passionate about... with leaders. When I work with people who are CEO's, Presidents, CFO's, etc- I see some things. Some are very over-serious and the room is heavy with them.
People fear them, that is where they get their power. Then I see the others who talk to you like a friendly guy... they offer allot more small talk... and joke allot - and enjoy life even in a serious meeting. But they get so much more done... and people work with them because of the positive energy... people want to please these positive human leaders.

Also, about 80% of these guys I have worked with are the positive sort... the heavy guys have more trouble succeeding and getting to be CEO.

So most everyone thinks Bush's biggest handicap is that he is considered a light-weight. The funny thing is that this is a side effect of his truest strength. And this is not a secret to business people, who like politicians must make key decisions for large operations. It is known by most leaders, and it is devastating in small critical meetings with other key people. But the rest of the company- or the country- never gets to see or understand this.

I have been impressed with the way Bush has set up the political stage for this war... this is the hardest work there is for a president, and I think it is quite hard to argue that Bush didn't do a stellar job politically here.

[This message has been edited by Sv (edited 10-13-2001).]

posted 10-13- 05:42 PM               

OK, so what are you suggesting? Declare war on all Muslims? Do you honestly believe our allies would support such a war? Do you honestly believe we could win such a war? More importantly, do you honestly believe that declaring war on all Muslims, including those who condemn the attacks, is the right thing to do?

Calling this a holy war is exactly the wrong thing to do. Bin Laden wants a holy war. Why give him what he wants? Why play into his hands?

posted 10-13- 06:29 PM               

This means we need to approach things a bit different... propaganda will matter in this war, and we will also need clever and creative goals to work for.

We need to play the politics of the situation and realize that we must win a victory over the people, not their leadership. And I don't mean trying to bribe them with trinkets either... we need to show them how the world works, since they don't seem to get it right now.