[quote]In early 1998, when the two groups announced that they had formed the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the focus of Islamic Jihad shifted from overthrowing the Egyptian government to attacking American interests. The merger also appeared to increase the Egyptians' sense of purpose, according to the confessions of defendants in the trial.<hr></blockquote>
Then later
[quote]"It has nothing to do with age or era," said Mr. Zayat, who has defended thousands of Islamic militants over the years and served time in prison for his youthful involvement in an extremist movement. "It is ideology. These groups have their own literature that is passed down from generation to generation. This literature promotes the idea of `jihad' and the use of violence to overthrow those who do not rule according to God's law."<hr></blockquote>
then even later
[quote]Despite its reputation as the shrewdest of the Egyptian terrorist groups, Jihad actually failed to achieve most of its targets. A suicide bomber failed in his attempt to kill the Egyptian interior minister in 1993. A car bomb later that year that was meant to kill the prime minister instead killed a child who was standing nearby. <hr></blockquote>
How can you have anything but respect for these people? You can't. They are worthy of a great deal of respect from us!
This thread is about terrorism... not JUST Afganistan and Pashtuns.. lets stay on theme.
Terrorism...
We have to come up with new terms for different kinds of 'terrorism'. There are the so-called Freedome Fighters, but thats just means that there is another side that calls the same group terrorists.
There are the religious terrorists who use religion as an excuse to blow up someone of a different religion and force others their thoughts. The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.
There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)
There are social-terrorists who just try and destabilize what we consider as status-quo. I would think these people are just sort-of loopy and are anti-social to begin with
There are political-terrorists who, in the name of fascism or communism or some other ism decide that, to make a point, they gotta blow stuff up, assassinate, destroy, etc.
The list can go on and on...
So who is right? Who do you "respect" of these terrorists?
<strong>The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure I'm grasping your definition here. Where does the "terror" part come in?
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps it is because they're not trying to "free" anybody.
As I read through this thread, I tend to agree with most of what Scott H. has said, though I doubt his claims that the apologist types agree with the tactics used against us on 9-11. In my experience even die-hard liberal types are sickened by what happened, just like the rest of us. This one transcended meaningless political boundaries and touched virtually all of us in the same way. As it should have....
That said, I think the issues that need to be addressed are sort of being glossed over to some extent. There are a couple good points the original post brought up, but didn't explain well:
1. The media (or government influence over the media) can paint equally guilty parties in completely different lights (freedom fighter vs. terrorist). Israel is the perfect example.
Anyone throwing stones or molotov cocktails at an Israeli are "militants" and "terrorists", any Israeli tank commander or helicopter pilot or sniper hurling military munitions into residential neighborhoods are merely "doing their job." I don't buy that at all.
The context of the means is always over-looked by the media (which is certainly controlled by some extent by Israeli sympathizers, Jewish or otherwise). It's simple: one side has money and military support up the wazoo, one side does not and so must resort to what I will call guerilla tactics - the use of non-conventional weapons and tactics to fight back at someone with the real hardware.
I don't see either side as being more terrorist than the other, because they both kill civilians by the dozen...the only difference is the kind of explosives being used. Either act is despicable to my way of thinking. Long story short: the Isreali government / military carries 50% of the blame in that conflict. No more, no less. The media would do us all a favor to cover it that way.
2. There will be consequences for our actions overseas, and sadly they won't always be diplomatic consequences (i.e. the kind we can predict or deal with politically). Obviously, we never expected the consequences to come in the form of 9-11.
Let me set my POV for the record: I think we are right and justified to track, hunt down, and if need be, end the life of the miserable fooks who purpotraited this crime against humanity (and it was just that). I don't understand them, I don't sympathize with them, and I don't "get" them. I don't want to, because it would call into question my own humanity.
That said, our government needs to take a long, hard look at how we handle our affairs overseas. Again, Israel is a key example.
For many years, our media and our government has overlooked the wrong-doings of the Israeli military. You never hear any negative-spin reports about Israeli troops or tanks killing innocent Palestinian civilians, or about the Israeli government beig bull-headed when making compromises during the peace talks.
If you were to take our BS media coverage at its face value, you'd be led to think all of the blame (for every event) lies with the Palestinians. Anyone who knows human nature, knows that's a load of crap.
There are other places and other examples as well. For instance, I don't believe we did much to help Russia nor any of the former Soviet republics once the wall came down. We threw a few parties, showed a few leaders smiling and shaking hands, and then left them all to figure out capitalism for themselves.
We watched their economies spin out of control, we watched as the organized crime types took over, and we did nothing. We said "here, put up a McDonald's and a Levi's shop, and 'good luck!'" We left them high and dry, without any signifcant financial aid, any source of economic re-education, etc. etc. We're talking about societies whose citizens had been indoctrinated for decades, made to buy into the socialist system. But we didn't do anything to help them build a new system....
Same with Afghanistan, as soon as we got the result we wanted (between the USSR and mujahadin) we left the people that needed our help high and dry. We got the result we wanted, and left. That is weak in every way, and does much to tarnish our image.
We can't do that anymore; we can't afford to. If we pretend to care enough about political freedom, financial independance for citizens, and all the rest, then we need to not just pick sides and give speeches when things go our way. We need to bring our business and educational know-how to those places as well.
I'm rambling too much but the point is, we have to act in a way that gives other nations the impression that we (the ones with all the resources) will help to get less fortunate people on their feet when they need us. That we don't just pick the most convenient interests and most convenient means of doing our part.
which leads me to
3. The attacks on 9-11 were, at the heart of the matter, a result of extreme resentment towards the United States.
It can be argued that our uneven-handed foreign policies caused some of that resentment. That's not a justification, but an identification (of the root causes). Causes we have to identify to make sure (as best we can) this doesn't happen again. Part of it is added security and better intelligence, but part of it is also cutting off the "bad blood" before it spreads further.
We must re-evaluate how we handle our foreign affairs, and make sure that when we get involved with sticky situations, we take an even-handed approach (that is, judge all parties by the same standards) and that we put our money and our effort where our mouths are when it comes time to get things working again.
Will that eliminate religious fanatics who want to see us dead? Probably not, but it will very definitely sway a lot of foreign governments and foreign nationals who are sitting onthe proverbial fence. And we need all the support we can get in a situation like this.
Sorry for the long post... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
You can't blame September 11th on US foreign policy unless you understand US foreign policy first.
Do you know the difference between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian schools of foreign policy?
Do you know the basic principles of US foreign policy?
Most importantly, do you know how these ideologies and principles have been applied over the past two-hundred years?
Are you thoroughly familiar with the historical experience of America, and the ways in which that experience has shaped our foreign policy decisions?
To those of you who shout "didn't you learn anything from Vietnam," didn't you? Do you know why and how we became involved in Vietnam, and do you know why we were eventually forced to withdraw?
Do you understand the historical experience of the Moslems, most especially their involvement on the Iberian peninsula and in the Byzantine empire?
Do you understand the current political climate of Afghanistan, and moreover, the Afghan historical experience?
Do you know the meaning of reason, or do you prefer to take the emotionalist stance and shout and rave about things you simply do not understand?
Ugh. Getting close to time to run for that Gulch, methinks.
What a post Moogs. I agree. Osama ain't no friend of mind (1 degree of seperation from people who died on 11/9/01), but ...
Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.
Oh, and overthrowing democratically elected governments at the cost of greater then 1 million lives (as in Chile) is going to have to stop too.
Terrorists are not to be revered, respected, or even thought of in a good light no matter who they are or what they stand for. If htey are terrorists they should be be locked up and have the key thrown away at the least. (I am pro death penalty for the cases that deserve it by their actions.)
To try to tie the Taliban to Christians is lazy at the least. And to say that the Aid workers were somehow terrorists for presenting a Christian viewpoint to a Muslim is sheer lunacy. If I tell someone about an opposing religious view I am a terrorist? Hardly. They did not have those people at gunpoint. Did they make a decision that was likely to get them in trouble, yes. Does that make them stupid or terrorists, no.
These people are those that I feel should be respected. They are trying to present their view to someone even though it may cost them their lives. No guns, no dead civilians, no planes flying into two of the worlds largest buildings at peak office hours.
ScottH and Roger_Ramjet, my hat is off to you two. I have enjoyed your posts very much in this and other threads.
Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.
Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.
Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is ?death to Israel?. Should we support that?
Should we enter into negotiations with every two bit group that can build a truck bomb?
Moogs, I'd just like to say that while I don't agree with a lot of what you said, I'm glad to see somebody state the opposing view thoughtfully and rationally for once.
<strong>Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.
Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.
Who decides who a terrorist is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the instance of Nelson Mandela I cannot speak because I have not read up on him much. But if he killed innocent civilians like was done at the WTC, people who nothing to do with his battle except that they represented something he hated and therefore felt was a target, then yes he was a terrorist. If not then I cannot say whether or not he was. I would have to read up a bit first. The people that attacked the WTC were terrorists, pure and simple. IF they did not die when the attack occurred then I would have supported execution under the law. For those who do similar acts of terrorism even if on a smaller scale then I support imprisonment and or capitol punishment. It is as simple as that.
Was anyone freed due to the attacks on the WTC? Is the US more or less likely now to cow to the demands of these groups who felt the need to brutally attack US and other world citzens who were innocent of the crimes being pushed on them?
I will never accept less than total responsibility for their actions being put on them, and any punishment that comes along with it. So this "war" on terrorism was brought on them by their own actions. It was a long time coming. All the US embassies bombed, the USS Cole, TWA Flight 800, and the list goes on until the present WTC... I am tired of being kicked and not responding. They brought this to a head and now they are going to pay for what they have done.
[quote]There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.<hr></blockquote>
When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.
Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?
Being a freedom fighter does not justify your actions. There is savagery behind every title at times. I in no way meant to insinuate that freedom fighters are always good, only to point out that there is an actual distinction in the naming.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.
A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?
B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.
How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.
Sharon Balkcom, raised on the scrappy streets of East Harlem, was in the third grade when her teachers realized that she had a gift for mathematics, said her mother, Rosalie, who was not surprised.
Ms. Balkcom, 43, the second of three children, attended some of the city's most rigorous and selective secondary schools: Robert F. Wagner Middle School on the Upper West Side and the Bronx High School of Science. She received an M.B.A. from Pace University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Colgate University.
Ms. Balkcom's academic aptitude and varied education prepared her to tackle most jobs. She was a computer systems manager at Marsh & McLennan, where she had worked for about three years, her mother said. "She was motivated," said her brother Gordon, a publicist. "Whereas I might need someone to kick-start me, she was self-motivated."
As a child, that motivation helped Ms. Balkcom, a resident of White Plains, overcome teasing from neighborhood children about being a bookworm. "She held her head up and continued to do what was right," Mrs. Balkcom said. "My husband and I brought our children up the best we could. We tried to instill in them the importance of having an education. We taught them that things were not handed to them. If they wanted something, they had to work hard to get it."
Fitzroy St. Rose displayed the national flag of his island country, Dominica, on the bedroom wall of his sparsely furnished apartment in the East Bronx. He was constantly trying to set people straight about the Commonwealth of Dominica, part of the Windward Islands.
No, he told them, it's not the Dominican Republic, where even Dominica's postal mail is sometimes sent.
He was so loyal to his impoverished homeland that last year he helped organize a group, the Exodus Club, to raise money for its hospitals and other institutions. The club often met in his small apartment.
His loved ones gathered there for a prayer meeting Saturday night, returning to clean up Sunday morning.
Comments
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/international/middleeast/21JIHA.html?pagewanted=2"; target="_blank">An Investigation in Egypt Illustrates Al Qaeda's Web</a>
[quote]In early 1998, when the two groups announced that they had formed the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the focus of Islamic Jihad shifted from overthrowing the Egyptian government to attacking American interests. The merger also appeared to increase the Egyptians' sense of purpose, according to the confessions of defendants in the trial.<hr></blockquote>
Then later
[quote]"It has nothing to do with age or era," said Mr. Zayat, who has defended thousands of Islamic militants over the years and served time in prison for his youthful involvement in an extremist movement. "It is ideology. These groups have their own literature that is passed down from generation to generation. This literature promotes the idea of `jihad' and the use of violence to overthrow those who do not rule according to God's law."<hr></blockquote>
then even later
[quote]Despite its reputation as the shrewdest of the Egyptian terrorist groups, Jihad actually failed to achieve most of its targets. A suicide bomber failed in his attempt to kill the Egyptian interior minister in 1993. A car bomb later that year that was meant to kill the prime minister instead killed a child who was standing nearby. <hr></blockquote>
How can you have anything but respect for these people?
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
Bin Laden is Saudi by birth, but his father was from Yemen or Oman...I forgot.
The Taliban consists primarily of Pashtuns...Pakistan is majority Pashtun...at least politically.
The Northern Alliance / United Front consists mostly of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks.
Frankly, I think they're all fooked in the head.
Terrorism...
We have to come up with new terms for different kinds of 'terrorism'. There are the so-called Freedome Fighters, but thats just means that there is another side that calls the same group terrorists.
There are the religious terrorists who use religion as an excuse to blow up someone of a different religion and force others their thoughts. The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.
There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)
There are social-terrorists who just try and destabilize what we consider as status-quo. I would think these people are just sort-of loopy and are anti-social to begin with
There are political-terrorists who, in the name of fascism or communism or some other ism decide that, to make a point, they gotta blow stuff up, assassinate, destroy, etc.
The list can go on and on...
So who is right? Who do you "respect" of these terrorists?
<strong>The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure I'm grasping your definition here. Where does the "terror" part come in?
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps it is because they're not trying to "free" anybody.
I suggest you all see this.
That said, I think the issues that need to be addressed are sort of being glossed over to some extent. There are a couple good points the original post brought up, but didn't explain well:
1. The media (or government influence over the media) can paint equally guilty parties in completely different lights (freedom fighter vs. terrorist). Israel is the perfect example.
Anyone throwing stones or molotov cocktails at an Israeli are "militants" and "terrorists", any Israeli tank commander or helicopter pilot or sniper hurling military munitions into residential neighborhoods are merely "doing their job." I don't buy that at all.
The context of the means is always over-looked by the media (which is certainly controlled by some extent by Israeli sympathizers, Jewish or otherwise). It's simple: one side has money and military support up the wazoo, one side does not and so must resort to what I will call guerilla tactics - the use of non-conventional weapons and tactics to fight back at someone with the real hardware.
I don't see either side as being more terrorist than the other, because they both kill civilians by the dozen...the only difference is the kind of explosives being used. Either act is despicable to my way of thinking. Long story short: the Isreali government / military carries 50% of the blame in that conflict. No more, no less. The media would do us all a favor to cover it that way.
2. There will be consequences for our actions overseas, and sadly they won't always be diplomatic consequences (i.e. the kind we can predict or deal with politically). Obviously, we never expected the consequences to come in the form of 9-11.
Let me set my POV for the record: I think we are right and justified to track, hunt down, and if need be, end the life of the miserable fooks who purpotraited this crime against humanity (and it was just that). I don't understand them, I don't sympathize with them, and I don't "get" them. I don't want to, because it would call into question my own humanity.
That said, our government needs to take a long, hard look at how we handle our affairs overseas. Again, Israel is a key example.
For many years, our media and our government has overlooked the wrong-doings of the Israeli military. You never hear any negative-spin reports about Israeli troops or tanks killing innocent Palestinian civilians, or about the Israeli government beig bull-headed when making compromises during the peace talks.
If you were to take our BS media coverage at its face value, you'd be led to think all of the blame (for every event) lies with the Palestinians. Anyone who knows human nature, knows that's a load of crap.
There are other places and other examples as well. For instance, I don't believe we did much to help Russia nor any of the former Soviet republics once the wall came down. We threw a few parties, showed a few leaders smiling and shaking hands, and then left them all to figure out capitalism for themselves.
We watched their economies spin out of control, we watched as the organized crime types took over, and we did nothing. We said "here, put up a McDonald's and a Levi's shop, and 'good luck!'" We left them high and dry, without any signifcant financial aid, any source of economic re-education, etc. etc. We're talking about societies whose citizens had been indoctrinated for decades, made to buy into the socialist system. But we didn't do anything to help them build a new system....
Same with Afghanistan, as soon as we got the result we wanted (between the USSR and mujahadin) we left the people that needed our help high and dry. We got the result we wanted, and left. That is weak in every way, and does much to tarnish our image.
We can't do that anymore; we can't afford to. If we pretend to care enough about political freedom, financial independance for citizens, and all the rest, then we need to not just pick sides and give speeches when things go our way. We need to bring our business and educational know-how to those places as well.
I'm rambling too much but the point is, we have to act in a way that gives other nations the impression that we (the ones with all the resources) will help to get less fortunate people on their feet when they need us. That we don't just pick the most convenient interests and most convenient means of doing our part.
which leads me to
3. The attacks on 9-11 were, at the heart of the matter, a result of extreme resentment towards the United States.
It can be argued that our uneven-handed foreign policies caused some of that resentment. That's not a justification, but an identification (of the root causes). Causes we have to identify to make sure (as best we can) this doesn't happen again. Part of it is added security and better intelligence, but part of it is also cutting off the "bad blood" before it spreads further.
We must re-evaluate how we handle our foreign affairs, and make sure that when we get involved with sticky situations, we take an even-handed approach (that is, judge all parties by the same standards) and that we put our money and our effort where our mouths are when it comes time to get things working again.
Will that eliminate religious fanatics who want to see us dead? Probably not, but it will very definitely sway a lot of foreign governments and foreign nationals who are sitting onthe proverbial fence. And we need all the support we can get in a situation like this.
Sorry for the long post... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Do you know the difference between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian schools of foreign policy?
Do you know the basic principles of US foreign policy?
Most importantly, do you know how these ideologies and principles have been applied over the past two-hundred years?
Are you thoroughly familiar with the historical experience of America, and the ways in which that experience has shaped our foreign policy decisions?
To those of you who shout "didn't you learn anything from Vietnam," didn't you? Do you know why and how we became involved in Vietnam, and do you know why we were eventually forced to withdraw?
Do you understand the historical experience of the Moslems, most especially their involvement on the Iberian peninsula and in the Byzantine empire?
Do you understand the current political climate of Afghanistan, and moreover, the Afghan historical experience?
Do you know the meaning of reason, or do you prefer to take the emotionalist stance and shout and rave about things you simply do not understand?
Ugh. Getting close to time to run for that Gulch, methinks.
Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.
Oh, and overthrowing democratically elected governments at the cost of greater then 1 million lives (as in Chile) is going to have to stop too.
To try to tie the Taliban to Christians is lazy at the least. And to say that the Aid workers were somehow terrorists for presenting a Christian viewpoint to a Muslim is sheer lunacy. If I tell someone about an opposing religious view I am a terrorist? Hardly. They did not have those people at gunpoint. Did they make a decision that was likely to get them in trouble, yes. Does that make them stupid or terrorists, no.
These people are those that I feel should be respected. They are trying to present their view to someone even though it may cost them their lives. No guns, no dead civilians, no planes flying into two of the worlds largest buildings at peak office hours.
ScottH and Roger_Ramjet, my hat is off to you two. I have enjoyed your posts very much in this and other threads.
Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.
Who decides who a terrorist is?
<strong>
Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is ?death to Israel?. Should we support that?
Should we enter into negotiations with every two bit group that can build a truck bomb?
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, I'd just like to say that while I don't agree with a lot of what you said, I'm glad to see somebody state the opposing view thoughtfully and rationally for once.
<strong>Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.
Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.
Who decides who a terrorist is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the instance of Nelson Mandela I cannot speak because I have not read up on him much. But if he killed innocent civilians like was done at the WTC, people who nothing to do with his battle except that they represented something he hated and therefore felt was a target, then yes he was a terrorist. If not then I cannot say whether or not he was. I would have to read up a bit first. The people that attacked the WTC were terrorists, pure and simple. IF they did not die when the attack occurred then I would have supported execution under the law. For those who do similar acts of terrorism even if on a smaller scale then I support imprisonment and or capitol punishment. It is as simple as that.
Was anyone freed due to the attacks on the WTC? Is the US more or less likely now to cow to the demands of these groups who felt the need to brutally attack US and other world citzens who were innocent of the crimes being pushed on them?
I will never accept less than total responsibility for their actions being put on them, and any punishment that comes along with it. So this "war" on terrorism was brought on them by their own actions. It was a long time coming. All the US embassies bombed, the USS Cole, TWA Flight 800, and the list goes on until the present WTC... I am tired of being kicked and not responding. They brought this to a head and now they are going to pay for what they have done.
(?and let's just leave it at that.)
OK, let's not.
Moogs made a great post.
?and <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html"; target="_blank">this</a>.
Killing is never good. Is this so hard to understand? I guess so. We all lose.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
[quote]There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.<hr></blockquote>
When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.
Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?
<strong>
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.
A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?
B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.
How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1121_balkcom.html"; target="_blank">Sharon Balkcom</a>
Â*
Sharon Balkcom, raised on the scrappy streets of East Harlem, was in the third grade when her teachers realized that she had a gift for mathematics, said her mother, Rosalie, who was not surprised.
Ms. Balkcom, 43, the second of three children, attended some of the city's most rigorous and selective secondary schools: Robert F. Wagner Middle School on the Upper West Side and the Bronx High School of Science. She received an M.B.A. from Pace University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Colgate University.
Ms. Balkcom's academic aptitude and varied education prepared her to tackle most jobs. She was a computer systems manager at Marsh & McLennan, where she had worked for about three years, her mother said. "She was motivated," said her brother Gordon, a publicist. "Whereas I might need someone to kick-start me, she was self-motivated."
As a child, that motivation helped Ms. Balkcom, a resident of White Plains, overcome teasing from neighborhood children about being a bookworm. "She held her head up and continued to do what was right," Mrs. Balkcom said. "My husband and I brought our children up the best we could. We tried to instill in them the importance of having an education. We taught them that things were not handed to them. If they wanted something, they had to work hard to get it."
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_0918_strose.html"; target="_blank">Fitzroy St. Rose</a>
Dominica, Oh, Dominica
Â*
Fitzroy St. Rose displayed the national flag of his island country, Dominica, on the bedroom wall of his sparsely furnished apartment in the East Bronx. He was constantly trying to set people straight about the Commonwealth of Dominica, part of the Windward Islands.
No, he told them, it's not the Dominican Republic, where even Dominica's postal mail is sometimes sent.
He was so loyal to his impoverished homeland that last year he helped organize a group, the Exodus Club, to raise money for its hospitals and other institutions. The club often met in his small apartment.
His loved ones gathered there for a prayer meeting Saturday night, returning to clean up Sunday morning.