Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there...

[Guest Kurgan]

So how much retribution is needed?

[StormHammer]

I think the level of retribution is irrelevant.

 

Let's say the US and it's allies launch a full-scale assault on Afghanistan, and wipe them out. Completely.

 

What then? Do you simply go home and imagine you are safe? As I said, that would be incredibly naive.

 

There are many terrorist organisations throughout the world - and no doubt many sympathise with each other's causes.

 

These people are fanatics, and fanatics do not listen to reason. You are not simply fighting one country here - but many factions within many countries. One massive strike will not eradicate the problem.

 

Military strikes do have their place - but they will not end this conflict. It must be fought on all fronts, at home and abroad, and inevitably it must lead to some major changes in the way we conduct our lives and business.

[Guest Kurgan]

I think that since we're all planning to do some killing, we kill as few as possible.

 

That is why capturing as many of the terrorists as possible (aside from the ones that die in the fire fights trying to capture them) and bring them to trial. That way we avoid having to continue fighting on foreign soil and killing innocents who get in the way, etc. to say nothing of losing more of our soldiers potentially, the longer we prolong it.

 

Only the guilty ones need be punished, we need to minimize so-called collateral damage. No need to kill innocent people just to get our point across.

 

We don't need to be butchers, but we will be if we just start bombing and destroying everything, without even knowing where our targets are. Surgical strikes, as was mentioned, is the key.

 

This also ties into attacking Muslims living domestically. There's no need for this, these people did nothing. They have no ties to the terrorists (if they are indeed Muslims, which we actually don't even know) except by their religion of birth or of their ethnicity (if they are arab, but again we don't know that).

 

I think we're all just assuming these guys are middleeastern, arab, and Muslim. Because of Bin Laden? Who knows.. but the important thing is to avoid killing the wrong people.

 

The police/swat for example, when they're doing a raid on a gang or something, don't just blow up a city block, they go in and (aim for to) shoot the bad guys. Yes, often innocent bystanders get struck by stray bullets (by accident), but the police don't just gun down every person in site to scare the criminals into surrendering.

 

And the police don't wait until the gang is in a spot where lots of civlians are going to be hit, they attack them where they can make sure that only their intended targets are going to be hit. They don't aim for the hostages, etc.

 

Hope that example helps my point...

 

The point is, that we can't just be so angry, that we just "nuke 'em all" so to speak. It might make us feel good, but it just puts innocent blood on our hands, that is totally unnecessary.

 

True, rhetoric about eliminating terrorist is mostly just talk. I doubt even if we kill every single gosh darn terrorist that had any connection with this, that we'll eliminate it forever. Anybody can become a terrorist. They just need to know how to hijack something, or make a bomb, or take a hostage, or whatever. They're all over the world. So it's a constant battle, just like the war on crime, on drugs, whatever you want. As long as there are people, there's the potential for the fight to continue, so it won't end with this, even if we are successful.

 

Good point, let's not forget that. I'd love to see an end to terrorism, but I think we can only put it off temporarily, no matter how badly we strike at it this time. It's not like GI Joe vs. Cobra or something like that out of a comic book where there's only two sides, the heroic good guys and the evil bad guys. There's thousands of groups all over, some more visible than others.

 

And since, as you point out, we're not going to eliminate terrorism with this coming strike/war/whatever, then we might as well not just commit genocide with the illusion that it will be justified by putting an end to terrorism once and for all. After all, as Timothy McVeigh proved, even our own people can become terrorists. They don't even need guns to do it...

 

Kurgan

 

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

[StormHammer]

Kurgan...I totally agree.

[wardz]

just watched channel 4 news and some Muslim leader in the UK claims that if the west do anything to Bin Laden then they will support Bin Laden and cause problems in the UK.

 

Charming. How nice. He also says its the "Americans fault in the first place and they deserved it."

 

wardz

 

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

[CaptainRAVE]

They could never give us the same problems as they did in America. Our terrorists are babies compared to the ones that bombed america. Ours just bomb the odd building and usually get caught anyway.

[wardz]

That isn't the point. Damn, I wish I could remember a little more of the interview.

 

But basically he doesn't consider himself a British Muslim, but more of a Muslem living in Britain. How they fully support Bin Laden if he were attacked, because the Koran permits defending the muslems no matter what attrocities they have commited.

 

He said a load of other stuff but it really got my heckles up.

 

Hes probably not even got a job anyway. Waste of space.

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

Great. Now the British Nationalists will go around executing every Muslim they can lay hands on - and use these threats as justification.

 

Like I said before, this is going to lead to massive race riots in the UK, and in a lot of other countries. There are fundamental differences of opinion and belief that cannot be resolved.

 

If you think the problems in Ireland are bad...just wait until you see the conflict between the different races throughout the UK if this attitude is anything to go by.

 

This situation has the potential to get out of hand very quickly.

 

Will we never be able to live with each other in peace? I am beginning to doubt it.

[Wilhuf]

I just cannot accept these conclusions that terrorism is inevitable, and that no action can possibly prevent it, and that somehow we are embarking on a war we cannot win. I totally reject this. I believe it is a war that can, and must be won.

 

Fundamentally, people don't want to die. With great effort, we can demonstrate to all sane people of the world that if they support terrorists (who often themselves do not fear death), they themselves risk death. We can also demonstrate the positive benefits of refusing to cooperate with terrorists.

 

There seems to be some kind of assumption here that as soon as one terrorist group is eliminated, more terrorists will just magically re-emerge, as if from some strange wellspring of unlimited evil. I do not agree with this (very fatalist) assumption.

 

I do not believe there are places on earth which serve an unlimited supply of people willing to commit terrorism.

 

Terrorist networks are composed of specific individuals and infrastructures. Their ranks are not unlimited. These networks can be broken, never to re-emerge.

 

One by one, network by network, these organizations will fall, until none remains.

[wardz]

I just watched Question Time on the Beeb. It doesn't seem like whites can do anything without being called racists. It seems okay at the minute for muslems to call whites racist but try to do it the other way and the political correctness brigade come and trample on you.

 

I live in Leicester (for those outside the UK, the Muslims outnumber the Whites) and you should see some of the stuff they get away with.

 

I don't want to be labelled as racist as there are good and bad people in EVERY religion, but speaking from personal experience, Muslims are far from blameless..

 

There is a great feeling here that whites have now become second class citizens. Even some asians I know admit that there are problems which are their fault yet are lumbered with the English..

 

If this situation is not resolved quickly and efficiently (which I doubt can be achieved) It will be like Northern Ireland all over again on a larger scale.

 

I would personally back George Bush all the way, My opinion of him has grown tremendously in the last few days. I have nothing but admiration for the man...

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I just cannot accept these conclusions that terrorism is inevitable, and that no action can possibly prevent it, and that somehow we are embarking on a war we cannot win. I totally reject this. I believe it is a war that can, and must be won.</STRONG>

 

I don't think anyone is saying that no action will prevent terrorism. The problem is that many people (and I'm not saying you, Wilhuf) seem to feel that military action alone will be capable of stamping out terrorism. Let me tell you in no uncertain terms - it does not work.

 

Look at the amount of action taken against the IRA over the decades. They are still here. And as soon as key figures within the IRA started getting involved in peace talks - suddenly we have a splinter faction calling themselves the Real IRA, who are continuing their campaign of terrorism.

 

If you look to the Middle East, the situation is even more extreme, and its roots are deep, the seeds planted more than a thousand years ago. It is extremely debatable that a solution will ever be found there.

 

<STRONG>Fundamentally, people don't want to die. With great effort, we can demonstrate to all sane people of the world that if they support terrorists (who often themselves do not fear death), they themselves risk death. We can also demonstrate the positive benefits of refusing to cooperate with terrorists.</STRONG>

 

Wilhuf, I am afraid that statement comes across very badly. By saying that you will kill anyone who supports terrorism - you are in danger of becoming the very thing you despise. Terrorists rule by fear, and no civilised nation on this planet should attempt to emulate them. An eye for an eye is bad enough - but threatening dire consequences on nations that may have terrorist groups within their borders is something else entirely. Sometimes (as in the case of the Taliban) the common people cannot eject or condemn the terrorists without fear of serious reprisals.

 

<STRONG>There seems to be some kind of assumption here that as soon as one terrorist group is eliminated, more terrorists will just magically re-emerge, as if from some strange wellspring of unlimited evil. I do not agree with this (very fatalist) assumption.</STRONG>

 

The interview wardz highlighted is a key example. A man who may not normally commit a terrorist act is now intimating he may do so if another member of his faith is killed (bin Laden). No doubt there are others who feel even more strongly - and across a whole range of beliefs, not just Muslims.

 

While these people feel their beliefs are being threatened - then yes, new terrorists will arise to replace the old, and it could potentially go on and on.

 

The wellspring of evil you speak of is at the very heart of human nature. It drives us to kill, to lash out, to break and destroy that which threatens us, or that which we do not understand. We are all primal beasts within, and to believe otherwise is a foolish notion. At times like this, in the aftermath of such human tragedy, we are in the most danger of letting loose the beast within us - and by such action becoming the very beast whose actions we despise.

 

Action must be taken - but it must be carefully measured, and taken on all fronts, including policy changes, and opening channels of discussion, not simply in terms of military strikes. Such actions will indeed minimise the threat of terrorism, but whether it can ever truly be eradicated is a question that will remain with us throughout this century.

[Guest Kurgan]

There seems to be some kind of assumption here that as soon as one terrorist group is eliminated, more terrorists will just magically re-emerge, as if from some strange wellspring of unlimited evil. I do not agree with this (very fatalist) assumption.

 

I would simply reply that it it's naive to think that another war is going to stop the killing of innocent people.

 

"Since Cain killed Abel" as Bible readers would say... violence is as old as the human race itself. Do you really think that we're going to put an end to it in the blink of an eye with our next war? I'll tell you what would really end the violence, for good, the extinction of our race.

 

Is that a solution I am willing to accept? You're talking to a human being here!

 

Hell no!

 

But that's the only logical conclusion, you kill a few bad people, then you kill some more bad people, then you kill all the "bad" people. When there are no more people, then there's no more people that can be bad!

 

After all, there's always new people, and the new people can go bad just as sure as the old could. What's to stop them if they make up their minds?

 

How are you going to get rid of evil? By killing? Killing more? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Here's how I see it:

 

Enforcers of the law, heads of state, soldiers, etc have been killing people who break the law for millennia.

 

Laws and codes of laws have been made and written in wood, stone, metal, and on fancy scrolls and pieces of paper. With the best intentions these documents have been worded carefully and often beautifully, to express the law of the land. They've been stamped, sealed, signed, approved, voted on, applauded, etc.

 

Even laws inscribed by the fingers of our Gods, saying "thou shalt not kill," then we impose the death penalty for those who break it.

 

People have setup governments to make and maintain the laws, and people have built weapons and raised armies to protect themselves and enforce the law.

 

Yet crime still exists, despite all of these noble efforts.

 

Death, pain and suffering still exist, despite all our efforts at peace.

 

"Terrorism" isn't something new, far from it. Rule by fear, and intimidation of enemies has been around probably ever since the first primitive man took up a club or piece of sharp stone to raise against his fellow. When it happens to us, it's like a sharp knife twisting in our guts and we can't help but want to lash back at the one doing the twisting. I know this.

 

In the early middle ages they had all sorts of horrible torture methods and zero tolerance rules. They may have waged war on a smaller scale than we do today, but think about it. You often had to get up close and personal, swinging your steel or iron and hacking people up with your brute strength. You got hit, you bled, you lost a limb, you died. It was brutal, and life was short already with more disease and less medicine.

 

You had to basically shed the blood of your enemy with your own hand. Nowadays, you just push a button, pull a trigger, throw a switch, and before you know it, a bunch of people are dead.

 

In fact, doing these actions can kill more people now than it ever could in the history of mankind if you have the right tools.

 

Criminals should be afraid of that right? But then, criminals can do these magical actions themselves too. The tools don't care if you're a good person or a bad one, you just tell it what to do and it does the killing for you.

 

It's gotten easier to kill, and there's more people around to both do the killing and get killed, but things haven't really changed. We're still finding reasons we need to kill, and we're still killing.

 

Is it ever going to stop? I dunno, maybe in a million years, if we're still around.

 

The violence goes on, and maybe we take a few steps forward and seem to learn from our mistakes, then we just leap backwards again for some reason. As far as I can see, except in our efficiency and our complex reasoning to justify it, we haven't made any head-way in the quest for peace and security.

 

Now, I'm not saying we should all just roll over and die. I'm not saying we should just pretend this bloody business didn't happen, but what is more killing going to solve, really?

 

Much as I'd like to believe it when politicians earnestly say we're going to make the world safe again and wipe out terrorism... these are grand, noble words, but how? HOW?

 

Still more killing?

 

We tried to get rid of war (or did we even try?) but we're still doing it. The UN, which was supposedly set up so we'd work out our problems in civilized discussion, well what good does it do in preventing war? It still happens.. over and over and over. And before that was the League of Nations. Some people want a one world united.. with it's own government. I suppose they think *that* will end any differently...

 

People keep killing each other, and taking revenge, and others take revenge on them. It's enough to make your head spin.

 

This has been going on for thousands of years. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. Once in awhile somebody decides to just forget that rule and take a few more eyes, teeth, or lives and get ahead... but their lead never lasts.

There's always one more person or army ready to take a few more whacks and settle the score.

 

Why is this time going to be any different?

 

Okay, enough with the pessimist rant, I'm normally pretty positive. There's a lot of problems in the world, and violence is one of them. I can tell we're not going to get away from that anytime soon, but we should at least keep trying. Keep working at it. It's not like we can just say "well next year we'll be nice, next year we'll have peace" the next year we always get into trouble again. But that doesn't mean we quit trying...

 

Logically, we should go after the terrorists. Why? To prevent them from doing this to more people.

 

We can't "avenge" the dead, we can't bring them back. We can't just kill everyone, so they'll always be somebody that hates us and maybe even wants to kill us. As long as there's power, people will fight over it, unfortunately.

 

Sure this won't stop terrorism, but at least we can be sure that THOSE people won't do it again. Somebody else may try, and we have to be prepared for that eventuality.

 

So send in the strike force, bring back the terrorists in chains, and put them on trial, tape it, watch it, toss it in the archives and prepare for the next crisis.

 

Kurgan

 

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

[Darien]

Interiting point. Still, we get a good enough counter-terror group, and the lives taken by terriosts will be greatly reduced.

 

I think that this is the end of country vs country wars, and the begging of the world vs terriosm.

[StormHammer]

Darien...if only it was that simple.

 

However, as the situation in Afghanistan proves - countries will become involved if provoked. If a country makes a stand - then they may persuade their allies to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. And that, unfortunately, is how World Wars begin.

[wardz]

My brother is in the Navy and he was due to go to Scotland for a course but he has now been put on "frontline."

 

A huge number of the Uk forces are in the gulf area anyway at the mo for that Oman Training excersise. That has obviously been cancelled.

 

wardz

[Syndrix]

I agree with Kurgan's above post, even if it was a little pessimistic. The one problem is it is very hard to kill off a cause or "ideal" if you will. Because terrorists may try to dictate by exactly that terror, but they are doing it for a reason. Or perhaps hiding their guilt and cowardly acts behind that reason, their "noble cause".

 

So send in the strike force, bring back the terrorists in chains, and put them on trial, tape it, watch it, toss it in the archives and prepare for the next crisis.

 

Sounds good in theory but it will never work, why? Because American (or allied) forces probably wont even be allowed onto the soil of the country they hide in.

 

I would prefer a tactical strike force above leveling buildings with heavy weaponry, you have to consider what would happen. If a special ops team went into a situation where they were storming a building in which terrorists were located, most probably there would be shooting. What is a soldier going to do if he comes up against a terrorist shooting, shoot him. What if the terrorist leader, who is going to be the symbol of missions success or failure, get shoot dead in the proccess (which is highly possible).

 

What you will have is a building of dead terrorists, some wounded/dead soldiers (in all likely hood) and the terrorist leader dead. So when trial time comes, you have a couple of lackeys, who guilty in their own right, arent nearly the symbol of justice the Government would be looking for.

 

In the end thats what will be most important to politicians. That is, unfortunately, what popularity polls are about. The reason you hear journalists predicting quick retaliation is because the longer time passes with none, the less faith people will have in Bush. It good to want to find them and bring them to justice, the way a normal criminal would be, but if it takes to long the support Bush gained will deminish just as quickly.

 

The sad truth is that power, as Kurgan said, will be fought over as long as it exists. The humanitarian aspect is more important but political affairs will have a way of warping views. Some may say, and it may be true, that they would wait 5 years if need be to see the right people brought to justice. But how many others would claim the same yet be disappointed 2 years later that they where unable to catch those responible, and how long do you think a politician would wait to react in the face of dwindling public opinion polls.

 

This is the reason why Bush needs to find them quickly, not only for the sake of those who died and those who have lost loved ones, but also because if they cant be found and a form of punishment handed out, how long before americans and other nations begin to loss faith in his leadership.

 

Much of that was off topic but was an example of how complicated affairs of this sort can get. Not everything is a clear cut as we sometimes wish it to be.

 

On on a different, yet somewhat related subject, like everything else this incedent is multi-dimentions, is this a time for the global community to step back and look at terrorists and their actions? Why do they commit such attrocities? I heard one U.S offical say that even if the U.S had helped at a certain point a few years ago to sign a document that would have had some effect in afganistan, this still would have happened. Do people think this is true? While you can never give in to terrorists, do groups like the IRA and Bin Ladens' organisation have reasonable demands, and just have a toatally wrong way of going about things? Do they want things that are fair for a human to want, or are they just murderers who hide behind a veil of someone else's "suppossed" wrong doing or crime.

 

The problem with ever having a world free of terrorism or of major crime is that all nation-states would have to be in a treaty or pact of some sort. If we want to be able to try and stap out violence we need to be able to find those responsible and quickly send them to the legal system. This would require co-operation of all nations so that criminals would not be able to hide or escape.

 

We are seeing this in Pakistan, the government would like to help America but it is unlikely because of the large population of Muslims, they fear what will happen if they allow the U.S to use their air space and launch attacks, if needed, from their soil. Even if they do trouble will probably arise from this situation.

 

Will we ever be able to overcome our differences and live as one global community, with different "states" so to speak, or will we always be battling, in one form or another be it economically political or physical, each other?

Prhaps in a cool million years we will see, hey Kurgan.

 

It should be noted that I'm all for finding those resposible for the recent tragity, just that if we are to mount a semi effective campaign against terrorism, in many places around the world, not just those behind the WTC/Pentagon it will take more than a few months of commitment by the nations that have pledged support for President Bush. In a year will global terrorism and violence be an important issue or will we have forgotten it in favour of the economic slump our respective countries may be in (or whatever next problem each nation has). Because there is always another problem on the horizon.

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Guest Kurgan]

That is a good point.

 

Well, could arm the ops team with both lethal AND non lethal weapons. So for example, they use their AK47's and M16's etc, sniper rifles, frag grenades, to take out the guards, and anybody else who gets in the way, then when they reach the bunker, they dump in the flash bangs, the gas, tazers, etc, whatever.

 

They lock the knocked out terrorists down (granted, some of them will be killed), drag them out and into the waiting helicopters/boats/etc vehicles for transport back to the states.

 

We do run the risk of a world war, as many mentioned, which is why I say it needs to be small scale to accomplish our specific goal, rather than risking millions of deaths in a larger scale campaign (or series of campaigns).

 

Again, my pessimistic voice appears (has been appearing a lot lately unfortunately) and says:

 

Even in a global community of united "states" though you might not have violence, you would likely still have crime of some sort. Thus you still have the endless task of fighting crime. Granted then that peace would only be secure with the THREAT of violence in reprisal. So you're really no better off than before, you just have more territory to cover.

 

Now that's different than having say a one world government (which would be even more difficult I would think, because it would have to be of Big Brother proportions to threaten everyone into not breaking the law/rebelling). But I think it still wouldn't work, as there would also need to be a threat to keep people who wanted to do wrong or sieze more power, from doing that. Besides, if you took THAT government, you'd rule the whole world, what a prize for a would-be terrorist group.

 

Scary...

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Darien]

Unless we do something reaallly stupid, were not gonna start a world war. Pretty much all the world powers are saying go in and get him. Some middle east countries might get mad, but there not powerful enough to overthrough the said world powers, and will (hopefully) just complain, and will most probably send in terriost groups, which is why we need a GLOBAL ANTI-TERRIOST GROUP! Call me naive, but i still think this is what will happen.

[Wilhuf]

The Pakistani government has pledged its support to allow US ground and air operations to be launched from its territory.

 

Thus far Pakistan has stated they will not conduct military operations of their own outside of their own boundaries. And the Taliban has threatened Jihad on any governments who support any US operation against Bin-Laden.

 

Yes, large scale military campaigns are how world wars are started, and ended. I don't clearly see how US military operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan will lead to 'world war' in the traditional sense of states prosecuting wars against each other. The risk exists, but there are many reasons not to believe that world war will erupt.

 

Those countries with the wherewithall to prosecute a global war all have pledged their support to the US. NATO members, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the former Soviet republics, and many other Middle Eastern governments all have stated they will support the US going forward. This is good news. We will see what this support will amount to. It will be a real test of cooperation and resolve for everyone.

 

In some sense the world war has already started. A war not of states against states, but of states against terrorist organizations.

 

Yes, it is true that war on the states which harbor them are part of the risk equation. The Whitehouse, State Dept. and the Pentagon have been very clear by now about this, that they are willing to prosecute full blown campaigns against states if necessary.

 

And, the US Congress yesterday gave George Bush the authority to apply "all necessary and appropriate force" against the perpetrators, including nations, of the Sep. 11 attacks to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

 

Amazingly broad powers have been granted to the President in this resolution, actually. I want to know this: how do we know when we've finally prevented "future acts?" ? And how are the Presidents powers limited in scope under this resolution? Somewhat troubling.

 

I still want to know what India's policy will be in all of this. Hostility between India and Pakistan isn't exactly a secret in this region. With 1 billion people and nuclear weapons, they can't be ignored. I'm guessing they will probably stay out of, or at least indirectly assist the US against tangos in Afghanistan. I don't think we'll see Indians as any sort of international deployment to Pakistan, however. Anyone have any news on Indias response so far?

[Galeena]

Originally posted by Vagabond:

<STRONG>Osama Bin Laden, or whatever cowards are responsible for killing all these innocent people, I've just got to know...is this the best you have? Crashing four passenger airliners into occupied buildings? Do you think this is going to win support for your cause? Do you think this is going to frighten us into doing things your way? Well, I've got news for you, buddy, you just screwed with the wrong people.

 

In the end, our <a href="http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/wtcrescue/8.html">flag</a> was still standing, and our determination for justice, beyond your capacity to understand. You've managed to align the entire US and most of the world against you, with the full resources of the most powerful nation in the world dedicated to hunting you down, like the dog you are. It's no longer a matter of if we will find you, but when. And when that happens, may you receive no mercy.

 

Prepare for our vengeance.</STRONG>

 

Greetings Vagabond and all my fellow jedi, it has been a long time and I´m sorry to reply during such sad times. We made it to mexico but dont have a phone yet.

Anyway, the only way we are going to get true and complete justice is for the person or people responsible to be given a complete understanding of what they have done, the lives they have affected, the horror they have caused, but, dont hold your breath. If they find out that it really is this Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan still wont give him up my personal opinion is that they have given up any rights whatsoever for harboring a fugitive of this caliber and we should go in there and get him.

Anyway lookign forward to Jedi Outcast.

[Wilhuf]

Syndrix asks

do groups like the IRA and Bin Ladens' organisation have reasonable demands, and just have a toatally wrong way of going about things? Do they want things that are fair for a human to want, or are they just murderers who hide behind a veil of someone else's "suppossed" wrong doing or crime.

 

I can't speak about the IRA or other known terror organizations. However, in the case of the Al Queda (which means 'The Base'), Bin-Laden's fanatic terrorist army, the answer has to be no they do not make reasonable demands. According to the Washington Post, Al Queda's demands include the expulsion from Muslim areas Westerners, non-Muslims and Muslim leaders believed to have deviated from fundamental Muslim beliefs. This is a form not only of religious bigotry, but also is an advocacy of genocide against Westerners.

 

And yes, Al Queda will try to ride the sympathy wagon as far as it can to further its own hateful cause, which hundreds of Muslim leaders throughout the world have condemned.

[wardz]

The IRa have been given nearly everything they can possibly want. They have their own assembly and seats in Parliament and can therefore dictate their own laws.

 

However, they are still terrorists and are scum of the earth. They are far from becoming respectible and are just as bad if not worse than the 1980's.

 

Do NOT let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

 

wardz

[ed_silvergun]

Many of the IRA have turned to politics and the "middle ground" as it were... the problem is that this has left many splinter groups such as the "Real IRA", who have rejected the mainstream group, claiming that they have "gone soft". These people are behind some of the worst atrocities such as the Omagh bombing. I don't know if you can even call the IRA a single group any more. I don't think even the IRA themselves know whether they're a single group... in all likelihood they don't even know what they're fighting for any more. Somehow the message has got lost in all the violence and bloodshed...

[Wilhuf]

Public Broadcasting Service has a good website that chronicles Osama Bin-Laden.

 

Included are Bin-Laden's edicts and statements.

 

This little 'gem' gives you a whiff of what our friend is about:

 

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

 

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

 

Taken from a Feb 22, 1998 edict by Bin Laden announcing the formation of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders."

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[StormHammer]

I don't think anyone questions what Bin-Laden stands for. The problem is that the Taliban is now defending him, and the Taliban have a lot of supporters, many in Pakistan.

 

It does not matter if Afghanistan is not invaded, and a small team goes in to snatch him. There will inevitably be far-reaching consequences.

 

We must all be prepared for the worst, and stand firm against the trials that face us in coming months.