| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"AJH" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2003 07:51:58 PM |
| Object: |
War on terrorism is unwinnable |
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
.
|
|
| User: "John Doe" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 01:03:27 PM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote
... a war on terrorism ...
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
I think a very important equation is in there. If you believe killing
innocent or non-combatant people is acceptable on the way to killing bad
guys, the equation is the number of innocents you kill versus the number of
bad guys you kill. The smaller the ratio, the more nearly acceptable your
attack.
The more popular support for the cause, the more innocents will have to be
killed in each attack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:00:09 PM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in inimitable style:
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on
terrorism is equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs
and therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you
can do nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
A war on terrorism is as winnable as any war on crime is winnable.
For terrorism is but a special class of crime. That's all.
Note that an act of war and an act of terrorism are two distinct----and
mutually exclusive----things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:16:25 PM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9439B743075AAWSAP1960@64.164.98.49...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in inimitable style:
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on
terrorism is equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs
and therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you
can do nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no hope. Unfortunately,
those people don't have keyboards and computers to tell you what an *****
you are.
Hope you're next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9439B743075AAWSAP1960@64.164.98.49...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in inimitable style:
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on
terrorism is equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs
and therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you
can do nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no hope. Unfortunately,
those people don't have keyboards and computers to tell you what an *****
you are.
Hope you're next.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:47:57 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God" does not
look back.
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and acquire. It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an act
of violence, but if my existance and that of my loved ones is threatened, if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to think for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 09:04:39 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God" does not
look back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some are motivated by religion, others are not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and acquire. It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an act
of violence, but if my existance and that of my loved ones is threatened, if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to think for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
What if you found yourself living under a tyranny ?
What if you were invited to join a resistance movement ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 09:24:45 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpvqrvoqdvuvqjdjk32thjmu617qlu9kq3@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that
what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God" does
not
look back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some are motivated by religion, others are not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us
to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture
generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and acquire.
It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an
act
of violence, but if my existance and that of my loved ones is threatened,
if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make
sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to think
for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
What if you found yourself living under a tyranny ?
What if you were invited to join a resistance movement ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resistance against what? I'm a cosmopolitan. I was living in the US, I
left. Fortunately I can go anywhere I want, I'm not rich, but I am able to
get by. Admittedly, my outlook is a luxury that folks, in say, Gaza or
theWest Bank don't have acceess to.
If only they did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 11:03:52 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpvqrvoqdvuvqjdjk32thjmu617qlu9kq3@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that
what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God" does
not
look back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some are motivated by religion, others are not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of us
to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture
generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and acquire.
It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an
act
of violence, but if my existence and that of my loved ones is threatened,
if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make
sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to think
for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
What if you found yourself living under a tyranny ?
What if you were invited to join a resistance movement ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resistance against what?
I'm a cosmopolitan.
I was living in the US, I left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
You say you're cosmopolitan. What if you found yourself living in a society where
travel outside your county required a special travel permit from the Ministry of Security ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately I can go anywhere I want,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Up to 5 years in the gulag for traveling without a permit from the Ministry of Security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not rich, but I am able to get by. Admittedly, my outlook is a luxury that folks,
in say, Gaza or theWest Bank don't have acceess to.
If only they did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 12:29:26 AM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nf6rrv0anbnb5qnjdu8kp3amtmcnc96kb5@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpvqrvoqdvuvqjdjk32thjmu617qlu9kq3@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that
what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is
still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God"
does
not
look back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some are motivated by religion, others are not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of
us
to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture
generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and
acquire.
It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an
act
of violence, but if my existence and that of my loved ones is
threatened,
if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make
sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to
think
for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
What if you found yourself living under a tyranny ?
What if you were invited to join a resistance movement ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resistance against what?
I'm a cosmopolitan.
I was living in the US, I left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
You say you're cosmopolitan. What if you found yourself living in a
society where
travel outside your county required a special travel permit from the
Ministry of Security ?
I have no country. Borders are imaginary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 06:22:19 AM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nf6rrv0anbnb5qnjdu8kp3amtmcnc96kb5@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpvqrvoqdvuvqjdjk32thjmu617qlu9kq3@4ax.com...
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nktqrvgsqg4go71qb4pbgjs7b390d3k8l0@4ax.com...
".........Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no
hope........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some famous person once said that everybody is a potential murderer.
It's equally true to say that everybody is a potential terrorist.
Just how far could you be pushed before you became a terrorist ?
What would it take, for you personally ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am not seduced by the concept of heaven, I believe that
what
you see is what you get. My logic for this is that the universe is
still
expanding, that creation is a progressive work in progress. "God"
does
not
look back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists come in all flavors.
Some are motivated by religion, others are not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That being the case, I believe that it is the responsibility of all of
us
to
protect this planet. The closest thing to heaven is thatfuture
generations
live on a beautiful planet.
At the most instinctual level is the need to hoard (greed) and
acquire.
It
is absolutely necessary for us to evolve past those urges with reason.
Therefore, it is not conceivable, at this time, for me to engage in an
act
of violence, but if my existence and that of my loved ones is
threatened,
if
it is a matter of "me" or "you", I'll make sure to do my best to make
sure
it is "you".
Since I am not bombarded by the US media, I am pretty much able to
think
for
myself, so the "us" or "them" thing doesn't work on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
What if you found yourself living under a tyranny ?
What if you were invited to join a resistance movement ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resistance against what?
I'm a cosmopolitan.
I was living in the US, I left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the circumstances of your world changed ?
You say you're cosmopolitan. What if you found yourself living in a
society where travel outside your county required a special travel permit from the
Ministry of Security ?
I have no country. Borders are imaginary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People who've said that have been arrested by the border guards.
And there's nothing imaginary about the detention cell at every border station.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:40:34 PM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9439B743075AAWSAP1960@64.164.98.49...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in inimitable style:
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on
terrorism is equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs
and therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you
can do nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
Terrorism is the last recourse for those who have no hope. Unfortunately,
those people don't have keyboards and computers to tell you what an *****
you are.
Hope you're next.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........those people don't have keyboards and computers........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
If they are members of an organized terrorist group, a member of their group will have access to at
least one computer. Probably a laptop computer which can quickly be moved from place to place.
If they are cyber terrorists, their terrorism will be highly specialized and confined to internet targets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:53:34 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6uqrvgub6uhftqb0k8t6funah9lejjvth@4ax.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........those people don't have keyboards and computers........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
If they are members of an organized terrorist group, a member of their
group will have access to at
least one computer. Probably a laptop computer which can quickly be moved
from place to place.
If they are cyber terrorists, their terrorism will be highly specialized
and confined to internet targets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They call you a terrorist, so who's the terrorist? The bogeyman?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 09:15:30 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6uqrvgub6uhftqb0k8t6funah9lejjvth@4ax.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........those people don't have keyboards and computers........."
Terrorists come in all flavors.
If they are members of an organized terrorist group, a member of their
group will have access to at least one computer. Probably a laptop
computer which can quickly be moved from place to place.
If they are cyber terrorists, their terrorism will be highly specialized
and confined to internet targets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They call you a terrorist, so who's the terrorist? The bogeyman?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Under the Patriot Act, a terrorist is who Bush says is a terrorist.
Just being accused is enough to get you locked-up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:13:18 PM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in inimitable style:
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on
terrorism is equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs
and therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you
can do nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
A war on terrorism is as winnable as any war on crime is winnable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........A war on terrorism is as winnable as any war on crime is winnable........."
Very true.
But a war on crime is not winnable by criminals.
Which means that Bush and his crooked crew have already lost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For terrorism is but a special class of crime. That's all.
Note that an act of war and an act of terrorism are two distinct----and
mutually exclusive----things.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 07:58:20 PM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but
we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
Right on! Unfortunately we have religion, which gives these idiots license
to destroy this planet on some misguided notion that "heaven" will be
better. Things would be a lot better if some god came down, looked at what
we've done to ourselves and this planet and said heaven is closed until you
clean up this mess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 08:50:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:58:20 +0800, "Ohia" <alohacyberian@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but
we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
Right on! Unfortunately we have religion, which gives these idiots license
to destroy this planet on some misguided notion that "heaven" will be
better.
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Things would be a lot better if some god came down, looked at what
we've done to ourselves and this planet and said heaven is closed until you
clean up this mess.
JD
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage
of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein
with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members..."
---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and
tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations
would come too late."
-President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
(Another liberal lie exposed.)
"Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities
to our country than differences. I've been here only a short
time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech --
exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well
here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that
right in Baghdad, as well."
-President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 09:02:15 PM |
|
|
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:v9vqrv4vosgj3chca4hrrio0rk44aaptbn@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong, The christians are responsible for the deaths of
the Hawaiians, the aztecs, the american indians, etc., ect., etc.
They have decimated populations, stolen lands and gold. They are a blight
on this planet. Running close second are the Muslims. The Buddhists are
generally a peaceful lot as they believe they are supposed to gain
enlightenment in this lifetime.
If there truly is a god that cares about what you do, it would make it known
that the way you treat this planet is the way you are going to be treated in
the afterlife.
All that rainforrest timber in you home: You should be axed.
All that beef in your fridge: You should be bashed in the head with a
hammer.
All those kids in your house: You should provide for their next 10
generations.
The problem with christianity is there is no accountability.
It's interesting that Americans make things righteous by pointing out things
that are "worse".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pot Smoking Commie Terrorist Liberal Socialist Leftist Evildoer" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 06:23:14 AM |
|
|
"Ohia" <alohacyberian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fbd80ad_1@news.tm.net.my...
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:v9vqrv4vosgj3chca4hrrio0rk44aaptbn@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong, The christians are responsible for the deaths of
the Hawaiians, the aztecs, the american indians, etc., ect., etc.
They have decimated populations, stolen lands and gold. They are a blight
on this planet. Running close second are the Muslims. The Buddhists are
generally a peaceful lot as they believe they are supposed to gain
enlightenment in this lifetime.
If there truly is a god that cares about what you do, it would make it
known
that the way you treat this planet is the way you are going to be treated
in
the afterlife.
All that rainforrest timber in you home: You should be axed.
All that beef in your fridge: You should be bashed in the head with a
hammer.
All those kids in your house: You should provide for their next 10
generations.
The problem with christianity is there is no accountability.
It's interesting that Americans make things righteous by pointing out
things
that are "worse".
the only atomic bombs dropped on humans was by a so called christian nation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 10:58:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:02:15 +0800, "Ohia" <alohacyberian@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:v9vqrv4vosgj3chca4hrrio0rk44aaptbn@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong,
No, I'm quite right.
Your numbers do not add up to the amount of people killed under
communist rule.
No where near.
The christians are responsible for the deaths of
the Hawaiians, the aztecs, the american indians, etc., ect., etc.
They have decimated populations, stolen lands and gold. They are a blight
on this planet. Running close second are the Muslims. The Buddhists are
generally a peaceful lot as they believe they are supposed to gain
enlightenment in this lifetime.
If there truly is a god that cares about what you do, it would make it known
that the way you treat this planet is the way you are going to be treated in
the afterlife.
All that rainforrest timber in you home: You should be axed.
All that beef in your fridge: You should be bashed in the head with a
hammer.
All those kids in your house: You should provide for their next 10
generations.
The problem with christianity is there is no accountability.
It's interesting that Americans make things righteous by pointing out things
that are "worse".
JD
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage
of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein
with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members..."
---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and
tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations
would come too late."
-President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
(Another liberal lie exposed.)
"Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities
to our country than differences. I've been here only a short
time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech --
exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well
here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that
right in Baghdad, as well."
-President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Weasner" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
24 Nov 2003 12:24:26 PM |
|
|
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:nq6rrv0jh5ri1fe80qs4uqheevdiiihdjh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:02:15 +0800, "Ohia" <alohacyberian@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:v9vqrv4vosgj3chca4hrrio0rk44aaptbn@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong,
No, I'm quite right.
Your numbers do not add up to the amount of people killed under
communist rule.
No where near.
On the scale of the material they had to work with? Native American
civilization, whether Aztec, Inca, or in North America, was completely wiped
out by the Europeans.
I don't dispute that Stalin's collectivization, Mao's Great Leap
Forward/Cultural Revolution and Hitler's Final Solution were thinly (or not
at all)veiled acts of genocide. But at least their civilizations survived.
There is nothing but ruins left of Native American civilization, because of
the Euorpean 'Christians.'
What of the numerous wars of religion in Europe from the fall of Rome to
circa 1870? Those fanatics stunted European civilization for centuries and
killed huge percentages of Europe's population many times in many wars.
What of the 'Crusades'? Invading a foreign land and slaughtering men, women,
and children because the Pope thinks it's a good idea?
What of the European slave trade? Taking hundreds of thousands from their
homeland to work then die?
At least communist dictators aren't so self-righteous as to tell other
peoples how to live their lives, or just outright end the lives of other
peoples. They keep to themselves. Countless ruins bear silent witness to the
reckless ignorance of European Christianity.
What of the USA using native populations to fight proxy wars then abandoning
them after the war is over? We used Afghanistan against the USSR, Iraq
against Iran. It is any suprise that we ended up involved in these countries
again? Is it any suprise htat they really don't like us after realizing that
they are nothing more than tools in the President's toolbox?
The christians are responsible for the deaths of
the Hawaiians, the aztecs, the american indians, etc., ect., etc.
They have decimated populations, stolen lands and gold. They are a
blight
on this planet. Running close second are the Muslims. The Buddhists are
generally a peaceful lot as they believe they are supposed to gain
enlightenment in this lifetime.
If there truly is a god that cares about what you do, it would make it
known
that the way you treat this planet is the way you are going to be treated
in
the afterlife.
All that rainforrest timber in you home: You should be axed.
All that beef in your fridge: You should be bashed in the head with a
hammer.
All those kids in your house: You should provide for their next 10
generations.
The problem with christianity is there is no accountability.
It's interesting that Americans make things righteous by pointing out
things
that are "worse".
JD
<snip Democrat party political stooges>
There is no longer a liberal or progressive party in American politics. The
coalition Franklin Roosevelt built has dissolved.
No longer is there a real voice...merely puppets trying to manipulate the
situation to political self perpetuation.
"Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities
to our country than differences. I've been here only a short
time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech --
exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well
here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that
right in Baghdad, as well."
-President George W. Bush
So long as they don't speak against American Occupation, then they're
terrorists to be arrested or killed on sight.
Prosecution rests, no further questions.
--
Doug Weasner | Greenwood IN | Veteran of four months service in Bush War
Machine
Obviously didn't want me, kicked out after those 4 months
Oh well, at least I'm not on vacation in sand land.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ohia" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 12:28:13 AM |
|
|
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:nq6rrv0jh5ri1fe80qs4uqheevdiiihdjh@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong,
The christians are responsible for the deaths of
the Hawaiians, the aztecs, the american indians, etc., ect., etc.
They have decimated populations, stolen lands and gold. They are a
blight
on this planet. Running close second are the Muslims. The Buddhists are
generally a peaceful lot as they believe they are supposed to gain
enlightenment in this lifetime.
No, I'm quite right.
Your numbers do not add up to the amount of people killed under
communist rule.
No where near.
Hawaiians alone account for over 1,000,000. God knows how many American
Indians were slaughtered. The spanish killed off most of the Native South
Americans and Mexicans and replaced them with hybred versions of themselves.
The English had a heydey killing off the Chinese.
No Julian, the murderous christians have taken genocide to new heights.
Or was it the rapture?
Your christian faith is the most barbaric and uncivilized cult to ever
infect this planet. Next come the Muslims and 3rd would be the Nazis, with
your precious zionists doing their best to top the list.
Face it, either your god is a racist murderer, or the people who created him
are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ritwik Bhattacharya" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
20 Nov 2003 11:07:24 PM |
|
|
Julian D. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:02:15 +0800, "Ohia" <alohacyberian@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:v9vqrv4vosgj3chca4hrrio0rk44aaptbn@4ax.com...
More people were killed in the name of 'no religion', like in the
Soviet Union, than religion since the time of Christ.
Oh, you are quite wrong,
No, I'm quite right.
Your numbers do not add up to the amount of people killed under
communist rule.
No where near.
Care to back that up with some credible sources, or is this just your
wild imagination?
Ritwik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pot Smoking Commie Terrorist Liberal Socialist Leftist Evildoer" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 06:22:09 AM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but
we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
the war on drugs is also unwinnable.
but they seem to like these kinds of wars. maybe it gives them something to
do. or maybe someone's making a lot of money out of it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Glamkowski" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 01:12:22 PM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
Actually, most terrorists are relatively well educated and not
crushingly poor.
By all accounts, at least some of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were well
enough off. With jumbo jet pilot training, you can make a nice, honest
living. They could have had a very comfortable life in a country that
would have been more then happy to embrace them. Poverty couldn't have
been a driving force for them.
Neither Amrozi bin Nurhasyim nor Imam Samudra, the two convicted in the
Bali bombing, are, by any report I can find, poor or destitute or ignorant.
In fact, quite the opposite they are described as being well educated and
living comfortably.
Terrorists exists without poverty and ignorance.
Not just bin Laden type leaders, but actual bombers,
assassins, the low-level guys.
Poverty may contribute, but it clearly isn't the root cause.
Much of africa is muslim. Much of southeast asia is muslim.
Both are afflicted by horribly crushing poverty. Osama makes
his appeals as much to them as to his fellow arabs - he speaks
to ALL muslims everywhere in the world.
Yet there is minimal to no terrorism in these regions.
It seems to be ONLY in the Middle East that this problem exists in this
sort of endemic way. They are trying to export it to SE Asia and
elsewhere, but with marginal success. The conditions in the Middle
East are clearly unique.
Poverty and injustice DO NOT make for terrorism.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The French Statue of Liberty" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 03:01:09 AM |
|
|
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
You have my vote for the best post of the year! Should anyone need
empirical facts to support your conclusion you do not need to look any
further than the conflict on Northern Ireland that went on for some 30
years. IRA had at no point more than 200 armed, active terrorists, but
the tied up the British Army for some 30 years. Peace was won when
both sides realised neither could win.
What will the world look like in 30 years time before those
responsible realise this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "pkgojak" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 08:28:52 AM |
|
|
"The French Statue of Liberty" <frenchstatueofliberty@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:80438e15.0311210004.16dd5eaf@posting.google.com...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism
is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world,
but we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can
do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
You have my vote for the best post of the year! Should anyone need
empirical facts to support your conclusion you do not need to look any
further than the conflict on Northern Ireland that went on for some 30
years. IRA had at no point more than 200 armed, active terrorists, but
the tied up the British Army for some 30 years. Peace was won when
both sides realised neither could win.
What will the world look like in 30 years time before those
responsible realise this?
Count my vote with yours please. It's mad. We have good examples with
which to compare and yet we ignore them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "awestport" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 01:37:50 PM |
|
|
(The French Statue of Liberty) wrote in message news:<80438e15.0311210004.16dd5eaf@posting.google.com>...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Why?
1. Terrorists do not wage war on states, they wage war on ideals
2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and form battle lines
3. Terrorists do not wage war from positions that are solely theirs and
therefore legitimate targets
4. Terrorists often think nothing of their own lives and less of their
opponents lives
5. Terrorists often see one's death as reason for two to fight
6. Terrorists do not see the fall of their allies as a defeat, more a
rallying cry
7. Terrorists recruit terrorists where there is poverty and injustice
We can do something about the unequal balance of wealth in the world, but we
can't keep bombing those who complain about it.
And the more we bomb the more sign up for suicide.
We cannot fight a war against terror.
It's like fighting a war against darkness. Night will fall, and you can do
nothing about it, you can shoot into the sky or light candles.
Alan
You have my vote for the best post of the year! Should anyone need
empirical facts to support your conclusion you do not need to look any
further than the conflict on Northern Ireland that went on for some 30
years. IRA had at no point more than 200 armed, active terrorists, but
the tied up the British Army for some 30 years. Peace was won when
both sides realised neither could win.
What will the world look like in 30 years time before those
responsible realise this?
Unfreaking believable. Are you saying we should negotiate with
Al-Queda?
The stated goal of the Wahabist movement and AlQueda is to have 100
percent of everybody on this planet be a muslim.
Should we try to negotiate for 75 percent?
They will fight any percieved intrusion into their "culture" by any
"infidels" like the USA, while hypocritically starting moslem
insurgencies in non-muslim countries and sending thousands of their
own to the USA for schooling, ect.
What will it take to make ignorant people like you to site up and take
notice of the threat we are truly under from these fanatics especially
if they get nukes or WMD?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SKD" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
21 Nov 2003 06:51:37 PM |
|
|
(awestport) wrote in message news:<427e5468.0311211137.666a6792@posting.google.com>...
Unfreaking believable. Are you saying we should negotiate with
Al-Queda?
The side often negotiate in "real" wars.
The stated goal of the Wahabist movement and AlQueda is to have 100
percent of everybody on this planet be a muslim.
How do you know that, been mingling with Wahabis lately?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The French Statue of Liberty" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
22 Nov 2003 10:51:59 AM |
|
|
(awestport) wrote in message news:<427e5468.0311211137.666a6792@posting.google.com>...
frenchstatueofliberty@yahoo.com (The French Statue of Liberty) wrote in message news:<80438e15.0311210004.16dd5eaf@posting.google.com>...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
Unfreaking believable.
.... and let me add this article to my previous post:
Are the Sparks Catching?
By Daniel Benjamin
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page B01
Exactly who first conceived the tactic of multiple-strike terrorist
attacks is not known, but among jihadists, the idea is at least a
decade old. "Boom, boom, boom and America is on standby," one
participant in the 1993 conspiracy to destroy landmarks, bridges and
tunnels in New York was fond of saying to his fellow plotters.
Destroying several targets at once, they believed, would produce a
psychological impact far out of proportion to the actual violence --
and paralyze citizens and policymakers with fear.
Theory was turned into practice with the 1998 destruction of the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which sent a message that no place,
no matter how out of the way, was truly safe. The two recent double
bombings in Istanbul -- which killed more than 50 people at two
synagogues, the British consulate and the local headquarters of
Britain's HSBC Bank -- extended the practice into another dimension.
Now, no time is safe. An explosion may not just be a catastrophe in
its own right, but a herald of more to come. For Turks -- and many
around the world who saw the carnage -- the sense of vulnerability has
been multiplied.
With all the dread and bloodshed, the bombings raise numerous
questions about the status of the war on terrorism and the state of al
Qaeda, which appears to have played a role -- though still an unclear
one -- in the violence. If the central front in that war is Iraq, pace
the Bush administration, why are bombs exploding in Turkey and, just
weeks ago, in Saudi Arabia?
Some questions can be answered readily. In killing Turks, Britons and
Jews, the terrorists hit three groups at the top of their target list.
Turkey, a country that suffered an estimated 35,000 deaths from
terrorism during the struggle between the government and a separatist
radical Kurdish group, has long been in jihadists' gun sights. It is
America's closest friend and only NATO ally in the Islamic world, a
security partner of Israel and an avatar of secularism among Muslim
nations. It stands for everything the militants loathe.
The moderate Islamism of its ruling party buys no friends among
radicals, who remember that the Turkish state that rose from the ruins
of the Ottoman Empire helped plunge Muslim believers into their modern
nightmare when it abolished the caliphate in 1924. Osama bin Laden
reminded us of this in his first video message after the 9/11 attacks,
declaring that "since nearly 80 years we have been tasting this
humiliation." Militants long to reestablish that institution, which
combined king and pope in a single person.
While Palestinian terrorists have murdered Israelis and other Jews for
decades, Jewish targets have just recently climbed high on the
jihadist list. Though bin Laden has inveighed against the
"Zionist-Christian alliance," his decision to attack Israelis came
only after he recognized that the Muslim world was transfixed by
images from the second intifada. Al Qaeda tried with little success to
gain a foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. It then turned its
attention farther afield, detonating a truck bomb outside a historic
synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba in April 2002 and, seven
months later, destroying an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya,
while failing to shoot down an Israeli jet with an SA-7 missile.
Britain has been a target since bin Laden's followers reconceived
their struggle as one against the United States and the West, after
the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the deployment of U.S. troops to
Saudi Arabia for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As America's closest ally,
Britain has been viewed by fundamentalists as a co-conspirator in an
effort to destroy Islam. In the early 1990s, British buildings were
among those al Qaeda eyed as targets in Nairobi. In February, London's
Heathrow Airport was ringed with troops and armored vehicles because
of intelligence that terrorists were going to fire a shoulder-fired
missile at a plane.
It would be myopic, however, to see the attacks as a matter of
checking targets off a list. By striking during President Bush's visit
to London, the radicals hijacked the media glare to send a well-timed
message of impunity to the leaders of the coalition occupying Iraq.
The attacks rebut the administration's contention that it had taken
the fight to the terrorists and would destroy them as they gravitated
to Iraq -- what might be called the flypaper theory of history. "You
cannot contain this struggle," the terrorists seemed to say to Bush
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Not only can our forces kill
your troops in Iraq, but we can bring instability to the broader
region and beyond."
More difficult than explaining targets is fingering the actors. An
obscure Turkish group called the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front
said it had carried out the synagogue attacks, while someone claiming
to speak for al Qaeda took responsibility for the consulate and bank
blasts.
With a large number of al Qaeda leaders dead, incarcerated or, as in
the case of bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, on the run, the
organization's capabilities are increasingly in question. Yet the
grisly effectiveness of the nearly simultaneous truck bombings suggest
al Qaeda.
The wave of terrorism that has followed 9/11 has become the most
lethal in postwar history and may be gaining speed -- without counting
violence in Iraq, where the extent of jihadist activity remains
unclear. Since the early '90s, al Qaeda has given money, materiel and
know-how to radical Islamist groups in Kashmir, Chechnya, the Maghreb,
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Many post-9/11 attacks were carried out
by groups that were integrated into al Qaeda network's -- for example,
Jemaah Islamiyah's bombings in Bali and Jakarta or the takeover of the
Moscow theater by Chechen terrorists.
Of late, though, a new pattern appears to be emerging. Islamist groups
that have not historically had ties with al Qaeda seem to be adopting
the group's ideology and methods. Instead of targeting their own
governments, they have turned to attacking "the far enemy" -- America,
other Western countries and Jews. This, they believe, will ultimately
cause the West to withdraw support from moderate Muslim regimes and
allow a radical seizure of power.
The May 16 attack in Casablanca, in which 29 people were killed, was a
harbinger of this trend toward the "relocalization" of jihadist
violence. The Salafiya Jihadia, a group centered in the city's Sidi
Moumen slums with little prior contact with al Qaeda and no history of
targeting foreigners, set off bombs outside buildings frequented by
Westerners and Moroccan Jews. Moroccan authorities later declared that
al Qaeda supplied money and perhaps training, but it was clear that
hardened vets of the Afghan training camps were not the ones who
executed the attacks.
That showed in the results. The Jewish community center that was
bombed was empty because it was a Friday night. Other explosives
missed their marks. This was a far cry from the standards of al
Qaeda's "success freaks," as Bruce Hoffman of the RAND Corp. has
called them. Similarly, the Riyadh attack earlier this month killed 17
mostly non-Saudi Arabs; the terrorists evidently did not realize that
Boeing workers had moved out of the housing compound years before.
Although Saudi officials blamed al Qaeda for the attack -- all violent
foes of the Saudi regime are now tagged al Qaeda -- it may be that al
Qaeda has done no more than call on all radicals to strike where they
can to show that the jihadist movement remains alive and dangerous.
A trend toward relocalization could be good news or bad. If the form
of terror we face in the years ahead is of the Casablanca and Riyadh
variety, then we might be able to live with it. But if the Turkish
attacks represent an unexpected success from core al Qaeda operatives,
repeat attacks like these would shred public confidence.
We also should not make the mistake of seeing Istanbul as the upper
boundary of potential violence. In Europe, radicalism is spreading
among native-born Muslims who are alienated from both the moderate
traditions of their parents and the often-unwelcoming societies in
which they live. Easy access to high-quality education in engineering,
chemistry and biology would put considerable destructive power in the
hands of such diaspora jihadists. Nine out of 10 successor groups to
al Qaeda could turn out to be incompetent, but if the remaining one
has such skilled operatives, its organization could be more dangerous
than any we face now.
All of this may still be off in the future. For now, it is disquieting
enough that the sparks thrown off by 9/11 and other al Qaeda attacks
appear to be catching. This, together with polls showing a deepening
of anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries and the ever-more
polarizing rhetoric of Islamic clerics around the world, suggests that
we are losing ground on some key fronts, despite all the arrests of al
Qaeda operatives. Wherever he is, bin Laden must be pleased.
Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, is co-author of "The Age of Sacred Terror"
(Random House).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The French Statue of Liberty" |
|
| Title: Re: War on terrorism is unwinnable |
22 Nov 2003 10:06:19 AM |
|
|
(awestport) wrote in message news:<427e5468.0311211137.666a6792@posting.google.com>...
frenchstatueofliberty@yahoo.com (The French Statue of Liberty) wrote in message news:<80438e15.0311210004.16dd5eaf@posting.google.com>...
"AJH" <nochance@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<bpjr3u$ajl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
In the late 20th century we finally accepted that a nuclear war was
unwinnable.
In the early 21st I hope we will come to accept that a war on terrorism is
equally unwinnable.
Alan
You have my vote for the best post of the year! Should anyone need
empirical facts to support your conclusion you do not need to look any
further than the conflict on Northern Ireland that went on for some 30
years. IRA had at no point more than 200 armed, active terrorists, but
the tied up the British Army for some 30 years. Peace was won when
both sides realised neither could win.
What will the world look like in 30 years time before those
responsible realise this?
Unfreaking believable. Are you saying we should negotiate with
Al-Queda?
I'm saying that it was a gigantic mistake by the Bush administration
and the neocons in particular to define needed actions against
international terrorism as a "war" using military means. Terror is
nothing new on this planet. I have not found one single wave of terror
activities that was successfully curbed by using military means,
unless you think the conflict on Northern Ireland was a success for
the British army that was tied up there for more than 30 years.
The US and the world as a whole will pay for this mistake for
generations to come. I see no bright future. Terorrism thrive on
military conflicts, and the more you adopt to their methods of
assasinations the easier it is for them to recruit more suecidal
murderers. When al Qaeda herd the news that Bush declared a "war on
terror" they most likely saw that as a major victory.
Pick-up vans, explosives and knowledge on how to make a bomb from
that, is readilly available everywhere on this planet. Recruiting
motivated drivers has -thanks to Bush's mistakes become much, much
easier. As Saudi officials admitted - there is nothing much you can do
in terms of military actions or even intelligence when you are trying
to fight closed cells of a few individuals who don't need much more
than a van - or even a donkey cart - and some explosives. Forget about
WMD, they don't need that, concentrate on the real problem we have
today!
Bush should post-9/11 have accelerated peace efforts in the Middle
East and should have worked with international police and intelligence
organisations to dig up active and sleeping terror cells, increased
international aid to help cut of al Qaedas reqruitment, increased
efforts to curb international drug trade to help cut of terror
financing and most importantly, forged a strong international alliance
in the fight against terror.
Instead, the US is now isolated in the world and will for forseable
future have to rely only on it's military might. There are many rouge,
totalitarian states around the world. The US seems pretty tied up with
Iraq only, with no available military resources to combat other
threats around the world. The end of the American Empire?
The stated goal of the Wahabist movement and AlQueda is to have 100
percent of everybody on this planet be a muslim.
I don't even bother to comment
What will it take to make ignorant people like you to site up and take
notice of the threat we are truly under from these fanatics especially
if they get nukes or WMD?
Do you think the war on Iraq has reduced the likelyhood for terror
organisations to obtain WMD's? Iraq clerly did not have any ties with
al Qaeda -even Bush said so. Besides, Iraq did clearly not possess any
WMD. I have seen no US activities that has significantly reduced the
likelihood that terror groups obtain WMDs. Why? Again, concentrate on
the real problem!
Secondly, the closest to a WMD used in recent years was the Antrax
used in the US - which most likely was made in US military labs. There
are reports about poor security in such facilities. What is being
done? What could have been done if Bush would have forged an
international alliance with all states that today posses WMD in order
to increase the security and control of them? After all, it would be
in everyones interest. Instead he gave both Iran and North Korea the
best possible motivation - axis of evil speech - to maximize their
efforts to develop nuclear arms! In fact, he even gave them a number
of years to do so, now when the US is tied up in Iraq! Was that an
intelligent decision? No, outright stupid! To quote The Economist: An
incompetent imperialist is bad for everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
