I am disappointed. As time is drudging forward it seems to me that there will be no punishment other than that dished out by the judicial system. As far as I am concerned an incident like this clearly illustrates that what we have done so far to stop terrorism is not working. It is time to take it to the next level. I don't think this incident should be treated the same as the common criminal. ie. trial and jail time. I may be wrong about the intended punishments for the people involved, but as time goes by, the anger subsides. It seems that to me you can't treat these people as just another criminal, and saying that you are "declaring war on terrorism" means nothing more than that. As I said... it is time to take it to the next level. I do not support the idea of war. But in this situation, I don't see any other choice. I am afraid that these people are going to get off too easy. Anyone else see what I am saying or agree with me? If we don't act appropriately now, we are opening the door for it to happen again. Maybe outside of the U.S. but nevertheless... again.
------------------
If you can read this, I'm parked.
[This message has been edited by Urchin (edited 09-12-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
1FST2M6 Member
Posts: 3905 From: Dallas, GA. Registered: Jan 2000
Originally posted by JohnnyK: Some of you people don't realize that you can't just take over a country. See, other countries don't like that, and then it turns into a war
you dont realize you can't bomb a city with aircraft full of fuel and kill tens of thousands of civilians.
SEE?!
countries dont like that
and then it turns into a war!
Guess what? This is war! War has been declared on the United States.
If a country harbors and funds groups that launch attacks on us, then it doesnt matter what the link is between the country and the group - that country is at war with us.
2600 were killed in pearl harbor
hundreds of thousand were nuked in japan - a direct result.
I think the same ratio should be applied to whichever country is behind this.
IP: Logged
02:06 PM
Tonker Member
Posts: 612 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Registered: Jun 2001
Bin Laden isn't necessarily a racist either; he kills for religious beliefs amongst other reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that Bin-Ladin discriminates racially, I meant you're no better than he is when you show racial prejudice. Discriminaion of any sort is unacceptable, whether it be political, religious, cultural, racial or gender based. His discrimination is more cultural that religious when it comes down to it. He objects to western culture based on his view of his religion.
quote
"Occupation of the Arabs would probably be counter-productive. Notice how well it has worked for Israel?" We don't occupy Israel for the purpose of policing them. Apples and oranges.
Last time I check Eds you don't occupy Israel at all. The Israelis occupy Palestinian territories and have in the past occupied various parts of arab territories following the wars in the region. I have no problem with that, they were attacked and kicked ass. My point was that it didn't work particularly well for them. Incidents of terrorism increased.
quote
"They're a very different culture. The Arab countries are much less secular." They would conform or go bye-bye. They've shown they won't act responsibly on their own, so we need to help them see the way.
Oh good, so you're going exterminate the people of an entire country because of either a small political faction, or the government that controls them? Very enlightened. What is "conforming"? How do you know when you've accomplished it? If what you want is to prevent similar acts from occurring, maybe you should look at actually hitting the source of the problem. That would be the terrorist groups themselves and the support structure - financial and political where applicable.
quote
"In some cases, "The rag-head royalty" as you so succinctly put it, may indeed have some idea of what's going on. In many cases they don't." You just made a contradiction. Either you think they generally do or you think they generally don't. It's highly naive to think the rag-head royalty is unaware.
I made no contradiction. I said in some(that means occasionally) cases the government of an arab state may know what a group is doing, in many(i.e most) cases they don't. You make it seem like these terrorist groups are prevalent in every arab state. Have you even studied the Middle East? Do you know their history, culture and politics? Most arab states do not have, nor do they condone or support any terrorist activities. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain are all perfect examples of this. If you're going to direct your anger towards the Middle East, at least have the decency and the intelligence of argument to specify yourself. I think in this case you're referring to Afhanistan, which isn't really part of the Middle East proper, anyways. Am I right or are you in fact targeting the whole of the Middle East?
quote
You do realize the fight started with the reinstatement of Israel after WWII, don't you?
Israel was not reinstated. It was instantiated, or created. The Jews had never before had a country of their own to my knowledge. They had originally lived in that region of the Middle East, in harmony with the arabs, I believe. It was the Romans who removed the Jews fro the region.The west caused most of the trouble by bungling what was essentially a good idea in telling the arabs that they were going be moved in order to make place for the new state. It was typical old power politics. Rather than negotiate, they dictated what would be done and gave what they thought would be adequate compensation. This rarely works.
quote
I don't agree. I believe most of the citizens are scared to death of their government. I think it's crazy to think they wouldn't thank us for liberating them.
Do you have any basis for your opinion? That might be true of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Iraquis. I doubt it's true of the Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, etc. Many of the people of whom you speak really don't give a rat's ass Eds. They want to go about their lives without concerning themselves about their government or the US.
quote
No, I don't agree with you at all. You keep trying to minimize my suffering to ego. My suffering is first, for my countrymen and women.
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
quote
unless we finish at least their régime, and maybe their entire culture. Darwin would agree with me..
Am I the only one who's concerned by this?
Oh and Eds, Darwin isn't likely to agree with anyone.. he's dead.
quote
I think we need to rip all of Arabia or get away from Israel.
You're going to do WHAT?!?! The Saudis aren't even invloved Eds... Well aside from Bin-Ladin and there's a reason he's not welcome there any more. In fact none of the states in the Arabian Peninsula are involved. Why the Hell would you rip it apart?
quote
Why is it all the Canadians want to be touchy-feely about this? Could it be they didn't loose so much today? Could it be they want the whole matter to blow over? Could it be that they are never the targets of terrorism? Or could it be all of these?
First of all we don't want to be touchy-feely about this Eds. We want to be intelligent about it. Maybe you should take a lesson. You keep spouting on like a bigot who's bound and determine to get his way. You just want to get out there and exterminate someone... anyone.. you don't care as long as you get to **** **** up. Hopefully there are cooler heads than yours in the US. I fully support the US use of force, which you might have noticed had you even bothered to read, no 'understand' my posts. Instead you're caught up in the "exterminate rag-heads" train of thought. Maybe you should try concentrating and specifying which rag-heads you want to blow up. We're as fully qualified to be pissed as you are. You obviously don't understand the concept of terrorism. That's fine. At least you aren't in charge of US policy. It's clear enough to me that we'd all be sitting on a char-broiled nuke burger if you were running things. Maybe we have a cooler head about this since it wasn't our country-men who were executed. Maybe it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't make us any less outraged at this act. Instead, maybe you should consider what we're trying to tell you. The arabs aren't your enemy, the terrorists are.
quote
As previously established by me and agreed upon by many members, rag head royalty is well aware of what their radical faction is up to. I believe they even fund much of it
You've established nothing Eds. To establish something you need to bring proofto the table. You offer us none. I'm no better I don't believe that the arab leaders know what's going on for the most part, yet I can't offer you any proof either.
quote
BTW, I certainly don't want to stereotype all Canadians into the generalization of being apathetic to our suffering, just the three I've already addressed.
Get off it Eds, you're only too happy to stereotype. I don't have any allusions about being able to change that any.
quote
Can't we learn from history (Gulf War)? We need to clean house while we're justified.
Yes as I had indicated yesterday, you do. Killing every arab isn't the way to do it.
quote
This is another case of a Canadian in dissent with US military action. The reason is obvious; you don't want to get Canada sucked into it.
No it isn't. Stop. Go back to the start of this thread. Read. Understand. Most of us support, encourage, promote the use of force in dealing with terrorism. I'm sure the Canadian government will participte in this action if asked. The Canadian population would probably support it by an over-whelming majority. We want to get you away from the belief that every arab is your enemy. They aren't. If it came to military action against terrorists, agains state sposored terrorism I would gladly get back into uniform and stand beside my American counterparts. I would be proud to do so. The US has the moral authority and the moral highground here. Don't ruin it Eds. Military action will be required let's make sure it's appropriate.
[This message has been edited by Tonker (edited 09-12-2001).]
IP: Logged
02:14 PM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
Originally posted by JohnnyK: Some of you people don't realize that you can't just take over a country. See, other countries don't like that, and then it turns into a war (like say, every world war).
In case you have not been paying attention, The U.S. and the U.N. consider the attacks yesterday as "an act of war". The U.N. has just stated "You attack one, You attack all" With our allies and the U.N. in agreement, They may be able to run but they could never run far enough.
In this case it's considered a war first. So any land aquired is ours (and the allies) to control.
IP: Logged
02:17 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
UPDATE: Apparently, there's more than just the arrest in Boston. Bomb sniffing dogs may have found something at the Westin. The hotel and Copley Place, a high end mall across the street, have been evacuated. The crowd has been moved off by a reported two hundred feet (Though, being somewhat familiar with the area, it doesn't look like that on the street).
Gotta put my daughter in for a nap, then pick up my son from school.
IP: Logged
02:18 PM
Urchin Member
Posts: 798 From: London,Ontario,Canada Registered: Feb 2001
Originally posted by Voytek: Some of you are calling others racist because they have assumed that Arabs are the people responsible for this (and using a variety of 'choice' words to describe Arabs). Well, think about this: probably 90% of all world's terrorism has been carried out by Arabs. They have terrorism in their blood.
Actually relatively little of the world terrorism is carried out by arabs. Europeans and North Americans are just as guilty.
If you're going to say they have it in their blood you might as well say the same about the Irish (IRA, ULF), the Germans( Meinhof Gang?) the French Canadians( FLQ ), and the US (I'm sure someone can name a few, but McVeigh and his cronies come to mind).
It's painting people with a broad brush that is dangerous. Terrorism is a tactic that is used by small groups of any ethnicity beacause they don't have the resources required in order to compete with the military forces of the nation-state. The effect produced by Terrorism is usually dis-proportionate to the actual threat because it targets us all. You have no way of knowing whether next time it might be you in the building that explodes. This is exacerbated by media coverage, since people far away from the actual attack are also affected by what they see. The reality of it is that terrorist attacks are relatively rare and seldom( this case being an exception ) cause large numbers of casualties. The effect of terrorism is to produce some sort of change within the target, usually by having the public demand that the government do something. Other groups will use terrorism simply to gain attention for their cause.
To label arabs as having terrorism "in their blood" is absolutely incorrect. If this were the case you would expect a lot more in the way of terrorist attacks than we've seen, there is a very sizeable arab population and Islam is the largest religion in the world. The fact is that terrorism is a tactic not a character or ethnic trait. It is no different than making war in this regard, except that it generally targets non-combattants.
IP: Logged
02:31 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
Three people have been arrested/detained at the Westin. In Newton, more handwritten Arabic sheets, flight training manuals, and other materiel was found.
Meanwhile, under the direction of the FBI, an Amtrak train is being stopped in Providence RI
IP: Logged
02:45 PM
EdsB52 Member
Posts: 850 From: Tempe, Arizona, USA Registered: Jul 2000
Some of you are calling others racist because they have assumed that Arabs are the people responsible for this (and using a variety of 'choice' words to describe Arabs). Well, think about this: probably 90% of all world's terrorism has been carried out by Arabs. They have terrorism in their blood.
We let them do whatever they please in our countries, while they execute people even for having a bible in their possession.
Bin Laden and Afghanistan is just one of the culprits but there is talk that Saudi Arabia is involved too.
While only SOME of the people there may be friendly, the majority of them (and that includes the 'opressed' women) are hateful towards anyone non-muslim.
Bomb the sh*t out of them and take the oil away.
P.S. Someone mentioned the potential of Israel's involvement. There may be something to it. G.W. took a more 'hands-off' approach in the Middle East. Now he has a good reason to get involved and show more support for Israel again. They also said that whoever planned the attacks, was VERY well funded. Think about it.
See, I knew all Canadians weren't about apathetic avoidance. Very good points. Even if we forget about this incident (which I would never advocate), do we think it won't happena again? This is a glogal problem, not a US problem, and the rest of the world has joined suit. I agree that Saudi has at least knowledge. If we make ABSOLUTE examples of a couple more radical countries, then countries like Saudi will probably straighten up. It's reasonable to believe that the host nations are aware of what goes on by the radical factions within their countries. In fact, they probably control those factions to a degree.
IP: Logged
02:49 PM
EdsB52 Member
Posts: 850 From: Tempe, Arizona, USA Registered: Jul 2000
Originally posted by JohnnyK: Some of you people don't realize that you can't just take over a country. See, other countries don't like that, and then it turns into a war (like say, every world war). Anyways, Eds, the problem is already here (usually, an American problem is a Canadian problem). There are hundreds of your planes basically down the street from me.
Come on Johnny, don't they teach WWII history in Canada? I don't mean that as a flame, I'm being litteral. We (US) took over Japan and controlled every facet of their lives, including a mandated military presence on their land. Somewhat the same with Germany. This won't be a world war, or at least a balanced world war. The other side has no allies other than themselves. China and Russia has shown US support.
"Anyways, Eds, the problem is already here (usually, an American problem is a Canadian problem). There are hundreds of your planes basically down the street from me."
Good, we're partners in commerce, now we're partners in war; welcome aboard.
Did anyone else see Hillary Clintons statement on the news this morning? SHe sounded a hell of a lot more menacing and in control than G. Bush. It sounded like she was going to rain fire and brimstone down on those responsible. Maybe it's just because he's new to power, but Dubya doesn't seem to coming across as a real authority figure during this whole mess, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that for all of his speeches he is reading from notes on the desk in front of him instead of speaking directly from the heart. Don't mean to offend anyone with this statement, just my observations.
IP: Logged
02:59 PM
Tonker Member
Posts: 612 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Registered: Jun 2001
Originally posted by loafer87gt: Dubya doesn't seem to coming across as a real authority figure during this whole mess, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that for all of his speeches he is reading from notes on the desk in front of him instead of speaking directly from the heart.
I thought Colin Powell would have been a great Presidential Candidate. Too bad he wasn't interested. Hell, if he came here he'd get my vote for PM.
[This message has been edited by Tonker (edited 09-12-2001).]
IP: Logged
03:08 PM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
Hillary is in a position to "vent" a little more than GW. The whole world is hanging on his every word. I don't think he can afford the luxury of speaking from his heart right now.
Speaking has obviously never been his strong point anyway. A sign of a good leader is the ability to pick the right people to help you. Colin Powell is probably the best pick Bush has made thus far.
IP: Logged
03:18 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
New reports are that the plane that hit the Pentagon was intended for the White House. The plane that went down in PA was targeting Air Force One. Crew and passengers downed that plane, but I'm sure that an F-15 would have taken it out before AF1 was even close.
GE's CEO has pledged $10Million to the families of the Police, Fire, and other rescue personnel who first responded and died in the WTC collapse.
IP: Logged
03:30 PM
Tonker Member
Posts: 612 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Registered: Jun 2001
Originally posted by DRH: Hillary is in a position to "vent" a little more than GW. The whole world is hanging on his every word. I don't think he can afford the luxury of speaking from his heart right now.
Speaking has obviously never been his strong point anyway. A sign of a good leader is the ability to pick the right people to help you. Colin Powell is probably the best pick Bush has made thus far.
All very true.
IP: Logged
03:30 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12397 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
(1) Hillary will say whatever she thinks most people want to hear. If that changes, she will change what she says.
(2) I stand united with my American countrymen, and I ask Canadians to get with the program or shut the heck up. We must be together on this.
(3) If those who wear towels on their heads don't want to be discriminated against, they should help eradicate those who are putting them in such a position.
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
Urchin Member
Posts: 798 From: London,Ontario,Canada Registered: Feb 2001
Apparently some middle east countries have been quoted saying "the U.S. doesn't have the guts to go after them" (whoever "them" is) ... I am assuming this means that they think the U.S. will not resort to the use of force.
Cheever: We are in this together, we just aren't thinking along the "Yeah, bomb them, turn them into a parking lot, nuke them, kill them all, etc". (Well, i sort of am, but not everyone is)
IP: Logged
03:43 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12397 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
[QUOTE][b] [This message has been edited by Tonker (edited 09-12-2001).]
"I didn't mean to imply that Bin-Ladin discriminates racially, I meant you're no better than he is when you show racial prejudice."
So if I walk around discriminating by the condition of race through employment, housing, and every other aspect of life, but don't physically injure anyone, then I'm "no better than" Bin Laden? I don't possess those attributes; I just gave the extreme to show the ridiculous nature of your assertion.
"His discrimination is more cultural that religious when it comes down to it."
His (their) culture is so intertwined with religion that I don't understand your distinction. Their religion predicates their culture.
"Last time I check Eds you don't occupy Israel at all."
Your right, the US doesn't occupy Israel, but we certainly provide them with 3 billion dollars worth of war toys, which makes us strong allies. But your point of the US occupying Arabic nations not working is pure speculation, as I don't believe we've ever occupied them in large force with the governmental overthrow that I indicated. I think the correlation of the two would work. What else has worked?
"Oh good, so you're going exterminate the people of an entire country because of either a small political faction, or the government that controls them?"
Yes exactly. But only exterminate the people that act adversely (even if that includes all of them), not the entire country, unless they appear adverse. Look bud, I'm done fncking with these guys, it's time to play hardball. I want the US to subjugate that entire region down to their knees. Those not willing to receive subjugation will be removed and delivered to the loving hands of Ala. Like I said, remove the government and have the US breast-feed them for a while until they understand how to live with peace, as prescribed by their Koran. So your insertion of "government" is moot in context with my original argument.
"If what you want is to prevent similar acts from occurring, maybe you should look at actually hitting the source of the problem. That would be the terrorist groups themselves and the support structure - financial and political where applicable."
Exactly, the support structure is the government. Oh that's right, OJ wasn't convicted so he didn’t actually do it because we couldn't convict him beyond a judicial standard. Face it; the government more likely than not is deeply involved with terrorist groups. Removing the governments is hitting the source of the problem.
"Most arab states do not have, nor do they condone or support any terrorist activities."
They don't overtly condone it. They learned from the Japanese of WWII where Japan took credit for their deeds and were almost wiped off the face of the earth. It's common knowledge that you can't fnck with the US and walk away, so you need to hide your military behind the facade of terrorist groups. It's not difficult to understand.
"If you're going to direct your anger towards the Middle East, at least have the decency and the intelligence of argument to specify yourself. I think in this case you're referring to Afhanistan, which isn't really part of the Middle East proper, anyways. Am I right or are you in fact targeting the whole of the Middle East?"
You're basically right, I think we need to examine every nation over there and decide whom we target, up to and including all of them. I realize there are nations that are more or less adverse, but we need to determine a level of acceptable adverse tolerance and remove everything above the bar.
"The west caused most of the trouble by bungling what was essentially a good idea in telling the arabs that they were going be moved in order to make place for the new state."
I agree, the US created this monster by messing with a region that wasn't our business. The mess is here, what do we do with it? Please don't talk about peaceful resolution. We need to finish a mess we initiated.
"Am I the only one who's concerned by this?"
I understand your position; this is not your war and you don't want to get sucked into it, which seems to be a common Canadian sentiment.
“We're as fully qualified to be pissed as you are. You obviously don't understand the concept of enough to me that we'd all be sitting on a char-broiled nuke burger if you were running things.”
How many acts of terrorism has Canada undergone? Like I said…….. We’d be subject to terrorism forever if you were running things.
“The arabs aren't your enemy, the terrorists are.”
Exactly, and the Arabs are terrorists. Good point.
“As previously established by me and agreed upon by many members, rag head royalty is well aware of what their radical faction is up to. I believe they even fund much of it [/b][/QUOTE] You've established nothing Eds. To establish something you need to bring proofto the table. You offer us none. I'm no better I don't believe that the arab leaders know what's going on for the most part, yet I can't offer you any proof either.”
I qualified my “proof” as by “me and agreed upon by many members,” so that’s sufficient within itself. There’s no professional source site, but a consensus within this forum. I didn’t validate it as anything but an opinion, so what’s the beef. Hate to break it to ya, but unofficial polls give a 93% approval ratio for going over and shooting 6” below the lower edge of a turbine. It’s unofficial so it could be way off (it might be higher). I won’t blanket all Canadians as having your opinion, as that wouldn’t be fair. So you don’t think leaders of Arab nations are aware of what is going on within their own country huh? I suppose you think OJ actually didn’t commit those crimes as well? As far as I’m concerned, you’re not welcome in my country; unfortunately I’m not the gatekeeper.
“The US has the moral authority and the moral highground here. Don't ruin it Eds. Military action will be required let's make sure it's appropriate.”
MORAL??? Whatever. This is not a moral issue here; it’s a two-pronged issue. 1) Revenge 2) prevention. Don’t make this into something difficult, it’s not. I can’t ruin it or relieve it, just watch and comment. I did write GW! I know he will never read it though. I doubt anyone will ever read it. If the government calls for people to stand in militia form either here or over there, I’ll sign up for the interim.
president@whitehouse.gov
IP: Logged
04:06 PM
EdsB52 Member
Posts: 850 From: Tempe, Arizona, USA Registered: Jul 2000
Originally posted by Oreif: In case you have not been paying attention, The U.S. and the U.N. consider the attacks yesterday as [b]"an act of war". The U.N. has just stated "You attack one, You attack all" With our allies and the U.N. in agreement, They may be able to run but they could never run far enough.
In this case it's considered a war first. So any land aquired is ours (and the allies) to control. [/B]
"In this case it's considered a war first. So any land aquired is ours (and the allies) to control."
I didn't think about that. Kind of like a big monopoly game! The only problem is that they're holding Baltic Avenue.
IP: Logged
04:11 PM
Jaygee79 Member
Posts: 4259 From: Dartmouth, MA Registered: Mar 2000
In a statement made by the White House (this is still going on) they said that they believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually headed for the White House. They also believe that Air Force One was a target as well.
Also, at least 1 suspect was arrested at Union Station in Providence this afternoon. He was charged with a weapons violation. As of yet they can't confirm that he has anything to do with yesterday's attack. There may be at least one more suspect arrested there on the same charges. This came from a tip from Amtrak.
Sheesh, Providence is even closer to me than Boston
I would think Dick Cheney would be Dubya's (or the Republican party's powerbrokers) best pick, but Colin's a keeper.
I'm not sure I really like the idea of massive carpet-bombing as retaliation as much as I'd like to have Bin Laden's people find him in his bed some morning with his throat slit from ear to ear. Sends a message to the rest of those sunsofbiatches that payback's a biatch, and when push comes to shove we can getcha when we want, where we want.
Hillary is in the position of being able to be a good attack dog and get away with it. As president, Dubya has to be more circumspect.
quote
Originally posted by DRH: Hillary is in a position to "vent" a little more than GW. The whole world is hanging on his every word. I don't think he can afford the luxury of speaking from his heart right now.
Speaking has obviously never been his strong point anyway. A sign of a good leader is the ability to pick the right people to help you. Colin Powell is probably the best pick Bush has made thus far.
Looks like whoever is responsible just picked a fight with 19 other countries. “The (NATO) Council agreed that if it is determined that this was an attack directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article V of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one ally is an attack against them all,” Secretary-General George Robertson told a news conference.
The article commits each of the 19 member nations to take ”such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Belgium Canada Czech Rep Denmark France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States
IP: Logged
04:49 PM
Urchin Member
Posts: 798 From: London,Ontario,Canada Registered: Feb 2001
Long wind doesn't get you sh!t in a foxhole, except maybe get your ass whupped. I just wish Eds would get to the point and stop showing off his english skills. We get it, enough, just say what you mean and stop dancing around the subject sprinkling your grammatical goodies.
Bryce 88 GT
IP: Logged
05:37 PM
annieL Member
Posts: 146 From: Clementon, NJ Registered: Aug 2001
Tonker - allow me to correct my earlier statement (and this is what I meant).
Probably 90% of the INTERNATIONAL terrorism is carried out by Arabs.
There. Is that better?
Try reading Satanic Verses some time. I've never read the book but have seen numerous reviews. This book describes exactly what Islam is about and is written by someone who has been there (Salman Rushdi - this may not be the correct spelling). I don't know if this book is still available but it definitely does not portray any Islam followers as tolerant and kind people. And it appears that when you speak the truth, you have to go into hiding.
Face it, man. The western world countries (you know, the white folks) are the MOST tolerant people in the world. I can't believe that you have the nerve to label anyone here as having racist views. I'd like to see you tell the Arabs in one of their 'most tolerant' (by their standards) countries that they are racist. I think your house would be bombed within an hour of posting such crap.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Voytek (edited 09-12-2001).]
Tonker, according to abcnews.com, "most if not all are Saudi or Egyptian" when referring to the nationalities of the terrorists that have been id'd. That is not to say that the respective gov'ts are involved, but at least some of their people were. Someone mentioned the hated word- Negotiate. Negotiations are for the losing side or for those that have lost the stomach for combat. Read that as Vichy French-Early wwII, USA-late Vietnam. Be in a foxhole with Ed or anyone else? Not me, that's a defensive tactic. I want to be on the OFFENSIVE. Besides, you can't dig a hole big enough for a B-52. You can say what you want about Ed's posts being long. He's tenacious and well read. If I had a point I wanted to argue and wasn't up to snuff on it myself, he's the guy I'd want arguing for me/with me. I see Canada is on the list as a NATO member. How long has it been since Canada had forces in a shooting war? Can't remember if they were in Gulf War or not.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-12-2001).]
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
Tonker Member
Posts: 612 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Registered: Jun 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: How long has it been since Canada had forces in a shooting war? Can't remember if they were in Gulf War or not.
We were there. Took the first POW of the war in fact. Our poor Radio Operator(I think that's what he was) didn't know what the hell to do with the guy. Canada mostly supported we had a squadron of F-18s, a comm. sqn some frigates a destroyer and an AOR( supply ship). I don't know if we had an infantry batallion there or not. We were also in Somalia, not quite the same, but it turned pretty nasty, I don't know if our Airborne's Somalia incident was a big news item down there. Tarnished the reputation of our Airborne regiment. The government later disbanded it for that reason.
Canada knows how to fight, you don't need to worry about that.
It's looking more and more like a war will break out. The more I read, see, and hear. I don't know what to think of it. Yes, these people that did this must pay for their actions, but what will come from it? Hopefully, terrorists groups everywhere will be rid of. I'm sure that's what America hopes to do with whatever action they take. I just hope Bush knows what he's doing.
What I want to know is, where are all those Liberals who always proclaim how we dont need such a big military since we don't have any enemy threats?
This is why we need the F-22, this is why we need better conditions in the military, this is why we need to concentrate on military readiness, globally. I hope they now realize that.
IP: Logged
09:32 PM
Urchin Member
Posts: 798 From: London,Ontario,Canada Registered: Feb 2001
Originally posted by Urchin: I am disappointed. As time is drudging forward it seems to me that there will be no punishment other than that dished out by the judicial system. As far as I am concerned an incident like this clearly illustrates that what we have done so far to stop terrorism is not working. It is time to take it to the next level. I don't think this incident should be treated the same as the common criminal. ie. trial and jail time. I may be wrong about the intended punishments for the people involved, but as time goes by, the anger subsides. It seems that to me you can't treat these people as just another criminal, and saying that you are "declaring war on terrorism" means nothing more than that. As I said... it is time to take it to the next level. I do not support the idea of war. But in this situation, I don't see any other choice. I am afraid that these people are going to get off too easy. Anyone else see what I am saying or agree with me? If we don't act appropriately now, we are opening the door for it to happen again. Maybe outside of the U.S. but nevertheless... again.
I figured I'd post this again because I wanted to hear some opinions. When I posted it the first time, everyone was to busy bickering to notice.
Thanks for the link Coy, I knew they were in Vietnam, and thought the Falklands too. BTW all, there is a petition on libertypetitions.com to get GW to rescind the executive order signed by Gerald Ford that has prevented US intelligence assets from engaging in assasinations of enemies of the US.