The President's Haunting Words ... from Star Trek?

[REG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That is, according to the Pakistani government, because the Taliban have told the Pakistani public that the US is coming over to kill all the muslims.</font>

That's why we we have to help the Pakistani government to air their reasons. I personally do not think that a simple speech by their President is enough to sway the Pakistan public. They must report not only the number of Pakistani that died working at the WTC but also to show the grieving survivors (e.g., families and friends).

I know this sounds like a inconsiderate way to go about it, but it is to show that the 100-plus Pakistani that were innocent did not deserve to die at the hands of the terrorists, whether it is somebody's son or daughter, brother or sister, niece or nephew, cousins or friends.

On the other side, we also have to support those Afghans that opposes the Taliban, the Northern Alliance.


Look, I did not mean to stir controversery over the two statements have some association with the other. They sound similar, but they're from a different context, and must be analyzed individually. The US President Bush did a good job on his speech, taking on a business-like demeanor. And granted he left alot of details, and more than often he uses emotional statements. (What do YOU call it? "Cowboy"-type statement?) But that's how we all feel in our hearts right now.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Jonathan Talbot]

After watching the Presidents speech last night, I now can no longer
consciously support this act or acts the will be committed by this country.
I believe that The United States has lost its objectivity, in light of the
recent events.

The one question that has been echoing in my head for the past week, has
been how did this occur, every other nations intelligence source new an
attack was going to occur. But, no one had any information on this, but now,
only a week after, do we not only know who? ( Osamam Bin Ladin), where? (
Afghanistan), what, why and the how.

George Bush's statement of "if you are not with us, your are against us."
Has scared me more then any other statement made. He has just declared War
on the World. I fear for this country, I fear that the Eagle will never fly
again as it has been bound in it's own chains. I find the Hypocrisy in our
Media tasteless and stale, Radio, Television, Newspaper that before hand
could care less about uniting the United States are now one hundred percent
for this. I have seen flags flown, song sung. All in the name of Liberty,
Freedom and Unity.

These are things that these groups never did before and when forced to do
so, where doen only because it must. Now it is done because we have
something to rally on.As a nation we have betrayed our beliefs, we have sold
them for the expediency of nailiing a group of people who have hurt us in
the past. We have proof, if so, why have not the American people seen this
proof. Last I heard this was a Country of the People, by the People and for
the People. We have lost more then 400 lives this week and we lose a lot
more. If the American People do not re-take back what is rightfully thiers.

Thank you
Michael J Simmons


------------------
Jonathan Talbot.
Medical Officer
"First Away Team Mission... Beaming down to a Hostile Planet... Captain Kirk is leading the Away Team... I am wearing a red shirt... No Fear!!! Unknown Crew Member

[Dan Stack]

Jonathan Talbot,

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to state. If you were the president, what would you do differently? Suppose that proof is in the form of a spy within the Taliban? Would you give his identity, making him useless in the future at best? And, even if all he did was kill a few hundred Americans and attack American naval vessels, you are saying we should forget about it?


[This message has been edited by Dan Stack (edited 09-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dan Stack (edited 09-21-2001).]

[Capt.Hunter]

Qerlin wrote:

"There are way too many out there who are willing to look the other way when these
kinds of events happen."

True, true. But let's not forget that we also looked the other way when Bin Laden was putting his US training to use destabilizing the Middle East the way we wanted him to. How far do we go in stamping down on terrorism? We call the rebels fighting the Russian Federation terrorists - but if this were still the Cold War we'd be hailing them as heroes. It's all well and good saying we need a universal definition of terrorism, but the fact is that we "civilized" nations have in the past lauded and even funded terrorist activities - of course, we call them "freedom fighters" to make us feel better. Nothing is ever that black or white. We may crush every terrorist organization that threatens us, but I'll lay real money that the instant someone carbombs a regime we don't like, we'll sit back and watch the flames. I heard that one of the definitions to be set in law would be "terrorism is an indiscriminate attack on a democratically elected government" - I can't recall if Iraq is a democracy, but with all the support Saddam Hussein seems to get from his people, it could easily be: so if some disgruntled Turks bomb a building out there, how many of us do you think would rush to Hussein's side the way we've rallied around the US this week?

------------------
"Spatial anomalies, energy beings, telepathic echoes. You know, sometimes I really miss the Dominion War. At least then all we had to worry about was where the next polaron beam was coming from...": Capt.Hunter, USS Tempest

[Aldaron]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by qerlin:
Thank you dimeboy.

These 'terrorists' have been trouble for half a century. There are way too many out there who are willing to look the other way when these kinds of events happen.

For those who worry about the average person in these countries that harbor the terrorists, keep in mind they often KNOW who these people are. They tactly, or through apathy, condone their actions. They are not innocent. Not one who stands back and allows monsters like these to thrive is.

They have something in common with the people bawling piteously that the US is acting in a too aggressive manner: cowardice.

Moral relativism and cowardice are two of the main reasons the world is in such a shambles today.</font>

Hang on, hang on. Does this mean that Britain will be justified in using the SAS and RAF against New York, which has long been known to be a rich source of funding for the Provo IRA?

Think about what you said: are you actually trying to claim that everyone in, say, "Suburb X" in Kabul knows that Ahmed in No. 10 Mullah Avenue works for Osama Bin Laden?? Is this what you mean, or have I misread you?

Because if that is what you mean, it's utterly absurd. Certez, some people would know, but you're painting with a very broad brush to suggest that these people are just letting the terrorists get away with it.

Of course, that's even ignoring several key facts:

1) It isn't cowardice to fear for your life, or the lives of your family. Were the German families who refused to allow Jewish escapees to stay in their basements coward? No - they were human.

Are you seriously trying to have me believe you would risk the lives of your own spouse and children to possibly protect a nebulous person you've never met who lives on the other side of the world? Uh-uh.

2) Don't forget the conditions the Afghanis have lived under for the last 20 years. A generation of war, conflict, terrorism against them and oppression. I would imagine, growing up in that kind of environment, you would learn early on to keep your mouth shut and not draw attention to yourself.

For all the horror of Sept. 11, bear in mind that Afghanistan has had that sort of terror almost daily for a generation - often perpetrated by its own alleged "government" against the people. The Taliban are a dictatorship which has made Afghanistan a living hell.

I seriously doubt the first thing on the average Afghani's mind when he sees the guy next door with an AK-47 and a crate of Semtex is "Ohhh! I'd better tell the authorities!"

For those who worry about the average person in these countries that harbor the terrorists, keep in mind they often KNOW who these people are. They tactly, or through apathy, condone their actions. They are not innocent. Not one who stands back and allows monsters like these to thrive is.

That comment, in particular, could be paraphrased from an Iraqi government press-release. It is almost certainly the exact rhetoric which was used by the very people who committed the atrocity on Sept. 11 to justify their actions.

"Thousands of Iraqis are dying of starvation and lack of medical care because of US-pushed sanctions. The American people know this, and condone the American government's actions either actively or thru apathy. They are not innocent - therefore killing several thousand of them to make a point is not evil."

Can't you just hear that? I sure as hell can - and what worries me is that a lot of the venom being spat on these boards is using exactly the same logic to justify mass murder. Some are even advocating a tit-for-tat destruction of Middle-East cities with nuclear weapons every time there is a terrorist attack.

I am 100% behind the US forming a global coalition to fight terrorism - on the beaches, in the air, on the ground, in the hills, etc, etc.

I am utterly opposed to any nation becoming what they have beheld and engaging in state-terrorism, which is simply what the deliberate targeting of civilians, or the flagrant disregard for civilian casualties is.

Let me ask you this:

If the US launched a massive air-strike on Afghanistan in retaliation for Sept. 11 (which I don't think it will, but the point is there), and killed, say 10,000 Afghani civilians, what is the difference between that and Sept. 11's horror?

"They did it first"? If that's the only answer anyone would have, then it's a shittier world than I thought.

------------------
"Every atom in our bodies was forged in the furnace of ancient stars - it is our destiny to return home..."

[Capt.Hunter]

To neatly sum up that last post, here's a quote from Mahatma Ghandi:

"Take an eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind"

------------------
"Spatial anomalies, energy beings, telepathic echoes. You know, sometimes I really miss the Dominion War. At least then all we had to worry about was where the next polaron beam was coming from...": Capt.Hunter, USS Tempest

[dimeboy99]

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man: brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Samuel Clemens

[Aldaron]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dimeboy99:
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man: brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Samuel Clemens</font>

Again, the same argument can be made for the terrorists that murdered thousands a little over a fortnight ago. Undoubtedly, they would see themselves as patriots, as would their supporters.

Patriotism is great when it's used to engender a sense of pride, or community.

It is terrifying when it is used to justify mass murder, the deliberate targeting of civilians in wartime or in order to dehumanise "the enemy"; make them seem less human than one's own countrymen.

From Samuel Clemens other writings on various social topics, I am sure he would turn in his grave if anyone were to use his words to justify mass-murder.

Because that's what deliberately targeting civilian populations is: murder. No different from the terrorists who deliberately targeted civilians in the WTC. It doesn't matter if it's a group of rag-tag terrorists or a superpower - it's still murder.

Sure, everyone's done it: the Germans bombed London, Britain firebombed Dresden, the US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

But in the last few wars fought by all those nations, advanced technology has allowed the concept of surgical strikes to come to the fore. Now, I'm not suggesting that civilians don/t die as "collateral damage" when missiles miss their military targets, but those civilians are not deliberately targeted. Their deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of war: I don't like it, but I understand that "shit happens".

America's (and the other Allies') conduct during the Gulf War, for example, was exemplary (in terms of the military actions). Civilians were not targeted, and on the odd occasion where civvies were killed from Allied bombing, the Allied governments expressed what I believe to be genuine remorse.

I just don't want that sense of honour to evaporate now.

Using nuclear weapons, or carpet-bombing cities in order to get a few individuals living there is unacceptable. It is like burning down a hotel in order to get the hostage-taker.

Nobody, least of all me, wants to deny America the right to express its grief and outrage. Although not on as personal a level, I share that grief and outrage.

But blind vengeance and hatred can never be allowed to dictate a nation's foreign policy, or even it's war policy. Otherwise, the logical extension of "they are all our potential enemies" is genocide.

Above all else, the US must not become the monster they are fighting.

------------------
"Every atom in our bodies was forged in the furnace of ancient stars - it is our destiny to return home..."

[dimeboy99]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Aldaron:
And the fact that Bush seems to be saying that any country which stays out of it when and if the US uses "any means necessary" is an enemy of the US is scary to me.

"I'm gonna go beat up on some bad guys"
"Oh, you want me to help?"
"Yeah, that'd be great - 'cos if you didn't, you'd be a bad guy."
"Hand on - how far are you planning to go?"
"I dunno...I might snot 'em, or I might kill 'em."
"Wait up - I don't want to kill someone!"
"Well, I might not kill 'em - but either way, if you don't help me, you're one of 'em!"
Scary thought...
</font>

Aldaron:

Considering my direct quotes of what the man actually said, tell me where you are getting this inkling from? Nobody else seems to bother with direct clash of discusion and I'd like your input.

[dimeboy99]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Aldaron:
But blind vengeance and hatred can never be allowed to dictate a nation's foreign policy, or even it's war policy. Otherwise, the logical extension of "they are all our potential enemies" is genocide.

Above all else, the US must not become the monster they are fighting.

</font>

Show me a direct quote from a policy-making American official that is advocating the smothering of civilians and I'll find your argument easier to understand. I cannot find any such quote...all I find are quotes to the exact opposite of the spectrum. Either I am looking in the wrong place, in which case I'd love to be educated, or such statements as are on this board are uninformed speculation, in which case I'd love to educate.



Aside from this fear you have of the US of A going nuts you and I are in complete agreement. My argument is that I have not seen one ounce of evidence, rhetoric or "spin" coming from the US government stating that we're going to hit innocents for the sake of revenge. Quite the contrary, as I have stated and quoted in the past, the US has come out directly opposed to such a use of force. The only place I've seen a "nuke em all" mentality is from the Internet and I couldn't agree more with you (and with my president) that such an action of hitting civilians is completely wrong. In essence Aldaron, the direct quotes and public stance of the United States implies that you and our president are of one mind in this. Cooler heads can and should prevail, there is no doubt of that.



My Mark Twain quote in no way was used as an endorsement of mass murder and, if you intended that statement for me, I am highly offended that you would presume such a statement given my numerous posts on the subject. Perhaps that quote is in the wrong thread but it certianly isn't any less factual. Ask any veteran.

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dimeboy99:
Show me a direct quote from a policy-making American official that is advocating the smothering of civilians and I'll find your argument easier to understand. </font>

Well, I cannot quote any policy recommending this level of destruction, quite the opposite in fact.

However it may be worth pointing out that every time Dubya uses the work 'Crusade' in relation to the American response (I have seen him use it twice so far), it is likely to be interpreted badly by the Middle East.

Something his advisors surely would be aware of.

But then these advisors also probably came up with the name Operation; Infinate Justice, and considering the phrase Infinate Justice is from the Koran.

'Only God can give Infinate Justice'

I can see that this two is likely to upset a large number of muslims worldwide... So maybe these advisors have agendas of their own here, because nobody would be that stupid, and its a hell of a coincidence.



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[dimeboy99]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
Well, I cannot quote any policy recommending this level of destruction, quite the opposite in fact.</font>

Maybe now both the " internet nuke em" party and the "internet they're gunna nuke em!" party can face reality. Both sides need to think.


I couldn't agree with you more Dan regarding the "Infinite Justice" name. The USA has done the proper thing in apologizing to those they have offended and renamed the operation to, I think, "Enduring Freedom".


As far as the word crusade, what a mess that was! You have to understand that, in America, we've had crusades against illiteracy, cancer, drug abuse, drunk driving, domestic abuse, poverty, etc in the recent past. It has been overused so much in the past 20 years that the word has lost its religious meaning in the USA. I'm sure that Bush didn't mean a holy war but his meaning doesn't really matter. The extremists will use any goof-up as "spin" in order to change this from a nation stamping out terrorism to a Jewish-led war on Islam itself.


Speaking of the term "holy war" that the Taliban has been tossing around lately like some sort of threat...I'm not impressed. In recent years the Taliban has imposed Jihad on both Iran and on Russia. Both don't seem to have been effected.

[REG]

If there is one small criticism against President Bush, it would be his choice of words (e.g., "crusade") when he is not scripted.

At all cost he should avoid any reference to religion or religious text and treat this campaign as a government matter dealing with criminals.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Aldaron]

Dimeboy...

My reference was to the "you're with us or against us" quote, and the implications of that.

I'm aware that the US is taking a reasonable stance to this - my only concern is that the hotheads could eventually harness the anger and rage over this for their own agenda.

As to my post following the Mark Twain quote: if you took offense, I apologise unreservedly. I in no way intended to mark you as advocating mass-murder, it's just that having seen some of the posts on this topic, with the "nuke 'em all" attitude, I wanted to "head off at the pass", if you will, the notion that quotes from great luminaries can be used to justify such an attitude.

Again - I apologise to you for any offence caused.

As it stands, I am feeling a whole lot better over the US response now than I was a couple of days ago, now that some real information is coming out.

------------------
"Every atom in our bodies was forged in the furnace of ancient stars - it is our destiny to return home..."

[Robbert Raets]

I was raised Catholicish. I still feel a weak link to Christianity, and I respect Islam, Judaism and most other religions. But killing in the name of (in no particular order)God, or Jahweh, or Jehuva or Allah is something I simply cannot understand or condone. I apologise to all for the Crusades and for the Inquisition.
Amen.

------------------
Robbert Raets, winner of the annual 2001 StyroFoam pig Latin/babbling
Crossover Festival Tournament, designer of the Parsley-class captain's yacht, director of And-you-thought-Q-was-all-powerful Law Firms United and Keeper of the Crazy Unicorn (hey, if you're a virgin, at least use it!)