ForumGarden

spot;843379 wrote: This mistaking of you-personal with you-the-US is the bane of communication on forums. What reasonable basis would I have for thinking you-personal is killing anyone? What sand-pit would I have to bury my head in not to know that the US is out killing people in the Middle East? Stopping "them" where they live is a policing problem, not a cause for wrecking the US economy and turning its good name into one that's synonymous with terror and mass death.


yes, i know this communicating on forums is a tricky business, and as i'm new to it i probably haven't learned all the ends and outs as yet.

and believe me the state of the US economy worries me quite a bit since i have to live here. and i do not enjoy the fact that so many people seems to hate us particularly since i have never done anything to anyone.

librtyhead;843299 wrote: The U.S. has taken on the Taliban where they nest. Two places that were the most available targets. The world sit's on it's hands and watches with neither the financial ability, technical knowledge or guts to wipe out this outrage to humanity.

Yet they sit until it is to late. And lay blame on the defenders of freedom.

I believe the U.S. has done much in bringing them down. The problem is that we live in a fast food world where results are tallied in days and not in years.


Quite what sins had they committed under International Law that the US had the right to bring them down? After all, they were the legal and recognised government of Afghanistan.

JAB;843305 wrote: I repeat, you're naive if you think the Taliban brand of justice will go away once the US leaves. Their form of justice is in their interpretation of their religion and that's not likely to change because the US infidels have left their country's borders. If anything, it will embolden them even more as they'll see it as a victory and use worse (if possible) punishment the next time someone disobeys.

So what would you have had us do after attaining our lofty moral high ground? Sit back and accept the world's sympathy and do nothing? Would you if the attack had happened in your homeland?


Treat criminals as criminals and not use their criminal acts as an aid to foreign policy and an excuse to invade countries with governments you did not like.

A targeted police action would have been far more effective, would not have embroiled the world in endless war and would not have destroyed the US's credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Jester;843326 wrote: Doin nothing is your idea not mine, thats what the total BS is, you have siad many times that the US is the cause of the rise of terrorism, I say thats a bunch of malarchy, if we did nothignthey'd still be out to do evil.

For once, someone is doing somethng about them, each one we kill is one less we have to deal with, eventually we will reach a saturation point where each one wel kill doesnt launch three more... then we will start turning the tide in greater waves, for now its a bit at a time, we are containing them slowly, and we will continue to do so. War takes time, especially the painstaking way in which we have to go about it, which minimizes as much damnage as possible, we can go all out and just kill anything in sight with a weapon, which isnt a bad idea to me... but that means those who want to helpo us will fear us in the neihgborhood, not the best way to gain friends.

I realize you dont like war, I realize you think the US has caused more harm than good, but I disagree with you assumptions, thats why I call it BS...


I have never suggested doing nothing and for every one you kill you create three more. Your saturation point is too far away and your policy kill far too many people who would never have become politicised were it not for your actions.

You say at last someone is doing something - yes, you are doing the terrorists work for them. You are making them heroes in the eyes of the rest of the Muslim world. You are making them freedom fighters with the US in the role of the oppressor. You are the best recruiting Sergeant the terrorists ever had.

You cannot fight terrorists with tanks and airborne weapons platforms - they fade into the general population too easily. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.

Do you remember the hijacked plane that was taken to Entebbe airport? If the IDF had gone in with their fighter aircraft all guns blazing (used the full force of the army against the terrorists) then all of the hostages would have dies. By going in with a targeted raid all but four were saved. The same approach would have worked wonders - an intelligence lead raid on Tora Bora specifically aimed at taking him out would have been justified and applauded. Destroying two countries and threatening to destroy at least three more is not and never will be.

Mass murder - and directly causing the death of the best part of a million people is mass murder - is immoral. I repeat, by starting this war the US lost the moral high ground it held after 9/11.

By your actions shall you be known - act like bloodthirsty warmongers and people will look on you as bloodthirsty warmongers.

JAB;843347 wrote: Oh I believe there was and is still an ongoing crime investigation. You just happen to disagree with the punishment being meted out.

Much as you would hope to think, I don't believe the world community would have allowed the US to sit back quietly without a return show of force of some kind. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't in your eyes.


Who are you punishing? The people who committed the crime (I haven't heard the US mention Osama Bin Laden in years - he has to pop his head up and wave before he's even remembered) or the people of Iraq who had no involvement whatsoever?

Go after the guilty and stop punishing the innocent.

Jester;843363 wrote: What nonsense, how is killing our enemies strengthening them? Thast just stupid Spot...

If there are 5000, and we kill half that weakens them. You obviously dont understand how this war thing wroks do you.


You said yourself Jester :-

each one we kill is one less we have to deal with, eventually we will reach a saturation point where each one wel kill doesnt launch three more..


if there are five thousand and you kill half of them then there will be ten thousand - they are stronger now than they were when you first invaded Afghanistan.

hey ... when i watched those twin towers falling on tv ... i cried man ... it wasn't

only americans dying ... humanity died too and that day i was an american ...

GO TEAM USA!!!

jJ:-4 :-4

spot;843348 wrote: I don't know where you get these ideas. They're TV stations? Radio broadcasts? I've never wittingly watched or heard either in my entire life. I quite respect BBC reporting, their news carries far less editorial slant than I understand is typical of US broadcasters.


See, this is what I mean. What you "understand" is typical and what you "know" as being typical are different animals. If you don't actually know, then why would you continually whitewash a country with hearsay presented as fact? For all I know, BBC may be just as bad as ours. But I'm not going to assume since I can't compare.

JAB;844094 wrote: You think our response was solely motivated by our foreign policy motives? You don't think punishment or retribution had anything to do with it?


I first ask myself who was punished. I then ask myself what they did to earn that punishment. Finally, I ask myself what punishment has been brought on those who committed the acts in the first place.

The conclusion that I draw is that the retribution had nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

jones jones;844104 wrote: hey ... when i watched those twin towers falling on tv ... i cried man ... it wasn't

only americans dying ... humanity died too and that day i was an american ...

GO TEAM USA!!!

jJ:-4 :-4


I was at work at the time and my wife 'phoned me. We all crowded round the television in the rest room and yes, I cried to see what was unfolding and the suffering of America. I also cried for America the day Iraq was invaded - I cried for the harm she was doing to herself and to the world. RIP humanity - may you rise again one day.

Jester;844237 wrote: Ok fine, I'm a blood thirsty warmonger, step aside. You and the rest of the few like you would have been up in arms no matter what we did.


Not in the slightest. You go against the perps and you are heroes. Lash out at the first obstacle you see and then attack someone with no possible involvement and you are wild and out of control.

Jester;844245 wrote: First off lets get some things stright here:

1. The terrorists (insurgents, jihadist, freedom fighter, thug, criminal, islamofascist, whetever you want to call them) are insighted by the condition they are trained in from an early age (3-5 years old) when they start indoctrinating them to kill infidels...

2. You and me and anyone who is not a muslum are an infidel, further, anyone who is a muslum and does not hold to whatever particular group the terrorist hold to is an inferior muslum and is to be killed or randomly selected for death to further thier casue.

3. The US is reacting to the actions of these groups.

So dont blame the US for insighting more terrorists when they self breed.


To quote your words back at you - total bullsh!t.

I have watch the politicisation of the Muslim population of London since 9/11. It is not the three to five year olds who react - it is those old enough to see what is going on. More the thirteen to thirties than the three to fives.

The majority of Muslims, even now, are not radicalised - have no wish to kill anyone and view Christians as people they have to live with.

The US is no longer reacting to anything - they are driving the world to destruction. You have admitted youself that, where the Coalition kills one terrorist, three more spring up in his place. For that I blame the US for inciting hatred and perpetuating the horror beyond any life it would have had without your actions.

RedGlitter;844285 wrote: See, this is what I mean. What you "understand" is typical and what you "know" as being typical are different animals. If you don't actually know, then why would you continually whitewash a country with hearsay presented as fact? For all I know, BBC may be just as bad as ours. But I'm not going to assume since I can't compare.


Having seen Fox News and CNN and compared it, not only with the BBC but with news from around the world I can assure you that there is no comparison.

The BBC is no paragon of virtue but they are streets ahead of Fox and CNN when it comes to accuracy and lack of bias.

You guys are so angry¦ I just feel sorry for the poor guy who was murdered ruthlessly in front of his family for doing what???

Providing an education to women.

This has turned into a debate about???? What the feck are you fighting about?

mikeinie;844382 wrote: You guys are so angry¦ I just feel sorry for the poor guy who was murdered ruthlessly in front of his family for doing what???

Providing an education to women.

This has turned into a debate about???? What the feck are you fighting about?


Why the poor sod had to die, that's all.

Bryn Mawr;844394 wrote: Why the poor sod had to die, that's all.


I say he died because that is what happens to most heroes, who stand up for what is right, and do what they feel is best even when faced with the risk of their own life.

He was, I am sure, to the women he educated, a hero.

To his wife, a good husband

and to his children a good father.

May he rest in peace, and may others find the same courage as he had to make the world a better place to live.

mikeinie;844396 wrote: I say he died because that is what happens to most heroes, who stand up for what is right, and do what they feel is best even when faced with the risk of their own life.

He was, I am sure, to the women he educated, a hero.

To his wife, a good husband

and to his children a good father.

May he rest in peace, and may others find the same courage as he had to make the world a better place to live.


May he, indeed, rest in peace - and may no others have to find his courage to live a life of peace.

Jester;844402 wrote: That may be London, but London is not the middle east. And if its true as you say Muslums then need to rise up against thier fanatical counterparts and prove they arent radical by helping us to stop the radical ones, until I see that, I hold them at arms length, for safetys sake. A bit of reactionary distance so I dont get my head bashed in before I am able to defend myself.


Neither is it America and It is a far better indication of the reason behind the radicalisation than you have seen or given.

If it's true then the cause of that redicalisation needs to be removed, not intensified.

If you work in a factory and the bosses start harassing the union reps and sacking them, is the answer to kowtow to the bosses or to support the union? Where does your argument lead?

JAB;844448 wrote: I believe we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Would you have us interrogate him or shall we just save time and do away with him quickly?


He is a criminal and should be treated as you would treat and other criminal.

Obviously you have to question him about his accomplices in order to try to capture more criminals. Then punish him as you would any other mass murderer depending on the state in which he's tried - presumably New York.

Jester;844415 wrote: I dont work in union shops.

If I have a problem I go to the source, the source of the jihad is the jihadist and the source of the jihadist is the muslum religion, and thats where I take my beef. Im limiting my action to those who want to kill me and threaten me.

You and I have a different idea about how to go about it, you want peaceful negootiation or to leave them alone and let some rise within to take care of thier own problem, but all Ive seen of that is more growth in their numbers, and them spread as they dominate more territory by force, intimidation and terror.

I dont buy your solution, Bryn, not even gonna consider it anymore.




That does not stop you from answering the question which is pertinent regardless.

Also, you repeatedly represent my position as leave them alone which, if you bothered to read what I've written, I've equally repeatedly shown not to be the case - they are criminals, go after them as criminals using whatever targeted operations are needed. Whatever you do, do not go after general populations who had nothing to do with the criminal activity in the first instance.

By actively targeting the general population of Iraq in particular, the US is creating a new problem that is far worse than the original and is dragging the original problem out far beyond its natural life. Do you imagine that you would not have had Osama Bin Laden years ago if it had not been for these wars?

Jester;844415 wrote: I dont work in union shops.

If I have a problem I go to the source, the source of the jihad is the jihadist and the source of the jihadist is the muslum religion, and thats where I take my beef. Im limiting my action to those who want to kill me and threaten me.

You and I have a different idea about how to go about it, you want peaceful negootiation or to leave them alone and let some rise within to take care of thier own problem, but all Ive seen of that is more growth in their numbers, and them spread as they dominate more territory by force, intimidation and terror.

I dont buy your solution, Bryn, not even gonna consider it anymore.


OK Jester, if you're not prepared to even consider what I'm saying then let me post a different question for your consideration :-

What do you think Osama Bin Laden's hoped for outcome was, as he sat plotting in his lair? What was the best possible result he envisaged from the bombing of the Twin Towers?



Do you think that it included an America still bogged down in war over six years later and tettering on the edge of financail ruin? Do you think that it included the end of the Dollar as the de facto world currency and the end of much of the US's influence in world affairs? Do you think that it included hundreds of thousands of new recruits to his cause? Do you think that it included himself free to plan another strike with very little effor being made to capture him?

I tell you, this is beyond his wildest dreams - he must be laughing like a maniac because the results are out of all proportion to the effort.

That it is so far beyond his wildest imagining is purely down to the way it's been handled by the US administration - you are doing his job for him by turning this into an attack on Islam instead of punishing the people responsible for the atrocity.

Jester;845390 wrote: You know I have pondered that many a time...

Sometimes I think Obama, er, Osama, thinks he got a good thing when he ordered the attack... Sometimes I think, as you have thought, that hes maniacally laughing at us, sometimes I have thought he sits in some easy chair with his battery operated kidney machine cleaning his toxic blood and ponders wether his battery will last long enough to clean his blood one last time... sometimes I wonder who really has been his mouth piece all these years and is still alive, and hes really some bag of half eaten wormwood in some cave that has been bombed out four to five times already and we just missed his burial site... sometimes I wonder how much he's enjoying his CIA captors punishment, or how much he enjoys the highlands of the Ukraine under soviet protection... of all those things I can only ponder but the one thing I do know for certain, is that he has contstant neck pain, form sharply looking over his shoulder for th enext US soldier to burst through the door with a full team of elite US Special Forces in tight forward advance on his arse.

I don't think he laughs at us nearly as much as I do him, and thats a fact.


There is no wonder about it, the US is perpetuating an atrocity and causing far more harm that Osama ever could.

Even you painful joke likening Barak Obama to Osama Bin Laden just shows how isolated from the real world - the world outside the confines of the good old US of A, you have become.

Jester;845558 wrote: The real world or your idea of the real world? Sorry to inform you Bryn, but despite how much you think a global community of citizens abiding by international law exists, it doesnt mean it does exist... The US recognizes its own laws first and theprotection of its own people comes first. I'd expect that from your country or any other. It's war, thats the way it is. You either hope on the wagon and fight as needed or you stand by the wayside and hope not to get cuaght in the crossfire.

There is no international law, only nations that seek to protect themselves. The battle lines are always being drawn and redrawn. Thats the way it is, thats the reality of all nations.

What you call an atrocity is what I can defending freedom, and protecting our people. Osama has very littel to do with it at this point, actually he's more of a figurehead than an actual threat. He will be a martyr soon and even more of a difficult entity to abolish, but in time we will get both done.

In the mean time "Give War A Chance" is my slogan!


Firstly, the atrocity I mentioned was, quite clearly, the bombing of the Twin Towers.

Secondly, it's only a war because you make it a war. To anyone else it is a police matter requiring action targeted specifically at the criminals. To the rest of the world, the coalition started the war against those they do not like and ignored the criminals.

JAB;845565 wrote: And that's the point I was trying to make. Criminals are being captured and info is being gathered. We're not just going in pell-mell and shooting everything in sight.


That is exactly what we are doing! Tell me in what way Iraq was implicated in the crime. Tell me what the Coalition has done in the past five years to try to capture and punish the criminals - compare that to what they have done elsewhere and then tell me that the prime targets are the people responsible for the bombing.

As Jester said in the post before yours, "Osama has very little to do with it at this point" - he is not the target.

JAB;845666 wrote: No, we're just shooting more then you'd care for us to do. Since your threshold is 0, anything more is too much in your opinion.


If you believe that we are going after the people responsible for the bombing of the Twin Towers then answer the questions I raised :-

Tell me in what way Iraq was implicated in the crime.

Tell me what the Coalition has done in the past five years to try to capture and punish the criminals - compare that to what they have done elsewhere



My threshold is not zero, I believe that those responsible for the crime should be punished, but I also believe that the bombing of the Twin Towers does not justify or give anyone the right to invade other countries and kill people who had nothing to do with the bombing.

Jester;845558 wrote: The real world or your idea of the real world? Sorry to inform you Bryn, but despite how much you think a global community of citizens abiding by international law exists, it doesnt mean it does exist... The US recognizes its own laws first and theprotection of its own people comes first. I'd expect that from your country or any other. It's war, thats the way it is. You either hope on the wagon and fight as needed or you stand by the wayside and hope not to get cuaght in the crossfire.

There is no international law, only nations that seek to protect themselves. The battle lines are always being drawn and redrawn. Thats the way it is, thats the reality of all nations.

What you call an atrocity is what I can defending freedom, and protecting our people. Osama has very littel to do with it at this point, actually he's more of a figurehead than an actual threat. He will be a martyr soon and even more of a difficult entity to abolish, but in time we will get both done.

In the mean time "Give War A Chance" is my slogan!


How do you as a devout christian rationalise the turn the other cheek-forgive those who trespass against us message of JC with your calls for all out war? Seems to me that he wasted his time if so many Christians are ready to kill not only those who have attacked but can dismiss the innocents being killed as collateral damage and unfortunate but it was their fault for being i the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think a little bit of love and forgiveness is a waste of time. After all JC didn't say love only those you like. If your only approach to anything in life is an aggressive one then aggression is all you see around you.

There is no international law, only nations that seek to protect themselves. The battle lines are always being drawn and redrawn. Thats the way it is, thats the reality of all nations.


Actually no. Most nations sit down and discuss things with war as a last resort. US is the only country that openly states it will abrogate treaties unilaterally-including trade treaties if it decides to do so. Kind of short sighted since if you can't be trusted to keep your word you lose all credibility as a moral force in the world. The US is one of the few countries that refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the international courts of justice, ironic since the US played a major part in introducing them. Increasingly the US is isolating itself from the rest of the world. The way you see the world isn't typical of the way others see it. The sad thing is you believe it is.

Terrorists are criminals you treat them as such instead of adopting the same tactics.

Jester;845809 wrote: My apologies Bryn, in sincerity I thought you were calling the coalition liberation of Iraq an atrocity. Please accept my apologize, I do get carried away, by now I should know to read more carefully. Ive been doing it quite a lot lately, and I think I need to be more careful in general.

I used to think it was a police matter, after the fifth country I was in fighting these bastards I figured this is an all out war...

The rest of the world, which typically turns a blind eye due to the fatness of thier own land, hasn't figured out yet what its going to take to have relative peace, ever.

I understand that you want for the US to curtail the scope of our agression against terrorism, and I seriously do think your going to get your wish, January 31 I fully expect Obama to sign executive orders pulling us out of Iraq. The country will fall to the Shiia's, massive human atrocities will take place and the innocent will die in droves. The Kurds will be attacked after the Shiia's have total control from Mosul south. The US who has promised help to the Kurds will bail on them in place of having the UN help them, and all it will get them is further oppression.

Most of the folks who blame the US for ever trying to make it better for the Iraq's will blame the US for allowing the Iranians access to take over the country. Then and only then will this current campaign be comparable to Vietnam. Because we got weak and pulled out.

Stay the course in Iraq, no matter what it takes is the best aswer for the Iraqi's and for the US. Keep hunting down the criminal element from with in the country that is backing the acts of terrorism and slowly dismantle it. What people dont understand is that world terrorism has many weak links, they need to be found and exploited and dismantled carefully so as to make it possible to find more and destroy them as well.

It can be done, and I know it can be done because thats what I used to do, it was my specialty. Operating within the country, gaining the trust of the local malitias who wanted peace and then working with them geographically to eliminate the threats to thier communuty, then when its stable you move on to the next community that by word of mouth wants your help. Yes its painstakingly slow, but it offers the greatest chance of lasting stability.

As far as negotiating goes, of course there is much of that, but, its done with power of position and use of force when necessary, and yes it looks barbaric, but we're dealing with that kind of element, its just enough force to over come the element in question.

Now Ive given everybody here more information in the past few days than I should have. And I;m not changing my position, and Im sure your not going to change yours, so I'm politely bowing out of this discussion.

Again I apologize for my assumption.




I repeat, yet again, I do not want you to curtail your fight against terrorism - in fact you should be increasing it. Osama Bin Laden should be brought to court as soon as you catch him along with the others involved in 9/11. You will not catch him by invading a country he is not in and with which he has no connection.

What I want is for the Coalition to get out of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism and which posed no threat whatsoever to the UK or the US.

You call the forces the Coalition are fighting terrorists - what terrorism have they committed? They are Arabs fighting the invaders of an Arab country. Without that invasion they would not be there.

You say that was your specialisation for many years - might I suggest you were going into areas where wars were already taking place, not taking part in an open invasion of a formerly peaceful country. That is a huge difference.

If, after the Coalition pull out, the civil war that the Coalition has started does result in further killing, can it be worse than what we, as invaders, are doing now? Our actions are illegal, immoral and totally unjustified.