Apparently bin Laden's speech has incited some protesting in Quetta, a west Pakistan city near the Afghanistan border.
BinLaden's 'speech' was a prerecorded tape, made quite some time before the attacks, probably Friday. It was the same self-serving crap rhetoric he's always used, meant to inspire the fanatics. Not one original word or non-hyperbole.
They had the choice between the paths of Peace and Terror. They chose Terror. Now, the path doubles back upon itself.
They hit us.
We hit them back harder.
They hit us back.
We hit them again.
And so it continues.
Am I the only one who does NOT support these attacks?
I know some form of reaction is justified.
But I fear that this may bloom to a new world war.
This is not the World that I or my future descendants want to live in.
We'd all like it if we could all just play nice, and everybody would just get along.
But it won't happen. Not so long as people like BinLaden and his followers are permitted to run free, to reign over entire countries, and to blow up the children of the people who they disagree with.
They do not stop to negotiate. They do not pause to reconsider. They will fight, and murder, and recruit others, until they die. Your choice is whether they die in the mountains of the Kush with a bullet in their chest, or in a school bus in Tel Aviv or Paris or New York with a bomb strapped to their chest.
Do not delude yourself into believing that it can be otherwise.
"Some form of reaction" is not justified.
TOTAL ANNIHILATION of those responsible, and those who now aid them, is what IS justified.
Anything LESS is MERCY.
"Anything LESS is MERCY."
And, of course, being merciful couldn't possibly be a virtue...
In a word, "no." You don't show mercy to a rabid dog. You kill it. When an animal has gone beyind redemption, you put it down. Osama Bin Laden is just such an animal. Over the years, he has killed thousands of innocents. If anyone is being merciful here, its the USA and her allies. Who else would bomb (in part) to open up an air corridor to bring in food and medical supplies? Not some Hitlerian state, nor a communist state, nor, dare I say, a fundamentalist Islamic state. Nope, just the oft-maligned USA and her allies.
Enough doubting our actions. Enough questioning whether we are acting morally and justly. War has little room for those facets, but if its possible to fight a war for moral and just reasons, and morally and justly, then we are doing just that. The terrorists will not act in that manner. They will continue to strike without warning, without mercy, and with no regard for the lives of innocents. If you disagree with them, they consider you to be their mortal enemy. You cannot reason with them, because only reasonable people can reason. You cannot use logic on them, because their searing hate is inherently illogical.
The Taliban and Bin Laden's cohorts have awakened the sleeping giant, allowed the elephant into the playground, and if I may use one more cliche, they started this conflict and now they must ride the whirlwind of their own creation.
I wonder if the doubters out there will feel guilty about American defending her people if Bin Laden or some other terrorist unleashes a bio-chem attack. Of course, by then it will be too late...
Constellation: Morality and justice have no place in war? I'm not even going to touch that. It's probably one of the most abhorrent things I've heard in recent memory...
If I didn't know better, I'd think that statement was made by one of the terrorists.
quote:
bio-chem attack.
May already have happened. You hearing the reports out of Florida?
Out of curiosty, what ever happened to the whole "turn the other cheek" idea?
International politics has little to do with Christianity. Especially when dealing with mass murderers and monsters like this. From a religious viewpoint, I don't know what we're supposed to do here. But from a logical viewpoint, there's only one choice, and that's exactly the one we're executing.
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
::pictures Floridian man trying to explain how he contracted Anthrax... "Well, er, I fucked my cow..."::
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
A nasal swab from the man, whose name was not immediately made public, tested positive for the anthrax bacterium, Tim O'Conner, regional spokesman for the Florida Department of Health, said Monday.
It was not yet clear if anthrax had spread to his lungs or if he had a full-blown case of the disease. The man was in stable condition at an unidentified hospital, according to both the Florida and North Carolina health departments.
His co-worker, Bob Stevens, had recently visited North Carolina. Stevens died Friday, the first person in 25 years in the United States to have died from an inhaled form of anthrax.
News that Stevens had contracted the disease set off fears of bio-terrorism, especially when it was revealed that Middle Eastern men were believed to have recently visited an airfield about 40 miles from Stevens' home in Lantana and asked questions about crop-dusters.
O'Conner said he couldn't say that the second case was related to terrorism. "That would take a turn in the investigation," said O'Conner. "It's a different aspect, we were thinking more of environmental sources."
Stevens, 63, was a photo editor at the supermarket tabloid The Sun. Environmental tests performed at the Sun's offices in Boca Raton have detected the anthrax bacteria, said O'Conner.
The Sun's offices have been closed off and law enforcement, local and state health and CDC officials were to take additional samples from the building on Monday, O'Conner said.
About 300 people who work in the building are being contacted by the Sun and instructed not come to work Monday and undergo antibiotic treatment to prevent the disease.
The FBI was helping in the search for the source of the bacterium, said Miami FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela. But "the current risk of anthrax is extremely low," O'Conner said.
It was unclear when the final tests would tell whether or not the second man has anthrax. The bacterium normally has an incubation period of up to seven days, but could take up to 60 days to develop, O'Conner said.
"We're waiting for additional testing to see if it will become a confirmed case of anthrax or not," said Barbara Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "I realize for the public this is going to be a very slight distinction."
Michael Kahane, vice president and general counsel of American Media Inc., which publishes the Sun and two other tabloids, the Globe and the National Enquirer, confirmed the company closed its Boca Raton building at the request of state health officials.
"We are cooperating with the department of health and all other governmental agencies investigating this matter," he said Monday. "Obviously our first concern is the health and well-being of our employees and their families."
Only 18 inhalation cases in the United States were documented in the 20th century, the most recent in 1976 in California. State records show the last anthrax case in Florida was in 1974.
Officials believe Stevens contracted anthrax naturally in Florida. The disease can be contracted from farm animals or soil, though the bacterium is not normally found among wildlife or livestock in the state. Stevens was described as an avid outdoorsman who enjoyed fishing and gardening.
County medical examiners are looking over any unexplained deaths, but have not found any cases connected to anthrax. Veterinarians have been told to be on alert for animals who might have the disease, but none have turned up.
Health officials are checking intensive care units of area hospitals to check records going back 30 days for suspicious cases. They should be finished Monday, said O'Conner.
"International politics has little to do with Christianity."
So you're saying that Christian ideals are not supposed to be followed universally? I just want to be clear on this for the next time you go needlessly touting your beliefs...
I would love to live in a world where there was no war or violence but we don't live in that kind of world we live in this one. And in this world people kill people. The question is can we take an action even if it is a violent one that will stop the slaughter of innocents. If the answer is yes then we need to do it. That is what we have here. We cannot talk to these individuals and get them to stop their terrorist actions. So we were given a choice, we could either sit here and talk about what a terrible thing they did or we could strike back. Both have their positives and their negatives. Only time is going to be able to tell us which was the best option to chose, but since we don't have time to spare we went with our best option.
Sure they are. But sometimes you get stuck in a bad situation, because it's a bad world. The choices are effectively: do you attempt to convert the lunatics who stand little chance of listening, while allowing more likely cantidates to be killed; or do you kill the terrorists, and save the ones that might actually be saved? Two bad choices. You chose the lesser evil.
(I dunno. Why don'cha ask BinLaden what happened to the peacefulness mandated by Islam?)
Not being a follower of that particular religion, the question is meaningless to me. However, I will answer that in my opinion, It's a valueless dictate, and fosters a slave mentality. If you turn the other cheek to a vicious enemy, all you'll end up with is two bloody cheeks to his zero. (Which is the answer to the fib that is 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless.')
Christianity also, in one place, says 'Do not resist evil,' which is also foolish for any free society. Obviously, everybody should resist evil.
Keep in mind, however, that 1st-century Judea was NOT a free society, having been conquered by the Romans, and that accepting wrongs done under those circumstances was the alternative to failed insurrection. (As in 'what cannot be helped must be endured.')
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.""Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of god."
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven."
-Isho', circa 30 CE
Am I imagining things, or does this make me, of all people, a better Christian than Omega?
I'm not saying that no retribution is necessary for the actions taken against us, but its important to realize that the half-century leading up to this is fraught with mistakes on the part of our country.
Of course, now that we are committed to this course of action, there really isnt any way to back out. It would be asinine to take the blow that we took and not safeguard ourselves against further attacks.
But let no one forget that it takes two sides to start a war....
No.
quote:
the half-century leading up to this is fraught with mistakes on the part of our country.
And on everybody else's as well. No points awarded.
Sneakily smart of you to leave out the first half of the century, which included our entry into WWII, which I doubt you could justify as a 'mistake.' Why, pray tell, did you leave that out? Nothing's different between now and then.
Sneak attack, War.
Sneak attack, War.
By the last fifty years, i refer to the fact of our involvement in the middle east political arena, not all the mistakes any country has made as a whole.
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
1: Oil. Admittedly, a necessary evil, but the one thing which has enriched the countries of the Middle East more than anything else. I suppose that's gratitude for you. Osama's daddy made his fortune in construction... but there wouldn't have been any construction were it not from the influx of oil money from the West.
2: Our support of the state and continued existence of Israel, the issue of which grew out of WWII.
If anything, the mistakes which have created crises in the Middle East were made by the Imperial powers in that area (Which really didn't include the U.S.) during the preceeding years, when largely arbitrary lines were drawn rather than borders along ethnic or religious lines. (Which is why the Kurds have no 'homeland.')
I won't say that there were no mistakes made. Most certainly abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat rather than rebuilding it and insuring its frendliness was a HUGE mistake, but trying to lay all the blame at OUR feet is... foolish, at best, because people are always responsible for their own actions.
Nobody made BinLaden do what he did. No one ever made that his only option. He has chosen what he has chosen, and he has thusly accepted all possible consequences. As has the Taliban. As has our government, and those who support us.
quote:
"Turn the other cheek" is a psychological defense mechanism for an oppressed people who are ashamed that they cannot fight back against their oppressors without being destroyed. It is most definitely not applicable to a free society.
Now that's a brand new low on your part, First.
The Israelites were conquered by the Romans.
At the time, the Romans had already mercilessly quashed several Jewish rebellions. Resistance, as it was, was futile. There were still pockets of rebellion (it is often believed that Judas and some others of the Apostles were involved in one of the rebellious factions, and followed Jesus because they hoped the Messiah would lead a successful rebellion), but nothing much could be done. Every rebellion was crushed, and with each new one, the Romans got nastier. The Jewish people were in danger of being crushed into nothingness.
Then some guy appears with a new idea: The unly way for the people to survive is for them to outwardly accept what the Romans do.
Resist not evil. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Rebel in your hearts, but not in your actions. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Turn the other cheek. Leave militarism behind. This too, shall pass. etc.
The hope is, that when the people adopt this new idea, the Romans will once again relax their grip, as the Jews will no longer appear to be a threat. That eventually, the legions will go away, and the Jews, having endured, will live in peace.
Unsurprisingly, as people tend to prefer being alive to being dead, the concept catches on. A movement is born. It's not so very different from 'passive resistance,' but more suited to the times. (The Romans would probably have wiped out 'passive' resisters too.)
Sure, Bush could go for the Christian approach, but that would a) risk the lives of millions of non-Christians, which would be unconsionable, and b) be an imposition of his religious beliefs on the rest of the country. He's a good man in a bad situation. As I say, you must take the path of least evil.
quote:
Notice how I've started ignoring Jeff most of the time when he says dumb things?
You also ignore people when they catch you lying. You imply you didn't call Canada socialist by using Sol's definition of socialist, MIB says you did in an AIM conversation, and you haven't touched the thread with a 10-foot pole since. Here's a link to the thread. Page two. Go, prove me wrong.
Then again, we've also got this thread, where you never responded to Jay's question on the top of the 2nd page.
Actually, I think Jay said it best "... your diversions and evasions cast a color of illegitimacy over much of what you write."
G'day.
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
May already have happened. You hearing the reports out of Florida?
Shit, mabye I should've gone to Rutgers.
I stated, and I quote, "Enough questioning whether we are acting morally and justly. War has little room for those facets, but if its possible to fight a war for moral and just reasons, and morally and justly, then we are doing just that..."
In other words, my position is that the USA is trying to use morality and justice in this war, although its often very hard to use such things in war. Despite that, we are dropping food to the Afghan refugees, which I mentioned, clearly indicative of an attempt to use morality toward the innocents. Instead, TSN responded with, "Morality and justice have no place in war," an invented quote which IDIC later used verbatim. Note the subtle change in meaning? Again, please at least TRY to quote properly. Even my sophomores can do that, and they're virtually illiterate Whole English victims.
quote:
Enough questioning whether we are acting morally and justly.
The implication, of course, is why would it be questioned if we are acting morally and justly? Just playing devil's advocate ...
Er, Whole English?
quote:
By definition, everybody thinks their morals are right...
I suppose that follows, but...
quote:
...and that everybody else should abide by them.
This hardly does. There are plenty of moral frameworks in which one can be perfectly accepting of different moral views.
Omega: So, your contention is that one should always do what one thinks is best, even if it means doing the opposite of what's in the gospels? If that's the case, I guess I don't have to worry about going to hell...
Be honest now.
I don't care to have sex with men, but if men or women want to have sex with men, I'm not going to stop them.
I personally wouldn't want a woman I'm with to have an abortion, but I'm pro-choice because I know what I want isn't right for everyone.
I don't think people should be allowed to drive anything but a Jeep, but, hey, different strokes for different folks ...
So, your contention is that one should always do what one thinks is best, even if it means doing the opposite of what's in the gospels?
My contention is that there are situations in which all choices are in opposition to the gospel. The trick is to stay out of those situations to begin with. Strictly speaking, perhaps Bush should resign, because his job requirements are in opposition to his religion, but then you end up with the same conundrum: he'd be leaving the people he's sworn to protect out in the cold. He's stuck in an unwinnable situation, so he does what he has to do.
This is one reason I decided NOT to go into politics. I don't like no-win scenarios. Especially when you can't cheat.