Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:43:28 -0400 From: "jason" <kib@mediaone.net> To: "Paul Robinson" <paul@akita.co.uk>, "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" <des@ofug.org>, "Stephen Hurd" <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, "Technical Information" <tech_info@threespace.com>, "FreeBSD Chat" <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <015e01c143c8$c93505a0$89941bd8@speakeasy.net> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAGEDNCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> <xzp66abb7pz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BAD1FAE.2F3D40F5@mindspring.com> <20010923011557.B60374@jake.akitanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>"Paul Robinson" <paul@akita.co.uk> Wrote: > I've always seen it as Osama. Usama is closer to how it's pronounced. My roomate is named Osama. Its spelled only that way and is apparently a popular name in that part of the world. > > Yes, Iraq is a state that is known to sponsor terrorism. > > So is the USA - god knows how many operations the CIA have backed, involving > everything from drug smuggling through to terrorism. In fact, they gave > Laden his weaponary and training in the first place. As I've stated Why would we support Bin Laden when he has hated the US for some many years? We did support Suddam at one point only because or Iran. I can't recall any one time where the US had any interest in training or helping Bin Laden's group. Name one. > elsewhere, certain portions of the US population don't seem to have a > problem with the IRA either. > The IRA as far as I know didn't knowck over any US buildings. Although UK has to deal with that sort of thing the same way we deal with out own internal terrorist. I think we all remember Okalahoma City. > > I've seen both of those. If the events are so frivolous as > > you imply, then the U.S. is more concerned with internal > > politics, rather than world opinion. If that's the case, then > > we would simply have attacked already, and to hell with what > > people think of us, if they are determined to think evil of > > us, as you imply. > > Even Bush isn't stupid enough to piss off the EU countries, the UN security > council and NATO. This *is* about internal politics - Bush is attempting to > do what his father did (who in turn learnt from Margaret Thatcher) by > engaging in a war that is positive from a publicity point of view. All this > makes him look good with the electorate. Yes, I am cynical enough to believe > that is his primary motive - he knows he is now far more popular than he was > before the 11th September, and the reason he is popular is because he now > has the oppurtunity to push the right buttons... > He is not doing it for the approval rating as much as he is doing it because the vast majority of Americans will demand it. His approval rating will go up by doing what the citizens think he should do in this situation. So basically he is doing what he was elected to do. > > Bombing is _nothing_ compared to the other extreme options > > available. > > See above. Bush knows, and more importantly his advisors know that if gets > to that point, he has a problem with the whole of the UN. The US might be > big, but it's not big enough to avoid getting into the shit. > Unless we plan to take on the rest of the world I think the US would be best adviced to not consider those other "extreme options available". This will probably be handled in a more conventional mannor or warfare. > > You have a lot of terrorists claiming credit before the act > > over there, do you? It would seem to me with that information, > > you should be able to prevent the acts. > Some terrorists have announced attacks before but most wait until after. It depends on the demands of the terrorists and the target of the attack. The US has attacked without warning and with warning. Compare Iraq bombing (before ground war) and the bombing of Libya. The presence of forewarning has nothing to do with it being a terrorist attack or a retaliation. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?015e01c143c8$c93505a0$89941bd8>