posted 09-17-2001 06:06            

In the US, terrorists are allowed to set up webcams on abortion clinics and publish the phone numbers, addresses, and other personal information on doctors who perform abortions and their staff. There can be no other intent in doing so than to terrorize those people, and make that information readily available to other terrorists who seek to harm them.

So, since we are looking to exterminate all who participate in or even passively allow acts of terror to happen, I expect the U.S. Marshals to promptly round up every anti-abortion activist and place them in a concentration camp.

posted 09-17-2001 06:10            

Still, terrorists might very well be paid for it as well...

posted 09-17-2001 06:58         

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
Since we are declaring war on any country that harbors, trains or facilitates terrorists, and wil be causing such nations to "cease to exist", when do we carpet-bomb Washington?

In the US, terrorists are allowed to set up webcams on abortion clinics and publish the phone numbers, addresses, and other personal information on doctors who perform abortions and their staff. There can be no other intent in doing so than to terrorize those people, and make that information readily available to other terrorists who seek to harm them.

So, since we are looking to exterminate all who participate in or even passively allow acts of terror to happen, I expect the U.S. Marshals to promptly round up every anti-abortion activist and place them in a concentration camp.

I mean, we wouldn't want to be seen as knee-jerk hypocrits, would we?

---

posted 09-17-2001 07:06            

Joshy, we don't finance - or tolerate - those anti-abortion terrorists. They can spout their bile on their websites, but that same bile gets used by LEO's to help make a case to convict their sorry asses if and when they go firebomb somebody.

Yes, they're terrorists, no, they're not tolerated, and thirdly, to remove their websites (or do anything to them BEFORE having a solid case that they'd committed an actual crime) would be to violate the right to free speech. And if you violate THEIR right to free speech, mine is next.

posted 09-17-2001 09:50            

How is the anti-abortionist's acts any different than say, stalking? Following Doctors around, taking pictures of them, posting info about their daily routines online, it's creepy. Even if the people doing this can be protected under the umbrella of "free speech" I think that it is wrong.

posted 09-17-2001 10:30            

Marcel: Thanks for the bump, moron.

Jimbo: EXACTLY. We don't do ANYTHING to Right-to-Lifers as a group when one of them blows up a clinic or shoots a doctor; we go after the INDIVIDUALS who did the deed or directly collaborated. That's how it SHOULD be.

Does anyone think that every Afghan supports terrorism, Bin Laden, or the Taliban? Heck, the Afgan government recognized by most of the world is that of the rebels holed up in the Northern part of the ountry. If civil rights like free speech and due process are so valued here, how can we suspend them when dealing with criminals abroad?

If we bomb Afghanistan, and kill ONE innocent person, would we not be WORSE than the terrorists we hunt? They at least believed in what they were doing enough to give their lives for it, we'd rather sit back and bomb them from above. Their belief that civilian casualties are acceptable when making a statement is what enrages us so much- do we want to lower ourselves to that level?

posted 09-17-2001 11:33         

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
Marcel: Thanks for the bump, moron.

---

Unbunch your panties and listen up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
Does anyone think that every Afghan supports terrorism, Bin Laden, or the Taliban?

---

No.
Are INDIVIDUAL terriorists more effective when they orginaze into a GROUP? Yep. I think this has been proven. The Cristian coalition protests against abortion peacefully as a group. Is there perhaps a few members who take protesting a bit too far and perform violent acts? you betcha.
Do the acts of a few "bad" members reflect upon the "group", you betcha.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
If we bomb Afghanistan, and kill ONE innocent person, would we not be WORSE than the terrorists we hunt?

---

No.
Our "goal" will to be take out the "bad" group members. NOT to remove the life of ALL.

By the way would YOU (Joshy) fight for your country? Assuming you are a U.S. citizen.
It dosen't sound like it, too busy protecting your civil liberities.

posted 09-17-2001 11:46            

If you follow the threads here a bit more closely, you'll find that most of us haven't been talking about "bombing", we've been talking about ground assault. I'm one of those folks.

No, I don't want to punish Afghan citizens as a group for just happening to live in the same country as the head of al Queada... I want to punish (actually, destroy) the government that knowingly harbored that vipers' nest, knowing full well that it was basically an organization committed to waging limited-resources/unlimited-brutality war (aka, terrorism) on other countries.

The only way to do that is via ground assault. You can't eradicate a government with simple saturation bombing; the important guys are the ones in hardened bunkers - and contrary to popular belief, even with modern cruise missiles, it's next to impossible to seriously damage the contents of a hardened facility through simply bombing/conventional missile strikes.

Keep in mind that although the USG may not be going after anti-abortion terrorists with as much zeal as you like, the ones they AREN'T going after full-bore are the ones who HAVEN'T killed anybody yet. Yes, the people stalking doctors should probably be (and in some cases are) prosecuted under anti-stalking laws. But there are a few problems here preventing the sort of pogrom you'd obviously like to see; not the least of which is the fact that the victim must file and press charges in order for there to be an arrest, much less a conviction, on stalking ordnances.

Most doctors have neither the time nor the inclination to do such things. This is their right; we can't make them press charges if they don't want to.

We can talk more about this topic if you'd like, but I personally would really appreciate it if you divorced the anti-abortionist topic from the WTC tragedy topic. It just gets people needlessly riled up who'd normally be much more civil, and honestly I feel like we've already covered the differences solidly enough to make what similarities there are a non-issue.

posted 09-17-2001 13:31            

Yes.

Am I ok with that?
I'm not sure.

Is it ACCEPTABLE to me?
Yes it is.

Why? These people aren't stupid. I maintain that through THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE, terrorists utilize their lands and resources for training and shelter.

What is their moral position on this? If, through your own inactivity, you allow terrible things to happen, what is YOUR moral position?

If they will not excise the cancer in their midst, I am fully prepared to. I may have nightmares for the rest of my life, but I know that going in, and my choice is clear.

Put up, or shut up. (and possibly get shot.)

posted 09-17-2001 14:36            

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:
Why? These people aren't stupid. I maintain that through THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE, terrorists utilize their lands and resources for training and shelter.

---

This is what I'm on about. It's been taking me all day to put together a reply to Jimbo's post (trying to do it right this time, since clearly I fudged that last post)

There is a stye in the eye of the beholder. We are all people that, THROUGH OUR OWN NEGLIGENCE, allow terrorists to utilize our lands and resources for training and shelter.

This is why I brought abortion-related terrorism into this. Then there's the bombing of black churches, and various other activities of white supremicist organizations. Where did Tim McVey get his martial training? Our military. And Where do you think most of the IRA's money comes from? The US.

Who made Saddam Hussain who he is today? The US. They same goes for almost every other 3rd World dictator around the globe - we put them in power with our guns and money and CIA intelligence to hold off the Communits, and now we are reaping what we've sewn.

At least three of the hyjackers from last week got their flight training in the US. Most of them have lived here for years. The FBI was tracking at least two of them at the time of the attacks- should we blow up FBI HQ for allowing known terrorsists to opperate?

The natural reaction to pain and fear is to strike out, to seek an external target and attack it.

We need to overcome that, and look at ourselves first, if truly want to find the source of our problems, and exercise them. We need to think about what it is that makes so many people so willing to die and kill to strike a futile blow against us. We need to stop allowing the blinders of self-righteous fury to hide our own faults from us if we hope to ever end this cycle.

-spellling edit #1 (spilled a half-litre of water in my keyboard this morning and messed it up - yeah, that's why my spelling is so bad)

posted 09-17-2001 15:18            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
By the way would YOU (Joshy) fight for your country? Assuming you are a U.S. citizen.
It dosen't sound like it, too busy protecting your civil liberities.

---

You'd be more likely to find me along side the IRA, or the Palestinians, or any other group that is fighting back against an invasion of their homeland by an oppressive foreign power. I'd have signed up early for WW2, I'd have been in Canada for Viet Nam. Sometimes we as a country have been right, too often we have been wrong. Nobody is crashing airliners into downtown Toronto, or Switzerland, or any of the other countries that do a decent job of not taking what doesn't belong to them.

Who faces terrorists? Bullies. Great Britain, The US, Israel, Russia, Iraq, Spain, India- anywhere that those in power seek to dominate a less powerfull country or segment of their own population, you will have terrorism.

Terrorism is what you turn to when you have nothing left but hate. It isn't righteous; it's desperate, and usually ineffective- but by the time you've had that much taken from you, you no longer care.

You need to know your enemy, and I believe that this is not one that will be defeated with conventional warfare. For every terrorist we kill, a martyr to American aggression will be made, and more will turn against us. This will turn into a war of genocide.

It would be far more effective to pull our backing out of Israel (I'm part Hebrew, and have cousins there, so I don't take this lightly), and pull our troops from the various middle-eastern coutries we occupy. Within a couple years Israel would be gone, and the region would settle down, and no-one would have a reason to bomb us.

But that would be an awfull lot like giving up- and we're far more concerned about "winning" than being truly right, or just. Better that thousands more die on both sides so we can declare ourselves the "winners," than that the situation be resolved by us yielding anything to anybody.

posted 09-17-2001 15:20           

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:

At least three of the hyjackers from last week got their flight training in the US. Most of them have lived here for years. The FBI was tracking at least two of them at the time of the attacks- should we blow up FBI HQ for allowing known terrorsists to opperate?

We need to... look at ourselves first, if truly want to find the source of our problems, and exercise them.

---

Ok so then why not revoke all visas and deport non-citizens? Surely no one would get up in arms over sending people home (yeah right).

I'm for military action abroad, but I believe we also have to deal with the problem at home. On the other hand I refuse to give up any rights (we have so few left already) I had prior to, and as a result of this tragedy. Our government owes these "visitors" nothing, they owe us protection.

posted 09-17-2001 15:39            

This is a direct result of the negligence of the American people. Afghanistan did not elect their government and have no say in their actions. We do.

Following InThrees logic, the WTC attack was completely justified.

Continuing that stream of though, my attack on Marcel will be completely justified as well. Your dismissal of Joshy's point as "inane" and "A complete waste of time and words", followed by your assertion that everyone in the Christian Coalition is guilty because they are unable to control the acts of a few wackos, followed by your masturbatory patriotic chest thumping that your fat old ass couldn't possibly back up leaves me no choice but to expose you as a mentally challenged troll who is calling for the murder of even more innocent people in the name of retribution.

Let us hope that someday that you progress far enough intelectually to become 'inane'.

posted 09-17-2001 16:23            

Q. Are there American terrorists?
A. Yes. Unequivocally.

Q. Do we support them, and shield them from criminal prosecution?
A. No.

Q. Is there a strong parallel between the Taliban's direct support of al Quaeda (sp?) and our inability to nail every single home-grown terrorist before they manage to do something nasty?
A. No.

We do not tolerate terrorism in this country. We may be slow to apprehend it, but we are always attempting to do so. The fact that we must balance apprehension of terrorists with violation of the civil liberties of innocents does NOT make us morally equivalent to the Taliban.

posted 09-17-2001 16:40            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Joshy:

We can talk more about this topic if you'd like, but I personally would really appreciate it if you divorced the anti-abortionist topic from the WTC tragedy topic. It just gets people needlessly riled up who'd normally be much more civil, and honestly I feel like we've already covered the differences solidly enough to make what similarities there are a non-issue.

---

Yes, thats just what we need! Let's just not talk about it, sweep it under the carpet, avoid looking at the issue from any different perspectives ...

This is a discussion board. If I want to post a new topic about the similarities between the WTC and KFC, or the IRA and JFA, or anything else that pops into my addled brain I'm gonna do it. If you are utterly unable to divorce your instincts/emotions/knee-jerk racial slandering from your thought processes you will find the information superhighway an unpleasant experience.

To anyone who I've pissed off in the last hour, please note I have been quietly attempting to clarify my own thoughts regarding this mess. They are:

1) Two wrongs do not make a right. A full scale military assault on the country will only shed more blood.

2) War as a concept should have been left behind in the dark ages. A civilized society would never expend as much energy and resources on the murder of human beings as we do.

3) Anyone who says the dark ages are over obviously isn't paying attention. Anyone familiar with European history should be able to see the pattern is still repeating itself, and millions of lives are still being lost without necessity.

posted 09-17-2001 17:16            

Personally, I'm with Marcel. This whole, "wait isn't the USA guilty too?" sounds convincing for about 0.6 seconds, until you think of fifteen ways that it isn't a valid comparison. It just seems to drag an uninvolved issue that people feel strongly about into the fray, and muddy everything.

posted 09-17-2001 18:21            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LonMabonJovi:
Yes, thats just what we need! Let's just not talk about it, sweep it under the carpet, avoid looking at the issue from any different perspectives ....

---

Who avoided looking at it? Fuck, if I missed something, let me know. Doesn't look to me like there's anything else to cover in terms of comparing prosecution of abortion-clinic bombings to the proposed assault on the Taliban, though.

If the USG did support the firebombing of abortion clinics, hell I would be all for rushing into Washington and getting whoever the hell was running the show out of business. But they don't, so I don't.

posted 09-17-2001 18:30            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
Jimbo: EXACTLY. We don't do ANYTHING to Right-to-Lifers as a group when one of them blows up a clinic or shoots a doctor; we go after the INDIVIDUALS who did the deed or directly collaborated. That's how it SHOULD be.

---

Okay, here's one I perhaps missed. If there were a clinic firebombing that was pulled off by a large militant group of Right-to-Lifers, we would in fact work diligently at uncovering the entire group, and charging those who were not directly involved with conspiracy to commit murder.

If we discovered that the city government was in on the whole thing and conveniently failed to arrest the group members after their crimes / obstructed emergency service personnel for responding / etc, we would also include them as members of the conspiracy, and indict them appropriately.

In the case of Bin Laden and the Taliban, we have a government that knowingly harbored, aided and abetted the terrorists directly responsible for the WTC tragedy - the moral equivalent of our hypothetical city government that aided and abetted the abortion clinic firebombers. Much as we would first remove that city government from power and then indict the officials for the crime of conspiracy to commit murder, we must remove the Taliban from power as accessories to THAT crime (among others).

The real difference is that a city government is internal and directly under the jurisdiction of state and federal authorities, whereas Afghanistan is a sovereign power - thus, any effort on our part to "meddle" with their government is (correctly) seen as an act of war, and responded to appropriately.

This in no way changes our responsibility to wage war on the government which aided and abetted Bin Laden. Without that or another government's aid and abetment, the WTC tragedy could never have happened. The Taliban did not merely "fail to prosecute in a timely manner", it in fact harbored and harbors Bin Laden as "an honored guest" and hero.

posted 09-17-2001 19:32            

It was a poor comparison, but the idea behind it was right. It definately deserved more than a six word 'pointless' tag.

I believe this topic is fruitful and it probably will get ugly in spots. The USA pulls all kinds of shit, everywhere. We have our fingers in a lot of pies. We wrote the book on financial support to rebel factions, which have been responsible for countless deaths around the globe. Our govennment is the best money can buy. This country desperately needs an enema.

As my friends, I can't help but speak up when I believe you are deceiving yourselves. Exactly how do you expect a ground force to correctly identify terrorists? "That one looks shifty eyed, cap im Joe!"

The best idea I have heard so far is the seperation of bin Laden and his money. The intel to make this alone happen will take lots of time and resources. But it will be a start. The CIA etc. are practically blind in the middle east. Anyone who has taken hunters safety classes (and most who haven't) know the first rule of gun safety: "Always know exactly what you are shooting at". Hopefully, with the support of the rest of the world, we will be able to improve in this arena.

I really don't see what we could do that would cause the Taliban to turn him over. Even if they did, he will be martyred up the wazoo and new recruits will pour in faster than they did here after Top Gun.

I just wish I could find some positive synergies in this lose/lose situation. From where I am sitting we are fucked no matter what we do.

posted 09-17-2001 19:59            

The fact remains, you're barking up the wrong tree if you complain to me about censorship. I don't do it.

As for the problem of sorting out which is who: the whole point is that when you send in ground troops, the local population has the option to surrender. Anybody what don't surrender is the enemy.

posted 09-17-2001 23:25            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:

The fact remains, you're barking up the wrong tree if you complain to me about censorship. [u]I don't do it.[/u]

---

realy? then maybe my post got editted by your evil twin twice removed step brother uncle-inlaw!

oh and long duck dong if you can make your arguement to anybody who lost a loved one and let them see your side of view; then maybe you have a point, how crazy it may seem to me. i seriously doubt though you will be able to make it through the whole thing though without breaking down from the other persons sorrow, unless you are like me and just are a heartless bastard. also...

ANYBODY WHO SPITS A SPITBALL AT GI'S IN TOWELHEADLAND, afgan, SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE FUCKING HEAD!

then once we clear away the dead and dying we can prop up their economy with a Middle Eastern Islamic Disney. my favorite ride would be Allah's Magic Carpet Ride and Mohhamed's (sp?) Mosque Mountain. damn i am all ready to go and be the first in line, oh, and dont forget the happiest place there, Bowl Of Soup Land.

Have A Disney Day !
Asmamaleca meca hinny ho!

editted cause it was clme who did it not jimbo, my bad

posted 09-18-2001 00:26            

The one thing that really floored me tonight watching the news ... the NYSE took a shit, the biggest point drop ever recorded. Why?

The primary reason: Airline stocks took a beating. Seems investors are selling like hotcakes, because of the fear that they won't be as profitable ... all that added security, armed plainsclothes marshals, nervous commuters taking the bus ... that will definately have a negative impact on the bottom line.

So, America united, but not United as in the airline? Pulling the financial carpet out from under an industry trying to increase security and rebuild consumer confidence is going to have a positive effect? Showing the world that when times get tough we have a big retarded race to see who can sell out our core businesses the fastest will make terrorists less likely to try it again???

I guess it isn't surprising, the same thing happens to the market when the unemployment rate gets too low. Can't make any money if everyone is working! It's bad for business.

Can someone explain this in a way that makes sense? To me it just seems wrong.