11 September - 4 years on

[Lou Girardin]

I understand perfectly thanks. I'm particularly intelligent. You presume too much.

Actually killing anybody in the name of a ideaology or 'cause' is irrational, immoral and in the towel heads case the work of madmen. The gates of anyone's heaven are barred to mass murderers.

Isn't it strange then that most, if not all, wars are fought for an ideology or cause. Were the crusades the work of madmen? Or are you only a madman when you belong to a different race?

[MikeL]

I understand perfectly thanks. I'm particularly intelligent. You presume too much.

Actually killing anybody in the name of a ideaology or 'cause' is irrational, immoral and in the towel heads case the work of madmen. The gates of anyone's heaven are barred to mass murderers.

I didn't say you were not capable of understanding. I said you were unwilling to understand.

Your second paragraph proves the point. I have clearly explained that the terrorist acts were immoral but not irrational because they were planned and executed for a purpose and achieved an intended result - that is rational behaviour, however wicked or immoral. You persist in defining the perpetrators as madmen: does this mean that you believe anyone committing such heinous acts, if they were to survive and be put on trial, should be found not guilty because of insanity?

If not, ask yourself what ulterior motive you have in defining them as madmen.

[Big Dave]

I didn't say you were not capable of understanding. I said you were unwilling to understand.

Like I told you before I *understand* perfectly.
You are confusing that with someone who disagrees with you.
End of discussion.

[Big Dave]

Isn't it strange then that most, if not all, wars are fought for an ideology or cause. Were the crusades the work of madmen? Or are you only a madman when you belong to a different race?

OK - what I meant in this case was the mass murder of innocents.

[Biff]

Whether it was misguided is a different question, and depends on whether all the consequences of these acts were fully considered. The fact is that if those responsible set out to inflict a severe blow on a nation that they perceived as an enemy, they achieved that aim. The repercussions of that attack have been enormous. The ongoing impact on ordinary Americans goes far beyond the loss of several thousand lives. As you point out, the death toll from the recent hurricane may well be several times that number. But that's not the point. The wound inflicted by the terrorists goes deep into the American psyche; what I think is even more significant is the effect of this symbolic act on international perceptions of American strength and weaknesses - political, military and moral.

Yup - all valid points. But the question you asked was did they achieve their aims. And since OBL has been on video stating that the attacks were intended to cripple the economies of the western world then the answer is no - they didn't succeed. Sure it dented the pockets of some airlines, and tourism in general, but that was a short term thing. The American psyche will get over it, but the shock of having such an atrocity happen on their own doorstep will last a generation.

[SARGE]

Yup - all valid points. But the question you asked was did they achieve their aims. And since OBL has been on video stating that the attacks were intended to cripple the economies of the western world then the answer is no - they didn't succeed. Sure it dented the pockets of some airlines, and tourism in general, but that was a short term thing. The American psyche will get over it, but the shock of having such an atrocity happen on their own doorstep will last a generation.

the Japanese thought that Pearl Harbor would stop the yanks in thier tracks too..these events tend to Galvinize the american people. (until the powers that be fuck up the response)

just a quick question here folks.. how many of you have experienced combat? how many have lost friends or family in a war or terrorist attack? how many have even served in the military?

reason im asking is that there seems to be a ton of "armchair Quarterbacking" going on here with little or no real world experience as to the nature of war and the mindset of those involved. International relations is a funny thing.. how far do you go? how much do you take before you lash out like a wounded bear? too little response and you look weak, an easy mark.. too much and you are labeled Imperialistic Scum. if you were the leader .. how far would YOU go?

i personally think Bush had a Soft Cock response.. i would have taken it much farther and shown what TERROR™ really is..

[Lou Girardin]

OK - what I meant in this case was the mass murder of innocents.

In one city seige during the crusades, a Christian commander ordered all unbelievers slain. When asked how the troops could tell the difference, he said, "kill them all, God will take his own".

[Lou Girardin]

the Japanese thought that Pearl Harbor would stop the yanks in thier tracks too..these events tend to Galvinize the american people. (until the powers that be fuck up the response)

just a quick question here folks.. how many of you have experienced combat? how many have lost friends or family in a war or terrorist attack? how many have even served in the military?

reason im asking is that there seems to be a ton of "armchair Quarterbacking" going on here with little or no real world experience as to the nature of war and the mindset of those involved. International relations is a funny thing.. how far do you go? how much do you take before you lash out like a wounded bear? too little response and you look weak, an easy mark.. too much and you are labeled Imperialistic Scum. if you were the leader .. how far would YOU go?

i personally think Bush had a Soft Cock response.. i would have taken it much farther and shown what TERROR™ really is..

Sorry Sarge, but what makes you think that some low ranking soldier knows anything, let alone more about the geo-political situation at any given time than the politicians running the world.
Did they give you regular briefings on the latest security reports from around the world. I somehow doubt it. Like all soldiers, you're told "these are the bad guys, go kill them".
If you did have that information, why did you all not insist on attacking Saudi Arabia? That's where the terrorists all came from and were funded by.
I'd hazard a guess that you have no idea of the origins of the middle eastern situation that we have now. have you read T E Lawrence, for example.
Your country's response to the World trade centre attacks has made the world immeasurably less safe than before.
If the US stopped regarding the President as having some form of Papal infallibilty and starting regarding the world in terms other than that of Die Hard, they may start to regain some of the respect they had in the 40's and 50's.

[MikeL]

just a quick question here folks.. how many of you have experienced combat? how many have lost friends or family in a war or terrorist attack? how many have even served in the military?

Why do you think it necessary to have had combat experience, or been directly affected by war in order to have a valid opinion on a country's foreign policy? I would never presume to give a soldier advice about tactics.
But whether to go to war, and the reasons or justifications for war, are political, not military decisions. We "armchair quarterbacks" may very well have a more balanced view of those considerations than the combat soldier...

[MikeL]

i personally think Bush had a Soft Cock response.. i would have taken it much farther and shown what TERROR™ really is..

I would be interested to know exactly what you would have done.

[Wolf]

OK - what I meant in this case was the mass murder of innocents.

**Puzzlement** Are you saying that the Muslims killed in the crusades were not "innocent"?

The Crusaders raped and murdered women and children as "heathens", they stole vast amounts of Saracen gold to take back to the Mother Church (the Templars didn't, they kept the gold they took and were proscribed, disbanded, tortured and burned on charges of "witchcraft" and "heresy").

Murder of "innocents" is not new - and most cases there was some form of ideology behind it - not just religious ideology; politics, racial hatred and fiscal policy have all had a pretty good innings.

They say that "the truth is the first casualty of war", but in many cases one could argue that "innocents" are the first casualties and the truth falls soon after because the aggressors have a damn good reason to lie...

[Big Dave]

I really don't want to talk about this - I came to KB because I was so over this topic on all the international boards.

My last words on this topic ever:
The Islamic murderers who kill thousands of people in the name of god and their religion are deluded and quite insane. How can anyone in their right mind believe that killing innocent people is the gateway to heaven. Madness.

The US has done exactly what these madmen wanted them to do. Played into their hands and have given them exactly the ammunition they needed to recruit more and more murderers. (i won't say terrorists)

mention The Crusades, Vietnam, Korea - whatever. None of them worked either.

It's a fuck up Arthur.

Ends.

[Marknz]

can I recommend that everyone read the following book?

America's Secret War, George Friedman, 0-385-51245-7

[Ixion]

Why do you think it necessary to have had combat experience, or been directly affected by war in order to have a valid opinion on a country's foreign policy? I would never presume to give a soldier advice about tactics.
But whether to go to war, and the reasons or justifications for war, are political, not military decisions. We "armchair quarterbacks" may very well have a more balanced view of those considerations than the combat soldier...

What is president Bush's combat experience ?

[SARGE]

.
Did they give you regular briefings on the latest security reports from around the world. I somehow doubt it. Like all soldiers, you're told "these are the bad guys, go kill them".

actually Lou.. i had more intel than the common foot-soldier. Tuba Players like mysellf usually did.

I would be interested to know exactly what you would have done.

bring back Napalm and WP..

Mike.. i KNOW the extremists mindset.. the only way to get to the point here is scare the living bejesus out of them.. make it more costly for them to act than it is worth,... target the families (great habib.. you can hide, but your mom's address is...xxx) target the basic survival nessessities, food water etc..starve them out.. yes.. thats extreme..i know that .. thats the only way to bring these cunts to the table

What is president Bush's combat experience ?

in my experience, the President does not require combat experience, he is surrounded by those who do and can advise him as needed


i didnt start this thread to get into the politics of it.. i just wanted to remember those who died and those who were involved..
if thats too much for all of you than i can just delete this thread, as it has been poisoned off of its original intent