I'm starting to worry about Doc.... [Archive]

Doc Milo

Sep 11th, 2001, 10:56:28 PM

I would have had trouble with phone lines. Trying to call people in my family to make sure everyone was okay was hit or miss. Many times I got a fast busy signal, other times I had "all circuits are busy." I have a cable modem, though, so I don't have to tie up any lines. I was just glued to the TV and trying to get in touch with family all day...

Thankfully, I was able to get in touch with everyone (two members of my family work in NYC -- both are safe.)

I live on Long Island. I had no reason to try to go into the city -- thankfully. I pretty much saw the chaos on TV like everyone else. I don't know how I will handle it, though, when I go back to work and don't see the Twin Towers in the skyline. Geez. I can't believe this has happened.

I think we should go out and say, "We don't know who did it. We don't care. We are going to strike any country who harbors any type of terrorist organization -- and we are going to strike with weapons of mass destruction." I know that's not realistic -- nor even Christian. It's just how I feel. I'd like to wipe the entire middle east off the face of the earth. (Especially seeing the Palestinians dancing in the streets!)

CMJ

Sep 11th, 2001, 11:03:38 PM

Wiping (or trying to wipe out) all of the middle easteners would do more harm than good. The ones that didn't get taken out, and believe me there would be, would be even MORE dangerous and hell bent on our destruction. Nonetheless action needs to be taken...quickly.

buffjedi

Sep 11th, 2001, 11:11:23 PM

Although I AGREE 100 and 10 % with you Doc, you have to keep in mind that ALOT of those people are taught growing up that the USA is bad,just like when I was growing up RUSSIAN was evil.But I know its hard to think about things like that when you see them singing and dancing in the street and laughing about death.I know this isnt a good Christian thing to say either BUT I would give almost anything to meet each and everyone involved (thats alive) one or two at a time and show them what true TERROR IS(never happen but it would be nice :) ).I hope i'll be forgiven for my feelings of wanting to destroy these people .I truly hate having this much hatered for someone I never have meet.

buffjedi2/wookieboy

Atreyu

Sep 11th, 2001, 11:16:27 PM

I think we should go out and say, "We don't know who did it. We don't care. We are going to strike any country who harbors any type of terrorist organization -- and we are going to strike with weapons of mass destruction." I know that's not realistic -- nor even Christian. It's just how I feel. I'd like to wipe the entire middle east off the face of the earth. (Especially seeing the Palestinians dancing in the streets!)
Whilst I don't blame you Americans for being royally pissed at the situation, I certainly hope some cooling down occurs before ANY action is taken.

The last thing this world needs is the world's most powerful nation slugging left and right at anyone and everyone who looks suspicious. :(

Again, my prayers go out to the US.

Doc Milo

Sep 11th, 2001, 11:59:01 PM

I certainly agree with you Atreyu. I'm just glad I'm not the one making the decisions at this point in time! (As you can tell from the tone of that last post.)

Just everytime I see that plane crashing into the World Trade center, every time TV repeats that scene, then the scene of the two towers crumbling to the ground.....

I wouldn't want to be the one making the decisions right now. And I'm glad I'm not. Because the thought of telling these terrorists and the countries that harbor them: "You'll learn the true meaning of terror when you see a few hundred nuclear ballistic missiles heading up your butt" keeps going through my mind.

I don't like feeling this way. Which is why I am glad I'm not making such decisions.

I'm on such an emotional rollercoaster, riding between unquenchable anger to solemn depression...

Jedi Master Carr

Sep 12th, 2001, 01:45:53 AM

I am glad to see that you are okay Doc. And I too understand your feelings, I have some of them, although I am not willing to use Nukes but I would like to see us bomb Afghanastan, if Bin Ladin is responsible. I am hoping if we bomb them enough maybe they will give him to us. I am not sure how likely that is. The best thing to do is find out who is responsible than act we don't want to do anything rash and then we become just as bad as the terroists. As far as the palastinies dancing, it wasn't a large group and most were just standing there (at least the video I saw). Half were kids who probably do not even understand what is really going on and the Adults I am thinking belong to some extremist Hamas type organization. Most Palastines do not hate us like those people or at least would not want to see something like this happen to us (interestingly almost half are Christian). I guess we will have to wait and see what happens in the coming days. Oh by the way Fox, I didn't think you and Darth were casualities I was just pointing out that some people weren't posting I am sure Darth was glued to his TV like most of us watching the shocking events.

Darth23

Sep 12th, 2001, 06:42:55 AM

That's great jon.

it's that f---kin attitude that perpetuates violence.

ReaperFett

Sep 12th, 2001, 07:52:55 AM

you dont even know that they are from the middle east, but you want to bomb them? What if you heard the IRA were involved? Going to bomb Britain? What if it was an inside job? Going to bomb some on your own soil?

Captain Tohmahawk

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:07:54 AM

Oh screw it. I deleted that post. That was simply the most thoughtless and low post I have seen today. I'm not in the mood to see such rubbish today.

Jedieb

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:26:39 AM

It's so good to hear from you Doc. Keep the faith, and keep strong. Your being safe is one of many victories we shall have in the days to come.

Jedi Master Carr

Sep 12th, 2001, 02:56:06 PM

What did Jon Say that got deleted, I missed it? I am guessing it had something to do with attacking the Middle East right now but that is a guess. Now I am sure what ever he said, he said more out of anger just like a lot of people I have heard recently saying similar things. That is why I hope that we don't act until all the evidence is in even though it does appear that Bin Laden's people were behind it. If that is the case then I say we bomb Afghanstan first then we try to pressure their goverment with the help of the EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and other Middle East states to hand him over. If they won't do we then impliment an economic embargo and let them get nothing but medical supplies. There is nothing else we can do except hope they come to their senses. I would not support no invasion because it would take a huge force to invade that country and we would probably take in at least 30% casualities because of the difficulty of the terrian. As I have said before nobody has every completely conquered that nation and many have tried from Alexander the Great, Gengies Khan, and most recently the Soviet Union. It has to do with terrain and the harshness of the people. Sure we could send in millions of troops but we would probably have casualites figures much higher than we lost yesterday. So in that case we must avoid an invasion at all costs.

JonathanLB

Sep 12th, 2001, 06:53:43 PM

Everyone says this nonsense about how we must "find out it really was Osami Bin Laden." What the heck does that mean? WHO CARES? He needs to be killed at all costs ANYWAY for what he has done in the past. I couldn't care less whether he did or did not do this newest act of terrorism as far as killing him is concerned. If it was another group, which it IS NOT, by the way, we know that now, then I would still think this is a wake up call to spend any amount necessary to bring him to justice, or more like kick his @$$.

If you want to talk about an abuse of power, lol, deleting someone's post for expressing an opinion is certainly that. I flamed nobody and violated no rules of the forum, but you deleted the post. This is what they do in communist countries and dictatorships: they censor opinions they don't agree with.

I don't honestly care, though, it's not a big deal to me.

You know my feelings: use all available military force to wipe out anti-US forces in the Middle East. That, simply put, is the BEST solution and the ONLY solution to such violence and terrorism.

JonathanLB

Sep 12th, 2001, 07:04:34 PM

Anyway, what I'm saying is not far off from what other officials are saying, and if you happen to disagree, go ahead and hug a tree or whatever and pretend this isn't that big of a deal and PRETEND that the solution is to forgive and forget like some kind of a damn idiot, but that's not what should and that's not what's GOING to happen.

The United States military is already preparing a massive military action against Bin Laden and possibly Afghanistan too (hopefully). This will NOT be a surgical strike as before, this will be a full-out war against terrorism and the country that harbored him. There could be many US casualties, but any cost is worth bringing him to justice and making an example of those who would attack the US. They will be stopped and believe me, when this is done, there will be no doubt that the US will respond to terrosim with the utmost of force.

ReaperFett

Sep 12th, 2001, 07:11:42 PM

why hopefully Afghanistan? If Bin Laden did it, what's it got to so with them? Or, to be more precise in my point, why should we end up killing more innocents for one man?

Captain Tohmahawk

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:25:41 PM

And do we know who REALLY did it? Oh good, just wipe out potential innocents anyway. Great, that makes hte USA no better than the animals that did this act

Atreyu

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:33:03 PM

Well you see Osama bin Laden helped the Taliban (sp?) forces drive out the Soviets back in the 70s and so of course the Taliban government has been on friendly terms with him and offering him asylum there. They're pretty much the only country ocver there that actually likes him.

Iran and Saudi Arabia hate his guts - his Islamic beliefs are too extreme for even their tastes and he's been causing strife for them as well.

Regarding Jon's earlier post that was deleted, well I would agree with him that we should not tolerate these acts and further and actually get down to business in tryiong to stop it. If they're hiding in other countries then the respective governments should support action taken against them - if they don't then they're clearly not going to be a trustworthy buddy.

Having said that, nuking the entire Middle East is, well, a little extreme. These actions are undertaken only by a small minority. Many people living there are just normal people like you and me, trying to live their normal lives. To throw all people in Middle East together and say "Burn them all!" is just as bad as what these terrorists did when they commited these acts against the US. They wanted to show the US they could hit them and hit them hard, regardless of who would be affected.

Captain Tohmahawk

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:34:12 PM

I listened to Stern this morning on my way to a job (I'm in Canada, BTW) -- now I know that Howard Stern is actually quite intelligent; he knows how to work the crowd and how to stay on the air this long. A stupid man would not have the success he is having.

But hearing him call for nukes and wiping out all Muslims... that sent chills down my spine. Not so much because he said it but because I know there are countless morons who believe he is right and help "spread his word" without thinking. While he may have been doing it for ratings and calls, there are too many people who'd take him seriously.

Listen up, people: the Muslims are not to blame. Nor the Iraqi's, nor the Afghanistans. This is not an attack by a race or religion: this is an attack by a bunch of crazed psychopaths and extremists, and indirectly by the governments who support and/or harbour them. The Muslims are scared shitless and it's disgusting that even here in Canada, death threats have been called in to Mosques and Muslim high schools. I've heard that tens of thousands of callers are reporting their mid-eastern neighbours as suspects because they're different.

Make no mistake: the people terrorizing the Muslim and other middle-eastern population are no better than the @#%$-eating scum who are terrorizing the United States.

The solution is not to wipe Afghanistan off the earth, and it certainly is not a nuclear solution. Many people living in Afghanistan cannot afford to move or evacuate, and I am uncertain as to whether the Afganistan goverment can afford to evacuate them. Regardless, the majority of Afghans are innocent civilians and retailiating against them is barbaric and useless. Bombing innocent people is wrong no matter where they are, and a nation as wealthy and powerful as the United States should know that!

What's the solution? I don't know. I would far prefer surgical strike(s) and occupation of the regions which are known to support these extremists. Cut them off at the source, but minimize the civilian casualties. That is honourable. That is noble. That is a civilized response. Not "Nuke the sand niggers off the face of the planet" as I have heard and read.

Another solution (additional solution) would be to put a eight or even nine digit USD price tag on known terrorist's heads. Obviously this idea needs more fleshing out but I wonder how loyal their followers would be?

Get it straight: Not all white people are card-carrying members of Aryan Nation or the KKK. Not all Americans are stupid white trash who can't see the world beyond their borders. Not all Muslims are terrorists and extremists. How would you like to be terrorized because of how you look or where you're from?

I cant say it any better.

"Doesn't matter," Ghent said. His voice was trembling, but his jaw was set firmly. "On the way from Coruscant Elegos told me all about what happened to his world. It was terrible-everyone killed, all the animals, too. I hated the people who'd done it- I really hated them. And I hated the Bothans for making the whole thing happen in the first place."

He looked over at Elegos. "But he told me hatred was wrong, that it was one of those things that hurt the hater more than the people he hated. He told me there can be justice without hatred, and punishment without revenge. He said we were all responsible for what we do and what we don't do, and no one should have to pay for someone else's crimes."

--- Vision of the Future, by Timothy Zahn.

Reposted from a commet by Pierce Tondry, from Roleplaying.

We're not animals. We are humans who are suffereing. But this outrage doesnt mean we should be kneejerk racists hate filled scum

JonathanLB

Sep 12th, 2001, 08:56:54 PM

I don't honestly think the entire Middle East should be nuclear bombed, of course. No way. I don't think we should use Nukes, as I said, because they honestly hurt the environment far too much and they're just very destructive, too much overkill...

Afghanistan is part of this, though. They harbored Bin Laden and they have allowed him to exist in their borders. Logically, it makes sense what I and others are saying about taking this to that country.

A friend of our enemy is our enemy. There's no simpler way to put it. If YOU are my enemy and someone else is helping you out, you have just automatically become my enemy too. The same can be said of this country that has harbored Bin Laden.

They must be taken down to the ground. I think the other countries, Iraq, etc, should be left alone of course and they don't have anything to do with this to our knowledge, but we must take this to the group responsible.

My personal suggestion is to move NATO forces into Afghanistan from all directions and take the country over within a few hours. I think the borders must be closed and guarded by allied forces. Then, we will systematically strike at all military targets and valuable buildings to their government while at the same time searching for Bin Laden and his people. They will not be able to escape the country with our troops blocking all exits.

Jedieb

Sep 12th, 2001, 09:08:47 PM

That was an excellent post Captain. Anyone who advocates the use of nuclear weapons against a nation like Afganistan is acting no differently than the Palestinians who were handing out candy and celebrating the terroist attack. Even if the Taliban is found to have supported bin Ladin and his organization in this attack, a nuclear response is ludicrous. Anyone who supports that shows a severe lack of sophistication and knowledge about the situation in Afganistan and the Middle East. Do you have any idea how many people in Afganistan hate the Taliban? Do you have any idea of the horrific crimes being carried out against Afghani women on a DAILY basis? A solution that would call for turning parts of Afganistan into glass is not only offensive, it's ludicrous and ignorant.

Make no mistake, I support a strong military response to this terroist attack. But it's going to have to be done the right way. Unfortunately, the "right way" will more than likely entail a protracted military effort with BOTH air and ground forces. Anyone who advocates nukes should shut their mouths, walk down to their local army recruiter and sign up for the infantry. You want blood? Then put on a uniform and earn it instead of depending on someone else to push a button for you. A button which will instantly and indiscriminantly wipe out both your enemy and hundreds of thousands of innocents.

This is a kind of enemy we have NEVER had to fight before. The sad truth is, we may not be able to eradicate this enemy. There will be no treaty ceremony aboard a battleship to end this war. Killing bin Ladin will not mark the end of this war. This enemy is dedicated and commited. They think nothing of killing themselves to achieve their objective. What's worse, they don't answer to a sovereign government. Killing or arresting bin Ladin is not the equivalent to having the Emperor of Japan sign a peace treaty. The Emperor's capitulation and surrender ended the war effort of his citizens. Bin Ladin's death will not end his holy war. I fear that a nuclear option would unleash a wave of terroists attacks that would make even yesterday's attacks minor by comparison.

Atreyu

Sep 12th, 2001, 09:35:13 PM

My personal suggestion is to move NATO forces into Afghanistan from all directions and take the country over within a few hours. I think the borders must be closed and guarded by allied forces. Then, we will systematically strike at all military targets and valuable buildings to their government while at the same time searching for Bin Laden and his people. They will not be able to escape the country with our troops blocking all exits.
Ummm, then what? You think taking over Afghanistan would put to an end all that is occuring. Hell no! For starters bin Laden has camps from Bosnia to Malaysia - taking out Afghanistan will not stop. Secondly getting rid of bin Laden will not kill of his organisation. Intelligence reports suggest it is more of a foundation than a fully-fledged centralised organisation, which is made up of mostly small groups who receive funding and supplies from the heart but operate mainly independent of one another.

As Jedieb said, it's got to be handled the 'right way'. Charging in with the troops is yesterday's tactics.

Many people have tried to equate getting rid of bin Laden like killing a snake - cut off the head and it all dies.

I think his group is more like a hydra - cut off a head and more just keep growing. You need to have fire with you if you want to be effective. We just need to find out exactly what 'fire' entails.

JonathanLB

Sep 12th, 2001, 10:32:57 PM

Maybe you are right, but if we could capture or kill Bin Laden and take out his main operations, that would put a significant dent in terrorist efforts against us. Would it all be over and everyone lives happily ever after? No.

If, as you say, he has terrorist groups operating in many countries, those countries could work with NATO and the allies to stamp these groups out and we would send troops to search out his camps and the terrorists. If, however, they were unwilling to cooperate I am sure we could find new ways to motivate them, hehe.

I would honestly put it very simply. I heard the other day that we were unsure if so-and-so country would allow us to fly over them to get to wherever, and I'm thinking, "Ok idiots, how hard is this?" You just put it VERY simply for these people in words they can understand: "We are flying over your country with hundreds of military aircraft. If you have a problem with that, we have hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers that will storm your borders and we have cruise missiles pointed at all of your most important buildings. I don't assume there will be any problem with us flying over, right?" How hard is it? Nobody wants to mess with the US and if they do, we'll give them a piece of us!

Darth23

Sep 12th, 2001, 11:08:02 PM

Ok, I've seen enough rah-rah violence talk.

See you guys later.

Jedi Master Carr

Sep 13th, 2001, 01:05:33 AM

First off I am against any type of ground troops mostly because of my arguements before. It is very hard to conquer Afghanastan. No nation has ever really conquered it, asked Russia they know better than anybody else. One problem is its geography. The nation is very mountainious and the land is harsh because of this problem it is very hard to get tanks into the country and that would mean we would have mostly footsoliders. What would happen is they would let us occupy their cities and they would flee into the mountains and fight a guerrial war. The Soviet were able to this and occupy them for 10 years but now things have changed. The US, Pakistan, and Saudia Arabia supplied them with weapons so now instead of fighing with rocks and spears (watch the movie the Beast it shows this very well), they are fighting with modern weapons. This would be problem because they would do this from the cliffs above our troops in places only they know off. Another problem is Afghanastan is a landlocked country that would mean we would have to enter from one of the three southern Russian republics which could be difficult, (some of them might not want to get involved) or Iran and Pakistan. Iran did condemn the attack but I doubt they would our troops in their nation and Pakistan is their closest ally (their only ally barely) and I am not sure how they feal about this situation. So really we might not be able to get permision to even do it in the first place so any invasion might not even get off the ground.

What I think needs to be done, once we prove Bin Laden did it, (we need to prove it just in case we are wrong it would make us look bad I do think we are close to this point another couple days problem will give us the rest of the evidence), is do several stratetic air strikes first of areas where he might be hinding second military targets. Then we need to get together with our allies and threaten them to turn Bin Laden over. We could use Pakistan here since they friendlest to them. If this doesn't work we need to have more airstrikes and at then same time put an economic embargo on them. We can also use the UN (who has no use for them either) to condemn them and maybe even throw them out of the UN. At the same time we need to send military supplies to the rebels in Afghanastan and with the bombing and the economic pressure the same thing could happen to the Taliban that happened to Milosevich. The new govt would turn them all over to us, if any of them are still alive, and we would have to hunt down the rest of the network using the information we get from his headquarters. To me this could work and would lose the least amount of lives. An invasion just would not work. If we sent in millions of troops we would at least 30% as I said and we would probably lose more than them and we might never find them man. As far as nukes that would be insane and would probably cause WWWIII, mainly because Pakistan has nukes and I doubt they would like getting hit with radiation so they could strike their enemy India, then India would use theirs. And then China would launch them against us and then the cockroaches will be rulling the earth and their would be no need to destroy all of humanity just for what happened on Tuesday.

Doc Milo

Sep 13th, 2001, 01:06:04 AM

I don't know what Jon said in his deleted post, but I feel responsible for all the nukes talk. It was my original post about using weapons of mass destruction (and the "you want to know terror" post) that might have sparked that off.

Let me set this straight. That post was an emotional response of how I felt at the time -- not anything I would truly advocate.

The best way, I feel, to take care of this would be an ongoing effort of covert operations based on the Israeli model some years back. The terrorist organizations they took out using such covert ops are now gone. But it would have to be sustained for years -- and our government will have to get a handle on the leaking of classified information that our defense secretary said, disgustedly, today was happening "on a daily basis."

There is an executive order against our government engaging in assassination attempts that might have to be recinded in order to engage in such covert operations.

The covert operations side is not as politically popular as the bombing option. The population of the US will not be able to "see" our response, so to speak, so it may look like we've been doing nothing. Of course, bombing can be a part of the covert operation, especially if we hold the country that has harbored terrorists just as responsible as the terrorist. Let's face it, we're not going to get rid of the terrorist with a smart bomb. The covert operation will do that. The smart bomb, however, can be used to punish the government that has harbored the terrorist, as well as a diversion to plant the covert op team into the country to take out the terrorist heart.

For those who don't believe we should respond to this violence with violence (in one form or another) just exactly how would you respond to this? Gather together in "hands across America" and send good vibes across the sea in hopes of changing Bin Laden's heart? The only response to this action is to respond with force. There is no other option. We can't "forgive and forget" nor can we as a country "turn the other cheek."

On a personal level, I have nothing against forgiveness and turning the other cheek. But we're talking about a country of people who have just been attacked by a brutal act of war. While we need not seek vengeance or revenge, we must seek justice. And the only form of justice available, because of the nature of the enemy, is force.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, should we have done nothing? Should we not have waged war?

This is a quote -- but I can't remember who said it -- but it has always stuck with me:

"War is a horrible thing. But not the most horrible of things. The decayed and degraded state of human and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values greater than his own life, is a miserable creature that has no chance of being free unless made and kept so through the efforts of greater men than himself."

Doc Milo

Sep 13th, 2001, 01:20:05 AM

On another note, I was emailed this article from a friend. It is really good:

You Don't Know Us

Leonard Pitts, Jr. - Miami Herald
Published Wednesday, September 12, 2001

We'll go forward from this moment.

It's my job to have something to say. They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering. You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard. What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause. Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve. Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division,but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent,though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

IN PAIN Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, probably, the history of the world.

You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before. But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future. In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.

THE STEEL IN US You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received.

And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started. But you're about to learn.

JonathanLB

Sep 13th, 2001, 01:40:32 AM

Yeah really, the only way to respond to this is with FORCE and force that far exceeds that which they threw at us.

I think there is honestly a pretty simple solution to that whole "can't get to Afghanistan" nonsense. You tell one of those countries, most likely those idiots in Pakistan, that you will be sending troops directly through their country and over their country and if they don't like it, they'll have to try to stop us. That won't happen.

You don't ask nicely after the first time. You ask once, and if they are being retards about it, you TELL THEM how it's going to be and if they don't like that they can just try to stop it.

It's all well and good to go about taking out terrorists slowly, but that's not going to be the right solution to this problem. The American people want to see swift and immediate action that results in the destruction of terrorist forces and those who harbor them. I hope within the week we declare war on Afghanistan for harboring terrorists. We can literally bomb the sh*t out of them and make them wish they had never, ever had a terrorist within a thousand miles of their border.

Captain Tohmahawk

Sep 13th, 2001, 02:32:30 AM

Ever stopped to think Afganistan is friendly with Pakistan - who has nuclear weapons? You want to start a cycle to violence that drags us all down?

How about a well reasoned appraoch that husrts the pricks that did this instead of a blind bitchslap that could result in far worse.

Oh yeah, go bomb Afganistan. Go hurt more civilians. Thats what will happen and you miss the people who really did this outrage.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

You want to take action? Go for it. Make sure it's going to impact the real criminals and not Joe Afgan, who frankly is most likely starving to death because of the Taliban and doesnt even know what happened. Force may not be the answer, becuase there are other ways to make war.

So if we take your action, go through Pakistan.... maybe youll like a nuke lobbed at someone. How smart is your hasty and ill thought out action now? Think first and then slip the dagger into the criminal's groin, not smash the innocent with a club

JonathanLB

Sep 13th, 2001, 04:19:48 AM

You're right. They have nuclear missiles, so they'll have to be elminated in that case.

I say we blanket Pakistan with about fifty nuclear warheads. Take down all of the major cities and all of their arsenals, then that takes care of one very worthless country that honestly nobody would miss whatsoever, and certainly not Israel, haha.

Then, well, you couldn't march TROOPS through that ground zero, but you could certainly fly over it without any problems. Then fly the troops over.

You were right, nukes are necessary if Pakistan won't allow us to go through their territory, and if they're friendly with Afghanistan, which they are somewhat, then they need to be eliminated too. This is exactly why I say that NATO will probably have to engage several countries to eliminate the terrorists and why many people think World War III is imminent.

Everyone is so nervous about using nukes and indeed I don't think they should be used unless necessary either, but if we have to use them, so be it. They're not that damaging. Only to the countries they hit and a little bit of the surrounding area, lol.

You know this whole Pakistan nonsense is just confusing the issue. Let's just lob the fifty nukes at Afghanistan instead. That seems much easier to me than having to waste our nukes on Pakistani's who are obviously not worth our valuable missiles. Those things are far too expensive to throw away killing those people.

Atreyu

Sep 13th, 2001, 05:03:43 AM

Update regarding Australia - the Prime Minister has declared he is already preparing to enact the ANZUS treaty (this year is its 50th anniversary - that's why Howard was in the US this week), which will bring Australia (and most likely New Zealand if they still want to honour it) in with all the NATO countries in alliance with the US in any action that may be taken.

Like NATO, the ANZUS treaty has a clause stating that if any on the member nations is attacked in what is considered an act of war, the other members are obliged to support them.

Not that we needed the treaty anyway - John Howard has already pledged his support of any US action. But at least this makes it more official.

Jon - I'm tired tonight, so I'll just respond with this:

I'm glad you're not the guy on the red button at the moment. I, for one, do not wish to wake up tomorrow sitting on the moon.

'Night all.

JonathanLB

Sep 13th, 2001, 05:19:07 AM

Haha, I'm really just kidding about the last post.

I realize this is a sensitive issue and I'm probably about half way between the extreme and the "do nothing at all" people, maybe leaning a bit more towards extreme action.

In reality, I believe the following:

-No nukes unless utterly and completely necessary; they're not necessary now.

-Use of ground troops is going to be essential and I'm betting 99% they will be used.

-A surgical strike of targets is not going to be sufficient, either for the American people or for eliminating terrorists.

-The US must appear to be extremely strong in this situation and outline a plan that is very serious in its intensity. One that calls for a declaration of war on any countries found to have been involved in this action or any that have knowingly harbored terrorists and aided them. If that means three to four countries, then prepare for World War III as the allied forces unite and strike these countries down. If it means just Afghanistan (and it already does mean this country), then take it out.

-In war, there are civilian casualties. Any number of civilian casualties is acceptable at this point on the other side. They didn't care about our losses and I frankly don't care about theirs either. As long as we are targeting stragic locations and not specifically targeting civilians, I say knock out every building possible. If a few thousand civilians die in the process, that's part of war. We lost probably more than 10,000 people in this and I would be unhappy if less than 10,000 were killed on the other side.

-If someone was celebrating on the streets about our losses, they deserve to die. This is not to say they should be targeted, but I would revel in their deaths as they reveled in ours. These people sicken me and I am totally apathetic to them. Their lives are meaningless, like bugs. Squash them.

The most important thing is for the United States to strike back, and strike back HARD. 83% of Americans support serious military action and the majority will certainly be in support of ground troops and a full war if it comes to that.

ReaperFett

Sep 13th, 2001, 06:07:29 AM

using troops is bad. You must remember, he(if it is him) is hiding in the Afghan mountains, where men numbering in their hundreds defeated the entire Russian army.

The best way is Airstrikes, followed by the SAS. No innocents are hurt, target captured or eliminated, few casualties on our side

-If someone was celebrating on the streets about our losses, they deserve to die. This is not to say they should be targeted, but I would revel in their deaths as they reveled in ours. These people sicken me and I am totally apathetic to them. Their lives are meaningless, like bugs. Squash them.
Who will you kill then? Notice how you always see the same few people. That's because the majority of people over there WERE NOT celebrating. Listen to any news reporter over there

The most important thing is for the United States to strike back, and strike back HARD. 83% of Americans support serious military action and the majority will certainly be in support of ground troops and a full war if it comes to that.
just because the majority support it, doesnt mean it is right

Doc Milo

Sep 13th, 2001, 09:35:55 AM

using troops is bad. You must remember, he(if it is him) is hiding in the Afghan mountains, where men numbering in their hundreds defeated the entire Russian army.

This is why I beleive airstrikes at strategic locations within the country (and if they can locate any terrorist training camps in the mountains) followed by covert operations are the only realistic means by which we can fight this. We have to trust our CIA -- which, admittedly, is difficult right now, because they missed this one, and this was a pretty big one to miss... But we must as a government get a handle on the leaks of classified information, fix whatever might be wrong with the CIA and the NSA, and follow the Israeli model for long term effect -- covert operations aimed at taking out the heart of each terrorist group. This would not be limited to Bin Laden, either. We would have to declare war on terrorism as a whole (Congress does not have to make an official declaration of war on a country, they can make an official declaration of war on a concept like terrorism, and even an individual like Bin Laden) and fund these covert operations.

Air strikes are necessary as well for punishment of the countries that harbor these animals. If these countries see how serious we are -- that we will strike at them for being safe harbors -- then they may start being reluctant to harbor terrorists. They may even start to be helpful in locating terrorist cells for our covert teams to wipe out.

This, I believe, may be the only way to do this. Terrorists seem to be like roaches. No matter how many times you bomb the place with bug killer, they come back and multiply and multiply and multiply. But if you attack with the initial bombing, and with poisons aimed at getting to the nest and killing the queen, then the entire colony dies -- and they are gone forever. This is how it has to be handled, IMHO.

(Unfortunately, though, that does mean recinding the executive order against our government sponsoring assassinations and training those assassins. This is something I feel uncomfortable about, but something that may be necessary.)

Doc Milo

Sep 13th, 2001, 10:03:09 AM

Oh, and Jon, no offense, but it sounds like you're trying to say this:

Wipe them out. All of them!

Jedieb

Sep 13th, 2001, 10:39:21 AM

I'm not sure exactly when you're kidding or when you're being serious Jon. Nevertheless, you're showing an incredible lack of depth and understanding when it comes to military matters and international law.

You just put it VERY simply for these people in words they can understand: "We are flying over your country with hundreds of military aircraft. If you have a problem with that, we have hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers that will storm your borders and we have cruise missiles pointed at all of your most important buildings. I don't assume there will be any problem with us flying over, right?" How hard is it? Nobody wants to mess with the US and if they do, we'll give them a piece of us!

It's not that simple. Right now, because of the terroist attacks, we have the will and political capital to demand access to foreign airspace. It is highly unlikely that any country bordering Afganistan would deny our demands. If one country did deny us access, then invading them would certainly not be the answer. (Which is what storming their borders would amount to.) Sovereign airspace must be respected. Violating that airspace is an act of agression. We may go ahead and fly over their airspace despite their objections, but we certainly won't send massive amounts of ground troops into ANY nation without their consent if our only reason is that we need to use their nation as a staging area to invade ANOTHER country.

You also seem to think that invading and conquering Afganistan is a simple matter that the U.S. can accomplish with ease. That's exactly what young teenagers and many adults thought about Vietnam in the early 60's. And don't for one second think we failed in Vietnam because we didn't try hard enough. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of WWII. The Russians eventually lost control of Afganistan and so would we.

If it means just Afghanistan (and it already does mean this country), then take it out.
Huh? This isn't a game of Risk you know. What exactly are you talking about? What kind of military operation is needed to take out an entire nation with millions of citizens, many of whom are persecuted by their own government?

If someone was celebrating on the streets about our losses, they deserve to die. This is not to say they should be targeted, but I would revel in their deaths as they reveled in ours. These people sicken me and I am totally apathetic to them. Their lives are meaningless, like bugs. Squash them.
As much as those demonstrations sicken and anger me, I'm not ready to go over and start killing old women and 10-year old boys because they hate my country's guts and celebrate one of it's most painful moments.

I simply don't see a large ground invasion being feasible because we are simply not facing that kind of an ememy. Ground forces will probably be needed to support air operations, but there's a difference between sending in Delta Force units than unloading an entire brigade on another country's borders. Bin Laden needs to found, and then taken or eliminated by force. But we can't plant ourselves in the middle of Afganistan with 3 or 4 divisions and start burning down every building in sight looking for him. That kind of action will result in even more terroists attacks against us.

I don't mean to jump all over you or insult you Jon. I too share your pain. But unlike you I have a realistic sense of what the actions you're suggesting are going to cost in human lives and political capital. And those lives will be BOTH foreign and American. I've also been willing to endanger my own life to carry out American miltary actions in the past. Are you ever going to be one of the soldiers running down the ramp of a landing craft onto Afgahni territory? Are you ever going to be leaving your family and home for months or years at a time to serve in some capacity in any of these operations you're suggesting? I mean you keep saying "we", but where exactly are YOU going to be when "we" are all running around getting shot at, wounded, and maimed. 18 year old American boys will be shooting and killing all of these Afgahni, Pakistani, and Palestinian men, women, and children. Are you going to be one of them or are you just going to be cheering from your dorm room between film classes?

Jedi Master Kyle

Sep 13th, 2001, 12:09:38 PM

"If someone was celebrating on the streets about our losses, they deserve to die. This is not to say they should be targeted, but I would revel in their deaths as they reveled in ours. These people sicken me and I am totally apathetic to them. Their lives are meaningless, like bugs. Squash them."

This statement is contradictory. Jon, you said these people sicken you for celebrating all the death, but you said you would revel in their deaths as well? Doesn't that mean you will sicken yourself or are you saying "an eye for an eye" is completely fine? Don't get me wrong, I can understand your anger, but I'm certain that you wouldn't want to stoop to their animalistic level. You're above that, and you've proven that here over the months with your great posts and articles.

Invading countries and wiping out entire nations is clearly not the answer here.

Jedi Master Carr

Sep 13th, 2001, 02:56:17 PM

I agree with what has been said and that is why my proposal would work along with Doc suggested about sending in covert soliders maybe they can work with those in Afghanastan that are rebeling against the state? It would be best if the Taliban could be overthrown and then a govt allied to us would probably gladly hand over Bin Laden. I do think we need to be careful here and not anger certain nations and that is why an invasion would be wrong. For starters, if we launched an invasion it would probably come from the three ex soviet republics to the north because they would be the most willing to help us but this action, one would be difficult because of the reasons I and Reaper both stated, and two could anger Pakistan and get them involved on some level (perhaps just giving Afghanastan Weapons). This is a bad area of the world to start any type of war three countries in this area has nukes (Pakistan, India, and China) and they could use them. Nukes should never be used because it would spell the end for us all, believe me we couldnt just use one because China would send everything it has and so could Russia and that is war I would prefer never happens.

JonathanLB

Sep 13th, 2001, 07:59:27 PM

I would not actually want to go kill people who celebrate tragic events, like those people in the streets. If such people were killed in an attack on, say, an important military target with collateral damage, then I would consider that a very acceptable casualty of war.

I don't agree with eye for an eye. I think it's eye for two eyes. They hit us, now it's time to hit them back at least ten times as hard.

I still think the use of ground troops is going to be necessary. Do I think we'll have some casualties? Yes, I think that's possible. First, though, I think we should hit Afghanistan with a massive missile barrage. I have been watching the news almost constantly and it's VERY clear that Aghanistan has been harboring Bin Laden and even assisting him in his efforts to hide from justice forces of the United States and probably other nations.

They have been discussing Pakistan on the news today and our demands to them. I think they will cooperate, but if not, we're going to have to find new ways to convince them. You are right Jedieb that we could simply fly over their country and if they retaliate, then we hit them hard for attacking us first, and that is one possible option too... It is a bit risky, though. I suppose it would work... People would be lost if that happened, too, though.

I don't feel like addressing this any more right now, but I am anxious to see the US response to this. I think it will be to hit Afghanistan and find Bin Laden.

Jedieb

Sep 13th, 2001, 08:40:50 PM

The defense deapartment has already been making official requests of Pakistan for U.S. flyovers. It seems like the groundwork is being laid for some form of action. One of the things I'm saying Jon is that unapproved flyovers are much safer than a hostile ground invasion designed to support a subsequent attack or invasion of another country. Frankly, I don't think the flyovers will be denied by any country besides Iraq. They don't have control of their own airspace so that point is moot.

One of the things I find most sickening about this entire affair is the outright cowardice of Bin Laden himself. It is becoming apparent that he is responsible for what has happened. He called for these attacks years ago. He told his supporters that civilian targets were completly acceptable and he stated on more than one occasion that U.S. landmarks like the WTC and the Pentagon were viable targets. Now he hides behind denials while he simultaneously applauds the attacks. I doubt he was ever a part of the day to day operations of these attacks. But these groups were more than likely operating at his bequest and with tacit approval. This degenerate scumbag is claiming innocense because he wasn't driving the car that dropped these maniacs off at the airport. Where is the courage of his convictions? Why isn't he taking responsibility for his actions? Because unlike his followers at the controls of those planes, he's not ready to commit suicide yet. Taking responsibility for his actions would force the Taliban to expel him or turn him over to NATO or the United States. So now Bin Laden, and possibly the Taliban/Afganistan itself, must lie and hide behind those lies. They know claiming responsibility would invite the wrath of all the nations that have condemned their actions. Again, unlike the terroists at the controls of the planes, they're AFRAID to commit suicide. So now they'll play this disgusting political game of denying responsibility for actions the entire world knows they're responsible for. They are forcing military action that will result in the deaths of thousands of human beings, on BOTH sides.

This is making me sick because I do not see an end in sight. This is the world that my son and daughter are going to come of age in. I only hope that they get to see an end to it, the way their father saw an end to the Cold War. That does give me hope.

Atreyu

Sep 13th, 2001, 09:14:03 PM

And don't think for a minute that if a war is going to take place that it's going to be fought elsewhere and everyone else is just going to sit back and watch it on the TV. As Tuesday's events prove, the battlefield can easily be fought in your own backyard. All it takes is a guy with dynamite strapped into him and walking into the local mall and you've got your war right in front of you.

bin Laden and his followers have been leading attacks against the US for over 10 years now. You can be as sure as anything that they're probably already got a network setup both in the US and other countries. This is just the beginning.

Not wishing to be a scaremongerer, but as Tuesday proved this battle can take place ANYWHERE. This is the new age of warfare. It's no longer fought between armies on the battlefield - it can take place on your very own street.

JonathanLB

Sep 13th, 2001, 09:29:04 PM

I think regardless of our actions, the war will continue to be fought on our own soil as well, as you say. There will be additional incidents and attacks, but let's hope that they are much more minor and that we can stop as many of them as possible. I certainly think right now it would be NEARLY impossible, I mean so nearly impossible you might as well say it would be impossible, to get away with any terrorist act in the US right now. I think they're going to have to wait at least a few months before security is any looser. Right now, if you even say the word "knife" in an airport you're probably going to be detained, lol.

Doc Milo

Sep 14th, 2001, 01:10:12 AM

Listening to the radio, watching TV, there is one thing I have learned about this. And that is -- as Atreyu said, this is just the beginning.

These guys didn't fly into the US on Sept 10 and decide to do this. This was planned for years. The pilots were trained on US soil. The terrorists, I would not be surprised to learn, have been in this country for years. They could have been living right next door to any one of us and we would not have known it. One day, they get a call and stuff like this happens.

It's also been said that this was probably "Team A." There are probably a bunch of other teams with different missions all over the United States -- and this was their sign to become active.

A guy on the radio was telling people -- if you own a garage and someone parked a car and has left it there for six months without picking it up, now would be a good time to call the cops and have them check it out. Because that is the modus operandi of these terrorist groups. The bombs could already be planted anywhere, and all it takes is that phone call telling the terrorist to go, and he will go and press the detonators and be gone to the next target before anyone is any the wiser to him.

This is the reality we now face. What we have to do now is balance on that thin line between complacency and paranoia.