A newbie's perspective of this board.

[TheKurp]

I joined this board after reading about it on the Webskins Yahoo board. It was touted as having quite a few knowledgeable members whose contributions went beyond the superficial "rah rah" meanderings found on other Redskins Internet groups. Refreshingly, I find this to be largely true. However, after reading some of the recent posts with regards to the terrorists attacks, I find myself faced with the challenge of trying to disassociate the negative impressions I'm forming of certain Users and focus on the content of their posts with regards to the Redskins.

I've often watched on t.v. the violence in the Middle East and other European nations and found it hard to fathom how little human life means to these people. The murdering of people and children whose only crime appears to be having been born into the wrong place at the wrong time is viewed with a callousness that I thought could never exist en masse in this country. I've tried to imagine myself in the shoes of an Israeli or Palestinian whose mother, father, sister, brother, son, or daughter has been killed in cold blood by the enemy. I try to imagine the hatred I would feel for the other side or for anybody or any country that was assisting the other side. I try to tell myself that I would try to find the courage to rise up above the ignorance and hatred and not hold an entire race or nationality responsible for the acts of individuals or groups of individuals.

I am proud to be an American because I am not faced with the hatred and wars I see on t.v. in other countries. I am proud to be an American because I feel that as a whole, we are a compasionate and intelligent nation of people who would never intentially seek to destroy people simply because they are different than us and happen to live in a country where radicals also happen to live.

Yes, it is disturbing to see people dancing in the streets over the deaths of innocent American lives. It is hard to understand how people could celebrate the murder of civilians who've committed no crime against them. However as I've read some of the comments on this board over the past few hours I get the feeling that we have people right here who would dance in the hallways of their offices and in their living rooms upon seeing the annihilation of another country's people with no regard as to their involvement in yesterday's terrorist attacks. I am saddened to think that people abroad will view Americans with the same horror that I experience when I see innocent lives extinguished in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Israelis and Palestinians have been killing each other tit-for-tat for centuries simply for who they are, not for what they've done. I cannot follow the logic in this barbarianism. I now find myself among people on this board who seem to think the same kind of barbarianism is justified and called for.

Yes, we need to find a way to ensure that yesterday's events are never again repeated in this country. Yes, it will require that some people are forever prevented from committing these acts again - even if it means killing them. But to call for the wholesale extermination of a nation of people simply because of who they are, in a sense, makes me ashamed to be an American.

"The Kurp[/]"

[Art]

Kurp,

We "lost" in Vietnam. Approximately 55,000 American soldiers died in that war. The count of Vietnamese dead was in the millions. No one was happy. No one could really identify why we were really even there.

In this case, the war and hatred you see on T.V. is no longer on T.V. It's in our streets. It's impacting OUR citizens, not just our military. What we can't do, if we ever expect to solve this problem and win this war, is limit ourselves.

We can't let ourselves put gloves on when those we are dealing with have no gloves. You can't attack in a surgical fashion when those you fight attack bluntly and without compassion. You deliver death tenfold, and scare the hell out of the world. And if you don't, you'll never stop getting victimized.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[bulldog]

that's why we have leaders who are elected to represent us and we don't have a system where crowds meet in front of public buildings to make official policy

what has to be understood about yesterday's events is that they are only tangentially related to recent standoffs and violence in Palestine.

Bin Laden and other extreme Arab groups are not supportive of a long-range peace plan and a halt to the violence.

That has been proven by the suicide bombers in Israel even as the two sides were negotiating in earnest in the mid-1990's some of the issues that had been off the table since 1948.

Bin Laden is interested not in peace or even the victory of the Palestinians per se in gaining a homeland and their own sense of security in the region.

He IS interested in diminishing US influence in the region and using hits on American property and citizens as a way to leverage our disengagement.

To what end?

To the end of uniting many people under the umbrella of fundamentalism, unfortunately. That is one of the reasons he is in Afghanistan.

In this he shares a common interest with the more radical elements in the Iranian clergy and in the government in Baghdad.

Mainstream politicians in Iran, Pakistan and Iraq realize the potential cost of supporting the actions of Bin Laden and the more radical elements vis a vis a response by the US and that is why Khatemi was one of the first leaders on the phone to Bush to offer his condolences.

So, the next time you see a person on TV that is linking the terrorism of yesterday to the lack of progress in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, realize that in and of itself is as much spin as anything else.

Even though Americans don't give Middle East politicians much credit in terms of their skills in diplomacy and grand strategy, the truth is as in Asia where our interests are coming up against those of a rising China, that there are countries and leaders in the region that simply don't want a large American presence for strictly selfish reasons relating to their own regional balance of power.

[NavyDave]

Very Well put bulldog.

You can not go the Oprah, touchy feely approach with these cowards.

Lip service will never work with them. It didn't work with, Carter,it didn't work with Reagan,Bush, or Clinton in office trying the diplomatic approach.

And yesterday it ddn't work with Dubba ya Bush.

It's time to show the BIG Stick we have and use it.

Peaceniks and others who apologize for being americans need to stay in berkeley munching on their brownies/veggie burgers or IMHO be quaranteened/sterilized to prevent their spineless, gutless clique from contaminating the rest of the USA.

------------------

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[ by NavyDave on September 12, 2001.]

[TheKurp]

NavyDave,

You could take your same exact words and with a few substitutions I imagine it was the SAME EXACT speech Bin Laden gave to yesterday's terrorists prior to them executing their plan.

"The Kurp"

[bulldog]

Kurp,

While I am not as inflamed in rhetoric as some, I do see that if after a sensible review and investigation of yesterday's events that a clear danger is identified then it may require methods and tools that many people normally find disturbing to eliminate or reduce that threat.

In this as in many areas of foreign policy, the US needs to maintain a two-track approach. One is constructive engagement to try and help resolve issues that spawn such hatred and enmity between peoples. That does NOT include our ramming American values down the throats of these people and expecting them to mimic our own principles and cultural norms.

At the same time we are engaged on that level, we also need to recognize that there are some individuals and/or groups on differing sides that are not looking for a settlement. In fact they take every action to use terror and violence to ensure that a real settlement does not take place.

Here, the US needs to step up to the plate and deal directly with these threats to the international community.

Under Clinton we made token gestures in this regard and over time fell back into a position of moralizing and speechifying. That only gets you so far, even with audiences that are receptive to your ideas. For these groups, such words only went further in ingraining in them the perception that America was too soft and Americans were too introspective and interested in buying SUV's and adding to their 401K accounts and personal wealth to take any TANGIBLE notice of events happening 8,000 miles away.

And these groups filled the void. Carbombers and terrorists succeeded in driving a moderate Israeli government from power and replacing it with a more conservative one opposed to the Olso Accords. And once again yesterday, these groups have succeeded in gaining status for themselves by attacking symbols of American power.

[Terry]

Kurp,

We are all horrified by the porcess of war and the innocents that suffer.

But we can't let that revulsion hamstring us into inactivity.

In order to defeat the Germans we rained down upon their cities a firestorm that claimed hundreds of thousands of German civilian lives. Dresden, Hamburg, and other places suffered tremendously.

Likewise we dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese in order to conclude our Pacific wartime efforts in such a way that no more American lives would be lost.

War isn't surgery. War is indiscriminate. War is a terible thing.

But if we agree with that then we must also agree that governments or rulers have the responsibility to position their countries in such a way as to maintain peaceful and civil, if not cordial, relations with the rest of the world. The government or ruling entity must know that it puts it's population at risk when it engages in practices against other national entities that will guarantee retribution.

If we bomb Kabul in an effort to make the Taliban turn over Bin Laden. If we provide material and other resources to insurgent forces with Afghanistan who are fighting the Taliban, if we quarantine that country, engage in ground based military operations against it, or do anything we see fit under a wartime scenario, then where does the blame really lie?

With the US, for doing everything it can to protect it's citizens?

Or with the Taliban, for harboring an enemy of the US and thus exposing their population to our retribution.

A few cruise missiles aren't going to make the Taliban break a sweat. But public insurrection due US military strikes and am insurgency backed by the US might make them wonder if it's all worth it.

But you might be right in one larger sense. The war on terrorism is but one phase of a larger conflict. We need to conduct a war against tribalism, ethnocentricity, religious fundamentalism that breeds hatred, and any other vestiges of mankind's more primitive past.

We have to start thinking globally, and seeking a world where tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts are not allowed to fester to the point where they become the breeding ground of fanatics.

[MikeB]

Kurp,

Unfortunately I think your liberal approach is reason for why we find ourselves in this predicament to begin with. Not that it doesn't serve well and have it's place at times -- it certainly does and is part of what makes this country great. But in light of the circumstances, and the horror we all witnessed yesterday, we need to take a drastically different approach. We need to defend ourselves, as if forced in a street fight, with emotion. We can't afford to take the high road again and again and again. Unfortunately innocents may die, but I think it is a small price for freedom, don't you?

[Baculus]

I agree with Kurp on this suject. And I don't think what he's saying has anything to do with being "Liberal.". One of the things that I hate about the recent events is that it's giving every borderline fascist, "Super-patriot," "Super-hawk" yahoo the chance to wave his flag, and if you don't like it, you're a liberal wimp that needs to "get out."

Screw that. This is America, NOT AMERIKA, or Nazi Germany, 1939

I am just as pissed off as any other American. Trust me, I WANT REVENGE. But the last thing I think we need to do is bomb every crowd of civilians in the Middle East, which is exactly what a lot of Americans want to do. Sorry, but we are NOT like those son-of-****es that murdered our fellow citizens. We are Americans that have a certain amount of decency, EVEN in the face of trying moments.

True, in war, there is collatoral damage--as Sherman said, "War is Hell." And, as someone pointed out, Dresden is a perfect example. But, I don't see ANYTHING wimpy about wanting to avoid loss of innocent life, or to act in a rational, STRATEGIC manner before we go around bombing the hell out of other countries.

I wonder, how many of you "Gung-ho" types are Christian, eh?

B.

God Bless the U.S.A.

[TheKurp]

All,

I do not mean to suggest that a military response is not warranted. In fact, I think it's incumbent upon Bush to strike back using brute force in spite of the fact that innocent people may die if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. What I DO ABHOR is the suggestion that indiscriminant killing of the general populace is desirable in order to send a message to not only the guilty, but to the rest of the world.

Terry,

You write in part, "then we must also agree that governments or rulers have the responsibility to position their countries in such a way as to maintain peaceful and civil, if not cordial, relations with the rest of the world. The government or ruling entity must know that it puts it's population at risk when it engages in practices against other national entities that will guarantee retribution."

Your thinking reveals the paradigms of someone who lives in a democratic society. And yes, I do agree with your statement *if* we are referring to a country where the leaders are democratically elected. However in many cases abroad, the citizens have no say in who their leaders are. They are at the mercy of political actions which they may not agree with and unfortunately, often pay for those actions with their lives. In other words, you cannot use the logic that the people must endure whatever befalls them as a result of the actions of their leaders because they have no input into the actions of their leaders.

Let's say you were a customer waiting in line at the bank when another customer suddenly pulls a gun and starts shooting. In response, the Swat team comes in and shoots EVERYONE! Objective accomplished. The guilty person has paid for their crime. It doesn't matter that you too were killed despite the fact that you had nothing to do with the crime because the overriding goal is to punish the offender.

MikeB,

The definition of liberal:

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

People seem comfortable with labeling someone a *liberal* as a way to diminish their views or character. You talk about "freedom"? Freedom is what people are suggesting we limit in order to fight terrorism. You can obliterate Afganistan until not a woman, man or child is left standing but you will not eliminate the hatred that will boil in other countries upon seeing the brutality exacted by the U.S. New terrorists will be born from these actions and we will forever have to forego our freedom as a way to protect ourselves from these terrorists. I work for Lockheed Martin. Four times in the past few hours I've been searched coming into and leaving the premises. This is an infringement on my freedom which I'm willing to endure given the latest events. But do I look forward to living in a society where I'm searched upon entering any large building? Having to show up 3 hours before every airline flight for security checks? No. Remember, these terrorists do not value their own lives. If you think that killing innocents abroad will send a message that will make them alter their behavior then it's because you believe that they value their own lives the same way you do - which is NOT the case. In many cases these people live lives of inexplicable suffering and poverty and to them, death is a step up.

Am I a liberal? I'll leave that up to others to decide. I simply view myself as a rational person who tries to envision what the consequences of actions might be and act accordingly.

"The Kurp"

[Art]

Again, guys, if you are calling for strategic strikes, you are not supporting war. If you are supporting war, you are not supporting strategic strikes. It's that simple. If this country is at war, whole cities will perish. We may be so kind as to give warning, but, this is what war is.

War isn't selecting targets and worrying about whether civilians or innocents are there. War is not a scalpel. The armed forces are not a scalpel. These are broad swords and when unleashed, the terror and fury is unbelievable to behold. Now, if we aren't at war, then, strategic strikes are what we'll go with. It's simply a matter of how you view it. And if you view it that we are at war, you can not then support strategic strikes. If we're at war, you support brutal blows, not slaps on the wrist.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Oh, and Kurp, you should know enough about word usage to know what is meant when Mike B. calls you a liberal. It's in reference to your political beliefs, not, to your personal attitudes. These are differing definitions depending on the word. He's talking about choices c and d, not a and b.

Unless you are also generous in amount, please try to associate what is being said with what is intended. This is clearly a political thread. Mike is calling you a Democrat. Liberal is often the word used and associated with such.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TheKurp]

Art,

As an employee of a company whose technology was on full display during the Gulf War, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "war" and "strategic strikes" are mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone in the media or in the Pentagon refers to the U.S. incursion into Iraq as the "Gulf Strategic Strike." Yet that's EXACTLY how we accomplished our objective of freeing Kuwait from Iraq. Specific military, communication, and transportation sites were targeted and struck with a precision not seen in any prior wars. Perhaps you missed the video shown repeatedly where a laser-guided missle, launched from a jet fighter, was sent down a shaft and destroyed a fortified building. Yes there were a certain number of civilian casualties but they were minimized through advanced telecommunications and military hardware. In fact, even more precision was evident in Kosovo where the U.S. military again accomplished it's objective of ousting the Serbs while minimizing civilian casualties.

Art, you seem bent on destroying an entire country which smacks of racism IMHO. The fact is, the Pentagon has spent billions in trying to find ways to accomplish military objectives while minimizing civilian casualties and the result is a class of weapons that allows the U.S. to do exactly that. In many ways Milosovic and his henchmen are not unlike Bin Laden and his followers. We were successful in bringing about his demise and I have no doubt we'll be successful in stopping Bin Laden without wiping out an entire country and the people that live there.

"The Kurp[/]"

[bulldog]

Art, with all due respect, I don't see how razing cities at this point is the first step or even the second.

The Taliban in Kandahar know the US is intending to respond to the incidents of yesterday and I think a deal can be cut to deliver Bin Laden, although not officially, into US hands without mounting an invasion or massive bombing campaign.

In this scenario we make contact indirectly and indicate our readiness to use force to destabilize the regime if necessary in our search for Bin Laden's group. In that process the families of all the leadership would be at great risk.

We then tell them that because of sensitivities in the Arab world, the US would not force Bin Laden to be delivered directly but would accept a deal where his sanctuary was revoked and he was forced to leave the country.

We would then promise not to intercept his plane or impede his movements until he was out of Afghan territory.

Outside of the mountain network he has established he would be much more vulnerable and in the open we could track him down in a matter of hours or days with little loss of life.

The advantage to this approach is that if the Taliban refuses to accept a brokered deal we still have all other options still open to us.

It is important to note that Bin Laden also, at the point the US starts talking to the Afghans, would have to begin to think there was a small chance he would be sold out and that may force him to try to relocate himself even ahead of a deal or military action by the US.

So far, the Afghans have protected him because there has been little cost or risk associated with that stance. If there is a credible threat that the pain level for harboring Bin Laden would be raised to an unbearable level and threaten the personal safety of the leadership, you may see a change.

I go back to the deal that was brokered to get Arafat out of Lebanon as well as the deal that the Turks made to get Ocalan out of Syria. Both involved diplomacy and the threat of intervention as "clubs" working in concert with one another.

[Art]

Guys, look at the map. Where is Afganistan?

What is our "objective" if this is our country of choice in defining them as the enemy who supported this attack. It may not be this country, but, let's use them as an example. Unlike the Persian Gulf conflict, where we could be strategic, and confront an organized military in set positions with precision weapons, we are going to enter a country where rebel fighting is the norm and the bad guys have gone to high hills.

Unlike the goal of removing an occupying country from another, then stopping, we have to put men on the ground, sweep buildings, sweep homes, sweep forests. We have to destroy so there's no way anyone can can back behind us. We have to raze, devestate and crush an entire country, if necessary, to accomplish the presumed goals of getting all the people responsible for this.

The very nature of this conflict will be terrible to behold. And, it HAS to be terrible to behold. If it is strategic or limited and not sustained and destructive, we'll never be left alone. Kurp, I'm not supporting racism in the slightest. I'm supporting a point made at the highest levels of point making.

And it would appear you guys don't know the environment we'd be fighting in. This is not the Persian Gulf, where, by the way, we dropped a tenth the ordinance in precision weapons as we did in carpet bombs. That's a fact. We weren't precise even in the Gulf. We only showed, because we controlled the feeds, what we wanted.

It's not racist to say, "Whoever is responsible, the host country and everyone we encounter, has to die." I don't propose we enter villages and slaughter fleeing women and children, though, Bin Laden has videos of his 10 and 11 year old followers. I propose destroying everything we see. Like Vietnam, in that we clear a village and raze it. Inflict maximum pain and humiliation, and war until you have won.

If this is war, the only goal can be the total annhilation of this terrorist group, and that can only be accomplished by dropping bombs and killing a whole lot of people. You are kidding yourself if you think the Nintendo war we showed during the Gulf is how it is. War is atrocious. And war is appropriate here.

Kurp, I don't care if these are Canadian terrorists, Afghan terrorists, Irish terrorists, or anything else. I'm not espousing racism. I'm espousing war. When you figure out what war is, and you will soon, you'll understand what I'm saying.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Bulldog,

Simply acquiring Bin Laden and a large part of his group isn't going to be enough. I don't disagree that the Taliban may surrender him for salvation. But, then we have to leverage our anger against Syria. Against the Sudan. Against all these terrorist host countries. Eventually someone is going to say, "NO, you can't do this to us." And we're going to say, "Wanna bet."

But, at this point I suspect finding Bin Laden won't be as easy as the Taliban saying they'll surrender him. This man is underground right now. Finding him won't be simple.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[National Defense]

this will not stop with the taliban, nor will it stop with Bin Laden personally.

in order to really get at the roots of these organizations (as there are several now operating in loose collaboration) and to put them on the run, there will need to be a clear agreement between the world powers (specifically china and russia) on appropriateness of violation of certain countries' sovereingty. We need to threaten bin laden where ever he sets up camp, and we need to threaten his financial network. he needs to be chased down to the ends of the globe, as do all his followers. the US cannot do this alone even if we are the only remaining superpower.

HOWEVER--for all those calling for all out war/invasion, etc. I have a few questions. Are we at war with iraq? syria? sudan? algeria? how many countries will we send troops into, and how many more enemies will we create through rash actions?

Can the US drop its castro-era policy of not sanctioning assasinations?

obviously, this board isn't the best outlet for rational thought, & some tend to take the emotional out , so don't read too much into it kurp.

[MarkPSkins]

If Afghanistan was to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter to us this would accomplish nothing. He is only one. Another would take his assets and take over where he left off, then another, then another. The threat is still there. We could not rest any easier. We need to wage the war on TERRORISM and all who are associated with it, whether it's the goverments that condone and harbor these people, or the countries that finance them.

One man did not do this. One man will not bring justice to this situation. We need to flex our muscles, make Terrorism go the way of disco. Make it go away. Now I realize that this is a clost to immpossible mission, but the USA has a perfect time to make an example of these countries who condone terrorism.

There is not one country in the middle east that does not have it's pockets full of american money and technology.

If our actions make us look like the bad guys and the world meanies, oh well, they'll get over it, they will have to, they need the USA. Perhaps country's governments in the future will keep better track of thier problem children and prevent this from happening in the future. We have to attack terrorism and the idea of terrorism and let the world know that we will not be f*cked with.

You can't step on one roach and expect to walk into the kitchen in the middle of the night not see more of the little buggers scurrying accross the counter. You have to tent the house and fumigate with the nasty stuff.

Terrorism is the enemy. bin Laden is only one f*cking bug hiding in the crevis of the counter top. Foreign policy does not apply here. There is not one country on the face of this earth that has not benefited from the USA. We have the right to protect our lands and if it takes so radical events to do this, then it has to be done.

We are not at war with a country, we are at war with a sick belief that you can intimidate and put fear into people by cowardly means and horrendous acts. No mercy should be shown here. We have the power the resources and now the REASON to put a serious dent in this enemy called terrorism.

Screw bin Laden. His days are numbered and he will die. But anyone planning on following in his footsteps will not be so inclined after the USA shows what will happen if they do. Countries and Governments wont be able to allow them to operate and know that they will be held accountable if they do.

A warning message to the world has to be sent. If it is at the expense of our "nice Guy" perception. So be it. The World cannot afford to stand in the way.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.texaspitts.com/nakedskins.gif" border=0>

[bulldog]

personally I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. things in the middle east could get a lot more dicey than they are now if we target a host of countries and populations for retribution.

What we don't want is a regional war where the US and Israel end up fighting 4 or 5 countries which in the end will help to destabilize Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

My incremental approach may not solve all problems at once, but it takes the wealthiest and most experienced terrorist leader off the street so to speak and then allows us to concentrate on other concerns over time.

[Terry]

Kurp,

You say: "However in many cases abroad, the citizens have no say in who their leaders are. They are at the mercy of political actions which they may not agree with and unfortunately, often pay for those actions with their lives. In other words, you cannot use the logic that the people must endure whatever befalls them as a result of the actions of their leaders because they have no input into the actions of their leaders."

That is undoubtably true, but a hostage population must not be the means for shielding terrorists and bind our actions. Our duty is to our own citizens first.

Also, that same cowed population must obviously be providing the raw materials of men and supplies necessary for that leadership to rule and survive. There are shades of oppression, and there are usually elites benifitting from whatever system is in place.

And surely, by striking at that ruling entity, even if people suffer from 'collateral' damage, the damage done to the leadership, it's infrastructure, and it's ability to wage war and supress it's people would likely present them with a splendid opportunity to free themselves from the yoke of the ruling elite.

[Art]

There are several things to keep in mind right here. First, this is a new battleground. Speaking in terms of conventional and known warfare probably isn't right. ND is correct above, that it is unlikely we are going to put men on the ground en masse in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and whoever else. We simply can't. Though, I do believe the actions we must take will ultimately lead to this, which is why I think this is as close as World War III will ever be.

We MUST resolve to eradicate terrorism everywhere it exists. When an attack happens anywhere in the world, we have to go in and take those people out. Those people are all living and breeding and training in sovereign nations. Those sovereign nations have people. They have guns. They have tanks. Sure, they can't stand up to us, but, eventually, they'll start moaning about how the Big Satan thinks it can just march in to their country any time it wishes and do whatever it wants. This is a slippery slope.

Unless we have direct evidence of governmental assistance, we are not going to "go to war" in the conventional sense, with any single country, but we will be at war with dozens over the course of years. The issue at hand though is simple and perhaps some of you don't get it.

Terrorists have the will to destroy us and, indeed, the world to drive home their points. They do not have the power. We have the power to destroy them, and, indeed, the world, to defend our points. Until yesterday, we didn't have the will.

Some of you here already show we don't have the will to do what needs to be done. This isn't pretty. This isn't an overnight fix. Thousands of innocent people WILL die to prosecute our objectives in this new battleground. That's just how it will be. Watching the World Trade Center buildings crash into the ground isn't enough for you to want to prosecute this agenda of stamping out world terrorism, whatever the cost.

Watching the Pentagon be attacked wasn't enough for you to want to prosecute this agenda. Hearing the President himself was targeted for assassination wasn't enough -- which, btw, is the second time Bin Laden, if this is him, was involved in a plot to directly kill the U.S. President. We stopped one such plan in 1995 to kill Clinton.

None of this was enough. So, I presume watching 100 deaths rise to 500, rise to 2,000, rise to 10,000, or whatever the final number will be won't be enough. What will? How much do we have to take before you have the will to eradicate every shred of terrorism, which MEANS directly attacking host nations.

Will it take the first tactical nuke smuggled into the country before you'll agree? Will it take more bombings here? How about letting it take one story from a 31-year-old on the Pittsburgh plane instead.

How about listening to a man knowing he was going to die calling his wife, telling her he loved her and for her to live a good life, and take care of their 3-month old child. Telling her this after telling her he was going to do something about it. This man, and others on that plane, apparently, had the WILL to stop terrorism. Read their story and perhaps you will as well.

Because we can't just strike back. We can't just pick empty military buildings and destroy them at 2 a.m. like we always have done. We simply CAN'T. And if we do, then, well, we'll just have to wait until we reach your higher threshold before acting as we need to act now and should have acted LONG ago.

Do you have the will to do what we must? Or do you want to do enough so we have a feel-good moment and forget it? It's your call folks. I've yet to hear anyone come up with any competent thought on how we can strike back and make a point without the necessary and terrible fact that innocents will be lost.

Everyone agrees we have to strike back. But, when someone here says, "That means innocents will die," you say, "I agree we have to strike, but saying we have to kill civilians smacks of racism." This is beyond ignorance. Send in the Delta Force to take out Bin Laden. Send a couple of cruise missles to destroy an ammo dump. Think SMALL. Think weak. Think humanity.

No. Think big. Think strong. Think this WILL never happen again. You guys that think we can't end terrorism by strong conviction are wrong. It's been 24 hours since the bombing. This is the longest this world has gone with NO OTHER ACTS of terrorism anywhere in the world in decades. Isreal has CONSTANT attacks against it. But not now.

Nothing in a day. You know why? Every terrorist cell in the world is cowering in fear, not knowing if the giant is awake or not, but knowing damn well it's not going to waken it if it's still sleeping. It sounds like too many are sleeping still. It is time to wake up.

If not now, when? ONE act against one terrorist group does nothing. Hundreds of acts against ALL terrorist groups goes a long way to making the world a better place. Just not tomorrow.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[ by Art on September 12, 2001.]

[MikeB]

I tend to agree with Art.

This country has taken the high road time and time again, only to be bombed over and over, each time more diabolical than the last. What does it take to make us stand up and impose our will on these cowards?

If we have the evidence linking this with Bin Laden and the condemnation of these acts by other major world powers, then we need to land a leveling blow to the terrorist and those who have harbored and groomed them for years.

[UK Skins]

Okay guys I've read all the posts and can see both sides. I get the train to work every day (when I'm in London anyway) and the threat of an IRA bomb-strike hovers permanently over our head. We've all seen buildings demolished, watched the news worrying about loved ones and wondered if we could get home alive. Americans have for years been paying the political wing of these "people" and they merrily spend their dollars on new automatic weapons and Semtex, all with the intention of taking British lives.

I feel terrible for those who died, in a tragedy far worse than any we've had up till now, but randomly killing those you see as responsible can't be the answer. Where does blowing up a couple of thousand Irish get us? If anything it would raise the level of those American contributions even higher. We had for years surgically removed those responsible or found and locked them up, only to have the politicans of the world condemn us for our actions - the final ignomy beig the release of them all back into society for the sake of peace! Learn from us - find those responsible and eliminate them, don't lock them up. But don't go calling for the lives of innocent people either. It's not what America or Britain stands for. And stop giving money to the IRA.

P.S. Our prayers are with those who died or who lost family or friends.

[Om]

Take care, fellow citizens, not to interpret a fellow human being's reticence to launch an all-out assault on his enemies, that will by necessity take the lives of countless human beings every bit as innocent as those who lost their lives in America on September 11, as unwillingness to engage or a failure to grasp the moment.

There is not a man among us who does not want our response to be anything less than sufficient to erase terrorism from the face of the Earth. In pursuit of that goal, any thinking person understands the breadth and scope of the horrors that will result.

Calls for a reasoned approach to accomplishing that goal, and hopes that it can be accomplished with minimal loss of innocent life are not weak, they are not spineless, they are not blind. They are noble, they are pure ... they are human.

And they are American.

Even in our darkest outrage, may we never forget who we are, and why we are here.

[ by Om on September 13, 2001.]

[Art]

Om,

This is, again, the thing that boggles my mind. Why must our response be "reasoned"? Why must it not be disproportional and hellish? How any of you are calling for reason is ludicrous. Reason is what opened us up. Reason has run its' course. It's now to to act, react and destroy.

As our Israeli friends are asking, "Do you get it now?" I pray some of you start to get it before it's too late. Our response should not be reasoned. It shouldn't be measured -- save in tons. It shouldn't be thoughtful. It shouldn't be equitable. It shouldn't be considerate.

It should be fury unseen in modern times unleashed against every area of the world we know harbors terrorists, especially THESE terrorists. I'd pray we don't resort to a Nuke, but, I guarantee you, if we did, we'd NEVER have another citizen touched on this planet by these people. So, let's do something less than that and still enough to accomplish that goal.

------------------

Doom is in the box.