Americans think of Sept 11 when they think of terrorism, they do not
understand the long term effects it has... they look for an instant fix,
when anyone that has lived through it can tell you that terrorism is not
instant, nor is the fix. As you sit on a runway, waiting for the IRA to get
done dropping mortar bombs on it, or maybe get luck and nail you, you get a
very intimate (though narrow scoped) understanding of it. When you need 2
calendars (one Protestant, one Catholic) to figure out what level of guard
you need to maintain, and who to watch out for through the day, then you get
another level of understanding... yet the one thing universally clear is
that every time the troops march, the terrorists will answer soon after...
every time a soldier mishandles a situation or forces their will on the ILP,
the ranks of the terrorists, unfortunately, grow.

There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in God.
(you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have sunk
into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)

WW2 was NOT a religious war. any comparison starts with in incorrect
premise.



"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:nC47b.4458$vZ3.42092604@news-text.cableinet.net...
> That's a bit of a "all grass is green, this is green, therefore it is
grass"
> argument.
> Sure, some of the local populace will support the extremists, but just
> because some do, it doesn't mean that all of them do. The choice is not
> quite so simply between "muslims dying and Americans dying". If it was
that
> simple, it would be better to take out the whole planet except America.
> There is an element of balance in all of this !
>
> I do not come from Ireland; I come from Scotland. I have been at a railway
> station when it was in fact blown up by the Irish Republican Army
> terrorists, so if anything, I have more interest in rallying to "America's
> defence" against muslims and extremists than you do, despite the fact that
> the bastards that almost blew me up were almost certainly funded by woolly
> thinking leprechaun loving liberal Americans, although fortunately that
> source of revenue has died away now. The reason I put "America's defence"
in
> quotes is because our troops are out there too, we are most likely next,
and
> I support *all* of the troops out there. I'll let it go at that, since if
> you had been around ramjaw a few months ago, you would have realised that.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> : > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it
on
> : > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
> agree)
> : > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> : >
> :
>
> : Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> : operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> : reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> : reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> : terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> : we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
> :
> : Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> : not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> : opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> : between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> : every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> : people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> : to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> : entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> : better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> : this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> : 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> : horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> : was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> : picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> : and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
> :
> : I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> : 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> : interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> : muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> : and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> : middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> : the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> : Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> : but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> : democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> : in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> : Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> : you would not be here at all.
>
>

 

All it will take for terrorism to stop is for the terrorists to stop
terrorizing.

Dave Nagel

A.H. MacIntosh aka USERNAME wrote:

> IRELAND... ouch, that hurt.
>
> Rasaay... it's between Applecross and North Skye.
>
>
> Really though, the bombing of Dresden was partially to make a point, and
> partially to "return the favour" for the civilian targeting in G.B. There
> were communication centres that posed a worthy target, but hardly worth the
> effort put against them.
>
> As far as the debacle in Iraq, it would likely be more successful to rebuild
> an infrastructure and give the ILP a reason to help, than try to terrorise
> them into helping. There are many examples of trying to use force to
> eliminate terrorism failing, I am unclear as to why we would want to add
> another failure to that list.
>
> As far as Northern Ireland not being attacked on 9/11... They have dealt
> with terrorism on a far greater time scale than the USA has. It is, again,
> another level of proof that force will not stop the lunatic fringe from
> killing people with terrorism. Additional force, and strong arm tactics do
> little more than push the "fence sitters" to the terrorists side. Uniforms,
> and FN's pointed at their faces likely made more IRA members than any other
> recruiting they had available. (By the way, keep in mind that most of the
> Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
> suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)
>
>
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
>
>>>Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
>>>the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
>
> agree)
>
>>>and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
>>>
>>
>>Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
>>operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
>>reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
>>reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
>>terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
>>we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
>>
>>Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
>>not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
>>opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
>>between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
>>every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
>>people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
>>to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
>>entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
>>better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
>>this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
>>'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
>>horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
>>was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
>>picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
>>and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
>>
>>I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
>>9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
>>interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
>>muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
>>and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
>>middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
>>the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
>>Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
>>but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
>>democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
>>in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
>> Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
>>you would not be here at all.
>
>
>

 

All it will take for terrorism to stop is for the terrorists to stop
terrorizing.

Dave Nagel

A.H. MacIntosh aka USERNAME wrote:

> IRELAND... ouch, that hurt.
>
> Rasaay... it's between Applecross and North Skye.
>
>
> Really though, the bombing of Dresden was partially to make a point, and
> partially to "return the favour" for the civilian targeting in G.B. There
> were communication centres that posed a worthy target, but hardly worth the
> effort put against them.
>
> As far as the debacle in Iraq, it would likely be more successful to rebuild
> an infrastructure and give the ILP a reason to help, than try to terrorise
> them into helping. There are many examples of trying to use force to
> eliminate terrorism failing, I am unclear as to why we would want to add
> another failure to that list.
>
> As far as Northern Ireland not being attacked on 9/11... They have dealt
> with terrorism on a far greater time scale than the USA has. It is, again,
> another level of proof that force will not stop the lunatic fringe from
> killing people with terrorism. Additional force, and strong arm tactics do
> little more than push the "fence sitters" to the terrorists side. Uniforms,
> and FN's pointed at their faces likely made more IRA members than any other
> recruiting they had available. (By the way, keep in mind that most of the
> Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
> suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)
>
>
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
>
>>>Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
>>>the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
>
> agree)
>
>>>and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
>>>
>>
>>Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
>>operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
>>reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
>>reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
>>terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
>>we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
>>
>>Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
>>not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
>>opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
>>between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
>>every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
>>people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
>>to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
>>entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
>>better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
>>this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
>>'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
>>horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
>>was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
>>picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
>>and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
>>
>>I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
>>9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
>>interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
>>muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
>>and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
>>middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
>>the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
>>Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
>>but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
>>democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
>>in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
>> Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
>>you would not be here at all.
>
>
>

 

>
> There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in God.
> (you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have sunk
> into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)


AHEM. Think back. Who were the first suicide bombers? The answer
would be Japanese Kamikaze pilots, religious lunatics all. (They
were simply of the Shinto rather than Muslim variety.)

Fatman and Little Boy ended that religious war quite nicely.

You could also look at the US Civil War. The Southern US states,
from the top commanders down to the lowest poor farmers, were
convinced that the might of god was on their side against the more
secular (and, horror of horors, Catholic) Union. Of course there were
many non-religious issues in this war, but the south was absolutely
convinced of the divine rightness of their cause. Read any of the
writings of Lee, Jackson, et al., or a modern biography of the same,
and substitute the word "Allah" wherever in their musings you see the
word "Jesus" or "Christ," and you will note an eerie similiarty to the
musings of modern muslim extremists.

Today, of course, no reasonable person is still trying to fight for
the secession of the southern states or the expansion of imperial
japan. And what do these two defeated causes have in common? The USA
dominated them with wanton destruction of targets both civilian and
military, then crushed them under an oppressive and total occupation.

 

>
> There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in God.
> (you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have sunk
> into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)


AHEM. Think back. Who were the first suicide bombers? The answer
would be Japanese Kamikaze pilots, religious lunatics all. (They
were simply of the Shinto rather than Muslim variety.)

Fatman and Little Boy ended that religious war quite nicely.

You could also look at the US Civil War. The Southern US states,
from the top commanders down to the lowest poor farmers, were
convinced that the might of god was on their side against the more
secular (and, horror of horors, Catholic) Union. Of course there were
many non-religious issues in this war, but the south was absolutely
convinced of the divine rightness of their cause. Read any of the
writings of Lee, Jackson, et al., or a modern biography of the same,
and substitute the word "Allah" wherever in their musings you see the
word "Jesus" or "Christ," and you will note an eerie similiarty to the
musings of modern muslim extremists.

Today, of course, no reasonable person is still trying to fight for
the secession of the southern states or the expansion of imperial
japan. And what do these two defeated causes have in common? The USA
dominated them with wanton destruction of targets both civilian and
military, then crushed them under an oppressive and total occupation.

 

>(By the way, keep in mind that most of the
> Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
> suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)

I never claimed that muslims and europeans had a monopoly on evil.
Any US citizen who contributes meaningfully to a foreign ---------
group, be it Muslim, Irish, Basque Separatist, or anything else,
ought to be prosecuted under murder conspiracy statues and then get
the death penalty, in my opinion.

 

>(By the way, keep in mind that most of the
> Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
> suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)

I never claimed that muslims and europeans had a monopoly on evil.
Any US citizen who contributes meaningfully to a foreign ---------
group, be it Muslim, Irish, Basque Separatist, or anything else,
ought to be prosecuted under murder conspiracy statues and then get
the death penalty, in my opinion.

 

The emperor ended the Japanese aggression, and agreed to surrender, not the
fanatics. There are some similarities, but not enough to make a fair
comparison. First off, there was a strong central point of power (in
Hirohito) and a populace that was willing to support his decisions. When he
decided enough was enough he could control the fanatics to a degree.

the same centralised power does not exist in Iraq. The Muslims are following
a belief in a spiritual deity, and not a person.

Also of note, their rulers could quite easily be called madmen. willing, no,
wanting to die a martyr.

suicide attacks well predate WW2, or the American Civil War.


"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309100724.47c6bc23@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in
God.
> > (you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have
sunk
> > into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)
>
>
> AHEM. Think back. Who were the first suicide bombers? The answer
> would be Japanese Kamikaze pilots, religious lunatics all. (They
> were simply of the Shinto rather than Muslim variety.)
>
> Fatman and Little Boy ended that religious war quite nicely.
>
> You could also look at the US Civil War. The Southern US states,
> from the top commanders down to the lowest poor farmers, were
> convinced that the might of god was on their side against the more
> secular (and, horror of horors, Catholic) Union. Of course there were
> many non-religious issues in this war, but the south was absolutely
> convinced of the divine rightness of their cause. Read any of the
> writings of Lee, Jackson, et al., or a modern biography of the same,
> and substitute the word "Allah" wherever in their musings you see the
> word "Jesus" or "Christ," and you will note an eerie similiarty to the
> musings of modern muslim extremists.
>
> Today, of course, no reasonable person is still trying to fight for
> the secession of the southern states or the expansion of imperial
> japan. And what do these two defeated causes have in common? The USA
> dominated them with wanton destruction of targets both civilian and
> military, then crushed them under an oppressive and total occupation.

 

The emperor ended the Japanese aggression, and agreed to surrender, not the
fanatics. There are some similarities, but not enough to make a fair
comparison. First off, there was a strong central point of power (in
Hirohito) and a populace that was willing to support his decisions. When he
decided enough was enough he could control the fanatics to a degree.

the same centralised power does not exist in Iraq. The Muslims are following
a belief in a spiritual deity, and not a person.

Also of note, their rulers could quite easily be called madmen. willing, no,
wanting to die a martyr.

suicide attacks well predate WW2, or the American Civil War.


"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309100724.47c6bc23@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in
God.
> > (you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have
sunk
> > into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)
>
>
> AHEM. Think back. Who were the first suicide bombers? The answer
> would be Japanese Kamikaze pilots, religious lunatics all. (They
> were simply of the Shinto rather than Muslim variety.)
>
> Fatman and Little Boy ended that religious war quite nicely.
>
> You could also look at the US Civil War. The Southern US states,
> from the top commanders down to the lowest poor farmers, were
> convinced that the might of god was on their side against the more
> secular (and, horror of horors, Catholic) Union. Of course there were
> many non-religious issues in this war, but the south was absolutely
> convinced of the divine rightness of their cause. Read any of the
> writings of Lee, Jackson, et al., or a modern biography of the same,
> and substitute the word "Allah" wherever in their musings you see the
> word "Jesus" or "Christ," and you will note an eerie similiarty to the
> musings of modern muslim extremists.
>
> Today, of course, no reasonable person is still trying to fight for
> the secession of the southern states or the expansion of imperial
> japan. And what do these two defeated causes have in common? The USA
> dominated them with wanton destruction of targets both civilian and
> military, then crushed them under an oppressive and total occupation.