Finally.......Justice will prevail

[Glenn]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_413036.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

So....the war has finally begun. I'm rooting for Britain, and now that SOMEONE's doing air strikes the U.S. is bound to join in very soon.. but also I wonder if attacking military bases will have any effect on bin Ladin like the cruise missles sent by Clinton did around 1998...for some reason, the pessimist in me says no! :(

[Glenn]

By the way G. Dubya sounds, it sounds that this is going to be alot more then that sorry excuse for a President (Clinton) ever did. There is alot more at stake here. When that lying P.O.S. was in office, 6000+ people didn't die as a result of Osama. What we really need is Reagan back in office. He took no SxxT from anyone.
That's just my opinion.

Glenn

[Joe Tully]

Ananova is not really a very reliable a news source. I'm not prepared to believe it until I see something at someplace like CNN.com

[happyheathen]

While Chairman Mao said '(Political) power
grows out of the barrel of a gun', I do not think bombs are likely to produce justice, or even penetrate stone mountains...

[Glenn]

Originally posted by happyheathen
While Chairman Mao said '(Political) power
grows out of the barrel of a gun', I do not think bombs are likely to produce justice, or even penetrate stone mountains...

Nice signature. (Last Kiss). Originally done by Frank Wilson & re-done, pretty nicely, by Pearl Jam.

THis came in on the Drudgereport (This is a pretty reliable source)
If the Bombs get Bin Laden and other terrorists, before they have a chance to inflict this kind of pain on the USA again, I'll consider that justice.

Glenn

[Matthew Hunter]

I saw a 60 Minutes II a while ago that mentioned those missiles...while I don't believe most of the junk the Taliban is telling us, I don't doubt that that was no terrorist group the missiles hit...aimed or not. We made a mistake there, so I don't think the missiles are a good idea. Ground troops are going to be the way to go eventually, though I'm no military expert.
-Matthew

[Glenn]

No where in that article does it say the use of missiles. From all the reports coming in, they say that this is going to be very secrcetive. We won't know anything until after they do it. IMHO there will probably be ground troops going in, since the terrain of Afghanistan is mountainous with lots of caves.

Glenn

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Glenn
No where in that article does it say the use of missiles. From all the reports coming in, they say that this is going to be very secrcetive. We won't know anything until after they do it. IMHO there will probably be ground troops going in, since the terrain of Afghanistan is mountainous with lots of caves.

Glenn

glad somebody recognized 'Last Kiss' (didn't know Pearl Jam re-did it - thanks)

am thinking of a series of 'dead teenager' song quotes...
(has anyone re-made 'Teen Angel'?)

the military strategy seems to be to send in special ops to find targets for air strikes.

too many problems with this to discuss (yes, you can take out their obsolete MiG's, scuds (anyone know what 'scud' is?), and anti-aircraft - now what?)

and then there is the matter of ji-HAAD (poor attempt at phoenetic spelling) - I strongly recommend you look it up - this makes the concept behind the crusades (I can't believe the twit actually used that word) look like a mugging.

there are 1.2 billion Muslims all over the globe - if only .001% feel obliged to 'destroy the Great Satan', well, 'Nam will look like picnic on a warm, sunny afternoon...

[Emmanuel Cruz]

God Bless Britain!! They'll teach these Taliban shmucks that you can't destroy America's pride and hope that freedom and justice prevails!

To Osama bin Laden:
You better sleep with your eyes open, you sick bastard!

(Excuse the cussing.)

[Jack]

Originally posted by happyheathen


glad somebody recognized 'Last Kiss' (didn't know Pearl Jam re-did it - thanks)


Never cared for the new version:p



Jack:D

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Jack

Never cared for the new version:p



Jack:D

excellent taste, especially for one so young...:cool:

[lislebartman]

All I can say is...

ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!

Let's bomb those bedsheet-clad m*****f****** back to whence they came! I for one would like to see Osama in an iron coffin with spikes on the inside!!

As for Tony Blair, what can I say? ENGLAND ROCKS!

Thank you, Mr. Blair!!:cool:

[DR. BELCH]

Glenn :
By the way G. Dubya sounds, it sounds that this is going to be a lot more than [Clinton] ever did.... What we really need is Reagan back in office.
Amen. We can dream. Maybe if he could've had a third term in 1988, like FDR. Imagine one of the greatest brains of our age raddled with Alzheimer's, like a horrible joke. Now, the man doesn't even know his oldest daughter died of cancer several months ago. :(
Bush the younger is a Reaganite at heart, emulating the kindness, humor, and morality of The Great One,...and though I have respect for his father, I always felt he was a bit overcautious in his dealings, esp. with Saddam. Then again, outright crushing him might have opened up a whole new can of worms, so maybe the elder Bush was right to wrap his iron fist in velvet, even if it cost him in 1992.
What chills me is that Clinton has been heard to make remarks to the effect that he wishes the Emergency Number Bombings had happened during his term. One must wonder about a man whose first thought upon hearing of such a tragedy is how to feather his own nest. :mad:
Yes, the terrain will be our greatest adversary, unless someone figures out where his is specifically and how to send a bomb straight up Bin Laden's bum. Someone call Ted Kazinsczy (sp?) .... ;)

[happyheathen]

'one of the greatest brains of our age '??

yeah, right...

'I have just signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. The bombing starts in 5 minutes'
- President Reagan

[sun]

AS of 2:52 pm central time, the war, that is, us bringing it to them, has not begun, other than with talk. Yahoo, has nothing on it yet, as of one minute ago....
Ok, revenge will be ours, but there will be much death. and not only our enemies...Short, swift ,specific attacks by special forces, holding the high ground will be effective,in Afganistan. But it will not be easy..(and it will take time).....President Bush is right, this is a different kind of war. The U.S. has not experienced war on its soil, since 1865, other than Perl Harbor, and this could be horrific on a scale only shown in mostly grade B sci fi movies. In Viet Nam, our forces killed 7 or 8 hundred thousand , most of them were innocents. Sure, we will get them, but I am for taking as much time as possible, to get it right, and kill as few innocents as possible. Taking more time does not mean we will be less effective.
Just because they kill innocents, doesn't mean we have to.
Get as many of those that were part of this plot, those that actively supported them with money and cover, and get out. Not because we couldn't blow up the world, but because we can blow up the world, is why we need to be careful. Pleasethink of this, blowing up Afganistan to the stone ages will accomplish nothing....From what I have read, they already have been blown back to the stone ages by 20 years of drought, war, tribal hatred, and famine.

[happyheathen]

ah, someone gets it...

now, about the hajedi (holy warriors) being turned out in Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan...

at least, for the first time in history, a GOP admin is talking about a Palestinian state.

and for the 'let's kick butt' folks - the person taking the slow approach is Gen Powell - think maybe he knows something you don't?:rolleyes:

[sun]

Originally posted by happyheathen
ah, someone gets it...

now, about the hajedi (holy warriors) being turned out in Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan...

at least, for the first time in history, a GOP admin is talking about a Palestinian state.

and for the 'let's kick butt' folks - the person taking the slow approach is Gen Powell - think maybe he knows something you don't?:rolleyes:

I would like to add something else, my last bit...These people have shown what they can do, obviously we can do that too. but let us not create more or that, when what we really want to do, is end that kind of insaine activity. It will not be easy, and it will not be short. Let us do it right, and if possible not create more reasons for more...Thanks for reading this---Stuart-oldtoonguy

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Originally posted by happyheathen


... scuds (anyone know what 'scud' is?)...



A teeny tiny bit of humor for ya -

SCUD = Sure Could Use Directions

I'll have to give this subject a lot more thought before making a serious reply...

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Singin' Stray Cat


SCUD = Sure Could Use Directions



not quite accurate, but I like it:)

hint:

see the term 'scud running' (pilot speak)

[Gossamer]

Listen, folks: At this point in time, if innocent Afghanis start to die as a result of military action by Western forces, 1) we are not much better than bin Laden and 2) bin Laden will have won. Right now, the only "jihad" has been declared by extremists who agree with bin Laden. First the Russians, then the Taliban, now what? US strikes? The poor average Afghani neither supports the Taliban nor bin Laden, but that is precisely who is most likely to die-the poor average Afghani, not bin Laden or the Taliban. As for committing ground troops, read your history. How many of you cheering the possibility of a war are between 18-28 or 30 and plan to volunteer? It would make Vietnam look like Disneyland. Here's a thought: be patient, plan this out, support the various Afghanis in and out of Afghanistan in their efforts, who have the knowledge of the terrain and the enemy that we don't and get support from other Arab states before haring off and possibly making the same mistakes we did in Southeast Asia 30-40 years ago. By the bye, how many of you are aware that it was the US that helped start bin Laden and the Taliban in th first place by not thinking things through and just doing what looked good at the time (something we do quite often). Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

[Glenn]

This is exactly what G. Dubya has been saying. This is going to be a long drawn out process, to make sure that we get the people that were responsible. He doesn't want to start killing innocent people. He is going after the Terrorists, and it's not just going to be in Afghanistan.

Glenn

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Isn't SCUD meaning fly low to avoid some enemy equipment?

BTW, I find it sad, considering what the term jihad means, bin Ladin used the term. Gee, pal, ever think maybe Allah didn't want you to kill innocents? And his usage of "Americans do not differentiate between civilians and soldiers." Hm. Vietnam, yes, we screwed up there. But then there's the Taliban as well. Heck, I just saw a video recording of an Afghani hospital for women-very scary-LAST place the sick would want to be...and yes, I know that jihad means "to fight in defense of Allah". Heck, I think THAT phrase should mean a DEFENSIVE war-attacking the WTC is defense? :rollseyes:

...yes, terrain is hard. Yes, it will take a while. And yes, I wanted retaliation. But if it takes time to get the right strike ready, I'm for that too.

I await the razing of my speech...I know I probably made some dumb saying in there....:(

[Gossamer]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Isn't SCUD meaning fly low to avoid some enemy equipment?

BTW, I find it sad, considering what the term jihad means, bin Ladin used the term. Gee, pal, ever think maybe Allah didn't want you to kill innocents? And his usage of "Americans do not differentiate between civilians and soldiers." Hm. Vietnam, yes, we screwed up there. But then there's the Taliban as well. Heck, I just saw a video recording of an Afghani hospital for women-very scary-LAST place the sick would want to be...and yes, I know that jihad means "to fight in defense of Allah". Heck, I think THAT phrase should mean a DEFENSIVE war-attacking the WTC is defense? :rollseyes:

...yes, terrain is hard. Yes, it will take a while. And yes, I wanted retaliation. But if it takes time to get the right strike ready, I'm for that too.

I await the razing of my speech...I know I probably made some dumb saying in there....:(


Actually, I put "jihad" in quotes because the Qu'ran would not call this a jihad. It isn't and shouldn't be called one. The words of Allah forbid the killing of innocents, which is anyone not directly at war with Islam. While I am not of the faith (I am what the Qu'ran calls "the People of the Book"), I have read the Qu'ran and have known Muslims. My comments were made earlier because I get the feeling that all too many want a strike yesterday on someone, whatever the consequences. Your remarks are actually fairly moderate. I DON'T want revenge, however-that's too much like bin Laden for my taste. When I see a rattler or a scorpion, I don't hate it-I make sure it can't hurt me. If that means catch it, fine. Kill it, fine. But I'm not going charging in-I'm going to be careful and remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or for the scientifically incined, a bit of Newtonian physics-Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

[Nelson]

WE DID IT BEFORE, AND WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, WE DID IT BEEEFOOOREE, WE CAN DO IT AGAIN !

Like Bugs Bunny said in the cartoon, "CRAZY CRUISE"

ER RAH, THUMBS UP DOC, THUMBS UP......V FOR VICTORY :mad: :mad: :mad:

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Nelson
WE DID IT BEFORE, AND WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, WE DID IT BEEEFOOOREE, WE CAN DO IT AGAIN !

Like Bugs Bunny said in the cartoon, "CRAZY CRUISE"

ER RAH, THUMBS UP DOC, THUMBS UP......V FOR VICTORY :mad: :mad: :mad:

time to grow up - this isn't a cartoon (see: jingoism)

and:

'scud' is low-lying cloud cover/other low, bad, weather - 'scud runnng' is flight between the ground and said weather (quite dangerous, people die with some regularity); hence 'scud' is a term for a low-flying, short-range device.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Gossamer
...By the bye, how many of you are aware that it was the US that helped start bin Laden and the Taliban in th first place by not thinking things through and just doing what looked good at the time (something we do quite often). Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

yes, one of the first priorities of the special ops is to capture or destroy the Stinger missles the CIA gave the Afghans in the '80's - and, according to a brief blurb that appeared a few days ago in the Pakistani press (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/), the US is considering selling the Pakistanis strike copters 'to patrol the Afghan border'
The Paks are the Taliban's source for everything - without Pak, it would have died years ago - in another 10-20 years, are we going to send in the Delta force to destroy the Apaches we gave them in 2001?

[Brian Cruz]

Let's all try to be as civil as possible here, please. I'd normally be tempted to close a thread like this, but I'll leave it open for now. In fact, I'll even contribute a little somehting I came across...

AFGHAN TV GUIDE

MONDAYS:
8:00 - "Husseinfeld"
8:30 - "Mad About Everything"
9:00 - "Suddenly Sanctions"
9:30 - "The Brian Benben Bin Laden Show"
10:00 - "Allah McBeal"

TUESDAYS:
8:00 - "Wheel of Terror and Fortune"
8:30 - "The Price is Right If Usama Says It's Right"
9:00 - "Children Are Forbidden From Saying The Darndest Things"
9:30 - "Afganistan's Wackiest Public Execution Bloopers"
10:00 - "Buffy The Yankee Imperialist Dog Slayer"

WEDNESDAYS:
8:00 - "U.S. Military Secrets Revealed"
8:30 - "When the Northern Alliance Attacks"
9:00 - "Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pita Bread"
9:30 - "Just Shoot Everyone"
10:00 - "Veilwatch"

THURSDAYS:
8:00 - "Matima Loves Chachi"
8:30 - "M*U*S*T*A*S*H"
9:00 - "Veronicas Closet Full of Long, Black, Shapeless Dresses and Veils"
9:30 - "My Two Baghdads"
10:00 - "Diagnosis: Heresy"

FRIDAYS:
8:00 - "Who Wants To Be A Martyr?"
8:30 - "Funniest Super 8 Home Movies"
9:00 - "Usama Knows Best"
9:30 - "Achmed's Creek"
10:00 - "No-witness News"

[sun]

Originally posted by Gossamer
Listen, folks: At this point in time, if innocent Afghanis start to die as a result of military action by Western forces, 1) we are not much better than bin Laden and 2) bin Laden will have won. Right now, the only "jihad" has been declared by extremists who agree with bin Laden. First the Russians, then the Taliban, now what? US strikes? The poor average Afghani neither supports the Taliban nor bin Laden, but that is precisely who is most likely to die-the poor average Afghani, not bin Laden or the Taliban. As for committing ground troops, read your history. How many of you cheering the possibility of a war are between 18-28 or 30 and plan to volunteer? It would make Vietnam look like Disneyland. Here's a thought: be patient, plan this out, support the various Afghanis in and out of Afghanistan in their efforts, who have the knowledge of the terrain and the enemy that we don't and get support from other Arab states before haring off and possibly making the same mistakes we did in Southeast Asia 30-40 years ago. By the bye, how many of you are aware that it was the US that helped start bin Laden and the Taliban in th first place by not thinking things through and just doing what looked good at the time (something we do quite often). Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Before we kill, we might make every effort to kill the right ones...We can always wait to kill, and be different then them.

[sun]

I live in Illinois, and recently the governor has instituted a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty...Prosecuters, here don't like it....

Why was it instituted? Because it was proven, thru DNA evidence that one half, yes 50% of all prisoners on death row, who were tried ,in suppovely fair trials, by juries of their peers, were innocent. 13 of 26 in the last 15 years, were released in the last 5 years, and others were found ,who commited the crimes thru that DNA evidence... one fellow was 48 hours away from the end....So we can wait, and try better then ever before to get this war right. Please, we can wait to kill, and if it must be done, lets do it as carefully as possible. Thank you for reading this. oldtoonguy--Stuart

[laugh4me]

Originally posted by happyheathen


time to grow up - this isn't a cartoon (see: jingoism)
.
Hmm... an odd remark since I thought that one of the core tenants of the TTTP was that cartoons are for those who have grown up? ;)
Really Dave, don't you feel a bit ashamed lecturing a New Yorker with firsthand exposure to the destruction there about this not being a cartoon?



'scud' is low-lying cloud cover/other low, bad, weather - 'scud runnng' is flight between the ground and said weather (quite dangerous, people die with some regularity); hence 'scud' is a term for a low-flying, short-range device.

This definition is true, but it's not why the missile got that name. Scud was a NATO "codename" under a name generation system they use for new enemy weapons - they chose words which were easy to use across several different languages and accents. They split the type of weapons by the starting letter - "S" was used to start all codenames of Warsaw Pact missles used against ground targets. Here's a sampling of some other "S" codenames: Swatter, Sandal. Scrooge, Sandbox...

[Sogturtle]

I liked Brian's input...

As for my dovish compadres... I would advise you all to take a good LONG gander at what former Vietnam activist/protester David Horowitz published yesterday... Twas printed in my paper yesterday, must be online somewhere. Mr. Horowitz's view is that he realizes NOW that he was dead-wrong THEN, and doesn't want present-day folks to make the same "treasonous" mistakes that he made...

In my own thoughts on the whole hideous mess... The terrorists are NOT going to go away folks... The radicalized Islam has bred them and they are growing across the Muslim world. We are talking about people who are SO radical that they have even begun to advocate destroying the Sphinx and the Pyramids for their ties to ancient paganism!!!

Annnnnd once again we have to talk about what Mohammed's teaching really was... His plan was for an ISLAMIC WORLD, nothing less. NO secular nations, no Christian ones, and certainly no Jewish one... Christians and Jews would be allowed to pay a hefty tax to live unmolested in well, ghettos. Anybody else who is not a Muslim is to be converted or put to death. The radicalized Islamic "fundamentalists" are viewing the WORLD and YOU and ME in exactly this light.

People are glibly bandying about (with disgust) the words "the Crusades" without really understanding what happened back then. The "Middle East" had been largely Christianized before the final collapse of the Empire. When suddenly Mohammed's followers came riding out with edicts to surrender and convert or die. Sooooo Mohammed's faith and followers were the alien import into the regions of Judea-Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq) not to mention Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.)

Anybody ever wonder what happened to the native Jewish-Christians of former "Judea"??? There were many thousands of them left there after the Romans deported them. So what happened to them??? That's right those that chose to be faithful to their Jewish-Christian faith either died or had to begin paying a tax just to live each year, those that decided to live as first-class citizens became... MUSLIMS.

Sooooo fellers they're not going to quit until:

1. You and I are converted or DEAD!!! orrrrr
2. They are so frightened of our destructive capabilities (the Koran permits this, temporarily) that they are reined in by themselves.
3. The thing that my dovish friends can't comprehend...

[laugh4me]

Originally posted by Sogturtle
I would advise you all to take a good LONG gander at what former Vietnam activist/protester David Horowitz published yesterday...
Here is the column to which you refer. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn09-27-01.htm)

[Gossamer]

Originally posted by Sogturtle
I liked Brian's input...

As for my dovish compadres... I would advise you all to take a good LONG gander at what former Vietnam activist/protester David Horowitz published yesterday... Twas printed in my paper yesterday, must be online somewhere. Mr. Horowitz's view is that he realizes NOW that he was dead-wrong THEN, and doesn't want present-day folks to make the same "treasonous" mistakes that he made...

In my own thoughts on the whole hideous mess... The terrorists are NOT going to go away folks... The radicalized Islam has bred them and they are growing across the Muslim world. We are talking about people who are SO radical that they have even begun to advocate destroying the Sphinx and the Pyramids for their ties to ancient paganism!!!

Annnnnd once again we have to talk about what Mohammed's teaching really was... His plan was for an ISLAMIC WORLD, nothing less. NO secular nations, no Christian ones, and certainly no Jewish one... Christians and Jews would be allowed to pay a hefty tax to live unmolested in well, ghettos. Anybody else who is not a Muslim is to be converted or put to death. The radicalized Islamic "fundamentalists" are viewing the WORLD and YOU and ME in exactly this light.

People are glibly bandying about (with disgust) the words "the Crusades" without really understanding what happened back then. The "Middle East" had been largely Christianized before the final collapse of the Empire. When suddenly Mohammed's followers came riding out with edicts to surrender and convert or die. Sooooo Mohammed's faith and followers were the alien import into the regions of Judea-Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq) not to mention Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.)

Anybody ever wonder what happened to the native Jewish-Christians of former "Judea"??? There were many thousands of them left there after the Romans deported them. So what happened to them??? That's right those that chose to be faithful to their Jewish-Christian faith either died or had to begin paying a tax just to live each year, those that decided to live as first-class citizens became... MUSLIMS.

Sooooo fellers they're not going to quit until:

1. You and I are converted or DEAD!!! orrrrr
2. They are so frightened of our destructive capabilities (the Koran permits this, temporarily) that they are reined in by themselves.
3. The thing that my dovish friends can't comprehend...

My, where to start. Vietnam was fought largely for political rather than military reasons, it was fought under the wrong military conventions and tactics and with no clear purpose or exit strategy. It is this that I warn against when raising Vietnam as an example.

I have clearly stated (or thought I had) that these critters ain't gonna go away and that they mean us grievous harm. But that DOES NOT mean that ALL MUSLIMS DO!!! The "convert or die" approach (which Charlemagne used in the name of Christianity against Pagans even more effectively than the Muslims did) is not part of Islam proper but a largely tactical/political construct to advance certain goals, much like the Crusades were more about territorial expansion and trade than religion. As a side note, do some research into the Children's Crusade. That's really a horror story.

It is, has been and likely will be my position that tactics which kill innocent noncombatants make us not much better than bin Laden and, worse, don't solve the problem and likely make things worse. We should use any and all efective means at our disposal to get rid of the terrorists, without causing greater problems years down the line. This is not a Christianity/Islamic problem (though bin Laden would like it to be), but a political and sociological one. These are extremists who no more represent all Muslims than Jerry Falwell does all Christians. All I'm saying is do our homework, plan this out and get it done right so that the problem is solved.


BTW, the Qu'ran does not speak of an Islamic world with no place for other nations. It in fact recognizes the existance of other states and admonishes the faithful to act peacefully with "the People of the Book" who are not actively attacking Islam (i.e., sword in hand) and that it is wrong to injure women and children or other non-combatents for any reason.

[happyheathen]

I, for one am an un-repentant anti-vietnam-war. We had no reason to be there, didn't know who we were fighting, or how to do it. (this, without getting into the matter of morality - the second causality in war (the first being 'truth').

the tactical comparison to Afghanistan is MORE than valid, but I agree, we obviously have reason to go after bin-laden et. al.

I am concerned that we 'get it right' this time, and the only successful strategies I can imagine are those that would make the most 'veins-in-the-teeth' gung-ho war lover cringe.

and then there is the 'et. al.' - this is where the real problem comes in.

How much of what the hajidi believe is supported, and to what extent, by the Koran (old transliteration, sorry), and whether non-muslims were taxed under some ancient government really makes no practical difference - we are faced with a fanatical group of people who wish us dead. Unfortunaltely, they STILL aren't all going to get together in one place for easy disposal.

the Nazis tried the 'kill 100 civilians for each soldier the (freedom fighter/terrorist) killed' - didn't work.

save you some research effort - when the 'Children's Crusade' reached port (Genoa, I think) and were promptly sold into slavery.

Soggy - I admire your guts for trying to defend the Crusades - I've never encountered anyone who would even try ;)

at least we won't be using agent orange...