• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

hmm 9-11 terrorist bombing

This is possibly the wisest saying in the bible... violence breeds violence, and the bravest act is that which ends the circle.

This would be true if we were dealing the school bully or some slightly irritating bloke in a restaurant, but we're not. We the world, are dealing with a group of people with no regard for human life. They believe that they are doing the work of God, and that by giving up their own life while perpetrating this sort of atrocity elevates them to a higher state of being.

To not fight back, would be ignoring the deaths of 1000's of innocent people. We may as well look at the pile of rubble that used to be the WTC and say 'oh well, never mind. Tomorrow's another day. If we ignore them, maybe they'll get bored and leave us alone.'

A retaliation must take place.

I'm not suggesting that America and Britain fire nuke's willy nilly at anyone they believe to be responsible. They must be 150% certain of the culprits before any vengeful acts are carried out. BUt not to retaliate would be a lot more dangerous in the long run, as far as I'm concerned.

If a retaliation is not carried out, Mr Bush could be in danger of being lynched by his own people, who hear the rush of bloodlust vengeance. He would also be saying to the terrorists, 'okay, if this is how you're going to play it, we'll let you, and we'll tidy up after you.'

In a perfect world, which I would love to live in, this sort of atrocity would never happen. And when things did happen, we could ignore them and they'd go away. But we all live in the real world.

"violence breeds violence, and the bravest act is that which ends the circle." But a failure to retaliate wouldn't be breaking the circle, it would simply be a foreiture of a turn. The circle would then rotate fully, and it would be their go again. This is a game we can not stop playing until the terrorists lose.
 
I'm pretty sure that points b and f there are the kind of sensationalist nonsense invented by journalists/members of the public desperate for any kind of lead whatsoever. The whole "material in the car" thing is slightly suspicious, but then again if you are on a suicide mission perhaps you don't care so much about hiding your tracks. Point d- someone did say the hijackers looked middle eastern and had red bands tied around their heads. Point c- I think there were only 4 missing planes. I think the others were unconfirmed and just shouted about lots in the hype and panic.

I have read somewhere that one of the guys involved in the WTC bombing had files on his computer describing attacks on landmark buildings involving crashing planes into them. If this is the case (and I have only seen it from one newspaper, so it may well not be) how come everyone was saying "there was no way we could have anticipated this" ?
 
I agree with dot23, and actually laughed at my brother (thinking he was trying to be funny) when he told me a flight manual in arabic, and a copy of the Koran were found in the hire car.

Very peculiar indeed.
 
BEAST IS SPOT ON.......

:cool: Well BEAST, you got it spot on ...Retaliation is the only viable answer, but this will go on not for weeks, months, more than likely years, but if thats what it takes so be it, some one has to make a stand, and glad most of the rest of the world agrees.
We do have to be 150% plus that we have the right people for this, But USA is a very resiliant country and has the resourses to carry out this mission, and for the rest of humanity i for one sure hope DUBYA and allies succeed. at least not a kneejerk reaction taking place a lot of talk going on with allies and that is good , hit them when they least expect it, Hope that Pakistan can hand Bin Laden over as they will have a lot of good things come out of this via USA and rest of the world.....Keep the Faith....
..Cheers Pat ...
 
The aim of terrorism is normally to confuse and disorient.

But this act appears to have united America behind a President
who was not popular. It is said that only 6% of the US population
is against military action and a chillingly high percentage expressed
indifference as to whether innocent people were killed.

Matthew Engel in today's Guardian describes the hardening of
attitudes in some detail.

Terrorists, contrary to belief, are not madmen, even when fired
up with religious nonsense. The repercussions of this atrocity
upon Islam could surely have been foreseen.

I have a feeling that, compared to this affair, the JFK assassination
is going to seem like an open and shut case. Right now it looks like
a case where the dogs did not bark. :confused:
 
Anti-hijack technique - pass to all PILOTS and all LISTS you

How to resist a hijacker with a box-cutter?

TAKE A BLANKET, WAD IT UP, PUT IN ONE HAND, ENTANGLE
HIS BOX-CUTTER OR CERAMIC KNIFE AND SMASH HIM IN THE
FACE WITH YOUR OTHER FIST. OR USE PILLOW. Take the risk
of a cut or slash -- FIGHT BACK! Organize all able-bodied men and
tough women to do the same... call out to passengers to
resist! It is imperative you take action at the FIRST SIGN OF
A HIJACKER... DO NOT WAIT. Do not be a sheep. ALSO, USE
LAPTOP COMPUTER AS WEAPON. It is heavy -- smash hijackers
with it.

I already warned the USAF Academy list (many pilots) about
how pilots should ROLL THE AIRCRAFT to dump hijackers on their
heads. and LO! - two days later the US Airline Pilots Assn
announced they were telling their members to do this.

Sent to all for the benefit of all in this crisis.
Do not even __dream__ of calling it spam. It is meant to
save YOUR LIFE.

Put this INFO on ALL LISTS YOU ARE ON. This is international,
non-partisan, and straightforward. It is meant to SAVE LIVES.
Tell all pilots, and all authorities you can think of.

Also - some means must be found to scan for CERAMIC KNIVES
and pepper spray. Both were used in the hijackings.

PILOTS MUST BE ARMED. DOORS TO CABIN MUST BE LOCKED.
Follow the example of EL AL - Israeli airline.

New rubber or plastic bullets or high-shatter bullets must be
found to use in security guns - kill the hijacker but not
penetrate the aircraft wall.

BUILT-IN SLEEPING OR KNOCK OUT GAS must be in place,
for pilot to activate if need be, from nozzles in main cabins.

Jon-Erik Beckjord, consultant
45-540-9022

COPY AND PASS TO ALL LISTS.






dot23 said:
I don't know if this is the official 'WTC Disaster' thread, but I can't seem to find any more. Anyway, a few things that have interested me regarding this this weekend. First off I was listening to London Live (a radio chat show) and a muslim caller called the whole affair a conspiracy! He said that this was a perfect excuse for WWIII and that Bush and others had engineered the 'disaster' for this effect.

I want to bring something else up - the evidence. I've not had a chance to re-read the weeks papers, but I've subliminally picked up on quite a few things.

a) material left in car in Boston Airport, and 'eye-witness' who saw them arguing.
The impression one gets of the hijackers is of cold, calculating inhuman types. Yet they bicker in a car park. Also, they leave (believe this) a Qur'an, a flight training manual, and suicide notes in the car. Duh! Leaving evidence like this will be bound to implicate other member of other cells, and seems totally out of character. Why would you leave suicide notes when their friends and family lived in the middle east (in which case why not mail a note)? Why not leave a 'statement of intent' condemning the US etc? What if the car had been discovered before the attack on the WTC? It either speaks of extreme slopiness (which is not apparent in anything else they did) or the FBI involved in a stitch up (again!). Also, who was the eyewitness and why has s/he not been interviewed by the press, or a name released?

b) People in a Boston bar reported arab looking gentlemen saying 'wait until tomorrow,' threateningly after they got into an argument about US involvement in the middle-east (i think). Muslims (and especially those from shari'ah countries such as Saudi) DO NOT DRINK. Why would they be in a bar inciting people, when they were going to pull off the biggest terrorist event in history. Surely they would have been at home praying the night before?

c) the other missing planes. Where did they go, was anyone hurt, who was arrested - if anyone.

d) again, why did no one mention the origin of the hijackers when they called from their mobiles on board the fated planes? it would have taken one word in a recording to confirm our suspicions (Arab). Yet none appear.

e) Bush and co say they will show the 'evidence' to the world before they take any action. What evidence? That Bin Laden was interested in planes is like saying Branson's interested in Balloons! He's a multimillionare, why shouldn't he be interested in planes? One man on trial for the 1993 bombing of the WTC said that Bin Laden wanted the planes, and a few pilots, to ferry weapons from various places around Afghanistan and Pakistan. Case Closed?

Finally, f) The terrorists learned to fly in Florida, at flying schools with connections to Saudi Arabia. Suspicious, non?

to conclude: As always with the US, things are not neccessarily what they seem. None of the evidence exposed in the media seems to have anything to do with Saddam, Osama, or the Taleban. On these grounds, what basis does the US have to threaten Afghanistan and Iraq? Does the letting of innocent blood abroad appease the soul of the amrican nation? When both Iraq and Afghanistan are under UN sanctions, are in the middle of civil unrest and drought, is it morally right that their innocents must suffer like their counterparts in the US? What, if anything, is their left to bomb in these countries? After 20 years of fighting in these regions, is it not time that the civillians living there are given aid, the right to life, and self-rule, away from the fiddling fingers of the CIA?

Oh, a PS. If OBL is so evil, and the centre of a terrorist network, why doesn't the World Bank, or a similar body, put a holding order on any bank that traffics money for him and his organisation, and threaten countries that 'harbour' these banks with UN sanctions/trading embargos? It is well known he has assets in the region 0f 200 million dollars, so if that is known, surely where he keeps that money is also known. Money is the life blood of terrorism, and without it, it would shrivel and die.
 
Not sure I'd like to tackle a knife-wielding terrorist armed only with a blanket... tho its a good idea, I suppose. Worth a try, if you're going to crash into a building anyway.

Btw, has anyone else noticed how, according to their inboxes recently, it seemes chain emails are going to save the world? If only it was that simple...
 
dot23 said:
b) People in a Boston bar reported arab looking gentlemen saying 'wait until tomorrow,' threateningly after they got into an argument about US involvement in the middle-east (i think). Muslims (and especially those from shari'ah countries such as Saudi) DO NOT DRINK. Why would they be in a bar inciting people, when they were going to pull off the biggest terrorist event in history. Surely they would have been at home praying the night before?

USA Today also reported that two suspects in Florida argued with a waitress over bar tab in bar where they had been drinking on the Friday before the attack. One suspect aparrently thought that the waitress believed they didn't have enough money to cover the $48.00 tab. He then pulled a wad of 50s and 100s out of his wallet and said something like, "I have plenty of money. I'm an American Airlines pilot!" then they left. Haven't seen this reported anywhere else.......
*Just found a link to the story http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/terrorists.htm

sureshot
 
The Independent on Sunday reported that OBL's personal wealth is only a few million, but that he can draw on other sources of finance with ease.

Anyways I'm also suspicious about the 'alcoholic' terroists, the convinient evidence and the third object.... all very suspicious.

Just like Ziad Jarrah, one of the alleged hijackers. His family say that he wasn't a religious fanatic, that he drank and didn't go to a mosque (which was strange since there's a nice big one across the road from his home). FYI Moslem's must prey two or three times a day.

Something is rotten in the state of New York me thinks...

Niles

PS: Can people, when the quote another's post, please only quote the relevent sections and not the whole thing. It's especially annoying when the new post is either directly below the original or the original post is long. Thanks.
 
UTTERLY CONFUSED??????????

:confused:
James, What you posted to my last reply seems to me a contadiction in terms, so it's OK to kill and mame anyone from USA or of a Christian faith,BUT no-one must have the right to retaliate if you sre of Muslim, or Shinto Et Al..religion?????
Seems very strange logic to me, I feel that any country regardless of colour or creed should have the right to defend their country and peoples, else we would give the red light to all .......Such as Anarchists, then what a sorry state we would be in....Northern Ireland being a prime example.....Let all the Murderers and Bombers do their thing and we all sit back and watch...I don't think so...Not in this life time. Bin Laden has had his so called 15 mins of "FAME" or the word I would use would be infamey, so if he is responsible or whoever did this barbaric act should pay for their actions...I beleive that is the bottom line provided that they are 150% plus certain he is their man.....
Kind Regards Pat ....
 
Not sure where you get any of that from, Foxpot.

The notion that anyone who urges calm at this time must
somehow be less affronted by the horrors than those who
are bellowing for retaliation has to be challenged.

For the Americans to be traumatized at this time is not
surprising. But Cardiff?

Nothing we can do or say or feel will bring back the dead of
the eleventh of September. Unless you lost loved ones that
day, you would do well to think ahead to the next round.

Nothing I have said suggests for a moment that the guilty
should not be hunted and subject to the Law. Nothing I have
heard so far from our leaders suggests they have the foggiest
idea how to accomplish that goal.

It is not patriotic or brave to surrender your wits at a time of
crisis. It has never been more true that the price of Freedom is
eternal vigilance. We may now be reduced to being spectators.
 
'Love is the Silence/ in the Language of Violence'

Michael Franti, Disposable Heoes of Hiphoprecy
 
THANK YOU NILES...

dark blue times large :confused: :)
Hello Niles,
Glad not just myself is a little confused by James and I use the word little reservedly...Cheers Pat..aka..Foxpot7....
PS: Seems a litttle like Bar-Room Lawyer [James].???..lol
 
Info re muslims

There seems to be an awful lot of misconception about muslims.

a) Firstly, and FOREMOST, according to Islam, suicide does NOT get you into Heaven at all. EVER. End of matter. If you're fanatical enough to believe that suicide = salvation, then you no longer follow Islam.

b) Prayers = 5 times daily. (Just thought I'd throw this one in!!)

c) By and large, Islam is a religion of peace, level-headedness, common-sense and community. NOWHERE in the Quraan does it advocate the killing of innocents for ANY reason whatsoever.

d) The image most people get of women in Islam is of ppl covered from head to toe in cloth, and only the eyes peeking out. This in itself is a kind of fanatacism, and only one view of things. In many parts of the Islamic world, women do not need to cover up so completely, or even wear the head-scarf, because it is not appropriate to do so (ie, conflicts with the society they live in).

e) You are indeed correct in saying that alcoholic drink is forbidden in Islam. The reason behind this is that drinking leads to loss of self control and loss of self-regulation. In Islam, the mind is very important and precious, and anything that affects the mind (drink, drugs, etc) is forbidden.

f) I can't think of an item (f)

g) It occurs to me that if OBL WAS indeed responsible for the atrocities in NYC, wouldn't it further his cause in claiming responsibility? I mean, if your purpose in crashing planes and taking extreme amounts of life is to make a statement, wouldn't it suit your purposes to sign that statement? If OBL meant war against the US, I can think of no better way to do it. Somehow, until proven otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't directly his fault. One of his terrorist cells acting independantly, however, is a WHOLE other story.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. If anyone wants to know more about Islam just for the purposes of knowing more, let me know.
 
Thanks Fayyad, for contributing. I did attempt to clarify some of your points earlier in this thread, (and maybe elsewhere), and it's good that someone with some real knowledge of Islam has entered the conversation ;)

I too find it strange that OBL and the Taleban continuously deny knowledge of these events. Why would they go out of their way to do this (presumably at great risk to OBL, as his fax sources could be traced) if they had done it. Why not appear triumphant and rally the rest of the Muslim world behind them? Surely the end result of terrorist actions like these is to over-throw the US hegemony in the Middle-East. Bin Laden's aim is to return the Muslim holy sites (Mecca Medina etc) to Muslim rule. Surely this is a great opportunity for him? Yet he remains quiet and defensive.

Perhaps the cells involved did use his money, does that make him accountable? Is the british government accountable for the displacement, impoverishment and destitution of people affected by the Illisu dam? After all they bank-rolled the project. Are arms dealers responsible for who uses their arms? If so we are all guilty.

I have take a vow to take a form of fasting (in my case no alcohol) for 40 days in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters all over the world (particularly in Pakistand and Afghanistan). I urge anyone who feels that Islam is being cast into shadow by scheming politicians in the west to follow suit.

Oh and I've included a message fro Michael Moore (US TV anti-corporate activist) as he has some interesting points.
 
The Michael Moore piece is one of the most reasonable things I have read about this whole issue. One board a friend of mine is quite a regular reader on had a post talking about how it was the most brutal and terrible act of war in the history of the United States. The first reply just said gave some statistics for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The issue didn't come up again.

That is not to belittle the tragedy. No-one is going to deny that a terrible thing was done, and that a terrible crime was committed. Those responsible should be brought to justice. If the innocent are caught up in that then justice is no longer the issue and it is a question of hate.

Here is an interesting article comparing Afghanistan and Vietnam.
 
Strangely enough the two most reasoned voices have come from very strange sources:

The first appeared in the Guardian last week and came from a Jew in Israel writing for the new york times. The second was that old bug-bear of the US, Louis Farrakhan. Both recommended that no action be taken without absolute proof, that any attack on Afghanistan would be futile, that the US had to completely rethink its foreign policy, and that there was serious soul searching neccesary if the american people are ever to understand the depth of distrust and hatred felt towards the US from all over the world (the US included).
 
Muslim Hadith
From Sahih Bukari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


:mad:
 
Originally posted by hospitaller
Muslim Hadith
From Sahih Bukari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
God help us if this is what these fanatics base their religion on.
 
Cujo said:
Actually I thought it looked more like that other well-known terrorist Guy Fawks.
But then seeing things in clouds and smoke is the very dictionary definition of subjective.

Cujo


Fair point, and one we will do well to remember this coming Nov. 5th. But then, what does that 'celebration' actually celebrate - the thwarting of the plot and the burning of Guido Fawkes? Or the letting off of the gunpowder as fireworks? Anyone care to elucidate?
 
If anyone is interested in under what conditions a Jihaad can be ordered, take a look at this site. Let me know what you think.


http://home.pix.za/mf/mfj1/jihaad.htm

Reply to P.Younger and Hospitaller.... The quote you have is taken out of context. Try it again with the understanding that what the quote is on about was that, back then, the Jews were violently opposed to the spread of Islam as a religion. What the quote is saying is rather, that those who would persecute the people who follow Islam would be betrayed by the very stones that they hide behind.

Anything out of context can sound deadly. Be careful before you make quotes like that.
 
I believe the bonfires were traditional on All Souls Day (Nov 1), and this was probably a hangover from even older Celtic rituals.

After the gunpowder plot the thing slid a few days to link in to that. After all, if parliament had been blown up, the effect on the national psyche would probably have been like what America is experiencing now.
 
Fayyaad said:
If anyone is interested in under what conditions a Jihaad can be ordered, take a look at this site. Let me know what you think.

http://home.pix.za/mf/mfj1/jihaad.htm


Surely the issue, though, is not so much when a Jihad can be ordered but the fact that they may be ordered? You've already pointed out a lot of ways that the terrorists have violated Islamic teaching. Is it not also reasonable to assume that a war may be fought as a Jihad without it ever being properly sanctioned (i.e. with purest intent) by Islamic law?
 
The context of the Hadith quote is that the killing of Jews in this manner is a prerequisite of the coming of the "Hour", i.e., the Day of Judgement. As the Hour has not yet come I'd say the quote is as applicable now as it was then. As is the Quranic verse 5:64:

"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the blasphemy that they utter. Nay, Both his hands (Allah's) are widely outstretched: He giveth and Spendeth as he Pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to Thee (Mohammed) from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred TILL THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT. Every time they kindle the fire of War, Allah doth extinguish it; BUT THEY EVER STRIVE TO DO MISCHIEF ON EARTH. And Allah loveth not people who do mischief."

Read more at: http://free.freespeech.org/rationalthinking/
 
fayyaad, just reading that article now...very informative!

okay so I have a few comments - on the justifications for jihad:
The exception is where the enemy has already entered the borders of the Muslim state in which case Jihad becomes unconditionally incumbent on every able man.
in this OBL believes he is acting in accordance to the Qu'ran, as the enemy of Islam (i.e. america) has already entered a muslim state (saudi). Although Shayk Ahmad Hendricks (SAH - great name! - any relation to jimi?) says that, strictly speaking, it is only the Imam, who seems to be either a military or religious head of state, who can call jihad, I imagine that a group of muslims could reject the legitimacy of that Imam on religious grounds (i.e. that the Imam was a puppet of the US). The palestinian people are only acting in accordance with the Qur'an and the teachings of Islamic leaders.

Muslims are enjoined to act righteously towards members of other faiths except in two circumstances; firstly, if they dispossess Muslims of their legitimate land-rights, and; secondly, if they engage in hostilities towards Muslims because of their Din with a clear intention to destroy it.
here again we can see were the 'fundamentalist' tendency gets its legitimacy - Israeli possession of the west bank etc, and one could argue that the ultimate aim of US middle-estern policy IS the removal of Islam from the area. The US props up hard-line, military rule by the corrupt, whilst turning the righteous into 'rogue states'. This leads to the slow secularisation/ capitalisation, and the break down of religious structures and ways of life. BTW fayyaad, I could not find a definition for Din (I tried but all the islamic glossaries I could find wouldn't deliver to my browser) I imagine it means 'religion'?

My final point would be that SAH makes much of the conditions under which Jihad can be called on Muslims who overstep moral boundaries in disputes against other muslims. Although these terrorist acts have been carried out against mostly non-muslims, could there be justrification for a jihad on al-Qaeda, for bringing the religion into disrepute, and harming Islam itself by their actions.

IMHO the only people that can bring justice upon the heads of terrorists, whilst keeping the dignity of Islam, are the Muslims themselves. If the Ayatollah, and other islamic religious leaders, called for an end to these acts, and for those that supported them to be punished, military action would become unneccesary.

Or are Islamic leaders so in love with their hatred of America that they will not let that hatred die, even for the sake of their own people?
 
sorry, I seem to have verbal diarrhea today!

just reading hospitaller's link. Again, interesting reading. However, again I found it hard, no impossible, to get the links to the Qur'an quotes - is there a conspiracy! Maybe my proxy refuses to show pages explaining Islam - or the FBI has shut them down!

It is quite possible that the Islam I have heard so many positive things about is a sham. But a nice sham, at that. I am certainly a person who tries to incorporate psychology and history into my readings of religion, and it is no surprise that Mohammed may have been a womaniser or even a drunk! I wish no disprespect to Muslims when I say this, and I am not trying to be blashpemous, but if Christians can humanise christ, why not Muslims? In many ways I have found the humanising of messiahs, prophets and avatars has made it easier for me to see the underlying message. The Qur'an may be filled with passages exhorting the faithful to war, to defile women, but is that the core message of the book? Isn't the old testament filled with unimaginable horrors, proscriptive teachings about women etc. This doesn't make all jews into murderers and rapists.
Moderate Muslims, I assume, consign some of these passages to a harsher world, where brother fought brother, and a new religions existence relied heavily on armed enforcement.

Dr Ali Sani's site, being of Iranian origin, displays a view of Islam which reflects his position. Iran has long been an extremist state, with Islam as the rod with which to beat it's people. The brutal suppression of the indiginous Farsi religion (Zoroastrianism) by Muslim leaders in the middle ages (i forget the dates!) has undoubtedly left a legacy of distrust and resentment towards the Muslim leaders there today.

I agree that all religions must be put under scrutiny, and examined to see whether they do encourage zealotry and xenophobia. Does Billy Graham stir up a fanatical state of mind, does Louis Farrakhan? 'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone'. It's too easy to blame a book or a person for the misdeeds done in their names. It was Khomenei who demanded Salman's head on a plate, not the Prophet.
 
Tree-Huggers, Take A Seat

What is all this 'brought to justice' crap? Since when has war involved bringing people to justice? Great - let's send in our troops to be slaughtered by savages just for the sake of bringing one man to 'justice'! If anybody can tell me what good it would do to simply execute bin Laden then I'm all ears. He's just one insane fanatic amongst millions. But erring on the side of caution and eradicating a significant number of centres of terrorism along with all the people in them can only be a good thing, and since the US is backed up by practically every civilised nation on the planet, there has never been a better time to break out the Big Guns.

Also, there's a general consensus that action should not be taken until the specific people who committed the atrocity can be pinponited. I disagree. It's not some sweaty Arab that the civilised world is at war with, it's terrorism as a whole and the people that perpetrate it and support it. And yes, I did say 'support it'. Jesus said that a man with murder in his mind has committed an equal sin to the man who has actually murdered. Amen to that. What I'm saying here is that if a person supports the use of terrorism and stands with terrorists, even if that person is not a terrorist him/herself, then he / she should be prepared to take the consequences.

The evil tactics of these 'people' demand decisive and massive retaliation. I must admit though, it made me feel queasy when Blair pledged his support for US action. Is this the same man that negociates with sick IRA scum - killers of men, women and children and not only that, but sets them free from jail to kill again? America - do what has to be done and do it quick! I've been known to criticise the US 'gung-ho' attitude in the past, but now I think that America is dragging its feet. So innocent people will suffer? That tends to happen in wars. When you cut out a cancer you don't just deal with the growth - you chop out the flesh around it and then you give it a dose of chemo. Are we going to nancy about until some low-life detonates a nuke in Greater London or kills 10m with an Anthrax bomb in Chicago? Then there'll be action, you'd better believe it, in a war that'll be over in 8 hours.

And doubtless some of you pacifists are now beside yourself with horror at the thought that 'excessive' force might be used or somebody might get hurt who didn't actually take an active part in the atrocities. My advice; deal with it. And if people think the WTC is as bad as it can get, think again. All the faffy pacifists who say 'Ah, we're tired of violence, let's try to understand why these people behave like this...' - oh man! Would you be saying that if a member of your family had been killed or had their legs or arms blown off by this scum? You mother maybe, or your daughter? I hope not.

Perhaps we should have taken time to contemplate why Hitler was killing the Jews, maybe send a team of counsellers over to offer their services. Far better than war where people might get hurt.

Look at it this way: There is no possible excuse for terrorism, and the least we can do for the people killed in these and other terrorist atrocities is to make sure that their kids don't die the same way.
 
Back
Top