Justice and Revenge

[lrossmusic]

[b][i]Justice and Revenge[/i][/b] It appears that at least a partial root of the WTC tragedy could possibly be the same as it has been in similar incidents here and abroad: Individuals with [i]revenge[/i] in their hearts consider their actions [i]justified[/i]. I ask: What is the difference between [i]justice[/i] and [i]revenge[/i] in their minds? Suppose some of the terrorists had relatives, even children, who were accidentally killed during the Gulf war. It’s not too far of a stretch for me to imagine that such an individual could volunteer for a suicide mission. Of course war always yields innocent victims, we know this going in, yet human logic thus far dictates that we must wage them anyway. We are left with no other recourse. Clearly, even as avowed Christians, we don’t accept that ‘turn the other cheek’ can apply in all situations. And surely for every violent incident whether accidental, collateral, deliberate or whatever, there are survivors, families, and others directly affected whose hearts are broken. It stands to reason that of these a guaranteed percentage of fanatics will seek [i]justice/revenge[/i] on their own, by any means necessary, and in God’s name. History confirms this. A big part of our dilemma may be essentially: How do we mend a broken heart in time enough to break the vicious and seemingly perpetual cycle? Conceivably Timothy McVeigh's heart shattered at WACO triggering in his confused mind a need for revenge/justice . Don’t we all naturally crave justice/revenge as few are readily willing to absorb heartbreak without at least the chance at getting even? Obviously a fanatical mindset at some point can even go so far as to embrace a perverted martyrdom if the circumstance are deemed severe enough. Here lies our thus far unsolvable mystery and wrenching irony. Both sides consider the collateral deaths justified as in this case our enemies most certainly view the terrorists not as criminals but as holy martyrs seeking God’s justice. Until we can figure out how to untangle this mystery mankind seems trapped or perhaps doomed to the vicious cycle; heartbreak, hate, violence, vengeance; heartbreak, hate, violence, vengeance and so on and so forth.....ad infinitum. This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 10-22-2001 at 10:47 AM

[lrossmusic]

Hard to face right now but still I believe a very valid view: [b]Subject: A Thoughtful Response to our Current Crisis[/b] Mark Gerzon "After something like this, there will be a desire to strike back. What will be hard for us, given our national psyche, is that we cannot. We don't know who, or where, to strike." -- General Norman Schwartzkopf How do we respond to this emergency call? Even one our most renowned generals recognizes that we cannot strike back so easily. We must find something to do with our anger and our fear. We know that many voices will call for increased military spending, massive new investments in intelligence-gathering, and the creation of a domestic security state. So it is important that of us whose work involves alternatives to violence we face an tremendous challenge. We must find a way, an EFFECTIVE way, to make clear that a vital part of our response must be to understand the sources of the rage against us and to respond with wisdom. In addition to whatever military and security measures are taken, we absolutely must reflect on why we have become a target. In my view, there are three primary sources of this rage. The first is because much of the Muslim world believes that the United States is the enemy of Islam. There are religious, geopolitical, and cultural reasons for this hatred, all of which are intensified by the targeted assassination of Palestinian leaders. But we can no longer afford to pretend that this hatred results 100% from the ideological fanaticism of militant followers of Islam. The second source is the widespread view of the United States as a symbol of wealth and power, and hence the enemy of the poor and powerless. To what degree this is true is obviously debatable, but what is beyond doubt is that this perception runs deep and wide throughout much of the world, particularly in the South. Yes, we are still a symbol of freedom and democracy but we cannot afford to let this historic role camouflage the fact that we are also profoundly hated as a symbol of superpower arrogance and privilege. The third source of rage is more diffuse, but it relates directly to the growing protests against the World Bank, IMF and WTO. As symbolized by a series of actions in which we are the Lone Ranger (Kyoto accords, Durban racism conference, etc), we are rapidly isolating ourselves from the world around us. While on the one hand we are the most "international" global nation on earth, we are on the other hand the most isolationist. Like the World Bank, IMF and WTO, which we played a pivotal role in creating, we are seen as [i]orchestrating a world that suits our national interest, regardless of the consequences to other nations[/i]. This view is increasingly common in Europe, which is culturally closest to us. If that view can take hold there, just imagine how much more strongly it can grip other parts of the world, such as the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Rage, of course, is no excuse for mass murder. What the terrorists did in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania is itself an outrage. But now we, as a people, have to choose. Just like the Serbs and Croats in the Balkans, the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda, and Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir, and the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, WE HAVE TO CHOOSE WHAT KIND OF NATION WE WANT TO BE. Do we intensify the [i]cycle of retaliation and revenge[/i], or do we open ourselves to the heart of the hatred? If, as the Dalai Lama has said, we have moved from a century of war to a century of dialogue, then our choice is clear. On a scale never before imaginable, we must know our enemy, not forgive them; not excuse them; and not appease them, but KNOW them. We must know them in our hearts and respond to them with a wisdom that passeth all understanding. This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-18-2001 at 03:29 PM

[soapbox]

[b]Mark[/b], you made some very good points! I think we can build a better future if we keep two things in mind: 1) Innocent people are innocent people no matter where they reside. 2) Former enemies can become strong allies, if we help them rebuild as we did with Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II.

[soapbox]

Here's an e-mail I received that will help our voices be heard beyond this forum: << Dear Friend of MoveOn, Thousands of you participated in our online discussion this weekend. The heartfelt and clear-headed suggestions are a real breath of fresh air from the drumbeat for war we hear on TV. It's important to let our leaders know that Americans won't support playing into the terrorists' hands by responding with escalating violence. http://www.moveon.org/justice/ One of the top-rated suggestions was to send the following letter to the President and Congressional Representatives: To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs. Please do everything you can to counsel patience as we search for those responsible. Please ensure that our actions reflect the sanctity of human life everywhere. Thank you. We've mounted a petition campaign, called "Justice, not Terror", that delivers exactly this message. Please add your voice at: http://www.moveon.org/justice/ Your participation is extremely important in breaking the myth that Americans support senseless bloodletting. Send an instant message to Washington and tell your friends at: http://www.moveon.org/justice/ If you haven't participated in our discussion forum, go to: http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id The thoughts posted are really wonderful. It gives me renewed hope for our future. Sincerely, - Wes Boyd MoveOn.org September 17, 2001 "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. >>

[soapbox]

Also, check this out: [url=http://u.have.noaccess.com/thankyou/]America's tragedy is felt by all the world[/url]

[Anderton]

This is tough. The problem for us is that whoever did this has set up a win-win situation. If we retaliate, which I believe is what the fanatics want, then they can point to us as arrogant and understanding only force (especially if any innocent bystanders are killed) and start unleashing even worse terrorist events in return. If we don't retaliate, then they will call us weak and pitiful, too decadent to even defend ourselves, and...start unleashing even worse terrorist events because they think they can get away with it. We need to come up with an option that prevents the fanatics from exploiting this situation any further. Right now there is some talk that the Taliban will give up Bin Laden in return for international recognition of their government; they dearly want to be legitimized. This is tricky, as the Taliban do not seem truly representative of the Afghan population. Putting a stamp of approval on their reign of terror to bring Bin Laden to justice presents a moral dilemma. However, by removing their outcast status, matters [i]might[/i] improve within the country. The Taliban will not be able to sell themselves as the "romantic outsiders" who would rather die than assimilate. They probably want foreign investment, and are probably smart enough to recognize that one day, the rebels ARE going to squash them anyway. So, they'll figure it's better to consolidate their hold on power and offer a few concessions that keeps the population if not happy, at least placated. Best case scenario: The US finds indisputable evidence that Bin Laden is indeed behind the attacks. The Taliban hand him over to an Islamic country like Pakistan, which because of the incontrovertible proof, has no choice but to put him out of circulation. The Taliban get a taste of what it's like to be part of the real world, and decide they like it, so they lighten up on their people (like what has happened in Iran over the past couple decades) out of self-interest before the people rise up and revolt. Without Bin Laden's resources, the terrorist network becomes diffused. They become more brazen, hence sloppier, and one by one, key figures in the movement just happen to encounter some serious "accidents," like perhaps trying to fix a lawnmower while the motor is still running. The US takes advantage of this breather to present a kinder face to Islamic nations, thus helping defuse the image of the "Great Satan." The terrorists continue to find an eroding base of support. Attacks continue, but become less frequent and less daring. By 2050, terrorist attacks are considered obsolete and counterproductive. Worst case scenario: US retaliates militarily, fails to take out the terrorists but inflicts significant civilian casualties. The Islamic world, currently caught in a struggle between fundamentalists and moderates, tips to the fundamentalist side because they become convinced that maybe Bin Laden was right after all. The terrorists become stronger, and nuclear/biological weapons are released that over time, render the world more or less uninhabitable. Have a nice day. I know which scenario I'm rooting for.

[Pro Jules]

Colin Powell made a clear promise on TV that the US timetable of events would be: 1) Clear proof to all the world of precicely who and what organisation did the atrocity 2) Retribution for it. That seemed TOTALY fair from a global perspective, what nation could disagree with it? Bush seems to have skipped over point number 1. How did we go from investigation - to printing 'wanted dead or alive' posters? Did I miss some TV? Was it the declaration of war that made all previous stements void? The Taliban have offered to assist if the first point in Colin Powells promise is met. That seems a fair and reasonable stance to take. Have we been let down once by the FBI in failing to discover this plot and now twice by lack of evidence so far uncovered? Jules

[Tedster]

>>>Timithy McVeigh's heart was broken at WACO. We all naturally crave justice/revenge as few are readily willing to absorb heartbreak without the chance of getting even. And since getting even is at best temporary or partial relief for heartache, a determined mindset at some point could likely still go so far as to embrace martyrdom if the circumstance were deemed severe enough. Oh, come on. McVeigh didn't HAVE a heart. Or balls, either, or he would have struck the FBI, ATF, military, or any one of the organizations that could have been held responsible for Waco. Yep. That's the answer to revenge for killing innocent civilians. Kill some more innocent civilians. At least the terrorists who struck the U.S.S. Cole had the balls to strike a military target. However...your argument about violence begetting violence was at the heart of Christ's message. But, we can't bend over and hand Bin Laden a tube of KY either.

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]This is tough. The problem for us is that whoever did this has set up a win-win situation. If we retaliate, which I believe is what the fanatics want, then they can point to us as arrogant and understanding only force (especially if any innocent bystanders are killed) and start unleashing even worse terrorist events in return. If we don't retaliate, then they will call us weak and pitiful, too decadent to even defend ourselves, and...start unleashing even worse terrorist events because they think they can get away with it. We need to come up with an option that prevents the fanatics from exploiting this situation any further. Right now there is some talk that the Taliban will give up Bin Laden in return for international recognition of their government; they dearly want to be legitimized. This is tricky, as the Taliban do not seem truly representative of the Afghan population. Putting a stamp of approval on their reign of terror to bring Bin Laden to justice presents a moral dilemma. However, by removing their outcast status, matters [i]might[/i] improve within the country. The Taliban will not be able to sell themselves as the "romantic outsiders" who would rather die than assimilate. They probably want foreign investment, and are probably smart enough to recognize that one day, the rebels ARE going to squash them anyway. So, they'll figure it's better to consolidate their hold on power and offer a few concessions that keeps the population if not happy, at least placated. Best case scenario: The US finds indisputable evidence that Bin Laden is indeed behind the attacks. The Taliban hand him over to an Islamic country like Pakistan, which because of the incontrovertible proof, has no choice but to put him out of circulation. The Taliban get a taste of what it's like to be part of the real world, and decide they like it, so they lighten up on their people (like what has happened in Iran over the past couple decades) out of self-interest before the people rise up and revolt. Without Bin Laden's resources, the terrorist network becomes diffused. They become more brazen, hence sloppier, and one by one, key figures in the movement just happen to encounter some serious "accidents," like perhaps trying to fix a lawnmower while the motor is still running. The US takes advantage of this breather to present a kinder face to Islamic nations, thus helping defuse the image of the "Great Satan." The terrorists continue to find an eroding base of support. Attacks continue, but become less frequent and less daring. By 2050, terrorist attacks are considered obsolete and counterproductive. Worst case scenario: US retaliates militarily, fails to take out the terrorists but inflicts significant civilian casualties. The Islamic world, currently caught in a struggle between fundamentalists and moderates, tips to the fundamentalist side because they become convinced that maybe Bin Laden was right after all. The terrorists become stronger, and nuclear/biological weapons are released that over time, render the world more or less uninhabitable. Have a nice day. I know which scenario I'm rooting for.[/b][/quote] Brilliant.. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ANDERTON FOR PRESIDENT!!! This message has been edited by rold on 09-18-2001 at 06:22 PM

[sign]

[quote]Originally posted by rold: [b] Brilliant.. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ANDERTON FOR PRESIDENT!!! [/b][/quote] AGREED!!!!!!!!

[Tedster]

>>>The US takes advantage of this breather to present a kinder face to Islamic nations, thus helping defuse the image of the "Great Satan." The terrorists continue to find an eroding base of support. Attacks continue, but become less frequent and less daring. By 2050, terrorist attacks are considered obsolete and counterproductive. Kinda "pie in the sky", don'tcha think? Sweet. A kinder, gentler face to Islamic nations? The problem...*you* think that way. *They* don't. People like that, those in that mindset, perceive it as a sign of weakness. I remember a documentary on Chamberlain's talks with Hitler. Chamberlain pulled up in the rain, and stepped out of the car with an umbrella. The Nazis perceived that as a sign of weakness, and proceeded to take advantage of Chamberlain. Now, mind you, that doesn't mean that we should not be fair in our dealings. But, you are talking about factions to whom warfare is a way of life. They don't understand "kinder". They understand grenade launchers. Now, you may say, that that's precisely the reason that we shouldn't use them...but...like the old song about the snake...the woman is "kind" to a freezing snake. It gets nice and warm, and thanks her by biting her. Many Moslems take the true Islamic beliefs of peace to heart. Sadly, to many "hard line fundamentalists", the mere fact that we are "Christian infidels"...(regardless of your beliefs, if you are American, you are Christian or Jewish as far as they're concerned) means that we will always be heretics to their warped view of Islam...always the great satan, something to be stamped out. Just like the Jews were to Hitler. The difference is we've got the means to prevent this. And, for the safety of our families, that is precisely what we must do.

[sign]

Let me explain why, Graig is posting very intelligent thoughts all the time. Words I rather like to hear from the USA government. If fact Craig is much more intelligent than the government IMO. Fifteen minutes ago I was whatching CNN. The meeting between George Bush and Chirac. I sinceraly don't envy your president, he is doing the best he can, but I really feel pity for him, don't get me wrong, this is not my home language. The man must be near a 'burn out', he definitely is not a great public speaker and I don't blame him for that, but for Christ sake, he got to be helped Craig, do something. All I see is a man who stumbles over his words and the bottom line is: "make no mistake about it, we will smoke them out of their holes and bring them to justice". Do we in the mean time have any idea and do we have proof for that, who or what committed the crime of the century? All we know is that it were 'terrorists' don't we?

[Guest]

[quote]Originally posted by Julian standen: [b]Bush seems to have skipped over point number 1. How did we go from investigation - to printing 'wanted dead or alive' posters? Did I miss some TV? [/b][/quote] Julian, blame the Beeb, they decontextualized the quote. The remark seemed more offhanded, not a headline. It was clumsy, not pointed, in my view. Though, what do I know, the NY Times called it "pointed". Several inches down the story they transcribe it. [quote][b] from NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/national/18BUSH.html excerpted: Mr. Bush's comments about Mr. bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire believed to be in hiding in Afghanistan, came when he was asked if he wanted the suspected terrorist dead. "I want him — I want justice," the presdient said. "And there's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said: `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' " Later his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, made it clear that Mr. Bush was not simply reminiscing about late-night Westerns, and would be happy to have Mr. bin Laden served up either way. [/b][/quote] The Bushes have always walked a pretty fine line between the old West and prep school. It does lead to stuff like this. The editorial juxtaposition with the Ari Fleischer statement is entirely the creation of the writers and editors of the Times. Take away the Ari Fleischer "statement" which is not quoted and see if you feel the same way about the Bush quote. Pat

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [B] All I see is a man who stumbles over his words and the bottom line is: "make no mistake about it, we will smoke them out of their holes and bring them to justice". B][/quote] Yep, I'd say that you've got it pretty well pegged. No matter if you're a Bush supporter or detractor...an orator he is not. He does sound like someone who needs a bit of rehearsal. But, it is encouraging to see people banding across party lines, and supporting Bush as the man who has the dirty job to do...like it or not. Hmmmm, speaking of which, has anyone interviewed Al Gore on the matter? I'm kind of curious as to what he has to say...but I haven't seen anything yet. I've seen both Clintons.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Julian standen: [b]Colin Powell made a clear promise on TV that the US timetable of events would be: 1) Clear proof to all the world of precicely who and what organisation did the atrocity[/b][/quote] The problem is that this could take months. We might not ever have clear proof. Meanwhile, King George keeps hyping it up. Which is either going to leave us cuckolded, or we're going to do something rash. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Anderton]

<> Remember, I [i]did[/i] present it as the "best case" scenario.

[lrossmusic]

Tedster wrote: [quote][b]Oh, come on. McVeigh didn't HAVE a heart. Or balls, either, or he would have struck the FBI, ATF, military, or any one of the organizations that could have been held responsible for Waco. Yep. That's the answer to revenge for killing innocent civilians. Kill some more innocent civilians. At least the terrorists who struck the U.S.S. Cole had the balls to strike a military target.[/quote][/b] You're right, after it was broken McVeigh didn't have a heart anymore. He reverted back to 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Also the old idea 'all is fair in love and war' comes to mind when considering what happens to a person's rational thinking when their heart gets broken. This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-19-2001 at 01:21 AM

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by lrossmusic@hotmail.com: [b]Tedster wrote: [QUOTE][b]Oh, come on. McVeigh didn't HAVE a heart. Or balls, either, or he would have struck the FBI, ATF, military, or any one of the organizations that could have been held responsible for Waco. Yep. That's the answer to revenge for killing innocent civilians. Kill some more innocent civilians. At least the terrorists who struck the U.S.S. Cole had the balls to strike a military target.[/quote][/b] You're right, after it was broken McVeigh didn't have a heart anymore. He reverted back to 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Also the old idea 'all is fair in love and war' comes to mind when considering what happens to a person's rational thinking when their heart gets broken. This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-19-2001 at 01:21 AM [/B][/QUOTE] You give him far too much credit. He never complained of a "bwoken heart". As a matter of fact, he never had much emotion at all. He was an asshole full of contempt at the world for not agreeing with his warped view of it, and ready to "make it pay" by any means possible. He had no family at Waco. An asshole. Can you say "asshole", neighbor? I knew you could. Some people don't have "bwoken hearts". Some people are just assholes. And, perhaps sadly, they have to be dealt with in kind.

[good morning]

Of course McVeigh had a heart. It was polluted though, and he didn't control it. So he killed. I am not justifying what he did. HE justified what he did, which is always the problem. People rationalize, and too often they aren't well equipped (mentally, emotionally) to do something sensible and good. So they do what they want, which is destroy (hate). But it's the wrong way. Tedster, I thought you said "hate is hate." Revenge does no good, whether in useless diatribe or in senseless military action. To shift this topic a bit... The terrorists have a "center of gravity," as the military calls it. And to wage war successfully, that center must be identified and attacked -- or at least affected in some way that gets the desired result. That "center" for terrorists is a twisted Islamic belief that by killing Americans, they do god's will. They believe this so fervently, they are happy to die trying. Islam doesn't preach this though, which is why I say "twisted." bin Laden is merely a target, like a fuel depot or airport. Hitting it (him) will be only one step in this war. His millions will be a target also: they fund terrorists of every stripe in their war on the US. Our war on terrorism, which for the first time is more than just rhetoric, will be waged on different fronts: military (especially from special forces this time, Navy SEALs especially); diplomatic (building an alliance, particularly with Pakistan so we can stage our army, among many other reasons); informational (such as re-educating what Islam is); and Economic (embargos, inducements to new nation "friends," etc.). It's a pretty standard formula. Thankfully, it is well-known and generals like Schwarzkopf aren't the only ones who know it. But he's not about to pre-empt what his contemporaries in the pentagon have to say, so he won't say much. Terrorism isn't complicated, and our plans won't be either. (Filled with details, certainly, but simple in concept.) I think it was Jules who said something about that re: the terrorist plan of last week: get the money, go to flight school, hijack a plane, etc. and PRESTO! You're riding a missile and you can pick your target. The fuel was the explosive, so that's why California flights were picked. This message has been edited by swright50@excite.com on 09-19-2001 at 10:13 AM

[lrossmusic]

Tedster wrote: [quote][b]You give him (McVeigh) far too much credit. .......Some people don't have "bwoken hearts". Some people are just assholes.[/quote][/b] Sorry that my choice of words sound to you as if I'm giving McVeigh any credit or sympathy. This is not the case. My opinion only stems from what I believe to be the proven fact that he traveled to WACO during the showdown almost as if he really did have direct family inside. Anyway, if witnessing the tragedy first hand somehow led to his eventual crime I'd say definitely watch out for any asshole who just 'got dey heart bwoke'.

[Tedster]

One thing that often gets forgotten regarding the Waco incident was that Koresh had the option to send out the innocents before it got out of hand. He could have stood his ground, but sent the women and children out of the compound. He couldn't have seriously believed that the FBI would shoot unarmed women and children leaving the Waco compound. No, that speaks of something more sinister. Koresh's desire for "human shields". And, reading about Koresh...whether you believe in the right to bear arms or not, Koresh was seriously disturbed...on the order of Jim Jones disturbed, and we all know what happened there. The FBI and ATF dropped the ball. Koresh dropped the ball. And innocent lives, those on the compound, as well as at Oklahoma City, were taken.

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by lrossmusic@hotmail.com: [b] Timothy McVeigh's [i]heart was broken[/i] at WACO.[/b][/quote] His heart was broken when he washed out of Special Forces training. His life's ambition was to be a soldier. The tragic events that followed his discharge from the military were a perverse attempt at "playing army" by a hardened, spiteful loser. Waco was just a convenient excuse. He would have used some other incident had Waco not materialized. The scmubags who perpetrated last week's attrocities are no more rational than McVeigh. They wanted blood to spill. There was no rational explanation for what they did, no relative or friend who was a casualty of war. They just wanted a war, a [i]jihad[/i]. They saw this as their destiny, and they were bent on doing whatever it took to see that destiny manifested. Some people are just cold blooded killers. Interpretation of their motives beyond pure meanness is a waste of time. I do agree with points made above, that the United States, along with other powerful nations, should conduct a foreign policy that is beyond reproach. But even then, monsters will plot to harm innocent victims, because that is what monsters do.

[lrossmusic]

Dansouth wrote: [quote][b]Some people are just cold blooded killers. Interpretation of their motives beyond pure meanness is a waste of time. ........ monsters will plot to harm innocent victims, because that is what monsters do.[/quote][/b] Of course one can only speculate as to the motives behind such acts. Seeing McVeigh's interveiw with Ed Bradley on 60 minutes shortly before his death was scarey. He gave me the impression that he felt as if he was a prisoner of war. But what I really can't understand as far as the terrorists is the suicide part. I've witnessed in my lifetime or read the history of many mean, cold blooded, monsters masquerading as human beings but don't they usually try to get away with it and save there own asses? On the other hand, when someone goes to work and shoots his boss, fellow workers, and then himself the motive I guess could be part meanness, part revenge, part asshole, and part just plain crazy. This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-23-2001 at 12:39 AM

[D. Gauss]

there is no justice, and revenge is rarely if ever truly satisfying. sucks for us. -d. gauss

[rold]

Not these people...I just saw a show on cnn where a woman had gone undercover in Afghanistan to videotape and document the treatment of women. She interviewed a number of young boys and the results were ALL of them (some as young as 6) were not only willing, but PREFERRED to die fighting any such war. It seems the opportunity to be martyred overpowers the will to live.

[lrossmusic]

rold wrote: [quote][b]It seems the opportunity to be martyred overpowers the will to live.[/quote][/b] from the today's Washington Post: [quote][b]In return for joining the jihad against America, bin Laden promises his followers an honored place in paradise, in accordance with the statement in the Koran that "a martyr's privileges are guaranteed by Allah." True Islamic youths, bin Laden argued in his 1996 decree, know that their rewards from fighting the United States will be "double" their rewards from fighting other countries. Their only aim in life, he has told Americans, is "to enter paradise by killing you."[/quote][/b] This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-20-2001 at 02:30 AM

[captain54]

Isn't Bin Laden wanted for other crimes perpetrated against the U.S.?? namely the U.S.Embassy bombing in Nairobi and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, killing American serviceman....If the Taliban leaders were sincere they would hand him over to the U.S. for those previous crimes.... Weren't some of the Taliban guilty recently of murdering a mother in front of her three children and then sexually molesting the 2, 4 and 15 year old girls?? We are dealing with cockroaches and vermin, not intelligent human beings and the rest of the world sees it... This is like trying to reason with Charlie Manson and his band of psychos and murderers.... I don't really care what the rest of the World thinks about whether we should attack or not attack, or what the Islamic nations think about our heavy handedness in going in there and kicking butt..the fact of the matter is, we are no longer safe in our own country, and its because these jackals weren't taken out a long time ago, and that includes Saddam Hussein because I dont trust that weasel.... So let's not forget the gravity of this event gang...We were severely and seriously attacked, for the first time in history, on our mainland....Bin Laden must be captured by any means necessary and made an example of...the days of negotiating and reasoning with the Son of Sams of the World are over...

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by captain54: [b] I don't really care what the rest of the World thinks about whether we should attack or not attack, or what the Islamic nations think about our heavy handedness in going in there and kicking butt.. [/b][/quote] From everything I've seen and read, that attitude is what got your country into this mess in the first place. Take a middle eastern look into the reaction of the US sponsored USSR vs. Afghanistan during the cold war and the gulf war; the history has some clues as to what they're angry about. Having said that, there is still nothing that justifies killing of innocent people, and recklessly going in and bombing Afghanistan will do the same and create new enemies and terrorists in the meantime. This message has been edited by rold on 09-20-2001 at 12:12 PM

[captain54]

I beg to differ, my friend....It seems we have had terrorist attacks perpetrated against us going back to the 93' World Trade bombing and as far as I know a tiny minority have been brought to justice... I never said anything about bombing innocent people....our main goal is to smoke Bin Laden out and bring him back here where he can face the wrath of the American people, instead of hiding out in a cave like a coward...Let's have him face a tribunal of 5,000 plus people whose lives have been forever altered by his twisted view of what he thinks the world should be... As far as our Gulf War campaign, we seemed to have a majority of the World on our side on that one....It was a question of whether Hussein should be allowed to run rampart over oil rich countries in the region, thus gaining a Hitler-like bravado and possible momentum in the eventual destruction of the Western World....We are despised by some for sticking our nose in that part of the World, but no one really has the forsight to speculate as to what the future COULD have been had Hussein been able to run rampart over Kuwait and who knows who....this is a guy who will slice you and your families throat without blinking an eye... I'm sick and tired of America being ripped for making an effort to go into different parts of the World and using our resources to make this World a better and safer place for everyone....and who comes to our aid when we have catastrophic events like earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, etc...??? no one really seems to give a rat's ass then....

[lrossmusic]

[b]Our dilemma in a nutshell:[/b] (1)We'll probably have no other choice but to violently strike back. (2)This will almost certainly result in more death among the innocent. (3)Collateral loses fuel further fanaticism. The best we can hope for is to try and keep these loses to a minimum even though our enemies will be using the innocent to hide behind. Lord Have Mercy. What a mess. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] This message has been edited by lrossmusic@hotmail.com on 09-21-2001 at 10:11 AM