This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 11/03/2004 12:43:19 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Thread #21: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1268023/posts |
Posted on 10/12/2004 8:58:00 PM PDT by nwctwx
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know, oorang. None of this stuff is happy.
hey, well said, Davey!
ROFL, Piper!
replyin to self
I understand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256734/posts
"Armed civilians can help fight terrorism"
Backwoods Home ^ | 10-25-04 | Massad Ayoob
Posted on 10/25/2004 5:14:41 PM PDT by SJackson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255463/posts
"Terrorists Kill 50 Unarmed Iraqi GIs in Ambush (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Group claims responsibilty)
Fox News ^ | 10/24/04
Posted on 10/24/2004 1:02:06 PM PDT by kendu
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136419,00.html
UAL flight 835 sucked in a bird almost immediately after takeoff. Blew the starboard engine. ATC took it out over Lake Michigan and had it create a fuel spill. Someone must have complained because I heard the pilot report in about 5 minutes before it landed that they still had 100,000 lbs of fuel on board. It landed at 10:35 last night without incident. The flight finally left today around 11:00 AM.
The flight was airborne for about 40 minutes total.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-041025edplane2,0,7835514.story?coll=chi-news-hed
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/10/003664print.html
October 25, 2004
"Bomb blast at a Turkish McDonald's"
Cuba to No Longer Accept U.S. Dollars
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256826/posts
Bookmarking
Check your Freepmail.
Interesting, huh?
bookmark
ON THE NET...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243381/posts?q=1&&page=1601#1601
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243381/posts?q=1&&page=1606#1606
http://www.itshappening.com/showthread.php?t=68684
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Traveller2022%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Good code for Traveller 2022 - I believe it's the universal code, is it not?
The War Bin Laden Wanted
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102604E.shtml
...excerpt...
George W. Bushs re-election campaign rests on three claims, distinct but always run together: that the United States is at war against terror, that it is winning the war, and that it can ultimately achieve victory but only under his leadership.
The second and third propositions are hotly debated. Critics of Bush contend that the U.S. is losing the struggle against terror on the most important fronts and that only new leadership can bring victory, but except for a few radicals, no one denies that the struggle against international terrorism in general and groups like al-Qaeda in particular constitutes a real war. The question comes up in the campaign only when Republicans such as Vice President Cheney charge that Democrats view terrorists as mere criminals and do not recognize that the country is at war. The charge, though false - no Democratic leader would commit political suicide by even hinting this - is effective politically.
Some experts on international law and foreign policy object to calling the struggle against terrorism a war, pointing for example to the legal problem of whether under international law a state can declare war on a non-state movement and claim the rights of war, or arguing that terrorism constitutes a tactic and that no one declares war against a tactic. Both arguments indicate the sloppy thinking that pervades the rhetoric of the War on Terror. The first point, moreover, has important practical consequences for such questions as the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, and for our relations with allies, other states, and the UN. Yet these kinds of arguments seem too academic to matter. The general public can hardly understand them, much less let them influence their votes.
Other reasons, however - different, more powerful, highly practical, and astonishingly overlooked - argue against conceiving of the struggle as a war and, more important still, waging it as such. The reasons and the logic behind them are somewhat complicated, but the overall conclusion is simple: by conceiving of the struggle against international terrorism as a war, loudly proclaiming it as such, and waging it as one, we have given our enemies the war they wanted and aimed to provoke but could not get unless the United States gave it to them.
This conclusion is not about semantics or language but has enormous implications. It points to fundamentally faulty thinking as one of the central reasons that America is currently losing the struggle, and it means that a change in leadership in Washington, though essential, will not by itself turn the course of events. What is required is a new, different way of thinking about the struggle against terrorism and from that a different way of waging it.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda repeatedly and publicly declared war on the United States and waged frequent attacks against its property, territory (including embassies abroad), and citizens for years before the spectacular attack on 9/11. This admission would seem to destroy my case at the outset and end the discussion. If bin Laden and al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and committed unmistakable acts of war against it, then obviously the U.S. had no choice but to declare war in reply, just as it had to do so against Japan after Pearl Harbor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.