Posted on 09/13/2001 6:33:57 AM PDT by getoffmylawn
Sorry for the error.
Are you including among them the Muslim radicals in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and their Democratic or Republican supporters in USA? And supporters of Chechen radicals? Just wondering.
Yes unfortunately there are traitors who celebrate the cruel death of thousands of Americans and welcome the destruction of our cities and economy.
They would have us cave into the terrorists who are attempting to utterly destroy our country. I have to admit I have listened to Islamic students and co-workers defend their side. I've had them in my living room and I've sat in theirs, I heard and tried to understand anti-Zionism and I wondered if they were right about our support for Israel. No more. A new land in the sand has been drawn, it was not the Israelis that attacked us on US soil.
There's a considerable difference between innocents dying as a result of legitimate military activity - loosely and cruelly termed "collateral damage" - and deliberately targeting innocents and nobody else. To blur this difference is to attempt to establish a moral equivalence that does not, IMHO, exist - useful for propaganda, but not for any clear understanding of the situation.
As for 1.5 million Iraqis dying "because of the embargo", that is not only not a "generally accepted" figure, it is more propaganda. How did these people die? Lack of medicine? Medicine isn't embargoed. Lack of money for medicine? The Iraqis seem to have plenty for the military. If that many Iraqis have died, which I do not believe, then they have done so through gross and immoral misplacement of priorities on the part of Saddam Hussein.
As for the 200,000, these were soldiers (mostly) who were participating in the brutal occupation of an inoffensive neighbor. Try balancing that against the Kuwaitis they killed if you're searching for moral equivalency.
Wrong. Don't you Damnyankee me! I lost a great-grandfather in Confederate service, and my grandfather was orphaned in the War.
Even when I was a Cadet at the Virginia Military Institute, that term was used. Oh, some of the guys made a point of calling it the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, but most people, with impeccable Confederate credentials such as my classmate directly descended from Albert Sidney Johnson, used the term "Civil War". In my own family, it was always referred to as The War, but most people today wouldn't understand the reference.
Osama bin Laden was appointed as the Commander in Chief of the Afghan Army just a couple of weeks ago. That would seem to make him a representative of the Afghan government and, as such, makes that country a legitimate target.
Is that a Goebbels quote? Sure sounds like it. Are you advocating the mass murder of children and babies, or what?
IMO, there are a number of ways one can cross the line and become an abject LIAR. You did so by posting the above ridiculous assertion (masquerading as an interrogative)
Crawl back into your hole you jackal.
They were conscripts of a state which had been propped up for ten years by the United States. They were slaughtered by Imperial arrogance. If Bush had marched on to Baghdad, he might have accomplished something. The murder of people desperately attempting to retreat back to Iraq was a disgusting act which comes close to genocide and certainly violates the rules of war. Compare that with the relatively gentle hand of Iraq in Kuwait "if you're searching for moral equivalency".
No I didn't. Those were your words, not mine. I merely responded...a bit sarcastically, I'll admit. Perhaps sarcasm does not register at a time such as this. But let me be clear...I am advocating a strong and unequivocal response against the perpetrators, once identified. I am not advocating, random, sweeping violence. Your statement about killing all the Arabs and Chinese is a straw man argument.
As for the nonsense about taking cookies to bin Laben and Saddam, just remember who armed them both. Yup, the dear old US of A. Reagan, as I recall.
The first good point you've made on this thread. But follow this logic: "We made past mistakes in arming what turned out to be terrorists. Now they blew up our buildings and killed thousands of innocent people, but because we screwed up in the past, we can't retalliate now."
That simply doesn't make sense. What, specifically, is your preferred response to the attack?
News/Current Events Front Page News
Keywords: BIN LADEN AFGHANISTAN
Source: United Press International
Published: 08/30/01 Author: United Press International
Posted on 09/12/2001 22:47:03 PDT by Rightwing Conspirator1
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported. Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
Sounds like a legitimate national target to me.
News/Current Events Front Page News
Keywords: BIN LADEN AFGHANISTAN
Source: United Press International
Published: 08/30/01 Author: United Press International
Posted on 09/12/2001 22:47:03 PDT by Rightwing Conspirator1
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported. Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
Sounds like a legitimate national target to me.
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.