We Are All Spaniards

"Judah" wrote in message
...

I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If
the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans,
their
own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic
Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after
attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered.


Where is Islam being opressed by a western nation?

Jay,
I can probably find sources that would indicate that innocent people
were killed in many wars for independence. But that is not the point.

I think you missed my point. People like you and I absolutely recognize
the agenda of the Arab terrorists, and the Arab nations that sponsor them
(some of whom we call "allies"). But the agenda of these terrorists must
not be clear to many people because there are still people out there,
like the poster to whom I replied and at least one other in this thread,
who believe that the way to stop terrorism is to change foreign policy
and "keep our nose out of other country's business."

At the end of it all, if that were our position, the Arab nations would
very possibly accomplish their goals, or at least some of them. And it
would be documented in the Arabic History Books as the Great War of
Islamic Independence, where Arab Nations sent freedom fighting martyr
after martyr to attack the Imperialist Western Infidels in the former
nation of Bush until they surrendered and the Radical Islamic nations
ruled the world...

Of course I might be exaggerating just a bit, but I do believe that
history is slanted in favor of the author...

And I'm not quite ready to hand over the pen yet...



"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54:

I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
terrorists.

Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
unrelated locales.

Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.

When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
or a failed coup-de-tat...

To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the
world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and
suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah.

If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it.

Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the
agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and
control of their own countries...

Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western
civilization, in the name of God.

I think you've got it backwards...

I would say that the Native Americans were the Freedom Fighters, trying to
win back their land from the Oppressive colonialists. However, because we
won that war, for the next 150-200 years, American Indians were portrayed
in US History books and media as scary, stupid mostrosities who gave away
their land for a few beads and fur pelts, and then terrorized frontiersmen
and their families by taking their scalps in the dead of night, for
"absolutely no reason at all".

Had the Indians been able to repel the Colonialists, their history books
would have written of the events and of the characterizations of the people
of the time very differently.

I can't go through and cite every single example of terrorists in history.
And I can't quantify to what level innocent people were killed by
terrorists in wars. I'm not a history expert or even a history buff.

All I can tell you is that it seems to me that the current Arab Terrorist
tactics are working, and there is not much I can think of to do about it,
except perhaps to call upon our "allies" in the Arab Nations to stop
supporting them and harboring them or suffer a price. But the thought of
"keeping our nose out of other country's business" as suggested by a prior
poster, is repulsive because I don't want to go down in history as a member
of the Fallen Imperialist Bush Empire.


"S Green" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
terrorists.

Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were
terrorists in 1948.

Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists...

Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.

When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
or a failed coup-de-tat...

The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
Independence took place in America.

So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom
fighters were the colonialists. They secured independence and then
began a genocidal assault on the native Americans.
Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.

Maybe that does not count?

In article vl15c.12593$_w.289553@attbi_s53,
Jay Honeck wrote:
We don't, actually. We fight criminals.

There's no expectation that crime will cease.

Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was
meant to be a deterrent.

In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

Perhaps as an academic theory, but even then only on paper. The key
thing to remember is that criminals (most at least) break the law because
they do not think that they will be caught. They know that they could be
caught, but commit the actually crime assuming that they will not.
For example, most of us speed. But we do NOT do so when we see a cop
on the side of the road.
If you mean that punishment of criminals that have been caught and
convicted is meant to be a punishment against future crime the states
don't really show that either. And even if they did new criminals would
only appear.
Throughout the history of the human race murder has basically been
illegal (note murder is often defined differently in different culture).
Yet murders still happen. In the US will even excute people for murder,
some nations (esp in the past) really tried to prevent murders from
happening. But like war in 'part of the human condition.' That doesn't
mean that we do nothing, but what it does mean is that it's a battle we
can't win/defeat.

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

But let's be realistic here - anybody
who
doesn't see the Bush administration, with its "faith-based" initiatives
and
connection to the very right wing Church as crossing the line toward
making
the US a Christian country must be fairly blind or strongly believe that
this direction is the Right Thing To Do.

or they don't see boogey men behind the actions of those they hate.

--
Bob Noel

Steve never kids...

mike regish

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
You wrote; "For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take
his place with greater fervor and comittment." Where did you get those
figures?

Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World
Almanac
and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook, and
from
. . .
you gotta be kidding me.


www.Rosspilot.com

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:47:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

We are all Spaniards today.

Hi Jay,

That alliance is probably what the terrorists are fighting. And you
also know this, so would want to make them angry by using it. But it
is now a more pained relationship. This could continue, and likely
will.

But not all of us consider ourselves Spaniards. It isn't that we have
something against Spain; but that we don't have the time, nor the
internals to become so emotionally involved. And it isn't just Spain
with whom we might want to limit our personal relationships.
Commitment of militaries is not the only cost; and that is a cost.

You make the statement grandly, to anger the terrorists; believing
they have no valid complaint. (I am not without sympathy for Spain.)
But are the terrorists acting out of only insanity? Is no one
discussing their motives at all?

Our habit of ignorance developed out of the Middle East troubles, to
protect Israel. (We know what the trouble is there. It is religion.
Huh?) But now we're stuck in this 'quiet' mode, and ignoring a
complaint which some might believe to be valid. We choose to be
silent about what? Sovereignty, for it would interfere with our
vision of the world; which is ours to mold. We are NOT for
sovereignty (at least, the World Trade Center is not), and that is
what those oil-rich, sand-bound terrorists are so insecure about.
They are not the only ones.

Mike

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:


They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
Germans.


to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
stick a finger up your ass and whistle.

Be that as it may he is correct.

Jay Honeck wrote:

In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment.

Nobody expects that in the general sense; only in the specific. If the Bible is
to be believed, we've had crime with us since the second generation of man. Even
back when God himself was levying the punishments, it didn't go away.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

I need to take up one more point with your comments...

In principal, I do selfishly agree with you that American values of
freedom are preferred to Radical Islamic values of, well, whatever
Radical Islamic values are. However, I would tend to say that you are
naive if you truly believe that innocents don't die in most wars. The
difference is that the winner of the war generally doesn't talk about it
because it is not honorable. And at least with respect to American
History - we don't generally admire our heroes killing innocent people.
Perhaps Radical Islamists will honor and recall the names of their
"martyrs". More likely, the suicide bombers will be categorized as an
attack method, and only the names of the political and military leaders
will be remembered.

However, I would categorically point out that innocents have died at the
hands of Americans in many wars... And in other democratic countries,
innocents have died during wars too... It's war. That's what happens.

Of course, we've all heard about the innocent Vietnamese that were
killed. But we lost that war, so the heroes aren't portrayed for their
winning war tactics.

One of the other posters brought up the Native Americans... Do you think
any innocent Native Americans might have been killed back then? I haven't
read much about it in the history books, so maybe it didn't happen...

Do you think that no innocents died by American hands in World War II?
How about at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think the A-Bomb of death
distinguished between civilians and military personnel when it liquidated
everyone there?

The problem is that the terrorists today give themselves scary sounding
names, pretend to be poorly organized, and hide their infastructure in
the shelter of countries who claim to be our allies, like Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and Morroco. Our problem is the same with Foreign Policy as it is
with TFRs - sure the Prez will pull the trigger on Iraq - it's easy and
he's just finishing Dad's work anyway. But if he's too afraid to pull the
trigger on the nations who harbor and train our terrorists, he may as
well give up now because it's just a big show to make people feel safe
when they are not...


"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54:

I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am
certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were
terrorists.

Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for
independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung,
unrelated locales.

Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who
fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence.

When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising,
or a failed coup-de-tat...

To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of
independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the
world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and
suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah.

If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it.

Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the
agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and
control of their own countries...

Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western
civilization, in the name of God.