The next attack (On Topic)

Roger Long wrote:

Both during the republican convention and the last half of October,
I'm going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately
will leave me and my plane at a convenient airport.

That, sir, is a form of giving in to terrorism, albeit not to the
extent that your Department of Fatherland Security and our Home
Office seem intent on depriving us of so much of the freedom for
which our parents fought and died on the beaches of Normandy and
elsewhere some sixty years ago.

Roger Long wrote:

If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in office.

Would not a "victory" (ie. getting the US to pull out of Iraq, or anything
else "forced" upon us) do wonders for Al Qaeda and its recruiting?

- Andrew

"Roger Long" wrote in message . ..

Unfortunatley, terrorist election tampering worked in Spain. They will
try it here. Unfortunatley, our news media will aid them.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

Actually, I believe it's more accurate to portray it as a war between modern
society and RELIGIOUS fundamentalism -- in all forms.

Islam just happens to be the flavor of choice for these nutcases. It could
just as easily have been Christians, as Tim McVeigh demonstrated.

Sadly, the Christian Right in the U.S. is mostly blind to this knowledge.
This fact only enflames the issue, and leads to the erroneous "Christian vs.
Muslim" aspect of the war.

This in no way means that I agree with Roger's approach, however. Although
he makes many good points, he offers no alternatives to fighting other than
"just getting along" with these poor, down-trodden people.

I see no way for this to happen when the poor, down-trodden people are
beheading our hostages on TV, and forcing their women to be mute, and to
wear shrouds in public.

As for Israel not proving that they can eliminate terrorism, I respectfully
disagree. This war has only just begun, and Israel has proven that a small
group of dedicated people can (a) construct a true democracy in the midst of
squalor and terror, and (b) can stand up to almost daily attacks without
breaking.

Although I don't agree with everything Israel has done, or stands for, to
say that they are not an inspiration in our fight against terror would be
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Roger Long wrote:

If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in
office.

Would not a "victory" (ie. getting the US to pull out of Iraq, or anything
else "forced" upon us) do wonders for Al Qaeda and its recruiting?



I doubt it. Recruiting peaks when there is a "just cause". If they had a
perceived "victory", there would probably be a letdown, and the
not-so-hard-core would drop off and go back to their life of petty crime.

Also, the USA did them a huge favor by removing one of their non-supporters
and alienating a population... so that now they have allies, land to operate
within, and "foreign" supporters, where they had little or none before.

Once the US pulled out, those temporary allies might be just as prone to
kick the Al Qaeda out as well. Unless the US pull-out included some sort of
threat where the Iraqis felt they needed such alliances for protection.

That having been said, if the US pulls out of Iraq, there are still a lot of
perceived "causes" that would support recruitment, but that would be one
less.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
question.


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of
continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?


No. It is a war for survival. The only thing these people want is for you to
die. The only way to keep them from killing you, your wife, your children,
and burning your house down so that 'infidels' will not live in it is to
kill them first.

They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and
expect
democratic protections.


Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
it or not, that's where we stand.

It has never been true that the right to advocate violent overthrow of the
government has been protected. Even if it is, these people have forfeited
that right. The Constitution was meant to protect reasonable and rational
discourse. These people cannot be negotiated with. They cannot be reasoned
with. They cannot be bargained with. They have no intention of upholding any
sort of Constitution. If you don't grow your beard just so they want to be
able to drag you out into the street and execute you in front of your family
and neighbors.

We lose the Constitution completely if these guys win. America in time of
war has always suspended certain Constitutional rights. There were far more
restrictions on freedom during WW II than there are now, and after the war
those freedoms were returned. In fact, Americans had more and greater
freedoms after the war than before.

It is time to stop playing games with semantics. We have got to exterminate
these people before they do the same to us.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Hmm, last I checked the guys who watched the last choppers leave were
running the place.

Ho Chi Minn was actually a nationalist who said that his first choice
would
have been to become a client of the US to help his country become a
bulwark
against Chinese expansion. He looked too much like a communist to us so
we
spurned him and chased him into taking the next best offer.


I would like to see a reliable reference for what Ho Chi Minn supposedly
said. A great deal of what Ho Chi Minn 'said' is heavily doctored. Anyway,
the primary objective was to keep communism from spreading to the rest of
the area and we accomplished that.

Sure, we may have checked Russia on several fronts, including Afghanistan,
but we did it in a way that left us with the current mess and the very
real
danger of losing the countries you mention to an even more difficult and
intractable enemy.

It is time we recognized that we have been fighting this enemy ever since
the fall of Iran. The war did not start with 9/11. It began with the
takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. You could even say it began with the
Olympic games in Munich. It is a fight between civilization and despotism.
It always has been.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Jay,

You'll read my other response I'm sure.

Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and
still
do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things like
that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The issue
is how it was done.


I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of the oil,
then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument of people like
Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan because of oil, despite
the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no pipelines, and no significant
production facilities.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot. This situation is only going to
be
resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that
there
are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
fundamentalism as the only path. These are Islamic societies and nothing
short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change
that.
Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity.

There is considerable evidence to the contrary. It appears that Islam not
only sponsors terrorism, it is a way of life. More than 90% of the world's
wars are being fought in Islamic countries. That says a lot about Islam. All
the so-called 'moderate' Islamic sects and countries provide enormous
amounts of money as well as shelter and support to terrorists.

Quite honestly, I think that nuclear sterilization is an option that should
be explored.

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot.

Wrong. Islam means submission and it is "the" fundamental principle in
Islam that the whole world shall submit or die. Islam is evil.
Everything the terrorists do is supported by basic, fundamental Islamic
beliefs.

This situation is only going to be
resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that there
are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
fundamentalism as the only path.

Wahabism (sp) is the catalyst and it must be destroyed.

These are Islamic societies and nothing
short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change that.

No. Simply taking the oil fields and stopping the flow of money would do
it. I can think of a lot of options short of nukes.

Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity. Unless we
are prepared to kill millions to eliminate thousands of terrorists we will
not solve this problem until the Islamic societies become our allies in the
struggle. Your kind of thinking, and just about everything our government
is doing, works directly against this.

Again you have a basic fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. Anyone
not a muslim is an infidel, barely worthy of enslavement. I challenge
you to prove me wrong scripturally, from the words of Mohammed,
especially his later words which are more important.


The distortions of culture, society, and government in the mideast that lead
to this are largely of our (the West's) doing. The very borders of the
nations were established by Britain and other powers of the time without
regard to ethnic borders that would create stable nations. We threw the
economies and cultures completely out of whack with oil money and tolerated
and supported brutal dictatorships that would keep the oil flowing.

So what do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia? or any of the
Emirates? Syria? Iran? This terrorism that we are facing is State
supported and financed. We must make the states that support and
finance terror decide that it isn't in their best interest to do so.
One success that we have had seem to be Libya, and Pakistan seems to be
headed in the right direction. Even Saudi Arabia seems to be rethinking
supporting Terrorists. About the only nations overtly fighting with us
is Syria, Iran and North Korea.

snip

Israel has proved that terrorism can not be eliminated by force even within
a small geographic area where some of the toughest people in the world have
enormous control and decades of understanding the situation on the ground
and the culture they are dealing with. What chance do we have over a huge
area at the end of a long logistical trail when the Pentagon can't even find
enough translators?

Curiously since Isreal has started taking out the Hamas leaders there
hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in quite a while, since
Janruary I think. If Israel took out the palistinian leadership all the
attacks would probably stop, at least until they got new leaders and
eventually new leaders might think twice about killing Jews if they knew
that they were going to die.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Saddam is no longer
giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. $25,000 is a fortune
to people living in real poverty, not fake American poverty.

This is now an intractable and long term problem that is going to have to be
managed. The solution will take decades and patience. Thinking of
terrorism as something that has to be eliminated before the next election or
we'll need a new president will make true solutions impossible to pursue or
implement. Nothing constructive will happen until Islamic societies start
to function properly in the modern world, leadership in them is supported by
the population at large, and they see themselves as allies with us in the
struggle against terror. Everything being done now is probably being
cheered by Bin Laden.

Yeah, I am sure that Osama loves to scurry from cave to cave, if he is
even alive and Saddam must like prison life.

Yeah Osama must love the fact that the money supply and state support is
drying up. That is why all after all his threats and promises nothing
has happened here. Nothing speaks more eloquently about Osama's
abilities to strike at us as silence.

It's much like trying to glide to a landing spot after an engine out. Pull
back on the yoke and you will land shorter or even stall and crash. Right
now, all the passengers are screaming, "Pull up, pull up!" and big burly
fellows are struggling to the front to try and grab the yoke to pull it back
further. Kerry isn't going to do any better unless he can become the kind
of leader who can calm the passengers and regain control. I don't have a
lot of confidence that he can do that but I'd rather not have a pilot in
this situation who clearly thinks that how hard he pulls back on the yoke is
the test of his leadership.


So you want a pilot to leave the controls and go back into the passenger
compartment to soothe them and let the plane crash out of control?

Kerry wants to follow the French and let America be overrun by muslims
and take bribes from the Arabs.

LG