Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land and we will..

[sweetheart]

stop attacking you.


Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land and we
will stop attacking you. The people of the US allied countries have
to put pressure on their governments to immediately end their
alliance with the US in the war against terror (Islam). If you
persist we will also continue … We want to tell you the Death Smoke
Squad will reach you soon, and then you will see your dead in their
thousands – God willing … This is a warning …
...


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm

It strikes me as tragic that the request is quite resonable.

[mmm]

1. i thought this was about Palestine

[sweetheart]

4. "crusader alliance - Spain - with a painful blow."

The article at link
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm

is obviously more recent and global than palestine.

I think they don't see the borders of arab lands quite the
same way americans do. They see it as peoples, and simply
shifting the bases from saudia arabia to bahrain or wherever is
not the point, and the request read plainly, could be seen as
quite reasonable. Please get off my land with your gun? Would
not any american respect such a request in their own country?

I must say, "death smoke squad" sounds cool. It would make a great
movie, with vin diesel and rene zellweger.

[donsu]

29. agree

and clearly stated.

if we take our guns and selves out of their lands they will quit killing us.



get Israel the hell out of Palestine and leave them alone and they will stop killing in Israel.

[John BigBootay]

42. I'm not so sure--

Muslims are spreading throughout the world.

They are coming in great numbers to America, Great Britain, France, Singapore-- throughout the world. With them comes the philosphy of Islam. Some have a moderate belief system and some have a fundamentalist belief system.

Assuming we were to completely divest ourselves of the middle east, who's to say that radical fundamentalist Muslims will not carry the fight for an Islamic world to "our" countries?

The Jihadists have shown me absolutely no indications that they are willing to meet us half way on anything. Israel and Clinton tried to broker peace with the Palestinians by giving them almost everything they asked for minus Jerusalem. No deal-- the killing continues with deeper savagery than ever.

My friends-- I don't think we can adequately understand the mind of the Jihadists enough to say "doing THIS will save us." My fear is that "THIS" will never be enough-- unless perhaps it entails burqas, beards and soccer field executions.

I'm sorry-- I don't see Spain's move as necessarily a good move for the West.

[sweetheart]

65. I think you don't give a fair chance

The arab peoples have been fucked over, occupied and ethnically
cleansed for a century now. Who has not given them a fair chance?

I think you've got to really consider the intense racism and
frustration you would feel were you a progressive in an arab
country ruled by the USA. You would loathe the USA, because it
stood between your own people and good democracy and progressive
politics. We have preached democracy whilst practicing apartheid
and imperial dictatorships.

It is not a battle with islam. It is a false war to take over the
world. You've been steeped in the propaganda for too long that you
see this war as "real". There have been a few attacks over years
the world over. More people die in car accidents. More people die
in inner city gun crime. More people are dying of AIDS and the
tragedy of poverty in africa.

America is rightly charged with gross mismanagement of their pole
position as superpower to squander the goodwill of the worlds people
that they might be wise, and instead turn the planet in to an
empire-prison. The most dangerous terrorists are in the white
house. ANY reason they make for stepping up war is a total lie.
They are simply asking you to give them more power, more, even more
and even more to wage impossible war.

War is won with goodwill. Its hard to hate the country that built
your school and supplied your teachers. Its hard to hate the
country that makes good for you and your people. Its not about
marketing. People the world over need a visceral sense of goodwill
towards an empire if we're suggesting one... and last time i checked
all american canddiates are running on the "empire" platform.

You do not spread goodwill by spreading military bases. Were i to
send an equal number of teachers, engineers and doctors, the goodwill
would be far greater and the sense of a global culture, that the
possibility of war is far distant next to the potential of a good
friendship.

There is no victory in militariziation, none at all. Skip the
middle game, and go straight to the end game, where after a billion
people are dead in a nuclear war, the angry presidents are howling
on their radio sets about vengance and loss, until finally, they
are killed off and we are left with the common sense people. Then
those people get on the radio set and say: "We suggest a universal
stand down and an end to war." Then we have a great renissance.

[John BigBootay]

85. Sweet-- an thought provoking response--

A few thoughts on what you wrote:

"I think you've got to really consider the intense racism and
frustration you would feel were you a progressive in an arab
country ruled by the USA."

In my post I asked the question, essentially: "What assurances do we have that radical Islamists will show restraint and moderation in the various nations to which they are immigrating?" These include America-- which is obviously is ruled by America, but also include much of Europe, Asia and the Sub Continent. And I followed up that we have witnessed very few (if any) instances of radical Muslims who seem content with the "normal" / "civilized" form of diplomacy and negotiation, which we here in the west are accustomed to.

Show me an example of an agreement entered into with a radical Muslim group that has been binding and honorable-- not a rhetorical statement, maybe there have been some. If so, I am unaware. Enlighten me.

"War is won with goodwill. Its hard to hate the country that built
your school and supplied your teachers."

This is not an absolute truth. I think we'd LIKE to believe this, but this is not always the case. America has been the benefactor in many nations, only to have it's efforts reciprocated with scorn. The liberation of Kuwait is an example that comes to mind-- years after the 1st Gulf War and years before 911, the average Kuwaiti had all but forgotten who had freed them, and made sport of condemning America once again.

I think it is dangerous to assume that goodwill will always be reciprocated-- it is not.

Furthermore, war is NOT always won with goodwill, though I desperately wish that was not the case. History is replete with the examples of how wars were won and lost, and the track record is starkly clear. War is won by those who fight. I can think of a few shining examples where wars were won by pacifism-- Ghandi's fight for rights in British India, MLK's fight for rights in America. But the KEY to these exceptions are the locations in which these "wars" were fought: America and a British Colony. Though these locales were not what we would today consider bastions of freedom, they were more tolerant, more liberalized, more civilized than many other places on Earth. The people and the government were WILLING to concede.

I am not sure that Muslim Fundamentalists are willing to concede on anything-- ever. I could be suprised on this-- I am waiting for a sign.

"It is not a battle with islam. It is a false war to take over the
world. You've been steeped in the propaganda for too long that you see this war as "real". There have been a few attacks over years the world over. More people die in car accidents. More people die in inner city gun crime. More people are dying of AIDS and the tragedy of poverty in africa."

This is a really interesting paragraph. You're partially correct when you say it is not a war with Islam, per se-- but it IS a war with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists. This is analagous to our "war" here with Christian Fundamentalists who want to take away some of our rights. This is not a war against Christianity-- but all the members who we fight against on this issue are Christians.

I will try not to take to heart the snipe about me being steeped in propaganda and will make no attempt to turn the tables and claim that anyone who does not agree with me is steeped in a different ideological set of propaganda. No, I believe we are all adult enough, smart enough and critical enough to make decisions and actually arrive at different conclusions-- ON OUR OWN, without the help of a puppet master.

You go on to say that there have been only a few attacks. Partially true, again. HERE is the critical departure point for us: I look at nations such as Israel who endure terrorist attacks on virtually a daily basis and I project this reality spreading globally. Israel is NOT BLAMELESS for their situation. They have done some things that are wrong and hurtful. But they have also tried VERY HARD to make peace. They have so far been unable to negotiate a proper, lasting peace with the Palestinians.

Mistakes are bound to happen in messy situations such as Israel finds itself steeped after decades of involvement and through various disparate administrations. Mistakes are then just as likely in the west as we now face our challenges with Islamic terrorists. This will not go away this year or this decade for us. Changes in policy will ebb and flow this way and that.

Personally, I would not negotiate with the terrorists, I would not appease them and I would not reward them. If I were Kerry upon his election, I would continue the efforts in Iraq until Iraq was as strong, free and viable as we could make it. Only then would I withdraw. Iraq may have been a mistake-- but it is a mistake that WE MUST PUT RIGHT by finishing what we started.

And the response to terror in general? I would adopt the quintessential "speak softly but carry a big stick" philosphy. I would over time withdraw all of our forces from contested regions, cease meddling in foreign affairs for all time and continue to provide financial aid and support to nations that need it and which demonstrate a willingness to cooperate and live in peace forever. I would impress upon terrorists that it will take time, perhaps as long as several years to fully withdraw from these regions, but that this is our goal.

Then I would begin the withdrawal process, keeping a very close eye on the behavior of the terrorists. Any terror directed at America or any of it's allies would be considered an attack on America itself and the deal would be null and void. Henceforth, I would strike back and destroy and degrade the terrorists as we are essentially doing today.

This is a foreigh policy that I could really get behind. It is NOT what GW is doing, and frankly I don't know WHAT Kerry's position is, so I am conditionally withholding my support for him on this matter.

[sweetheart]

94. Electric point.

You suggest i need to provide evidence to prove that muslim peoples
have ever honoured a contract?

Regarding goodwill. It is the power behind all relations, and
whilst military force exists and is used, obviously, the real
binding glue that keeps alliances and peoples in good health
together is universal goodwill. It allows them to reach out to
each others culture and embrace something besides a gun or a
threat. Water purification facilities. Security, is purchased
in a full spectrum engagement of a foreign culture, arts, religion,
family, and trade are core to the real healthy syrup of international glue
that provides a wise (oh so wise) alternative
to militarism. Turning the world in to a global empire of 700
bases of empire, that repress local democracy is not in the
constitution. It is not defensible. The army should get the hell
back inside US borders to "DEFEND" the nation, instead of
"OFFEND'ing" the rest of the world.

Sorry about the steeped in propaganda comment, just people don't
spend much time ranting about car accident deaths, which are in
real-terms much more controllable causes of deaths. People are
hypocritical about deaths. I meant the steeped more to say that
the war on terrorism is a false emphasis, and might as well be
"elevator deaths". This false emphasis is presumed in your remark,
which is why i sayed steeped/. It is not about chastizing you for
a belief. Rather myself, i could give a toss about all this
terrorism shit to be truthful. It is tiresome and divisive material
to handle, even in discussion.

You are obviously very "israel" in your leanings, and support
the disenfranchisement of all arab peoples by the claim that they
cannot be honourable. Israel that indefinitely delaying negotiations
is the best way to steal more land.... its been the policy of
israel to use this foil subverting arab land theft for 80 years.
It is a very racist view, as racist as the ugliest antisemitism,
were the comment reversed.

We don't really disagree you and me. I also believe in a firm
response to terrorism. I also believe in a democracy, or the army
is defending nothing. The constitution has been shreaded for an
unsustainable military empire. It is bankrupting our democratic
republic. Radical re-positioning could be required.

Sorry for any offense unintended. I meant the steeped remark as
the theme reemergent in your discussion, and a friendly remark
at that, however words seem cold, when i have no qualm with thee.

Peace,

[AG78]

71. That's one point of view

<<Muslims are spreading throughout the world>>

As what? Like a cancer?

<<They are coming in great numbers to America, Great Britain, France, Singapore-- throughout the world. With them comes the philosphy of Islam. Some have a moderate belief system and some have a fundamentalist belief system.>>

Just like every other group. Ever watch "Chapelle's Show" on Comedy Central? He had one sketch where he was an African tribesman in the old days. He was standing there on the shore, and saw a boat off the coast. The next line was, "Hey, a boat with white people; I'll go see what they want."

<<Assuming we were to completely divest ourselves of the middle east, who's to say that radical fundamentalist Muslims will not carry the fight for an Islamic world to "our" countries?>>

As opposed to an American world that's being brought to "their" countries by fundamentalist free market white people?

<<The Jihadists have shown me absolutely no indications that they are willing to meet us half way on anything>>

As opposed to the people from the US that believe the only way Jesus is coming back is when the Israeli's control all of the land promised them by God? Are they going to meet half way on anything?

<<My friends-- I don't think we can adequately understand the mind of the Jihadists enough to say "doing THIS will save us." My fear is that "THIS" will never be enough-- unless perhaps it entails burqas, beards and soccer field executions>>

What about the mindset of the Capitalist Imperialist? Will anything be enough for them?

All I'm saying is that it's not an easy situation, and the fighting will never solve a damn thing. The fighting will go on, because it's profitable, because that's all human beings have ever done to each other, and because there are bigger plans from certain people around the world that goes beyond this little war.

[Stephanie]

2. Reasonable?

So bombing trains and office towers is reasonable?

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. I think they meant in regards to this

"Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land and we
will stop attacking you."

[Heyo]

5. Yeah right...

The part I don't buy is "...and we will stop attacking you"

Yeah sure ya will!!

Heyo

[sweetheart]

7. Why is it any more credible when bush says it?

To be frank, the "side" with the tradition of never stopping
attacking, and starting more wars, is the american side. This
generation does not understand the wisdom of that film "alls
quiet on the western front."

If you want to end a war on terror, and you talk to your enemy and
be reasonable in negotiations, then the telephone calls are much
cheaper than bombs.

You talk like a radical northern irish unionist.

The same request in this thread from al queda, is similar to that
of the northern irish. Repression simply does not make it go away.
It must be politically engaged. The radicals, want to fight, but
sensible people who want to end war, get to talkin'.

[LeahMira]

23. Too bad...

The part I don't buy is "...and we will stop attacking you"

Too bad no one is courageous enough to try it and find out.

[MSchreader]

63. Spain seems to be ..... n/t

[sweetheart]

10. Yes, thats the part i call reasonable

The second part is a threat of war, no less ugly than american
carpet bombing and the deaths of 10,000 iraqi civilians.

Even that, in a comparative sense is reasonable response given
what has been deployed to conquor these peoples, disenfranchise
them and take their lands. This reads a diplomatic threat of war.

It is lucidly clear the request, and it concerns me that crossing
it, rather than looking at coming to a meeting with it, will result
in a similar scenario to the ill advised push towards the Yalu River
in the korean war. All the hubris to win unilaterally, to have
unconditional surrender of an opponent, be it the american way,
but it is not the world way. The only way to erase the statement
is to genocide all the people of islam. The american military
action to conquor the islamic region begs retribution. Its like
a bloody law of physics. I call balance, and the understanding of
the forces of balance "reasonable".

This enemy is a guerilla opponent, and will win any war against
empire, just as EVERY GUREILLA OPPONENT HAS IN HISTORY. The cost
of war and making war the way things have, is bankrupting any
goodwill remaining of the civilian USA (pre-bush). Guerrillas
bankrupt the cost of occupation, and when the roman soldiers no longer got their paycheques, they walked off the job, and the
greatest empire in the history of mankind fell without a shot fired.

[bemildred]

13. Yes, the message is quite clear.

"If you allow your governments to attack us and our
people, we are coming after you. You will not be safe
until we are." And they can make it stick, too. That
should be clear by now. Do we have more or less terrorism
since The War Against Terror (TWAT(tm)) started?

[Spentastic]

68. Ha Ha ha

TWAT

Brilliant.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. It's Only A Lucid Request. . .

. . .if it comes from someone who could actually stop the wheels that are already in motion.

If one person decides that HE won't attack anymore once the troops, guns and influence is gone, that doesn't really make anyone safer, does it?

It would matter to me who is behind this letter before i could accept that it would really make anyone less at risk.
The Professor

[Guaranteed]

20. If they mean stop targeting Al Qaeda, I'm sorry,

but that ain't gonna happen. Al Qaeda has to be totally destroyed.

[Red State Rebel]

47. I agree, now is not the time to cut and run...face the bully and win.

[SOS]

78. Al-Qaeda organizaion

is more analgous to a drug cartel than to a corporation or a nation state.
The US government been fighting the "War on Drugs" for over three decades. No success yet.
Heroin is now cheaper, stronger and more plentiful than when Nixon declared his war.

[psychopomp]

80. A network of networks, right?

I thought that was what we were told Al Qaeda is, anyhow. How do you destroy that?

[DarkPhenyx]

6. About as reasonable as...

...a superior power continuing to supress and repress an entire region and it's people simply becasue it can.

[Spoon]

8. Reasonable...

"We, in Abu Hafs al-Masri, did not feel sad for the death of the so-called civilians."

I suppose that's reasonable too. I feel sick.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Thank you

For being reasonable.

[bemildred]

11. The whole paragraph helps:

We, in Abu Hafs al-Masri, did not feel sad for the death
of the so-called civilians. Is it lawful for them to kill
our children, women, the elderly and men in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Palestine, and Kashmir and unlawful for us to kill them
back?

[Spoon]

12. If a robber killed my wife,

I wouldn't respond by killing his wife.

[bemildred]

14. Good for you. nt

[Ms. Clio]

19. So would you expect the state to kill him instead?

Or put him in prison for the rest of his life?

[AG78]

21. At least they're honest

As opposed to our jibberish when we talk about "collateral damage", and how we don't mean to kill them, and we're sorry that we do, even though we're not.

[pnb]

99. That paragraphs leaves out who TARGETS those civilians.

n/t

[bemildred]

100. That is true.

But since the entire message is, among other things,
a claim of responsibility for the Madrid bombing, it's
not really unclear, I think. What do you think?

[DrWeird]

16. Do you feel sad for the death of Iraqi civilians?

I doubt it.

[chelaque liberal]

48. I haven't heard much "saddness" expressed in this country

about the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis. They aren't even worth counting.

[BradCKY]

15. Lets see some more quotes

"Here the brigade is keeping its word. The death squad (of the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades) succeeded in penetrating the crusader European depths to strike one of the pillars of the crusader alliance - Spain - with a painful blow. These bomb attacks were part of settling old scores with the crusader Spain for its war against Islam.

Where is America to protect you today, Aznar. Who is going to protect you, Britain, Italy, Japan and other hirelings from us? "

"We would like to announce to all Muslims in the world that 90% of the preparations of operation "Wind of Black Death" designed to be performed in America has finished and will be performed soon, God willing (at the Mujahidin's convenience). Believers will celebrate the victory of God. "


That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

[Guaranteed]

17. Alright, folks, let's not take this too far.

Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, and I hope that our allies stick by us in THAT mission.

[bemildred]

22. We don't appear to have the foggiest idea how to destroy al Quada.

Do you advocate for further violent thrashing around?

[Guaranteed]

24. Afghanistan was a must.

Although the administration has handled this whole thing horribly.

Iraq was a HORRIBLE idea. It fucked up everything.

But, we can't let up on Al Qaeda. I'm sorry, but they killed 3,000 Americans. They're not going to get away with that, and we're not going to let them do that again.

The biggest problem is with the approach that this administration has taken, which has been, for the most part, unilateral. If we showed dedication to cooperating with other countries, they would cooperate with us, and we would find Al Qaeda whereever they were.

[BradCKY]

25. Yup

I agree 100%.

[bemildred]

27. Nothing wrong with taking down Taliban,

although present evidence suggests we are in the process
of botching that one too.

Agreed about Iraq, not a particularly good idea in the first
place, and botched horribly in the execution.

I have no problem with killing terrorists, as such, but it
is better to do nothing than be sloppy about it, and it will
not end the attacks unless the underlying cause is addressed,
and that is our government's attempts at maintaining political
and economic hegemony in these other countries. If we allow
real democratic governments to develop in these countries, in
the end they can be our friends. But freedom and democracy are
not given, they are taken.

And the fact remains that we don't even seem to have a very good
understanding of what al Qaeda is, let alone how to attack it
effectively. You can repeat the mantra that "they are not going to
get away with it" all you want, but so far they did, and unless
you have some better ideas than Shrub about what to do it's all
just blather. If we really want to deal with the terrorists, a
bit of humility and self-examination would be a good way to begin.
You cannot fix problems until you admit they exist.

[PsychoDad]

54. Nothing wrong with taking down Taliban

Afghanistan is in such better shape now.

Plenty of brown folks dead.
More opium than the CIA knows what to do with.

And never mentioned on the news.

Who could ask for better?

[bemildred]

59. Right, we botched it. nt

[MSchreader]

64. Let's do a little math, shall we?

According to the United Nations, the U.S.-enforced sanctions levied against Iraq from 1991 to 2000 cost that country more than 1 million (1,000,000) lives -- half of them were children.

That means 100,000 people -- 50,000 children -- on average died every year from the sanctions.

That means about 8,300 people -- 4,150 children -- on average died every month from the sanctions.

On Sept. 11, 2001, 2,800 Americans died. But, for over 10 years, that number of Iraqi civilians were dying every 10 days (!!!) because of U.S. policy.

"They're not going to get away with that". Why do I have a sense that those words were uttered by Osama bin Laden sometime in 1999 or 2000?

Martin

[Guaranteed]

73. Okay...what does that have to do with my point? nt

[MSchreader]

79. Apparently,...

Some folks felt like they weren't going to let the Americans get away with that systematic murder. That's the point.

Martin

[Deb-Ter]

96. MSchreader,

"According to the United Nations, the U.S.-enforced sanctions levied against Iraq from 1991 to 2000 cost that country more than 1 million (1,000,000) lives -- half of them were children."

Oh, where to begin.... The U.S. enforced sanctions killed these people? You are basing it on what the United Nations said? This being the same people that took kick-backs from Saddam in the form of oil and money? Saddam misused the oil for food program and was assisted in this by some other countries that were reaping in the profit from it.... U.S. killed these people? Think again.

"That means 100,000 people -- 50,000 children -- on average died every year from the sanctions."

These people died because of misuse of the money that Saddam received for the Oil he sold.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, 2,800 Americans died. But, for over 10 years, that number of Iraqi civilians were dying every 10 days (!!!) because of U.S. policy."

Saddam's policy had nothing to do with it? How many Palaces were built in that time, how much money was wasted by Saddam and his demonic sons. You need to put the blame where it really should be. Saddam controlled the money comeing into his country, 'he' allowed those people to starve to assist in his propaganda against the U.S.

[sweetheart]

97. and we put saddam in power

and armed him with WMD's encouraging him to mass murder 1000's of
his own people to achieve stability. Right.. .oh yea. Saddam
just came out of the blue, and nobody was responsible for the fact
that WE PUT HIM IN CHARGE.

You've got to ackknowledge the full involvement of the US to sell
the joke. WHen you realize we put saddam in charge, it totally
rings clear why we don't talk about going after the folks who
trained and armed him.

[Deb-Ter]

102. sweetheart,

When did we PUT HIM IN POWER? I know that during the Iraq and Iran war we sided with Saddam....but he was already in power at that time and we considered Iran a bigger threat during that time.

Saddam was not installed from the outside, he came up from the inside.

[sweetheart]

103. we supported his ascention

It might have as well been "put him in power" depending on whether
you mean physically, or using implied force and covert means.
Saddam did not come to power without a nod from the CIA.

[Djinn]

104. And the CIA

helped him get there - Iraqi's had already ousted him for trying to organise a coup - after the CIA helped get back and "back in" we provided him with a list of Commies to kill, which he dutifully did. Saddam had US support way befoer the Iran/Iraq war broke out

It's astounding that people don't know all this, it's not like the info isn't in the public domain

[dudeness]

106. please read .

tariq alis latest book..bush in babylon..it describes in sordid detail saddams rise to power..may help clarify who put him in power and kept him there..

[bemildred]

98. Try reading this:

"It?s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it?s worth it."
Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the (Iraqi) sanctions
Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-ma.html

[SoCalDem]

89. Afghanistan "could have" worked, BUT

* got his panties in a wad about Saddam, and he needed to clean out the treasury.. He knew that if he waited too long , he would have to pony up the cash he promised Afghanistan, but that would not leave enough for the extra taxcuts for his pals AND to get Saddam..

All we accomplished in Afghanistan, was to let most of the bad guys escape to areas of Pakistan that even THEY cannot control..

We sprayed a little "Raid" around, and all the bugs went "next door"..

TERRORISM IS A TACTIC...A METHOD...A DEVICE...

We might as well declare war on adultery or robbery or any number of other things that are bad..

Unless we kill all Islamic males from 12-50, we will never be rid of the "possibility" that we will be terrorized.. Those were the methods used by our own cavalry, against the native americans, so there is some history of us using it..( I am NOT endorsing this..merely stating the possible logic of our "leaders"..)

There are several things that we COULD do that would help immensely..

1. Bar "missionaries" from foreign countries.. There are plenty opf immoral people right here, for them to save.. Contrary to some US "clerics", NOT EVERY "savage" wants or needs to be "saved".. Actually, most resent the HELL out of being told that their beliefs are shit..and the white man's are the ONLY ones that count..

2. Build stuff...don't blow it up :)

3. Send Doctors..not soldiers..

4. Bring engineers to get them safe water..

5. Make sure they have adequate shelter and food

6. Help them develop curriculums for their schools that give children HOPE, instead of fear and anger..

7. Help them build schools

8. Let their own people do the actual work.. Pay THEM...not Halliburton, KBR & Dyn-Corps.. If they built it with their own hands for their own families, they might be reluctant to blow it up..

9. Do NOT steal (or finagle) their natural resources..

10. When they say go....LEAVE !!! and take your people with you..

If this was our foreign policy, we would not be needing all those fancy weapons of war, so it's not a likely secnario..

In the end, people are always expendable.. There is no shortage of them, so it's pretty easy for world leaders to just keep killing them

[LeahMira]

26. You can't destroy an idea...

Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed

And the best way to do that would be to remove the "cause" for which they are fighting. As long as people live in poverty while others live in luxury, there will be discontent and anger.

America could be the new leader in the Middle East if we were willing to give people what they want and deserve.

Now, they have something to die for. Wonder if they had something to live for?

[texasdem99]

30. Fair enough. But do you think that if we eliminate the "cause"

That everything will be OK with the terrorists and they will never, ever commit another terrorist attack ever again, anywhere?

Let's say we stop every single foreign policy initiative that they do not like. Do you think that they will immediately cease all terrorist activities against the entire world, not just the US? That all they really want is for the US to stop committing hegemony, and they are not truly vicious animals that will not hesitate to murder women and children to further their cause?

Could it be that their own governments do a good job of providing oppression, poverty, corruption and misery? Could it be possible that some of these countries where terrorism emanates from are run so poorly that the people are miserable and the most logical choice is to lash out at the USA? Could it be that if you were to give in and meet their demands, that this will only embolden them to commit more acts of terrorism when they have new demands to be met?

This war is wrong, that's a given.

I have a problem with terrorist thugs wanting to change the foreign policy of the US by killing 3000 civilians, and then other people justifying it by saying, "we had it coming, we caused their anger and we deserve to have civilians killed". IMO, that is as vile as telling a rape victim she was asking for it.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Pete Puma!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sweetheart]

38. Ok, but with perspective

Were you actually one of the world trade center bombers, you'd likely
be from saudi arabia. That might make you very forlorn and upset
that the USA props up an antidemocratic regime of petty tyrants
having sold out all scruples for oil contracts.

There was no negotiating with this status quo. So *you* joined the
suicide bomber squad, and took out the enemy command post it used
to destroy the economies of South Korea, Thailand, Russia, Mexico
and argentina. The world trade center was a command post for
financial war, and a legitimate target if you're striking back the
weapon system that attacks foreign peoples.

Your tone suggests you deeply care about the same number of civilians
that the american public has already killed in afganistan and 3
times over that in iraq. Wow, for an american to play this as a
victem thing is rich.

September 11th 1973, america overthrew a democratically elected
government that lead to the deaths of over 3000 people and suffereing
for the whole nation for lost years. Clearly it is expected that
the US can simply do things like this without getting hit back?

Come one. We did it first, and the chain of events is long and the
body pile is much bigger on the side of US empire.

The very statement the al queda make would have been made by george
washington to the british. It is a statement of revolution against
empire, a declaration of intent to be independent.

The people who declared america's independence, were sick to death
of being muled by an overseas empire. I think you grossly outweight
the military and covert actions the US engages in to be so naive
as not to expect retribution.

[Kimber Scott]

57. I have to agree - the victim is not guilty

There are innumerable problems with our foreign policy, but incinerating innocents is not the way to change it.

[PsychoDad]

55. I agree, LeahMira

But right now It's all about what the neocons want, and are willing to do in our name.

[Guaranteed]

74. You're suggesting negotiating with Al Qaeda?

That's fucking ridiculous.

Don't let anybody that's hearing you say those kinds of things know that you're a Democrat.

"You can't destroy an idea." That phrase is reserved for things like religious liberty and civil rights- not terrorism.

[bemildred]

76. You cannot negotiate with an idea either.

Keep trying, sometimes an idea sinks in if you
focus on it long enough.

[AG78]

18. And...

if anyone listens to that, they'll be considered weak. That's why it doesn't matter.

It's never stopped. It's not stopping. And it's not going to stop.

You can't give me a decade in human history when there hasn't been a war going on somewhere. And guess what? Every war that has ever existed, has lead us to this point in human history. Good place to be.

Round and round we go, in just a series of power grabs. That's all history has been. Just one group conquering another. This is no different.

Many problems, no solutions.

[EV1Ltimm]

28. "Death Smoke Squad"

We've already got those over at RJ Reynolds and Altria.

"Death Smoke Squad"... god -- what are they, a bunch of fucking ninjas?

These jokers need to be wiped off the face of the planet. Granted, killing them, their wives and/or children isn't the best way to go about curbing terrorism and ending anti-american sentiment, but i never claimed to have all the answers.

[ArkDem]

32. Methinks 'Death Smoke Squad' is referring to

the smoking squad. The non-smokers didn't want any smokers in their squads.

[sweetheart]

39. I fancy it to be

A vow to burn ones life and turn thy body to ash, and that the
smoke of my burning life, i vow to strike at the imperial occupier
who threatens our people. I take this oath to god, to become the
holy smoke of wrath and justice against all who do evil to our people.

[bemildred]

45. I see you are wiser than I in this regard.

:thumbsup:

[Kimber Scott]

58. I'm afraid it's something even more sinister.

"Death Smoke." Maybe, we should be taking that literally.

[sweetheart]

70. and the buddhist version

In accepting that all of life is sacred, ALL people of the earth
is 6 billion.

A strike military leaps out like a fist from one part of the earth's
people, punching down on a city on the other side of the earth.
Crash. Then another fist rises up from washington and crashes down on
another part of the earth. Crash. and over and over. This mythical
play of fists is no enemy, and is rather a symptom of a social
illness... of blaming ones ills on someone else.

Fess up. We are all part of this war, ourselves, as we dance in the
middle of it, and we are all smoke observing world events, that one
day will dissolve and be lost, however beautiful smoke may be
in the present.

As smoke, the present then becomes so interesting, as the richness of
life, the dissolution of smoke in to silence. I am myself reading
these words embodied as you. There is one self. There is no self.
The enemy that appears outside is within. There is no enemy unless
you want one, and any serious opponent will win this petty war of
imperial gureilla attrition. And the smoke sees all these things
itself empty and already dead.

Who is it who is aware that you are aware. Who knows what word
she's about to say, is not the one she said. In the present is a
mental state, that defeines our past by history and our future by
myth. In this present, the world-view is controlled by the language
of the framing.

The buddhist language is universal, and not bound to culture.
It is not language. It is accepting that thought is learned
behaviour, and that what is common, aware and enlightened
about us all is our "present" self... the one that has overcome
the dualistic fear-states of illusion. That is to say that
illusion is divine, and why not have a divine illusion of the
enlightenment of all human beings, of the end to all disease within
our lifetimes and a total end to war with nuclear disarmament.

Life IS, and buddhists don't sell it short, especially smoke
death buddhists. :-)

[gulfcoastliberal]

95. Thought It's Movie Theater Butter Microwave Popcorn... n/t

[John BigBootay]

31. It is not reasonable--

What fundamentalist Islam nations or lands were we "occupying" before 9/11?

We had a moderate presence in Saudi Arabia at the Prince Sultan Air Base prior to 9/11-- I would be in favor of removing our troops from there if it were to guarantee no further attacks.

But I have a very sick feeling that acquiescing to any or all of these demands would only embolden and enable the terrorists to commit more atrocities to get further concessions.

It's a twisted road and I trust the terrorists far less than I trust our government- regardless of who is in the WH.

[sweetheart]

33. occupying and meddling with

The US military and CIA have been meddling and present in all
middle eastern nations. Iran when we overthrew their elected
democracy; iraq when we empowered saddam and gave him WMD's; pakistan
israel (enough said!); saudi arabia (without US support the
monarchy would crumble) lebanon (CIA nightmare).

The american military has been building quite a global empire that
you are not aware of by your post... even prior to 9/11. The
client states of the middle east are indeed propped up by someone,
and it ain't the USSR.

[John BigBootay]

34. Agreed-- we need to stop meddling.

We need to lessen our presence in some regions.

That said-- it's probably not going to happen under any future administration, even a Kerry administration.

Bin Laden has called for Jihad against the West to effect a change here to fundamentalist Islam-- that's certainly not going to happen.

Half measures are probably not going to appease the Jihadists.

What are we left with?

[AG78]

35. 1+2+3=

a lot of dead humans.

[bemildred]

36. No offense, but it will happen.

Current policies are doing tremendous damage to our
economic and military power, they are delusional, and
in the end we will be bankrupted and they will kick our
ass out of their countries whether we like it or not.

[Djinn]

52. Al Qaeda

want the US out of Saudi but I don't think even their nutjobs ever suggested it was occupied by the US - A corrupt and brutal un-elected government however IS supported by your govt

[rinsd]

40. Yeah perfectly reasonable

"Here the brigade is keeping its word. The death squad (of the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades) succeeded in penetrating the crusader European depths to strike one of the pillars of the crusader alliance - Spain - with a painful blow. These bomb attacks were part of settling old scores with the crusader Spain for its war against Islam."

Settling old scores?...like centuries old scores....I assume this is a reference to Spanish Catholic ousting of the Moors? sounds perfectly reasonable to me. </sarcasm>

And then there's this:

"In a separate attack, Jund al-Quds (Soldiers of Jerusalem) targeted a Jewish Masonic lodge in Istanbul. Three top Masons were killed in the operation, and if it was not for technical failure all the masons would have been killed. Thanks to God anyway. "

Jewish masons are a reasonable target. Afterall they dared set foot in Instanbul! <sarcasm>

There is nothing reasonable about "do as I say or I will kill you"

[sweetheart]

43. then by that

you must stand against american imperialism and our threat to
peoples the world over "do as i say or i will kill you."

[rinsd]

77. Denouce all evil or denounce none......

"you must stand against american imperialism and our threat to
peoples the world over "do as i say or i will kill you.""

So by your logic because you find this reasonable you have no issue with the United States doing the same.

"It strikes me as tragic that the request is quite resonable."

[sweetheart]

81. very good

no logic at all, no argument. very good.

[rinsd]

82. what logic?

You demanded I preface my comments about the unresoanble nature of the thought process "do as I say or I will kill you" with a denuciation of the United States.

Why should I preface such comments?

You were the one who found people issuing a press release claiming credit for killing 200 people stating to the world that they will kill again if their demands are not met as reasonable. Not I.

Your sickness is your own.

[sweetheart]

83. Purposeful misreaders

Clearly by my post and subsequent remarks, i suggested that the
first sentence of their claim is quite reasonable, and that the US
has done its own shar of killing, that neither side is morally superior. I don't accept for a second your premise that the american
side is morally superior. That is your secret.

The sickness mate, is to use one sided stupidity to walk further in
to a war which will get millions killed if we keep it up.

That would be wisdom to look at settling things.

Troll on a thread where you contribute something besides emotional
indignation. How rich for non-arab peoples to feel so offended,
when in fact the shoe is on the other foot. It is the american
white-supremecist military that has done a much more dastardly
war crime underneath the secrecy of the flag cult.

[rinsd]

84. <sigh>

"Clearly by my post and subsequent remarks, i suggested that the
"first sentence of their claim is quite reasonable, and that the US
has done its own shar of killing, that neither side is morally superior"

Yes, a clever cut and paste. None of the nastiness about gloating over death of the "so-called innocents".

"I don't accept for a second your premise that the american
side is morally superior. That is your secret."

Oooohhh mind reading. My turn I guess your secret is that you are so entrenched in the blame America first ideology that you have been blinded to people who want death not negotiation.

Now I know how a moderate Republican feels standing next to a raving religious conservative.

"Troll on a thread where you contribute something besides emotional
indignation. How rich for non-arab peoples to feel so offended,
when in fact the shoe is on the other foot. It is the american
white-supremecist military that has done a much more dastardly
war crime underneath the secrecy of the flag cult."

Well time to check out the ignore feature.

Have a good one.

[bobbyboucher]

90. "blame America first ideology"?

Gee, I wonder where you heard that nonsense. When are you going back?

[rinsd]

93. Back to where?

"Gee, I wonder where you heard that nonsense. When are you going back?"

But could it have been more apt? Before I denounced the stated policy of the above terrorist in the mold of do as I say or I will kill you, it was demanded I also denounce the US. Blame America First is rhetoric I pretty much dismiss until I actually encountered the above person.

[bobbyboucher]

125. You know where,

back to the lair of the blameamericafirst busters.

[sweetheart]

92. Ignoring shot

So your real comment is that you think i'm a "blame america
first ideologist". I did not create 14 empire bases in central
asia recently. I am not running a global empire military that has
been meddling to the strategic demise of other peoples.

I am a realist. It is in our power to fix this whole situation, as
it is OUR projection of force that is creating this war and exacerbating it. Sorry you're so intolerant and fixed in your
beliefs to discuss.

[bemildred]

44. FWIW

The reference to Spain is with regard to the current Iraq war.
They did not bomb Spain as revenge for the Crusades.

[rinsd]

86. Are we sure?

"The reference to Spain is with regard to the current Iraq war.
They did not bomb Spain as revenge for the Crusades."

It mentions wars against Islam and Osama has before stated his anger of the 1492 overthrow. Granted its out there but when listing grievances of Muslims, Osama usually doesn't leave much out.

[bemildred]

88. I am. Can't speak for others. nt

[PsychoDad]

50. Doesn't it seem a bit odd....

That Al Q. is at war with the masons?

Do they see free masonry as a piller of the west?
Will they soon attack Skull and Bones?

Seriously, Isn't this a bit odd?

[rinsd]

87. Very odd.....

Are Free Masons Jewish? I though it was more a Christian type organization.

[Postman]

41. Death Smoke = Poison gas or chemical weapons....

What if this "letter" is part of rightwing black ops connected to Bush administration?

How crazy is it to think that these lying fascists would conduct an "Operation Northwoods" on us using poison gas so they could retain their power?

I wouldn't trust Bush and the radical rightwing fringe to act any differently. They are evil.

[PsychoDad]

51. Death Smoke

Maybe Al Q. has bought a controlling intrest in global tobacco?

I also have my doubts about who the bomb belonged too... along with the propaganda

[sweetheart]

62. Thats a twist too far

To not be dubbed tinfoil in public... it presumes a level of
arrogance on behalf of the bush * that he is really capable of, that
they could keep an american black ops action secret on an american
election. :-) I mean after seeing "unprecedented", i'm positive
that the american voting system is incontestable. ;-)

But a poison gas attack! Likely from our own stocks, just like the
weapons-grade anthrax that bush had sent to the democrats.

They could put a bunch of different fertilizers and oil in a few
containerships, and then add some cyanide and radiocative materials. With a few hundred tons of explosive, a shipping port
could be turned in to a gas cloud 50 miles in diameter.
New Jersey could kill every resident of new york city, like bopol
on a massive scale.

You're right. The US military is most likely to launch a chemical
attack on the american cities right before the election. Then
bush will deny it saying that it was a private military contractor
out of line, sort of like enron, and the CEO will be given a
raise. Perhaps "oops" our chemical weapons store for midtown
manhattan sprung a leak... and nobody will ask why there are 100
metric tonnes of nerve gas in new york city.

If you could get the right fuel sprayers in to a subway system
at night, you could turn an entire subway system in to a massive
air-fuel bomb. But that's less "smoke" oriented.

Honestly, i don't think smoke means poison gas. I think it is like
part of a ritual... sorta like the ritual of the kamikaze who
turns over their sacred knot scarf and honourable death for their
people... divine wind.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

46. Fuck those deranged AQ fundies

As has been pointed out several times, we must destroy Al Qaida. And mispell it as often as possible.

Piss on your warnings. You assholes kill for fun.

[Djinn]

53. it's in Arabic

so we're always going to be "misspelling" it, unless you know of a definitive translation from one set of characters into another - pedantry isn't really the point is it

[bobbyboucher]

91. And you are different how?

You seem pretty fond of killing yourself. Is that the case?

[PeaceInOurTimes]

49. I think it has come to this

We don't need to torment the muslim sector. Let's just stop the watrs and terrorist hunts and I believe they will leave us alone. It's time to stop the madness and stop giving these people reason to let off bombs.

If we leave them alone they will stop the bombings. They are human too.

[chefgirl]

56. It might SOUND reasonable, but.....

.....if you give a mouse a cookie...

-chef-

[Pobeka]

60. I think Rove penned this letter.

Why in the world would Al Qaeda want to publicize an attack like this, giving warning to the U.S.? That is not their method. They take public credit after an attack.

This stinks, it stinks so bad I can smell it a continent away.

The U.S. population is now going to get scared again, and we don't need a terrorist attack, just a "letter", from a terrorist group. Bush will rise in the polls, and his election chances are enhanced by this.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. "Al Qaeda" does seem to stray from the script

from time to time.

[cetasika]

66. wind of black death is 90% complete

ok, if 911 days is the benchmark:
911/.9= 1012
march 11=911 days
june 13= 1012 days =100%

June 13 2004, the Olsen twins turn 18.

[sweetheart]

67. Too much herb before posting...

can lead one to post high school math equations
on a thread probing depths, understandings and solutions for a
failed war on terrorism.

Welcome to DU. Hoping your post is a vacuous exception in
an otherwise long future of brilliant insight.

[kiahzero]

101. I dunno

I find high school math equations much less ridiculous than hostage-takers being praised as "reasonable."

But that's just me.

[bemildred]

105. al Qaeda takes hostages? nt

[Aidoneus]

108. of course

They hold over 5,000 WOT hostages in their jails, and 20-50,000 in the country they just invaded and occupied.. no wait, that's "The Free World" I'm thinking of, nevermind.

[kiahzero]

114. Don't you feel a bit silly?

I'm hoping I'm misreading the conotation of your post... it seems you're trying to claim that Al Qaeda is morally superior to the United States. Given that they used my father as a political pawn, along with everyone else in the building, when they attacked the Pentagon (fortunately, he worked on the other side of the building), saying that I'm inclined to disagree with you would be the understatement of the century. If not for certain DU rules, this post would be far more strongly worded.

[sweetheart]

115. I think he's sayin'

That al queda are as morally superior in the eyes of their own
supporters as American actions are to their supporters. We fail
to see our own actions in even reciprocal terms.

I myself was lucky like your father and avoided being a victem of
world trade 1 by a fate of god. That gives me no special right, to
claim that the US kill other people to avenge my possible death.

The US is not morally superior. It has been murdering arabs and
screwing middle eastern peoples for decades, and as heinous as the
9/11 attacks were, they are no more important than the other 1000's
of people who are killed every day, needlessly from more controllable
factors.

Your "huff" is identity politics, dump some hormones and realize you
are not morally superior to al queda. They are defending their
people from an imperial invader, just like the american revolutionaries did our ancestors. For an american to claim moral
superiority to al queda is rich. Our country was born out of
the blood of a guerilla revolutionary war, fought much along the
lines of thought that al queda expresses in the post of this thread.

[kiahzero]

117. We're not morally superior to Al Qaeda?

Since when? When has the United States government, unapologetically, specifically targetted civilians in warfare? Not for some time, if at all.

They are defending their people from an imperial invader, just like the american revolutionaries did our ancestors.

Hardly. This romantiziation of a group of fundamentalists terrorists would be laughable, except that you're serious. That just makes it sad.

Our country was born out of the blood of a guerilla revolutionary war, fought much along the lines of thought that al queda expresses in the post of this thread.

Um, no. Once again, you're wrong. If the American Revolutionaries had gone to England and tried to pull a Guy Fawkes, or used the tactics of the IRA, then *maybe* you could make that argument.

[bemildred]

120. I think morality is irrelevant myself.

Human disputes are not won by the morally superior party,
rather the opposite usually, to the extent morals come in
at all; but mostly they are won by the party with the most
and the best means to wage the contest, and the best leadership
in the employment of those means. Right now it appears to me
that al Qaeda has had far better success in achieving their tactical
and strategic goals than we. I attribute that success to their
using far better means to pursue the contest and to their having
far superior leadership, in a strictly immoral sort of way, of
course.

So I pose the question to you: what is the relevance of morality
to the war that al Qaeda is waging on the US, other than to make
us feel better about our losses?

[sweetheart]

121. morality for the greater war of hearts and minds

This war is between stateless agencies who are motivated by a fair
dose of facts regarding US military occupation and covert warfare
against democracy. To take these ideologies on in public, to attempt
the moral argument is a way of ensuring to the common person that
doing the right thing will get him/her where they want to go in life.

We are instead instructing people in the opposite, that if you do
what bush did, and break the law, ignoring human rights and the moral
high ground that we secede when we speak with bombs instead of
courtrooms, law enforcment and trials. This resorting to summary
field justice, gives our opposition the same liberty, and the war
escalates. We are doing everything in our power to wind up this
war in to something much more terrible. Trying to win a moral war,
might be wise were we pursuing the path to peace... but it appears
we've no interest.

[bemildred]

122. You have interesting ideas.

They deserve and require considerable exploration,
but I am lazy and need to get out for a walk, so I
will only make two comments here:

To take these ideologies on in public, to attempt the moral
argument is a way of ensuring to the common person that doing the
right thing will get him/her where they want to go in life.

I think this has more to do with de-humanizing the outsiders/enemies
so that it becomes OK to ignore the civilized rules in dealing with
them. Guantanamo is a perfect example, the rules are only for us
insiders, the others do not require full human treatment and
protections. It is a sort of after the fact justification as well.
Likewise, it OK to go in and bomb the shit out of things in Iraq,
unlike say in Iowa, causing "collateral damage", because the people
that live there are less human. It does also reassure the insiders
that they remain on the inside and are still protected, as long as
they go along of course.

My position is more along the lines that if we wish to promote our
laws and morals then we are obligated to ensure that the protections
and responsibilities that they require are applied without exception
to all persons that we wish them to encompass. But as you say, that
is not our true purpose.

We are instead instructing people in the opposite, that if you do
what bush did, and break the law, ignoring human rights and the moral
high ground that we secede when we speak with bombs instead of
courtrooms, law enforcment and trials. This resorting to summary
field justice, gives our opposition the same liberty, and the war
escalates.

Exactly, moral posturing is vacuous in the absence of moral action.
But it makes good propaganda.

[kiahzero]

113. When that statement was made, anyone Al Qaeda could attack becomes one

From Dictionary.com:
Hostage:
1) A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2) One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3) One that is manipulated by the demands of another: “National policies cannot be made hostage to another country” (Alan D. Romberg).

If I were to threaten to blow up a building, unless certain concessions were made, the people in that building would be hostages. Al Qaeda threatens entire countries, making every citizen of the country a hostage.

[sweetheart]

116. Then we are all hostages of the United States

Well put. The world is "manipulated by the demands of another."

The nuclear weapons are there to threaten you and me, so that we
remain hostage to the illusion that its for our greater good.

[kiahzero]

118. Wow, wrong again

The nuclear weapons are holdovers from the Cold War, and were there so that the Soviets couldn't use them on us. From the period between when the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons and when Reagan tossed aside the doctrine of MAD, nuclear weapons existed solely to keep both sides from destroying the world.

The notion of nuclear weapons as threats to individuals is just plain silly - unless they are tactical weapons, they are far too large to be useful as a threat towards a single person. If anything is intended to be threatened by nuclear weapons, it would be other states.

[sweetheart]

123. nuclear weapons terror

I've been terrorized by the nuclear weapons since childhood. Duck
and cover, there's going to be a thermonuclear war and you're gonna
get vaporized.

You might not think of that as personal, but i took that rather
personally in 1st grade, and have had a life much fucked up by the
socialogical phenomena of expecting a nuclear war to end it every
month. You might have missed that, but it definitely felt like
being held hostage.

Certainly most peoples in most parts of the world are NOT worried
about being attacked by nuclear weapons, because they are not
threatening others with them.

You're wrong with your facile views that nuclear weapons are harmless. RAther simply you've not been threatened with them.
You are clearly young and have not been threatened by nuclear weapons
or you would not be so glib in your refutation that they are a
terror weapon.

[bemildred]

124. Actually, they are good for nothing else but terror.

It drives the military nuts, but they have no useful
function except to pulverize large targets. In fact,
conventional combat is impossible on a nuclear battlefield.
Any concentration of forces presents a suitable target for
a nuke. That was our whole "strategy" for stopping the
USSR if they invaded Europe, we would pulverize Europe to
stop them. Precision nuclear weapon is an oxymoron.

[bemildred]

119. Not the expected usage, but correct nonetheless.

So then, would you agree that the USA is holding the
Iranian people hostage to get their government to
give up it's nukes?

Would you agree that the Israeli government is holding
the Palestinian people hostage to get the Palestinian
terrorists to stop bombing their ass?

Would you agree that we held the Iraqi people hostage for
a decade to try to get Saddam to disarm?

Would you agree that the US Government is holding the Cuban
people hostage to try to get them to kick Castro out?

Would you agree that we are holding the Syrian people
hostage to try to get Little Assad to stop supporting
Hezbollah?

I can go on quite a while with this list, but I suppose
these are not acceptable uses of the definition you supplied,
in your thinking.

[Disturbed]

69. Indonesia

The largest expansion of al Q is in Indonesia. People who believe that
all al Q. members can be killed are delusional. The US invading more countries will only expand al Q. ranks. Negotiating with an enemy is not a weakness. It is a strength. Nations's spokeperson's say that they don't negotiate with terrorists but they are lying. This War On Terrorism is unrealistic. Terrorism is a method, not a group of people. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were huge blunders and criminal acts carried out for other reasons than spreading "democracy". Most countries people's know this. Most Americans are blind to that.

Al Q. will keep attacking the US and it's allies for who knows how long but I am fairly certain that it will be at least for the next 20 years. Until moderate Muslims all over the world demand that al Q. cease it's attacks those attacks will continue. Millions of Muslims agree with the principle complaints of al Q. if not the methods. American Imperialism will not cease and neither will the resistence to it.

[sweetheart]

107. Too many zero sum games

I wonder if the problem is that american culture does not have a
game where there is more than 1 winner at the same time. Instead,
we wage a zero-sum war to eliminate terrorism from the human psychy
when it is natural as any other human thought, just it arises when
no other methods of justice work.

Taking the war to the millions of indonesia will involve a state
repression of astounding proportions. I expect there to be a good
sized genocide there in not too long when the US gets its way.

[Q]

72. The rise of terrorism...

...coincided with the 'Superpowers' attempting to make slaves out of the rest of the world. We (corporate state) enslave their populations, rape their resources, pollute their environment and control their governments.

- And we sell them lots of weapons. Anything they want as long as they pretend to be on our side. The US has military bases all over the world...in many places where the people don't want us but the local governments are paid off to cooperate.

- All this is the CAUSE of terrorism. Those we oppress don't have the 'superpower' means to throw off foreign occupation and attempts to colonize their lands. So they fight back with the only means available: their very lives.

[Paradise]

109. sorry to digress from your message, sweetheart,

which is thoughtful, and poignant, however i am struck by the words 'wind of black death'. these are highly intelligent people, immersed in symbolism, and i couldn't help thinking of the myriad meanings of 'wind', and, of course, 'black death' is bubonic plague. well, so much for 'peak oil'.

[sweetheart]

110. Also black kali

The black, darkness, yin, kali, schwartz- german for black (schwartzkof and his 1991 invasion of helicopters in iraq
oil bubbling (i totally see that) Theres that chapter in the bible
"and the sun shall become black as sackcloth" This black smoke
imagery is so strong.

I'm glad you found a message to digress from. :-)

I agree! "these are highly intelligent people". So much of american
media paints the AQ as moronic twits. This leads people to
make the dangerious assumption of underestimating their opponent.

They are telling their message in very compact propaganda. They
haven't time for rolling news and television commentary. The entire
policy package is dumped in a single message, unsupported by further
explanation. In to each message the mythical language to frame
themselves as the ancient right speaking for arabkind. Just
a billion people are not easily stereotyped, even though the message
speaks in solidarity.

"black death awaits the person who kills my family in cold blood." Is this not the curse of any a person in any a land?

[Paradise]

112. there's so much i don't know,

but i'm learning. thanks.

[Deja Q]

111. Seems fair

Dunno how it started (LIHOP, MIHOP, or otherwise), but if the 'coalition of the brown nosing' and the US were to back out... would the attacks stop? For real? Without a mediator or third party to keep both hateful and vengeful sides in check?

I'd be willing to give them one chance, but not without conditions and assurances first. If they blew the chance, they must know that any retaliation would make "shock and awe" look like a Sunday School outing by comparison...

But the most striking line is "If you persist we will also continue". That's what seems fair.

But peace and war can be achieved by the same catalyst: Understanding.

Do we trust them?

Will they trust us?

Those are the two core questions here.

It seems highly suspect that the US, under President Perfidious*, is the instigator of the whole situation. In which case, they're not going to trust us. And you know * has to keep up the lie of not trusting them.