Message for people that want to bomb our country

[mikeadam]

[Charlie]

the following is an email I recieved: IF I WERE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S SPEECHWRITER!

> > > >Good evening, my fellow Americans. > > > >First, I want to pass on my condolences to the people of New York and all >Americans that are hurting in this tragic time. You can rest assured that >anything and everything that can be done to assure the safety of our >country >will be done. This is the greatest country in the world and we will get >through this trying time. Now is the time for all people to set aside our >petty differences and show the world that no one or nothing can destroy the >fortitude of the American people. > > > >To the people responsible for Tuesday's tragedy, I say this: > > > >Are you f*cking kidding me? Are the turbans on your heads wrapped too >tight? Have you gone too long without a bath? Do you not know who you are >f*cking with? Americans are so hungry to kill, that we shoot at each other >every day. We will relish that opportunity for new targets for our >aggression. > > > >Have you forgotten history? What happened to the last people that started >f*cking around with us? Remember the little yellow bastards over in Japan? >We slapped them all over the Pacific and roasted about 2 million of them in >their own backyard. That's what we in America call a big ass barbecue.

>Ever seen Texas on a map? Every wonder why it's so big? > > > >Because we wanted it that way, Mexico started jacking around with the Alamo >and now they cut our lawns. England? We sent them packing. > > > >Ask you buddy Saddam about f*cking with the good ole USA. The only reason >he got away the first time is because it's too hard to shoot someone when >you're doubled over laughing at them. Our soldiers aren't trained to laugh >and shoot at the same time. Now he couldn't stop a pack of Cub Scouts from >taking over his sh!tty little country. > > > >Trust us, Afghanistan will end up a giant kitty litter box. Go ahead and >try to hide, bin Laden. There's not a hole deep enough or a mountain high >enough that's going to keep your camel-riding asses safe. We will bomb

>every inch of the country that harbors him, his camps, and any place that >looks or even smells like he was there. Hell, we might even drop a few

>bombs on people that have p*ssed us off in the past. This is America. We >kick ass. This is what we do. Go ahead and laugh now, but the Tomahawks >are coming and we will smoke your sorry asses. > > > >God Bless America!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Not even one American soldier need die in this endeavor if we have the will to use our ultimate weapon on those who did this to us. Power is the only thing these people understand, and we've shown too much weakness and timidity over the years.

[EddieE]

So we should do what? Drop a nuke on someone? Who?

[Jason_Martin]

Killing innocent people doesn't solve anything. Neither does perpetuating prejudice against those with different beliefs.

Yeah, the people who are responsible need to pay. But the people who ARE NOT responsible should not suffer.

[hikerwa]

I'm not so sure that killing thousands more people is the answer. I don't neccessarily agree with the idea of carpet bombing a whole country only because we are "sure" that the one man (?) responsible for this tragedy may be hiding there. As a matter of fact I think that by retaliating with force is reducing us to the level of the terrorist. And furthermore, if Charlie likes the fact that there were several racial slurs in the email he received, and actually believes that crap, I feel sorry for his bigoted attitude towards the world.

I personally am embarrassed by the attitude towards violence and redneckism that is taking over our country.

peace.

sean

[mattp]

In my view, a purely military response will do nothing but foster escalated violence. If we were to "drop the bomb" on Afghanistan, figuratively or literally, we might cath Bin Laden in that net, and we kill or scare some government clerics who had assisted him in some way, but we would also hurt millions of innocent people in a region that is already suffering. Were we to take this action, whether or not we might feel justified, those sympathetic to the plight of the Afghani's are certain to react not only with horror at what we would have done, but many are also going to take this as confirmation of the fact that America is more dangerous to the Middle East than all the terrorists put together.

And they might be right. From the perspective of anybody who cares about Arab nationalism and human dignity in that part of the world, they believe that we installed the Shah of Iran in the1950's because he would help promote our oil companies' interests and he not only ran a repressive government but he literally murdered thousands of people (I don't actually know how many, but these events are well documented). They also believe that, whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq ten years ago, our policy of maintaining sanctions which do little or nothing to weaken Saddam but which do a tremendous amount to harm Iraqi citizens is not only a failure but it is evidence of our value for rhetoric over reality. And didn't we have a hand in undermining other powers in the region so that the Taliban could step in? I'm not an expert in American foreign policy, but I do pay some attention to news reports and analysis from around the world and outside this country, it is consistently said that in the middle East and elsewhere, our actions have frequently shown that we do not abhor terror the way we say that we do: we have continually aided and abetted mass-murder throughout Central America, Asia, and Africa for at least the last fifty years and each time that such conduct is criticized we simply say, as we are saying now: it isn't our fault; those other people put us in this position and we had no choice. Our nearly blind support for Israel, too, while perhaps necessary for the survival of this nation that is a friend of ours, wins us no favor with Arab people all over the world.

It has been said that the only thing these people understand is force, and that may be true. But I say we DO have a choice as to what kind of force. I believe it just and appropriate to take strong action against those responsible for this week's attack, but we have a choice as to whether to launch a blunt retaliation at powers and people who may or may not be responsible or whether any action should be more focused than that. And we also have a choice as to whether we want to adopt a different posture around the world - one which would truly emphasize America's potential as a beacon of democracy and freedom rather than one that is based upon the notion that we are the most powerful nation and if others don't support our policies we will either wage economic or military war on them, or both. I believe our foreign policy since at least World War II has created an image of America that attracts the attention of every politically motivated suicidal maniac from Indonesia to Morocco.

Last week's events were horrific. Lets not respond with even greater acts of murder that, even if they do put some terrorists out of business temporarily, will only foster a continued growth of terrorism aimed at America.

[Rodchester]

Mattp

I had to stop reading your post when you stated: "From the perspective of anybody who cares about Arab nationalism and human dignity in that part of the world, they believe that we installed the Shah of Iran in the 1950's . . . "

Iran is not an Arab state, the people are Persian...not Arabic. They do not speak Arabic. They do not practice the same Islam as most of the Islamic Arab world. (Many Arabs are christian as well as other faiths)

Afganistan is not an Arab country. In fact it is located rather far from the Arab world. Afganistan does not have a "government" as we consider governments in the West. Afganistan has been suffering from MANY problems ever since the Soviet invasion. It has never recovered.

The Taliban is a quasi-government that does not have popular support of the people. It is not democratc. It siezed power with the help of the Pakistani Inteiligence community. In fact without that country's involvment the Taliban would not exist. The northeast of Afganistan is not even controlled by the Taliban.

Don't take it personal...I actually am not trying to diss on you. But you seem to oversimplfy while you say others are over simplfying this unprecidented act of terror.

Regarding US involvement in the region as well as other places around the world, every country that can, does what it can to influence events and governments around the world. (i.e. Pakistan setting up Taliban) This is not new. This is not a US thing. This is not a Western thing. Iran is actively opposed to the Taliban and takes actions to oppose it. Read the bible as a quasi-history book and that becomes obvious. EVERY counttry does it. We must do it.

While the US has no always been as good as we should be, we have conducted the cleanest intel gathering of ANY other country. That includes smaller countries like Spain. Being so damn nice has in part contributed to the present problem.

Because we are a hegmon, we are in the spotlight. As a very close Palistinian friend often says, "In the middle east we are so convinced that the CIA is all powerful that when a dog farts, we blame it on the CIA."

On Arab nationalism, I would simply say ask an Arab. There is no such thing. Naser's dream was just a dream. No Arab country is pursuing that dream. That dream was a damning factor to the Palistinians because it gave the something to hold onto, something that did not exist. Now they speak of the Arab nation and no Arab counties come to their aid.

Arabs are a nation like all arayans are a nation. Pure bullshit. A dream of academics, political pundists, and well meaning uneducated individuals.

The response will be sweeping and many will die. They now it and we know it. As they say, "In Casablanca life is cheap."

[mattp]

Rodchester -

My argument is NOT that we should become isolationist and stop trying to influence nations. Nor do I mean to suggest that we have been the most ruthless peoples in the world. And yes, I believe you are right that Afghanistan is not part of Arabia. But my argument is, very simply, as I stated at the start of my post: I do not believe that there is a purely military solution to the problem of terrorism. And my fear is that most Americans and most American politicians may not look very far beyond a military response.

Even if we bombed ten nations known to have a terrorist training camp within their borders, and even if we killed every suspected terrorist we could find, we would end up no more secure than we are now unless we were able to also address the conditions that tend to produce terrorists motivated to kill innocent Americans. And to do this, we will have to look at, and try to do something about, a widespread opinion that America truly is an evil power and we will also want to try to do something about social conditions that breed individuals who have no greater wish than to die in the act of killing innocent people.

- Matt

[Matt]

> (With significant trepidation that I might be passing on a hoax, I pass

>> along this message sent to me by a friend. The purported author is an

>> Afghani-American writer with a perspective I have not heard expressed as

>> eloquently. Whether it is genuine or not, it highlights the complexities of

>> the choices our leaders and our Nation have to make.)

>>

>> Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread: I've been hearing a lot

>> of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on

>> KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people,

>> people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have

>> to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard

>> some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be

>> done." And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because

>> I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've

>> never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who

>> will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

>>

>> I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt

>> in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York.

>> I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban

>> and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of

>> Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over

>> Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When

>> you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler.

>> And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the

>> concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to

>> do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators.

>> They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and

>> clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

>> Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The

>> answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A

>> few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled

>> orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are

>> millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in

>> mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all

>> destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan

>> people have not overthrown the Taliban.

>>

>> We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.

>> Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make

>> the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done.

>> Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals?

>> Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health

>> care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir

>> the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not

>> likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the

>> means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get

>> some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even

>> have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really

>> be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it

>> would only be making common cause with the Taliban - by raping once again

>> the people they've been raping all this time.

>>

>> So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true

>> fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with

>> ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to

>> be done," they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as

>> needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing

>> innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on

>> the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die

>> fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much

>> bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have

>> to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of

>> Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?

>> You see where I'm going.

>>

>> We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what:

>> that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he

>> did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He

>> really believes Islam would beat the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he

>> figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a

>> billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a

>> billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin

>> Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win,

>> whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions

>> would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden

>> does. Anyone else?

>>

>> Tamin Ansary

>>

>>

>

 

[Fairweather]

The idea that America is to blame for all of the worlds ills is, quite simply, liberal guilt bullshit. We are hated in the world of Islam because in their minds, our values represent a threat to theirs.

I am always amazed when I hear "progressive-minded" people rush to the defense of Islam; the same religon that relegates women and girls to lives of serfdom/servitude and grows like a cancer in places like Indonesia and The Phillipines. The same religon that seems to be incompatable with the ideals of liberty and democracy.

Indeed, The Russians have been trying to keep this disease from spreading northward into their heartland with varying degrees of success for several years now.

Now is not a time for our country to show any weakness...or mercy. Let Bin Laden be responsible for bringing the wrath of our country down on those who support him.

[Fairweather]

....Let me add...IF Bin Laden is the guilty one...Bush seems to be doing the right thing in sorting out all the facts first.

[Hayduke]

Brian,

Your ignorance is astounding and grows like a cancer in places like this web site.

It is hubris such as yours that will destroy our country.

Hayduke lives!

[EddieE]

Brian - do your homework first.

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Rybolt:

The idea that America is to blame for all of the worlds ills is, quite simply, liberal guilt bullshit. We are hated in the world of Islam because in their minds, our values represent a threat to theirs.

I am always amazed when I hear "progressive-minded" people rush to the defense of Islam; the same religon that relegates women and girls to lives of serfdom/servitude and grows like a cancer in places like Indonesia and The Phillipines. The same religon that seems to be incompatable with the ideals of liberty and democracy.

Indeed, The Russians have been trying to keep this disease from spreading northward into their heartland with varying degrees of success for several years now.

Now is not a time for our country to show any weakness...or mercy. Let Bin Laden be responsible for bringing the wrath of our country down on those who support him.

---

Thanks, Brian. It's been years since I read an issue of National Review. I feel like I'm all caught up now.

 

[Fairweather]

AlpineTom, Hayduke, and Eddie,

It appears to me that you have all thrived in the world of academia...Western of Evergreen, no doubt...where concepts "moral equivalency" (tolerance ...that all political and religous systems are equally valid)are forced into the minds of those with no real world experience to the contrary.

I couldn't help but notice that not even one of you bothered to counter my stand with any debate at all...just the typical "shout it down" dribble that our public universities encourage.

I'm sure that you all ( better yet, your daughters, wives, mothers) would really enjoy life under Islam. I'll take secularism any day. Good luck to you.

Hayduke; aren't you the same guy who said terrorism was OK if it was "for the Earth"?

[mountainguy01]

What are you making fun of Western for? Though it does seem that many liberal and enviromentalist do attend this school, there are a few (may I say a few) that can form thier own opinion and have not been brain washed. But overall, I agree with you Brian.

[bobinc]

The thing of it is, now that the bloodlust has quieted somewhat, a few people are actually trying to figure out what the most effective response might be. Just as there was a lot of history underlying the Gulf War, there is a lot of history underlying what is going on now with the Taliban. Treating this as a simple case of revenge won't work to our advantage (which is very frustrating for those who wish it otherwise) and I sincerely hope that those who have their fingers on the switches of destruction have a clearer idea of what can be done than Mr. Rybolt appears to. In essence, the US and its allies have to be as crafty and devious as the terrorists. Running out into the middle of the street and shooting off your pistol might feel good, but it means very little to someone who is prepared to fly a commercial jetliner into a skyscraper.

[EddieE]

BR - Since you're making assumptions of what I think about this issue, me and my conservative, private university edumacated self should be clearer.

I agree with the picture above, and I absolutely agree with a strong, swift military answer to terrorists and criminals. Notice I don't mention people who are Islamic - big difference.

What I find to be a knee-jerk reaction from you is the suggestion we drop a nuke on Afghanistan, which not only wouldn't solve any problem - but rather create a hundred new ones. Even conventional missiles would be a waste of time - fifteen million dollar rockets to blow up a fifteen dollar tent doesn't get you real far. If you think we can do this without loss of American life, you're in la-la land.

"We are hated in the world of Islam because in their minds, our values represent a threat to theirs." Oh, is that all? I'm not going to even comment on this one...

I don't know you, so I'm not going to guess what you're educational background is, or what your belief system is, but if you're going to try to climb an offwidth - don't show up with a rack of stopper nuts (or if you're going to prompt a debate like this, at least pick up a history book).

[This message has been edited by EddieE (edited 09-17-2001).]

[Fairweather]

Eddie,

We have no chance of measurable success with ground troops in Afghanistan. The entire country is a defenders dream...and winter is on the way. The Soviets were humiliated...and they were real bad-asses back then. Since the American public rightfully is not accepting of long protracted wars with American dead, and since a short volley of cruise missiles is terribly short of what is required, I think an appropriate response that says to terrorists and the rest of the world that we mean business is the complete destruction of an UNOCCUPIED city.

6000 dead Americans/other nationals can't be left unanswered for and frankly anything less than a brutal response will only invite more of the same.

As for Islam...Every time there is a terror attack I hear, "this does not represent the real beliefs of Islam"...

Well you know what? I don't believe it anymore. Budism (sp?) seems to be one of the few religons that hasn't at one time of another tried to forcably convert the world, or at least its neighbors.

You still haven't answered my position that Islam is an affront to women. Can they vote in ANY Islamic nation? Maybe Pakistan or Egypt? Certainly not Saudi, UAE, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc.

[Fairweather]

Eddie,

We have no chance of measurable success with ground troops in Afghanistan. The entire country is a defenders dream...and winter is on the way. The Soviets were humiliated...and they were real bad-asses back then. Since the American public rightfully is not accepting of long protracted wars with American dead, and since a short volley of cruise missiles is terribly short of what is required, I think an appropriate response that says to terrorists and the rest of the world that we mean business is the complete destruction of an UNOCCUPIED city.

6000 dead Americans/other nationals can't be left unanswered for and frankly anything less than a brutal response will only invite more of the same.

As for Islam...Every time there is a terror attack I hear, "this does not represent the real beliefs of Islam"...

Well you know what? I don't believe it anymore. Budism (sp?) seems to be one of the few religons that hasn't at one time of another tried to forcibly convert the world, or at least its neighbors.

You still haven't answered my position that Islam is an affront to women. Can they vote in ANY Islamic nation? Maybe Pakistan or Egypt? Certainly not Saudi, UAE, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc.

[EddieE]

If you add up the bombings of American embassies overseas, and now the second attack on the World Trade Center, American casualties in this "war" are already in the thousands. I think people are starting to realize that, unfortunately, we are spiralling towards a ground war. I wish there were a different way.

Complete destruction of an unnoccupied city? Where? Do we tell the occupants to get out before we launch the attack? With what - nukes? You still haven't answered that question.

To answer yours: Yes, the Islamic Religion treats women very much differently than we do here - and the extremists abuse and mistreat them. However I don't think its because we allow Hillary Clinton to hold office is the reason they think we're the Great Satan. And anyways, they aren't trying to convert us...they're trying to get us off their land.

Bin Laden thinking he represents the Nation of Islam is the same as Hitler thinking he represented Christians. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm afraid your attitude that all people of Islamic faith thought this was a good idea have led to cars being doused with gasoline in Seattle, and people getting shot in Arizona. Not everyone has as much self control as you do.

[This message has been edited by EddieE (edited 09-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by EddieE (edited 09-17-2001).]

[Fairweather]

Eddie,

Yes, with nukes or similar. (fuel-air explosives) Yes, we advise them (the host country of these terrorist dogs...not Afghanistan for sure) that a certain city may be a bad real estate investment in, say 48 hours.

"Nuclear" stirs up some terrible passions I'm quite aware, but we killed more people in Dresden and Tokyo with incendiaries than we did with the two attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Other than helping Muslims in Kuwait, Saudi, and Bosnia, I'm not sure what "land" of theirs we currently occupy. We pay them a fair price for their oil...its called trade.

Last time I checked Louis Farhakam was the leader of The Nation of Islam.

[Hayduke]

Brian--

Check your facts with the C.I.A. Fact book

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Suffrage: This entry gives the age at enfranchisement and whether the right to vote is universal or restricted.

 

Bangladesh

Religions: Muslim 88.3%, Hindu 10.5%, other 1.2%

Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal

Malaysia

Religions: Islam, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism; note - in addition, Shamanism is practiced in East Malaysia

Suffrage: 21 years of age; universal

Indonesia

Religions: Muslim 88%, Protestant 5%, Roman Catholic 3%, Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other 1% (1998)

Suffrage: 17 years of age; universal and married persons regardless of age

Iran

Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 10%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 1%

Suffrage: 15 years of age; universal

Iraq

Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal

Pakistan

Religions: Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%), Christian, Hindu, and other 3%

Suffrage: 21 years of age; universal; separate electorates and reserved parliamentary seats for non-Muslims

Jordan

Religions: Sunni Muslim 96%, Christian 4% (1997 est.)

Suffrage: 20 years of age; universal

Azerbaijan

Religions: Muslim 93.4%, Russian Orthodox 2.5%, Armenian Orthodox 2.3%, other 1.8% (1995 est.)

Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal

Mali

Religions: Muslim 90%, indigenous beliefs 9%, Christian 1%

Suffrage: 21 years of age; universal

 

There were more but I was tired of looking them up.

Does this answer your question?

Hayduke lives!

[Fairweather]

Hayduke,

While enlightening, you neglected to list the Islamic countries that DON'T allow universal sufferage. You'll find that these countries are self described "Islamic Republics". For example, Pakistan is ruled by a secular military dictator; Iraq is also ruled by the same. Indonesia, Mali, etc all have secular governments.

I'll admit I was surprised that Iran was an exception and I'll give you that.

The "core" of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula is certainly not friendly to women's voting rights nor are other countries like Afghanistan where women are not even allowed to drive a car and must have a "permission note" from their husbands to be in public at certain times. They are not allowed to hold jobs. Additionally, girls are not allowed to attend school.

Is this an abomination of Islam, or its literal meaning come to fruition?