Arabs cheering in AMERICA?

[Sandman]

Batdog and 1776,

You're  both right... I completely misunderstood and I went off on a tangent.

My apologies to you and everyone else for hijacking this thread.

<S>

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[batdog]

Sandman... <S>. I think its time for me to STFU anyway. I've so much emotion right now I cant really see strieght. Your arguments are always well written and thought out and seldom malicious. I do not agree with you at times but thats what America is about.

Be well

xBAT

[Staga]

Originally posted by funkedup:
Staga I cheered loudly in 1986.  States which sponsor terrorist attacks on US personnel will face such reprisals.  Collateral damage is unfortunate, but the person who caused this all to happen is named Gadaffi.

So its okay to fight against terror with terror?
How about that bombing in Sudan?

Looks like you think acts of terror are acceptable as long as it doesn't hurt civilians in U.S.

[Steven]

Stage,

The death of civilians in Libya was an accident and therein lies the difference.  Terrorists target civilians while America does not.

If we want to kill civilians we can probably do it like no other nation in the world.  However, do not make any mistakes, we place our own combattants in extra danger to protect enemy civilians and innocents.

At 500 mph and several thousand feet altitude dodging flak and missiles while trying to locate the target and set up the proper paramaters for weapons release is in fact difficult and not perfect.  Add to this things so simple as a "hung bomb" that releases just only a second late (which will make a HUGE difference in where the bomb lands) and yes, you will have civilian casualties.

Again, America is different because we TRY to protect enemy civilians and put billions of dollars into systems that are more tactical and will destroy the target and target only.  We TRY!

Given that, there is modern thinking that there are no truly innocent civilians.  Each member of a country supports that country's political and war-making systems.  Osam Bid Ladin actually voices this opinion against America and other Western powers.  He may even consider you there in Finland as a target for extermination.

I'm so freakin' sick of this "America baby-killer nonsense."  

-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels

[Fatty]

The above post in addition to the fact after that attack Lybia has all but disappeared from the international terrorist scene.

[Dinger]

Hell, Khaddafy's trying to be power broker in AFrica and the (police) force of stability  these days.

[funkedup]

Not sure what you are talking about Staga.   The Eldorado Canyon strikes were targeted at terrorist bases, military facilities, and Gaddafi himself.  They were not terrorist acts but acts of war in retaliation to Libyan acts of war against US warships, aircraft, and personnel throughout the world.  Innocents died unfortunately but they were not the target.  Accidents will happen in a war.  If foreign leaders don't want accidents to happen within their borders, they should avoid starting wars with the US.

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Staga]

You call it a car, I call it a automobile.

btw I didn't know U.S was in a war against Libya?
Or did you guys bomb that country without declaration of war?

[Nifty]

Originally posted by Staga:
You call it a car, I call it a automobile.

btw I didn't know U.S was in a war against Libya?
Or did you guys bomb that country without declaration of war?

so now you're going to use semantics to keep atop your high horse of morality?  well, if you feel better about it, then go right ahead.

you want to know the difference between me and them (terrorists)?  The difference is I won't cheer when we retaliate and lives are lost.  Hell yes I think their lives are forfeit due to their actions.  However, I won't be happy when they're dead.  I won't feel better because "revenge for the fallen" has been served.  I'll feel better that the people responsible for this act won't be able to do harm to anyone ever again.  Yes, I know that someone else will take their place.  It's no different than crime.  People think there are only two ways to approach the problem, and that you can only pick ONE of the two ways.  Either solve it at the root and be easy on the offenders because it's not their fault (liberal view) or there is nothing you can do to stop crime so you must punish them as severely as you can (convervative view).   The answer is BOTH.  You mix the two.  You try to stem the problem at the source however you can.  You also punish the hell out of anyone who commits the crime, because we're TRYING to make things better for everyone.  It's the same in this case.  We need to do what we can to stop terrorism before it starts, within reason.   We also need to punish those that commit terrorism in the most severe ways, to show we will not tolerate terrorism.

When all is said and done, I won't cheer anyone's death, not even Osama Bin Laden's.  Anyone who CHEERS the death of ANYONE, needs to really look inside their souls, spirits, whatever you want to call it, because IMO, there's something wrong in there...

(i've got a meeting now, so I won't be able to reply for awhile)

[funkedup]

You're right Staga.  Libya did not declare war on US before attacking US ships and aircraft or killing US personnel in Europe and other countries.  And US forgot to declare war on Libya before responding.  Do you think US should not have responded?

Also I thought about my earlier statement, trying to actually remember what I thought at the time.  I was not pleased when I heard that some civilians had been killed in the attack on Libya.  But I was happy that US had responded, and happy that Libyan military and terrorist facilities and personnel had been hit.

If your point was to say that cheering the deaths of innocent people is wrong, then I agree.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Staga]

Libya was using terror against U.S and NATO forces and U.S answered by bombing Tripoli and Benghazi without declaration of war. I would say that was a act of terror.

Bottomline is U.S didn't achieve anything with those bombings. All it got was more pissed Arabs so for me it looks like outcome was negative.

Nifty wrote:
"We need to do what we can to stop terrorism before it starts, within reason. We also need to punish those that commit terrorism in the most severe ways, to show we will not tolerate terrorism."
I couldn't agree more. Wipeing terrorism out from this world is tough job.
IMO it starts from surrounding environment. If childs can see continuous examples of violence and see how theirs relatives/friends etc are getting beated/killed what can you expect from them in later?

Find the reason why people act like that and find a lasting cure for it. Bombing is not a cure, it's more like a catalyst in process of creating more potential terrorists. This is already happening in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine and it sure doesn't look good from my point of view.

Just my thoughts.

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Staga:

Find the reason why people act like that and find a lasting cure for it. Bombing is not a cure, it's more like a catalyst in process of creating more potential terrorists. This is already happening in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine and it sure doesn't look good from my point of view.

In a perfect world, simply saying "Enough is enough" would be a lasting cure....

.....in a perfect world....
-SW

[narsus]

Staga

I see your line of reasoning, problem is many many people in the world dont have those views. And as far as retaliating against Libya that was the best move we could possibly make. We as America haven't heard from Libya in quite some time.

Also Swulfe has the point we are not by any means in a perfect world, but terrorists have really been unchecked for a while now. It's about time something be done and I dont think sitting down with a cup of tea would help. If I did I would be first in line to pour the tea.

And as far as we as american being terrorists I'm sure some have that view. Take a step back and remember they hijacked 4 planes and flew 2 of them into the major population center in the US. Something must be done I think wiping out terrorist camp can help alot. Granted it wont solve the worlds problems but if more nations take a much harder line against them it will put pressure on states that support them hopefully to cancel their funding etc.

I am fortunate that I didnt lose friends or loved ones in this recent tragedy, but I have many friends who lost loved ones.


edited for grammer and spelling but gave up, still cant think straight.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: narsus ]

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: narsus ]

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: narsus ]

[funkedup]

<S> Staga.  I don't agree but it's not unreasonable.

[Maverick]

Staga,

Nations do not need to "declare a war" in order to use limited force against another nation. A declaration of war is a statement of how much force will be used to affect a political outcome.

Clauswitz (sp) War is an extension of political action. Not a true quote as I don't have my reference with me.

Libya did in fact initiate a violent act towards US assets. They also violated international law by attempting to annex open water and navigation lanes with an arbitrary declaration that amounts to taking of terrotory not belonging to them. They do not have to occupy it to take it as denial of useage is also an act of confiscation. Once Libya had actually committed a verifiable hostile act, also without a declaration of intent or war, they opened themselves up for a retaliatory action. This was NOT a new precedent and there are other examples through history for nations that "postured" or commited military actions against a neighbor outside of war.

A military action taken in retaliation with warning for an unprovoked act of aggression without a reason is not an act of terrorism. Striking a military target such as command and control is not terrorism. kadafi was warned that there would be a reaction. He didn't take it seriously until the munitions arrived.

Libya was not disrupted as a political entity and their borders remained intact as did their government.

This is hardly a good comparison for Tuesday.

In any event, anytime a military installation, unit or equipment location is placed in close proximity to civilians there will be the probability of civilian casualties. It has been the practice of opponents of US actions to deliberately place militay assets inside of civilian areas as they are aware of the reluctance of the US to hit that type of area. If you want an example North Vietnam placed Sam missle storage depots in and around schools. In Desert Storm Iraq placed units and equipment in similar positions. The fact that they did so confirms the opinion that the US will not recklessly target civilian areas so as to avoid unnecessary casualties. They in effect attempt to use a "safe zone" to avoid damage to their military assets. A rather cowardly way to use a human shield for their military to hide behind.

Is this an appropriate miltary tactic? Not to western thought.

Terrorists have no concern about civilian casualties. It has already been reported that bin ladin considers ALL Americans to be a target. We do not do the same and will not conduct our operations in that manner. That will not stop terrorists from hiding in and among civilian areas. We will be as careful as we can but we will not be able to choose the hiding places for them.

Mav