Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: batdog on September 13, 2001, 07:59:00 AM
-
I've heard "rumors" of celebrations by arabs in OUR nation.... now has anybody heard or seen anything factual on this?
xBAT
-
Right... and when we find 'em, we can put 'em in internment camps just like they did to the Japanese during WWII.
Fuel the hate.
Listen... if anyone is cheering in this country, you can be sure that they don't understand what has happened and what will happen.
I will save my anger for the people that committed this act. Those that are too stupid or ignorant to understand have my pity.
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
One of my co-workers related this when they went back east to pick up a car whose tranmission had failed while they were on vacation. She said that when they left the airport in Boston shortly before labor day weekend that she saw all kinds of arabs in the airport. When they went back to pick up the repaired car she said no arabs were in the airport, but while driving back to the KC area she noticed that every reststop had a large grouping of arabs. I wonder if the word was out that flying wouldn't be healthy?
-
Right... conspiracy theories... there's a secret Arab communication network unknown to us.
You may find this difficult to believe but there are plenty of Arab-Americans that are just as upset by this as any of us.
-
Geez, just reporting an observation made by a co-worker. Just a report of facts as she reported to me. Just a question asked. Flying off the handle doesn't answer my question.
-
Well there Sandman if you noticed I asked about FACTUAL information as I found it hard to believe.
xBAT
P.S. what was your smartass comment about reading ablity in a earlier post vie myself?
-
I have heard a report that in New Jersey, police officers have arressted 3 Arab citizens, as they were seen (by the police) celebrating and cheering as the news of this tradgedy.
I pity them.
I pity all who are so evil white/black/red/green/arab/ anyone.
It seems that a few group of ignorant hate filled individuals can make out the rest of thier creed seem to be the same.
Lets please not jump to conclusions that ALL arab descendants are evil, and have a part in this.
A few bad apples are definatly destroying the image of a larger good poeple.
-
How many Americans cheered when 1986 U.S bombed Tripoli and Benghazi (Operation El Dorado Canyon) where 30 Libyans died 'cause U.S tried to kill Ghaddafi?
-
People who look even remotely arabic, are being assaulted in your backyards now...
SKurj
-
Yep Skurj. And to me that's even worse than palestinians cheering. They didn't actually attack my fellow citizens, these people who've lost and are going after everyone that appears middle eastern (a mosque was shot at here in Texas) are actually attacking my countrymen, and are diddlying idiots.
-
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.
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
The're just a bunch of 'ragheads' anyway, so who cares?
Ain't that right Eagler?
-
Fatty you hit on something that's been bothering me the last two days. Sure, somewhere in America some deluded or ignorant Arab-American probably celebrated, and if they did they are to be pitied in their ignorance. But without doubt Arab-Americans died in the Trade Center, too. The attack was on them as much as any other American. For Arab-Americans or American Muslims to be the object of hate and threats has no place in this country.
The enemy is the terrorists, their leaders and anyone who funds, harbors or supports them. That is a very far cry from "the people of the middle east" or from "the Muslim world". We need to strike the enemy hard, but in doing so we also need to be clear about who that is. Anything more and we become what we oppose.
- Yoj
-
Stega get diddlying real. The Lybians where engaged in state sponsered terrorism. The where responiable for act upon act of terrorism in the 70's. The United States decided it had had enough and thus we stuck. The WAY we struck was actually very moderate but to the point. IF we had wanted to we could of piled up and horriable body count upon them. They certainly where in no postion to stop us. Also after this raid the terrorism vie Gadfy all but disappeared.
The attack on New York is an atrocity of unknown magnitude. If you have sympathy for these indivduals then I name your our enemy and diddly you. There are most likely over 10-15 thousand dead. I could care less what friggen Arab cause we offended... they all hate us for simply BEING what we are. I'm looking foward to seeing some payback. When it DOES occure you can go ahead and burn our flag and call us murders or whatnot but guess what... we dont give a rats ass. Right now your A)with us or B) against us.
xBAT
-
No, first:
If you think all Arabs or all Muslims, or even most, hate AMericans, then you are an ignorant amazinhunk.
These kinds of rumours are generated not by real events, but by hatemongering fools who find such reports believable.
Hell, in the Middle Ages, the rumors spread that Jews snuck into churches, stole the Host , and desecrated the body and blood of Christ.
Again, really diddlyin' stupid, but ignorant fools and hatemongers were willing to believe and circulate the storiesl and when things got bad, groups of thugs would go out and try to kill every single Jew in the city.
\[edited to tone down the rhetoric and answer the question. In short, no, and no. And the folks who did this didn't warn anybody,]
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
The above post in addition to the fact after that attack Lybia has all but disappeared from the international terrorist scene.
-
Hell, Khaddafy's trying to be power broker in AFrica and the (police) force of stability these days.
-
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 ]
-
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?
-
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)
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ]
-
<S> Staga. I don't agree but it's not unreasonable.
-
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
-
Well put Mav.
xBAT
-
... 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.
A comfy thought but how true is it?
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm (http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm)
I know this is a dreadful lefty site, and I have no idea whether it's factual or not but I'd guess that the truth will be somewhere in between their rant and the US government's version.
However:
A bombing campaign where you're 99% sure you will miss the target and hit civilians, but you do it anyway sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing the bombings were supposed to stop...
I think the US should persue a legal course of action rather than a military one.
The military payback route appears not to have helped Israel much, nor the UK in Ireland, and there is a very real danger of creating many more extremists and terrorists by missing the target with one stray bomb (which happens) than you destroy. Any speeches from the US afterwards along the lines of "Ooops, sorry we didn't mean it, but they were using you guys as a human shield", is not likely to be answered with a "Oh well, seeing as you didn't mean it... that's alright then." Imagine the situation in reverse... "Sorry about blowing up the High School, we were aiming for the Army base, honest."
After watching that horrendous waste of lives in New York, I think any more civilian casualties of any nation are totally and utterly unacceptable.
That's my 2 cents.