Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - A Question About Terrorists And The Countrys Who Harbor Them

Ryanamur · 10-18-2001, 10:23 AM

First of all, the President (right now) only has the mandate to go after the individuals involved in the 9-11 attacks. Noone else.

I think that the whole idea of going after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them came about to get the population going. The population wanted action and stating that we would go after the countries that harbor them ment action. It's all political.

The only problem is that, as some of you pointed out, some of those terrorists were on US soil legally. Some of them were actually known terrorists and still obtained a valid US Visa using their real identity. Which means that the US we harboring their own terrorist and the the administrations that let them in (and let them stay in) should be held as equally accountable for the attacks of 9-11.

Now, as many of you also pointed out, what to do with the other countries? Iraq and Pakistan are easy: same approach as Afghanistan. Saudi, we cannot touch for two reasons: Mecca and Oil. But what about the others? In another tread I listed a few countries that served as bases of operations for Muslim Terrorists. I remember most of them from a counter-terrorism class that I took in university. So, what do we do about the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Monaco, Spain, Ex-Yougoslavia, Switzerland, Sweeden, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Moroco, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritria, Mozambique, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE, Ajerbajan (sp), Turjikistan (sp), Russia, Bello-Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Egypt and a few other countries who's name I just can't remember right now.

Well, I guess Mr Bush "greatly misunderestimated" the issue when he made the comments.

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-18-2001).]

10-18-2001, 10:23 AM	#5
Ryanamur Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: March 29, 2001 Location: Montréal, Canada Age: 49 Posts: 1,763	First of all, the President (right now) only has the mandate to go after the individuals involved in the 9-11 attacks. Noone else. I think that the whole idea of going after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them came about to get the population going. The population wanted action and stating that we would go after the countries that harbor them ment action. It's all political. The only problem is that, as some of you pointed out, some of those terrorists were on US soil legally. Some of them were actually known terrorists and still obtained a valid US Visa using their real identity. Which means that the US we harboring their own terrorist and the the administrations that let them in (and let them stay in) should be held as equally accountable for the attacks of 9-11. Now, as many of you also pointed out, what to do with the other countries? Iraq and Pakistan are easy: same approach as Afghanistan. Saudi, we cannot touch for two reasons: Mecca and Oil. But what about the others? In another tread I listed a few countries that served as bases of operations for Muslim Terrorists. I remember most of them from a counter-terrorism class that I took in university. So, what do we do about the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Monaco, Spain, Ex-Yougoslavia, Switzerland, Sweeden, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Moroco, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritria, Mozambique, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE, Ajerbajan (sp), Turjikistan (sp), Russia, Bello-Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Egypt and a few other countries who's name I just can't remember right now. Well, I guess Mr Bush "greatly misunderestimated" the issue when he made the comments. ------------------ I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential [This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-18-2001).]