Should the bombs stop for the Islamic holy month in november?

[Fonzie Forum Tyrant of MH]

Isnt it a bit like saying "hey Mr terrorist, we are going to kill you, but why dont you have a nice holiday first"

The whole point is moot as far as I can see in that, apparentley we are only bombing terrorist bases of operation, so why wait, were gonna bomb them anyway.

The only consideration should be given to the thousands of innocent civillians, and were not bombing them are we?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Well, here we go, this will surprise many but I don't think that the bombing should stop. First of all, yes, it's a Muslim holiday. SO?!?!?!, War is war people, a battle doesn't stop for you to pray. A battle stops when you're ready to sign on a piece of paper that you'll do whatever the winner says you'll do. Not before! Strategicly speaking, this would give the Taliban a whole month to regroup and reorganize their defenses. That's not a good idea considering that the Pentagon is actually surprised that they're still around. EDIT: I also forgot that the Northern Alliance (our so called Allies in Afghanistan) want to mount an offensive before winter. That means that if we want them to succede, we have to provide them strategic and tactical bombing support. Bush wants the Taliban out. He must continue the fighting if he wants to succeed quickly (well, quicker than if you stop). This, is comming from a guy who doesn't support the idea of bombing Afghanistan or any other country. However, I do recognize that the USA already started the bombing (so essentially, in my eyes, commited a mistake) and unfortunately, they must take it to it's natural end. BTW: unless I'm mistaking there was battle over the Christmass holiday during WWII. The battle of the Ardennes being one of them. If I'm not mistaking, Patton freed Bastogne (sp), a small town where roughly 11,000 soldiers from the 101 were surrounded by Germans, on December 26th, 1944. That's the battle where the colonel in charge of the 101 told the German general "Nuts" when he was asked to surrender

Interestig P.O.V. Ryanamur. Cheers bro.



------------------

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by G'kar: As I recall it is our Islamic supporters (Pakistan, Egypyt, ect.) that have voiced concern of bombing during a holy time. The coalition agianst terrorism could lose some strategic ground if they stopped bombing, but may lose support from allies in the region if they do continue. So the real question is whats more important? Keeping military pressure on the talibon or sustaining good relations with the non-terrorists Muslim nations/people. Are there any Muslims here with a perspective on this?

Then maybe we should question our allies loyalty in all this. Which one is more important: to stop the terrorist or recognize a holiday that in the past even Muslims have battled on?

Personnally, I think that the terrorists are more important to get. Though I don't agree with the present way of doing it, the fact remains that it's the road that was chosen to deal with it.

Plus, if we stop the bombing, it effectively shows that we are more concerned about perception than the real danger here. In the long run, that could play against us to. The world think that Bush will not stop until he finds THEM all. When they are all dead, then we will calm down. Until now, he's done everyting to prove this right. People, I fear, did side with us more out of fear than anything else. They see him as an enraged pitbull that will kill! They fear our might so they join us. Show them too much compassion and they'll think that you're weak. They'll kick you in the ball and run. Leaving us effectively with no allies.

Strategicly and politically speaking it could be just as dangerous to stop the bombing than to just keep going.

Ronn, I know, you're proud of me

------------------
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 10-25-2001).]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by G'kar: As I recall it is our Islamic supporters (Pakistan, Egypyt, ect.) that have voiced concern of bombing during a holy time. The coalition agianst terrorism could lose some strategic ground if they stopped bombing, but may lose support from allies in the region if they do continue. So the real question is whats more important? Keeping military pressure on the talibon or sustaining good relations with the non-terrorists Muslim nations/people. Are there any Muslims here with a perspective on this?

This is why we must work with them, while stressing that there is no time off in war. The leaders of these countries, Muslim or not, understand this. They know the world doesn't stop for Ramadan any more than it does for Christmas or Hannakkah.

If we postpone bombing during Ramadan, when is the next significant holiday we have to "shut down" for?

Those in the Muslim world, who are angry at the bombing to start with, will still be angry if we stop to respect Ramadan. Those who are in favor will understand the need to continue. There will be exceptions in both cases which may create converts, but you can't make everyone happy. You never will.

While organized religious holidays are more universally recognized, September 11th was special to many of those who would die. Some, no doubt, had considered that day to be especially sacred. There were those who had decided September 11th was THE DAY to dedicate their lives to their religious belief, those who had decided to rededicate their lives to their beliefs, and those who had planned to have a special time of worship with their higher power. Anyday can be special to anyone for any number of reasons.

Those who where killed September 11, including Muslims, will never celebrate another Ramadan. Should their executioners, and those who supported their actions, be given special consideration because they're still here?

------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-25-2001).]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Ronn, I know, you're proud of me

I now no longer "merely" respect you, I'm actually starting to like you quite a bit


------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I now no longer "merely" respect you, I'm actually starting to like you quite a bit

Well, I guess I just "revived you" after killing you a few times

------------------
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

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Then maybe we should question our allies loyalty in all this. Which one is more important: to stop the terrorist or recognize a holiday that in the past even Muslims have battled on? Personnally, I think that the terrorists are more important to get. Though I don't agree with the present way of doing it, the fact remains that it's the road that was chosen to deal with it. Plus, if we stop the bombing, it effectively shows that we are more concerned about perception than the real danger here. In the long run, that could play against us to. The world think that Bush will not stop until he finds THEM all. When they are all dead, then we will calm down. Until now, he's done everyting to prove this right. People, I fear, did side with us more out of fear than anything else. They see him as an enraged pitbull that will kill! They fear our might so they join us. Show them too much compassion and they'll think that you're weak. They'll kick you in the ball and run. Leaving us effectively with no allies. Strategicly and politically speaking it could be just as dangerous to stop the bombing than to just keep going. Ronn, I know, you're proud of me

I question some of our "allies" in the long run anyway, war can burn bridges after building them. I know some of them were Talibon supporters before september 11th. Now is a different story, only a fool-hardy nation would want to be seen as harboring terrorists after 9-11. ahem, Now that we've stepped on the tigers tale, stepping off can be as hard as staying on.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by G'kar: I question some of our "allies" in the long run anyway, war can burn bridges after building them. I know some of them were Talibon supporters before september 11th. Now is a different story, only a fool-hardy nation would want to be seen as harboring terrorists after 9-11. ahem, Now that we've stepped on the tigers tale, stepping off can be as hard as staying on.

Wether or not they are Taliban supporters is irrelevant. IMO, the ennemy are terrorists not the Taliban. I'm more worried about a anti-American (or Western Civilization) nation (though they might not say they are) leaving our ranks. A few come to mind (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). A supportive leader is very nice but all leaders can be removed - especially in that part of the world. If we end up loosing to many of them, we will be drawn into a long and verrrrry bloody conflict.

Bombing or not bombing is really another one of those "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" situation... And I really don't like them.

I like your tiger analogy BTW .

------------------
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

[Liliara]

Originally posted by G'kar: I question some of our "allies" in the long run anyway, war can burn bridges after building them. I know some of them were Talibon supporters before september 11th. Now is a different story, only a fool-hardy nation would want to be seen as harboring terrorists after 9-11. ahem, Now that we've stepped on the tigers tale, stepping off can be as hard as staying on.

I too, question our allies. After all, we are supporting the Northern Alliance for a good cause. If they turn into disgusting monsters like the Taliban did, it will be America's fault just like it was when bin Laden became an evil monster. (We save our troops by helping a front that wants the same thing that we do and we are forever responsible for them in some's eyes. Kind of like the ancient thought that if you save a man's life you are responsible for it) No matter what you do, you will be condemned.



------------------

Captain of Bouncers, Boogre Bar

LH Member


"I've had it up to here, listening to a small segment of people try to put down America! America's the greatest land on Earth, and we oughta be proud of what we have! I'm proud of America, I'm proud of our people, and I'm gonna prove it. We're American and DAMN proud of it! Frankly I'm getting a little ticked off...go ta ****"... Dink (if anyone knows who originally said this, please let me know!)

[Bullvye]

Originally posted by Liliara: I too, question our allies. After all, we are supporting the Northern Alliance for a good cause. If they turn into disgusting monsters like the Taliban did, it will be America's fault just like it was when bin Laden became an evil monster. (We save our troops by helping a front that wants the same thing that we do and we are forever responsible for them in some's eyes. Kind of like the ancient thought that if you save a man's life you are responsible for it) No matter what you do, you will be condemned.

Liliara, I too think that we should be weary of the Northern Alliance. But also I believe the success of our operations in Afghanistan will have a political determination not a military one. Our "end", in Afghanistan will not be found by the death of Al Queda, or the Taliban. Only when a legitimate government can be put in place, will we see the close of the Afghan chapter on the "War on Terrorism" then what?....Iraq is next!......Wanna make a bet?

------------------



I'm not BAD,.....but the BAD don't mess with me!"

[This message has been edited by Bullvye (edited 10-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bullvye (edited 10-26-2001).]