Giving the "finger" to Bio-terrorists!

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Neb: He might have taken credit for the actions of another group.

Yes Osama might be trying to claim another groups actions, and if he thinks that's a great idea...., wait until we punish them both for the same crime.

HE'LL LOVE IT!


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


"The Martyr" (excerpt)

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)

[Neb]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Yes Osama might be trying to claim another groups actions, and if he thinks that's a great idea...., wait until we punish them both for the same crime. HE'LL LOVE IT!

It'll make him more popular with his supporters and it might make people fear him and the Al Qaeda more.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Neb: It'll make him more popular with his supporters and it might make people fear him and the Al Qaeda more.

Kill Osama, his deputies, his organization, et al.

Feed his hungrey followers and provide them with medical attention. You want to make a friend for life, then feed a man's starving children, save them from a certain death, and do it without destroying that man's beliefs. They don't think Osama is a god, so prove Osama wrong and their faith/belief in him will be realized as wrong.

He can't feed them, he can't support them, he can't take care of them in anyway, so show them he is lying. Don't tell them, show them...

It worked with Germany and Japan after WWII, and those are now two of the most important countries in the world.

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



"The Martyr" (excerpt)

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-20-2001).]

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Kill Osama, his deputies, his organization, et al. Feed his hungrey followers and provide them with medical attention. You want to make a friend for life, then feed a man's starving children, save them from a certain death, and do it without destroying that man's beliefs. They don't think Osama is a god, so prove Osama wrong and their faith/belief in him will be realized as wrong. He can't feed them, he can't support them, he can't take care of them in anyway, so show them he is lying. Don't tell them, show them...

I know it's a spam, but I have to say it: I completely agree with you. But, IMO, that means that you don't bomb them. You drop food and supplies (in much greater volumes than what we are doing now) and you'll achieve your goal. For each civilian that you kill, you have a tremendous step back. It's a fine line that we are walking on and so far, we've only slipped on the wrong side of the line ... again, IMO

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

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: ...you don't bomb them. You drop food and supplies (in much greater volumes than what we are doing now) and you'll achieve your goal. For each civilian that you kill, you have a tremendous step back

We're not interested in feeding the government of Afghanistan, their military, nor Osama and his terrorists. We only want to feed the civilians. The only way to ensure we are able to do that is by removing the rogue element.

We are not targeting civilians but yes civilians die, they die everywhere in the world everyday for every reason imaginable. More people died in my state last month from automobile crashes than have died in Afghanistan. At the current rate, more Afghany civilians will die of old age during this campaign than as a result of collatoral damage.

To "double" quote you...

"For each civilian that you kill, you have a tremendous step back."

Osama, and the Afghany government through their support, took 6,000 steps back on September 11.

Not all of the "agreeing with you, but..." statements in the world will change that.

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


"The Martyr" (excerpt)

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)



[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-21-2001).]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Didn't they arrested 2 white American with regards to a few envelopes. Regardless if they did or not, it just doesn't sounds right. Think about it. Bin Ladden as always used high key targets: the Embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon and I'm sure I miss some. Now, we have small case here and there but they are all low key (except for the House of Representatives). Some of them hoaxes, some of them legit, with the Anthrax traced back to US factories. NO, it's just not his signature. It's not big enough. If he would have targeted the livestock, that would have been BIG. But a news anchor here, someone working with media there, an low key elected representative. It doesn't compute. It's terrorists activity allright, there's no doubt about that. But I doubt that it's Al-Queda. Yes, by local I mean an American group. Think Timothy McVeigh. Now, the stage is set for them to make a statement to and get away with it because all the attention is set on Bin Ladden. It almost worked for the Oklahoma City bombing... they could get away with it now

I'm not aware of the arrest of 2 caucasian males, but I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that there are white, black, yellow, and green American's on Osama's payroll. By the way, caucasians aren't exclusive to America, you have some in Canada don't you?

The Anthrax targets aren't high profile enough? Are you kidding? The US Postal Service delivering disease to American's front doors! People afraid to open their mail? The people we see in our homes everyday on television attacked! Anthrax being delivered to Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw and all the media agencies we know by name, people we often actually feel we know, not high profile enough? How can you say that? (Weird that Peter Jennings, a Canadian, didn't get any special mail )

Are you really serious with that argument? Terrorism has now been brought into the home of every American without a single suicide bomber. With only one death from Anthrax and less than a dozen cases, this is more effective means of terrorism, per person, than the WTC, et al.

Terrorism's desire is to inflict terror on the target. This is almost always done with death and destruction. But it doesn't have to be. This Anthrax attack is a great way of inflicting terror with a low body count. Let's call it Terrorism-Lite. Works great! Less killing! No, IT WORKS GREAT! NO, IT'S LESS KILLING!

It could be that American's are involved, or behind this, but the fact that you would prefer to look to this so readily, thinking it more likely than involvement by Osama, is just another reason I don't think your argument makes much sense. Basing this on your knowledge of Osama and his techniques is nothing more than guessing. It's ok to have an opinion, but to bring it up with reference to Timothy McVeigh and Columbine (I've avoided responding to that earlier post where you mentioned it) seems mean spirited. Pure and simple, you're guessing. To do so at the expense of American's is, at best, unkind.

You know as much about Osama Bin Laden as I do, and we both get our information from the same source, the media. You don't know about his overall operation anymore than I do, because only the big stuff makes the news. To say this doesn't fit his profile would mean you were familiar enough with the suspect and his operating procedures to make an assessment, and I don't think that's the case.

As to your Timothy McVeigh comment, yes he was an American, yes he killed innocent Americans, yes he was a terrorist, and yes he was punished. Osama and his terrorist deserves no less punishment, and I hope it doesn't take as long to kill him.

Finally, if it ends up being American's behind the Anthrax attacks they should hang them from the same tree limb as Osama.

I'll tie the knots.

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


"The Martyr" (excerpt)

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)



[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-21-2001).]

[250]

Originally posted by Yorick: Ryanamur didn't you see Bin Ladens pretaped message after the attacks? He practically admitted to doing it. Why are you persevering with the "Al Queda may not have done it" line. It's a bit late for that.

there is the tap! but he verbally denied any responsibility. WHY would he tap the message in the first place? this guy was set up

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I'm not aware of the arrest of 2 caucasian males, but I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that there are white, black, yellow, and green American's on Osama's payroll. By the way, caucasians aren't exclusive to America, you have some in Canada don't you? The Anthrax targets aren't high profile enough? Are you kidding? The US Postal Service delivering disease to American's front doors! People afraid to open their mail? The people we see in our homes everyday on television attacked! Anthrax being delivered to Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw and all the media agencies we know by name, people we often actually feel we know, not high profile enough? How can you say that? (Weird that Peter Jennings, a Canadian, didn't get any special mail ) Are you really serious with that argument? Terrorism has now been brought into the home of every American without a single suicide bomber. With only one death from Anthrax and less than a dozen cases, this is more effective means of terrorism, per person, than the WTC, et al. Terrorism's desire is to inflict terror on the target. This is almost always done with death and destruction. But it doesn't have to be. This Anthrax attack is a great way of inflicting terror with a low body count. Let's call it Terrorism-Lite. Works great! Less killing! No, IT WORKS GREAT! NO, IT'S LESS KILLING! It could be that American's are involved, or behind this, but the fact that you would prefer to look to this so readily, thinking it more likely than involvement by Osama, is just another reason I don't think your argument makes much sense. Basing this on your knowledge of Osama and his techniques is nothing more than guessing. It's ok to have an opinion, but to bring it up with reference to Timothy McVeigh and Columbine (I've avoided responding to that earlier post where you mentioned it) seems mean spirited. Pure and simple, you're guessing. To do so at the expense of American's is, at best, unkind. You know as much about Osama Bin Laden as I do, and we both get our information from the same source, the media. You don't know about his overall operation anymore than I do, because only the big stuff makes the news. To say this doesn't fit his profile would mean you were familiar enough with the suspect and his operating procedures to make an assessment, and I don't think that's the case. As to your Timothy McVeigh comment, yes he was an American, yes he killed innocent Americans, yes he was a terrorist, and yes he was punished. Osama and his terrorist deserves no less punishment, and I hope it doesn't take as long to kill him. Finally, if it ends up being American's behind the Anthrax attacks they should hang them from the same tree limb as Osama. I'll tie the knots.

Yes, I'm guessing. But, we the lack of true evidence, aren't we all. For your information, Osama Bin Ladden and the Al-Queada network, as never taken responsibility for an attack. He always warned before and he always praised the attackers but, he never said "We did it". Why, I don't know, but I'll speculate because of the implications it would have in an Muslim court.

You're right, I know just as much as you. Ironically, we just so happen to know just as much as the media... who don't know alot . Of course we all speculate, that's what's "fun" (it's not the word I want to use to describe this but it'll have to do). However, I try to put my self in Osama's shoes and I ask myself: "Can we trust a Caucasian to help us in this operation?". It's funny that the paranoiac me always come up with one simple reason why not: "It could be a law enforcement agency trying to infiltrate us". I know it sounds corny but the fact remains that he could not possibly deal with Caucasians (I know, I generalize again) because he runs the risk of having is operation exposed and the attack would fail.

Again, I try to think like a terrorist and ask myself: "which action will bring America down the most with killing as many Americans as posible?". Those are the 2 central elements of his goal (again, according to the taped messages that we both have seen in the medias ): 1- bring the USA down 2- kill as many Americans as possible. Now, thou an Anthrax attack achieves 1, it doesn't achieve 2 unless a more potent string of anthrax is being used.

Plus, Osama seems to make a show: WTC, Pentagon, Capitol as an intended target, USS Cole, Ambassies in Africa... though terrorizing Americans (and other nations) on their own soils works, it's not something that people can see on the other side of the world. He need to give them something be for them to SEE that America is coming down (even if it isn't)

Anyway, we can debate from sunset to sundown about "was it Osama's" and still not come to expose the truth. The bottom line still remains: 1- Osama (and al.)must be killed and be killed quickly 2- Something must be done quickly to quash the anti-western civilization sentiment present in the Middle East and Africa.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that taking the Talibans out will acheive neither 1 or 2. That's why I don't agree with bush's idea to go after the countries involved. We've exposed a viper's nest that realisticly, we cannot fully control or handled.

Dropping food and supplies with a big American flag and "this is from the people of America" is not the solution. Neither in the short run but especially not in the long run.

Killing people to put a puppet government in place will not work either. Again, IMO, the bombing of afghanistan is a mistake. What we cassually label "colateral damage" here, is labelled "friends, familly, agencies that try to help us" there.

Now, you tell me if this would work: Al-Queada destroyed the WTC and a wing of the pentagon. They killed about 7,000 people in the span of a few hours. Now, they are labelled with an anthrax scare. Do you think that if Al-Queada was to drop food or money that it would fix the situation, would it make us love them?

Thou we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's actually an appropriate one. Over the years, the Western world has been labelled (maybe rightfully, maybe not... but the fact remains that perceptions are stronger than reality) as the bad guys. We have been labelled responsible for the death of MANY. If we go and inflict "colateral damage" when we drop food or supplies. Will that help us or hurt us?



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

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Yes, I'm guessing. But, we the lack of true evidence, aren't we all. For your information, Osama Bin Ladden and the Al-Queada network, as never taken responsibility for an attack. He always warned before and he always praised the attackers but, he never said "We did it". Why, I don't know, but I'll speculate because of the implications it would have in an Muslim court. You're right, I know just as much as you. Ironically, we just so happen to know just as much as the media... who don't know alot . Of course we all speculate, that's what's "fun" (it's not the word I want to use to describe this but it'll have to do). However, I try to put my self in Osama's shoes and I ask myself: "Can we trust a Caucasian to help us in this operation?". It's funny that the paranoiac me always come up with one simple reason why not: "It could be a law enforcement agency trying to infiltrate us". I know it sounds corny but the fact remains that he could not possibly deal with Caucasians (I know, I generalize again) because he runs the risk of having is operation exposed and the attack would fail. Again, I try to think like a terrorist and ask myself: "which action will bring America down the most with killing as many Americans as posible?". Those are the 2 central elements of his goal (again, according to the taped messages that we both have seen in the medias ): 1- bring the USA down 2- kill as many Americans as possible. Now, thou an Anthrax attack achieves 1, it doesn't achieve 2 unless a more potent string of anthrax is being used. Plus, Osama seems to make a show: WTC, Pentagon, Capitol as an intended target, USS Cole, Ambassies in Africa... though terrorizing Americans (and other nations) on their own soils works, it's not something that people can see on the other side of the world. He need to give them something be for them to SEE that America is coming down (even if it isn't) Anyway, we can debate from sunset to sundown about "was it Osama's" and still not come to expose the truth. The bottom line still remains: 1- Osama (and al.)must be killed and be killed quickly 2- Something must be done quickly to quash the anti-western civilization sentiment present in the Middle East and Africa. Quite frankly, I don't believe that taking the Talibans out will acheive neither 1 or 2. That's why I don't agree with bush's idea to go after the countries involved. We've exposed a viper's nest that realisticly, we cannot fully control or handled. Dropping food and supplies with a big American flag and "this is from the people of America" is not the solution. Neither in the short run but especially not in the long run. Killing people to put a puppet government in place will not work either. Again, IMO, the bombing of afghanistan is a mistake. What we cassually label "colateral damage" here, is labelled "friends, familly, agencies that try to help us" there. Now, you tell me if this would work: Al-Queada destroyed the WTC and a wing of the pentagon. They killed about 7,000 people in the span of a few hours. Now, they are labelled with an anthrax scare. Do you think that if Al-Queada was to drop food or money that it would fix the situation, would it make us love them? Thou we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's actually an appropriate one. Over the years, the Western world has been labelled (maybe rightfully, maybe not... but the fact remains that perceptions are stronger than reality) as the bad guys. We have been labelled responsible for the death of MANY. If we go and inflict "colateral damage" when we drop food or supplies. Will that help us or hurt us?

It just seems you enjoy saying, "it's Americans", "it's your fault", and "you brought it on yourselves." We don't have all the evidence, so why would you imply Americans on a guess, knowing it's inflammatory.

Saying that Osama would not use Westerners in an international operation is naive. He's evil, but that doesn't mean he isn't very intelligent and cunning. I don't think Westerners are in his "inner circle", but it would be amazing if they weren't involved on some level. Westerners "generalizing" is probably as big a reason for anti-western sentiment as anything you listed in your previous posts.

Trying to think like a terrorist probably isn't very effective because you couldn't (I hope) get into the mentality that you are just in your actions so it doesn't matter what you do as long is the death toll is high. I'm sure their hopes for the anthrax attacks death toll was much higher, just as I think their "success" rate for the WTC is probably above and beyond their greatest expectation.

People see the anthrax scare overseas as clearly as they saw what happened September 11. Whether they find out about it through television, written work, or by word of mouth. Actually, if anything, we've learned that word of mouth is probably the best method for these kinds of criminals because they always exaggerate their results while downplaying the retaliation. Bottom line, if they know about the WTC why wouldn't they know about stopping the session of Congress? This is a huge coup!

To kill Osama quickly, as you stated, we have to send in troops. The Taliban is harboring him, and since we have to get to him to kill him, this is the only way. Going after all countries involved may be too broad a goal in the long run, if the world doesn't have the stomach for it, but with Afghanistan it is certainly the only option that applies.

Killing people to put in place a puppet government is not what's being done. Removing a regime that harbored, with knowledge, international murderers is an action the world community has embraced. An it's the world community who is trying to figure out what type government to install. The European Union met last week to discuss plans for this very thing.

BTW, only 3 nations in the world recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghany government prior to September 11.

Collateral damage is a fact of life in war. Afghanistan is at war with the US because of their actions or lack of actions.

As to your comparison of Osama's group dropping food and giving money to make up for the problem..........

"we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's really an appropriate one."

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF? It is not "decent" or "appropriate" and you know it. It is nonsensical!

They needed both food and money from US prior to September 11, and they need it today. Obviously, giving it too them didn't do much to make them happy before September 11th, but we still try to help. We were helping before and we're helping now. I remember from your earlier post you think it's token, and not enough, but we were doing it before, so it's not something new since the bombing began.

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


"The Martyr" (excerpt)

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)



[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-21-2001).]

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: It just seems you enjoy saying, "it's Americans", "it's your fault", and "you brought it on yourselves." We don't have all the evidence, so why would you imply Americans on a guess, knowing it's inflammatory.

Listen, I'll just stop here about the Taliban thing 'cause I don't want to cause a flame war and created havock on this wonderfull forum. The bottom line is that we both agree that Bin Ladden and associates must be dealt with and that something must be done about the anti-western civilisation sentiment present in that part of the world. Though we might not agree as to the ways to achieve both doesn't mean that we have to split peas in half and engage into an all out war on the subject. We know who the true ennemy is and we both have different ways of dealing with him... that's all

However, I will shed light on the above remark. Yes, it's true, in a way, the Western Civilization did bring this on it self. Note that I'm not just restricting to the USA. Our policies over the last 100 years have been detrimental to other civilizations though we may not acknowledge it. We did what we did for our reasons and for our own protection. Wouldn't we have done it, I fear that the world would have been a much different world than what we now enjoy. However, protecting our interests meant to go against those of others. That's just a fact of life.

Now, why the USA was the prime target. It was both the only true identifiable target of our civilization but also an easy one to get to. North America (both the USA and Canada) have always lived in this little fantasy bubble. Our security system, especially since the end of the Cold War as been the shi**. To us, everything is wonderfull, we have freedoms, we're allowed to roam free and do pretty much anything we want etc etc. That, coupled with the fact that the USA was the self-proclaimed (but also rightfully self-proclaimed) leader of the free world unfortunately made your country the prime target

Still, even within our own society, we have people that are willing to take harms in the name of a cause. You have american terrorists (I left the capital on purpose as I don't believe that terrorists deserve it ). Timothy McVeigh was one of them. Not only the USA have native terrorists, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and many other countries around our Civilized world also do.

To say that the anthrax attack might be "locally" based is not like saying "you guys are total screw ups". Quite to the contrary. It's just to acknowledge the fact that those attacks might not be Bin Ladden's work and that others might be taking advantage of the situation for their own gain . Regardless if it's Bin Ladden or not, we still have to find the culprits and deal with them in an appropriate way. And BTW, I think that those pranksters who just slip flour, baking soda or sugar into an enveloppe to make a joke should be dealt with like terrorists because that's what they are... though they might not realize it, they cause terror in our society... not just in the USA.

You say that because we do not have all the evidence, we cannot say that it's an American based group. Knowing that you do not have all the evidence either, how can you conclusively say that it's Bin Ladden?

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