Re: Isalm - to

July 28, 2005

Inger,

I'm not advocating nuking anyone. I'm simply pointing out that that is what the Iranians and other terrorist want to do to us. Given how small Isreal is, even a single Nuke the size of the WW2 bombs would cause massive damage and loss of life. The Isrealis would almost certainly retaliate in kind against the nation that hit them, and I honestly would not begrudge them that. Would the US or other Western nations strike back with Nukes, probably not.

My initial reaction would, of course, be to retaliate with a vengence. However, I think there is a better option. Rather than committ mass murder in return, it would be better to severe all ties and trade with those nations that were either involved in the attack or expressed support of it either directly or by the celebration of the masses. So, if they hate the West so much, then we would simply have nothing to do with them any longer and leave them to their own devices. I very much doubt if most of the those nations would long remain the in 21st century without support from the west.

Basically we would be giving them what they want: freedom from the west. HOw they went afterwards is their own affair. If they continued to thrive, fine. If they collapse, that is fine as well.

Also, rather than invading, I would put the troops on the borders and a bit beyond on interdiction duty to keep other terrorists at arm's length. We would not interfere in their lands, but if they continued to try to attack us, we would swat those attacks down.

Now, this would probably entail a distant naval blockade of those countries. Since there would no longer be any trade, the only ships heading from there to the west would be up to no good and would be stopped and searched, or just plain sunk.

In this way, the muslims could have their world under Islam without ruling the entire world. It would also give them a chance to show what the umma could do when left to its own devices and without interference from the other faiths. I personally don't hold out hope that they would accomplish anything, but there is a minute chance they could surprise us.

July 28, 2005

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

July 28, 2005

Inger,

I hope you don't leave.

What we have here is a difference of opinions and perhaps a misunderstanding.

Yes what I have said would mean killing a lot of people, but I am not talking about doing this as first policy. The best policy would be to prevent this from happening, but odds are it will eventually. By that I mean the West is likely to suffer a nuclear strike delivered by the terrorists.

I do not think the West would retaliate in kind because even though we might lose a a hundred thousand people, that would represtent a small portion of our numbers. I just don't think that we would respond by killing millions of people in response.

Isreal, on the other hand, has had a long stated policy that it will retaliate in kind. A strike that kills 100 thousand people in Isreal would be a sizable portion of thier society, making it very likely that they would indeed strike.

My preference would be to leave the muslims to themselves, the sooner the better. Developing other oil and energy sources would allow us to walk away from the Middle East, where the major hub of terrorism is, and have nothing more to do with them. They woud likely still attack us, but the removal of oil funds would slow them down and give them internal problems to worry about.

But the crux of the matter is not what I have said, but what the leaders of Iran have said. They have made it national policy to recruit suicide bombers and to eventually make one of those attacks nuclear. Surely that is more worthy of causing upset than anything I have said.

July 28, 2005

In a message dated 7/28/2005 8:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

I think most got what you meant .

Peace is the ultimate goal, brotherhood.

But sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for that.

S.

Shaun,

Exactly. Most of the world gets along pretty well. There are some problem nations out there like China and Iran. However, more nations are interested in peaceful relations that violent ones. This trend will most likely continue over time and the world will be better off.

This will also place more pressure on the rogue nations to behave themselves. If Iran actually did carry out a nuclear attack, many radical Muslims might applaud, but they woud succeed in making themselves a pariah that almost no nation would deal with. That would collapse their economy and fuel the internal dissent. Simply, Iran would implode after such an attack, something that could be helped by a naval blockade of their coast and not require troops on the ground or even direct attacks.

July 28, 2005

In a message dated 7/28/2005 9:08:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

, absolutely.

African despots take notice.

If you think it is OK to cut peoples limbs off and murder them.

Wrong wrong wrong. Your days are numbered.

Some of us will stand tall and say NO MORE.

The man who is prepared to sacrefice his life for another is the true hero.

S.

Africa is place I have mixed opinions about. I think what needs to be done there is to find the most stable and functional nations and help them. Those nations could then become and example for surrounding nations. The leaders might not want the change, but the people would, which is what is important. Once a critical mass had been built, the leaders would fall. We could then step in and help set up those new governments and protect them for a time from outside forces.

I say mixed opinions because it is hard to actually find a functioning nation there. Liberia should be and the US should have been helping them out for a long time now. Liberia was originally founded to be an African home for US slaves who wanted to go back to Africa (though there are also rumors that Lincoln would have sent most slaves there whether they wanted to go or not, but he was killed before we could find out). Because of this, the US should have maintained good ties with Liberia and kept it safe and stable. We didn't and its almost as much of a mess as the rest of Africa.

For now though, things are too chaotic to do much good. There are too many intermixed tribes who would rather kill each other that work peacably. If that problem could be solved, then perhaps more could be done.

July 29, 2005

,

if you are advocating "nuking" people hither and thither as a matter of precaution, what makes you any different than them? Are they not made of flesh and blood just as you?

I don't know about Tom, but unless he disagrees, I ask you to cease this right now. I will not tolerate being part of administering a forum where killing of other people is advocated.

Inger, as co-administrator

Re: Isalm

I can't find anything but a bit of video story right now, but the Iranians officially have a regiment whose goal is to recruit suicide bombers for attacks against Isreal and the West. So now all of us have to look forward to the Iranian backed suicide bombers. At least they are doing this openly now instead of quietly. They also made reference to having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

The leadership of Iran is, of course, radical Islamic. It would be nice if they could figure out that their statements are only going to increase suspicion and their attacks hatred toward muslims. I have always thought that we should have knocked out the Iranians instead of Sadaam. Sadaam was evil, but he was controllable. Those mullahs are just plan evil.

Well, let them nuke Isreal. Sure they'll kill a lot of people, but the Isrealis will nuke them back. It will also be interesting to see just how much of the umma runs around cheering any islamic nuclear terror attack.

July 29, 2005

Settle down Inger, noone was advocating killing anyone.

However Inger, sometimes men have to stand up and be counted, sometimes men should not accept evil and tolerate it for the short term goal of security FROM war.

Are you familiar with Neville Chamberlain Inger?

I would say don't be so sensitive Inger, you voice is one of reason, amoungst many, but don't shut yourself off from alternate perspectives.

S.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

,

if you are advocating "nuking" people hither and thither as a matter of precaution, what makes you any different than them? Are they not made of flesh and blood just as you?

I don't know about Tom, but unless he disagrees, I ask you to cease this right now. I will not tolerate being part of administering a forum where killing of other people is advocated.

Inger, as co-administrator

Re: Isalm

I can't find anything but a bit of video story right now, but the Iranians officially have a regiment whose goal is to recruit suicide bombers for attacks against Isreal and the West. So now all of us have to look forward to the Iranian backed suicide bombers. At least they are doing this openly now instead of quietly. They also made reference to having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

The leadership of Iran is, of course, radical Islamic. It would be nice if they could figure out that their statements are only going to increase suspicion and their attacks hatred toward muslims. I have always thought that we should have knocked out the Iranians instead of Sadaam. Sadaam was evil, but he was controllable. Those mullahs are just plan evil.

Well, let them nuke Isreal. Sure they'll kill a lot of people, but the Isrealis will nuke them back. It will also be interesting to see just how much of the umma runs around cheering any islamic nuclear terror attack.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

With due respect, I don't agree , for a change.

The Arab people deserve to make a decision on who rules them. Not through violence which is the alternative. I believe arab patriots should be for the USA because who else can enforce the will of the people?

Shia and Kurd are 70 of all Iraqis, what about their rights?

They may not like the USA being there but Im sure they prefer them to the ex ruling Baathists of Saddam.

People need to have the freedom to choose, isnt that what our God ordained right was, to choose.

S.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Inger,

I'm not advocating nuking anyone. I'm simply pointing out that that is what the Iranians and other terrorist want to do to us. Given how small Isreal is, even a single Nuke the size of the WW2 bombs would cause massive damage and loss of life. The Isrealis would almost certainly retaliate in kind against the nation that hit them, and I honestly would not begrudge them that. Would the US or other Western nations strike back with Nukes, probably not.

My initial reaction would, of course, be to retaliate with a vengence. However, I think there is a better option. Rather than committ mass murder in return, it would be better to severe all ties and trade with those nations that were either involved in the attack or expressed support of it either directly or by the celebration of the masses. So, if they hate the West so much, then we would simply have nothing to do with them any longer and leave them to their own devices. I very much doubt if most of the those nations would long remain the in 21st century without support from the west.

Basically we would be giving them what they want: freedom from the west. HOw they went afterwards is their own affair. If they continued to thrive, fine. If they collapse, that is fine as well.

Also, rather than invading, I would put the troops on the borders and a bit beyond on interdiction duty to keep other terrorists at arm's length. We would not interfere in their lands, but if they continued to try to attack us, we would swat those attacks down.

Now, this would probably entail a distant naval blockade of those countries. Since there would no longer be any trade, the only ships heading from there to the west would be up to no good and would be stopped and searched, or just plain sunk.

In this way, the muslims could have their world under Islam without ruling the entire world. It would also give them a chance to show what the umma could do when left to its own devices and without interference from the other faiths. I personally don't hold out hope that they would accomplish anything, but there is a minute chance they could surprise us.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 29, 2005

said:

> I'm not advocating nuking anyone.

No?

How about:

"I have always thought that we should have knocked out the Iranians instead of Sadaam."

or:

"Well, let them nuke Isreal. Sure they'll kill a lot of people, but the Isrealis will nuke them back."

Sounds like you think nuking people is a great idea? The more killed, the better? I ask you again; if you want to do to them exactly what A FEW of them want to do to you, what makes you any better?

Inger

July 29, 2005

I have every right to be sensitive; Gatherers naturally are.

I just cannot believe how casually some of you can discuss the snuffing out of other people's lives - usually the lives of completely innocent people who probably wouldn't harm a fly.

I know that sometimes it may seem "necessary" to war to stop war, but I have yet to see that method yield any permanent peace. And I don't see why we here need to discuss how to deal with this? Have we been appointed by the Ministry of Defence to solve this particular problem? If we had been, I'd be a lot more interested in discussing options.

If this hate & kill propaganda does not stop very soon, I'm leaving these forums. I've wasted enough of my time on such unfruitful discussions before and I'm frankly sick of them. They never lead to anything anyway.

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight.

Inger

Re: Isalm

I can't find anything but a bit of video story right now, but the Iranians officially have a regiment whose goal is to recruit suicide bombers for attacks against Isreal and the West. So now all of us have to look forward to the Iranian backed suicide bombers. At least they are doing this openly now instead of quietly. They also made reference to having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

The leadership of Iran is, of course, radical Islamic. It would be nice if they could figure out that their statements are only going to increase suspicion and their attacks hatred toward muslims. I have always thought that we should have knocked out the Iranians instead of Sadaam. Sadaam was evil, but he was controllable. Those mullahs are just plan evil.

Well, let them nuke Isreal. Sure they'll kill a lot of people, but the Isrealis will nuke them back. It will also be interesting to see just how much of the umma runs around cheering any islamic nuclear terror attack.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

Goodnight, goodbye,

Nothing was ever stopped by pandering to violent people.

As aspies, I understand the nature of bullying. The bully always responds to strength.

When they sense weakness, they revel in intimidation.

Such a shame.

S.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

I have every right to be sensitive; Gatherers naturally are.

I just cannot believe how casually some of you can discuss the snuffing out of other people's lives - usually the lives of completely innocent people who probably wouldn't harm a fly.

I know that sometimes it may seem "necessary" to war to stop war, but I have yet to see that method yield any permanent peace. And I don't see why we here need to discuss how to deal with this? Have we been appointed by the Ministry of Defence to solve this particular problem? If we had been, I'd be a lot more interested in discussing options.

If this hate & kill propaganda does not stop very soon, I'm leaving these forums. I've wasted enough of my time on such unfruitful discussions before and I'm frankly sick of them. They never lead to anything anyway.

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight.

Inger

Re: Isalm

I can't find anything but a bit of video story right now, but the Iranians officially have a regiment whose goal is to recruit suicide bombers for attacks against Isreal and the West. So now all of us have to look forward to the Iranian backed suicide bombers. At least they are doing this openly now instead of quietly. They also made reference to having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

The leadership of Iran is, of course, radical Islamic. It would be nice if they could figure out that their statements are only going to increase suspicion and their attacks hatred toward muslims. I have always thought that we should have knocked out the Iranians instead of Sadaam. Sadaam was evil, but he was controllable. Those mullahs are just plan evil.

Well, let them nuke Isreal. Sure they'll kill a lot of people, but the Isrealis will nuke them back. It will also be interesting to see just how much of the umma runs around cheering any islamic nuclear terror attack.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

I think most got what you meant .

Peace is the ultimate goal, brotherhood.

But sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for that.

S.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

, absolutely.

African despots take notice.

If you think it is OK to cut peoples limbs off and murder them.

Wrong wrong wrong. Your days are numbered.

Some of us will stand tall and say NO MORE.

The man who is prepared to sacrefice his life for another is the true hero.

S.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 7/28/2005 8:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

I think most got what you meant .

Peace is the ultimate goal, brotherhood.

But sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for that.

S.

Shaun,

Exactly. Most of the world gets along pretty well. There are some problem nations out there like China and Iran. However, more nations are interested in peaceful relations that violent ones. This trend will most likely continue over time and the world will be better off.

This will also place more pressure on the rogue nations to behave themselves. If Iran actually did carry out a nuclear attack, many radical Muslims might applaud, but they woud succeed in making themselves a pariah that almost no nation would deal with. That would collapse their economy and fuel the internal dissent. Simply, Iran would implode after such an attack, something that could be helped by a naval blockade of their coast and not require troops on the ground or even direct attacks.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 29, 2005

When we find an alternative to petrp, these despots will have no sway.

S.

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 7/28/2005 8:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

I think most got what you meant .

Peace is the ultimate goal, brotherhood.

But sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for that.

S.

Shaun,

Exactly. Most of the world gets along pretty well. There are some problem nations out there like China and Iran. However, more nations are interested in peaceful relations that violent ones. This trend will most likely continue over time and the world will be better off.

This will also place more pressure on the rogue nations to behave themselves. If Iran actually did carry out a nuclear attack, many radical Muslims might applaud, but they woud succeed in making themselves a pariah that almost no nation would deal with. That would collapse their economy and fuel the internal dissent. Simply, Iran would implode after such an attack, something that could be helped by a naval blockade of their coast and not require troops on the ground or even direct attacks.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 29, 2005

On 29 Jul 2005 Inger Lorelei wrote:

> I don't know about Tom, but unless he disagrees, I ask you to

> cease this right now. I will not tolerate being part of

> administering a forum where killing of other people is advocated.

Yes, no planning to nuke countries on this forum. If you do

launch a few nukes, please do not use this forum do do it.

July 29, 2005

On 29 Jul 2005 VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> Here it is again. I was not advocating nuking anyone.

But were you planning to do the nuking?

July 29, 2005

Spot on again ,

At the G8 they did have 8 african leaders who pledged a system of open and fair elections.

This is simular to what we were talking about before. UN and a new charter of nations.

If these African nations hold to basic human values, we protect them and offer trade opportunity. Deal with those who have pledged and let the others wallow. If they are attacked, the charter armed forces lead by the US comes in and kicks some hiny.

African despot leaders realise that if we can take down Saddam, we could take down them.

Maybe the fear of their own demise will make them more human.

S.

In a message dated 7/28/2005 9:08:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

, absolutely.

African despots take notice.

If you think it is OK to cut peoples limbs off and murder them.

Wrong wrong wrong. Your days are numbered.

Some of us will stand tall and say NO MORE.

The man who is prepared to sacrefice his life for another is the true hero.

S.

Africa is place I have mixed opinions about. I think what needs to be done there is to find the most stable and functional nations and help them. Those nations could then become and example for surrounding nations. The leaders might not want the change, but the people would, which is what is important. Once a critical mass had been built, the leaders would fall. We could then step in and help set up those new governments and protect them for a time from outside forces.

I say mixed opinions because it is hard to actually find a functioning nation there. Liberia should be and the US should have been helping them out for a long time now. Liberia was originally founded to be an African home for US slaves who wanted to go back to Africa (though there are also rumors that Lincoln would have sent most slaves there whether they wanted to go or not, but he was killed before we could find out). Because of this, the US should have maintained good ties with Liberia and kept it safe and stable. We didn't and its almost as much of a mess as the rest of Africa.

For now though, things are too chaotic to do much good. There are too many intermixed tribes who would rather kill each other that work peacably. If that problem could be solved, then perhaps more could be done.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 29, 2005

But two wrongs don't make a right! Just because they did so to us we should to it to them??? Your line of reasoning I find appalling. I can't believe you still think it's a good idea for them to nuke Israel so that Israel would have to strike back (I got that the first time, btw).

"Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first."

:-O And that makes it OK then?????

This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain.

That's the last I have to say on this. Tom can decide if he wants his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

July 29, 2005

Yeah it's a bit blaise about people dying.

I also think when you take one line out of context, it can seem alot worse.

I think it would set mankind back 200 years if a nuke went off anywhere.

S.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

But two wrongs don't make a right! Just because they did so to us we should to it to them??? Your line of reasoning I find appalling. I can't believe you still think it's a good idea for them to nuke Israel so that Israel would have to strike back (I got that the first time, btw).

"Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first."

:-O And that makes it OK then?????

This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain.

That's the last I have to say on this. Tom can decide if he wants his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

The future of the world, I think, lays in the education of the masses through media.

Computers, television etc is an enormous tool for education. Knowledge is power.

The mullahs biggest mistake in Iran was not to control the sale or manufacturing of satellite dishes. It is banned in Iran but they never enforced it.

Now you have 60% of the population under 35 who have grown up on international television.

Democracy is the only way to go. If a warring nation under democracy chose to go to war, then the people are ultimately responsible for the ugliness.

No?

S.S W <scwmachinations@...> wrote:

Yeah it's a bit blaise about people dying.

I also think when you take one line out of context, it can seem alot worse.

I think it would set mankind back 200 years if a nuke went off anywhere.

S.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

But two wrongs don't make a right! Just because they did so to us we should to it to them??? Your line of reasoning I find appalling. I can't believe you still think it's a good idea for them to nuke Israel so that Israel would have to strike back (I got that the first time, btw).

"Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first."

:-O And that makes it OK then?????

This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain.

That's the last I have to say on this. Tom can decide if he wants his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

__________________________________________________

July 29, 2005

In a message dated 7/29/2005 7:26:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain.

That's the last I have to say on this. Tom can decide if he wants his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here.

Inger

Sigh,

Again, I did not say nuke them for the London or 9/11 attacks. I was talking about a response if we were Nuked first. Retaliation in kind would be an option, but one we are not likely to use.

July 29, 2005

Wow!

My administrator and moderator might just need to be moderated!

Okay you two, settle down for a few seconds while I have MY say.

Inger,

First of all, I think that when your country gets attacked, it

encourages feelings of hate and resentment and a desire for justice

and/or revenge. You really cannot know how it feels to be going to

work one day and see traffic pulling over on the expressway to

listen as two planes fly into the Trade Center towers.

If the terrorists have an issue with the US government, then let

them attack the government. I did not knowingly do anything to upset

them and I do not agree with much of our government's policies.

My dad was in the Building Number 7 two weeks before the incident.

Number 7 was crushed when the tower collapsed. Had he been there two

weeks later, he would have been dead.

Additionally, someone at the company where I used to work was killed

there. I didn't know him, but I'd heard of him. Now he's dead.

Why? Senseless violence. That's why?

And what's to stop these people from doing it in the future?

So it's understandable that people will get emotional over this

issue.

,

While I agree with you that no peaceful means that we have used to

date seem to detered the terrorists, I don't see that violence is

the answer either. The Israelis have said that they WOULD retaliate

in kind if they were ever hit, but I think that would only

exacerbate the problem.

War and destruction are easy to disuss in forums but the reality of

it is much worse.

There is a very simple solution to this whole mess, and the fact is,

most Americans are too arrogant to admit it:

Give the Arabs what they want.

1) Tell the Israelis that they must leave Israel, because the fact

is, they stole the entire country. They claimed it because they say

it is ordained by God that they should have it, but the Arabs have a

God too, and they did NOT persecute Jews while they lived in

Palestine.

2) The US should utterly and completely withdraw all political and

military support of Israel. Next to the Brits, we're the only ones

propping them up, and no one wants the Israelis to be there except

us, the Israelis and bigoted countries who don't want Jews living on

THEIR turf.

3) Jack up oil prices to $5.00 a gallon. That way the Arabs would

make enough profit to keep their citizens in reasonable comfort and

wealth while we would stop hogging it all and using it up.

4)Become more isolationist and stop trying to cowtow to the demands

of other world leaders to the detriment of the welfare of American

citizenry.

5) Dump and destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Why not take the initiative? If are currently the most powerful

nation on the face of this planet and we have enough weapons to

crack the planet open like an egg, if we got rid of them all, we

would show our TRUE moral commitment to peace, and if anyone used a

weapon of that kind thereafter, it would show THEIR radicalism and

thuggishness, and if they wiped us out, then the attackers would

deserve what they get as they live amongst themselves afterwards,

which is more of a revenge than any bomb could ever inflict.

The fact is, as much as America likes to preach about how right and

justified we are about bombing this country, or overthrowing this or

that government, we have no business interfering in anyone's affairs

but our own, and the only thing we should use weapons for is to

guard our own borders and defend our own country.

Now...

As to the discussion as a whole...

Let's set it aside for the time being so that we can get back to

talking about AS for a while.

Tom

Administrator

But two wrongs don't make a right! Just because they did so to us we

should to it to them??? Your line of reasoning I find appalling. I

can't believe you still think it's a good idea for them to nuke

Israel so that Israel would have to strike back (I got that the

first time, btw).

" Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would

have struck first. "

:-O And that makes it OK then?????

This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not

stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions

of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same

to some in the US, London and Spain.

That's the last I have to say on this. Tom can decide if he wants

his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and

overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a

large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was

not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the

people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a

terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which

would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida.

As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to

retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large

percentage of its population. Such death would be regrettable and a

crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The

Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However,

that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is.

I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be

done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some

terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have

opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a

powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it

would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have

struck first.

Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror

attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of

the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had

nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were

killed all the same. So would it be in any city nuked by the

terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to

do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of

the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same

applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to

do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

July 29, 2005

On 30 Jul 2005 VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> My detractors seem to think this makes me a monster.

but some (myself included) find the whole thing mildly amusing.

Speaking for myself, to the extent I may or may not like the

ideas, I really don't think there's reason for concern. Clearly

you do not have the capabilities of constructing nuclear

devices, either alone or with the help of others on this list.

The concept is letting one country attack Israel and watching

what happens as result. This is pretty much what those opposed

to US policy in the Mideast are essentially advocating already.

It's very mainstream, both within the US, and especially outside

of the US. (One bit of evidence -- remember how " offended " the

world was when Israel bombed the French-Iraqi reactor in 1986?

What was that about?)

So why is anyone upset about the comment?

-s

July 29, 2005

Tom,

Maybe you should ask the Shia and Kurd population if we should have ignored Saddam. Thats not the answer, evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

What about the Sudan. Should the world say to them, your government is killing you, we can do nothing to help. Don't think so.

It funny an aspie talking about letting the bullies have their way. As you know Tom, bullies never respond to kind words. In fact, it makes for more attacks.

Now the Shia and Kurd are the minority of Iraqis, over 70%, should we allow them to be continually persecuted? They have expressed their desire by voting. Who is anyone to deny their right?

The Sunni are making hell for Iraq because they themselves want power.

I wonder where the world would be now if the USA stayed out of WW2.?

S.

environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

Wow!My administrator and moderator might just need to be moderated!:)Okay you two, settle down for a few seconds while I have MY say.Inger,First of all, I think that when your country gets attacked, it encourages feelings of hate and resentment and a desire for justice and/or revenge. You really cannot know how it feels to be going to work one day and see traffic pulling over on the expressway to listen as two planes fly into the Trade Center towers. If the terrorists have an issue with the US government, then let them attack the government. I did not knowingly do anything to upset them and I do not agree with much of our government's policies. My dad was in the Building Number 7 two weeks before the incident. Number 7 was crushed when the tower collapsed. Had he been there two weeks later, he

would have been dead. Additionally, someone at the company where I used to work was killed there. I didn't know him, but I'd heard of him. Now he's dead. Why? Senseless violence. That's why?And what's to stop these people from doing it in the future?So it's understandable that people will get emotional over this issue.,While I agree with you that no peaceful means that we have used to date seem to detered the terrorists, I don't see that violence is the answer either. The Israelis have said that they WOULD retaliate in kind if they were ever hit, but I think that would only exacerbate the problem.War and destruction are easy to disuss in forums but the reality of it is much worse. There is a very simple solution to this whole mess, and the fact is, most Americans are too arrogant to admit it:Give the Arabs what they want.1) Tell the Israelis that they

must leave Israel, because the fact is, they stole the entire country. They claimed it because they say it is ordained by God that they should have it, but the Arabs have a God too, and they did NOT persecute Jews while they lived in Palestine. 2) The US should utterly and completely withdraw all political and military support of Israel. Next to the Brits, we're the only ones propping them up, and no one wants the Israelis to be there except us, the Israelis and bigoted countries who don't want Jews living on THEIR turf.3) Jack up oil prices to $5.00 a gallon. That way the Arabs would make enough profit to keep their citizens in reasonable comfort and wealth while we would stop hogging it all and using it up.4)Become more isolationist and stop trying to cowtow to the demands of other world leaders to the detriment of the welfare of American citizenry.5) Dump and destroy all nuclear, chemical, and

biological weapons. Why not take the initiative? If are currently the most powerful nation on the face of this planet and we have enough weapons to crack the planet open like an egg, if we got rid of them all, we would show our TRUE moral commitment to peace, and if anyone used a weapon of that kind thereafter, it would show THEIR radicalism and thuggishness, and if they wiped us out, then the attackers would deserve what they get as they live amongst themselves afterwards, which is more of a revenge than any bomb could ever inflict.The fact is, as much as America likes to preach about how right and justified we are about bombing this country, or overthrowing this or that government, we have no business interfering in anyone's affairs but our own, and the only thing we should use weapons for is to guard our own borders and defend our own country.Now...As to the discussion as a whole...Let's set it

aside for the time being so that we can get back to talking about AS for a while.TomAdministratorBut two wrongs don't make a right! Just because they did so to us we should to it to them??? Your line of reasoning I find appalling. I can't believe you still think it's a good idea for them to nuke Israel so that Israel would have to strike back (I got that the first time, btw). "Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first." :-O And that makes it OK then????? This is so sick I cannot believe what I'm reading. I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain. That's the last I have to say on

this. Tom can decide if he wants his forums to permit advocating genocide. If so, I'm out of here. Inger Re: Isalm - to What I meant about the Iranians is that we should have invaded and overthrown their regime rather than Sadaam. There is actually a large movement in Iran that wants to see the mullahs gone. So, I was not advocating a holocaust, but removing the mullahs and freeing the people of Iran from them. This would also have eliminated a terrorist supporting regime, one much more so than Sadaam, which would also have cut off a major supporter of Al Quida. As for the Isrealis, if they were nuked, it would be their right to retaliate in kind. A nuke on Isreal could easily kill a large percentage of its population.

Such death would be regrettable and a crime against humanity as much as Hitler's program of genocide. The Iranian, or whoever's, deaths would also be regrettable. However, that is that way it is. A nasty reality, but there it is. I could see your point if I was saying nuke all Muslims now and be done with them. I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that if some terrorist supporting nation commits such an attack, then they have opened themselves to retaliation in kind. They have hit first in a powerful manner andwould only be encouraged by inaction. Sure it would be a terrible thing to do to a people, but they would have struck first. Your logic could also be applied to the victims of the terror attack. The victims would not deserve to suffer for the actions of the leadership. Those people in the planes and buildings on 9/11 had nothing to do with national policy toward muslims, yet they were killed all the same.

So would it be in any city nuked by the terrorists: the vast majority of those people would have nothing to do with national policy and would be suffering for the actions of the few, meaning domestic leaders and the terrorists. The same applies to the London bombings: none of those people had anything to do with national policy, yet they were targeted all the same.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 29, 2005

Oh dear. I guess I got a little more than I asked for. :-o

Just FYI, my cousin works very close to the former twin towers. But I

understand that living under the threat that something as awful can happen

again in one's own country has an effect on how one feels about the

perpetrators of such deeds.

I guess I'm lucky to live in a country that doesn't get so much on other

countries' nerves. (We have not had a terrorist act since the 70's when the

RAF blew up the American Embassy in Stockholm - by mistake.)

Inger - very happy to see this topic get a rest for a while

(Pardon to other members for causing trouble.)