Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

[Todd]

What should the world do about terrorism.

You have shown us how wrong going after the terrorists is, what should we do, pull everyone home from everywheres , close our doors and play euchre and parchesi?

Seriously, you don't seem to present that we should be retaliating against terrorism. So as the wisest person on the earth what would you have us do.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

You have shown us how wrong going after the terrorists is, what should we do, pull everyone home from everywheres , close our doors and play euchre and parchesi?

Todds already nuts, pp you bring the beer.

Euchre everyone

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Todds already nuts, pp you bring the beer.

Euchre everyone

Cheffie, you play euchre?


We share two addictions then.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Todds already nuts, pp you bring the beer.

Euchre everyone

Gladly. And I'll throw in some top-shelf drinks as well...

Whisky, brandy, gin, bacardi. That sort of thing.

Who's bringing the eats?

And women, damn, musn't forget women...

 

[kiwiwolf]

Re: Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Gladly. And I'll throw in some top-shelf drinks as well...

Whisky, brandy, gin, bacardi. That sort of thing.

Who's bringing the eats?

And women, damn, musn't forget women...

Why don't you ever answer the damned question....

Todd asked an intelligent question and again you have ducked the issue. You duck every question I put to you. Are you afraid to debate?

 

[Guest]

What to do

What should the world do about terrorism.

I posted this earlier, but this looks like good spot to repeat it.

What Can We Do About Terrorism?

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.

A few years ago, terrorists destroyed two U.S. embassies. President Clinton retaliated against suspected facilities of Osama bin Laden. In his television address, the President told the American people that we were the targets of terrorism because we stood for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world. Baloney!

We are the target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things. "In how many countries have we deposed popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet military dictators who were willing to sell out their own people to American multinational corporations?

"We did it in Iran when we deposed Mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. We replaced him with the Shah, and trained, armed, and paid his hated Savak national guard, which enslaved and brutalized the people of Iran. All to protect the financial interests of our oil companies. Is it any wonder there are people in Iran who hate us?

"We did it in Chile when we deposed Allende, democratically elected by the people to introduce socialism. We replaced him with the brutal right-wing military dictator, General Pinochet. Chile has still not recovered.

"We did it in Vietnam when we thwarted democratic elections in the South which would have united the country under Ho Chi Minh. We replaced him with a series of ineffectual puppet crooks who invited us to come in and slaughter their people_ and we did. (I flew 101 combat missions in that war which you properly opposed.)

"We did it in Iraq, where we killed a quarter of a million civilians in a failed attempt to topple Saddam Hussein, and where we have killed a million since then with our sanctions. About half of these innocent victims have been children under the age of five.

"And, of course, how many times have we done it in Nicaragua and all the other banana republics of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the people who worked it. We replaced them with murderous tyrants who would sell out and control their own people so that the wealth of the land could be taken out by Domino Sugar, the United Fruit Company, Folgers, and Chiquita Banana.

"In country after country, our government has thwarted democracy, stifled freedom, and trampled human rights. That's why we are hated around the world. And that's why we are the target of terrorists.

"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No.

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism _ and in the future, nuclear terrorism.

"Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our government's ways.

"Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, we must send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children.

"Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children every day with our sanctions, we must help them rebuild their electric power plants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals - all the things we destroyed in our war against them and prevented them from rebuilding with our sanctions.

"Instead of seeking to be king of the hill, we must become a responsible member of the family of nations. Instead of stationing hundreds of thousands of troops around the world to protect the financial interests of our multinational corporations, we must bring them home and expand the Peace Corps.

"Instead of training terrorists and death squads in the techniques of torture and assassination, we must close the School of the Americas (no matter what name they use).

Instead of supporting military dictatorships, we must support true
democracy _ the right of the people to choose their own leaders. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we must abolish the CIA and give the money to relief agencies.

"In short, we do good instead of evil. We become the good guys, once again. The threat of terrorism would vanish. That is what the American people need to hear. We are good people.

We only need to be told the truth and given the vision. Well, The seeds our policies have planted have borne their bitter fruit. The World Trade Center is gone. The Pentagon is damaged. And thousands of Americans have died. Almost every TV pundit is crying for massive military retaliation against Osama bin Laden, and against whoever harbors or aids the terrorists.

Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post screams "Kill the bastards! Train assassins, hire mercenaries, put a couple of million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive, preferably dead. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts."

It's tempting to agree, but retaliation hasn't rid us of the problem in the past, and won't this time. By far the world's best anti-terrorist apparatus is Israel's. Measured in military terms, it has been phenomenally successful. Yet Israel is still the primary target of terrorists and suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. If retaliation worked, Israelis would be the world's most secure people.

Only one thing has ever ended a terrorist campaign: denying the terrorist organization the support of the larger community it represents. And the only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people.

That means addressing the concerns of the Arabs and Muslims in general and of the Palestinians in particular. It does NOT mean abandoning Israel. But it may very well mean withdrawing all financial and military support until they abandon the settlements in occupied territory and comply with their duty to return to 1967 borders. It may also mean allowing Arab countries to have leaders of their own choosing, not hand-picked, CIA-installed dictators willing to cooperate with Western oil companies.

Chester Gillings has said it very well: "How do we fight back against bin Laden? The first thing we must ask ourselves is what is it we hope to achieve security or revenge? The two are mutually exclusive; seek revenge and we WILL reduce our security.

If it is security we seek, then we must begin to answer the tough questions what are the grievances of the Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States.

To kill bin Laden now would be to make him an eternal martyr. Thousands would rise up to take his place. In another year, we would face another round of terrorism, probably much worse even than this one. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are good, peaceful people. But enough of them, in their desperation and anger and fear, have turned first to Arafat and now to bin Laden to relieve their misery.

Remove the desperation, give them some hope, and support for terrorism will evaporate. At that point bin Laden will be forced to abandon terrorism (as has Arafat) or be treated like a common criminal. Either way, he and his money cease to be a threat. We CAN have security ... or we can have revenge. We cannot have both.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He is President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies and Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church.

This may be a cut, paste, and edit job, but the message is still worth sharing.

Can I get a "Hell Yeah" on this?

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Why don't you ever answer the damned question....

Todd asked an intelligent question and again you have ducked the issue. You duck every question I put to you. Are you afraid to debate?

Start a thread and I'll debate you...

At the moment we're partying...

 

[pdx39]

Taking credit for my post

The above post was from me. Surprised it went up as "unregistered".

 

[Todd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Start a thread and I'll debate you...

At the moment we're partying...

I did, and this is it, your duck and run act.

 

[kiwiwolf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

Start a thread and I'll debate you...

At the moment we're partying...

You started a thread, then dived out the window. You invite debate just by the content of your posts, then when someone comes along who is prepared to debate you ON THE ISSUE... you dive for cover. At least have the courage of your convictions and come out and play... now you may return to your blowjob.

 

[kiwiwolf]

Apologies to Todd for using your thread for my rant.

 

[Todd]

Apologies to Todd for using your thread for my rant.

no problem , I didn''t expect pp-man to actually answer my charge.

he is much better at pointing out everyones faults than offering solutions

 

[modest mouse]

Pretty much point on Kiwi. This is nothing new from PPMan.

 

[kiwiwolf]

Pretty much point on Kiwi. This is nothing new from PPMan.

It's bloody frustrating... he has a brain but is very sparing in its use. I come here for education as much as for entertainment, but all I'm learning from p_p_ is how to bail out.

Anyway Mouse... hows the New Year going for ya?

 

[modest mouse]

I'm an hour into it and so far, so good. I'm optimistic about 2002, so let the good times begin.

Youself?

 

[kiwiwolf]

I'm an hour into it and so far, so good. I'm optimistic about 2002, so let the good times begin.

Youself?

Buddy if I was any better I'd be twins... have a great one.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

You started a thread, then dived out the window. You invite debate just by the content of your posts, then when someone comes along who is prepared to debate you ON THE ISSUE... you dive for cover. At least have the courage of your convictions and come out and play... now you may return to your blowjob.

But nobody, except for the class few, do debate my threads. They enter, make a few snide, sarcastic remarks and leave. Then pop up again later on with more snide, and sometimes personal comments. Nothing about the thread or the debate.

I've been called a racist
An anti semite
A pro Arab
A terrorist lover
An American hater
An Indian (asian) hater

I've been told I don't know what I'm talking about
To post links (which I do)
To quote (which I do)
That I don't have a say in American politics
I shouldn't say anything unless it's "nice" about America.
I have been flamed for criticising American deeds and actions and how they affect the world
That I have no right to debate anything at all really.

I've sat here and watched as posters have told me how America won WWII (popular one that)
How the UK has always been bailed out by the US
How great, big, strong and all powerful the US is and...
How it's the only true democracy
How other countries are jealous because America is the only home of Freedom of Speech
And how America is the Greatest Country in the World...
God Bless America.

I've been told I'm going straight to Hell
That my lack of religious belief is somehow linked to my political thinking
That I'm non-Christian. Non-Moslem, Non anything...

Non of these were in the form of a debate.
They either turned up as one line or one word comments by idiots who I can only assume are in their teens or twenties and who wouldn't recognise a debate if it stood up and smacked them in the face, hopefully breaking a few teeth along the way.

As I said there are very few seasoned posters on Lit whom I enjoy debating with. Because they contibute to the debate but there are many more crass fools who spout hollywood, headlines, cartoons and one line (or word) clever dick remarks because to them appearing to be smart and street wise and "look at me aren't I funny" holds more importance than maybe shutting up or joining in properly.

So one more time...

Start a thread and I'll debate you.

 

[kiwiwolf]

The only thing from the above list that I am guilty of is asking you... today... to post a link to the source of your thread. Yet you even managed to duck that. p_p_ you know I have nothing personal against you. I have exchanged PM's to that effect, but you are continually ducking MY questions, so I am forced to wonder if you are maybe afraid of debating me on the anti terrorism topic.

I am not American, I am not religious, I have no personal axe to grind... I just want to learn.

Shane

 

[Mensa]

Re: Taking credit for my post

The above post was from me. Surprised it went up as "unregistered.

I've pm'd you.

 

[p_p_man]

What should the world do about terrorism.

You have shown us how wrong going after the terrorists is, what should we do, pull everyone home from everywheres , close our doors and play euchre and parchesi?

Seriously, you don't seem to present that we should be retaliating against terrorism. So as the wisest person on the earth what would you have us do.

Right Todd back to you...

Firstly you are falling into the trap (which surprises me from you) of not reading what I've read about the "war" in Afghanistan. Not only on my own threads but on others.

If you can find one comment by me where I say I don't agree with going after terrorists then I'll pack my bags and disappear over the horizon.

What I have consistently criticised is the carpet bombing of Afghanistan resulting in more innocent deaths than necessary, as well as the destruction of Red Cross food depots (twice for chrissake), a mosque and a number of civilian homes miles from anywhere. I criticise the American hidden policy of killing as many foreign nationals as is necessary as long as American body bags don't start arriving back in the US in large numbers. And I've criticised the "Hollywood" rhetoric of Bush. "Dead or Alive" being the classic.

Coming from a country which has been having it's war with terrorism for the past 45 years (with large numbers of Irish-Americans supporting the IRA through NORAID) I and most Brits are strongly against terrorism.

But we haven't and wouldn't bomb Belfast, Dublin or Omagh because the IRA bombed London. We had to use a different technique. One of information and infiltration. Many top ranking IRA Chiefs of Staff were allowed to stay free (Martin McGuiness being one of them) because their presence on the street was more useful than if they were incarcerated.

Bush by shouting his mouth off left himself no choice but to take the action he did. No, that's wrong, he did have a choice, he could have reversed his initial orders and started a programme of infiltrating not only Quaida but other global terrorist groups.

But to do that would have take a stronger man than Bush.

By all means take out terrorist camps if you are absolutely certain you are hitting the right target, but the main weapon against terrorism is information, information and more information.

When Bush announced in the beginning that this was going to be a "long war" maybe as long as "5 years", you could almost hear the hysterical laughter from Lands End to John o' Groats with comments questioning Bush's judgement and overall knowledge of any situation outside of America.

Yes, a long "war" we can all agree, but think in terms of tens of years not single ones and change the policy from bombing every country you think harbours terrorists just because it's on your personal hit list. We all know Bush would love to eliminate Iraq and Sierra Leone, but not because of terrorism. Because he thinks it's "pay back" time to countries that have slighted the US in the past.

I can almost see the future scenario. As soon as Bush has reached, what he considers a "face-saving" win he'll turn his attention away from terrorism leaving the rest of the world to clear up the political messes he'll leave behind.

But in the meantime...

Infiltration and information...

The only sure way to combat terrorism...

Notice I didn't say beat, but combat.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: Oh great , Wise, All-knowing supreme ruler of the earth, PP-Man . . .

We all know Bush would love to eliminate Iraq and Sierra Leone, but not because of terrorism. Because he thinks it's "pay back" time to countries that have slighted the US in the past.

Did I miss something? What did poor little defenceless, backward Sierra Leone do?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Taking credit for my post

I've pm'd you.

Thanks for the ego boost. I'm a little surprised no one else here has responded to the article I posted. I'm not looking for debate, but would like some feedback about the issues it raised.

 

[pdx39]

Once Again

I posted the message above and it went in as "unregistered".

 

[kiwiwolf]

Okay for a start, thanks for the PM... no problem, but I would still like answers to questions I put to you over two hours ago on your thread...

I had 9 years total military experience. Relevant to your post is the conversations I had with serving members of 22nd Special Air Service. I was a member of 1NZSAS for 3 years and in that time I spent time with former members of "the Det". This is the combined SAS, RUC, MI5 intelligence gathering group in Northern Ireland. ALL were unanimous in their opinion that being able to take out the key figures in the IRA would sure as hell hurry along the peace process and make future monitoring of the heirarchy a hell of a lot more manageable.

In N.I. the situation is a hell of a lot more difficult than what the Alliance is facing. In Afghanistan the enemy is easily identifiable. They have lumped themselves together into one area. They are an established army. They made themselves a target for bombing.
Do you really think that the British government would hesitate to bomb the shit out of the IRA bombers if they presented the same target. Don't be naive. Tony Blair would have Harriers in the air in the blink of an eye if he could be sure of zapping some of those mother fuckers in a group.

Finally for this post, you criticize the Hollywood rhetoric of Bush. I see no problem in the message, just the messenger. Bush is a putz but he has the message right. Seeing Bin Laden in chains or seeing his stinking rotting corpse... either would give me immense satisfaction.

 

[p_p_man]

I had 9 years total military experience. Relevant to your post is the conversations I had with serving members of 22nd Special Air Service. I was a member of 1NZSAS for 3 years and in that time I spent time with former members of "the Det". This is the combined SAS, RUC, MI5 intelligence gathering group in Northern Ireland. ALL were unanimous in their opinion that being able to take out the key figures in the IRA would sure as hell hurry along the peace process and make future monitoring of the heirarchy a hell of a lot more manageable.

In N.I. the situation is a hell of a lot more difficult than what the Alliance is facing. In Afghanistan the enemy is easily identifiable. They have lumped themselves together into one area. They are an established army. They made themselves a target for bombing.
Do you really think that the British government would hesitate to bomb the shit out of the IRA bombers if they presented the same target. Don't be naive. Tony Blair would have Harriers in the air in the blink of an eye if he could be sure of zapping some of those mother fuckers in a group.

Finally for this post, you criticize the Hollywood rhetoric of Bush. I see no problem in the message, just the messenger. Bush is a putz but he has the message right. Seeing Bin Laden in chains or seeing his stinking rotting corpse... either would give me immense satisfaction.

Thanks for your credentials but unless you go further and tell me exactly how you know "ALL were unanimous in their opinion that being able to take out the key figures in the IRA would sure as hell hurry along the peace process", they don't mean an awful lot to me in formulating my opinion of how terrorism is combatted.

Were you party to high level decisions and policy making or are you saying you knew some people from all the groups concerned who were of that opinion?

Speaking for myself I'm stating my own ideas, formed by what I've read, heard and seen. Tempered with personal experiences of similar situations I've been through in the past.

So far, in Northern Ireland, things have been heading in the right direction. The British army (notably the paras) have been heavily criticised for their part in Bloody Sunday and the SAS for the Rock of Gibralter killings but as there never was a chance in hell of the IRA being in one spot at one time to enable Blair or one of his predecessors to bomb them out of existence, the only effective weapon available was infiltration and information. And it's a policy that's worked for over 40 years.

You can't infiltrate and information gather if the enemy is either dead or in prison.

You say that in Afghanistan the enemy is easily identifiable. I say it's not. I wouldn't be able to point to an Afghan or a Pakistani or, come to that, an American and say for certain that he was a member of al Qaida. Could you?

I don't think for a second that al Qaida is finished. It probably does have cells all over the world ready to strike back. Witness the ship that was boarded by the Royal Navy off the south coast of England the week before Christmas. It was stopped because of a tip off. As it happened nothing was found but what I thought was relevent was the release of the news that al Qaida have up to twenty such tankers sailing the seas, each one a potential nuclear bomb. Or a carrier of bacterial warfare.

This one was proved "safe" but the others? Who knows? And we can only rely on intelligence gathered from people who are free to move around to get some idea where these ships might be and what they might be carrying.

No good sinking them. Others will be launched. No point in killing or imprisoning all of Qaida because others will appear.

Bush, being a child of his time (and being the type of man he is) spoke too soon about the revenge technique he favoured against bin Laden. A technique that has yet to prove effective. I believe, as many others do, that the moderation which has crept into the American Administration's actions of late, are the result of Powell's and possibly Dick Cheney's influence. Not Bush's.

Bombing and killing and "kicking butt" is great for media consumption and public confidence (false as it may be) but it does very little to achieving a solid and lasting solution.

America's experience in Vietnam should have shown them that...