RE: Yes it's off topic but who cares right now.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been lurking around reading all these 'love the planet' emails, and I have to agree...killing is surely not the answer - but if you gave me an unlimited supply of rockets, and a lot of killing power, I'd point it at Afganistan and say....'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out later".......just my two cents...I had a friend who left his wife a message seconds before he died up there in south tower..."Honey, I'm on the 92nd floor and am not going to make it back to your arms alive - remember I will always love you" -then the line went dead....those words ring through my head over and over and over - I could have been there, so could you. True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell. Otherwise known as, Dr. Blackfelt -----Original Message----- From: Dmitri Krioukov [mailto:dima@krioukov.net] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:10 PM To: Arman Khalili Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Yes it's off topic but who cares right now.
expose him and all of his followers where they could be captured and brought to justice (chaining to a building and firing a rocket comes to mind).
no question one could come with more sophisticated forms of "justice" similar to those practiced by the potential subjects of this "justice", but please: "resist the cycle of violence and hate." -- dima.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Los, Ralph wrote:
True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell.
Revenge begets revenge.
Ralph, And terror begets terror. I don't think genocide is the answer here, and that is certainly what you are implying. Do the actions of the few condemn the many? If they kill civilians, should we? I personally don't think so, but then, I'm not in power, one can only hope that this country, or any other, will bring nuclear weapons to bear. It would be like using a tank to crush an ant(a fire ant in this case, but still).t On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Los, Ralph wrote:
True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell.
Revenge begets revenge.
Todd Suiter (todd@s4r.com) wrote:
Ralph,
And terror begets terror. I don't think genocide is the answer here, and that is certainly what you are implying. Do the actions of the few condemn the many? If they kill civilians, should we? I personally don't think so, but then, I'm not in power, one can only hope that this country, or any other, will bring nuclear weapons to bear. It would be like using a tank to crush an ant(a fire ant in this case, but still).t
"War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with the admixture of different means." - Clausewitz ~dave
that very definitly should read: "will NOT bring nuclear weapons to bear". sorry...t On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Todd Suiter wrote:
Ralph,
And terror begets terror. I don't think genocide is the answer here, and that is certainly what you are implying. Do the actions of the few condemn the many? If they kill civilians, should we? I personally don't think so, but then, I'm not in power, one can only hope that this country, or any other, will bring nuclear weapons to bear. It would be like using a tank to crush an ant(a fire ant in this case, but still).t
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Los, Ralph wrote:
True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell.
Revenge begets revenge.
If I'm bitten by a rabid dog and I have it put down, that's not revenge. That's prudence. Faced with an incurable disease/mindset capable of causing more misery/illness/death one finds oneself in the invidious position of having to decide between several obviously unpleasant and previously unacceptable alternatives. It's not fair - any of it - but it's the situation nonetheless. David Leonard ShaysNet On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Los, Ralph wrote:
True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell.
Revenge begets revenge.
--On Friday, September 14, 2001 8:17 AM -0400 "M. David Leonard" <mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com> wrote:
If I'm bitten by a rabid dog and I have it put down
most civilized countries accord more rights to innocent civilians, and even PoWs, than they do to dogs. -- Alex Bligh Personal Capacity
| If I'm bitten by a rabid dog ... you know exactly what dog it was. In this case it's not that easy, and I for one would hope that convincing proof be found before action is taken only against those proven guilty. Everything else will backfire..
In a civilized country there are no rabid dogs running down the streets, because those dogs found to have rabies are euthanized regardelss of them having bitten anyone yet. Other important factors are: vaccination and spaying of domestic animals. If you've been bitten by a rabid animal and didn't have shots immediately after (day or two), you're dead. --vadim On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Mathias KЖrber wrote:
| If I'm bitten by a rabid dog ... you know exactly what dog it was. In this case it's not that easy, and I for one would hope that convincing proof be found before action is taken only against those proven guilty. Everything else will backfire..
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 08:17:26AM -0400, M. David Leonard wrote:
If I'm bitten by a rabid dog and I have it put down, that's not revenge. That's prudence. Faced with an incurable disease/mindset capable of causing more misery/illness/death one finds oneself in the invidious position of having to decide between several obviously unpleasant and previously unacceptable alternatives. It's not fair - any of it - but it's the situation nonetheless.
David Leonard ShaysNet
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Los, Ralph wrote:
True, there is no taking back what happened, but if GW issued an act of war, and did some re-arranging of the middle-east and the like, and places like Afganistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian militant states DISAPPEARED forever - no one, especially this blue-blooded American would shed a tear...and I as one...would see all the psycho-terrorists to hell.
Revenge begets revenge.
OK, put aside all questions of motivation (revenge vs. prudence, etc.) Putting down a rabid dog is pretty much an atomic operation, without hugely significant side effects. Removing several countries, several governments, or several populations is a quite different proposition. I'm not aware of any such attempt along these lines in human history that fits the model of removal of a single animal of another species. We are (increasingly) interconnected, and our apparently distant actions reverberate with local consequences. Predicting consequences in complex systems is tricky business, but one thing we know is that human perceptions and beliefs are involved in these systems. Thinkers as diverse as Gautama to Machiavelli have recognized this - the latter wrote of the difficulty of pulling off a coup that can establish a successful governement because of the cycle of violence problem. As times get worse, as our emotions are jerked around, it is more important than ever that we see the world as it is, that we think as clearly about human systems as we do about other kind of networks, and that we not let our understandable desire for a different world lead us to make things worse by pursuing simplistic solutions. - Tom Barron barron@mr.net
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, M. David Leonard wrote:
If I'm bitten by a rabid dog and I have it put down, that's not revenge. That's prudence. Faced with an incurable disease/mindset capable of causing more misery/illness/death one finds oneself in the invidious position of having to decide between several obviously unpleasant and previously unacceptable alternatives. It's not fair - any of it - but it's the situation nonetheless.
If you were one that infected the dog with rabies in the first place, you might consider ways to avoid doing so in the future to prevent reoccurances.
If you were one that infected the dog with rabies in the first place, you might consider ways to avoid doing so in the future to prevent reoccurances.
Th dog has rabies... drop him....The USA can not and is not responsible for every nuts problems. If this "dog" has a problem, then I ask that he take care of it with reason and logic. If he can't and is unwilling to listen to logic, drop him before he bites more of us.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, David Klindt wrote:
If you were one that infected the dog with rabies in the first place, you might consider ways to avoid doing so in the future to prevent reoccurances.
Th dog has rabies... drop him....The USA can not and is not responsible for every nuts problems.
In the case of the U.S, they created the nut. The CIA trained and funded bin Laden. The U.S. also funded Hussein. I keep saying this over and over but it appears that it's not being heard.
The dog has rabies... drop him....The USA can not and is not responsible for every nuts problems.
In the case of the U.S, they created the nut. The CIA trained and funded bin Laden. The U.S. also funded Hussein.
I keep saying this over and over but it appears that it's not being heard.
Sir, providing training and arms does not make a person a nut. Are you suggesting that he became a nut case because we gave him money and such. My position is that the CIA is not responsible for crashing these planes into buildings - The nut did it.
The dog has rabies... drop him....The USA can not and is not responsible for every nuts problems.
In the case of the U.S, they created the nut. The CIA trained and funded bin Laden. The U.S. also funded Hussein.
I keep saying this over and over but it appears that it's not being heard.
Sir, providing training and arms does not make a person a nut.
Are you suggesting that he became a nut case because we gave him money and such. My position is that the CIA is not responsible for crashing these planes into buildings - The nut did it.
He is not a nutcase. He is a religious fanatic who was trained and helped by the US when US thought that his fanatism can only be used against USSR, no matter how many times USSR warned that the same people fighing against USSR will fight against every non-Muslim. Alex
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
In the case of the U.S, they created the nut. The CIA trained and funded bin Laden. The U.S. also funded Hussein.
I keep saying this over and over but it appears that it's not being heard.
I hear you...(and I'm sure we won't be giving them anymore money)... We gave them their freedom and money and power and now they have thrown it back in our face and killed our innocents. They will be accountable for THEIR own actions. We may have raised and trained the dog, but as soon as it bites one of the kids, its buried in the back yard. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
From: "Los, Ralph" <rlos@EnvestNet.com>
if you gave me an unlimited supply of rockets, and a lot of killing power, I'd point it at Afganistan and say....'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out
Let me state a couple of things. First of all, a direct attack on DC couldn't be any less a declaration of war. We must respond. We must also respond for NY lest it happen again. There is no question in my mind that we will soon be at war and I am supportive of that effort as the only viable option for keeping my family alive and safe. BUT, keep in mind that the majority of the people in Afghanistan are caught between armed factions in an internal conflict. They are simple farmers, peasents at best, suffering under the oppression of a fundamentalist regime on the left and warlords on the right. "Kill them all and let $DEITY sort them out" is the wrong thing to do, as it will bite us in the butt later. What we *should* do is crush the warlords who would give us the longest term grief in any occupation, decimate the leadership, and then bring in the Corp of Engineers and the Peace Corps to help the peasentry build a functional democracy for themselves. A modernized version of the Marshall Plan is about the only thing we haven't tried, and it would be much more rewarding in the long-term than killing them all. Rinse and repeat.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Let me state a couple of things. First of all, a direct attack on DC couldn't be any less a declaration of war. We must respond. We must also respond for NY lest it happen again. There is no question in my mind that we will soon be at war and I am supportive of that effort as the only viable option for keeping my family alive and safe.
BUT, keep in mind that the majority of the people in Afghanistan are caught between armed factions in an internal conflict. They are simple farmers, peasants at best, suffering under the oppression of a fundamentalist regime on the left and warlords on the right. "Kill them all and let $DEITY sort them out" is the wrong thing to do, as it will bite us in the butt later.
What we *should* do is crush the warlords who would give us the longest term grief in any occupation, decimate the leadership, and then bring in the Corp of Engineers and the Peace Corps to help the peasantry build a functional democracy for themselves. A modernized version of the Marshall Plan is about the only thing we haven't tried, and it would be much more rewarding in the long-term than killing them all.
Agreed for the most part. I think the general consensus is that after this certain governments must be completely and systematically removed to prevent this from ever occurring again. By removed I mean the people that compose them utterly destroyed and annihilated. Many, if not most, were not directly responsible for the attacks this past week, but I feel to quash a ground-swell of support that it is possible to conduct these sort of attacks against America, we need to be surgical in the removal of our enemies. The first and most obvious is the Taliban, including Bin Ladin. We may was well remove Sadam and his cabinet while we are at it. I'm sure there are many other militant anti-U.S. groups which are building strength and need to be eliminated. Now to my point, since I feel this needs to happen, I'm not too worried about some of the innocents that will die in the process. Its a tragedy when the lot of a child includes being killed at a young age due to the war of its father's. War is not pretty though, neither is life or history and we are an angry people, at some point it simply needs to be accepted on some functional level bad and unjust events are always going to exist. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
participants (13)
-
Alex Bligh -
alex＠yuriev.com -
Andy Walden -
Dave -
David Klindt -
Eric A. Hall -
Los, Ralph -
M. David Leonard -
Mathias K�rber -
Patrick Greenwell -
Todd Suiter -
Tom Barron -
Vadim Antonov