Those bastards have made threats against our water, buildings, people, etc.

If you let them effect your life than they are winning, they are fighting a mental/intimidation type war and we are letting them win because we live in fear. Well I for one don't see them doing # except talking.


Move on.......

Originally posted by Shining Wizard
Those bastards have made threats against our water, buildings, people, etc.

If you let them effect your life than they are winning, they are fighting a mental/intimidation type war and we are letting them win because we live in fear. Well I for one don't see them doing # except talking.


Move on.......

Agreed, the main objective is probably intimidation. Yet this threat raises the question if the Bush administration is apt at fighting terrorism or if their stategy of indiscriminate bombing isnt in fact helping the terrorists recruiting, and that, America under Bush in fact encouraged terrorist attacks instead of dissuading them with the political or diplomatic means that were at their disposal prior to the illegal aggression of Iraq. This may well be a case where the old saying "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword" may sadly take its toll on innocent civilians because of the diplomatic incompetence of a megalomaniac governing clique in the United States.

Terrorism=25% action based + 75% fear. (note: figures are not etched in stone)

regards
seekerof

Yeah, maybe they will infest it with Flouride

I'm glad all i ever drink is bourbon, scotch and beer (thank you John Lee Hooker).

Seriously though, I'm with Shining Wizard on this. Let 'em try. They WILL hit us again, but we just have to be aware and not petrified all the time. Fear ages, and I don't want to grow older faster than I already am.

Nah, I read that it would take literally tons of most agents to have any effect at all in the water supply. The best way would be to send people infected with very contagious deadly diseases to live amongst the immigrant population in America's large cities. The immigrants either would be scared of deportation if they sought medical attention, or would not know where to go while the disease spreads and spreads.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart

America under Bush in fact encouraged terrorist attacks instead of dissuading them with the political or diplomatic means that were at their disposal prior to the illegal aggression of Iraq.

My question is how long is America to falter on the ideology of diplomacy concerning Islamic Terror groups and just what do you propose we offer as a bargaining chip? We have already been made aware of their uncompromisable goal of total genocide of the United States and we have been witness to the attempted appeasement during the 90s and its failure. So to deal with someone who wants your entire culture and everyone a part of it to die horribly and excepts no compromise, how do you appease them? Thats right, you lay down and die and give up the right to exist.

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart

America under Bush in fact encouraged terrorist attacks instead of dissuading them with the political or diplomatic means that were at their disposal prior to the illegal aggression of Iraq.

My question is how long is America to falter on the ideology of diplomacy concerning Islamic Terror groups and just what do you propose we offer as a bargaining chip? We have already been made aware of their uncompromisable goal of total genocide of the United States and we have been witness to the attempted appeasement during the 90s and its failure. So to deal with someone who wants your entire culture and everyone a part of it to die horribly and excepts no compromise, how do you appease them? Thats right, you lay down and die and give up the right to exist.

Your objection is sensible and deserves attention. France has a longer history and experience than the US of struggle against islamic terrorism, yet succeeded in largely quelling it diplomatically, even when much more arab muslims live in France than in the US. Let us analyze the american involvement in the region and the structure of it's alliances. America chose supporting Israel inconditionally against arab aggression, but also against natural arab claims like access to water, control over their homeland or an end to the "great Israel" zealot settlement policy. Other alliances in the region are/were dominated by capitalist interests (Saudi, Qatar, Koweit, Iraq). Evidently, islamists or baathists have an easy game picturing a great Satan bent on implementing capitalist anti-arab policies and playing with arab lives for the sake of petroleum control or arms sales, which may even partly be true, given the plutocratic nature of american foreign policy. The "bargaining chip", as you put it, was recognition of arabs as people, not animals, and the recognition of their right to self-governance, while at the same time applying the threat of force, which worked well with Iran or Saddam Hussein (prior to US aggression)for example.

First off, thanks for answering my question so intelligently and without resorting to character assasination. thats a rarity and I don't take it for granted.

I have a few minor disagreements with some of your assertions but for the most part consider myself more knowledgable on the subject having read your post.

This quote..
"America chose supporting Israel inconditionally against arab aggression, but also against natural arab claims like access to water, control over their homeland or an end to the "great Israel" zealot settlement policy."

Actually, I think America has chosen to work with both sides on obtaining peace and if I'm not mistaken, President Clinton, with the aid of James Carville swayed an Israeli election to empower a leader who offered Arafat everything he had demanded and he declined it. Now, that might have turned Clinton off to the PLO but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that the current administrtation has given up on peace in the mideast. Actually, i believe president Bush and Colin Powell have both stated their pro-activism for a Palestinian state and have criticized Israel numerous times for their insertions into the West Bank and Gaza following PLO terror attacks. I think the fact that the US remains on freindly nation terms with Israel is the deciding factor not the unconditional support of Israel and there is a difference. The goal of militant Islam is the genocide of everyone else who isn't and Israel is first in line followed by the US reguardless of any or no affiliation with Israel. To appease these terror groups would require that the US not only stand aside and watch as an entire race is wiped from the face of the Eart but also to put our heads on the block next. Now, I realize no one wants to hear that but I didn't get it out of thin air. Ask any militant muslim and if he doesn't kill you first, you are in for an earful.

America has indeed recently chosen to work with both sides, but for one, this comes after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, so a little late for most local observers, and for second, the crucial question of borders has been postponed to 2005, so, until now, the "road map" is little more than a mediatic attempt to limit the immediate fallout from the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion there is little chance that this will lastingly be interpreted as a change in american mideast policies, all we are left with is hope and trust Bush's Sharon's and Abu Mazen's good will. As far as Bush and Sharon are concerned, however, i find it hard to trust them on more than their will to win elections, as their record reminds.

unfortunitly they wont be able to poision you through the water supply, unless of course they steal 200+ dump trucks fill them with arsenic or sarin, then get to the waer main access hatch and dump in all the arsenic or cyanide or sarin, then stir for 20 minuts and put in the fridge to cool
please they cant poison your water, unlss there standing out side ya house pumping it in, oher wise there just boasting