It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11.

Ohh, come on, you sound like too reasonable a person to get your undies all scrunched up like that. NO ONE is shrugging off 9/11, it was an act of war.

But terrorism has been a part of the world back to Biblical times. The powerful have tried, when they had a moral compass at least, to follow the rules of conduct for their times, but those with less power wage war through other means.

We hold most of the power and even more of the moral high ground, and we'll get them if we behave reasonably intelligently. No need to pretend our opponents are the worst the world has ever known. And no need to torture captives -- it only convinces the world that we are desperate, stupid, and not so much better than our opponents.

We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups.  In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word.  Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

Cheers

Terrorism is not new. We used it in our own Revolutionary War, and it wasn't new then.

I never realized that the revolutionists went out killing innocent men, women, and children.

We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups.  In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word.  Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

Ku Klux Klan?

assassin (from hassassan)?  or zealot?

I never realized that the revolutionists went out killing innocent men, women, and children

the point of terrorist strategy isnt to kill...its to scare so as to avoid killing (which is more labor-intensive).  in any event, im sure the tories (colonial loyalists) who were burned--or otherwise forced--outta their homes would have considered themselves victims of terrorism.  there is noone innocent..no not one.

the point of terrorist strategy isnt to kill...its to scare so as to avoid killing (which is more labor-intensive).

So, by killing innocent women and children, the terrorists hope to avoid killing?
When you think about it, the terrorists from the Middle East are completely justified. After all, the founding fathers (and even Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to a certain extent) are terrorists. I like this broad definition of terrorist we use.

Messy

Reply By: jeblackstarPosted: Monday, November 15, 2004We still use the name for one of the oldest terrorist groups. In fact, we use it as a common, not exactly everyday, but everyone knows it, word. Gold star to the first person who can tell me what the name of the group was.

I'm curious about this one...
Did kingbee get it?


PS Terrorism is a war strategy. You can't wage a war against a war strategy.

..

KingBee gets the Gold star for today, thanks to everyone who played.

(It was Assassin)

Cheers

No one seems to have mentioned what I consider the bottom line...Sadam, while an evil dictator not unlike other evil dictators we support when it's in our vested interest, was NOT responsible for 9/11. The American people were bamboozled into rallying behind a war that exists for corporate interests and American global power. In our current goverment's cynical self interest we have effectively poisoned the worldwide view of this nation. This has not made us safe from terrorism. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, a select group of wealthy folks are gettin' wealthier, so all's well the end's well I suppose.

Reply #39 By: Oliver (Anonymous) - 11/17/2004 1:56:04 PM No one seems to have mentioned what I consider the bottom line...Sadam, while an evil dictator not unlike other evil dictators we support when it's in our vested interest, was NOT responsible for 9/11. The American people were bamboozled into rallying behind a war that exists for corporate interests and American global power. In our current goverment's cynical self interest we have effectively poisoned the worldwide view of this nation. This has not made us safe from terrorism. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, a select group of wealthy folks are gettin' wealthier, so all's well the end's well I suppose.

Everything in here is a tired old theme.

Indeed it is. I only wish it wasn't still relevant.

Reply #41 By: reddirty - 11/17/2004 2:38:51 PM Indeed it is. I only wish it wasn't still relevant

I don't believe it is. Do you honestly think we should have left the sanctions in place and Saddam in power? The oil sanctions were killing 5000-6000 children a month due to starvation from the sanctions.

The sanctions weakened the Iraqi people far more than it weakened Sadam's regime. In fact, the sanctions increased Sadam's grip by making the citezens of Iraq more reliant on the dictatorship in their state of desperation. A home brewed revolution which the U.S. could have supported as we commonly do in South American nations became impossible amidst the starvation created by the sanctions...and so the stage is set for our heroic entrance...

You'd do well to remember that it was Saddam who starved his people, not the sanctions. He (and others) ripped off billions from the Oil for Food fiasco. If he'd had his people's welfare at heart, he could have fed them.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You'd do well to remember that it was Saddam who starved his people, not the sanctions.

That's the way I see it.