The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 12, 2001, 03:58 PM   #1
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Okay, people.


Do we want vengeance? Hell, yes.

Do we deserve vengeance? Bloody right we do.

I don't know about anyone else, but I want to write: Don't **** with us! in forty-foot letters, using the blood of those responsible for ink. If Osama bin Laden were in front of me, I'd tie his guts to a tree and chase him around it twenty or thirty times.

However: NO INNOCENTS. Attacking innocent victims is their game -- not ours. WE ARE AMERICA -- WE ARE NOT A TERRORIST NATION -- PERIOD.

We need to drop the hammer on whoever is responsible for this -- we DO NOT need to espouse the nuking of cities holding 100,000 or more innocents just to hammer two or three cockroaches. We DO NOT need to terrorize loyal Americans just because their gene pool originated in the Middle East.

Between 20 and fifty people are probably directly responsible for the WTC -- you want to slice, dice, fold, spindle and mutilate those sonsabitches, you have at it with my blessing.

No more talk of nuking cities, cluster-bombing crowds or anything else similar. That is their game, played on their turf, using their rules.

To hell with that crap. We do it our way. We do it righteous.

One other thing. Don't let the emotion of the last day cloud your thinking here on TFL.

Debate other TFL Members using facts and logic. Don't let the emotion of the last hours goad you into saying something to another TFL Member that you can't take back.

God bless.

"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:12 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
Lawdog, if the inhabitants of a city give harbor to these terrorists, they shouldn't be surprised if they get hurt. That's the way it is.
Bogie is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:15 PM   #3
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
Amen, Lawdog... Amen!

Bogie - if they are harboring, then they are not all they innocent are they?
George Hill is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:27 PM   #4
Dave R
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
I used to think that killing the guilty ones (and sparing innocents) was enough.

No more.

I think we need to deny our enemy their objective. Their objective is a Palestinian state, and the destruction of Israel. So IN ADDITION to death to the guilty, we need to deny the enemy objective:

"Therefore, as a direct response to the attack of 11 September, the United States and Israel should jointly undertake the immediate and complete occupation of all Palestinian territory, the arrest and imprisonment of all Palestinian leaders to await trial after a thorough investigation of their role in the acts of war that have already taken place against Israel, and the permanent incorporation of all Palestinian territory into the state of Israel. No Palestinian self-government should be allowed at any level...

See, "Can we Win This War?"
Dave R is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Posts: 3,147
"Lawdog, if the inhabitants of a city give harbor to these terrorists, they shouldn't be surprised if they get hurt. That's the way it is."

By that logic a great many innocent people aided and abetted Timothy McVeigh, and thus a few cities in America need bombed too.

I'll be the first to advocate bombing the everliving [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] out whomever is responsible, and if doing so means placing civilians at risk, so be it. Hussein tried to shield part of his war machine behind prisoners 10 years ago, and the same rules apply. Go after your target, be as careful as you can, but get the job done.

But the civilians are not the target, period. I don't care if they're shouting 'Death to the Great Satan.' If they are not soldiers in arms, they are not targets.

Coronach is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 1998
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 3,740
This morning my wife was at the store picking up some things, and she overheard a woman talking on her cell-phone, loudly berating the "Damned Ay-Rabs." She was saying it loudly on purpose for another woman and her child to hear and be insulted. Unfortunatly the lady that she was berating was HINDI. Yes I know that she is darker than you, but that doesn't make her a muslim terrorist, you damn idiot.

We here on TFL are better than that.

My wife (in her kind and gentle manner ) pointed out the woman's error. Already people are starting to jump the gun in their anger.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very angry, I'm angrier than I have ever been in my life. I honestly believe that the blood of the innocent is crying from the earth for vengance. And it is our duty as a country to punish those who have attacked us.

But lets aim the rage in the right direction.
Correia is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:38 PM   #7
Mike in VA
Senior Member
Join Date: October 16, 1998
Location: Santa FE, NM
Posts: 2,163
I'm with ya, 'Dog. Rule No. 3 was never more appropriate - "Be sure of your target and what's behind it" (on so many levels).

My best friend in the 'hood is Moroccan. He's a naturalized Ameican citizen, self-made (put himself thru school), a good father, very hard working, and an all around good guy. He loves this country, is very proud to be here, works hard at helping his kids to assimilate, and is absolutely heartbroken over yesterday's events, yet he's had to put up with some rather stupid remarks from a couple of ignorant co-workers (he's 6'4", 240# and a fine athlete, and could easily smack them around if he were that kind of guy.) He leads his company's MS "Ride for the Cure" team, is usually among the first to show up for neighborhood clean-ups, etc, and he's a Muslim. I'm proud to have him for a friend and a neighbor. So let's can the posturing, vitrolic and generalizations until we KNOW who we're mad at.

All in good time, my friends, all in good time., but let's be sure.
Mike in VA is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:53 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
If--and it's still an "if"--this is the work of Bin Laden's group, then I'm afraid that so-called innocents may have to be killed as part of the retaliation. Today the Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan spoke with the Taliban and relayed the message that the Taliban did not support the attack, but cannot get rid of Bin Laden because he has the support of the people. If the Afghani people support this effort, then they are culpable as well. Hitler had the support of German non-combatants, and we bombed them as well. When was the last time a war was conducted in which non-combatants were not targeted, much less killed?

If our government implicates Bin Laden, I would like to see GW order a medium-strength attack against some part of the Afghani infrastructure. Then, he should offer Afghanistan the opportunity to surrender on the condition that their government deliver Bin Laden and all associated with him to our government for trial and execution. He should also warn them of the horrible consequences to their people if the conditions are not met. A warning shot, then an ulitimatum.
Monkeyleg is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:55 PM   #9
Covert Mission
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 1999
Location: West of the Pecos
Posts: 671

Again we agree, except for one point ("Between 20 and fifty people are probably directly responsible for the WTC -- you want to slice, dice, fold, spindle and mutilate those sonsabitches, you have at it with my blessing."). That many may be directly responsible for THIS attack (and of course many of them are already dead), but maybe more. Don't forget all the other attacks against US targets in recent years. The # of members of terrorist cells worldwide is far greater, and they exchange intel, personnel, resources and training, I have read (I'll confirm this with an ex-CIA friend). There are numerous nations with a history of giving training and harbor to terrorists: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, African nations, and I'm sure China and Russia, among others. So, the enemy is bigger, and for every one Tango we neutralize, at least one more steps forward, with promises of eternal happiness and 15 virgin wives . Tough to deal with suicidal fanatics, but we must. If, in the course of waging declared WAR, there are some civilian casualties in a place like Afghanistan, so be it. Its people ostensibly have a choice, and the leaders they have chosen have become terrorists or support terrorism (unfortunately after being trained as Mujahadin, by the US ). I'm sure you don't need a lecture on this.

I absolutely agree with you that everyone needs a cool head here at home, in dealing with immigrant fellow Americans. To target US residents because they resemble "Ay-rabs" as another post said, is terrible and makes us no better than our enemy. Remember Manzanar, as ArmySon reminds us.
Covert Mission is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:55 PM   #10
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 1999
Location: Occupied Virginia
Posts: 2,777
Law Dog and George . . .

With great respect for both of you fellows -- and for your intelligence and judiciousness in many past posts -- I civilly disagree.

> The fundamental issue we must confront is simple: Yesterday's events were acts of war, not criminal acts alone.

> Therefore, the recognized law of war is applicable.

> Under the law of war "innocents" are legitimate collateral targets, as evidenced by US actions in Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi and so forth; while the judicial system may not sanction such actions, the conduct of war does.

> Since clear acts of war have been perpetrated on our nation and its people, it is absolutely legitimate for so-called innocents to be collaterally killed in the prosecution of this conflict.

> In fact, modern war inherently risks innocents, which is a principal reason those who would be our adversaries should refrain from belligerent actions.

> The alternative to a robust US military response is to enhance the third world's perception of the United States as a cowardly, indolent, decadent and indecisive county -- in its decadency. That will only encourage further terrorism committed on our citizens.

> It is far wiser for our nation to seek universal respect, even through fear, than unanimous love.

With best regards -- Roy
RWK is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:12 PM   #11
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
If, and only if, we can prove that a national government was behind this act will the destruction at the WTC become an act of war.

Somebody proves to me that the Government of Afghanistan was responsible for this, you can bomb away with my blessing.

Somebody proves to me that the Government of Libya destroyed the World Trade Center, and I'll push the button myself.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should offer to cloak this mass murder with the respectability of War.

This was not war. This was butchery. This was mass murder. This was the twisted desire of one, single, gonad-deficient ****-head with a chip on his shoulder.

This is not about battlelines and strategy and honourable surrender and the Geneva Convention.

This is about one charismatic pyschopath with a sexual dysfunction and the ability to talk naive young people into doing his dirty work so that he can keep his nice pink hide away from where the blood flies.

Wars have armistices, treaties, embassies, peace accords, Hague Conventions and justification.

This codswallop should have several grim-faced men, knives, silenced pistols, a dark alley and a dung heap for a final resting place.

"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:26 PM   #12
Apple a Day
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2000
Location: Poquoson,Virginia
Posts: 1,524
Something to consider...

Right now the whole world [with the exception of Iraq] has expressed sympathy and offered whatever aid they can muster. Not only the U.S. but every country out there can be a resource to beat the bushes and bring the vermin who did this to Justice.
If we start killing civilians without d@mned good cause then those resources will evaporate. It is more important to me to get the filth who are actually responsible than it is to vent my spleen by spilling blood.
If we behave justly then there will be no place to hide, no solace or defense for those who do evil.
Apple a Day is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:44 PM   #13
Jeff White
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 1998
Location: Kinmundy, IL, USA
Posts: 1,397
Make no Mistake...this Was an Act of War


No, I don't believe we'll ever prove that this was an act by a nation. It wasn't. But it was an act of war conducted by a political organization that you might say doesn't have a nation. Ever hear the old saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!"? This organization may control factions of the government in several nations. And we know they have been aided and abetted by those governments, either through being of like minds or fear.

There has long been a debate over how to deal with terrorism. Many have said that by calling it war, we legitimize their cause by giving them the protections entitled to combatants under the Rules of War. Because of that no matter what, we must treat them as criminals.

The other side of the coin is that in many instances you can't effectively fight these people as criminals. Too many niceties about the rules of evidence and such.

I think it's time that we recognized this loose coalition of terrorist cells for what it is, an armed political movement dedicated to destroying our way of life. I really don't mind giving them combatant staus under international law. With the declaration of war, we will be free to pursure them to the ends of the earth. The only way we will ever prevail is to defeat them the way we defeated Germany and Japan. This includes any nation that would harbor them or give aid and comfort to them. Half measures and restoring the staus quo won't work. It will only prolong things and ultimately cause more innocents on both sides to lose their lives.

The only solution is going to be a comprehensive settlement to the entire mideast problem. It's going to require NATO involvement. It won't be a quick in and out after a build up period like Desert Storm. It will be both conventional combat like before and it will also probably mean a lot of unconventional combat on American soil. Bin Laden has no tanks and artillery to defeat with ours or air force to shoot down. But he does have people willing to die for his cause as long as they take a lot of us with them. He will attempt to make us lose our resolve and give up. How, by more of what happened yesterday. Oh the hijacked airliner kamakaze trick probably won't work again real soon, but there are plenty of other ways someone willing to sacrifice his life in the attempt can kill a lot of Americans.

I fear that our lives will not be the same as they were for a long time. Think WWII. It's of the same magnitude with what there is to lose.

Jeff White is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:56 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
Lawdog, suppose I were to arrive at your home and you let me stay. (An experience that I have no doubt would be a riot ). Suppose I stayed for a long time and every couple of nights went out and killed a few people, and you knew I was doing so. Yet you let me stay, fed me and gave me gas money. You publicly condemn the killings, but you continue to support me. Is there any doubt in your mind that the judicial system would hold you as an accessory to murder?

Here is the definition of "war" from the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less /-l&s/ adjective

Can there be any doubt that we have been at war with these nations over the past 25 or more years? Yes, their diplomats disavow what the groups are saying when they declare jihad on the US; that's just doublespeak. The rogue nations feed the terrorists, provide sanctuary and training grounds for them, and give them money. Their citizens give the groups their individual support.

They declared war on us a long time ago. We haven't declared war on them because there wasn't the national resolve to do so. There is now.
Monkeyleg is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 06:23 PM   #15
Mark D
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2000
Posts: 383
A foriegn organization effectively drove several cruise missles into U.S. Targets, killing thousands. How can you not call that an act of war?

A foreign military has been waging a low level conflict with us for the last few years. This is know as a campaign. This campaign is not defined by the rules of the 1940's, but it is a campaign none the less. The military may not be associated with a "State" but that does not make it any less of a threat.

We are at war. Our response must be viewed in the context of war.
Mark D is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 07:06 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2001
Location: deep in georgia
Posts: 1,724
There is no way to be rational or reasonable with people willing to crash planes into crowded buildings.

Children were celebrating in the streets of Palestinian controlled areas near Israel. It makes these people happy to know that Americans they have never met have been killed in their jihad.

At the core of Islam is hatred of jews and christians. This can never be changed, and the idea of peaceful coexistance is a fool's folly.

Our nation has bombed "innocent" civilians before... remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Lets give Allah something to do.
lonegunman is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 07:20 PM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 474

That is eloquent, and I could not agree more.
capnrik is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 07:30 PM   #18
4V50 Gary
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,924
I concur with LawDog. Lest we sink ourselves and become that which we despise, we should concentrate our efforts on those who perpetrated this act. Those who knowingly "harbor" them are, by olde English Common Law accessories before the fact or accessories after the fact. Either way, they're not innocent in my eyes and are legitimate targets.

Those who rejoice at the suffering of others are depraved of moral values. We didn't dance in the streets when Chernobyl melted down. We didn't jump for joy when India got flooded and thousands died. We didn't scream with delight when Japan got hit with the big earthquake. It's more their loss than ours.
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 07:45 PM   #19
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
At the core of Islam is hatred of jews and christians. This can never be changed, and the idea of peaceful coexistance is a fool's folly.
Negative. At the core of Islam is the Qu'ran.

In the Qu'ran, Chapter 2, verse 62 we find:
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Just to hammer this point home: Qu'ran, Chapter 5, verse 69:
Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
You have, of course, read the Qu'ran before coming to your blanket condemnation of the entire religion, yes?

"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 07:53 PM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,823
There is nothing respectable about war, Lawdog.

It is sometimes a necessity. Nor would this be the first war that started with something other than a military target.

It IS war.

And you should read the excerpts you post, and understand the context. "those who believe", it says. That's converts, Lawdog. Those who do not believe are to be killed. As their saying goes, "First Friday, then Saturday, then Sunday." That's referring to the conquest by sword of the entire world. First the Arab world, then the Jewish world, then the Christian world. It's a refrain that is taught from the earliest days of childhood.

BTW, to a devout Muslim, you have NOT read the Quran. No translation is valid, it must only be read in Arabic.

The practical result of this doctrine is that most Muslims do not read the Quran, since most do not speak Arabic. They know only what their clergy wants them to know, so arguing about what the Quran actually says is really irrelevant.

Back when Pakistan detonated their first nuke, I was working in a firm that employed a number of engineers from Pakistan, and other middle east countries. (I became good friends with several of them.) Whether by design or by accident I got BCCd on an email from one Pakistani to several friends and relatives who worked at other firms in the US. (Major firms.) The emails flew thick and fast as each just hit Reply to All and added a few more to the list. The end result was dozens of emails from jubulant Pakistanis, rejoicing in their new found military might, and threatening India AND THE GREAT SATAN AMERICA.

It was quite frightening to see - right in your face - the hatred of America and the desire to see American CIVILIAN blood spilled. AND to see the kind of jobs these people had. And still have.

And Pakistan is one of the more friendly Islamic countries.

As for 'proof' that Afiganistan (or whomever) is behind it, what kind of proof do you want? Courtroom proof?

That would be like requiring an officer to be able to PROVE that the BG intends to kill him before he is allowed to shoot.

Battlefield proof is an entirely different matter.

Last edited by Quartus; September 12, 2001 at 08:18 PM.
Quartus is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 08:04 PM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Posts: 3,147
Islam vs. Fundamentalist Islam

They are NOT one and the same.

One bears about as much resemblance to the other as true christianity does to the teachings of that wacko nut who had the Ryan (or David?) Sheppard website.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of muslims are NOT fundamentalists, and do not subscribe to that creed. As usual, its the vocal few who manage to bully, cow and fear-monger their way into power that cause the trouble and hatred.

This is not war,but something terribly akin to it, and woe unto those who hide this coward. I'm betting its the Taliban, and if it is, I think its time to remove that particular pimple from the face of the earth (and also get our missionaries back).

Coronach is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 08:15 PM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: June 30, 1999
Posts: 2,104
Innocent civilians are going to die when we strike back. It's unavoidable. Get used to the idea, because it WILL happen.
RikWriter is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 08:19 PM   #23
Junior member
Join Date: April 1, 2000
Posts: 357

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. Our response should be measured in megatons.
oktagon is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 08:29 PM   #24
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2000
Location: California USA
Posts: 4,533
Wherein Ledbetter thanks all for their reason and courtesy

Lawdog, thanks for saying what needed to be said in the start of this thread. We are not a terrorist nation. Hate is not the core of Muslim belief. Hatred should not be a factor in our national response.

Just the same, what effective tactics are there against a country(ies) fighting a covert, undeclared capital-W War on us, using spies and terrorism instead of soldiers? Can we simply take a nation's leader's word that, although the attacks have its citizens screaming with joy, they are just the unauthorized work of a few zealots?

Tens of thousands of our people have been burned and buried alive by terrorism funded by nations, and abetted by hundreds of accomplices.

New tactics are called for. The national rule against assassination of foreign nationals, if it still exists, must go. The people responsible, and all of their accomplices, need to be dragged out in the street and killed like dogs, or simply vanish. And I mean everybody from bin-Laden to the guy who shines his shoes.

Ledbetter is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 08:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,823
What Ledbetter said, except his comment about Islam.

Hate DEFINES Islam.

The difference between fundamentalist Islam and ordinary Islam is eyewash for Americans who are always willing to believe the best about people, despite the evidence. It sounds good, but it's not even close to true.

Muslims who do not want 'infidel' blood in the streets exist, but they are a small and persecuted minority. Espousing such views can get you executed in most Islamic countries.
Quartus is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Page generated in 0.11195 seconds with 7 queries