Respect for terrorists....

heavy stuff. I tend to agree with what you are saying. American foreign policy is wacker than Britany Spears' latest album, and while I don't applaud or condone the events of Sept. 11th, I can understand them.

I was shocked at the scale of the events, but personally I think 'terrorist' retalliation was entirely predictable. It was also entirely predictable that George Bush Jr. would dismiss any attack on America as a battle of 'good vs. evil.' But America (Gov't, Military) is not a pillar of 'goodness' and ethical/moral 'purity'. Nor was the attack on Sept. 11th an attack on freedom, democracy etc. It was a statement to the American Gov't that they are not untouchable/indestructable. That although their military is the strongest, they cannot impose their ways (global culture) on every country when it is so obviously a game America will always win. Mexico is America's bitch. Canada is America's bitch. So many countries are, and when a few small ones refuse to bend over and take it in the @$$, I can understand why.

It's a terrible shame that thousands had to die in New York. I'm not 'down' w/ the Taliban (who are certainly fuct up), or terrorist acts, but I can understand their rationale.

Excellent post, stimuli!

I simply prefer to boil this down to it's base. We've done some things that may not have been appropriate but we've NEVER targeted 50,000 Civilians. I have No, nada, nine, nyet respect for Terrorists. Just like a Gang Members they are fuken cowards. At least look me in the eye before you kill me. I'd enjoy breaking my hand on one of those fukers faces if I had the chance. I'm ok will the US being a superpower because for the most part we don't abuse it too much but I see nothing wrong with grinding losers like Bin Laden and his al-Queda biotches up into little bits of flesh and bone. Look at Bin Laden now...scurrying around hiding like a rat..his days are numbered and so are ANY terrorists who think they got the chutzpuh to smack America and not get touched.

Matsu and roger_ramjet are the only people in this thread who aren't delusional.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>

There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.
The cowards hiding in Afghanistan: Are we holding their land or holding their people captive? No. Do we refuse to let them practice their barbaric and backwards form of Islam on their own lands? No.

They don't like what we do, well guess what, it works both ways. The only difference is we're big enough and strong enough to get shit done right. Do you think things would be better rather than worse if the tables were turned?

As an aside:
What actions by Revolutionary War figures qualify them as terrorists?

I should have known that as soon as AI came back up it would be filled with people making apologies for bin Laden.

And don't say you're not.

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>Some Latin Americans would beg to differ.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Slow down with that. We've done some bad things in Latin America but never anything on that scale. Not even close.

We armed them which allowed them to kill each other more than they already were killing each other.

[quote]<strong>We do abuse it, on a regular basis.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When you are the premier superpower in the world things aren't always so black and white in terms of good and bad.

Painting it black is just as ignorant as painting it white.

Terrorists are cowards. Wife-beaters are cowards although they may be "brave" enough to use physical force. Cowardice is a state of mind.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>The distinguishing characteristic that sets terrorists apart is their willingness to attack noncombatants.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.

Don't bother. This thread is filled with people who think that the terrorist "have a point" and that killing innocent people is an appropriate way to get achieve a political goal. Also that the US "got what it had coming" and that there is little difference between a military and civilian target.

You can explain the difference between a "freedom fighter" and terrorist, a "saboteur" and "terrorist", a "guerrilla" fighter and a terrorist until you're blue in the face. The people here will justify all terrorism because they are blinded by their anti-american hatred. They hate the US because of their own reasons and there for anything that kills people in america is justified without inspection.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The IRA are perhaps freedom fighters by your definition, but they are most definitely also terrorists.
[quote]terrorism (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<hr></blockquote>
And I understand it's not just about dictionary definitions. If you target innocent citizens of any nation, whether they're willing subjects of their governors or not, that is terrorism and an utterly evil act.

Respect for terrorists? Yeah right.

Do I know why they did it? Yep. So what.

I have no respect for terrorists, their actions, or their motives. Shame on those that do, regardless of how displeased they are with our nation's foreign policy.

(two good foreign policy books:

Blowback, Chalmers Johnson
Special Providence, Walter Russell Mead)

I think so far most of the things that Scott H. Has said are true. Just by encouraging the terriorists like some of you are doing almost guarantees more attacks like 9/11. But hey, if you wanna take the chance of being killed in a building that a terrorist hi-jacked plane hits then keep encouraging them.

"Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun"

I kind of agree with George Carlin on all this...fine, go ahead and kill, rape and pillage...see if I care. It all boils down to one thing...religion...stupid campfire tales of fear and stupidity shrouded in "the rules of man" from some bearded nothing from nowhere.

When the hell are we going to wake up and understand that the true god is right under our feet (E-A-R-T-H) and the true sense of goodness and understanding is within all of us. We all have two arms, two legs, eyes and a brain which we only have achieved in using 20% of. We have a long way to go and I don't think any of us are going to see the day. Either from time or the inevitable stupidity of powers today.

Me? I don't care...right now my thoughts are:

Good guys? Keep 'em...but stay away from these...
Bad guys? A bloody stain on the carpet. Get rid of 'em.

Oh, and I don't respect any loner ****head that needs to kill themself and take an unneeded amount of innocents for some "agenda" from "god".

At times we do altogether too much self flaggelation. I like what Silvio Berlusconi said about the general situation. His speech was perhaps colored by racism, or at least a level of cultural elitism, and (furthermore) it perhaps should not have come at the time when it did, but it was in essence correct. And every democratic westerner would do well to keep it in mind:

"We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance..."

"The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered communism," even if that means confronting "another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1,400 years ago."

Perhaps his sweep of history and culture is unfair, but the core is entirely correct. We have managed to understand the seperation of church and state. The Islamic world has not. Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban. The west may not be perfect, but, to our great benefit, we have taken care to guard against this. Religion may, and often does, inform politics, but it does not infallibly dictate the civic code. As political civic beings, we are better, we are more advanced. They have to catch-up to us, we must never make, or encourage, the retrograde policies which, thankfully, are for the most part our history.

the taliban are guilty of over generalization...

Punish the many(innocent) for the crimes of the few...?

this sounds like an idea I have heard before...

Actions present in many forms, both lesser and greater in many religions...

Religions often over generalize everything... and get specific only when it would threaten there presently held beliefs...

thats why there are often several different factions of a faith...

Since religion cannot be taken out of this discussion becuase of it direct influence on the infamous events of 9/11... I would have to remind you of the Islamic Law (al-Shari'ah)... and it many unquestionable rules...

Kill the infidel..., etc.

Now I could say the same about christains and attack them in a retro-fashion... using phrases in the questionable laws in the bible... questioning the people of the present by the actions of the past (visiting the sins of the father unto the sons an daughters) but I wont becuase we wont get anywhere doing that...

This Law, while being rooted in the sources of the Islamic revelation, is a living body of law which caters to the needs of Islamic society. Islamic laws are essentially preventative and are not based on harsh punishment except as a last measure. The faith of the Muslim causes him to have respect for the rights of others and Islamic Law is such that it prevents transgression from taking place in most instances. That is why what people consider to be harsh punishments are so rarely in need of being applied.

I have seen how happy the people are now to be free of the taliban... and I will remind myself not to judge a people for the crimes of a few...

they taliban are terrorists who inspire fear, terror and are dictators that decide what "is" freedom... they are in no way to be parralelled with freedom fighters...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
----------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall13.jpeg

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>... Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban... </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is essentially the flip side of Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's infamous and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14" target="_blank">stupid conversation</a> regarding sept. 11. Stop being so ignorant, Matsu. The Taliban were on the radar screens of evangelicals well in advance of the rest of America.

Christianity Today, Week of August 27

The Soviet Union, United States, and others helped create Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. Will the world's most Islamic state backfire?

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/135/44.0.html" target="_blank">In Perspective: The Friendliest Murderous Militants in the World</a>
By Todd Hertz | posted 8/30/01

[quote]A popular information site on Afghanistan advertises the land-locked Asian nation as "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe."

Tell that to the 24 relief workers detained there since August 5 for allegedly teaching Christianity. Or even to the citizens of Afghanistan - a country ravaged by 23 years of war, plagued by disease, drought, and famine, and ruled with an iron fist by its self-declared leaders, the Taliban.

On August 5, Taliban authorities closed down the Kabul office of Shelter Now, a Germany-based aid group, and arrested eight foreigners and sixteen Afghan employees. All will remain in captivity until the Taliban conducts a full investigation into the extent of what they allege is a conspiracy by aid groups (including the U.N.'s World Food Program) to convert Muslims... <hr></blockquote>

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

Maybe I should clarify.

I'm not making up excuses for the Taliban or Bin Laden. First of all, Taliban are not terrorists in my opinion. They are, well were, the government of Afghanistan. A government that came to be by overthrowing the excisting government by force but that's the way some governments come to power. Actually, up until a month ago, the Northern Alliance, now backed by the western world, were the rebels. The Taliban referred to them as terrorists.

However, it does reiterate my point. To the people of the U.S the people that flew a plane in to the WTC are terrorists. To the people that support them they are heroes.

Those people see them as freedom fighters. You may have the opinion that the U.S never took their freedom from them but they disagree. These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.

I read an article, I think in Time, about the Pashtun tribe. It consists out of two main factions that fight each other. However, when attacked they stick together.

The way I see it the U.S can get rid of Taliban and Bin Laden and do two things. Declare war on pretty much the entire middle east, country by country because terrorists are everywhere. Or they could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it.

On a personal note: I do not hate the U.S. I don't agree with some of it's foreign policies. I also don't agree with what it's doing right now. But just the same as I understand the terrorist's motivation, I understand that it's out for blood now. It's only human to want revenge.

In the end, however, reason and diplomacy must prevail. One thing America should have learned, has learned, from Vietnam is that you can't kill everyone that is against you. That's a war that you will lose. No matter how many tanks and bombs and planes you have.

I understand why many of you disagree with me. I knew that when I posted it. I would have been fairly shocked if everyone had jumped up and said: "Damn! You're right! Forgive and forget."

I just hope that, in time, you will be able to forgive because we can never have peace without it. If wanting peace makes me a liberal or whatever else you wish to call me then I'll wear that tag with pride.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Maybe I should clarify.

These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?

:rolleyes:

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.

.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not and will never respect terrorist even if i share their opinion (i have serious doubt to share their opinions indeed). Killing innocent people is pure evil. Saying that terrorism is the only way for them to be respected is pure stupidity, a minority has not the right to control the majority of the people in a democratic republic where the humans right of every people are respected. There is much better way to defend your opinion.
Terrorism leads to chaos. Democraty even if not perfect have been waited since so many millenium.
So for me : absolutely no respect for any terrorist they are just been unhabited with hate, or controled by other people with sect's method

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

I wonder why you disagree with me now, roger?

... I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern - with Islamic Fundamentalism - is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric...<hr></blockquote>

Let's see. The term manichaean comes to us from Christian theology. It was one of the first heresies. It is certainly a temptation but I'm not sure why you believe evangelicals to be more susceptible than others. This is the kind of discussion that would engage a believer. It is at least possible, don't you think, that someone like that would be less likely to be tempted by such a world view than another person who doesn't believe we are all sinners. (Solzhenitsyn is right. The line between good and evil runs not between groups but through every individual soul.) How often do we see the term "NAZI" thrown around? And how often is it an evangelical Christian using this label? Are not the people who so recklessly use that word also manichaean in their thinking? So why do you believe evangelicals to be particularly persuaded to Talibanism? It has become a habit of though to refer to the Christian right in America and the Taliban in the same breath. But it is lazy thinking and it doesn't illustrate any point other than kneejerk hostility towards conservative Christians.

[quote]... take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state.<hr></blockquote>

Let's not. Falwell and Robertson speak for themselves. Televangelists get far too much attention. Television ministries have a lot of reach but no depth. The heart and soul of the church is among the people who wander into that building just down the street from you. There's a reason why that both Falwell and Robertson felt the need to walk back from that conversation - even among their supporters there was a great deal of dispute about what they had said.

The failure of the evangelical world as I see it is not an over-involvement in the world but in their underrepresentation in the larger culture. They are too comfortable in their cultural ghetto and have not significantly engaged the world outside their churches and parachurch organizations. This translates into something quite the opposite of Talibanism.

I have a lot of respect for these people. :rolleyes:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/international/middleeast/21JIHA.html?pagewanted=2" target="_blank">An Investigation in Egypt Illustrates Al Qaeda's Web</a>

[quote]In early 1998, when the two groups announced that they had formed the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the focus of Islamic Jihad shifted from overthrowing the Egyptian government to attacking American interests. The merger also appeared to increase the Egyptians' sense of purpose, according to the confessions of defendants in the trial.<hr></blockquote>

Then later

[quote]"It has nothing to do with age or era," said Mr. Zayat, who has defended thousands of Islamic militants over the years and served time in prison for his youthful involvement in an extremist movement. "It is ideology. These groups have their own literature that is passed down from generation to generation. This literature promotes the idea of `jihad' and the use of violence to overthrow those who do not rule according to God's law."<hr></blockquote>

then even later

[quote]Despite its reputation as the shrewdest of the Egyptian terrorist groups, Jihad actually failed to achieve most of its targets. A suicide bomber failed in his attempt to kill the Egyptian interior minister in 1993. A car bomb later that year that was meant to kill the prime minister instead killed a child who was standing nearby. <hr></blockquote>

How can you have anything but respect for these people? :confused: You can't. They are worthy of a great deal of respect from us!

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

This thread is about terrorism... not JUST Afganistan and Pashtuns.. lets stay on theme.

Terrorism...

We have to come up with new terms for different kinds of 'terrorism'. There are the so-called Freedome Fighters, but thats just means that there is another side that calls the same group terrorists.

There are the religious terrorists who use religion as an excuse to blow up someone of a different religion and force others their thoughts. The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.

There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)

There are social-terrorists who just try and destabilize what we consider as status-quo. I would think these people are just sort-of loopy and are anti-social to begin with

There are political-terrorists who, in the name of fascism or communism or some other ism decide that, to make a point, they gotta blow stuff up, assassinate, destroy, etc.

The list can go on and on...

So who is right? Who do you "respect" of these terrorists?

Zo has reached a new level of stupidity.

As I read through this thread, I tend to agree with most of what Scott H. has said, though I doubt his claims that the apologist types agree with the tactics used against us on 9-11. In my experience even die-hard liberal types are sickened by what happened, just like the rest of us. This one transcended meaningless political boundaries and touched virtually all of us in the same way. As it should have...

That said, I think the issues that need to be addressed are sort of being glossed over to some extent. There are a couple good points the original post brought up, but didn't explain well:

1. The media (or government influence over the media) can paint equally guilty parties in completely different lights (freedom fighter vs. terrorist). Israel is the perfect example.

Anyone throwing stones or molotov cocktails at an Israeli are "militants" and "terrorists", any Israeli tank commander or helicopter pilot or sniper hurling military munitions into residential neighborhoods are merely "doing their job." I don't buy that at all.

The context of the means is always over-looked by the media (which is certainly controlled by some extent by Israeli sympathizers, Jewish or otherwise). It's simple: one side has money and military support up the wazoo, one side does not and so must resort to what I will call guerilla tactics - the use of non-conventional weapons and tactics to fight back at someone with the real hardware.

I don't see either side as being more terrorist than the other, because they both kill civilians by the dozen...the only difference is the kind of explosives being used. Either act is despicable to my way of thinking. Long story short: the Isreali government / military carries 50% of the blame in that conflict. No more, no less. The media would do us all a favor to cover it that way.

2. There will be consequences for our actions overseas, and sadly they won't always be diplomatic consequences (i.e. the kind we can predict or deal with politically). Obviously, we never expected the consequences to come in the form of 9-11.

Let me set my POV for the record: I think we are right and justified to track, hunt down, and if need be, end the life of the miserable fooks who purpotraited this crime against humanity (and it was just that). I don't understand them, I don't sympathize with them, and I don't "get" them. I don't want to, because it would call into question my own humanity.

That said, our government needs to take a long, hard look at how we handle our affairs overseas. Again, Israel is a key example.

For many years, our media and our government has overlooked the wrong-doings of the Israeli military. You never hear any negative-spin reports about Israeli troops or tanks killing innocent Palestinian civilians, or about the Israeli government beig bull-headed when making compromises during the peace talks.

If you were to take our BS media coverage at its face value, you'd be led to think all of the blame (for every event) lies with the Palestinians. Anyone who knows human nature, knows that's a load of crap.

There are other places and other examples as well. For instance, I don't believe we did much to help Russia nor any of the former Soviet republics once the wall came down. We threw a few parties, showed a few leaders smiling and shaking hands, and then left them all to figure out capitalism for themselves.

We watched their economies spin out of control, we watched as the organized crime types took over, and we did nothing. We said "here, put up a McDonald's and a Levi's shop, and 'good luck!'" We left them high and dry, without any signifcant financial aid, any source of economic re-education, etc. etc. We're talking about societies whose citizens had been indoctrinated for decades, made to buy into the socialist system. But we didn't do anything to help them build a new system...

Same with Afghanistan, as soon as we got the result we wanted (between the USSR and mujahadin) we left the people that needed our help high and dry. We got the result we wanted, and left. That is weak in every way, and does much to tarnish our image.

We can't do that anymore; we can't afford to. If we pretend to care enough about political freedom, financial independance for citizens, and all the rest, then we need to not just pick sides and give speeches when things go our way. We need to bring our business and educational know-how to those places as well.

I'm rambling too much but the point is, we have to act in a way that gives other nations the impression that we (the ones with all the resources) will help to get less fortunate people on their feet when they need us. That we don't just pick the most convenient interests and most convenient means of doing our part.

which leads me to

3. The attacks on 9-11 were, at the heart of the matter, a result of extreme resentment towards the United States.

It can be argued that our uneven-handed foreign policies caused some of that resentment. That's not a justification, but an identification (of the root causes). Causes we have to identify to make sure (as best we can) this doesn't happen again. Part of it is added security and better intelligence, but part of it is also cutting off the "bad blood" before it spreads further.

We must re-evaluate how we handle our foreign affairs, and make sure that when we get involved with sticky situations, we take an even-handed approach (that is, judge all parties by the same standards) and that we put our money and our effort where our mouths are when it comes time to get things working again.

Will that eliminate religious fanatics who want to see us dead? Probably not, but it will very definitely sway a lot of foreign governments and foreign nationals who are sitting onthe proverbial fence. And we need all the support we can get in a situation like this.

Sorry for the long post... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>

What a post Moogs. I agree. Osama ain't no friend of mind (1 degree of seperation from people who died on 11/9/01), but ...

Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.

Oh, and overthrowing democratically elected governments at the cost of greater then 1 million lives (as in Chile) is going to have to stop too.

Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.

Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.

Who decides who a terrorist is?

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs, I'd just like to say that while I don't agree with a lot of what you said, I'm glad to see somebody state the opposing view thoughtfully and rationally for once.

Someone should point out the case of Mr. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and their associates.

(and let's just leave it at that.)

OK, let's not. :D

Moogs made a great post.

and <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html" target="_blank">this</a>.

Killing is never good. Is this so hard to understand? I guess so. We all lose.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

Being a freedom fighter does not justify your actions. There is savagery behind every title at times. I in no way meant to insinuate that freedom fighters are always good, only to point out that there is an actual distinction in the naming.

Hi, I'm a total moron. I have my head up my ass. I respect the men that killed this woman. They earned my respect by killing her.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1121_balkcom.html" target="_blank">Sharon Balkcom</a>

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/011121SNAPS-BALKCOM.jpg
*
Sharon Balkcom, raised on the scrappy streets of East Harlem, was in the third grade when her teachers realized that she had a gift for mathematics, said her mother, Rosalie, who was not surprised.

Ms. Balkcom, 43, the second of three children, attended some of the city's most rigorous and selective secondary schools: Robert F. Wagner Middle School on the Upper West Side and the Bronx High School of Science. She received an M.B.A. from Pace University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Colgate University.

Ms. Balkcom's academic aptitude and varied education prepared her to tackle most jobs. She was a computer systems manager at Marsh & McLennan, where she had worked for about three years, her mother said. "She was motivated," said her brother Gordon, a publicist. "Whereas I might need someone to kick-start me, she was self-motivated."

As a child, that motivation helped Ms. Balkcom, a resident of White Plains, overcome teasing from neighborhood children about being a bookworm. "She held her head up and continued to do what was right," Mrs. Balkcom said. "My husband and I brought our children up the best we could. We tried to instill in them the importance of having an education. We taught them that things were not handed to them. If they wanted something, they had to work hard to get it."

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

This guy seemed like a good guy. Too bad he died while the terrorist were earning my respect. BTW I'm a ****ing moron.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1031_sadocha.html" target="_blank">Frank John Sadocha</a>

Nearing a Longtime Dream
*

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/31SNAPS-SADOCHA.jpg

Frank John Sadocha was weeks away from his dream of opening his own restaurant on Long Island. He was training people to take over for him as manager of the food services division of Cantor Fitzgerald when the World Trade Center was attacked.

"All he tried to do was to get us ahead," said his wife, Nancy. Mr. Sadocha, who lived in Huntington with his wife and two daughters, did the catering for a local temple on weekends and sometimes weeknights, in addition to his job in the city.

"He was very much in charge, and he knew catering so well," his wife said. But as hard as he worked, Mr. Sadocha, 41, always had time for his daughters, Ashley, 5, and Kristy, 4.

A few weeks ago, after they had enrolled the girls on soccer teams, Ashley said she didn't want to play, that she wasn't any good at soccer. Her father took her outside and worked with her.

"He boosted her confidence," Mrs. Sadocha said. "By the end of the weekend she said she couldn't wait to play, and she told me, `Daddy said I was good.' "

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.

I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.

Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

So would you consider the English government to be terrorists then? You concede that they too have killed thousands of innocent Irish civilians so if the IRA are terrorists for doing so, which I can agree with, so are the English government?

I think we both know that the killing didn't stop after the potato famine. There is the Croke Park massacre in 1920 for example.

What I would also like to point out about this bombing is that six men were arrested and convicted for it based on fabricated evidence. They were later aquitted and became known as The Birmingham Six. That's hardly justice is it?

Is it justice that The Guildford Four, also convicted for a pub bombing, were convicted on forced confessions, fabricated evidence and the neglecting and witholding of information from the defence? Is it justice that after these people were aquitted none of the policemen involved, guilty of commiting these crimes, were ever punished for them?

No that's not justice. They took 15 years from these people and they knew they were innocent from day one. 15 years and they got away with it. When these things happen people can be expected to then seek their own kind of justice.

The IRA, does other things as well. They also attacked MI6, a military target if ever there was one. Are they freedom fighters when they do that but terrorists when they do another?

I'm not trying to defend bombing pubs, even if they are mainly soldiers pubs, or atrocities like Omagh. But I would like to know whether the English government are freedom fighters when they liberate Europe in WWII, when of course civilians were killed, and terrorists when they shot 12 people on Bloody Sunday? For which, again, never an English soldier was convicted of any wrongdoing.

Someone pointed out in another thread that war is bloody and dirty and innocent people get killed. For the Irish, this is our war and innocent people get killed.

President Bush said that civilian victims "happen" when you start throwing bombs around. Am I right to assume that when you know innocent people will be killed but you still continue to bomb you're willingly killing innocent people? Is president Bush a terrorist himself? A terrorist for the cause of getting revenge?

Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?

I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.

Maybe your self righteous self could also have the decency to put up some pictures of innocent victims that have died in your "war on terror"?

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes that is what I wrote and I stick by it. I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.

I not saying he is wrong for suggesting there is a way to get our country back without violence. I am saying he is wrong for suggesting that we "get over it" That has nothing to do with anything. We want our country back. What ever else is negociable but not that.

Those in the north that do not want to be part of the Irish republic do not matter and for the following reasons:

1. They are descendants of the so called Ulster Plantation. It's Ireland's version of "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out". If you have not seen Braveheart what happened was that English landowners were given lands in Ireland, impregnated women (not by mutual consent) to raise them by their believes. These people had no business to be there in the first place so neither do their descendants.

2. The fact that they form the majority will not last much longer. It is predicted that by 2016 the Republican population will outnumber the Unionist population. Are you saying that then Britain should have a referendum and give it up? Do you believe that would actually happen? Do you think the U.S should then go on to bomb England because the majority of the population in the north wants to rejoin Ireland and they won't give it?

FYI the IRA has upheld the last cease fire it's signed. Even when Unionists went around pipe bombing Republican neighbourhoods. 51 and counting, this year alone.

The latest Republican attacks, the Omagh attack amongst them, were carried out by the Real IRA. A group which the IRA and Sinn Feinn have nothing to do with.

Another interesting fact that you may want to know is that 75% of the political attacks in the north in 2001 were carried out by Unionists.

When you are saying that France, Holland and Belgium got over Germany fairly quickly do you even realise that France, Holland and Belgium were also liberated and Northern Ireland is still occupied?

You are comparing two entirely different things and on top of that you're comparing 5 years of occupation to 800 years and counting.

France and Germany mainly fought over the Elsas throughout history. The Elsas is also now a part of France. Your point is moot.

I'd like to go on record to say that Scott H.'s first post says it all abot his self.

You are getting a degree? You may want to learn half a #### about unfallacious arguement.

You are not needed or wanted if you are simply going to belittle those in the forums.

I've argued with you before and you're an arrogant sophist with the moral character of any beauracrat.

You may think that you "know" a lot but you only have decent english skills with which to diss people with your rampant opinion.

Take a hike pal.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?

I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I'm sorry. You're right. I didn't understand. Moving on.

I respect the terrorist for having the balls to kill this woman. Other people would have chickened out but not the terrorist. They had the courage to kill this grandmother. Oh BTW after a nights sleep I'm still a ****ing idiot just like macoracle.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_0925_mcgovern.html" target="_blank">Ann McGovern</a>

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/25SNAPS-MCGOVERN.jpg

The Light of Her Life
*
On a return trip from Long Island to her apartment in Manhattan two weeks ago, Terry McGovern had the sudden idea to surprise her mother, Ann McGovern, with a visit. In her arms, she carried her newborn, Liam Andrs.

To her delight, Mrs. McGovern, who was in the shower, ran to meet them at the door, half dressed and dripping water, and began yelling for her husband: "Larry, Larry, look who is here! Liam is here! Liam is here!"

And that's how Ms. McGovern says she will remember her mother: exuberant, happy, full of life. Mrs. McGovern, who lived in East Meadow on Long Island, was a claims analyst for the Aon Corporation and worked on the 93rd floor of 2 World Trade Center, the first tower to collapse. A native of the Bronx, Mrs. McGovern drove a black sports car and was an avid golfer who had recently made a hole in one.

But her biggest thrill, Ms. McGovern said, was her youngest grandson, Liam Andrs, born two months ago. Several times a week, she would leave her job and sneak in a visit with her daughter and the baby in the Upper West Side. "She'd drive me crazy," Ms. McGovern said. "She would show up at all hours, saying she just had to see him. She called him the light of her life."

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

I think the word you're looking for in regards to Scott H.'s play at emotions is "sanctimony".

Anyway, the semantic jousting with the word "terrorist" is off-topic as well.

Cowardice is not to be respected. Dying for what you believe is idiocy when what you believe is bullshit and your death will bring nothing but pain to the people you're trying to help.

So no, no love for these particular terrorists.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I wonder what you're doing on a discussion board if you're not capable to have a discussion?

I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.

Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys. :rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Just trying to put a human face on the people killed by the terrorist that you respect. Your words. Not mine. You respect them. I guess I do to but only as an deadly enemy that needs to be wiped out.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No I was busy. I don't have time for more right now.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

Just trying to put a human face on the people killed by the terrorist that you respect. Your words. Not mine. You respect them. I guess I do to but only as an deadly enemy that needs to be wiped out.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that feeling is mutual.

Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white? Numerous times now, have I stated in this thread that I do not respect their killing of people but their willingness to die for their cause. Those are two entirely different things.

You insist that there are only two possibilities. Wrong or right. That is just as big a pile of bull as Bush saying "You're either with us or against us".

The sad fact of the matter is that as long as the U.S and it's allies keep solving matters by force there will be terrorists doing the same. It's a chicken and egg situation really. Do we have terrorists because of our tendency to throw bombs at those that don't see things our way or do we have to throw bombs because there are terrorists. You can't answer that because you don't have the knowledge for it.

I can tell you this though, from my own background. In Ireland, there were no terrorists before the Brits came, just civil war. Then again, civil war is our own business.

Think about it. Before Israel was formed, how many Arabs hated the U.S? There were no terrorist hits to prove they did anyway.

See I don't understand what you term freedom fighter anyway, If I take a fancy to cutting peoples throats and somebody tries to stop me doing this then surely they're restricting my freedom!? Am I thusly a hero? I doubt it!

The IRA are freedom fighters? f*ck off, as an irishman living in London I can tell you that that only a tiny minority of people actually in any way agree with the IRA or UDF or whoever, the rest of the people just want to live their lives happily and safely, England, Ireland, who gives a sh*t they're both going to want taxes.

These people are fighting because they enjoy it, Bin Laden 'enjoys' what he does, he's on a big ego trip. He wants to be big because inside he's small just like Adolf Hitler. does anyone really think that he cares about the plight of Muslims in Palestine? I can't believe that anyone out there can be that naive.

Anyway this conversation is pointless as a guy said in a previous post, 'majority rule' and on that basis in 1000 years time we'll all be Chinese anyway, which suits me.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

I think that feeling is mutual.

Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not when it comes to terrorist.