All right, Snipes, I'll answer your questions in my opinion. Yes, we probably could have done something to prevent the attacks, but it's no use looking back on that now, since we can't change the past. Yes, we should be attacking the Taliban and aiding the Rebel fighters in Afghanistan. But we can't let this turn into another Vietnam - if we're going to commit forces, we need to commit them. I say that we go in there and wipe them out completely and massively, and not just the Taliban. We need to really try and help wipe out terrorist groups all over the world. Iraq, Libya, wherever they are. It will take tons of manpower and money and years to do it, but I believe we can, with help of our allies, severly demolish the terrorist structure in this world. And, yes, if and when Osama Bin Laden is found, whoever does it should have the green light to blow his head off. Or however they choose to kill him.
 
-----------------------
FL/PO2 Darkhawk/Aegis 2-1 (Aegis Five)/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE/(=A=)

"Enjoy life. There's plenty of time to be dead."

Go Sniper, I agree with most of what you said there.  The only part I don't agree with is the part about attacking the Middle East.  When Bush first said Psychological and Financial, I thought he meant it the smart way, going there and helping those people for once so that they don't hate us violently any more.  But so far, all he's done is spent money and hyped up the US people.  Prevention, yes we could've taken a few hints from Israel(like their whole anti-terrorist network...), but the important thing is that we do it now, so that this never happens again.  As to bin Laden, my opinion is to try him under Islamic law, there can be no punishment greater than to be cendemned under the law you claim to serve. Argon PS - If everyone followed Ghandi, we would live in a lot better of a world, too bad almost no one does...

42!!!!!!!  J/k, until someone proves otherwise to me(and "god said so" and the bible are not proof) I will continue to beleive in the biological meaning of life, to create more life.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to live my life by that, it just means that that is the purpose of life.  /me prepares for a beating by religious people...
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"He who knows his enemy, needs not fear confrontation" - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
"Insanity is not a mental condition, it's a way of life" - Argon Viper
"Those who run from death, win little.  Those who simply live their lives, win much" - Argon Viper

i agree with DH totally, tha'z all i got to say
 
-----------------------
The Trooper That Is Stupider, The Studdly Stormie, The Great Odd One, The VE Loser, Droma. 
"I Am The Youth Of The Nation And Of The World, Therefore, I Am Its Future, Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid." "Boom, Opps, There Goes My Parents, Darn."                

(NOTE: In the following mind-walk, we will blatantly disobey a very basic social custom: never discuss religion, politics or love if you wish to keep friends.)

ter·ror. n.   1. Intense, overpowering fear.   2. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce.   [ . . . ]

terrorism. n.   1. The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce.     [ . . . ]

ter·ror·ist.   1. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.     [ . . . ]

Idiom: "at war."     1. In an active state of conflict or contention.     2. A military campaign in which violence, force or terror is used. [Middle English warre, from Old North French werre, of Germanic origin. See wers- in Indo-European Roots.]

One must not be too hasty in rooting out terrorism all over the world.  "Terror", unlike fear, is an emotion defined in the literary sense by humans alone.  No other biological entity or unseen deity shares such a profound, mutual definition.  By realizing this in our ironic Orwellian world of newspeaking, doublethinking, and thoughtcrimes, we also realize that humans are apt to make mistakes.  The cost of a single drop of human blood -- be it a trivial ounce to a lethal five pints -- is not worth a mistake.  If an individual thinks a human life is worth a mistake, he or she must turn back the pages of history in which American troops bayoneted the infants and raped the women of “terrorists” who attempted to forcefully overthrow a communist government in the Congo. What if we were to visit our local libraries and read the TIME magazines addressing the emotionally charged era when the French government eliminated the 'Stop killing our people!'-"terrorists" in Morocco during its ruthless occupation?  Those Moroccan "terrorists" fought against the raping of their women by foreign invaders and the burning of their homes.  Were they "terrorists"?  In the literary sense, yes.  They inspired "terror" as defined by the official governments of the world.  Were they morally right to cause the "terror" that finally brought their liberation?  If the "terrorists" had become an official government – as they eventually did – then, in the literary sense, yes.  In fact, they would no longer be called "terrorists" since a government empowers an individual to lawfully commit murder without it thus being defined as such.  Do a few federal documents make it legal to murder somebody without bothering to question the morality of the issue?  This is where the hazy question of whether "terror" is capable of being morally right in certain cases transcends our human definitions and settles in moral conceptions.  Conceptions that exist whether or not we believe in an ultimate being or “Creator” who watches over us.  Morality may be dyadic separation to some: only having a right and a wrong.  It also may be "relative" to others: a mere gray area of ever-shifting personal values. What if we were to put a different spin on history in which we are able to root out terrorism throughout time? 1) Gestapo Chief Mueller decries the "underground terrorists" who killed Henrich Himmler, the Nazi henchmen, via a terror-inspiring event.  The American government then moves in to liquidate the “terrorists.” 2) King George III imprisons the "terrorists" who caused terror at Concord Bridge in defiance of his official, kingly rule. The American government then moves in to liquidate the “terrorists.”  3) The Nazi government hangs the "terrorists" who killed the tyrannical Benito Mussolini. The American government then moves in to liquidate the “terrorists.” 4) The British crown labels William Wallace a "terrorist" for revolting after his wife was murdered. The American government then moves in to liquidate the “terrorists.” All of those individuals caused "terror" and were labeled by the official establishments as "terrorists."  Yet if these “terrorists” had been annihilated, perhaps the entire world would be enslaved under the foot of brutal governments unable to be toppled because the populace that they govern are unable to create “terror” to throw off their yoke. In our current global village, valiant France is our loyal ally.  Its sworn enemies, such as the Morocco freedom fighters of the past, are our enemies.  Our government may be prudent in selecting our targets, but what of our allies whom we are legally bound to protect?  If the Eiffel Tower in Paris was destroyed by an oppressed force driven to violence as a final resort would it be right for us to fight them?  No? - They created terror so why not! Yes? - Ah, are we to declare war on anyone who dares revolt against corrupt governments?  They cause terror, yes, but what if they are doing so for a cause that we consider morally justifiable?  If we were Quakers and against the death penalty, we would say that freedom fighters with a noble cause are just as guilty as those who gleefully murder without a cause?  If we adopted such a stance, we would then be compelled to say we would be wrong to kill the perpetrators who destroyed the World Trade Center? If we destroy all the "terrorists" in the world who oppose the official governments -- some of which are corrupt and cause "terror" themselves -- isn't there a slight chance one of those "terrorists" might be fighting for a noble cause?  Are we, an iniquitous civilization whose lengthy history is incessantly cratered with ghastly mistakes, capable of choosing what "terrorists" are considered evil or good? Indeed, are our very definitions/perceptions of that which is "evil" and that which is "good" the same?  What if our definitions/perceptions of a government that is "corrupt" differ from one another?  If our answer is "yes", the latter perception is possible, have we not then  justified the actions of those who destroyed the World Trade Center?  Is everyone's concept "just"/correct, but some people's concepts are more "just"/correct than others?  How are we to define "justice" in a perception which everyone may agree upon (including the "terrorists" themselves)?  Is "justice" measured in terms of who kills less human beings?  If that is so, does that mean if we eliminate more innocent human beings in our universal war against "terrorism" the Taliban will finally appear "just" in the end since they eliminated less?  Do we really care who struck the first blow or does it matter more who killed the most innocent people in order to achieve a goal?  Are innocents who die in a war against "terror" no less innocent than those who die in a war in which "terror" is caused?  If these two wars are thus connected, then are they possibly the same war?  Does one war cause less "terror" than another?  Are we not inadvertently toying with the idea that we, ourselves, are grotesquely phallic "gods" drunken with our own intellects when we may calmly define who is wrong and who is right; what is wrong and what is right; what is "terror" and what is not; who has a right to live on earth and who does not?  Are we willing to kill human beings -- whether they are innocent or guilty -- according to our own perceptions, opinions and definitions?  If so, are we then no worse than the "terrorists" themselves?  How are we, by using "terror", better than they who use "terror"?  The dictionary clearly defines that "war" is terror.  War = Terror.  Whether war is legal or illegal, it still creates "terror."  Are we to start nitpicking over technicalities such as "war is one form of terror" and "unconventional tactics is another form of terror"?  Does that really matter when -- regardless whether it be official war or unconventional tactics -- it is STILL "terror"? Does the question boil down to who we are inspiring "terror" in?  Was the Taliban right for causing "terror" in America?  Is America right for causing "terror" in Afghanistan?  Does it really matter who is right in the first place when we are both inspiring "terror" in one form or another?  Is America not mimicing the Taliban?  Does America, as the Taliban does, carry a sacred chalice in one hand which professes our holiness yet the sword of terror in the other to inflict our wrath?  Why may we say "You have no right to live!" and somehow be pious even though they said it before us? The nearest we can compare this issue to is an onion: it has many layers.  It is not easily solved or answered. Think about that the next time President George Bush deftly denounces "terrorism" across the globe in one single sentence.  Think about the future of governments, both good and corrupt, all over the world (communist, capitalist, monarchy, etc) that we will be defending from the wrath of an upset populace who may choose to cause "terror."  After all, in our saintly world of newspeaking, doublethinking, and thoughtcrimes, we now plan to kill anyone who creates “terror.”  Any man, woman or child who creates terror must be eliminated (as Ashcroft candidly stated to CNN reporters in a White House press conference on September 16th, 2001).  Whether these “terrorists” are right or wrong, they must be destroyed . . . because they create "terror" and are, therefore, "terrorists." There is an old adage: "All your olive branches turn to spears when your flowers turn to guns." Now, this post is not a statement, it is a series of questions.   ----------------------- One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie . . . --- J.R.R. Tolkien

Much of what you say is true, we have made many mistakes in the past.  And yes, there are many people that are legitamate freedom fighters that are fighting for a noble cause.  Bin Laden is not one of those nor is the Taliban.  Ben Laden does not ask for peace, nor does he want freedom.  He wants every man, women, and child that is not of the Islamic faith dead.  The Taliban not in the right either.  We gave them warning that we would strike, they ignored it.  Our soldiers have discovered many things in areas that they have taken.  Plans for mass murder.  Blueprints for mass destruction.  Even a well thought out description of the best way to kill children in the most horrible death imaginable.  They have killed the innocent without warning, and for that they have forfited their right to peace. They attacked us in a civilian installation in our country without provocation in a time of PEACE.  Surely you aren't saying that these monsters should not be stopped.
 
-----------------------
FM/LCRW JMac/Aegis 3-4/Aegis 12/(=A=)
"He who can still laugh can still survive."
"Ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest SOB ever to walk the valley.      ~Vietnam Creedo

Maybe you are right about Bin Laden becoming a sort of Martyr if we kill him, but I disagree that we should put him in one of our prisons.  Our prisons are too good for him.  That butcher should not be getting 3 squares a day, TV, and other ammenities that our prison system offers on our money.  I am not saying that our prisons are nice, but they are far too easy for something of this magnitude.  And we are not stooping to their level in this war, the struck our civilians in a surprise attackk.  We gave fair warning, are doing the best we can to protect their civilians, and are giving aid to the people that need it.  As for us provoking them, the verse in their scripture that says "death to the infidels", IE anyone that is not Islamic should die, is not our fault.  Christianitty also says that our religion is the best and all others are false, but we are not trying to kill them, save a few misguided wackos that believe the ends justify ther means.
 
-----------------------
FM/LCRW JMac/Aegis 3-4/Aegis 12/(=A=)
"He who can still laugh can still survive."
"Ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest SOB ever to walk the valley.      ~Vietnam Creedo

Let me adress each part of your response individually, if I may.  First of all, I agree totally that in becoming what we seek to destroy, we lose our goal as well.  This can be simpler put in saying that the ends do not justify the means.  Currently, this is not what is happening.  Our enemy has attacked our civilians in a time of peace, with no forewarning.  This makes him a murderer.  If we were to blindly lash out, as many wished to do, by sending a nuke over and wasting the area we would indeed have become what we most wished to destroy.  We did not do this.  Rather, we first gathered evidence that assured us that we were attacking a fair target rather then an innocent being because of a misunderstanding.  Secondly, we asked the country that gave refuge to the network that had done this to hand over said network.  They refused, so we are now destroying that network that has wrought this destruction, taking care to avoid innocent casualties.  In doing all of this, I feel that we have not become what we most hate. As to your comment on the figurehead, I will agree partially with you.  A person can be smart, while people for the most part are sheep that will follow anyone with enough charisma to hold their interest.  If you cut the head off a snake, it can not strike.  That is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to destroy human emotion, feeling, or even war.  There will always be war, it can't be prevented.  In knowing this, countries have made agreements not to use weapons of mass destruction, not to harm civilians, and other things like this.  To kill a soldier on the feild of battle is a part of war.  To kill children or innocent people that are not part of the conflict is innexcusable, and that is just what terrorists do.  That is what seperates them from freedom fighters.  Freedom fighters attck soldiers of an oppresser in an attempt to gain freedom, terrorists slaughter the innocent in an attempt to acheive a political goal.  This is not a matter of semantics, this is a matter of justice.   ----------------------- FM/LCRW JMac/Aegis 3-4/Aegis 12/(=A=) "He who can still laugh can still survive." "Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines." Tall, dark, handsome, and all around stud.

This is not a Jihad on our part.  The USA is made up of many religions, not just Christianity.  We even have Islamic people here!  This is a war about justice.  We are not degrading ourselves to their level like a bunch of 2nd graders fighting over some candy.  We gave them warning to turn over the guilty, they refused, so now we are taking down the network that they used to slaughter our innocent.  We are not trying to take over Afganistan, we are trying to take down an evil regime that is responsible for opressing its own people and sheltering the butchers that used civilian jet liners to destroy our civilian buildings.
 
-----------------------
FM/LCRW JMac/Aegis 3-4/Aegis 12/(=A=)
"He who can still laugh can still survive."
"Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines."
Tall, dark, handsome, and all around stud.

Christianity AND Islam both teach you to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. America is standing up for the people who have died in the WTC, and Al Queda is standing up for those who have died from American bombs and guns (most notably the ones sold to Israel). How DARE we dictate to the rest of the world what is right and what is wrong? I expect in the time since JMac wrote his post to now, at least one Palestinian has been killed by an Israeli carrying an American weapon. Until the international arms trade between governments around the world STOPS, then people will continue fighting to stop it. People like Bin Laden. In conclusion: Every year, thousands of tonnes of weapons, from pistols to missiles, are traded between governments. Not terrorists, Governments. These governments then use these weapons to kill people. America has sold huge numbers of weapons to certain countries, which are then used to kill people. Thats the sad, cold, hard truth - Guns kill. If the Russian Government sold a nuclear missile to the IRA, who then used it to wipe out London, killing a million people, I would be pretty mad at Russia - because if it hadn't been for them, the IRA would never have gotten their hands on a nuclear warhead. Until America stops sending weapons to anyone who will buy then, there will always be protests - both from peaceful pressure groups (like Greenpeace, for example), and from unpeaceful groups (like Al Queda). My Government has sold arms to countries. I am not guilty myself, but some of my education has probably been paid for by selling weapons. If you could get away with it, you would kill Bin Laden. Fine. He probably deserves it. If I could get away with it, I would kill any person who sells weapons to foreign countries. Whether thats the head of the CIA or the UK's Defense Minister, I don't care. "The only winners in war are those who don't take part"
 
-----------------------
TO/LCM Bear/Raptor 1-2/VE/VEN/(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [NDM] [LSM]

Lieutenant Commander Bear
Navy Training Officer

Vast Empire Assistant Ambassador

Okay, so far what I'm hearing here is pretty simple.  One side says that the US should destroy anyone who opposes our way of life and impose ours on them, and the other side says we should learn to live peacefully on Earth in general.  Needless to say, I agree with the second, but I'm a realist(most of the time).  Bin Laden himself is not evil.  The system that created him is not evil.  It is merely opposed to the US.  The methods are not necessarily evil.  In fact, my basic opinion is that there is no universal good or evil.  However, let's assume that there is.  The WTC bombing, naturally, goes under evil.  But then, so do the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  The US cannot look at an event of such small magnitude next to what it itself has inflicted and declare it an act of unspeakable evil.  So about 5,000 Americans died.  That stands to almost nothing next to the nearly 200,000 causualties caused by the United States at the end of World War II.  Now, on to the system that created Bin Laden.  That system is one set in place by the US itself!  We support the massively rich and corrupt governments that ring the Middle East(Saudi Arabia for example).  These governments abuse their own people and the US looks the other way.  We have the power to stop them, and we don't!  No wonder they hate us!  On to Bin Laden.  He is a man who is convinced that, if he hits the US hard enough, they will begin to fix what is going on in the Middle East.  Obviously, he was wrong.  That does not make him evil.  He is a freedom fighter to his own mind, and until we can convince him otherwise, he will continue to fight us.  On to weapons trading.  The US trades hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of weapons every year.  Do we know who's getting these weapons?  Sometimes.  Sometimes?  Yes, I'd estimate that a lot them end up in the hands of "extremist" groups like the IRA, the PLO, and even this Islamic Jihad we're now fighting. [I'll edit this to add more later, but you get the gist...]
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"He who knows his enemy, needs not fear confrontation" - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
"Insanity is not a mental condition, it's a way of life" - Argon Viper
"Those who run from death, win little.  Those who simply live their lives, win much" - Argon Viper

Lonewolf, everything you just said is correct. BUT how can we, as Westerners, preach to the rest of the world about peace? America has gone in guns blazing before (Vietnam), Britain has gone in guns blazing (Suez) and we've all gone in guns blazing to loads of other places (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf, Serbia, Korea, etc, etc, etc). We can't tell people around the world to do things peacefully until "the powers that be" (i.e. Thatcher, Big Bush, Little Bush, Blair, Major etc) start to follow that rule themselves. Whilst they break the rule, and go in guns blazing everywhere, the common "subjects" (Thats everyone from me to Lonewolf to JMac to Argon Viper to *dare I say it* Osama Bin Laden) will follow their example. Like it or not, for world peace to start, the leaders of the world have to agree on it. Without that agreement, there never will be peace. (In my opinion)
 
-----------------------
TO/LCM Bear/Raptor 1-2/VE/VEN/(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [NDM] [LSM]

Lieutenant Commander Bear
Navy Training Officer

Vast Empire Assistant Ambassador

JMac: I agree that there would be peace in a perfect world, but let's face it, we don't live in a perfect world. Alright.  So global peace, in the non-perfect world we live in, cannot exist yet President Bush touts the "war on terrorism" as the way of achieving global peace.  He promises we will win, so does he not promise the impossible?  How can you attain peace in a world that has never been peaceful since the first atom moved? Ashcroft said that the war on terrorism is "the war to prevent future wars."  Eerily similar to "the war to end all wars" (Churchill; World War I), and "a war that will bring everlasting peace" (Stalin; World War II). Bush announced today that once Bin Laden was captured America would "look for our next target."  He mentioned deploying troops in Yemen while the CNN commentaries spoke of American assistance of British forces against "terrorists" in Dublin. Are we *now* beginning to see a war that will last forever?  Fighting in Yemen? Fighting in Libya? Fighting in Ireland? Fighting in the Sudan?  Fighting in Timbuktu?  We have basically an international passport to stick our nose into any country that displeases us.  Whether they rightfully or wrongfully displeased us is not the issue.  "Have Gun; Will Travel."  And I saw, and behold, a pale horse, and its rider's name was Death, and hell followed him . . . JMac: Osama Bin Laden is evil. From a Christian viewpoint.  If you follow Taoism or countless other religions, evil does not exist.  There is just "life" itself.  Good or bad ... it exists.  Upon realizing this, we may begin to see how other countries view Bin Laden and the "war on terrorism" in general. JMac: He attacked us, while we have actually tried to help his people. Once Bin Laden is captured, what will be our reasons for fighting in Ireland?  In Yemen?  In Timbuktu?  There will -always- be someone or something to fight.  There has been since the earth was formed. JMac: Osama has hit us before, we did not answer, so now we have this.  Should we let this drop, who knows what he will do. According to a poll on the CNN website, only one out of every ten (1 - 10 ratio) Americans wants Osama Bin Laden captured alive.  The rest want him shot without trial.  Therefore, it is clear that we will not "drop" this issue until Bin Laden is disposed off (whether he is locked away or killed).  Are we not, then, looking in the wrong direction?  We should be looking at what comes after Bin Laden.  Once he and Al-Quaeda is out of the way, who will be our next target?  Will we ever run out of targets?  If we do not, then are we not fighting a perpetual war for perpetual peace?   ----------------------- His fate was destined to a foreign strand, A petty fortress and a "humble" hand; He left the name at which the world grew pale, To paint a moral, or adorn a tale. --- Johnson for Charles of Sweden

I haven't given this topic a second-glance since I posted that first reply. Which I did to elicit various respones, of course. That's not necessarily my true opinion. I am really amazed at what's going on here - this is an awesome discussion you people have going. Just thought I'd chime in here with a few quotes. Maybe I'll be back later with something more substantial. "It is a fearful thing to love what death can touch." -Anonymous "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; therefore, never send to know for whom the bell toll - it tolls for thee." -John Donne "War is at best barbarism...Its glory is moonshine...War is hell." -General William Tecumseh Sherman "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it." -General Robert E. Lee "In the long run we are all dead." -John Maynard Keynes "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.  Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away." -Henry David Thoreau "The liberty of an individual is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization." -Sigmund Freud "We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses." -Carl G. Jung "Show me a hero, and I will write you a tragedy." -F. Scott Fitzgerald "A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies." -Oscar Wilde "The safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts." -C.S. Lewis "In our world, the blind lead the blind, and the sick go to the sick to be cured." -Henry Miller "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." -General George S. Patton, Jr. "I like a man who grins when he fights." -Sir Winston Churchill "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived." -General George S. Patton, Jr. "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." -Rev. Martin Niemoller "We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever." -Carl Sagan "Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." -Aldous Huxley "In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. " -Paul Harvey "Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die." -Salvador Dali "This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." -Elmer Davis "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow." -Anonymous
 
-----------------------
FL/WO2 Darkhawk/Aegis 2-1 (Aegis 5)/Wing1/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE/(=A=)(=SA=)(=JCPA=)[BRC]

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."