I like this thread, it is very educational.
So, please explain to me which country had declared war on the USA when the
USS Cole was attacked. I was not aware that a state of war existed between
the USA and another country, and it would seem that neither did the crew of
the Cole. Yes, there are dangerous areas in the world and the Cole should
have been on high alert, especially where they were, but political
correctness in those days was more important than security.
Now you are going to tell me that no country had declared war on the USA at
that time nor did any country declare war on the USA immediately after the
USS Cole was attacked, or since. If you say that some fanatical group or
some religious group or some extremist group somewhere was behind the
attack, then I will point out to you that it was indeed a terrorist act. It
was also a terrorist act to attack the Pentagon, even if you think it's a
legitimate military target. Since we were not at war when the Pentagon was
attacked and that no country declared war on us after 9-11, the Pentagon
attack was an act of terrorism.
Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried to get the war
declaration to Washington before the attack itself. The Japanese diplomatic
corps in Washington screwed up and presented the declaration several hours
after the fact, but they presented the declaration.
As of yet, the only person who declared war on the USA (and actually on the
entire civilized world,) is Osama bin Ladin, who did not speak for any
country. Even the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan tried to tell us they
didn't have anything to do with bin Ladin. They certainly did not want to
declare war on us.
Earlier in this thread, I posted a URL to bin Ladin's full message to
America. I repeat it here, so that if you missed it the first time, you can
see it now. http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
This is where OBL explains why he did what he did and what he wants from us
in order to stop.
As the proud father of three lovely girls, I cannot think of a worse fate
than having the Western World become Islamic states.
You can debate all you want whether some of OBL's targets where legitimate
or not or whether what he did was terrorism or not, it's irrelevant. OBL
represents a gang of thugs, a gang of terrorists. He committed terrorist
acts and none of the targets where legitimate.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Wayne R. Boyer
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War
In a message dated 2/12/03 2:41:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> The attack on the Pentagon was done with a civilian aircraft...full of
> civilians...that's terrorism.
>
Ray, I agree that the use of a plane full of civilians as a weapon adds a
large element of terrorism to the act even if the target was highly
military.
That's why I said "One could also argue..." I am NOT saying that the
Pentagon attack was NOT a terrorist attack. I am just pointing out that it
is a military target just like Saddam's military headquarters will be and it
was logical to consider the Pentagon a target for Osama's men.
The terrorism logic doesn't apply to the attack on the Cole though. No
civilians and a 100% military target. I've heard that attack being referred
to as a 'terrorist" attack many times now. My basic point is that the word
'terrorism' is being greatly overused.
Wayne
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
