Posted on 05/20/2002 4:24:17 AM PDT by eclectic
Yeah. Me, too.
But it seems the "powerful 'Mericans" are not feeling very powerful, much less wrathful, or even faintly annoyed.
So when does the annihilation start? he asked with a yawn
Absolutely, especially when YOUR side is the one attacked first.
Sand Creek is just a bad analogy. Hiroshima, the ultimate endgame of the attack on Pearl Harbor, might be a better one.
Timing (proximity to homicide bombing in Israel for which PFLP claimed responsibility) and target (PFLP commander) are too coincindental.
I think this is Mossad's way of saying: "we know where you are, and you'll pay for anything you do to us."
No, he picked up some cut-rate surplus bombs from Friends of the Earth and/or Earth Liberation Front...
--Boris
Group think...I think I've seen evidence of that at numerous riots.
I figure there are enough Americans (including some here at FreeRepublic) who won't reach their boiling point until the US gets hit another time; they are willing to wait and not do the things that need to be done until we've been attacked with low-yield nukes or dirty conventional bombs, or chemical or bio weapons. Then they will wring their hands and whine "Oh, why didn't we do something before?", to which there will be no answer except "I told you so".
ROFL!!!
I respectfully disagree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fine, except not carried to the finality which the situation deserved. The targets should have included Tokyo and the next dozen or so largest cities remaining in Japan. The popular goal of the Americans immediately after Pearl Harbor was the eradication of the Japanese; it should have remained so.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicate a mind-set of punishment for retribution. Sand Creek is a mind-set of complete and total destruction. That is what I favor.
This was a PFLP commander, and his untimely death occurred just a day after a PFLP bombing in Netanya.
If you're trying to send a message, you want to:
a) kill somebody important, to give the other important guys pause the next time they think about trying it.
b) make it very public, so that there can be no mistake that he was taken out.
c) use a bomb. For one thing, direct assassination means that your people might be caught and/or killed. But more importantly, the ability to place a bomb in a commander's car is guaranteed to make them shaky about their security, and thus puts them off their game.
This is an ugly game, but it's very important to be able to play it well.
That car bomb trick gets 'em every time....
Maybe in Newark. That way, nobody would notice.
Why? As far as I'm concerned they would be totally justified taking out as many of these monsters as possible.
Yeah "Group-think" - just like the Palestinians who believe by blowing themselves up they go to paradise.
At the time the police told us that by the time we discovered our auto missing it was probably on a ship outward bound!
This thread would be a lot more fun if the 'b' and 'r' were transposed.
That is what makes me very, very, uneasy about post 9/11 America. 8 months later, and the people are "back to normal". We went through all that hand wringing and whining before. I have my doubts about whether anything can mobilize people's thoughts and will enough to get the job done in any meaningful way.
As it is, we are heading for yet another concession to the world in the form of a permanent national anxiety about when and where the (probably nuclear, in some fashion) "next attack" will come. I say that that is unacceptable. I'm supposed to raise my children in a culture of fear and dread? No way.
Bush did say we would turn the terrorists against one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.