GameBanshee Forums

@loner I get that, but a third world war wouldn't be in anyone's interests... What bothers me is that the people who would suffer wouldn't be the people who pose a threat to the USA...

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>I intend no disrespect to anyone here. I have never supported terrorism, and I can't even begin to imagine the mentality that would endorse something so awfull. I'm simply very fearful of what could happen ..........</STRONG>

I saw the face of that mentality, and it staggered me. Rapidly losing hope...

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>@loner I get that, but a third world war wouldn't be in anyone's interests... What bothers me is that the people who would suffer wouldn't be the people who pose a threat to the USA...</STRONG>

Firstly, the speculation that this would be a "third world war" is just that -- speculation. We don't know that it would be that enormously destructive.

Secondly -- yes, civilians suffer in every war. It's been that way since forever. But as I've posted elsewhere -- we would not be deliberately going after civilians, as the terrorists did. We would be going up against the military or against terrorist forces. So they would be the ones targeted for suffering, for lack of a better way of putting it.

Look, I don't want a war; I never said I did. I have a family and a home and a man in my life whom I love very much, and I fear dreadfully for all of them. I hope that a just and peaceful solution can be found. Because the way these things work, if we retaliate, they will retaliate, and we will retaliate, and so on and so on and so on, and the cycle of violence and killing never stops. At the same time, I take the attitude of Joan of Arc: she was perfectly willing to make peace. But if the invaders of France would not make peace, she was quite prepared to fight for it.

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>At the same time, I take the attitude of Joan of Arc: she was perfectly willing to make peace. But if the invaders of France would not make peace, she was quite prepared to fight for it.</STRONG>

Just a question, Loner: Do you view Joan of Arc according to the tradition? I ask because I've read several historical biographies about the lady and the 100 years of war, (I wrote an essay of Joan of Arc when I studied history a long time ago), and I don't view her as altogether peaceful. According to the books I've read, she was for instance so eager to attack Talbot's army so the French decided not to keep her informed about the whereabouts of the army until after they had executed the planned attack.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

If you read Joan's own letters you always find an offer of peace. She basically says "If you will not make peace we will destroy you." What was she supposed to do, let the country be overrun?? Also, her eagerness for battle was not the cause of secrets being kept from her. That had to do with the fact that she was a woman, and the fact that she was not officially in command. It was decided to keep her out of the councils of war for those reasons. (Later, after Orleans, her judgment was trusted to such a degree that Alencon appointed her co-commander and she was allowed into the councils.) She wanted to attack immediately, yes; but it was a tactical decision, not impatience to get to the killing as soon as possible. The captains thought delay was the better tactic. This was the way they had fought the entire war and it had never gotten them anywhere. So Joan thought immediate frontal attack would be the better tactic -- as in, more successful, more likely to end in victory for the French. Once she was allowed to do this, and it was seen that it worked, the French army began fighting in this way, abandoning the old way of hanging around for days or weeks and avoiding frontal attack. In other words, the reason why they didn't want to pursue her tactic was one of maintaining their status as commanders and also maintaining the status quo of how battles were conducted. It was not so they could keep the dog on the leash, as it were. I'm sure there were others far more eager for bloodshed than she...According to the testimony of her companions-in-arms, she wept profusely after every battle, mourning the loss of life.

Joan of Arc was not a dove of peace; she was a soldier. But neither was she a vicious, bloodthirsty murderer, contrary to Luc Besson's recent disgusting travesty on film. She did not want war for the sake of war; she wanted to put a stop to the sufferings of her people. And the only way the English would allow that to happen was through combat. So that's what they got.

You have to be very careful what you read about Joan. Regine Pernoud is the best source; Sackville-West also wrote a good book; and another good one is Joan of Arc: A Military Leader by Kelley deVries.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

@Loner: Thanks Loner, a person like Joan of Arc is really difficult to have any opinios at all of. There are so many myths and legeds around, and 100's of books, some of which portray her as a romantic heroine, some of which portray her a a schizophrenic lunatic. I'd be interested to check out the book you recommended.

@all: Swedish news report that Talibans have stasted they are not going to extradite bin Laden. According to the news, the Taliban charge d' affairs(sp?) in the Emirate, Azaz al Rahman, have said that if bin Laden want to leave Afganistan, they are not going to stop him, but they are not going to force him to leave either.

Furthermore, Swedish news report that the Talibans have threatned to attack any neighbouring country (read: Pakistan who has promised the US full support) that allows the US to use their soil to launch an attack on Afghanistan.

Also Swedish news reports: The tape first black box from the Pentagon plane, contained only silence.

Confirmations?

International news reports:

More sad news from the Middle east: Israel has now attcked Palestine terrotory in the town of Ramallah in the West bank. The Israeli launched 3 attacks with helicopters and tanks. Two Palestinian teenagers have also been killed in Gaza during the night.

Massud, former the leader of the Northern Alliance, (the opposition against the Talibans), is now confirmed dead from the injuries caused by the suicide bomb attack last Monday. This is horrible news for the NA, since Massud is a very important person in their organisation. Masood was also military chief in the old Afghan governement, the one who has the UN seat and the one that is globally viewed as Afghanistans rightful government.

More news from the Middle east:

Israel has fired missiles from a warship into the refugee camp of Nusseirat. WTF are they doing? Do Israel think nobody sees them?

Sharon cancelled the planned cease-fire talks with the Palestinias on Sunday, saying "it could damage Israeli interests". A senior Israeli official said to French news that Sharon's decision was based on "Arafats behaviour now and in the past".

Sharon accused Arafat of being like bin Laden the day after the attack on US. Then Israel launch 4 different attacks on Palesine territory. And now he cancel the cease fire talk???

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1545000/1545140.stm"]BBC report[/url]

Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>What bothers me is that the people who would suffer wouldn't be the people who pose a threat to the USA...</STRONG>

I totally share your worries

Reported by [url="http://www.cnn.com"]www.cnn.com[/url] :

The developer who led the group that purchased the World Trade Center's 99-year lease in July 1999 for $3.2 billion from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said he is committed to help rebuilding the center, according to a published report Friday.

New York-based Larry Silverstein told the Wall Street Journal, "It would be the tragedy of tragedies not to rebuild this part of New York." Silverstein said any rebuilding plans will wait until the grieving process is over. He also said four of his employees remain missing.

Although Silverstein said he is ready to rebuild, he did say he is not committed to creating exact replicas of the towers, acknowledging tenants may be reluctant to relocate in such prominent buildings, according to the paper.

Once all of the missing are accounted for, Silverstein told the newspaper, he will concentrate on the insurance, lease and legal issues resulting from the attack. "It's going to take huge amounts of time to deal with the magnitude of the paper issues," he said, adding that the 99-year lease is insured against terrorism.

"The city is not dead and can't be allowed to die," Silverstein told the Journal. "We owe [rebuilding] to our children and to our grandchildren."

News update from CNN :

The Taliban states that they'll attack US allies, especially any negihbboring country if they give US army space for staging area. Now what's this means ? If they're innocent why putting this statement ?

Any comments ? @Sleepy, lainy & Buck : I don't intend to accuse these Talibans but this is confusing so I want to hear other thoughts about this Talibans statements especially they're statements last few ays make nonsense to me.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: KidD01 ]

Originally posted by KidD01:
<STRONG>News update from CNN :

The Taliban states that they'll attack US allies, especially any negihbboring country if they give US army space for staging area. Now what's this means ? If they're innocent why putting this statement ?</STRONG>

They made that statement, though broad in wording, as a threat to Pakistan in an attempt to keep Pakistan from siding with the US.

@SS: Good to hear they plan to build a new wtc

@Kid: OK, so CNN confirms the same reports as I've heard from Swedish news.

To tell the truth, I don't at all understand the Taliban's reaction. IMPO, sorry if anyone is offended by this, they only bring trouble to the people of Afghanistan. They prepare for war. They seems to think the US is going to attack them anyway. Maybe they are correct about that, but threats towards Pakistan and refusal to extradict Bin Laden is not going to help them.

This I know about bin Laden and his followers:
- They believe the Soviet union fell because of them, because of Allah's will.
- They don't care about anything else than their idea of "purifying" the world according to their fanatic and distorted view of Allah's will - a disgrace and abhorration to any real muslim.
- They view themselves as great heroes and martyrs, fighting against an evil threat (USA, the west, muslims who don't share their views - one of Bin Ladens most important goals in to get rid of the royal familiy in Saudi).

The Taliban's are one of several factions who all fought in the war against the Soviet union. The Northern Alliance, the opposition, is another, who took a different path.

I wonder how closely connected bin Laden and his organisation is to the Talibans...

Time to buy War Bonds. Not since WW2, has war bonds been for sale.

Still missing 300 firefighters, police officers.


Website to donate money to the Firefighters families in New York. [url="http://www.ufalocal.org"]www.ufalocal.org[/url]

C Elegans,

You must remember that the Taliban are a group of fundementalist muslims. As to why they won't give him up, go [url="http://www.almuhajiroun.com/index2.html"]here[/url]. Ignore the propaganda, and click on the link to the fatwa concerning the Terrorism Act 2000 (Great Britain). Read it all. Take a deep breath and go [url="http://www.geocities.com/islamicparadise/home.htm"]here[/url] and look up the passages that were quoted. Draw your own conclusions.

You must remember that the Taliban are a group of fundementalist muslims.

A bunch of mislead fanatics No offense here but they're mislead and fanatics

Originally posted by KidD01:
<STRONG>A bunch of mislead fanatics No offense here but they're mislead and fanatics </STRONG>

You should be carefull here. Nothing is all that easy. In a question of level everybody is fanatic. Maniqueist[ exist this word in english?], you see things as a maniqueist fashion. Look I'm not putting my valors on the sides. Try to see things in a more relative way. I understand your hate, but they are victims too. They are not crazy, they heve reasons.
There is no Cain and Abel in this world.

Another update :

GW Bush officially stated OSB as "PRIME SUSPECT".

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
<STRONG>Time to buy War Bonds. Not since WW2, has war bonds been for sale.

Still missing 300 firefighters, police officers.

Website to donate money to the Firefighters families in New York. [url="http://www.ufalocal.org"]www.ufalocal.org[/url]</STRONG>

Thanks for the link, DP.

Originally posted by Sojourner:
<STRONG>C Elegans,
You must remember that the Taliban are a group of fundementalist muslims. As to why they won't give him up, go [url="http://www.almuhajiroun.com/index2.html"]here[/url]. Ignore the propaganda, and click on the link to the fatwa concerning the Terrorism Act 2000 (Great Britain). Read it all. Take a deep breath and go [url="http://www.geocities.com/islamicparadise/home.htm"]here[/url] and look up the passages that were quoted. Draw your own conclusions.</STRONG>

Thanks for the links. I will read them, although I know my blood pressure will rise to dangerous levels.

IMO - hope noone takes offense by this - the Taliban's are more than "ordinary" fundamentalists, they are total fanatics. Only 3 countries in the Arab world have approved of the Taliban's as Afghanistans rightful leaders.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>You should be carefull here. Nothing is all that easy. <SNIP> Try to see things in a more relative way. I understand your hate, but they are victims too. They are not crazy, they have reasons.
There is no Cain and Abel in this world.</STRONG>

Indeed, but those people known for their terrorism act. Which I highly condemn due the victims are innocent lives. Nuff said

One thing came accross my mind is the "Sleeper Agents" How we gonna counter this agents of terrorist ? THis is terrible indeed since I've heard there are statements involving attacks on US companies around the globe