posted September 20, 2001 08:08 PM            

I'll just delete it and shove my post here.

quote:

---

Title: "Freedom vs Fear"

Anyone else hear Bush's speech today?
Basically, he drew a line in the proverbial sand, and said "Democracy on this side, terrorists and their allies (The Taliban, etc. a.k.a. "losers") on that side." The rest was praising American's (and the rest of the world's) response to the tragedy, commending everyone on their unity and such. There was also a statement to the effect that the USA respects Islam, and that the attacks are not considered an attack by Islam on the US, merely an attack by terrorists who happen to be Muslim, and that they "betrayed Islam" by attacking us.

Altogether a very rousing speech. I was almost deeply affected, which is damn hard to do if I'm not open to being moved.

Comments, thoughts?

---

There was also a bit about the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" to coordinate antiterrorism efforts within the United States.

Bush was fairly restrained, but he basically said that Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden are going to take the fall one way or another. He also demanded that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden and all the other leaders of Al-Qaida, and shut down any and all terrorist training camps within Afghanistan, then open them to American military personnell to make sure the damn things are actually abandoned.

He said that there will be a long, drawn out conflict the likes of which the world has never seen before. I think he means 'new' as in 'new techniques', not as in 'fucking huge'. This is to be expected, since there has never been an open war declared upon a terrorist organization before.

Personally, I agree with all the steps taken so far, and those that have been proposed. I'm rather scared about the possibility of sending ground troops into Afghanistan, since we know how that's likely to end. However, I'm confident that the United States & anyone who joins us will be able to cook up some mixture of strategies that will destroy Al-Qaida.

posted September 20, 2001 08:31 PM            

I was especially pleased with the effort he made to stress that this isn't a holy war or a war against the Arab world. Also glad to see that he didn't pour on the whole "truth justice and the American way" stuff too much.
The excessive patriotic language (overuse of the word 'liberty', for example) really can get quite corny, to the point of being nauseating to the non-American, even at a time like this. But this was a good speech, with just the right amount of that grand, patriotic language that we all love so much.

An all around top notch speech, exactly what was needed, at least in my humble opinion.

posted September 20, 2001 08:33 PM            

I believe that it is in fact spelled "Al Qeada". I'm not sure. Is that how it's pronounced? Bush said it like "Al Qaida". If anyone knows anything about Arabic, please help.

posted September 21, 2001 08:45 AM         

I got this info from the Gallup Poll homepage.

quote:

---

According to nationwide surveys taken by Roy Morgan International the day following the attacks, strong majorities of those interviewed in these three nations favored an American retaliatory strike in response to the terrorists’ actions. More than two-thirds of those interviewed in the U.K. (72%), Australia (74%) and New Zealand (71%) supported some form of military attack by the United States -- nearly as high a proportion as when this same question was put by Morgan to the American public itself (83%).

---

posted September 21, 2001 09:19 AM            

I'll believe you're in the majority when you say people of your nation criticize the U.S. government. But I don't think criticism translates to anti-American sentiment. Every thinking citizen of the U.S., myself included, criticize our own government quite often. This is not anti-American. Burning a U.S. flag (in itself not anti-American IMHO) while chanting "death to the great satan" is anti-American.
[edited to include link to image]

[This message has been edited by Paranoid Android (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 21, 2001 10:39 AM         

To be 100% honest, I was surprised at the lack of wiggle room given as well. That could have been a mistake, he gave no out for them OR us.

The best possible solution is having the Taliban hand over the terrorists. I also believe that somebody should present the evidence implicating Bin Ladin to the world... as long as it doesn't harm national security.

posted September 21, 2001 11:57 AM            

[This message has been edited by Paranoid Android (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 21, 2001 12:02 PM            

He demanded that Afghanistan wipe out all terrorists and terrorist camps in the country, and turn over Bin Laden, immediately.

That's like telling us to wipe out the mob and turn over the Godfather. IT CAN'T BE DONE. That demand has guaranteed a war with Afghanistan, and if we're not really lucky, its allies as well.

He then said that "you are either with our nation or you are against it". This has divided the world into two sections, with everyone in one of those sections being "the enemy".

At first I didn't believe this could escalate into a world war. After last night I'm ready to build a fallout shelter.

------------------
“It seems so quasi-tribal. Ugh! This America land! You no come here!” - Roup

“He probably has all sorts of weird sexy sex-kinks when he and his sexy sex-partner do their sexy dirty sex sex sex.” - The Onion

posted September 21, 2001 12:09 PM            

We've got much better tanks. So what? You can't use them in gorges and passes. We've got great bombers, invisible to radar. Good luck hitting a tiny target surronded by steep cliffs and sheltered by tons of solid rock.

If we were to strike in, our ground troops would be fighting an enemy on close to equal terms, in a terrain they know well and have close to ten years of experience defending against a larger and better equipped foe.

What do we have to balance it? Helicopters. That's about the only bit of high-tech warfare that's suited for the terrain. And sadly, they have a high-tech response we gave them: Stinger missles.

Far better to squeeze until they turn him over themselves. Strike at their exposed and stationary infrastructure (they do have military bases and airfields, even tanks and supply dumps) and continue destroying their military and embargoing their trade until such time as they root him out themselves.

You do not want American troops invading. It would be a bloodbath.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

--Homer Simpson

posted September 21, 2001 12:22 PM            

I heard the exact same predictions about Desert Storm. The next Vietnam? Not even close. If (or perhaps when) American infantry is deployed to Afghanistan, I think it'll be with a clear-cut, attainable goal in mind. This was one of the lessons America learned from Vietnam.

[This message has been edited by Paranoid Android (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 21, 2001 12:53 PM            

I think that Morat's Starve 'Em Out Plan is a better solution. It places the choice and responsibility on the Afgan government without causing undue hardship and senseless loss of life.

Make edits, not war.

[This message has been edited by megalita (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 21, 2001 01:23 PM            

I am in no way saying that Osama Bin Laden is innocent. And he has certainly done things in the past that warrant his arrest. But I have yet to see any concrete proof that he is linked to this. And more to the point neither have the Taliban.

They have said repeatedly that they are more than willing to cooperate if we give them proof that he is involved. Now, the case may be that there will be no proof that we could ever provide that would ever be concrete enough for them to hand him over. But that is beside the point. For that to even be an issue we would have to show them proof first. We are being total assholes. We are going to war with a people because we won't give them any sort of reasoning for making a demand. All this is going to be is a war on the poor, thousand of innocent cilivilians will be killed because of this (both theirs and ours). All because we can't provide proof and aren't willing to wait to get some. I am amazingly scared that we will find out later that it wasn't Osama Bin Laden that started this war.

If another country asked us to hand over someone without giving any proof we would laugh in their face. We are asking a proud people to do something against their religion and giving them no reasoning for it.

Anyways, recapping my main points. We (the U.S.) are being assholes.

Thoughts?

------------------
www.supernathan.com
This site is actually up and ready for viewin'.

posted September 21, 2001 01:35 PM            

The problem with Afghanistan, and with Vietnam, is the terrain made it difficult to bring our advanced weaponry to bear. Tanks were useless in the jungles, and will be equally so in most of Afghanistan. Bombers were reduced to dealing large amounts of damage to an area (carpet bombing) because precision was impossible to achieve.

Further, the complications of Vietnam exist in Afghanistan. Who, exactly, is the enemy?

In Desert Storm, it was the guys in Iraqi uniforms driving military equipment across the deserts of Kuwait.

In Afghanistan or Vietnam....how can you tell peaceful (or at least frightened and passive) villagers from the enemy?

We have no interest in conquering Afghanistan. We aren't angry with their government, and our goal has nothing to do with their military.

Anyone drawing parallels between Desert Storm and Vietnam had their head wedged firmly up their buttocks, or (I suppose) was referring to something else entirely.

Desert Storm was easy. "Us" versus "Them" where "them" was "The easily identifiable Iraqi military occupying Kuwait" on flat terrain that made it easy to spot troops and facilities from the air (or space) and made sneakiness on the Iraqi's part almost impossible.

Hard to ambush people with no way to hide. It can be done, but gorges and passes make such better situations for it.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 21, 2001 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

More than two-thirds of those interviewed in the U.K. (72%), Australia (74%) and New Zealand (71%) supported some form of military attack by the United States

---

72% is at the high end of the polls I've seen in the UK, but I wouldn't argue with it. I would, however, like to know what 'some form' of military intervention meant. In some polls it was anything from 'using miliary force to arrest Bin Ladin' onwards. Even I, left-wing liberal traitorous coward that I am, would support that military measure.

Secondly, you need to note that when the questions were reworded to ask "Would you support military force if UK troops were involved?" the 'yes' answers began to drop rapidly.
The 'yes' responses from women were consistantly 10 - 20% lower in the 'yes' camp than the repsonses from men.

And I'm taking these stats from all three of our national broadsheets, and my local paper, since I like to get a spread of opinions.

As a side issue, I read today that the Taliban recieved 43 million $ from the Bush administration as a recognition of their assistance with the 'war against drugs'.

Anyone know where I can start looking for stats on that payment?

posted September 21, 2001 01:38 PM            

Simply put, we've taken abuse from the Terorrist networks for too long.

First of all, there is proof. Theose we know were involved were known Bin Laden supporters, we know Bin Laden provided money. We don't know if he was the only one, but we do know he is the biggest one. You know the old saying, "Cut off the head, and the body dies." - This is what America and its allies are doing.

I, personally, think that peace without war in this case is impossible. Bin Laden will stop at nothing to win his war on us, and so we should stop at nothing to defeat him. He is the kind of enemy that makes negotiations useless. He is determined to spread his twisted view of Islam across the world, and the Taliban is aiding him.

Also, Bin Laden and his terrorist army have been targeting more than just the United States. Unfortunately, the only other country that I remember from the news was "Ireland", but I can assure you he has attacked others.

Yes, I know that the US traned him and his men. Yes, I know that we gave him his money, and his power. That is our mistake. We have learned from it, and now we are righting it.

I don't think we should kill him. A much stronger victory would have us capturing him and tring him in a court of law.

We don't have to like military action, we don't have to support military action. We just need to accept that this is our only availible recourse.

------------------
A Patient of the Mental Dystopia Clinic - and not happy.

"I can't think of anything to say..." - Voice in 'Pink Floyd - Brain Damage'

posted September 21, 2001 02:04 PM            

quote:

---

Simply put, we've taken abuse from the Terorrist networks for too long.

---

The thing is, no we haven't. We have taken amazingly little abuse from terrorists. which is why this is such a big thing. There are other countries that deal with terrorism on a daily basis (certainly not always on this scale) and it has become a way of life. Up until the 11th attacking American soil was a no-no to everyone.

quote:

---

First of all, there is proof. Theose we know were involved were known Bin Laden supporters, we know Bin Laden provided money.

---

So what, I would say that I am a supporter of Norm McDonald but that doesn't mean if I kill someone that it is in his name. And even if it is it doesn't mean that Norm had anything to do with it.

As for Bin Laden having provided money, I haven't heard anything even close to that be reported yet. But again I could be totally wrong and if someone could point me in the way of an article I would be very appreciative.

quote:

---

You know the old saying, "Cut off the head, and the body dies." - This is what America and its allies are doing.

---

The problem here is that Bin Laden is in no way the head of this beast. I have heard multiple things saying that the terrorists love that we focus on Bin Laden because it draws attention away from the numerous smaller leaders. This orginization is the terrorist equivilant of the Hydra and cutting its head off isn't valid option here. All we do after we kill Bin Laden (or sentence him, although the idea that he could get a fair trial anywhere is laughable) is make him a marter, which is 10,000 times worse than Bin Laden as a general.

quote:

---

I, personally, think that peace without war in this case is impossible. Bin Laden will stop at nothing to win his war on us, and so we should stop at nothing to defeat him. He is the kind of enemy that makes negotiations useless. He is determined to spread his twisted view of Islam across the world, and the Taliban is aiding him.

---

Fair enough, not sure I disagree with you on this. But I think my idea of military action would be drastically different than most people's and I think the more important step of this is long term Foriegn Policy change. The only way this will ever end is if we convince these people that we aren't the devil.

quote:

---

I don't think we should kill him. A much stronger victory would have us capturing him and tring him in a court of law.

---

Again the idea the Osama Bin Laden (now known in many parts of the world as "The Devil") getting a fair trial is rediculous.

quote:

---

We don't have to like military action, we don't have to support military action. We just need to accept that this is our only availible recourse.

---

And that is strike three. Or a ball, or maybe a fly ball. I am not sure, one of those.

This kind of thinking scares the crap out of me. It isn't military action that is going to fix this problem. It is military action that is going to get attacks on US soil to increase exponentially, and for muslims all over the world to continue to be villified.

So in closing, you didn't manage to cover any of the points of my last message. I think you made good points, I just happen to disagree with all of them. Back to my original complaint. The U.S. are Assholes for expecting a country to meet our demands without any sort of proof.

Thoughts?

posted September 21, 2001 02:14 PM            

quote:

---

Bomb us back to the Stone Age?

By TAMIM ANSARY

I'VE been hearing a lot of talk about bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age and whether we "have the belly to do what must be done".

I've thought about these issues especially hard because I'm from Afghanistan, and though I've lived in the US for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree something must be done about these monsters.

But the Taliban and bin Laden are not Afghanistan.

They're not even the government of Afghanistan.

The Taliban is a cult of ignorant psychotics. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. When you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps".

It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity: they were the first victims of the perpetrators. The people would exult if someone went in there, took out the Taliban and cleared out the rat's nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated.

A few years ago, the UN estimated there were 500,000 disabled orphans. There are millions of widows, the soil is littered with land mines and the farms were destroyed by the Soviets.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs.

Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban – by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

What can be done, then? Let me now speak with fear and trembling. The only way to get bin Laden is with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done", they're thinking of having the belly to kill as many as needed, to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people.

But let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. Not just because some would die fighting their way through to bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks.

To get troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

Guess what: that's bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this.

Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarise the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose; that's even better from bin Laden's point of view.

He's probably wrong. In the end the West would win, whatever that would mean. But the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Salon.

Tamim Ansary is a writer in San Francisco and the son of a former Afghan politician

---

posted September 21, 2001 02:25 PM            

So yeah. Good idea: trying to get hold of Bin Laden. Bad idea: trying to bully his neighbors into turning him over.

I also share the uneasy fear that we might find out, in the end, that someone else entirely was responsible for this attack. But ... fair trial or no, if he denies having organized it and has a couple dozen witnesses ready to attest that he was taking dancing lessons at the time, how the hell could we prove anything? Even if he did do it?

So ... figuring to offer Afghanistan convincing evidence that he's guilty may also be unfeasible.

Is there even any point to considering sending in a covert ops team to abduct him?

------------------
-=> Toon

posted September 21, 2001 03:11 PM            

I think our government and its agencies have a lot of proof. But they're not laying it out for anyone because it's still very early in the investigation.

[massive dysfractionation; got called away to a 2 hour meeting while writing this!]

[This message has been edited by Paranoid Android (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 21, 2001 04:45 PM            

quote:

---

The thing that worries me about a ground war in Afghanistan, is the Soviet Union tried it, and all they have to show for the effort is 170,000 graves.

---

The US armed and trained them, didn't we? Including bin Laden himself, IIRC. I'm not worried about a repeat of Russia's failure. Somehow I doubt they'll have the same level of assistance this round.

SunAvatar, a hard line was taken by our president. It sounds like a lot.
I knew they wouldn't comply. They can't, bin Laden's a core part of their structure. What we're forcing them to do is come out and publicly defend him, to actively hide him, and thus tell the world that they support terrorism.
It was a calculated demand, and I approve.

Morat, I would agree except for one count...if it gets that bad, the modern US will find another way. We're too chicken to die like that again.

But then, we won't really be fighting like that. Vietnam was different. Who is going to be supplying the weapons now, the USSR? Also, we're going to be in open war, not the halfway-war stuff that leads to nothing good.

Also, that "starve them out" tactic you describe is something I've heard before...from Bush, in the same speech. Remember that part? Anyone lending them aid is effectively declaring war on the US and its allies. We'll see how many countries aid the Taliban with the threat of total war on the horizon.

Furthermore, our weapons systems are different. Have you seen the new guidance and target aquisition hardware? I have. Have you seen how well the new weapons dodge terrain? I have. I'm not worried about hills and cliffs.
So long as the military strikes are properly funded, the terrain will serve one purpose...it will give the fleeing terrorists somewhere to hide. I believe that's where ground troops may finally come into play.

This may not turn out clean, it probably won't. It will not be another Vietnam.

As for the questions of proof of bin Laden's guilt, that's addressed in a thread dedicated to the subject. I'll leave it there.

posted September 21, 2001 05:01 PM         

quote:

---

The United States indicted bin Laden for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, twin blasts that killed more than 200 people. Since 1998, in an attempt to convince Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden, Washington has held regular talks with Taliban officials in Washington, New York and Islamabad, another Western diplomat said. U.S. officials even went through the indictment and evidence with the Taliban, the indictment, he said.

“Their answer was no,” the diplomat said.

---

To hell with the Taliban. They made their own bed. Welcome comrades of the Northern Alliance... you may be our only realistic chance.

It's about time that terrorists cower in fear of US. It's about time that terrorists reap consequences for their actions. They have made us cower, they have savaged our economy in the space of a week, it is time for them to fade away.

posted September 21, 2001 06:16 PM            

You had trouble reading my last post, I said this sentiment has been placed on hold over the last two weeks (Why post a poll from this period?), and even prior to that it is hardly a defining attitude of out country. The fact of the matter is that Australian’s don’t generally trust the US. Why?

Vietnam (You didn’t fight that one alone)
Tariffs (You treat you friends like enemies and sleep with your enemies, ie China)
Loud brash behaviour (American tourists can be very conspicuous, and I know it’s a minority, but these are the guy’s we see and remember)
Arrogance (USA is the best place in the world.....Ha, I can think of 8 countries at least that are at least on even terms)
NYSNC (You gave us these wankers, damn you to hell)
That USA...USA...USA chant (Hated that)
2001 World swimming championships (We win more gold medals that you and you still say you won that’s bad sportsmanship)
Kyoto (That’s a big ‘FUCK YOU’ to the world there)

These are reasons why Australian’s say things like ‘Oh, don’t worry about him, he’s a yank’ or ‘Fucking American tourists’. Misplaced? Yes I think so, but this doesn’t change the fact that this is how it is. That said, we do consider ourselves close friends to America and would support the US into a dark blind alley with a plastic butter knife, but you are a ‘tall poppy’, so cut you down we do. I would list positive aspects of our relationship with the US here, if I wanted to list thousands of entries ;-)

If other Australian’s here disagree with me that this sentiment permeates throughout US-Australian relations, tell me I’m wrong, I will listen.

Brad, I believe I am talking for the majority, so I will continue to do so.

Paranoid Android,

quote:

---

I'll believe you're in the majority when you say people of your nation criticise the U.S. government. But I don't think criticism translates to anti-American sentiment. Every thinking citizen of the U.S., myself included, criticise our own government quite often.

---

My point exactly. I don’t believe either AngelFish, or myself painted our nations in that light.

USADave,

I'd prefer it if you didn't leave. You provide an alternative view of what I have always considered black/white and you arguments with McDuff are very interesting and informative. For these reasons alone it would be a shame.

quote:

---

ideas are made equal--equally meaningless.

---

How?

posted September 21, 2001 07:08 PM            

Don't get me wrong, I love this country to pieces, but there's still things I find bizzare, amusing, annoying and downright stupid about America and the American people.

As Rockwell said... "That said, we do consider ourselves close friends to America and would support the US into a dark blind alley with a plastic butter knife"

We haven't forgotten that you guys saved our Aussie arses in World War 2... even if you coulda been a bit quicker about it.

So Brad, don't think that most Brits and Australians blindly love everything about Americans, and also don't think that those of us who critisise the USA wish harm apon it...

It's just part of British and Australian culture... we have a somewhat similar love/hate relationship with England too.
It's nothing to be offended or angered by.

[sarcastic example] You Americans take everything so fucking seriously... lighten up! [/sarcastic example]

posted September 21, 2001 08:31 PM            

I really would like to add something to the discussion (or argument, or bitchfest, whatever you want to call it), but quite frankly, you've all beaten me to it. Damn you all and your way with words.

On a more serious note:
Yes, you've all said just about everything I have been worrying about and wondering about and even bitching about: Our American "assholiness" for a lack of a better term, the hypocritical behavior of everyone on every side of the issue, the way everyone condemns others for doing the same things that they would themselves call justified of they were the ones doing it, the way the Pres said it wasn't about religion yet constantly uses the terms "evil-doers" and "crusade".

What else can I say? What COULD I say that would mean anything? Would it matter, really?

No, it wouldn't.
What will happen, will happen whether I like it or not. It's always been this way and it will always be this way.
People have been killing each other for stupid reasons ever since we started walking on two legs (or for the religious types, ever since Adam and Eve ate that apple).

We could wipe out the terrorists, but there would be more to take their places.
We can blame religion for this mess (which I think it's the ultimate cause of all this hatred) but that won't stop people from believing their religion is better than all the others, nor will it stop radical Muslims from trying to force other countries to adopt their ways......or Christian missionaries from converting forest tribes to their religion with what I consider to be nothing but coercion and false promises of prosperity in the modern world. But that's just me.

Human beings are just as brutal and self-serving as they ever were. We're the only creatures I know of that kill each other for nothing more than ideas or opinions, which just spawns more hate and prejudice and causes even more suffering. It's just a vicious neverending cycle.

One more thing: I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see anything "holy" about killing others. IMO, bin Laden is a fanatic hellbent on destruction and apparently he and people like the Taliban want the whole world living in the Stone Age again, and they use the "My religion is the only true faith and you have to adopt it or be exterminated like the vermin you are" excuse. I want to slam dunk a very large pumpkin on top of each one of their heads for twisting a peaceful religion into a hate-breeding, murderous cesspool to serve their own power-hungry ideals. And that's just for starters.

I didn't make the foreign policies they hate so much.
I didn't force anyone else to change because I thought they should live the way I live.
I didn't kill anyone because of their religion or ideas.
I didn't bomb those people in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And I sure as HELL don't want to suffer for the decisions of the people who DID do those things.

I just want to go to bed, get some sleep, maybe have a snack later on, drink my iced tea, pet my kitty cat, go fishing with Dad tomorrow, and live my life without fear of being killed just because I go about my own damn business.

Is that too much to ask?

{Edited again because I always find words to put in there to clarify it that I forgot to put in the first time.

------------------
Night breeds its own sort of anticipation.

[This message has been edited by Devin Austra (edited September 21, 2001).]

IP: Logged

posted September 22, 2001 06:16 PM            

quote:

---

I want to slam dunk a very large pumpkin on top of each one of their heads for twisting a peaceful religion into a hate-breeding, murderous cesspool to serve their own power-hungry ideals. And that's just for starters.

---

Oh, and did I see USA Dave vanish into some egotistical orifice or other up there? Well, it's his life, he certainly doesn't have to be here if he doesn't want to be.

Incidentally, this post isn't 100% serious. The views expressed in it are not not necessarily the views of the McDuff Management.

------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC

Barbies are melting TODAY. - Jesse Dangerously

IP: Logged