this is 7mb but worth every minute

--
***
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

"ChairMan" wrote in message
g.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Tim W

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"ChairMan" wrote in message
g.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Tim W

It doesn't matter what it says, It doesn't need to say anything

In article , "Tim W" wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in message
ng.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Did you wait for the video to download? Did you watch it?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in message
ing.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Did you wait for the video to download? Did you watch it?


Yes. A lot of images of 9/11. Very moving.

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war. The US government
owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the terrorists
wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

Tim w

In article , "Tim W" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in message
ting.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Did you wait for the video to download? Did you watch it?


Yes. A lot of images of 9/11. Very moving.

Then why do you ask why it says "This is what our nation is responding to" ?

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war.

Nonsense. Bin Laden's own public statements demonstrate a considerably
different objective.

The US government
owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the terrorists
wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

To suggest that we "owe" it to our innocent dead to not retaliate, to fail to
avenge their deaths, and have "betrayed" them by doing so is, to put it
mildly, bizarre. Bin Laden himself has stated specifically that American
failure to respond forcefully to previous attacks -- under all three
administrations previous to the current one -- emboldened him to carry out the
one six years ago. It's worth noting that, in the wake of the vigorous
response that followed, there have been no further successful attacks on our
soil.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war.

Nonsense. Bin Laden's own public statements demonstrate a considerably
different objective.

The nonsense is your own. Bin Laden was concerned with Israel-Palestine and
with foreign (US) troops in Saudi Arabia. When Bush characterised 9/11 as an
attack on freedom he was just plain wrong. Bin Laden wanted to draw the US
into a Middle Eastern War which they could not win.

The US government
owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the terrorists
wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

To suggest that we "owe" it to our innocent dead to not retaliate, to fail
to
avenge their deaths, and have "betrayed" them by doing so is, to put it
mildly, bizarre.

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government, not least because of
the innocent suffering involved. Civilised governments recognise that
starting an unecessary war is the greatest of all war crimes. And besides
the US has conspicuously failed to bring to justice any of the perpetrators
of 9/11 because that idiot Bush decided he would invade Iraq instead.

Bin Laden himself has stated specifically that American
failure to respond forcefully to previous attacks -- under all three
administrations previous to the current one -- emboldened him to carry out
the
one six years ago. It's worth noting that, in the wake of the vigorous
response that followed, there have been no further successful attacks on
our
soil.

I have never heard that, but I don't see the relevance. What would be the
point of further attacks in the US when there are so many americans in Iraq
and Afganistan?

Tim w

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:27:16 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government, not least because of
the innocent suffering involved.


Defense is a mandatory function of the U.S.' federal government, with
retaliatory offensives being among the proven strategies of an
effective defense.

Innocent suffering is a tragic consequence of armed conflict, yet it
has occurred at the hands of virtually every "civilised government" in
the world, past or present. For example, it occurred on an enormous
scale in the 1940s while that little border dispute in Europe was
being resolved (not to mention the human cruelty which occurred in
that time and place and which was *not* the result of armed conflict).


----------------------------------------------------
ObWW: Military aircraft used to have frames of wood.
----------------------------------------------------


And besides
the US has conspicuously failed to bring to justice any of the perpetrators
of 9/11 because that idiot Bush decided he would invade Iraq instead.


What an amusingly ignorant assertion on the same day the confession of
Khalid Sheik Mohammed (in U.S. custody, as you're evidently unaware)
was in the news.

URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296695,00.html

The AP version of the story is on your side, though, relating how
cruel the U.S. was in getting him to talk.

URL:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/13/confession.tape.ap/index.html

The ABC News version is even more on your side. Poor, persecuted
little mass murdering thug.

URL:http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html


Bin Laden himself has stated specifically that American
failure to respond forcefully to previous attacks -- under all three
administrations previous to the current one -- emboldened him to carry out
the
one six years ago. It's worth noting that, in the wake of the vigorous
response that followed, there have been no further successful attacks on
our
soil.

I have never heard that...


Hey, there's a surprise.


...but I don't see the relevance. What would be the
point of further attacks in the US when there are so many americans in Iraq
and Afganistan?


Several plots in the U.S. have been foiled in the past couple of
years. For example,

URL:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/11/terror/main2789739.shtml

There are others. Perhaps you'd like to ask your question of some of
the would-be jihadists currently in custody.


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

Tim W wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in message
ting.com...
this is 7mb but worth every minute
Never Forget
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html

Why does it say:-
"THIS is what our Nation is responding to."
I don't understand.

Did you wait for the video to download? Did you watch it?


Yes. A lot of images of 9/11. Very moving.

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war. The US
government owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the
terrorists wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

Tim w

Wow, don't the mental gymnastics to come up with such tripe make your head
hurt?

That kind of comment is so dumb, there is just no point in a rational
response.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article , "Tim W" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war.

Nonsense. Bin Laden's own public statements demonstrate a considerably
different objective.

The nonsense is your own. Bin Laden was concerned with Israel-Palestine and
with foreign (US) troops in Saudi Arabia. When Bush characterised 9/11 as an
attack on freedom he was just plain wrong. Bin Laden wanted to draw the US
into a Middle Eastern War which they could not win.

This is completely false. Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to get out of Saudi
Arabia, and stop supporting Israel.

The US government
owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the terrorists
wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

To suggest that we "owe" it to our innocent dead to not retaliate, to fail to
avenge their deaths, and have "betrayed" them by doing so is, to put it
mildly, bizarre.

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government,

Defense of our citizens is a constitutional responsibility of the government
of the United States.

not least because of
the innocent suffering involved.

"The innocent suffering involved" is at the hands of the terrorists, not the
U.S.

Civilised governments recognise that
starting an unecessary war is the greatest of all war crimes.

*We* didn't start the war.

And besides
the US has conspicuously failed to bring to justice any of the perpetrators
of 9/11 because that idiot Bush decided he would invade Iraq instead.

Another demonstrably false statement, that shows you've been paying *no*
attention to the news. Hint: the name Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should ring a
bell.

Bin Laden himself has stated specifically that American
failure to respond forcefully to previous attacks -- under all three
administrations previous to the current one -- emboldened him to carry out the
one six years ago. It's worth noting that, in the wake of the vigorous
response that followed, there have been no further successful attacks on our
soil.

I have never heard that,

Just shows you haven't been paying attention.

but I don't see the relevance. What would be the
point of further attacks in the US when there are so many americans in Iraq
and Afganistan?

Shows (again) that you haven't been paying attention -- and also shows that
you have no understanding whatsoever of what terrorism is all about.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Wow, don't the mental gymnastics to come up with such tripe make your
head
hurt?

That kind of comment is so dumb, there is just no point in a rational
response.

likewise

Tim w

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:27:16 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government,

Defense is a mandatory function of the U.S.' federal government, [...]

The two are not at all the same thing.

Tim w

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those
awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war.

Nonsense. Bin Laden's own public statements demonstrate a considerably
different objective.

Okay Doug, What was the intention of the 9/11 terrorists? Do you seriously
think they weren't trying to provoke a war?

The nonsense is your own. Bin Laden was concerned with Israel-Palestine
and
with foreign (US) troops in Saudi Arabia. When Bush characterised 9/11 as
an
attack on freedom he was just plain wrong. Bin Laden wanted to draw the US
into a Middle Eastern War which they could not win.

This is completely false. Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to get out of Saudi
Arabia, and stop supporting Israel.

Exactly, by defeating the US in the Middle East. How else could it be done?

The US government
owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the
terrorists
wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

To suggest that we "owe" it to our innocent dead to not retaliate, to
fail to
avenge their deaths, and have "betrayed" them by doing so is, to put it
mildly, bizarre.

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government,

Defense of our citizens is a constitutional responsibility of the
government
of the United States.

Defence and revenge are very different things.

tim w

In article , "Tim W" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Tim W"
wrote:

A thought for you. Bin Laden and the terrorists who committed those
awful
crimes can only have wanted one thing - to provoke a war.

Nonsense. Bin Laden's own public statements demonstrate a considerably
different objective.

Okay Doug, What was the intention of the 9/11 terrorists? Do you seriously
think they weren't trying to provoke a war?

They've stated repeatedly that they wanted us to get out of Saudi Arabia and
stop supporting Israel. They've also stated repeatedly that they don't like
American culture; in particular, the way our entertainment industry glorifies
sex is especially offensive to Islamic culture. Further, they've stated
repeatedly that they want to see all of us dead.

Now what, in any of that, leads you to believe that they wanted to start a
war? Bin Laden has himself stated clearly that they attacked us again because
he thought we would *not* fight back.

Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

The nonsense is your own. Bin Laden was concerned with Israel-Palestine and
with foreign (US) troops in Saudi Arabia. When Bush characterised 9/11 as an
attack on freedom he was just plain wrong. Bin Laden wanted to draw the US
into a Middle Eastern War which they could not win.

This is completely false. Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to get out of Saudi
Arabia, and stop supporting Israel.

Exactly, by defeating the US in the Middle East. How else could it be done?

By continuing to perpetrate terror attacks against us, until we did what they
wanted -- just like they did with Spain a couple years ago.

The US government owed it to every one of those innocent dead not to do what the
terrorists wanted. They have all been betrayed, bigtime.

To suggest that we "owe" it to our innocent dead to not retaliate, to fail to
avenge their deaths, and have "betrayed" them by doing so is, to put it
mildly, bizarre.

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government,

Defense of our citizens is a constitutional responsibility of the government
of the United States.

Defence and revenge are very different things.

The best defense is to be strong enough that nobody will dare attack you. For
that to be credible, requires fighting back when attacked.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:

The best defense is to be strong enough that nobody will dare attack you.
For that to be credible, requires fighting back when attacked.

I guess it doesn't matter if you attack the wrong country just as long as
you attack someone. Right?

In what way was Afghanistan "the wrong country"?

Your logic is screwy at best. The best defense is to be intimidating
("nobody dare attack")? We have one of the strongest/largest militaries
(and we are also the only country to drop 'the bomb' on another country) and
we are not intimidating enough?

Correct -- because deterrence requires not only possessing the *capacity* for
retaliation, but also the *will* to use that capacity. Nobody doubts we have
the capacity, but if we are perceived as lacking the will, we are vulnerable.

Apparently you missed the part where I said that to be credible, you have to
fight back when you're attacked. Like we failed to do after Beirut.
Like we failed to do after Saddam's assassination plot against G. H. W. Bush.
Like we failed to do after the *first* attack on the WTC.
Like we failed to do after the USS Cole.
And on and on and on.

Are suggesting that our attackers don't think we will use our military if
provoked? (Vietnam, Grenada, Beirut, Panama, etc.)

I'm not just suggesting it, I'm stating it outright: Osama bin Laden said
specifically that seeing America retreat from Somalia convinced him that the
United States was a paper tiger, lacking the will to continue fighting after
taking a few casualties.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:33:14 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:27:16 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:

Revenge is not the business of a civilised government,

Defense is a mandatory function of the U.S.' federal government, [...]

The two are not at all the same thing.


That's correct. And as Doug Miller has pointed out for you, Osama bin
Laden has conducted a *series of attacks* on the United States, both
within its borders and elsewhere, demonstrating that his terrorist
organization is a persistent threat against which the U.S.' federal
government has an obligation to defend its citizens.

To dismiss the U.S.' armed response to 9/11, particularly in
Afghanistan, as *revenge* means that one must either be ignorant of
recent history or be deliberately misrepresenting it. Which of those
best describes you?


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:11:26 -0400, "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:


I guess it doesn't matter if you attack the wrong country just as long as
you attack someone. Right?

In what way was Afghanistan "the wrong country"?

What percentage of the hijackers were from Afganistan?


The leadership of the organization on whose behalf the hijackers were
acting was based in Afghanistan, harbored and supported by that
country's ruling regime. If you're suggesting that it would have been
better to ignore that fact and launch a counterattack somewhere else,
then please elaborate. This ought to be downright fascinating.


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:

I guess it doesn't matter if you attack the wrong country just as long as
you attack someone. Right?

In what way was Afghanistan "the wrong country"?

What percentage of the hijackers were from Afganistan?

What, you think we should have gone after Saudi Arabia instead? Are you really
unaware that the terrorists who hit us were based in Afghanistan?

Your logic is screwy at best. The best defense is to be intimidating
("nobody dare attack")? We have one of the strongest/largest militaries
(and we are also the only country to drop 'the bomb' on another country)
and
we are not intimidating enough?

Correct -- because deterrence requires not only possessing the *capacity* for
retaliation, but also the *will* to use that capacity. Nobody doubts we have
the capacity, but if we are perceived as lacking the will, we are vulnerable.

Being 'perceived as lacking the will' does NOT make us vulnerable.

Shows how little you understand. Does the date 7 Dec 1941 mean anything to
you? Being perceived as lacking the will to respond to an attack very much
makes us vulnerable to being attacked.

Apparently you missed the part where I said that to be credible, you have to
fight back when you're attacked. Like we failed to do after Beirut.
Like we failed to do after Saddam's assassination plot against G. H. W. Bush.
Like we failed to do after the *first* attack on the WTC.
Like we failed to do after the USS Cole.
And on and on and on.

[lack of response noted]

Are suggesting that our attackers don't think we will use our military if
provoked? (Vietnam, Grenada, Beirut, Panama, etc.)

I'm not just suggesting it, I'm stating it outright: Osama bin Laden said
specifically that seeing America retreat from Somalia convinced him that
the
United States was a paper tiger, lacking the will to continue fighting
after
taking a few casualties.

[lack of response noted]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

GarageWoodworks wrote:

Shows how little you understand. Does the date 7 Dec 1941 mean anything
to you? Being perceived as lacking the will to respond to an attack very
much makes us vulnerable to being attacked.

Being 'perceived as lacking the will to fight does not make anyone more
vulnerable to attack.

Say what!? I guess that's why Germany was afraid to invade France.
Being perceived as lacking the will to fight is exactly one of the reasons
why countries are invaded and nations enslaved.

What makes a country vulnerable is being
unprepared for an attack. Â* We were definitely NOT prepared on 7 Dec 1941.


That is a second vulnerability as well.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

GarageWoodworks wrote:

Being 'perceived as lacking the will to fight does not make anyone more
vulnerable to attack.

Say what!? I guess that's why Germany was afraid to invade France.
Being perceived as lacking the will to fight is exactly one of the
reasons why countries are invaded and nations enslaved.

What makes a country vulnerable is being
unprepared for an attack. We were definitely NOT prepared on 7 Dec 1941.


That is a second vulnerability as well.

If you are always well prepared for attacks than you will not be
vulnerable
no matter how you are perceived. Perception is not relevant if you are
prepared.



If you look at France prior to WWII, they were well prepared (remember the
Maginot line?). If a country is prepared for attacks, but lacks the will
to fight, then the preparations are nothing but window dressing. Look at
the comments from Bin Laden himself. After we cut and run in Somalia after
losing troops, the perception was that America lacked the will to fight and
as soon as a few casualties were inflicted, the Americans would quit and
run away. Had we held our ground in Somalia and gone after the war lords
and Bin Laden (or vigorously attacked those responsible for the USS Cole),
it is arguably likely that 9/11 would never have happened. As it was,
although the US had the ability and was prepared to fight, the jihadists
believed that the US lacked the will to fight any protracted conflict.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:
Being 'perceived as lacking the will to fight does not make anyone more
vulnerable to attack.

Say what!? I guess that's why Germany was afraid to invade France.
Being perceived as lacking the will to fight is exactly one of the reasons
why countries are invaded and nations enslaved.

What makes a country vulnerable is being
unprepared for an attack. We were definitely NOT prepared on 7 Dec 1941.


That is a second vulnerability as well.

If you are always well prepared for attacks than you will not be vulnerable
no matter how you are perceived. Perception is not relevant if you are
prepared.

I guess it's escaped your notice that being well prepared for attacks
necessarily includes being willing to respond to them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:

What, you think we should have gone after Saudi Arabia instead? Are you
really
unaware that the terrorists who hit us were based in Afghanistan?

Look into the Al Wafa Humanitarian Organization based in Saudi Arabia.
They have been accused of funding al Qaeda.

So you *do* think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:


-- What, you think we should have gone after Saudi Arabia instead? Are you
really
unaware that the terrorists who hit us were based in Afghanistan?

OOps. One more link for you to get "aware"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

excerpt:
"The United States has accused some Islamic charities of funding terrorist
operations. The Saudi-based Wafa Humanitarian Organization, whose operations
include food distribution and construction of a clinic in the Afghan
capital, Kabul, is on a U.S. list of terrorist organizations."

Are you really unaware that the terrorists who hit us were based in
Afghanistan? Do you think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:
I guess it's escaped your notice that being well prepared for attacks
necessarily includes being willing to respond to them.

Of course it does. Like responding instead of continuing to read My Pet
Goat.

Apparently you've paid no attention at all to world events for at least the
last six years.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "GarageWoodworks" .@. wrote:
Look into the Al Wafa Humanitarian Organization based in Saudi Arabia.
They have been accused of funding al Qaeda.

So you *do* think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead?

Geesh. 15 of the 19 were from SA and groups in SA funded al Qaeda. Hmmmm.
At the very least a follow up to Afghanistan.

Attack an ally. Now *there's* a good plan.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

GarageWoodworks wrote:
||| Look into the Al Wafa Humanitarian Organization based in Saudi
||| Arabia. They have been accused of funding al Qaeda.
||
|| So you *do* think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead?
|
| Geesh. 15 of the 19 were from SA and groups in SA funded al Qaeda.
| Hmmmm. At the very least a follow up to Afghanistan. Yeah Iraq
| was a good decision (sarcasm).

This is nuts! The Saudi government and a huge majority of the Saudi
Arab people wish Americans well. It hasn't been much publicized in our
press, but /every/ time OPEC wanted to take us to the cleaners, it's
been the Saudis who stuck their neck out on our behalf by refusing to
go along - and it's they who increased production when needed to avert
what could have been devestating (to us) oil shortages.

If the Saudis wanted to hurt us, all they'd have needed to do was shut
down a handful of wells and announce that our tankers were unwelcome
to visit Dammam.

I don't doubt that the Saudis have their share of bad apples (as well
as their full share of well-meaning, but misled, donors to charity)
but it'd make as much sense to take on the UK because one of their
people packed his shoes with explosive...

What's with this 'urge to war' insanity?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/