On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:45:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Bastiaan,
> Just some questions ... > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> <snip> >> To tell the world that the US have been attacked or will be attacked >> by Saddam is "bull shit". A preemtive strike on a country that is >> not even threatening is ridiculous and a thread to all nations. > By his own admission, Saddam pays the family of each Palestinian *martyr* > who dies in a suicide attack against Israel. Under American law, someone > who pays another to commit a crime is also guilty of the crime (and also > guilty of conspiracy). Sadam shows solidarity to the ones 'left behind'... he does not pay to commit or order for a crime. For propaganda purposes, to Arabs, he shows compassion to the families and supports them in their needs (for foot , etc.) > Do you consider these suicide attacks to be crimes? Yes, I do... very serious crimes!! But stopping Sadam will not end these terrorist attacks, not in Israel, not in Ireland, not in Colombia, not in Bask Spain, not on Corsica, not in Korean underground, not in the Philipines... > If so, would you consider it understandable for the Israeli government to > consider this payment from Saddam to be *aiding and assisting in the > commitment of a crime*? Yes, I do understand that! But Sadam is defenitely not the main cause of these crimes. > Would those attacks qualify as *aggression*? They sure are! > Would it be acceptable if, given knowledge that another attack were > scheduled for tomorrow, the government of Israel staged a *pre-emptive > strike* against the attackers? Yes and they have done that and will continue to do like. > How about a *pre-emptive strike* against Saddam? The future of Israel is at stake... so much is allowed. But they better launch an attack on someone else... some organisation that is far more involved in terrorist attacks. > Why are some arguing that Saddam has never shown aggression, when > - it is his claim (from his own lips in a public forum) that he > financially supports suicide bombers > - has previously sheltered known terrorists (not including Al-Qaida) > - has invaded two neighboring countries > - has used weapons of mass destructions on multiple occasions For about 5 years Sadam is quiet... why attack Iraq now? Gadaffi is quiet also for some time... attack Libia next? > I agree that a "pre-emptive strike on a country that is not even > threatening is ridiculous and a threat to all nations". But, isn't it > possible that someone might examine the above facts and conclude that > Saddam is, in fact, an imminent threat? > Not to say that all the propaganda is completely truthful, but Saddam IS > a cancer in the middle east. In medicine, cancer must be removed before > it spreads and destroys the body. Why is it different in politics? > <snip> >> Why is George Bush so eager to attack Muslim fundamentalists? >> GW is a fundamentalist... Christian though. All fundamentalists want >> to wipe out devils, Satan and have their "axes of evil". >> This is a crusade... Christians against Muslims... we are going back >> to the middle ages. > Sorry, Bastiaan, but you've been misled on this point. Bush isn't a > fundamentalist. > If you were a Christian, you would know that and wouldn't believe this > for a minute. Whatever Bush is doing, he's not doing it based upon > Christianity. (Maybe oil, but not religion). <grin> If I see and hear GW... I see a very religious man and a sincere man. He often mentions God, never oil. (This does not mean he is not interested in oil, we know he does.) > Your comments simply don't line up with the reality of other alliances in > the middle east (or other parts of the world). Don't forget that the USA > was allied with the (Muslim) Kosovars against the (Christian) Serbs. You have some point here. > See you. > Bob Dohse CU Bastiaan > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com
