Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-21 Thread Anonymous
>But it is folly to think that those three items are the radical >Islamic fundamentalists only "gripe" with the U.S. MTV, VH1, >McDonalds, Disney, and the Internet -- yep, those are all destablizing >influence. They know it, and hate it, and might even bomb us for it. I see. I happen to suspect t

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-20 Thread Declan McCullagh
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:01:35AM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. It ha

Re: CDR: Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-19 Thread Marc de Piolenc
"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote: > > John Kelsey wrote: > > > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of > > contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for > > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive > > regimes like Saudi Arabi

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-19 Thread James A. Donald
-- On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe > with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with > trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that > Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do wit

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-18 Thread John Kelsey
At 09:38 AM 1/16/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: ... [Question of whether we could have avoided 9/11 and such things by not having an activist foreign policy] >Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for >*not* helpin

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-18 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn
John Kelsey wrote: No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countri

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-18 Thread Harmon Seaver
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:18:52PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be > that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps > there are thousands who are almost equally angry, Thousands? Gimme a br

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-18 Thread W H Robinson
Tyler Durden wrote: > John Keley wrote... > > "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would." > > Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. "Fucked with". "Trained up and fucked over". Whatever. > BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war > with Iraq is

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-18 Thread Tyler Durden
John Keley wrote... "There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records." Hummm...kind of an odd argument, don't

Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

2003-01-16 Thread Major Variola (ret)
At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: >On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model >> for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, >> it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaed