1 Nov. 4, 1979 Let us remember that 25 years ago today, Iran took 44 Americans as hostage. That was the day terrorism really began, not in '93, not in '98, not on 9/11, but on that day, in 1979. If our govt. took notice of this back then, we may not have had those other attacks. Think about it.

2 Hasn't Russia done this before though? It is my impression that they had already taken families of terrorists "hostage" to help end a crisis.

3 During the Beslan siege they rounded up some pro-seperatist leaders, but later released them. It was my impression that the officers in the Army responsible did so on their own, and not as a part of any larger policy.

4 Real simple, I'm in.

5 The bin Ladens wouldn't have been able to leave the country so easily after 9/11.

6 This will never take off... there are too many soft lefties in the world today. I must say, however, that if my great uncle Egbert were to suddenly convert to Islam and start bumping off "Infidels" with alarming regularity and I got caught up in his madness, I would feel a tad pissed off. However tenuous, the people Al Zarqawi et al have been bumping of HAVE had links to the situation in Iraq (they're there in Iraq for a start-off). Personally, rather than family members, I think we should start bumping off those prisoners they are demanding be released as "payment-in-kind" for every "Infidel" they murder. Those two women (Madame Anthrax and her friend Doctor Death) should be beheaded and a tape sent into Al-Jazeera for world-wide Internet snuff addicts' delight and delectation. These monkeys won't care if their family gets killed, the sane half of their family probably disowned THEM many years ago. They will simply see it as a further affront to their "just cause"... they will see the death of these "important" captives as a similar affront but at least there is some military gain to be had from killing these insurgents. The election is over... Bush is in command for another 4 years... bring on the fireworks. Black Watch suffered fatalities today (probably by means of a suicide bomber) ... time to just get stuck in with every weapon in the arsenal. Come on Bush, play dirty for me. For once show that the huge great bomb is mightier than the rusty knife.

7 I see CooqarUK in the Bigley blog is now blaming Bush for the three British soldiers who got killed today....first fatalities from there too. Red Devil, I agree, we should behead those women the insurgents are wanting us to free and send the tape back to Al Jazeera. See what happens. Then, start beheading the Iraqi prisoners that were abused by our soldiers, remember the pics that got in the media's hands? Someone on here somewhere made a comment that disturbed me however. He said there are over 60 Arab nations that hate us...how are we going to fight this war on terrorism? Go to every nation and nuke all of them? Wipe them all out? Those that escape to another country and start spreading their terror there, what then? Nuke them and so on and so on? Makes you think, among all the nuke em comments, including mine!

8 I seem to remember reading (some where) about Russia taking families of hostage takers hostage, chopping them up into bits, and shipping the boxed up parts in as a negotiating method. Am I thinking about medievil Russian history? The theory is the only way to fight an enemy like this, is to be more ruthless then they could ever hope to be. I'd give it a whirl!

9 Its a similar strategy to the Israeli practice of demolishing terrorists family's homes.

10 Hey Rusty: Negative reactions from the Russian press? Maybe their press is as much filled with liberal assholes as ours is. I think its a great idea.

11 Damn it Laura: Quit worrying about CougarUK. He's an America hating, terrrorist supporting prick. Always has been, always will be. Nothing good can possibly come from reading that foreign piece of shits posts. Forget him. Take the families of the terrorists hostage. Treat them well but keep them until the terrorist turns himself in or is captured/killed. The victims of terrorism should have rights too.

12 I actually don't think the policy is moral and I also don't think it would work.

13 Morality will not win this one. We've tried the moral approach. Doesn't work with these people. How do we know it wouldn't work if we don't try? I always thought that major mosques and perhaps Mecca should dis-appear and no one know who done it.

14 i think its a great idea. these people may not care about us but they must care about their families. I dont think we should kill them just keep them imprisoned until they are caught. It must be worth a try.

15 Rooster: I know, I know...but it's hard to ignore, he just pushes all the right buttons on me. I can't help it. I have to defend us. You're right though, he's not worth the time. Anyway, in my paper this morning, they interviewed two of the original hostages that were taken in '79. They said if they were taken today, they'd be dead for sure. They thought about it while they were being held captive, that maybe they might be killed, but it was unheard of then, and the kidnappers were AFRAID of what American might do.....gee, I wonder why they were afraid THEN and not NOW? Maybe because we haven't hit hard enough yet? Find some of these bastards' wives, sisters, mothers, and hold them hostage...then see what happens...yeah baby.

16 Well, you have to remember this is the same organization that screamed murder at south africa at the slightest thing the white minority government did, yet just a year ago in zimbabwe this same lovely organization turned a blind eye to Robert Mugabe's "war veterns" commit acts of force sex (can't say the R word), pilliage and murder of the tiny white minority in Zimbabwe. So nothing now suprises me. Matter of fact, most of the states in the UN voted down any sanctions to be placed or offical condemnation. Go figure they'd get up on their hindlegs and cause a ruckus over a mear statement. Some people are ass backwards!

17 ROBERT MUGABE's ULTIMATUM TO WHITE FARMERS WAS ''GIVE UP YOUR LAND TO BLACK ZIMBABWEANS OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES''- In other words death. After reading the last posting I thought about this killing of white farmers. Why did Britain or America not send troops in there. Surely this was a former British colony and therefore Britain had a responsibility to protect the white farmers that for the most part held dual British/Zimbabwean nationality,as far as I am aware. It is common knowledge that most of the white farmers that decided to stay and refused to give up their land were murdered. Some of these Farmers famillies had owned,lived and worked the land for over 200 years. I'm all for land reforms but this was taking things a bit far. In many cases their black Zimbabwean employees were also murdered when they tried to stop Mugabe's henchemen taking the land, which was their only source of employment or earned income. Most of this land has now returned to shrub as the people that understood the land and the importance of alternating the crops are now dead. Forgive me but is there something I'm missing here. Why the silence and inaction from Britain and America there,what was the motive to do nothing? Why were they not inrerested in going in there? What's the catch? I'm getting a bit of a feeling of deja vu. You can guess what I'm thinking right. I'm just hoping its not so. The big 'o' word.No,couldn't be could it.

18 RHODESIA: Once the most modern progressive nation on the African continent. Now Zimbabwe, just another backward African nation full of crime and suffering. After they murder, kill and r word white people(and progressive blacks & browns) and starvation sets in, they will call on the nations with a majority of white people to save them. Zimbabwe is the product of liberalism. South Africa is going the same way. Just a matter of time. Heh! America why don't we import the white Zimbabweans and South Africans instead of raghead muslims. They have a hell of a lot more to offer. When I drive through New Orleans and some other American cities I wonder if it could happen here? Zimbabweans probably would have voted for Kerry. I know, I know, sounds racist. Not intended to be. Sometimes when you tell it like it is, it comes out that way.

19 Anyway the taking of hostages by America, Russia or any country in an effort to save lives in the long run is okay with me. Countries, religion, families are responsible for what they spawn. If one of my children committed such horrible acts. I would want to hide my head in a hostage camp. The parents and families should feel shame for what they produced.

20 LAMO and the greyrooster are in agreement on the Bin Laden family thing. They gave Osama the money that he started his terrorist network with. Probably, still do.

21 Another note on south africa. The blacks in that country have been making this nice little terroristic threat of genocide. It goes to the extent of "when Nelson Mandela dies, we'll be killing you like flies." Nice, no UN condemnation once again. But Russia makes a statement about dealing with terrorist hostage takers and once again the UN member nations stand up on their hind legs in opposition and condemnation. Ass backwards I tell you.

22 Greyrooster: Would figure they still are giving sonny boy cash. We should never have let the family members in this country go.

23 The UN doesn't give "official sanction" to ANY terrorism or human rights abuses against innocent civilians, if that's what you're implying. Not Sharon's Sabra and Shatila incident from the early 80's, not Palestinian terrorism, and not heavy-handed Israeli military operations that kill innocent people and bulldoze the houses of innocent people. Contrary to what many hard-line Israel advocates say, the UN tries not to discriminate on these matters. (No, I've seen NO evidence that Kofi Annan is anti-Semitic, so give it up.) But you know, what the f**k do you expect from people when you control their territory for several decades and run their economy and society completely into the ground? Just innocent victims. Israel has nothing to do with anything. I'll get out my violin. Why do we have such low expectations for Israel? I happen to think Israelis are pretty smart people, and I think they can do a lot better job than they're doing. We shouldn't appease terrorists, but Christ, do we really have to try so hard to tick people off? As for Russia's proposed policy, it sounds tempting but it's pure idiocy. You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with barbarity. The Bush administration has allowed the terrorists to force them into end-justifies-the-means policies, particularly abroad, but that's COMPELTELY WRONG. We cannot allow the terrorists to damage our national character. We can do better than this. Rush Limbaugh said of the prisoner abuse scandal, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of the need to blow some steam off?" Give me a break. This is America. We don't judge our morals by the standards of terrorists. We use our own standards. If they're beheading people, that doesn't mean it's OK to chop off peoples' fingers, just because it's not quite as bad. We have to define our own ethics and priorities, and not let the terrorists screw with us. If we do anything else, we lose. p.s. William Kristol, he of Cold War II neoconservatism -- a.k.a. one of "The Bombers" -- said people were "obsessing...about a small prisoner abuse scandal." But Rumsfeld's comments on it were perhaps the most disturbing of all. "I haven't been focused on the war of ideas, to be honest with you." Just f'ing great!

24 QUOTE: "You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with barbarity." Hmmm... so the USA should have simply ignored what happened on 9/11, shrugged it off and gone about its business. I'm guessing that if that was the policy, there would have been a few more 9/11 incidents since... heck why not make it "National Terrorist Day" whereby any terrorist can enter a competition to see who can produce the most spectacular terrorist attack each year? We'll create a new "Terrorist Oscars". Picture Osama Bin Laden walking onto the stage to the applause of thousands of Americans, receiving his award from Dubbya... "Yeah, you really got us there, that was great. Here's your Golden WTC Award". Bin Laden, looking slightly embarrassed at the standing ovation, "thank you America, we are currently working on an even more evil and diabolical plan for next year. I don't want to give anything away because that would spoil the surprise. But if you want a tiny clue, make sure you order your burgers to 'take-away'". Fast forward a few years and Al Zarqawi is receiving the award... "Al, the way you lopped off that Engineers head showed just how committed you are to your cause... do you have anything to say?" Al Zarqawi : This really is an honour. To follow in the footsteps of a great man such as Osama Bin Laden is truly humbling. I guess I didn't think about it too much, I just stuck the knife in and wiggled my hand around a bit until his head came off. And then I was there with his hair in my hand and his head was outstretched before me, I thought, 'we've gotta get this on camera, this looks COOL!'", cue rapturous applause from the audience.

25 When are we going to realise the Russians are now our allies in this thing. Its time to move on fom the cold war Even if you don't believe in religion bet you'd rather have have an orthodox christian brother living next door to you than a crawling sand nigger.

26 Yeah, skew what I said if it's the only way you can make your point. >"You can't defeat terrorism by adopting the tactics of the >terrorists. If you do that, you lose. The only way to beat the >terrorists is to act with grace even when threatened with >barbarity." > >Hmmm... so the USA should have simply ignored what >happened on 9/11, shrugged it off and gone about its >business. Yup, this is the way you guys win arguments. You ignore what the other person said and simply pretend he said something else. It's what the Bush campaign did all season. Kerry was trying to turn the American healthcare system into the Canadian one. We can't let that happen! Only problem is Kerry never mentioned anything about a system remotely approximating the Canadian healthcare system, but what do Bush supporters care? They aren't really the policy types. They're more into following along behind a man with approximately elementary-school-level intelligence. Aside from the actual blog posts by Dr. R, I have seen not a single coherent argument here for Bush's policies. And I can only argue for so long with a brick wall. So, you guys believe in kidnapping innocent family members in order to deal with the threat of "terrorism." That's just grand. Reduce terrorism by becoming a terrorist. Excellent. >I'm guessing that if that was the policy, there would have been >a few more 9/11 incidents since... heck why not make it >"National Terrorist Day" whereby any terrorist can enter a >competition to see who can produce the most spectacular >terrorist attack each year? Yeah, heck, why not. Really funny. What would be even cooler is if you actually did a smidgen of research into the facts. Or, say, respond to my actual arguments rather than pretending I said something else. The society you seem to be envisioning is absolute hell on earth. National Gestapo Day. What happened to "give me liberty or give me death"? Your credo seems to be, "Thinking makes my brain hurt. And who cares about liberty?" It's a good credo. Joseph Stalin would have been proud of you. I also love this line: "I'm guessing that if that was the policy..." Lots and lots of guessing out there for Bush fans. Shore do beat in-depth analysis, don't it Billy Bob? That stuff is fer liberal sissies. Commies, traitors, ya know them people who wear them bell-bottoms 'n' stuff. P**sies. >Picture Osama Bin Laden walking onto the stage to the >applause of thousands of Americans, receiving his award >from Dubbya... > >"Yeah, you really got us there, that was great. Here's your >Golden WTC Award". > >Bin Laden, looking slightly embarrassed at the standing >ovation, "thank you America, we are currently working on >an even more evil and diabolical plan for next year. I don't >want to give anything away because that would spoil the >surprise. But if you want a tiny clue, make sure you order your >burgers to 'take-away'". Perfect, more fantasy for the fantasy-based community. In fact, bin Laden does have a lot to thank Bush for, notably: - before 9/11, John Ashcroft removed Janet Reno's counterterrorism bulletpoints from the FBI's planning memo. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said he almost "fell out of his chair" when he saw it, according to the 9/11 commission. Then, with threat warnings escalating, Ashcroft turned down a request for a modest increase in anti-al-Qaeda funding. The official notice of rejection for the funding arrived on September 12, 2001. - Bush held not a single cabinet meeting on terrorism until September 2001 - the Pentagon did not appoint anyone to its counterterrorism spot until after 9/11 (their focuses included Iraq, and ridding the Pentagon of anything having to do with Clinton -- who had made fighting al-Qaeda a high priority) - Bush spent all but a few days of the MONTH AND A HALF leading up to 9/11 on vacation, despite spectacular threat warnings that summer. Once, when he received a memo called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States," he broke off early and went fishing for the rest of the day. (This despite the fact that Bush easily had less foreign policy experience and knowledge coming into the office than any incoming president in history.) - after 9/11, rather than focus on tracking down those who mindlessly slaughtered 3000 American civilians -- bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the man who sheltered them, Mullah Omar -- Bush decided to go on a little foreign policy adventure the neocons had concocted in the 90's. A few months after 9/11, Bush said, "I don't know where [bin Laden] is. No, you know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you." He said, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." He said, "I'm not that concerned about him." - Bush also said, "I am deeply concerned about Iraq." Iraq, of course, being a country that had nothing to do with Islamic extremism OR al-Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq has been the biggest boon to anti-American terrorist recruiting of any American policy in history. The State Department tells us that terrorism around the world has increased "sharply" since the war began, and that anti-American anger in the Middle East has reached "shocking levels." (Yeah, and for the record, it happens to be known as "take-out" here in America, mate, not "take-away." Blimey that bloody stonker; ain't it a littler bugger? A word of advice for you, though, bloke: make sure you mind the gap, but remember, no fags allowed on the lift. By the way, do fags over there still come wrapped in alumiminiunium? If not, can I get an aluminiuniuiunum laurie to take away please my good man? Make sure you check under the bonnet first, though. Last week I had a shagged propeller shaft and I hit a dumper truck on the carriageway. It would be a pisser if she wrecked during my holiday. And throw in a meat pie and couple of fags while you're at it. I like my meat raw and with lots of entrails. Ta. And ta ta. Oh, and tell your mum she was bloody brilliant last night.) >Fast forward a few years and Al Zarqawi is receiving the >award... > >"Al, the way you lopped off that Engineers head showed just >how committed you are to your cause... do you have anything >to say?" > >Al Zarqawi : This really is an honour. To follow in the >footsteps of a great man such as Osama Bin Laden is truly >humbling. I guess I didn't think about it too much, I just >stuck the knife in and wiggled my hand around a bit until his >head came off. And then I was there with his hair in my >hand and his head was outstretched before me, I thought, >'we've gotta get this on camera, this looks COOL!'", >cue rapturous applause from the audience. Really funny. Great to come up with stories about these guys, since you don't seem to have a grasp of the reality. Zarqawi was in the Kurdish region of Iraq (not controlled by Saddam) before the Iraq invasion. He was targeting the Kurds and the Jordanians, and to a lesser degree, Saddam himself. The US could have bombed his camp before the war but chose not to because it didn't want to undermine a supposed justification for going to war. After the invasion, Zarqawi had virtually no one left to target except the US (although he can still try for Jordan as well). He wasn't aligned with al-Qaeda until a few weeks ago, when al-Qaeda and Zarqawi's organization, Tawid and Jihad, decided to join forces against a new larger foe -- the United States. In other words, not only has Bush not nabbed the original leaders of al-Qaeda, thanks to his policies al-Qaeda now has YET ANOTHER big-time leader. And how is it that this incompetent administration cannot even catch these guys in nations it now has under its thumb? But no one seems to care whether or not Bush is competent. You know what? Writing these comments is too disheartening for me, I think. I knew America didn't understand the threats, and wasn't paying much attention, but the more I read on some of these blogs about just how skewed peoples' sense of reality is, I just wonder whether there is any hope for this country. (And it looks like the UK may be slipping as well.) How do you reason with people who don't want to embrace reason? When people care more about a leader than they do about what's best for the country, what arguments can one possibly make? It all seems pretty pointless. You know what? You guys enjoy your little obliviousness love-in. I can only take so much of it at once. It's too disturbing to me. So I give up. You win. When you think about it, how can reason ever prevail over ignorance? I mean, it's ignorance, after all, right? So screw it. It's useless. You guys want to be oblivious. Be oblivious! When you wake up from your coma, give me a call and we can chat.

27 trr: Again, no solutions, no ideas to help just a tirade against Bush. Exactly, what Kerry did. Exactly, why Kerry lost. America wants to listen to solutions not crying and future forecasting of doom. Bush was re-elected because we (America) decided he would take action. Kerry wished to talk to the frogs and the UN thats full of little jealous countries who would love to see us lose. Wish you could channel your efforts in a positive direction and help America instead of throwing in the towel. Remember this. You too may be the victim of future attacks by these barbaric Islamic idiots.

28 Simple,just dont argue. That way you will have an easier life. Then you will not feel the need to moan so much. Nobody is skewing your argument. Please just condense your comments a little. That way you will give us all a breake.

29 You need to calm down a bit. Dont get so worked up about everything. If every one of you armchair moralist liberals actually had the gumption to to get off of your chair and get out there and do something about your convictions, myself and others might begin to have a bit more respect for you. You dont give any solutions . Talk is cheap and to you its cheaper than most.

30 I'm getting sick of this blog. The more I read some of these comments the more I want to go and live in Austria! Even if I have to learn German, theyre more my kind of people. They dont take bogus assylum keepers or refugees and no begging bowl spongers. Thats my kinda people!

31 RUSTY: MORAL. I respectfully submit that I feel that it is Immoral not to do everything and anything that can be done to save the lives of innocents. Which is worse. 1. Taking hostages and caring for them to prevent horrid deaths? 2. Killing innocent hostages? It ain't always fair but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

32 SOPOTAMIA: I wonder why Vienna is considered the best city in the world to live in? I guess the proof really is in the pudding.

33 GREYROOSTER: Can't argue with that.If there were more countries where their governments actualy did what the people want, namely stopping their countries beeing over run by undesirables there might not be the tensions in society that there are between different ethnic communities. Whatever the politaical correcters might say it is well documented that most people of a particular race, ethnicity or religion prefer there own types.What perplexes me is that why when South African Whites are trying to sell up and get out before the country goes 'tits up',yet apparerently Whites from The USA and the UK are buying homes there.You can can get what is effectively a 2 million dollar home for a fraction of the price its worth. However I wont be tempted. When I go to sleep at night I want to kow i'm not going to be rudely awakened in the middle of the nighy with the Zulus at my door.

34 sopotamia: The Zulus are the good ones.

35 You havent seen Zulu dawn.

36 So who are the bad guys?

37 Let me see now. That famous British defeat was in 1899. I'd be prepared to accept that things might have changed a little in 105 years. Have they realy changed that much? I'm intrigued to know more.

38 Prior to apartheid's ending the Zulus were fighting the terrorist leftest leaning ANC. ANC was known for its attacks on defenseless citizens. For several years the Zulus were a force that kept the ANC off the streets. It can't be said that the Zulu nation was pro existing government but they did contain the ANC and as a result probably saved many lives. For not I fear.

39 yeah,its just a term I have heard some Brits use when on vacation.I think they mean it in the the back then sort of way,a time when Either that or its the Michael Cain movie Zulu Dawn

40 Strangely enough though at the time when you said they are the good guys I mistakenly took it as a play on words e.g. (and they are the good guys) meaning they are not all that bad cause theirs worse.Having said that I was thinking of the name for ages and couldnt remember it,the African National Congress party or the (A.N.C).Thanks GREYROOSTER,I stand corrected.