A Thought for the day from a website I came across

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39

U. S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people would be alive today.

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin Laden?

Beckham,

So what's your point?

What Clinton said was America's intent. But "well meaning nations" inside the Arab block, and outside (Ireland included), spoke out against us doing anything viable against these atrocities. They felt it was an "internal problem" for the U.S.

I suggest you go back and read the history of what happened, and why the U.S. could not mount a viable attack against the terrorist organizations. Don't just read something printed recently and "assume" that what was said is the entire story.

In reference to the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis themselves caught several of the people responsible, and refused to even allow the U.S. to question them. Instead, they tried them, found them guilty, and beheaded them in a public square.

As for the first WTC attack, you apparently haven't kept up with your homework. Within the last few days, the four terrorists who were involved, and caught, were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. If you spent as much time looking for truth as you do looking for reasons to knock the U.S., you might learn a hell of a lot more.

Now... tell me how this works. If the U.S. doesn't go into nations and grab people who are responsible for these terrorist attacks, or kill them, we are impotent? So... if we do, then you can say we violate the sanctity of nations because our actions were illegal?

Please! Continue to show your disgust in "how America does things." It just gives those of us who know what the hell is going on around the world a soap box to make you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for the rest of the terrorist acts you referenced, the people behind them are on our "wanted lists." But nations that support these people are protecting them. So... what we're doing now is wrong... but we should have done it because it was right? Gawd! What an ignorant premise. No matter what we do, you'd still be bitching about it.

As for the statement of Gates vs terrorism and its cost, that was a stupid statement since the person who made the statement did not have any valid information that signaled what was said was true. In fact, it's a lie.

One of the wonderful things about a democracy is that people can say the most absurd things, and have a right to say it.

I guess that's why I defend your personal right to say the things you do...

Wolf (Who doesn't believe the adage that; "Ignorance is bliss.")

Wolf

I didnt write that!! it was copied word for word from a website. I found it very interesting, I was unaware of the fcats contained within the article and I was wondering if people had an opinions/thoughts on it

Jesus Wolf. calm down. I have looked over Beckhams posts (on this and other threads) and don't find them anywhere close to as hostile as your responses. Why not have a discussion WITHOUT making it personal?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this go without comment. I have followed Wolf's arguments on almost every thread and found him to be willing to offer an olive branch any time he has reason to think he misread the tone of someone's post. Yes, he is passionate about certain topics...as am I...and he is quite knowledgeable, rational, and sensitive to the feelings of others. (No, I am not related to the guy!) In one post from beckham, Wolf very clearly offered to shake hands.In my opinion, beckham's posts are usually barbed and are offered precisely to elicit the types of responses he gets. He reminds me of some of the kids I teach...the ones that always bump into someone hard enough to make the victim react, then feign innocence: "It was an accident!" "I was only kidding!" "Gee, I didn't mean to hit you that hard!" I have decided not to respond to his posts because I don't want to fall into his little game, but PLEASE don't get on Wolf's back. I give him a lot of credit for taking the time to respond with facts, not allegations or two-bit, second hand accusations.

Bravo la Maestra,
You described the situation succintly. It's like the Spanish refrain of "La Gatica de Maria Ramos, Que Tira la Piedra y Esconde la Mano", ( English: Like the Cat from Maria Ramos, that throws the rock but hides her paw!"

Wolf,
Your response was well said and I do not believe that it was emotional. What else could be said to such diatribe.

well, I spend much of my work-life interpreting the subtleties of people's communication and intentions in their responses, but maybe my interpretations are off. I value wolf as incredibly articulate, well informed, intelligent participant on this board, but I didn't see anything in Beckham's post that implied his personal opinion about the text. Whether or not I agree with the content of that post is another matter. I happen to agree with wolf's opinion about the information presented (and often do on other topics), but not the lack of distinction between the argument, the person that originated it and the person that then presented it in this forum.

as for the other posts, only one seemed somewhat provactive to me, and I thought I sensed some extending of the olive branch on beckham's part as well during subsequent posts... I understand that when discussing the tragedy of the 11th, or ETA, or equally charged topics, having an emotional reaction is not only normal but healthy as well. I just hate to see things getting into the realm of personal insults.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Nicole ]

I only wish I had the personal time (or at least made the personal time) to inform myself on such matters as much as Wolf does.

In the mean time, I'll continue to accept all of his comments as gospel. :p

CaliBasco [Of Wolfgang's Quorum of 12 Apostles]

Nicole,

I respect your point of view, and like you, have spent a great number of years dealing with people, and trying to decipher exactly what is meant in what they say. With over thirty years involvement in this endeavor, I have found that there are people in this world, who grow up to be adults, and haven't changed one iota from what La Maestra described as seeing in schools.

These people, even as adults, rarely arm themselves with facts or truth. They rely on throwing out inuendo, and unsupported allegations, either based on what they think, or... if it suits their agenda, from another source, without finding out if the statements are true.

Accepting what these people say, or what they allude to, does nothing more than give them a license to continue bullying others around, and allows them to spread what is nothing more than gossip, or out and out lies, as if it was the truth.

I believe in freedom of speech. But with this freedom comes a responsibility. The responsibility to make sure that what we say is accurate.

Wolf (Who likes Harry Truman's statement best; "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.")

Wolf
Did you honestly think that i wrote this? That I believed everything in the post, I came across this in a website, I found it a little "strange" about the point that more money spent on Bill gates than Osama Bin Laden, I found that hard to believe or that the US goverment made a conscious decision to do that. I am guessing that the Philly talk show is a talk radio show in Philadelpha? if that is the case then the US people are saying this about there own goverment. It looks like that they haven't researched the history very well, as I am taking what you have said in you post
"In reference to the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis themselves caught several of the people responsible, and refused to even allow the U.S. to question them. Instead, they tried them, found them guilty, and beheaded them in a public square."

la Maestra - there is no game, people are entitled to there opinions on this forum, some people here maybe more educated than others i.e Wolf, ( sorry Wolf no offence here but you seem to be a lot older than I am and probably more wise!)

I am sorry all - but there is no intent in this, but I am surprised that you all assume I am male,I guess judging by my forum name and e-mail address- not so!
I used the name Beckham, as I am one of Manchester United's fans ( hence the name David Bekcham)but maybe some people who have no interest in the sport may not have heard of him.
Wolf - once again, no offence meant ( I think I hear " here we go again") If offence was meant I would not be saying it, I am not part of the " Bin Laden or death to all americans secret society. I am just happy now that as result of George Bush's commitment to eliminating terrorists groups throughout the world, I think it has had an influence on the peace process here in Ireland following the IRA's decision to disarm - Work began on Wednesday on the demolition of two mountaintop lookout posts in Camlough in the republican area of south Armagh. The dismantling of a supersangar (lookout post) at neighbouring Newtownhamilton police station and an army base at Magherafelt, Co Londonderry, will begin on Thursday.

As a newspaper said this morning " Local analysts say that following the 11 September attacks, the US Government increased its pressure on the Irish Republican movement here".
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has now said loyalist paramilitaries must now begin to decommission and Conservative Leader Iain Duncan Smith agreed with Tony Blair that the so-called loyalist paramilitaries to join the IRA in decommissioning their weapons