Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Starts Attacking Afghanistan

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the we-don't-know-much dept.

Several people have reported that the US has begun military operations in Afghanistan. Bush is talking on CNN live right now. Bombing has begun on Kabul. More as we know it. Here the word a on CNN and The CBC.

2,549 comments

  1. Doesnt look that big right now by jgaynor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just a few cruise missles -

    Heres what CNN has to say about it:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.und er .attack/index.html

    1. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Taurine · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't think a few cruise missiles were inconsequential if they were aimed at your house.

    2. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a few 250k missles. Nothin much. Damn war is expensive.

    3. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      Surely not. However, these initial strikes are probably aimed at a limited number of air defense installations and probably a few 'token' targets like evacuated 'terrorist' camps and the like.

      But, I would doubt very much that any are aimed at anyone's house (civilian residential area are surely being avoided). $10 tent and camel's butt notwithstanding.

    4. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by secolactico · · Score: 1

      So, sending a few troops would be more... cost effective? How much does a human life cost?

      No, seriously, what would be the difference in cost between sending a squad of trained troopers and bombing from afar? I know you can't put a price on human life, but surely someone must have made the calculation before...

      --
      No sig
    5. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not something I'd like to think about. The biggest factor here, though, is that we can missile all we want to, until the country is a huge glass crater. Will it achieve our ultimate goal? The only way to truly win a conflict like this is to go in with ground troops. We tried that whole aerial bombardment in WW2, Vietnam and the gulf; both times, we needed the grunts to go in and make sure the job was done. Admittedly, the job didn't 'get done' in Vietnam, but that's not the point I'm making.

    6. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2

      Are there even camels in Afghanistan?

      You know that the Egyptians and the Afghans are as far apart as the Greek and the Chinese, right?

      -grendel drago

      --
      Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    7. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by jetgirl25 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, they seem to be attacking Taliban militia targets - not suspected terrorist cells. How are the other Islamic nations going to respond to an apparent attack on an Islamic government? This is a dangerous tactic.

    8. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by sgups · · Score: 1

      I don't think they can say nmuch as US has consistently said that they will attack even those who harbor the terrorists and Taleban are Bin Loonie's hosts.
      To actually attack the terrorists, I suspect ground force has to be used as they will have no compunction in hiding in civilian areas and US will be careful to avoid those.

      --
      Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
    9. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by jetgirl25 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I get that they need to respond to those harbouring terrorists/bin Laden, but they are only attacking the Taliban militia so far. Not the terrorist camps or hiding places at all. That suggests they are removing the Taliban's defenses to clear the path of removing the government entirely. I'm worried how the other Islamic nations (who have been vaguely supporting, or at least not outwardly opposing the US) are going to react. They might view this as an attack on Islam, not terrorism, and respond with attacks of their own. I'm worried about a severe escalation of hostilities - a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations. It's a risky strategy the US and Britain are starting here.



      That said, the Taliban deserves to be ousted from power. And I assume ground forces will be moving in to clean out the terrorists soon. I just hope this risky gamble pays off.


    10. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      Caught that too, eh? That quote supposedly came from 'dubya, not me.

    11. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Master_Eagle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess the ideology of this is to eliminate air defense etc. so that when they actually want to eliminate the terrorist camps they can without fear of Taliban attack... I guess...

      Yeah, a pretty dangerous tactic. But I don't think other Islamic nations will complain _too_ much.

      --
      Sig: Where I'd put something witty if I could think of it.
    12. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by drunkmonk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously you can't put a price on human life, but in purely economic terms, the cruise missiles are much, much less expensive than ground troops.

      First, there is the cost of just a soldier's kit and munitions... not that expensive, but still the cost is there.

      Then you have to figure the cost of getting thhe soldiers there, sheltering them and resupplying them. Remember that the modern military has a large ratio of "tail" to "teeth" (support units vs. actual combat units), so supplying even a handful of combat troops requires many, many people, all of which also need to be supplied, fed, etc.

      Then, there is the invested cost of training a soldier. Say a soldier with ten years in the military is killed... then not only do you lose a priceless life, but you also lose the experience and expertise that the soldier brought to the fight, experience and expertise that was bought at a very high financial cost during peacetime training.

      Of course there are benefits of using ground troops. Humans are more flexible, more capable to reacting in a fluid situation (which is why cruise missiles are used on targets that are well-defined and static while manned strike aircraft are still used to go after more difficult targets). But in light of the conditions of fighting in Afghanistan, whose history of combatting first-rate militaries and extremely difficult terrain make defense against ground troops far more possible than defense against airborne threats, cruise missiles are by far the most cost-effective, followed by manned aircraft, followed distantly by ground forces.

    13. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by thrig · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, there are camels in Afghanistan. The buggers are all over Asia minor.

      The ties between Egyptians and Afghans of the Islamic Militant bent are quite strong, geographical differences aside.

    14. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't put a price on human life? Insurance companies have been doing it for centuries.

    15. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by KyleCordes · · Score: 2

      [They might view this as an attack on Islam ... a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations.]

      I've heard this line of thinking many time, but never a worthwhile "therefore". Therefore what? Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself?

      If Islamic nations decide to perceive this as an attack on Islam, they are mistaken, but there's not much that can really be done about that.

    16. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by AssFace · · Score: 1

      $10 tent and camel's butt

      is there a way to backup if that quote has any validity behind it? bush supposedly said it, but it seems to me more of a net rumor.
      either way it is funny.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    17. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes that the Taliban is a recognized government in most nations. It isn't, and the few (like 4?) countries that do acknowledge its legality are also nations that support terrorist actions.

    18. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      According to Snopes it's the truth:

      http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/bush.htm

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    19. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, they seem to be attacking Taliban militia targets - not suspected terrorist cells. How are the other Islamic nations going to respond to an apparent attack on an Islamic government? This is a dangerous tactic.

      There is only one nation left in the entire world that even recognizes the Taliban as the "government" of Afganistan - Pakistan. Who has already pledged all support possible short of letting us launch ground troops from their border with Afganistan.
      So if any other Islamic nation got mad at us for attacking an Islamic "government", they would be highly hypocritical.

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    20. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War huhh good God what is it good for absolutly
      nothing.

      Sorry, had to get this out.

      I guess this was due any day now.
      You've got to love bin laudin. He blows up a few,
      very large, U.S. buildings. He calls the U.S. people cowards when they don't stike. Now they are sinners when they do.
      I believe it was said somewhere there would be a 100% chance Osama would strike America again if they were to bomb the Taliban.
      Does anyone doubt Osama would try to stike again even if the U.S. didn't start the bombing?

    21. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      No, I can't find any link and I doubt he really said it.

    22. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by SubtleNuance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself

      NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      its always wrong.

      perceive this as an attack on Islam

      You do understand America has been backing the slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to displace Muslims because they are not Jewish. The Americans have been supporting religious-state politics all this time, they have been violating their own constitution by supporting Zionism - you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.

      America has backed anti-Muslim policies, politics and 'apartheid'(sp?)

      America is not blameless.

    23. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Jebus_the_spork · · Score: 0

      hardly any other governments recognize the taliban as the ruling government in afghanistan.

      they may condem it, but most nations have condemed the attacks on the united states..

      I do believe that there have been troops in afghanistan for some tome now, special opps and british sas. I see a ground force moving in after the bombing.... making it safer for our troops.

      --
      I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows - Bart Simpson
    24. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Kahlua · · Score: 1

      NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      its always wrong.

      Ah hah. Fuck you and your "not an act of war". I pray that when islamic terrorism begins on Canadian soil you will survive but lose your family to their justified "committing of a crime".

      "Slaughter of Muslims in Israel"? Do you know any of Israel's history? Every major land grab of Arab nations' lands was in response to a war ON ALL SIDES from every arab nation dedicated to killing off the jews. Just because in this case Israel won does not make them automatically more guilty than their enemies.

      What I hate about you is your MORAL EQUIVALENCY - Israel wrestling with a difficult domestic unrest is morally equivalent to South African apartheid. Israel's remarkably democratic government is equivalent to any arab muslim dictatorship. Any act of war by America is equivalent to slaughter of innocent civilians by definition.

      I say, fuck you. I hope it's your family next when they get biological weapons. Then we'll see whether you think war is justified.

    25. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by FFFish · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't look big?

      Crikey, guy, if this goes down poorly, your ass is grass. Arab nations get upset with the US actions, and your life is gonna change.

      And there's a good chance that this *is* pissing the mid-East civilians. Check out this article from India.

      Now, more than ever, it is important for Americans to seek global news sources. Do Not Trust Your Media.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    26. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by AdrianG · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > > Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself

      > NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      > its always wrong.

      This is nonsense. All nations have some responsibility to make sure that they are not, under normal circumstances, used a shelters from which to stage attacks on other countries, unless they are prepared to be accused of acts of war against the attacked country. A position as naive and irresponsible as the one you are advocating in the remarks I quoted above can only come from someone who has lived a life that has been sheltered by people who are less naive and more responsible than you. No nation can afford to sit on its hands in the face of acts of mass murder simply because the self-proclaimed governement that shelters the perpetrators pleads ignorance.

      > America is not blameless.

      I have to agree with you here, but only to say that we are not completely blameless. The palestinians should not be made second class citizens in the country in which they are born. All people born in a democratic country should be full citizens and should enjoy the full rights. By failing to make ethnic palistinians full citizens when those palistinians are born in Israel, the Israelies are pushing palistinians who might not be inclined toward simpathy to terrorists into the arms of terrorist organizations. Democracy is not just important for its symbolic value; It is also a final outlet through which people can peacefully express their discontent with government. In the absense of this outlet, it is only natural that palistinians express their discontent through attacts on Israeli soldiers.

      Having said this, indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians cannot be justified this way. By continuing to permit palistinian controlled areas to be used to stage attacks on Israeli civilians, the would be governement of palistine has drawn its fitness to govern into question. If the palistinians want to prove themselves fit to govern themselves, they must confine themselves to attacks on the Israeli government, and they must work to bring those who commit and actively support acts of terrorism to justice. In the mean time, the Israelis must give all law abiding people that it governs equal opportunities to participate in government, without regard to ethnic or religious background or affiliation.

      But if you ask me whether I am going to support the people that dance in the streets at the mass murder of thousands of Americans or the imperfect people that honestly pledge their support in helping us fight the mass murderers, my choice is clear. I hope the Israelies will, in the months ahead, give serious thought to the way they deal with the palistinians the govern; But, even if they don't, I am on the side of the Israelies. Dancing in the streets to celibrate the mass murder of Americans is not a good way to get American sympathy for one's cause. I hope we, as Americans, will do the mature thing and pressure the Israelies to do some serious thinking in spite of this attack, but appart from that, this attack makes me even more sympathetic to the Israelies, no matter that they are less than perfect.

      > you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.

      This is really stupid. Nothing I've ever heard about Islam suggests that it advocates terrorism. Everything I've heard suggests precisely the opposite. When we are finished with our work in Afghanistan, I am sure it will still be a country of Islamic people. Even those parts of Afghanistan that are not under control of the Taliban still function under some form of Islamic Law. While I am against any government sponsorship of religion, Islamic Law appears to be what the people of Afghanistan want. I hope that, after the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan at least choose a more modern form of Islamic Law. I hope that they do not attempt to continue this cowardly and shameful mistreatment of the women in their country. Dispite our president's unfortunate and ill considered choice of the word "Crusade" in his speech before Congress, I don't think even a substantial minority of Americans believe that Afghanistan will not be an Islamic country when we are finished bringing the terrorists and the Taliban militia that sheltered them to justice. We should not attack a people because they are Islamic, but neither should we tolerate the mass murder of thousands of Americans on our own soil simply because the perpetrators make an incredible attempt to hide behind this religion who's very laws they have violated.

      SubtleNuance, I wonder just how much thought you've really put into all this. Perhaps you should change your name to "SubtleNuisance".

      Adrian

    27. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by netsharc · · Score: 0

      Snopes has a link to an MSNBC/Newsweek article that says that's what Dubya said.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    28. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1
      I know you can't put a price on human life, but surely someone must have made the calculation before...
      Well, I think we should just give everybody who volunteers for a land war in Afghanistan a gun and send them on. The long term effect on the human gene pool would certainly outweight any temporary inconvenience...
      --

      Stephan

    29. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by zerocool^ · · Score: 1, Troll

      Listen, fucking asshole:

      The jewish people were there first. Look, if you're gonna go back 40 years, why not go back a little further. The jewish people have been shit on by everyone on the fucking planet for years, and no one sticks up for them. Starting with egyptian exile, moving thru assyrian and babylonian invasion, then on to greek and roman occupation, byzantine occupation, turkish/ ottaman occupation, midevil mistrust because of banking practices, renassiance mistrust because of just plain not being christian, and persecution from 25 years of german/nazi ideology.

      The jewish people aren't the cause of this, don't bring them in to this. The jewish people may have killed thousands of people, but in the past 35 centuries, probably close to a billion jews have been killed. 6 MILLION ALONE in the 1930's and 40's.

      Its not an atack on Islam. And there's nothing wrong about supporting the jews. If you think we're wrong, go live somewhere else.
      Fuck off.

      ~z

      What the hell, its only karma, eh?

      --
      sig?
    30. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by V.P. · · Score: 1

      You're confusing Asia minor (peninsula in the Mediterranean, part of Turkey, not many camels) with Central Asia there...

    31. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      considering china and afghanistan border one another, that is about as meaningless as comparing relative distances between the US and Canada.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    32. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by molywi · · Score: 1

      yeah and we are f************* paying for it!

    33. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ccmay · · Score: 1
      But there certainly are Bactrian (2-hump) camels in Central Asia, and I believe there may be domesticated dromedaries as well.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    34. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      So, sending a few troops would be more... cost effective? How much does a human life cost?

      No, seriously, what would be the difference in cost between sending a squad of trained troopers and bombing from afar? I know you can't put a price on human life, but surely someone must have made the calculation before...

      Yes, but how much does bad press cost? If people die then you get bad press, and the voters want you to pull out, if you pull out you look like a pussy and if you look like a pussy (once you have started an attack) you loose. And also how else do weapons get tested? Why not test a few weapons (that hopefully weaken the opponants) before sending in the troops.

      Dont forget also that the Missile has not brothers and sisters, no father no mother and no friends. If a missile gets destroyed it does not weigh heavy on the President or the General or that troops squad leader. And blowing shit up from afar boosts morale of those at home and serving there.

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
    35. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ccmay · · Score: 1
      You do understand America has been backing the slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to displace Muslims because they are not Jewish.

      Fuck you. We have been pouring out our blood and treasure for the ungrateful Mohammedans since the Suez crisis in the 1950's, and whatever we do they hate us more.

      We have poured billions into Egypt and Jordan since the 1970's to help secure peace, we drove the Iraqi army out of Muslim Kuwait, we defended the Muslim Kurds and the Iraqis of the southern marshes against their own murderous secular government, we went into Muslim Somalia to save starving Muslims, and we attacked Christian Serbia to defend Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. And Clinton, for all his other faults, really sincerely tried to bring about peace and reconciliation between Israel and Palestine. Yet all we hear from these ungrateful freaks is Kill the Jews and Jihad against the great Satan. Fuck them and fuck you too.

      If they are so dead set on living in the Middle Ages, then I say we occupy the major oil fields and drive them all into the wilderness, from the deserts of Libya to the jungles of Indonesia. We could do this in a matter of weeks if we summoned the will.

      If we are going to be accused of imperialism no matter how hard we try to help, then I say it's time we acted like an empire and a Goddamn brutal and ruthless one too. These Mohammedan jackoffs have no idea -- no FUCKING idea -- how badly we could rock their world.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    36. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by fatboy · · Score: 1

      No, I can't find any link and I doubt he really said it.

      Here is your link.

      --
      --fatboy
    37. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by dbullock · · Score: 1

      I read your link, it would have been better titled:

      The US And Britain Are Denounced by Iran (A Moslem run country that sponsors terrorism), Iraq (A Moslem run country that was trounced in the Gulf war), and a Syrian (Take a guess here: a Moslem run country that also sponsors terrorism) Housewife.

      Somehow just not as exciting is it?

      Incidentally, my wife is a first generation American from Syria, so you can well imagine I have exposure to a great many more viewpoints than the Daily News publishes. The USA is just the latest in a long line of countries to get a taste of violent Muslim fanatacism.

      --
      http://www.bullnet.com
    38. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by NOC_Monkey · · Score: 1
      NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      By that logic, should we have responded to Pearl Harbor by asking Japan to hand over Yamamoto? We lost over 2000 NON-MILITARY, NON-COMBATANT people in a few hours. At Pearl Harbor, the losses were mostly military. Make no mistake - this was an act of war. We are responding appropriately. There are crimes, and there are atrocities. This was an atrocity. We were more than patient in waiting for the Taliban (who do NOT represent Islam) to hand over bin Laden. They have not done so. We warned them of the consequences of their actions repeatedly, and they chose to disregard them.

      you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.

      This is no more an attack on Islam than the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was an attack on Protestantism. We are attacking a government (the Taliban) and an army they are protecting (Al Qaida). The fact that they claim to be Islamic has no bearing on this. If the situation was that Al Qaida was taking refuge in a Hindu, Christian, Buddist, Confucian, Zoroastrian, or Atheist nation, it would make no difference. They have perpetrated an act of war. We are responding appropriately. And, if you hadn't noticed, most of the Islamic world is supporting the US in this response.

      America is not blameless.

      And Al Qaida and the Taliban are? We did not kill over 2000 people with no warning. We did not remove the rights of our population. We did not destroy world treasures. While I agree that America does have some very dark spots in its foreign relations record, there is no possible justification for the atrocities of September 11th. We are responding appropriately.

      --
      -NOC Monkey (OOK!) Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you make it.
    39. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by mrBoB · · Score: 1
      All right man, I agree with you that Americans should be reading from diverse news-media outlets. However, I read the article you referenced and I wonder how you figure opinions coming from mindless masses can mean a thing. It's understood that nations in the Rogue list (*ahem, including Syria*) don't treat their own people well nor do they provide anything other that pro-government (dictatorship, whatever) propaganda for news. These people simply believe or agree with whatever is printed in the "Daily Worker" (or whatever you want to call it, state-run mag or newspaper), because if they _don't_ believe or agree, they'll be taken out back and shot. It goes without saying that a quote in such a paper would be in support of that government's current mindset.

      Americans don't have that threat to daily life. They _can_ (and should) read many _DIVERSE_ viewpoints to ensure they are well informed. If I don't believe what CNN, NBC, ABC, The NY Times are telling me, I can come up with my own conclusions, contrary to popular opinion and spout that myself, on my own website ;-) or if I was really rich, print my own newsletter or newspaper. That's the beauty of a free press; even with all its flaws, at least its not state-run. -Bob

    40. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      There certainly are camels there. In fact the North west of Australia is covered in the stubborn buggers, brought over by Afghan camel drivers (on boats of course!) from Afghanistan last century.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    41. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by dopplex · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least one major land grabbed was planned by Israel. Israel attacked Egypt, claiming that Egypt had attacked them. Their sole objective was to gain land. In the process of doing this, they systematically slaughtered Egyptian POWs, in a manner eerily reminiscent of the Holocaust.
      While I hardly think that the Arab side in this conflict has been on the side of right, I also have no illusions about Israel.

      --
      "You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
    42. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by count3r · · Score: 1
      Regarding
      Now, more than ever, it is important for Americans to seek global news sources
      Here's a pretty good directory of international on-line newspapers:

      http://www.ipl.org/reading/news/
    43. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, self rightousness works only if you are being oppressed not if you are the oppresser! The jewish people now are in the seat of power and act like everyone else in the seat of power (in a corrupt and self-serving fashion). No fucking surprize here, they are human the islamic people are human and no fucking one of them is a "chosen" people.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    44. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One cruise missle is to many!

    45. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aperently you forgot to count the people that were currently bombing, dont these people have a price?

    46. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by DK · · Score: 1

      I don't think this post deserves much of a response because it is quite simply a piece of trash. What amazes me is that is got modded up "+4 insightful" instead of "-1 Flamebait", which is all it deserves for its blatant anti-semitism and misrepresentation of fact.

      So many readers on slashdot, represented by the moderators here, appear to be so obsessed with the evils of establisment (whether it's Microsoft, US Govt, Israel, etc.), that they parade around any statement, fact or fiction, that demonizes the powers that be.

      We often look towards simple answers for complex questions. The simple answer tendered here is to blame the Jews for September 11. I sincerely hope that the majority of readers take the time to learn historical facts and understand the absurdity of such a conclusion.

    47. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by nathanh · · Score: 2
      Israel attacked Egypt, claiming that Egypt had attacked them.

      Not just Egypt. Lebanon too. And Syria. All the while claiming that the neighbouring countries attacked first. And perhaps they did. Who knows. Certainly not me. I'm fed so much conflicting information that all I'm certain of now is that I've no idea what's going on.

      There are people dying. I'm not sure who did what to whom, but it all pretty much bites.

    48. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by biglig2 · · Score: 2

      No comentator seems to have pointed out that this is surely a dig at Clinton's military excursions. Probably a justified dig, as that's what he did.

      It's understandable though that the US initially target Taliban Military installations. They probably see the only way to get the T's is to walk in there and get them; if they do that they can expect hotile response from the Taliban; hence they knock out their military infrastructure (hooray for cruise missiles!)beforehand, particilarly thier air capability.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    49. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      America is clearly the agressor in this case. Where was the international community when millions died in Ruanda and Burundi? Apperently 5000 americans are worth more.

      I'm not saying Taliban are great, but the governement of the US is exactly the same.

    50. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by thonot · · Score: 1

      NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      You're only partially correct, it's true the WTC bombings were, in fact, a crime, not an act of war. However, the main suspect for the planning and execution of this crime( the most heinous crime ever committed on US soil, I might add) is being harbored by the Afghan government, and that could easily be construed as an act of war.

      If, say, a militant group from Mexico had been found to be responsible for the WTC attacks, would we be invading Mexico right now?
      Well, if the Mexican government turned the members of that group over to the US, then the answer would be no.
      If, however, the Mexican government refused to cooperate with the US, and threatend war if the US took any measures to extract the member of this hypothetical militant group, you had better believe that we'd be at war with them.

    51. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by kubrick · · Score: 1

      brought over by Afghan camel drivers (on boats of course!)

      It's a shame you clarified that -- I had this wonderful vision of camels swimming the Indian Ocean, with men in turbans on their backs.

      There's More Than One Way To Do It, indeed. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    52. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Heee! Of course more than a few times I've spoken on the net to people who think Australia is some sort of southern US state or something. :)

      >>brought over by Afghan camel drivers (on boats
      >>of course!)

      >It's a shame you clarified that -- I had this
      >wonderful vision of camels swimming the Indian
      >Ocean, with men in turbans on their backs.

      >There's More Than One Way To Do It, indeed. :)

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    53. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We fought on behalf of the Kuwaitis, the Kosovars and the Bosnians. They are all Muslims, so you're full of shit.

      The reason we support Israel is because there is nothing else in the Middle East *to* support. It's the only liberal democracy, and thus the only stable government in the region. The rest of them will all be run by various strongmen and kleptocrats, thus there is no value in supporting those regimes.

      Most importantly, only a liberal democracy actually cares about human rights such as life. The lovable Arafat happily murders his own people, as does Hussein, the Taliban, etc. The Sudanese are still slave traders. The Saudis steal all the oil profits while the literacy rate is shit. So the bottom line is that the governments are all scum that make their people suffer, not the US and not Israel.

    54. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      The jewish people were there first.

      According to the Torah there was quite a bit of smiting that went on in which the people who were living there before Moses saw the view from Nebo.

      It does not matter who was where first. What matters is whose rights are being respected and who is inciting the violence.

      Bin Laden, the Taleban and the rest will be no loss to the world in the unlikely event that it turns out that some other party was actually behind the attacks. Bin Laden made a video of himself declaring war on the US five years ago with Al Zawari, the leader of Egytian Al Jihad who is inaccurately referred to by CNN as 'Bin Laden's number 2'. Al Jihad has been in the terrorism business for 20 years, long before Bin Laden became a fanatic.

      Bin Laden declared war, the Taleban supported him. The US has every right to drop munitions on both.

      Don't forget in all this however that what happened in NYC is much less than what the Taleban have been doing in their own country. They have murdered tens of thousands a year to stay in power directly and hundreds of thousands indirectly through the famine and disease their policies have caused. They are the Afghan Khmer Rouge.

      Back to Israel, Sharon's behavior has been unforgivable. Asked to support the US in its time of need he has stabbed it in the back. Sharon and the Israeli right have been doing their best to disrupt the peace process ever since Sharon sparked the latest unrest by forcing his way into the Al Aquar mosque with a bunch of thugs. It was a totaly unecessary action that was intended to provoke a reaction and so 'justify' counter-reaction by the Israeli army.

      Sharon's gambit succeeded, he provoked the Intifada which brought down the Israeli government and brought Sharon to power. It was an entirely cynical power grab. That does not excuse the kids throwing rocks or the loonies blowing themselves up. But whenever Sharon makes his complaints about the violence it has to be remembered that he deliberately set the match to the tinder.

      These actions have not escaped the UK foreign office - Jack Straw recently called Sharon 'a cancer', nor the Bush administration. Anyone who thinks that a UK foreign secretary makes such statements by mistake or without US approval at a time such as this is a fool. Straw was acting on instructions to sent Sharon a warning. US pressure on Sharon to cease building of further 'settlements' is going to become unrelenting.

      The other dimension the US media only touches on is the extent to which this whole mess is driven by drugs. Afghanistan might have had a decent government long ago but for the profits from the drug trade. Bin Laden's fortune would not finance an army for long without his share from the heroin trade.

      One solution (politically unacceptable) would be to legalize hard drugs. The west would see a few tens of thousands of bodies of people who chose to kill themselves with the stuff clogging up its morgues, but the narcocracies would fall as the profits from the drugs trade dried up with increased supply and the total deaths would be much fewer.

      Another would be for those heroin junkies who are running arround waving the stars and stripes pretending to be patriotic to give up heroin instead. Nobody who is funding the terrorists who murdered 7000 in New York should have the right to carry their flag.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    55. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by sminra · · Score: 1

      It's only expensive unless you can pressure your 'allies' to foot the bill.

      The USA made a PROFIT off the Gulf War.

      Germany will fork over about 15 billion Deutsche Marks (about 6.5 billion dollars) for this idiocy.

    56. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. Define apartheid, and contrast it with the treatment of Arab Israelis, and then take a long hard look at how the Israelis chose to treat the populations of the West Bank and Gaza as a matter of state policy. Look at who holds any moral high ground then.

      If you can't see what I'm getting at, I say, fuck you, and I sincerely hope you wake up one day.

    57. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.. Funding oppressive regimes is a good way of helping. When these regimes try and crush dissent with obvious American support.. let's see (recent Saudi history, anyone?).

      See, what I object to is your idea that all Muslims are the same. The people who rule oppressively may be Muslim, as may the people they oppress. Why ignore this crucial difference? It's not the former - with their American support - who are radicalised against the US, it's from the ranks of the latter. Think about that for a second, and then go read some fucking books.

    58. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cares about human rights? Let's see. Look at the South Lebanon Army, Israel's former proxy in South Lebanon, and look up the Khiam prison. Look up the Amnesty International records of those people Israel so happily chose to lock up and torture in prison in the 1980s. Look up Amnesty International's records on Israel's status as an enforcer of human rights today. In fact, take your head out of your own ass and do some fucking research.

    59. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We often look towards simple answers for complex questions. The simple answer tendered here is to blame the Jews for September 11. I sincerely hope that the majority of readers take the time to learn historical facts and understand the absurdity of such a conclusion.

      I am not agreeing whatsoever to the message that you are replying to, however I do find it interesting that you follow up a critique of the cynicism on Slashdot with the words "we often look towards simple answers for complex questions". Indeed. The simple answer is "Bin Laden is the head vampire and if you kill him the vampire hoardes will be vanquished."

    60. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by way2slo · · Score: 1
      America is not blameless and the US is attacking the Taliban, but that is where the facts end in your post. Someone once told me that the best place to hide a lie is between two truths. Aparently you heard that as well. Yes, the US did some bad things during the cold war. It was a very messed up time in the world, with global thermonuclear war hanging over the head over the entire planet. Yes, the US is attacking the Taliban for events that happened on 11 Sep. 2001, but your statements in between these facts are misguided at best.

      The United States did not rush into this, as you seem to suggest. Take a close look at any newspaper in the past month and you will see that the US tried diplomatic approaches for a whole month. The Taliban refused, so the only option left is a military action. Bin Laden and the Taliban are very closely linked, financially speaking, from what I've read in the various news sources. Especially the BBC. So naturally, the US is striking the ruling government to 1)stop terrorists linked to the WTC attack and 2)send a message that America and it's allies will not tolerate terrorism anymore.

      As for comparing this military action to a war on Islam, again I think you need to read the papers a little closer. This is not an all out war against Islam. The objectives are clear, to stop people like Bin Laden from killing. I agree with you that war is bad and should be avoided, if possible. But there is a proper time for everything, even war. With the evidence pointing to Bin Laden as it seems to be, the actions the US is taking seem measured and appropriate. They are not launching an all out war. They are not dropping nukes on innocent civilians, although they have in the past (Hiroshima & Nagasaki).

      If this is an attack on Islam, then why is the US attacking Afganistan? What religous signifigance does Afganistan have to Islam? Not much. The US has backed pro-Muslim policies and nations too. The US has defended Islamic countries from cold war enemies and other Islamic countries. Remember when the US defended Saudi Arabia and freed Kuwait? Do you have some piece of evidence to refute these facts so you can justifiy your claim?

      Now for Isreal. That situation is not anywhere as simple as you make it out to be. The political history of that region is very complex. The US has taken an active role in promoting peace in that region. Personally, I believe that it is a waste of time. There are too many extreemists on both sides that refuse to negotiate and refuse to compromise. In refusing, they condem themselves to more death and destruction. It feeds on itself in a cycle of retaliation for retaliations. It will take an act of God to bring peace to that land.

    61. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by PieceMaker · · Score: 1

      Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      If that is how you prefer to frame the situation, then no, the US is NOT responding by making war. The US is involved in a police action.

      Your ignorance on America's policies toward Muslims is staggering.

    62. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Thank you for a reasoned and sane response to the drooling "love it or leave it" pseudo-patriot. :)

      --
      I do not have a signature
    63. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 million russian died in WW II you dont hear them complianing dipshit

    64. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 million russians died in WW II dipshit

    65. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by kiwaiti · · Score: 1
      persecution from 25 years of german/nazi ideology

      In fact, the "1000-year-empire" (das Tausendjährige Reich, as the Nazis liked to call it) only lasted about 12 years (1933-'45). Their ideology was developed in the mid-20's, however the mass-murder part was in WW2 ('39-'45), so you could claim the ideology lasted about 20 years, but certainly not persecution.

      in the past 35 centuries, probably close to a billion jews have been killed

      You might be overestimating the numbers. Remember that before the industrial revolution, population density was much much lower everywhere. Up until very recent times (from a historical point of view), cities with more than a few tens of K inhabitants were extremely few and far between.

      Kiwaiti

      --
      Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
    66. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by fams · · Score: 1

      Look at this

    67. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

      Ummmm, just in case you missed it Mr. Bin-laden declared war on the United States quite some time ago....yes, he considers this a war. You may not be able to realize this, but his version of a war is not our version of a war. He likes to blow up his soldiers while attacking civilian targets. We (basically the rest of the world) doesn't fight that way, we are now meeting his call for war with our means of war, if he doesn't like it, perhaps he should have choosen his words more carefully.

    68. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dumbass.

      Ariel Sharon is a damn war criminal.

      Israel is a terrorist country.

      The United States trained and aided Osama Bin Laden and in effect created the Taliban.

      Now you want to bitch and cry because the U.S.A. (which should stand for Ugly Stupid Assholes) can't handle what they created.

      I could even say that you deserved everything that happened on September 11th, but I won't.

    69. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever dude. We're handling it all just fine. Watch CNN and see those tomahawks fly.

    70. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Telek · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention times of india...

      India silently approves attacks

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    71. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh we are handling what we created my friend!
      How far does anyone think this will go? Do you realize how many troops NATO can muster? Don't be foolish, if the US wanted to end this right now they could and would break up the whole of the middle east like we did Germany! You don't think India and China would like to stretch their legs a little bit? 1 billion musslims world wide? 3 billion between India and China, Russia right above their heads. Those are some damn poor odds.

    72. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to ya, but no one's going to be committing terrorist actions in Canada. Ya see, Canada isn't governed by mentally incompetent assholes like you, and the US is. Unlike the US, Canada hasn't been stealing the rest of the worlds natural resources while supporting terrorists and dictators in the name of furthering its own interests. Since Canada isn't ruled by arrogant fuckwits like you, the rest of the world doesn't hate Canada like they do the US, so no one's going to be flying planes into Canadian buildings.

    73. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, did you know that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Muslims can vote?

    74. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I don't think that's true. Do they not have elections in Egypt? Didn't Iran (of all places) have successful elections not too long ago?

    75. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, dude? We supported Hussein for two decades, to the point of vetoing UN resolutions against him for his use of chemical weapons. We support the Saudi government extensively. We supported the Shah of Iran and his brutal military dictatorship for decades. In fact, the US and Britain were the primary authors in the Shah's coup against Iran's former liberal social democracy.

      The fact of the matter is that the US has rarely supported democratic governments outside of Europe. Democratic governments in less developed nations tend to want do do things like control their own natural resources and use the profits to benefit their own citizens, instead of doing the right thing, which is to hand the profits to US companies. Which is why the US has its 50-year long history of replacing liberal democracies with brutal military dicatatorships in places like Iran, Chile, and El Salvador, and why the vast majority of the less developed nations that recieve the wholehearted support of the US government are military dictatorships.

    76. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by 3p1c · · Score: 1

      >Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself

      >NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a >crime, not and act of war, and the US is >responding by making war.

      >its always wrong.

      > perceive this as an attack on Islam

      >You do understand America has been backing the >slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The >Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to >displace Muslims because they are not Jewish. The >Americans have been supporting religious-state >politics all this time, they have been violating >their own constitution by supporting Zionism - you >are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT >an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.
      >
      >America has backed anti-Muslim policies, politics >and 'apartheid'(sp?)
      >
      >America is not blameless.

      tell me , why is this flaimbate ?? I see lots of truth in this reply . i cant see one untrue statement as a matter of fact. I have a certain feeling patriotstic feelings belonging to the moderators have been strong while moderating this reply.

      --
      Capitalism != (innovation|democracy|freedom)
    77. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but you still lost your WTC towers, at least 6,000 civilians and a huge chunk of the Pentagon (your so-called "military headquarters").

      Yeah, you go handle it, you've still been shown that the U.S. can easily be hurt. And your tomahawks won't bring back the dead.

    78. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missles aren't supposed to bring back the dead. They are supposed to kill. And they are doing just that.

    79. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they're killing even more innocent people but have yet to do even close to the amount of destruction that your own airliners did to your country.

      This is stupid. Starting a war because your own people were so stupid as to let armed passengers onboard your own aeroplanes. And what were they armed with? Freakin' box-cutters!!! "Home of the brave" indeed, when your own people on the planes didn't even have the courage to fight back against the terrorists.

    80. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this shit with Americans always claiming credit for something you aren't even doing? What's with "we are handling what we created"? You aren't doing shit but sitting on your ass because you, and most Americans, are too scared to go fight for your country. You aren't doing anything, the military guys who are in the middle east are.

    81. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are both liars. They fought because they were attacked first, except in one case where they attacked first out of fear of an imminent attack. You rewrite history.

    82. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are you from, exactly?

    83. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Heee! Of course more than a few times I've spoken on the net to people who think Australia is some sort of southern US state or something. :)

      I'm actually an Aussie as well :)

      BTW, I thought we were some sort of satellite state of the US by now... everything seems to be going that way: health care, industrial policies, franchised fast food stores, etc. :/

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    84. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      And so, we come to impasse. Many of us believe that the Jews were granted that land by God, you do not. This is the primary issue.

    85. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would disagree with your statement on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being innocent civilian's. If you go to Japan and visit these cities as I have, you will see that Hiroshima was a military base. That is the whole city was a base by the time we bombed it. And Nagasaki was the production of all Japanize ammunition. We did get civilians and it was war. But it was more military then civilian

    86. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      A surefire way to find out is to go over there and look for the camels with missles sticking out of their butts! :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    87. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Just a few 250k missles. Nothin much. Damn war is xpensive.

      Yeah, but it's great for the military-industrial complex. War generates business. Those aren't dollar bills that are just lit on fire -- money goes to businesses.

    88. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Inneresting. Whatcha make of it?

      Looks to me like India could make a move against Pakistan. I hope like hell they're not stupid enough to attempt that.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    89. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Telek · · Score: 2

      Inneresting. Whatcha make of it?

      I dunno, but you'll have to knock on my bomb shelter when it's all over.

      I don't have a very warm-and-fuzzy feeling about all of this stuff. Nothing immediate, but all that the US is doing is pissing off the people who caused this atrocity in the first place.

      Notice how nobody is asking the most important question of it all: why? (Or sorry, we've all been blindsided by the media in to not thinking about this question, although I imagine that many people have been wondering about it)

      You're not going to find 19 people who are willing to die just for kicks. These people had serious and longstanding grudges.

      I've said it before: you can't stop terrorism by force. The only way that you can stop terrorism is to remove the reasons that are causing people to take these extraordinary measures.

      Think about it. Oslama Bin Laden (if it was in fact him) obviously had this thing planned out for at least a few years prior to it's execution. He's patient, and his followers are too. He pledged that "America will never feel safety", and quite frankly I'd be more worried about that then about bombing terrorist camps. Do you think that the people who were given airplane training in the US needed the the terrorist training camps in Afgan. to operate? Doubt it. This is just stoking the fire right now. If we don't take a serious look at the whys then history is just going to repeat itself, and it'll be worse next time.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    90. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by FFFish · · Score: 2

      Gotta agree with ya there. IIRC, some of the terrorist pilots had been in the US for a half-dozen years. And there's word going 'round that bin Laden may be telling the truth: he didn't order the WTC strike -- the guys who executed the strike planned it. (bin Laden funded them, I'm willing to bet, but gave them free reign.)

      Well, if the terrorists had access to flight training and enough airport knowledge to pull their attack off, what's to say we don't also have terrorists working in oil refineries, chemical factories, construction jobs, what-have-you?

      bin Laden might have changed the rules a decade ago, and the US had no idea... he's not training them, he's had them planted and had them develop their own plans.

      And it's way too fucking late to stop them now: they're in the country, doing their 9-to-5 like the rest of us, and are just waiting for the opportunity to pull off their own attack.

      Scary.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    91. Re:Doesnt look that big right now by linzeal · · Score: 1

      God, ha !

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  2. CNN has a story by vt0asta · · Score: 1

    A link is here. U.S. President is addressing the nation as of 1300.

    --
    No.
  3. Sad but true by rayamor · · Score: 0

    I work on Wall St. I am scared to go back to work now. Maybe I'm being over-reactive, maybe not.

  4. According to Bush by OverCode@work · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We're bombing command and radar installations (confirmed destroyed), as well as dropping food and supplies in other areas.

    A relatively good speech by Bush, I thought.

    -John

    1. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As usual the content was flat and the rhetorics made me cringe a few times.


      Someone like Ronald Reagan or perhaps even Bill Clinton could have made a convincing delivery of it, but GWB, reading it from the teleprompter with a monotone voice, only emphasized its lack of content.

    2. Re:According to Bush by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      Dude, what were you looking for? "We plan on using B2's from this specific airbase on this specific target, and they should be arriving in exactly x minutes...."

      Relax, man. He got the important stuff across -- we're attacking the Taliban and we're going to be moving in ground forces to find Bin Laden & Friends. That answers most of the questions in my mind (at least, those I could reasonably expect answered).

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:According to Bush by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      We're bombing command and radar installations (confirmed destroyed), as well as dropping food and supplies in other areas.
      Seems to be a fairly distributed attack, though. So far two airfields and structures in Kabul habe been confirmed hit. But make no mistake it, no matter if it was really the command canter they hit, civilians will die und it it is still a damn long way to go for all of us.
      --
      +++ath0
    4. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't sound like you deserve to be in the US.

    5. Re:According to Bush by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      How ignorant can you be? I can live with the fact that you have absolutely no knowledge about anything outside the US borders but this still doesn't excuse the fact that you must have been hidden in a hole not watching the news for the last month. bin Laden is a billionaire. That's with a 'b'. Doesn't take a rocket scientist why the Taliban doesn't want to give it up eh? Why don't you read the news you've been avoiding and figure out the military assets they have before you waste my air anymore?

      ---

    6. Re:According to Bush by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's probably lots of people here too young to recall what a great orator Reagan was. He was routinely on primetime television, and people placed incredible value on what he said.

      A topical and interesting example Statement on the Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan I had vauge memories of this speech, so I looked it up. Somehow I doubt I'll recall anything GW Bush said 20 years after the fact.

      Afghanistan's freedom fighters -- the resistance or mujahidin -- represent an indigenous movement that swept through their mountainous land to challenge a foreign military power threatening their religion and their very way of life. With little in the way of arms or organization, the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated that they will not be dominated and that they are prepared to give their lives for independence and freedom. The price they have so willingly paid is incalculable.

      Let all of us who live in lands of freedom, along with those who dream of doing so, take inspiration from the spirit and courage of the Afghan patriots. Let us resolve that their quest for freedom will prevail, and that Afghanistan will become, once again, an independent member of the family of nations.       -- Ronald Reagan

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    7. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What the hell are you talking about?


      True to form? I'm not in the military and I can say whatever I like. I think GWB's speech was complete nonsense, which is nothing unusual from any President, but it was also poorly delivered and uninspired.

    8. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the type of citizen we need more of. You know the type that uses their brain.

    9. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH RIGHT!! Kill them and then give them food. This is bullshit. This kind of thing its no different from terrorism.

    10. Re:According to Bush by SquierStrat · · Score: 1

      Aye, billionaire yes, but no billionaire can help you none, if you have no country left...

      --
      Derek Greene
    11. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, if you don't clap your hands and praise the what a great orator George W. Bush is, you don't deserve to live in the U.S.A.?


      You know in the Stalin's Soviet Union people used to applaud Stalin for tens of minutes. Why? It was not because he was such an inspiring leader, but because everyone was afraid of being the first one seen to stop clapping. Is this what you want?

    12. Re:According to Bush by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      so does that mean we bombed their string between two tin cans?

      A bomb seems like overkill for that purpose. A simple pair of scissors, or ...gasp... a cardboard cutter would have done the job too.

    13. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you were trying to be funny, and failing miserably at it.

      And for the record, I do not believe in organized religion.

    14. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill them and then give them food. This is bullshit. This kind of thing its no different from terrorism.

      This is different from terrorism. Terrorists could have chosen to hijack a cargo jet full of ice cream bars, and drop them over manhattan before hitting their target. But they didn't. There was no food for us.

    15. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, Fuck All Americans and Talibans!!!
      die, Human!!!!

    16. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I doubt I'll recall anything GW Bush said 20 years after the fact.

      How about "make no mistake about it"?

    17. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since you sound like a UKian, mate, you should know that even the USian press recognizes that the landmark speech on the issue was Tony Blair's. In fact he's making a statement right now and it's far more interesting an effective than Bush's.

    18. Re:According to Bush by oosajack · · Score: 0

      He m ay be great orator teeling lies and convincing you all dumb people. Can't see that he lied umpteen number of times?????
      Let me show you one for example...
      Movement was not an indigenous one.. You can see now that the movement included Saudis (prominent being Osama), Pakis, and other muslim countries with active support (money and training) from US

      Any good actor can be a great orator... Regan is just an actor who couldn't act in movies but well in real life. He is just a front for lot of people.. All his foriegn policy is of Henry Kissingers..

      Why can't you understand that...

    19. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its, if you think that how Bush reads a speech on TV in any way conveys some important meaning, than, you are too dumb to live in the US.

      Whether or not the President of the US can sound glib and polished during TV appearances is about the last thing to worry about these days. I wouldn't care if the motherfucker stuttered and drooled when talking. Does he have smart people around him? Is he making informed decisions? Is he trying to gather support from the rest of the world? These are far more important questions than whether he sounds wooden or not.

    20. Re:According to Bush by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Wich is why I voted for Jed Bartlett...

      In Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" (I think that's the title) the president (Jack Ryan) is addressing the nation in response to a terrotist bio-attack (with ebola virus) and he finishes with something like: "... and this is America's response..." (cut to a view of the palace of the Ayatolah like figure that started it all just as a bomb falls on it).

      Side note to T Clancy: I really like your books, but I believe they were more interesting when Jack Ryan was just a spy.

      --
      No sig
    21. Re:According to Bush by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      If it's not obvious, I should note that I was no great supporter of Reagan.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    22. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, thank you for showing everyone who the real idiot is, oosajack. *snicker*

    23. Re:According to Bush by 0WaitState · · Score: 1

      Credit Peggy Noonan, or one of his other speechwriters. And whichever of his handlers helped select this text out of others.

      --

      Remain calm! All is well!
    24. Re:According to Bush by pivo · · Score: 1

      I'd vote for Jed Barlett too, if I could.

      But Tom Clancy? His books are nothing more than mindless patriotic boy stories. US == great, anywhere else = dumb/evil. Boring and embarasing.

    25. Re:According to Bush by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Uh, do any of these responders realize what this post is about? They keep arguing with your description of Reagan as "a great orator." So they talk about what an idiot Reagan was. Read the quote again, fools. Nutscrape isn't making Reagan look like a genius here.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    26. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You heard what you wanted to hear, since you've obviously made up your mind years ago. The rest of us are trying to keep an open mind and evaluate what the man says.

    27. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while true, that has nothing to do with the arugment at hand.

      As an aside: at least Bush sounds sincere when he speaks (completely ignoring if I agree with the man or not). I know the ultra-left types think that's a sign of political weakness, but for most US citizens, its a nice change of pace.

    28. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this some Blair vs. Bush thing to you? I bet neither of them care. Talk about petty...

    29. Re:According to Bush by blair1q · · Score: 2

      What Bonzo's dad wasn't telling you was that we poured $3 billion into Afghanistan, and sent "advisors", those being special forces who trained the Afghan resistance and helped build the bomb shelters that helped them survive Soviet carpet bombing.

      Reagan wasn't saluting freedom fighters; he was plugging for continued covert funding (by making people write their congressman asking why we weren't helping those poor people), and getting by-jingo points from it. Politics as usual. It worked, and the Soviets finally quit.

      But what happened next? The remainder of the mujahedeen mercenary force, the ones who couldn't afford to go home--or couldn't leave Mos Eisley because they had the death sentence on twelve systems--turned into the equivalent of a biker gang, in a country that had been armed to the man, to the teeth.

      When you see Taliban propaganda saying that the Afghanis welcomed them and they brought peace to the region, it's true, up to a propagandistic point. They stopped the mujahedeen gangs.

      But what happened next? They ground humanity into a thin page of things they could do vs. thousands of pages of things they couldn't. Typical example of "give some people a badge". Children leading a nation. Religiously fanatical, confused, hate-steeped children.

      --Blair

    30. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "Smoke 'em outta their holes"

    31. Re:According to Bush by ariux · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that, with the death toll from this entire incident climbing into five figures, we're sitting here arguing about someone's tone of voice.

    32. Re:According to Bush by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Well, I always get the impression that Alzheimers was setting in my his election and that he probably lived in his own grandiose universe as a way of coping.

      When he said "I don't reacall." He was probably telling the truth!

      And his economic theory was WAY off...

      But all that aside there are some respectable things about the Reagan administration that are rarely brought up. You or I may not agree with all of them, but his cabinet members definitely did try to become visibly and actively involved in trying to make the country a better place as they saw it, Dr. C. Everett Koop being the best example. To me, that is what real patriotism should be about-- active community involvement, and that is one thing I respect the man for.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    33. Re:According to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, America has been promising Afghanistan 'freedom' for quite some time without coming through on that promise.

      I wonder who the next dictator America will have to half-rescue Afghanistan will be...

    34. Re:According to Bush by Zeno_1 · · Score: 1

      Actually I think you are both wrong..

      What they did really doesn't compare to what we are doing now..

      Since Sept. 11th, im fairly sure that the Taliban knew something was going to happen. About a week after that, we said that we are not going to look at a terrorist group, and a country that is harboring them, as seperate, and in my opinion, is a fair warning to those contries.

      They have not yet released OBL, we gave them an ultimatem you could say, they didn't step up to plate, so we take out his terrorist camps.

      We know that Afganistan is going to have some troubles over this, a lot of the funds are probably going to other places then helping the unfortunate citizens of that country, so we give them some food to help out.

  5. BBC News coverage by jonathan_atkinson · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC report is here. Includes comment from a Whitehouse spokesman.

    Get a map of possible targets here.

    --jon

    --
    Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
    1. Re:BBC News coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw those exact URL pages and map before I even visited slashdot today. You mean all I had to do was cut & paste a couple of URLs and I could have had a +5 post? Sheesh.

    2. Re:BBC News coverage by Anonymous+Coed · · Score: 1
      You mean all I had to do was cut & paste a couple of URLs and I could have had a +5 post?

      Yes.

      You mean you hadn't noticed that before?

    3. Re:BBC News coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Now stop crying and go back to masturbating to fake images of britney spears nude.

  6. Hmm by pcgamez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    God help those we target

    and isn't it sad I am reading /. instead of watching the news...

    1. Re:Hmm by ekrout · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, I hope God punishes those we target. We're not targeting civilians, but terrorists. That's all. Just the bad guys. The really evil ones.

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go, troll.
      How about your mother in her finish sauna gets blown up by these assholes, then will you be such an apologist prick?

    3. Re:Hmm by phaze3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree, it's extremely sad people innocent people will die in Afghanistan. However, I disagree that air-strikes are any less discriminate than ground troops - remember Vietnam, where of thousands of women were raped by American troops?

      I'm an atheist, and as such I don't feel qualified to comment on the whole god aspect of your comment, but I feel that one certainally cannot sit idly by. I'd need more information on the nature of the attacks to say whether or not I support them - at the moment details are rather sketchy. Certainally the current reports (military installations and an airport taken out) don't seem to be unreasonable.

      --
      Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    4. Re:Hmm by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Shit! Thank God for that. I was pretty sure the CIA must have a satellite that shows who all the really evil ones are, but thanks for confirming it.

      As for God punishing those that the US targets, well buddy, don't worry too much about that. You see God is omnipotent, unlike the USA, so we can all be pretty sure he will act justly. But, hey, you gotta wonder why he lets all those innocent people die all the time. I dunno, maybe they aren't so innocent or something. Boy, this whole good/evil thing is a brain-ache. Let's just nuke 'em!!

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He does have a point, though in the whole god thing. Bush cited the bible on the day of the sept 11th attacks. If he is a true and proper christian, he will note that it is a violation of the 10 commandments to kill people. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying the USA should not attack, I am just saying it is hypocritical to promote the 10 commandments and then turn around and ignore them for military purposes. It is just a really good argument for the complete seperation of the state from religion.

    6. Re:Hmm by jeffy124 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      it appears God has already punished those who attacked us on the 11th:
      http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surpri sed.html

      He also made an appearance at ground zero:
      http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_do nt_kill.html

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    7. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly don't remember thousands of Vietnamese women being raped by U.S. troups. Got a source, or are you just doing the usual Slashdot job of making shit up?

    8. Re:Hmm by psavo · · Score: 1

      Now, this is raaly interesting, because I didn't comment on My god. Only the one americans "believe" in. Or say they believe.

      Whole Vietnam thing was a Mistake. Any War is BIG mistake.

      I can't think any "civilized" man going and killing a man. It just doesn't fit. It's really unbelievable that things like this happen.

      As a "leading" country, and one that worships "non-killing" god, US had a Reaally good case to show what it is all about. And they blew it.

      There is Always options. You're never forced to kill. And even where you're threatened by gun, your god welcomes you.

      Now, I'm not speaking about my god. Only US god.

      I am MY god. (because there's god in everyone of us, yadda yadda..)

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    9. Re:Hmm by psavo · · Score: 1

      > It is just a really good argument for the complete seperation of the state from religion.

      But see, you can't do this.
      State is people and people are state, what people believe in, state "states".
      This whole "culture" thing is only an agreement between people.

      There are many religions (and many people are atheists). But I don't know of many ("mainstream") religions that have killing policy.

      Killing is madness.

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this link for a start. (Replying as an AC to the AC, no need to trouble people with OT chat..)

    11. Re:Hmm by psavo · · Score: 1

      > I certainly don't remember thousands of Vietnamese women being raped by U.S. troups. Got a source, or are you just doing the usual Slashdot job of making shit up? http://www.vietnamese-american.org/dieu.html

      and 3'700 more: google

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    12. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you haven't heard of the My Lai massacre then, have you? (okay, not rape, but they killed a whold damn village with no real reason). The reason you don't hear much about the record in Vietnam is partly cuz the Gov't is covering it up, and partly because it's 30 years later and we're trying not to dwell on it.

    13. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no knowledge of the 10 commandments in their original form. It translates properly from Hebrew as thou shalt not murder. Big difference.

    14. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is not omnopotent, he's man made and non-existent.

    15. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can guarantee you that if there were any important military officials that knew about it, those responsible would have been punished dearly.

    16. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My jelly donut is omnibenevolent.

    17. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would I not have heard of My Lai, you imbecile? Because I didn't bring it up? Well no shit, Sherlock, that's because thousands of rapes didn't occur there, which is what we're talking about. What's next, you gonna ask me if I've ever heard of Hiroshima?

    18. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked for a source to back up this claim of thousands of Vietnamese women being raped by U.S. troops, and you give my an anecdote of one woman being raped? You're fucking stupid if you think that 3700 Google hits searching for the terms '+american +raped +vietnamese' equates to 3700 women having been raped. Once Google gets around to archiving this story at Slashdot, I guess the number will go up to 3701, just more evidence of how bad your reasoning is.

    19. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I didn't comment on My god. Only the one americans "believe" in. Or say they believe."

      Wow, what hole have you been living in if you think all USians have the same (or necessarily any god)?

      Man are you dumb and backwards.

    20. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just skimmed the page you sent, then just did a search for "thousand," so I might've missed seeing a number there, but I didn't see anything which backed up the original claim. If it's there, please point me to the specific part of the page. Until then, I stand by my request of a source which backs up the original claim.

    21. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATTN Moderators!! The parent post is not Troll! IT'S FACT! We are targeting _terrorists_

      He's paraphrasing President Bush and Britsh Prime Minister Blair.

    22. Re:Hmm by ekrout · · Score: 1

      Thanks for backing me up. I think the pro-Microsoft moderators don't like me due to recent anti-M$FT .sigs of mine.

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  7. Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.under .attack/index.html

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ WT C_MAIN.html

  8. beginning of the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beginning of the end?

  9. Ah, war. by Ravagin · · Score: 0

    Now, if we can get some orbiting phsaer platforms, there's still a chance we can realign ourselves with Star trek "history."

    --

    Karma: T-rexcellent.

  10. WW3 by bluebucket · · Score: 0

    Shit, here we fucking go.

    1. Re:WW3 by blixel · · Score: 0

      Shit, here we fucking go.

      I doubt it. The entire world supports the U.S. including Pakistan.

    2. Re:WW3 by bluebucket · · Score: 0

      for the moment

    3. Re:WW3 by WildBeast · · Score: 0

      except maybe over 10k of Pakistanis

    4. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An open-ended military campaign with vague, political goals is a recipe for disaster.


      This military campaign will only spark more terror strikes in the USA which, in turn, require further retaliatory strikes and so a vicious downward spiral towards endless violence is born. Just see how well the Israelis have managed to curb terrorism by violence during the last 40 years.

    5. Re:WW3 by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      Not WW3 yet, but if one thing goes wrong, we have a billion people from Islam against us.

    6. Re:WW3 by evvk · · Score: 0

      > I doubt it. The entire world supports the U.S. including Pakistan.

      So you think... That may be the official opinion of many countries but certainly there is a lot of anti-US atmosphere. I certainly do not support US. They have just shown once again that they are no better than the terrorists. "We're only targetting military and terrorist sites"... yeah, right, we'll see. What has the taliban military done to you? Nothing. Just get the fsck out of there and everywhere else and stay on your own continent! (And keep your DMCA too! We don't need stinking Euro-DMCA.)

    7. Re:WW3 by blixel · · Score: 1

      What has the taliban military done to you?

      Umm... well lets see. Ummm... they attacked my country. Maybe you remember hearing about it? They attacked the world trade center and collapsed both of the towers and killed thousands of innocent people. Was my mom or wife on those flights? Fortunately not... so according to your logic I shouldn't care right? It didn't effect me personally so why should I care?

      Psh... whatever dude. I feel sympathy for the tens of thousands of wives, husbands, sisters, brothers, aunts, nieces, nephews, best friends, cousins, uncles, etc... who did personally know someone who died.

    8. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! Then Mel Brooks can make the sequel to Blazing Saddles, Blazing Turbans. Islam, as practiced in the Middle East, is hateful, brutal -- Just ask the Jews. Knocking out 1/2 billion assholes sounds like a good idea. Finally, maybe, Middle Eastern women and children would not have to live in fear from the Islamic men.

    9. Re:WW3 by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      And are you suggesting that by doing nothing further violence would be avoided?

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    10. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you don't have to be an apoligetic prick. Just because you hated authority all your life, its OK to admit that the Taliban is injust and needs to go.

    11. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it's clear that violence has never worked, so perhaps it's time to try something different.


      I never suggested that we'd do nothing either.


      I fully condone all the diplomatic and financial means to attack terrorism.

    12. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe you should consider moving to Afghanistan. Theyll love you there.

      You live off the wealth created through the western democracies - but you moan when someone defends democracy using arms. People like you are pathetic and dont deserve to live in a democratic society.

    13. Re:WW3 by mtve · · Score: 1
      >>What has the taliban military done to you?
      >Umm... well lets see. Ummm... they attacked my country.

      you fscking prove it?

    14. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm..no. you *think* the taliban military or someone vaguely related to them *MAY* have done that to your country. you dont have any evidence that actually stands up in one of your own courts.

    15. Re:WW3 by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      They have just shown once again that they are no better than the terrorists.

      Yeah, we gave plenty of advance notice, and then we starting bombing military targets like power stations and SAM sites. Hate to break it to you, but there is a big difference between targeting 50,000 innocent people and targeting a airport/power plant/ etc.

      What has the taliban military done to you?

      They killed three people I went to high school with, asshole. They also killed 5 of my local volunteer fire department, who were full time FDNY- a common thing in the suburbs of NY.

      I want Osama Bin Laden standing tall before a federal judge in a courthouse in NYC. If found guilty, I want him stood up against a wall and shot.

      Taliban had the chance to hand him over. They didn't.

      Any other stupid fucking questions?

    16. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have to justify ourselves to little people like you. Evidence has been given to those who need to see it and can be trusted. This is a well known fact. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

    17. Re:WW3 by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 0

      I would think this is more of a WW1 on Terrorism.

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    18. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until we start the bombing of Iran, Iraq and Egypt. Oh yeah, Pakistan is next.

    19. Re:WW3 by yfarren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Well, it's clear that violence has never worked, so perhaps it's time to try something different."

      Actually, there is a long history of violence working very well, to combat terrorism. It typically has to be applied in heinous perportion, quickly. When that is done, violence seems to work quite well.

      It is when violence is applied in small, controlled, seeminly reasnoble perportion that is fails at controlling terrorism. Somone above reffered to Israels attempt to use violence to curb terrorism, and how that attmept had utterly failed. I think it is a good idea to examin how Israel has attempted to use violence to control radical Isalmic groups, and compare the Israeli attempt with the succesful use of violence employed by Jordan, and Syria.

      In 1970, Jordan had an intifada, much as Israel is having one now. The intifada was led by none other than Yasser Arafat. In response to this intifada, The former king Hussein killed some 10,000 palestinians, in what has become known as black september. After black september, Jordan had no further problems with palestinians.

      Similarly, Syria was faced with a militant Sunni Muslim uprising in 1982, and in response, leveled the town of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people. Syria had no further militant islamic problem, afterwards.

      Compare these responses to the relatively (in comparison to the responses of Jordan and Syria, when faced with similar situations) measured, reasnoble response of Israel, in response to terrorism, where soldiers are instructed not to use lethal force except in the case where they feel their lives are threatened, and where the death tolls are measured in the hundreds, and not thousands.

      I think it then becomes clear that violence, as a response, does work, but not measured reasnoble violence, but rather, brutal horrific violence. Please note, I am not neccesarily advocating the use of horrific brutal violence, but rather saying that statements to the effect of "Violence doesnt work" are wrong. Violence has a long history of working. But typically, when invoked on a large, and disperportionate scale.

      In defence of disperportionate violence, I would like to say that if you look at the syrian and Jordanian responses, and compare the long term effects of Syria, and Jordans response with the long term effects of Israels response, I think you will quickly see that a horrific disperpotionate use of violence, applied early in a conflict, is much better than any sort of reasnoble response, which tries to minimize harm to innocents. Jordan and Syria can create economic stability for their country (or they could if they had a vibrant economy). Israel, in an attempt to protect its citizens, does horrific, large scale economic damage to all the palestinians. If Israel had quelled the Palestinian Intifada in 1987, as Syria had dealt with their militants in 1982, or as Jordan had in 1970, then today, there might be a much stronger vibrant economy in the palestinian territories.

    20. Re:WW3 by mtve · · Score: 1
      by Anonymous Coward ...
      We don't have to justify ourselves to little people like you.

      It's funny.

      Evidence has been given to those who need to see it and can be trusted. This is a well known fact.

      So American government doesn't trust even to its own citizens. This is a well known logic.

      --
      rm: /bin/laden: No such file or directory

    21. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you just crack me up...
      It is said, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".
      True for the WTC towers, and true for America. Your day has passed. Your lifestyle is unsubstainable, and you know it.
      And now you live in fear.
      It must suck to be you.

    22. Re:WW3 by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that you don't know anything about my lifestyle, how do you come to the conclusion that is unsustainable?

      Eat shit and die, troll.

    23. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was talking about America, not your pathetic self. But as a seem to have touched a nerve anyway... Now I laugh even harder! Good day!

    24. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they won't make the proof public knowledge, at least for the time being. This would give too much intelligence information to the enemey.

    25. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So said Saddam Hussein once upon a time. That prick's next. Say goodbye.

    26. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. One by one. They'll support us on this one and we'll win. They'll grudgingly accept our attack on Iraq. When we hit Iran, it'll be too late. Then we just let the Indians bash the Pakistanis. Watch out, Saddam and Osama...Hannibal Lechter is coming to eat your women and children. They've woken a hungry beast and if they want us to act like the Great Satan, they're going to be weeping rivers of blood.

    27. Re:WW3 by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1
      >Yeah, we gave plenty of advance notice, and then we starting bombing military targets like power stations and SAM sites. Hate to break it to you, but there is a big difference between targeting 50,000 innocent people and targeting a airport/power plant/ etc.


      Err... How and to whom did you give notice? The people of Afghanistan do not have access to western media. That's one mistake. You have not notified the victims either.


      >They killed three people I went to high school with, asshole. They also killed 5 of my local volunteer fire department, who were full time FDNY- a common thing in the suburbs of NY.


      I understood that that was an act by some terrorists, not the Taleban military. That's a second mistake. No one has claimed that the Taleban organised or had any knowlege of the WTC.


      >I want Osama Bin Laden standing tall before a federal judge in a courthouse in NYC. If found guilty, I want him stood up against a wall and shot.


      Do you think he could get an honest trial there? Considering the mentality he must have, he's probably legally insane anyway. But at least you said "If found guilty..."


      >Taliban had the chance to hand him over. They didn't.


      You want them to hand him over without due process just because you think he is guilty? Swap the country names and you would be screaming if he was turned over. Has evidence been presented to the Taleban? They are still willing to talk about it. Bush is not. Bin Ladin is still claiming he is innocent. That's your third strike. It would be wrong to be bullied into handing over a possible innocent man to a wolfpack, wouldn't it?

      --

      Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

    28. Re:WW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These extremists are relatively safe until they are "lucky" enough to attacking U.S. citizens on our own soil - a very far-fetched scenario, nonetheless. Never corner a gun-weilding American.

    29. Re:WW3 by ariux · · Score: 1

      It must suck to be you.

      Fellow Americans, read this guy's post.
      (Posted to a network created by America from American-made computers.)
      Remember it.
      Remember the attitude it expresses,
      and the mindset that attitude represents.
      And whatever comes in the future,
      do not forget those lessons.
      There are some who do,
      and some who sit and sneer.

    30. Re:WW3 by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      Err... How and to whom did you give notice? The people of Afghanistan do not have access to western media.

      But the government does.

      I understood that that was an act by some terrorists, not the Taleban military. That's a second mistake. No one has claimed that the Taleban organised or had any knowlege of the WTC.

      What the fuck ever. Bin Laden is a 'guest' of the Taliban, runs training camps in Afghanistan Tablian territory, and has fought for the Taliban against the northern Alliance.

      Has evidence been presented to the Taleban? They are still willing to talk about it. Bush is not.
      Oh, you're another one of those freaks who thinks comprimise is a solution to everything. Hell, maybe if we let the Taliban have a little breathing room, this whole wacked-out perversion of Islam jihad they have going will be content with Afganistan and parts of northern Pakistan.

      Bin Laden has admitted to blowing up embassies in uninvolved countries, causing massive 'collateral' (non-american civilian) casualties, and admitted to blowing up the USS Cole.

      How exactly does due fucking process apply to people who have declared war on your country?

    31. Re:WW3 by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      We're supposed to be living in fear, but you're the Anonymous Coward.

  11. finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 0

    And not a moment too soon, give them hell.
    Now go buy your T-shirt.
    http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/apparel/57b2.shtml

    1. Re:finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by dixiec · · Score: 0

      american pride t-shirts

    2. Re:finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by jhanson · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would prefer a
      chmod +x /bin/laden
      shirt better.

    3. Re:finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by dixiec · · Score: 0

      chmod a+x /bin/laden and others are at http://store.gnab.net/

    4. Re:finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by geggibus · · Score: 1

      World Login: bush
      Password: ***
      bush@world.net:/safehome/bush$ chown bush.usa /bin/laden
      chown: changing ownership of '/bin/laden': Operation Not permitted
      bush@world.net:/safehome/bush$ su NATO
      password: ***

      NATO@world.net:~# rm /home/laden (afghanistan)
      NATO@world.net:~# deluser dalen
      deluser: user laden not found
      NATO@world.net:~# touch /home/afghanistan
      NATO@world.net:~# cd /usr/local/mcdonalds
      NATO@world.net:~# export INSTALL_PATH=/home/afghanistan; make install
      NATO@world.net:~# logout

  12. It is time... by truesaer · · Score: 1, Troll
    Being on a college campus, I have watched the local communist/socialist groups since the day of the attacks condemning the bloody war America was waging. Despite the fact that not a shot had been fired.


    Well, its been several weeks now, and our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible. The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest makes the bombing both justified, and appropriate.


    I really dread the rhetoric of those who think that we should just do nothing.

    1. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Of course, your head war monger was not interested, he prefers to kill innocent civilians. And the stupid US public is so uninformed anyway (as I can see from your posting), that he has its full backing.

      Peaceful solution my arse...

    2. Re:It is time... by 4444444 · · Score: 1, Funny

      the taliban trying bin ladan is like janet reno investigating bill clinton

      --

      http://Lenny.com
      4 great justice!
    3. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the war they were referring to was the one that's been going on for the last 20 years? You know, the one where the US and friends just blows up bits of the world from time to time - Iranian airliners, aspirin factories, that sort of thing.

      Anyway, that's not say the current action isn't justified. I just hope it expands to something more productive than air strikes.

    4. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest makes the bombing both justified, and appropriate.

      Yeah, how did they dare to ask for evidences before extraditing a person!

    5. Re:It is time... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Troll

      Yeah, that's a great idea... why don't we let criminals form their own judges and jury, and try themselves! Brilliant! That's the way to solve crime.

      I don't think that's what a "jury of their peers" means.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    6. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was indicted for the previous WTC bombing, the Taliban saw the evidence and let him go on his merry way. They should have turned him over for that alone.

    7. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Being on a college campus, I have watched the local communist/socialist groups since the day of the attacks condemning the bloody war America was waging. Despite the fact that not a shot had been fired."

      Yes economic war and the bloody war waged with substatial (say 5.3 billion us dollars durring the cold war). No the US did not fire a single shot (except maybe in training those forces), yes they still have blood on their hands.

      "I really dread the rhetoric of those who think that we should just do nothing."

      That was what America has been doing for some time. Yes I agree they should act I also believe they could have avoided this scenario with other actions long ago. Let's hope President W. Bush who prior to September 11th was a very issolationist president will see fit to make good choices beyond the current action in the region.

    8. Re:It is time... by Henryk+Ploetz · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US, _if_ the US provided sufficient evidence for Bin Laden's guilt?
      And I really hope I'm not the only one who doesn't consider "He doesn't like us, we don't like him and he has enough money to fund such a thing." as sufficient evidence.

      --
      Henryk Plötz
      Grüße von der Ostsee

    9. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, the Taliban say they will give Ben Laden to US if the US government give them a proof of his culpability. It's normal. Of course I don't support Talibans, but there they are just following what is called laws and right.

      Second, by bombing Afganhistan, it's not Ben Laden nor the Taliban that you kill, but the innocent people who are suffering from years due the Taliban terror.

      What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed. Families were broken. And for the people in Irak, the ennemy was no longer the dictator Saddam Hussein but the US.

      Didn't you learn from September the 11st? It's your "we-are-the-master-of-world" behavior that made those people act in a so stupid and inhuman way. By bombing Afghanistan, without a decision from the United Nations Organizations, you just create new terrorists, new fanatics all through the world. You give the Taliban a new argument to brain-wash the people living in the area.

      By answering hate to hate, bomb to bomb, death to death you just increase the global hatred level, and so you create new fanatics. Not just speaking of the poor Afghan child who was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Stop acting as the masters of the world. Stop killing people when it's your interset. Stop using hate to answer hate. Remember that the Taliban were armed and trained by the CIA. Remember that Ben Laden was a CIA agent. Remember that each day 35000 people die from hunger or poverty in the world, and that's the fault of USA, G8 and WTO. Fix those problem first, and terrorism will disappear.

    10. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't turn him over after seeing the evidence used to indict him for the first WTC bombing - why would they do it now? I'm sure they'd love to pour over the evidence to see what US intelligence sources are in their country.

    11. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tried in Afgahnistan"... LOL!
      There is no justice in Afgahnistan. Its a fucking voodoo zoo over there. The Taliban knows nothing of justice or truth, only brutality and intimidation. Pull your head out of your ass, dumbshit.

    12. Re:It is time... by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

      Actually that's exactly what it means.

      Let's say a man in Texas shoots dead a tourist who walked onto his front lawn late a night hoping someone was in who he could ask direction from (true case). Well, the jury of his peers agreed that a man had the right to defend his property by lethal force from trespass by a stranger late a night. The texan was innocent.

      Even ignoring the gun laws, in the UK the man would be doing 10-15 for manslaughter. No jury in the UK would acquit someone for that.

      So, you see, people are different. Now, people in Afghanistan maybe don't see the crime in killing a few thousand US people. So, chances are they'd acquit someone accused of that.

      Funny old world, eh? Still, if you don't like it, don't worry - you can always bomb them!

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    13. Re:It is time... by Trekologer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

      Oh, sure. That would work. (sarcasm off) The Taliban believe in the same extreme Islamic teachings that bin Laden uses to promote attacks against the United States. If tried by the Taliban, he would probablly be found not guilty. And he would still have refuge under the Taliban's regeime.

      By the way, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 21 page report tying bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. Plus there are the attacks on the USS Cole and the American embasies in East Africa. The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU. Do you still think we should sit back on our hands on hope this all "blows over"?

      * Most followers of Islam believe that "Jihad" means a holy war against one's self to find truth of existance. Using "Jihad" to demand violence is cosidered by most to be a basterization of the religion.

    14. Re:It is time... by vt_milhouse · · Score: 2, Troll

      I agree. The Taliban has had weeks to avoid a military confrontation, and our government has been more than willing to resolve this situation in a peaceful matter.

      What I don't understand about the groups condemning any military response is that they fail to realize that the military is fighting for their freedom. I saw an interview on Fox news about some group that believed that WW II could have been won by non-violent protests and the like. I'm sure that the axis powers would allow anti-war marches in Berlin.

      Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one. Americans should support their country during these times, even though they might not want to be at war. Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days.

    15. Re:It is time... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you aren't the person who remembers it, but you may be the only person who believes it. The Taliban already have sufficient evidence to absolutely require they extradite bin Laden: the public record of the trial of the bombers of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania six years ago. His associates were tried and convicted of that act, and the evidence used in that trial, which also implicated bin Laden, was presented to the Taliban three years ago, along with a demand for his surrender to the US to face trial for his own crimes in that matter, as well as in the matter of the bombing of the USS Cole in 1998.

    16. Re:It is time... by Port1080 · · Score: 1

      They didn't offer to turn him over, they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Islamic law... how likely do you think it is he'd be convicted under those circumstances??? They're just blowing hot air to try to save their asses, they have no intention of turning him over.

      --
      Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
    17. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't exactly up to date, are you? We provided evidence, and even Pakistan agreed that the evidence was sufficient. Did the Taliban turn him over? No, they said "ok, we'll try him here" and "hey, don't attack us and we'll release your aid workers"

      Sorry, those dumbasses were just trying to buy time. They never intended to turn him over, evidence or not.

    18. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why enlightened parts of the United States require you to fire a warning shot first :)

    19. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest...

      Bush: Give us bin Laden!

      Taliban: We don't have him.

      Bush: Give us bin Laden, damnit!

      Taliban: But we don't have him!

      Bush: Give us bin Laden or else!

      Taliban: We already told you, we don't have him!

      B: And we already told you to hand him over! Now give us bin Laden!

      T: Okay, we found bin Laden, and we've got him in protective custody. We're willing to talk about handing him over now.

      B: STFU, newbie! Give us bin Laden now!

      T: We're willing to talk...

      B: Hand the fucker over!

      T: We'll put him on trial if you want...

      B: My cruise missiles are getting anxious.

      T: C'mon, we'll put him on trial...

      B: Give us bin Laden!

      T: Let us put him on trial? Please?

      B: Man, that so does it. Your camels are all going to have cruise missiles up their asses by the time this is over.

    20. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And do you thing there really is a justice in US when a black accused to have killed a white has 4 times more risk to be sentenced to death than a white accused to kill a black?

      If Ben Laden is juged in a US court, how many people in the jury will believe him to be guilty even before hearing the first proof? Do you this is justice?

      In a case like that, only an international tribunal can judge. Else this won't be fair. The jury will be the same as the accusation.

    21. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, for gods' sakes. This is exactly the kind of 'rhetoric' that attracts such hatred towards you Americans - you seem to have this unerring feeling that your position is absolutely correct.

      [...]our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible
      Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.

      As a friend of mine put it, they call it 'collateral damage' because 'dead innocent civilians' doesn't have the same ring to it - and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides, to a great extent, because the 'mission' is not clearly definied, but only a misguided and vague effort supported by dodgy morals and an apparent committment to aid which doesn't really fit with the action being taken. The monopoly of the state as the only body with legitimate use of violence, the boundaries of morals, and the state of global governance are what is at question here. Acts are only called 'terrorism', and not military action by a foreign power by the difference in the percieved legitimacy of their perpetrators - 'fighting terrorism' is about keeping states the sole executors of, well, physical power, to the extent of executions.

      Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).

      --
      James F.
    22. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to spell you fucking little troll.

    23. Re:It is time... by garcia · · Score: 2

      you are confused. We harbor just as many criminals as Afganistan does. We form a jury of peers to try these people (and they have attacks on Americans in just as much force (in many attacks) as that fuckhead did in a single blow)

      I don't think that allowing them to try him is the best of ideas but I also do not believe that your statement was correct either.

      Just my worthless .02

    24. Re:It is time... by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      Is this evidence available for the public to inspect? I for one haven't seen any evidence implicating bin Ladin. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that it's very odd that I have not seen any evidence implicating him.

    25. Re:It is time... by Absynthe · · Score: 1

      Actually it probably would have worked. The Taliban are puppets for alot of people, but their puppetmasters haven't been treating them very well. A number of the taliban leaders are still on the payroll of Pakistan as intelligence officers. Pakistan made the Taliban and now they are trying to back away from them. Bin Ladin and his group are not Afghani's the taliban is in a stuck situation in having to defend him.
      I'm not going to shed any tears about the Taliban leaving power or even dying, but I just think we have picked the wrong solution. We are backing the Northern Alliance now and RAWA doesn't see them as anything but another taliban to take power.

    26. Re:It is time... by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      >am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US

      Yes, you probably are the only one since it didn't happen that way.

      "The White House on Sunday again refused to negotiate with the Taliban after a reported offer from them to detain suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and try him under Islamic law."

      They didn't offer to extradite him.

      But I am taken aback at the stance of Bush to demand that they cough him up unconditionally. I mean, we obviously don't have an extradition treaty with them (hell, we don't even *recognize* them as the legitimate government), but at least *some* attempt at diplomacy or negotiation might have neen tried?

      I guess it is just a demonstration of our contempt for the Taliban's illegitimacy that motivates the US to deal with them like this.

    27. Re:It is time... by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      Specifically I am asking because of a story I read which implied that such evidence does not exist.

    28. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.

      So far the worlds record in dealing with terrorist is pretty damn poor. It will be interesting to see how this works out. It's easy to attack the US but at least the government does what it believes needs to be done instead of bowing to the wishes of some parts of the population that think retaliating against a terrorist is morally wrong and unjust.

      'fighting terrorism' is about keeping states the sole executors of, well, physical power, to the extent of executions.

      Oh, jolly good. I too would prefer the use of phsyical power being employed by any person that feels a little killing will help their means.

      Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).

      Nice troll. Oh I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Of course Americans all think the same. I mean, after all, that must be what your nightly news reports tell you and your newspaper pundits make clear. Are you reading what you're writing? If so you would realize that you sound like a fool who has lost an arguement and decided to make childish remarks. Just because your media wants to convince you that you are special doesn't mean that indeed you are - you're supposed to keep these views to yourself and smirk with your fellow cititzens. You could say that your nationalistic media has succeeded in its trolling.

    29. Re:It is time... by kir · · Score: 1

      Did you have an orgasm after you wrote that? It definitely sounded like masturbation to me.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    30. Re:It is time... by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      Funny old world, eh? Still, if you don't like it, don't worry - you can always bomb them!

      Oddly enough, that's true. The old adage states that war is simply the continuation of diplomacy by other means. The US feels, with justification, that a trial in Afghanistan will result in an acquitall and reserves the right to try those responsible itself. If this were China or Russia or France harboring these folks we wouldn't be bombing because we have other leverage to apply in those cases. Here, we have a regime that cannot be trusted. We don't hand over our evidence to them because it would constitute a major compromise of what few intelligence sources we have there, and the Taliban would be predisposed to deny the veracity of anything they were presented with.

      Don't lose sight of what is actually going on here: attacking the Taliban serves multiple purposes, including putting other regimes which harbour and support terrorists (Can you say Iraq? Sure you can!) on notice that the US is deadly serious about this. The fire and steel raining on the Taliban are as much a point of demonstration as they are a method of bringing a bandit regime to heel.

      Before anyone starts screaming in idignation: yes, the US created the Taliban. That makes it even more our responsibility to clean up the mess we made.

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    31. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and thats different from the US reponse how ?

    32. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe there wasnt enough evidence...hmm ? different countries have different rules. taking over a country on the basis that they didnt agree with the US IS terrorism. which is exactly what the US is supposed to be fighting AGAINST.

    33. Re:It is time... by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1
      Remember that each day 35000 people die from hunger or poverty in the world, and that's the fault of USA, G8 and WTO. Fix those problem first, and terrorism will disappear.


      Whoa there, sparky... you're painting with a pretty broad brush, don't you think? I really don't think that every single person in the world who dies from starvation or hunger is dying because the "USA, G8 and WTO" are going out of their way to kill them. It's no one's fault that they can't supply food for themselves, and who said it was our responsibility to help them?

      The US already supplies lots of humanitarian aid all over the world, but I guess that's not enough. The socialist protesters won't be happy until we feed every starving person in the world, at the expense of our own citizens and economy. Why don't you crawl back under whatever rock you came from, because you are obviously too biased against "big business" and "evil governments" to participate in a debate on the subject.

      On a side note, the University that I attend had several teach-ins and discussions on the terrorist acts. The members of the "Students and Faculty for Global Peace and Justice" were the most poorly behaved and illogical people I have ever encountered. Whenever a dissenting viewpoint was put forward, they would all boo and hiss, refusing to even acknowledge that another viewpoint might be valid. Why is it that the people who espouse "peace and understanding" seem to be the people who refuse to listen or accept a differing point of view? People like this make me sick. They are the same as the people who committed the acts of Sept. 11th; unwilling to accept that any other point of view could contain a modicum of truth: their truth is the one and only truth.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    34. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey bozo - the US is not under attack. the military is not fighting for anyones freedom if no one fired a single military weapon at your country. the axis powers used military force against military targets. the US is attacking a country which has not fired a shot in anger at the US over nothing more than the possibility that one of its citizens *MAY* have had somehing to do with terrorist attacks against the US.

    35. Re:It is time... by steveha · · Score: 2

      Let's say a man in Texas shoots dead a tourist who walked onto his front lawn late a night hoping someone was in who he could ask direction from (true case).

      From this bald summary, I have no way to tell whether the Texas man was justified, or not. Details are helpful. Even if you or I would agree the Texas man was negligent, I can think of several reasons why he might not have been convicted; the justice system in the US bends over backwards to protect the rights of the accused person, and sometimes the guilty go free as a result.

      Now, if you could show me statistics that demonstrate that lots of people are shooting lots of tourists, and always getting away with it, then I will start to worry.

      Even ignoring the gun laws, in the UK the man would be doing 10-15 for manslaughter.

      If we are going to trade horror stories, I have heard a few stories of people being attacked in the UK, and defending themselves; and then the people who were attacked spent more time in prison than their attackers. If you are ever attacked in the UK, don't use any kind of weapon to defend yourself, even if your attackers are armed.

      So, you see, people are different. Now, people in Afghanistan maybe don't see the crime in killing a few thousand US people. So, chances are they'd acquit someone accused of that.

      I doubt this is true; the Taliban is not universally loved among the ordinary people of Afghanistan. But in any event, US military forces will demonstrate now that it is a bad idea to attack the US.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    36. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to be pretty naive to believe the Taliban does not support bin Laden or Terrorism. Providing them evidence only compromises our national security. They are as guilty as bin Laden.

    37. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't see the difference, move to Afgahnistan. The reason you won't is also the difference - get in touch with it.

    38. Re:It is time... by FeTrut · · Score: 1

      Actually, he was most likely referring to the Taliban's first attempt at negotiations

      The story can be found on cbc here

      I think it likely that no matter what the case, the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden, however, i also think it would have been a very important and symbolic gesture for the US to have supplied proof and waited for rejection before attacking Afghanistan. Reason being, it is one thing that separates free societies from rulers like the Taliban that we don't act rashly before solid proof is available.

    39. Re:It is time... by jgalun · · Score: 1

      Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.

      Compromise is most definitely not an absolute moral value. Compromise can be valuable, and worthwhile. That does not mean, however, that in this case the United States must make every effort to reach a compromise with the Taliban. By such logic:

      * The Nazis want to kill all the Jews, and we'd prefer they kill no Jews, so we compromise at 6,000,000
      * The US would like to blow up two atomic bombs in Japanese cities, and the Japanese government would prefer we blow up none, so we only blow up one city.
      * Iraq would prefer that no people die from our embargo, and we'd prefer that 200,000 die a year, so we compromise on killing 100,00 a year.

      Such compromises are not more moral than the absolute demands. The US made non-negotiable demands, that is true. But our demands were hardly outrageous. We demanded that humanitarian workers be released, that Bin Laden be handed over, and that Al-Qaeda be shut down. Given the attacks Bin Laden has perpetrated and others that have been foiled, that is hardly an unbelievably demand. What should we compromise? "Ok, hand over Bin Laden, but let the rest of Al-Qaeda keep planning attacks"?

      You say that Americans are conceited, arrogant, and selfish. You may be right. To a large degree, I believe that it is because we have fewer limits on our power - when you can do whatever you want, you are likely to cross the line. Part of our arrogance is cultural and historical, as well. But if I may draw stereotypes about wherever you are from, I would say that your people have fallen into the weak thinking that "reality equals morality." In other words, you think that the fact that your country is weak and forced to compromise means that compromise is an absolute moral value. But it's not.

    40. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are in fact false when you say that the 'evidence' (circumstantial at best) that they acquired against bin Laden is sufficient for extradition. No one rolled over on him, they simply said that they'd recieved training from his camps, which is a far cry different than "he planned this attack and informed me how to inact it."

    41. Re:It is time... by mazur · · Score: 1
      Well, its been several weeks now, and our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible.

      The most peaceful solution would have been a trial of Osama bin Laden (or the Taliban for aiding him) at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which will be opened in 2003. But, alas, the United States can do no such thing, because they did not want to sign the appriopriate treaty for fear of getting to be accused themselves. As if the International court of Justice were incapable of delivering true justice, or is the real fear of being rightly accused? I don't know, I only know the USA is one of very, very few (only seven countries voted against it) in not signing that treaty. And it worries me.

      Stefan

      --
      The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
    42. Re:It is time... by Cantor · · Score: 1

      A most excellent reply! Especially the comment about G8 and WTO. The guy mentioning about Nikes, Coke and Marlboro made also an excellent comment. Too bad some people might have missed the sarcasm and the inconvenient truth behind it. We, people in western, rich countries, we just aren't good people, knights in shiny armor fighting evil. I also believe that much of the terrorists hate is because of the things we have done. We keep many development countries poor intentionally in order to get cheap labour. Huge amounts of money always direct foreing politics. American government had the option to think WHY this horrible terrorist attack happened (it was horrible, and I don't support it). Unfortunately it failed to do so. Bush pretends to be Christian, righteous deliverer of justice fighting satanic monsters (as somebody well pointed out earlier), and sad facts like US foreign policy, acts of WTO & G8 which really result in *thousands of dead people every fscking year*.. will go unnoticed.

      --
      # amo, ergo sum
    43. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, from the Taliban's perspective, what bin Laden did was right. They'd probably find him guilty of "defending the faith" or some such drivel, and shower him with praise.

    44. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when will the French stop thinking their shit doesn't stink?

    45. Re:It is time... by Mad+Browser · · Score: 1

      The Taliban are harboring and aligning themselves with mass-murders that committed terrible crimes against America. They kill their own people. The malign Islam in the eyes of the western world.

      How can you reason and negotiate with people like that? What would be a reasonable compromise? bin Laden cannot be allowed to continue operating. We cannot trust an Afghan court to decide his outcome.

      Nothing short of what the President has demanded is acceptable to ensure the future security of US citizens, domestic and overseas, not to mention the rest of the world.

      --
      RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
    46. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's not our problem when we destroy their country and then deny them the ability to properly rebuild it through sanctions keeping everyone except the corrupt Government from obtaining resources and money.
      Yup, we're not responsible at all when, magically, they start dying and starving after being a developed country before our attacks.

      Apparently you're too ignorant and too biased in favor of "big corporations" and "big government" to participate in any sort of discussion. Clearly you should crawl back into whatever cave you dragged your knuckles out of.

      "Conservatives" and "liberals" won't be happy until we've pushed every nation-state that doesn't bend over for the U.S. oligarchy's way of life to the wall and they train hundreds of thousands of people to butcher everyone else in the U.S.
      Time to go launch some missiles and murder some more innocent families.

    47. Re:It is time... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean? Do you mean that there's no evidence that bin Laden was implicated in the WTC terror attack, or that there is no evidence against bin Laden himself which should have been adequate to justify his being bound over for trial?

      The first is irrelevant in this case, and I haven't spoken to it. Look back at what I said: that I didn't believe the Taliban would turn bin Laden over for any evidence. I deliberately confined the evidence I mentioned to previous requests for the extradition of bin Laden and his lieutenants, and all the evidence that I mentioned is in the public record. More than that, it's in a trial transcript, and it's been available for years.

      The question of the presence or absence of evidence in the WTC attack is a red herring. Sheik Omar had more than adequate reason to extradite bin Laden without any reference to the WTC attack. He could and should have done that years ago. The fact that he and his cadre have refused to do that for years discredits their more recent charm offensive.

    48. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, too am on a college campus. While there hasn't been a largly visible "anti-war" movement, my dad wrote this up, and sent it to me...

      What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed:

      1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation."

      2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

      3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

      4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

      5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

      6) When he gets back up to up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

      7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.

      8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

      Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

    49. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define a terrorist:

      A person or organisation who in furthering their cause kills inocent civilians.

      Are the States any different From terrorists if innocent Afghanis die as a result of this attack?

    50. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be the first to support the contention that the U.S, along with most other countries, has a problem with racism. However, that 4x figure has the smell of lies, damnable lies and statisitics. How much of that 4x correlates with poverty instead of skin? Any figures comparing rates of incarceration for equal crimes and equal financial means?

    51. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest makes the bombing both justified, and appropriate.

      Was this Osama guy actually proven guilty to something lately or is it just the USA riding on a mere suspect? AFAIK the Talibans required sufficient proof of Laden's involvement in WTC incident before handing out him to the US (whether he was a known terrorist in the first place or not).

    52. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your premises do not lead to your conclusion.

    53. Re:It is time... by Fate · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I have to say that your father might be a prime example of what's wrong with the US. It's one thing to succumb to one's base instincts due to being illeducated and/or indoctrinated by an omnipotent and omniscient media. But to have this kind of thing preached down from father to son sends shivers up my spine. Don't believe me? All you need to do is substitute 'ask if military force is appropriate' to 'ask if killing people who try to intimidate you into their way of life'.

    54. Re:It is time... by kryptola · · Score: 0

      this is basically an evidence of a person who is stupified by the US government. How do you know Taliban kill their own people? Through CNN and all sorts of U.S news agencies. Like in Vietnam war, communists were bad people rite? You're so wrong! My advice to you is that before making any judgment, go out and see the TRUTH!

      --
      "Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer J Simpson.
    55. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, most such lies/statistics correlate better with class than race, although race and class correlate pretty well themselves, waalah!

      It's interested on an abstract level just because the American polity is more willing to attempt to 'heal' racial injustice than to even consider class issues.

    56. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A compromise is that instead of caving to pressure to act, the U.S. Government fully presents evidence of guilty parties in Afghanistan, and the Taliban turns them over.

      If members of the KKK were murdering muslims in Afghanistan, it wouldn't make much sense for Afghanistan to demand the U.S. Government turn over all members of the KKK and destroys its ability to spread hate and inact violence in four weeks. Not only is it contrary to our laws, it's also impossible for the U.S. Government to stamp out all of the KKK in four weeks.

      If Afghanistan then refused our demands, we would use spec ops teams to kidnap those members of bin Laden's organization that we have evidence against, and we put them on trial here.
      In the process, we destroy their ability to train further members by destroying their camps.

      If Afghanistan intervenes, we then formally declare war against them. We then take whatever military action is necessary to cripple their military, and if necessary, remove their Government.
      We form an interim military Government for Afghanistan, and begin negotiations with factions of Afghanistan looking to agree to terms of returning Afghanistan's control to Afghanistan (republican democracy, human rights requirements, etc).
      We then proceed with our operations to find and put on trial those members we have evidence against, and kill any members that wage force against our special ops teams.

      What we don't do is go around bombing residential centers without reason, killing whatever civilians that are unable to flee to country.
      Or just destroying the homes and culture of those people that have fled, and will find nothing to return to.

    57. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      The US already supplies lots of humanitarian aid

      Are you joking?
      US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after. Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.

      And pharmaceutics groups that forbids poor countries to make their own drugs, because of patents?

      And the CIA put dictators at the governement (just look at Pinochet or the Taliban), it isn't the US fault too?

      USA don't even pay their national cotisations to UN...

      The socialist protesters won't be happy until we feed every starving person in the world, at the expense of our own citizens and economy.

      Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money? Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country?

      unwilling to accept that any other point of view could contain a modicum of truth

      Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.

      Who is calling for an holy war? For a "crusade"? Not me. It's George W. Bush.

    58. Re:It is time... by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      I think the general point is that you can only deal rationally with people when they want to play the same game. While the measure of rationality is in question, it is a dead on conclusion that the above is true.

      Also, I've taken to summarily discounting anyone that has to rely on an "omnipotent and omniscient media" to prove a point. People are misguidable, but not "manipulatable." Why? becuase we all have freedom and intelligence to use it. Anyone who says "you are being manipulated by X" is after X's job.

      I think that will be my new sig.

    59. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the best thing about a pacifist?

      You can beat the shit out of them and they don't fight back!

    60. Re:It is time... by Mad+Browser · · Score: 2

      There have been videos that show Taliban members in Afghanistan publically executing Afghans. As far as going to see the "truth" myself, obviously going to Afghanistan to make my own determination is not feasible and suggesting it is ludicrous. Are the European media also hiding the truth? Were the pictures of the WTC falling an illusion designed to propogate a war against Afghanistan? I don't think so. Obviously we must question the actions that our government takes in these and other matters. It is our civil right and duty to do so. One of the reasons that I support this action is to preserve those rights that we so often take for granted. If this discussion was taking place in Afghanistan, we could be subject to execution for espionage. I was born after the Vietnam War and by the time I was old enough to form my own opinions about communism, the Berlin Wall had fallen and the Soviet Union collapsed. I don't think comparing a war against terrorism to fighting communism is very valid. Communists didn't come to the United States and kill 6,000 innocent people.

      --
      RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
    61. Re:It is time... by Jonathan · · Score: 2

      Cute. Except that the error in that analogy is that both sides in your fistfight can hit equally hard. In reality, the events of September 11th, as tragic as they were, were an insignificant blow to the US. The US is far more powerful than Bin Laden and his supporters, and I'm sure more Afghani civillians will be killed than were killed in the WTC. Will this cause anything close to the media circus that occurred over the the WTC deaths? Heck no.

    62. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
      6) When he gets back up to up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

      Hmm. No, kicking your ass would not cause more innocent deaths. Perfectly in line with his reasoning.
      You and your father are primitive people, that have little place in today's world. Perhaps you amass your entire family, and see fit to win a Darwin Award.

    63. Re:It is time... by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Flamebait
      2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

      The people I know that are members of the "anti-war movement" are not opposed to military force. They're opposed to bombing the shit out of innocent, hungry refugees in tents in the desert. Multimillion-dollar cruise missile vs. tents. Incredibly silly unless it's the right tent. They're also opposed to any kind of prolonged fight against guerillas. As Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan in the 80's have taught us, that is not a fight we can win. The Taliban and bin Laden must be displaced or destroyed. But the people of Afganistan are as much victims of their terror as we have been. They should be our allies in this, and any military action must be directed only at the Taliban and bin Laden, and must be accompanied by humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees in the area. Secondly, we must allow the people of Afghanistan to decide the future course of their own country. Funding one militant group against another and setting up puppet governments is what got us into this situation (we funded the Taliban against the russians in the 80's), and is in general why everyone in the middle east hates our meddling butts, and I don't blame them.

      The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.

      We must protect ourselves against terrorists. But NOT by manipulating and destroying the entire region of the world that hates us. If we're not extrememly careful in our actions, we will create far more enemies in the region than we have now.

      We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.

      --Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    64. Re:It is time... by Snoozer_man · · Score: 0

      he he he lucky you I posted the exact same thing and got modded down! :( all well, I'll live.

      --
      Thanks Snoozer
    65. Re:It is time... by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      Excuse me, but am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US, _if_ the US provided sufficient evidence for Bin Laden's guilt?
      Actually, they promised to hand him over to a Muslim court, presumably one with the "Not Guilty" rubber-stamp all ready and waiting.

      And how much "evidence" do you suppose they would require before handing him over anyway?
    66. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Taken from Quakers Are Funny! by Chuck Fager, Kimo Press, 1987:

      One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.

      In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room. He then asked the youth, "Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"

      "Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.

      "That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left.

    67. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
      There's a bit of a difference between "intimidating into your way of life" and using military counter-force to protect a country. You can go ahead and /x/y/g; whatever you want. This is a matter of protection and self-preservation, not forcing our beliefs on someone else. We are NOT fighting a "holy war" to convert bin Laden to (insert your preferred religion/set of beliefs here) - we're fighting a fight against an enemy that wants to destroy us. It's the nature of war. You are attacked, you fight back, or be annihilated.

      Your example of "ask if killing people who try to intimidate you into their way of life" is not appropriate because it's a use of overkill. You're marginalizing the situation. People trying to intimidate you aren't trying to kill you - people waging a war against you are. Bit of a difference there.

      So are you saying we simply ignore this? Turn a blind eye? Bin Laden is interested in the destruction of the American government, people, and country, and has used force to attempt to accomplish that goal. Dunno what nationality you are, but when someone attempts to destroy my country unprovoked, it's on.

      Wake up the big dogs and you get bitten hard. Bin Laden's about to find that out.

    68. Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      So you do this. And like a smartarse you patiently explain to said student as he gets up that he shouldn't hit back. At which point he punches you in the face.

      "I'm arguing that innocent people shouldn't be attacked" he patiently explains to you, as blood comes out of your nose. A punch lands you in the stomach. "You, though, are not an innocent person, you directly hit me" he says, as you double over in pain. "Therefore, I'm justified in hitting you back" he says, as he grabs you by the hair and bangs your face into his knee.

      You stagger up, surrounded by stereotypical long haired students. "But that's ok" says the student back to you. "We can do it your way too." Several students start on your wife, beating the crap out of her. Another pulls out your driving licence, sees and gets on a bike.

      As you stagger home, winded, injured, you see smoke rising from where you live. You turn the corner and every home is on fire, people are screaming, your neighbours, your friends, your collegues in pain and their belongings trashed.

      A grinning "hippy student" comes towards you. "You see? We did it your way. A violent retaliation for your unjustified attack on one of our own. You're probably not going to do it again. Do you think, though, our reaction was fair?"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    69. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days.
      You mean, when the US was fighting an unwinnable war against innocents causing the deaths of millions and some true American heroes fought for their right to freedom of speech and an end to needless bloodshed but were ruthlessly oppressed, hunted and killed in some cases, by a vicious and stupid government? You may yet see those days back, bubba.
    70. Re:It is time... by drpaul · · Score: 1

      The Taliban never said they would hand him over!
      They said they would give him a trial for us if we gave them the evidence.

      That doesn't go over well with me.

      Paul

    71. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
      Again, you're marginalizing this. We have REPEATEDLY stated that we are NOT after Afghanistan's destruction - we're after the guilty one, bin Laden. The strikes today are apparently against Taliban military targets - another guilty party, as a safe harbor for bin Laden, and they have been fairly and sufficiently warned.

      Targeting innocent civillians for the simple reason of causing destruction is wrong. Killing some in strikes against military targets is inevitable. It's not a pretty price, but one you have to pay.

    72. Re:It is time... by megaduck · · Score: 4, Flamebait

      I desperately want to agree with you. Really, I do. The United States has a long tradition of doing very nasty bloody things under the name of "patriotism" or "defending liberty" or what-have-you. Vietnam comes readily to mind. I really want to believe that this is one of those times when we should be casting about for an olive branch instead of a rifle, because peace is the best solution.

      I really do want to agree with you, but I can't. This is one of those rare times when violence is our only option. We did not choose this conflict. We did not select whether or not to fight. Our attackers made no demands, and therefore we must assume that they wish only our destruction. You speak of our "demands on a non-negotiable billet". Our attackers did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to their grievance before slaughtering our civilians. Not only that, but they did not even give us terms by which they would stop attacks. We have been painted into a corner, and we lash out because it is our last option.

      Really, what would you have us do? Doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attcks continue. Continued diplomacy seems fruitless, as the Bin Laden has made his stance quite clear: His version of Islam cannot co-exist with other cultures, or even less militant versions of Islam. More to the point, he will not be sated until we have been violently subdued. He has left us no room for negotiation, and so we must fight.

      War is a nasty, brutal, ugly thing. I wish to my core that we could avoid it. However, this is not the "Imperialistic U.S." slaughtering civilians to protect our "national interests". This is self-defense in a fight that we did not start.

      --
      This .sig for rent.
    73. Re:It is time... by TooTallFourThinking · · Score: 1

      A true pacifist would walk away. Someone who would engage in a act of violence such as this would be difficult if not impossible to talk with ( for they would continue to punch you in the face. )

      If the attacker pursues and hits you while you are walking away, a pacifist would stay on the ground until the attacker leaves. Little can be done in this situation because the attacker is blinded by anger or whatever emotion they feel justifies their action.

      A pacifish would not continue to place themselves in the situation as described above.

    74. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that there is any doubt who was behind the attacks or that Afghanistan has been supporting the efforts. There has been no traditional military attack such as Pearl Harbor but it is clear that they mean the US harm. Additional terrorist attacks have been promised and Usama has vowed to fight against us.

      We must fight back.

    75. Re:It is time... by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      Jihad is not a holy war, its a holy struggle. Look it up on the internet with "jihad means".

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    76. Re:It is time... by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      Actually, that was a case of "A man in Texas shoots dead a drunken thug of a tourist who tried to kick down the door of the man who tried to take refuge in his house when accosted late at night". Said man defending his family also in the house, in a neighborhood where a style of robbery involving kicking down a family's door and beating the occupants into submission was all too common.

      Perhaps in the United Kingdom the man indeed would have been imprisoned for 10-15 years for that. Like you said, people are different; most places in the US you are allowed to defend your family using deadly force, once having retreated to what refuge is available.

    77. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
      And in a war situation, the pacifist would be annihilated.

      Sorry.

    78. Re:It is time... by Darchmare · · Score: 2

      ---
      If members of the KKK were murdering muslims in Afghanistan, it wouldn't make much sense for Afghanistan to demand the U.S. Government turn over all members of the KKK and destroys its ability to spread hate and inact violence in four weeks. Not only is it contrary to our laws, it's also impossible for the U.S. Government to stamp out all of the KKK in four weeks.
      ---

      Two details:

      - Al Qaeda is a lot smaller, in terms of geographical reach and in numbers, than the KKK is here.

      - Unlike the KKK, Al Qaeda answers to one man. The KKK is a set of fractured groups, some of which are more militant than others. Some just talk a lot.

      - 1 month is more than enough. We wouldn't have expected every single Al Qaeda member to be handed over in that time. If they had rounded up Bin Laden and a few dozen of his associates and turned them over to us with the promise of more, we wouldn't be bombing them now.

      --

      - Jeff
    79. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taliban Lawyer: Osama bin Laden, first I would like to say thank you for funding the Taliban with over 200 million dollars in cash and supplies. Without your support, we would never have been able to sieze power over this once-peaceful nation.

      Now on to business. Did you have anything to do with the September 11 attacks on the evil United States, the country of Satan attempting to destroy Islam?

      Osama bin Laden: Nope! (wink, wink).

      Taliban Lawyer: (wink, wink) Your Honor, I rest my case!

      Taliban Judge: (wink, wink) Not Guilty! Please accept the court's apologies for this minor trouble.

      Osama bin Laden: No problem your honor. Please stick around for my big check-writing ceremony! Judge, you get $100,000; DA gets $50,000...

      later...

      Taliban Ambassador: We have found the esteemed Osama bin Laden not guilty. Please continue your search for other suspects. (voice trailing off) hey Osama, can I get lunch money now...?

      George Bush: Rats! My sincere apologies to Mr. Bin Laden!

      /me kicks self for responding to troll...

    80. Re:It is time... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Actually, my undetstanding is that the Taliban offered bin Laden be tried in a "neutral Muslim nation." For my money, that would have been Pakistan, although you can name nearly any Islamic monarchy, republic, or dictatorship and be close.

      I never heard of an offer to try him in Afghanistan itself, although a group of clerics drew up a resolution asking him to leave.

      In any event, I'd imagine some kind of capture operation will be launched at some point, if bin Laden hasn't already bolted from the country.

      Less bombs, more food will bring the best conclusion to this. Does the U.S. want a democratic government of the Afghan people, or simply a friendly regime (ie, the Northern Alliance)?

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    81. Re:It is time... by Fate · · Score: 1

      I actually AGREE with that, but my point seems to have been missed. My objection was to parents (ab)using the power and hold they have over their children by preaching voilence/intolerance whatever. It's one thing for me to look around, decide that something is wrong and that something must be done about it. It's another thing entirely to have my parents advocate violence (or in fact, advocate any kind of irrational 'gut' reaction kind of mentality) to me, especially at an age where such things stick. Parents should equip you with the tools to form opinions and thoughts, not the opinions and thoughts themselves.

    82. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "insignificant blow to the US"

      The attack cost the economy a week of production time, hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions of equity value and billions of dollars.

      Ultimately, that's what we (the US body politic) care about, not military assets. The attacks were phenomonally successful.

    83. Re:It is time... by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country?

      That's the problem... it doesn't matter what we do, the terrorists will still regard the U.S. as "The Great Satan". The only way to stop this is to make it so that no country in the world will harbor and support terrorism.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    84. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ahh, a man who takes appropriate viscious pleasure from his violence.

      good work!

      Libertarianism is to politics as scientology is to religion

      Sounds like you need to become a Scientologist. It would improve your temperment.

      A joke making the rounds has the suicide bombers, expecting to wake in Heaven, finding themselves in Hell. It's worse than that: They can't tell the difference.

      neither can you.

    85. Re:It is time... by CaseyB · · Score: 2
      They kill their own people.

      Um, last I checked, the US did that too.

    86. Re:It is time... by Auckerman · · Score: 3, Flamebait
      "Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days."


      If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    87. Re:It is time... by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. 6000 Americans are only equal to, what, say 10 Afghans?

    88. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
      I totally agree. A good deal of my life was spent equipping me with the tools to form opinions. My dad isn't preaching this to me - he wrote it and sent it to me for me to mull over and form my own opinions on it. It just so happens I quite agree with this particular position.

      My dad doesn't advocate violence. He would never actually punch a demonstrator - he simply wrote this to get a point across. His weapons are words.

      Preaching violence IS wrong. Perhaps it was somewhat misinterpreted. The point is not to say "punch demonstrators" but to explain why force is sometimes necessary.

    89. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I am posting as an AC because what I will say will surely inflame someone to consistently mod me down in all future posts (recall Signal 11). That being said, now to my point: have anyone of you read the report that PM Blair presented implicating bin Laden? I have and it's as questionable as if I were to list reasons why Elvis was a space alien with "proof" from various sources that's completely inaccessable to the general public. Many of that "proof", including documents related to the US embassy bombings in Africa and the 1993 WTC bombing and others contained top secret info gathered by CIA and FBI agents. Last time I checked, they are still strictly classified. Meaning, I can't verify that what the gov't says is true. Apparently, the gov't wants us to take their word for it. Doesn't that sound suspicious? I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden was actually ALLOWED to commit those bombings just so various gov't agencies will get the huge amount of funding and applications that they're now getting. As well as the current crackdown on our liberties (ie freedom of speech/dissent).

    90. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      terrorist
      n.
      One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

    91. Re:It is time... by FreeForm+Response · · Score: 1

      LEARN TO SPELL. Normally I don't bother with nitpicking Slashdot posts; I understand full well that not everybody speaks English as a first language. That's all right. But when you misspell words (such as Bin Laden, Iraq, and Afghanistan) that are consistent in most Latin lanugages, it makes you seem much less knowledgable and that much less worthy to be a source of information for me. Sorry, but I just had to gripe about that. P.S.- Also, back up your stats with links in the future, please.

    92. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a civilized person I'd just leave you and call the police on you, then I'd get your ass in court.

      I guess you and your neanderthal father didn't think of a civilised thing like that. I Guess you wouldn't consider yourself a bully while doing it either would you? You really should try spending some time in Europe... or som other civilized part of the world, like Canada.

      I never even consider teaching hatered could be construed as wise.

    93. Re:It is time... by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      They kill their own people.

      Um, last I checked, the US did that too.

      Not for shaving, we don't.

    94. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it might be the amount of intelligence that US citizens possess that's in question. Dumb people are MUCH easier to manipulate.

    95. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Well, its been several weeks now, and our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible.

      Which was "Give us Bin Laden, no wait, give us Bin Laden and a whole lot of other people that might be linked to the WTC attacks, or we'll destroy your country", right?

      Spoken like a true Jamie Shea.

    96. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, punching someone doesn't equate killing someone. The protester doesn't want more deaths and probably would support economic sanctions against the enemy, whoever they are. That would be more akin to your analogy of a punch.

    97. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taliban had weeks ?

      It hasn't been 4 weeks since the attack. The US Government didn't name a suspect with proofs and documents provided until a week ago?

    98. Re:It is time... by Danse · · Score: 2

      Ok, to use your dad's example, what if the demonstrator reacted, not by punching you back, but by swinging wildly and hitting the 2 guys standing next to you? Suddenly he has 3 people willing to beat the hell out of him. That's what today's bombing is like, and what our further attacks are likely to do. This operation should have been targetted specifically at the handful of people responsible. It should have been handled more like a criminal case rather than a war.


      Consider this. If another country demanded that we turn over one of our citizens, would we do it without seeing at the very least, compelling evidence, and probably incontrovertible proof of his guilt? Of course not. Then why do we expect the Taliban to turn over bin Laden or others when we haven't even shown them the proof? I think the demands were made as a show. Our government knew they weren't going to show any evidence to them. This was just a ploy to make it seem like we gave them a fair chance and they decided to support bin Laden instead.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    99. Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      The response though is to those who "disagree" with the student that it is justified to attack innocent bystanders.

      Go back and read the read the original. There's no suggestion that our provocateur believes that retaliation should be limited to the guilty party, and it is that that I find offensive and stupid. The students are not demanding Bin Laden not be brought to justice, they're demanding a means be found that doesn't involving killing people unconnected to the attacks. But despite this, the provocateur believes that, if he attacks the students, the students - under their own argument - wont fight back. This is wrong - the students wont beat his wife in retaliation, they wont burn the houses of his friends and nieghbours, but they will fight back and defend themselves.

      I would suggest the provocateur goes back and reconsiders his strategy.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    100. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We have REPEATEDLY stated that we are NOT after Afghanistan's destruction - we're after the guilty one, bin Laden.

      Funny, that's what the Soviets said when they fought the Mujahadeen (sp?). In the end, Afghanistan was destroyed. What we see now are people living in rubble.

    101. Re:It is time... by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      I don't get it... You must have been that geek in my grade school classes that got his lights punched out at recess, never fight back, and wonder why they keep picking on you. It is a worldwide human reaction. If someone threatens you, and you have the means to retaliate to prevent future "incidents", then you should by all means.

      My father also taught me that if someone ever physically attacks you, you better do your damn best to make him hurt even more. It is an attack on your state of mind, as well as being a physical attack. Why would you let someone keep beating you up? They are enstilling fear into you, and every time you let them continue, you are contributing to their action.

      We must go into Afghanistan, neutralize the terrorist forces, as well as the government that allows terrorism to grow. Bin Laden attacked us from out of nowhere literally. He attacked innocent people, thousands of them... Now these crackheads on ./ think we should settle this peacefully? Heck, we gave them a month to turn him over.... Why are they being so protective of him? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS HIS PUPPET! THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES IN KILLING AMERICANS. It is like a best friend betraying you for a covert purpose. Heck, I've had friends in real life turn around and backstab me... Bin Laden is just taking advantage of the situation, and if nutcases like you p*ssyfooted ./ posters had anything to do with it, we'd all be dead already.

      Seriously, if someone had a major beef with you, and had the mentality to kill, I'll give you a microphone, and him a machine gun... We'll see who leaves the room alive.

      For God's sake, wake up out of that fairy tale where you're smokin pot, waving flowers around... And do us all a favor, and just hope and pray our campaign is sucessful in eliminating a WORLD THREAT. That is all I have to say.

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    102. Re:It is time... by melquiades · · Score: 1

      Do you still think we should sit back on our hands on hope this all "blows over"?

      No. But I don't think we should inflame the problem with military retaliation. I suspect that the "War on Terrorism" will be like the war on drugs: high cost in dollars, freedoms, and innocent lives; many high-profile busts; little actual effect on the problem. The War on Drugs is a dismal failure, and The War on Terrorism will be too if we fight it in the same supply-side fashion.

      My prediction: in ten years, we're going to be poorer for this war, and still threatened by terrorism every bit as much as today.

    103. Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
      You are, of course, basing this on the assumption that the Taliban is fair and just and honest and upright and not a puppet of bin Laden.

      If they were a government much like ours, yeah, I could see where you'd be right. But they're not. Different cultures, different governments.

    104. Re:It is time... by siliconeyes · · Score: 1

      The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU.


      Pardon me for nitpicking, but it really bothers me how "you" is so easily assumed to mean Americans on Slashdot. Newsflash people: Not everybody on the Internet is an American!!!. Is it really that difficult to alter your statement ever so slightly so that you refer to your country's population explicitly?? It would save people like me who aren't blessed enough to belong to your country from great heartache.

      Secondly, Does any one of you have any evidence linking Osama/Taliban directly with the WTC attacks? I have been following the news pretty closely, and I don't see anything like that. No, I am not talking about circumstantial evidence. When you are sending in cruise missiles on a country, I think the public deserves to know better than that. Sure it is very convenient to say "we can't compromise our sources by divulging such information", but then what happens to accountability?? India has enough evidence of Pakistan's support to militants in Kashmir (which claims thousands of lives every year btw), but I don't think any country on this planet will support India if it decides to go on an all-out strike against them.

      If the US is going to insist on playing Big Brother everytime and everywhere, it is going to face a backlash. Period.

    105. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot something: the world is so full of aggressors that another will simply come around, see the conflict, and act on the pacifist's behalf, warrented or not, and punch the instigator in the face. Call it looking for a fight without having to start one. Worked for America when dealing with "aggressive" countries.

    106. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, for a long time, the Taleban said they didn't even know where he was. The Taleban was just stalling for time, but time's up.

    107. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Libertarianism is to politics as scientology is to religion
      Sounds like you need to become a Scientologist. It would improve your temperment.
      In some ways, I'm delighted you said this. The signature is supposed to say what I think of (modern) Libertarianism (leaving aside Lockian and Payne views which were prepared to suggest that not everything qualifies as "property".) If the argument has gone full circle and the scientologists are now finding the comparison offensive... well, at least I don't feel my views are unusual any more.

      As for the rest of your post, go back to the thing I was responding to. Violence begets violence, violent postings beget violent postings...

      (Posted as an AC because you did.)

    108. Re:It is time... by Mad+Browser · · Score: 2

      Some states in the United States do still practice captial punishment, which I do not support.

      Still, even in states that do exercise it, it is not a cavalier attitude toward life... It is carefully considered and subject to multiple level of appeal. Convince me that the same occurs in Afghanistan.

      --
      RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
    109. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, that's a great idea... why don't we let criminals form their own judges and jury, and try themselves! Brilliant! That's the way to solve crime.

      Somehow I have a feeling that American insistence that Americans not be tried in a foreign court plays into this. Of course, this coming from a well known troll..

    110. Re:It is time... by ostiguy · · Score: 2

      I am not honestly all that familiar with the ICC stuff. But from the surface, if you expect an ICC or an entity like it to be the supreme arbiter of such matters, the ensuing loss of sovereignty that the US as a nation could expect makes it politically unfeasible. Anything that would infringe on the US Supreme Court's role would effectively require US Constitutional amendments which would require 2/3rds majority in both houses of our congress, as well as approval by 3/4ths of our 50 states.

      I honestly feel a lot of the US/european popular citizenry political rifts come from poor European understanding of how our governmental systems work. Our heavy systems of checks and balances require for reaching changes such as constitutional amendments to take *years* for approval. Europeans should not have been aghast at Bush's views on Kyoto - a few years ago when the Senate (the upper body of our congress who controls the power to approve international treaties by a 2/3rds vote) took an incredibly unpositive view of it = it was effectively screwed in the US. We do not have a parliamentary system like the UK (I am not familiar enough on continental variances in parliamentary systems to adequately discuss) where the current sitting body can with a majority vote enact far reaching constitutional change. The US and Europe simply have far different ideas of soveriegnty. Although the average American has no idea as to what the European Union entails, I rest assured that they would be generally horrified at the type of far reaching powers that the EU is garnering.

      Anyhow, I wouldn't hold much stock in the Taliban's faith in international organizations: the arghan UN seat is not held by a Taliban rep, and they have consistently disregarded UN inquiries on a variety of issues

    111. Re:It is time... by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Speaking one's mind doesn't mean you don't support the military. I support the fact that the men and women of the armed forces are fighting for my freedom and just doing what their bosses tell them to do. That's what being in the military is about.

      that's not the same thing as saying I support the attacks themselves. I see no point in vilifying our servicepeople the way they were in the 60's, but what are they fighting for if I can't tell GWB what I really think of what he's doing?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    112. Re:It is time... by lalleglad · · Score: 1

      "Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one"

      I would say that there have been quite clear declarations of war, if not formal ones as descibed in the Vienna Convention.

      And by Chapter 5 in the Washington Treaty all NATO members are equally at war.

      Fortunately the US seems to have learned [the hard way] not to fuck up and in any case they have good support from more experienced countries, eg. UK, so it shouldn't become a new Vietnam.

      Hopefully we will see the beginnning of preparations for elections or some other things that show the Afghanistans are moving towards controlling the country for the people by the people.

    113. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after. Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.

      The USA is not always a charity, why people assume that is beyond my comprehension.

      The USA has given out billions to contries which have never and will never pay back their debts (Most of Europe after WWII, Brazil was abosolved of its $20 billion debt in 1991, etc.), it has provided much humanitarian relief over the years at no cost, and all this money is coming from me, a taxpayer, who is having enough trouble getting food on my own table! When you pay for my food, then maybe I'll start listening to you.

    114. Re:It is time... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that the Taliban have squandered their ample opportunity to solve this peacably. However, I wouldn't call our stance "bending over backwards" to look for a peacable solution. We apparently provided Pakistan with evidence linking the attacks to bin Laden, but not the Taliban. Why would that be, do you think?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    115. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa pardner. Bin Laden et al don't hate the US for anything to do with poverty and hunger in the world. We are infidels in the Holy Islamic Land for having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's home, to protect Saudi Arabia, at their request. Trying to pull globalization-anti-big-business crap in to this discussion is inappropriate.

    116. Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      communist/socialist groups since the day of the attacks condemning the bloody war America was waging

      What kind of mccarthy inspired non-sequitor is that? What does being a Socalist, as I am, have to do with being a Pacifist?

      The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest

      What are you Fucking talking about??????? The US made demands - and the TALEBAN asked to negotiate, they asked to be shown proof, which seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask considering the US was asking for this extradition and no us-afghani treaty exists to facilitate.

      The Taleban, the ruling body in a soverign state, asked to NOT be dictated to again and again, they asked for negotiations and you say "were unwilling to cooperate" - are you really, without bias, paying attention... or

      I really dread the rhetoric of those who think that we should just do nothing.

      ...are you listening to the overwhelming "America is brave, honest and infallible(sp?) - WE have the lone right in this world to dictate to foreign leaders and attack if they dont appease us, and we can feel blameless and justified that we are right... always" rhetoric that spews out of your country!

      Here this: America can only blame itself for this mess. Instead of making peace you make war - the world knows it, only Americans cannot see it because of their blinding, egotistical nationalist jingoism and myopia.

    117. Re:It is time... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I disagree - the Taliban was much more compromising than they usually are, but the US repeatedly and unequivocably stated that "our demands are not negotiable." It was the US that was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest.

      Some proposals the Taliban made:
      - Hand over Osama bin Laden to a 3rd country with an Islamic judicial system (perhaps his home country of Saudi Arabia) for a fair trial by Sharia law.
      - Present conclusive evidence of bin Laden's guilt to the Taliban, who would then either extradite him or try him at home in their courts. This seems like a reasonable request to me - the US would certainly never extradite its own residents without evidence being presented to them.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    118. Re:It is time... by bwt · · Score: 2

      Oh, for gods' sakes. This is exactly the kind of 'rhetoric ' that attracts such hatred towards you Americans - you seem to have this unerring feeling that your position is absolutely correct.

      That's correct. The murder of 6000 civilians is absolutely evil, and military action to punish and prevent such action is absolutely correct. This is not an 'unerring feeling', but an unerring fact. As for hatred, if hatred comes from evil people as the result for doing good, then it is good to be hated.

      The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.

      We offered a simple deal: comply or be destroyed. Frankly, I thought that was overly generous.

      As a friend of mine put it, they call it 'collateral damage' because 'dead innocent civilians' doesn't have the same ring to it - and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides, to a great extent, because the 'mission' is not clearly definied, but only a misguided and vague effort supported by dodgy morals and an apparent committment to aid which doesn't really fit with the action being taken.

      The only 'dodgy morals' here are your tolerance for terrorism. The mission here is very clear: destroy Al Qauda, topple the Taliban from power, and have fun mocking pacifists like you while doing it.

      Collateral damage means unintended secondary damage involved with hitting the primary target. As we normally do, we will minimize collateral damage to Afghan civilians to the extent possible without sacrificing the mission. 'Dead innocent civilians' describes their primary, not secondary target, so I don't think we'll suffer any collateral damage.

      They want to kill civilians, we don't. Frankly, by being a pacifist, YOU advocate the course of action that will maximize their effectiveness and maximize number of dead innocent civilians.

      Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).

      I'm glad it infuriates you, frankly. I just wish that Bin Laden's barbs were as ineffectual as yours.

    119. Re:It is time... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      well said.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    120. Re:It is time... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      The Taliban also offered to hand over bin Laden for trial in a 3rd country with an Islamic judicial system, perhaps his home country of Saudi Arabia, if given proof of his guilt. They were not provided with any evidence of his guilt, just asked to believe the US that this evidence existed.

      Think about it, would the US extradite one of its own citizens without conclusive proof being offered?

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    121. Re:It is time... by Danse · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter whether they are like us or not. If we don't even give them the opportunity to live up to their promises, we really haven't attempted to go the more peaceful route. We had already decided that we were going to attack them. So we never showed them any evidence or gave them the opportunity to turn him over once they had seen compelling evidence. The claims by our government that we gave them a chance are complete and utter BS.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    122. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "And pharmaceutics groups that forbids poor countries to make their own drugs, because of patents?"

      If it weren't for these companies your stupid ass wouldn't even have that drug.
      Gee, what a moron.

      "Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country? "

      So we should shower people with money every time somebody bombs one of our cities.
      You are one fucking genius ....

    123. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to NBC: The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan under islamic law

      Uhm, isn't islamic law an "eye for an eye" type of thing? What are they gonna do? Steal his camel and crash it into his tent?

    124. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "taliban unwilling to cooperate????"
      and who ever thought that you could expect cooperation from the taliban. BUT that does not give the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or whoever to bomb innocent people. YOU are the most technologically advanced nation and have support of the world and if YOU give arguments like "bombing innocent people's houses is the only solution we have got" then I consider this nothing but hypocritisim.
      USA does not want to capture bin laden or for that matter root out terrorism. It only wants to make sure that the world looks at it with fear and no one dares to harm them. One could easily compare them to a school bully with all brawn and no heart.
      An eye for an eye and all the world would be blind.
      USE the intelligence that you are so proud of. DO NOT kill innocent people for they have done no wrong to anyone. Lets for once lay down our egoistic shields and show compassion and love and sympathy to those that are in need of it.
      I hope the slashdot community looks at these comments in the correct sense. We have to protect ourselves BUT if we kill the rest of the world to protect ourselves whom would we visit during our holidays.

    125. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pharmaceutics groups that forbids poor countries to make their own drugs, because of patents?

      These are *international* laws, not simply US law. Individuals and corporations are allowed to patent their ideas and sell them. This applies to all aspects of commerce, not just drugs. If a company wants to enforce their patent, that is their right. Could companies use these laws unethically, yes but it is not the US's fault, it's entirely up to the individuals involved.

      And the CIA put dictators at the governement (just look at Pinochet or the Taliban), it isn't the US fault too?

      The US backs these organizaitions sometimes, but the opposition is being backed by other governments and they may be equally or more appalling. It's a balance/counter-balance approach. All governments to it. Iran supports the northern forces in Afganistan, Iraq the Taleban. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sometimes you get burned, and these are the results. Welcome to the real world.

      Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money? Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country?

      I agree. We should give out aid, but national security is worth a lot more at this moment.

      Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.

      And not removing a cancer will kill the host. Violence has produced desired results in the past. WWII eliminated Nazi Germany. US bombing Lybia stopped terrorism in much of Europe. The list goes on.

      Who is calling for an holy war? For a "crusade"? Not me. It's George W. Bush

      Ben Laden invoked the 'Jihad' in his Fatwa, years before Bush uttered Crusade. Crusade, is not a term used in the Bible and it is not used often in religious contexts. Jihad on the other hand, is very much a religious act found in the Koran and almost always used in a religious context.

    126. Re:It is time... by ogesII · · Score: 1

      it's quite simple

      bin laden == taliban

      to believe otherwise is foolish

    127. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "We keep many development countries poor intentionally in order to get cheap labour. "

      What the fuck are you talking about ?
      Do you claim that Europeans have a direct line to God and in our countries everything grows twice as fast ?

      "American government had the option to think WHY this horrible terrorist attack happened "

      These attack were financed by extremely rich dude whose main motivation is hatred against western values and our way of live.
      Get real or get lost.

    128. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "First, the Taliban say they will give Ben Laden to US if the US government give them a proof of his culpability. It's normal. Of course I don't support Talibans, but there they are just following what is called laws and right.
      Oh please get real! They have said that before and didn't honor their word. Why should we trust them now?
    129. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I think this is where the phrases "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence" and "those that would trade freedom for security has neither", make sence.

      If one wants convenience more than freedom, they are asking to be misguided. They are the blind lead by the blind, and know it but just want to believe in what their leader sees. They are fools looking for a paradise that doesn't or can't exist, and would actually be a horrible place to live. They don't want the right way, they want an easy way and will be misguided by anyone who offers that.

      Freedom is not a butler handing out what you want, it is a field where you can build what you want. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.
      But I wouldn't call them manipulated in that they still want what they are getting. No one has changed their individuality, values or desires against their will.

    130. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Please come back when your coutry contributes as much as we do.
      BTW who the fuck are you to tell what our response should be ?

    131. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "As if the International court of Justice were incapable of delivering true justice"

      How the fuck should we know that ?
      We do have our own judicial system and we do not need bunch of overpaid European politicians influencing our lives.

      "trial of Osama bin Laden (or the Taliban for aiding him) at the International Criminal Court "

      Yeah, sure I agree. Now go and get him.

    132. Re:It is time... by Bacteriophage · · Score: 1

      This is like when you're in kindergarten and some other kid pushes you down. Oh wait, except you're not in kindergarten, you're a mature college student and the other kid is smaller than you. Yeah, you should beat him up as opposed to continuing on with your damn life.

      Sorry, this is not the anectode I planned on it being...

      --
      "Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work." -Flaubert
    133. Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      and our government has been more than willing to resolve this situation in a peaceful matter

      Give us this citizen, without any proff, or we are going to bomb you. We are going to attack all harbours of Terrorism. If you arent with us your a Terrorist.

      Sounds really 'peacefull' dosnt it...

    134. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Hmm ... so , I understand , there will be NO retaliation or any violent action next time IRA blows something in London ?

    135. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's not our problem when we destroy their country and then deny them the ability to properly rebuild it through sanctions keeping everyone except the corrupt Government from obtaining resources and money.

      Oh, so it's the US's fault that a corrupt government denies it's own people the ability to rebuild. Gee, that makes a lot of sense. What is the solution? Give money and aid? What prevents that corrupt government from taking that aid and using it against its own people or other nations? Give us a solution, we're waiting...

      Yup, we're not responsible at all when, magically, they start dying and starving after being a developed country before our attacks.

      Gee, you'd think they would have thought about that *before* they provoked a US attack. From what I remember, War is Hell. Don't these people already know the consequences of their actions? Or are they idios, like yourself.

      Apparently you're too ignorant and too biased in favor of "big corporations" and "big government" to participate in any sort of discussion. Clearly you should crawl back into whatever cave you dragged your knuckles out of.

      Apparently, you are too biased in your favor of popular-anti-americanism that you are blind to reality.

      "Conservatives" and "liberals" won't be happy until we've pushed every nation-state that doesn't bend over for the U.S. oligarchy's way of life to the wall and they train hundreds of thousands of people to butcher everyone else in the U.S.

      This is rich and made me laugh. You know there are better ways to fight oppression, Ghandi comes to mind. Maybe these people should think of a different approach for once... Nah, why don't we just continue to piss off the entire western world by blowing up things and killing innocent people. Yeah, that's the ticket, I'm sure they'll cave into our demands at any time.

      Time to go launch some missiles and murder some more innocent families.

      It's the price that's paid in war. I feel sorry for them as I felt sorry for the vicitms of the Sep. 11th attack.

    136. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say we're justified in seeking retribution here, but I have to say that I don't trust our government one fucking bit.

      For all we know, the government is using this as an excuse to go after Usama and really have no proof. For all we know, the government arranged (or looked the other way to allow) this tragedy to occur so that they could strike away at civil rights. For all we know, the documents that may exist showing Usama's guilt could be forged. It wouldn't be beyond our government in either means or morals to do these things.

      It's amusing how it's wrong for the Taleban to dictate religion to their population, but it's alright for Christians from our country to go to the middle east and dictate/spread Christianity in direct violation of local law and customs -- and then our government and "religious leaders" have the rightous indignation to call them barbarians and propagandists.

      Don't get me wrong - I'm pretty indifferent about this whole thing. It's hard to justify anything when you can't be sure of the information supporting that justification. They can bomb or they can sit and do nothing. I really don't care. And, at this point, they can take away all of our civil rights or they can leave them alone. I dont' really care about that any more either. If they don't take them now, they'll take them later.

      I only find it hard to stand behind the actions of a government so hand-in-hand with the religious zealots who nightly attack other people for their religious differences, while promoting their own. If the Taleban swore a Christian allegience, these Christian whacko's wouldn't have a problem with any of this. Hell, the only difference between a religious martyr and a religious fanatic is what your religion is -- not your moralitic or ethics.

    137. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who the fuck are you to think contribution gives you the right to do what you want, and not listen?

    138. Re:It is time... by DivineOb · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can only speculate that the proof in this case has not been made public because it would endanger future intelligence gathering efforts. however

      1) Every other country has been 100% convinced by the evidence we showed them
      2) Evidence has already been presented tying him to other terrorist acts (USS Cole and Embassy bombings)

      Yes, I would *hope* the US would hand over someone with a lot less evidence than we have on bin Laden

      --

      I must burn in hell, suffer and pay for my sins
      But Gods the one who's losing, Satan always wins!

    139. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Taleban was given more than enough evidence linking Bin Looney to the bombings in Afrika and on the USS Cole, but they refused to hand him over then. These requests are still standing and no more evidence is needed. It was the Taleban's responsibility and they prefered to be detroyed.

    140. Re:It is time... by Amanset · · Score: 1

      Actually, they promised to hand him over to a Muslim court, presumably one with the "Not Guilty" rubber-stamp all ready and waiting.

      As opposed to a Western court with the "Guilty" rubber-stamp all ready and waiting?

    141. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dude, the only people to blame are those that a) gave the order, b) financed the attack and c) flew the planes. If pacifism worked in this case, because the US has meddled in mid-Eastern affairs, the terrorists cannot fight the US. The people responsible for Sept 11 have their own minds, and just because I might not like what's going on in Brazil doesn't mean I should perform some hideous act against the country, like killing 6000 civilians. If you think pacifism should work, make it work for everybody, not just your southern neighbor.

    142. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first

      My, aren't we full of contradictions. While you are shitting on the Constitution, please have the deceny to admit it. And flush afterwards. You're smelling up the forum.

    143. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can be AC and I can say "fuck you" too ...

    144. Re:It is time... by kusma · · Score: 1

      That the US constitution works that way doesn't really change the fact that a (small, maybe) loss of sovereignity by the US - some giving up of powers to a supranational organisation - could make the Americans look a lot better (nothing like "we use the UN for our purposes, but disagree to pay our membership fees).

      It's hard for me to understand how any decent country could not agree to an international criminal court. But then, I'm European, and I acknowledge there are big differences in political culture between Europe and the USA, which BTW the slashdot debates on the WTC etc. topics have shown me again.

      Guess I'll really have to live in the US for a while some day to understand what you people think.

    145. Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      I'd say we're justified in seeking retribution here

      Violence is always wrong. Retribution is absolutely, always, unjustifiable.

      Hell, the only difference between a religious martyr and a religious fanatic is what your religion is -- not your moralitic or ethics.

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Diderot.

    146. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We treated the 1993 WTC as a criminal act with Bin Laden as a suspect. We asked the Taleban to hand him over, they refused. When the embasies in Africa were bombed and there was substantial evidence linking Bin Laden to them, we asked again for the Taleban to hand him over, they refused (they may have been too busy massacring their own people to take notice). The Taleban knows what it's doing, they have been refusing to hand over Bin Laden for 10 years. More more evidence is needed, Bin Laden has been implicated in prior acts which required his extradition.

    147. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombing is the most peaceful solution?

      Only in America, as Dubya would say.

    148. Re:It is time... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides

      Is it really collateral damage if it's the primary goal (or, at least, plan of attack) of one of the sides?

    149. Re:It is time... by Troodon · · Score: 1

      "...And the CIA put dictators at the governement (just look at Pinochet or the Taliban)..."

      No they did not. Treating the mujahedin uprising against soviet occupation as an oppotunity to pay the soviets back for Vietnam, together with Pakistan intelligence the CIA funded, trained and equiped the disparate groups of the mujahedin. After the soviets withdrew they managed to eventually capture the cities overthrowing what was left of the local soviet administration. Then they spent the next few years fighting amougst themselves, already some elements pressing for a more orthodox extreme interpretation of Islam.

      And then from near the border with Pakistan from the madrasah? the religous schools, a more inward looking, ultra orthodox, anti modern group, from another ethnic group (Pastun) emerged, the Taliban. They swept through the country, eventually forcing out the persian speaking mujahedin, who regrouped to form the Nothern Aliance.

      The came a Saudi dissident, a former mujahedin with an international perspective and a hatred of the West, Bin Laden

      The west is guilty of much, we fought a war with proxy with the soviets for revenge for Veitnam, then left the people of Afghanistan to scrabble about in the rubble of their country. And though there has been UN aid, much much more is needed. Without picture of of a starving mother a child needed to spur the bandwagon of muscicians there has been little public recognition of the terrible crisis going on in the region.

      So put a sock in it, or get your facts straight, becuase your argument is all the weaker for it.

      --
      troodon.net
    150. Re:It is time... by Reverberant · · Score: 1
      Who is calling for an holy war? For a "crusade"? Not me. It's George W. Bush

      Refresh my memory... did Dubya call for a "crusade" before or after September 11?

    151. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might be the amount of intelligence that US citizens possess

      Its not intelligence they lack, suggesting that the US somehow has a different genetic pool and are some kind of unique people is obviously wrong. What Americans are generally is ignorant - mostly ignorant of international geo-politics and geography (civil affairs of those abroad).

      This ignorance makes them a terrible world power, they have no paradigm with which to make wise decisions...

    152. Re:It is time... by jeffehobbs · · Score: 1
      If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?

      Right on.

      ~jeff

    153. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. After reading your comment, I'm suprised your name isn't SuttleNoanse.

    154. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, that's all very good for you to say, maybe the biased local news in your area has managed to sway your opinion.

      The fact is, a dozen men who have lived in the US for the past decade killed lots of people.

      Some of them are tenuously linked to bin Laden, who is linked to Afghanistan. They could easily be equally linked to any of the other fundamentalist anti-US groups in the area. But bin Laden is an easy target no? So let's bomb the hell out of a war torn country because we think a suspect in these attacks /may/ be residing there.

      Bush has wanted a violent revenge from day 1. Before even the victims in the rubble had been saved. Have you ever thought 'what if' we're wrong?

      But no, he's just all too keen to start WW3.

    155. Re:It is time... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I'm not questioning what evidence we have, but what evidence Afghanistan has. AFAIK all this "conclusive" evidence that has convinced everyone we've shown has not been shared with Afghanistan. One can hardly expect them to turn over one of their countrymen based on the trust that evidence they haven't seen really does exist.

      Again, I don't think the US would hand over someone with the amount of evidence Afghanistan has seen - we would require to at least have enough evidence shared with us to convince us of a case, just to just be told "Britain saw the evidence and agrees it's pretty conclusive."

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    156. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the Taliban had any intention of turning over Bin Laden, they would have just done it. Asking for proof was just a stall tactic designed to distract.

      You can not rationalize with irrational people.

      Darren

    157. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw you and your mother walking down the road holding hands the other night, could it be that you two are incestual lovers? I don't know, I only know that I can have as much fun using the same logic as you...

    158. Re:It is time... by AdrianG · · Score: 1
      > and I'm sure more Afghani civillians will
      > be killed than were killed in the WTC.

      Huh?? Only time will tell, I suppose, but if you'd bother to take the time to research our military actions over the last ten years, I think you would find that we work pretty hard to avoid civilian casualties. I'm not a betting man, but if I had to place a bet, I'd say we are going to keep the number of civilians deaths that we cause to something far short of 1000. I'll be pretty disappointed in my governement if we end up killing 6000 civilians or more. That's way more than is reasonable to expect.

      > In reality, the events of September 11th, as tragic as
      > they were, were an insignificant blow to the US.

      What a statement. 6000 Afghan civilian deaths would be tragic, although in this case, I suspect that we, as Americans, probably place more value on the lives of Afghan civilians than the Taliban does. Any government that is so determined to keep women from working that it leaves a widow with no choice but to beg on the streets for money to feed her children has lost all moral authority to claim concern about its people.

      These claims that the Afghan civilians have more to fear from us than from the Taliban are simply ludicrous. I just hope we won't abandon them completely after we've brought the Taliban down.

      Adrian

    159. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you say doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attacks continue?

      Have they continued in the weeks to now? Everything happened on one day and nothing since. Nothing but vigilante attacks on anyone who looks middle eastern.

      How can you say the attackers did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to their grievance before slaughtering our civilians?

      Do you know who the attackers were? We think we do, but are we sure? Do you know they didn't attempt a diplomatic solution? Did you not hear that the Afghans begged and begged the US to help them set up a gov't after they defeated the Russians? The US abandoned them and the Taliban took over. And suppressed the Afghans ever since.

      How do you know the attackers weren't some group somewhere brushed off by the US?

      And lastly, have you wondered why in the hour between the 1st and last crash, nobody bothered to warn people to evacuate?

    160. Re:It is time... by capybopy · · Score: 1

      I really wish I could get into any of these arguments but -- echoing the sentiments of so many -- I just can't. Going to war will cost so many lives! Avoiding war will cost so many lives! When did lives become the fundamental geopolitical economic unit. Oh wait -- about 3000 B.C. Aparently the constitution, bill of rights, magnicarta and thousands of years of litigous bullshit have given us nothing more than the same right to die we started with. Call me a cynic or call me an idealist, I don't care, but I refuse to believe any "death" other than my own, is something that I have any right to interfere with.

    161. Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      We have REPEATEDLY stated that we are NOT after Afghanistan's destruction

      The Taleban is the government of Afghanistan - as fucked up as religious dictatorships are (no worse than Capitalist Dictatorships ala US) - this is a soverign state.

      We're after the guilty one, bin Laden.

      People are innocent until proven guilty in court.

      The strikes today are apparently against Taliban military targets

      Which means, YET AGAIN, America has started a war.

      another guilty partyinteresting how americans are so sure of this... THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPOSURE OF EVIDENCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. How is it that you feel you can enact a sentance without a trail?

      as a safe harbor for bin Laden

      ...its also OK for Americans to make shit up as they go along...

      and they have been fairly and sufficiently warned

      Fairly warned? Who gives a fuck - the issue is that WAR IS WRONG!

      Killing some in strikes against military targets is inevitable.

      No, its a choice, a choice your country makes all to fucking often - the rest of us know this because we actually pay attention, while Americans are too busy telling one another how unquestionably terrific America(TM) is.

      It's not a pretty price, but one you have to pay.

      Change can come without violence. Ever hear of Ghandi?

      In short, i wonder how you managed to drift so far from being able to make well reasoned arguments - does Government Propaganda and Indoctrination mean anything to you?????

    162. Re:It is time... by aprentic · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand about the groups condemning any military response is that they fail to realize that the military is fighting for their freedom.
      Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders.
      The generals? They're fighting to maintain their positions. Their corporate backers? They're fighting for money.

      I saw an interview on Fox news about some group that believed that WW II could have been won by non-violent protests and the like. I'm sure that the axis powers would allow anti-war marches in Berlin.
      Anti-war marches wouldn't have stopped WWII. But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict.

      Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one. Americans should support their country during these times, even though they might not want to be at war.
      Bzzt. Wrong! If we were at war, president Bush would be in violation of the US constitution. He would never do that, right?

      Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days.
      Having your own thoughts and the right to express them are an illusion in this country. We've had book burnings, book bannings, and censorship galore. And now you're saying that people shouldn't express their views so that we can protect our right to express our views? This whole story is like something out of a bad Orwell knockoff.

    163. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I really hope I'm not the only one who doesn't consider "He doesn't like us, we don't like him and he has enough money to fund such a thing." as sufficient evidence

      Why don't you go inform yourself and read up on the facts? You obviously haven't got a single fucking clue about the mountains of existing evidence.

      I'm so sick of uninformed dumb fucks who refuse to learn any facts and then form and vocalise strong opinions about things they know nothing about, but have heard other people saying.

    164. Re:It is time... by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

      One question:

      Would a Taliban trial of Mr. Mein Laven be "fair"?

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
    165. Re:It is time... by Chagrin · · Score: 2

      Apparently a great number of reports have been released linking this or that person to the terrorist attacks; I just wish I could see one of them.

      In war situations like this, it's a little hard to put faith in your leaders when they won't tell you what they know. I'm just feeling a little sheepish, I suppose.

      --

      I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    166. Re:It is time... by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm so sick of hearing people argue about how terrible US military action would be because some innocent civilians might die, and arguing for a peaceful solution instead, but *never actually offering a practical peaceful solution*. I'm all for a peaceful solution, but come on, lets hear it - what non-violent solution do YOU propose that will eliminate the threat of future (and more devastating) terrorist attacks? What solution do you propose to deal with an international well-funded well-protected terrorist network who are not only willing, but eager, to kill as many innocent people as possible, and not only willing, but eager, to use weapons of mass-destruction? What solution do you propose to deal with the rabid religous fundamentalism that has millions of people supporting these terrorists? Lets hear your practical, workable solution for what is actually a very complex problem. Or would you rather just bury your head in the sand and wait until the terrorists use weapons of mass destruction in the US?

      Acts are only called 'terrorism', and not military action by a foreign power by the difference in the percieved legitimacy of their perpetrators

      I'm sorry, but If you can't see the difference between shooting a terrorist training camp and ANONYMOUSLY flying commercial airliners full of passengers into civilian buildings filled with thousands of random individuals from dozens of countries all around the world with the explicit aim of randomly killing as many innocent people as possible, then you're an idiot.

    167. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1

      >Really, what would you have us do?

      What about showing the "proofs" to the Talibans and accepting certain compromises like the trial being held in a third country and an exemption from the death penalty?

      I doubt any Western European state would extradite any of their citizens without first seeing at least some shreds of evidence, and receiving assurances that their would be no capitol punishment (as required by the European Convention). Why should the Talibans?

    168. Re:It is time... by mike_g · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.

      The current situtation with Afganistan is not the same as WWII. Both Germany and Japan had major economic resources before we invaded. Enough resources so that they could effectively wage war. Afganistan is different, the closest thing to an industry there is the opium trade. Germany and Japan had the knowledge and manpower to rebuild after the war, but Afganistan does not. There will be nothing to rebuild after an invasion. That leaves us with building industries from the ground up. Most likely these new industries would be controlled by foreigners, since I doubt there are sufficent numbers of Afghanies that are qualified to run a business. This might put us in an even worse position than now. From what I understand a great deal of the anti-american sentiment stems from the fact that we have military bases in Islamic countries. Imagine how pissed they would be if all of their capital was controlled by foreigners.

    169. Re:It is time... by Nexum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To say Bin Laden IS the Taliban is shortsighted.

      Bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda organisation should be though of as a cousin to the militant ruling Taliban authority.

      We should help ourselves by using sense to understand that clobbering a combined 'super-enemy' called 'Afghanistan and its contents' is detrimental to our cause, and un-productive militarily.

      Instead, the combined military forces seem to be going about the situation in the best way, Bin Laden/al-Qa'eda should be dealt with in the best way for an underground rooted network, which possibly spans not only Afganistan but neighbouring and maybe more foreign nations.

      You cannot tackle the Taliban in the same way, they can (and evidently are) being pursued in a more effective way for a more entrenched authority.

      ---

      As a side note, I like to watch CNN and other US news channels here in Britain, as it gives us a great sense of your national state. I do however urge you to also employ other news-sources (such as the famously impartial BBC (bbc.co.uk)) as the dramatisation and... well... cheesyness (sorry) of CNN sometimes turns my stomach.... maybe it's being brought up on the bbc that's done it :|

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    170. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      Do you really think US helped Europe in an humanitary goal? Their only goal was to prevent communists to take over Europe.

    171. Re:It is time... by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How can you say doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attacks continue? Have they continued in the weeks to now? Everything happened on one day and nothing since."

      In 1983 terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.

      In 1993 one of Al-Qaeda's first acts was to ambush and kill American soldiers engaged in "nationbuilding" in Somalia. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.

      If we pull troops out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan now, then the attacks will stop again... for a time.

      We have taught these people that if they bloody our nose, then we will do what they want.

      Why are we surprised that they attack us again?

      If we keep giving them what they want every time the attack us then we teach the world that terrorism works. If we keep following that road, then evenutally it will mean the end of America as a free nation. At some point we have to stand up and say: "No" No matter how much they hurt us, we can't give them what they want. We have to hurt them worse. We have to show the world that attacking the United States is a VERY BAD IDEA. It will mean more attacks in the short term, but it is the only way to stop them in the long term.

    172. Re:It is time... by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      Pardon me for nitpicking, but it really bothers me how "you" is so easily assumed to mean Americans on Slashdot. Newsflash people: Not everybody on the Internet is an American!!!. Is it really that difficult to alter your statement ever so slightly so that you refer to your country's population explicitly?? It would save people like me who aren't blessed enough to belong to your country from great heartache.

      You haven't been paying attention, friend. Here's a newsflash for you: what happened on September 11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack on civilization.

      My guess is you're from Europe or the UK, and that you've painstakingly conditioned yourself to walk around with your nose stuck in the air because you're somehow "better" than Americans. I guess that attitude is good for attracting interest from AOL users who claim to be women, or something... I certainly can't think of any other justification for it. At any rate, if you inhabit any Western democracy or even any number of progressive Asian states, you may be under the false impression that you're not vulnerable to the same sort of attacks against your own homeland, against your own interests. Think again.

      Secondly, Does any one of you have any evidence linking Osama/Taliban directly with the WTC attacks?

      The evidence that has been gathered to date has been extensive, and has proven satisfactory to most of the leaders of the civilized world (there's that word again, civilized.) Will we be able to demonstrate bin Laden's culpability to everyone's satisfaction? Probably not. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. But yes, the evidence exists; it is strong; and in any event, bin Laden's outrageous litany of past crimes make our response long overdue.

      I'd suggest you learn to deal with it, because that's the way the world's going to work from now on.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    173. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case 1: "Lets try our best to kill only the murderers who attacked us, we might kill innocent civilians, but we'll try our best to keep it to a minimum, and we wish it didn't have to be this way. Also, we'll send hundreds of millions of dollars of food and other aid to try help the innocent people that are hurt in this conflict. And once we've gotten rid of the murderers, we will stop hurting the innocent people, and continue to help them, and assist them in forming their own democratic government that will cater to their own interests.".

      Case 2: "Lets try our best to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. And then afterwards, we'll brag about it, claim it as a victory, and celebrate the death of innocent civilians. Lets make such random attacks against civilians that we kill innocent people from all over the world, including our own people, so what. Lets further state that we're going to do it again and again until the "enemy" (the US) is entirely destroyed - anything less than the entire annihilation of not only the US but Jews and Christians everywhere is not enough. We'll also indicate our eagerness to get hold of weapons of mass destruction AND to use them against more random civilians. Lastly, we'll do it anonymously, so nobody knows we did it and thus can't defend themselves".

      I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference, then you're a moron.

    174. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      These are *international* laws, not simply US law. Individuals and corporations are allowed to patent their ideas and sell them.

      That's false. In Europe, you can't patent *ideas*. And who make those kind of laws? USA and rich european countries. Other countries have only the right to shut up and follow. That's part of the problem: international laws are made by G8. Not by the whole world.


      Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sometimes you get burned, and these are the results.

      That's the problem. By fighting fire with fire, you just increase the fire. You can stop fire with fire. You can stop hate with bombs.

      And not removing a cancer will kill the host.

      Strange, the last time I heard exactly those words was in the mouth of Admiral Tolwyn in Wing Commander IV... You know the guy that use biologic weapons and say "the strong must survive" and other beautifull things like that.

      By bombing Afghanistan, you won't stop the terrorists. You'll create new ones. You kill people, and appear to be even more evil for the local people. And they'll fight back the only way they can: terrorism.

      WWII eliminated Nazi Germany.

      And how did Hitler come to power in Germany? Because of WWI and the peace treaty that was too strict against germany. It's always the same: war lead to war.

      Ben Laden invoked the 'Jihad' in his Fatwa, years before Bush uttered Crusade.

      That's exactly what I'm saying: by bombing Afghanistan you act as the terrorists did. Bush you the same kind of words than Ben Laden, both of them use violence, hatred and bombs to try to solve problems.

    175. Re:It is time... by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Easy to criticize the US government, but a LOT harder to come up with a realistic, practical, workable peaceful solution that will actually stop the terrorists. Funny, I don't see YOUR proposed alternative solution.

      Its a lot easier to say "peace peace peace" than to actually come up with a peaceful solution to a complex, difficult problem.

    176. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Okay, let's review a few things first:

      One, it's not necessarily even the US Government that these people are angry at. It's the fucking American "Corporate Citizens" that use their money and influence to completely fuck over the economies and governments of 3rd world nations to provide them cheap labor. Usually, it works something like this:

      The Shoe and Garmant industry lobby to build manufacturing plants in a 3rd world nation (pick one). The nation still has a sizeable agricultural base, most of the population is employed by owning their own farms. It's a meager life, but they make do and have for hundreds of generations.

      Okay, after making considerable campaign contributions, the powers-that-be, smelling more money, give in. The companies are allowed to build their factories and the government conveniently looks the other way when "safety" and "fair treatment" gets in the way of "profitability." After all, the more money the garment industry makes, the more money they can skim off the top.

      Now, you ask, what person in their right mind would do this if it were happening? We come to stage two:

      The garment industry requires cheap, easily manipulated labor. Veteran workers are more prone to organize, even despite crackdowns, so an environment conducive to turnover is created (see Fast Food Nation). But, this requires a readily available pool of cheap, desperate labor to choose from.

      Where to get this labor?

      From the farms! When the industrial revolution freed labor from the farms, cheap labor was available to the city. So, how to industrialize the farms?

      In comes Dole and the like. They offer to "modernize" the farming structure, but they need special concessions to do so. The small farmer is an obstacle. Dole gets the government to pass taxes and various fees to make small farming a regularly loss-providing livlihood. So, the small farms get driven out, they head to the city, seeking a way to feed themselves. Dole industrializes the farms. However, it's more profitable to ship the food overseas and have it rot on grocery store shelves than sell to the locals.

      Back to the displaced farmers, they look for jobs. The garment factories are hiring. At below minimum-wage. However, below-minimum-wage is better than nothing, so they go to work. They have a family to feed. And, if you complain, you're sacked. If you don't like the work, there's 10 thousand outside who will.

      It's a systemic approach to labor and destruction. What you end up with is a nation who has less ability to feed itself, less ability to defend itself, with an ever growing poverty level while a few politicians and some overseas CEO's getting fat. The quality of living, despite "industrialization" has actually DECREASED. Workers go from working on farms (which is, comparatively speaking, really difficult during the planting and harvesting stages) to working really hard every day (12-16 hours a day in poor, hazardous conditions that we here in the states have deemed illegal for our own citizens to work in). They can barely afford the food that they used to grow.

      If the government is finally "overthrown" by the burgeoning masses of malcontent, then the US government steps in to protect "it's interests".

      Yes, I'd say it's about time someone got pissed off.

    177. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden is spelt Ben Laden in french, and Iraq is often written Irak too (for both of them, it's arabic words that can't be really written in latin charset)

    178. Re:It is time... by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Some proposals the Taliban made: - Hand over Osama bin Laden to a 3rd country with an Islamic judicial system (perhaps his home country of Saudi Arabia) for a fair trial by Sharia law. - Present conclusive evidence of bin Laden's guilt to the Taliban, who would then either extradite him or try him at home in their courts. This seems like a reasonable request to me - the US would certainly never extradite its own residents without evidence being presented to them

      Yeah, those solutions will REALLY stop the global terrorist network in its tracks. That will DEFINITELY prevent future (more devastating, i.e. "weapons of mass destruction") terrorist attacks against the US.

      (Sarcasm off).

    179. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhrm... the guy came on TV and admitted to doing it, and threatened the US with further violence. How's that?

    180. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Taliban wanted us to give them the evidence so that they could try bin Laden in their own country. This cannot happen for three reasons.

      First, giving them evidence might compromise ongoing investigations. After all, we don't want them (al Qaeda) to know what we know, because it might help them to dodge us.

      Second, we cannot trust them to give him a fair trial. It would be a joke. He would be tried under Islamic law by Islamic clerics that he helped put into power, who no doubt have any number of justifications they can squeeze out of the Koran as to why it's OK to slaughter thousands of innocent people.

      Third, FUCK THEM. They hosted bin Laden, and they knew just exactly what he was up to the whole time. They knew what they were getting themselves into by hosting organized lunatic groups that had their gunsights on the USA. As far as I'm concerned, we have given them ample opportunity to redeem themselves. They had a chance to turn that sack of shit and his band of kooks, and declined. SO BE IT.

    181. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      That's the problem... it doesn't matter what we do, the terrorists will still regard the U.S. as "The Great Satan".

      For the most fanatic of them yes. But more US will behave as the master-of-the-world and more will they use bombs and weapons, more people will become anti-US fanatic.

      Do you think they hate US without any reason?

      The only way to stop this is to make it so that no country in the world will harbor and support terrorism

      But terrorists don't need a country to act! Until you understand the real problems of the world, until US act in a less arrogant, selflish and imparialist way, terrorists will exist.

      It's not by killing terrorists that you'll stop them. It's first by suppressing the reason that make people become terrorists.

      And do you really think that Ben Laden is still in Kabul? Do you really think you'll be able to find him?

    182. Re:It is time... by compugeek007 · · Score: 1

      The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.

      From a vantage point where I have little "real knowledge" about the situation to speak of, I can disagree with your statement above with confidence. It is our business, literally. We sell weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other areas and governments. We import billions of gallons of oil from the area yearly. This is our business. It may be our policies have been problematic, even unethical at times. But the US will never, ever, allow the Middle East to decide its own fate for fear that another world power (Russia, China) gain a strategic advantage in the area and have controlling interests in this region which we draw a large part of our energy and economy from.

      --
      Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
    183. Re:It is time... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      And bombing Afghanistan will?

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    184. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, there wasn't a great deal of demand stateside for terrorists like there is for drugs.

    185. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah in the US, he'd at least stand a chance. If OJ can go free, anything's possible.

    186. Re:It is time... by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Well, they have been bombing terrorist training camps, so in a direct way it does inhibit the ability of terrorists to carry out their work.

      It (should) also prevent terrorism in a more indirect way. September 11 was possible because (a) the terrorists are given safe sanctuary in a country, allowing them to establish training camps and run their operations, and (b) the terrorists are well funded and well protected. By bombing countries that *provide* safe harbour and funding to terrorists, you discourage all countries from protecting and funding terrorists. By not allowing the terrorists to have any place to run their operations, train people, create propaganda material, build bombs, amass weapons and funds etc, you firstly hinder the terrorists from carrying out their deeds, and secondly you make it a lot harder for the terrorists to find sanctuary anywhere at all, which makes for a global culture of non-tolerance to terrorism. For a biological analogy: the terrorism movement, like a virus or bacteria in an ideal environment, grows when protected and fed in countries like Afghanistan. When they cannot be protected and fed, the environment is a "hostile" one for them, preventing their movement from growing. Finally, by removing the Taliban from power (who, incidentally, are *very* closely linked to Osama bin Ladens terrorist network) and establishing a democracy which gives the Afghan *people* control, you also open the way for not only liberty but freedom of press, which means more *information* for the people from more widespread sources (as well as improved education system, i.e. a more educated populace). This severely limits the effects of terrorist propaganda; currently people are easily manipulated by being presented only one specific one-sided view of the situation. (Incidentally, Afghanistan no longer has a "real" education system - when the Taliban came to power, they destroyed existing schools and universities, and the only "educational system" that remains is fundamentalist-Islam Taliban training schools. Remember, the Taliban was not some democratically elected government, they forced themselves into power, and the main reason for the complicity of the populace is that they had it a lot worse before. But the Taliban is an oppressive regime.

    187. Re:It is time... by Enthrad · · Score: 1

      I think what was intended was a comment about trying to address the root of the problem - why people feel the need or desire to:

      [inject themselves with chemicals | explode themselves in school busses].

    188. Re:It is time... by Jonathan · · Score: 2

      Huh?? Only time will tell, I suppose, but if you'd bother to take the time to research our military actions over the last ten years, I think you would find that we work pretty hard to avoid civilian casualties.

      Despite all the fuss about "smart bombs" and the like, the US still managed to kill about 10,000 Iraqi civillians in the Gulf War. Oh well, it was in the name of democra...,er, corrupt ruling family of Kuwait.

      I suspect that we, as Americans, probably place more value on the lives of Afghan civilians than the Taliban does.

      Perhaps, but where did this nasty Taliban come from? The US trained and funded the thugs that later became the Taliban (and Bin Laden, I might add) when they were fighting Soviet troops. Reminds one of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" doesn't it?

    189. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this is a soverign state.


      The Taliban are only recognized as the legitimate government by one country now.

      People are innocent until proven guilty in court.


      Seeing as he pretty much admitted to doing it on TV today, I'd say we have the right guy.

      Which means, YET AGAIN, America has started a war.


      Maybe you weren't watching TV on the 11th - I seemed to notice a couple big buildings get hit with hijacked planes.

      while Americans are too busy telling one another how unquestionably terrific America(TM) is.


      Dude, you need to go back through some of the old /. posts. All I read is how the country is going to hell, civil liberties are being eroded, politicians are bought and sold like cattle, liberals are dragging the country down, conservatives are dragging the country down, etc. It's hardly a giant lovefest down here.

      Change can come without violence. Ever hear of Ghandi?


      Gandhi and MLK succeeded because they were fighting against a government who would be embarrassed and derided worldwide by the beatings and inhumane treatment of unarmed people. bin Laden's GOAL is the slaughter of unarmed people, as he proved on 9/11 and has stated many many many times.
    190. Re:It is time... by paul7e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me explain.

      The Taliban have stated that he's a "guest" in their country. When one hosts a guest, one has a responsibility to not have their guests bother the neighbors with loud parties and such.

      Or, say, when your guest happens to murder a few thousand civilians at the neighbors place, in a polite society one would ask him or her to depart.

      They have not done so, so it appears that they have changed the relationship from "guest" to "protectee". As the terrorists have shown that violence is their preferred method of social interaction, the Taliban must realize that when the neighbors call the police to come in to try and get their "guest" to be more quiet, there might be some additional damage to their home.

      It's unfortunate, but it happens.

      --
      Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
    191. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have nothing to complain about because we are not killing innocent people. As a self described hawk I would like to say that if millions of lives in Afganistan are made better at the end of this horrible affair then perhaps I would choose to risk death for such a thing. What other nation sends wheat to their "enemy"? We sent food because Afagans are not our enemy. I know there is at least one American who would mug me and at least one Afgan who would share his meal with me so who is my enemy? One thing for certain is the utter hipocracy of Bin Laden who does not like "infidels" on his holy soil yet he puts many Afgans who do not want him there in the line of fire. An Afagans soil is not so precious I suppose. I think most of us know who the enemy is but I am afraid there are a few in the anti-war movement as well. We should have rebuit the county in the 80's that is for certain however and the best movement should be the anti-ignorance movement.

    192. Re:It is time... by AdrianG · · Score: 1
      • Huh?? Only time will tell, I suppose, but if you'd bother to take the time to research our military actions over the last ten years, I think you would find that we work pretty hard to avoid civilian casualties.

        Despite all the fuss about "smart bombs" and the like, the US still managed to kill about 10,000 Iraqi civillians in the Gulf War. Oh well, it was in the name of democra...,er, corrupt ruling family of Kuwait.

      Frankly, I doubt this claim. Can you substantiate it?

      • Perhaps, but where did this nasty Taliban come from? The US trained and funded the thugs that later became the Taliban (and Bin Laden, I might add) when they were fighting Soviet troops. Reminds one of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" doesn't it?
      I must say that I am impressed by your imagination and by your determination not to let your own ignorance keep you out of this debate.

      The Taliban's history is not so hard to track down, if you will just do a little research. You see, "Talib" means "student" or "seeker". The Taliban movement started in the Islamic schools of Pakistan. Now many of those students were orphans of the war between the Mujahadin and the Soviets, so in that sense, you might attribute some of the blame to us, on those grounds, since we helped supply the Mujahadin with weapons so that they could actually fight and die and leave orphans behind. But the Paks are the real source of the Taliban. The problem is that the Paks see a border dispute on the horizen, and they wanted to see a government in power in Afghanistan that is unlikely to carry through this dispute. Some of the Mujahadin have joined the Taliban, but many more are with the Northern Alliance.

      Please, Jonathan, there's a goldmine of information from organizations as diverse as the UNHCR and the Federation of American Scientists. Do a little research, and you'll come off looking a whole lot smarter.

      Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if there were reminders of "Heart of Darkness" to be found, but not precisely the ones you are looking for.

      Adrian

    193. Re:It is time... by Zeio · · Score: 2

      I am appalled at this.

      Our track record may not be perfect, far from it, but given the power the US actually has and how little the US proportionally "abuses" it, I have no trouble supporting the actions being taken, particularly when some effort of humanitarian aid is being made - and seeing as most of the worlds aid is funded by the US in the first place.

      I am assuming this author is not American, and it is clear why.

      In the words of our best:

      "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

      "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson

      Pick a side, be with the free world and pro-civilization, or be against it.

      To the bollocks remark; it is simple. It has been western policy for at least a score or years, if not two, to never negotiate with terrorists. The Taliban aid and harbor terrorist. Now they will be destabilized as punishment for failure to comply with an internationally backed ultimatum, 'turn over the prime suspects, now.' (Most foreign prime ministers have seen the evidence and see no reason for not supporting it).

      To ask for justice is not conceit. To have a great many more weapons and methods at our disposal and not use them is not arrogance. To give large loans and sums of money in the way of aid over many, many years starting with the Marshall Plan (how quickly history forgets), is not selfish. And judging on the US's political, economic and technological state in the world, it is hardly a nation of stupidity.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    194. Re:It is time... by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 1

      Just because someone agrees vehemently in their right to do so, that doesn't mean he has to, in any way, agree with their opinion. He never said someone should stop them. He says they should support their country because he thinks their position is unbelievably wrong. And I can't say I disagree.

      --

      "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

    195. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      No, the "looking for a peaceful solution" was a blind. The Taliban, who supported these attacks, have to go, and everyone knows this; anything less, and everyone and his uncle will start picking buildings and work their way down. The apparent war of words is just a popularity chess game.

      This isn't to praise your slogan-parroting campus socialists, who just see this tragic carnage as an opportunity.

    196. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live there and you know that the enemy is coming, and you choose not to leave... then if you die it's due to your own fucking stupidity.


      Fuck the innocent civilian. Your government made a decision, you either support it or you run like shit.


    197. Re:It is time... by Jonathan · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I doubt this claim. Can you substantiate it?

      Certainly, in the sense of giving you quotes from various sources, such as the well respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. But probably you'll just dismiss it as biased, so what's the use? How many civillian causulties do *you* think occurred anyhow?

      Some of the Mujahadin have joined the Taliban, but many more are with the Northern Alliance.

      All the more reason not to support the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was once one of the Mujahadin himself. The US has a habit of supporting people like Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, that end up becoming the next enemy.

    198. Re:It is time... by JavaDuke · · Score: 1
      The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked.

      Let's see. Bush declares a "Crusade" against terrorism. How does that translate to an Islam? As a Jihad! And how is this crusade to be carried out? Not attacking the Taliban by any chance?!?

      Boy, it's not like Bush didn't declare one first. 8P

      I'll make the assumption that you are an American, and an ignorant one at that. There is the lesser Jihad and the greater Jihad. The lesser is the type on which Bush has declared against the Taliban. The greater is the one against the self.

    199. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree completely. This is not fighting communism in the name democracy, or something obscure like that. This is to stop these people from landing on our beaches and trying to kill us. It is completely defensive. There is an obvious enemy, who has made his position clear. He wants to destroy not only the US government, but the people within the US borders. Hey, wait a second, he wants to kill me, my family, and my friends. That is why I will support military action to stop the Taliban.

    200. Re:It is time... by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      Yes, but part of the responsibility of liberty is not to abuse that freedom. For example, the way the terrorists used the openness of our society to murder thousands of innocents is an abuse of freedom. There is also a burden on all of us in the USA to ensure, through education of ourselves and our children, that our speech and decisions as a democracy are well-informed.

      I question the motives and knowledge of those who oppose military actions at this point.

    201. Re:It is time... by MrEd · · Score: 1
      You saw an interview on Fox news.... wait, stop there.


      See, there's your problem.

      --

      Wah!

    202. Re:It is time... by philipdl71 · · Score: 1
      I completely agree. It is time for action. I think our record of involvement in the middle east has been deplorable. It is true that our country has killed people in other countries, gotten involved in civil wars that we shouldn't have been involved in.

      Hell, we gave one BILLION dollars in money and weapons to the organization Osama Bin Ladin was a part of when we were trying to get the soviets out of Afghanistan. It is time the US did not involve itself in wars we don't belong in. Thanks to the aid money we are now going to be fighting members of the Taliban that are using US made weapons that we gave them over 10 years ago!

      In the year PRIOR to September 11th, 2001 we GAVE the TALIBAN over $125,000,000 [lp.org] in foreign aid! If we want to fight terrorism the first thing we should do is stop giving money to the terrorists

      As for retalliation at this point I would say we are fully justified in destroying Osama Bin Ladin and his organization as well as the Taliban which harbors him. I think appropriate action after justice is served would be to cease all foreign aid (which accounts for almost 1 TRILLION dollars spent by our government since the end of world war II). We should also withdraw our troops from the one hundred countries we now occupy and stay out of other people's affairs. And of course, never allow a terrorist attack on America from now on go unanswered.

      Most people don't realize that Terrorism goes much further than the past 8 years of the Clinton administration. The truth is there have been warning signs for years about terrorists and our lack of dealing with them. Here is an article [aynrand.org] that appeared in a full page ad in the New York Times. Please take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't agree with their conclusions and think they are war mongerers, but the information about how long the US has appeased terrorists for their destruction of American lives and property is unbelieveable!

    203. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being on a college campus, I have watched the local communist/socialist groups


      Oh, you mean the Free Software Foundation? Yeah, they're here too. What a bunch of wackos.

    204. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      A democratic one would be better. We tried the "friendly regime" way already, and see what happened?
      Of course, how do you make a democracy from nothing in Afghanistan? It sounds like a herculean task.

    205. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Amen. Our purpose is security at minimum cost to everyone. Let us not lose sight of it.

    206. Re:It is time... by RelliK · · Score: 2

      It's good to know that at least some people understand the situation well. US's actions towards the middle east is what caused this attack in the first place. So it's not enough to simply catch/kill Osama bin Laden and destroy his organization. US foreign policy towards the middle east must change. If it doesn't, another Osama bin Laden will take his place.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    207. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Okay, look, the war of words was just words. On both sides.
      The US is never going to be satisfied with less than breaking up Al Kida and bringing down the Taliban regime that supported them.
      It couldn't afford to settle for less - all the other millions of potential attackers need to see that the price is too high.
      If this were a crime trial, sure it wouldn't be enough evidence; but it's not a trial - it's war.

    208. Re:It is time... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?

      If you choose to not support your own country, then you choose to not support the system that gave you the freedom to choose whom you support. It is like taking the life of your own mother... the one who gave you life. Without her, you wouldn't even have had the chance. While I do think that you should be able to voice out against your own country, why are you voicing out against it while it's trying to protect your lives and your freedom to voice out against it!?? Voice out loud enough, and they might stop their attacks on bin laden, but then what's stopping him from taking your freedoms away from you? Think about what might happen if you actually get your way... before you try to get it......

    209. Re:It is time... by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Actually, they promised to hand him over to a Muslim court, presumably one with the "Not Guilty" rubber-stamp all ready and waiting.
      As opposed to a Western court with the "Guilty" rubber-stamp all ready and waiting?
      No, as opposed to a Western court wherein Johnny Cochran and abuncha bleeding-heart liberals will shit themselves to make sure he gets 20 hours of community service if found guilty, but preferably to see that he is declared innocent and a hero of the people.

      All courts are biased, but I know which one I trust to render a fairer judgement, as opposed to delivering a rubber-stamp verdict.

      In case you weren't aware of it, it is usual for trials to be held in the locale where the crime was committed, rather than in the back yard of the defendant. And I am not aware of any reason why special, preferential treatment should be granted in this particular case.

      And anyway, if somebody's biased court is to be used it might as well be mine, eh?
    210. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Okay, look,
      the Taliban aren't going to harm bin Laden
      and his gang of thugs for anything.
      They're half the Taliban power base!
      They can't afford to drop him,
      and we can't afford to leave either alone.
      It's sad, it's bad,
      but this is how nation states do business.
      Maybe someone can fix that someday.
      But it ain't fixed yet,
      and if we don't play by today's rules,
      we're going to be dead.

    211. Re:It is time... by NOC_Monkey · · Score: 1
      US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after.


      Yeah - That must be why the Peace Corps, Red Cross and World Health Organization (all of whom are mostly, if not totally, US-funded) present bills to everyone they help. Right. Sure.


      Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money?


      Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world? Nothing in our constitution says that we have a duty to solve everyone's problems. Sound selfish? Damn right. Regardless of the motives at the time, we gave arms and money to the Afghani fighters to help them repel the Soviet invasion. When the Soviets left, we stopped helping. Now, those who owe their lives to US-provided money and weapons have made themselves our enemy. I have no sympathy for the Taliban, al-Qaida, or their supporters. I do have sympathy for the Afghani people, and am glad that we are airdropping food and medicine to the people while bombs fall on the Taliban. And you know what? We aren't including a bill - no repayment is expected for humanitarian aid.


      Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.


      Violence ended the violence of the Holocaust. War was the solution to Imperial Japan's subjugation of Eastern Asia. Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo. War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Violence ended the violence of Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain. War was the solution to China and North Korea's invasion of South Korea. To quote Heinlein, war is not uncontrolled violence. War is controlled violence directed toward a specific purpose. You will note that though it would be very easy for us to simply turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot, we are not doing so. We are using controlled violence for a specific purpose. This is not a holy war, nor is it a crusade. This is simply the delivery of the consequences the Taliban and al-Qaida brought upon themselves.

      --
      -NOC Monkey (OOK!) Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you make it.
    212. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      the dramatisation and... well... cheesyness (sorry) of CNN sometimes turns my stomach....

      You're not the only one, brother.
      Exciting music and photos of explosions, feh.
      Rah, team, rah.
      This is not a game.

      -Like-minded American

    213. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They're also opposed to any kind of prolonged fight against guerillas. As Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan in the 80's have taught us, that is not a fight we can win.
      Bullshit. Our forces in Vietnam were defeated not by enemy action in battle, but by lack of support back home. Our forces never lost a major battle in Vietnam, and the VC were all but eliminated in the Tet Offensive. Korea, well, there was no guerilla action there. In Afghanistan we were shipping advanced arms (such as Stingers) to fight the Soviets. They also were hamstrung by conditions back at home.
      The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course.
      This region is of strategic interest to the US. To ignore it would be idiocy.
      We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.
      We did that after toppling the regimes that were hostile. I agree that we need another Marshall Plan, but only after we've installed a transition government - one to transition to democracy. I don't trust the Northern Alliance to do the job right - they're almost as bad as the Taliban in terms of human rights abuses and the like.
    214. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed.

      Actually, my understanding is that most of the deaths date from the following decade, where we cordoned off Iraq and prevented it from rebuilding.

      I guess we have a reason for that. I certainly hope we do, because the human cost is terrible. Even if you're utterly cynical, that still counts as a PR disaster.

      I guess our other options were to 1) sweep on into Iraq proper and depose the Baath government, or 2) let the regime rebuild its power and ability to threaten the region.

      I'm guessing that 1) was too scary (remember that this was the first major war the US had fought since Vietnam), and that 2) couldn't be countenanced (we learned that lesson with Hitler).

      Maybe, in retrospect, 1) was the way to go. But it's hard to know.

      There's also the big question - what next? (Some will push now to invade again and resolve the standoff.)

    215. Re: It is time... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Doesn't

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Diderot.

      contradict

      Violence is always wrong. Retribution is absolutely, always, unjustifiable.

      Seems to me that you think there are times when it is necessary to kill, based on the Diderot quote.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    216. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't do anything to Afganistan or the taliban and they helped someone destroy the world trade center and part of the pentagon. We are not the aggressor here, they threw the first punch, now it's our turn.

    217. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      they would all boo and hiss

      So you learned the same lesson as I did in college, which is that the future contains clear, rational, and responsible thinkers, and that it also contains dangerous, blind slogan shouters - and that you can find the latter in some unexpected places.

      I'm not going to forget the lesson - including the first half.

    218. Re:It is time... by Absynthe · · Score: 2

      Some of them act that way because they are stupid.
      Others who had to wade through the whole sickening alphabet soup mess of the WTO, IMF, NAFTA, all the rest in order to figure out what the hell was going on in the third world are insulted by people who think they know what they are talking about when they enter the debate and know jack shit. That would include you. For every dollar in relief that Africa recieves they pay back $1.31 in interest payments. One of the problems the movement has is that in order to get to the problem you have to wade through an enormous amount of very dry economic beaurocracy which by the time your done wading through it feels very much like deliberate obfuscation, money laundering in a way. When you follow the money you find out that what happens is loans are offered to buy infrastructer investments that are not able to be completed by local labor. So the money they loaned goes straight back to a Western country that can handle the construction. The interest on the loan is payed back ad infintum to Western Banks.
      If the entire system was not directly intended to bleed the resources of the Third World into the first it does one hell of a job at doing just that.
      It doesn't make you less of an American to take a deep hard look at what our foreign policy decisions have done to the reputation of the country. We didn't deserve what we got, no one does but that doesn't make us shining knights for peace and world harmony either.

    219. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.

      Yeah, this seems true, and it's a scandal.
      It breaks my heart to see this great country functioning as an international version of those paycheck loan people.

    220. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their are about two truely socialist nations, France, and Sweden. Please note how many wars they actually won, and how many times they were taken over. We would be all safe to ignore these groups forever.

    221. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there will be violent retribution! The next time the IRA blows something up, the British government will respond by calling Ireland a rogue nation, and demand the immediate turnover of anyone who may have funded the attack. When help is not forecoming, a series of strategic attacks on civilian airports and military installations will ensue.

    222. Re:It is time... by AdrianG · · Score: 1
      • Frankly, I doubt this claim. Can you substantiate it?

        Certainly, in the sense of giving you quotes from various sources, such as the well respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [bullatomsci.org]. But probably you'll just dismiss it as biased, so what's the use? How many civillian causulties do *you* think occurred anyhow?

      "What's the use?" you say? There are many more people than just me reading this stuff. It still makes sense to argue your position.

      In fact, even the author of the article you cite expresses uncertainty about the numbers of civilian's killed.

      The relavant paragraph in the article you cite seems to be:

      • There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war. The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000 15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according to Greenpeace. The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds, and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1. And the United Nations estimated in July that 50-80 thousand infants are at risk of severe malnutrition because of the war.
      There's no shame in some bias, as long as you are honest about it and offer the reader some chance to review the basis for your conclusions. What disturbs me here is that you cited the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BOAS) as the source for the information, where the article itself attributes the figure to Greenpeace. While I have to admire some of the things Greenpeace has done (particularly their interference with whalers), I would never attribute to them the credibility that I would the BOAS

      In addition, the article doesn't seem to differentiate between innocent civilians and those civilians who are part of various government ministries without holding military rank. I have to admit, though, that neither of us tried to pin the other down on any such distinction, so I can't really hold that against you. The article also doesn't make it clear exactly what catagories of civilian casualties (I'm assuming "casualties" is being used to talk about deaths, even though its proper definition also includes injuries that would keep one out of immediate combat) are includes in the 5,000 to 15,000. Does it include only those people who died directly as a result of military action by the allied forces? Does it include deaths that may have occurred even without the conflict, or deaths that occurred during the period of sactions before hostilities commenced?

      There are certainly reasons to doubt this figure, but it should be noted that even the BOAS seemed to cite the figure for lack of anything better. And the article you cite is thought provoking, and stands a good chance of stiring up useful debate. It's worth reading.

      • Some of the Mujahadin have joined the Taliban, but many more are with the Northern Alliance.

        All the more reason not to support the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was once one of the Mujahadin himself. The US has a habit of supporting people like Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, that end up becoming the next enemy.

      Clearly we should learn from this. But sooner or later, the Afghans must determine their own future. Osama bin Laden was an outsider who fought with the Mujahadin, and it appears that he was a fairly direct recipient of US support during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. You are correct that he is just one of many people we have supported and whom we have lived to regret supporting. But we have to fight back, somehow. The Northern Alliance do not have clean hands, but they do have the advantage of being Afghans. I wish we had an ideal ally in Afghanistan to work with, but the evil that al qaida and the Taliban represent cannot be ignored. Our mistake was not helping the Mujahadin during the Soviet occupation, our mistake was abandoning them as soon as the Soviet's left. Likewise, it is not a mistake to help the Northern Alliance, but it would be a mistake simply to abandon them after the Taliban militia is no longer in power.

      Adrian

    223. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "His version of Islam cannot co-exist with other cultures, or even less militant versions of Islam. "

      you make it seem like Islam is a cult which practises war and military exercises. Actually it is not. War and vengeance came only recently against the opression that some muslims are facing. This is true to all humans. If you are oppressed and forced to do things you will eventually strike back. Islam has always stood for Peace, the meaning of the world Islam in arabic is literally, "peace". Another of the words that most americans/europeans as well as muslims don't understand is Jihad or Holy war. It is not a fight between two factions of different cultures over power, revenge, land, money, women, etc.. That doesnt make it a holy war. It is a holy war when you take up arms to defend your rights to practise your religion. I think the ability to practise their own religions in their own free wills is a basic humnaitarian right. But most of the muslims don't understand this. Neither does the westerners.

      The first war that was fought was the "badhuru" war. This happened when some muslims were blocked and refused travel by the Meccans who believed in pageant gods. Mohamed (p.u.b) was in Mahdina . They fought because the Meccans had violated the peace treaty between them. They had sighned a peace treaty before they ever went to war. Three wars were fought with the Meccans in the life time of the prophet. Mecca was captured and i would like to note that not one of the pageant worshippers in the city was killed. The stone gods of those people were not destroyed( except those inside the kaaba ). The prophet only revealed us the importance of freedom and peace. Freedom could only exist when their is peace.

    224. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always the same: war lead to war.

      That would be great if it weren't for the fact that WWII did not lead to WWIII. Sure, you could point to minor conflicts (Isreal v Egypt, Yugoslavian civil war), but for the most part the biggest war imagineable was fought and lead to an unprecedented 50 years of peace.

    225. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bin Laden has demanded for some time the withdrawl of US forces from the Arabian Peninsula.

      He has also restated that demand since the attack, and suggested that attacks will continue until this demand is met.

      To say that there has been no attempt at diplomatic relations is ignore that the US will not acknowledge bin Laden.

      Even after we have disposed of bin Laden, we will still have to deal with the fact that colonialism does not work.

    226. Re:It is time... by mcelrath · · Score: 2
      This region is of strategic interest to the US. To ignore it would be idiocy.

      And just how long are the people in the middle east supposed to stand by while we run around trumpeting our strategic interests? Meanwhile they live in poverty and fear and are persecuted by people we're giving guns to (which changes yearly). A day? A month? A year? A decade? A century? How long will they let us be more important than them?

      Our strategic interests created this mess, and our strategic interest now is to get out of this mess. We need to be prepared to let the area handle its own affairs, and be prepared to handle them stopping the flow of oil in the process. Installing a "transition government" will only cause trouble. We cannot impose our morals on them. We cannot tell them how to treat women, or what to believe, or even to choose a democracy. They would not accept it. We are the "Great Satan".

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    227. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that virutally nobody except a few Nazi sacrificial lambs was tried for crimes committed during WWII, and rather it was hushed up until pretty much everyone involved was dead.

      To the extent that the Europeans live in peace and prosperity and US taxpayers pay for the dirty work for the colonial benefits, it's understandable that there's a difference in political culture.

    228. Re:It is time... by noahm · · Score: 1
      If you choose to not support your own country, then you choose to not support the system that gave you the freedom to choose whom you support.

      I don't think that's a good way to look at it. The problem is that the US is not an innocent victim in this situation. The terrorist attack on the US was not the beginning of a new war, but rather a battle in a war that's been going on for years. Try imagining how the people living in the middle east (especially the Arabian countries) view the USA's ongoing involvement in their affairs. It't not too hard to envision them percieving our presence there as a violation of their soverignty.

      I believe that protesting further US involvement in the middle east is a wise choice. The US certainly did not appreciate foreign military powers deploying their forces within striking distance of our shores in the past.

      (Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, which occurred when the USSR placed missiles 90 miles from US soil. The US had had missiles nearer than that to Soviet soil, yet nearly started world war 3 when the Soviets placed missiles near our borders.)

      I believe that rather than pursue the oxymoronic act of fighting for peace, the US should extend to nations in the middle east the same respect we expect of them: The respect for their sovereignty. Violence will only lead to further violence.

    229. Re:It is time... by xQx · · Score: 0

      Isn't it that sort of 'patriatism' that got us into this mess in the first place?

      "Americans shoulse support their country"

      I disagree, Americans should THINK FOR THEMSELVES and support their country when it makes intelligent decisions.

      A country should act on behalf of it's citizins. Not DICTATE what they should think. ... If your governement tells you what to think, what exactly were you fighting china for?

    230. Re:It is time... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      They have every right to protest--that is what freedom is about. But they happen to be wrong. Freedom does not mean that everyone is right; it means that no-one tries to force his idea of what is right on other. Tolerance is not acceptance; it is tolerating the unacceptable. They are wrong, an unacceptably so. We tolerate them because it is a human right to be wrong.

      By the same token, I may believe them incorrect, even though they hold rather the opposite view.

    231. Re:It is time... by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 1

      It really is hard being right 99.9% of the time. Really it is.

      In fact, we felt so guilty, we threw in that Vietnam thing just so people could say, "Hah, you screwed up!" And we could go, "Whoops, sorry about that."

      Where would you be without the Americans, still trying to conquer large sections of Asia and Africa for "Her Majesty?"

      Go back to your hole, you socialist freak. We're the greatest civilization ever, twice as strong as the Roman Empire and exponentially smarter as a collective. Our politicians may politic and play themselves out a bit, but as a people we stand by our Manifest Destiny. Half a millenium later, we've taken all the roughage from the monarchies, the dictatorships, and all the other failed governments... and blended them together into a functioning streamroller of human progress.

      So in closing, We're Right, You're an idiot, and Eat My Shorts!

      --
      SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    232. Re:It is time... by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Hell if IRA was sheltered and protected by Ireland and managed to blow up 6000 people, I am sure British would react jsut like you wrote.
      Anyway, who gives a fuck what you think ...

    233. Re:It is time... by RelliK · · Score: 2

      It is this kind of attitude that got US attacked in the first place...

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    234. Re:It is time... by MMBKG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's none of our fucking business.

      Well, now it's our fucking business, if you saw that thing that happened last month.

      Yeah, that World Trade Center thing.

      I completly agree with you on the Vietnam War issue (or conflict, because we never lost...sure). It was unnecessary and just another way to screw ourselves over.

      But I digress.

      I do see your point about how the Afghanis should knock the Taliban out of their country themselves, but so many atrocities were committed against the U.S. that it would be just unacceptable to stand by and watch. Like Prime Minister Blair said, it would be more dangerous not to retaliate. Then we'd be bin Laden and any other terrorist's whipping boy-country-thing. You know what I mean.

      Steps were taken to make sure not to bomb various non-terrorist buildings and people, but civilian casualties are unavoidable.

      We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.

      I agree, but let's get the Taliban out of there first! :)

      -Maxx
      You're the worst character ever Towelie!
      I know.
    235. Re:It is time... by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      I will make no comments on the Afghani situation, just a funny thing about your "best."

      "blacks are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind." -Thomas Jefferson

      As for Ben Franklin.......well, this speaks for itself! [amazon.com]

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

    236. Re:It is time... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2

      But see, the aforementioned hippy was protesting against hitting the right people. The `Give Peace a Chance' crowd don't understand the necessity of war anymore than the redneck crowd understand the need for peace. They do not accept the validity of violence, ever. And they're wrong. Which is their right, of course.

    237. Re:It is time... by Kaiwen · · Score: 1
      our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible. The fact that that taliban was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest makes the bombing both justified, and appropriate.

      Umm, excuse me -- the Taliban was unwilling to cooperate? Two weeks ago the U.S. laid down four conditions, which it knew the Taliban would never agree to meet, and has refused to budge from its position. The Taliban made numerous attempts to negotiate, to counter-offer, to avert American attacks, and the U.S. response was the same each time: "Sorry, not interested."

      Look, I'm no fan of the Taliban or bin Laden, but to claim the U.S. has been looking for a peaceful solution to this is ridiculous. The U.S. was determined to go to war, and did absolutely nothing to forward a peaceful solution. Whether U.S. actions in Afghanistan are justified is not the point: the point is simply that no reading of U.S. actions could possibly suggest the U.S. was trying to avoid military action.

    238. Re:It is time... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      We have taught these people that if they bloody our nose, then we will do what they want.

      I taught the bullies that back in grade school, and you know what? They did the same as the terrorists -- they continued to terrorize me.

      My mom taught me to "turn the other cheek." At thirty, she told me that teaching me that was one of her biggest mistakes in raising me. I'm glad she recognized it; it helps heal me. If I had instead been taught self-defense, and bloodied their noses back, I would have had a lot less difficulty growing up.

      Our country is growing up. We can't just keep turning the other cheek, much as certain religions espouse. In God we trust; and I do. But that doesn't mean sit back and let shit happen to you. You're in control of your destiny -- you can fight back.

      What's happening now to the US is very similar to the internal process I'm going through. In the last couple years I've begun fighting back, and I've made more friends and solved many of my previous problems. The "friends" part is very interesting -- Bush is using that word a lot in his speeches. Not "allies" -- "friends." That's closer to the heart, and is exactly the word George Lucas used to describe the rebels -- Darth Vader said something like "you and your friends will never win." Again, not "allies" -- perhaps this George took a cue card from another George?

      And it's interesting how that process works. You let people walk all over you, and they become your enemies. But if you teach them your boundaries, and you firmly defend those boundaries, then they will respect you and befriend you more often than not.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    239. Re:It is time... by Zeio · · Score: 2
      In response to the forefather-bashing know-it-all who trolled things out of context in my initial post, I shall include the following on Thomas Jefferson. (And I offer him the challenge of creating a new Unions more successful than the US, who, as Jefferson said, "All men are created equal...")(Next time - instead of committing libel try including your source)

      While it is true that Jefferson is portrayed in modern history classes as a white supremacist, a deist and a racist, this is, in fact, historical revisionism at its worst. Modern students of history ought to ignore their secular education and go straight to the facts. Students of a historical figure ought to research the character by reading the words of that man or woman themselves, not of secondary sources, as these often reflect the researcher's bias on a particular issue.

      Whenever The Forerunner highlights the character of a man or woman who has contributed to our nation's Christian heritage, we are never implying that the person was without fault. We are neither attempting to prove that America is the best nation on earth; nor that our founding fathers were better than those of other nations. We are merely trying to unearth America's Christian heritage which has been obscured by modern history textbooks.

      What do modern educators have to gain by distorting the true character of Thomas Jefferson? If we read the words of Jefferson himself, we find that he was silenced even in his own day. At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson revealed his frustration with the other American delegates for ratifying a document that, in his mind, should have been passed without debate. He also records that his clause condemning slavery was censured by the committee:

      "The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

      Jefferson's anti-slavery clause originally appeared under the list of grievances to the king of Great Britain: "He has waged cruel wars against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

      In further research, we were unable to find Jefferson's negative references to blacks. We found instead numerous quotes that tend to support the opposite view: "That all men are created equal." To Jefferson, inferiority was something imposed on a people; it is only tyranny or the enslaving of a race or gender that brings repression.

      For instance, on the subject of the treatment of Native American women by their men, Jefferson wrote: "The women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which places women in the enjoyment of their natural equality."

      Jefferson believed that if civilization were allowed to run its natural course, all races would achieve equality: "Before we condemn the Indians of this continent as wanting genius, we must consider that letters have not yet been introduced among them. Were we to compare them in their present state with the Europeans North of the Alps, when the Roman arms and arts first crossed those mountains, the comparison would be unequal ... How many good poets, how many able mathematicians, how many great inventors in arts or sciences had Europe North of the Alps then produced? And it was sixteen centuries after this before a Newton could be formed."

      It is true that Jefferson remained an agrarian aristocrat all his life and that his estate owned slaves, but he was a man ahead of his time. He always believed that if the citizens of our country were enlightened, that people of all races, male and female, would be entrusted with the blessings of liberty without hindrance by the federal government.

      SOURCES:

      The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. The text used here is from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. A.A. Lipscomb and A.E. Bergh 1903).

      Notes on the State of Virginia. Norton edition, edited by William Peden (1954).

      Ibid

      http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0203_Jeffers on_-_Who_was_.html

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    240. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not just the US who gets its energy and economy from that region, the entire *world* does, therefore it's in the intrest of all involved to stabilize the region.

    241. Re:It is time... by bartok · · Score: 0

      Bin Laden has no authority over anything that goes on in Saudi Arabia so that's why he's ignored. It's not even the same country. It's like Belgians saying they will bomb Canada if the US doesn't withdraw Mc Donald's in Russia.

    242. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I agree on the overdramatization of American news. I live in America, and almost every national and local news network develop clever catch phrases such as "AMERICA under ATTACK" and conjure up the drumbeat music every time a new development occurs.

    243. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell what this new policy of ours should look like? We, the world, are waiting for your reply.

    244. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you feel the same way when LA or NY goes up in a cloud of nuclear dust or a biological weapon of mass destruction. These people don't fight like you do they fight dirty.

    245. Re:It is time... by seanson22 · · Score: 1

      The only way I can respond to this incredibly foolish post is to reiterate a point Howard Zinn has made repeatedly. Times like these are when it is absolutely vital that we dissent, because right now it is more than the usual politics, it is now a matter of life and death. Afghan civilians will most likely die (or already have, reports are sketchy). This blurs if not eliminates the morality of our actions, making it once again even more vital that we stop and think about what our nation is doing. Even if you come to the conclusion that what we are doing is right, you should still look long and hard, and think deeply and critically before offering your blind (and it is blind, there is almost no information about the retaliatory actions except what we are getting from the U.S. government) support for military action.

    246. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      I doubt any Western European state would extradite any of their citizens without first seeing at least some shreds of evidence, and receiving assurances that their would be no capitol punishment (as required by the European Convention). Why should the Talibans?

      you do know that the taliban executes people for trivial offenses, right? These are hardly people who require strong proof and abhorr the death penalty.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    247. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      Violence is always wrong

      Well that pretty much invalidates any argument you can ever make on the topic of conflict.

      if you eliminate one option right off the bat, you are clearly not thinking things through.

      Personally, I hate fighting, and I hate violence. But if you come into my house and start killing my family, I'll fight you to my last breath. Feel free to consider me immoral...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    248. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      And bombing Afghanistan will?

      It will stop the ones they would have played a part in.

      We're not expecting 100% here. We're willing to comprimise. :)

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    249. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      I disagree - the Taliban was much more compromising than they usually are, but the US repeatedly and unequivocably stated that "our demands are not negotiable." It was the US that was unwilling to cooperate even in the slightest.


      I tell you what -- we'll compromise with the taliban.

      They can have him tried in a third country, and stay in power. But only if they give us back 3,000 of the dead people in NYC.

      See, we're willing to split the difference...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    250. Re:It is time... by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      I got picked on some in the 3rd grade. I "snapped" and beat the crap out of one of the guys who was tormenting me.

      By the time we got to high school, the two of us were friends and doubles partner's on the tennis team (which required very good, almost instinctive understanding of what the other guy is about to do). We joked about the incident a couple of times; I'm sure if I had let him and the other's "get away" with their teasing when they were just ignorant little kids then we would not have wound up as friends when we matured.

      Considering America's history of treating our old enemies from WW2 with respect and forgiveness, and Bush's emphasis on distinguising between the Afghan people and their leaders, I am very hopeful that within 5 years there will be a great deal of real friendship between the Afghani and American people. At least I hope so. They will be a very useful ally if we ever have a conflict with the ChiComs.

    251. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, the world has been a horrible place since the Unites States invented hate and misery. We really shouldn't have done that, everyone on earth was happy and smiling before 1776...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    252. Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      I think what you are pointing out is when the U.S. gets busy in other parts of the world, it pisses some people off. When it *cooperates* with the rest of the world, it doesn't attract to much hatred.

      I agree with your assesment that pulling out in response to terrorist acts encourages terrorism. My conclusion, though, is that we should be more careful about "exerting influence" without broad invitation -- with the expected result that we won't be asked, in one form or another, to go home.

      -Paul Komarek

    253. Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      It's funny to see you quote "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" when our Congress is outflanking the whole population. They're passing stupid legislation faster than we can become aware of it.

      -Paul Komarek

    254. Re:It is time... by COAngler · · Score: 1
      But the people of Afganistan are as much victims of their terror as we have been. They should be our allies in this, and any military action must be directed only at the Taliban and bin Laden, and must be accompanied by humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees in the area.



      What they really need is what's called "nation-building." I have a personal theory, that peace and prosperity in a society require, above all else, the rule of law, rather than of men. IOW, the law must be made supreme over the lawmakers. We've tried that here in the US, and it's worked more often than not. (Although I do mind one particular perjurer a couple-three years back...) Similarly, it seems to be working in the UK and the more stable nations on the European continent.



      They actually do have a religious tradition that implies some respect for democracy. I seem to remember, from a half-forgotten college class on the region, that the Islamic tradition includes a saying by the Prophet Muhammad that "the majority will not agree to error." Even though I doubt he meant universal suffrage the way that the US/UK/Continental Europe know it, that seems to me to be a clear signal that democracy wouldn't be completely foreign if sold in those terms.



      They'll need to come up with their own laws, obviously. Afghanistan is not Colorado, and so translating the Colorado Revised Statutes into Pashtu probably wouldn't be what they needed. But that's something that they need to do, so that people can actually have justifiable faith in a "system" beyond personal revenge. IMHO, that's a prerequisite for any lasting development. Despite the jokes we all make, settling disputes with lawyers is a lot more civilized than settling them with blood feuds.



      Secondly, we must allow the people of Afghanistan to decide the future course of their own country. Funding one militant group against another and setting up puppet governments is what got us into this situation (we funded the Taliban against the russians in the 80's),



      Minor nitpick: We funded EVERYONE in Afghanistan who wasn't wearing a Soviet uniform. That some of the training and money landed on the people who now call themselves "Taleban" is unfortunate, but at the time the alternative appeared far worse.



      and is in general why everyone in the middle east hates our meddling butts, and I don't blame them.



      Well, everyone except for the people we keep bailing out of things. I do believe the king of Kuwait was ready to blow President GHW Bush on the White House lawn back in 1991, and the Saudi royal family doesn't mind us that much. Or the current government of Egypt. Not many people there really love us, but I doubt that many of them genuinely hate us either. Remember P.J. O'Rourke's story about the militiaman in Beiruit who condemned the US as Satanic in one breath, and then said his life's dream was to take his children to Disneyland to ride on the spinning tea cups? I'd be willing to bet that this kind of duality is fairly common.



      The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.



      The problem there is, it's usually in the US' interests to promote democracy and support freely-elected governments. Israel is a pretty sad example, I'll grant you. The Shin Bet (Israeli secret police) are a bunch of thugs, almost as bad as the goddamn PRC's Armed People's Police, and an embarassment to what I see as a normally-honorable profession. They have some major problems with their government. But damn it, the entire region has so very few democracies (Egypt and Turkey being the only two I can name offhand) that the ones that do exist are worth supporting.



      Granted, shutting off the military aid wouldn't be such a bad thing, IMHO. Or at least using as a lever. "Hey, guys. You need to stop allowing torture in your prisons or this year's $3e9 goes to someone else."



      We must protect ourselves against terrorists. But NOT by manipulating and destroying the entire region of the world that hates us. If we're not extrememly careful in our actions, we will create far more enemies in the region than we have now.



      I actually agree. Ill-conceived action could alienate the allies we do have.



      We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.



      It's that whole "nation-building" thing again. Afghanistan needs real courts with real laws that were passed by a government with real consent from the governed. They need schools that teach something besides how to memorize the Koran and shoot an AK-47 (badly). And they need a real economy offering real goods and services that will bring in real money. Unfortunately, all they have is opium, and Golden Crescent opium (the variety grown in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan) is of very low quality. It's not capable of being refined for medical uses, and it's so poor that the heroin made from it just won't sell anywhere outside the region. It's bad enough when the entire economy is based upon drugs, but it's terrible when the entire economy is based upon drugs that no junkie in the US or Europe would touch.



      Frankly, I'm not sure what would work best for them. I'm not an economist, just a dumb-ass traffic cop somewhere in the western US. But maybe, in the distant future, after a generation of them have graduated from real schools with real educations, they can work that out for themselves.

    255. Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      It's also funny to see the quote "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." This makes me think of Israel, not the United States.

      Your comment about it being "clear" that the parent post was not American is extremely unjust. I don't agree with you, and I'm American. In fact, I agree more with the parent post than with yours. And next time, before you start quoting dead white Europeans as experts on what it means to be American, consider that they were more influenced by European cultures than by American "culture". If the author of the parent post is *not* American, it is conceiveable that he or she is more culturally and intellectually similar to Franklin and Jefferson than we are.

      Finally, your dichotemy "Pick a side, be with the free world and pro-civilization, or be against it" is false. I assert that this is just GW Bush pushing his stupidity on all of America. And just who *is* the free world? Switzerland has a real democracy, but we sure are not a real democracy. Who told the US they were "best and brightest beacon for freedom"? I think it was the US (well, GWB in particular, this time). It is difficult to nail down what it means to be "pro-civilization". In fact, I expect the US has far to few social programs to really be considered "pro-civilization". Think of our pathetic parental leave policies, vacation policies, health policies. Unelss, of course, you wish to define "pro-civilization" as "pro-wealthy-civilization". Allowing companies to give only two weeks of vacation per year is down right inhumane (and hence anti-social and not civilized).

      And how do you know that the Taliban is aiding and harboring terrorists? I agree that, given the evidence in Western media, this is a natural conclusion. Your opinion comes down to a matter of trust -- do you trust American Hollywood, English Hollywood, French Hollywood, ...? None of us Americans posting here really know anything about who is where doing what in Afghanistan (we'd be in FBI custody if we did ;-).

      I'm not suggesting that we should avoid having opinions. I'm suggesting we need to be very careful about what we think is true. We need to be very careful to understand what is motivating our decisions and actions. And if we want to impress the rest of the world, it's time we showed more sophistication than is evidenced by the remark "I am assuming this author is not American, and it is clear why."

      -Paul Komarek

    256. Re:It is time... by Zeio · · Score: 2

      I believe the progenitors of this system would know what to do with this situation, probably better than what is being done right now. In many of my previous posts here and in other places I have denounced this wave of sweeping and totally un-American legislation that is being passed in the shadows under the ill suited guise of anti-terrorism.

      I have faith in those who built the system, not in those who abuse it.

      My company is mostly resident aliens, as is my fiancée, so I am well aware of the grotesque legislation being passed (with regards to foreign nationals and other trash like the DMCA/SSSCA/DRM, etc.) and have taken the time to write a letter to both senators and my congressional representative realizing that there are those lawmakers here that would seize the opportunity of public vulnerability to undermine the public's will for personal gain, such as kickback from trash companies like Disney, Fox and Macrovision.

      Why was it funny to see my quote what I quote, Paul? Was it trying to insinuate some degree of hypocrisy or lack of forethought? Or was the use of a quote by someone whose legislation helped to create the most powerful and probably still the best nation on earth and drawing a parallel between that and the current set of lawmakers?

      I would never dare to say that this, the prowess of the US, will last forever, nor is the US always right and just. However, in formulating my initial response, I believe the reaction to what has happened from a military prospective is not entirely uncalled for.

      Be sure to read the entire thread to to see the prograssion of a given discussion.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    257. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      In a case like that, only an international tribunal can judge. Else this won't be fair. The jury will be the same as the accusation.


      great, now we just need to build an international court out of member countries who didn't have people die in the WTC.

      That pretty much eliminates every country on earth.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    258. Re:It is time... by Zeio · · Score: 2

      As to the eternal vigilance, I do honestly think that the proactive role the US played in defending itself from a Soviet invasion wasn't purely paranoia, or have you forgotten the Cuban Missile Crisis? Our preparation for war since 1945 until today has probably done a lot more to deter it from happening, not the converse.

      Well, I don't feel it is unjust. There were some sweeping statements made about America. I sought to negate most of the insinuations he made against the people of the US. No one here would presume to think that the evolution of this country was done in a vacuum and that a modicum of European influence did not play a role in the development of government here, in fact, it was quit the opposite. Your arguments seem to me to be more subterfuge than a concise disagreement with my posting, which is an opinion I do not share with the original author. Do you have a problem with my presentation, writing style, me, or my general viewpoint?

      Picking a side here is simply not false. Lots of countries leaderships have already done so; I refuse to believe it was done by force. Blair today said there was no doubt in his mind that the evidence is stacked right and proper. The typically pro-middle-east anti-US French are right there with us on this one, going so far as to offer troops in the last statement I saw Chirac make. Switzerland is a country of criminals in my estimation, or at least a government which serves on the criminal's behalf, while this is my opinion, I am entitled to it. Not picking a side lends itself to evil. Look at all the payouts the Swiss had to make for the Nazi gold scandals, hardly neutral. As well laundering money and harboring the assets of people wanted in the ~international~ circle. The have done much to help finance criminals.
      And this turning a blind eye completely to American foreign aid endeavors is preposterous. I listened to Pervez Mushareef tonight in the morning news conference in Islamabad. He summed it right up. When asked why he didn't resist the US in using its airspace against the Taliban which he had previously supported, he said some to this effect: "Environments change. Diplomacy endeavors change such as the environment changes. The only constant in international diplomacy is National Interest." From Pakistan to the US, the attitude is the same in every sovereign nation. National interest comes first. So it can be said of any given country it acts to some degree, selfishly.

      About the Taliban, Mujahideen, and other topics. I refuse to believe all of the reading I do in English is somehow all made up for my eyes. I tend to read news from foreign sources whenever possible, and to stay far from the television. I remember reading months before this happened a posting on K5 about the horrors of the Taliban. and if the were legitimate, why on earth would only UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognize them? I base by distaste for that regime on the U.N., who does not have a Taliban sitting in for Afghanistan on its council.

      I am suggesting I have an opinion. Judging on what people say for the most part leads me to believe most people don't read much, and watch a lot of television. I'm probably undereducated about the happenings of the 1900's, but I know from personal experience I know considerably more about the past than do most of my acquaintances. (on September 11th, a few of my friends refused to believe bin Laden was CIA backwash, I pointed out Rambo III as a secular example of who the US liked then and who was the enemy in the Hind helicopter.)

      I believe in the core ideology of the US. I think that the people who have their lives to lose and not their financial empire, such as myself, a simple, not rich person, believe in this. I know much has been done in the way of greed and whatnot. I think we stray from our core ideologies in foreign policy a lot and it looks really, really bad 10-20 years later.

      I do not believe in or endorse G.W. Bush, his family is riddled with corruption, but I'll save that for another day, right now, retaliation is called for, it is our right, and we are going to execute justice. Justice is to prune the Al-Queda branch for the terrorist tree. I just hope the UN can see eye to eye with the US/GB action here. I know the long term solutions to the terrorist tree lies in its roots, the ethnic and religious disputes such as Palestine and Kashmir that need a just resolution - and no amount of bombing and troop action will solve that.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    259. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      or is the real fear of being rightly accused?

      A judiciary is an arm of a government, and to have legitimacy, and secure the support of its people, a government has to give those people a stake they are comfortable with. We looked at the ICC, thought about it and us, and said, "no."

      We have that right, as does every nation, if representative government is an important thing. Someday, with some court, it will probably go differently. History is long, a first try is a first try, and the world does desperately need good institutions to stabilize international relations.

    260. Re:It is time... by freaq · · Score: 1

      Here's a newsflash for you: what happened on September 11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack on civilization.
      just a nitpick... _false_ to perform an attack on civilization requires, um, how exactly would you do that? it's a state of mind, not a thing, and is better performed with words than with loonie pilots. the best attack on ideas about happiness or civilization is living their contradiction in a happy/civil manner.
      ANALOGY: if i think worship involves twirling spoons around my ear, and someone breaks in and melts down all my silverware because their idea of worship involves spoons never going near hearing organs, they've attacked my cutlery, not my religion. they may have attacked my possessions _because_ of my beliefs, but they are not attacking my beliefs.
      my faith may be shaken, or not, but if i said they were attacking my (desired) state of mind, i would be wrong and i deserve an F on the pop quiz tomorrow. this doesn't change if, before/during/after the break-in, they told me it was being done because they were fans of smelting or because they were devout non-aural-spoonists. i'd still be mistaken, but i'd have the label of heretic within the Church of Non Per Ora Manual.
      if, however, they point out that the omniscient concavity of consumption (amen) would clearly never desire us to defile our pinnae with things that had once been in contact with germ-riddled mouths, for sterling's sake, well, that counts as an attack on my religion/worship/civilization. END ANALOGY (sleep dep makes me peculiar. sorry.)

      yes, the evidence exists; it is strong; and in any event, bin Laden's outrageous litany of past crimes make our response long overdue.
      if his past litany of crimes has been ignored until now, well, exactly. this is so way out there that i'm not sure how it can be reasoned with. hmm, what's the word i'm looking for? dictionary, (webster's revised 1913, DICT server), don't fail me now... pretext.
      not to say osama laden doesn't deserve a good whuppn, but at least be clear on the why part. the brits clearly stated right at the top of http://www.pm.gov.uk/text/evidence.htm that they're not dealing with evidence... i mean, come on, 5k+ people DIED, and what they say they want is to keep their current spy operatives in deep cover? why, i ask myself, is that? either (a) they've got some wicked-ass spies in deep cover that could hit the enter key for me if i missed it, and i wouldn't notice my error, (b) they have a hella, hella big bunch of spies all in some hella deep cover, (c) there's no evidence or (d) it is weak evidence.
      (a) farfetched. (b) improbable. (c) unlikely. (d) basing 'your' response on weak evidence is dumb. even if a prompt response is being raved for. i don't see blair (or bush's advisors) being that shortsighted. check your dictionary. btw, sell tulip futures short next week. trust me, i can't tell you why just now.

      I'd suggest you learn to deal with it, because that's the way the world's going to work from now on.
      nitpick...no, not a nitpick.
      FALSE. that's the way the world works _at_the_moment_. it's also the way the world will work until someone with a larger dose of political clout (and hopefully some sense) figures that the world might work better differently. let's see, keanu reeves? no, too cute to be taken seriously. and i've heard dogstar. natasia kinski? hmmm, not so high on the cute scale, intelligent, but i'd be wary of any dealings with her, i'd constantly be asking myself if i'm conceding some issue because i've always wanted to...oh sorry talking out loud.
      the long and short of it is that some influential politician or public figure will eventually step up to the plate to try and change things. that's been going on for millenia, the will to influence others has never been absent from humanity. heck, it might even be a change for the better. still, i'm going to exhale now.

      sorry about posting while dopey from sleep dep. why did i ever become a post-secondary student?

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
    261. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1
      you do know that the taliban executes people for trivial offenses, right? These are hardly people who require strong proof and abhorr the death penalty.

      Yes, I do know that. I don't think the things I mentioned would have changed anything either. The Talibans probably wouldn't have given up Bin Laden anyway. That said, I think the condition that the they hand over Bin Laden unconditionally was unfair.

    262. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Of course, a form of pacifism which implicitly depends on the existence of non-pacifist aggressors to do all the dirty work is pretty badly broken.

    263. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      So those police wouldn't use force in the arrest, of course... er, would they?

    264. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That mean that they've declared a war on YOU
      I think you have it completly backwards.
      They are just trying to protect their own country from a foreign aggressor. They have a different believe and ethics than you. Respect that. Work together with them, instead of trying to order/punish them like an animal.

      Many people here demonstrate how little they understand the ways of other people.

    265. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Violence is always wrong. Retribution is absolutely, always, unjustifiable.
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Diderot.

      Do you see just the slightest conflict here?

    266. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1
      The Taliban wanted us to give them the evidence so that they could try bin Laden in their own country. This cannot happen for three reasons.

      First, giving them evidence might compromise ongoing investigations. After all, we don't want them (al Qaeda) to know what we know, because it might help them to dodge us.

      It is indeed correct that handing over the evidence probably would have made the operation more difficult. Still, it's a risk worth taking. If they are to hand over Bin Laden and a number of their own citizens, they should at least be given the oppurtunity to review the evidence.

      Second, we cannot trust them to give him a fair trial. It would be a joke.

      True. That's why having a trial in a third country would be such a good idea. However, this was never an option considered by the US.

      Third, FUCK THEM.

      It indeed seems as if they are getting fucked at this very moment, so I will only respond to this by mentioning that there are as of yet, according to The Independent, no evidence made available to the public linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. The US claim they have such evidence, but they said the same when they blew up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which US officials later admitted were in error. Unfortunately, this does not bring back the civilians killed in the attack. I hope the "evidence" are more substancial this time.

    267. Re:It is time... by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1
      Secondly, Does any one of you have any evidence linking Osama/Taliban directly with the WTC attacks? I have been following the news pretty closely, and I don't see anything like that.

      Uhm, you haven't been following it very closely at all then. First of all, the guy who tried to blow up the world trade center some years back admitted that he was doing it for Bin Laden. There's plenty of evidence from that trial.

      Second of all, if you've been reading Bin Laden's own statements since the attack, you might notice that, while he hasn't directly taken credit for the attack, he's praised the attack and the attackers every time; the latest time he said "When God blessed one of the groups of Islam, vanguards of Islam, they destroyed America. I pray to God to elevate their status and bless them." He also said "There is America, hit by God in one of its softest spots. Its greatest buildings were destroyed, thank God for that. There is America, full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that."

      You might notice that he's the only person in the world publicly praising the mass murder of innocent New Yorkers and the only person publicly praising the hijackers for killing them. I find that fact suggestive.

      In his previous statement, Bin Laden vowed to take revenge "whereever there are Americans or Jews." This time he once again vowed "To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, peace be upon him."

      Read it for yourself (and watch Bin Laden on video) at

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/b ac kgrounders/binladen_speech011007.html

      I've been listening to the interviews that Terry Gross has doing with people who've interviewed Bin Ladin, his opposition and his supporters. I've read articles by Christifer Hitchens (who did some of those interviews) and I've read Bin Ladin's recent statements. All I can say is that after all this I'm sure the guy is guilty as hell.

      Rocky J. Squirrel

    268. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 2

      some effort of humanitarian aid is being made - and seeing as most of the world[']s aid is funded by the US in the first place.

      Ha! As any third-rate student of international finance will tell you, the flow of captial from the developed to undeveloped world is strictly negative - for every $1bn that is donated in 'aid', some 100 times as much is extracted in the form of interest payments on oversold, mistakenly-encumbering un-pay-able loans.

      To ask for justice is not conceit.

      Au contraire - to ask for 'justice' when absolute proof does not exist of the individual's involvemnt is missing, leaving only circumstantial evidence, is indeed conceit of the highest order - the 'we think this is so, so it must be the case' form.

      The comment about weapons stockpiles is just so laughable that I won't bother to reply.

      To give large loans and sums of money in the way of aid over many, many years starting with the Marshall Plan (how quickly history forgets), is not selfish.

      Oh, cut the crap. The sole reason for America 'giving' large amounts of money to other countries in order to rebuild them was not humanitarian (though it was politically useful to use this excuse at the time), it was good economic sense - you're not going to make any money through trade if everybody else is stuck in the stone age, because you either didn't help them fight against an overwhelming force for out-dated, introspective domestic political reasons, or carpet-bombed their foes into submission when you finally did. THe United States has made far more money, not to mention otherwise capital, out of such agreements. Also note that the Marshall Plan and its ilk were created, to an extent, to ward off the 'evil' of Communism - anything that Joe Bloggs in the street doesn't agree with just simple has to be wrong, now doesn't it?

      And judging on the US's political, economic and technological state in the world, it is hardly a nation of stupidity.

      Again, laughable, though this time I will respond - the comment was made as one applicable to the mob mentality of the United States, not their individual intelligence - living alone on a continent simplifies local politics to the extent that one would think that such a country could a afford to be more involved than others in more global affairs. The comment was directed at the long-term view of international politics in the US, which is akin to 'if we close our eyes and believe that they aren't there, then they cease to exist'.

      On a somewhat different note, I see that my original comment has been moderated as 5, Troll, which I find amusing. Of course, I'd prefer for it to be otherwise, but then, given the large, but certainly nt nearly exclusive, American readership that Slashdot has, I should have expected no more.

      --
      James F.
    269. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 2

      I confess - I'm not American (well, not quite - I'm British, which apparently makes me a citizen of the 51st state... ;-)). And, indeed, the comment about my culture being nearer to that of the abovementioned illuminaries was most touching. But then, your culture is but a bastardization of mine, so I suppose we are not so far apart. ;-)

      Further, I strongly agree with, well, all of this comment. I tip my hat to you, good Sir.

      --
      James F.
    270. Re:It is time... by lohen · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely the case that there will be nothing to rebuild. When Afghanistan was last at peace (1978) it was poor, certainly, but did have a decent agricultural output and a fair-sized tourist trade (from what I remember reading in the Philips Geographical Encyclopaedia anyway). I don't honestly expect that the second of these could be rebuilt anytime within the next ten years minimum, but doing something to restore the farms which the Soviets restored would be a step forward. It should also help a lot to restore the health infrastructure, roads, remove some of the massive amounts of landmines also left behind by the Soviets (tens of thousands of Afghans are injured or killed by these every year) and try to establish the rule of law and similar principles as delicately as possible. It won't be easy, and it will be expensive, but we cannot afford the destabilising effect of leaving the place in the shit as we did in 1989. Particularly with the current situation in Pakistan. It is in the West's interests to help these people, quite apart from the basic and powerful ethical considerations.

      --
      "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
    271. Re:It is time... by jesdynf · · Score: 1
      On a somewhat different note, I see that my original comment has been moderated as 5, Troll, which I find amusing. Of course, I'd prefer for it to be otherwise, but then, given the large, but certainly nt nearly exclusive, American readership that Slashdot has, I should have expected no more.

      You must be asserting that it was the wise, unbiased foreigners who granted you the +5 -- I can only assume it'd have to be plus five -- while the ignorant, grasping Americans bestowed upon you the lone Troll mark.

      Don't you find something inconsistent here? You made five, you got heard, quit your bitching.

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    272. Re:It is time... by Macrobe+101 · · Score: 1
      "Think about it, would the US extradite one of its own citizens without conclusive proof being offered?"

      Sometimes not even when conclusive proof is offered. Excerpt from a recent Guardian (UK) article by Arundhati Roy:

      From what is known about the location of Bin Laden and the living conditions in which he operates, it's entirely possible that he did not personally plan and carry out the attacks - that he is the inspirational figure, "the CEO of the holding company". The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is "non-negotiable".

      (While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs - can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?)

      I have to admit that I'd almost forgotten about Bhopal. Twice as many dead as the WTC bombing, albeit through (alleged) criminal corporate negligence, not terrorism. But I can see why India, definitely no friend to the Taliban, might perceive a slight double standard here...

    273. Re:It is time... by Macrobe+101 · · Score: 1
      "If you choose to not support your own country, then you choose to not support the system that gave you the freedom to choose whom you support. It is like taking the life of your own mother..."

      "My country, right or wrong" is a very dangerous song to sing. Democracy is meant to be guided by the will of the people. If you unfailingly support the government, regardless of what they do, then democracy becomes pointless.

      And, IMHO, it's even more important than usual to make your voice heard at times like this...

    274. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      The last time European countries were world powers, I don't think they did much better. If you don't believe me, visit Rhodesia and ask about the British.

      So sure, let's advance humankind. But seeing Europe sneer at us, from its seat on top of a basement full of century-old baby skulls, is just plain sickening.

    275. Re:It is time... by ariux · · Score: 1

      If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?

      Right on.

      Sure, but as the theory goes, though we, as a free people, do in fact have the right to commit national suicide by not fighting when attacked, and nobody can stop us from making that choice, etc., etc., nevertheless, we hopefully won't be stupid enough to actually do so.

    276. Re:It is time... by Flambergius · · Score: 1

      Many lessons can be learned from history.

      "People tend to dislike foreign armies on their soil. Unless the army is perceived to be a very friendly indeed, it will be asked to leave ... in one form or another."

      That could be one of those lessons ...

      Why shouldn't America leave from Saudi Arabia?

      Personally, I think you got your schoolyard-analogies wrong. America isn't the good kid being bullied here. America is the self-centered rich jock, that thinks himself better then others and, if need be, can beat up anyone that thinks otherwise.

      --Flam

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
    277. Re:It is time... by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      Speaking of the red cross, how can you accept the fact that the red cross is begging for money in whole world to help the vitcim of the WTC while the US governement throw out 20 billions $ to "punish" ben laden?

      Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world?

      Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.

      War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

      And why? What's the price for this? How many dead people? The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.

      Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo.
      That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?

    278. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      to ask for 'justice' when absolute proof does not exist of the individual's involvemnt is missing, leaving only circumstantial evidence, is indeed conceit of the highest order - the 'we think this is so, so it must be the case' form.

      If not insisting on "absolute proof" while pursuing justice is a conceit, then you are a hypocrite, having convicted America, and the developed world generally, on so many counts in your posts.

      THe United States has made far more money, not to mention otherwise capital, out of such agreements.

      Let me get this straight: you resent the USA because it spent $B to rebuild enemy nations so their populations could voluntarily choose to trade with most anyone they liked, and they chose the USA rather than, say, the prosperous nation of Bayurmanstan (fans of American country music though they be)??

      one would think that such a country could a afford to be more involved than others in more global affairs

      On the one hand, the US is evil because it is too involved in global affairs, on the other, it is unintelligent because it is insufficiently so. I get it now.

      Meanwhile, I put it to you that the US is demonstrably more involved with the affairs of freedom, such as engaging in trade, than any other country, given the international success of US-based companies compared to most any other. That US citizens don't sit around and whine about how their prescriptions for changing the global climate over the next 500 years aren't immediately adopted worldwide the way Europeans seem to is not, in my view, nearly as persuasive regarding their global awareness as the degree to which they successfully learn of the interests of those around the globe and demonstrate that learning through charity and free trade.

      given the large, but certainly nt nearly exclusive, American readership that Slashdot has, I should have expected no more.

      Ah, both a bigot and an elitist. You must be the life of the party where you live.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    279. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      People are innocent until proven guilty in court.

      Um, no, who taught you that nonsense?

      Maybe you're thinking that citizens of certain countries are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

      Even that isn't really true, in the USA at least. O.J. Simpson wasn't proven guilty, yet he was impoverished as a punishment, and that impoverishment was done by force. Had he liquidated his holdings prior to court and holed up with them in a cave, authorities would have, someday, used force to get him and his money out. All despite the fact he was never proven guilty in a court of law.

      In the case of bin Laden, even though he has been shown to be guilty in courts of law beyond a reasonable doubt, the problem is that of apprehension and the fact that there's no international court of law that has sufficient legitimacy in the eyes of both the West and those who follow bin Laden.

      That might explain, in case you're wondering, why the trial and conviction in a US court of law of those who perpetrated the 1993 WTC attacks did not dissuade their cohorts from trying again, years later -- because they don't respect our court system whatsoever.

      When you use a legal system like the US's or world's, you have to be sure that either a) the accused's comrades have some respect for it or b) its enforcement arm will be able to restrain them from showing their "disrespect" through violent action. Neither is the case here, any more than it has been the case in other situations in which the US has gone to war.

      So, you claim "WAR IS WRONG", but don't offer any rational basis by which its fundamental component -- violence -- can be avoided in the presence of those who are committed to its pursuit and unimpressed with the rulings of any judicial body.

      Change can come without violence.

      So, if you are about to be killed by someone, and I'm the only one that can stop it, and can stop it only by violence, I should just say to myself "change can come without violence" and leave you to your fate?

      You seem to confuse war with self-defense, the rights of self-government with the non-existent rights of governments, and so on, all in a severely anti-American, or at least elitist, manner. Hardly persuasive, IMO. Your ideals are, however, high, even if your approach to implementing them inadequately thought out.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    280. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      The claims by our government that we gave them a chance are complete and utter BS.

      Your sources for this claim?

      Alternatively, can you explain why every other government in the world (except maybe one or two, last I heard) has cut ties with the Taliban that you claim the US is lying about?

      IMO, either they all agree the Taliban had plenty of opportunity to Do The Right Thing and chose not to, or they're all such spineless blobs that they break off relations over -- what exactly?

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    281. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      Let's see. Bush declares a "Crusade" against terrorism. How does that translate to an Islam? As a Jihad!

      Your attempt to equate Islam with terrorism is unpersuasive to me, but you might encounter Muslims who resent it and make that resentment clear to you.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    282. Re:It is time... by karmawarrior · · Score: 2

      No, he's not. The proponent has proposed that the hippy will come back with the argument that war is bad because innocent people will die, which implies that he's not concerned about the deaths, or violence against, the guilty.

      There's a world of difference between hitting a person who has hit you, and dropping bombs on a nation where someone who has hit you resides. The former is a direct attack on a specific, guilty, individual. The latter is an attack that may hit the guilty, but is equally likely to hit the innocent.

      That's why the stereotype pot-smoking long haired hippy left wing student [stereotype? moi?] which riles our redneck friend so much would, if he were to implement the views of the proponent, attack the wife and neighbours too.

      That's the difference between a war and an arrest. Deal with it.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    283. Re:It is time... by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 1
      The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU.

      You're kidding, right? What you're saying is basically: "Let's declare war on them. If they then respond by declaring war on us, that means they're bad and that we are within our rights to destroy them".

      I'm not saying the U.S should not declare war (although I do think that they shouldn't), but that your argument is insane. Cause and effect, you know..

      --

      "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

    284. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      Was it unfair of us to demand japan's unconditional surrender at the end of WW2?

      We have a tendancy to be unconditional when we are attacked. Funny that way...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    285. Re:It is time... by NOC_Monkey · · Score: 1
      Speaking of the red cross, how can you accept the fact that the red cross is begging for money in whole world to help the vitcim of the WTC while the US governement throw out 20 billions $ to "punish" ben laden?

      Simple. The Red Cross is an organization whose goal is primarily humanitarian. The goal of the US government is to defend the interests of the citizens of the United States. Right now, it is in our interest to see that Al Qaida and the Taliban are punished for the acts of Sept. 11. At any rate - the projected cost of clearing the site of the WTC, providing for the survivors of the attack, and rebuilding is estimated to be over $100 billion - most of which will be borne by the US government in the form of disaster relief.

      Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.

      The US also used the manpower of millions of free men and women. Slavery was an atrocity. No argument. However, it has been extinct in the U.S. for over 150 years. The U.S. never established permanent colonies in Africa.

      The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.

      The reason for this war was to restore an allied government to power after their country was invaded. Would you have prefer it if we never came to the defence of any allied country? The choice was between two evils - allow Saddam Hussein to control the Kuwati oil fields and all future profits derived from them (thus funding his research into N/B/C weaponry), or return the non-Democratic but internationally-recognized and US-friendly Kuwati government to power. The U.S. (along with the Saudis, British, Germans, etc.) chose the lesser evil.

      That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?

      They used depleted-uranium weapons because that's what they had. The bombing of the Chinese embassy was a mistake, and the U.S. has admitted as much. Many mistakes were indeed made in the Kosovo bombings. However, they did achieve their stated goal - drive the Serbians out. As for the power plants, it is standard tactics to destroy the infrastructure of one's enemy. Perhaps I chose a bad example - Try this: Violence ended the violence of Napoleon's drive to conquer Europe.

      --
      -NOC Monkey (OOK!) Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you make it.
    286. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If there's anything the Taliban have proven over the last four weeks, it's that they're a bunch of lying sacks of shit. They can't keep their story straight and they won't play straight with anyone else. They have had one after another of their false statements exposed, such as "we don't know where he is," and "he could not have done this" exposed by "we now know where he is" and bin Ladin's own publicly broadcast tacit admission that it was his people who carried out the WTC attacks. My willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt has evaporated. Not only are they as responsible for this as if they flew the planes themselves, they don't even have the courage of their convictions to just stand there and say it.

      I am not one to advocate violent killing. I did not condone the violence in the Gulf. I thought the many bombing campaigns of the last decade were an atrocity. But this is not one of those. This was a direct assault on me. I could have been in that tower, on the day it was struck. This is an activity of self-defense. Other countries may sit and negotiate and patiently wait for the terrorists to be appeased. I think the time for appeasement is over. When it happened in other countries, I had that brief moment of concern, but since I've never been to those places I have a hard time identifying with it. Now that I know, now that I can feel that dread for myself, I am amazed that other nations put up with it. How can the people of Ireland go through their daily lives waiting for the next bomb? How can the Indians or the Isralis or just fucking anyone sit there and wait for something like this to happen?

    287. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you just said , "It's none of our business", and "we must commit resources to the region" in the same post. Sounds like you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

      Using your approach, you're right, we would never win a prolonged fight against guerillas. History shows that Guerillas only win if they have someone backing them. You do the math.

    288. Re:It is time... by Danse · · Score: 2

      Sources? There are no sources, because we never showed them the evidence. Show me a single statement from our government where they say they have shared their "compelling evidence" regarding the WTC attack with the Taliban. We've shared it with other countries' governments, but last I heard, it isn't public info and the Taliban said they weren't going to consider turning over bin Laden until they get to see the evidence. Now they probably won't turn him over anyway, but at least we would have given them the option.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    289. Re:It is time... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where bin Laden announces he will be hiring two private detectives to find the "real terrorists".

    290. Re:It is time... by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      interesting how americans are so sure of this... THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPOSURE OF EVIDENCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. How is it that you feel you can enact a sentance without a trail?


      The released videotape of bin Laden yesterday was, for all intents and purposes, a confession.


      He did it. He admits doing it. He's happy it was done. He says it will happen again.


      Guilty. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


      Now, vaporize him.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    291. Re:It is time... by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      The US is far more powerful than Bin Laden and his supporters, and I'm sure more Afghani civillians will be killed than were killed in the WTC.


      Really? Even the taliban itself reports less than two dozen deaths from last night's military actions (no word on what percentage of those were civilian).


      Do you really think that more than 6,000 Afghani civilians will be killed?


      Or has your "hate America first" attitude clouded your better judgement.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    292. Re:It is time... by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      Hate to shatter your preconceptions about your dear old pop, but your dad didn't write it, fella. It's been circulating around the internet for several days.

      More likely, someone sent it to your dad and he is taking credit for it.

      I bet he wrote the Canadian editorial from 1973 as well...and the Nostradamus quotes.

      Is your dad a script-kiddie too?

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    293. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope the "evidence" are more substancial this time.

      It is. He's on tape more or less tacitly giving approval to his subordinates for carrying out the attack. Not to mention that our "evidence" has been shown to several world leaders, who have indicated that it is quite enough to convict. To my surprise Bush isn't being a fool about this, and making sure he gets the court of world opinion in order before he goes to the sentencing phase. And by releasing that videotape on Egyptian TV (and yes, I've watched it), bin Laden has stepped up to the gallows and put his head in the noose. What I heard, coming out of his mouth, was a confession. I have no problem holding him to it.

      That's why having a trial in a third country would be such a good idea. However, this was never an option considered by the US.

      To my mind, this would be "terrorism as usual," which is to treat terrorists like some sort of protesters, when in reality terrorism on this scale cannot exist without nation-level support, and is being used in the same way military action would be used -- to force an opponent to yield. This the Taliban has given him. It is they who are reaping what they've sown at the moment.

    294. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 2

      Moderators: Please rate this as 'funny', not 'troll' - it really is quite hilarious. I don't mind at all being called a socialist freak, as it is obviosuly not meant - no sane person could even contemplate usage of such obviously infantile language. Believing that the United States has lasted for 500 years - indeed! Most amusing.

      --
      James F.
    295. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 2

      No no, quite the contrary - well, not really, but with a different emphasis: my remarks could quite easily, on minimal (unsatisfactory) inspection, be interpreted as a troll or flamebait, especially by someone whose emotions are not totally in check. This is entirely understandable, and I most certainly am not 'bitching'. But no matter.

      --
      James F.
    296. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The claims by our government that we gave them a chance are complete and utter BS.

      Why? We told them what we wanted. We wanted bin Ladin. We told them that there was a limited time for negotiation. The time passed. We did what we said we'd do. If the Taliban were just some disinterested party in this, it would be as you say. An unprovoked attack on a distant land. But they've been sheltering this guy, giving him aid, giving him a place to train his troops, and generally benefitting (or at least believing so) from his presence. Whether they call him their chief warlord or not is irrelevant. That's the status he holds. The time for getting formal and reasonable about this has passed. We are being attacked. We have to move to defend ourselves. We can hang ourselves on etiquette or protocol, or we can hang him. And don't forget the videotapes he's released. One before the attack, saying "something big" was coming, and how "easy it would be." And the other tape after the attack, which is as close to a confession as I need to hear.

      It's not relevant anymore what the Taliban wants or needs. They had the chance to choose. They chose this.

    297. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, am I to gather from this exchange that there are:
      1. two mimbletons, or
      2. two people who know the password to that account, or
      3. you are playing some sort of rhetorical game and forgot to log out as your "yin" account and log in to respond with your "yang" account, or
      4. you're schiziod and can't make up your mind what you think?

    298. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1
      We have a tendancy to be unconditional when we are attacked. Funny that way...

      Unconditional even when a small and reasonable gesture like letting the Talibans review the evidence could perhaps have led to a peaceful solution. Very funny, but not for the innocent civilians who are sure to die in the attacks.

      You will also notice how unconditionally becomes conditionally when terrorist cells are uncovered in Europe. I doubt we will see cruise missiles hitting targets in Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Vienna, Dublin, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Athens and Rome if the EU insists, as it is legally obliged to do, that it can't extradite anyone without some proof of guilt and an exemption from capitol punishment.

      I doubt any effort to find a peaceful solution, like say a trial in a third country, would have been successful when it comes to the Talibans. Yet, it would have been better to try all possible means of finding a peaceful way to bring the perpetrates to justice.

    299. Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight: you resent the USA because it spent $B to rebuild enemy nations[...]

      I most certainly do not 'resent' the United States - I merely wish they could be somewhat more enlightened as to the actual nature of global governance, and not so very convinced of 'their' way being the sole, correct, way.

      On the one hand, the US is evil because it is too involved in global affairs, on the other, it is unintelligent because it is insufficiently so.

      Oh, pish. I have never said that the United States is 'too' involved, but I do claim that a great many of the ways in which the United States does effect its ideologies are somewhat poorly sighted. That is all.

      Meanwhile, I put it to you that the US is demonstrably more involved with the affairs of freedom , such as engaging in trade,[...]

      Such as, say, Indonesia, which has benefitted greatly from Nike's 'trade'.

      than any other country, given the international success of US-based companies compared to most any other.

      Money. That's all you seem to think it boils down to, isn't it? Money. Pah! There are far more important things to think about. Such as happiness, lack of suffering, lack of poverty, etc.

      That US citizens don't sit around and whine about how their

      Funny thing, that. I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that the Kyoto protocol was written under the auspices of the United Nations (another body the US seems to take too lightly). Must be my memory playing up on me again. Ah well.

      [...]prescriptions for changing the global climate over the next 500 years

      Out by a magnitude of about 2 (have you people even heard of, oh, what's it called, El Nino?).

      [...]free trade.

      Unilateral free trade is, well, not 'free' at all.

      BTW, for a good book on the ways in which the United States' foreign policy beaurocracy is somewhat underwhelmingly useful, see Leon Sigal's book, Disarming Strangers, published by Princeton, about the process of forging (good) relations with North Korea some years ago.

      --
      James F.
    300. Re:It is time... by warmiak · · Score: 0

      "Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders. "

      Fuck you are stupid.
      This is understandable because you had never experienced anything worse than spanking from your mama or possibly some heat from bunch of bullies.
      You don't know how bad it is out there and you have no fucking idea how insecure your ass is in this world.

      "But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict. "

      You are truly stupid, I kid you not.
      I won't even go into why .. you won't understand anyway.

      --
      The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
    301. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a way to win an arguement. You sure told him.

    302. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone put a hold on this persons DNA, it's defective. Read some news sites.

      I've shat turds that have more substantial content than this!

      Thanks to those insightful posters who help to balance out stinkers like this one!

    303. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remember P.J. O'Rourke's story about the militiaman in Beiruit who condemned the US as Satanic in one breath, and then said his life's dream was to take his children to Disneyland to ride on the spinning tea cups?

      Judging from my other readings of his work, Mr. O'Rourke's story is probably apocryphal, or at least completely untrue. However, enough other examples exist (Taliban members with cell phones, and of course the drunken binges with lapdancers that reportedly were the last recreational activities of the supposedly "pure" holy warriors) that I can get with the general idea. Modern society has produced any number of these hypocritical pseudo-luddites, who want to take with one hand all of the advantages of technological modernity, while denying with the other the concepts of the "sinful" free-thinking society that produces them. It's terribly revealing to see how the Taliban think it's impure for everyone (except their chief officers) to use the Internet. What's really at issue is thought control and subjugation of their people by a bunch of fat cats who aspire to little more than their personal comfort and power.

    304. Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      It is very nice to have a reasonable discourse here on /.! A pleasant surprise which reminds me of the days when my user id was about average.

      I don't have a problem with you, your writing style, presentation, or general viewpoint. My main quarrel with your post was about your comment on it being "clear" that the other fellow wasn't American. I'm beginning to develop a chip on my shoulder about "American unity", which increasingly looks more like political steamrolling and public brainwashing. So I'm a bit sensitive about defining what it is to be American. This is also why I was stressing being aware of biases, especially in processing what we see in the media.

      None of what I've written was meant to be a personal attack (not to mention I don't know you ;-). By the way, where I've used the word "funny" in previous posts, I should have said "ironic". For what it is worth, I too am impressed with the writings and works of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al.. They created the most pragmatic and robust Constitution I'm aware of.

      Something interesting I learned about the Cuban Missle crisis: it was ended by negotiation, not "America standing firm." We agreed to pull our missles out of Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling back from Cuba. These negotiation were done secretly, and America got to propound the myth that by standing firm they prevailed. I've heard GWB use this myth in his speeches about terrorism.

      My opinions include:
      1) this whole situation sucks, and there aren't any good options
      2) military force is not wholly unreasonable, and thank goodness Colin Powell is available as a moderate (I never thought I'd be calling Powell a "dove", but I'm coming closer...)
      3) The Taliban are as stupid as our own stubborn leadership, as well as those of Israel and the Palestinians
      4) With some luck, we won't create to many more people that really hate the US.
      5) I have no idea what to do for the people we've already pissed off, but haven't attacked us (yet). I'm thinking about missle defense, being butts in China, pulling out of negotiations on international treaties that took many years to develop, not to mention the usual complaints about our economic colonizaiton of the world, but who haven't attacked us (yet).

      I've been afraid the GWB would start a war ever since he rolled into action (or inaction, depending on the issue) with his foreign policy. Well, here we are. And Americans are still being told bullshit about why we were attacked: "because we're the best and brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity". I believe this is complete crap. I think we were attacked by people boiling over with hate, encouraged by devils with money. These people didn't hate freedom and opportunity, they hated the USA for its actions.

      I believe that number 4) is the most important for counteracting terrorist acts against the US. Overall, it doesn't appear that our opinions are too far apart.

      -Paul Komarek

    305. Re:It is time... by StumpMan · · Score: 1

      That's right! We are americans! We don't fight back anymore. We are only concerned with how someone 'feels'.

      The best thing for the U.S. to do is to run away, and give the terrorists (wait, we are terrorists too?) what they want, and they will leave us alone.

      So they kill americans. We brought it on ourselves. If we would just listen to everyone else and do what they tell us, then they souldnt hurt us.

      (/sarcasm off)

    306. Re:It is time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . then, you and several of your neighbors who now have seen their homes burned to the ground, form a vigilante group and hunt down the hippies, and round them up and torture them to death.

      mmmm. cripsy peacenicks. Good eatin'!

    307. Re:It is time... by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      Unconditional even when a small and reasonable gesture like letting the Talibans review the evidence could perhaps have led to a peaceful solution

      Again, this has been said a million times, but we have provided evidence to the Taliban before on the extradition on bin Laden and they don't really care, regardless of what they say. they didn't hand him over for the WTC (the first time) or the USS Cole, or our embassy bombings. how many times do we have to put our intelligence sources at risk?

      You will also notice how unconditionally becomes conditionally when terrorist cells are uncovered in Europe

      You do realize the governments of europe are the ones finding the terrorists, right? if the Taliban was scouring the countryside for terrorists, we'd be more than happy to give them time and consideration. They are not simply being obstructionist, they are cooperating with the terrorists.

      The french governemnt and german governments are not supporting the terrorists on their soil (any more than the US government supported the terrorists on our soil who actually committed the attack). If a European government were financing and protecting a terrorist group, yes we would absolutely be holding them responsible.

      Another consideration is that European governments have always shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith on issues, and in such a case as extradition we would be willing to play it out because we know that is the case.

      There is no double standard, no matter how much apologists would like their to be. Most governments are simply willing to live up to the standard, while the Taliban is not.

      (please note that just a few short months ago, we were negotiating with China for the return of some US military crew members. We negotiated and did not attack because the Chinese were negotiating in good faith and we had no realistic fear that they would do anything to injure the crewmen or escalate the situation.)

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    308. Re:It is time... by jafac · · Score: 2

      This is what I don't get.

      If MOST followers of Islam believe that Jihad to demand violence is a bastardization - then where is the outcry of prominent Islamic leaders?

      These people should be heard from! They should be getting on Larry King Live and taking out ads in major newspapers, and appearing on TV or Radio wherever they can, and say:
      "Followers of Muhammed - Jihad is *not* justification for violence and killing, this is *not* a war of Christendom against Islam or vice-versa, it's a bunch of wacko fundamentalists twisting Allah's word to suit their own purposes."

      I know that at my Church, our pastor spent a half an hour talking about how Jerry Falwell was full of crap, and saying that "God allowed this to happen" was a bunch of baloney.
      I think that it's time for the more moderate (read: SANE) religious leaders of the world to take a stand against the extremist freaks - and remove them from legitimacy.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    309. Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      No, the aforementioned hippy is protesting against war. War is, by definition, an arbitrary attack on a people, not an attempt to grab a specific person to either put him on trial or kill him.

      The "Give Peace a Chance" crowd well understand that, no matter how many food drops are made, no matter how smart the missiles, the aim (and result) of this war is not to kill Bin Laden, but to intimidate those around him, whether they can help or not, so that they give him up. That intimidation is done by killing - sometimes killing soldiers of a government that shouldn't be shielding him, but sometimes by killing innocent bystanders.

      If this was some nice plan to grab Bin Laden and bring him to justice, it wouldn't be a war. It's that simple. You can't wage a war against one person.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    310. Re:It is time... by Zeio · · Score: 2

      Agreed about the comment on rare threaded intelligent discourses on /. , it is a welcome site.

      I too am sick of this blind unity. I get tired of this crying eagle velvet art, need a hug foundation stuff. I think there needs to be more of a debate as to what is going to happen next; not this unilateral blindness and reverence for the oh-so-sacred "Office of the President."

      Agreed on the Missile crisis; America had to knuckle under with regard to missiles in Turkey, and while Krushev was portrayed as a psychotic, he was probably doing what we would have done in the same situation given that they had to expend a far greater amount of resources to keep the superpowers in strategic check. Another notable thing about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that JFK was in a minority about not using force, and that he had to go 'against the grain' and try and opt for a less forceful solution.

      The whole situation does suck, and there will be no happy ending. This action will exacerbate the situation, bring into existence some series of events that would have taken place over a longer period of time without agitation. This can be good to find out who is doing this, this could be bad as certain kinds of attack the west may not be prepared to deal with effectively.

      The use of force is not unreasonable, I am very to sad to see Powell being sidelined. His more moderate approach to this may be a better way to go. It is noteworthy that Rumsfeld has been around since the Nixon days, so he may know what he is doing... This remains to be seen.

      With regards to the isolationist retard policy that has been eructated from Washington before all this happened, I hope that the US will act more like an equal player than an exempted behemoth. The missile defense shield underminds START treaties, which would, by START 4, almost eliminate Strategic Nuclear arms, and ABM doesn't protect against the "piper cub" problem; small plane, suitcase nuke or Bio Chem. aerosol, flying low, at night, possibly unmanned - no trillion dollar ABM can defend against that. Stageic arms have long been the threat, but in the last decade, rouge state attacks and terrorism and now the forerunners in our security problem. The Kyoto pullout was pure trash, the death penalty here is also trash, trying to piss off the Chinese by making demands on the EP3 and targeting them with strategic arms and telling the whole world about it isn't swift either.

      It all boils down to more participative foreign policy, less favoritism and more adherence do democratic principles (not the favor the dictator if he isn't a commie) and superior human intelligence - not carnivore and echelon systems that couldn't see this thing coming. (Or the rise of the two new nuclear states, India and Pakistan, both seemingly obtained nuclear capability overnight.)

      Nice talking on /. :)

      - Z

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    311. Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Here here! Nicely put on all accounts.

      -Paul Komarek

    312. Re:It is time... by mike_g · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely the case that there will be nothing to rebuild.

      I agree with you there, but the original poster was implying that by invading and helping them rebuild, we could effectively turn then into the next Germany or Japan. Rebuilding will definitely help the Afganistanies, but we would not be able to instantly turn Afganistan into a huge economic powerhouse. Unlike Japan and Germany, the infrastructure is just not there. I support aid to Afganistan, I just don't expect them to be able to support themselves for a very long time.

    313. Re:It is time... by JavaDuke · · Score: 1
      Your attempt to equate Islam with terrorism is unpersuasive to me

      Was that what I was trying to do?!? Damn, and I meant to equate Bush with terrorism.

      The point is that Bush declared a Jihad before the Taliban. Hell, I'm an American and I've been ashamed of that fact for quite some time now. All that has happened has allowed me to express that even more so.

      Americans and American sucks. I in know way think that it is a Democracy. The most offensive (you can take that in both its meanings) country on the face of this planet is the big ol' bad ugly bully USA. I just hope that what is happening will wake up the mass of sedated sleepy zombies from their dream/nightmare...

    314. Re:It is time... by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't quite call it forefather-bashing. Just kinda remining people that these peoples aren't gods. Have you read Loewen's Lies my teacher told me ? I Have to read it for my history class. (AP US History) So please, none of the historical revisionism argument. I hear it too much every day. In fact, our textbook, A People and A Nation (from whence I took the Jefferson quotation) is written with such criticism in mind. Another funny thing about Jefferson, is the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Knowledge" bit. John Locke had an interestingly similar frase...."Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property."

      A source for that? Just google it. Here's one I found quickly.

      Yes, true, Jefferson was a GREAT writer. The preamble to the Decl. of Ind. is quite great. And that idiocy of "creating a Union better then the U.S." is quite stupid. I never criticized American government, simply reminded you that the American forefathers are not as perfect as the textbooks make them out to be.

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

    315. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1
      It is. He's on tape more or less tacitly giving approval to his subordinates for carrying out the attack. Not to mention that our "evidence" has been shown to several world leaders, who have indicated that it is quite enough to convict. To my surprise Bush isn't being a fool about this, and making sure he gets the court of world opinion in order before he goes to the sentencing phase. And by releasing that videotape on Egyptian TV (and yes, I've watched it), bin Laden has stepped up to the gallows and put his head in the noose. What I heard, coming out of his mouth, was a confession. I have no problem holding him to it.

      You have no problem holding him to it. That does not mean that the evidence is anyhwere near conclusive. Rather, the evidence is inconclusive as The Economist recently pointed out. Even Tony Blair has admitted that the published evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The unpublished evidence may or may not be sufficient but we don't know that. It could be no more substancial than those used to justify the attack on what turned out to be a civilian target in Sudan.

      To my mind, this would be "terrorism as usual," which is to treat terrorists like some sort of protesters,

      In other words, you think it is better to sacrifice innocent civilians, like the UN personnel killed today in Afghanistan, than to hold a trial in a third country.

    316. Re:It is time... by akeb · · Score: 1
      Again, this has been said a million times, but we have provided evidence to the Taliban before on the extradition on bin Laden and they don't really care, regardless of what they say. they didn't hand him over for the WTC (the first time) or the USS Cole, or our embassy bombings. how many times do we have to put our intelligence sources at risk?

      No, there are no published evidence that conclusively binds Bin Laden, or any other person currently in Afghanistan, to any of the terrorist attacks you have mentioned. Nor have any unpublished evidence, to the best of my knowledge, ever been provided to the Talibans. If I am mistaken here, I would very much appreciate hard evidence that proves me wrong. Not the kind of evidence that Clinton thought was enough to justify the attack on Sudan's pharmaceutical factory.

      The french governemnt and german governments are not supporting the terrorists on their soil (any more than the US government supported the terrorists on our soil who actually committed the attack).

      If supporting terrorist means that the European governments wouldn't extradite any terrorist unconditionally, then yes, they are supporting terrorists. But I gather from the rest of your text that you take on a broader view, and claim that they aren't supporting terrorists since they act with force to stamp out terrorism at home and abroad. I have to agree with you that it certainly seems as if the Talibans are a bit behind on this point, to say the least.

      However, my argument is more hypothetical. If the Talibans were to change their mind, capture as many suspected terrorist as they can, and be ready to extradite them under reasonable conditions such as exemption from the death penalty, the west should welcome the change and try to find a peaceful solution. Stating, as Bush have, that the terrorist must be handed over unconditionally is unnecessary since there obviously are good conditions that could be imposed. War should always be avoided if good, peaceful alternatives, are available. They probably weren't in this case, but now we'll never know.

    317. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      Okay, sorry, I thought you were saying we gave the Taliban no opportunity to turn over bin Laden, which we obviously did (several weeks, during which their story changed various times).

      I agree, our government hasn't shared evidence regarding the WTC bombings with the Taliban.

      I disagree that there's a moral requirement that it do so to apprehend and try him.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    318. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      Let me get this straight: you resent the USA because it spent $B to rebuild enemy nations[...]

      I most certainly do not 'resent' the United States - I merely wish they could be somewhat more enlightened as to the actual nature of global governance, and not so very convinced of 'their' way being the sole, correct, way.

      The fact is, when someone pointed out that the US rebuilt countries and economies of vanquished enemies, you had to chime in and state that the US only did that because it expected to get the $$ back. You can only have done that because of your resentment of the US, given the fact that your argument was so irrational as to be laughable, which my comment illustrated.

      Further, you seem to have this strange notion that anyone has a good handle on the nature of "global governance" sufficient to deserve to exercise it. I disagree with that, and believe history demonstrates that the most dangerous mass-murderers of the world are exclusively those who claim to be "enlightened" about "global governance" as you do.

      On the one hand, the US is evil because it is too involved in global affairs, on the other, it is unintelligent because it is insufficiently so.

      Oh, pish. I have never said that the United States is 'too' involved, but I do claim that a great many of the ways in which the United States does effect its ideologies are somewhat poorly sighted. That is all.

      Thank you for your opinion. Of course, others like you state exactly what you say you've never claimed, so who are we to believe? And, besides, who are you to order us around? Are you perfect in how you effect your policies? Is your country's government perfect in how it does that? Meanwhile, for a country of our power, we're remarkably hesitant to order other people and nations around, relatively speaking to other historical examples, as far as I can see.

      Meanwhile, I put it to you that the US is demonstrably more involved with the affairs of freedom , such as engaging in trade,[...]

      Such as, say, Indonesia, which has benefitted greatly from Nike's 'trade'.

      What are you saying -- that Indonesia was forced to trade with Nike, that the workers never chose to work there but were forced to, a la the sort of slave labor that is typical under Communism?

      than any other country, given the international success of US-based companies compared to most any other.

      Money. That's all you seem to think it boils down to, isn't it? Money. Pah! There are far more important things to think about. Such as happiness, lack of suffering, lack of poverty, etc.

      You, my friend, are the one with "money" on the brain. I didn't mention it there -- I pointed out that when it came to free choice, worldwide, people would generally rather do business with the USA and Americans generally than most any other nation or peoples.

      Now, it's true that one measure used to arrive at that conclusion is monetary, but it's not the only measure -- look at immigration, e.g. where people try to get to, especially when they're fleeing for their lives from oppressive regimes.

      And, you can claim that the only reason people trade with us is "money", but, in that case, you're really saying they are only interested in money -- not me.

      Further, you listed "lack of poverty" as being more important than "money". Hey, I'll agree that money doesn't buy the first two items on your list -- happiness or even lack of suffering -- but I'm darned if I can't figure out how money fails to solve the problem of poverty. Seems to me everyone I know that has enough money isn't poor, but maybe that's just the result of my provincial thinking?

      That US citizens don't sit around and whine about how their

      Funny thing, that. I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that the Kyoto protocol was written under the auspices of the United Nations (another body the US seems to take too lightly). Must be my memory playing up on me again. Ah well.

      Dunno for sure what you're driving at, but, guessing that you are attempting to refute my point about Europeans promoting Kyoto at the expense of the "stupid" US President George W. Bush, it's irrelevant who wrote it.

      The fact was, and is, the European elite (mainly the governments and the press) entertain the massive self-delusion that they are the culmination of thousands of years of experience predicting and altering the global climate.

      If that wasn't the case, they surely wouldn't be so arrogant about the "stupidity" of Americans to not quickly sign on to an agreement that is, fundamentally, a fraud.

      [...]prescriptions for changing the global climate over the next 500 years

      Out by a magnitude of about 2 (have you people even heard of, oh, what's it called, El Nino?).

      If you're going to practice the art of oblique references, at least get it right, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. "Off" by a magnitude, I can guess at, but don't see the relevance -- whether 10, 100, 250, 500, or 1000 years, the belief they can predict, especially manipulate, the global climate over that time is a massive self-delusion.

      As far as El Nino, what that phenomenon, which substantially predates the sort of industrial activity the clueless blame for changes in global climate, has to do with your argument, I can't even begin to guess.

      [...]free trade.

      Unilateral free trade is, well, not 'free' at all.

      Depends on what you mean by "unilateral free trade" -- do you mean "we trade freely with whoever we like", or "we force everyone to trade freely"?

      The US practices neither, but tends to practice the best aspects of the former better than it does the worst aspects of the latter, compared to most other nations that have global economic significance.

      But I was getting at the more fundamental notion that the willing exchange of goods and services among individuals is a freedom that is crucial to global peace, and that the US, generally, promotes and demonstrates that kind of trade moreso than most nations. By so doing, its people mingle and cooperate with citizens of other nations in ways that could never be orchestrated by central governments, "global governance", and so on -- ways that are critical to encouraging understand across cultural boundaries.

      BTW, for a good book on the ways in which the United States' foreign policy beaurocracy is somewhat underwhelmingly useful, see Leon Sigal's book, Disarming Strangers, published by Princeton, about the process of forging (good) relations with North Korea some years ago.

      I'll try to get to it -- thanks for the recommendation.

      Note that I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy as you might be referring to it -- as being the policy of its government. I see that as merely one component of the larger system of global interrelations and interdependencies perhaps accurately characterized as "US global relations", which includes not just government, but non-profit (charity), church (religious), and corporate (business) relationships as well, most of which are conducted without direction by the Federal Government.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    319. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      The point is that Bush declared a Jihad before the Taliban

      No, he didn't. He made an unfortunate choice in using the word "crusade" under the circumstances, but I find your suggestion that Muslims interpreted his declaring a "crusade against terrorism" as being a "jihad", or Holy War, against Muslims to be tantamount to claiming that Muslims are too ignorant or stupid to understand words and their meanings.

      But, you go right ahead and assume many Muslims are stupid and ignorant, that they're right that Bush declared a jihad before the Taliban did, and that "Americans and America sucks", as you say (typos fixed for you free of charge).

      Then, if (or maybe when) an Islamic extremist government takes over the USA and takes charge of your life -- after they gain access to nuclear-missile weaponry, which seems inevitable at this point -- you can explain to them that you were on their side all along.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    320. Re:It is time... by JavaDuke · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'll try one last time.

      Crusade, translated, becomes Jihad. Hence, the translation of the phrase "crusade against terrorism" becomes "jihad against terrorism". If Bush had said "crusade against silly walks" it would become "jihad against silly walks". The point is that, when translated the word crusade becomes jihad. I didn't work this out myself, but was informed of this while listening to a professor of middle eastern studies (IIRC) on JJJ's morning show.

      It is not a reflection of my perception of a person's intelligence (I usually judge that based directly on a particular person's actions or lack thereof).

    321. Re:It is time... by cburley · · Score: 1
      Crusade, translated, becomes Jihad.

      Ah, I see. That's an unfortunate artifact of translation, apparently; certainly I knew, as an English-speaking American, that Bush did not, in any way, shape, or form, declare a "holy war" against Islam or even against terrorism. (Such a call would be nonsensical coming from the President of the USA; if he'd used the phrase "holy war", I'd have questioned his suitability for the job, since the US government is specifically designed to avoid representing itself, or anything it does, as "holy".)

      Now, looking at my (probably rather poor) dictionary, they "connect" only via their 2nd definitions. For "crusade" that's preferable to the first, which refers to the historical crusades against Muslims, but the second refers to a "remedial action" undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm.

      In that sense alone, Bush certainly used a correct word.

      However, while the 1st definition of "jihad" is "holy war" -- which I think the dictionary must have wrong, since I thought I'd heard the main definition was really "striving" -- the 2nd is, and I quote, "a crusade for a principle or belief".

      That's why Bush should have avoided the word -- it's too easy for someone to mistranslate.

      But it also suggests that anyone who translates Bush's use of "crusade" into "holy war" is deliberately inflamming tensions in an already touchy situation, since, while "crusade" can be translated "jihad", it should be made clear by the translator to refer to the specific form of that word that amounts to:

      A remedial action for a principle or belief undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm.

      That is, the word "crusade" apparently cannot be correctly translated into "holy war", except perhaps where it refers to the historical Crusades -- clearly not the situation here. A wise translator would, I think, avoid translating Bush's use of "crusade" into "jihad" at all, and choose another term instead -- if one is available in the target language.

      Again, I think you are overreacting, based on one man's translation, a translation chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to depict Bush (and perhaps the USA) in the worst possible light and aggravate tensions even further, perhaps to the brink of outright war between Islam and the West.

      Thankfully, most people, speaking in public, consciously choose to use the least inflammatory language available to translate the statements of others, because most people, I think, prefer to promote peace, not war.

      Given your sentiments regarding the US, I suppose I can understand why you chose a different approach.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    322. Re:It is time... by lohen · · Score: 1

      Which is all the more reason why they need an infrastructure, as quickly as possible. And they aren't going to get one without outside assistance of some kind. And by the way, the word's 'Afghans', hence 'Afghanistan' meaning, more or less 'country of the Afghans' - kinda like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan etc. Pakistan seems to be the rare exception in this, for some reason.

      --
      "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
    323. Re:It is time... by mazur · · Score: 1
      But from the surface, if you expect an ICC or an entity like it to be the supreme arbiter of such matters, the ensuing loss of sovereignty that the US as a nation could expect makes it politically unfeasible. Anything that would infringe on the US Supreme Court's role would effectively require US Constitutional amendments which would require 2/3rds majority in both houses of our congress, as well as approval by 3/4ths of our 50 states.

      Well, the systems are not at all that different, here in the Netherlands a change of the constitution takes 2/3 majority of both chambers and then again of the combined chambers. The big difference lies in the fact, that we don't have a head of state with extraordinary powers, if so granted by the parliaments. Those powers go to the cabinet, if granted, which is a groups of people. And with the International court of Justice, a similar institution, these problems did not arise. Why?

      I honestly feel a lot of the US/european popular citizenry political rifts come from poor European understanding of how our governmental systems work. Our heavy systems of checks and balances require for reaching changes such as constitutional amendments to take *years* for approval. Europeans should not have been aghast at Bush's views on Kyoto - a few years ago when the Senate (the upper body of our congress who controls the power to approve international treaties by a 2/3rds vote) took an incredibly unpositive view of it = it was effectively screwed in the US.

      That's a big difference between the UK and the US on one side, and the Netherlands on the other: the Netherlands is a truely multi-party country, whereas the US and the UK are in effect two party countries. So then, president Bush, representing not the majority in the country, but getting elected by a majority in the voting system, gets to nuke a necessary treaty, which is unpopular with certain rich parties, whom he likes and gets money from, and the planet can go to hell.

      We do not have a parliamentary system like the UK (I am not familiar enough on continental variances in parliamentary systems to adequately discuss) where the current sitting body can with a majority vote enact far reaching constitutional change. The US and Europe simply have far different ideas of soveriegnty. Although the average American has no idea as to what the European Union entails, I rest assured that they would be generally horrified at the type of far reaching powers that the EU is garnering.

      There lies the rub. Whereas we would not put all our faith in a single person at any time, having done so in the past with ofttimes unpleasant effect, we now sport monarchs with little or no say to any effect.

      But you say Americans would be afraid of the kind of powers the EU is garnering, but in what sense do they outreach the powers the US president can have? I grant you that the democratic content of the EU is still too low, but the European Union is still a child being born, like once the USA were born.And have no fear, that the democratic content will be insufficient when the child is there. We will brook no nonsene on that part.

      Anyhow, I wouldn't hold much stock in the Taliban's faith in international organizations:

      No, but that was not my point, the point was, that not all the peaceful paths had been taken. Also, the path of letting the more sensible Arab and/or muslim countries do the job, with help, seems to have been neglected.

      Stefan.

      --
      The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
  13. political stunt by Simm0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is just a basic political stunt.
    It's to tell the people of the world that hey they are actually doing something.
    About 98.5% of all work trying to penetrate deep into the terrorists heart will most definately be faught without a single bomb. This is a war of inteligence, eleet commandos, delta force, sas etc. The bombing is just to reassure the public that there actually doing something.

    1. Re:political stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is just a basic political stunt."

      No, what it is good military stratagy based on the assets you have on hand.

      Taking out the aging air defense systems is important. Attacking command and control systems is necessary. Sure it's debateable how effective it is but it is far more impartant than just a mere political stunt. Hell you may even get the other side to concede as the threat of strategic airstrikes that support your domestic enemies loom large.

      This is not to undermine the covert ops previously and currently going on. Please remeber that those groups go in really light though and the more softening up and downright crippling of the enemies moral you can inflict and heck maybe send them into disaray makes the job of those special ops forces easier.

      Look at the "gulf war" when mass group forces were finally deployed they faked left and moved right. Since you don't have the will to deploy massive ground forces it makes sense to use air support the best you can.

  14. philosophy by bkthomps · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind but umm, they deserve to burn, starve, have their women raped, etc.

    --
    "When all the buildings fall, pimpin still gone stand tall" - Ricky D
    1. Re:philosophy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They rape their own women. Their religion has to be the MOST oppressive towards women. The Taliban takes that to new depths even. Sorry, I dated a N.O.W. chick in college.

    2. Re:philosophy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The eye for an eye makes us both blind cliche is only true cyclopses (clyclopi?).

  15. Gulf War by Amit+J.+Patel · · Score: 1

    During the Gulf War we got some pretty optimistic reports about how well our targetting systems worked and how they only hit military targets. I wonder how this "war" will go.

    Can anyone here distinguish the night vision shown by CNN for the Taliban attack from the stuff shown for the Iraq attack? I guess Iraq had taller buildings.

    - Amit

    1. Re:Gulf War by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Considering that the US has called TV stations, water supplies etc. "military targets" (see Serbia...), I guess they'll kill many thousands of innocent people again before the Talibans flee and some US-backed dictator is installed...

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    2. Re:Gulf War by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

      That would be incredibly stupid. Part of the objective of this is to win over the Afghan public. Killing that many innocent civilians wouldn't put us in good standings with them. We're going to be as careful as possible to not kill any civilians.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    3. Re:Gulf War by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      Actually there was thousands of dead civilians in the gulf war. At least one "precision" cruise missile even hit the wrong country (Iran). And According to the WHO(World health organization) more than 500,000 innocent Iraki children has died because of the sanctions against Irak. And 6,000 more dies each month. (yes, approximately the same number that died in the terrorist acts against US)

      In Serbia just above 500 civilians where killed by the actual bombs. A lot more has died afterwards.

      This new war WILL kill a lot of innocent civilians. Due to draught the last two years in Afghanistan the people is in big need of food supplies from abroad. This has already been compromised as a lot of organisations have evacuated the area already. According to WHO about 240,000 innocent people are in severe danger of starving to death in the next two weeks if nothing is done.

      This war won't stop terrorism either. One of the reasons behind the terror attack was that US has been involved in wars like this before, like Irak and Sudan. So this will probably just make more terrorist acts happen.

      Don't let more innocent people die. Stop terrorism, stop the war.

      /Erik

      --
      Erik Dalén
    4. Re:Gulf War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. Out of all the militaries of the world the US has the best recent history of doing everything in reason to limit civilian casualties and to only attack military targets. We go to great lengths to develope precision guided weapons for this reason. I assure you of this because I am a member of the US Military. Even in those situation of "oblique" civilian casualties, the parent enemy country has always had a option of stopping whatever they were doing and cooperate to releave sanctions.

      At least the US doesn't directly target and attack 50,000 civilians with no clear military target. War is chaotic at best and the US certainly doesn't have a perfect track record, but it does go to great lengths to ensure that military targets are only struck and targeted.

      That said I have one question to all of those who insist on a soley peacefull resoltion: I constantly hear "NO WAR! NO WAR! NO WAR!" and maybe at times the negative effects of war, but I have yet hear a detailed and effective, logical, and well explained argument on what the world should do to subvert terror attack in the future.

    5. Re:Gulf War by greenrd · · Score: 2
      we got some pretty optimistic reports about how well our targetting systems worked and how they only hit military targets.

      This was a complete propaganda fabrication. For one thing the majority of the bombs dropped on Iraq weren't "smart bombs" at all - for another thing, of those that were, the success rate was appalling. Rarely have I seen the mainstream media report something so directly contradictory to the truth. It's usually more subtle distortions or ommissions.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    6. Re:Gulf War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading your posts, it's funny how everything pro-USA are "propaganda lies" and everything anti-USA are God's own truth.

      Did it ever occur to you that you're very selective in what you believe and disbelieve?

    7. Re:Gulf War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot, Saddam spent $millions not on food/care for the people , she spent all the money on more arms, weapons, so blame him 100%, not usa.

    8. Re:Gulf War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And According to the WHO(World health organization) more than 500,000 innocent Iraki children has died because of the sanctions against Irak. And 6,000 more dies each month. (yes, approximately the same number that died in the terrorist acts against US)

      And how much responsibility falls on the Iraqi government? They have the money and oil revenues to feed their people. (http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801. html)

    9. Re:Gulf War by greenrd · · Score: 1
      everything anti-USA are God's own truth.

      Don't be silly.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
  16. Innocent bystanders by drudd · · Score: 1, Troll

    If a single innocent Afganistan citizen is killed by our military actions, then we are no better than terrorists ourselves.

    Doug

    --
    Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    1. Re:Innocent bystanders by psych031337 · · Score: 1

      ... and the Taliban regime will take this western fear and show us buidlings bombed years ago with dead, blodoy kids they just killed themselves.

      --
      +++ath0
    2. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between deliberately trying to cause as many civilian casualties as possible, and accidentally killing innocent people when attacking military targets Both are bad, but they aren't morally equivalent.

      The Taliban are responsible for the safety of their citizens. They should have turned of Al Qaeda, or at least moved the civilian population away from their military targets.

    3. Re:Innocent bystanders by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Women in Afghanistan are willing to die for their rights. I'm sorry that a few civilians will die but they won't die in vein, hopefully a new good government will be instored in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Bin Laden will probably be unharmed.

    4. Re:Innocent bystanders by blixel · · Score: 1

      If a single innocent Afganistan citizen is killed by our military actions, then we are no better than terrorists ourselves.

      Not true. First of all we are responding to what they started. Secondly, we are not attacking innocent civilians like those cowards did. We are going after their terrorist camps, communication systems, weapon installations, etc... If one or two innocent civilians die in the process, that is sad but it's an acceptable loss all things considered. Go up to New York City at ground zero and try to find sympathy for the loss of one or two of their civilians in the midst of the 6,000+ we lost.

    5. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there is a huge difference here. If Bush was told 1 month before that the WTC would be bombed, and he repeatedly dismissed it and kept the buildings occupied, it would be just as much Bush's fault as whoever did the bombing. The taliban has had ample warning for the last month. If they still haven't listened and evacuated those buildings (you don't have to be a genius to figure what buildings would be targets), I think it is just as much the talibans fault. It would probably be more in the talibans nature to chain up some innocent women and kids in those buildings to create a public opinion in their favor. If innocent civilians are killed in this war, it only goes to show the talibans total lack of respect for human life.

    6. Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Redundant

      You're right, we are strictly targeting innocent civilians by attacking sites with no military significance, to instill fear and terror in the Afghani people.

      And we were no better than Germany when innocent civilians were killed by American bombing.

      And we were certainly no better than Saddam Hussein when he put civilians in buildings targeted by the U.S. so they would be killed by American attacks.

      And we are certainly engaging in terrorist activity when, after the Tabilan's air defenses are taken out that we will continue our history hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to the Afghani people by air dropping food and medicine to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have evacuated Kabul and other places.

      Go back to Saigon, Jane.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To use your logic, the following could also be said. We (terrorists) are sending USA a message, we are going after the corporations that support gov, economy of USA, the evil USA goverment itself, etc... If one or two (or 1000) innocent civilians die in the process, that is sad but it is an acceptable loss all things considered. No?

    8. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if a single innocent person in Europe had been killed in WW2, then we would be no better than the Nazis?

    9. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are free to move to the "winning" side if you want, I'm sure the Taliban would like another non-muslim head to decorate the sticks in Kabul.

      There is a difference between "us" and "them". If you don't see it, maybe you should move there, but I'm sure you won't because you are full of shit.

    10. Re:Innocent bystanders by WereTiger · · Score: 1

      Acceptable losses do exist.

      we don't have the technology to be so specific as to guarantee no innocent deaths.

      preferably the innocent afghanistans would have left the country already.

      --
      If you're hearing rhetoric about Linux, open source, or Mac and everyone's bashing Microsoft, you've found Slashdot.
    11. Re:Innocent bystanders by psavo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > And we are certainly engaging in terrorist activity when, after the Tabilan's air defenses are taken out that we will continue our history hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to the Afghani people by air dropping food and medicine to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have evacuated Kabul and other places.

      I bet you will continue your history of EXPLOITING people whose husbands, wives and shildren you've recently killed.

      Whose guy is GWB?

      I can't hear you!

      ..Still Don't hear you!

      Yes! Industry's GUY!

      Check out Bush's supportters, republican supporters. And that huge check they get from Arms industry.
      Why for?
      For War!

      Kill'em'All I say!

      GWB is Puppet. Puppet of industry of killing automatization.

      This is really sad. Who is benefitting from this? Those who lost their loves? Or those who just sold 5'000 $2M missiles to be stuck into camels arse?

      Put your thinking cap on, please.

      (oh yeah an please mod me down because you want everything USA to be so pretty!)

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    12. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic about Germany being bombed by America in WW2, but if you are: For the record, Dresdin was a wonderful "military" target, wasn't it?

    13. Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      (oh yeah an please mod me down because you want everything USA to be so pretty!)

      No, not pretty, just coherent.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    14. Re:Innocent bystanders by jacobito · · Score: 2

      I think you meant 'Hanoi,' wise guy.

      And way to bolster your argument by dropping a reference to the Vietnam War. Now there's an example of a morally justified military venture. Yeah, when I want to puff my chest with pride for Old Glory and Uncle Sam, I just run through the following list:
      - free-fire zones
      - defoliation
      - cluster bombs
      - napalm
      - strategic hamlets (look it up, you'll love it)
      - civilian massacres
      - the Plain of Jars
      - Ngo Dinh Diem, cancelled elections, and military coups
      And so on.

      I am thankful that I live in a country where criticism is permitted. A true patriot is thankful as well.

    15. Re:Innocent bystanders by corebreech · · Score: 1

      And we were certainly no better than Saddam Hussein when he put civilians in buildings targeted by the U.S. so they would be killed by American attacks.

      This is hysterical!

      Do you really believe this?

      We bomb Iraq's largest city, one that is full of civilians, and you want us to believe that Hussein had them bussed in to die?

      I suppose he also ordered families around his country to have as many babies as possible so that our sanctions would cause the greatest amount of death too!

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    16. Re:Innocent bystanders by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      To use your logic, the following could also be said. We (terrorists) are sending USA a message, we are going after the corporations that support gov, economy of USA, the evil USA goverment itself, etc... If one or two (or 1000) innocent civilians die in the process, that is sad but it is an acceptable loss all things considered. No?


      Absolutely. And when your enemy (the US) retaliates please refrain from whining about how unfair and uncivilized it is. The terrorists struck to elicit a response from the US. Here it is. TAKE COVER...

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    17. Re:Innocent bystanders by Oggust · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for him, but I believe it.

      It's pretty well documented. The facility was military, and the fact that it had civiliand in it means that iraq broke several important rules of war.

      Also, that behavior is consistent with the iraqi way of using captured soldiers as "human shields", and with the placement of military assets right next to important archeological sites.

      Look it up. I'm sure it's on www.fas.org somewhere.

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    18. Re:Innocent bystanders by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      ultimate_answer_t deep_thought( void ) { sleep( years2secs( 7500000 ) ); return 42; }

      I hope you have a 64bit cpu..:)

    19. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although in general I agree with this stand (i.e.,
      no civilian casualties in war) it doesn't stand
      in _this_ endeavour:

      Just the fact that the U.N. aid program can't
      feed the Afghan's anymore takes a higher death
      toll than those attacks.

      This is all not very new. I recall that after the
      Gulf war, statisticians calculated that for the
      age group of Americans involved, it was actually
      *safer* to go to war than to stay at home and be
      killed in car accidents and the like ...

      Toon Moene.

    20. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    21. Re:Innocent bystanders by greenrd · · Score: 2
      The facility was military, and the fact that it had civiliand in it means that iraq broke several important rules of war.

      Sorry, I've lost you here. Which facility? Are you talking about the civilian bomb shelter?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    22. Re:Innocent bystanders by corebreech · · Score: 1

      It's pretty well documented.

      By who? Us?

      Friend, this is propaganda. When innocent civilians die as a direct result of actions we take it is seen as being harmful to national security because it reduces the political support this and future military missions might enjoy.

      So we lie about the casualties. So we can be free to create more in the future.

      I'm not a pacifist about this... there are times when casualties can't be avoided. But then too, there are times when they can.

      National security is not strengthed when we create enemies for ourselves, which is exactly what happens when we kill unnecessarily.

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    23. Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Taken out of context, yes, it looks pretty bad. Taken within the context of total war against an enemy that very nearly won (and systematically slaughtered something like 10,000,000 anyway), it looks a little different.

      If you are equating that with the WTC attacks, then you've got some serious perspective problems.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    24. Re:Innocent bystanders by Oggust · · Score: 1
      I'm talking about the "Amiriya" (spelling varies) facility, which was one out of two really bad events where a lot of civilians got killed.

      (The other one was the brits aiming for a bridge but hitting some kind of market, IIRC, but I'm not sure.)

      I figured I'd research this some more but I couldn't find the old documents, and google is down. Hmm, there's some stuff on www.fas.org, but it's not really conclusive. The best one is probably this one but do search around.

      I guess we won't really know until in a few years when they declassify the signals intelligence they claim to have.

      Also, it does seem in line with the other propaganda that came out of baghdad during the war. Remember the recycled footage of civilian casualties from the Iran-Iraq war, and the dismanteled mosque that they claimed had been bombed (and that one I'm sure I've seen pictures of.)

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    25. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmm...no. You see the difference is - *we warned them first*. Terrorism is a secret act - you sneak up and kill a lot of innocent people 'cause you think that will somehow help your cause.

      What do you propose instead? A nasty letter from the attorney general?

    26. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit! Obviously you have not seen the video of the Taliban executing their citizens in public stadiums because they spoke out about the atrocities they commit. Acceptable losses is the thousands - on both sides. We will do what it takes to exterminate these cancers on our world. These people are sick, don't care what you think, and could care less if innocent people around them are killed. You kill fire with fire, and that is what we will do. Fuck the Taliban, fuck binladen, and screw all these terrorists. They are marked for death - which is a punishment that is too good them. They should be skinned and eaten by cockroaches. If you are another Hanoi Jane, you need to move to Afganistan. How the hell do you think you are free to spew your stupid comments - it's because you live in a free society you dumb fuck, and it's free because people fought and died so they could live that way. I respect your right to voice your opinion, but my opinion is that you are just a stupid dumbfuck.

    27. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice thing to say if it happens a few thousand miles from your bed. Would you be willing to sacrifice your wife and kids ? Just asume that : you live and they die 'for the good cause'.

    28. Re:Innocent bystanders by ariux · · Score: 1

      preferably the innocent afghanistans would have left the country already.

      There are 27 million Afghans. Do you think they all can leave?

    29. Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Darn! I hate it when I try to make a smart-ass comment and get it wrong.

      Your points about VietNam are good and well-taken. I never said the U.S. was blameless, but I do think the original poster was being, how to put this diplomatically, an idiot.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    30. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That already happened to 6000 families here jackoff. How long is your short term memory? Obviously not as long as 3 weeks.

    31. Re:Innocent bystanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the video of the taliban shooting a woman in the head in the middle of the soccer stadium? Do you know it was done because she got a divorce? If we kill 100 Afgans while destroying the taliban, then we may have saved 1000 afgans from the torture and pain that they live with now. To say that the USA is just as bad as terrorists would mean that we took 400 innocent plane passengers and smashed them into 6000 innocent people in buildings. That would make us egual. If you listen to the propaganda that the taliban is spewing and believe it, then leave the country now. Or better yet, go into a VFW hall and say that everyone there is a baby killer. Sure they are all 60-80 years old but they can still kick your piddly ass.

  17. Bombing by fenrin_42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    As a /.'er in the Navy, I say "About damn time."
    We needed to do something other then look like we are sitting here twiddling our thumbs.

    1. Re:Bombing by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

      I agree with this. When it comes to killing a whole bunch of people, it's important to make sure everyone can see. That's why civilised countries such as the U.S. allow friends and family to come along and witness executions, while heathen places like Iran have public executions, because they are barbaric and backward.

      The other good thing about modern bombs, is that you can film them. Then you give CNN the footage of all the bombs that hit, and throw away the footage of all the bombs that miss and fall on houses and hospitals and stuff. That way, you ensure that all the bombs hit.

      Finally, when you have bombed all the stuff in the country you install your own regime. The great thing here is that the new regime awards all the re-buidling contracts to American companies!

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    2. Re:Bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all so that fat asses such as yourself can have more food to eat and a fancy little comfy environment to live in... Show some gratitude you bastard! Maybe then yes, you'll be able to buy that new computer system you've been drooling over! Yes, you of all people should be thanking our government for both your freedom and your spoiled lifestyle!

    3. Re:Bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, people are executed for doing things like blowing up a Federal Building.

      In Iraq, people are killed for taking Saddam's brother's parking space, or naming their dog "Jesus".

      See the difference?

    4. Re:Bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is up with the moderation on this thread? Are the Taliban moderating? Seriously.

    5. Re:Bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is your problem man? Why do you hate the US so much? Granted, the US makes lots of stupid decisions, but what government does not? Besides, what's wrong with executing people? They made a choice, they knew the consequences, they deal with them. You can't protect everybody from themselves. Let stupid people do stupid things and eventually their Maker will take them back and try again.

    6. Re:Bombing by fenrin_42 · · Score: 0

      First off, Cruise missles do not miss. There is actual video footage during the Gulf war of a huge number of cruise missles flying straight over a reporters head in the middle of town, comming to an intersection, and making the turn around the corner. It is one of the most advanced navigation system on the planet.

      Second it is not America's policy to enforce their own choice of government. As long as it is not Communism, and they respect other nations, we really dont care what government they have. Gulf War gave the government back to the elected officles and away from the dictator.
      Government is not the threat, it is the individuals that belive they are outside all laws, and do what they damn well please. Terriosm is such an instance.
      THis attack was on air defence systems and perminate instilations of known terriosm. All their "training camps" and the sort. Destroy their foundation, and they will be forced to try and rebuild with little time, and little resources. Not to mention we will be able to see any type of rebuilding. This is just the beginning. Setting up a "beach head" of sorts so we can go in their and exact and enforce justice.

  18. Re:It is time for you to realize by Husaria · · Score: 0

    Firstly, Bin Laden did shit to the US, not Afghanistan, therefore, by international law, he must be extradited to the US and not tried by the Taliban, by international law.
    What the Taliban offers goes against the norm.

    --
    Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
  19. Uh oh... by metlin · · Score: 3, Informative

    The markets in the Asian region (India/Pakistan) are gonna plummet now.

    I hope the US realises that this is going to impact more than just one country, given the existing state of recession.

    Infact, the markets here (Bombay Stock Exchange) seem to respond more to NSE & Dowjones than anyother indices =)

    1. Re:Uh oh... by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

      Yeah. I for one am very concerned that we will bomb all the Nike factories by mistake (because they look like training camps) and my shoes will cost more. That would really suck.

      Foreign policy in that part of the world is a very fine balancing act. You have to keep them all poor enough that they will make your shoes and clothes for hardly any money, but rich enough that they can afford Coke and Malboro! It's not as easy as it sounds! Also, if they get too rich they might send money to terrorist organisations, but if they get too poor their lives might start to suck so much they don't mind blowing themselves up in suicide attacks.

      It's a very tricky problem, but, on balance I think we are right to bomb them a bit, because they bombed us a bit earlier.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    2. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing terrorists is bad for the economy? Yeah right.

    3. Re:Uh oh... by mrbkap · · Score: 1

      I think that this will actually help the economy, even if not a lot. The last time the USA was in a recession and went into war, it came out as the strongest power on the world. Hopefully this will unify the nations and bring everybody's economy back up again.

      --
      -mrbkap
    4. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plummet from what? a total market capitilization of $42 to $14?

      landsend.com has afghans on sale for $29 ... time for me to get some cheap labor

    5. Re:Uh oh... by jkujawa · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd bomb Nike headquarters.

    6. Re:Uh oh... by metlin · · Score: 1

      Dude, I agree with what you say, but I think you are missing a few important points.

      This bombing will affect a whole lot of other things - not everyone in Afghanistan is a terrorist. And secondly, I completely agree that this region is difficult to handle. But again, something like this attack has more potential to cause unwanted damages in more ways than one, the crashing of the stock markets being one.

      Here in India, most of the IT companies get outsourced projects from US/Europe. Already this attack has dealt a bad blow to the economy. With the impending doom of the attack, stocks have been bloody jittery for the past one month.

      And do not forget the oil producing nations! You never know which side they are on, and given the falling oil prices, you never know how they will react.

      And as always, the nations in this regions will have to endure more than anywhere else, given the geographical locations.

    7. Re:Uh oh... by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

      what the fuck? people are going to fucking die.
      *Innocent* people are going to die and all you can
      think about is your goddamn wallet? I thought all
      of the "Nuke the middle east to hell" people were
      bad, but you are just fucking sick.

    8. Re:Uh oh... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I'll kill the poster that made you mad for 10$

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    9. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I think your tin foil hat is a little too tight.

    10. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll kill you and your post's parent for free.

    11. Re:Uh oh... by Carter+Butts · · Score: 1

      think that this will actually help the economy, even if not a lot. The last time the USA was in a recession and went into war, it came out as the strongest power on the world. Hopefully this will unify the nations and bring everybody's economy back up again.


      Unlikely. In the former occasion, the US had a largely industrial economy; hence, the diversion of production to wartime needs was not as painful as it might have been, and the subsequent investment in production facilities was at least partially recoverable afterwards. We now have a service economy....disruptions in production/consumption patterns experienced during WWII would (I would imagine) be quite catastrophic to today's ecology of firms. Mess with the metaphorical trophic system badly enough (e.g., by making large classes of service/leisure goods difficult to supply or consume) and you're going to see a lot of firm mortality. If nothing else, that's going to create a lot of lost social capital, not to mention pretty serious shocks to the labor market....


      And that doesn't even begin to get into the deadweight losses associated with interventions like price fixing, rationing, etc. which accompanied the WWII wartime economy in the US.


      I'm not an economist, so you should check with someone who has studied the problem in more detail. I would be very suspicious, however, of any claims for the economic "benefits" of full-on war which do not factor in the production mix of the society in question.


      -Carter

    12. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really annoying when people say "Asian" when they really mean Indian/Pakistan.

    13. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post EVER.. mod this up!

    14. Re:Uh oh... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Damn free market system!

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  20. Where From? by Bluesee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't seen the news yet, but from what platform are they attacking? I saw the leader of uzbekistan saying that absolutely no tropp transports or fighter/bombers will be allowed to stage from their airfield, but humanitarian ons could.

    --
    SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    1. Re:Where From? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      I heard someone on NPR make the good poitn that that probably won't really last that long. Come on, this is the US we're talking about. They'll use Uzbekistan for whatever they damn well please.

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    2. Re:Where From? by weeeee · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are attacking with B2's from the States, B-52's and B-2's from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and with Tomahawks from Navy ships.

      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.

    3. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.

      Bond, James Bond.
    4. Re:Where From? by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      Early word from CNN right now is that these are likely sea-launced cruise missles coming from US and UK ships/subs in the Arabian sea. Given to 1000 mile range of these weapons, seems a likely assumption.

    5. Re:Where From? by roll_w.it · · Score: 1
      from fox

      U.S. aircraft were spotted in Uzbekistan on Sunday, a day after the country's president permitted U.S. warplanes and troops to use an Uzbek air base for any military operations against Afghanistan.

    6. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Austin Powers, baby!

    7. Re:Where From? by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1
      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.

      Im sure they have a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.

    8. Re:Where From? by cymen · · Score: 2

      I heard someone on NPR make the good poitn that that probably won't really last that long. Come on, this is the US we're talking about. They'll use Uzbekistan for whatever they damn well please.

      To me it is obvious that Uzbekistan would make it clear that they agreed to only allowing humanitarian uses of the base but when push comes to shove the US might need to use it for other purposes. Then Uzbekistan can say they didn't authorize or agree with the non-humanitarian missions and the US will get all the blame. Perfect! Everybody is happy. Isn't it obvious that is how it works? Uzbekistan just doesn't want to get into hot water by looking too US friendly.

    9. Re:Where From? by faichai · · Score: 1

      The British are launching cruise missiles from submarines, air support is to follow in the next few days.

    10. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't recognize a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Cunning plans are here again'.

    11. Re:Where From? by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      >Then Uzbekistan can say they didn't authorize or agree with the non-humanitarian missions and the US will get all the blame.

      Yeah, except the Taliban have already promised to treat Uzbekistan the same way they treated those who cooperated with the Russians.

      IIRC, they castrated those guys and dragged then through the streets.

      "But, we told them they could only launch rescue missions from our soil. We told them they were not to launch attacks. They agreed but then went ahead and launched commando raids from our bases *without* our permission!"

      "You dog, you should not have made the deal with the satan in the first place. Now we will visit the wrath of Alah upon you and your families!"

      Nope, I don't think that would work.

    12. Re:Where From? by cymen · · Score: 2

      It isn't only the Taliban that Uzbekistan would be concerned with...

    13. Re:Where From? by epsalon · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the news yet, but from what platform are they attacking?


      Right... Are they attacking from Linux? From Solaris? Or, God forbid, from Windows?

      --

      Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org

    14. Re:Where From? by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.


      Submarines. The british are equipped with Cruise Missiles designed to be fired from submarines.
      --
      +++ath0
    15. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries... They've downloaded Update Notification apps for all of the Windows boxes.

    16. Re:Where From? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      I'd say you make a valid point.

      One or the other, the US is used to getting its way.

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    17. Re:Where From? by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

      Oh no! Somebody accidentally embedded the auto-nuke-self-destruct macro into their powerpoint presentation. Now it's launching without a warning. Take cover...Bill's finally defeated the U.S. government.

      --
      Yes! That guy!
    18. Re:Where From? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using

      Stiff upper lips.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:Where From? by dunkerz · · Score: 1

      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.

      Royal Navy cruise missiles. There are a couple British (if not more) aircraft carriers, and a few submarines.

      --

      You were expecting a sig?
    20. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're bombing from Missouri with long range B2 stealth bombers. I don't know what sort of arm-twisting and diplomatic concessions Bush had to make, but this is war, folks, and we gotta do what we gotta do.

    21. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Blair and Bush said that France, Germany, Australia and Canada are also providing support.

      My guess is that the Aussies, Canadians, and Germans are bringing the beer, while the French are bringing an attitude.

    22. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.


      They are throwing pictures of Royal family at them, trying to scare the shit out of Afghans...

    23. Re:Where From? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2

      They're sending over 5,000 kippers, some spotted dick and 400 episodes of The Vicar of Dibley. Surrender is expected any day now...

    24. Re:Where From? by ckedge · · Score: 1


      B2's may possibly be flying all the way from the US, like they did for the Kosovo strikes.

      All the way around the world and back. Wouldn't want to be those pilots. Hell of a long trip at subsonic speeds.

    25. Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B2s out of Whitmon AFB in Missouri, B52s and B1Bs out of I dunno, supposedly a total of 15 bombers and 25 or so carrier based attack aircraft including EA6B Prowlers to pave the way. 50 Tomahawks from a variety of platforms, including two British submarines. The B2s may or may not be overnighting at Diego Garcia (a British island in the Indian Ocean), but comments by Donald Rumsfeld and one of the generals (I can't remember his name offhand) seem to indicate they're returning to Whitmon AFB in a marathon 33 hour flight made possible by 6 midair refuelings.

  21. Same ol' same old by sane? · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Looks like they are playing the same old gameplan. Knock out comms and power, limit government control, pick up the pieces and attempt to win hearts and minds.

    Question is, what will the response be?

    I'd expect the Arab countries to close ranks, to say that this is the end, not the beginning. I'd expect pictures of civilian dead. And I'd expect another type of strike back - another 'terrorist' attack, probably outside the US.

    Just how do you win a war against an idea, one that can survive the death of any one person?

    1. Re:Same ol' same old by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're right, but what solution do you propose?

    2. Re:Same ol' same old by sane? · · Score: 1
      Turning the other cheek doesn't work.

      Fighting won't either.

      Basically what's needed is more imagination. Support the afghan people, supply food, ignore the Talaban, say that you don't accept their legitimacy......and send in the Special Forces to find and remove the key individuals.

      Above all, appear to the rest of the Arab world as a country that doesn't need to play silly games, one that is something to be looked up to rather than down upon. And one not to be underestimated.

      The unfortunate reality is that everything the US is doing is predictable, and almost certainly HAS been predicted. Hence the response will already be in place.

      I fear the US may win the battle and lose the war.

    3. Re:Same ol' same old by mozumder · · Score: 1

      You defeat a bad idea through Education.

      Have Pakistan & all Islamic countries license all Madrassas and Mosques so they don't teach hate to all the impressionable youth there. I believe Egypt did this in their response to Terrorism.

      Also, techniques in Advertising, Marketing, etc., could be more useful here than warfare.

      But for now warfare is needed to stabilize the situation.

    4. Re:Same ol' same old by sane? · · Score: 1
      But for now warfare is needed to stabilize the situation.

      Warfare isn't there to stabilise, its there to shake up things. The usual hope is that you can then use that instability to your benefit - to impose your will.

      Problem is, the issue here is an idea. The idea that the US is the 'satan' and that it should .... MUST .... be fought. This approach does nothing to shake that idea, instead it reinforces it.

      Sure, this will shake the obvious command and control - however that's not the real battlefield.

      I sure hope they have a whole lot of food, its the best weapon they currently have in their limited arsenal.

    5. Re:Same ol' same old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Bush has pledged $320M to providing Afghanistan with food, winter clothing, and medicine, which might do a lot to win over "hearts and minds". Personally, though, I'm a little disappointed that all of the pledged money is going to giving them a "fish" as opposed to "teaching them to fish" .. no big surprise, though, the federal government has been doing the same thing to its own citizens for decades.

    6. Re:Same ol' same old by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, but half right.

      Warfare is needed... but it won't stabilize anything.

      Propoganda, which is what you describe, isn't really the answer. That is what 'Big Bin' uses and we can't fight the so called 'word of god'.

      Let's look back at Hitler. He even touched the hearts and minds of some Americans [Henry Ford for one]. If he could've taken control without a scapegoat it would have been done.

      Did Hitler really care about the Jews either way? Maybe not, but he wouldn't admit that.

      You need an enemy.

      The situation in Palestine/Israel is just ONE way of digging into someone's mind. If that was really an issue for 'big bin' why doesn't he [or any other Arab/Moselm nation/group] take them in? Why doesn't another country feed them, give them shelter, or military backing?

      Because you need a reason to hate the USA[and friends]. The dispute in Israel isn't over land, it's over religion. There is plenty of land in the middle east which is used for squat. If either side had it's way they would destroy the other.

      Simply said: 'bin' is a man of action who hides behind words. He obviously isn't someone who just talks, but does he really care about Palestine? As I watch the taliban is reporting that we have bombed civilian sites.

      Can we make mistakes? Could we have done this on purpose? Yes to both. But did we? I bet we haven't. I know we do dirty things - but this isn't the situation where you do that sorta' thing. You don't throw gas on the fire.

      It's a war of words, and ideas. Historically smaller, weaker forces with ideas in their heads take down larger forces because the will to fight.

      Quote me on this, and remember where you heard it first: "Don't cut the head off the chicken, cut off the beak" -me

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    7. Re:Same ol' same old by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      Above all, appear to the rest of the Arab world as a country that doesn't need to play silly games, one that is something to be looked up to rather than down upon. And one not to be underestimated.
      So, you blow the shite out of my citizens and in return I send you food. That will definately make me not one to be underestimated!
      I fear the US may win the battle and lose the war.
      Unfortunately, you may be right. But the alternative is to sit back and show the world that it's OK to piss on the US again and again and again because there will be no response at all (apart from a somber speech in the UN, accompanied by the jeering of many delegations).

    8. Re:Same ol' same old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is hard to come up with solutions to the problem, but there are several ways of trying. All sollutions require that you try to see it from the other side as well.

      First, the short time answers:
      If USA thinks bin Laden is responsible he must be prosecuted.

      USA have made this very difficult by the way they handled the Libya-"terrorists". (Short summary: Viewed from non-americans, USA claimed that two Libians where responsible, Libya claimed that they whould be executed if trialed in USA, and that they were not guilty. USA bombed Libya. They were trialed in the Netherlands. 1 where found not-guilty, and one guilty. To non-western, this was a proof that Libya was right. They saved an innocent life by not delivering him to USA.) (This is not my views, but it is the way it looks form the "other side").

      Hoping directly for a trial in USA has always been out of the question. (It is just as unthinkable as if Taliban named an american offical, said he was responsible for homocide - without giving any evidence, and demanded that he was delivered to Afganistan for trial there)

      This is negotiations. Talibans offered to trial bin Laden in Afganistan. Some diplomacy, and USA could easily have had a "first" trial in a "friendly" country. (Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan?). Look at it from Talibans side. They try to lead a poor people where "everybody" hates USA. They are terrified for an attack (probably leading to them loosing power), but they will also loose support if they give in to unreasonable demands from USA (after all bin Laden is a great hero there, for what he did in the fight against Russia). They could be willing to give him to Saudi Arabi, and then "blame" Saudi Arabia if they let him go to the USA.

      This is an easy short time solution. This could have been a reasonable solution, if USA hadnt said that they didnt negotiate. This meant that the situation was impossible for the Taliban... either way they would have lost their power.

      The long time solution is a lot more complicated.

      Im going to give you a clue:

      USA is the most hated country in the world. (Very few americans know this). Im telling you this a fact, even if I love americans myself. (as most other norwegians... thats a country in Europe, if any americans are reading this...:-) ).

      The first is step in trying to find a solution to the problem, is answering the question: Why do millions of people outside the western world hate americans? The answer is not Islam (a lot of nonmuslims hate americans as well). The answer is not because USA wait too long before you invade other countries (USA have invaded approximately 230 countries). Hey, wait... could that be a reason??

    9. Re:Same ol' same old by greenrd · · Score: 2
      So, you blow the shite out of my citizens and in return I send you food. That will definately make me not one to be underestimated!

      The two flaws in that argument are:

      a) We were already sending them food
      b) The vast majority of the Afghan population are not terrorists.

      Unfortunately, you may be right. But the alternative is to sit back and show the world that it's OK to piss on the US again and again and again because there will be no response at all (apart from a somber speech in the UN, accompanied by the jeering of many delegations).

      No, the alternatives are to bring the remaining terrorists to justice - or to sponsor a "bloodless coup" in Afghanistan and then have the terrorists extradited.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    10. Re:Same ol' same old by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the Taliban is one of the worst governments ever seen. Treating women that way is awfull, so I don't see how the U.S. could've done things differently.
      Yes, millions of people hate USA, I was surprised to see that even some french canadian people hate them. I think that people who hate the USA are simply jealous or misinformed. Some has valid reasons for sure, but terrorism and violence won't fix their situation.

    11. Re:Same ol' same old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the idea unbelievable.

    12. Re:Same ol' same old by Husaria · · Score: 0

      I ask you to name the 230 countries we've invaded.
      Hell, there arent even more than 180 in the world.

      --
      Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
    13. Re:Same ol' same old by ariux · · Score: 1

      Of course, you'd think they'd prefer to hate, say, England, France, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands - these nations have invaded, conquered, and killed far more people over the last three centuries (and with far less soul-searching about it, too) than the US ever has.

      It's almost as if they've carefully stepped out of the way to let us receive the revenge meant for them.

  22. the bombings by Syn404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some more information I haven't seen anyone mention: The weapons used were Tomahawk cruise missiles, and they sent over B-52s and 1,000 infantry men, though there's been no word yet on when the infantry will strike. However, those are only the American statistics; I am aware that other countries are preparing as well.

    MSNBC's story at http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp though it isn't extremely informative, there is some useful information.

    1. Re:the bombings by Twig · · Score: 1
      The British have 22,000 troops in the region (in Oman), along with 24 warships from the Royal Navy.

      Royal Air Force squadrons are also in the region and the Navy can launch its own aircraft from the carrier HMS Illustrious.

      Tony Blair announced that British submarines were involved in tonight's attacks, launching Tomahawk missiles.

    2. Re:the bombings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am aware that other countries are preparing as well."

      Don't get your hopes up. Despite what W and CNN would have you believe, the majority of the world (including Europe) don't really want to participate in another American Grudge Match against the Evil-Doer-du-jour.

  23. More Information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday, when he was there, he said not to do it. But today, it still isn't done. When he spoke on TV, he said nothing was going on, blaming the situation on the people. See, how can we trust him if he doesn't know?

  24. More needless loss of life. by geekguy · · Score: 1, Troll

    We are barely better than the terrorists who hijacked the plane. As long as the US only strikes against Military targets I will support it if and only if this actualy helps catching Osama Bin laden.
    If, however, this hurts any civilians we will be no better than those who attacked us.
    And if this dosn't get us any closer to catching Bin Laden then this will just be more needless loss of life and property.

    If people will ever accept peace they need to find a way of dealing with eachother other than through violence. I will pray for peace, just as I will pray for an end to the violence that is going on right now.

    --
    -- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
    1. Re:More needless loss of life. by CheechBG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If people will ever accept peace they need to find a way of dealing with eachother other than through violence. I will pray for peace, just as I will pray for an end to the violence that is going on right now

      and how many more thousands of innocent Americans have to die before we do something decisive? Let me understand this correctly. If I go over there and kick your ass, based on your reasoning, you are going to sit there and try to figure out a way to resolve my dispute with you peacefully. I, not wanting peace, will then proceed to kick your ass again. Repeat cycle.

      I'm sorry, but I can't really see your reasoning working in this scenario, nor the scenario of the WTC. You have to understand, as "innocent" as these people are, they WILL NOT STOP until EVERY American and American ally is DEAD. No pausing to reflect, no thoughts on peaceful resolution, EVERYONE DEAD.

    2. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for peace to succeed, both parties must be willing.. the taliban are fanatics. There is a time when pacifism fails. this is not your ideal wolrd.. you may try to create one but dont think it is one

    3. Re:More needless loss of life. by fiore42 · · Score: 1

      If people will ever accept peace they need to find a way of dealing with eachother other than through violence. I will pray for peace, just as I will pray for an end to the violence that is going on right now.

      We gave peace a chance. Now we're giving explosives a shot.

    4. Re:More needless loss of life. by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      You have to understand, as "innocent" as these people are, they WILL NOT STOP until EVERY American and American ally is DEAD. No pausing to reflect, no thoughts on peaceful resolution, EVERYONE DEAD.


      And I suppose we should not stop until EVERY TERRORIST and EVERYONE OF THEIR ALLYS are dead, right ?

      "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
      --
      +++ath0
    5. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be nice to live in your little world.

    6. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We are barely better than the terrorists who hijacked the plane. As long as the US only strikes against Military targets I will support it if and only if this actualy helps catching Osama Bin laden."

      Oh come on lets think this through.

      Any target that intentionally gets hit is a military target. The US military designated it as such. If the Taliban are the group in charge of 90% of the country they are responsible for the people in it.

      As for the dealing with each other through peace comment peaceful means like sanctions have been tried and I'd wager they were worse casualty wise than the present US action will be. Hell those sanctions there like in Iraq have been used by the thugs in power to repress the opposition.

    7. Re:More needless loss of life. by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2, Flamebait
      WILL NOT STOP until EVERY American and American ally is DEAD. No pausing to reflect, no thoughts on peaceful resolution, EVERYONE DEAD.

      That is correct. Osama Bin Laden is the terminator, crossed with the energizer bunny.

      What is more, the Taliban are not actually people, instead they are fanatical monsters who will not stop until every American is dead. Come to think of it all of America's enemies are like that.

      Take the Japanese. During WWII they killed innocent American civilians by suicidally crashing planes into their boats. America had to respond then with target nuclear strikes against their terror bases in the remote Nagasaki and Hiroshima regions of Japan. Those fanatical people would not stop until every American was dead. That is why even today Japanese people are constantly try to kill Americans. It just goes to show these evil men of hate will never change. What is currently unclear though, is that when the US has military bases in Kabul, the marines will prefer gang raping little Afghan girls in their yashmaks more than those cute Japanese girls in their white socks. It's a tough one but I'm sure the US military is thinking hard about it.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    8. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I go over there and kick your ass, based on your reasoning, you are going to sit there and try to figure out a way to resolve my dispute with you peacefully. I, not wanting peace, will then proceed to kick your ass again. Repeat cycle. If you kick my ass, I kick your ass. Simple and done. Now lets say instead, 4 random guys come over and kick your ass. You try and find the 4 guys. You can't find them, but you find their brothers and sisters. They each are surrounded by babies, families, etc. I think most people have no problem whatsoever in finding and punishing the people responsible for these actions. But how far do you go? I don't know what is going on in the bombing of afghanistan. I hope the bad guys are getting the stuffing blown out of them, the children and women are o.k., and our soldiers are o.k. But I fear that the results will be that a couple more holes will be created in the ground, thousands of innocents dead, few terrorists hurt, and more people in the world despise the west. We shall see.

    9. Re:More needless loss of life. by billybob · · Score: 1

      ever heard of Ghandi?

      --
      Joseph?
    10. Re:More needless loss of life. by geekguy · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that you can't defend yourself. If you came to kick my ass I would not hesitate to defend myself to the best of my abilities.
      However afterward I would not hold a grudge and would not wish to jump you in a dark aley.

      --
      -- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
    11. Re:More needless loss of life. by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      Allow me to relay the following from EHOWA (this is a slightly toned-down version):

      What to do if you happen upon a peace rally, to teach them why force is sometimes needed:

      1) Approach student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation."

      2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

      3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

      4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

      5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

      6) When he gets back up to up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

      7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.

      8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

      Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to hit back. Because if we don't, this is what the world will look like if the Taliban wins -- this and this and this and this.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    12. Re:More needless loss of life. by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 0

      "If people will ever accept peace they need to find a way of dealing with eachother other than through violence. I will pray for peace, just as I will pray for an end to the violence that is going on right now."

      It's religion that caused all that shit, let's not forget this, it's RELIGIOUS NUTS who are responsible.

    13. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a moral relativist piece of scum like you, that probably doesn't seem any different.

    14. Re:More needless loss of life. by Badmovies · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having read through a number of your posts (see his profile), I'm pretty darn certain you are a troll. However, since a number of your posts are also being moderated, on account of their amazing insight of course, I feel a reply is in order.

      First off, let me quote Bin Laden twice for you:

      "We with God's help call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill Americans and plunder their money whenever and wherever they find it. We also call on Muslims . . . to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them."

      AND

      "Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes."

      Now, along the lines of American companies making a profit from displacing governments. That would explain the billions that America invested into helping Japan and Europe rebuild after WWII and the millions being obligated right now for humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. I'm sorry, I think that from an accounting standpoint we can safely assume our war on terrorism will be well into the red. That is not the point.

      In fact, come to think of it, a number of your arguments display massive ignorance of the mechanics behind (and following) WWII. For example: the Japanese people were devout to their emperor. The American casualties involved in attacking the Japanese mainland would have been staggering. We didn't ask for Japan to (without warning) attack Pearl Harbor, nor was the decision to use that weapon against a city an easy one. But, we destroyed the first city and asked them to surrender - they refused. We dropped the second device and finally Japan agreed to our terms of surrender.

      Lastly, on the subject of young Japanese women raped by American servicemen. The American military is drawn directly from the ranks of its citizens. Unfortunately, this means that we do get bad apples, even after extensive efforts to weed them out. I'd love to see a study of the occurrence of rape, among the American population at large and then among just military members. Which is higher I wonder? The Marines in Okinawa live under very strict rules, believe me.

      Several thousand Americans died because of the efforts of extremists (even Bin Laden's family hates him) and we have been patient with those sheltering the guilty. Words are cheap, peace has the highest price of all.

      The final thought I'll leave you with is this: go to Afghanistan (you know, the country you are sticking up for) and try bad mouthing the Taliban; see how long your head stays attached to your body.

      --


      Andrew Borntreger
      Champion of cinematic disasters
    15. Re:More needless loss of life. by geekguy · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there.

      --
      -- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
    16. Re:More needless loss of life. by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      What is more, the Taliban are not actually people, instead they are fanatical monsters who will not stop until every American is dead.

      Actaully, it's Osama who has repeatedly stated in speeches that he will not rest until every American *and* Israli are dead. The Taliban just support him in that goal.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    17. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly correct. If the terrorists just wanted to embarrass or strike a blow against freedom they would have taken out the Statue of Liberty or the Washington Monument. They want everyone in the US dead.

    18. Re:More needless loss of life. by Martigan80 · · Score: 0

      "What is currently unclear though, is that when the US has military bases in Kabul, the marines will prefer gang raping little Afghan girls in their yashmaks more than those cute Japanese girls in their white socks. It's a tough one but I'm sure the US military is thinking hard about it."

      Your right, just like Clinton couldn't decide how to bone the country or the intern; you relate a couple of bad cases with the military to the whole. So all Americans, are heartless, greedy, ignorant, and clueless. Remember this my well educated person. You can bring lets say a Muslim in america and train him to kill thousands of people with an airplane not thinking twice of his plot, but you put an American in a forign country and he/she will stick out like a sore thumb.

      --
      This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    19. Re:More needless loss of life. by geekguy · · Score: 0

      To those of you wondering about my value of human life I will say this. Ghandi is a personal hero of mine, and in no way related to that this quote is part of my thought process.

      No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main . . . Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
      John Donne)

      --
      -- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
    20. Re:More needless loss of life. by jacobito · · Score: 2

      Excellent analogy! You're right, the only sane reaction to a punch in the face is to return it. Hell, it's probably the Christian thing to do!

      I was thinking, though, to extend your analogy so that it fits current events, it might go look this: The protester is punched in the face by an assailant who promptly disappears. The protesters head for the neighborhood where the assailant comes from, demand that the neighborhood association hand over the assailant so they can beat the crap out of him, and when their demands aren't met, proceed to beat the crap out of everyone in the neighborhood.

    21. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you've got it!

      If we do nothing, we die. All of our cities will be destroyed, one by one.

      If they do nothing, they don't die. We all live in peace.

      That's why we are good and they are evil. They could have peace by minding their own business. We can't have peace by minding our own business. Our only chance is to destroy them.

    22. Re:More needless loss of life. by Cantor · · Score: 1
      Religion has often been as en excuse for war. That isn't religions fault if it has been abused. As a Christian (I don't mean by my birth or official religion, I do believe in God, and Jesus Christ, His son) I have no reason to support Islam, but I really believe that many muslisms to not accept those deeds and don't approve it by their Faith. Bush is trying to act as a good Christian, at least that's the picture I get, but if he did, he'd pray on his knees for wisdom and would try to seek those reasons why these terrorists did what they did.

      Instead, his causing many innocent children getting orphans, or worse yet, killing them by 'collateral damage', as it is said. Yes, I know that in WTC many people also lost their relatives, but I'd like to point out that the organisation behind WTC is not an institute looking for people's wellfare. WTO abuses third nations hard, year 1998 it's spokesman dared to claim in public that it is good to transfer most polluting industry to development countries, as a dead worker is not as expensive there as it is in here.

      However, there are people who are really 'religous nuts', but I'd like to make difference between them and just religious people. For any true Christian it should be crystal clear that inquisition at middle ages NOR so-called Crusades were acts of God. 2000 years ago God's son askes us only but two things. Those two things were:

      • Love God, your Lord more than anything else
      • Love others as you love yourself
      By keeping the last commandment you don't want to kill anybody, even less to cause intentional, prolonged pain. But I don't think that Bush really cares a lot about those things that Jesus had said.

      I also wish I'm wrong.

      --
      # amo, ergo sum
    23. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So all Americans, are heartless, greedy, ignorant, and clueless
      No. Just most Americans.
    24. Re:More needless loss of life. by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "That isn't religions fault if it has been abused."

      Early christians started it. Don't believe the propaganda -- christianity didn't just have a few bad historical episodes such as the inquisition. It started right after it began to spread to the roman empire. Before Xtians, Rome enjoyed a relative freedom of religion. Then came the Xtians, and they began forcing people to convertion, and generally just killing so called "pagans" anyway.

    25. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Taliban would slit Ghandi's throat.

      Ideologies don't always work in the real world. It's the way it is. Sometimes you have to eliminate a threat for the greater good.

    26. Re:More needless loss of life. by Brummund · · Score: 1

      Why the hell was this guys modded as a TROLL? Sheesh.

    27. Re:More needless loss of life. by greenrd · · Score: 2
      But, we destroyed the first city and asked them to surrender - they refused. We dropped the second device and finally Japan agreed to our terms of surrender.

      You've been fed the same old distorted view of history. Victors rewrite history as necessary to portray themselves as the good guys. Every time.

      See Why the atom bomb wasn't necessary to end the war :

      I believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when considered in a historical perspective, were undoubtedly unnecessary and barbarous acts. Those who support this view include Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery and General Dwight Eisenhower.
      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    28. Re:More needless loss of life. by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Fuck man are you that naive ?
      Do you truly believe that you can stop evil by "prayers" ?
      Do you ?
      If people like you were running US or GB during last world war there wouldn't be any Jews left because there would be no one to stop Hitler and his allies.
      Sure, keep praying until one of them blows your brains out.

    29. Re:More needless loss of life. by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that is exactly right.
      Well, them and YOU for people like you are ultimately part of the problem,.

    30. Re:More needless loss of life. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Of course, both of the analogys assume that the protester will react exatly as you want them to.
      The protester might:
      • Just letting you keep punching him in the face, till you see how hateful and stupid you are.
      • Walk/run away, then ring the police.
      • Use a defensive martial arts move (do you really think that this person is not going to notice a pattern after the 2nd punch?)
    31. Re:More needless loss of life. by jacobito · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I'll freely admit that my analogy was stupid. :)

    32. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Victors rewrite history as necessary to portray themselves as the good guys. Every time.

      And second guessers make history look oh-so-easy with 20-20 hindsite. It's easy for one crackpot to say it wasn't necessary 50 years later.

    33. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You truely need to get your head screwed on straight. The biggest mistake that we are makeing is not targetting civilians. Specifically we need to target the women and children, of the middle east, to have any lasting effect against terorism. There are simply to many marginally educated people in the middle east to ever successfully hunt down every potential nut case. Better to strike at the source of these nut cases.

      I really don't think the leadership of this country has even a inkling of how bad the lust for maddness is in the midlle east. This is a sickness that ultimately will on be successfully treated with the nuclear annilation of a large number of people.

    34. Re:More needless loss of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and in your nice little world terrorist conviently put themselves and their training/support facilities way out in the middle of nowhere where no civilians will be hurt if something happens. Guess what - this is the really real world and that doesn't happen. They're terrorists - pretty much by definition they use innocent civilians as shields. There comes a point where the lesser of two evils may be injuring or killing civilians *who are essentially being held hostage as human shields* rather than allowing the the terrorists to continue their senseless slaughter.

    35. Re:More needless loss of life. by ariux · · Score: 1

      No - we should not stop until their ability to continue to make war on us has been destroyed. Why go any farther? We're fighting for security, not for bloodlust.

      (Europeans, spare us the obvious, untrue retort - it's easy to slander people you've never met.)

    36. Re:More needless loss of life. by greenrd · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      So General Eisenhower is a crackpot? Read my fucking post? Are you fucking blind?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    37. Re:More needless loss of life. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Still a flawed analogy. Try this one:

      The protester is punched in the face by an assailant who promptly disappears. The protesters head for the neighborhood where the assailant comes from, demand that the gang of street thugs, who are known associates of the assailant, hand over the assailant so they can beat the crap out of him, and when their demands aren't met, proceed to beat the crap out of everyone in the gang.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  25. War... by MattC413 · · Score: 1

    War...

    War never changes...

    1. Re:War... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, wasn't that just fucking poetic? Jeez, this should be modded down just for being so empty.

    2. Re:War... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, someone played Fallout. Great. Super. Now go sign up for the Airborn Rangers.

      Quote-dropping, irrelevant fool.

      -Exitus Acta Probate-

  26. The Israeli Intelligence Version by wytcld · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those wanting the most paranoid view of unfolding events, debka.com is a Israeli site which has often scooped the media in the last few weeks. While it's not surprising that the US and Russia have agreed on deployment guidelines for small neutron devices to the theater, the claim that China has sent in Muslim troops to support the Taliban is hopefully alarmist.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I can't imagine that the Taliban is all that popular in China when they went around blowing up ancient Buddhas. I would worry more about China using this as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, or some other mischief.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Chinese government actually cares about these Buddha statues in Afghanistan? Well, that would explain their 'support' for the buddhist monasteries in Tibet, now wouldn't it?

      Last time I checked China wasn't exactly a democratic state. And they can't be thrilled at the prospect of the US installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan.

      Michael

    3. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)

      Corrected link: debka.com

    4. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what they are more afraid of is more Al Qaeda funded radical Muslim insurgency within their borders and destabilizing their country. They're probably thrilled that the problem is being dealt with, but only US soldiers are at risk.

    5. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I apologize, it isn't just US soldiers. What I should have said is "Chinese soldiers aren't at risk."

      We now return you to your regulary scheduled war.

    6. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by weeeee · · Score: 1

      China is not on friendly terms with Muslim extremists. China has had problem with extremists friendly to the Taliban in the Xinjang province of western China. China is apparently quite concerned of a extremist movement similar to the one in Chechnya.

      Attacks Bring Terror War to China
    7. Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know 99.999% of people here are uninformed about the various bombings in China by muslim extremists. Since this is about China, I'm not surprised that 99.999% of you people either wouldn't care or simply refuse to believe that the PRC is capable of being truthful. Beyond that, yes, China does have problems with muslim extremists, some possibly supported by the Taliban. A strong indication of this is the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as members (read here and here). So, are you people still insistent that China's "full of it?"

  27. Best satellite maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the best satellite maps of Afghanistan? So far the only ones I can find are at http://terraserver.com

  28. For great justice!! by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I want to convey my good wishes and thankfulness to all members of the US military and our allies as they embark on this great mission to preserve my freedom, and the freedom of the world.

    Thank you.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight!

    2. Re:For great justice!! by kir · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saying that! I agree with you 100%, I just wish more of this whiney ultra-liberal /. crowd would remember *WHY* they get to be so whiney and ultra-liberal.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    3. Re:For great justice!! by kir · · Score: 1

      OK... I should correct myself. The previous comment only applies to the whiney, ultra-liberal American /. crowd. Excuse me for being so, umm... American.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    4. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RM101 -- You've been the chief drumbeater on this board over the last month. While your comments are sometimes inciteful enough, more often than not it's nothing more than nationalist claptrap trolling.

      Some psychological profiles of the enemy indicate that they sublimate their castrated masculinity into the greater "cause" of crazy jihad. Reading your posts, I wonder if you suffer from the same affliction.

      This is a serious endeavor, not to be confused with Linux World Domination and Zero Wing and Ridiculous Liberal Myths. You need to disassociate your own ego from the war effort and start treating with the respect that it deserves. You will be more effective towards your own ends that way.

    5. Re:For great justice!! by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      This is a serious endeavor, not to be confused with Linux World Domination and Zero Wing and Ridiculous Liberal Myths.

      Thanking our military for putting their lives on the line is not taking this action seriously? I assure you, I take this issue very seriously.

      I'm not in the military, but if I can do my part to counter the ridiculous pacifist bleatings, then I feel I am contributing something to the effort. No one wants war, but there are those of us who recognize that at certain points in history, war is required against those how would destabilize the world to enhance their own power.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    6. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if I can do my part to counter the ridiculous pacifist bleatings, then I feel I am contributing something to the effort.

      Except you are not. You are trolling Slashdot and scoring cheap flamebait points and you don't come off as a serious person at all.

    7. Re:For great justice!! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2

      In that case, they'll arm the Afghan refugees, instead of the other former mujahideen known as the Northern Alliance. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has blasted the policies and treatment of both sides; the NA groups are even more corrupt than the Taliban. In fact, it's believed that corruption of the Afghan regime in 95 triggered the rise of the Taliban, in an attempt to "clean up" the country.

      Thank you CIA, for helping create this mess, and many others. That $30 billion is money well spent, yep...

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    8. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here! Anyone who DARES suggesting that perhaps killing isn't the answer for more killing should be killed. That is clear. I suggest we start with all those ultra-Liberals and move on to socialists, buddhists, and Canadians. Not necessarily in that order.

    9. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and having freedoms that no one gets to use is just worthless. And that smacks of ingratitude for all those people who DIED for those freedoms. Why else should people die for freedom when it's useless?

    10. Re:For great justice!! by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Well, we all are people and we all make mistakes.
      10 years ago it did make sense to support Afghans against Russian invaders.

    11. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if we had stayed to clean up, we would have been accused of 'nation building', 'imperialism', etc. etc. etc. Yet another reason for the islamic people to hate us.

    12. Re:For great justice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a wanker, propaganda really works on Americans it seems...

  29. Food and Supplies by Bonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know if it's Bush, but *somebody* has their thinking cap on.

    One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.

    Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.

    BBC has some pretty good graphics, including some maps of possible targets:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/ newsid_1556000/1556588.stm#map

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Food and Supplies by Jburkholder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've heard talk of this over the last couple days and it makes sense to me too. I even read a report that the Taliban was suggesting we use the roads to deliver food instead of air drops.

      The reason? Well, what he said didn't make any sense. Something like - the US is trying to make it appear as if they are not against the people of Afghanistan, but in fact they are against all Muslims. The roads coming into the country are all open, why don't you drive them in instead of airdrop?

      Some thoughts:

      If we were to transport the food to the region (say Pakistan) and then load into trucks and drive into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, you have the potential for the Taliban to take the food and use it to their best interest (squirrel it away for their troops?) instead of distributing it to those most in need (starving refugees). Another scenario is that they do distribute the food and supplies to those who desparately need it, but they forget to mention that the stuff came from the enemy.

      If we airdrop to the areas where people are most in need, and leave a little notes explaining it was from us and we bear no enmity to the people of Afghanistan, you undermine the Taliban's rhetoric that the US is waging a "crusade" of anti-muslim extermination against the people of Afghanistan.

      Obviously the Taliban doen't want their people to hear this message.

    2. Re:Food and Supplies by psavo · · Score: 1

      >If we airdrop to the areas where people are most in need, and leave a little notes explaining it was from us and we bear no enmity to the people of Afghanistan, you undermine the Taliban's rhetoric that the US is waging a "crusade" of anti-muslim extermination against the people of Afghanistan.

      Some speculation: How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read? I'd say about 5%. 0.1% women.

      How many of Afghani people even know what does US flag look like?
      (How many kentucky rednecks know what Afghanistans flag looks like? Do YOU?).

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    3. Re:Food and Supplies by jacobito · · Score: 2

      The cynical take on this, one that I don't necessarily agree with, goes like this:

      1) The U.S./NATO coalition announces humanitarian food drops to pacify critics of the war. Glosses over potential distribution difficulties once the supplies are actually dropped.
      2) Aid planes are endangered by Afghan anti-aircraft defenses (U.S.-supplied), so it is necessary to destroy Afghan defenses.
      3) Afghan anti-aircraft defenses may not all be in fixed positions, therefore we have carte blanche for a sustained bombing of Afghanistan.

      Personally, I think that the aid effort is sincere, though I have doubts about its efficacy. Still, as a gesture of humanitarianism, I'm pleased and even surprised.

    4. Re:Food and Supplies by joaobranco · · Score: 1

      Obviously the fact that you can't move troops (namely special operation forces) by land with the same stealth and celerity you can by air is in no way related to the refuse by the US/UK to use land transportation for "humanitarian aid", I assume...

      That said, in reality, air drops are much safer to the ones doing the drop than land carrying. In general, when deliverin food by land the main problem is not that the food may be diverted to the troops (if there is so little of them that it won't get to the troops also, it surely wont get to the general population), the main problem is that the ones doing the delivery may be captured and used as hostages by either side of the conflict.

      Still, as anyone knows, the ruling powers can (and usually do) open air corridors for delivery of humanitarian help (if it is on their best interest to do so, of course). Only if you want to do MORE than just send humanitarian help do you need to destroy all the anti-aircraft support.

    5. Re:Food and Supplies by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that the Taliban has only been in control a few years, and it has only been in those few years where education has suffered.

      Prior to this Afghanistan did have a good literacy rate.

      Besides, the US is dropping transistor radios so that the people can tune into the new Radio Free Afghanistan.

    6. Re:Food and Supplies by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      >How many kentucky rednecks know what Afghanistans flag looks like? Do YOU?).

      Well, I'm no "kentucy redneck", but doubtless there are those in every country that are poorly educated and backwards, the united dates being no exception. I do happen to know what the flags of different countries around the world look like, in particular I have been acquainting myself with information on Afganistan, Pakistan, Uzbeckistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan to better understand what has been going on in that region.

      >How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read? I'd say about 5%.

      So, the assumption is that every person would need to be able to read a note in order for this to be effective? Oh, the 5% whi *can* read aren't going to tell anyone else what the note says. I see.

      :-P

    7. Re:Food and Supplies by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I'd bet that the Afghanis know what a US flag looks like.

      There have been US flags being burned in Pakistan for decades, I'm sure the Taliban has burned thier share of them as well.

      While in Kentucky, there are not many organized Afghani flag burnings.

    8. Re:Food and Supplies by _LFTL_ · · Score: 1

      Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.

      I don't know about you, but I don't think even a starving person will be "pacified" by food when they've just watched a family member die from a stray bomb that was intended for a military installment. If we had really wanted to pacify the common man in Afghanistan I don't think a single bomb with a significant chance of hitting civilians would have been dropped. All of these attacks have been carried out on major cities, it's almost impossible that some non-terrorist, non-Taleban, starving people didn't die in these attacks.

    9. Re:Food and Supplies by The+Mgt · · Score: 1
      This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.

      Yeah, like that's going to happen.
    10. Re:Food and Supplies by STSeer · · Score: 1

      Soviets have indeed have tried to pacify "the populace in the literal sense" and it didn't work then so why should it now?

      Dropping blankets and food and supplies, who do you think gets them? The farmers with the sheep or the Taliban with the muchine guns?

    11. Re:Food and Supplies by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      Taliban was suggesting we use the roads to deliver food instead of air drops.

      What roads? Cart tracks, yes (and those are in shit shape), but no roads at all in rural areas.

    12. Re:Food and Supplies by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      Keep in mind that the Taliban has only been in control a few years, and it has only been in those few years where education has suffered. Prior to this Afghanistan did have a good literacy rate.

      Bull. These folks have suffered through 23 years of war. The literacy rate is almost non-existent. The older folks never learned to read, and the younger people have not yet had a chance (hopefully they will learn to read).

    13. Re:Food and Supplies by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1
      Besides, the US is dropping transistor radios

      Wow, good thing they're dropping TRANSISTOR radios. Good of you to make the distinction, I would hate to see people to have to use the vacuum tube radios they were first thinking about delivering.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  30. It's just starting... by tinrobot · · Score: 1

    This is going to be a very long war. Just hope we get the bad guys, that our soldiers remain safe, and that we protect the innocents.

    1. Re:It's just starting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your brilliance makes Gandhi look like a child pornographer."

    2. Re:It's just starting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, right. What about the people in afganistan?
      As usual US will kill thousands of civilians, but
      that dont batters if the soldiers are ok...

    3. Re:It's just starting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh stupid northamerican youre not the good guys, all the terrorist attacks are in response of an all time external policy from usa, youre the bad guys, dont you see it?

  31. moron...have you been listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    does anyone else find it sickening that the taliban said they would release the 6 UN personnel they have been keeping if the US backs off its plans for military strikes? Uh..hello...that's TERRORISM and the use of HOSTAGES...now they have DEFINITELY shown that they are a nation of terrorist (too bad innocent people are gonna die for the taliban though) and DESERVE to be attacked NOW. All of their tricks and propaganda were just to stall us so that they could prepare, after all the longer we take the stronger they get (we are giving em lots of $ and food still)...I say strike hard and fast cause sitting on our hands will only help them more than hinder.

    1. Re:moron...have you been listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now they have DEFINITELY shown that they are a nation of terrorist (too bad innocent people are gonna die for the taliban though) and DESERVE to be attacked NOW

      Since the Taliban is not Afghanistan's government, nor is it the majority of the populus, how exactly does that qualify them as a "nation of terrorists"? It is basically a street gang that everyone is afraid of...Afghanastan has been begging for the US to help them fight the Taliban for years, and we ignored them. The Taliban are scum, Al-Queida are terrorist scum, but the people of Afghanastan know more about peace and cruelty-free living than you or I ever will. Let's not resort to Hitler-style bullshit of branding an entire people as being the cause of our problems..

    2. Re:moron...have you been listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should have been listening as well. Those "hostages" were actually arrested before 9-11. They are currently being tried for trying to convert people to Christianity, which is a crime there. So far, the Taliban have insisted that the missionaries be tried fairly, but, in the wake of the attack, I wonder all fairness will be thrown out the window.

    3. Re:moron...have you been listening? by ariux · · Score: 1

      What exactly does "fair trial" mean when the purported "crime" is religious outreach?
      Regardless of whether it's Christian, Muslim, or Twig Worshiper.

    4. Re:moron...have you been listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A law against attempting to convert others to your religion is akin to a law forbidding citizens from growing and smoking marijuana. Plain and simple.

  32. attacks by alien88 · · Score: 1

    The cruise missles were not only from the US, but also from Britian (who got their technology from the US).. they're striking terroists camps, power, the Taliban's air defense system, and their bunkers.

    1. Re:attacks by alien88 · · Score: 1

      also, the strikes came from the ships in the sea.. the British have the cruise missles only on submarine's, but we have them on ships also...

    2. Re:attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I hear there are at least two British subs in the staging area and one US aircraft carrier.

      There's also some french ships present, but nobody knows if they have any involvement till they speak up.

      Still, it shows the missiles have quite a range.

    3. Re:attacks by alien88 · · Score: 1

      at least 2 us ships fired cruise missiles.. and yeah, the cruise missiles have about a 1,000 mile range.. it flys at 550MPH and has a 1,000 pound warhead.. it's also possible that they could use stealth bombers that can be armed with a warhead that has 1,500 mile range and packs a 3,000 pound warhead.. i'm sure they'll use the bombers later on in this attack

    4. Re:attacks by alien88 · · Score: 1

      and following up, they're using bombers to do long range attacks and they will also be at least one food drop and more to come in the days further ahead of us

  33. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone study the post above. It's symbolic of why the US is 'hated' by so many around the world. It's important to not only let other people air their views, but to listen and respond in kind.

  34. At Least.. by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

    they are gonna drop food on the people. Also, Bush said the people aren't targets, just military/government establishments. Hopefull all goes well and our leaders know what they are doing.

    --
    "Allez Cusine!"
    1. Re:At Least.. by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

      Awwww... you mean NO people are targets? That's kind of spooky.

      "Our war is not with the Afghan people. Nor is it with the Taliban regine. Nor is it with the soldiers that are under orders from the Taliban regime. Our war is only with military hardware. The concrete bunkers. The command centers. The miles of telephone wire and the acres of concrete runway. Let me tell you plainly - if you are an inanimate object that either is a terrorist, or supports terrorist action - you _will_ feel the wrath of America. God bless America."

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
  35. and your point is....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what...still an improvement. Oh, I see your point now...better to let the taliban still rule and rape and ruin all those innocent Afghanis eh?

  36. h4x0r 5P33|1|\|G by metalhed77 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is a war of inteligence, eleet commandos, delta force, sas etc.

    I guess all that h4x0ring has gotten to your spelling eh?

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:h4x0r 5P33|1|\|G by basking2 · · Score: 1

      Note that there is reason to believe that the US and other nations with able covert units constrain their use. Fighting an "open" war, as the term may be used, is good for a bunch of reasons. The trouble with using solely covert ops is that, well, if that is all you're doing, it isn't nearly as covert... infact, in some senses, it's pretty overt.
      Just do some back-of-the-envelope situations of solely covert-ops vs. a combined arms assault. Doh, there's that combined arms principal coming back into war history! :-)

      Most accurately, this is a war of the US and world armed forces as a whole. The emphasis may be on covert operations, but that is, IMHOP, a foolish principal and not how you wage a clean war. More so, this will be a war that most likely will emphasise use of more technology and precision strike BUT more interestingly is that the US troops have a strong moral mandate. If you look back at the history of war and groups of soldiers with precieved moral mandate such as Paton and the 3rd army, William T. Sherman and his maneuver warfare with scorched-earth policies, and Hannible's actions.

      Good subjects of study in the light that America a moral mandate for justice (and, unfortunatly, probably revenge as well).

      One quick note, before I get flamed for bringing Sherman into this, his troops did have a moral mandate, but note that it does not necessarily justify the means by which the end was accomplished. That would lead to a much deeper talk on non-combatant involvement and respocibilities during war time and is a can of worms every time I've heard some one try and touch it.

      Oh well, just some thoughts. Check out some books by John Keegan's books on war for more insight than I can offer.

      --
      Sam
  37. Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Really? International justice?


    It's interesting that the U.S.A. has been constantly opposed to the idea of an international criminal court as it would have jurisdiction over American citizens and, in the case of war crimes, military personnel as well.


    Yet, the U.S.A. is quite happily prosecuting war criminals in the Hague. Talk about bigotry.

  38. Re:It is time for you to realize by JensChr · · Score: 1

    Actually not.
    Here in Denmark it has been said that if a terrorist had been from here, we would not have turned him over to the US (since we can't turn over any criminal who might get death penalty)

  39. Re:Un-manned Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, there's Israel (probably not what you were thinking, though). Turkey's in NATO. Kuwait is pretty fond of us too, seeing as we restored their country to them. Oman has been a US ally for decades.

    A lot of the anti US hatred is our fault, but a lot of it is also fueled or tolerated by governments in the region in order to distract attention away from their own repressive regimes.

  40. This sucks by ll5 · · Score: 1

    Best wishes for the people who are about to die on the ground for no reason and the millions of refugees to follow this attack. I wish that I had some semblance of faith in the US's ability to do this right, but I do not have that kind of faith anymore in anything this country does. At least they are dropping food and supplies in concert with the bombs, it is a humanitarian gesture at least. Talk about good cop bad cop! Any way I look at it, this is not going to help me feel more secure or supply some notion of revenge or justice for me. I do not think this will help anything, but I do think it has the potential to make hatred for the US that much worse. Either way, we all lose.

    --
    Wanna get high?
    1. Re:This sucks by Convict6446 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, I think this will be a messy conflict. However, it is something we had to do. Afghanistan has basically told us to go screw ourselves since about the 12 of September. They've tried to dictate terms to the most powerful nation in the world, and we weren't having any of it. What we were asking was real simple...extradition of somebody involved in crimes committed in the US.

      Before you as for evidence linking him to the attacks on the 11th of September, that doesn't matter. We don't NEED evidence of that. Bin Laden has already been indicted for previous attacks, and has claimed credit for them. So whether he was responsible for recent attacks or not (which it is fairly reasonable to think he was), he was responsible for previous attacks, and for that alone he should be extradicted.

      As a member of the military, I have no problem with what is going on. These guys have spit in our face, then smiled. So now we're going to punch them in their collective mouths. I love this country, and I hate to see it pushed around. I have no problem risking my life to do this.

      I suggest everybody do this: tape a video of the World Trade Center falling. Stick it on the shelf. Any time you have second thoughts about our involvement in any of these operations, put it in, watch it, and remember that there are a few thousand Americans dying on your TV screen.

      And final note to morons: not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims support terrorists. Muslim Americans, especially, do NOT tend to support terrorists. Just as not all Christians supported Hitler. And no, I am not Muslim.

    2. Re:This sucks by DarkZero · · Score: 1
      I suggest everybody do this: tape a video of the World Trade Center falling. Stick it on the shelf. Any time you have second thoughts about our involvement in any of these operations, put it in, watch it, and remember that there are a few thousand Americans dying on your TV screen.

      So in other words, whenever mindless emotional rage subsides and rational thinking starts to rear its ugly head, that's what you can do to stop such a terrible, terrible thing from happening you. This method is also known as "How to Become A Sheep 101".

    3. Re:This sucks by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

      I heard on the BBC just now that they are dropping the food after the bombs, in the hope that the burning wreckage will help cook the food.

      They are also dropping leaflets that say "America is your friend. We are only bombing those oppresive Taliban people. However, to avoid inconvenience, and help prevent CNN showing pictures of you being killed, please form an orderly 250 mile queue on the Iranian border. Have a nice day."

      A British MOD scientist has reportedly developed an anti-personel cluster bomb that has flechettes coated in anaesthetic to help speed up treatment of the people who get hit accidentaly.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    4. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like it??? Don't have faith in the US??? Than fucking leave. Go to Canada, oh wait, no, they support our actions. Oh, well how about the UK? Nope, same story. Don't be a stupidass.

    5. Re:This sucks by ll5 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for logging in to reply! As for your offer to move, I think I will stay right here thankyou very much.This is America you know, I have that right. As for my personal thoughts, I promise to try and be a better American like you in the future. Should I start with irrational hatred or good old fashioned war mongering first? By the way, I do have faith in the American people, always have. I do not have blind faith in our elected officials, never will. I just really hate to see solutions like this. I also have a lot of friends in the military that I worry about. Would I like to see those responsible for this die like the animals they are? You bet! Is it going to be that clean and efficient? No way, a lot of innocent people are going to die. Ask yourself what they are going to die for why don't you? Thanks again for the reply!

      --
      Wanna get high?
    6. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, people tend to forget he has CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOMBING THE USS COLE AND 2 AMERICAN EMBASSYS WHERE ABOUT 400 (i think) PEOPLE DIED!
      and they havent given him over for that and he's admitted it!

    7. Re:This sucks by hey! · · Score: 2

      As a member of the military, I have no problem with what is going on. These guys have spit in our face, then smiled. So now we're going to punch them in their collective mouths. I love this country, and I hate to see it pushed around. I have no problem risking my life to do this.

      I understand, but I can't share your feelings. I have great regret that we are doing this. I also recognize that we have to do this.

      I wish you peace.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then go move to another country. If you have no faith in our government and people, then leave, we dont want you here.

    9. Re:This sucks by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      No, I think what he is saying is that US civilians population tend to become complacent over time and this issue requires focus and determination.

      Keep in mind that you or someone you love may become the next victim of radical blind irrational terror.

    10. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note:
      Hitler persecuted the catholic faith and it's poitical infrastructure in germany to the degree he could get away with.
      No one faith or group of people are safe from any amount of power and the will to use it.

      Thank you for your will to fight and your willingness to serve this country.

    11. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like my relatives in Afghanistan that are too poor to leave. Or if they survive, having to go home to ruins.

    12. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taliban rejected US aid. We need to distribute this aid in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster, which would further prejudice the Afghanis against the West, and probably contribute more soldiers to their cause. To drop aid we need aircraft. To do the drop, we need to take out their air defenses and C3 (Communications, Command and Control) facilities.

      Sure, it's politics, but there's sound reasoning behind the actions being taken; these are tactics, not feel-good posturing.

    13. Re:This sucks by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      Muslim Americans, especially, do NOT tend to support terrorists. Just as not all Christians supported Hitler.


      Did Hitler claim he was a christian ?
    14. Re:This sucks by nusuth · · Score: 1

      > As a member of the military, I have no problem with what is going on. These guys have spit in our face, then smiled. So now we're going to punch them in their collective mouths. I love this country, and I hate to see it pushed around. I have no problem risking my life to do this. (someone please tell me how to format these messages..) Well, as a member of military, that is your job, but what about the civilians? In a war, people from both sides die...in a war where USA is not one of the sides that is. What was american civilian loss to wars in the last century? what was american military personnel loss in the last ten years? From all conflicts, US has managed to get away without deaths. This time it will be different. You will probably save your ass again but terrorists will start targetting civilians all around US. Even if you could stop Ladin and taleban, it will be of little help. A more sensible approach would be going after individual cells, finances of terrorism, gather more intelligence about their activities etc. Was a month enough to find all terrorist that could potentially target US? If not, bombing of afganistan will only promote further attacks to US. They have well demonstrated that they can do plenty of damage, didn't they? This fireworks stuff is dumb, it will achive nothing. Terrorists that can do real damage are not where you are bombing now anyway. And more civilians from both sides will die in this foolish process. I can't see how anyone can back up this stunt. And no, I'm not a muslim either, although I live in a country where most of the population is.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    15. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he did. His reason for singling out the Jews was that Christ was crucified by His fellow Jews.

    16. Re:This sucks by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      No he did not ! He claimed they were parasites to the society ! He would would have been very stupid to point the germans out that JHC was a jew too, like he did so much to hide his father was in fact the bastard of a rich jewish family.

    17. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wish you peace.

      I wish YOU would drop the Ghandi routine.

    18. Re:This sucks by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I agree entirely (up to and including that not all muslims are terrorists). I'm genuinely proud that such clearheaded and dedicated people are among our military forces.

      Bin Laden is linked strongly enough to previous atrocities to warrant extradition. Anyone who thinks we ought to do nothing is - to put in bluntly - bound to fall out of the gene pool. I've followed the peace rallies at Harvard and other schools, and I have to remind myself that those students are far more intoxicated by testing their wings than promoting a position that will have lasting value.

      Alongside the recommendation to watch a tape of the towers, I recommend the following mental exercise to those who think military action unwarranted. Imagine that someone you know and love has been lost. Now imagine another one. Now another one. Keep at it. Is there any point at which you would declare that something must be done? If the answer is no, you're a zealot. If the answer is yes, you simply have a different threshold for military action, and ought to acknowledge your difference of opinion as such.

      For me, it turned out that I only needed to lose one person I loved. I won't have the academic luxury of pondering whether zero would have been sufficient.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    19. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have any relatives in Afghanistan. If you did, you'd know that they already live in ruins.

    20. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty obvious you are in the military.

    21. Re:This sucks by sunconscious · · Score: 0

      you have no evidence to back up this ridiculous claim.

      hitler himself wrote that he was a Christian, believed in God, Jesus, and had the backing of the Catholic church in Germany during the war.

    22. Re:This sucks by Gasconne · · Score: 1

      If the people who didn't like the government they were under always took the advice of rabid patriots like a few Anonymous Cowards have made here and left, the USA would never have been founded. It was the people sick of their government that fomented the Revolutionary War, not the people content to sit back on their asses and let the people in charge run roughshod. I may disagree with the naysayers, but I'm glad they feel safe enough to comment.

    23. Re:This sucks by hey! · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention Gandhi. Like all great modern revolutionaries, he understood that real change happens in people's heads. That's why what to us look like acts of futility, like Sep 11, aren't futile to men like Bin Laden. What they are offering to the Arab world is a vision of Arabs, not as despised and powerless outcasts on the fringes of the civilized world, but as so powerful as to be feared and hated by the greatest powers in the world.

      They are doing this because they understand that the real battle is in peoples minds.

      Your mind is a valuable thing. Too valuable to be cluttered up with junk like nationalism, bigotry or hatred.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    24. Re:This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. I'm bin laudin. Are you an American? If you are, with my dieing breath you and your family will be killed.

      All muslims. Please let us join up so we can bastardize our religion even more.

  41. Bush'es speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta love he made no distinction whatsoever between the countries who are actually dropping bombs out there with him, and the countries who just said it was ok that US aircraft flew through their airspace.

    Personally, I'd rather not have my country directly associated with dropping bombs in and around populated cities.

  42. Re:Un-manned Military by linuxpng · · Score: 1

    ...and send them windows95 based solutions

  43. Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver justice by afflatus_com · · Score: 2, Troll

    Considering part of the propaganda campaign of bin Laden terrorists is that this is a holy war by the 'Crusaders and Zionists', it is surprising that Bush would take then choose a Christian Sunday to go in and start to deliver justice.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
  44. I am afraid by mirko · · Score: 1

    If these people were really behind Sept.11 tragedy then we shall expect an even more atroce one in the forthcoming days because for them it is rather a Holy War than just a punition.

    Hope I'll live old enough to forget these days.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:I am afraid by JerryKnight · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. It's almost been said outright that this will bring more fear among American citizens. (did you hear bin laden's speech released today?)

      I doubt anyone will live long enough to forget this, even those not born yet. It would be tragic if this were forgotten.

      --

      Catapultam habeo. Nisi omnem pecuniam tuam mihi dabis, ad tuum caput saxum immane mittam.
    2. Re:I am afraid by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      You need to realize that whether or not there was a response to Sept. 11, further attacks would almost certainly be forthcoming. If someone kicked you square in the nuts (sorry, assuming you are male... if not, pretend you have nuts), would you just lie there and not respond? Perhaps if you just laid there holding your balls, they would go away...

      Unfortunately, the people who committed this atrocity would not just go away. They would continue kicking you while you were on the ground. Your only hope of not being kicked to death would be to stand up and give them such a beating that they wouldn't try anything like this ever again.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    3. Re:I am afraid by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      well, it was bush that made it a "holy war" by saying it's a "crusade". A very bad wording infact as the crusades where rasistic wars of plunder and pillage.

      /Erik

      --
      Erik Dalén
    4. Re:I am afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no. Bin Laden made it a holy war when he urged followers to Jihad in his Fahtwa, issued years before Bush ever mentioned crusade.

  45. Re: America will never learn by DarkZero · · Score: 1
    A large civilian target and one military target on our soil were bombed, and we still tried to reason with our enemies, the Taliban, for nearly a month. We tried for an adequate amount of time to find a peaceful resolution and to limit the human death toll as much as possible, but the Taliban pushed us away at every turn.

    I want peace. I love peace. But you can't solve every conflict through peaceful and reasonable negotiation. There are some conflicts that require violence, and I believe that this is one of them. We tried to find a peaceful solution, but we failed. Now it's time for Plan B: Violence. I think the US has acted admirably in their attempts to find a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

  46. Cowards? no, Idealogues. by metalhed77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First of all we are responding to what they started. Secondly, we are not attacking innocent civilians like those cowards did.

    Cowards is a misleading propaganda term used by the govt. to try to hide the true cause of these attacks. I can't believe you bought into that rhetoric. There is nothing cowardly about dying for something you believe. Remember, know your enemy, if all you do is repeat rhetoric like that you have done a disservice to yourself. These men are not cowards, the are idealogues who are willing to die for their cause. As horrendous as their cause may be it's right in their eyes. I'm not soft on them, i'd like em all blown to pieces, but I refuse to simply classify them the easiest way possible as many have done.

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by blixel · · Score: 1

      Cowards is a misleading propaganda term used by the govt. to try to hide the true cause of these attacks.

      Blah blah blah... If your wife or mom would have died in the attacks you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

    2. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah... If you lived in one of the countries USA has attacted in the past by "cowardly" using stealth bombers and your wife or mom would have died in the attacks by USA you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

    3. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were idealogues for a cause which was so unjustafiable that none of their leaders would admit to it. An idealogy so rooted in immorality and shame that no one will admit to believing in it is truely an ideology for cowards.

    4. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not called cowards because they lack the bravery to give their lives for their cause.

      They're called cowards because they choose to attack innocent people indiscriminately by surprise, rather than fight military forces face-to-face in a deliberate confrontation.

      Guerillas are not necessarily terrorists, but terrorists must necessarily use guerilla tactics.

    5. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by bman08 · · Score: 1

      I believe the Kaiser played the "Coward" card during WWI. The danger of this type of propaganda is that if your opponent proves braver than you said it shakes the trust of the people. It remains to be seen whether or not the mujahidin are as cowardly as they keep saying. Let's hope so, then this thing can be over.

    6. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by jgalun · · Score: 1

      No one is saying that they are physical cowards. We are saying that they are moral cowards. It is not government propaganda, it is your own stupidity and unwillingness to find out what people mean by their words:

      http://slate.msn.com/code/Chatterbox/Chatterbox. as p?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8268

    7. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by blixel · · Score: 1

      If you lived in one of the countries USA has attacted in the past by "cowardly" using stealth bombers...

      Oh...so just because we don't tie dynamite to our chests and walk into a crowded room and blow away ourselves and everyone around us makes us cowards? Get a clue.

    8. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by blixel · · Score: 1

      They're not called cowards because they lack the bravery to give their lives for their cause.

      Yes they are cowards. The fact that they tie dynamite to their chests and walk into a room and give their lives for their cause just makes them stupid on top of being a coward.

      The United States uses technology to smite out it's enemies from afar. That's intelligence.

    9. Re:Cowards? no, Idealogues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, if someone commits suicide for emotional reasons then everyone says that they were cowards. If they were brave, then they would've come in with guns and gave us a fighting chance. Islam and Jonestown, what is the difference?

  47. Re:Civilization vs.Islam. by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

    This, from an AC:) Ahh, well, such is the nature of man. If the guy wants to cast this as a religious war he actually has the freedom to do that, regardless of how wrong or foolish he may be about it.

    --
    "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
  48. reply by Iammadmak · · Score: 0

    sadly, it has begun and im really scared...

    1. Re:reply by Zico · · Score: 1

      Why are you scared? Do you live in the area or have loved ones who might be involved in any of the fighting?

    2. Re:reply by Aiee · · Score: 1

      I'm scared that someone decides now would be a good idea to break out the bio/chem weapons and kill off a bunch of europeans to get a point across :P I'm afraid a horrible death as collateral damage to Bush and Osamas little genocide isn't on my to-do list.

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
    3. Re:reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Those were exactly my thoughts when I heard the news.


      A bio/chem attack is too likely for comfort.

    4. Re:reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any you don't think he'll do that anyway? Get rid of him before he has that capability.

    5. Re:reply by Zico · · Score: 1

      To each his own, but I feel safer knowing that the U.S. and Britain are making such a big effort to (1) eliminate the terrorists with those kinds of weapons, (2) cut off the money of any that are remaining, and (3) send a clear message to countries that harbor terrorists that the cost could very well be their removal from power. How many governments will want to pay the price that the Taliban probably will?

  49. just softening em up by SquierStrat · · Score: 1

    an action like this is just prep for a troop drop...you always soften up the enemy's intelligence capability (cmd ctrs, rdr stations)before you drop your troops in such as airborne divisions...this is how i see it.

    --
    Derek Greene
  50. the next step... by psych031337 · · Score: 4, Offtopic

    is probably isolating the 8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border. They could be easily cut off in this area.

    Here in germany a reporter has told about his stay in the Norther Alliance area. He has seen long lines of trucks filled with material. At least 55 tanks from Russia. Crates of ammo with russian and american/english inscriptions on them.

    --
    +++ath0
    1. Re:the next step... by garcia · · Score: 2, Troll

      I read on USA Today that they have a total of about 40k troops. I don't know what they think they are going to accomplish w/that low number of forces but whatever.

      I am really intrigued by their "prepare of jihad" statement. Honestly I don't think that they quite understand that this is in no way linked to any such "holy war". Maybe the language barrier is really a problem.

      This is not a holy war people. This is a retaliation for stupidity. A simple request that had a simple solution. Hand the asshole over and we are done.

      If you really want to remain in power just hand the fucker over.

      I do NOT agree w/war and I do NOT think that retaliations are really necessary but I also do NOT believe that the Taliban is being too smart about this ordeal. We gave them like 26 days or something. They had the idiot under their control and all they had to do was comply.

      DO NOT SAY IT IS HOLY WAR, it is a god damn single person that is a fucking jackass. Turn the stupid shit over and be done w/it.

      I wish the forces in Asia the best of luck and worry for them.

      Support our descision and do your best to verbally attack the stupidity of the Taliban.

    2. Re:the next step... by fatboy · · Score: 1

      the next step... is probably isolating the 8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border. They could be easily cut off in this area.

      Three words "Fuel Air Bomb".

      --
      --fatboy
    3. Re:the next step... by LatJoor · · Score: 1

      Whatever you read about "40k" troops, this will likely be a very hard fight if we intend to win it. If we try to win it, we can expect another Vietnam-like ground war where we have lots of casualties and we're never quite sure who we're fighting. Plus, in Vietnam most of the people that died on our side were Vietnamese, whereas this time we're more on our own. The only up-side in this case is that the Taliban doesn't have a major world power supplying him like the Afghan rebels did against the Soviet Union. (That power was the USA... then the rebels turned around and joined the Taliban when the Soviets left.) If, on the other hand, we're not actually planning to "win" the war, we just bomb them for a while, kill lots of people, and leave the Taliban in power just like we did with Saddam Hussein. If you think the Taliban can be defeated with bombs, think again. The country is full of mountains and caves, and the fighters don't live in "camps" like W would have you believe, they look like ordinary people and live in ordinary villages. At least, that's how it was when they fought against the USSR.

      The USA has just committed to a war that we can't afford to not win without taking a major blow to our prestige, yet the chances of a clear victory are very dubious. Now who's stupid?

    4. Re:the next step... by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

      >If you really want to remain in power just hand the [...] over.

      Could be that it is exactly that reason (want to remain in power) that they would not want to appear to cave in to US demands.

    5. Re:the next step... by supabeast! · · Score: 2

      "I read on USA Today that they have a total of about 40k troops. I don't know what they think they are going to accomplish w/that low number of forces but whatever."

      Apparently you are not very up to date on contemporary guerilla warfare. If you want to see what a small number of psychotic troops fighting for their homeland can do, take a look at the ass-beating the USA took in Vietnam. Another good example would be the guerrillas in Peru and Columbia, who have been able to keep fighting so long that they people have forgotten why the fighting ever started. An even better example would be the people of Afghanistan, who have beaten the British three times, and even took on the Soviet Army and beat them back, albeit with a good bit of help from the USA.

      40,000 guerrillas in a war torn nation full of refugees are worse than millions of troops fighting with conventional styles of warfare. Their are plenty of people in the US government who fought in Vietnam, and do not ever want anyone to go through that sort of thing again.

    6. Re:the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not on our own. The Northern Alliance is also fighting against the Taliban.

      Also Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan when the Russians where there, so obviously the camps didn't exist then...

    7. Re:the next step... by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1


      I am really intrigued by their "prepare of jihad" statement. Honestly I don't think that they quite understand that this is in no way linked to any such "holy war". Maybe the language barrier is really a problem.

      Its a jihad because it is non-muslims attacking muslim state. This entitles them (under Islamic law) to make it a religious affair, irrespective of the opponents intentions.

    8. Re:the next step... by Danse · · Score: 2

      I'm sure training camps exist. I'm also sure that nobody is stupid enough to be in them right now. Bet we don't kill many of the people we're after by bombing Kabul. Probably kill a lot of innocents though.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    9. Re:the next step... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border."

      Personally, if they're really there, I think our best bet would be to force the Taliban's hand and make them invade Uzbekistan. All of their advantages lie in fighting in Afghanistan, where they know every square inch of land and have a good idea on how to avoid the old mine fields. On the other hand, the US probably knows more about Uzbekistan than most Uzbeks. The CIA was pretty much the definitive source of accurate maps of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, how much of that could have possibly changed in the past ten years? Combine that with the well-armed/trained/fed/motivated troops they'd be facing, and you have a very demoralizing slap in the face for the high and mighty Taliban and bin Laden.

    10. Re:the next step... by tjb · · Score: 1

      Except that guerilla warfare doesn't really work anymore (against US forces, anyway). Night vision and IR change the equation dramatically by taking away the cover of darkness and eliminating any cover that the guerillas might have in their retreat (Apache helicopters are covered in IR optics and could make short work of retreating troops).

      Tim

    11. Re:the next step... by BWJones · · Score: 2

      Actually there is an airbase just to the north of Kabul called Bagram airfield. This is probably a major target in Kabul. Not that there are many aircraft still flying with the Taliban. As of about spring of 2000, there were approximately 20 operational aircraft comprising MiG-21 and Su-22s.

      I have been out of things for a while, so I do not know what their aircraft compliment was as of this morning before the attacks, but I am sure they were maintaining the platforms to some extent with sources from the Ukraine through the sales of heroin and some money from Iraq and isolated sources in Saudi Arabia. So it is possible that they still had about as many aircraft possibly more as Osama Bin Laden was actively engaged in the purchase of a number of aircraft including former military aircraft from sources including private dealers in the US.

      Additionally, the airbase probably served as a staging area for the Taliban and was most likely also targeted because of this.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    12. Re:the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40k suicide bombers x 1000 innicent victims = A fucking lot of dead civilians.

    13. Re:the next step... by sigwinch · · Score: 4, Informative
      Apparently you are not very up to date on contemporary guerilla warfare. If you want to see what a small number of psychotic troops fighting for their homeland can do, take a look at the ass-beating the USA took in Vietnam.
      Hardly. The Vietnam War was a proxy war between the US and the USSR, an extended campaign in the Cold War. North Vietnam had essentially zero industrial capacity for fighters, bombers, aircraft, firearms, radios, and anti-aircraft missiles. Without vast infusions of Soviet materiel, the US would've promptly conquered North Vietnam. (Of course without the Soviet presence there would have been no need to.)

      Even with support from the USSR, the US was winning the war at the time of withdrawal. The withdrawal occurred because of the stunning PR incompetence of the US government. They didn't understand the tremendous power of an extended publicity campaign. They could probably have gotten support for a proxy war against the USSR, but they were silent and all that the public saw was an endless parade of body bags, year after year after year. As there was no strong leadership, the American public grew tired and ended the campaign.

      An even better example would be the people of Afghanistan, who ... even took on the Soviet Army and beat them back, albeit with a good bit of help from the USA. (Emphasis mine)
      Yet another major campaign in the Cold War, again a proxy war in fairly worthless territory, territory that neither nation would have bothered with were it not for the other superpower. Again, the Soviets sent vast amounts of materiel into the theatre, and again the US-supported forces destroyed most of what they sent in. Unlike the Vietnam War, the Soviets also sent lots of soldiers into Afghanistan, which was a lethal US-funded meat grinder.

      Something you have to understand about the Soviets was that their technology was not efficient. Compare to US factories, it was much more expensive for them to build a tank or fighter. The effectiveness and quality of Soviet war machines also tended to be rather low. The net result is that it cost the Soviets many more man-hours to field a credible military force. So when they sent in a tank that got promptly bombed by US-supported forces, they had to divert a lot more industrial capacity away from luxury goods, research and development, and so forth. At the same time, they spent far to much of the remaining industrial and R&D capacity trying to outdo the Strategic Defense Initiative. It's also worth pointing out the substantial diversion of Soviet R&D during the Vietnam Proxy War as they tried to compete with the US Apollo project.

      Put all this together: previous costly war with no obvious victory and simultaneous loss at a technical competition, currently costly war with no obvious victory and heavy personnel losses and an even bigger unwinnable technological competition. It broke the will of the Soviet government and impoverished the people. The loss in Afghanistan was the straw that broke their back.

      40,000 guerrillas in a war torn nation full of refugees are worse than millions of troops fighting with conventional styles of warfare.
      Only with extensive support from a superpower, and that ain't gonna happen for Al Quaida or the Taliban. Especially since the US-aligned Special Operations groups will be using what are, frankly, guerrilla tactics. It's going to be guerrilla versus guerrilla, only the US guerrillas will have C-130s full of materiel arriving as needed, good air support, night-vision scopes, satellite reconnaissance, encrypted spread-spectrum radios, and so forth.

      The US also has a major advantage: they are not trying to conquer and hold Afghanistan like the Soviets were. They are simply trying to kill and disrupt a certain few thousand people. Also, unlike Israel or Iran, the only US criterion for an Afghan govt is peacefulness, stability, and cooperation with US intelligence. They won't be trying to prop up a violent government to fight a proxy war against a major power (in fact, they'll be specifically avoiding such a govt).

      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    14. Re:the next step... by Eil · · Score: 2


      It's also worth noting, of course, that a huge quantity of ground troups is not necessary nor desired with today's methods of war-making. If a military wants to attack someone, they don't send in a million marines, they send in a couple dozen bombers. Doing this causes far more damage and and also brings the casualty rate of the attackers (US in this scenario) down to almost zero.

      Yeah, there are instances where you need ground troops to do a job. That will probably never go away. But when you want to cause damange, you send in the ships and airplanes and bomb the snot out of whoever you oppose.

      In short, we could cause a LOT of damage with far fewer than 40,000 troops.

    15. Re:the next step... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • I read on USA Today that they have a total of about 40k troops. I don't know what they think they are going to accomplish w/that low number of forces but whatever.

      They probably think that they're going to die. We keep assuming that they play by the same rules as us, keeping the PR bullshit separate from the real negotiations.

      I don't see that happening. I see a bunch of people saying what they mean, and meaning what they say. I see them digging in, kissing their asses goodbye, and preparing to take as many invaders with them as possible. Funnily enough, that's always worked for Afghanistan before. Nobody holds on to it for long.

      More to the point, I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes. Bomb them back to the stone age? What's that going to take? Like five bombs? OK, now what? Drop smart bombs that can distinguish Taliban from Afghan civilians? Or send in troops armed with a handy "Who to shoot" guide?

      What we are doing is PR fluff. It's putting some big bangs on TV to get the reruns of the WTC off the screen. The only actions that will actually matter are the black ops. Everything else is just revenge, pure and simple. Payback. Take that, you bastards.

      I find it hard to disagree with that, but I'd at least like us to be honest about it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:the next step... by Spunk · · Score: 1

      the next step is probably isolating the 8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border. They could be easily cut off in this area.

      IANAG (I Am Not A General) but here's what the US is gonna do next...

    17. Re:the next step... by bwt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Apparently you are not very up to date on contemporary guerilla warfare. If you want to see what a small number of psychotic troops fighting for their homeland can do, take a look at the ass-beating the USA took in Vietnam.

      The US kill-to-loss ratio in Vietnam was something like 9 to 1. Assuming that this ratio maintains itself, it would cost the US 5000 military causualties to kill all 45000 Taliban troups.

      If anything, we will do much better than we did in Vietnam or the Soviets did in Afghanistan because
      1. We have virtually uncontested air superiority
      2. We are not facing an enemy who can replentish their arms from a rival superpower
      3. Our night-vision technology is a disruptive technology in guerilla warfare, and
      4. The US public supports, in fact demands, victory at any cost
      5. 22 years of civl war and 4 years of draught leave our enemy weak and weary
      6. Precision munitions are a disruptive battlefield technolgy.
      7. Our military force is 100% volunteer, whereas our enemy conscripts 12 year olds
      8. Our enemy is totally diplomatically isolated
    18. Re:the next step... by mandolin · · Score: 2
      First off, nice comment. Only part I disagreed w/ was:

      Also, unlike Israel or Iran, the only US criterion for an Afghan govt is peacefulness, stability, and cooperation with US intelligence.

      Cooperation: oh yes.

      Peacefullness/stability? We arguably had that before with the Taliban. (In comparison to Afghanistan's civil war anyway) .. I believe that as long as Afghanistan isn't supporting anti-US efforts (like bin Laden) the US government just isn't going to give a damn. Even if they did, it might not matter. "Afghanistan" is composed of various tribes who basically hate each other. They have fundamental problems that no installed government is going to solve for decades. Barring that, it would still be interesting to see us actually building dams to alleviate their current drought problems and other industry on the scale of our post-WWII restoration efforts, instead of just shooting food at them. Is it worth it?

    19. Re:the next step... by bwt · · Score: 2

      More to the point, I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes. Bomb them back to the stone age? What's that going to take? Like five bombs? OK, now what? Drop smart bombs that can distinguish Taliban from Afghan civilians? Or send in troops armed with a handy "Who to shoot" guide?


      I take the government officials and military commentators at face value. The air strikes are designed to eliminate air defenses, giving us unfettered control of the skies. They are not an end in themselves, but merely a means of securing an advantage in battles to come.

      I suspect that the Special Operations war is the "real" war. The bombing campaign today is just a visible aspect of this. By all accounts, the Spec Ops forces have already been at work invisibly. I highly doubt that its just recon, either.

      In order for the Spec Ops to strike at our real targets, they need to be able to deploy rapidly, which means repeling from helicopters and/or jumping out of low-flying planes. Those are both dangerous if your opponent has anti-aircraft capabilities, so you take those out first. It's really standard practice to do this kind of thing. We saw it on a much larger scale in Iraq, and we also saw it in Kosovo.

      Cruise missles at the terrorist camps is probably also a routine strike. We know they aren't stupid enough to be there, but now they have to base their operations from their current bunkers and caves. There are only so many places they can operate from, and destroying these camps simply locks them down where they are. Our goal will be to make it so that they have an ever shrinking number of places to be without being detected. When winter comes, they'll be locked down tight and we'll simply go "cave to cave" with Special Ops attacks.

      If the Al Qaeda leaders are dumb enough to intermingle with Afghani civilians, then our intelligence will discover that very quickly. Remember we have the Northern Alliance and the Pakistanis helping us with intelligence.

    20. Re:the next step... by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see a bunch of people saying what they mean, and meaning what they say.

      Taliban (on an even numbered day): This is holy war!
      Taliban (on an odd numbered day): We want to negotiate.
      Taliban (on even numbered day): The americans are getting what they deserve!
      Taliban (odd numbered day): We will release the hostiges (er... I mean foreign detainees) if you stop threatening us
      etc., etc., etc.

      So what do they mean?

      I think we have a better track record of doing what we say we'll do.


      I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes.

      Have you been paying attention? We expect to send in ground troops. We expect this to take a long time. Before you do that, you first get control of the airspace. That is probably most easily accomplished with airstrikes against selected targets. It is incomprehensible to me to not understand what we expect to accomplish with airstrikes.


      What we are doing is PR fluff. It's putting some big bangs on TV to get the reruns of the WTC off the screen.

      I completely disagree. We are trying to eliminate possible future attacks at their source. There may be some vengance motivation, but I think the real goal is to not let this stand and to not let it happen again. It will change what plays on TV -- but I think that has just about zero weight in the minds of the people planning this.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    21. Re:the next step... by glrotate · · Score: 1

      I was thinking napalm

    22. Re:the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an Unholy War!!! Blood and souls!!!

    23. Re:the next step... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      I read on USA Today

      that was your first mistake. Try reading bbc.co.uk, cbc.ca or even cnn.com - USA today is a terrible news source.

    24. Re:the next step... by shogun · · Score: 1

      whereas this time we're more on our own

      So the suddenly the Northern Alliance no longer have any interest in kicking out the Taliban?

    25. Re:the next step... by shogun · · Score: 1

      Its a jihad because it is non-muslims attacking muslim state. This entitles them (under Islamic law) to make it a religious affair, irrespective of the opponents intentions.

      No even even that is a stretch of the rules and is not something a Jihad can be called for. As far as I understand it a Jihad can only be called for an actual attack against Islam itself. For example a Jihad could of been called during the Crusades when the European invaders were killing/converting anyone who wasn't Christian.(someone who knows history better can say if there were any called in those times?)

    26. Re:the next step... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Even with support from the USSR, the US was winning the war at the time of withdrawal. The withdrawal occurred because of the stunning PR incompetence of the US government.

      I'm sick and tired of hearing this kind of thing. This is rewriting history. The US public didn't lose the Vietnam War; the Vietcong won. It's that simple. The antiwar movement was blamed after the fact, but the truth is the movement had little support in the mainstream and the media was solidly pro-war until the Tet Offensive; relatively late in the war. By that point the US government knew that we were losing the war and intentionally covered it up, and lied about it, and had continued to commit US troops to escalating the conflict even while their intelligence showed we were losing. All of this is documented in the Pentagon Papers. A good book summarizing the way the peace movement and the media have "taken the rap" for losing the Vietnam War is Bruce Cumings book on the media coverage of the Gulf War.

    27. Re:the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post. You'd have my mod points if I had any.

    28. Re:the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point well taken but the US had big fat target in South Vietnam and Russia and China would be a huge threat if we went into North Vietnam. And WE are fighting for our soil unless you don't think Manhatten qualifies as the continental US? I think a hunt and kill mission we have far fewer casaualties and Russia and Iran are hostile to the Taliban as well. We were fighting a Chinese proxy in Vietnam and the Russian were fighting a US one in Afganistan. Hide and call in targets and feed the refugess.

    29. Re:the next step... by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a horrible defeat for the North. They attacked 20-some villages, suffered major losses doing it, (to the tune of 20 Vietcong dead for every American dead) and yet they couldn't hold on to a single one. The victory of the Tet Offensive had nothing to do with the battlefield and can in no way be considered a loss for the US without considering domestic politics and public opinion. What the Tet Offensive did do, which made it so successful, was show the US that nowhere in Vietnam was safe, that land supposedly under American control was as dangerous for American soldiers as Hanoi.

      Like you say, and you're right when you say it, the Tet Offensive was the turning point of the war. It was then that the public (not necessarily the anti-war movement) woke up to the idea that there was no way we could win this thing. That aside, we were definitely not losing--US troops won every battle they fought in.

    30. Re:the next step... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
        • I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes.
        Have you been paying attention? We expect to send in ground troops. We expect this to take a long time. Before you do that, you first get control of the airspace. That is probably most easily accomplished with airstrikes against selected targets. It is incomprehensible to me to not understand what we expect to accomplish with airstrikes

      I'm perfectly aware of what the stated goal is. I don't understand what we expect to actually achieve.

      The AA threat in Afghanistan isn't radar or SAM vehicles, it's 57mm and 20mm guns and man portable SAMs. Do we really expect that we can suppress all of them? We'd be better off (i.e. cheaper) flying unmanned weasels around to get them to blow off all their unreplacable ammo. Heck, maybe we're doing that as well, but it's really all we need to do.

      The missiles and bombs are mostly a PR exercise, plus it's a great excuse to test weapons systems in the field.

      By the way, did you see the speech by bin Laden? Substitute "democracry" for "Islam" and "terrorist" for "infidel" and it's pretty much indistinguishable from Bush's rhetoric. Wierd.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    31. Re:the next step... by Flambergius · · Score: 1

      Like you say, and you're right when you say it, the Tet Offensive was the turning point of the war. It was then that the public (not necessarily the anti-war movement) woke up to the idea that there was no way we could win this thing. That aside, we were definitely not losing--US troops won every battle they fought in.


      A tactical victory, a strategic defeat.

      I'm no expert on Vietnam War, but would still hazard a guess that US troops lost every battle they fought, in fact had lost every battle they fought even before it started.

      It's rather common occurance in military history. Napoleon had a string of tactical victories before his first capitulation.

      Unpopular wars are usually lost.

      --Flam
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
    32. Re:the next step... by Flambergius · · Score: 1

      That's really dangerous thinking. Luckily US military won't be quilty of that, not with Powell around.

      Taleban are in dire straits, their logistical situation may be critical. Other then that US doesn't have much more going for themselves that they didn't have in Vietnam or Brits or Soviets in Afghanistan, if it comes to having western troops on the ground there.

      Taleban are a veteran army made of religious fanatics defending their faith and homes. They may well be the best fighting force in the world. Better on man-by-man bases then any special forces the professional western armies have.

      Think of Afghanistan as a natural bunker and you get the idea how decisive air superiority will be.

      US would have a very hard time sustaining a ground campaign in Afghanistan. Where's the supply line?

      Don't think you can win with ground troops. That's the road to defeat. US public support is high now, but it won't be as high after the bodybags start arriving. And they would. Afghans might die on 10 to 1 ratio in battle but just as many casualties could come behind the frontlines. That's a lot of bags.

      The Norther Alliance is the only possibility for a quick victory. Air support and the new equipment they have reportedly been getting, they might just be able to do enough. Taleban could crack much easier in front of a internal enemy then a foreign one.

      --Flam

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
    33. Re:the next step... by raresilk · · Score: 1

      Better get good recon on those "8000 Taliban at the Uzbekistan border." Ask yourself why the Taliban made such a point of *announcing* this supposed troop move to the world. How much you want to bet they moved 8000 civilians up to the Uzbekistan border and set up a refugee camp, then deliberately enticed the USA to bomb the area, so that they could trumpet the USA's barbaric killing of civilians to the world?

      Oh, y'all think the Taliban wouldn't slaughter thousands of peaceful Afghani civilian Muslims to maintain power? Wouldn't murder their country's own women and children?

      Sigh. How do you think the Taliban got control of Afghanistan in the first place? And how do you think they keep it?

      The Taliban are rivaled only by Saddam Hussein as the most prolific murderers of Muslim civilians in modern times. Too bad we didn't give a damn unless and until this monstrous band of dictators turned its underground killing machine on *our* civilians. We unilateralist, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-Cold-War, surfing-the-tech-boom "Americans" were just too comfy to pay much attention. International news doesn't sell. Run more footage on Chandra Levy and shark attacks, please.

      Here are some thoughts for today:
      "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans; born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

      "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty. This much we pledge, and more. To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do; for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder." John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961.

      Forty years have come and gone, and we, the Americans to whom Mr. Kennedy spoke, have done everything with that global commitment except honor it. We stained it with the ignorance and dishonesty of the war in Vietnam. We abused it propping up bloody dictatorships in South America. We called ridicule upon it by watching in silence while both Israel and Palestine reneged on their promises. We spat on treaties with our European allies, and walked out of global human rights conventions. And though many noisily proclaim that our government takes these actions despite our opposition, the numbers don't lie: more than half of us don't vote, and some even brag about the fact.

      Despite all this, our allies seem to be welcoming us back to the world community. Let's not blow it this time, my fellow Americans. Keep those ration drops and radios coming. Stuff the Taliban back in the holes they crawled out of and help Afghanistan institute democracy. And then, let's continue acting like global citizens for a change. It's not too late.

      (my sarcasm is not directed at your post, BTW. A rant was bottled up inside me.)

      --
      No, no, no. This is not a sig.
    34. Re:the next step... by bwt · · Score: 2

      Laughable. You didn't really respond to any of my points other than to say that air superiority isn't useful because of the geography: a 'natural bunker'.

      You should study the battle of Okinawa, because it is very similar. The Japanese started with 100,000 troops in heavily fortified bunkers, tunnels and caves in mountainous terrain. (Sound familiar) They were fanatics, willing to die in suicide attacks (I'm not so sure that this is true of the rank and file Taliban fighter, but for the Japanese, this is now a historical fact). The final result: 12,000 American and 100,000 Japanese died and the US controlled Okinawa after three months.

      Merely getting comparable results in Afghanistan would yeild all 40,000 Taliban forces killed with 4800 American casualites. For the reasons I enumerated in the original post, the US would do much better in 2001 Afghanistan than they did in 1945 against the Japanese. The enemy is similar in terms of military capability, but our forces have progressed greatly. No 5,000 lb. bunker busters existed in Okinawa.

      In a guerilla war, uncontested airspace is exploited with helicopters which ofter basically the only means of rapid troop movement. Basically, we'll be able to move and they won't. Combine this with night vision and precision tactical munitions and you'll see the Taliban get an ass kicking for the ages.

    35. Re:the next step... by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I'm no friend to the so-called "peace" movement; but they really *didn't* lose the war. Our government lost the war by:
      • Helping France. Even talking to the French is a bad idea. Helping them *do* something is the kiss of death.
      • Fighting a "political" war. Come on, there is *no* such thing. Politics is about compromise and war is about killing people. Never mix the two.
    36. Re:the next step... by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      I disagree with any notion that this is just a massive PR exercise.

      I think the military people who constantly practice, know what they're doing better than I do. (And by implication, most slashdotters.) For instance, you could get them to expend AA by sending in lots of cheap drones. From reports I've read, we're flying way above the range of AA fire. As for Stingers, they have a very limited supply. We manufactured them, and so we probably know their limitations, weaknesses, and any possible exploits.

      I do agree with the notion that there is a PR aspect to this. As a non military person, and therefore unqualified, but I'll insert <body part> into mouth anyway (which is why I would never be in the military, btw); in my unqualified opinion, there is no miilitary reason to fly two B2 bombers, each $2.1 billion, from Missouri to Afghanistan and back. Can't B52's and B1's from Deigo Garcia do just as well against such poor air defenses?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    37. Re:the next step... by iankerickson · · Score: 1
      An even better example would be the people of Afghanistan, who ... even took on the Soviet Army and beat them back, albeit with a good bit of help from the USA. (Emphasis mine)

      Yet another major campaign in the Cold War, again a proxy war in fairly worthless territory, territory that neither nation would have bothered with were it not for the other superpower.

      You're kidding, right?

      Does the phrase "warm water port" mean anything to you? The former Soviet Union had the largest amount of oceanic coastline of any nation in the world, but almost all of it was arctic. The year-road coastal ice and ship-wreaking icebergs meandering just off shore made the USSR's coastlines nearly useless for military and commercial ship deployment.

      The USSR basically had three viable ports: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the most southerly coasts of Sibera nearest Korea. All of those ports could EASILY be blockaded by foreign navies via the North Sea, the Dardenells or the entire Mediterranean, and bases in Alaska, Japan, and South Korea. Notice the strong Allied presence in all of those areas.

      Despite Russia's Marxist rhetoric, the Soviet Union could barely support its internal needs for basics like food, medicine, and power, without imports. In an all-out war, it would have been fairly straightforward to cut off the USSR from all shipments and starve them out.

      So one of Russian big goals in the cold war was to conquer its way to a warm water seaport, and the quickest way was through Afghanistan, since Russian provinces already surrounded it. From there, they planned to continue on to the Indian Ocean, which would have given them enough tropical coast to make a blockade very hard for us to enforce.

      Besides missle counts, the oceans were a big theatre of the cold war, especially involving submarine movements. Part of Vietnam's value was it's proximity to both the Indian and Pacific oceans. Used as a soviet/chinese naval base, ships and subs could patrol from there to destroy US subs and ships.

      So don't call Afghanistan a "worthless" territory to fight over. It may have seemed pointless to you, and maybe all war really is pointless, but it wasn't pointless to the Russians to take it, or pointless for us to help the Afghanis keep it. It was just a move and countermove in a big, impersonal game of chess with nations.

      --
      Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
  51. Someone had to say this... by DragonPup · · Score: 0, Funny

    The Taliban issued this response to the attacks: "Someone set up us the bomb!"

    Sorry, had to say it, For Great Justice, after all
    -Henry

    --
    "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
  52. Heres a thought for by Snoozer_man · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Food for thought: 1) Approach someone talking about "peace" and saying things like "there should be no retaliation." 2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate. 3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?" 4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence." 5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can. 6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence." 7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence. 8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time. Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

    --
    Thanks Snoozer
    1. Re:Heres a thought for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a shame this is completely irrelevant to the current situation. A more accurate analogy would be punching someone, then running off and hiding whilst he goes round punching innocent people in the hope that one of them might be you, or rather just to look as if he's doing something.

    2. Re:Heres a thought for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, after you hit the protester he, or some bystander, tells the police and you get send to jail.

      Revenge won't solve anything, only justice will.

    3. Re:Heres a thought for by ymgve · · Score: 0

      Or, he could drag you into court and charge you for assault. Now that's what should be done to agressive entities/persons.

    4. Re:Heres a thought for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here's a thought, he punches you in the face knocking your teeth out... and you know what, he wouldn't be a hypocrict(sp?) You see, he knows you're the one doing it, and when he punches you, he's not going to accidently hit anyone else who has nothing to do with it.

    5. Re:Heres a thought for by geggibus · · Score: 1

      Ok.. then let's put it this way...
      who started? .. and is still pushing down the 3:rd world countries? Colonisation, imperalism..(US was also a victim seen from this perspective and they fought.. didn't they?) .. then later with the creation of Israel.. USA helps Israel against it's neighbours... countries being used as bricks in the big guys "little" game (cold war)
      So after being hit by the Western world finaly SOME of them fight back...

      and no.. i don't like the talibans,but not because they won't turn over Usama(Sweden wouldn't either) which is the reason to the attack against afghanistan...

      /Geggibus
      "Non si male nunc, et olim sic erit"

    6. Re:Heres a thought for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya true if your dealing with humans this Osama is NOt he is EVIL, also we asked for him to be turned over we have BEEN asking that for years! would you rather we keep on asking nicely untill he kills 7000 more americans? And don't try to tell me oh they offered to put him on trial there because you know damn well that would not be a fair trial not that one in the states would be fair either, but I'm sure the states would have been just as happy to let the un put him on trial.
      You Harbour terrorisits and YOU should DIE.
      I really would like to know if you'd feel the same way if someone in your family died in the WTC??

  53. Re: America will never learn by fiore42 · · Score: 1

    >Everyone study the post above. It's symbolic of why the US is 'hated' by so many around the world. It's important to not only let other people air their views, but to listen and respond in kind.

    Jackass. The US is, right now, responding in kind. Violence is a proper response to violence, and if the WTC wasn't violence, I don't know what is.

  54. 12:32 CDT update by TheHawke · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Strikes have been aimed agianst CnC (ccommunication and command) sites, primarily agianst radar and several communication sites.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  55. Brilliant tactics by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    Not only are we hitting the military installations, but we're being EXTREMELY careful not to take any civilian lives. Combined with that, we're dropping food and supplies to the Afghan people. It seems like our strategy is to disrupt the military of Afghanistan, and pave the way for a sort or revolution by the people.

    -- Dr. ELdarion --

    1. Re:Brilliant tactics by LatJoor · · Score: 1

      Bombing a country doesn't constitute being "extremely careful not to take any civilian lives," any more than it did in Iraq where we killed tons of civilians. Give it a rest. What we're paving the way for is more death and starvation from a people that's already so busy just trying to survive that they can't move to the next step of trying to make changes in their country's government.

      Besides, the move you describe isn't "tactics," it's "strategy." They're two different things.

    2. Re:Brilliant tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of those against it:

      What is your solution?

    3. Re:Brilliant tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1: Collect and present evidence against those members of the network that we can.
      Step 2: Demand the extradition of these people.
      When that fails...
      Step 3: Use spec ops teams to kidnap those people, and to make useless those encampments used by them. When they fight back, kill or take prisoner any members of the camps that fight spec ops.
      When the Taliban attempts to intervene...
      Step 4: Formally declare war against Afghanistan
      Step 5: Destroy the Afghani military's ability to wage war.
      Step 6: Use spec ops teams to capture or kill the members of the Taliban Government.
      Step 7: Place an interim military Government in charge of Afghanistan.
      Step 8: Negotiate with any faction of Afghanistan that demonstrates it will comply with terms of release of Afghanistan to its people.
      Step 9: Continue the extraction of members of the network we have evidence against, destroying any groups that use violence against us.
      Step 10: Put captured members on trial.
      Step 11: Turn control of Afghanistan over to new republican democracy that has a constitution providing whatever terms we deem important.
      Step 12: Maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for the forseeable future, in a manner like we do with Japan and other 'allies.'

  56. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What can I say? This guy is why I worry about my country (U.S.) trying to do things in the world. Muslims are not the problem, idiots are. Muslim terrorist idiots and this American idiot are no better than each other.

    Let's all pray that the evil suffer their punishment and the innocent are held safe.

  57. +1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No text

  58. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right before the 1:00 EST NFL kickoff!

  59. Re: I think by Husaria · · Score: 0

    Denmark would be a special case for someone who killed 5,000 people.
    Otherwise, they would be harboring a terrorist

    --
    Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
  60. Actually, most informed sources by FallLine · · Score: 2

    say Osama, not to be confused with the Binladen family, has much less than a billion dollars at his disposal. The highest estimate of his wealth is around 300m, but many think it is much less than that, in the 100m dollar region. Granted though, that's X million too many.

  61. Re:Civilization vs.Islam. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a troll. Not only have you been troll-baited, but you're also stupid.

  62. ughh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dident they say if the US strikes afghanistan then they will strike back. man this is gonna suck.

  63. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you threaten me on the street, I'm free to turn around and punch you? Of course not. We have laws and properly defined legal processes. For *any* government to flaunt these processes goes against everything democracy stands for. Also, do you really that stating 'jackass' as your opening word is a civilised responce to my reasonable post?

  64. Latest message from the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

  65. Re:It is time for you to realize by Kilobug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The European Union chart forbids european countries to extrad people to country where death penalty is still active. (this rule, like many european rules, are not followed by every european countries, I know)

    What will you do if a terrorist come to an european country? Will you bomb Paris or Berlin just because they would follow the European law?

    And if Cuba or another "foe" of US ask for extradiction, will they obey?

    USA is not the master of the world. They don't have the right to say: "this man is guilty, we have proof but don't want to show them, give him or we'll bomb you". There are international rules, an organisation called UN and so on.

  66. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I figured it was because it's almost monday there in Afghanistan, and because it was a peak TV period for American males.

    Pre-game show for the early Football game.

  67. Re:Un-manned Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would fuck them up badly!

  68. Sigh.... by RelliK · · Score: 2

    Those who support retaliation fail to realize that the Spet. 11 attack was itself a retaliation. The "terrorists" are in effect "punching back". Or do you buy into the propaganda that this was solely an "attack on your freedom"?

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:Sigh.... by Snoozer_man · · Score: 0

      No I don't think that, but I am also not going to feel bad for a country that hides this guy. We are dropping food and other supplies and we are trying NOT to hurt civilians but some may die which is sad. but it's better than osama, wasan't it him who said the American public was the enemy as well? because they paid taxes. As far as I'm concerned no matter what has happend this was brought on,osama deserves this.

      --
      Thanks Snoozer
    2. Re:Sigh.... by RelliK · · Score: 2

      Spoken like a true terrorist. Congrads!

      Osama bin Laden and his organization declared war on US. If civilians get hurt in the process, so be it.
      US declared war on Osama bin Laden and his organization. If civilians get hurt in the process, so be it.

      Emotion coulds your thinking. I understand it's difficult to come to terms with reality, but US is by no means an innocent victim. US is a playground bully who got kicked in the balls.

      I do think that right now US has no choice but to go after the perpetrators. The problem is, of course, doint it effectively. If you start droppping bombs all over the place, you risk killing too many civilians and thus creating even more "terrorists" (remember, these people are survivers of US aggression and they can't wait to return the favour).

      Long term though, a change in US foreign policy would go a long way towards ensuring these attacks do not continue.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    3. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were punching back on 9/11. They were punching back against a liberal democracy which allowed non-muslims to exist, a country which allows women to be human beings instead of baby machines. A country which allows the people to select their own leaders and thier own laws.

      They were striking back against the biggest threat to their lifestyle - a lifestyle which is evil, repressive and no place I (or you) would want to live. And they will keep striking back until they are dead, or we are living under their brutal, repressive style of government, with them in charge.

      If living under the Taliban sounds better than living in a western democracy (this is the choice, after all), why aren't you already there?

    4. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a change in US foreign policy would be great but in this SITUATION I don't think it's gonna work. What kills me about these bleeding hearts is that they always cry "ohh innocent people! don't blow anyone up!. OK how about we leave him where he is and you can just pray that the next target osama hits is not near you or anyone you care about.
      I suppose people like that also think we could have solved WW2 peacefully as well right? I wish these bleeding heats could just for 1 second be a victim of Osama then maybe you would change your tune!
      Innocents in this country Don't let women go to school or get a job or do anything but basically make babies! You can be KILLED for going to school! you know what if this is the innocent people then I HOPE we kill them all!

    5. Re:Sigh.... by bnenning · · Score: 2

      Please list the actions of the United States for which "retaliation" by murdering 5000 innocent civilians is justifiable.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    6. Re:Sigh.... by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1

      Please list the actions of the United States for which "retaliation" by murdering 5000 innocent civilians is justifiable.

      Nothing, of course.

      But this is the problem. To our minds, we are innocent. We have completely failed to understand other cultures and their values. In their minds, they are the victims, and have completely failed to understand our culture and values. We've trodden on their toes, and they're stamping back. Belligerence and jingoism (by all parties) is not the answer.

    7. Re:Sigh.... by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      Those who support retaliation fail to realize that the Spet. 11 attack was itself a retaliation.

      Shut up.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  69. US economy by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Nothing like a good war to jump start a declining economy...

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's pure myth that war improves an economy. In fact, economies are radically changed twice due to a large scale war, but they do not improve. When the war begins, workers are transferred to foreign mudholes to die, leaving those at home to convert existing manufacturing to war materials production. Shortages and consequent rationing of civilian goods, including food exist for the duration. Another problem occurs when the war ends. Massive numbers of trained, experienced killers of human beings are now roaming the streets unemployed.

    2. Re:US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That only works if:
      • Your side wins the war
      • You get resources as a result of winning
      • The war stimulates new commercially viable technological developments

      I'm not sure that we will get any resources if we win (congratulations, you have won a mountainous desert country with busted up infrastructure and no commercially viable natural resources). New technological developments are not necessarily likely (unless the war is prolonged). The highest reward solutions (taking over some oil rich regions in nearby countries) is not likely to be smiled upon by other powerful countries and thus has a high (if not unacceptable cost).
    3. Re:US economy by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Well, I expect that dubleya intends to win this war, what whit all his claim of winning the war and all...

      Afganistan is good pipeline country...them darn talibans had some US based oil company loose some pipeline deal over to some foreign company...(I'm a bit hazy on the details, but still)

      It will stimulate the loss-of-privacy technology. It already has. The stock market took a dive but biometrics companies have seen their stock value soar higher and higher. Investments will be made into electronic surveillance technology, the CIA will like that.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  70. Now what? by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It looks like the plan is
    • Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
    • Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
    • Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
    • Declare victory.

    Bin Laden may survive this. But that may not matter. Just getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while.

    1. Re:Now what? by garcia · · Score: 2

      Of course he will survive this. Iraq was basically destroyed yet that dumbass is still running around over there.

      I don't see how attacking is going to stop any of the problems that we faced (and will probably continue to face).

      I know that they have declared their little "jihad" and I have a feeling that more strikes on American soil is possible. Even though these are minor compared to what we can do over there I have a feeling that they will be just as problematic as the Sept. 11 fiasco.

    2. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >Just getting the message across that allowing
      >terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country >means your government gets crushed

      Not that I'm a fan of the Taliban, but they didn't 'allow' the terrorists to attack from their country.

      The terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia, and did most of their training in the US and the UK, so by your rationale the UK and US governments should be being crushed.

      The Taliban run an extremely nasty regime, but they have little interest in attacking other countries; they are quite happy dominating Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is not at all popular there.

      If it leads to the toppling of the Taleban then I'll support the military action, but it makes little sense as a revenge attack to the WTC incident.

    3. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away) "

      assisting the northern alliance would be a mistake. the only difference between the northern alliance and the taliban is: the taliban is bigger and in power.

    4. Re:Now what? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      Giving the northern alliance power in Afghanistan isn't exactly going to help anything over there either.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while. "

      Get real. The "message" will be: Americans will come and kill your family and rape your wives if you don't give your lives in suicide bombings for Allah.

    6. Re:Now what? by rlwhite · · Score: 1

      The sense I get from the media at this point makes the plan look more like this:

      1. Suppress enemy air defenses. Some other important targets are also being hit in the early stage, such as the Taliban headquarters in Kandahar which has already been reported as hit.

      2. Once the air campaign softens ground opposition, the Northern Alliance and supposedly some southern tribes will start a heavy ground offensive. This may provide cover for special operations forces to get further intelligence. Reports are already coming in of defections of Taliban troops.

      3. Deliver food and medical supplies whenever possible, beginning with air drops and following up with truck routes and even using pack animals once the ground is relatively safe.

      4. Capture or kill bin Laden and his top lieutenants using special forces.

      5. The Northern Alliance has a deal with the exiled king to create a "broad-based government" (democratically elected?), and other groups have been invited to join it. Even disidents within the Taliban have been said to possibly join. The king is very old, having ruled 40 years and been in exile for 20+, and seems to have no interest in being much more than a figurehead. Although I haven't heard, I would not be surprised if peacekeepers were involved in the transition to a new government. The demand that the terrorist camps be open to inspection makes it seem plausible that peacekeepers could be used. The Northern Alliance is a group of warlords, and my fear is that they might overthrow a democratically elected government at the first opportunity.

    7. Re:Now what? by Xofer+D · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hey, here's a thought. Why not dispense with this whole "teach them a lesson" thing. Any time a country does something out of line, just invade them (as now) and crush the government (as now) but add the country to the USA? That way, they'll never piss off America again. Sweet! As a side benefit, we'd be bringing the light of Democracy and Capitalism to the poor, dark world. Everyone is better off when they have self-determination - if they're Americans. Other people should support their betters.

      --
      The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
    8. Re:Now what? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      The terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia, and did most of their training in the US and the UK, so by your rationale the UK and US governments should be being crushed.

      Hard to tell if the above statement is sarcasm or a genuine lack of understanding... but in case it's the latter, I point out that neither the UK nor the US governments knowingly harbored any terrorists, whereas the Afghanistan govt did.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    9. Re:Now what? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while.

      Uh, wait, I thought that the problem was that the terrorists are individuals and non-governmental organisations? What the fuck does bin Laden (or Son of bin Laden) care if his host government gets overthrown? The guy has messianic delusions, he'll just view whatever happens as part of his personal Ineffable Plan.

      And today the Rebel, sorry Northern Alliance are the good guys. They're the brave freedom fighters, standing up to the big bad ideological oppressors. Remember when that was the Taliban? If we put the Northern Alliance in power, how long before we have to start supporting another faction against them?

      We've chosen to go on policing the world. That comes at a cost, and taking out bin Laden, or the Taliban, or the Death Star or whatever is short term PR. Every time we set a boot into a foreign country, some fanatic is going to scream jihad. We need to drop the pretence of winning a War on Terrorists and admit that civilian casualties (US and foreign) are the cost of having the world run the way we want it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Now what? by bwt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      * Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
      * Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
      * Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
      * Declare victory.

      Declare victory ?! You've got to be kidding.

      I think from there it would go something like this from there:
      • Capture and secure a military base outside of Kabul
      • Use that base to launch close range reconaissance and special operations rapid strike capability throughout Afghanistan
      • Systematically secure every enemy cave, bunker, training camp, meeting place etc...
      • Eliminate all Taliban methods of mass-communication (radio, news, etc...) and begin massive Psy-Ops campaign
      • Step up humanitarian relief campaign, encouraging refugees to move back into central Afghan territory
      • Develop a robust Afghani human intelligence network to ID Taliban and Al Qaeda members
      • Use seek and destroy Special Ops strikes against all Taliban leaders, centers of resistance, Al Qaueda strongholds, etc...
      • Have the Afghani King return, and draft a Constitution based on a broad based democratic government
      • Schedule elections and implement a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan".

      Bin Laden may get killed in one of the Special Ops raids or he might flee the country. In any event, he'll be the CEO of a much smaller operation at this point.

      Even this is not the end, though. At this point, we'll turn to other terrorist groups and probably pick a fight with Iraq.
    11. Re:Now what? by bwt · · Score: 2

      Of course he will survive this. Iraq was basically destroyed yet that dumbass is still running around over there.

      We defined victory then as kicking him out of Kuwait. Rightly or wrongly, we made the decision to do just what we said we would do. As a result, we have very great credibility with moderate Arab states now.

      We absolutely could have toppled Saddam, but had we done so we might not be able to use bases in Saudi Arabia and Oman right now.

    12. Re:Now what? by Faust7 · · Score: 1
      Bin Laden may survive this.

      I'm pretty sure he will, actually. He's aware of how well-known he is to the States, and I can't believe he would hang around Afghanistan long enough for us to actually kill him. I'm betting he left right after the Trade Center attack--perhaps even before. Then he could safely hide out somewhere while all our attention was focused on Afghanistan. Classic misdirection.

      --
      The coolest voice ever.
    13. Re:Now what? by Jovian · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. From another post,


      To quote the DOD definition, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to [cause] fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological... In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."


      So, using violence to "send a message", as you said, is terrorism, by the definition penned by those purpetrating this current round of violence.

    14. Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Like Germany and Japan after wwII? They are allies now, but we didn't need to set up our own Government. We also advised in the setting up governments in Mexico, Panama, Niceragua and the Phillipines. All peaceful automonous entities where the people rule with all the rights and responsibilities of self-determination.

      So, trolling your comment might be but it has a correct point mixed with an incorrect point. Yes every country has the right to war with another country when they are attacked. However taking over that country is not allowed or needed.

      I'm glad to be a part of a country that is as well known for rebuilding its enemies as the USA.

    15. Re:Now what? by gvonk · · Score: 1

      hehe "rebuilding" our enemies "as the USA." would be exactly what he was saying...
      (yes, i know what you were really saying.)

      --


      El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
    16. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It looks like the plan is
      Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
      Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
      Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
      Declare victory. "

      You're wrong. That isn't the plan. It's only the beginning. This time, the top men will not survive. We are going back into Iraq. The Israeli's will be unleashed in full force in the Middle East unless Arafat smartens up. Libya will be put down. And we are going to use small tactical nuclear weapons to dig them out of their caves. There will never be another Vietnam and the world.... well, there will be a new world order now.



    17. Re:Now what? by ckedge · · Score: 2


      Have the Afghani King return, and draft a Constitution based on a broad based democratic government

      I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I love the democracy part, but I don't want ANYONE with the power to subvert the country again. No Kings. No Mullahs. No Military.

      I love the "Marshal Plan for Afghanistan" idea. One thing that would help things go over much better would be to send in SOLELY Muslim Americans to implement and supervise the economic and political implementation of said Marshal Plan.

      Imagine, a completely democratic muslim country built from the ground up by the West. Is it even possible?

    18. Re:Now what? by greenrd · · Score: 2
      What about the IRA? What about the School of the Americas?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    19. Re:Now what? by poemofatic · · Score: 1

      Like Germany and Japan after wwII? They are allies now, but we didn't need to set up our own Government. We also advised in the setting up governments in Mexico, Panama, Niceragua and the Phillipines.

      We also set up our own governments in Iran (The Shah--remember S.A.V.A.K.?), Chile (Pinochet--He who made "Mothers of the dissappeared" possible), Guatemala (a couple of times, beneficent dictator killed 200,000), El Salvador, Columbia, Cuba (twice, last time creating the stable government of Batista), Mexico, Haiti (three times), Argentina, Indonesia (Sukarno --killed 500,000), Vietnam (while the fun lasted), carved a piece from China, Panama (we created that country, then invaded it later), Liberia, and that bastion of peace and plenty known as Namibia.

      We also played proxy war games in Laos (The Plain of Jars comes to mind), Russia (which we invaded in 1918), Greece (succeeded in killing tens of thousands and delayed democracy there until the 70's), Peru, Cambodia, and of course, Israel.

      So, trolling your comment might be but it has a correct point mixed with an incorrect point. Namely, some countries (namely those which were already developed before tasting our goodness) have turned out ok after our interventions, while most nations don't fare so well. Which category do you think Afghanistan would fall into? Do you think they might have a reason to be wary of our generosity?

      --

      When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    20. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, now repeat after me:

      "The Taliban did not defeat the Soviet Union."

    21. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A philosophical question: When someone is so determined to be stupid and ignorant, despite probably being somewhat intelligent, do you try and correct them or just let it go? A conundrum.

      What about the IRA? What about the School of the Americas?

      Um, the US government does not support terrorists. Private citizens, on the other hands, can be private citizens. If the UK wanted us to extradite a known IRA terrorist, we would do it immediately.

      There, was that so hard? But I know you'll learn nothing. Because you just know the US government is equivalent to all the other repressive governments of the world. That the Taliban actually support and protect bin Laden is irrelevent; if a terrorist only lives in the US, then the US government and the Taliban must be equivalent.

      It's so frustrating. I want so much to "fix" people like you, yet I know I can't. Why do I try?

      Maybe I should start with your veganism. If it's just for health reasons, then that's OK. If it's for moral reasons, then you are wrong-headed. We are absolutely morally correct to eat animals, because we are omnivorous. If it's moral for a cat to eat a mouse, it's moral for us to eat a cow. It's called the "food chain", and anyone who feels guilt about their place in it doesn't have any understanding of nature.

    22. Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      A fortune for you...

      You suffer from a case of "over estimation" of American influence exaserbated by a need to feel "white guilt".

      To explain that conclusion:

      I read an article lately explaining that the Taliban are a product of a "lack" of US influence. I'm beginning to believe that is true particularly for the Middle East. The biggest hole in the "Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc..." guilt trips has been if America really did set them up as their puppet government then they would have no need to bite the hand that fed them.
      The answer is a little Occam related. Its simpler to believe that the US tried to enact change with a minimal direct influence (Bay of Pigs style.) That minimal and indirect influence gave rise for planty of mistakes and backing the wrong people.
      It makes sence if you don't want to stir the pot then give some backing to people who already wanted power, and already have a great following in the people (hence easier to set to revolution). Their rise to power they is trecherous and full of intrigue (lies). So why not after obtaining power, turn and sieze even more power by turning against the US? Its the type of people they are, and the type of following they have.

      So the problem is the covert indirect involvement in other countries affairs. This is a work of few individuals in the US, and has no baring on what the US does and can do in a completely observable reconstruction.

      Every case that the US had direct involvement a good government was set up and the people have lead democratic and relatively free lives.
      The cases where they chose the more indirect covert road, they wound up backing people that wanted to take away freedoms (note that is different than saying they put them in power, such is simply an overestimation of American influence and an oversimplification of history). Isn't that the point? They are good if they increase their countries freedoms, represent minority rights, etc... (Like America learned to) and they are bad if they don't. They are bad if they try to invade their neighboring countries.

      America is guilty of letting a secret organization have charge the of foreign policy execution. Kind of like the Warren Supreme court (which like the CIA actually did a lot of good things), they are guilty of being a little too pro-active in the wrong branch of government.
      Luckily America has a way to fix these problems without bloody revolution. And whipping guilt trips of self pity isn't one of them.

      In Afghanistan, if you really want white guilt maybe you believe they are a people who have suffered from a power that usurped authority by making contributions to one particularly corrupt party and president in America.

      (Oh maybe you didn't hear that Osama made a $100,000 contribution to the DNC. They gave the money back but only after Clinton let an Saudi company have rights to an Ohio oil field. And only after the US stopped backing the Northern Alliance but continued to supply the Taleban. Its interesting that the lawyer for a Bin Laden terrorist and a imbezler of funds for Bin Laden is Clinton's golfing buddy, Vernon Jordon.)

    23. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, then the Taliban were foolish to claim that they had him. What's in it for them?

    24. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the replacement of the Afghan ruler with one of US choosing isn't such a good idea, I'm not sure the king is really a good idea. Elections need to be held with international supervision. The Marshall plan certainly is a good.

      But it should be clear to everyone that bombing yet another country without presenting evidence of even Bin Laden's guilt in this matter is a media showpiece at best and just fucking stupid, not to mention the first act in a process that could lead to armageddon, at worst. Where's the benefit to the US? What did it cost? Thousands of $10 tents blown sky high! Bush just isn't capable of thinking it through but I hope he has some advisors who can.

      "At this point, we'll turn to other terrorist groups and probably pick a fight with Iraq."

      Yup. Have to use all those expensive weapons or Congress won't approve more. Make sure your budget is always seen to be necessary!

    25. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never did claim they had him, they said that he was a guest and that they would not hand him over.

      This was always just an excuse to attack - if you read the Koran you will see that a guest is holy, can't be touched. Guest status meant that he would never be handed over and Bush & Co. always knew that. As another poster said, Bin Laden was probably NOT stupid enough to hang around with a big target painted on his ass, and he's reading about the attacks somewhere safe just like we are.

      "Whee! I get to shoot some missiles at the a-rabs, just like daddy did!"

    26. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking idiot. I hope you survive the consequences of your wishes, if they come to pass - but I doubt any of us would. Nuclear exchange is the end of the world, full stop. How many countries do you think have nuclear weapons now anyway - two? three? No, it is many, many more.

    27. Re:Now what? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      Maybe I should start with your veganism. If it's just for health reasons, then that's OK. If it's for moral reasons, then you are wrong-headed. We are absolutely morally correct to eat animals, because we are omnivorous. If it's moral for a cat to eat a mouse, it's moral for us to eat a cow. It's called the "food chain", and anyone who feels guilt about their place in it doesn't have any understanding of nature.


      You confuse nature with ethics. Nature has built a strong urge to rape into many males, and rape is a common occurance in many animals including humans. If it occurs in chimpanzees, there are no moral issues; if it occurs in humans, it is wrong.

    28. Re:Now what? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Bush's presidency has now come down to this singularity:

      if bin Laden is still breathing and at large in November of 2004, Bush will not see a second term.

      Forget the current 92% approval rating. His dad had a 90% rating at the height of the Gulf War as well. 18 months later he was getting less than 40% of the vote and losing to Bill Clinton.

      That 92% support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If he fscks it up...if bin Laden survives until '04.... Bush will not. 3 years is an eternity in politics. If, in the fall of '04, we are still mired in recession and mired in a "war on terrorism" that hasn't succeeded, Bush's 92% approval will have whittled away.

      If, however, bin Laden is eliminated, Bush will be president until '08. It's that simple.

      Whether he wanted this or not, the timing of Bush's meteoric approval ratings rise is not necessarily good for his re-election hopes in '04.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    29. Re:Now what? by jafac · · Score: 2

      Is this even possible? why yes! It's been done before? Remember Iran?

      No matter what fluffy bunny we put in office, the radicals will come in and fuck their shit up - or if they don't they'll be fighting and suicide-bombing for the next 5 generations.

      You can win people's hearts, but not ALL people's hearts. There will always be radical fucknuts. Even in the USA we had our unibomber and Tim McVeigh.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    30. Re:Now what? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2
      I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I love the democracy part, but I don't want ANYONE with the power to subvert the country again. No Kings. No Mullahs. No Military.

      During his original reign, the Afgahni King was a constitutional monarch; he was Head of Government, not Head of State. Exactly like Queen Elizabeth. He headed a democracy until it was overthrown.

    31. Re:Now what? by greenrd · · Score: 1
      When someone is so determined to be stupid and ignorant, despite probably being somewhat intelligent, do you try and correct them or just let it go? A conundrum.

      It's one I face everyday.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    32. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find so interesting about people like you or futurepower(tm) is that it's not a problem with intelligence. Clearly the gears are turning OK. There is some strange filtering of the facts going on which causes you to reach conclusions that are totally divorced from the real world. The weird question is what is the nature of the filtering. Is it just hatred of the United States? No, that's too simple of an explanation. You claim to be a socialist; that's probably getting closer. There is probably resentment of the "home of Capitalism" that causes you to search far and wide to "prove" to yourself that Capitalism causes all these ills.

      Socialists are a much harder nut to crack. Why does someone believe in Socialism when it's so obvious that it is anthema to freedom and liberty? Why would someone believe that wealth redistribution does anything other than repress others and eliminate incentive for success? Socialism has such a miserable track record, yet socialists continue to blame the ills on "the rich" or "business" or some other problem.

      That might be what's going on with you, but on the other hand, FP(tm) doesn't really seem like a socialist. He's more of an earnest "there's gotta be a better way than violence!!" sort, who just hasn't clued in that sometimes violence now prevents a lot more violence later. Still, he seems like an intelligent guy, but again manipulates statistics in unrealistic ways to flake and form his facts to fit his world view.

      I wish I had an answer. Why do people like you guys function the way you do? Is it just this grand hope that the oh-so-sweet and oh-so-easy sounding solutions (socialism, communism, pacifism) will finally work, even after failure after failure after failure? Perhaps that's it... it's like people who cling to religion with a faith that will not die. Perhaps that's it ... just like people who saw Satan's image in the WTC smoke, you see images in the smoke of facts.

      I've spent my life studying these questions, and I've never found a good answer.

      Sorry for the rambling and thinking out loud, but people like you fascinate me.

    33. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature has built a strong urge to rape into many males, and rape is a common occurance in many animals including humans. If it occurs in chimpanzees, there are no moral issues; if it occurs in humans, it is wrong.

      The problem with your logic is that it's only human-to-human sexual assault that is considered "rape". If a human has sex with a sheep, for example, there are certain bestiality taboos that come into play, but that's more like the taboo against cannibalism. Humans eating humans is bad, but humans eating other animals is a different deal.

      Clearly it's morally OK for a human to eat to survive. The only question the moralists bring into play is what level of life is OK to eat. But that's a totally arbitrary standard -- we are naturally capable of eating mammals, fish, vegetables, pretty much anything. Since the " moral position" on the food chain is arbitrary, therefore it's morally OK to eat anything below us on the food chain. In other words, there is no natural identifier that you can point to on the food chain to mark the "moral position". Some people like to use the "face standard", but again, it's totally arbitrary. That is making psychological arguments on something that is unmeasurable. The ol' "I know it when I see it" standard.

    34. Re:Now what? by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Why does someone believe in Socialism when it's so obvious that it is anthema to freedom and liberty?

      Outlawing exploitation reduces liberty - but so does outlawing murder, rape, and child abuse. Socialism would not reduce freedom too much - in fact for most people it would increase freedom on balance. And they'd end up liking it better.

      Why would someone believe that wealth redistribution does anything other than repress others and eliminate incentive for success?

      Don't be a moron. The UK, Sweden etc. have some degree of wealth redist yet they have not "eliminated incentive for success".

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    35. Re:Now what? by poemofatic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. How easy it is for you to call on the gods of white guilt as a substitute to studying history.

      Two bit psychology aside, let me clarify my point, which has less to do with guilt than with a practical desire not to see more people killed.

      The biggest hole in the "Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc..." guilt trips has been if America really did set them up as their puppet government then they would have no need to bite the hand that fed them.

      In most cases they don't "bite the hand" that feeds them. During the height of Sukarno's purges, when that 500,000 were killed, the U.S. was ecstatic. The victims were mostly leftists, or the poor living in regions politically opposed to Sukarno's program. Indeed, we (the CIA) supplied him with lists of people to kill, and the US govt. sent sufficient military aid to make sure the job was done. No hand was bitten, except that of the Indonesian opposition parties, which were destroyed.

      The dictatorship of Marcos in the phillipines also posed no problems for US, as (vice-president) Bush toasted him, saying "The U.S. admires your democratic values." No hand was bit there, either.

      In Vietnam, we overthrew the regime because we wanted someone who would be more tough than Diem. His successors indeed took a harder line, halting land reform, executing political enemies, and raping the countryside in a way which guaranteed victory to the north. Do you really think the trouble was that we weren't involved enough in Vietnam?

      In Iran, we brought back the hated Shah and imposed such a brutal regime on the hapless country that the Islamic revolt is still bearing bitter fruits. Since all democratic opposition was killed, it was natural that the only institution strong enough to challenge the shah was the Islamic church. Not a foregone eventuality, but certainly a likely one.

      Let me spell it out for you. Our interventions were not altruistic. They were done to support unpopular regimes through terror. When the terror succeeded (as in Indonesia), we cheered. When our terror regimes failed (as in vietnam and iran), a more radical govt. (often, not always) took over. The reason is that by killing or scaring off legitimate political opposition, the only ones left to replace the unpopular regime are the most fanatical elements of the opposition. In the phillipines, when our strong man was ousted in a fairly bloodless way, a decent regime replaced it. In afghanistan, after 10 years of fighting, the only ones left standing were fanatics. this is why your self-righteous argument is so dangerous. By calling for more aggressive intervention you are significantly increasing the likelihood of creating another monster after whatever puppet we put into place will fall. The pattern is the same wether we send in massive troops or wage war covertly. The distinction of covert/open intervention is irrelevent. What matters most is the level of force used and how many public institutions are destroyed.

      And so the outcome of the "tough-line" is almost never good. Slaughter if we succeed, slaughter if we fail. That's why some of us are motivated to call for restraint instead of recklessly bombing and occupying a destitute nation.

      --

      When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    36. Re:Now what? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      If you think it is totally arbitrary what we can eat, then killing people to eat them should be ok: animals kill members of their own species, and humans, all the time for food. If it's ok for them, it should be ok for us, no?

      While the "face standard" is obviously idiotic, the moral position is in fact not totally arbitrary: if something has the ability to suffer, then it deserves moral consideration. It's clear that higher animals suffer; most people believe that plants do not. Those people kill and eat plants but not animals. The few who believe that plants can suffer eat only fruits, nuts, grains and seeds, thereby helping plants to reproduce.

    37. Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      During the height of Sukarno's purges, when that 500,000 were killed, the U.S. was ecstatic.

      Couldn't read beyond that line, you obviously wrest history more than study it.

  71. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm... Danish TV just mentioned that some degree of carpet bombing has already occured.

  72. Re: America will never learn by fiore42 · · Score: 1

    So if you threaten me on the street, I'm free to turn around and punch you? Of course not. We

    Matter a' fact, yes, in most areas, it is legally (and more importantly, morally proper) to respond to an actual threat with violence

    Also, do you really that stating 'jackass' as your opening word is a civilised responce to my reasonable post?

    Actually, yes, I do. You have no apparent grasp of logic, ethics, or reality.

  73. Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by burbilog · · Score: 1
    One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan. Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.

    This is most stupid comment. You can't pacify AK-wielding partisans with cruise missiles. Heck, you were unable to pacify Yugoslavia until our diplomats cheated them. But you can send overwhelming flow of refugees into nearest former Soviet republics. Many years ago Tito did a deadly mistake, allowing albans flee into Kosovo and settle there. Also years ago when chinese crowd tried to run into Soviet Union they were literally burned near the border by heavy weaponry. Unfortunately, modern rights defenders won't allow us to protect our border with the same efficiency, and new hotspot will be created closer to Russia.

    U.S. is killing two rabbits with one shot. It calms down its populace with...

    BBC has some pretty good graphics, including some maps of possible targets:

    ...pretty pictures of explosions on their TV screens and creates hostile hotspot closer to Russia. You said cold war is over? Nope, it did not even slow down. U.S. still supports terrorists in Chechnya, even after it suffered backfire from their own politics. The world isn't very different than it was forty years ago.

    1. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by steveha · · Score: 2

      This is most stupid comment. You can't pacify AK-wielding partisans with cruise missiles.

      The attack is on Taliban targets, trying to kill as few ordinary Afghan people as possible; and it will be combined with food and medical aid for the ordinary Afghan people.

      The message is simple: The Taliban and terrorists need to fear the US, but the Afghan people should welcome us.

      Many people in Afghanistan are starving to death, and if they join the Taliban they get fed. Not everyone who joined the Taliban is totally dedicated to the Taliban! If it becomes clear that the US is going to destroy the Taliban, and equally clear that the US is going to feed the hungry people, many people will abandon the Taliban. This in turn will make it harder for the Taliban to do anything about the US attacks.

      I agree someone has their thinking cap on. I see a lot of people making fun of our current President, but he and his administration have done a much better job than Clinton and his administration did. I'm glad President Bush didn't order immediate airstrikes on some pharmaceutical plant somewhere.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sperling · · Score: 1
      trying to kill as few ordinary Afghan people as possible

      One is one too much. US is no better than Taliban the moment one "regular" Afghan is killed. Say, hypotethically, that bin laden targeted a specific person/group he knew were somewhere in WTC/Pentagon that day, a person/group that e.g. had attacked him once? Would that justify killing any innocent people? If not, how can US justify killing "as few ordinary people as possible" to get to a person/group that have attacked them?

      --
      The next great MMORPG.
    3. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · · Score: 2

      Say, hypotethically, that bin laden targeted a specific person/group he knew were somewhere in WTC/Pentagon that day

      Nice try, but bin Laden has been quoted saying ALL americans are guilty, whether in the military or just taxpayers. His manuals state that the goal is to unseat the govenments of non-believers and replace with Islamic regimes.

      And say he was after someone specifically at WTC. He could have just had his trained monkeys waltz in with a suitcase full of C4 - he didn't have to wipe out both towers, at least one of which had a DAYCARE CENTER (and yes, I DO have to shout).

      Guess what - this is WAR. Innocent people get killed in a war. It sucks, but it happens. I predict we'll do better on a percentage basis BY FAR than the Islamic extremists have so far.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    4. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sperling · · Score: 1
      bin Laden has been quoted saying ALL americans are guilty

      Yup, that's why I said hypotethically. My point was, would targeting a specific wrongdoer justify hurting ANY innocent bystanders?

      Guess what - this is WAR

      Yes, unfortunately it seems so. Meaning, both sides will keep on killing bystanders, to achieve what? When one of the countries is erased from the map, something is won?

      If Afghanistan is in war with the US, why is it considered worse for Afghanistan to kill innocent US people than it is for US to kill innocent Afghan people? The world condemned the WTC attack, why shouldn't the US bombings also be condemned? I keep getting back to what I originally tried to say, I can't see how US actions are any more justifiable than bin Laden's actions. Some might mention "Intent" here, but you don't give a damn in the good intentions if your family was killed.

      --
      The next great MMORPG.
    5. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sperling · · Score: 1
      According to the logics presented here, it is OK to attack the ones you are in war with.

      bin Laden has been quoted saying ALL americans are guilty

      I predict we'll do better on a percentage basis BY FAR than the Islamic extremists have so far

      US can't... bin Laden is in war with all americans, whereas US is just in war with some of the Afghans. Every victim at WTC and Pentagon was people bin Laden is in war with, and I seriously doubt US can avoid killingh ANY of the Afghan people they're not in war with.

      If you apply certain logics to your sides view, try applying them to the other sides view too and see if the reasoning still looks good. I'm not defending bin Laden, but I'm not going to defend the US military actions either. They're equally wrong IMO.

      --
      The next great MMORPG.
    6. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · · Score: 2

      If Afghanistan is in war with the US,


      The Taliban is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. We are at war with the pig bin Laden, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (and whoever else we feel like when we get pissed:) )

      If we're using cruise missiles, the dope on them is that they can be targetted (and expected) to hit specific buildings. Using this kind of smart munitions can help minimize (but not eliminate) civilian casualties.

      Here's another point: we target terrorists (and their supporters) and hit innocents by mistake. Pigs like bin Laden targets innocents from the git-go. I happen to think that that is a significant difference. I do concede that that is small consolation for those caught in the crossfire, but this is war and bad shit happens in a war.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    7. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      The afghanis have known for weeks of an attack, so wouldn't it be logical, then, to say that everyone who didn't feel they could side w/ the taliban's actions have left the country? (or at least moved to remote parts of it?) And don't try and say they didn't want to leave their homes...every single report/article I've seen about afghanistan says how it is basically a country of rubble....bombed out, mined, and pretty much in a terrible state.

      Hell, if the US does something I don't agree w/ to canada and canada gets pissed off and says it's gonna attack us, hell yeah I'd put my money where my mouth is and leave the country! (for a while at least, probably not permanently)

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    8. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · · Score: 2

      bin Laden is in war with all americans,

      Sorry, I don't buy his bullshit. He's a pig and his views do NOT deserve equal time. This being America, you're entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong ;)

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    9. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      hmmm ok, first lemme just make a line of logic so I can call the WTC attacks attacks by afghanistan...Osama bin Laden under protection of Taliban == consent of taliban for any actions of osama bin laden...taliban == afghanistan. Ok.

      Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none. Had we gotten warning, I doubt the towers would've been occupied (hell, I bet the entire area would've been evacuated!). Now, 3 weeks...plenty of time for everyone to leave possible target areas if they wanted to. So, everyone who didn't leave obviously didn't want to. Thus, they are supporting the taliban, thus they are NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS! support by action or inaction is still support.

      "...you don't give a damn in the good intentions if your family was killed." that may be true for some people and not for others...I couldn't say which I am so please don't put words in my mouth...use "I" or "most people" or something insead of "you" ok??

      --Jubedgy

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    10. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by GMontag451 · · Score: 1
      The Taliban is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

      Well I guess we should have thought of that before we set them up as the government so they would fight the Soviets.

      Here's another point: we target terrorists (and their supporters) and hit innocents by mistake. Pigs like bin Laden targets innocents from the git-go.

      We will fight this war in the same way we fought in Iraq and Bosnia. We will attack military and civilian targets without distinction, and when the news is leaked every once in a while, we will claim it was an accident.

      Does anyone else remember when we hit the Chinese embassy in Sarejevo with a cruise missile, and we tried to claim it was a result of having old maps?

    11. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      how can US justify killing "as few ordinary people as possible

      Simply because war is a violent action. There will always be casualties in war. They are unavoidable. This is the way nation's conduct business when the options run out.

      Deal.

    12. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sperling · · Score: 1
      Oks, here's a response to some points made in misc posts...

      The Taliban is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

      The Taliban runs most of Afghanistan, and since the ruler makes the rules be it "legitimate" or not, Taliban is currently the government of Afghanistan.

      We are at war with the pig bin Laden

      If US is at war with bin Laden, then bin Laden is at war with the US... That was my point earlier, in bin Laden's view he attacks people he considers himself in war with

      we target terrorists (and their supporters) and hit innocents by mistake. Pigs like bin Laden targets innocents from the git-go

      Again, seen from the opposite sides view, there are no innocent americans, just as US can see no innocent Taliban members.

      Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none.

      Did the US tell Taliban exactly where they would attack? bin Laden have declared "war" on US a long time ago, I'll try to dig up some references if needed.

      So, everyone who didn't leave obviously didn't want to

      So, a family decides to stay in the only place they know, because they, as and maybe more than most of us western people, love their home. They make that decision after receiving censored information (propaganda) on what is happening, maybe with no knowledge of where they could go, or no resources to travel. That makes it OK to kill them?

      use "I" or "most people" or something insead of "you" ok??

      I intended to use "You" as "One" there... "One don't give a damn...". I can do that in english (my 2nd language) afaik? ;)

      And don't try and say they didn't want to leave their homes

      That's exactly what I'm going to say ;)

      Hell, if the US does something I don't agree w/ to canada and canada gets pissed off and says it's gonna attack us, hell yeah I'd put my money where my mouth is and leave the country!

      Would you leave the country if you lived on the street, got little or no news, and didn't have money to anything but food? This war hits the weakest, and that is wrong

      Sorry, I don't buy his bullshit. He's a pig and his views do NOT deserve equal time

      Seriously? No free speech? No right to disagree? Isn't that part of what US is so eager to defend now?

      As several other posts mention, the Taliban and bin Laden honestly believe they are right. And I have no doubt that the US govt honestly believe they are right. My claim is that they are both wrong, and that their IMO incorrect views will hurt a lot of innocent people.

      --
      The next great MMORPG.
    13. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Some might mention "Intent" here, but you don't give a damn in the good intentions if your family was killed.

      Regardless of whether or not someone gives a damn, intent is the difference. Compare the punishments for manslaughter vs. murder, for example. In both cases, someone killed someone else. The difference is intent.

    14. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Glytch · · Score: 2

      This is not America, this is the Internet. Learn the fucking difference, you drooling mouthbreather.

    15. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · · Score: 2

      you are a dipshit. Even if you're right, you're still a dipshit.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    16. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      There will always be casualties in war. They are unavoidable.

      Beyond unavoidable, they are the purpose of war. The killing of non combatants, while horrible, is sometimes necessary. The question is when does it become necessary. Carpet bombing Grenada would have been wrong. Nuking Hiroshima, on the other hand, was the right thing to do. The hard part is knowing when we've crossed the line, and being prepared to deal with the consequences.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    17. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      The hard part is knowing when we've crossed the line, and being prepared to deal with the consequences.

      I agree! And as I stated, "This is the way nations conduct business when the options run out."

      The options have run out.

    18. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Meaning, both sides will keep on killing bystanders, to achieve what?

      As I understand it, we attack Afghanistan, keep the pressure on. Eventually the Taliban falls. We dig out Osama's organization and ship its members to the US for trial. Then we work to install a government which can run a stabler country. (Maybe this is not possible in that region; I don't know.)

      The lesson: nations of the world, don't let this happen to you. Control your bomb-building lunatics or we will do it for you, and to you.

      And the US is again safe from attack. That's what we're after here.

    19. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      The attack is on Taliban targets, trying to kill as few ordinary Afghan people as possible; and it will be combined with food and medical aid for the ordinary Afghan people.

      How do you know the difference? Simple answer. You don't. The only true Taliban targets are the Taliban leadership, but they are up in the mountains, maybe in underground C&C centers, if the reports I have been following are accurate.

      The Taliban, like in most of Afghanistan's history does not have an army, but rather a milita. It consists of a large number of otherwise civilian personnel who also fight. They probably even live in the cities along with everyone else. You don't nee that much of a standing army when you have terrain like that...

      The Afghans were using rocks against tanks (that one tun bolder fallign a few hundred feet does put a good dent in a tank) and similar tactics against helicopters. This is why the air strikes are happening at night, and why we probably won't see helicopters used anywhere for quite a while.

      But all that aside, they will run out of targets pretty fast... There are simply not a lot of Taliban related targets which are valuable in the region...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    20. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Nice try, but bin Laden has been quoted saying ALL americans are guilty, whether in the military or just taxpayers. His manuals state that the goal is to unseat the govenments of non-believers and replace with Islamic regimes.

      To put things in perspective: Over 5,000 Americans were killed on Sept. 11th. According to the WHO, 50,000 Iraqi children die every year because of inadequate medicines due to our blockade of that country.

      Yes, we should bring Bin Laden to justice in part because he is a monster that we, America, created. But, let us not pretend that this is someone else's problem. And lets not pretend that we are the shining rightious ones either...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    21. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      There are always options. The manner in which we carry out this war will either gain us the support of the rest of the civilized world (or rather not lose it), or damn us for the next hundred years.

      We need to avoid if at all possible the killing of innocent civillians because that would lend addition credence to the argument that America is exerting Imperialism on Islam. We can't however, be tied to closely by this to the point of not being able to prosecute a war effectively (see Haiphong Harbor).

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    22. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by justletmeinnow · · Score: 0

      "If Afghanistan is in war with the US, why is it considered worse for Afghanistan to kill innocent US people than it is for US to kill innocent Afghan people?"

      Because they started it! And they started it by killing innocent people on purpose. stupid...

      --
      Just because I AM paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me.
    23. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1
      >hmmm ok, first lemme just make a line of logic so I can call the WTC attacks attacks by afghanistan...Osama bin Laden under protection of Taliban == consent of taliban for any actions of osama bin laden...taliban == afghanistan. Ok.


      > Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none. Had we gotten warning, I doubt the towers would've been occupied (hell, I bet the entire area would've been evacuated!). Now, 3 weeks...plenty of time for everyone to leave possible target areas if they wanted to. So, everyone who didn't leave obviously didn't want to. Thus, they are supporting the taliban, thus they are NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS! support by action or inaction is still support.


      On the same basis then, the American people are responsible for the policies of America, therefore the people killed in the WTC were not innocent but fully complicit legitimate targets...


      Sorry, but I am not going to accept that. On either side All civilian casualties are 'terrorism'. You win by destroying the will to fight. A better way to destroy the will to fight is to help rather than hinder.


      As to how much warning America had - I'd say at least thirty years. No one else in the world is suprised this happened. Shocked, yes, surprised, no.

      --

      Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

    24. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sminra · · Score: 1
      Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none. Had we gotten warning, I doubt the towers would've been occupied (hell, I bet the entire area would've been evacuated!).

      You're misinformed. One of the terrorists suffered pangs of conscience and phoned the CIA and Secret Service to warn of the attack. He was ignored. The buildings were occupied.

      Some questions:

      • Who made the phone call?
      • What was the content of the warning?
      • Why was this story squelched by the media?

      You'd think this would be newsworthy, right?

      Does anyone have more info on the warnings? This should be an entirely new slashdot article. Post what you know here!

    25. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by sminra · · Score: 1
      Because they started it!

      That's exactly what they want you to think, justletmeinnow.

      The western media are trying to isolate the incident from the context of USian world global domination, and judging by your response, they have convinced at least one ignorant USian.

      What's pathetic is that you can participate in a forum such as /. and simply ignore all the posts showing this to be a consequence of a rapacious, brutal and deeply hypoctitical US foreign policy.

      I do sympathise with you. When I was younger, I also had a knee-jerk hate reaction against people who criticised the USA. Now I see that I was deeply brainwashed in school, and just didn't want to accept the fact that my country, the "bastion of democracy and freedom" etc, had such bloody hands. I know it's a really bitter pill to swallow, and it can actually hurt your own spirit/job/life to become aware of just how sick and hypocritical the USA is.

      peace,

    26. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by xQx · · Score: 0

      What?
      Thats not like CNN to ignore a story that is detrimental to the US government.

      How dare you talk about the mainstream media like that. CNN are impartial. They give us the news we need to hear. Full and rounded coverage of every issue.

      That IS what current affairs is isn't it? ... Fact based impartial news stories?

      Take the Waco incident for example. CNN told us about the FBI and ATF using tear gas to flush out the bad guys without using un-nessessary force. ... Those photos on public access of Bradley tanks shooting fire into the compound are fake. And you'd be a fool, and a communist to believe them.

    27. Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are full of shit. if the media silenced this, where the fuck di YOU hear about it. post sources, dude, or no one is going to believe you.

  74. China by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I would worry more about China using this as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, or some other mischief.

    While I'm not exactly a fan of the China government, I can't imaging they do something that stupid at this time. The US and our allies have mobilized militarily and shifted our forces in that (broadly)general direction, and we are NOT in the mood to be screwed with. Afghanistan isn't exactly going to keep us pinned down.

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  75. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the spirit!, Go out and KILL yoursellf!

  76. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, my turn - Wake up! There is a world outside and it hates people like you. It's your kinds fault that the wtc was downed.

  77. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! 'BOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!!

    It's EXACTLY what we needed to kick start the economy!!

  78. We are the USA, resistance is futile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from:

    "We are supported by the collective will of the world ...we will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail,"

    Prepare to be assimilated :)

    1. Re:We are the USA, resistance is futile! by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1

      Prepare for assimilation? The deed is already done. USA is just mopping up.

      ... or could it be that a rebel alliance is forming in a far flung corner of the Galaxy, determined to resist shopping malls, Speilberg, Spears - Brittany, Springer - Jerry?

      --
      * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
  79. You got the bad mod on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got the bad mod on this... Using a simple metaphore to explain a larger situation is a great way to make a point.

    1. Re:You got the bad mod on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya I liked this compairisin, but I guess it was wasted on bleeding hearts who don't understand. Shouldn't all you be at a protest or something right now? ya' know eating veggies, granola and wearing tie dyed shirts?

  80. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have issues with the United States. Maybe you don't like our movies or fast food restaruants?

    Try to reverse the situation: The US religious right forms armies which hide out in the middle east and kill thousands of innocent civilians by blowing up crowded mosques. Meanwhile, in the US, people are rounded up and killed for not being Christian, and women are killed for leaving the house without a cross on their back.

    Would you support this theoretical U.S. as much as you support the actual Taliban?

  81. Say what you may ... by Augusto · · Score: 2

    ... I see no bravery by being a cult brainwashed drone intent on killing thousands of innocent civilians, expecting reward from God by givin you 72 virgins and lots of alcohol.

    This is like saying that the Columbine mass killers where brave, hey, they took their life to you know.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
    1. Re:Say what you may ... by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly the same, only totally different. The Columbine kids were out to destroy, not for any cause, but simply because they wanted to end their meaningless and pathetic lives with a bang. These guys believe that they're fighting in defense of their homeland, and in fact of their whole religion. They are giving their lives for what they perceive to be the greater good. They are not cowards. Now, if you ask me whether they were heartless murderers, that's another question...

    2. Re:Say what you may ... by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. That's precisely what makes them so dangerous.

    3. Re:Say what you may ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a certain respect for the Kolumbine Kids -- When we were in High School, we all complained about how much it sucked. They did something about it.

    4. Re:Say what you may ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! High school is four years long, count 'em. If it were four years of slaving in salt mines, fixing it wouldn't be worth that.

  82. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOHOO!

  83. Re:Un-manned Military by Knobby · · Score: 1

    Or the thermo-nuclear weapon of economic warfare: Offer to provide their best and brightest with MBA degrees from US institutions with the condition that those students must return home...

  84. Re:Where's Michael? by Michael+The+Nifty · · Score: 1

    Oh, look at those nifty cruise missiles transforming the Afghan mountains in a cool parking lot! Groovy! When will an eye-popping flash animation of these gorgeous fireworks be available?

  85. Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm tech-stupid, what does that (the line of code, not the fact that I'm tech-stupid) mean?

  86. Operation Enduring Freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about...

    Operation Camel Rodeo

    or

    Operation Towel Scalping

    or

    Operation Desert Storm II, Bush's Revenge

    or

    Operation Dunk his head in Gasoline and light the rag on fire.

  87. Jaw Jaw rather than War War by totierne · · Score: 2

    Win the battle, Win the War
    -lose the peace

    Might != right

    In more connected prose: I reckon that there was more gained between 11 September and now than there will be after military action, maybe the U.S. was afraid that given more time everyone would realise that diplomacy (and the bullying threat of war) rather than war would hold the more enduring benifit.
    Like a good poker player must occasionaly bluff, maybe the U.S. must occasionally go to war to prove it is prepared to. There must be a better way, even if it is through the slow moving treacle of the U.N.
    Just my 2 euro cents..

    --
    Be Free: Free Software Tuition
    1. Re:Jaw Jaw rather than War War by barzok · · Score: 1

      Making threats with no action behind them yields no long-term benefit - eventually, the enemy seees that it's nothing but a smoke screen.

      "Diplomacy" has failed time and again, not only in this conflict, but throughout history. Diplomacy does not work when the opposition doesn't give a rat's ass about compromise or making anyone but themself happy but.

      Sometimes, you there is no alternative but to fight.

    2. Re:Jaw Jaw rather than War War by Magila · · Score: 1

      The world's leaders thought diplomacy could end all war before WWI broke out. Needless to say they were proven wrong. While it's not a pleasant lesson to even acknowledge, we must not forget that war is an inevitable and sometimes necessary evil.

    3. Re:Jaw Jaw rather than War War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the reason why diplomacy failed in stemming WWI is because the majority of those leaders were MONARCHS! Think about it. When was the last time a monarch turned the other cheek?

  88. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you are a lonely angry boy living in a room payed for by your father, who you resent. You resent strength and authority, and therefore will always be against the U.S., even if it is fighting one of the most evil, despotic regiemes in the world.

    Grow up.

  89. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy is a pussy. he'll move to canada at the first suggestion of a draft

    get your communist ass out of my country. better yet, become an aid worker and go to afghanistan and see how much they care that you don't want civilians dead

  90. Not necessarily just political by FallLine · · Score: 2

    While finer and more up-close-and-personal methods will certainly be absolutely essential in killing Osama and his compatriots, these are not entirely sufficient. By attacking Osama and the Taliban on several fronts, we can vastly increase the chances of our special forces and intelligence agencies doing their jobs. Think about it, by forcing the Taliban to distance themselves from Osama, we give our forces a tactical advantage. By attacking Osama's financial resources, even if we can't get ALL of it, we increase the probability that his transactions with what he has left will be detected. By mounting a charm offensive and persuading the Afghani people, we make make the Taliban's position much more tenuous... and so on. This kind of war MUST be fought on multiple fronts.

  91. oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC has cancelled antiques roadshow...

    It must be serious.

    F

  92. It is written by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

    Be on the watch for false prophets that come to you is sheeps covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.
    By their fruit you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorn or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut donw and thrown into the fire.

    Really, then, by their fruits you will recongnize those men.
    Matthew 7:15-20

    What kind of fruit do the men of this country bear?

    1. Re:It is written by JohnG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you talking about the United States? I'd say we make damn fine fruit. The internet being a prime example, world's leading PC processor manufacturers, world's leading Graphics card manufacturers, worlds leading Aircraft manufacturers, a big contender in the automotive and motorcycle industries.
      Or perhaps you were referring to the fruits we give to starving kids in countries whose own governments that don't give a damn about them like Afghanistan, so that they may not go hungry or die from what over here are simple illnesses.
      Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but if I had to choose an American apple over an Afghan apple, I'd take the American apple every time.

    2. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What kind of fruit do the men of this country bear?

      I'll be happy to answer this. The men of this country bear the following fruit:
      1. Fuel Air Bombs. This bomb uses a mix of fuel and explosives to superheat and ignite the air around a 1/2 mile area. All living things neading air are consumed in flame or (if covered) die from lack of breathable air.
      2. 3-Ton blockbusters. These bombs, dropped from B-52 aircraft, cause localized earthquakes of tremendous magnitude. We only dropped 1-ton bombs on Iraq. The iraqi soldiers who lived through those attacks literally lost control of their bowels. Literally. The 3-ton models will collapse entire mountains and caves The geological impact of these explosions can be measured in California.
      3. Cruise Missiles. When launched in tight clusters, these babies can hone in on a car or window in a building, and hit with UNREAL accuracy.
      4. Special Ops. We've heard lotsa lotsa talk about how tough those mountain fighters are. Well, lemme tell you about tough. Special ops forces eat rocks for food. They make the elite Taliban forces look like cub scouts.


      So, I think this sums up "what fruits" the men of this country bear. Remember that we're not doing this in the name of God or Allah. Oh no. We're doing this because specific (targeted) people crashed civilian airplanes into high rise buildings.
    3. Re:It is written by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      The men of this country bear the following fruit: Fuel Air Bombs. 3-Ton blockbusters. Cruise Missiles. Special Ops.

      You've summed it up perfectly....the sour fruits of destruction.

      Dave

      It is time for the governments of the world to step aside and let people live free.

    4. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your fibre channel stuff sucks

    5. Re:It is written by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      [I]f I had to choose an American apple over an Afghan apple, I'd take the American apple every time.

      I supposed it's easy to choose between two peices of rotten fruit; your tree is always the finest.

      It's not so easy to cut down all the trees that produce rotten fruit and plant new ones; it is more difficult to bring down the destructive institutions and the men that control them then it is to side with (some of) them.

      Dave

      It is time for the governments of the world to step aside and let people live free.

    6. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have enough peace-loving liberal whiners on Slashdot...now we have to deal with a religious hippie liberal whiner too?

    7. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, Dave, as you caress your protruding pot belly, and surf channels on your $1000+ info tainment system, and make self-righteous posts using a $1000+ computer system, I thought I'd give you a list of other "fruits" brought by the US forces:
      1. Humanitarian Aid. The USAF is dropping TONS of food and medicine to specific relief areas. Note that the Taliban is forcing refugees to move into "combat areas". Well, our "fruit" bearers anticipated this, and food drops are taking place on those locations. The method of deployment for these drops is a modification of the chute deliveries used in Kosovo. (No chutes, just high altitude drops of packed cargo. Think air bags.)
      2. Precise Strikes. Dave, Dave, Dave. Have you really watched footage of that aircraft slamming into the WTC too much? Have you become callous to the suffering in NY? Look, the US is striking specific people who (a) planned the WTC attacks, (b) now treat aid workers as hostages ["If you don't attack, we'll let the prisoners go"], and (c) have pledged to kill Americans. No, we're not going after the average Patush tribesman. Instead, we're going after the Taliban, considered to be "arab outsiders" by the Afgan people. It's not that we don't like them, Dave, it's that we're rather alarmed at their plans and activities, which have resulted in nearly 7,000 dead in the U.S.
      3. Diplomatic Front. You will no doubt dismiss this, but there was a month-long demand that the terrorists be turned over. (Why should they turn these guys over? Dave, did you see the footage from the WTC? No person on earth can claim that's part of civilized behavior.) You can be skeptical, but there was a long-standing effort to resolve this by letting the Taliban take sides--either depend the people who kill innocents in America, or turn them over to the US or a 3d country.


      So, I return to your original post, Dave, that cautioned against those bearing false fruits. So, far, you've accused the US of only doing harm. Sure, there's harm (but it's focused, and undeniably a reaction, not a provocation). But you, Dave, the false prophet of this thread, have offered false fruits--denying that there's any humanitarian assistance from the U.S.
    8. Re:It is written by perky · · Score: 1

      It's this kind of religious rhetoric that has got the world into this mess in the first place so I would calmly suggest that you avoid quoting the bible as if it has any gravity as a reasonable source of moral reference.

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
    9. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a ridiculously self righteous jackass.

    10. Re:It is written by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Lets try to outline a few facts. In 1993 (i think it was) Osama Bin Ladin bombed the world trade center. We didn't attack Bin Ladin or those harboring him (which wasn't the Taleban at that point, I think he was in Sudan at that time). Later because of our inaction the same man bombed the USS Cole costing more American lifes. Again we did nothing. On September 11, 2001 Osama Bin Ladin launched another attack on the World Trade Center killing thousands and thousands of American men woman and even children. Do you propose that we continue to try to talk this out? How can anyone possibly be so stupid as to not realize that if we do nothing to harm the guilty the only result will be another more powerful attack against our innocents? It's easy to set back and say we are on the wrong side of the war over there, but the British Prime Minister just said that 90% of the heroin over there comes from afghanistan, backed by the Taliban! Make no mistake that the Taliban are the "bad guys".

    11. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JJ rousseau was a crackpot.

    12. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of fruit do the men of this country bear?

      I don't get it. Are men trees? How can they bear fruit? I suppose they could carry a box of fruit, but then isn't the box bearing the fruit, and the men merely bearing a box? Maybe we should talk about "load bearing" in general, and then consider whether the load is fruit, or, say, the load held up by the load bearing beams of the WTC, where THOUSANDS of men women and children were standing.

      If we're going to use quotes from the Bible, then here's one that sets the value of PI to be exactly 3, and not 3.14...etc.:

      And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. --(I Kings 7, 23)

    13. Re:It is written by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      > Well, Dave, as you caress your protruding pot belly,

      No big gut here.

      You seem to think the US is in somehow justified to respond to an attack,
      that was brought on by it's own actions.

      The point to the quote should be clear:
      The government speaks of freedom and liberty, yet it brings war and oppression. Pay attention not to their words, but their actions. Their actions, their fruit, is sour.

      It's time to accept the fact. AMERICA IS NOT FREE. IT HAS NOT BEEN FREE FOR A VERY VERY LONG TIME.(Hell it's never been free) It is not becoming a police state, it IS a police state. Some aspects of this police state are mild in comparision to other police states, but that neither changes nor negates the fact of what it IS!

      You can keep blowing sunshine up your ass, about how great this shit
      hole country is, and how bad another one is. The fact of the matter is that if you want freedom, turn your guns 180 degrees around towards Washington and try toppling the US regime FIRST. Then worry about the governments half way around the world. I'm sure you'll find with this government gone, the people of
      Afghanistan will pose little threat to you. (There is a good reason the US was attacked and not Canada!)

      > Diplomatic Front. You will no doubt dismiss this, but there was a month-long > demand that the terrorists be turned over.

      Who the fuck is the US govt to demand anything? They've caused the original problem.

      >(Why should they turn these guys over? Dave, did you see the footage
      >from the WTC? No person on earth can claim that's part of civilized behavior.

      Did you watch the news September 6th? When the FBI burnt to death another
      man in his house in Arizona and the next day LEVELED his entire property with bulldozers so their was no evidence to their actions? Or September 9th? The Michigan man that was holed up in his ranch surrounded by Feds, because he's politcally active about the 'war on drugs' and demands his freedom?

      Now the same killers are suddenly my protectors?

      Or how about the news of the last few years, while US bombs have fallen all about the earth? How about Panama 1992(?), where 3-5000 civilians were slaughtered under George Bush senior's lead, so as to prop up a puppet government? (Uhm oh they call that one another war on drug campaign) Or the last 90 years, where FUCKING POINTLESS actions by the US and other governments led to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and countless other conflicts.

      Maybe you've missed seeing the news EVERY FUCKING DAY for the last 9 months where Isreali gunships are blowing up peoples meger dirt homes...with the US's blessing.

      Why haven't any of these events bothered you? They've bothered me. They've bothered me in the same way September 11th did. That governments all
      over the world keep playing games with OUR lives!

      But instead you've been a good sheep. You've done what the talking head in
      the box told you to do. You embrass the ones that hurt you the most, and you
      do it because you know you fear them the most!

      > So, I return to your original post, Dave, that cautioned against those
      > bearing false fruits. So, far, you've accused the US of only doing harm.
      > Sure, there's harm (but it's focused, and undeniably a reaction, not a
      > provocation). But you, Dave, the false prophet of this thread, have offered
      > false fruits--denying that there's any humanitarian assistance from the U.S.

      You speak of destruction as a means to 'justice' and coersion as a means to 'humanitarism'.

      I speak of true freedom as the means to itself.

      Does the US only do harm? Of course. It is a government. Government only exist by exerscing force. That is the only kind of 'fruit' it can bear. At this point and time the US is the most powerful and arrogent government of the world. Before the US it was Britian. Long ago it was Rome. They all evetually decline then fall. The question is at what point will the human animal evolve enough to stop replictating this failed concept.

      Dave

    14. Re:It is written by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      You neglected the BLU-82 Daisycutter. 15,000lbs of hurt-em delivered by a cargo aircraft because it's too damned big for any conventional bomber. I seem to remember we dropped a few of theese on troop positions in the Gulf War.

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    15. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotcha. Man, that AC really pushed your button. You went from quoting (and misapplying) the bible to siding with gun nuts and wacko extremists. Shit, Dave, that guy really got to you.

    16. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZING. Good job Jim. Nice touch with the 'pot belly' reference. The guy even snateched up that bait. Hehehe.

      I pegged him for a jesus freak, but your "black helicopters; anti-FBI" theory panned out. *snicker*

    17. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, normally I don't post here...but I must say...everything you said - look back at history to how Hitler was dealt with when he first started taking over countries. They LET him, figuring he would stop. But he kept going. They had the chance to (possibly) avoid WWII by doing action quick and decisively...instead people waited and tried to 'talk' it out.

      Honestly, I think thats why Britain is so gung-ho about kicking ass, they don't want this to devolve into WWIII.

      /\/ecro'

    18. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the leaders in graphics technology are CANADIAN. ATI is based in Toronto, Ontario and Matrox is in Dorval, Quebec

    19. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, do not bring the Christian Holy Bible into this, for a country that claims Christianity, you certainly need to practice grace and forgiveness.

      Sure, you will now speak of further attacks on America if these people go unpunished. Yet according to your OWN Christian beliefs, there will be a much greater punishment in all that condone and support this attack.

    20. Re:It is written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh perky. You're so right. We should avoid all religious rhetoric. We should all dance and sing like happy little atheists. Then we would all be so happy. The only moral authority necessary would be "What's in it for me?"

    21. Re:It is written by PieceMaker · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely dead on. The appeasement toward Hitler & Germany by Britain, France, Belgium, America, et. al. in the years prior to WWII was absolutely criminal. There can be no doubt that had these countries taken decisive action early to stop the Nazi aggression, far, far more lives would have been SAVED than were, in fact, lost by following the course of action they did.

      While it is commendable to appeal to reason and attempt to negotiate peaceful settlements, there comes a point where you have to recognize what you are dealing with for what it is. In the case of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, reason isn't even an option. These people believe God wants them to destroy Western Civilization! They have acted and continue to act on that belief. There can be no peaceful settlement short of giving them everything they want because they will never "sell-out" to their God. It is time for us to stop them before they can do greater harm.

    22. Re:It is written by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Because justic is a (gasp!) Judeo-Christian ideal! We can't have any of that. We're all good little atheists and moral-relativists here at Slashdot. Right?

    23. Re:It is written by perky · · Score: 1
      not at all: Most of the world doesn't subscribe to a religion and most of the world isn't immoral. It is not necessary to be religious to employ a moral framework to govern your life. Again, it is the assumption that religious people are "better" people than the rest that has got us uinto a lot of trouble. Just look at the crusades. Western Europe kills hundreds of thousands and tears a swathe of rape and pillage through the middle east all in tha name of God. Frankly all you sanctimonious preaching Christians can fuck off.

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  93. 'Innocent Bystander' at a terrorist camp??? by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Funny

    camp ?

    Uh huh... taking their lunch money and serving them food?

    Right.

    Tell ya what, you sign up into the military, head on over, and ask each person if they are a terrorist... if they say yes, you can read them Miranda.

  94. Re:I suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and fox is showing a commercial during the football timeout

    --
    fox is not a network

  95. Proud to be an American by billybob · · Score: 1

    Psych.

    Must we solve all our problems with more violence?

    --
    Joseph?
    1. Re:Proud to be an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Must we solve all our problems with more violence?

      Much better than your solution of "FUCKING NOTHING". God, its amazing how many men is our society have become crybaby little bitches. "Boo hoo, we might kill a civilian". Fuck them and their turbans. They are responsible for the Government that rules their land just like the Nazi scumbags in the 30s & 40s. I don't remembering anyone shedding a tear over Dresden except Nazis.

      Maybe because of your love of peace in the face of terrorism, Osama Bin Laden will take you out for ice cream, panty waist.

    2. Re:Proud to be an American by malus · · Score: 1

      and your solution to this is to eviscerate anyone in the cluster bombs 30M blast radius, including starving children, uneducated women, decrepit old men.

      now THAT's American.

      Your attitude is quite tragic, actually.

      As for your statement concerning who's responsible for the Afhani government. Wise up, jackass. These civilians are at the working end of a gun. Afghanistan is NOT a democratic republic. They are NOT responsible for who is in charge.

      Perhaps you could peel your face from your PS2 for an hour to read about the civil war which has been raging in the country for the last 10 years. You'd realize very quickly that the people have not chosen the Taliban.

    3. Re:Proud to be an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah but it is better to be Canadian.

    4. Re:Proud to be an American by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      Fuck them and their turbans. They are responsible for the Government that rules their land

      That's the exact argument used by the people that carried out the retaliation attacks on the 11th. By that logic, everyone injured got what they deserved. That's make all parties involved even... Guess the U.S. govt is try to get back ahead huh?

      Oh and tough guy, try living in the US with no SS# or drivers licence. See how free you are when you refuse to accept 'a mark of the beast'. We'll see how strong you can be when the courts crucify you for trying to live as a free man, unbeholded to the state.

      SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN YOU HOUSE NIGGER! You don't know what balls are!

    5. Re:Proud to be an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN YOU HOUSE NIGGER!

      I was actually agreeing with what you were saying until I read this part. Now you have shown your true self. I will not judge you, I'll leave that to the big guy. Have a nice day.

    6. Re:Proud to be an American by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      It's quite apparent you're unfamilar with the term I used. Next time try harder to understand the words instead of reacting to them. We are all niggers to the state.

      --
      It's the "House Nigger Syndrome".

      Plantation slaves (as Malcolm X pointed out) came in two types:
      house niggers and field niggers. The field niggers worked hard
      and lived in oppression and turned to religion, and music, etc.,
      whatever diversion they could muster to mask the daily misery
      they lived in -- while opulence loomed a few hundred yards away.

      But the house nigger is a different case. The house nigger
      encourages his master. When the house nigger's master succeeds,
      the house nigger feels himself successful. "We's doing good,
      ain't we boss?!" Or if things go bad for the master, "Lawdy! We's
      in trouble now!" Indeed. For if the plantation master is turfed
      out, the house nigger gets thrown back into the ranks of the
      field niggers.

      Now, since things "go bad" for their masters when the field
      niggers act up, the house niggers disapprove. The house niggers
      scold the field niggers. The house niggers counsel the field
      niggers to just work that much harder and make their master
      richer, then they'll all benefit.

      But some field niggers just never listened. They ran away, or
      acted up. They were just too damn stupid to understand the highly
      intelligent world of "economics". Damn fools.

    7. Re:Proud to be an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you are placing the burden on us for not comprehending your intentions. Convenient. I have an idea, why don't you be a little more diplomatic and informative with your labeling next time, so all of us 'niggers' who've not read X will be enlightend, okay? Asshole...*

      * you pick which meaning should be applied:

      asshole (ae:shl)
      n. Vulgar Slang
      2. The anus.
      3. A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.
      4. The most miserable or undesirable place in a particular area.

  96. Damn... by aiken_d · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I was just about to go on vacation there, too!

    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  97. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok, whatever.

    they kill 6000 innocent people ... they will face american terrorism in the form of cruise missiles, bombs, and whoop ass commandos

    fucker

  98. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, all payed for by me actually. And I have a lot of respect for america as a cultural and commercial centre... however much of the content here angers me - in that your correct. Why are so many of you so intollerant of other users postings?

  99. \/\/4R by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    round em up, put em in a field. and bomb the bastards!

  100. Meaning of "rm -rf /bin/laden" by yerricde · · Score: 1

    what does that line of code mean?

    "rm": Remove files from the filesystem.
    "-r": Recurse into subdirectories.
    "-f": Force, rather than ask "are you sure?" in some cases.
    "/bin/": This folder contains core executables for a UNIX operating system. Compare c:\winnt and friends.
    "laden": The name of a folder inside /bin/.

    A rough Windows equivalent would be "deltree /y c:\winnt\laden".

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  101. To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Hacker+Cracker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I would suggest that you stop for a minute and think... Once again Daniel Quinn has put it eloquently:
    A reader who is not online phoned me last night to get my take on the WTC attack. As with others who have contacted me, he wanted to see the possibility of something good coming from this calamity. As we talked on, I began to see that there is such a possibility--and it's entirely in our hands to bring it about. No one and nothing can prevent us from bringing it about--if we wish to.

    We want to see an end to terrorism--on that we're agreed. To take aim at this goal, however, we must stand on the solid, level ground of truth, and this we're not doing as yet. Our leaders are not speaking the truth as they surely know it; they're posing (as they have consistently done for many decades). They're posing as knights in shining armor, as paragons of perfect virtue, as the champions of godliness and decency ready to smite evil-doers (as our enemies must be, by definition). We can find no firm footing in this pose, because it's false, and so our aim is going to be shaky.

    The good we can bring about is to abandon this pose and to stand resolutely on the truth, which is that we can't pretend to bear no responsibility for the spread of terrorism and to have earned none of the hatred that drives it. (For more on this subject, see "Why a Military Response Won't Work -- Historic Roots of Mideast Grievances," by William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service, September 19, 2001.)

    By saying this, I'm not in the least condoning terrorism. I'm just rejecting as useless the fiction that we are immaculate saints while our enemies are Satanic monsters. This kind of posing brings us no honor in the world community and does nothing to steady our aim against terrorism.

    But where do we go from there?, my caller wanted to know. It seemed to him that the pose of righteousness gives us a clear program: Rage out into the world with our hands full of bombs to wreak vengeance on the tools of Satan. Yes, the pose of righteousness does give us that, whereas merely standing on the truth does not. You might say that standing in the pose of righteousness makes us lean toward wrath and violence, whereas standing on the truth merely puts us in balance. In this balanced state, we need to think about what to do. We need to listen to the wisdom of others and to understand what our enemies want--not to concede it to them but in order to defeat them. As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
    'Nuff said.

    -- Shamus

    Bleah!
    1. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Even in the heart of the 1980's when we most deeply hated Iran and we accidentally shot down Air Flight 655...

      We did not go out into the streets and cheer. We all paused and mourned as the reality of what we had done sunk over us.

      Even though our cloaks may be grey rather than white... it is quite clear they are not black.

      So do not dare to compare us with those who perpetrated the acts of 9/11.

    2. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      It's worth pointing out that not one bomb needs to be dropped. All the Taliban had to do was renounce terrorism and allow all the terrorist camps to be shut down. They made their choice.

      There are times when bad people are just determined to be bad, and the only response is eliminate them.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny
      I don't normally propagate these Internet memes, but this one is awfully appropriate.



      Credit for this goes to a retired Navy Chief

      What to do if you happen by a university peace rally in order to teach
      naive college students who have not experienced war in their lifetime
      why force is sometimes needed :

      1) Approach naive young student chanting about "peace" and saying
      there should be, "no retaliation."

      2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if they think military force is
      appropriate in response to attack killing over 6,000 people.

      3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

      4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would
      just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

      5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

      6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a
      mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would,
      "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

      7) Wait until he agrees with you that since he has pledged not to
      commit additional violence it would not be right for him to strike you
      back.

      8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

      9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is
      necessary to punch back.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 3

      OK, platitudes aside, what should be done? It's great to sit around armchair quarterbacking the biggest foreign policy event of the new millenium, but the people doing it have very little of substance to add to the discussion.

      You're right...America should NOT go off half-cocked. The response should be carefully measured and considered. That's what's been going on in the last month. The Taliban have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind.

      As far as the article you linked to, all it illustrates is that America assisted these governments (yes, out of America's self interest, but protected them nonetheless) from the immediate threat of Russian occupation. How did this get us nominated for Great Satan status, exactly?

      Oh yeah, we created Israel. Almost forgot about that.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Even though our cloaks may be grey rather than white... it is quite clear they are not black.

      Neither are those of the "terrorists".

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    6. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by motherhead · · Score: 2
      Never mind smaller operations mind you, let's talk about America's "War" doctrine.

      We Do Not Have A Conquering Military.

      Since WWI America has had a strict Liberation Military.
      This means: we do not colonize, we do not annex, and we are not looking to install an American government in your country. We are geared towards liberation of (yes, sympathetic) indigenous populations.

      So please abstain pointing out that the Mongols, Alexander, Britain and Russia all learned terrible lessons, because we are not fighting the same kind of war for the same kind of reasons.

      Also: yes-innocent people will die. War is indiscriminate slaughter. Grow up; this has been the way of things for 20,000 years. It is ugly, sad and perhaps wrong. We get it, now shut up.

      Yes i have terribly simplefied things here, but since the same fundamental points aren't being digested, I feared complicating it.

    7. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2

      Please read Hacker Cracker's post again. It describes the situation perfectly. The "terrorists" are punching back. US is at step #7 that has gone contrary to its expectations.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    8. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · · Score: 2

      I have heard this ignorant thing before. A true pacifist would not hit you back. These are quakers, folks of that sort. Even Gandhi knew that non-violent demonstration would not hold back a soviet invasion and he defended his country against that.
      I am not a pacifist, I would beat the hell out of you. Gandhi would have beat the hell out of you. You have to analyse the problem you are dealing with. Is state support for terrorism the reason that terrorism exists? No. Does it help it out? Yes. State sponsered terrorism is a crime. Does the United States sponser terrorism? Yes. Even without getting into an argument over what terrorism is, we train death squads that are used for right-wing forces in Latin America. Nothing secret about it, they are trained at the School of the Americas. So we are part of the problem.
      The use of Military force to get rid of the Taliban is acceptable to me. I think it's horribly more problematic than your average flag-waving, bomb the shit out them person realizes but I think if we could go into afganistan and truely create a fair, just, democratic government it would be worth the sacrifice of American lives.
      That said the main work in solving these problems is not solvable by military measures. The problem is an idea. In the words of Crass "Ideas are bulletproof". Truer words have never been spoken.
      The idea must be attacked. The idea is that the U.S. is an evil power that uses it's might to subjucate the rest of the world to it's interest. Does military action attack that idea?
      No. It reinforces it and guarantees a new generation of martyrs willing to die if they can get rid of the big, bad, evil U.S. Military action should be seen as the very smallest part of an effort to combat this idea. Making fair, sane foreign policy decisions should have been a priority before 9/11. Making them now is not "appeasement" it's just the right thing to do. I do think it's rather sad that until U.S. lives were at stake that no one in America gave a damn about our foreign policy but it has now become a matter of national security.

    9. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Apparently you believe these "terrorists" are not that but rather "freedom fighters" and were justified in their attack on 9/11.

      Wow. That's simply incredible.

    10. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      You don't get it. Pacifists argue that we should not hit the terrorists back. People who live in the real world understand that sometimes, force MUST be met with force.

      In order to justify the pacifist philosophy, cite a historical example of a pacifist society that lasted more than one generation while in contact with other, non-pacifist societies.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by fougasse · · Score: 1

      First, the parallel is not exact. Yes, Iran was hated, but the US was neither oppressed nor endangered because of Iran.

      Second, I'd bet you that some people -- some idiots -- did smirk and clap when the plane was shot down. Of course, the vast majority would never do anything that awful--just like in Palestine, where the vast majority did not celebrate. Don't believe everything you see on CNN.

    12. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by bnenning · · Score: 2
      Neither are those of the "terrorists".


      Bull. They slaughtered thousands of innocent people, for the specific purpose of slaughtering thousands of innocent people. The men, women, and children that they murdered had nothing to do with the allegedly unreasonable policies of the US government. These terrorists (note lack of quotation marks) are as close to pure evil as you're going to find, and for the sake of all civilized people they must be destroyed.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    13. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      The air strikes are aimed at the Taliban's ability to make war (which is REALLY what terrorism is). Without the funds and the training camps, they are powerless on the world stage.

      I don't really want the Taliban to be utterly destroyed. That's what makes them different from me. They think that my very ability to live and breathe is an affront to God. I think that they are misguided and dangerous, and should be deprived of the ability to kill me.

      Since I live in a big, powerful country, that means I am in a better position to get what I want than they are. Good thing what I want is not to destroy their way of life (although I think it's morally repugnant).

      (I'm using the collective I, knowing full well that this individual's power to destroy others is very very limited. The power I exercise by proxy by my support of the US Military, on the other hand, is pretty massive.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    14. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.


      Your allegory is flawed. What the pacifists are really against is someone who got punched just getting mad and punching random people (or people who look like his attacker, or people who live in the attacker's neighborhood). Obviously self-defense is sometimes necessary, but it only works if you know who your attacker is, and retaliate against only the people responsible. Hopefully that is what we are doing...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    15. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Does the United States sponser terrorism? Yes. Even without getting into an argument over what terrorism is, we train death squads that are used for right-wing forces in Latin America

      You should also mention that US helped bring the "big evil Taliban" to power in the first place.

      I think if we could go into afganistan and truely create a fair, just, democratic government it would be worth the sacrifice of American lives.

      Thank you for saying it and falling into the trap of propaganda!
      In 1979, when the communist government of Afganistan was overthrown and civil war began, USSR tried to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. Fast forward to the present. US is trying to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. The only thing that's needed for the situation to become a complete reversal is for Russia to start supplying the mujahedin with weapons (i.e. the very people they were fighting against!).
      I urge you to read 1984 if you have not yet done so.

      Military action should be seen as the very smallest part of an effort to combat this idea. Making fair, sane foreign policy decisions should have been a priority before 9/11. Making them now is not "appeasement" it's just the right thing to do. I do think it's rather sad that until U.S. lives were at stake that no one in America gave a damn about our foreign policy but it has now become a matter of national security.

      Finally the voice of reason! I wish more people would understand this. Sadly, I fear this is very unlikely to happen. If anything, I expect the situation to get worse. Just look at what the media and the government have been doing ever since the attack -- they fully encourage this view of self-righteosness and villify the enemy.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    16. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      India, fool. Sure, they didn't stay pacifist, but pacificism won them their freedom.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    17. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · · Score: 2

      I was trying very hard not to preach to the converted :)

      Don't think I am ignorant of the role of the U.S. setting up the Taliban or the fact that the CIA probably still had some sort of relationship to him up until he became demonized. He could have been useful in their cold war locked view of thought in case of some form of russian agression in the area. That is the real reason he and his network were allowed to flourish.

    18. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Apparently you believe these "terrorists" are not that but rather "freedom fighters" and were justified in their attack on 9/11.

      Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)
      If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. Alternatively, if you think US was justified in its actions, then surely you must also think that the "terrorists" were also justified in their revenge. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    19. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mmontour · · Score: 5, Informative

      9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

      You set up a very artificial scenario. The military person is almost certainly much better at hand-to-hand combat than the student. Even if the student punches back, he probably won't be able to incapacitate the military person. So why would the student think that punching back would stop further attacks, rather than escalating the intensity of those further attacks???

      The only reason that "punching back" stops the violence is that the attacker's only goal is to incite the student to punch back. With more likely attack goals (trying to get your lunch money, doesn't like the color of your skin, etc) punching back will only stop the violence if you are strong enough to significantly hurt your attacker.

      A student who is being attacked and knows he is outclassed can try to punch back and hope for the best. Or he can give in to the attacker's demands. Or he can run away.

      Or he can run away, then find a way to "hit back" at his attacker in a different manner than hand-to-hand combat. A student, tired of being bullied at school every day, might decide to bring in a handgun. A terrorist organization with no chance of defeating the US military might decide to attack soft civilian US targets.

      Sometimes it is necessary to punch back. However if you are one of the "good guys" who goes around punching people in the face in order to make this point, don't be surprised when they eventually change the rules and "punch back" in a way that really hurts you!

      Disclaimer: Don't support the terrorists or their actions; agree that they must be hunted down. Just don't think that Bush's "Good vs. Evil" attitude is doing anything to reduce the chance of future terrorism.

    20. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by On+Lawn · · Score: 2


      The phrase that comes to mind when I read your comment is...

      "decided in a trial by combat."

      I would decidedly not agree with those that say that America should sheepishly take 9-11 like a slap on the cheek, turn a few more becuase we have commited sins in the past.

      I'm actually very concerned with many groups inside the US that foster the spirit of revolution, that they need to violently arrest power from an organization built with mechanisms to distribute power. And has tolerance for many other mechanisms that allowed for the Civil Rights movement.

      Usually with the propagation of lies, or facts of combat measured against a stick of "If they had to do it violently then it was a wrong ideal." I suggest that there is another measure. What did they do with what they achieved so violently?
      My problem with "violence is just wrong" is this, many people seeking power to avenge the wrongs of a percieved "big guy" foe. If you feel oppressed or unfairly treated which would be very easy to feel if you have little while your neighbor has a lot, you are likely to be sympathetic to such rhetoric. You may even feel justified in dealing out violence in retaliation to persieved injustice.

      However, what do you do when your in power if you topple the big guy? What has the Taleban done with their power? What have many latin american and middle eastern dictators done? What did the US do after their rebellion? What did Hitler do becuase of his percieved injustice brought about by Jews?

      In the Sesame street song, we sing "One of these kids is not like the other, one of these just isn't the same." Within 100 years America abolished slavery (even by war), granted womens rights, religious freedom. The freedom has increased (largely as a whole). The others cases the freedoms of the citizens decreased. The aftermath of the wars it fought has seen the rebuilding and befriending the enemy.

      Now while my purpose is not to put a white hat on America, it is good to point out that for the most part freedom has been propagated at its hand. The other revolutions have been largely "Animal Farms". For all the Orwellian references, maybe its time to read that book again before striking out against your own government.

      In the end, history judges these trials by combat. It is never decided that "violence" in and of itself is black hat, but the purposes achieved and enforced with it.

    21. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Read again.

      More than one generation.

      Then explain to me how a pacifist nation justifies maintaining a nuclear arsenal.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by LS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your analogy is one of the worst I have ever seen. There are more holes in it than I wish to address, but I will point out a few:

      * A single person commiting an act of unprovoked violence is not comparable to a complex political situation that sometimes involves violence.

      * The US is the puncher, not the receiver of the punch. Our cold war and oil interests cause us to meddle in the affairs of almost every country in the middle east. We aided Osama Bin Laden and put the Taliban into power. They used to be called "freedom fighters" in the past. Our sanctions in Iraq have caused the deaths of over 500,000 CHILDREN. We sponsored and trained terrorists in Nicaragua that resulted in over 30,000 civilian deaths. The list goes on. Now who is the aggressor here?

      * A true pacifist is willing to die before hitting back. If someone thinks violence is evil, how can you combat evil with violence?

      * And why would anyone take advice and learn lessons from an asshole who punches peaceful people in the face?

      Turn your radio dial away from Rush Limbaugh and start finding out the true story, instead of knee-jerking off.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    23. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I don't need to have it both ways, because your justification for terror is logically flawed.

      We don't attack innocent civilians purposefully, we attack those responsible for directing the terrorists. i.e. al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

      They on the other hand are too timid to attack someone able to defend themselves, so they go after our civilians.

      I don't think you quite understand the situation today. Your philosophy of justifying terrorism as revenge is dead, it died on 9/11. It may have been an acceptable stance when we were only talking about a few people dead from car bombs and such. But again, 9/11 changed that when the anty was upped.

      Again, your logic is flawed. I suggest you rethink your position before responding.

    24. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      What a fluke! Just as I was reading your post, slashdot displayed the following fortune (bottom of the screen):

      When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before. -- Mae West, "Klondike Annie"

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    25. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would reccomend anyone talking about the events and the U.S.A.'s response it should be said over and over that the entire world is lucky that the response will be light and carefully planned. WE could nuke the ever living crap out of a 500 mile radius and ensure that the group we are after will be tterly destroyed and have a monument as to why not to attack any american. The US has immense power and can easily destroy any continent within minutes if it was decided to. It is the sanity of the US public and leadership that decided not to teach the world a lesson.

      americans (all americans From canada to South america) are a peaceful and caring people, we have our share of nuts and sociopaths but as a group we dont want to use the ability to split the planet in 2.

      but if for some reason we cant nail this moron/sociopath named bin-ladin(pronounced loser) and something really bad happens.... I'd like to apologize now for the horrible horrible re-encatment of nagasacki that will happen over there.

    26. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      There is no possible way that one could ever make a parallel which was exact, because the US has never engaged in anything as evil or unjustified as what happened on 9/11.

      You obviously didn't understand the point made.

    27. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Looge+Over+All! · · Score: 0

      Telling the person who just shredded a childishly simple and inaccurate argument that they didn't understand it anyway is a truly pathetic way to respond.

      You, little man don't understand the meaning of the word "unjustified" so don't use it when you complain about someone hitting back for once.

    28. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well seeing as how the U.S. supplies Israel with millions of dollars to kill Palestinians, I'm not really all that shocked that now suddenly the Palestinians are having street parties about the U.S. being attacked. If someone who murdered every member of your family got their head blown off by a shotgun, wouldn't you be just a little bit happy about it?

    29. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the thousands of Palestinian men, women and children that the U.S. government provides money for slaughtering have nothing to do with it either. I find it hard to believe that someone who touts the line "for the sake of all civilized people" suggests that another group of people should be "destroyed," no matter how evil they are. You're no more uncivilized than those you hate, and it's obvious.

    30. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by rfsayre · · Score: 2

      Daniel Quinn's column assumes that the United States will attempt to wage "humanitarian warfare", a particularly nonsensical modern notion. You know the ideas-- attacking only military targets, trying not to kill civilians. This never works, and it's possible that it's never happened anywhere other than in the US Government's propaganda.

      The column by William O. Beeman is laughable. The column purports to give historical context to Mideast grievances with the West, yet somehow fails to mention the creation of Israel. The article skips from post WWI directly to the Cold War. Ridiculous.

      For an historical account of effectiveness against the school of thought that Beeman correctly attributes to al-Afghani, we can look to Hafez al-Assad, the deceased leader of Syria. Assad belonged to a religion called Alawism (sp?) that traditional muslims consider heretical, and are a minority in Syria to Sunni muslims. Thus he faced frequent opposition from Sunni factions, until 1982 when he completely leveled a city called Hama that harbored the revolutionaries. He killed everyone. Women, children, elderly. After that, there were far fewer problems.

      I'm not advocating that kind of action, I'm just citing it to prove that military action can be effective against this kind of enemy. You just can't pretend that you're not going to kill innocent people. So if you scream for vengeance, do so with an accurate picture of the kind of vengeance that will be required.

    31. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2

      Uhhm, your entire post is logically flawed. Please read my post agan. I explicitly stated that I do not support the killing of innocent people, therefore to kill someone in revenge cannot be justified.

      Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place. Things like supporting dictatorial regimes like Iraq, Iran, and Taliban (did you know that Taliban came to power with US help?) when it suits US's interest; training and supporting terrorists like Osama bin Laden (did you know that he was trained and supported by CIA?); bombing and starving millions of innocent civilians in Iraq (after Saddam Husein was officially declared evil).... I suggest you rethink your position before responding.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    32. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by hey! · · Score: 2

      I realize this is a thought experiment, but one of the great things about this country is that we don't condone this kind of behavior.

      The peace protesters are excercising their democratic rights. I think this is good for the country. Some people in other parts will misinterpret this as a sign of weakness, but the sophisticated ones will get the real message.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    33. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, but he got two moderator points for that. Maybe it is the right thing to do in Ameríca, ha !

    34. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by siegesama · · Score: 1

      As with so many metaphores, this one is wrong too. The interactions between two single people cannot be used to portray the interractions between full-fledged factions. Your chief friend sounds pretty simple.

      The interection in this charming meme isn't well related to what is going on now with the US. A closer allegory would involve not merely hitting back the single offendor, but to instead throw a grenade into park full of people, under the impression that the bastard who punched you is in there with everyone else.

      The worries and objections coming from so many are not that a strike against the Taliban would just be adding more violence aimlessly. The worries from people like myself are that attacking all of Afghanistan (as SO MANY people seem to think of as such a perfect and logical reaction) would be pointless and harm helpless-- and frankly innocent-- people. So a group of crazed militarists who have taken over a country's power-seat harbor and possibly aide a terrorist whose attacks haved killed thousands of innocent americans, and we're suddenly justified in killing more innocents who might get in the way while we're bombing those responsible?

      A direct and coordinated military attack is great, we DO need to show those who are actually responsible that they cannot do this without consequences. I don't believe that we can successfully remove them as a threat forever, that just doesn't work. If some ridiculous militarist starts hitting me, he's still a threat even if I hit him back.

      Now what I see happening (here in reality) is not the bombing of all of Afghanistan. I see, thus far, an aimed and purposefull retaliation. And I am behind those actions, so long as they stay focused. But if we start listening to all the fanatical babblings of people hungry for blood and "vengance", then we're all quite frankly fucked. If every baboon screaming racial slurs had their say and way, we'd take the cowardly and reactionary route and destroy the entire country as precedense.

      And THAT is what I'm against.

      --
      what the hell is a 'junk character', anyway?
    35. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to me the wise man who would be receiving the punch should just run away. Yes, the military guy would think that the student would be coward, but to me and to many other pacifists he would be doing JUST the right thing. Maybe the student should come back with a police officer or some other form of justice. Atleast if he would be seriously injured.

      The US now has justice atleast in theory on its side so this post shouldn't be considered as opposing to the US attacks.

      The main problem is that the US can't run to a police station since the power of UN is really too weak. UN should now be strengethed and the US should really be helping more in that matter.

    36. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      Actually, many more atrocities that happen in the middle east through our governments interactions have gone by unknownst and even uncaring by most of us, we dont elect our politicians on their foriegn policy and it shows.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    37. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Our leaders are not speaking the truth

      Much information has been kept under wraps. More than I would prefer, but there is PLENTY of evidence available. There is no doubt who is responsible. ESPECIALLY considering Bin Laden's statements recently. He has all but said 'Yep, it was me' and stated the attacks will continue. Our right to prevent continued attacks is irrefutable.

      Rage out into the world with our hands full of bombs to wreak vengeance

      I'm getting tired of this crap. There was no immediate retailiation/carpetbombing/indiscriminant destruction etc. etc. etc.
      There was a thorough investigation, careful evaluation, and targeted response at those responsible. We do NOT want to kill civilians. And it sounds like we've dropped more tons of food than of bombs.

      we can't pretend to bear no responsibility... and to have earned none of the hatred

      Well, lets see. What are Bin Laden's stated reasons?
      #1 Non-Islamic people in Saudi Arabia (at the invitation of the government).
      #2 Westerners preventing the extermination of Israel and it's entire population. Do they have blood on their hands? Yes. Kinda hard to completely blame them when several neighbor nations have official standing policies of annihilation. They are in Palestine - true. They moved troops in during a war of self defense. They DO need to find a way to move out.
      #3 We are not Islamic and our ideas of freedom and equality are "infecting" their population. The idea that women are more than cattle is particularly offensive.

      Did I miss anything?

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    38. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      This is not equavalent to our situation. I agree the US can not be pacifist, but that is because we are the bully, we are the one beating up those in the middle east. Only the underdog has the options of pacifist or terrorists, and we are not the underdog, we are the bully and dont have the option of being pacifist.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    39. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.
      * You should take your own advice. You seem to be parroting propaganda from only one side.

      * In most cases, not all, we meddled in other countries business because the other side in the cold war did. More than likely no US aid directly reached Bin Laden. We may have supplied weapons to people who later used them for Bin Laden. We stopped aiding the Mujadeen after the Soviet Union left. The Taliban wasn't even thought of at that time. Pakistan, which we no longer aided, probably set up the Taliban to control the situation in Afghanistan to have a client state. If we allow Iraq to sell all the oil they want to buy food and medicine, why are children dying? Why is some food that is sent into Iraq shipped back out? The situation in Nicaragua wasn't as simple as you put it.
      *Some of these people who call themselves pacifists have no trouble supporting people who kill to achieve their goals.
      *What are we supposed to do if that asshole kills the peaceful person? Sit back and think the peaceful person deserved it?

      You might want to listen to Rush sometime. Sometimes, no matter how biased you are against him, he tells the truth.

    40. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by jamesneal · · Score: 1
      ...And to counter that...


      Taken from Quakers Are Funny! by Chuck Fager, Kimo Press, 1987:


      One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.


      In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room. He then asked the youth, "Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"


      "Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.


      "That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left.

    41. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Garin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw all those people cheering and happy the day of the WTC destruction. But... how do we know that they were cheering about this destruction? Do you honestly believe everything you see on CNN?

      Seriously, think about it. If you wanted to polarize a nation behind a military response against a middle-eastern country, apparently all you'd have to do is dig up some old stock footage of cheering people from the middle east, and claim that they were cheering because something awful happened to the US. People obviously accept it without question, and ravenously demand the blood of those who did it.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
    42. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      I'm not a pacifist, but I am a college student opposed to military retalliation. I don't have some sort of cheap, ideological objection to the U.S. asserting itself. I don't have a religious objection to violence.

      I just think the events of September eleventh, regardless of their scale, are still criminal actions requiring a diplomatic and judicial solution. And i also don't think you can deter fanatics bent on martyrdom with the threat of death.

      I'm not a hippy. I just think the use of military response in this particular set of circumstances is a grave mistake.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    43. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by fleck_99_99 · · Score: 1

      Oh. Very appropriate. Of COURSE punching someone in the face is acceptable, just to show "those damn hippies." It's this mindset that makes me miserable to be American today.

      America... A great idea, but we seem to have lost the reins. I know, let's just bully everybody...

      --
      seven two six five
      seven four six one seven
      two six four two e
    44. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Curt+Cox · · Score: 1
      Are you an American? Don't be afraid to admit it.

      Being an American athiest, I normally feel so out-of-touch with America at large. Thank you for pointing out how little of "turn the other cheek" the average American really believes. You give me hope, that the average American's belief in god is just as much shallow lip service. Perhaps you are just like me, after all.

      Imagine that.

    45. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even in the heart of the 1980's when we most deeply hated Iran and we accidentally shot down Air Flight 655...
      We did not go out into the streets and cheer. We all paused and mourned as the reality of what we had done sunk over us.



      "We" did not hate Iran. Our government hated them, the people could care less.

      "We" did hate Japan during WWII. America is the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons. Against civilian targets. Twice. And we cheered in the streets afterward.

      Those who perpetrated the acts of 9/11 were people. The crowds cheering in the streets were people. It is better to understand what motivates and drives them to such obscene action than to simply dismiss it as the act of lunatics.

      Thousands of people died during the attacks and now one really cares why.

    46. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by GlowStars · · Score: 1

      There is no possible way that one could ever make a parallel which was exact, because the US has never engaged in anything as evil or unjustified as what happened on 9/11.

      Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    47. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by ruin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Looks like he forgot a step.

      10) As campus security is escorting you away for assaulting someone, muse upon the differences between justice and retaliation.

      --
      share and enjoy
    48. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Just as someone has the right to protest for peace, I have the right to try to convince them otherwise (not by hitting them in the face, though). One of the beautiful things about America is the ability to respect someones else's view point, and still try to change thire mind.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    49. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though our cloaks may be grey rather than white... it is quite clear they are not black.

      Since when do crocodile tears contain bleach?

    50. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the correct amount of force applied to the
      root of any resistance it can be proven that said resistance will fail to resist.

      War is immoral, and the last resort of reasonable
      people.

      You perceive this conflict in an unrealistic
      light: That by acknowledging our "responsibility"
      in fomenting this situation, we somehow deserve the terrors visited upon us and that we have no moral right to complain or vilify our declared
      enemies.

      As if giving our enemies what they want is any more "just" than pursuing a policy that denies them their political/social ambitions. As if they
      have proven the nobility of their purposes by
      stooping to attacks on civilians to deliver
      a "sensation of terror such as they have experienced."
      The israelis (holocaust survivors) have first dibs on this type of justification.

      Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war...
      Not cry peace and plead misunderstanding after
      the fight has been joined, when the enemy is determined to make an end by violence.

    51. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      When exactly did we (America) beat people up in the middle east? Was it when we supplied and trained the Afghan counter-insurgents, or was it when we tried to keep the Shah of Iran's moderate government in power?

      Oh, I forgot. It was when we tried to enforce the UN's charter of Israel. Silly me. Bomb away, Middle Easterners, we are obviously the Great Satan.

      America gets an awful rep as an imperialistic power, but it's never EVER been justified. If we were an imperialistic nation, we would have occupied Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and not worried about what the price of oil was going to be fixed at. Yes, we exercise our foreign policy on the soil of other countries. Yes, we act diplomatically, economically, and militarily to secure our interests abroad. Yes, we make foreign policy mistakes. Name a powerful country that does not.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    52. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Do you not understand the difference between innocent and guilty?

      To claim that you don't support killing innocent people, and then try to equate the killing of guilty people with the killing of innocents is fundamentally flawed logic.

      Or don't you understand the distinction?

      For what it's worth, I've already rethought my position in the past month. If you had asked me in August, I would have agreed with you. Today, I do not.

      The reason? Quite simple, the unjustified attacks on 9/11 changed the situation.

      I just do not understand why you cannot comprehend that, and why you continue to justify the killing of innocent civilians.

    53. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Karel+Capek · · Score: 1

      5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

      And the college student is shocked and hurt because he hasn't done anything to provoke this now, has he?
      Yes, this is a good parallel, because everyone knows that how USA has never involved themselves in world politics except to wave peace placards.

    54. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      three words: Not Exact Parallel

      It would be ridiculous to argue that our attack against Japan was not justifiable.

    55. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Liberation military" is just a word and you should know that. (You might have heard of the People's Liberation Army "liberating" Tibet).

      That said, I acknowledge that the US army has often been a freindly liberating force.

    56. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I saw the footage on Foxnews, not CNN. While I agree that Fox used it irresponsibly, the theory that this was stock footage has already been debunked.

      The footage came from Reuters news service.

      CNN also showed footage the following day of Palestinians placing flowers at the door to the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

    57. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes: http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    58. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you say: A complex political situation.

      "Meddling" -are the sovereign interests of the US
      involved in making the world fit for US interests?
      YES.
      Are immoral methodologies employed. Yes.
      Does any government perpetrate crimes to
      preserve itself? YES.

      What is your definition of "true evil"-> I
      think (according to your logic above) that it
      is causal in origin-the first bad guy gets
      what he deserves and then sucks it up and
      changes his ways=good
      The bad guy commits crimes and is attacked, he
      claims that the "crimes" were not crimes and
      retaliates=bad.

      Nobody is in the right-let the strongest prevail.

    59. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Yet there is no evidence that the Palestinians were behind this terrorism, in fact their leaders, such as Arafat, have denounced it as unjustifiable.

      The only ones who have expressed satisfaction with the attack are those whose hearts are evil. Such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban.

    60. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by greenrd · · Score: 2
      The script fails at step 3 because I say "It depends".

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    61. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who lives in Pakistan. She told me that there were plenty of people in Pakistan cheering as well. Therefore I have no reason to doubt that the footage of palestine was accurate.

      As others have stated, our foreign policy over the last 30-40 years has done a lot to turn the muslim world against us. We speak the rhetoric of freedom, but when it comes to other nations our actions are all about our self-interest at almost any cost and rarely about freedom. If we were to bring our actions in line with our rhetoric, the base of people from which bin Laden recruits would shrink to almost nil. Until then, we are only going to encourage more people to hate us.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    62. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by LS · · Score: 2

      Ok.

      * Anonymity is a breeding ground of propaganda, coward. Show your face and I will respect your words.

      * You can label my post as propaganda, but they are easily verifiable facts, even documented by major media outlets, conveniently forgotten in recent coverage.

      * Ok, so the Soviets were assholes too. Your point? Please drop the implicit idea you were fed all your life that the people in power in this or any other country are "defending freedom" instead of playing power games.

      * US military equipment did assist Bin Laden, whether it was directly to him, or indirectly through that Mujahedin, and our CIA was completely aware of the situation.

      * So, you do agree with Albright that causing the deaths of 500,000 children is worth it because the few evil men who run Iraq wont feed them?

      * Ok, I admit that my knowledge of Nicaragua is not strong

      * I'm not talking about "these people who call themselves pacifists" who "have no trouble supporting people who kill to achieve their goals". I'm talking about true pacifists, not about some idiots you met on the street or saw on TV.

      * Once again, the analogy is flawed. Neither side in this conflict is peaceful nor innocent, so dealing with a unprovoked murderous asshole is not at issue here. But they should be captured and put the trial, and perhaps killed. I never claimed to be a pacifist.

      * And spare me your Rush propaganda. I've heard the argument that he sometimes "tells the truth" numerous times. Everyone tells the truth, some of the time. Don't label me or put me on any side. I don't have much respect for Noam Chomksy either.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    63. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have to change their views. We just have to render them powerless so we don't have to care about their views anymore.

    64. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Brummund · · Score: 1

      You obviously hasn't read much history. Get some books, quick.

    65. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      10) As campus security is escorting you away for assaulting someone, muse upon the differences between justice and retaliation.

      Right. Let's complete the metaphor:

      Student -> Innocent New Yorkers
      Assaulter -> bin Laden
      Campus Security -> US Military

      So just like campus security must take action to protect an innocent student from a violent lunatic, we must declare war on terrorism.

      --

      --
      Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

    66. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      No its more then likely to do with, Iraq sanctions and Saudi-Arabia occupation. And a bully is not imperialistic (which is actually closer to an amoeba in swallowing others), a bully just beats up some and *scares* others. Iraq would have been better off if we did just take it over like at the end of most wars, how does a war end with someone like Saddam Hussien still in power? And look at what that kind of strategy lands us, we ended up torturing innocent Iraqi people who have little to nothing to do with Saddam Hussien, occupying Saudi-Arabia with our military forces. And it just so happens the enemies of the US were made or supported by the US, both Saddam Hussien, and Osama Bin Laden. Even here in the US, Timothy McVeigh (to move a little tangent to the topic) was made by the US military. But my point is, we have been doing these things in their lands, and innocent people have been dieing as results.

      Israel is some what the same thing, but a weaker arguement because we are not directly involved, we supply the weapons and we support Israel, and even Jewish Lobbiests in the US pressure us into conflicts (like Iran, the bombing of US Liberty and Egypt etc etc).

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    67. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it will if those poor people are deceased.
      You just ignored what the germans knew..
      It's impossible to conquer an idea,just kill
      it's source.

    68. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Why do you think nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9/11?

      The Palestinians have already denounced the attacks, even though many(such as yourself) are claiming they were done in their name.

      The point is, they were unjustifiable. The US has made mistakes in the past, and has made decisions which were horrible yet justifiable, such as the use of atomics in Japan. But we've never done anything that justified the attacks on 9/11.

      And that's why you won't see anybody speculating as to why this happened, because there is no reason behind it. It *WAS* the act of lunatics.

    69. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they fly the next plane into UIUC.

    70. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok now reverse roles......imagine that the student is an arab/palestinian, and that the puncher is someone who he perceives to be supported by the US...I think that the bastard bin Laden struck an unfortunate chord when he asked americans to examine where all this hatred came from...

    71. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately no matter what actions we take, or what rhetoric we put forth, we shall always be condemned for helping people.

      If we help the people in Afghanistan, we insult the Taliban.

      If we help the Israelis we insult the Palestinians.

      If we help the Albanians, we insult the Serbs.

      The only answer to your concerns is for us to completely pull out of all conflicts and become isolationist. You are effectively saying that we should have let Saddam Hussein have his way with Kuwait, and probably invade Saudi Arabia as well.

      I agree we could be more careful with who we choose as friends, but we will always make someone mad, no matter who we help. That's part of the reality that we must accept and learn to deal with.

    72. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mockery · · Score: 1

      This post has been moderated as funny. I can understand that, and when I first read this I laughed; however I'd like to point out that there are some people who think following this is actually a good idea. To those people, I'd just like to ask one thing:
      Is this your idea of polite political discourse?

    73. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      huh? what? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. To claim that you don't support killing innocent people, and then try to equate the killing of guilty people with the killing of innocents is fundamentally flawed logic.

      First, would you care to point out when I claimed that? This statement makes your post not only logically flawed, but outright false.

      Secondly, it is not contridictory to condemn the killing of innocent and the killing of guilty at the same time. Some people do -- Amish for example. They are pure pacifists. They believe only God can decide who is to live and who is to die. In fact, "Thou shalt not kill" technically applies to both guilty and innocent....

      Please think before you post. And do not make false claims -- it does not add any "logic" to your statements.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    74. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I'm an avid reader of history.

      Do you want to talk specifics, or do you need to first read some books so you can speak from an informed position?

    75. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Ah, so we should trade with Iran, even when they do things that we don't like?

      Opposing economic sanctions is just like saying I should trade lunches with a bully, just because he wants my lunch. If Iran/Iraq/whoever wants to do business with the Western world, they might want to tone down their anti-Western rhetoric. Why should I trade with somebody who hates me?

      Saudi Arabia is most emphatically NOT occupied. The Saudi government BEGGED the US to station troops on the peninsula to protect them from their imperialistic neighbors. If you think differently, that's OK. You're just wrong.

      When did we torture Iraqis?

      Timothy McVeigh is the product of Timothy McVeigh. People have free will. For every example of a tortured soul trained by the military, I can provide you with ten examples of great human beings made greater by the discipline and training of military service.

      If you want to talk about whether Israel has the right to exist or not, take it up with the UN.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    76. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)"

      Then you are an idiot. Or at least I'll grant that you are just politically naive. The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge. They were not "crimes of passion." The terrorist leaders may toss around the word "revenge" in the propaganda they use to recruit throw-away agents, but the fact is that such terrorist acts are cooly calculated attempts at political manipulation.

      To quote the DOD definition, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to [cause] fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological... In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."

      The leaders of Al-Qaeda seek to establish a unified Islamic gov't over the entire Middle East. Is that evil? Well, they want a gov't where women are considered property, where the political leaders are also the religious leaders, where practicing a religion other than the "state religion" is punishable by death, and not incidentally where THEY are those revered religious/political dictators. I think that qualifies for evil in my book. Even if you don't believe in "good vs. evil" political simplifications, then surely it is an end result which almost all civilized people would not want to see occur.

      So why would Al-Qaeda attack the World Trade Center if it really wants to take over Arabia? Because as long as the United States maintains a strong military presence in the region then any attempt to "unify the Muslim world" will almost certainly come to a swift failure. Al-Qaeda's first step is to drive the U.S. out of the region that they want to conquer and to sufficiently damage us that we would not have the resources to ever come back in. Al-Qaeda is manipulating the hatred and jealousy toward the United States among the many Muslims to further their own goals of political/military conquest. They murdered thousands of civilians in a surprise terrorist attack in an attempt to provoke the United States gov't into taking rash action that will further increase their political base (something Bush's advisors obviously foresaw, considering the huge emphasis that Bush and his administration are placing on winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans and other Muslim people) and also as the first step in convincing the public and the leadership of the United States that we must withdraw our forces from the Mid-East (like we withdrew from Lebanon and Somalia after terrorist related casualties in those areas) so that it will be ripe for their conquest. Sounds close enough to "evil" in my book.

      As the song says "everybody wants to rule the world." Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri might actually be satisfied with just the Middle and Near East... maybe. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "evil." I'm sure they would tell you that they keep women uneducated and oppressed because that is their proper place in society... not because they hate them. I'm sure that they would explain that they execute people preaching other religions because they care about their citizen's souls and want to protect them from temptation. Then again, I'm sure that the Communists would have told you that they were doing what they did only because they cared so much for the Working Class. I'm sure that the National German Worker's Party officials would have explained that their actions were taken to bring back the pride and sense of self worth among the much maligned German people and to free them from the unfair terms of the Armistice Treaty forced on them by the evil French.

      I will not try to argue that the United States is perfect. We have used ruthless means to achieve our ends. We have manipulated nations. We have supported oppressive leaders simply because they were the enemies of our enemies. It is a cruel world. International politics is a brutal jungle where the only rules are the ones that you can enforce. We have played by those "rules of the jungle" and perhaps in some ways we mirror the evil we try to fight. But aside from some (thankfully) rare acts by misguided leaders, our ends are generally good. If you can't agree with that, then I submit that they are at least better than the ends pursued by our enemies, whether those enemies are Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussien, or the Chicoms.

      Some people are upset that the United States is never perfect. The choice is not "which side is perfect." The choice is "which future do you want to live in?" The future the United States is fighting for will not be a utopia... but it will be better than the alternative. It is time to choose sides. And don't forget the saying "The Perfect is the enemy of The Good." If you wait for a perfect society to support, then you will never find it. It is time to throw in on the side of "The Good." As long as you argue that the calculated conspiracy of an oppressive, tyrannical fanatic is morally equivalent to the calculated conspiracy of the powers of Western Civilization to promote global stability and the continued existence of liberal, capitalist, democratic society, then you are on the wrong side... and you are being just as manipulated by Al-Qaeda's propaganda as are the poor, ignorant youths who they recruit to be "throw away" agents.

      P.S. All the people who feared a stupid, rash, and vengeful retaliation by the United States need only look at the huge effort being put into helping the Afghan people and building alliances with local, freedom-loving Afghanis to see how wrong those expectations were. I am very proud of Pres. Bush and his administration. www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/ret.bush.radio/ index.html (remove the space before "index")

    77. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I posted it because I thought it was funny...and because it had a tasty grain of truth in the center.

      I'm sure that the Chief wasn't really advocating assaulting protestors. I also know that it's not an allegory for the US/Afghanistan situation. It's a thought experiment that demonstrates why pacifism will not work in a world where there exist aggressive societies.

      And I'm having a GREAT time watching the uproar! Gosh, I didn't think of it as a troll, but now it sure looks like one...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    78. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. gives the Palistinians billions of dollars too.

    79. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. "

      You keep confusing the targetted retaliation of the guilty with the killing of innocents. This has been your consistent stance since you entered this thread, and it is logically flawed.

      You now try to bring up arguments of pacifism on the part of Amish or Mennonites, but that's not what you were arguing before. You were claiming before that the civilians at the WTC were not innocent and that these people who perpetrated the attacks were justified because of revenge.

      If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions. But so far you've yet to show a logically consistent thought in this thread.

    80. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      "You set up a very artificial scenario. The military person is almost certainly much better at hand-to-hand combat than the student. Even if the student punches back, he probably won't be able to incapacitate the military person. So why would the student think that punching back would stop further attacks, rather than escalating the intensity of those further attacks???"

      Have you ever seen the movie _Cool_Hand_Luke_?

      Even if you can't hit harder, if you have a "positive asymmetry of wills" then you can win in the end.

    81. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by wass · · Score: 2
      Second, I'd bet you that some people -- some idiots -- did smirk and clap when the plane was shot down. Of course, the vast majority would never do anything that awful--just like in Palestine, where the vast majority did not celebrate. Don't believe everything you see on CNN.

      Okay, if we can't believe everything seen on CNN, what about

      Also, don't forget the fact that some Palestinians kidnapped one of the cameramen that recorded the cheering, and the Palestinian Authority couldn't guarantee his safety if the footage was broadcast. Heard this on both The Jerusalem Post and also corroborated on NPR. Can't find a link to the stories, though.

      --

      make world, not war

    82. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      > If we help the Israelis we insult the Palestinians.

      Eh, we do a little more then that unfortunetly, after all they get a lot of their weapons from us.

      > The only answer to your concerns is for us to completely pull out of all conflicts and become isolationist.

      Well, the oposite choice is to get involved and to risk terrorists attacks as we have been through already (several times).

      > You are effectively saying that we should have let Saddam Hussein have his way with Kuwait, and probably invade Saudi Arabia as well.

      We had our chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but as the media said at the time, Bush (Senior) was a wimp.

      > I agree we could be more careful with who we choose as friends, but we will always make someone mad, no matter who we help. That's part of the reality that we must accept and learn to deal with.

      The problem comes in, is that we pretend to be a moderator (unbiased by both sides) to gain international support, but in reality we are still one sided, we still give weapons to Israel but do nothing for Palistine. And as we do this Palistinians get more afraid of Israel terrorists attack Israel, and Israel uses those weapons against them.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    83. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by motherhead · · Score: 2

      Oh I appreciate your point, and also the kind tone of your reply.

      And believe me, I am just as dubious of my government's use of semantic liberties (no pun intended) with the English language as I am sure you are. In most cases I am a screaming bastard accusing them of lying about everything to why NASA is so grossly under funded to why I can't get a DSL service I like in a city the size of freaking Chicago.

      My basic tone being the mentality of how our forces/logistics are structured. When one wants to acquire real estate one has to arrange his armies on such a fashion as to facilitate that. Standing armies are a bitch to maintain. Study Britannia during the 19th and early 20th century for a terrific (text book) example of that kind of government/war machine.

      Where as the American armed forces (such as they have been since their virtual reinvention in the 30s and 40s) has been designed for what amounts to, the opposite result. (We leave as soon as possible.) Yes, because we are not altogether stupid or particularly altruistic, we try to ensure that the government we leave will be sympathetic and/or "loyal" to our own.

      Though you gotta admit Macarthur did a pretty decent job for a while in post war Japan.

      Once upon a time I could tell you then names of the generals and admirals involved in forging this doctrine right off the top of my head, but I turned 30 a couple of years ago and am becoming functionally retarded more and more with every day. Though it is really fascinating reading actually should you get an itch to look into it.

    84. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood. I thought that by "more than one generation" you meant the society lasted more than one generation. Which it most certainly did. It just didn't remain pacifist.

      Also, many many pacifists understand that pacifism has it's limits. As another poster pointed out, even Ghandi knew that non-violent means wouldn't work against the Soviets. I'm a pacifist. I'm also not opposed to any of the action taken today.

      Lastly, calling a nation pacifist is kindof silly. No nation has policy made by one person only, and thus no nation has a completely unified position in terms of pacifism.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    85. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      I would want those responsible extradited, tried, and punished in accordance with the U.S. criminal code, and whatever international treaties apply. Even if they killed me.

      Our respect for life and law, and our seperation of guilty and innocent are what sets us apart from terrorists.

      But more importantly, Afghanistan is a strategic nightmare and the diplomatic intracies are equally perillous. Bombing won't make bin Laden confess and surrender. A ground war will disintegrate our support in the region, and politically destabilize it: should we buy what he wants with our blood?

      And i fully expect, "Sure! If it means we get to send some terrorists to hell!" to be your answer.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    86. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Looge+Over+All! · · Score: 0

      It appeals to Americans because it was very simple and gave the appearance of out-arguing someone intelligent.
      There's no such thing as an intelligent All American Hero.

    87. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Oh, I see. You keep confusing the current retaliation with the past US's sins. As I stated two posts ago, I am not talking about US's current actions -- in fact, if anything, I think it's a good idea to bring the perpetrators to justice, but that's a separate discussion altogether. What I was talking about (as I repeatedly sated) is about US *past* actions. The actions that caused the anti-american sentiment throughout the middle east and central asia. The actions that caused these people to retaliate. (cause comes before effect, you know :-)

      If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions.

      I did (as I said previously) condemn the killing of the innocent. And I aslo said that if you condemn the killing of US civilians, then you must also condemn the killing of civilians of other countries, as US has done in the past. You have completely ignored this point.
      I do not claim to be a pacifist though. The said reality prevents this idea from flourishing.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    88. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Cryp2Nite · · Score: 1

      6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

      Oh come on!!!!
      Knocking this retired generals lights out would be fine with just about anyone. Where most people are having problems is when you go over to his family, neighbour ex classmates, his highschool girlfrienda and all retired military folks in a 50 mile radius of his residence and start punching them in the face.
      It's all about these question:
      1. Can the many be held responsible for the actions of the few?
      2. How much suffering can we allow to happen to the many to bring the few to justice?

      Which is not to say I am against military action taken against the attackers of the WTC/USA/Free world, whatever you want to call it. The trouble is the way things are in our society when military force has to be used, the general public never has all the information before the fact (and maybe not even after).
      Maybe in fifty years or so when we've had enough time to punch holes in the propaganda stories we'll be able to tell if they measures taken were justified. Trouble is there won't be anyone left to hold responsible when we've got the whole picture.

    89. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Karel+Capek · · Score: 1

      Student -> Innocent New Yorkers


      Why is the adjective "innocent" invariably attached to these victims? In what way were they innocent? And where were all the non-innocent New Yorkers? Would it have been somehow more acceptible if the people that died hadn't been innocent?

    90. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      > Ah, so we should trade with Iran, even when they do things that we don't like?

      It should depend on what those things are. If they attack their neighbors, forget not trading, get together with the UN and attack them. If they have child slave labor, dont allow international corporations to use that labor. If they use the money from the oil exports to buy military weapons, that should be fine (what they do with their money is their business) up to the point they start using it to kill innocent people. If we want to stop trade, stop trade that affects the government not the people and their businesses.

      > Opposing economic sanctions is just like saying I should trade lunches with a bully, just because he wants my lunch. If Iran/Iraq/whoever wants to do business with the Western world, they might want to tone down their anti-Western rhetoric. Why should I trade with somebody who hates me?

      Is it that they hate us or is it that we hate them? Part of the reason we started supporting Iraq was to get at Iran, and the reason we went after Iran was because Israel was afraid of Irans military force, we were afraid Iran would distabilize that area affecting our oil interests. We turned on Iraq when Saddam Hussien invading Kuwait, but before doing that we allowed him (and even encouraged) to slaughter Shites because they could support Iran. If we had taken out Saddam and at least tried to install a democratic government or a UN presence the people there would have been better off, then this half @ss job.

      > The Saudi government BEGGED the US to station troops on the peninsula to protect them from their imperialistic neighbors. If you think differently, that's OK. You're just wrong.

      Yes but a lot of people believe the Saudi government to be corrupt. That there is cases where people disappear and are never heard from again. That Saudi Arabia is not stabilized and part of the problem is our support of their government.

      > When did we torture Iraqis?

      Thats *innocent* Iraqis, and we let many of the starve, and why did we do this? To pressure Saddam Hussien who could give a shit less about them, and the are to weak to go against him.

      > Timothy McVeigh is the product of Timothy McVeigh. People have free will. For every example of a tortured soul trained by the military, I can provide you with ten examples of great human beings made greater by the discipline and training of military service.

      What, I mentioned him because he is the product of military idealism. He used words that the US military uses to describe innocent deaths as 'colateral damage', and that 'colateral damage' is justified for a bigger cause. I'm not saying all military people think like that, but I am saying he is a product of our military.

      > If you want to talk about whether Israel has the right to exist or not, take it up with the UN.

      Fine its out of this discussion (you brought it up not me).

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    91. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      I'm not using the word "innocent" to distinguish one group of New Yorkers from another.

      I'm just emphasizing that the WTC was not, for example, a missile silo. The people who died never did anything to bin Laden.

      --

      --
      Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

    92. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Here, perhaps this link will help a bit:

      http://www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1967.htm

      A lot of Americans seem to not know the history of Israel over the past century.

      There are other places out there in which you can read the history of the region. It's something Americans are woefully ignorant about. :(

    93. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      Does the United States sponser terrorism? Yes. Even without getting into an argument over what terrorism is, we train death squads that are used for right-wing forces in Latin America.
      If this were true (and I don't know if it is or isn't) it would not legitimize the actions of terrorism by others. This would only mean that a certain amount of housecleaning was needed on the domestic front.
    94. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      You never said 'past' actions, you said 'its' actions, in reference to the actions of today.

      It's good to see you rethink your position and back down from your original stance. That's surely a sign of intelligent thought.

    95. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      The military person is almost certainly much better at hand-to-hand combat than the student.

      This is largely dependent upon where in the Navy the chief served. From my time in blue, I remember seeing an embarrassing number of chiefs with pot bellies and nasty demeanors. If he struck me, I would relish the opportunity in whupping his ass, the fatass serving as proxy for all the shit I had to take.

      That said, I would also take great care to notice whether said chief was wearing a gold emblem with an eagle and a trident. This seal chief is likely to kill you. Run.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    96. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by cretog8 · · Score: 1
      what should be done?


      Until today, I'd been amazed that I mostly approved of what we (we being the U.S., mainly, but also its allies in the matter) were doing: Lots of intelligence and criminal investigation work; Isolating Afghanistan; Gathering international agreement that terrorism sucks; Freezing assets. Stuff like that is great.


      I've been scared by the rhetoric, though. And I believe the rhetoric is a better example of the Bush administration's real plans. Bush clearly learned a lesson from his father in the Persian Gulf War, which is to issue impossible and non-negotiable demands and pretend you're giving your opponent a chance to concede while you're actually just preparing to attack. Also, remember this war we've been promised doesn't end with the capture or death of Bin Laden, or the overthrow of the Taliban. That's what's most wrong.
      My great fear about this war is that we're committing to an "infinite" or "enduring" or what-have-you struggle in which we claim the right to strike into any country which isn't big enough to hit back. Yemen, the Sudan, Pakstan, the Phillipines, and Egypt all are linked to generic "Islamic Terrorists", if not al Qaeda spcifically. And there are many others.


      What would be right is to continue to isloate those countries which support terrorism, and to try to handle this atrocity as a crime against humanity, rather than just a strike against the U.S. Pakistan says that the evidence we've shown them is enough to indict. Let's try to get an indictment from the Hague. What should we do? More of what we've done in the last three weeks, and less of tactics which involve making dead people.

    97. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · · Score: 2

      Here's a link to the school of the americas watch site. href=http://www.soaw.org/home.html
      Osama didn't get his training there but he was trained by the CIA.
      I'm not legitimizing terror attacks only demonstrating that if we want to be viewed by world as truely against terrorism it is ESSENTIAL to clean up here first.

    98. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All the Taliban had to do was renounce terrorism and allow all the terrorist camps to be shut down. They made their choice.

      There's a certain custom where if a person asks another, possibly a man, for protection, or something like that, the person asked is obligated to provide it.

    99. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The people who died never did anything to bin Laden.
      HA HA HA. They didn't have the vote then? They didn't support the West in its wars of oil and conquest in the Middle East? None of them have ever lived without protest in a country that supports Israeli invader atrocities against native Palestinians?
    100. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      Here is a nice piece of history strangely left out...

      http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

      I've read other speculation that there may have been surveliance that showed Israel starting the fight between Egypt, as the reason the Israelis knowingly attacked the USS Liberty.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    101. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Oh please, get lost with your "colorless" crap.
      Every nation on earth is guilty, at one time or another, of killing some innocent people.
      If you fail to see diference between US and its policies and bunch of idiotic terrorist bend on pure destructin, then you are helpless.

    102. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Uhhm, this is just getting silly. Quoting directly from this post:

      Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place.

      Furthermore, revenge has to come as a result of some past injustice. It cannot come as a result of future events. I assumed this was self-explanatory. Apparently not.

      My stance is unchanged: US's past actions were wrong. They led to the 9/11 retaliation, which was also wrong. If you condemn the terrorists' actions (which I do) then you must also condemn those of US (which I also do).
      End of story.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    103. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we should all stop listening to CNN and other US news agencies and tune ourselves to Garin from Slashdot...

    104. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · · Score: 2

      With the exception of Iran we installed all those governments in the 50's and 60's to keep the bad ole commies out of there. As it works out the arab states didn't like the godless commies any more than the CIA but *whoops* we made a mistake.
      Saddam especially, he recieved alot of support both economic, material and intelligence for his killing spree on behalf of the Baath party. We certainly didn't need to occupy them. Greed did the rest in the Arab states, the oil companies could care less about U.S. foreign policy as long as the dollars keep flowing in.
      Is it too much to ask what we are going to do about mistakes before they bite us in the ass again or is it the right time to make another copule mistakes?

    105. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Would it have been less evil to allow over a million American and Japanese servicemen to die trying to subdue Japan in a conventional invasion in order to have saved the lives of the thousands of Japanese civilians in those cities? What kind of math puts the lives of a few* enemy citizens against the an order of magnitude MORE lives of both enemy and American citizens

      Why does everyone bring out just Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "evil" in these examples? What about firebombing Tokyo? What about Dresden? Why are those not mentioned? They were more deadly attacks. Do you think the people who died care what the of explosive was in the bombs?

      What about the bombing of Britain by the Germans? What about the use of bioweapons by Japan against the Chinese? The Rape of Nanking? The Holocaust?

      The short answer of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes is simple. We won the war. If the Axis had won the war, then I'm sure they would have had Curtis LeMay up on charges of "war crimes" and Hermann Goering would have gotten a medal. But, thank God, they didn't win. And the winners get to write the history.

      The long answer for why we would do something so horrible is that it was not a simple choice between doing it and not doing it. The options were not "do we only hit military targets or do we just carpet bomb cities." There were no precision guided bombs in World War 2. If there were, then using massive amounts of "dumb bombs" would have been evil. But the choice was not "smart bombs" or "dumb bombs"; the choice was "do we want to use every means at our disposal to defeat the Axis Powers?" Would you rather the Allies have only fought the war half-heartedly and allowed the Nazis, Fascists, and Imperial Japanese to have conquered the world? The Axis did not pull any punches. It was all out war. Unrestricted war, to use a modern term. To bomb cities full of civilians was evil, but to have allowed totalitarianism to dominate the future of mankind because we did not want to get any blood on our hands would have been far, far, worse. It would have been the worst kind of selfishness. To have lost World War 2 because of a lack of commitment or a lack of will to do what was necessary... that would have been a war crime.

      *Yes, I know it is odd to list over 100,000 casualties as "few", in this case the term is relative. .

    106. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are an idiot. Or at least I'll grant that you are just politically naive. The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge

      How can you say that? For all you know, every terrorist on the hijacked planes lost their entire family in American or Israeli military strikes. Sure, that doesn't justify killing 6k civillians, but when the anger is flowing, people don't act rationally (as the Americans are now demonstrating).

      I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the terrorists lost family to American aggression in the middle east. Bin Laden himself lost his baby girl to an American bomb.

    107. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      OK, lets put the past behind us.

      It is easy to be a critic, it is not so easy to play brinksmanship with the fate of nations.

      What should we do NOW.

      If President Bush had called you up and said "Mr. RelliK... Do you mind if I call you Pancho? Well Pancho, I have been very impressed with your thoughtfulness posts on Slashdot... LINUX RULES... Sorry... um... as I was saying, I want you to give me your advicement on what America's response should be to these attacks. I'll listen to any suggestions you have." (best if you imagine this in Bush's peculiar dialect)

      What would you have America do? What do you think the world would be like in 10 years if Pres. Bush listened to your advice? What do you think of the response SINCE 9-11, assuming that he didn't really ask for your advice, Pancho?

    108. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Garin · · Score: 1

      No, feel free to watch CNN and other US news agencies. Just make sure that you question what you see, and keep in mind that there is no truly impartial news source.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
    109. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I'd like to see that story confirmed.

      Which may be impossible, I know, but there are a lot of people in this country who go around pushing interesting conspiracy theories. Chicken Little can't always be believed.

    110. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youre much worst. You may inform yourself.

    111. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Of course, but I am not impartial either.

    112. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well said.

    113. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Garin · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, perhaps it was real. You're right it was used irresponsibly, and that's my biggest problem with that footage. What motivation could CNN/Foxnews/whoever possibly have had, -other- than to inflame the already riled-up public? That's what irritates me more than anything else. There was no truly reasonable, positive motivation for showing that footage.

      I guess that's mostly what I'm saying. Maybe this footage -was- real, but very few people publicly questioned it. Very few people stood up and said, "maybe those ones were a bunch of wackos, and maybe they don't represent the [insert ethnicity] population at large". Nope. But I heard tons of people talking about that footage, and loudly insisting that we "nuke the towel-heads into the stone age". Joe Sixpack has that image burned into his memory forever, and he'll enlist alongside his drinking buddies to ensure that he gets to pop a few caps into their collective asses.

      Nice.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
    114. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do not dare to compare us with those who perpetrated the acts of 9/11.


      Man, you are sadly misinformed.

    115. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual, those who would have us attack are the ones who attacked first and brought this mess to our door. I find it interesting credit goes to someone who won't reveal his name. I guess that makes him a coward.

    116. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by aprentic · · Score: 1

      Even now there are Americans cheering the deaths of Afghanis. I've seen them myself. Our media just doesn't show those pictures.

    117. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Also: yes-innocent people will die. War is indiscriminate slaughter. Grow up; this has been the way of things for 20,000 years. It is ugly, sad and perhaps wrong. We get it, now shut up.

      Well, if it's ugly, sad, and perhaps wrong. And has been happening for 20,000 years. Maybe it's about time you grew up.
      Just because something has been done for 20,000 years. It dosn't meant that it's OK and can't be changed.

    118. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      You're being intentionally dense. Let me restate my challenge, and I'll try to use small words.

      Cite a historical example of a successful society that adhered (or adheres) to pacifist principles. In order to be considered successful, that society must exist for more than one generation (that is, longer than the life of its founder).

      My argument is that pacifism is only an excuse to not get one's hands dirty. Force is NECESSARY for any society that wants to defend itself and its way of life. To say that one is above fighting is to say that one would rather have somebody else do their fighting for them.

      The reason that there exist no pacifist nations is because any pacifist nation would be destroyed in very short order.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    119. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      Well, there is several articles out there on the web doing a search will help find them. And this is not just some nutz who believe this, its also the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty (one of the writers of the book). There is other parts that CNN left out, like that they were supposed to have arial support if they were attacked, and when they were under attack that they radioed for this support but a command from washington killed the arial support, and there is military laws that say if such supports are denied that those who prevented it could be executed. Do some searchs on the web for more information so you dont think I am just making this up, or better yet consider finding the book. Why Israeli did it is speculation, but there is plenty of evidence that they knew they were attacking an US ship.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    120. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      It would be ridiculous to argue that our attack against Japan was not justifiable.

      WHAT?? Just ask anyone who is NOT American and see what answer you get..

    121. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      The military person is almost certainly much better at hand-to-hand combat than the student

      Which just makes it a bad analogy. Remember, these "small students" defeated the Soviet Union before. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Osama's army is "small" or "weak" in any sense - these people are war-hardened soldiers with lots of experience fighting, they survive in tough terrain, have lots of weapons, lots of determination, they know the terrain, have lots of places to hide etc. This is not a case of the "big strong" US beating up a "small weak country which cannot defend itself". This is a difficult opponent - overconfidence will be a dangerous liability - these people aren't just going to roll over, they are plenty capable of fighting back.

    122. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      "Well, the oposite choice is to get involved and to risk terrorists attacks as we have been through already (several times)."

      This is exactly the choice that terrorists want us to make. They want us to abandon our interests and our allies so that we can feel safe. If we leave the rest of the world to the wolves, though, then WE may be safe but the next generations of Americans will have a much bigger mess to clean up as a result of our isolationism.

      The time to crush monsters is when they are small. We should have done it with the Nazis. We should have done it with the Commies. Does that deny other nation's rights to self determination? No. Nations are organizations, they don't have rights. People have rights. The Taliban don't have the "right" to kill women for wanting to learn to read. We should stop this now before we have an entire Middle and Near East controlled by such tyrants.

      "We had our chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but as the media said at the time, Bush (Senior) was a wimp."

      Bush Sr. was not a wimp. But the reason I suspect that he left Hussein in power may not make him look any better in many people's eyes. I suspect he left Hussein in power because the rest of the Middle East was scared $#!?less of him. As long as he was in power in Iraq, then America would have permission by the other Arab nations to station troops in their nations. Whenever these nations get uncomfortable with their American protectors, then the US or UN inspectors would suddenly find new evidence of Iraqi WMD research.

      Bush Sr. was not a wimp. He was devious. He was, after all, ex-DCI. Was it wrong to condem the citizens of Iraq to live (or, for many... to die) under Hussein's rule in order to further our long range plans for stabalizing and Westernizing the Mid-East? Maybe. Maybe it was the lesser of many evils.

      "The problem comes in, is that we pretend to be a moderator (unbiased by both sides) to gain international support, but in reality we are still one sided, we still give weapons to Israel but do nothing for Palistine."

      Actually, thanks to Bush Sr.'s coalition building amoung Arab nations in that region, we are not as dependant on Israel's friendship as we once were. This has greatly helped the Palistinians. Ironically, the worst thing for Palistine would be for American troops to be driven out of the otehr Arab nations; because we would again become dependant on Israel's friendship and assistance in that region... and we would be in much less of a position to object to Israeli's treatment of Palistinians. We are not "unbiased" in the Mid-East, but neither are we on Israel's side. We are on our side. We very much want a stable and pro-Western Middle East. As Kissinger (who, while Jewish was never one to go easy on Israel) has pointed out, nations do not have friends, they have common interests. It is not an easy problem to solve, and whoever can do so certainly deserves a Nobel prize for it.

    123. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are not impartial, but if you don't see why your news sources should be, then you are admitting you have no mind of your own, and you fully require the prepackaged opinions handed to you by your media.

      When the news is as biased and unidirectional as the CNN news show I saw here in NZ, it appears to me that the media is nothing more than an unpaid (or are they?) PR office for the warmongers in the government.

      Do you like the government telling you what to think? Is that a little bit easier for you?

    124. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by jyoull · · Score: 1

      Uh... they kick his ass in clear through the film and all the way to the end, dude. Jesus got a whole religious following and his own Book. Luke just got dead. Big win.

    125. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      The only answer to your concerns is for us to completely pull out of all conflicts and become isolationist.

      Or simply support a UN effort to end all conflict - everywhere... picking and choosing your moral position based on self-interest is really what most people have against American Foreign Policy.

    126. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Zico · · Score: 1

      "We" did not hate Iran. Our government hated them, the people could care less.


      You're kidding, right? One of the more popular novelty shirts in the '80s read "Ayatollah Assahola."

    127. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by HiThere · · Score: 2



      P.S. All the people who feared a stupid, rash, and vengeful retaliation by the United States need only look at the huge effort being put into helping the Afghan people and building alliances with local, freedom-loving Afghanis to see how wrong those expectations were. I am very proud of Pres. Bush and his administration. www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/ret.bush.radio/ index.html (remove the space before "index")

      I think I'll wait, and see how the "humanitarian aide" materializes. Right now, I can't tell that is means any more than a politician's promise.

      Please remember that helping people in a war zone is quite as difficult as fighting the enemy, and requires even more careful planning. Otherwise you will certainly be trapped by the law of unintended consequences. But PR gestures are easy and cheap. Which will this turn out to be? ... I have my guesses, but I will wait before I comit myself.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    128. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately no matter what actions we take, or what rhetoric we put forth, we shall always be condemned for helping people.

      That's the same kind of thinking that Bush appeals to when he says that the attack on the WTC was an "attack on liberty." In other words, pure hogwash.

      On one hand we can never be everything to everyone. But what we can do is to stop saying one thing and doing another. Stop taking the shortest, simplest route to furthering our own ends in the middle-east (and else where). Our foreign policy always seems to favor the short-term solution with little regard to long-term consquences - bin Laden is the perfect example, he is a product of our cold war policies just like all those petty dictators in south America.

      Our foreign policy needs to follow the path of "enlightened self-interest." Where we spend as much effort on getting the long-term results that we need rather than acting like the proverbial 800lb gorilla who wants his banana and wants it RIGHT NOW!

      This conflict is not about us helping anyone, it is about us hurting the little people to further our own interests - the two do not have to go hand in hand, world diplomacy is not a zero-sum game. Terrorism, or assymetric warfare as our DoD refers to it, is a way for those little people to hurt in the same proportion they have been hurt. Because the scale is all out of whack, military action on the part of first and second world countries will never bring a reliable end to the threat, only good PR through good actions will do that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    129. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      I'm not being intentionally dense. There is no such thing as a "pacifist nation." There are pacifist people. This is why we cannot respond to your challenge. India never even counts, because while there were pacifists in India, the government was British (The Raj, whatever). So, now that I consider further, your challenge has no meaning.

      For that matter, You're making a caricature of pacifists in general. Most pacifists know that at some point, you need to defend yourself. And sometimes you need to be able to make the credible threat of violence to keep people from attacking you. The few pacifists that do not share this opinion are the ones that are willing to die rather than kill. It's hard to malign Quakers by saying that they'd rather have others do the fighting. They don't want to defend themselves or their way of life.

      It's always important to remember, that Ghandi's hunger strike was a non-violent solution to their problem only because the British knew that if he died, every single Indian would wage unending war against the Raj. It was pacifist, but they still needed an army.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    130. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did - he said we made the right decision (office mate originally from Vietnam, refugee from the war)

      Your hatred of all things American is coloring your judgement.

    131. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what I think and you have no idea if CNN views are exactly how I see the world.
      I am sure your local NZ news source are just as biased and would seem such to me.
      Basically, you have no more right to claim that your know what is biased than I so this discussion is pointless.

    132. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      > If we leave the rest of the world to the wolves, though, then WE may be safe but the next generations of Americans will have a much bigger mess to clean up as a result of our isolationism.

      Isn't sanctions a similar route to isolationism though, and part of the cause of our current problems. More specificly the incomplete war against Saddam, and the sanctions against him. I personly dont see it any better, as starving Iraqis does not do any good considering that Saddam doesnt really care, and those that are starving are not just going to all of a sudden be strong enough to take over the Iraqi government. You cant have any kind of democracy living in poverty, to many people worried how they are going to survive to care about politics or freedom. World War 2 kicked off because we left Germany devasted in poverty with no real way for them to get out of it except military, and it was unfortunet that it was the Nazis who took that opertunity. The current big fear for Israel now is Iran, Iraq, Siria, and possibly Egypt. So sanctions haven't helped much, and the only diffrence between that and isolationism is who is choosing to be isolated and who is not.

      > Bush Sr. was not a wimp.

      I'm just stating it as News Week and several other media outlets did back then when he went into office, when he had the US come after Iraq, they reversed their opinions, but it just seems to me they first opinion may not have been far off from the truth.

      > Was it wrong to condem the citizens of Iraq to live (or, for many... to die) under Hussein's rule in order to further our long range plans for stabalizing and Westernizing the Mid-East? Maybe. Maybe it was the lesser of many evils.

      How was "stabalizing and Westernizing the Mid-East" achieved? Doesnt look like it was to me beyond that what some of them could not do themselves. Saudi-Arabia is definetly not a good example of this at all.

      > We are not "unbiased" in the Mid-East, but neither are we on Israel's side

      My point of 'bias' is we let Israel get away with a lot more then we have others.

      > As Kissinger (who, while Jewish was never one to go easy on Israel) has pointed out, nations do not have friends, they have common interests. It is not an easy problem to solve, and whoever can do so certainly deserves a Nobel prize for it.

      Its unfortunate many of the problems are not about nations as much, and more about groups of people who cross international borders, not only living in Arab nations but also the US Israel Egypt and several other places. That is why this is not so much a war of nations, but a war of nations against groups of people.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    133. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by paul7e · · Score: 1

      Quick reminder - we did NOT create Israel, and in fact our "moratl enemy" at the time, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the first country to recognize Isreal, not us.

      Rmember that at the time, Isreal's coming into existance was a slap in the face of the UK and other western powers.

      Or, the bigger message - things change in foreign policy over time - friends don't always stay friends, enemies don't stay enemies, etc.

      So don't use false historical analogies without understanding them.

      --
      Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
    134. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      CNN's purpose was to inform, Foxnews purpose was to incite outrage.

      As we live in a free country with a free media, I think it's important that we not hide news from the people. So I have to agree with CNN's stance who only showed it occasionally. But FoxNews showed it over and over again for hours and had a different motive which cannot be justified.

      Americans face the same problem, what other countries see of us is our movies. They think we are all Bruce Willis.

    135. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      You mean like the Chinese?

      How about Koreans?

      What if we ask someone from Taiwan?

      Malaysians?

      Filipinos?

      Australians?

      Why should I give your opinion more credence then those of people who lived in the region and were actually victimized by the Japanese?

    136. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      So we take these guys to court, find them guilty and put them in jail. Then three other guys rent a crop duster and spread antrhax over the Superbowl. Or one guy derails a train in the tunnel to Penn Station. Or someone straps a bomb to himself and sets it off at rush hour in Grand Central Station.

      We can't take these guys out one by one after they kill people. We have to go after the root of the problem.

      --

      --
      Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

    137. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      I don't care if you want to talk about "pacifist nations" or "pacifist people" or however you want to slice it. You have not yet illustrated how pacifism is anything other than cowardice (IE, wanting somebody else to do something unpleasant that you do not want to do).

      Quakers don't want to defend themselves or their way of life. Fine. How many Quakers are there? Not many. How many Quakers do you think there would be if they lived in a region with scarce resources and another people who were not pacifist? Let me tell you: There would be zero. They might occupy the moral high ground, but they would be dead.

      Switzerland is not a nation of pacifists. It's a nation of skilled war-makers who defend their decision to be neutral jealously. I have a great deal of respect for that. I have no respect for an individual (or group) who wants somebody else to do their fighting because they think they're above it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    138. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Bin Laden blames us for the situation in Israel. That's clear from his rhetoric. Israel also exists only because the US supplies them with MASSIVE military aid. You need look no farther than their top-of-the-line F-15 air superiority fighters to see that the US is giving Israel access to the best gear available.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    139. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2
      You've accepted a lot of the propagandistic lies put out by the Western media. Bin Laden et al. have explicitly stated their reasons for the attacks. You do not seem to have read (or understood) those statements. See this post for details.


      Moreover, there have been many demonstrations in support of bin Laden in Arab countries. And the demonstraters consistently give the same two reasons: America's sanctions against Iraqi civilians and America's support for Israel's actions against Palestinians. These reasons are given by bin Laden et al. in their written statement.


      Hence the first part of your post is based on misunderstanding. I agree with the second half though.

    140. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge. They were not "crimes of passion." The terrorist leaders may toss around the word "revenge" in the propaganda they use to recruit throw-away agents, but the fact is that such terrorist acts are cooly calculated attempts at political manipulation.

      Surely you've heard the saying that revenge is a dish best served cold? Haven;t you read the Cask of Amontillado? Revenge is a crime of cold passion, of rational hatred.

      And that is what we're doing now. Only we're hitting military targets, doing our best to avoid civilian casualties, and dropping food as well as bombs. Al Qaida slew civilians; we feed them.

    141. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever read Osama's original Fatwah? It doesn't mention anything about Isreal or Palestinians. It was about 'infidels' in Saudi Arabia. At the time, the Israeli-Palestine was a non-issue for him. No go spray your tired rhetoric somewhere else!

    142. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Sara,

      I am aware of bin Laden's stated reasons for his attacks. I am taking his statements with the same skepticism that you have for the Western Media. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a "hot button" and very symbolic topic for most Arabs. It is my opinion (but I admit I am not privvy to bin Laden's private thoughts) that he knows how emotional of an issue this is with the average Mohammad Sixpack* and is using it as a justification and a recruitment tool. But I doubt that is his real reason for his actions. He has repeatedly stated his desire to establish a unified Muslim empire. His nickname is "the emir." Call me a cynic, but I doubt that this personal ambition is just a secondary goal he wants to accomplish once he has helped out the Palistinians. But if he mentioned this important plan of his as the reason for his actions, I doubt he would get as much support and as many recruits. Claiming that the fight is to save the Palistinians, and avenge the starving children of Iraq is a lot better at recruiting and motivating "throw away" agents than telling them of his political ambitions. Yet his ambitions are quite well documented; in his own words as well as those of his biographers.

      Saddam Hussein also claimed at one point that he had invaded Kuwait merely as the first step in his plan to free the Palistinians from Israeli and American oppression. It seems like every time some politician in the MidEast wants to do something, it is to help the Palestinians or hurt the Israelis; it is never to help themselves to something. It is like an American politician doing something "to protect people's rights." Forgive me if I am overly cynical in both cases.

      As for his mentioning of Iraq, I am aware that we are commonly blamed for the misrule Hussien has brought on his people. Hussien has also provided some support for bin Laden (including supposedly training on bioweapons for 100+ Al-Qaeda fighters), and I suspect that his complaints about the mistreatment of Iraq are a combination of "playing to the crowd" and also paying back Hussein for his assistance.

      Interestingly, bin Laden was one of the 1st to recognize the threat Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia and offered to bring his followers to Saudi Arabia to help fight off Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. So much for Muslim unity.

      CYT

      * I am aware of the irony.

    143. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by ckedge · · Score: 1


      > A true pacifist is willing to die before hitting back.

      In ALL likelyhood, the person is not a true pacifict..

      > * And why would anyone take advice and learn lessons from an asshole who punches peaceful people in the face?

      ..like most humans, even if they're peeved and angry at that instant in time and refuse to "give in", if you truly win your argument, eventually, as the event is turned over and over in their mind in the following year, you can usually find the person has quite a different viewpoint 12 months later.

      So, have a go at it, expect them to refuse to agree with you, then wait 12 months and see what they've "learned" from you.

      Works every time. Just remember, they're going to hate your guts for a minimum of 6-12 months, and if you aren't truly right, all bets are off.

    144. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Yes, I did read it, in High School. It was creepy, I prefered The Gold Bug. I also read The Jungle Book. And I believe that one of the most important Laws of the Jungle is to NEVER lose your temper.

      I don't want our gov't to take revenge against the terrorists. I don't want them to take ANY action out of anger or emotion. It is not fit that the King of the Jungle should lose his temper. The terrorists are a problem. The problem should be solved. Coldly. Quietly. Patiently. Solve the problem.

      Personally, I am mad. I must deal with my personal anger and desire for revenge, and overcome it. I don't want my gov't acting on such feelings... or any "feelings." I also read The Art of War. We should not be "of choleric temper." That way lies weakness. If bin Laden is really just out for vengence, then GREAT... he is "of choleric temper" and is not nearly as much of a problem that a coldly rational bin Laden* would be.

      We should set worthwhile goals, and work to achieve them. That is the proper action for the King of the Jungle.

      *The next Lenin? Probably not. But it is best to assume the worst and if you are wrong, then you can be happy.

    145. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mop · · Score: 1

      I see your point.

      The US assisted military attacks on muslim for many years, and now some muslim groups are punching back.

      However, your conclusion seems to be wrong: now that these groups punched back, the violence is escalading.

    146. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

      You bloody *idiot*. (sorry for the outright flame). The people celebrating on the streets in Palestine were not celebrating the attack against the US. They were celebrating a local holiday, marking the death of one of their heroes. As soon as they were made aware that they were being misinterpreted, they were asked to stop by their government.

      --
      - - -
      giftedu ;)
    147. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, we didn't put the Taliban in power. The Taliban came into power AFTER the afghanistan war, when our attention was on more pressing issues. Namely, the crumbling USSR.

      Second of all, your "our sanctions caused the death of over 500,000 children" comment is rather misleading. Fact is, Iraq failed to meet the terms of surrender. They yanked the chains of UN inspectors time and time again, and eventually kicked them out. Thus guaranteeing that the UN sanctions would continue. Furthermore, Iraq *refused* to take advantage of the oil for food program the first *5* years it was offered to them. This resulted in massive suffering within Iraq. Although Iraq eventually started to take advantage of the program, it has regularly NOT taken full advantage. Credits for food, medicine, education, and sanitation have not been used despite their being available. Rather than take full advantage of his petroleum industry's capacity and get all the humanitarian aid credits he can get, he has withheld oil. Or attempted to sell it on the black market and funnel the profits into more weapons rather than humanitarian aid. He pours countless millions, and quite possibly billions, into rearming rather than spending it on aid, infrastructure, etc.

      Simply put, Saddam has made the conscious decision to use his people as pawns. He *wants* his people to suffer, for that way it appears to others that the sanctions and those who support them are evil and totally unfair. He hopes to win sympathy and fan anti-US hatred. Why on earth would he continue to illuminate patrols in the no fly zone with targeting radar? Because he *wants* us to attack his facilities. The continued bombing and terribly one-sided battles, he reasons, are also usefull for the very same purposes. He wants drama, and he wants to be perceived as a victim. That, coupled with bribes in the form of lucrative post-sanctions contracts offered to France, Russia, and some other countries, he hopes will buy him enough votes to put a stop to the sanctions. Then he can import everything he needs to properly rebuild his military.

      Don't blame the humanitarian crisis on the United States, United Kingdom, or other countries that are participating in the UN sanctions. It was and is created by non other than Saddam and the government of Iraq.

    148. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

      The Taliban denounced the attack within hours of it occuring. There was no satisfaction implied. What they did, however, was point out that US Middle East policy is possibly the reason behind the attack. And for stating that, you label them as satisfied?

      --
      - - -
      giftedu ;)
    149. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sounds close enough to "evil" in my book.

      People get their books from different booksellers, even different publishers. Some books have printing errors. Some books don't get updated a lot. Some books disagree on definitions of basic things. There are books with opposing views.

      Letting people judge by their book leads to anarchy. Since most societies don't want that, they get themselves a legal system. Since most countries feel better doing their business in a legally clear environment, they got themselves an international legal system.

      Mass murder is a crime, not a declaration of war. Attacking other countries without being in a declared state of war is a crime as well. But then, the US regime has been commiting (war) crimes throughout the last 50 years anyway.

    150. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Dude, you can't call Ghandi a coward. Really. He wanted Britian out of his homeland with no blood spilled. He pretty much got his way. And he did it by laying his life on the line. That is pacifism. That is not cowardice.

      And of course, you should have no respect for anyone that wants someone else to do their fighting for them. That is most certainly cowardice. It's also not pacifism.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    151. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by greenrd · · Score: 1
      The short answer of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes is simple. We won the war.

      I stopped reading at this point.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    152. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by conceptdelta · · Score: 1

      Another "Chomsky" Moron I assume. Let me guess, you're another college freshman. As for your second point, it is laughable. Chomsky first faults us for allowing-assisting the Saddam & Osam, now is opposed to taking them out. Why? Because he only cares about his own political interests which is attacking America. He is rather pathetic, and his willingness to lie to further his political goals makes him unfit for academia.

      As for the deaths of children in Iraq, I find it profoundly sad that you blame the U.S. instead of the represive Iraq government. Of course, seeing that would require critical thinking skills, which you are clearly lacking.

      Your third point about pacifism is also "interesting" and enlightening. Some people, like yourself, would rather live in slavery than resort to "violence". Luckily people such as yourself are the minority.

      Poor Excuse- Don't blame Third World poverty for Sept. 11.

      http://slate.msn.com/pol/01-10-01/pol.asp

      ---------------------

      Of Sin, the Left & Islamic Fascism

      http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=h it chens20010924

      ---------------------

      The Agony of the Left -Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, some have trouble deciding.

      http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001266

    153. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2
      Chris,

      I agree that we cannot know whether bin Laden is being honest when he speaks. But, I believe that his words help to motivate the terrorists. And this is true regardless of whether he is being honest.


      This was one of the good points made in the comment that I cited. Also, that anti-American demonstrators everywhere seem to cite the same two reasons.


      As for Iraq, see the same comment. Half a million Iraqi children killed, and the report by the UN HCHR (link at bottom) seems to blame American-dictated sanctions. No one questions the need to restrain dear sweet Saddam--just that the current sanctions aren't the way to do it.


      Yeah, I remember reading a definition of an "honest politician" from a document in classical times: n. a politician who, when bribed, does what he has been bribed to do. (So maybe we've progressed a little after all?)

      Sara

    154. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are a fool and missed the important part of his post. You completely missed the point of that sentence.

    155. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by wobbly+pop · · Score: 1

      Yes, the analogy is bad. The U.S., however, has been dealt a devastating punch. I agree that the U.S. has behaved very badly in many world affairs, but where is the diplomacy on the other side? Both parties are guilty of aggression, there are no black hats or white hats in this situation.
      History shows that the "true pacifist" is a dead man, if the Nazis were not met with violence, your world would be a very different place, full of the evil that you so despise.
      What is required, is to strike back at those responsible, while trying to limit the impact on the innocents. War is a very ugly thing, but failing to stop those who try to subjugate you can be far uglier. "First they came for..." - Pacifism is a comfortable idea, but only leads to extinction.

    156. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by wobbly+pop · · Score: 1

      Throw in a double negative, and some people just don't get irony.

    157. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Wow, such harsh language from someone who is wrong.

      That story was already debunked weeks ago, along with the story that it was stock footage from the Gulf War.

    158. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Hmm...

      I suspect our disagreement on motives may not be a disagreement at all. Perhaps we are are simply using the same words to describe two different groups: the lower level agents of Al-Qaeda and the upper level "prime movers" of the organization. I agree with you that the lower levels of the terrorist organizations and their support groups are motivated by the anti-American factors you mention, which bin Ladin and his top lieutenants use to recruit and motivate them. When I said that I thought that the terrorist attacks were calculated attempts at political manipulation, I didn't mean that the "foot soldiers" that carried them out were not necessarily motivated by emotional or personal reasons. I was referring to the upper levels of Al-Qaeda who, it seems to me, put a great deal of thought into what they wanted to do and why they wanted to do it.

      Sort of like the difference between the poor infantryman who fights "for the glory of France" versus Napoleon who wages war for the benefit of Napoleon.

      In understanding how the anti-American, pro fundamentalist environment came to exist that supplies Al-Qaeda with its power base, it is important to consider the factors you mention. In order to understand what the strategy is behind Al-Qaeda's current and future actions, I think it is important to consider the goals and plans of the "prime movers" of the organization.

      Chris

    159. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by jafac · · Score: 2

      um - Israel exists because of a UN ruling.

      Israel CONTINUES to exist due to US aid. If the US stopped aiding them, the Arabs would kill more Jews than the Nazis did. And probably in a much shorter period of time.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    160. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm personally dealing with my anger by taking as many transcontinental flights as possible.

      I carry in my pockets a ziplock baggie filled with ground pork.

      when I encounter a terrorist, and I know I eventually will, I will take out my anger on them by kicking them in the nuts, and forcing a pound of ground pork up their nostrils.

      Then, no matter what he does to martyr himself, he will be unclean, and will not go to paradise. Fucker.

    161. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · · Score: 2

      I would classify Ghandi as a coward if, despite all evidence to the contrary, he persisted in his belief that non-violent means can solve any problem.

      Non-violent means worked stupendously against the relatively benign British rule. (I happen to think that they would work for the Palestinians, too.) Against a truly repressive regime, like in some African nations and parts of the Middle East, or in China, those techniques would a) not work and b) cost you a lot of protestors.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    162. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Let's try to get an indictment from the Hague. What should we do?

      Well, whatever it is, we *definitely* shouldn't grant any more legitimacy to world government and jurisdiction.

    163. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Turn your mind away from Marx and Trotsky and start finding out the true story, instead of knee-jerking off.

    164. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

      The fact remains that it was one of their holidays and that is why they were celebrating. Where the photos came from, I have no idea.

      --
      - - -
      giftedu ;)
    165. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by GlowStars · · Score: 1

      But the choice was not "smart bombs" or "dumb bombs"; the choice was "do we want to use every means at our disposal to defeat the Axis Powers?" Would you rather the Allies have only fought the war half-heartedly and allowed the Nazis, Fascists, and Imperial Japanese to have conquered the world?

      Get your facts straight: WWII in Europe was already over, Germany defeated - without the
      use of nuclear weapons.

    166. Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by GlowStars · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone bring out just Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "evil" in these examples? What about firebombing Tokyo? What about Dresden? Why are those not mentioned? [..] What about the bombing of Britain by the Germans? What about the use of bioweapons by Japan against the Chinese? The Rape of Nanking? The Holocaust?

      May I remind you what claim started this sub-thread?
      US has never engaged in anything as evil or unjustified as what happened on 9/11.
      Most of your examples simple do not fit as a counter-argument.

      BTW: Did you even read
      http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html ?
      I see no sign of an reaction to that in your answer.

  102. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, somone not actually reading my post. I do not suppor the Taliban, or in this instance the US, UK or indeed Fance, Italy and Germany. I support open and democratic societires. Societies who conform to their own rules and regulations.

  103. Re: I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. Take a look at the England the US will likely have to wait years for these acussed co-conspirators implicated in the September 11th bombings to be extradited. The wheels of justice move slowly and the US having the death penalty does not help matters.

  104. Link for pacifists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Pretty much how I feel about pacifists.

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/637394.asp?0dm=C17QO

  105. Re: America will never learn by philipdl71 · · Score: 1
    I completely agree. It is time for action. I think our record of involvement in the middle east has been deplorable. It is true that our country has killed people in other countries, gotten involved in civil wars that we shouldn't have been involved in.

    Hell, we gave one BILLION dollars in money and weapons to the organization Osama Bin Ladin was a part of when we were trying to get the soviets out of Afghanistan. It is time the US did not involve itself in wars we don't belong in. Thanks to the aid money we are now going to be fighting members of the Taliban that are using US made weapons that we gave them over 10 years ago!

    In the year PRIOR to September 11th, 2001 we GAVE the TALIBAN over $125,000,000 in foreign aid! If we want to fight terrorism the first thing we should do is stop giving money to the terrorists

    As for retalliation at this point I would say we are fully justified in destroying Osama Bin Ladin and his organization as well as the Taliban which harbors him. I think appropriate action after justice is served would be to cease all foreign aid (which accounts for almost 1 TRILLION dollars spent by our government since the end of world war II). We should also withdraw our troops from the one hundred countries we now occupy and stay out of other people's affairs. And of course, never allow a terrorist attack on America from now on go unanswered.

    Most people don't realize that Terrorism goes much further than the past 8 years of the Clinton administration. The truth is there have been warning signs for years about terrorists and our lack of dealing with them. Here is an article that appeared in a full page ad in the New York Times. Please take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't agree with their conclusions and think they are war mongerers, but the information about how long the US has appeased terrorists for their destruction of American lives and property is unbelieveable!

  106. Bush speech available by oo7tushar · · Score: 2, Informative

    President Bush's speech is now available for download: to 911/ca site

    --
    internet like monkeys'
  107. I can't believe americans by krist0 · · Score: 2, Troll

    Ok, lets start with the fact that the backwards american foriegn policy got you attacked in the first place. If you treat countries like errant children, they will act like children back. This is a self created problem. I know that people will say "but we helped people in kuwait"...Bollocks...you saved your precious oil (which if you where smart you would source it from russia, help rebuild their economy as well)...which is again the problem...these people see through your purposed "reasons" to "save" them...lets just not talk about the relentless bombing in iraq or the fact that when saddam was having fun gassing the kurds, america didnt care....lets face it, its the almighty $ that drives america and it dont give a F$#k about anything else....cept now that they have been made to look like fools on the world stage...

    now they will just look more foolish. fighting a war that will cost them many many lives against soldiers with years of training and combat experience (we shouldnt mention how the taliban was created by the US/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia, or how the US trained them, supplied them weaponry so that they could push the USSR out of afghanistan....nah, that would be bringing facts to the table...no one likes that in politics...or even funnier, russia will be helping, which means supporting the Northern Aliance, the very people they were fighting against as well....too funny)

    oh well, i will love to see how this turns out...

    :)

    --------
    Can i move to mars now?

    --
    all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    1. Re:I can't believe americans by drnomad · · Score: 1
      And not to mention the economic embargo on Iraq. It was done to push Saddam of the throne. Meanwhile, Saddam plays the game well and the economic embargo hasn't helped a thing.


      1.5 million children died because of hunger and sickness due to the embargo. A european action group, protesting against the embargo (and finding *other* ways to push Saddam) has asked former minister Albright "Is this (the dead children) the price we want to pay?" she answered "yes, this is the price we want to pay"


      So if I understand well, good is us, and bad is the rest of the world. Killing US citizens is a bad thing, while killing children who don't even knew they were Iraqi is a good thing.


      Making people angry - BAD!!

      --
      Bizar technology?
    2. Re:I can't believe americans by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Amen. As a USAian against military response in Afgahnistan, I am willing to say that 85 years of US foreign policy in the Middle East (if you go back to Wilsonian doctrines) have been flawed with a colonizer's model of the world. This model states that the certain countries "colonize" other countries either explicitly through intervention or implicitly, through propaganda, indirect aid to meaningless insurgencies, etc. This flaw is what guides war criminals like Henry Kissinger (and by entension, his students Rumsfield and Cheney). Kissingerian foreign policy is as much to blame for the deaths at the WTC as radical Arab political thought and it certainly carries more blame than, say, Islam, in general, or a poor Afghani peasant in particular, who wouldn't know there was a USA if it weren't for all the Stinger missiles we supplied them. Warm up the body bag factories, Colin Powell's got him a good ole fashioned fire base war ala Vietnam.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    3. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If the US was embargoed by the entire world until it stopped mass producing chemical weapons and invading Mexico, and American children were dying for a lack of medicine while G.W. Bush built huge statues of himself and stadiums in his honor, would you blame the rest of the world for the American deaths?

    4. Re:I can't believe americans by magnetx11 · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. You cannot bring you OLD facts to the table. The USSR you are talking about is not longer in existance. The world has changed. The eighties are over sherlock.

    5. Re:I can't believe americans by drnomad · · Score: 1

      Yes I would. I'm a humanist.

      In a speech from Osama himself, he declares that the plane attacks on NY, Pentagon and Pennsilvania were retaliations for lots of stuff, including the story I posted above... Even if you agree or disagree with any standpoint, still I think it is unwise to piss millions of people off.
      Do you consider the death of 1.5 million Iraqi children as a good price for the good cause?

      --
      Bizar technology?
    6. Re:I can't believe americans by owenPS · · Score: 1

      What good does it do to "bring the facts to the table" at this point? So what if we trained the taliban or supplied them with weapons? It was a short sighted solution to a previous problem, and now we have a new problem. We need to fix the current problem, not dwell on how it came about.

      And what, exactly, can't you believe about Americans? That we change our policies toward countries when the countries change? That we want to fight back instead of rolling over? Those actions seem pretty reasonable to me.

    7. Re:I can't believe americans by krist0 · · Score: 1

      Then why hasnt america changed its ways as well? Whats more foolish, failing a 1st time, or not learning from another mistakes....

      like i heard somewhere...if america spent 1% in what they are going to spend on a pathetic "macho" excuse for a war on something like...schools, hospitals etc, it might actually earn the peoples respect, instead, you will breed more children who will grow up hating you, wanting to kill every last one of you.

      Reminds me of what I also read in the paper, talking to some guy in pakistan
      "Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death"
      they care more. I am so grateful I am not american.

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    8. Re:I can't believe americans by krist0 · · Score: 1

      Facts are what stop situations like this. You "should" care where this came from, it will stop further errors of judgement in the future.

      The funny thing is that the current problem is the USA.

      Oh and I find it amusing that war is strength and diplomacy is weak...we all know how "tough" it is to bomb something from a couple of thousand k's away.

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    9. Re:I can't believe americans by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      Killing innocents is wrong. The terrorist attack on America can not be justified. Nor can killing Afghani civilians now be justified. The thousands or even millions of lives lost because of US arrogance or apathy are a horrible tragedy in themselves, but the do not justify more senseless loss of life.

      The terrorists do act like errant children, they react by violence and sabotage. Adults practice passive resistance and find a voice for their grievances. If an argument is right then eventually you can convince enough people that things will change. Terrorists don't care to convince the world they are right, they want to force the world to accept their view because they carry with a big stick.

    10. Re:I can't believe americans by Norge · · Score: 1

      > We need to fix the current problem, not dwell on how it came about.

      I hope you are not responisble for making any important decisions. I am feeling very ambivalent about attacks on the Talbian. However, I am quite certain that fixing problems without understanding what caused them is no fix at all.

      Benjamin

    11. Re:I can't believe americans by krist0 · · Score: 1

      Looks to me like americans are also carrying a big stick, has been carrying the big stick for a long time and will continue to beat countries with its big stick if they dont toe the US made line....I mean, as I have read here as well, if you are punched, you should punch back, but the funny thing is, its that the americans think that the WTC attack was a "first punch"....i think it was a punch back...maybe they are as well using your rationalisation.

      Chicken and the egg anyone?

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    12. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We will kick their asses, and then, if you're not so lucky, come and kick yours.

      Back when the Afghans fought off the Soviets, the Afghans' equipment was relatively modern. Hell, we gave them some of it. They are using the same crap now, nearly 20 years later. They are fucked, but people like you don't truly understand that yet. You will.

      Flamebaiting motherfucker. Shut your pie hole, cocksmoker.

    13. Re:I can't believe americans by krist0 · · Score: 1

      George? is that you G.W.?

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    14. Re:I can't believe americans by Augusto · · Score: 2

      > Do you consider the death of 1.5 million Iraqi children as a good price for the good cause?

      Heck no, but you ignore the real point, it's Saddam who's starving those children. You have to wonder, how people acn die due to lack of medicine, while at the same time the government spends millions in bio weapons.

      As for Bin Laden's excuses, he can parrot all the complaints he wants, but they're just excuses. Funny how he feels bad for Iraq now, when he suggested to the Saudis to fight against Hussein.

      --

      - sigs are for wimps.
    15. Re:I can't believe americans by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Your situation is pretty implausible, but yes, I would blame the rest of the world. And Bush, of course.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    16. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No No it's Al...hold on, I'm getting in the ass from Bubba and Tipper.

    17. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These are great days we are living, bros. We are jolly green giants, walking the earth, with guns.

      When the shit gets thick, who do they call? Mother green and her killing machine.

      The hurt is on the way. Tally ho.

    18. Re:I can't believe americans by greenrd · · Score: 2
      You have to wonder, how people acn die due to lack of medicine, while at the same time the government spends millions in bio weapons.

      I could say the exact same thing about the United States of America. People die due to lack of medicine due to US patent policies.

      As for bioweapons, has anyone inspected the US thoroughly to check that they are not making biological weapons? No? Then they must be making them. QED. That's State Department logic for you.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    19. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its terrible that so many children have died, but if you are going to blame anyone, blame Saddam.

      OK, another analogy:
      If you habitually drive drunk and kill other motorists and pedestrians, and you have your license taken away and can no longer commute to your job, and furthermore you spend your remaining money on whores, is it the DMV's fault that your children starve? Would you expect your neighbors who share the road with you to rally against the DMV as the solution to the problem of your children's safety?

    20. Re:I can't believe americans by drnomad · · Score: 1

      Still, the economic embargo did not have the desired effect. Cancelling the embargo and finding other ways to push Saddam of the throne can save millions of children. That's why I think that we - the west - can be held responsible for the death of those children, but Albright responded that she didn't care...

      --
      Bizar technology?
    21. Re:I can't believe americans by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      ...if america spent 1% in what they are going to spend on a pathetic "macho" excuse for a war on something like...schools, hospitals etc, it might actually earn the peoples respect...
      Once you pay DaneGeld you never get rid of the Dane.

      When people blow up your bases, embassies, aircraft, cruise liners, cities and citizens again and again and again and again, year after year, decade after decade, it doesn't help to try to bribe them. Sadly, the time comes when you have to cut off their left nut and make them eat it. Then, maybe, they won't have the, er..., balls to attack you again. And if they do, well there's always their right nut.....
    22. Re:I can't believe americans by LordCodeman · · Score: 0

      You think the terrorists only want to attack the US? Think again. Other countries are helping the US military, and the terrorists are going to hate them as well. Didn't you hear what bin Laden said?

      "... we are going after the American male. Whether he is attacking us directly, or paying taxes..."

      Don't you think that if he hates even a "tax payer", that he's going to hate countries that are helping in the strikes? You must REALLY be naive.

    23. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The americans has still not understood that they're hated by 3rd world and by a lot of people in the western world as well.
      By saying that this(terror atttack) was to be expected does not mean we endorse it. But you reap what you sow. And USA has sown a lot of hate in the third world by interfering in their business and politics, trying to humiliate people and telling them their way of life is not as good as theirs.

    24. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that people will say "but we helped people in kuwait"...Bollocks...you saved your precious oil

      That's pretty rich, especially given that 90% of that Kuwaiti oil flows into Europe.

    25. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People die due to lack of medicine due to US patent policies.

      Oh, since private corporations are invoking their *right* to enforce *their* international patent, it must be the US's fault. Yeah, that is totally logical. Of course, no european or asian drug companies do this, nuh uh... They willingly give up their patent protection to 3rd world nations all the time.

      As for bioweapons, has anyone inspected the US thoroughly to check that they are not making biological weapons?

      From what I remember, the US didn't sign a peace treaty where it was forbidden to create NBC weapons.

      Then they must be making them.

      Well, since the Iraqi government won't allow inspectors to see that they are living up to their side of the peace treaty, past experience would suggest they *are* manufacturing NBC weapons. Hence the embargo. QED.

    26. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the embargo is having the desired effect... http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801.h tml

    27. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The failures in the Middle East are a problem for all western nations since they are the ones (collectively) who, through colonialization and oil greed, sought to control the region. The USA is the one they hate because we represent *all* western nations. If this is punch back, it coming from way back and for deeds done, not just by the us, but by our 'friends'.

    28. Re:I can't believe americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, it is US foreign policy that caused this whole mess. I mean, it couldn't possibly be caused by past *European* colonialization, or *British* oil interestest, or japanese occupation... And of course, the Eurpeans and Asians were the first to jump to the aid of the Kurds in Iraq when Saddam started his ethnic cleansing campaign. Yeah, we caused this whole mess, us US taxpayers. I am so ashamed of our action/inaction. We deserve to die.

    29. Re:I can't believe americans by warmiak · · Score: 0

      Who gives a fuck what you think.
      You are some powerless dude venting off your hatred to America ...
      Get lost.

      --
      The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
  108. Blair's the man by ColGraff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I douub the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself. He was with us the day of the attack, he's been with us since, and he's with us now, and Britain's soldiers' lives are on the line along with ours.

    I'm not normally a religous man, but I have to say: God bless the UK and Tony Blair.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Absolutely. I'm an American, and in the days after the Muslim assault on our country I was able to watch Tony Blair on CSPAN as he addressed Parliament. This is before President Bush spoke to our congress. Blair's speech before Parliament was magnificent. It was quite a comfort to know we had such a strong friend in the British people. It made me appreciate our common anglo-saxon heritage of rights and laws dating back to the Magna Carta. God bless Tony Blair and the UK.

    2. Re:Blair's the man by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I douub the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself.

      I can't be bothered to search out links to news stories, but Blair and his government have a long history of appeasing terrorists, permitting them to retain their arsenals, letting convicted terrorists out of prison, even paying compensation to terrorists for the actions of the security forces.

      Oh, wait, those were white, nominally Christian terrorists, the IRA. Seems there's a whole 'nother rule for Arab, nominally Moslem terrorists.

      And Bush, who says that nations who support terrorists are as bad as terrorists themselves. Apart from the fact that NORAID is still operating.

      Now don't get me wrong, bin Laden et al are bad people and need to be brought to justice (or have justice brought to them). But Blair's hands aren't clean, either.

    3. Re:Blair's the man by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Tony Blair is truly an inspiration to Americans. If you didn't get a chance to hear him speak last Wednesday before the Labour party, the transcript is here:

      http://www.labour.org.uk/lp/new/labour/docs/LONG SP EECHES/TBCONF2001SPEECH.html

      He clearly understands and embraces American values far more than even some Americans do. (*cough* Falwell *cough*)

    4. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just planning to exploit America's tragedy to bomb the shit outta Dublin for "harboring" the IRA.

    5. Re:Blair's the man by sane? · · Score: 1

      What a moron.

    6. Re:Blair's the man by joel_archer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tony Blair RAWKS! We won't be able to tease the Brit's about pulling their bacon out of the fire in WWII ever again. I was not a huge Tony Blair fan before this. Since September 11th, however, I have become a huge fan. His elequence, grace, vision, and determination echo's back to the great PM's of Great Britian's past.

      God Bless The Brit's and God Bless The Queen!

    7. Re:Blair's the man by FFFish · · Score: 0, Troll

      A better *friend* than Tony?

      Hell, no. You couldn't have a better *bum-buddy* than Tony. He's eager to bend over and take it from the USA.

      Don't mistake Tony's words as support and friendship. He's using you to get his own rocks off, in his own peculiar way.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    8. Re:Blair's the man by Derkec · · Score: 2

      Amen. I've listened to Blair a few times in the past week or so and I have to say, I love him. He and Britain are great friends and the alliance is better for an orator with his tallents. Frankly, he makes Clinton look like a poor speaking and I won't mention how that reflects on W. Blair, whenever you're done in Britain, I'd be happy to have you come run our country.

    9. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Tony Blair lying when he touches his nose?

    10. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so nice to see the biggest slashdot reading crowd (americans and brits) say how much they love each other, even thought britain has an history of hosting muslim terrorists and the USA funded the IRA. What a great friendship! disclaimer: yes yes I like americans and brits, but let's not be hypocrites

    11. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right - the man is a complete media whore.

    12. Re:Blair's the man by CeramicNuts · · Score: 1

      Blair's support is a combination of 1) genuine righteousness 2) to put their own IRA terrorist problems to the front, but mostly 3) payback for convincing the reluctant Clinton administration to bomb Yugoslavia.

    13. Re:Blair's the man by Snootch · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake Tony's words as support and friendship. He's using you to get his own rocks off, in his own peculiar way.

      Oh, I have my doubts over, all things being equal, we (that is, the UK) would have joined in here, but we do owe the Americans one heck of a lot, and it's just right that we help them when we can - they've jolly well done enough for us to deserve it!

    14. Re:Blair's the man by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1


      Tony Blair will only support the USA for as long as it suits him. He bends over backwards in the slightest breeze of public opinion.

      During the height of the foot and mouth disease, T.B. allowed his policy to slaughtering animals to be influenced by a 9 year old child that appeared on TV pleading with him not to kill his sheep. Now, either that 9 year old child is brighter than Phony Tony, or public opinion matters more than his own conviction.

    15. Re:Blair's the man by The+Mgt · · Score: 1
      I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I doubt the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself.


      You can have him then, and take that loony Thatcher while you're at it.
    16. Re:Blair's the man by Tsian · · Score: 1

      What about Canada... you know that country Bush forgot to mention because "Canada is like a brother to us..."

    17. Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · · Score: 2
      ...days after the Muslim assault ...

      It has been stressed repeatedly by all parties involved that this is not a Muslim attack, it was terrorist attack by extremists who happen to be Muslim and contort its teachings to justify their actions. Making such a sweeping generalization as you just did is very dangerous, you run a very high risk of targeting innocent people. (and no, I'm not Muslim, nor even religious)

      With that out of the way, I agree with the rest of your statement. To Tony Blair and everyone in the UK, I believe I speak for all of us in the US when I say thank you for your support.

    18. Re:Blair's the man by Danse · · Score: 1

      When you don't offer an explanation for your insult, you make it quite clear who the moron is.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    19. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks! I personally see Blair as a puppet of the liberal faction of U.S. corporate oligarchy, you can keep him. Or perhaps you'd rather just export him to the English channel.
      Hmm, too bad we'll just buy another one...

    20. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We won't be able to tease the Brit's about pulling their bacon out of the fire in WWII ever again.

      Who does that? I'm usually too busy making fun of the French. Speaking of which, I heard that France just surrendered to Afghanistan.

      On the other hand, Tony Blair is fucking cool.

    21. Re:Blair's the man by ostiguy · · Score: 2

      And previous British governments are responsible for the apartheid state of Northern Ireland that resulted in the resurgence of the IRA some 30 years ago, as well as effectively arming unionist paramilitaries. Why have you nothing to say about those wihte, nominally Christian terrorists?

      There is not much for either side to be proud of for the 70s thru early 90s. What matters is where we are currently. Blair and Clinton made enormous progress in bringing the debate to the position where it is today: basically a political one, with the traditional armed paramilitaries having ceased action (with the exception of small offshoots on both sides). The fact that the IRA leadership even thinks that decommissioning is up for discussion, much less necessary, bespeaks of the enormous progress made in the past few years. Blair has been without peer as a British PM for making progress in the North, and I say this as a american republican whose politics and generally in disagreement with the labour party and the third way (whatever that is).

      ostiguy

    22. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the Irish how friendly the British are. The british have been a brutal, evil, dominating, sever, cruel empire for a thousand years. Just because they've toned it down the last few decades doesn't mean they're suddenly so great. Hell, ask the Irish how they feel about being forced to swear allegience to the crown. Ask the Kenyan's and others in Africa how they felt about being treated as second class citizens and slaves in their homeland by the British until just a couple decades ago. And I won't even mention their civil rights attrocities of their own people the last twenty years.

    23. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      T.B. allowed his policy to slaughtering animals to be influenced by a 9 year old child that appeared on TV pleading with him not to kill his sheep.
      Not to mention f*****g Nestlé.
    24. Re:Blair's the man by ameoba · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I get the impression that one of the main reasons Bush wants the UK to be heavily involved is so that Blair can give speeches from a position of authority. Bush's speeches so far have been full of rhetoric & emotional calls to patriotism, where Blair has spoken from the side of reason & principle. Given the choice, I would much rather listen to a Blair speech than a Bush speech.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    25. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, just when he opens his mouth.

    26. Re:Blair's the man by carleton · · Score: 1

      I think The Onion said it best: "Jerry Falwell: Is That Guy A Dick Or What?"

    27. Re:Blair's the man by smooge · · Score: 1

      Actually, as an American.. I am quite proud to see the work, words and power of Tony Blair. If he were an American.. I would vote for him to be President :)

      --
      -- SJS smooge at smoogespace dot com
    28. Re:Blair's the man by Smuttley · · Score: 0

      this obviously coming from someone who doesn't know any irish people or has ever been to Britain. I myself am British, but have never been forced to "swear allegience to the crown". In fact I never have sworn allegience to the crown, though if I were I asked to I would. Where are you getting this from?

      Also if you go back in any country's history you will find things that they are not proud of. USA, UK, Germany, China, Japan, France, hell you name it.

      Quit trolling.

    29. Re:Blair's the man by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Right. The Taliban want this to be US versus Muslims. That by itself is reason enough.
      The terrorists might have been Muslim once apon a time, but have long since gone over the edge. Osama's own family has disowned him.

    30. Re:Blair's the man by bheading · · Score: 1
      Blair and his government have a long history of appeasing terrorists,

      What does "appeasing terrorists" mean ?

      permitting them to retain their arsenals,

      Blair doesn't have any say in whether the paramilitaries possess arsenals or not. Besides, it's moot; it's easy enough to obtain more guns.

      letting convicted terrorists out of prison,

      That wasn't Blair - that was the Good Friday Agreement, which was negotiated by local politicians and supported by over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland.

      even paying compensation to terrorists for the actions of the security forces.

      For the illegal actions of security forces when they break the law. Those provisions are British law.

      Oh, wait, those were white, nominally Christian terrorists, the IRA

      There are at least ten paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland, and you've only mentioned one. Why ?

    31. Re:Blair's the man by sconeu · · Score: 2

      When Blair was elected, the impression I got was that he was supposed to be the British Clinton.

      After listening to him since 9/11, I doubt that even the Iron Lady herself (Thatcher) could have done better. Of course, he's no Churchill, but nobody else is, either.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    32. Re:Blair's the man by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      It has been stressed repeatedly by all parties involved that this is not a Muslim attack, it was terrorist attack by extremists who happen to be Muslim and contort its teachings to justify their actions.

      All parties involved except said Muslim extremists, who would like very much for us to start targeting innocent Muslims, because it would rationalize their actions. It's freaky-weird to listen to the Taliban spokesman on Al Jazeera say the same thing as the bigots on the 700 Club.

      (Strange aside: While I was looking for the link to the Christian Broadcasting Network--CBN, Google listed its DMOZ category as "Arts > Television > ... > Syndicated > Jerry Springer > Views and Opinions".)

    33. Re:Blair's the man by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2

      Tony Blair's an evil republican (note the little r) out to destroy Britain. He's done very well so far, with the disenfranchisement of the Lords, the gun control, the cameras on the streets. Modern Britain is a police state, and much of that is attributable to Blair. The man is a modern day Cromwell.

    34. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We won't be able to tease the Brit's about pulling their bacon out of the fire in WWII ever again.

      Tease? You know how offended Brits get at this? America did nothing sort (except in its own over-active imagination). Britain had withstood four years of German aggression, carpet bombing -- everything Hitler could throw at them -- and still stood tall, bruised but unweakened. Americans have the audacity to show up late in the fourth quarter and then spend the next fifty years claiming they saved Britain's ass. It's an affront to all Britain suffered at Nazi hands.

      Sometimes I think America really needs to get over itself.

    35. Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · · Score: 2

      Well I think that point is debatable. Bin Laden probably realizes he doesn't speak for all Muslims, on the other hand I'm sure he'd like to. I'm also not sure I've heard either he or someone acting of the same extremist version of the Muslim faith say that this was a Muslim action as oppose to an Al-Queda(sp?) action. Telling someone who wishes to kill you that you speak for a large group of people who are overwhelmingly against your cause isn't the way to win them over(friend of my enemy is my enemy), and I'm sure Bin Laden knows it. Of course I'm refering to his call to all Muslims, not those already following him. In Bin Ladens mind the Muslims who don't follow him have probably been victomized by western culture, to the point where they have no way to liberate themselves (and thereby join him), which is where he sees himself coming in. All this is just my speculations.

    36. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blair the Man?!?!

      He is nothing but a sycophant who at the moment he is just bobbing along in the wake of Bush (or more specifically his staff) - he always looks to others to do the real work - God help us if he has to make a real decision.

      He is exactly the kind of politician whose self-serving bunglings over the years have led to an international situation in which fanatics like Bin
      Laden can thrive.

      The man is a complete shyster- famously he issued a memo some time ago which was leaked to the press 'what we need are eye-catching
      initiatives with which I can be associated' he said. (If that isn't scary, I don't know what is). And that's all the WTC is to him - an
      eye-catching initiative for him to be associated with.

      And you think that the British people support him??? We are so disillusioned by him and his party, that due to there being *no* viable alternative to Labour, never even bothered to vote. Less than 30% of the country voted for him. Thats even worse than the coup that was staged by the Republicans in America.

      Fuck Blair. He is grinning all through his crappy speeches, which are just a rehash of someone who has ate too many CNN soundbites from some dumb ass senator who wants to wage war(like Sen. Orrin Hatch). The amount of airtime he is getting is untrue, all he does is to come on television and pretend that he confered with Bush about their plans. Bullshit, all he does is nod and agree......

      I all honesty, Blair is probably public enemy #1 in the UK. He will kill more Brits than Bin Laden ever will.

    37. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hum...

      1939-war starts, not much happened that year, especially with regard to Britian.

      1940-france completely conquered, battle of britian starts

      1941-Americans enter war, ok well it was december, but that makes up for '39

      1941-1939 = 2

      even with an extra year added in there for time to get troops over, its still not 4 years.

      The battle of Britian was more of less decided by 41, so they may not have saved Britian, but liberating france would have been a much uglier process without them.

    38. Re:Blair's the man by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      What about Canada

      What ABOUT Canada?

      Where are your aircraft carriers, your submarines? Are Canadian cruise missiles being fired at something? Are the canadian-designed, canadian-built fighter aircraft going to be maintaining air superiority with canadian pilots and canadian AWACS?

      Don't get me wrong, its great to have moral support, and Bush DID actually mention Canada (along with france, germany, and some others) but to complain for not getting a big pat on the back is ludicrous.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    39. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate the funniest thing is that *so* many Americans actually think that Russia was also on the other side....... So many people forget that the Ruskies did so much (more of them died than Jews) and they were the ones that actually kicked ass IN Germany......

    40. Re:Blair's the man by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, I believe Canada has the largest number of peacekeepers throughout the world. This does deserve an admittedly unrelated pat on the back.

      -Paul Komarek

    41. Re:Blair's the man by Smuttley · · Score: 0

      How is gun control destorying Britain? I am very much behind it.

    42. Re:Blair's the man by Rufty · · Score: 1

      There's also the small matter of the WTC attacks killing more Brits than any other terrorist action...

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    43. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a fucking idiot. The Lords? Unelected old tossers. Gun control? The fewer people with guns the better. CCTV cameras? Got something to hide have you? If you don't know what you're talking about, then shut the fuck up - or better still, move to the USA where you can buy as many guns as you please. Fuckwit.

    44. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C*nt. 'Muslim Attack'? C*nt.

    45. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err total trash mate
      stop anyone in the street and they will happily tell you that the house of lords should be irrelevant which it is really, gun control should be very strong like it should be in any country that values life
      and we raise money to put cameras up in our housing estates, why? because it cuts crime and if you think cameras have anything to do with .gov then your a loony

    46. Re:Blair's the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Brit, I'm in two minds about Blair backing the US so heavily. On the one hand, I think that Blair did well to take a lot of potential retalitatory heat out of the initial situation, by making this a global problem, and stopping George Dubya from acting unilaterally. On the other, I don't like the implicit support for US foreign policy. What's going on in Israel/Palestine is awful, and the US should face up to its responsibilities in the region, and the consequences of its blind support for the persecution of the Palestinians (to name but a few).

      Don't get me wrong, the appalling acts of 9/11 demand a response, but I worry that the current conflict will create a whole new generation of Islamic fundamentalists who hate the West. Go ask your average 13 year old Iraqi what they think of the West now.

      ps Does this brave new anti-terrorist world mean that Americans who have some dim and distant connection with Ireland, will stop funding the IRA now?

    47. Re:Blair's the man by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Blair was doing ok, until he got weird. He basically said that one of the important reasons for attacking Afghanistan, is that Afghanistan is an important trade partner with UK. (The particular trade item that he mentioned: heroin.)

      If you don't want heroin, don't buy it. Bombing your vendor, just for doing business with you, is very lame. Even if you do it, you shouldn't admit it, if you want to look intelligent and honorable.

      He should have left that part out of his speech. The rest of the speech, if the taint were removed, would be pretty good.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    48. Re:Blair's the man by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, right after the US started attacking, called upon all Muslims to join a new jihad against the US.

      In his taped interview sent to Al Jazeera, bin Laden claimed basically the same thing. (He called the US' actions a Christian crusade against Islam.)

    49. Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · · Score: 2

      That's all well and good but irrelevant. My point was that no one with any sort of crediblity has called the original attack a Muslim attack, and rightly so. Saying such would imply that all Muslims are behind the attacks and against the US, which is untrue. Bin Laden used the words "act of God" if the translation I heard was correct, Bush and other leaders all used a variety of terms equivalent to "terrorist attacks", many Muslims who have been given the chance to speak out on TV have avidly declared that this is against their beliefs, and I don't believe I've heard any Taliban perspective on the action.

    50. Re:Blair's the man by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      OK, if you want to work on semantics, then no, the attacks were not performed by or on the behalf of Islam. However, in this continous attack-counter-attack 'war' going on, bin Laden would very much like it if Muslims around the world joined and supported his cause. To bring this about, he is characterizing it as a war between Christianity and Islam, and it's fairly clear now that the attacks were his opening move in this new war.

  109. war as entertainment by _|()|\| · · Score: 2

    I can see how bombing Afghanistan would garner higher ratings than the NASCAR race, despite the dearth of new information. But don't you think NBC has chosen an unfortunate banner: "America Strikes Back"?

    1. Re:war as entertainment by Aiee · · Score: 1

      "Yes...I assure you we are quite safe from your friends. Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends out there... are walking into a trap. My Empire is quite safe from your pitiful little band. Oh...I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive."

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
    2. Re:war as entertainment by geggibus · · Score: 1

      Hmm... defense system.. starwars.. AH!

      The empire strikes back? , i can guess i know who Vader is... but the emperor? .. Gates? ;)

      /K

    3. Re:war as entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Famous Terrorists of History and Fiction

      * Luke Skywalker
      * Jesus H Goddamned Christ
      * George Washington

      Is the USA investigating cases of its own citizens supporting seperatist factions known to use terrorism to achieve their goals *cough*IRA*cough* and if so does this mean the USA is at war with itself? What about the UK?

      If the WTC incident had occurred before the East Timorese successfully voted for independence from Indonesia would the 'coalition' have bombed Fretilin hideouts?

      The US, UK, and France tested nuclear devices in the Pacific from the `50s to the `90s. Should the inhabitants of island nations near these test sites, affected by the nearby contamination, consider such testing an act of terrorism?

      Reap the whirlwind, war apologists.

  110. Give us some credit, boys by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    As a military /.'r I'm actually pleased that we took our time to think and plan. You know the warmonger geeks inside the NSA, NRO, the pentagon, etc have been working overtime... it always, always pays to do your homework first.

    If we do hit civilians, at least it's not intentional... intent does count for something. It would not surprise me if the Taliban surrounds their C4 centers with nursery schools... Makes you wonder whether the Taliban cares about the value of innocent human life... it's all just more martyrs for Allah.

    The only thing I can ask is that citizens of the US and other countries give us time to fight this war the right way. It's going to require patience, and result in some pretty nasty business before it's all said and done (I don't know that we'll end up like the Israeli Mossad; masters of the exploding cell phone, but we might).

    We've been inducted into a brave new world, just give us a chance to adjust to the game's new rules...

    We're going to have something for everyone, and they're not going to like it much.

    Can you say "awwww yeah?"

    I knew that you could.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  111. God help them (a reply) by pcgamez · · Score: 1

    I posted earlier that "God help those we attack."

    let me just make a general reply instwead of 27 of them.

    1) I say "God" because he is my god. If you believe in another, feel free to. Thats that the US is about.

    2) On the argument someone said that its just another reason to seperate church and state: Why? Do you want all atheists in power? Oh wait, atheism IS a religion in a sense. The point is, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state.

    3) on the comment about airstrikes not working: Of course they will not work. Everyone knows that. We will HAVE to send ground troops in, but I sure as hell don't want any ground troops w/o air support.

    4) about civilians: A modern war is fought with civilians. It is much easier to kill unarmed civilians that armed troops. Once you kill/threaten the family, the troop does not function. Now, This was is somewhat different from a modern" war in one sense. From everything I have seen, MANY Afgans do not support their oppressive gov't. So....you figure it out.

    1. Re:God help them (a reply) by Peaker · · Score: 1

      2) On the argument someone said that its just another reason to seperate church and state: Why? Do you want all atheists in power? Oh wait, atheism IS a religion in a sense. The point is, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state.

      If Atheism is a Religion, then Health is a Disease.

    2. Re:God help them (a reply) by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      More correctly, Atheism is an ideology. The previous poster's point that there really is no separation of church and state is essentially correct in that people with religious beliefs serve in government all the time. The government is simply forbidden to establish an official religion. Nit-picking over wether people should be allowed to use the word "God" in any official context (or even in the public expression of a personal opinion) is akin to the Taliban forbidding the teaching of Christianity in Afghanistan- one ideology (Atheism) attempting to forbid any other from open expression.

      First Amendment? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

      This, of course, also applies to your right to complain about it. That's what makes the argument so damned entertaining.

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    3. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I say "God" because he is my god. If you believe in another, feel free to. Thats that the US is about.

      Oh yes, with compulsory (christian oriented to put it mildly) prayer in school in many states (unless it's federal now, last time I was in the States was 1985) and "In God we trust" on all the banknotes.

    4. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Athiests who follow Ralph Nader :-) That's who needs to be in power. Religion and corporate greed influence this government way too much.

    5. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Ralph Nader was in power, he'd probably talk about how the WTC attacks were our fault and that it was really better now because there was less capitalism in New York City.

    6. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you want all atheists in power?

      Actually, yes.

    7. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being secular and being an atheist are not the same thing. Forbidding Government officials from saying 'God' while 'on duty' and such has nothing to do with atheism at all. It's simply not their job to spout their religious beliefs. They can do it on their down time.

    8. Re:God help them (a reply) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing ideology with religion. Religion contains ideology, but ideology does not necessarily contain religion. That is, polictical ideology != religious ideology != scientific ideology != environmental ideology != etc. Atheism is an ideology, it is, by definition, areligious in nature.

  112. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to get some tie dye t-shirts and acid.
    :(

  113. Re:It is time for you to realize by dair · · Score: 1
    Here in Denmark it has been said that if a terrorist had been from here, we would not have turned him over to the US (since we can't turn over any criminal who might get death penalty)
    This actually applies Europe-wide. The EU Human Rights act prevents extradition to countries who would impose the death penalty - places like China, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, America, etc. Extradition to the US could only take place if the US agreed not to execute, but instead impose a custodial sentence.

    -dair
  114. It's pretty black and white by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    This isn't like Vietnam, where it could be argued that the fate of Vietnam didn't really matter that much to the United States. (I'm not saying I agree with that, just that a compelling argument could be made.) The terrorists want to destroy us. Either you are for stopping them however we can, or you are for not stopping them. And we can't negotiate with them - their position is that we (The Unites States of America) have no right to exist - we are The Great Satan to a very small but very well-organized and armed group of nuts who've bastardized the Islamic faith. So, we can stop them by killing them, or we can let them live and kill us. Am I missing something?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:It's pretty black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      we are The Great Satan to a very small but very well-organized and armed group of nuts [...]we can stop them by killing them


      So in other words, you are going to enforce their view of you (as a "great satan"), by systematically targetting and murdering them? Doesn't this make you think, even a TINY TINY BIT, that perhaps, just perhaps, will make the problem WORSE and not BETTER?

    2. Re:It's pretty black and white by Ibby · · Score: 1

      I think that turning the other cheek in this matter would be a worse alternative. You think Bin Laden would say "Oh look, they've turned the other cheek! They're not so bad after all!"
      I prefer self preservation. Not necessarily imposing my policy on others, but protecting my own interests. I think the US should be doing what they are doing. They are within reason. As long as things don't get out of hand...

      --
      Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
    3. Re:It's pretty black and white by kryptola · · Score: 0

      Funny to see how shallow your viwe is. How do you know that the US is the Satan to a very small group? I wish you can read Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and tons of other languages to read forums, newspapers from other countries to see their view towards the US. Well, but I don't support the terrorists? I just think killing other innocent people to pay for other innocent people is just simply wrong. It's like two talented ping-pong player. They play, and they play and never stop (Bush vs. Bin Laden) only innocent people suffer (the ball)

      --
      "Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer J Simpson.
    4. Re:It's pretty black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we can stop them by killing them, or we can let them live and kill us. Am I missing something?

      Yes, you are missing something. Just like the US government is missing bin Laden with those bombs they are launching, you are missing the reality of the situation.

      Osama bin Laden is NOT in Afghanastan. Everyone knows this, including the US government. Most likely, he hasn't been there since September 10th...he went into hiding. We're doing one of two things here:

      1)Dropping bombs on a desolate parking lot, or
      2)Turning civilians into a parking lot.

      Bombing Afghanastan will not stop terrorism, because the persons responsible for the attacks got the hell out of Dodge weeks ago. In two weeks, bin Laden, the Al-Quieda and the Taliban will (mostly all) still be alive.

    5. Re:It's pretty black and white by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      No. They won't stop hating us just because we try to be reasonable.

      You don't see Bin Laden saying "Supporting Israel would be okay with me if they just withdrew to their pre-1967 borders" or "I have no problem with the United States as long as it wouldn't have such a high profile politically and culturally in Arab countries". It's not like we have any choice in the matter, short of making islamic law mandatory in our own country and impoverishing ourselves to their level - if even that - nothing would satisfy the terrorists.

      We don't particularly care if they call us a "Great Satan" (which is probably part of what they hate about us). They could call us syphiletic rodents and we wouldn't really give a damn.

      Since the only option they leave us is to kill those who would kill us, we have to take that option. Not to do so, or to oppose doing so, isn't being neutral. In the circumstances, it is actually supporting the terrorists and their goals.

  115. Geneva Conventions My Ass by razorjack · · Score: 1

    I remember in the military we were taught to respect Geneva Conventions:

    example:

    1. You can only use a .50 Cal M2 Machine Gun on equipment and materiel.

    2. Solution? Shoot at the enemy's belt buckles we were told by our commanding officers.

    Anyone that believes we are only targeting "bad guys" is an idiot. We are bombing pretty indiscriminately, so what if a few innocents get wasted, they're the price we need to pay for justice!

    Wag the dog, wag the dog, wag the dog.

    1. Re:Geneva Conventions My Ass by Oggust · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure .50 (12.7mm) is allowed against indiviuals.

      We (sweden) certainly plan to use them in that role if we ever go to war.

      I think the soviet/russian 14.5 is OK too, but 20mm isn't. I'm not 100% sure though, it's been a while...

      I'm curious as to what the rules say about the M203 launchers though, they're 40mm, but maybe they count differently since you arguably shouldn't be shooting a a single target with it.

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
  116. Bad tidings by druiid · · Score: 1

    I have only one thing to say, in all seriousness: Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war. Hopefully the Taliban doesn't decide to now launch more terrorist attacks against the US. Also, depending on which of the Talibans friends decide they don't want to put up with the US... we might have them attacking as well. I certainly hope everything doesn't go to "hell" in a short while.

  117. Next possibility by Forager · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ok, as I have noted, the previous posters seem torn between the idea that this is the RIGHT course of action (catchphrases: "Muslim terrorists guests of the Taliban", "righteous war", "exact justice") and the idea that this is WRONG (catchphrases: "stirring the rubble," "emotional revenge tactics"). No one seems to be thinking about the ramifications of what could materialize from these attacks, however.

    This is an act of war by the US. Should we declare all-out war, Afghanistan will most likely declare war in response. Now, while Afghanistan cannot possibly face down the US, there is a possibility that the terrorists housed within the nation's borders could inflict more massive casualties on US territory. Perhaps another attack like the ones of 11 September, perhaps an Anthrax attack, perhaps a suitcase nuclear strike (not unrealistic) ... and so forth.

    "Senators close to the investigation of the terror attacks advised Americans to be especially vigilant about more danger at home, once military action began." - Salon.com

    And this is really how the next "war" could be brought about. While we are attacking the Afghans on their turf, the US could become the target of even more terrorist attacks. The possibilities for civilian casualties could very well be greater now than in previous modern wars. But this is meaningless speculation.

    So what would be a more intelligent course of action for the US? Surgical strikes. Special-ops style strikes against strategic targets. Find bin Laden and capture him. No assasinations ("guilty until proven innocent"), no carpet bombings ("shifting the rubble from the right side of the street to the left side"), no huge deployments of troops ("another Vietnam"). Surgical special-ops strikes; get in, get the target, get out: take out the radar facility; capture the suspect; find the leaders; etc. Doing nothing would equate to victory for the terrorists. But overreacting would be very little different.

    The Taliban promises to "fight to the last breath." This is a hopeless battle for them; with the way that America will be attacking (air strikes, long distance attacks) there will not be much opportunity for them to fight back. They did not declare that the war will be fought on Afghan soil, however. While I am certainly not going to accuse the Taliban of carrying out terrorist attacks, there is a possibility that more attacks will be carried out IN THEIR NAME. The US could be facing a major battle here. It would be best that posters not forget that in their responses.

    ~Aaron

    --
    student of animation and the fine arts
    1. Re:Next possibility by FFFish · · Score: 2

      Right on, bro. You've nailed it.

      Couple of points, though: Afghanistan can not declare war. There is no Afghanistan: what we, outside of that territory, call a country for sake of convenience, is not viewed as a country from within. Internally, it is a handful of tribes at ill-ease with each other, who co-operate only so far as it benefits their own tribesmen.

      The Taliban is not a ruling party so much as a gang of thugs who represent only themselves. The Taliban can declare war, and the US can declare war on the Taliban.

      Secondly: surgical strikes. Not only by special-ops troops, but also remotely. The military can map the land to inch-resolution using spy satellites and surveilance aircraft, both of which are at an altitude well out of range of the Taliban.

      With these detailed maps, ground targets are easily identified. And with companion bombers, also flying well out of range, Very Big Bombs can be dropped with exacting precision on those targets. With no warning.

      Terrorist training camp, kiss your ass goodbye.

      These high-altitude attacks don't have to take place right now (and probably shouldn't: only a fool would have an active camp this month!)

      The only safe place to train will be underground.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Next possibility by Lyka · · Score: 1

      Well, I think there are those who may see certain advantages in the ugly consequences you describe. I think I know what most people want (who want military action *at all*) -- a war that is as quick and as low in civilian casualties as possible, the terrorists dead, the Taleban either dead or taught a lesson, halfway decent relations with other Muslim countries or at least not made any worse -- but I'm not sure that's what the Powers That Be want.

      Consider: what would be the consequences if this were the start of a new decades-long cold war with the Islamic world in general? Like the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it could re-energize the defense industry, discourage dissent and criticism, and be the favorite excuse for expanding federal, military and corporate power while destroying the Bill of Rights. It's not hard to see who would benefit from that.

      With recent bills this Administration has already launched an unprecended attack on civil rights that would hugely expand the federal government's power, an attack that's proving very hard to stop. Consider what that pressure will be like if this cold war were punctuated by freqent acts of terrorism in the U.S., keeping the public in a constant state of fear and uncertainty.

  118. Solving the 'Terrorism' brain teaser puzzle: by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 2

    First, realise that there are in fact two separate solutions to this tricky puzzle.

    Plan A) Peace
    Plan b) Violence

    Try plan A for about 3-4 weeks. If no results after than time, use plan B.

    --
    ----- .sig: file not found
    1. Re:Solving the 'Terrorism' brain teaser puzzle: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure a series of sarcastic remarks like the ones you've been making in this article would convince the Taliban to turn over bin Laden.

  119. Fuck em by Tungz10 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why the hell should we give them food? I didn't see them donating blood when the World Trade Center got hit!

    If they hate their government so much, they shouldn't support it.

    1. Re:Fuck em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately one of the first things the Taliban did was take all arms from the population.

    2. Re:Fuck em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'Cause forunately our gov't is putting practical considerations and common sense ahead of emotion and dogma.

      The idea is to come out of this war ahead, and that sometimes means pacifying people who don't necessarily support you-- to prevent them from becoming active enemies.

  120. Submarines and ships, according to blair by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    And later on, we'll be using aircraft as well. Again, that's from Blair's apeech of about 1:40 US eastern time.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Submarines and ships, according to blair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      And later on, we'll be using aircraft as well. Again, that's from Blair's apeech of about 1:40 US eastern time


      What's that ? Blair will be used as aircraft ??? Come on people I know he has big ears, but wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment ?

  121. Whose war? by voiceofthewhirlwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    -Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man

    1. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

      I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.

      The barbarians must be destroyed.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you so blind that you cant see through the propaganda you are being bombarded with ?

      They are people just like you and me... yes they are

    3. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you, and people like you, should try and see through the pacifist propaganda you are being bombarded with.

      When jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers, then you know that certain groups have gotten too powerful. They must be destroyed.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Whose war? by SLi · · Score: 1
      "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable loce-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

      - Albert Einstein, probably the greatest physicist of the 20th century

    5. Re:Whose war? by Forrestina · · Score: 1

      the "barbarians" as you say, hate the taliban as much as you do. all we're doing is killing a population living in fear. but oh thats no big deal right, they're "barbarians" after all, so what do we care?

      --

      -------
      "don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
      at least i can fucking think"
      Minor Threat

    6. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he say this before or after all the Jews in Germany were rounded up and slaughtered?

    7. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right. I usually can't stand you, but right the fuck on.

      In a war, you can't be whiny bitch. If we don't anihilliate all terrorists and anyone who aids and abets them, attacks like those on September 11 will hit us again and again.

      We have to kill these people now, before they get chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons.

      I say this with not a hint of exagerration: The fate of civilization truly hangs in the balance. Ever wonder why SETI@Home doesn't find anything? If we don't act decisively, it will literally be the end of the world.

    8. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should wake up and realise that you are not completly innocent (is anyone ?)

      Maybe its the US that has gotten too powerfull, you should stop trying to be a world dictator then maybe you wouldnt be a target for these types of people

    9. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      I said "Barbarians", not "Afghans". Maybe you should examine your own racism, rather than question mine.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    10. Re:Whose war? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.


      We all witnessed the jets flying in to buildings.


      But who witnessed the banners reading "Al'Quida sponsored"? Or maybe it was the public statements from the terrorist pilots just before impact? Or maybe even a statement from Bin Laden claiming responcibility?


      We are still relying on our government leadership to tell us who did the act. That it was an attack that constituted an "act of war" (note: terrorist activities have always been considered ciminal acts up to now - there's a big difference between war (military) and criminal (civil) acts).


      I personally have fairly high confidence in our current leadership. But it is our duty (for both civil and military citizens - and there IS a difference) to be critical of our leadership. It is possible to be both supportive and critical at the same time.

    11. Re:Whose war? by Forrestina · · Score: 1

      and you think airstrikes are going to only kill those supposedly responseable? dream on....

      wars destroy infastructure that is needed for a functional society, they will kill many many inocent people. we really aren't any better than the people that flew the planes into those buildings we're so mad about.

      oh but my bad, we're justified in doing it. i forgot about that.

      --

      -------
      "don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
      at least i can fucking think"
      Minor Threat

    12. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      and you think airstrikes are going to only kill those supposedly responseable? dream on....

      There is no question that innocent civilians will be killed.

      oh but my bad, we're justified in doing it. i forgot about that.

      Yes we are absolutely 100% justified. When a country is giving safe harbor to people who fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers killing 6000+ people, we are justified in defending ourselves against future attacks.

      The Taliban could have renounced terrorism and avoided all this. As it stands, we have the absolute perfect, moral right -- and obligation -- to solve the problem permanently.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    13. Re:Whose war? by Forrestina · · Score: 1

      bullshit. the people did not make that choice. the leadership did. if you really feel that there is a need for killing, assasinate everyone you feel is to blame. pick them off one by one surgicaly. don't hit the fucking country with a hammer. that isn't justified at all.

      moral obligation my ass, thats bloodlust.

      --

      -------
      "don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
      at least i can fucking think"
      Minor Threat

    14. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      If the US stopped being an nation of arrogant, insular-minded economic/cultural/envirnomental might-is-right bullies could (!) perhaps have achieved your aim.

      Stirring up the hornets' nest is, er, not that likely to help.

      (Damn straight this is posted AC.)

    15. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      If we could pop them one at a time, we probably would. But you seem to think they just walk around with a sign that says, "here I am -- kill me". All signs are that we are NOT using a hammer, we are trying to be a surgical as possible. But it's childish to think that we can just beam them out star-trek style without any casualties.

      Should we have just let the Nazis conquer the world to avoid killing innocent Germans?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    16. Re:Whose war? by FFFish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps what is most outrageous about the terrorist attack is that no one has claimed responsibility for it, and no one has tried to benefit by it.

      It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it?

      What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    17. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sucks to be a terrorist huh?

      you never even had a minute chance and now you're going staight to hell. enjoy the ride! we're going to fuck 'em up real good.

    18. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      According to this, that is exactly why he did it. I made this link my new signature. In the last 50 years, Hitler has gotten thrown around as justification for a lot of things, but in this case I really think we do have another Hitler that wants to conquer the world and remake it in a radical religious image.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    19. Re:Whose war? by Sima · · Score: 1
      The barbarians must be destroyed.

      Does that mean you'll kill yourself ?

    20. Re:Whose war? by tenordave · · Score: 1

      Wow, I find this an amazing piece of stupidity. Instead of attacking and killing one enemy, and creating 10 more, ask "Why would someone like Osama want to attack us?". Then, when you have come up with the answer, remove what is irritating him. And anyone else. Stop controlling other nations, and keep our big warheads to ourselves. Don't get involved in other people's wars. Maybe then terrorists would not have a reason to attack the US.

      --
      http://students.washington.edu/djwatson
    21. Re:Whose war? by CokeBear · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If I were a very suspicious conspiracy theorist, the first question I would ask after an attack like this, where nobody has claimed responsibility, is "Who Benefits?"


      If I were suspicious of the US Government, I would notice that Bush's rating has jumped from mid 40s on September 10th, to over 90% now. I would take note of the fact that there the USA is again returning to deficit spending, without a peep from the Democrats, and that american defense contractors are thrilled with the contracts and cash coming their way, to build the arsenal that will fight "America's New War".


      ...If I were suspicious of the American Government. But of course, I'm not. I fully support them. How could the US Government have anything but the best interests of the world at heart?

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    22. Re:Whose war? by snol · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how most of us USsians are willing to see a few Afghan civilians (realistically, probably a few thousand) die because their government is (we think) guilty of harboring terrorists, whereas when the U.S. performs criminal acts we somehow ignore or dissociate ourselves from them. The ironic thing is that we claim to be a democracy, meaning we should actually be responsible for the actions of our government -- the Taliban, on the other hand, we condemn as a fascist fundamentalist dictatorship. Why, then, should Afghans be held responsible for their government's actions? And why don't Americans feel guilty for our bombing of the Sudan, our starving of the Iraqi people, our countless other wrongdoings? No nation is perfect - that's not the point. The point is that resigning yourself to Afghani civilian deaths while remaining outraged over US civilian deaths can only be explained by the fact that you like Americans better than Afghanis - there can be no higher moral sense to it; if anything they are less responsible for the acts of their government than we are. As for the practicalities, I can't propose a good solution - but it's hypocritical to say that if 6,000 Afghani civilians die from our bombings, we somehow retain moral superiority over those who brought down the WTC.

    23. Re:Whose war? by scaryjohn · · Score: 1
      All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine. The barbarians must be destroyed.

      -- What's Bin Laden's Goal?

      Have you forgotten where the link in your sigfile leads? An anti-war editorial written by an Afghan.

      So, are you an unapoligetic hypocrite, or is a hundred million dollars (in explosives) all it really takes to change your real beliefs?

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    24. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeeeessss!!! Totally similar!


      But anyway, congratulations for killing the thread.

    25. Re:Whose war? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      Didn't read the link so I don't know whether its Clinton (behind the scenes) or Bush -- the new guy.

      P

      --
      Rod Taylor
    26. Re:Whose war? by Forrestina · · Score: 1

      well, you think they're going to stand on a big sign in an open field that says "bomb me, i'm guilty"?

      nazi's mobilized an entire army and conquered nations. bin laden killed a few thousand people. i think if you think those are the same type of actions, maybe you need to go back to school with the rest of the sheep...

      --

      -------
      "don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
      at least i can fucking think"
      Minor Threat

    27. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      So, are you an unapoligetic hypocrite, or is a hundred million dollars (in explosives) all it really takes to change your real beliefs?

      I don't think you read very closely. It was a cautionary statement with a few different messages. One was that we shouldn't blame the Afghan people, and we don't. The second, and more important message, is bin Laden's ultimate goals. He cautions us against falling into a trap of turning it into the West versus Islam, and Bush has indeed been extremely cautious about getting the support of the Middle East. His more powerful statement, that I agree with, is this man has the same goals as Hitler. Namely, to remake the world in a radical image.

      We waited until it was too late with Hitler. I pray we don't make the same mistake with bin Laden.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    28. Re:Whose war? by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      "being attacked" != "was attacked"

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
    29. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe if we just hadn't given Hitler a reason to attack Europe, he would have just stayed home.

      Guess what? Hitler really happened. It's not just a fictional story. There really are bad people in the world who want to conquer it. They really don't need a reason except hatred and the goal of remaking the world into radical Islam.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    30. Re:Whose war? by Danse · · Score: 2

      Sucks to be an innocent civilian living under a tyrranical dictatorship getting bombed by a country that doesn't give a shit about who is innocent and who is guilty. They just want revenge. No better than the terrorists.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    31. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why every country should have the 2nd Ammendment, so we wouldn't have to go in and wipe out their corrupt, oppressive governments.

      After a couple of 'Talibs' got capped in the ass trying to execute some poor women, they'd change their ways right quick.

    32. Re:Whose war? by newbiescum · · Score: 1

      Well the fact that you're asking and questioning what someone has to gain slows down your response. Whoever committed the terriosts acts against the WTC has caused confusion among the general populace of the world. If you get the world to hestiate enough, it gives you time for further strikes or cause the world to go into further confusion. You have to question everything. You don't have a person to blame that you can be absolutely sure is "pure evil".

      Also, who in the world in their right mind would stick up a huge flag saying "I did it! Kill me now!"? One thing is for sure, the terriosts knew what the passengers/airline crew's standard response would be, so they can't be *that* dumb. Although I think the terriosts will and should pay severely for their crimes, I have to give them some credit in that they knew what they were doing.

    33. Re:Whose war? by scaryjohn · · Score: 1
      The second, and more important message, is bin Laden's ultimate goals. He cautions us against falling into a trap of turning it into the West versus Islam, and Bush has indeed been extremely cautious about getting the support of the Middle East.

      Tomahawk cruise missiles aren't going to get bin Laden to sign a confession and surrender to the 10th mountain division. He wants us to invade. He wants us to start gunning down children (and we will after they start walking out to infantry platoons carying grenades). He wants our soldiers to start making racist slurs. He wants us to start attacking other predominantly muslim countries where he has a few sponsors.

      And when that happens, any support we have any farther east than Greece will collapse like the twin towers... and bin Laden will have his Islam v. Greater America holy war. I will admit that I read that into the essay.

      But I think that was his point. He just couldn't say those words on the 14th. From the essay:

      The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks.

      Even though we've secured partial cooperation from Pakistan and Uzbekistan (which he goes on to talk about), I don't think they'll stay on our side once things get as ugly as i fear they will.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    34. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you stopped to consider WHY Bin Laden wants the US and other western powers out of the Middle East? And NO the answer is not Israel (although it makes a very convenient excuse for branding the US as the enemy.)

      Strategic reasons: The goals of Bin Laden's oranization are to remove the moderate governments of countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and replace them with hard-liners like the Taliban. (remember Pakistan has THE BOMB, so it's in our interests not to let Pakistan succumb to the extremists.)

      Sure, we could leave, and let the Middle East fall into the hands of extremists, who wouldn't hesitate to cut off western oil, and threaten us with nukes if we made any noises about it.

      For better or for worse, our foreign policy does serve national security interests.

    35. Re:Whose war? by Karel+Capek · · Score: 1

      I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.

      And was the Oklahoma City bombing also an attack on the USA? Did the USA proclaim that it was at war with its citizens?
      The events of 11/09/2001 were perpetrated a group of civilians, against civilians. As such, it was a criminal act. The scale of it doesn't categorically change that.
      War has to be declared by one or on one. It is unfortunate that the USA should choose the former.

    36. Re:Whose war? by awkman · · Score: 1

      Actually, the SEC is investigating short selling (making money when stocks go down) of stocks that would have been affected by the terrorist attacks (Airlines and Travel Companies).

      It is possible (though not likely as the article states) that Bin Laden and his organization set themselves up to make money off of the impending terror attacks.

      I hope this line of investigation yields results. It would be the ultimate irony for them to be able to further track down Bin Laden's financial backing because he was greedy.

      Who's the evil capitalist now?

    37. Re:Whose war? by rarose · · Score: 1

      Who the hell is moderating this stuff? A 2 for this paranoid dribble? Who is going to claim responsibility for an attack like this knowing it was going to provoke a global game of Whack-A-Mole?

      Besides if you had listened to the news today you would have heard Osama's videotaped statement where he virtually claimed credit for the WTC attacks.

      --
      --Rob
    38. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Sucks to be an innocent civilian living under a tyrranical dictatorship getting bombed by a country that doesn't give a shit about who is innocent and who is guilty.

      This is what astounds me. The US government has said over and over and over that our fight is with the Taliban and not the Afghan people. We could easily bomb indiscriminately, but we haven't. We could easily not send food supplies in at the same time, but we do. Yet people like you don't want to have the facts interfere with their cynicism, so they comfortably ignore the facts.

      They just want revenge. No better than the terrorists.

      No, we want peace and freedom, which was assaulted when jumbo jets flew into skyscrapers.

      Make no mistake -- the average Afghan citizen is hoping and praying that we liberate their country from the Taliban.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    39. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of context:

      No beer hall putsch or mein krapmf.
      No radical militant movement in a conquered,
      humiliated country, with it's own brown shirted
      militia.

      No dreamed up enemy created from a wealthy
      ethnic minority and added to by various
      dissenting "types".

      There was an "attack", or where were you on sept 11th?

      As of yet, there has been no need to
      convince the people that they need to
      participate in an attack..they support it.

      If the nazis had prevailed this statement would
      be a tenet of statesmanship. What it is now
      is at least open to argument, which means that
      at least one militant, extreme, underdog of
      state that pursued "evil" ends by any means
      at all was defeated, by a coalition of powers
      that had abetted their evolution.

      i wonder what was your point, if you had one
      besides the interesting quote?

    40. Re:Whose war? by raaum · · Score: 1

      ok. i guess i can see your response in context of the post you were writing about.. but your sig is thoroughly confounding me... (really.. not an attack or sarcastic comment here.. just trying to figure out how your sig jibes with your comment - as i assume that it should make sense...)

    41. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be very quick here since most of this is from memory and I'm hung over ;)

      One of bin Ladens goals is to make an islamic state. By having a common enemy attacking islamic grounds, he might gain support from other fundamental islamic groups in the region...

    42. Re:Whose war? by vrt3 · · Score: 2
      The barbarians must be destroyed.

      Can you say, with 100% certainty, who the barbarians are?
      No, you can't.

      So, if you destroy someone, it may very well be that you are killing innocent people, which makes you barbarian too, IMNSHO.

      Really, I can understand that you want to do something, but I think emotions should not get in the way here, and if something is to be done, it better be something that doesn't make situation even worse.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    43. Re:Whose war? by bonch · · Score: 0

      "It's interesting how most of us USsians are willing to see a few Afghan civilians (realistically, probably a few thousand) die because their government is (we think) guilty of harboring terrorists..."

      Does anyone bother following anything? Bush and other leaders have made it quite clear that we are specifically targeting military installations of the Taliban and Al Queda.

      None of this "we think" crap. We know who did this. Even Bin Laden implicated himself in the released video today.

      I think it's funny that a few Slashdotters are calling this an act of war against Afghanistan, as if we are attacking the country as a whole.

      I think all those humanitarian efforts sort of show that perhaps we DON'T want Afghani civilians killed, despite what you'd love to believe so that you can rant some more and feel independent. In fact, we feel sorry for those people. CNN has been running that one documentary endlessly in the past weeks. Most Americans have now seen the oppression of the Taliban from first-hand accounts.

      I think you are out-of-touch when you say "most of us USians." Our targets are the Taliban and Al Queda. We've been quite clear about this. Even Bush made sure to point this out in his speech today. Unless you've done a survey of "most USians," get real.

      We've given them a whole month to hand over a prime suspect in an attack on the United States. They made their choice, and now they are facing the consequences. Meanwhile, support for their regime is dwindling fast by the people of Afghanistan themselves. Nobody likes these fundamentalist cowards and wackos who use religion to kill and oppress their own people.

      I know it's "cool" and "hip" to always oppose what the government is doing, but the terrorists attacked our CIVILIANS. You are a civilian. Bin Laden makes no distinction between a soldier and you. If you were in one of the towers, his organization would have succeeded in killing you. And they would have been happy about it. So this isn't an issue of the government now, it's an issue of attack on innocent American citizens such as yourself.

      Maybe you don't want to defend yourself, but I think the current fad of trendy pacifism stems from one thing: fear of sacrifice. It's as though you just thought freedom was some inherent thing that always seems to exist by itself, and all you had to do in life was play your PS2 and post on Slashdot. Guess what? Sometimes you have to fight for things. Nobody likes to, but sometimes you have to.

      This small pacificism "movement" will burn out and be forgotten anyways. I think most people are quite willing to defend their country from further attacks by eradicating the threat. I am, anyway.

    44. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, so?
      He ran from germany so he wouldn't be killed and
      let other people die for him.

    45. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a fucking moron. And if you had a clue, you'd know that nobody had moderated it yet.

    46. Re:Whose war? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer.

      --Herman Goering, German Air Force Minister, 1939

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    47. Re:Whose war? by Danse · · Score: 2

      We could easily not send food supplies in at the same time, but we do.


      Sending food is the least we could do after we cut off all supplies, including food and medical, from Pakistan.


      We could easily bomb indiscriminately, but we haven't.


      Do you really think we're only killing the Taliban with our cruise missiles and bombs?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    48. Re:Whose war? by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Because the people who perpetrated it died in the attack.

      The evidence seems to indicate that even if these attacks were financed indirectly by bin Laden's organization, he did not have any role in planning the attacks - they were planned independently by the group that carried them out, with monetary support from Al-Qaeda, who are now all dead. That's why bin Laden can truthfully say he didn't know about the attacks until he saw them in the news.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    49. Re:Whose war? by Danse · · Score: 2

      My sig has to do with the fact that religion is often used as a tool to control people. I really didn't think about it in relation to my post, but I suppose that the Taliban is an example of a group using religion to control people. If you look at the letters that the FBI says they found, you can see that religion played a big part in convincing these people to carry out their attacks.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    50. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting off oil would be one of the best things they could do for the planet.

    51. Re:Whose war? by wass · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it? What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?

      IMHO, I think this was done in a rallying call by OBL to build up support for an Arab-led war against American/European colonialism. I think that the primary perpetrators, however, didn't expect the solidarity that nearly all countries showed towards the US.

      OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.

      So, I think that OBL or others would have claimed it if there hadn't been such worldwide sympathy and support for America. I think if they admitted to it while nearly all countries were officially condemning the attacks as atrocities, the terrorist group(s) would lose most of the public support they had hoped to gain.

      I might just be cheesy here, but is anyone else reminded of "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" regarding the 9/11 attacks? Whereas the Grinch, being an inherent prick, basically struck at the small mountainous town to cause strife and discord, by stealing their 'Christmas'. Yet, though their physical Christmas was gone, the townspeople still banded together and sang, because their inner spirit couldn't be stolen. So too did these terrorists try to destroy something in America, either our safety, our sense of security, or try to destroy our status amongst other nations. However, the solidarity Americans showed after the attacks was incredible. Every block I walk down, there are flags and patriotic banners. Not people just calling blindly for revenge (well, some are) but there's definitely a feeling of unity here that I haven't really felt before (I'm 26, maybe it was like this in WWII or similar). Okay, just my 2 cents.

      --

      make world, not war

    52. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.

      And I don't think bin Laden and co. had to tell their followers that they were attacked. The shooting and bombing and starvation of muslim peoples did that just fine.

    53. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've met retarded monkeys smarter than you

    54. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's interesting how most of us USsians are willing to see a few Afghan civilians (realistically, probably a few thousand) die because their government is (we think) guilty of harboring terrorists,

      Americans, because we vote, are the government. We have a terrible disposition to imagine that everyone else is responsible for their government for the same reasons.

      whereas when the U.S. performs criminal acts we somehow ignore or dissociate ourselves from them.

      Because we can simply argue that we didn't vote for XYZ. Sure, my neighbor may have, but that doesn't mean I have to suffer as he does.

    55. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at stock prices, you can tell Insurance, Security, and Defense Contractor stock prices have been going up, compared to everyone else who's going down.

    56. Re:Whose war? by mindriot · · Score: 1

      [...] and no one has tried to benefit by it.

      Except for the US weapons industry, of course... private firearms, gas masks...

    57. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      barbarians

      Lets send our sons and daughters to kill them all. And their families, friends, and the poor farmer down the road. Because that will bring back the victims of the attacks, won't it.

      There's no need to complete the investigations, is there. Just kill kill kill. Once we feel better we'll tell the world we're sending $600mill to aid the innocent. But whoops we've blown their land to mud. Plus we don't know how to get the $ to them, so they'll just have to be patient. While we blow stuff up. Cuz that'll make us feel better.

      Who wants to be a barbarian?

    58. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Can you say, with 100% certainty, who the barbarians are? No, you can't.

      No, but I can say without a reasonable doubt, and so it would appear can a lot of other countries -- including middle eastern countries.

      So, if you destroy someone, it may very well be that you are killing innocent people, which makes you barbarian too, IMNSHO.

      Just out of curiosity, how many jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before you think it's time to act? How many people have to do? Do we need a jet flying into a football stadium killing 70,000 people? How about nuke in the city of Los Angeles? Given what has already occurred, do you think there is any limit to how many people they will kill to fulfill their goals?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    59. Re:Whose war? by snol · · Score: 1

      When you fly planes over a country and drop bombs from them, it's unrealistic to think that they will not kill civilians. We can pick our targets as carefully as we like, but it's inevitable to have "collateral damage" - are you really trying to deny this? Maybe "most USsians" do actually believe we're going to kill not a single Afghani civilian, but I hope they're not so deluded. We're either operating on the basis that some number of civilian deaths is acceptable, or we're complete idiots.

      'this "we think" crap' -- well, I think it's probably true too fwiw, but that's just the impression I get from the evening news.

      "nobody likes these fundamentalist etc etc" so you think we're doing Afghanis a favor by bombing them? get real.

      and don't give me this "i know it's cool and hip" crap - I gave a fairly-well-reasoned argument and you respond by dismissing it as some knee-jerk countercultural opinion. How bout I dismiss your opinion as knee-jerk bloodthirsty nationalism, not caring to reason out the actual effects of our military actions as long as it feels like we're doing something? Don't fucking patronize me. I could see the cloud from where the towers used to be and I knew damned well that I or any of my friends could've been in there and died. It's not a question of defending ourselves - there is no defending ourselves by any amount of military mobilization in this situation. Overthrowing the Taliban and doing whatever-we-want to bin Laden won't change the fact that a terrorist can kill a few hundred whenever and a few thousand in certain situations. Pure and simple, it's a choice between Bush flexing some muscles and Bush not getting reelected.

    60. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      But anyway, congratulations for killing the thread.

      I should point out that I don't recognize Godwin's Law, which is totally stupid. If Nazis fit the debate, then Nazis fit the friggin' debate.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    61. Re:Whose war? by node3667 · · Score: 1
      The barbarians ? who is this ?

      The guy who puts the bombs or the guy who learned him how to set up a bomb ? Bin Laden or USA ?

    62. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99.999% of Americans were NOT in the twin towers. 99.999% of Americans were not attacked. Someone does have to extrapolate that and tell the rest of us that we were attacked also. But even if that is not true, the other steps follow anyway. The Peacemakers are denounced for lack of patriotism. Even though this is a Democracy, those that want to have a DEBATE about what to do get shouted down. Even though we have the right to free speech, mourning for both those killed on 9/11 and those killed tonight is not countenanced. Just like usual, hotter heads prevail in America.

    63. Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      99.999% of Americans were NOT in the twin towers. 99.999% of Americans were not attacked.

      Bullshit. Every single American was attacked on that day, because it was a random attack.

      The Peacemakers are denounced for lack of patriotism.

      Everybody in this debate is a peacemaker, because everyone has peace as the ultimate goal. It's only the pacifists that are generally attacked, because they are too busy wringing their hands to see the bigger picture. Most of us who think freedom and liberty is worth fighting for. Pacifists think that freedom and liberty are worth whining about.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    64. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, Godwin's was intended to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. Think you fit the bill? Think there's anything left to say here?

      (Godwin's correlary: All discussions eventually denigrate into a discussion of Godwin's Law.)

    65. Re: Whose war? by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I do like Americans more than Afghans. Live and let live, sure, but when it comes down to him or me I'm willing to choose him.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    66. Re:Whose war? by warpeightbot · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ...If I were suspicious of the American Government. But of course, I'm not. I fully support them. How could the US Government have anything but the best interests of the world at heart?
      Allow me to draw an interesting parallel.

      In 1937 the Navy held war games on Hawaii. The blue team was to defend Pearl Harbor; the red team was to go out to sea and attempt a carrier-borne attack. The red team struck by surprise early on a Sunday morning and totally devastated the blue defenses. Standing on a mountaintop overlooking the harbor were some American brass.... and the Japanese naval attache, a senior officer whose name with which I'm sure you're familiar. Isoroku Yamamoto was scribbling furiously on a notepad, taking down everything he saw.

      We all know what happened some four years later... but the truly interesting part was what did not happen. American intel had gotten pretty good at figuring out what the Japanese were about (witness the devastation of the Japanese Navy at Midway six months later)... they knew something was coming. It's never made much mention of in the history books, but one has to wonder why all of the American carriers were out to sea on the morning of 7 December.

      I think Roosevelt knew the Japanese were coming.

      Fast forward sixty years. There were intel hints all over the place that Osama was planning something big. The Israelis told us as much. Just like Yamamoto, we taught Osama everything he knows.

      I think Bush knew something was afoot.

      But.....

      In both instances America had grown complacent. Very few people wanted to help England defend herself against Hitler. Roosevelt was having major problems just giving the Brits some old, rusty, worn-out cruisers, much less any real war materiel. And heaven forfend we should send troops....

      Likewise after Desert Storm (aka the Video Game War) Uncle Sam had grown fat, dumb, and happy. We figured we could open a can of whoop-ass on anybody, any time, and they couldn't touch us, because we were America, dammit, that stuff don't happen anymore. Besides, shouldn't we spend more money on old people and national parks? And all of a sudden, Bubba ain't president no more, we've got some buckaroo... and the economy's for shit and he's kinda stuck for what to do about these Arab hooligans his predecessors (on both sides of the aisle) helped create... the American people are more worried about Gary Condit than Osama bin Laden.

      So the way I figure it, both Roosevelt and W. let it happen, knowing that getting our collective asses kicked was the only way rank and file Americans were going to wake up to the necessity of war. That once there were dead Americans on American soil by virtue of a sneak attack, there would be no trouble getting Congress (and the people) to back the necessary military moves to do what was... is... right, i.e. eliminate the dirty so-and-sos that are trying to impose their twisted way of life on the rest of the world.

      It's a nasty way of doing business, but I'm not sure either gentleman... President.... had much of a choice. Even if there had been a public warning, it wouldn't have been taken seriously to the extent it needed to be... far better to allow a sneak attack, and get instant, wholehearted support for what must be done, than to take several years trying to coalition-build on a reluctant Congress and people and allow the jokers in question that much more time to get something truly devastating in place.

      And I use the word "must" carefully. Had England fallen, all of Europe would now be speaking Russian. Not German, because no one beats Russia in a land war on her own turf (Napoleon), but Russian. And America would not now have Tony Blair to match strength for strength in the war on terror. Which brings us to the present. Since the (20/20 hindsight) premature end of Desert Storm, America has been soft on terror. It is now time to correct that mistake.

      I do not accuse W. of orchestrating the attack. That's just plain evil, and I don't think anyone thinks W. is capable of that.... some would say he's not that smart; others, that he's a better man than that. Which is the truth is outside the scope of this comment. The fact remains that Osama, Saddam Hussein, and others like them needed to be dealt with..... and no amount of using the bully pulpit was going to convince Joe Average of that. Will George W. Bush, President of the United States, profit from the events of 11 September? Almost certainly. But so, in the long run, will the American people... and so will freedom. As the Ferengi say, war is good for business. And Jefferson noted that the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. That tree has been parched for sixty years now. (I mean no disrespect to those who have lived and died in America's service since then, but really, we have not had a shooting war for our freedom since then. Now we do.)

      Six million innocent people died during the last war for freedom. The lateness of our involvement in that war was probably a factor. If six thousand lives is anywhere close to the extent of our losses in this war for freedom, I shall count us either extremely lucky.... or extremely smart.

      --
      "Still, if you will not fight for the right ... when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
      -- (Sir) Winston Churchill

    67. Re:Whose war? by vrt3 · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, how many jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before you think it's time to act?

      It's not that much a matter of acting or not; it's a matter of doing the right thing to do, and only that. I stand by my point that it's better to wait and do nothing unless you are certain you are going to do the right thing.

      Because, if you act out of blind anger, people who want to hurt you have more excuses to do so and will find more people willing to fight for their cause. That's not what you want.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    68. Re:Whose war? by bonch · · Score: 0

      "When you fly planes over a country and drop bombs from them, it's unrealistic to think that they will not kill civilians."

      No reported civilian casualties so far. But my point was that we're specifically trying to avoid hitting civilians. Most of them are evacuating the cities anyway.

      "We can pick our targets as carefully as we like, but it's inevitable to have "collateral damage" - are you really trying to deny this?"

      Actually, I WILL deny that it is "inevitable." In fact, I have a feeling the Taliban regime will fall in the coming week.

      If civilians are killed, it will be tragic, but we had 6,000 of ours killed without warning. These guys have had a month to cooperate and knew the consequences.

      "Maybe "most USsians" do actually believe we're going to kill not a single Afghani civilian, but I hope they're not so deluded."

      So you WANT them to kill civilians? I'm confused.

      "We're either operating on the basis that some number of civilian deaths is acceptable, or we're complete idiots."

      Of course there is the potential for some civilian casualties. We can play "what if" all day. It doesn't accomplish anything.

      ""nobody likes these fundamentalist etc etc" so you think we're doing Afghanis a favor by bombing them? get real."

      What do you suggest? A message has to be sent that terrorist acts will not be tolerated, and governments will not be allowed to protect the prime suspects of such attacks.

      "and don't give me this "i know it's cool and hip" crap - I gave a fairly-well-reasoned argument and you respond by dismissing it as some knee-jerk countercultural opinion."

      Can you blame me? There are a lot of university pseudo-hippies who think Ghandi philosophies work against an enemy that genuinely believes you are an enemy of Allah.

      "How bout I dismiss your opinion as knee-jerk bloodthirsty nationalism, not caring to reason out the actual effects of our military actions as long as it feels like we're doing something?"

      You could do that, but you'd be wrong.

      I don't get why people like you assume nobody has thought out the effects of military actions. Most people don't want war. But it is necessary. I don't think people like being attacked with planes either.

      "Don't fucking patronize me. I could see the cloud from where the towers used to be and I knew damned well that I or any of my friends could've been in there and died."

      A friend of mine actually did die there.

      "It's not a question of defending ourselves - there is no defending ourselves by any amount of military mobilization in this situation."

      What a ridiculous statement. Of course it's a question of defending ourselves. By eliminating terrorists and "those who harbor them," we're eliminating the threat to a large degree. We will likely never totally be rid of terrorists--there are always wackos--but we can get rid of state-sponsored terrorism wherever we can.

      "Overthrowing the Taliban and doing whatever-we-want to bin Laden won't change the fact that a terrorist can kill a few hundred whenever and a few thousand in certain situations."

      But it will change the potential for such an attack to happen.

      "Pure and simple, it's a choice between Bush flexing some muscles and Bush not getting reelected."

      You see, this tired political cynicism is just so old and out of place right now. This isn't about reelection, this is about 6,000 of our fucking civilians getting killed. It's the job of the President to do what we want when 90% of the population wants to eliminate the threat. Should we do nothing? What would you propose we do? Surgical attacks seem to be the best solution at this point. They were given ample warning of our possible attacks, unlike at WTC.

      Nobody is saying eliminating the Taliban is the perfect solution. Nobody has ever said that. But it is the best solution right now. These people can't even decide whether they know where Bin Laden is or not. Negotiations are over.

    69. Re:Whose war? by joshki · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that you prehaps have some of your facts screwed up about Pearl Harbor. It is a common misconception that the president knew all about what was going to happen and let it happen to stimulate the economy, drag us into the war, etc... There are several theories about what happened that day - I don't think anyone will know for sure, but these links should clear up a little of it. Theory one(it's about halfway down the page) - (history place.com): We broke the code in time to prevent the attack, but then we sent the information by commercial telegraph. Something we need to remember is that the president couldn't just pick up the phone and call Pearl Harbor at the time - there were very few means of communication with the mainland. According the the link, we had lost radio contact with Pearl Harbor at the time, and this delayed the message until about noon Hawaii time -- approximately four hours after the attack had begun.
      Theory Two: (ukans.edu) Stephen Budiansky is a historian who's written a book on code-breaking in WWII - his theory is quite simply, we couldn't read the codes. The japanese had evidently been changing their codes quite frequently - or at least frequently enough the confuse our code-breakers. I'll leave a further explanation to reading the link - it sounds to me like he's saying the Navy really didn't decode the relevant messages until 1946, almost five years after the attack.
      The main thing we have to remember here is that communications at the beginning of WWII were really bad. Nowdays we have ways to get messages and information across the globe in seconds - it's very easy to forget the fact that if a coded message was broken in the evening in Washington, in 1941 there was literally a very good chance it would not get to Hawaii by the following morning. This makes the most sense to me as an explanation for what happened - not saying the president and all his generals and code-breakers knew about this far enough in advance to prevent it and all conspired together to keep the base commander in Pearl from knowing.
      There is a slightly more sinister idea that makes more sense to me than saying the president knew all about it. The code-breakers may well have known - as I mentioned earlier, there's some dissension on that point. The code-breaking community in the military is EXTREMELY secretive. There could very well have been an admiral or captain(I believe it was the navy running it at the time) who was told and simply decided not to pass the information on. In that case, he would have had to make a decision based on, first of all, how likely he thought it was that the information was accurate, and secondly, on how badly it would affect his intelligence gathering capabilities in the future for the japanese to find out that we knew about the attack in advance. That's the biggest problem with intelligence - frequently, when you use it, you compromise its source, and then you have to start all over again, either breaking a code, or compromising a foreign agent, etc... so it's a tough call for someone in that position - one I would never want to have to face.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
    70. Re:Whose war? by guidobot · · Score: 1

      hmmmmmmmmm.... is this what you're talking about?

      Every U down in Uville liked U.S. a lot,
      But the Binch, who lived Far East of Uville, did not.
      The Binch hated U.S! the whole U.S. way!
      Now don't ask me why, for nobody can say,

      It could be his turban was screwed on too tight.
      Or the sun from the desert had beaten too bright
      But I think that the most likely reason of all
      May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

      But, Whatever the reason, his heart or his turban,
      He stood facing Uville, the part that was urban.
      "They're doing their business," he snarled from his perch.
      "They're raising their families! They're going to church!
      They're leading the world, and their empire is thriving,
      I MUST keep the S's and U's from surviving!"

      Tomorrow, he knew, all the U's and the S's,
      Would put on their pants and their shirts and their dresses,
      They'd go to their offices, playgrounds and schools,
      And abide by their U and S values and rules,

      And then they'd do something he liked least of all,
      Every U down in U-ville, the tall and the small,
      Would stand all united, each U and each S,
      And they'd sing Uville's anthem, "God bless us! God bless!"
      All around their Twin Towers of Uville, they'd stand,
      and their voices would drown every sound in the land.

      "I must stop that singing," Binch said with a smirk,
      And he had an idea--an idea that might work!
      The Binch stole some U airplanes in U morning hours,
      And crashed them right into the Uville Twin Towers.
      "They'll wake to disaster!" he snickered, so sour,
      "And how can they sing when they can't find a tower?"

      The Binch cocked his ear as they woke from their sleeping,
      All set to enjoy their U-wailing and weeping,
      Instead he heard something that started quite low,
      And it built up quite slow, but it started to grow--

      And the Binch heard the most unpredictable thing...
      And he couldn't believe it--they started to sing!

      He stared down at U-ville, not trusting his eyes,
      What he saw was a shocking, disgusting surprise!
      Every U down in U-ville, the tall and the small,
      Was singing! Without any towers at all!

      He HADN'T stopped U-Ville from singing! It sung!
      For down deep in the hearts of the old and the young,
      Those Twin Towers were standing, called Hope and called Pride,
      And you can't smash the towers we hold deep inside.

      So we circle the sites where our heroes did fall,
      With a hand in each hand of the tall and the small,
      And we mourn for our losses while knowing we'll cope,
      For we still have inside that U-Pride and U-Hope.

      For America means a bit more than tall towers,
      It means more than wealth or political powers,
      It's more than our enemies ever could guess,
      So may God bless America! Bless us! God bless!

    71. Re:Whose war? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it?

      I'd bet that serveral groups claimed responsibility. I further speculate that some combination of the media and the government chose not to give publicity to these groups by talking about it.


      If we assume Osma Bin Laden is behind this, perhaps he wants to portray this as a general, grass roots movement.

      --
      -Dave
    72. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these people have a totally diffferent mindset, if you try and understand them your going to come to the wrong conclusion

    73. Re:Whose war? by JWhitlock · · Score: 2
      OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.

      I agree 100%. Furthermore, it appears that this was the work of Colin Powell, who argued for the "world consensus" approach rather than the unilateral fast action that some of the war-hawks desired. As much as I am wary of the Bush Administration, it does look like he chose some of the best of the best for his cabinet, and a good balance all around. Maybe this is a sequel that is better than the original administration. In any case, if his role becomes more public, Powell might be the first African-American Vice President, if not President. Hell, if Cheney's health goes south, we may see it in the next four years...

      Afghanistan is one of those places that we disrupted during the cold war, then forgot. I echo others' sentiments when they say, get people on the ground, get rid of this government that supports terrorism, stablize the country, dump Marshall Plan-level dollars on them, then give democracy a try. Maybe we need to look at some other countries, and see what's brewing. Hopefully, the news stations will forget about market-share and public opinion polls, and actually do some world-news reporting for a few minutes a day. I appreciate NPR's coverage more every day...

      .

    74. Re:Whose war? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      ....Not to mention the fact that the major news outlets were about to release the results of their joint study of the Florida election results.


      The date that this study was going to be released: September 16th.


      It was an independent analysis of the 200,000 over-vote and under-vote ballots. It was paid for by the major news outlets in the United States. It has been indefinitely "shelved" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.


      The story can be found at salon.com.


      If you were suspicious of the US Gov't, you might think someone wanted attention diverted away from a study that perhaps shows that Al Gore won the 2000 election.



      I'm not saying I agree with this conspiracy theory, just that it is another "thing that makes you go 'hmmmm'".


      For now, I'll give Bush the benefit of doubt.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    75. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. That's the sickest theory I've ever heard.

    76. Re:Whose war? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      Do you really think we're only killing the Taliban with our cruise missiles and bombs?


      The difference here, and it is a very big difference, is that we are taking every possible precaution to make sure the fewest innocent civilians are killed.


      OBL/Taliban (and no, I don't separate the two...they are two heads of the same beast) take every possible measure to maximize the number of innocent civilians that are killed.


      We are attacking their capability to launch future attacks.


      We are better than them . Let's not equivocate with moral relativism about their society simply being "different". We care enough about their civilian population to try to limit their suffering, even dropping them food and medicine (something their government denies them).


      OBL calls for the death of innocent American civilians. We are trying to free an imprisoned people (especially their women) while eliminating the sub-humans who treat their women like pets in the first place.


      There is right and wrong here. It's not "West vs. Islam". It's Right vs. freaking Wrong.


      I can't stand George W. Bush....but he is handling this situation EXACTLY in the correct manner (as I'm sure Gore would've done as well).

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    77. Re:Whose war? by jafac · · Score: 2

      The idea that we knew that Pearl Harbor was coming is actually a well-known theory. And it fits with the old proverb of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    78. Re:Whose war? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      The people of Afghanistan aren't *ready* for Democracy (or even a Republic). It simply isn't right for their society.

    79. Re:Whose war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a sick sick fuck.

    80. Re:Whose war? by JWhitlock · · Score: 2
      The people of Afghanistan aren't *ready* for Democracy (or even a Republic). It simply isn't right for their society.

      Do you mean that Islam is incompatible with democracy? Or that the country is in such bad potiical and economic state that democracy is impossible? Is it the low population density? The lack of infrastructure?

      Are they not ready for democracy now, or will they never be ready for democracy? If it is the former, then what steps of milestones do you see before the democratic solution is practical? Is it anything like India (democratic after the British left, but spilt apart because of an early religion-fueled civil war) or Japan (Monarchy until the U.S. took over, switching to democracy after temporary U.S. "monarchy") or Puerto Rico (somewhat independent, somewhat dependant) or something else?

      I'm interested in your answer.

    81. Re:Whose war? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Do you mean that Islam is incompatible with democracy? Or that the country is in such bad potiical and economic state that democracy is impossible? Is it the low population density? The lack of infrastructure?

      All of the above. ;-) More seriously, I think that it is possible for them to become a Republic at some point; however, it's going to be a while. Perhaps a *long* while.

      When I was attending college, I took a Political Science class with a very insightful instructor about how states are built and how various forms of government develop. We examined how popular government grew in England over a period of several hundred years. We also looked at how it *didn't* develop completely in Germany until after WWII. Then, we looked at third world nations attempting to implement popular government (because of the success in the West) and how it has tended to fail because certain economic, religious, and social characteristics were not present in large enough degrees or in the right combinations to support growth of popular government.

      While it is true that the Allies were able to engineer German society after WWII in a satisfactory manner--and it was masterfully done--it must be remembered that Germany was almost all the way there already. They had the Protestant Reformation under their belt and they had long ago experienced capitalism and urbanization. Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler had succeeded in unifying the nation (state-building). What was wrong was the unusually high sense of submission to authority, regardless of the sensiblity of that authority. (*Reasonable* submission to authority is, of course, appropriate.) Additionally, there was a great deal of corporatism that fueled the dominance of the industry-government.

      So, Afghanistan *could* be ready for a government "of the people" someday. They have a lot of social and economic changes to go through first. I think that the emphasis that Islam places on authority--and it is stronger and more strict than that of biblical Christianity--is the most problematic facet of their society.

      By the way, I like your .sig.

  122. Re:Canadian, Osama Bin Land and Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three guys, a Canadian, Osama Bin Ladin and Uncle Sam are out walking together one day. They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it. "I will give each of you each one wish, that's three wishes total," says the Genie.

    The Canadian says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada." With a blink of the Genie's eye, 'POOF' the land in Canada was forever made fertile for farming.

    Osama Bin Ladin was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around Afghanistan, so that no infidels, Jews or Americans can come into our precious state." Again, with a blink of the Genie's eye, 'POOF' there was a huge wall around Afghanistan.;

    "Uncle Sam" (A former civil engineer), asks, "I'm very curious. Please tell me more about this wall." The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 15,000 feet high, 500 feet thick and completely surrounds the country; nothing can get in or out---virtually impenetrable."
    "Uncle Sam" says, "Fill it with water."

  123. Not that big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to the women and children who are probably getting the shit blown out of themselves by "a few cruise missiles."

    1. Re:Not that big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh they are bombing communications centers, and since women aren't allowed to work in afghanistan, i don't thiere will be any women there....

    2. Re:Not that big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the news tells you. And we all believe the news, don't we? By the way, Saddam Hussein also took groups of civilians and stuck them in buildings they didn't belong in, just so that he could denounce the U.S. for killing civilians in their attacks. Not that I think the U.S. cares, the whole goal of the campaign is for George Bush to blow up as many "brown people" as he can.

    3. Re:Not that big? by drsoran · · Score: 2

      If the Taliban wants to place their own citizens in military targets that they know will be bombed in order to get them killed then so be it. They are casualties of war unfortunately. Just another side effect of having radicals in power in any country. The civilized world wouldn't put innocent civilians in military complexes to act as human shields. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. They're no different than teenage children.

    4. Re:Not that big? by Tilps · · Score: 0

      Breaking News - America declares war on all teenage children, bombing to commence shortly.

      --
      Sigs are for wimps. I am proud to be one.
    5. Re:Not that big? by eggfellow · · Score: 1

      Why just women and children? Don't dead guys rate a mention too?

    6. Re:Not that big? by defile · · Score: 2

      When we sandwich a day care center between law enforcement offices in a big federal building it's done out of convenience. (e.g. the Oklahoma City Federal Building)

      When foreigners do this to targets we plan on bombing it's because they're cowards. Or because they're religious radicals. Or because they're just plain evil.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of military targets that have civilian facilities JUST to conflate the issue of bombing them. Unfortunately, the full story is often hard to come by.

    7. Re:Not that big? by ariux · · Score: 1

      The people who say things like "sand nigger" are like the people who blew up the trade center.
      Except more dangerous, because they have a vote.

    8. Re:Not that big? by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      When we sandwich a day care center between law enforcement offices in a big federal building it's done out of convenience. (e.g. the Oklahoma City Federal Building)

      That is a very poor analogy.... If Tim McVeigh had announced ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE his intention to blow up the federal building, and then the government intentionally overstuffed the place with toddlers, you might have a point. Since this obviously did NOT happen, you'v just proven the first poster right anyway.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    9. Re:Not that big? by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Did you get that expression from "Casino," or was it popular before that? I'd just never heard it outside of that movie...

  124. Re: America will never learn by Panaflex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we could just go and arrest those responsible, then it would be done. However, people are protecting a man who is at the very least accessory to the murder of thousands of people. If bin Laden was innocent, why not make an international appeal? Trial in a country where the justice system is corrupt would be fraut with stupidity.

    This IS different. There are goals. If you believe in freedom, you must accept justice.

    Showing the Taliban the "evidence" could mean death for many who provide information to the USA. Some of these people are supporters of democracy, we don't know. Do you trust the Taliban to extridite bin Laden, at the risk of loosing all information sources and their lives?

    Why don't you go over and arrest the man? Even if you did it for the money (Now at 30M USD) you could easily pay for the trip and equipment.

    Critical thinking is in short supply.

    Pan

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  125. makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this goes beyond just america, this is a human problem, when are we all going to set aside our differences and realize we are all human. this is one world we don't get a second chance at this why can't we do this right and try to be more diplomatic. NOT demanding, not flexing our military muscle but bomb them with food, understanding and respect. this is a culture that feels we threatin thier existance. we have to recommit our self to find better a new power source to replace fossil fuels. and just leave these people ALONE. I am an American, I am a New Yorker i have lived threw this lost friends and family from this how many more people have to die. will it only end when we are all dead.

    1. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, jackass, note that Bush significantly increased humanitarian aid to Afghanistan last week.

      He may be an idiot, but not all of his advisors are. Feeding and clothing the peasants will do more to overthrow the Taliban than all the carpet-bombing in the world, and they *know* that.

    2. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farmers increased growing of chickens to help them, right?

      Have a nice dinner, sir.

  126. Yah, we're being careful, but... by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    ...there's a nasty rumor that the Taliban is using human shields in those installations. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Yah, we're being careful, but... by talonyx · · Score: 2

      You'd think metal would work better. Human flesh has the tendancy to allow highly-powered bullets to rip through it like butter.

      Plus, metal doesn't scream and struggle, and you don't have to assume more weight from it after it's been shot once.

      Kevlar vests would work well too. For a group that can build a Dr. Evil style underground cave network, you'd think such childish tactics as a human shield wouldn't be in practice.

    2. Re:Yah, we're being careful, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score -1, A for effort but F for execution

    3. Re:Yah, we're being careful, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But using humans works great for anti-american PR.

  127. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should close all churches/mosques/temples, jail their priests/preachers/mullahs/rebbes and live lives based on reality, rather than religious bullshit.

  128. horrible for freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you cant preserve freedom by taking it away from others.

    1. Re:horrible for freedom by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Funny how much freedom was preserved once we took away the freedom of the Nazis.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:horrible for freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to steal someone else's credit...

  129. Re:Heh by leonbev · · Score: 1

    Yeah, by the time this war is over, they'll have to rename the country to "Stan". Why? Because there won't be any Afgans left! :)

  130. Again that old same story about humanitarian "aid" by burbilog · · Score: 1
    The attack is on Taliban targets, trying to kill as few ordinary Afghan people as possible; and it will be combined with food and medical aid for the ordinary Afghan people.


    Yep, like you did in Yugoslavia, bombing civillian targets and leaving all tanks and troops intact. And then finally you will crush remains of their economy with your free food, worsening overall condition. Nobody can compete with freebees. Exactly what I told: second intent is to send wave of refugees into former Soviet republics.

  131. What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Jesus, I hope this is bullshit, but I just heard on CNN the Taliban is forcing 13-year olds to fight and is redirecting refugees into combat areas. What the hell is worth all this? Why would a human being do something like that? It makes no sense! Surely they realize they're alienate and enrage their own people!

    How can anyone be so far removed from a sense of respect for human life?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by Dstrct0 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but I'm pretty confident that it is 90% propaganda. From everything I have heard/seen about how the press is being used in this conflict, there is nobody actually there, they are just fed whatever the Pentagon tells them, and they report that.

      Feels way too much like 1984 to me....

      --
      Build boards not bombs
    2. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by tcc · · Score: 2

      >Jesus, I hope this is bullshit, but I just heard on CNN the Taliban is forcing 13-year olds to fight and is redirecting refugees into combat areas. What the hell is worth all this? Why would a human being do something like that? It makes no sense! Surely they realize they're alienate and enrage their own people!

      Wake up, what human being would use a plane and slam it in a building? Logic isn't the point here, you've been educated with different method and values than they have had.. for them, violence fighting and hating without knowing even why in some cases, is their base like yours are tolerance, thinking about the other and caring.

      While I hate violence in real world, I don't think the americans had a choice. Besides, it's not like if the talibans didn't have time to consider what would happen if they wouldn't give that Laden fanatic to propper authorities.

      --
      --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    3. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Jesus, I hope this is bullshit, but I just heard on CNN the Taliban is forcing 13-year olds to fight and is redirecting refugees into combat areas. What the hell is worth all this?

      In that part of the world, a 13 year old is counted as a mature adult, capable of making their own decisions. From the locals' perspective, it's no different from the West sending 18 year olds into battle.

      They may look like children, but as the Soviet Empire discovered to their cost, a mujehedin "child" is a deadly fighter in the mountains.

    4. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by FFFish · · Score: 2

      The Taliban is a large group of young men who were orphaned at a very young age, during the fight against Russia.

      They were raised in violent circumstances, and only the ruthless survived. Those who were not willing to kill for food, clothing, and shelter, died. They raised themselves, and did so by the law of the wild: eat or be eaten.

      Those that survived were then scooped up by Pakistani fundamentalists. They were provided food, shelter, and education -- an education that was exclusively religious, and fundamentalist at that.

      These feral young men were then sent back into Afghanistan, where they quickly gained dominance through their ruthless slaughter of everyone who opposed their fundamentalist demands.

      These people are far removed from humanity due to the nature of their upbringing. They were raised in conditions we don't subject even domestic animals to, were educated with lies, and released as a pack to go wild and savage.

      The question I want an answer to is: how could that be allowed to happen? Surely someone knew what was happening -- why didn't we intervene to stop what was otherwise inevitable?!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    5. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by Mad+Browser · · Score: 2

      In a country where the average lifespan is 46 years, 13 is middle age!

      --
      RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
    6. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by kruczkowski · · Score: 2

      >The question I want an answer to is: how could that be allowed to happen? Surely someone knew what was happening -- why didn't we intervene to stop what was otherwise inevitable?!

      What about in places in Africa? People know what is going on, they just don't care until it hits them. I think more money should be sent to organizations like the one in the book and game "Rainbow Six" and intel gathering so that these heartless tribes could be brought down.

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    7. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your isolation from reality is showing.
      That is how it is in the third world.
      13 is old enough to have lived, and old
      enough to die.

    8. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by ectoraige · · Score: 1

      The question I want an answer to is: how could that be allowed to happen? Surely someone knew what was happening -- why didn't we intervene
      to stop what was otherwise inevitable?!

      Because nobody gave a damn. It wasn't important, therefore it wasn't happening. U.S. news coverage of international events has died down to mere dribbles in the last twenty years. According to media commentators, this is because ratings usually drop off during international pieces.

      As the man once said, "Go back to sleep, America, your gevernment is in control. Here, watch American Gladiators! You are safe."

      --
      Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
    9. Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by base2op · · Score: 1

      Time to get flamed.

      Well, under Islam one is considered an adult at the age of 13. When reading news in coming weeks try to keep cultural differences in mind.

  132. Guilty Until Provent Innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is Osama bin Laden?

  133. Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by JhAgA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hi all !

    I hate having to watch these kind of news poorly translated by local televisions. Please, could anyone post some URL's where we can watch live broadcasted news coverage from TV (such as American or British tv's).

    Thank you very much.

    1. Re:Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by drnomad · · Score: 1

      Live TV from all over the world can be found here: WWITV, I used it to watch Pakistan TV!!!

      --
      Bizar technology?
    2. Re:Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      Live at http://news.bbc.co.uk/

    3. Re:Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by danipell · · Score: 1

      wwitv.com lots of tv stations listed there.

    4. Re:Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.aljazeera.net
      Its where all the channels are gettting there info. Its the 'CNN'(used to refer to its respect rather than the garbage CNN spits out) of the middle east and only station broadcasting from inside there. On the site they have a live broadcast feed.

  134. Re: America will never learn by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

    "It's important to not only let other people air their views..." Ummm, they aired their "views" when they attacked us, and they've been doing it constantly in the month since. When someone's views call for your destruction, the killing of your own innocent civilians wherever they can, and they've made good on those threats in the past, how much more should we listen to them?

    "...but to listen and respond in kind" I'd say we've now responded in kind, at least a little bit.

    I simply ask this question - if a (massive) pre-emptive military strike could have prevented Sept. 11, and you were President, would you have hesitated even for a split second to give the order?

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  135. Re:ALL MUSLIMS ARE WARLIKE AND ARE OUR ENEMIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, silly me. And I thought the Old Testament was such a peace-ridden little book, too.

  136. Re:War... (OT) by mahmud · · Score: 1

    Where was this from?

  137. !realistic by Noctavis · · Score: 1

    A position without intelligence; it is simply far too unrealistic and invents an uberstrict morality which cannot function within this universe.

    Death is the natural result of a number of things... war only being the most obvious. Budget cuts. HMO policies. Vehicles. I hope you don't have a driver's license and a car, or else you're being a hypocrite!

    You name it, death can result from all sorts of policies and actions by government or other groups. Death happens. To mandate zero casualties as a consequence of anything we do will simply paralyze us.

    Go ahead and be paralyzed if you desire. Might as well lie down and die. In the mean time, the Armed Forces are protecting you, your way of life (even though you object to and likely hate them) and even your freedom to spout such rediculous and unrealistic ideas which completely ignore the facts of the matter and the gaping differences in intent and action between "us" and "them".

    - Noctavis
    nospam@noctavis.com

    SGT, Combat Nurse, US Army

    --

    -Noctavis

  138. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that, the Danes are idiots? Like we didn't know that already.

  139. Screw the UN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what you can do for your UN:

    Screw the UN!

  140. question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now why would you include -r into the arguments? For starters, Osama is a single person and thus excluding -r would produce the same results. A comparison could be made with a _group_ of people and a subdirectory maybe. However Osama is a single person and should be treated like a file. Now rm won't complain, but why recursive??

    And secondly, how many subdirectories does one usually find in /bin anyway? About zero IIRC.. I don't know, it's just that including -r seems like a waste of clock cycles to me.

    how about 'rm -f /bin/laden' ?

  141. West if attacked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they said they will declare a Jihad if the west attacked them.
    of course your are going to consider it war if you get bombed and attacked.

  142. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US targets are not innocent people, unlike the
    targets chosen by al Qaeda.

  143. O shit by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 0

    All I am hearing is UK forces involved in this that and the other on the news reports. Well, seems we are in the front line more than the US.

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  144. Osama on CNN by Joe_Pineapples · · Score: 0

    There he is ! Right now, live ! I wish theyd get a better translation, any links yet?

  145. They have no chance to survive make their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AL QAEDA ARE BELONG TO US!

    Launch every zig for Infinite Justice.

  146. Re:Germany by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    "And we were no better than Germany when innocent civilians were killed by American bombing."

    What about the innocent Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Serbians, Croats, French, Christan Scientists, Danes, Dutch that were overrun, killed, raped, gased and tortured by the Germans when the Allies did none of that?

    The bombing of Germany and Japan is a bad comparison for "whos better".

    Did the US or Commonwealth forces slaughter 70,000 people when they took Rome or Vienna like the Japanese did at Nanking?

    No.

    Did the US or Commonwealth gas 6,000,000 Germans at any point?

    No.

    Did the Germans bomb, burn, rape and murder a vast path across Africa and Europe?

    Yes.

    Did the Allies carpet bomb German and Japanese cites to slow down German and Japense industrial production, which by 1943 had been dispersed to homes and small businesses?

    Yes.

    Was that bombing needed?

    It can be argued that it was, and that those bombings lead to a quicker end of the war and while it killed many, many Germans and Japanese, it saved many, many other people.

  147. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a moron. The US was attacked. The only way to fight force is with force. You cannot use reason to fight force. If someone has the irrational beleif that they will go to paradise and be served by 50 virgins for flying a plane into a building full of people, that cannot be countered using reason.

  148. It's a phony: prerecorded tape in daylight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a prerecorded tape given to the Arab networks. It happens to be pitch black in Afghanistan at the moment and this phony tape shows it as being broad daylight. It certainly isn't "live".

  149. Live CBC feed..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cbcradio3.com/ram/cbctvlive.ram
    http://www.cbcradio3.com/ram/cbctvlive2.ram
    http://www.cbcradio3.com/ram/cbctvlive3.ram

  150. You call down the lightning by SirPsychoSexyMD · · Score: 0

    Now face the thunder!

  151. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry im married and have paid off my mortgage. but whatever. the US is simply fighting as a PR stunt by dropping long range weapons on obsolete hardware which the taliban havent touched for years. grow up.

  152. Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by pHaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thought Blair's speech was excellent. Interesting that he mentioned that 90% of the UK's herion comes from Afghanistan. There's a theorey that when the cold war ended and the USA was buying back stinger missiles from the Mujahideen fighters for $200k a piece, they were inadvertently funding the world drug trade.

    1. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by elmegil · · Score: 2

      How can 90% of the world's heroin come from Afghanistan when the Taliban officially declared growing opium poppies sinful a year ago, and their cultivation was stopped dead in its tracks?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Just so you don't think I'm on opium myself.... http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n904/a07.html

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by BenHmm · · Score: 2

      >How can 90% of the world's heroin come from
      >Afghanistan when the Taliban officially >declared growing opium poppies sinful a year
      >ago, and their cultivation was stopped dead in
      >its tracks?


      You're not going to like this. The Taliban declared opium growing sinful for two reasons. Firstly, the price of opium was going down, and they needed to fix the market. Secondly, the ban was a condition of $43million of aid given by the US, in a war-on-drugs initiative. Sadly, there is the little-mentioned fact that the War-on-Drugs, in some small way, helped fund what resulted in a War-on-Terrorism. oh, and if you want to see a picture of an Afghan drugdealer with a kilo of hash he was about to try to sell me, have a look at picture number 8 here

    4. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

      And when the US tried to correct that error, they supported a government Bush equates with the Nazis in the name of the drug war. (google)

    5. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by victim · · Score: 2

      And if you don't permit web sites to execute code on your computer, or are using Netscape 4 on linux and his javascript doesn't work...
      http://www.benhammersley.com/peshawar/man%20with%2 0hash.jpg

    6. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Most of the opium coming from Afghanistan these days comes from the opposition-controlled areas. Yes, the same opposition the US now wants to support in its fight against the Taliban.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    7. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, our "allies" the Northern Alliance. Sorry, don't feel like combing thru NYTimes or CNN or Washingtonpost for links.

    8. Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Ah, so the self serving BS about the Taliban being funded by drugs is just that. What a surprise.

      When is our government going to wake up and realize that lying is what gets you into these situations?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  153. want an end to war, or just terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone wants to see the end of terrorism. Why dont people want an end to war ?

    Wars kill more innocent civilians than terrorists.

    HYPOCRITS
    Captain Ahab has to hunt his whale

    1. Re:want an end to war, or just terrorism ? by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

      People must be held accountable for the actions of the states (nations, large political bodies) they live in. Even if they did not personally send the message or set up the organization, they are still part of that organization. Just as we in America must all be held accountable for the actions of our leaders.

      True innocence is very hard to come by.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  154. "noone will feel safe in America" by Joe_Pineapples · · Score: 0

    Thats direct.

  155. the first victim of any war by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    is the truth.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    1. Re:the first victim of any war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is innocence!!

  156. Imminent nuclear attack on the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but the Soviet Union was missing a bunch of suitcase nuclear bombs at the time of their dissolution. Also, they made plenty of them and some former Soviet agents are selling these bombs on the military black market. Who wants these weapons more than anyone else? Terrorists. How easy is it to use one of these on the U.S.? Pretty damn easy. The blast radius of a nuclear bomb is 40 miles. So, some country can take a ship off the coast of a coastal city and detonate the bomb while they're still in the water and take out the city (think New York). Also, they could take a ship off the coast of the country, and use something like one of those small subs that you see in James Bond movies to bring the bomb to the coast, and then get picked up by friends. They could do this off the coast of Canada then drive into the U.S. Once in the U.S., they can drive to any city and blow it up. Don't think that this won't happen, IT WILL. Good bye, guys!

  157. Literacy rate by luckykaa · · Score: 1

    Some speculation: How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read?

    According to the CIA factbook: 31.5% total, 47.2% male, 15% female (estimate).

  158. Taped Television Speeh by Wire+Tap · · Score: 1

    CNN just aired a broatcast that was taped earlier (it was daylight in the broadcast) of bim Laden giving an address to the people of Afghanistan. According to the translation, "American is full of fear" and we can not expect safety until bin Laden, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are satisfied.

    Mr. Laden better be sure his covered his tracks when he gave that little speech.

    --

    Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

  159. hatred will consume you by SirPsychoSexyMD · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It will only be yourself who will suffer if you give in to hate. Don't give in to the dark side.

  160. So how many.... by MuddyFunster · · Score: 1

    ..of you would sign and put your lives on the line if it was requested?

    1. Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      ..of you would sign and put your lives on the line if it was requested?

      If my country was invaded, I'd put my life on the line to defend it, but I'm not going to travel halfway across the world to risk my life to further the goals of a government which is hell-bent on taking away my rights anyway.

    2. Re:So how many.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should get a few of the boys together and burn down the local mosque. That would be a good start.

    3. Re:So how many.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, your country was invaded.
      thousands of your countrymen were killed.

    4. Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      um, your country was invaded.
      thousands of your countrymen were killed.

      My country was not invaded, it was the victim of a criminal attack by an independant group. It was not invaded by a sovereign nation.

    5. Re:So how many.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      So what about when the next "criminal attack" destroys the building you work at?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      So what about when the next "criminal attack" destroys the building you work at?

      Then that'll be another criminal attack, but still not an act of war. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishing those responsible for the recent attacks and doing everything we can to prevent this from happening again, up to and including punishing those governments that harbored the terrorrists.

      But say, for example, that a few extremist members of the "Moral Majority" decided to blow up a couple of buildings in some country halfway around the world... do you think it would be justified for the rest of the world to go on a bombing spree in the US?

    7. Re:So how many.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I assume that our government would turn those SOB's over to whatever country their crime was in(hopefully one where they chop off body parts). If, however, those criminals were close friends of the government, and they sat on their hands even when their guilt was clear, that country would be right to hold the U.S. government responsible, just as we hold the Taliban responsible for what their "guest" has done.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  161. Taliban burned real dogs ALIVE last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Taliban had an anti-American rally last week and they took 3 living dogs, painted the name of Blair, Bush, and some other fellow on these dogs, tied them to a stake, doused the dogs in gasoline, set them on fire and danced around clapping their hands.

    It is clear that these Islamic pigs are not human. No normal human would torture animals like that. Never.

  162. What is going on? by bluemilker · · Score: 2, Troll

    I am more scared than I have been any day since the bombing occured. I'm sitting here in my manhattan apartment, and I just heard on the radio that the pentagon has predicted a close to 100% chance of terrorist response, and no one _cares_. No one even seems to think this bombing is a big deal. My mother just contacted me, crying, because she doesn't think she wants to use the subway system today. And all I can think is... to what extent can I continue living my everyday life when the U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a human shield?

    Maybe I'm overreacting. If so, I'm sorry. I don't mean to incite flames.

    1. Re:What is going on? by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
      I understand your concern. I can't for the life of me figure out who the hell moderated your comment as "Funny"...Damn, I wish I could Metamoderate right now.

      I've been worried about even things as unlikely as more attacks on busses, trucks, and other things. The bastards could start messing with our freeways, cities' downtown areas, rail system, you name it. It all depends on their numbers, amongst the kamikaze types.

      We all have to watch our back, and hope that the .gov talking heads are actually on top of our national security. If not, then God Help U.S.!

      --
      db
      Cig:
      ôô
      /`
    2. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way, the common sense way to protect yourself is to use your own personal racial profiling - if it looks like a muslim, walks like a muslim, and smells like a muslim - it's a muslim. When you are out and about, keep your eyes on these characters and be prepared to intervene personally should they try anything suspicious.

    3. Re:What is going on? by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

      U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a human shield

      Okay, this makes no sense at all.

    4. Re:What is going on? by Bjarke+Roune · · Score: 1

      Do you seriopusly think the US would face LESS terrorist attacks if the US just said "oh well, you killed thousands of our citizens, but don't worry, we forgive you!"

      How many governments do you think will be willing to aid terrorists as the Taliban has done, after this?

      Be glad you have a government that actually takes rational action to keep you safe, even when you don't seem to want them to.

      --
      Bjarke Roune
    5. Re:What is going on? by IvyMike · · Score: 2

      to what extent can I continue living my everyday life
      when the U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a
      human shield?


      You were not safe before the U.S. response. Bin Laden's dream is to destroy the U.S.; he's got a long way to go, and certainly has more attacks planned.


      What do you prefer: Letting bin Laden continue to plan and orchestrate more attacks in the future, or trying our best to stop him? What is the best way to ensure September 11th won't happen again?


    6. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the events of Sept. 11 made New Yorks just that much more insufferable. Your note is proof.

    7. Re:What is going on? by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      how are we human shields? bin laden has proved already that he doesnt care who he kills, as long as it they from the US. Citizens, military, diplomats...it doesnt matter to him. the only way we can defend ourselves at this point is removing his ability to strike.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    8. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the common sense way to protect yourself is to use your own personal racial profiling


      It's sad that something like that is really true, in times like this though it is not all that hard to believe. I have found myself doing that, judging and keeping an eye on people that look like they are from the Middle East. When I look at someone whom I think looks like a Muslim, I wonder, "does s/he hate me? Is he waiting for his phone call from Bin-ladin (sp?) ot set off his bomb... is he happy about what happens... does he know I am looking at him different... does he hate me..."
      I would have never thought I would think about a person in that way just because they came from another country.
      It's very sad. My shield of American indifference is so easily shattered.
    9. Re:What is going on? by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      I am more scared than I have been any day since the bombing occured. I'm sitting here in my manhattan apartment, and I just heard on the radio that the pentagon has predicted a close to 100% chance of terrorist response, and no one _cares_. No one even seems to think this bombing is a big deal. My mother just contacted me, crying, because she doesn't think she wants to use the subway system today. And all I can think is... to what extent can I continue living my everyday life when the U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a human shield?

      Maybe I'm overreacting. If so, I'm sorry. I don't mean to incite flames.


      Maybe you're overreacting, maybe not. Maybe you -like most other americans- are still trying to cope with the fact that for the first time since very long ago a war is waged on american soil. In the past decades US soldiers have fought all over the world. Soldiers died for many causes. But they very seldomly died on US soil.

      But this is actually a part of being at war. You asked for it, you get it. Just ask any Israeli, european WWII veteran or someone else from a country that does not have a decade-long history of "homeland peace".

      It will be a terrifying realization one for the american public, that wars can cause civil population ON THE US SIDE as well. But it will most likely be a cleansing one. This can and will most certainly "redirect" the nation.
      --
      +++ath0
    10. Re:What is going on? by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      I just heard on the radio that the pentagon has predicted a close to 100% chance of terrorist response, and no one _cares_.

      Similar reports have said there is essentially a 100% chance of future attacks on American soil by members of al-Qaeda if nothing was done to oppose them. All that changes is the timing and organization of those attacks. Terrorist cells will make further attacks but if they rush to respond hopefully more of them will trip up and be caught.

      Ulitmately the stated reason for this war is to take away the support that makes terrorism on the US possible. IF we can make terrorism less feasible and less frequent then we will have accomplished something worthwhile, even if it means facing a greater threat in the immediate future.

    11. Re:What is going on? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Calm down, get a grip, and go on with your life.

      We're all in this together. That's why it's a war.

      If we don't do this, then you are in far more danger, because they will grow in number and boldness.

      You are no more in danger now than you were yesterday, and because of this you will be in less danger next year.

      --Blair

    12. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can start by getting the local liberals to allow concealed carry. If somebody tries to start trouble, you can't always depend on a LEO being there to save your ass.

    13. Re:What is going on? by greenrd · · Score: 2
      If we don't do this, then you are in far more danger, because they will grow in number and boldness.

      It could be argued that if we do do this we are in far more danger, because they will recruit far more terrorists after what they portray as the "unjust" actions of the US in Afghanistan.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    14. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they haven't been doing this all this time? From what I have seen, Osama hates everything about the USA and its citizens. There are a lot of disaffected people in the middle east who think the way he does. If we took no action, what makes you think that we would be in any less danger?

    15. Re:What is going on? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      If they are not around to recruit, they won't.

      Our days of ignoring the problem and keeping our noses out of the Middle East and South Asia are over.

      It was a big, stupid mistake not going in the shed just because we *thought* the hornets were building a nest in there.

      We, and the rest of the world, are going to knock down the nest and kill the queen. No queen, no workers. And we're going to check the eaves every once in a while from now on to see that the next nest doesn't get so big.

      --Blair

  163. bomb the pentigon agian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly, we need to monkeywrench the army.
    protesting in the streets in nice, but it wont really do anything. laying down on the railroad tracks to stop an arms shipment, or calling in a bomb threat, or sitting on the runway to stop a plane. these are the ways to fight war.

    *disclaimer: civil disobedience is bad, dont do it. the only way to make change is to write your congressperson*

  164. good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kill em all.

    1. Re:good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly hope so.

  165. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is not attacking Islam. Only Islamic fundamentalists bend on western destruction. These people are the enemies of Islam as well as the US.

  166. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote Captain Edmund Blackadder: "A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered eighty thousand battle helmets with the horns on the inside."

  167. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't be so loud if you bump not couple in some of the 'burbs here in South Africa.
    They're people like you fool.
    Some good looking women in amongst "them" too so don't go limiting your chances.
    Here we've been down this road; you don't want to go there so grow up.

  168. Small fission bombs, not hydrogen thermonuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are a couple of small fission bombs that might take out a square mile at most. More like half a square mile. They are far less powerful than what was used on Hiroshima.

    1. Re:Small fission bombs, not hydrogen thermonuclear by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      Actually, a small tactical nuke would be, what, 5 kilotons? That would make a right fine mess of most cities. Still, the chances of a nuclear attack of that type is pretty small, even with the loose nukes supposedly floating around. Even the Soviets were not stupid enough to keep warheads and detonation codes in the same location. The KGB kept complete political control of the nuclear weapons codes. What good is a warhead if you can't convince it to detonate?

      I'd be more concerned about some totally committed soul running in to MacDonald's at noon on a Tuesday with 50lbs of TNT strapped to his back.

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    2. Re:Small fission bombs, not hydrogen thermonuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I saw on CNN was a KGB photograph of the Russian "suitcase" bomb. It was what could be called a minimal fission bomb. It consisted of a "gun barrel" about 25 cm in diamter, arranged diagonally in the suticase. The "barrel" was about 80 cm in length with the "target" at one end. It appeared that it worked by firing a wedge of fissionable material into the "target" to create a crude fission explosion. The bomb that was presented looked to be the minimum neeeded for combining fissionable material into a critical mass.

    3. Re:Small fission bombs, not hydrogen thermonuclear by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen that, but despite the "simplicity" of the design I guarantee you that the device is more sophisticated than a simple "pull the pin and run" mechanism. Regardless of that, the next question is shelf life. When did these weapons go missing? Are they being maintained? For that matter what kind of maintenace do they require? How long before there is enough decay in the fissile material to render it essentially inert? What about the high-explosives used to fire the bomb- what is thier shelf-life? What about the trigger for the HE itself? These things do not last forever.

      --
      "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    4. Re:Small fission bombs, not hydrogen thermonuclear by ckedge · · Score: 1


      Anyone know anything about US Nuclear deep-penetration weapons, the type that would have been designed to take out the Soviet version of Cheyene Mountain and Soviet missile silos/command centers?

      We could use a few of those real soon now to crumble those massive 2 mile long underground caves that Osama supposedly favours.

  169. Legitamacy of anger/hate by yfarren · · Score: 2

    I just wanted to say I think whoever modded this down is being silly. It is not off-topic, and, if the claim is true, it isnt really flamebait, it is an expression of anger, pain, hate, whatnot.

    I think we miss the point that we are people. Many of the people in this forum are very liberal, and have a notion that all people are valuble. Good. Great. I applaud that sentiment. I think it is a mistake when you take the sentiment that all people are equal, and have it mean that everyone else is more eaqual than I am.

    If I had my brother killed in the twin towers, I think the sentiment of "lets kill the fuckers who did this" would be completely reasnoble. If somone kills your brother, anger, even crudely expressed anger is a wholly legitamate response. Let us not have our open-minded humanism trump our rights and expiriences. If somones brother was brutally murdered, let us not silece their rage. Rage is not wholly wrong. Anger is not wholly wrong. Why do I hear people defending the rights of the so called opressed groups to hate us, but when somone with a legitamate complaint expresses similar anger, that person is modded down as flamebait? Perhaps we woulnt wish to mod somone who expresses their anger in crude terms up, but why should they be modded down? I would hope that somone mod the above post up to at least 0, if not one or 2, as a legitimazation of the expression of rage.

    1. Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny thing is that on the non-US information sources (BBC, etc) that go into New York, there seems to be little appetite amongst those who lost people for revenge. That's mostly among the people outside NY - in the midwest and West Coast.

      US sources, OTOH, barely seem to be talking to the New Yorkers affected. CNN, in particular, quickly abandoned coverage of the victims in favour of beating the drums of war (and marketshare).

    2. Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by tempestdata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason we do not have blanket hatred towards those who have commited crimes against us, is quite simple. If we were to not care about their civilians, we would in fact, be as bad as them. And by becoming as savage and brutal as them, we would end up justifying the very action we feel was so unjustifiable!

      --
      - Tempestdata
    3. Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by ariux · · Score: 1

      Remember this:

      Rage is bad because it makes us not think; and when we do not think, we fail.

    4. Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by PieceMaker · · Score: 1

      So your point is that the US should make decisions on whether to attack Afganistan based on the desire for revenge amongst New Yorkers? Should they also consider the feelings of those in D.C.? What about the family members of those on board the 4 airplanes?

      Please don't forget that it was the United States that was attacked, not just New York. There is no single American opinion on how to respond to the attacks against us. You will be able to find strong backing for a military response everywhere, including N.Y. and D.C. Likewise, you will be able to find strong opinions against such a response in the same places.

      This is not a media war. It is a well-considered response to terrorist attacks on American soil.

  170. Re:Again that old same story about humanitarian "a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and your government wants to do nothing.

    The Yugoslav people are free to elect their leadership and push their future in any direction they want. Your government resisted doing *anything* the whole time we were ousting a modern Hitler.

    Now your govenment wants to passively stay on the sidelines while the West does the dirty work that will keep even your great nation safer from the crap that happened on Sept. 11 in NYC/WDC.

    Do something. Participate in the world's future or shut the hell up.

  171. Hey Tungz10.. This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We send them food because for starters, we've fed 2 million of them annually for years. The Taliban lies to its people, the same way the RIAA lies to artists and the MPAA lies to the public. They don't have freedom of speech that lets independant papers/etc tell them the truth, even it they CHOSE to hear it.

    The Afghani(?) people don't hate us particularly more than any person hates or envies a rich neighbor. We, at least in the sense of our military/defense goals, do NOT want to kill or make the lives worse for those not explicitly trying to kill us - that only increases the pool of angry people looking to "get even".

    Sort of like the trolls on slashdot. We don't like them, but it doesn't serve a purpose to antagonize them since it is so much easier to destroy than to produce. See Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

    What we do want to do is eliminate governments that are sponsoring or defending the sponsors of terrorism on our government people. We'll help other countries do the same if they ask, just as Britain, Germany and Uzbekistan, etc, are aiding us when we requested help.

    FYI, you can't stop a man willing to die for his cause, just or not. What you can do is let him die for it, hopefully minimizing the damage he does. Then go on with life as normal. If terrorist strikes don't have any effects OTHER than those direct (buildings fall down, etc) then the attack is a total failure.

    Killing innocent civilians is not a goal of any cult or regime, however repressive they may be. The goal is to put fear into the survivors that it could happen to them.

    People have put up American flags, not out of patriatism, but out of nationalism and xenophobia. That sort of mass hysteria leads to others putting the flag up out of fear. Having to raise the American flag out of fear for your life/property is UnAmerican.

    America is about the freedom to dissent. Whether religiously, politically, software licesningly, sexually or abortionally. We may not like all the options we have, we may feel offended that other people might even choose to exercise those options, bu HAVING that choice is what America is about.

    Those who would choose to restrict your choice to do things that affect no one other than those choosing to join you, are wrong. If you want to die your hair green, get 22 piercings, engage in group anal sex in a jello wrestling pit with other people I would term "wierdos", I'll think its disgusting, but so long as I don't have to participate in it or go out of my way to avoid it, I don't care enough to be willing to give up my own ability to engage in equally bizarre habits like using unknown audio codecs for music from unknown bands just to avoid the licensing terms being imposed on certain software.

    In short, attacking innocents bad, executing killers of innocents good, choice best.

  172. Grapes thrive in rotten soil. by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    So what does that mean?

    Apple trees produce good fruit for many years, but then they stop eventually. DOes this mean that a good man is only good for 20 years? Then we throw him/her to the fire?

    Or for that matter, what about the Oak tree? Acorns? It has no use other than a wood to build with (although at the time that was written, i'm sure oak wasn't nearly as prevalent as straw paddies with mud).

    You know they've almost proven that Pi contains nearly any message you want, if you look in the right spot. Funny, I'm waiting for them to find the bible.

    1. Re:Grapes thrive in rotten soil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow. You're fairly thick aren't you? Does it come naturally, or are you a Junior Troll?

      It means that you should look an at individual's actions not their words. It means that the overall results of an individual's actions are an indication of whether a person is good or bad.

      Take two aspirin and think about it ... slowly. I wouldn't want you to sprain anything.

  173. Soviet vs. US Afghanistan by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.


    It goes a step further than that. The Soviets were trying to impose an unpopular government on the Afghanistan people. Subduing the populas was just a part of this process.


    There are a lot of indicators that suggest the Taliban is not a popular governing body. They were a group of young fundamentalist revolutionaries, sponsored by Pakistan, who seized power from the Afghanistan government that was in place after the Soviets. They are good fighters - but poor civil leaders. Afghanistan is in ruins. Civil war hounds the Taliban. And there are further indications that some of the Taliban's own supporters will turn on them if they feel that they won't be fighting the Taliban alone.


    The US' goals, task, and environment in which it must work in is far different than that of the Soviet Union.

  174. Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by MrDalliard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks ColGraff, you are the first one (so far) to acknowledge that the US is *not* doing all this alone.

    Most of the US coverage so far that I've seen (including /.'s headline text) seems to largely neglect the fact that British troops are committed to this too.

    Here's a link to get us all started.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_15840 00 /1584763.stm

    I do not want to make Britain sound more important than it is. To be honest, in the grand scale of things, it isn't (speaking as a Brit who sees their country as on the decline). However, I think that the US's stance to everything would have been considerably different if Britain hadn't done the shuttle diplomacy between nearby countries, along with the supply of forces. Diplomacy should always come before loss of life.

    I personally do not agree with the action that is being taken. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and the majority of this action will only go towards running it into the ground even more. I think that financial support of the Northern alliance so that they can depose the Taliban would have been a much better option. We can't go in and just "make things right". Finally, is this a war against terrorism or a war against the Taliban ? If it's a war against Terrorism, then what about ETA, the IRA ? etc.. etc.. All of a sudden, Britain is in no place to criticise.

    ...and as we know, if you kill one militant fanatic, they have all the more reason to let another militant fanatic step in their shoes. You can use technology to monitor these things, but several guys sitting around a campfire discussing the matter is going to bypass all this technology. The operation needs to be a lot more close to the ground. Technology isn't going to win this. Ultimately, we need to help the Afghans sort this out in the right way for them.

    Thanks Colgraff. It's good to see someone who recognises the external support of other nations. Bush should not take that support for granted.

    Remember the Gulf War. The biggest loss of Allied life was British - by friendly fire.

    I'll leave you on that one.

    M.

  175. Re:The innocent will die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you stupid? We are at war. Our country has been attacked. Unlike our enemy, we attack military targets. Civilian casualties are inevitable. That does not make our actions wrong. We have the right to defend ourselves. If we do nothing, the terrorists will continue to escalate attacks until their objectives are met. Those objectives are the eradication of all non-Muslim countries.

  176. Re:Bastard! by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, if Duh-bya was stupid enough to send in the B-52s (about the only thing we can "carpet-bomb" with), the US losses _would_ be incredibly high. You forget, these guys kicked the ass of the Soviet Union at its strongest. The last conqueror to succeed in Afghanistan was Genghis Khan, and he basically killed everyone. All I've heard about so far is cruise missile attacks, which won't solve squat. The only thing that will get the Taliban out of power is putting ground troops in. Losses will be very high, and some of you Slashdotters will likely be drafted. Ready to go die?

  177. Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

    Ok, he is a terrorist and criminal but he makes a point when he says chidren in palestinia and iraq are dying and suffering.

    Of course, it is stupid to kill innocents for a good cause but I think solving the palestinian case would help sorting this mess out.

    Please, US people, stop supporting Sharon, he is worth Ben Laden.

    --
    Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
    1. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Peaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sharon did horrible things in the past, but is now governing with completely legitimate means. When Palestinians die, its almost always due to some anti-terror act, meant to prevent the next bombing of dozens of innocent people.
      Cease the one-sided view of Israeli policies, and start looking at both sides: What would you do if every day several innocent civilians are murdered by gunshot terrorism, bombing-terrorism, and you KNOW who is behind it, but the Palestinian authority does NOTHING about it?

    2. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1


      Sure he makes a good point. Ask yourself why they spend their money on weapons and not food? Shall we make guns or butter is the high school economics question.


      The amount of oil money flowing into the Middle East is unbeleivable. How much is being spent on the well being of the people?


      In an ironic way Bin Laden is correct that "we" are taking their wealth. First we give them money for oil. Next we give them old weapons for money. In the end we have their oil and they have our discarded weapons. Of course they wanted these weapons so they could fight their endless wars. And we wanted the oil. The deal was struck.


      Here's a question? Which country is the world's biggest supplier of land mines into Afghanistan? How many think it is immoral to supply weapons? How many think it is immoral to blow off children's feet? If the weapon "we" manufacture ends up killing or maiming someone - should we bear some responsibility?


      Maybe we should ask whether we should be willing to supply them with the tools of war. Afghanistan is a very poor country. The last I looked is that the Afghanis currancy traded $4750:1 (usd). That would place their currancy at about 1/50 of a penny. Given this - how is it that they can amass Hundreds of thousands in foreign currancy to support terrorist activities?


      The only answer I can think of is that there is a horrible misappropriation of their resources. Furthermore we accomodate them because we supply them. Its blood money all right. But its their people's blood and we look the other way.



    3. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sharon did horrible things in the past, but is now governing with completely legitimate means."

      So bin Laden should not be held responsible for the embassy bombings, or other past crimes then, since these things also happened 'in the past'? Sharon is responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians, and should not, NEVER ever, be forgiven.

      "When Palestinians die, its almost always due to some anti-terror act, meant to prevent the next bombing of dozens of innocent people."

      This argument is fucking depressing. Shooting children in the street is NOT preventing terrorism. It IS terrorism, and it spawns even MORE terrorism.

      "What would you do if every day several innocent civilians are murdered by gunshot terrorism, bombing-terrorism"

      This is EXACTLY what is happening to the Palestinians, EVERY DAY! Humiliation, murder, beatings, bombings, kidnappings, it goes on and on and on. You need to check out the fucking bodycount!!! On one side of this conflict there are children, armed with rocks, and a pitiful few dangerous fanatics, and on the other side the world's like 4th largest, and without a doubt most brutal, army, armed with the most terrible weapons imaginable. Who's the bigger terrorist, you think?

      Israel is a criminal state, with a criminal, racist, constitution. There is ONE way to peace in the Middle East, and that is to start over. Clean the slate. Make a new Israel, based on equal rights, for ALL. War will never ever bring peace. Repression won't either.

      //Martin Sahlin

    4. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is it that they can amass Hundreds of thousands in foreign currancy to support terrorist activities?

      Um, drug money? Afghanistan is the world's largest supplier of Opium/Heroin, via their massive poppy fields. They need hard currency, and farmers earn more with poppy fields than they do with wheat. Blair even mentioned it in his speech about their goals in attacking Afghanistan.

    5. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by ScottBob · · Score: 1

      The amount of oil money flowing into the Middle East is unbeleivable. How much is being spent on the well being of the people?

      Exactly nothing, and that's the whole point of this conflict. We buy their oil, it builds their economy, so they're supposed to have the highest standard of living on Earth, right?

      The only answer I can think of is that there is a horrible misappropriation of their resources. Furthermore we accomodate them because we supply them.

      Bingo. Instead of using oil money to build dams to supply water to fields to grow food crops, then building roads and railroads to deliver food to places where crops can't be grown (e.g. mountainous regions), thus building an infrastructure and build up an economy, the money is hoarded by religious fanatical warlords so they can build up their war machines. They keep their borders closed, and prevent their people from leaving to obtain food and water and freedom and wealth, because they might enter a region that will blaspheme their religion.

      In an ironic way Bin Laden is correct that "we" are taking their wealth. First we give them money for oil. Next we give them old weapons for money. In the end we have their oil and they have our discarded weapons. Of course they wanted these weapons so they could fight their endless wars. And we wanted the oil. The deal was struck.

      And the U.S.A. and its allies, probably jacked up the price of those weapons way beyond their worth, to keep them from amassing too many just in case some nut cases like the Taliban were to come in posession of them, thus plunging the world into a conflict as big as that with the Nazis.

      Remember, folks, all wars have a real estate motive, and religion is used to fuel the support of wars. Control of religion inside that real estate is the primary objective, whether it is to convert people to a certain religion (Crusades), eradicate believers of certain religions (Nazis vs. Jews, or Taliban vs. all but THEIR flavor of Islam), forbid religion altogether (Communism), or promote freedom to worship as you please so long as you don't bother others (U.S.A. and allies).

      Its blood money all right. But its their people's blood and we look the other way.

      It happened like this: The Stamp-Out-Religion force (Soviets) invaded a piece of neutral Real Estate (Afghanistan) in a continuing march of conquest. So the owners of the Real Estate called upon the Freedom-Of-Religion force (USA and allies) to drive out the Stamp-Out-Religion force. The Freedom-of-Religion force didn't rebuild the real estate, it was hoped that the owners of the real estate would do that, but instead, a Forced-Religion regime (Taliban, Bin L., et. al.) took over. It's just too bad that it took 12 years to discover that the weeds which sprouted in the cracks and crevices of the rubble left behind came to fruit and spread seeds, otherwise it could have been stopped at the roots.

    6. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones who cotrol the oil control the media. Sounds strange... but it's true. What you hear is pure lies...

      So you believe that a whole nation of people is 'evil'? And you can't blaim just the government since Israel is democratic. So I rather think that all the palestinians are 'evil' (they are not democratic, they are controlled by religion alone...) than that Israelis are 'evil' (they are very civilized, a leading country in the high-tech field, democratic)...

      And besides, you have never read the constitution, you've only heard stories... right?

      because, in fact, the constitution reads:
      "blahbalh... with full support and recognition of arab rights ... blahbalh"

    7. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Dufffader · · Score: 0

      True, true...

      I believe its a case of the US govt thinking since they're running the only superpower left, their views are always the best.

      There's no danger worst than pissing off a few hundred million Islamic fundamentalists.

      Since they exist almost in every country, is the US govt going to do a filtering job here?

    8. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US certainlt did it this time. Not only will they occupy Afghanistan to "help with the rebuilding" after the damage american bombers caused, they will also go into Pakistan when the civil war erupts. Quite a strategy....
      It's like Panama all over, only this time it's terrorism, not drugs

    9. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree here, with the amount of money bin laden has (300+ mill) if he truely cared about his country he would help it out much more than he already has. I also agree that america should rethink its middle east policies. Its obvious we have pissed someone off, but I dont think killing 5000 people was the proper way to deliver that message. Being that the twin towers was a civilan target.

    10. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      "Sharon did horrible things in the past, but is now governing with completely legitimate means."

      So bin Laden should not be held responsible for the embassy bombings, or other past crimes then, since these things also happened 'in the past'?

      What? I don't see how you could have misunderstood me so badly. Sharon is NOW using legitimate means, and in the past has done illegetimate things. Assisnating murderers which are NOT dealt with by those responsible (Arafat) and cannot otherwise be handled - is as legitimate as murdering civilians is illegitimate.

      Sharon is responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians, and should not, NEVER ever, be forgiven.
      What?? Sharon is directly responsible for the murder of dozens. He is accused of being indirectly responsible for not preventing the murder of thousands. That's not quite the same as murder, definitely not the same as proven murder. As a comparison, the secretary of the UN Kofi Annan is responsible for not preventing the murder of many thousands in Africa, yet nobody gives much of a damn.

      This argument is fucking depressing. Shooting children in the street is NOT preventing terrorism. It IS terrorism, and it spawns even MORE terrorism.
      Children are rarely harmed, and when they are, its an unfortunate incident, that is inevitable when the only means you have is elimination of terrorists. This means that if other means could be applied, children wouldn't have to be harmed. Those other means are arrest and otherwise disabling the terrorists' ability. Unfortuantly, only arafat can do this, and he is not doing this, indirectly causing children to be harmed.

      "What would you do if every day several innocent civilians are murdered by gunshot terrorism, bombing-terrorism"

      This is EXACTLY what is happening to the Palestinians, EVERY DAY!
      No, it is exactly what happens to Israelis, every day. Palestinians who get killed are terrorists, or innocent civilians terrorists hide behind.

      Humiliation, murder, beatings, bombings, kidnappings, it goes on and on and on.
      Some Israeli soldiers are downright evil to Palestinians, and should be placed in jail: they humiliate and beat Palestinians. However, bombings, kidnappings, and 'murder' are methods applied against terrorists and terrorist senders, as Israel has NO other means against them, as they have Arafat's support.
      Another incident in which Palestinians get killed, is when they form large mob-assaults on Israeli soldiers. This is not a smart move and achieves nothing, as often the soldiers are pushed to a corner and have to shoot back.

      You need to check out the fucking bodycount!!! On one side of this conflict there are children, armed with rocks, and a pitiful few dangerous fanatics, and on the other side the world's like 4th largest, and without a doubt most brutal, army, armed with the most terrible weapons imaginable. Who's the bigger terrorist, you think?
      The fucking bodycount is explainable and normal, when considering the nature of the mob attacks and the way terrorists hide in civilian locations, endangering their surroundings. Its also the fact that at least 4 large organized networks of terror are operating in order to form large terror strikes - and Israel is acting against them all: obviously resulting in many killed. If their terror fails and they kill few civilians - that's a good thing.

      Israel is a criminal state, with a criminal, racist, constitution.
      That's a funny claim, as Israel does not have a constitution. Israel does have base laws which are somewhat analogous to constitutional laws. The set of base laws in Israel is one of the most humane and Democratic set in the world.

      There is ONE way to peace in the Middle East, and that is to start over. Clean the slate. Make a new Israel, based on equal rights, for ALL.
      This means coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians, which was proven impossible, over and over.

      War will never ever bring peace. Repression won't either.
      This is why Israel wants to negotiate. Did you ever read what Israel is willing to give the Palestinians in Camp David? The Palestinians refused with no compromise of their own, and started the Intifada instead!

      Get your facts straight.

    11. Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      because, in fact, the constitution reads:
      "blahbalh... with full support and recognition of arab rights ... blahbalh"
      That's not the constitution, that's the declaration of independence, as well as some of the base laws that are somewhat analogous to a constitution.

  178. Me first! by slashdoter · · Score: 1

    I really want to water ski on Lake Afghanistan, Now lets check out priceline.......

    --
    Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
  179. It isn't propaganda by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Man, these people think of us as the Great Satan, okay? They want you dead. They want me dead. They want pretty much everyone posting to /. right now, dead. Finally, they want pretty much all Americans dead. I don't care what whacked-our reason they had for the attacks - they killed unarmed civilians by the thousands, and that is all that matters.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  180. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI has things under more control than they are letting onto. Just heard an FBI guy on the radio. NYC has the highest security in the world right now. IF anything happens it would more likely happen on the west coast.

  181. There goes the media again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Covering something to death. Bush's speech was enough.

    It's Sunday. I wanted to watch football.

    What the hell man?

  182. Who is in terror? by JerryKnight · · Score: 1

    It has been reported that bin laden never stays in one location more than a few days. He takes every precaution not to be found, because he knows as soon as we find him, he's toast.

    You tell me who's afraid.

    --

    Catapultam habeo. Nisi omnem pecuniam tuam mihi dabis, ad tuum caput saxum immane mittam.
    1. Re:Who is in terror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd shit your pants if he decided to knock on your door one night looking for a place to stay.. I think it'd be safe to say you'd be more scared then he would. What would you do? Drag him down to your local police station? Before or after he slit your throat? How many people have you killed? How many has he killed? There is little question who is afraid, you are.

    2. Re:Who is in terror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am.
      And who cares-he looks tired and even a little unsure. he spouts crap backed by that castro,
      che guevara wannabe that spoke first-even his own family(supposedly) hates the guy.
      He is a pitiful human being. Killing him would probably be merciful.

    3. Re:Who is in terror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and do you think for one minute that killing bin Laden will stop terrorism?

      get real. It will fuel their fire.

    4. Re:Who is in terror? by Dufffader · · Score: 0

      I bet he's got a few clones moving around all the different caves/hiding spot in Afghanistan too. Everyone there has a beard and look like OBL.

      About the same as why almost every Iraqi looks like Saddam.

    5. Re:Who is in terror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mideat Wars: The Revenge of the Clones!!!

  183. you dont really want him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you wanted them to hand over bin laden you would have shown them the evidence.

    If they DID hand over bin laden, then you would have to think up a new reason to attack them, or else how could you bloodthirsty people get revenge.
    They hurt you, now you have to hurt them

    1. Re:you dont really want him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with that? Let's slaughter the motherfuckers.

    2. Re:you dont really want him by Kahlua · · Score: 1

      If you wanted them to hand over bin laden you would have shown them the evidence.

      I know you're a troll, but this shows a common misunderstanding of national security intelligence concerns that needs to be addressed. The Taliban are in league with the enemy. Showing them "evidence" would reveal how and where and when we are watching them and their allies conduct terrorist activities, which would give our enemies a heads up on how to avoid detection and cover their tracks. It's not like the Taliban are neutral.

    3. Re:you dont really want him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did show them the evidence you pile of shit.

      Damn sandniggers....
      Hey what is white and sits on a pile of shit?
      A terban..

    4. Re:you dont really want him by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      If you wanted them to hand over bin laden you would have shown them the evidence.

      Been watching TV today?

      It is now clear that the Taliban needed no evidence. There is very little doubt that they knew what happened. (from some sceenes on CNN) And at the very least they now openly approve of it, and shelter the guy responsible. They can't now say they need evidence of his guilt.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:you dont really want him by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1
      Read any history? Remember the embassy bombings a few years back? Remember the US's diplomatic efforts to extradite Bin Laden from Afghanistan after that?

      I see no reason to believe that the Taliban ever had any intent of doing anything except stalling for time after the 9/11 attacks. Their duplicity is obvious from their statements since 9/11 -- on one hand they say that they have him under constant attention and know that there is absolutely no way he could have been involved, on the other hand they lose him for days at a time.

      See also: UK's summary of public evidence

      Mind you--despite the media, the position of NATO et all was not that Bin Laden be handed over, but the entirity of the known Al Qaida network. While the Taliban continue to characterize US demands in regard only to Bin Laden, this does not accurately reflect the actual demands the US has made. So you're right when you say that handing over Bin Laden wouldn't have been enough--that was something that was clearly stated weeks ago.

      As far as attacking the Taliban, I have claimed since before 9/11 that America might have a duty to displace the Taliban. If the Taliban treated members of some race the way they treat women, the world would have been at war with them long ago. So I will grant that I will shed no tears over their loss of power in Afghanistan. But I will shed a tear for every innocent life lost, here or there.

      If I'm walking alone in a deserted area at night, and I come across a man forcibly assaulting and raping a woman in such a way as to probably kill her, and I feel I have the power to intervene, I can't imagine being ever to sleep if I didn't step in and try to save her life.

      It is shocking to me that intervention is so obviously right in this case, yet so wrong when we multiply it by the millions of oppressed women and religious minorities in Afghanistan.

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    6. Re:you dont really want him by cburley · · Score: 1
      It is shocking to me that intervention is so obviously right in this case, yet so wrong when we multiply it by the millions of oppressed women and religious minorities in Afghanistan.

      In case you're interested, here are my opinions.

      Pretty much all the "logic" used to explain why "we" (the West, the US, Bush) shouldn't attack, shouldn't risk killing any innocents, and so on, is based, as far as I can tell, on a misplaced sense of justice and fairness.

      In our comfortable societies, we can afford to pursue certain levels of justice and fairness because we have the infrastructure to do so without taking significant risks ourselves.

      As an example, many say we are wrong to not show our "evidence" to the Taliban.

      For the most part, these people somehow think this whole episode is being carried out in a court of law -- US law, for example -- in which a prosecutor is required to share any and all evidence with the defendent's legal team before the trial starts.

      What they're missing is the fact that there's no court of law here that can stop the serious, deadly effects of sharing such evidence. They might see the situation more logically if, e.g., a defendant, married to their own sister, had killed their mother (the defendant's mother-in-law), the evidence proving this came secretly from their sister (the defendant's wife -- putting aside marital issues here), the nature of the evidence itself would immediately identify the sister as its source, and the defendant, exercising his free-speech and defense rights, could easily direct anonymous minions to kill his wife (the sister).

      In a case like that, the courts might reasonably choose to agree with the prosecutor that the evidence cannot be shared with the defense, especially if letting the defendant go free meant that it was likely other innocents would be killed by him.

      Here, we have no courts that can make those decisions and enforce them reasonably -- no police force that can restrain bin Laden, the US, the Taliban, etc. from taking immediate violent action, and, most importantly, no courts that are even remotely respected by both parties.

      In that case, it's indeed true that the "winner" of the case will be the one that wins the violent clash. "Might makes right", not exactly, but it's rarely completely embraced as a principle that the exercise of might necessarily makes the party less "right" than the target. (Consider the collection of taxes by the threat of force, which most supposedly peace-loving people support wholeheartedly.)

      There are other similar confusions in discussing these issues, sharing fundamental mistakes, such as treating abstractions (such as governments) as concrete (such as people), comparing morality based on acts without regard to intents and/or alternatives to those acts, and so on.

      Note that I took your statement to read "it is strange how some people regard the right of the Taliban to not be oppressed as vastly greater than the right of its people, e.g. women, to not be oppressed by it".

      If you instead meant "why didn't the world attack the Taliban before, for its treatment of its people", I suggest that the fundamental answer is that the rest of the world isn't responsible for the women of Afghanistan to nearly the degree the men of Afghanistan are (and, in a gender-neutral sense, they're less responsible than the women themselves).

      After all, by "the world" you really mean certain militaries operating on behalf of their governments, and their duties are to protect their respective nations and peoples. Everything else they do flows from this fundamental objective.

      Not invading Afghanistan to liberate its women might, in that sense, be a miscalculation on various levels (including the moral dimension), but not nearly as crucial a misstep as failing to defend one's own nation -- the fundamental, original purpose of any government, one which also need not take much regarding morality into account.

      If you subtract out the governments and militaries, you'll find that there was, in fact, a sort of "intervention" being conducted to liberate Afghan women, by ordinary citizens of the world as a whole. As individuals, they might well put moral issues ahead of defending their nations, their families, even themselves, and individuals always have the right to do that as they see fit, regardless of what governments and militaries do.

      So, for whatever reasons, the US and the West generally having seen 09-11 as an attack requiring some sort of military response, it is not peculiar to me, at all, that they'd respond militarily to a degree well beyond how they responded to learning of the plight of Afghan women.

      While the military men put their lives on the line to keep most of us safe and comfy, we can do our job by more carefully understanding the roles we, our societies, our militaries, and our governments play, vis-a-vis others, and thus, perhaps, conduct ourselves so that military action is, in the future, less likely, personal freedom, on the whole, more widely and deeply available.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  184. my god... this is awful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is sickening.

    after reading stuff like this, you wonder if the USA doesn't deserve being punished. I'm not talking about WTC crashings or bombings or such, but how about an embargo from asian countries onto the USA. It's never going to happen offcourse, since they are way to dependent on US dollars, but I really ope a day will come where US govt and military are trialed and scentenced for crimes of this kind.

    This is worse than murder.
    worse than terrorism.

    They'll probably deny it in posts below this one, just like taliban and bin laden deny involvment.

    they're no better. that the ones they're bombing right now.

  185. And in the days to come.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope you will remember this moment and that you later will realise how well your government played their part in the terrorists plan. This is the exact type of responce those people wanted. The first to suffer, in any war, are the civilists. The majority of the people left in Kabul now are the poor and the sick, and trust me, these are also the most religious. There is a good chance that the only effect of this bombing will be to increase the hatred towards usa that allready exists. And you thought it was unsafe to fly before..
    I can only hope that no harm will come to _anyone_ over this.
    Tonight I will light a second candle for all the innocent people who will not live to see the sun rise..

    -RevengeIsBitterSweet-

  186. All your al Qaeda are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pres. Bush: "All your al Qaeda are belong to us!"

  187. Thank You Mr. Nazi Lover... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The source of your diatribe is a perfect match for the low-life SOB you appear to be.

    Maybe if you lost a loved one on 9/11 like myself and most of my NYC neighobors -- many who were Jewish -- you might rethink posting this sort of verbal dung.

  188. The actor? by sheldon · · Score: 2

    I must say, for a B-grade movie actor, he played a very convincing President on that television series.

    Martin Sheen can only hope that the West Wing is picked up for as many seasons.

  189. To those screaming, "peace!" by Un1v4c · · Score: 1




    This is long overdue, we've been placid and patient and now we've paid the price with 6000 innocent lives.
    Do you want to wait? Do you want to wait until entire cities begin to fall to nuclear weapons?
    I suggest you pull your head out of your asses and look at the bigger picture. The actions that took place on Sept 11th are trivial compared to the capability these crazy fucks may have in 20, maybe even 10, years.
    This is not going to stop by preaching peace, ask the families of the 6 million jews slaughtered in WWII. These people don't understand "reason," read the garbage these people are preaching (osama and taliban. These people are screwed in the head. Get a grip, grab your balls, and realize there is a time for us all to stand up and say, "no more"


    --

    I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls
    1. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Aiee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      some would say you haven't been patient, but rather inactive. It is a sad fact, but the Taliban are well-known to have been supported by the US when Soviet forces tried to take afghanistan. Heck, Ronald Regan was even quoted for saying: "Afghanistan's freedom fighters -- the resistance or mujahidin -- represent an indigenous movement that swept through their mountainous land to challenge a foreign military power threatening their religion and their very way of life. With little in the way of arms or organization, the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated that they will not be dominated and that they are prepared to give their lives for independence and freedom. The price they have so willingly paid is incalculable. Let all of us who live in lands of freedom, along with those who dream of doing so, take inspiration from the spirit and courage of the Afghan patriots. Let us resolve that their quest for freedom will prevail, and that Afghanistan will become, once again, an independent member of the family of nations." I wish peace more than anything, and I wish a world free from terror. the sad fact is that terror does happen. Terror happens all over the world. Only, now terror happens in the US, and this has made Bush start a war. Regardless fo what Bush has been said, this is not a black and white argument. This isn't a case of "You're either with us or the terrorists". A large part of the world, me included, would rather just be left out of this whole mess. By attacking Afghanistan, coupled with previous statements of there only being two sides, and that america would make no difference between terrorists, and the countries who harbor them, the world has, effectively, been divided into two camps. I fear that, with the bombing of Kabul, the "terrorist" camp (I call it so for the lack of a better word, and it seems to be the popular title for everyone who doesn't throw bombs into the fray with the US these days) will finally have found the justification they crave to escalate this... war to include chemical and biological weapons on civilian targets. All they really need to do is tell their people about the evil US carpet bombing innocent civilians in Kabul, and they'll have candidates practically lining up for suicide attacks on nations worldwide. This is not war. War attacks military structures. The cruel and inhumane attacks on areas populated by civilians is best described as mutual genocide.

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
    2. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um...Reagan was in office 20 years ago.
      Things have changed considerably since then.

    3. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

      ...will finally have found the justification they crave to escalate this...

      This is the perceived problem with response. You need to realize that these people need no further justification for anything. They are at "maximum justification" already, if you will. If someone walked up to Osama Bin Laden with a button and said "Pressing this button will completely eliminate the United States. Everyone there will die a horrible death," he would push it. He has said as much. We cannot provide any more justification for his cause because it won't make any difference. As far as candidates lining up, they already have.

      And this attack is not a cruel, civilian-targeted carpet bombing. From a command standpoint; If a power plant is powering a hospital and an anti-aircraft installation, it must be eliminated. The effect on the hospital is not desirable, but the effect of not cutting the power on your own troops is less desirable.

    4. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History teaches that violence brings just more violence. Anything is better than war. More people will die in America after this retaliation and nothing will be solved. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Kosovo. Did bombs help?

    5. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You forgot Germany...
      Oh, wait, they're are allies in this war.

    6. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Soviets were part of some communist country called the USSR back then. I also recall a big wall that once ran through Berlin.

    7. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and we need some nukes flying, for the red glare...

    8. Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, pal you're left out ... the rule is simple cover my azz I cover yours: so when the wogs come looking for you - want ta cut off your daughters clit, and start cutting on your azz remember ---

  190. racist idiot by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    >It is clear that these Islamic pigs are not human.

    No, no, no, no NO!!!!!!!!! How many times do I have to say it? Blair said it, bush said it, all the talking heads and cabinet members have said it: THESE TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS, ANYMORE THAN A GUY WHO FIREBOMBS AN ABORTION CLINIC IS A CHRISTIAN! That has to be the three-hundredth post to that effect on /., and I still see idiot racist comments like yours.

    You think you're better than them? Your words give the lie to that sentiment, my friend.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  191. The start of an endless war by JhAgA · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I'm not NORTH-AMERICAN, but I think that this attack against Afghanistan will turn into a very bad thing.

    We are talking about FANATICAL people. Kill them, and more will come. To attack Afghanistan will only raise their hate against American. More fanatical groups/nations can follow...

    What USA expects? If they bomb montains trying to destroy the tunnels used by the terrorists, how will Americans be sure if Osama was killed or not? And, if they find it dead, there will still be dozens of Osama's followers that will be feed with anger and hate to plan even more shocking terrorists attacks.

    Bomb their power plants, training camps and communication system. Ok, this will freeze Afghanistan counter-actions for a moment, but will it stop terrorists? I doubt it.

    North-American citizens will turn into a paranoid society, fearing every ordinary box left aside in a metro station or building. Is that what the Americans expect? This is what we can call "end of terror" ?

    I'm not (totally) against the military action against Afghanistan, but I don't see it as a solution - instead, I think that this will make things even worse in long terms.

    1. Re:The start of an endless war by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

      It's only the "start of an endless war" if it is nothing more than lobbing bombs from a distance. But as part of a coherent plan, it need not be. What we're watching right now is the destruction of systems that allow the Taliban government to resist not only traditional military action, but the more discreet operations as well. The elimination of power, communications, and defense systems allows for the quiet insertion of stealth troops as well as continued reconnaissance of the area from lower altitudes. This mission is very visible. But look now at the actions of previous weeks. The United States and her allies have been pursuing the financial networks of terrorist organizations and seizing their assets. They have been finding their supporters and cutting them off. This is the other half of the operation. I agree that a carpet-bombing of Afghanistan will solve nothing. But a strike such as this has a purpose.

    2. Re:The start of an endless war by JhAgA · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the war against Taliban or Afghanistam themselves... If you have been watching news lately, you wil see that part of the plot took place in Canada, Germany, France etc.

      I'm trying to say that even if USA droped a nuclear bomb that nuked the whole Afghanistan (including Osama Bin Laden), there are terrorists, either from Al Qaeda or not, spread on all over the world.

      And to freeze their financial movement isn't enough. I wouldn't need so much money to build a homemade bomb and explode myself into a public building. It is easy to learn from the internet how to build bombs and other artifacts that can be extremely harmful.

      Osama is now stating that he swear by God that American people will not live safely, and I must agree with him, because the fear of terror is almost as bad as the terrorists attacks themselves.

      Now, can you get what I said? You can bomb the entire Afghnistain and Osama Bin Laden altogheter - there are more fanactics settled in other parts of the world, and every ordinay person motivated by fanatical beliefs can blow himself in a terrorist attack without needing a terrorist network or plenty of financial resources.

      So, USA is just fueling them with the hate necessary to blow themselves "for the case". That's why I'm saying that this are going to be an endless war.

    3. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some problems with that conclusion. Your are actually saying that the fanatics are right in what they are and have been doing and that they have already won.

      Thay are as you say fanatics. That means that they will come even if you do nothing. Your behaviour against them is perhaps important but not central to their thinking.

      And the second problem is that doing nothing is not actually a valid action anyway. That will only tell these fanatics and others that they can destroy something like the WTC without noticeable response. If that response means killing their parents, relatives, brothers and sisters or countrymen to effect a collective punishment,
      so be it. (You might not be able to reach the criminals themselves, but someone close to them might)

    4. Re:The start of an endless war by rarose · · Score: 1

      What you're saying is that we can't win even if we didn't strike back at all. And perhaps you're right... but maybe you're wrong and this is a situation we could win. Let's build a matrix:

      ______|_SitQuiet__|__ATTACK__|

      Your__|___Lose____|___Lose___|

      Mine__|___Lose____|____Win___|

      So I'll take my chances with us striking back.

      --
      --Rob
    5. Re:The start of an endless war by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

      The United States is not pursuing just Osama Bin Laden. He may be the primary target at the moment, but he is not the only. The idea is to prevent large scale attacks in the future. By squeezing off financial supplies, we force the terrorists (any terrorists) to operate on a smaller scale. You are correct in surmising that it does not take much to build a bomb and explode oneself in public, but to orchestrate an attack with a massive payload takes a bit more. US investigators now know that the perpetrators of the attacks on Sept. 11th spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on training and living expenses, far exceeding their apparent income. If this financial system had not paid their way, they may have been restricted to something much smaller. Granted, you cannot find every single potential fanatic in the world. But you can (through specific intelligence and coordinated efforts) make sure that they do not ally into large networks capable of killing thousands of people at once.

    6. Re:The start of an endless war by JhAgA · · Score: 1

      First of all, I don't support, endorse or agree with terrorists in any mean.

      But USA is attacking a country, not a terrorist group alone. That can be easily used to subvert more people to fight against USA.

      I understand that something should be done to let them know that they can't do that without heavy consequences, but I'm trying to say that these military actions won't have the expected effect: to end terrorism. It can work just like the opposite way.

      Don't blame me for saying that, blame the fanatics.

      If I was Osama Bin Laden, I would be saying: "Hey Afghain people, behold USA, enemy of the world. They are killing us, they blame innocent people for they disastrous inteligence. They are the enemy of our people, our nation, our beliefs..."

      See? It's a good content for a speech that could be used to gather even more people to fight USA.

      You must understand that there are ordinary people who believe and support Osama's doings. Kill their leader, and I'm sure they will be interested in "avenging" him. It's a vicious circle. Kill one and create one thousand.

      Perhaps, the best way to fight these would be to help the poorer populations, so they will have something to care about and not kill themselves in a hijacked plane. Can you see the people from Afeghanistan? They are as poor as someone can be - what is left from them? If they die, they won't loose so much (because of their beliefs in paradise).

      Perhaps if USA spent their money in those poor countries, tempted by fanatical organizations, they would have much more profit in long terms.

    7. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what do you suggest, that we sit by and allow them to do whatever they want? That will only invite more terrorism.

      The United States is not fucked with. The Taliban made a mistake in sheltering those lunatics, and for it they will pay the forfeit of their lives.

    8. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already do spend money on poor nations. Quite a lot of it, in fact, to the exclusion of feeding people HERE who need it. I think our generosity speaks for itself.

      As far as killing one and creating ten thousand, they have killed six thousand and created SIX HUNDRED MILLION. They've run up to the biggest house on the block, and started barking at the biggest dog. The trouble is that we are a horde of Dobermann Pinshcers, pit bulls, and the like - and they are a few scrawny Chihuahuas. We shall tear them limb from limb and devour them like the bitch-ass punks they are.

    9. Re:The start of an endless war by Capt.+Beyond · · Score: 1

      I think that this attack against Afghanistan will turn into a very bad thing

      Nope, you're wrong. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon will turn into a very bad thing.

      You want us to not retaliate? You want us to standby and let these rulers and their idiot guests destroy skyscrapers?

      These people are trying to turn this into a war against their religion. It's not.

      --
      -- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
    10. Re:The start of an endless war by blair1q · · Score: 2

      >Kill them, and more will come.

      Militant fanaticism is not an inherited trait.

      It is taught.

      There are a large number of these fanatics, but it is a finite number at any time, and the production of them is laborious.

      Kill enough in a short enough time, teach their children well by dismantling the schools of hate, and it will end.

      That may be drastic, but so is this enemy, and they can not be permitted to win, or, as you fear, they will never go away.

      --Blair

    11. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... what makes you think things were going to get any better, especially after the 9/11 attack??? Remember, Bin Laden already called for a war on the West (not just North America folks), and as their capabilities increase, and the latest ranks of fanatic terrorists graduate Bin Laden's training camps, expect to see the number of incidents increase.

      There may be a short-term increase in attacks, but the goal is to choke off the production line of future terrorists, and to take out their leadership. Did you think we were going to be left alone if we just did nothing?

    12. Re:The start of an endless war by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      I wrote a brief essay on responding to the terrorist attack.

      Attacking Afghanistan will provoke more anger, but you can deal with this by offering aid and rebuilding what we destroy. War with Afghanistan is not about ending terrorism, it's about forcing them to capitulate to our will. Once we have access to Afghanistan then we can go in and take out terrorist cells, track down known terrorists, etc. Ultimately to oppose terrorism we must eliminate all the environments worldwide where known terrorist cells can find shelter.

      Al-Qaeda does not operate in a vacuum. It is a big business that needs to recruit and have property and locations to operate from.

      If we deny terrorism the ability to operate openly and in large groups then we will have accomplished something worthwhile. Terrorism will likely never be eradicated but as it becomes less frequent and less brutal, we will be able to forget and get on with our lives.

    13. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking at it a different way. For the sake of argument lets limit the scope to afghanistan. Say the towers never were attacked and we in turn never were to attack afghanistan. The people of that country are still screwed because they are ruled by fanatical thugs and are starving due to
      years of warfare. A situation that we helped to create because we didn't go in and help that country after the soviets pulled out.

      Now we have a chance to correct that wrong. We can oust the fanatics, help them hold fair
      elections(with their former king helping to
      establish a parlimentary type system) give them some relief and create some stability
      for the afghan citizens, so they can start
      rebuilding their mosques and schools.

      If you think of it from that perspective
      (of say the US during WWII) as opposed to
      the bizarre situations created by the
      cold war (vietnam,korea and russia's afghan
      war) then maybe we don't appear to be total
      bastards.

    14. Re:The start of an endless war by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      We are talking about FANATICAL people. Kill them, and more will come. To attack Afghanistan will only raise their hate against American. More fanatical groups/nations can follow...
      But if no action is taken, then more fanatical groups/nations will follow anyway.

      Perhaps fighting back will have some deterrent effect.
    15. Re:The start of an endless war by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Just a quiet note:

      Part of their beef is that they have no intention of having us teach their children. This isn't the major reason for our war here, or theirs, but it's a very bad idea to decide that we need to solve matters by brainwashing their children and re-educating them (words formerly used in the contexts of Imperial Japan and Imperial Russia).

      They can teach their children what they damned well please as long as said children's ACTIONS don't step on our toes. Maybe if we were slower to jump on notions of 'oh, let's re-educate all those naughty Muslims to be good Americans!' their own educations would be less hate-filled.

      This is put strongly, on purpose. Apologies if it seems harsh, or exaggerated.

    16. Re:The start of an endless war by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      Osama is now stating that he swear by God that American people will not live safely, and I must agree with him, because the fear of terror is almost as bad as the terrorists attacks themselves. (Emphasis mine)
      I don't believe that American people were going to "live safely" anyhow. Osama Bin Laden (and those that come after him) are 100% dedicated to doing everything they can to make sure that the American people will not live safely no matter what. So let's try to make things as hard for him (and his posse) as possible!
    17. Re:The start of an endless war by dagoalieman · · Score: 1

      Actually, we don't aim to kill Osama...

      We just intend to capture him, give him a sex change operation (performed by a female doctor, too!), and put back in Afghanistan.. let him.. err... herm live under Taliban rule for a while as a woman.

      --
      We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
    18. Re:The start of an endless war by paul7e · · Score: 1

      Or maybe, if we DID teach their children some of the things we taught the children of Germany and Japan in 1946+, some of our problems in that part of the world might go away?

      You know, teaching liberal things like a semblance of democracy, tolerance of difference, and some information about freedom?

      Ever notice that Japan, arguably the most militant country in the world in 1936, now is Constitutionally prohibited from having a standing military? And in general the people seem to support this policy, to the point of not wanting to even use their limited military means to help the US - an unintended consequence for MacArthur, I'm sure, but true precisely because they have (a semblance of) a democracy?

      It seems to me that relying on education as part of the solution to the terrorist problem might not be a bad idea - probably a better idea than shooting, but one recalls that it wasn't until AFTER Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally that we were able to start the Marshall Plan and provide educational information to their citizens, eh?

      paul

      --
      Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
    19. Re:The start of an endless war by kusma · · Score: 1

      America is not spending a lot of money on poor nations. In absolute numbers yes (but less than Japan which is a smaller economy), but this is what the chart relative to GDP looks like.

    20. Re:The start of an endless war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) For some reason they are using GNP not GDP

      2) They should measure as a proportion of government budget, not GDP. The GDP is not the government's to spend.

      That said, the US should spend more to help.

  192. wake up, idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they know now, don't they ?

    do you really thing they're going to sue someone ? The US military is no better than Al Quaida. They just have better funding.

    And thanks to that democratic institution called DoJ, no-one gets scentenced anymore since they're too busy sueing pattent infringers.

  193. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya those terrorist training camps really have alot of innocent people in them...

  194. Live CTVNews feed..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ctvnews.com/html/frameset/video.htm

  195. The Evidence against bin Laden by sharlskdy · · Score: 1

    There's been a lot of call for the evidence against bin Laden. The Globe and Mail published 70 points of evidence against bin Laden, which is the evidence Tony Blair presented in the British Parliament the other day. Although incomplete (some evidence has reportedly been withheld for security reason), what is presented speaks pretty plainly.

    1. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yes, there has been evidence withheld. If the US (or other countries for that matter) releases some pieces of evidence, it makes future work for us a lot harder. If the enemy were to see the evidence we have, they could possibly figure out how we got and learn from it. I'll give an example below. Although the story is over 80 years old, the ideas it demonstrates still apply today.

      During WW 1, British Intelligence intercepted what is now known as Zimmermann's Note. The message was encrypted and sent from Germany to the Mexican Ambassador to the US in Washington. From there, the Ambassador was to send instructions contained in the note to Mexico City.

      BI knew how to break the encryption, and did so on this message. When they saw the contents, they had to take measures to make it look like the cables werent tapped nor the encryption was transparent.

      BI rewrote the message and then passed it to the US. They made the note look like it was rewritten by the Ambassador and made it look like the message was actually intercepted by Allied spies in Mexico.

      The Germans eventually learned that we (the US) had the note. After investigating, their conclusion was lax security in Mexico City allowed the US to find the note.

      In the end, the Germans continued to use the cables BI had covertly tapped and continued using the same encryption algorithm. Hence, the British were able to continue their espionage activities and continued cracking messages from the Germans.

      Had BI simply passed the original note to the US, the Germans would have stopped using those cables and changed their encryption. Two things that would make obtaining intelligence much more difficult.

      If you want more on that story, I recommend The Code Book by Simon Singh. It's a history book on cryptology intertwined with the howto's of crpyto (everything from Julius Ceasar to PGP to Quantum Cryto). I think /. had a review of it about a year or so ago.

      hmm... just noticed something interesting - Arthur Zimmermann's Note in 1917 and Phil Zimmermann's PGP software today. Although I doubt it, one has to wonder - are they related?

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    2. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only points 61 and 62 could be considered as evidence (let apart that 61 is not evidence by itself, it would be if they told us how these three hijackers were connected to the Al Queda). Point 62 is of importance, if and only if we believe what it says is true (is it?). All other points are simple blah-blah to fill more pages and say "hey world, here's the evidence, it was him no doubt!"

    3. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Refresh my memory; Is that the book which desribes J.Caesar as writing a message on a shaved head and letting the hair grow - then shaving the head when he arrived?

      That was excellent!

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    4. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by jeffy124 · · Score: 2

      that's one way to do it, but not very efficient (obviously). IIRC, I sorta remember reading about something like that.

      The book focused more on ciphers, like the Ceasar Shift Cipher, which was the predecessor to the ROT-13.

      I gotta give Ceasar credit though, that technique of shaving heads was pure genius.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    5. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they may have met. they may have shared views. they may even have had basic military training. this does not mean that osama or anyone in his "network" are responsible for what happened in ny.

    6. Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not evidence in my way of looking at it, it
      was more a description of how they think it was done. It was assumptions. And I really get irritated on us right now, either US is really stupid and brainwashed or you take us (everyone else) to be plain stupid?

      I belive the first one, well, the second one can
      be right too, but that would mean youre stupid. So
      I personally take the first one.

      Second, didnt US promise the world it would show
      evidence, and specifically that it would show talebans the evidence. And didnt taleban promise
      they would extradict Osama Bin Laden if evidence
      shown?

      I wonder who didnt keep their promise. And did they really belive talebans would accept this proof: "Give us Osama Bin Laden or Die Fuckers!"?

      My 0.01 Cent (im a greedy jew)

      P.S. This is black humor (the last thing).

  196. When does McDonalds open in downtown Kabul by heretic108 · · Score: 1

    So when can I go to McDonalds in downtown Kabul and buy me a McHammed Afghaniburger with Cheese?

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    1. Re:When does McDonalds open in downtown Kabul by agdv · · Score: 1

      and extra bacon

    2. Re:When does McDonalds open in downtown Kabul by Monkeychunks · · Score: 1

      Muslims don't eat bacon! :P

      --
      "We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
    3. Re:When does McDonalds open in downtown Kabul by agdv · · Score: 1

      That was sort of the whole point.

  197. Osama Has Promised Retaliation... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    I'm a Residence Assistant and I'm concerned about future terrorist threats against the US coming from Bin Laden. When the September 11th attacks took place, my university decided that it would be a good idea to move everyone out of the dorms and out into the open. I never thought that this was a wise plan, but I considering the tower structures we use for dorms, I didn't think moving everyone to the lowest level would be sufficient. In the event of attack however, quick thinking will be required to get everyone under cover as soon as possible, and as an RA, I am seen as a leader in crisis situations. Does anyone have any suggestions of what I can do to move people to a safe location before I can get in touch with my superiors?

    Like... What kind of structures/locations can protect groups of people from explosions/debris/etc? Are steep rises and hills sufficient to protect people (my campus is situated such that we're on a bluff with a road running over the side of the bluff with about 5 meters between campus level and the road and a staircase going down to it)? What kinds of things do I have to consider? What about moving people to stairwells (which are solid concrete in my building)? What about chances in surviving a low yield nuclear detonation?

    Certainly I intentend to ask administration these same questions come Monday, but I imagine I will get a "don't think, let us do the thinking" kind of answer.

    --
    Why bother.
    1. Re:Osama Has Promised Retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh, smoke a joint or somthing....

    2. Re:Osama Has Promised Retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any terrorist nuclear attack will come without notice. If you are at medium range the only warning will be a very bright flash about 1 or 2 seconds before the shock wave hits. In that time, you should get down, brace yourself, and cover your neck, i.e., "duck and cover." After the shock, try to help the wounded to leave the area.

      If you are at short range you don't need to worry about what to do, since you won't get a chance to do anything anyway.

  198. International coverage.. by T.Hobbes · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:International coverage.. by T.Hobbes · · Score: 2

      one more.. Independent Online (South Africa)

    2. Re:International coverage.. by greenrd · · Score: 2
      The Tehran Times piece is excellent. I quote:

      "From a sociological point of view, terrorism is a multifarious form of social anomaly with numerous psycho-socioeconomic causes.

      Considering the intricate nature of this menace, it would be naive to imagine that terrorism can be rooted out with a war, even of a cold nature as pr[e]scribed by Rumsfeld."

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    3. Re:International coverage.. by killmuji · · Score: 1

      Also check out Major English Papers in Pakistan at The News and Dawn for up to the minute coverage.

    4. Re:International coverage.. by urtica · · Score: 1

      The Times of India and Khaleej Times articles look to just be Reuter's press releases. Tehran Times seemed a different viewpoint. SCMP wanted me to log in :(

    5. Re:International coverage.. by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

      SCMP is free, like the NYT. Those were just news articles, though I think they were original.. for opinion, check out the editorial pages.

  199. TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by kir · · Score: 1

    I'm really curious. What would you do if...

    you were hit in the eye and while you stood there trying to figure out if it was an accident, you were slugged in the other eye - this second hit confirming the first was no accident?

    What would you do? Just wondering.

    --
    3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    1. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Fixer · · Score: 1

      Fight back, obviously. BTW, I'm not a pacifist. But, in my response, should I hit you back or take out my gun and kill you?

      --
      "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
    2. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      But if you hit me, and I hit you back...And then several years later, you hit me and tried to cripple me, I would seriously be whooping up on you.

      --

      -Bucky
    3. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Bimble · · Score: 1

      ...you were hit in the eye and while you stood there trying to figure out if it was an accident, you were slugged in the other eye - this second hit confirming the first was no accident? What would you do?

      It sounds like you think the correct answer is "lash out blindly."

      --
      Naked.
    4. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on what weapons the attacker has, what i stand to lose by attacking the attacker, and what is gained by attacking them. If the cost is too great for me, I walk away. Everything is economics.. pride isn't a factor cause pride can get you down to nothing. Would you rather have your family, your parents, your grandparents, and your friends alive or would you sacrifice them all for pride in a war?

    5. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by jthill · · Score: 1
      Well, duh, I'd demand your friends turn you over to me and my friends, and when they didn't I'd go punch your friends' children.

      Why do you ask?

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    6. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A pacifist by definition would not use violence as a solution to a problem. The general answer to your question can be found in any dictionary. One pacifist might report the attacker to the police, while another pacifist might do something else entirely. But the reaction would be a non-violent one.

      Is this question asked only for the purpse of seeing what slashdot pacifists would so in such a sitation? You say that you are 'just wondering' but your post seems to be implicitly suggesting that the pacifist would use violence in retaliation against the attacker?

      Please clarify.

      P.S. I oppose the US military action against Afghanistan but i am not a pacifist. Please do not assume that all people who oppose the attack on Afghanistan are pacifists. If a person hit me in one eye and then hit me in the other, I would most likely tackle him to the ground, assuming of course that I had not done him any wrong in the past which might have provoked his attack. But that does not mean that my retaliation would be morally justified, or, the best course of action.

    7. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by kir · · Score: 1

      While the wording of my question apparently betrays my feelings on this subject, I really was simply trying to solicit responses to "pacifists" and those who call themselves "pacifists".

      I guess I should answer my own question.

      I would not "lash out blindly" as a previous /.er assumed I would nor would I "go kill his children" as another suggested. I would simply ask him to apologize. If, after an acceptable amount of time had passed, he did not, I would assess the risk that he may punch me (not neccessarily in the eye) again. If the risk of him repeating these acts were great enough, I would obliterate him, ensuring the safety of my body.

      (NOTE: I do understand that even if he apologized, he may still atack me.)

      I am a simple person. This simpleness gives me comfort.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    8. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Was this supposed to be an intelligent question?

      Just wondering.

    9. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would simply disable him by killing him in
      other words?

      What if you didnt belive it was accidently? What
      if someone pushed him so that he hit you?

      Simplicity isnt always a help in complicated questions. Especially when they are to subjective.

    10. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1

      Smile at the attacker - knowing my will is stronger than my anger.

      That's in theory. In practice I don't think I'd have the will of a Gandi or the mythical Jesus.

      --
      * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
    11. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

      To complete the analogy we should also look at the relitive size of the participants. The terrorists are using the methods they have because they don't have the big mean sticks that the US does.

      So in relitive terms its like a small boy has kicked Hulk Hogan in the shin. Sure it hurts, but its not going to kill him. Hulk Hogan then has a choice:

      a) Hit the kid full force - probably killing him.
      b) Give the kid a bit of a slapping around.
      c) Give the kid a stern warning.

      I think the US is trying the slapping around path.

    12. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by kir · · Score: 1

      The intelligence of the question is not what most are questioning. It's the intelligence of the responses.

      As for your response... well...

      How brave of you to post as an AC.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    13. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by festers · · Score: 1

      And so far you have yet to respond to any of the intelligent reponses. Somehow I think you lack the ability to do so, especially since your premise was outrageously stupid.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    14. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      Why do you feel the need to add the adjective to Jesus' name? It's not really productive or relevant to this discussion.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
    15. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by kir · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think I have.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    16. Re:TO ALL THE PACIFISTS by kir · · Score: 1

      "I think the US is trying the slapping around path. "

      Yes. I think you are correct.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
  200. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >The US was attacked. The only way to fight force is with force.
    Lets pray that the terrorists in Afganistan isnt as single minded as you. Then the only answer to the force used by USA, would be more force.

  201. Misperceptions of bio-terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Success with Bio-terrorism has been quite unsuccessful. The most obvious demonstration of this were the Sarin attacks in the Tokyo subway system. Thousands of people were exposed and only seven died (two of those seven were not directly killed by the gas). There are many good reports online regarding this attack and it demonstrates that bio-terrorism is difficult to pull off successfully. Sarin is a deadly nerve-gas and the attempt to kill people in a most ideal environment (enclosed subway system with many people) was quite unsuccessful.

    It is also very difficult to disperse anthrax so that it'll penetrate the pulminary system of an individual (the deadliest way to infect). So far I hear many "what if"s about smallpox but there are only two known strains and they are frozen in labs.

    Mind you, there have been successful strikes with nerve gas but it was not a terrrorist action (I may be incorrect but I think that Iraq used it against the Kurds). Overall I think we use bio-terrorism as a line in the sand to justify harsh retalitory strikes against countries or individuals using it as a weapon. And I do agree with that approach because bio-weapons are a pandora's box of destruction if countries accepted it as a usable weapon in warfare.

    The US has for the past few decades have been overly protective of the lives of soldiers whose *job* is to risk their lives to defend. More soldiers died in the Persian Gulf war from car accidents than combat. This may really turn out to be a true war and casualties are to be expected. People die, accept it.

  202. Message from a French by duglambier · · Score: 1

    Dear American,

    I support all your attacks on Afghanistan.
    Even if I was disagree with you about the intervention on Yougoslavia, I hope that you will destroy all the terrorists bases and find out where is Bin Laden.

    We need to struggle the terrorisme togehter, all the democratic nation.

    God bless democraty !

    1. Re:Message from a French by datamyte · · Score: 1

      We don't live in a democracy frenchie. We live in a constitutional republic - one where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, one where we have a trial, one where the guilty are punished accordingly. Clearly our actions today show that our Constitutional Republic has been trampled by the advocates of democracy (mob rule).

    2. Re:Message from a French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too was against our actions in Yugoslavia, but I feel it is our duty to get rid of these guys.

  203. emergency peace demonstrations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all over the country today at 5 pm.

    And remember your history:

    At the beginning of the 1990s, the Gulf War - or more appropriately the U.S. war
    against Iraq - was yet another moment in which opposition was expressed in acts of
    individual, small group, and mass civil disobedience. In the fall of 1990, a small group of
    14 anti-Gulf War activists, mostly students from U.C. Berkeley and San Francisco State,
    occupied and held for several hours an Army Recruiting Center in San Francisco before
    being arrested. Also that fall, an adhoc coalition opposed to the war, called the Bay Area
    Direct Action Network, began to strategize about different ways to block building
    entranceways and highways. When the United States started to drop its "smart bombs"
    on Baghdad tens of thousands of people poured into the streets of San Francisco.

    One notable action at this time was the occupation and blockage of the Bay Bridge that
    connects San Francisco to Oakland and Berkeley. Following a physical blockade that
    delayed the opening of the U.S. Federal Building in San Francisco, thousands of
    protesters started to march downtown toward the financial district. At the last minute,
    these protesters turned, took another route, and easily pushed pass the dozen or so
    Highway Patrol attempting to protect the bridge. This throng of people made it nearly all
    the way to Treasure Island, the mid-way point on the bridge, before being met with a
    massive show of force by the Oakland Police Department. While unreported by the
    mainstream media, similar acts of blocking government buildings and major highways
    occurred all up and down the west coast.

  204. This child is ill.. by Loudergood · · Score: 1

    If you treat countries like errant children, they will act like children back. The medicine is harsh but it must be delivered, for the good of the child, as well as that of the world.

    1. Re:This child is ill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I read much more crap like that I might apply for membership with Al-Queda.

  205. Welcome to the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the US is basically using its military to fight terrorists, "and those that back them" in a distant and much weaker country.

    Israel is usually strongly condemned when it uses its military in such a manner against the Palestenian authority.

    Anyone care to condemn the States?

  206. Re: America will never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you are reading your own posts. Try typing in complete sentences next time.

  207. NYC airspace EMPTY by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I live near NYC and since 9/11 most flights have been routed away from the city and over my house.
    For the last 20-30 minutes my sky has been empty.
    The government had previously announced "100% chance" of terrorist attacks/attempts in response to an Afgahnistan attack. I suspect they shutdown local airports as a preventitive measure.

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  208. Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by Malc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm presuming "Taliban" and "Taleban" mean the same thing. Which is the correct spelling? I see "Taliban" in most things American, and "Taleban" everywhere else. Are they both valid spellings of the same thing?

    1. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by RussGarrett · · Score: 2

      It's a problem which is going to come up fairly frequently in this conflict. Arabic is a notoriously difficult to transliterate from, so you end up with Taleban and Taliban, Moslem and Muslim, Al Qaida, Al Qaeda, and Al Quaida, Usama or Osama.

      The problem arises because actual pronunciation of Taliban is half way between 'le' and 'li'. Spell it how you like, people will still get the idea.

      On a related note, the pronunciation 'Moslem' ("m-oh-slim") is wrong - the correct one (at least with my English accent) is 'Muslim' ("m-ooh-slim"). I suppose the spelling Moslem came about to counter the people who pronounced Muslim "m-uh-slim", which is incorrect.

      All very confusing :)

    2. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by esnible · · Score: 1

      Let us see the Unicode spellings for Taliban, Osama, and Al Qaida in Arabic or the Afghan script?

    3. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by shani · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter. My understanding is that Arabic (like Hebrew, ironically) has only 4 vowels, and they are not written in normal usage. That is, you wrt vrthng lk ths.

      I don't know Arabic, but that's what I hear. :)

    4. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by fcw · · Score: 1

      Either spelling is fine, since it's an attempt at representing a non-English word, ordinarily written in a non-Roman alphabet. Even the BBC use both spellings on different news outlets.

      Similarly, Libya's leader's name is often spelled 'Qadaffi' in the U.S., but 'Gadaffi' in Britain. Same problem, with no one 'correct' answer.

    5. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the retard who moderated this off-topic.

      You have been metamoderated. Try looking 'off-topic' up in a dictionary some time.

    6. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by firewort · · Score: 1

      You're sure there are only four vowels in Hebrew?

      kamatz
      patach
      chataf patach
      segol
      chataf segol
      serei
      chirik
      cholam
      cholam chaser
      shuruk
      kubutz
      sh'va

      So even if you eliminate the final vowels, there are a few more than four.

      --

    7. Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one with that thought.

  209. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by goliard · · Score: 3, Informative
    Considering part of the propaganda campaign of bin Laden terrorists is that this is a holy war by the 'Crusaders and Zionists', it is surprising that Bush would take then choose a Christian Sunday to go in and start to deliver justice.

    Er, you have that exactly backwards. In Christianity, Sunday is the sabbath on which one is not supposed to work, and certainly not to wage war. If anything, this is sort of a demonstration that this is not a religious action, by violating that religious restriction.

    --
    -*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
  210. How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by MrEd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1) Let him punch you


    2) Get up


    3) Let him punch you again


    4) Have him arrested for assault


    Seriously, it's a shitty metaphor.


    The UN exists for a reason.

    --

    Wah!

    1. Re:How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 1

      Surely that's just;

      4: Wait for someone else to punch him.

    2. Re:How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Yup. In this case, the UN exiss to give the US a hunting license. What else are they for again?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. In this case, the UN exiss to give the US a hunting license. What else are they for again?


      They could audit US (and allies) 's action, couldn't they?

    4. Re:How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Its still a good metaphore. What do you do where there isn't anyone to arrest him?

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
  211. Re:ALL MUSLIMS ARE WARLIKE AND ARE OUR ENEMIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the New Testament was for. To show that the Old Testament was no longer needed.

  212. Subjected bombings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These subjected bombings are completely designated as a "FIRST STRIKE" on the AL-queda resheme. I support the choice of Pres. Bush and his councel. We gave them the complete choice to choose there future and what would happen if they did this and/or that. They responded with little pitty and complete and utter disgust at the rest of the non islam world. I believe that we are in this for the long run and going to be hurt / injurded more in the future.

  213. Live News feed on CKNW (Vancouver, BC Canada) by AnimeFreak · · Score: 0

    http://www.cknw.com

    Availble in Realaudio and Windows Media Player.

  214. Fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our country is way too soft; we've spent years as a society trying to insure safety in everything when the truth of the matter is that shit happens and people die. You nor I are exempt and we've been very lucky.

    If you are truly afraid than remove yourself to a place where you can feel safe. But wait...while you may not be taken out by a falling airplane in NYC you might get hit by a car in the "heartland" of middle america or fall into a thresher on your farm.

    Get a grip; I live in Manhatten as well and I'm not going to let this stuff prevent me controlling my life which, if you sit in fear of getting on the subway, it has already done for you.

    1. Re:Fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      s/Manhatten/Manhattan/g;

  215. "yay for the good guys" by mad_clown · · Score: 2

    I don't really know what to say to all of this. It's depressing, and I'd really hoped that it wouldn't come to this. I'm not going to spout a bunch of idiotic anti-American rhetoric, because that'd make me look about as dumb as some of the Chomsky-quoting, Rage Against the Machine worshipping 15 year old anarchist wannabes who've been posting... but I'm pretty disappointed in this course of action. I think I'm going to go take a walk, and do some thinking... no one else seems to be doing anything except reacting. *sigh*

    --
    "Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
    1. Re:"yay for the good guys" by owenPS · · Score: 1

      What course of action would you suggest?

      If it is the bombing that you don't like, do you realize that part of the reason for it is to clear the way for humanitarian efforts?

      "no one seems to be doing anything except reacting"

      Sorry, but we've been doing some thinking for almost a month.

    2. Re:"yay for the good guys" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are out, think how nice it is not to have to worry about getting attacked, having a 9mm or M16 pointed at you, watching kids play in a park, coming home and eating a good meal, reading to your children and tucking them in tonight and knowing that they have the whole world in front of them.

      I don't believe in war because no one wins. Everyone knows that Terrorists are not born but taught. I do believe that Terrorism should NEVER be negotiated with nor tolerated. Living life in fear each and every day is not living. I would rather die for my freedom, than live under terrorist rules. Terrorist don't believe in fighting for their rights with peace. This, unfortunately, can only be dealt with by violence. Until you have lived your life in fear and without any freedom, then we all should be behind fighting terrorism at all costs. I believe in Peace, but the needs of the few, does not outway the needs of the many.

      It doesn't really matter if Bin Ladin was behind Sept 11, because he has said he is the main leader of some of the Terrorist camps in Afghan. The Taliban is involved with letting terrorist camps be created. US was stupid in the past and training Bin Ladin, but know one is perfect and freedom still reigns and grows.

      It is real easy to sit on the sidelines and judge. Peace and freedom are not without prices. You have to get your hands dirty to have freedom. People will and do die. You can sit at home and say this is wrong or it is right because you and I have that luxury. We are given this luxury by the people of the Armed Forces.

      This fight is against Terrorism. I wish all people here, abroad and especially in the Middle east would see that. I wish that people all over the world would wake up in the morning and realize that humans have been bombing, killing, hurting each other for thousands of years to no avail. I hope that out of this, someday we all can live without terror and really live our lives.

    3. Re:"yay for the good guys" by greenrd · · Score: 1
      ...because that'd make me look about as dumb as some of the Chomsky-quoting, Rage Against the Machine worshipping 15 year old anarchist wannabes who've been posting...

      Flattery will get you nowhere.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    4. Re:"yay for the good guys" by lanclos · · Score: 1

      Hear hear. Set all your rationale and twisted logic aside; I'm not proud that, as an American citizen, I share some measure of responsibility, even if in name only, for the events that transpired today.

      There was a fireworks show in Santa Cruz tonight. It made me uneasy to watch it... it's too easy to imagine the flashes against the clouds and the loud booming associated with violence as opposed to entertainment. It was too easy to imagine the fighting happening in my backyard instead of someone else's.

      It's an entirely different situation when the "justice" is happening in your backyard. I've tried and failed to come up with some sort of stirring accompaniment to that statement. Just think about it for a bit, and see if you still feel the same way, warmongers and tree-hugging-hippies alike.

  216. ... by Hellen+Back · · Score: 1

    Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up heroin.

    1. Re:... by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

      Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

  217. rm -f /bin/ladin by k0tic · · Score: 0

    he he

    --
    hell
    1. Re:rm -f /bin/ladin by slashdoter · · Score: 1

      http://thinkgeek.com/stuff/apparel/57b2.shtml

      --
      Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
  218. Kipling. by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Kipling had something to say about this, back when the Brits tried and failed to invade Afghanistan, after the Russians failed, and before the Soviets failed.

    When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    So-oldier of the Queen!

    Rudyard Kipling

    1. Re:Kipling. by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Well, the women aren't really allowed outside, so they won't come cut up the remains.

    2. Re:Kipling. by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      That was "what remains", as a "grammar Nazi" should have seen, i.e. "your still-living body, writhing in pain from the gutshot, as the women come out to castrate you and hang you from a tree as warning to the next invaders." Might look into the history of what the mujahadeen did to the Soviets when one was silly enough to get captured if you think this is a unfounded flamelike post. I'm relating history, and if we get into a ground war in Afghanistan, there'll likely be a draft. Keep planning for those educational waivers, /.ers!

  219. Seven Pillars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hereby declare myself to be the rightful messenger of her Holiness, Mother America, who, through me, betrothes to thee, the ancient people of America (but not including Indians or Blacks), descended from the seven tribes of Deutsch, Angle, Hispanica, Eire, Jewdom, Romanus and Scandinevredge.



    1. There is no Master but money.
    2. The Word -Greed- is Good (as bequeathed by the prophet Gordon Geco - may peace be upon him).
    3. Thou shalt check your stocks five times a day, facing the Holy Site of Wall Street.
    4. Fasting - thou shalt impose a fasting upon the unbelievers of Africa, Persia and the Orient.
    5. Arms - arms shall be given during the Holy Months of Perceived Insecurity and Power Complex to those perpetuating the Yee-ha! (see six)
    6. Every Yank must realise his duty of Yee-ha! or Holy War. The Yee-ha! teaches the unbeliever that only death is worse than unbelief. No unbeliever who has been taught the lesson of Yee-ha! has contradicted the Word, so the Word is Good.
    7. Pilgrimage - each Fundamericanentalist should, if the salary is Good (see pillar 2), perform pilgrimage to anywhere he chooses. All sites of pilgrimage are Holy whilst pilgrimage is being performed. Sites not under pilgrimage may be considered unfundamerican, and fasting (see 4) may be performed.


    These are the Seven Pillars, may they hold firm in the face of little or no, international resistance.




    The above ancient text (sometimes referred to by scholars as The Death Spree Polls) was found on a dusty floppy disc in the (now) wastelands
    of Washington. Its interpretation has a long history, the greatest debate surrounding the interpretation of the oft-cited word "Freedom"
    (in the context of Americanism), to be found regularly throughout the rest of the text. Scholarly debate continues as to the correct
    interpretation of what is for some, a vacuous term, for others a mere expletive. Some translate it as "a war-cry used before tribal attack",
    whilst modern theory generally agrees on a more sober translation: "Bollocks."


  220. A gray world by fams · · Score: 1

    If the only thing you can see is "They hurt us and we will hurt then more" you are an idiot.
    1- Problably Bin Laden is guilty.
    2- US must react to this atack.
    But if you think that they are insane people that rate US youre wrong. They lost their wifes and sons in wars that US are guilty.
    Its time to cry, to act and to THINK in WHY THIS HAPPENED . If Bush continue your cowboy international policy more Bin Ladens will appear. Do you remember Kioto? Israel? Iraq? Iran? Vietnan? Hiroshima? ....
    US isnt masters of the world but is too powerfull and need realize that time to rethink your responsabilities and rights.

    1. Re:A gray world by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      If the only thing you can see is "They hurt us and we will hurt then more" you are an idiot.

      No, what I see is "they hurt us, and it's our responsibility to make sure they can't ever hurt us again".

      You want the "why"? Here is the "why". Can you handle the truth that these are power-hungry people who want to destabilize the world?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:A gray world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they hurt us, and it's our responsibility to make sure they can't ever hurt us again

      Simple solutions for simple minds. Right on.

      Who is they? The terrorists on the plane? They're already dead. Bin Laden and his organization? I'm convinced he is guilty. But kill him, and 3 new ones will step into his shoes. To, to put this into a smaller piece that's easier for a simpleton like you to understand:

      The us can kill Bin Laden, but they will still be there to hurt us.

    3. Re:A gray world by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I'm convinced he is guilty. But kill him, and 3 new ones will step into his shoes.

      That is racism. Every Islamic Arab is NOT a potential terrorist. That's like saying in 1939 (or whenever): "Why kill Nazis? For every one you kill, you just create 3 more of them." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

      In any case, I don't care how many terrorists are out there. If we have to kill every last one of them, then that's what is required.

      You might be willing to tolerate a certain number of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, but I'm not. You seem to think that this was an isolated incident that's not going to happen again. It will happen again, over and over, until we solve the problem once and for all.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:A gray world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You seem to think that this was an isolated incident that's not going to happen again. It will happen again, over and over, until we solve the problem once and for all.

      Of course this is true. But just removing the current perpetrators will not solve the problem beyond the short term. The underlying cause is still there - widespread resentment of the US at a grass roots level, inflamed by the direction of US foreign policy.

      Bin Laden would not have been able to get anywhere if he did not enjoy widespread support amoing the world's Muslim poor. While they still live, and while they still hate the US, there will be an endless supply of suicide bombers. And anywhere there are thousands clamouring to be led in jihad there will always be one or two competent leaders to be found.

      So there are truly only three options for solving this permanently:

      Try to kill all the poor muslims in the world - I'm sure you all realize that any moves in this direction would isolate the US and probably cause a "real" third world war, probably the last war ever :o\.

      Turn all muslim populations into crypto-Americans by eradicating poverty among them and encouraging the growth of liberal capitalism in their societies - the majority of people couldn't easily be induced to sacrifice their lives if those lives are comfortable. Of course this would take a long time, but it is more or less what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is proposing.

      Change US foreign policy to become less interventionist and more impartial, and simply become good neighbours to the Muslim world. This means the US would have to learn to co-operate with the rest of the world rather than expecting to have everything its own way.

    5. Re:A gray world by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced he is guilty. But kill him, and 3 new ones will step into his shoes.

      That is racism. Every Islamic Arab is NOT a potential terrorist. That's like saying in 1939 (or whenever): "Why kill Nazis? For every one you kill, you just create 3 more of them." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.


      Only, it very nearly may be true. If the US kills bin Laden, then his child(ren), friends, etc. begin to hate the US with an even greater passion for killing their father/friend/whatever. Then when one or more of them goes off and does something radical, we kill him and his friends get pissed off. Such might actually work.

      As far as the Nazis go, that may have been even more true. Some Germans may not have been supportive of the Nazis until the Allied Forces slaughtered their neighbors. While those Germans may not have been sympathetic with genocide as a goal, they'd at least enter the armed forces to avenge the deaths of their friends.

      --
      Yes! That guy!
  221. The Terrorists: a perspective by D.+J.+Keenan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The West is taking strong actions against mass terrorists. How well do we understand what we are about to do and what we have done in the past?

    To begin with, it is arguably good that this happened. The West is wide open to suicidal terrorist attacks, and if there were ever such an attack with a nuclear bomb, things would be a lot worse. Many people have been warning about this for some time. Now at least some preventative measures will be taken, and the risks will be reduced. Nuclear bombs are actually trivial to make if you have weapons-grade uranium (still a large "if"); so the risk is significant. Bin Laden has been trying to arm himself with nukes for years.

    If we want to understand what happened, we should ask what the terrorists' motivations were for attacking. The terrorists seem to hate America for its actions against Muslims in Palestine and Iraq (see below), and Islam teaches that Muslims should aid other Muslims. So, what have been America's actions?

    The Palestinians have been brutalized by the Israelis. Consider that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that rarely had a people been in so obvious need of international protection--last November, after seeing children whose eyes had been blown out by Israeli bullets and watching 40000 Palestinians kept under curfew so that 235 Israelis could go about their business (in Hebron). The Palestinians have repeatedly asked for international observers, but always had this blocked by Israel and America. Palestinians have long been tortured in Israel (this is government- sanctioned). The recent UN report headed by American ex-senator Mitchell made various recommendations, which were entirely accepted by the Palestinian Authority and rejected by Israel. Basically all other independent reports conclude that the Palestinians are treated abominably, including severe economic deprivations. (This is not to say that Israel does not have valid security concerns or grievances against Palestinians.)

    Israel can only act this way because of American support. Indeed, America supplies advanced arms, gives Israel's six million citizens billions each year, and is often virtually the sole supporter of Israel in UN discussions-- such as discussions about Israel's violations of UN resolutions. So America is an accomplice. Even the British Foreign Secretary has now acknowledged that "One of the factors which helps breed terrorism is the anger which many people in [the Middle East] feel at events over the years in Palestine."

    Some people have claimed that Bill Clinton tried to achieve peace, and so America should not be held to blame. But Israel only exists because of American support. And America, under Clinton, did not use this power. Under Bush Sr., things were different: Bush Sr. threatened to withhold $10 billion in loans (strictly, loan guarantees), if Israel remained brutal. This worked, and led to a viable peace process. The process could have remained on track if America had forced Israel to keep it signed word.

    In Iraq, American-dictated sanctions ban anything that could conceivably be used for the military. For example, pencils contain carbon and carbon is often used in nuclear reactors; so pencils were banned. The sanctions are horrid. The sanctions regime is always supervised by a non-American (for political/PR reasons), and the supervisors have always quit in disgust after about a year, which says a lot. Iraq's infrastructure and economy are being crushed, at enormous cost. For example, according to UN estimates, the sanctions have resulted in the death of half a million children under five. (None of his is to suggest that Saddam is undeserving of a very tight leash, nor that this could be applied without the people suffering significantly.)

    What does bin Laden say? Even if he was not directly involved in the attacks (which seems unlikely), he is a leading member of the terrorist network; so his words very probably count for something. And in the past he seems to have spoken more or less honestly about his intentions. Moreover, his words have motivated those who carried out the attacks. In a 1999 interview, he said he wanted to instigate "... jihad against the Jews and the Americans" and, citing the sanctions against Iraq, he added, "Our enemy is the crusader alliance led by America, Britain, and Israel." And in 1998, he and four others signed the World Islamic Front Statement, which advocates killing Americans for three reasons: America's support of Israel, America's killing of over a million Iraqis (a figure consistent with UN estimates), and America's stationing its armed forces in the Arabian peninsula. Regarding the third reason, the complaint seems to be partly that America is using the peninsula as a base for aggression against Iraq--i.e. the second and third reasons are closely related--and partly that Muslims consider the peninsula holy and many do not want non-Muslims permanently residing there. (Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, and first became a terrorist mainly for the third reason. Later, he drew many followers, and the other reasons became prime.)

    So, this is not an attack on democracy and freedom per se, as George Bush claims. Nor is it a culture-based "clash of civilizations", as some commentators have tried to claim (alluding to a 1993 essay by Samuel Huntington). Nor is it an attack based on spiteful envy of American wealth and military might, as some others have groundlessly assumed. This is an attack by Muslim fanatics on non-Muslims who have been brutalizing Muslims.

    (Some people point out that Muslims sometimes also brutalize other Muslims. This is true: any group of people will have internal conflicts, sometimes very severe--as here--but still often pull together when attacked from outside. This is generally true of families, for example. It is also true of Americans--as this September has shown. It is something to be proud of.)

    The terrorist attacks appear to have opened an enormous well-spring of Muslim anti-American feelings. Muslim demonstrations against America have been widely reported. The demonstrators, though, have generally said that they are against the terrorist attacks. But they, and a great many other Muslims, share the hatred felt by the terrorists, for the reasons given above.

    Many Americans seem greatly confused by widespread Muslim hatred. To them, the claim that America desires to control the world is ludicrous. Especially since the end of the Cold War, America has tended to interfere in the affairs of other countries only under extreme circumstances. The Balkans is a good example--where Europe fretted fecklessly while tens of thousands were killed or raped. Almost all Americans simply want the world to develop in peace and prosperity--and, incredibly, they ask for nothing in return despite being the world's greatest guarantor of this. But, for many Muslims, it does not look that way. America helps a state with which it is friendly--Israel--and tries to squash a state that is very threatening and sinister--Iraq--and it ends up looking imperialistic.

    Regarding the terrorists' motivations, it is interesting to compare the reports given by American and British mass media. Broadly, the American media has portrayed the terrorists as crazies who are against economic modernization and Western culture. Broadly, the British media tends to say that the terrorists are at least rational and that America partly inspired the hatred that they feel by its support of Israel. (Of course British media still strongly condemn the attacks and support the American people.)

    Britain has not really supported America's actions in Israel/Palestine. In fact, the previous Foreign Secretary (Robin Cook) was fired in part because he was too blatant in his support for Palestinians. But Britain has--almost alone (to my knowledge)--both aided and supported America's actions against Iraq. The British media thus cites the main Muslim grievance in which Britain is blameless and largely ignores the other. The American media ignores both. Even considering some criticism is unacceptable, it seems.

    The media made a lot of sacrifices when the terrorists struck. Hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising were lost as commercials were pulled from TV to make way for more news. And it was clear that many commentators very much had their hearts in their work. I still believe, however, that the media has done a disservice to people by failing to present the terrorists' true motivations--even if they disagreed with them.

    The big question now is what can/will be done to make things safer. Despite all the hype, suicide bombers are rare. But, there are about a billion Muslims in the world; so even if only one in a 100000 becomes a bomber, that's 10000 overall. More people will now want to become bombers, though, for three reasons: the success of the attacks on America, the hero status often accorded suicide bombers (in Palestine as well), and the continuing despair that many Muslims feel about the plight of Palestinians and Iraqis.

    One obvious way to increase Western safety is to inspire less hatred and give Muslims some hope for a better future. It was the crushing of hope by Israel that led to the recent spate of suicide bombers there. America is plainly well aware of this. Thus, although in the first week Israeli PM Sharon was stating that he still wanted to conquer the Palestinians, on September 18th he did an about-face--obviously under great American pressure. Real peace needs to be brought to Palestine. Arafat wants it, but with land; Sharon only wants victory, but might give in; and there are extremists in both Palestine and Israel who will try hard to derail peace. So lasting peace will hard to get, but maybe ... maybe. As for Iraq actions, this is under American control; so sanctions should ease rapidly ... maybe.

    In addition to these diplomatic efforts, there is going to be a military effort. The one purely-American purely-military option that I've seen that might potentially do something is to nuke Afghanistan. This would be politically very difficult. It would also inspire so much hatred in the Muslim world that for each terrorist killed, several more would be spawned.

    Some people have suggested heavy (non-nuclear) bombing of Afghanistan, to force the Taliban into expelling the terrorists. There are no substantial military or political targets, however, and the Afghan economy is now virtually nonexistent, thanks to international sanctions and an extended drought. The UN estimates that by November (after snow starts falling), over five million Afghans will be dependent on food aid--out of a population of 20 million. So if the objective is to crush Afghans economically, stopping food aid would do more than any bombs. In fact, this is now happening, as relief agencies flee the country out of fear of military action. Actual bombing seems pointless, then, except perhaps as PR. Will a famine (induced by bombing or threat thereof) compel the Taliban into expelling the terrorists? This is dubious: the Taliban apparently shelter the terrorists because of an Islamic custom--if someone seeks refuge in your tribe, you have to protect him, regardless of the cost (the Taliban actually have little interest in the world outside Afghanistan.) Inducing a famine is also risky: if a million die, it will fuel more Muslim hatred. Would it be moral? You decide.

    Some commentators have suggested that a large-scale military operation against Afghanistan might trigger so much popular anger that it destabilises some other Muslim countries. I cannot comment on this, but it should be clear, in any case, that such operations will do vastly more harm than good. Most senior people in the American government now apparently agree.

    There has been much discussion about sending special forces into Afghanistan (likely supported by small-scale bombing). This requires intelligence on where the terrorists are hiding. Indeed, by now many of the terrorists will be dispersed among the population: good intelligence from the ground is essential for successful special-forces action against them. America apparently does not have this intelligence itself. It might try to bludgeon the ruling Taliban into supplying such intelligence, but it is very unlikely that the Taliban could be relied upon to act in good faith, if they acted.

    The Taliban, however, are very close with Pakistan (see below). So if America were to work with Pakistan for intelligence, it might get somewhere. The president of Pakistan has pledged full support, but this might mean little. The support has to come from the people on the ground, and there have been many demonstrations in Pakistan against helping America. I know of three reasons for these demonstrations. First, Pakistanis are Muslims (95%) and they blame America for what is happening to Muslims in Palestine and Iraq. Second, they don't like being bullied by Westerners generally. The third reason is more involved; briefly, it's as follows.

    The current border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is actually just a line of control (the Durand line), from a treaty that expired about five years ago. It was never clear what was to happen when the treaty expired: likely Pashtoonistan--an area overlapping both Pakistan and Afghanistan--was to be made into a state. The Pashtoon people make up nearly half of all Afghans, and they control Afghanistan; so likely Pashtoonistan and Afghanistan would become one. The effect would thus be to have Pakistan cede territory to Afghanistan. (A rough analogy might be how Britain ceded Hong Kong to China after the expiration of a 100-year treaty/lease. The Durand treaty was drawn up in the 1890s, when Pakistan was still a part of India.)

    Pakistanis, especially in the military, are very reluctant to cede a large part of their country to Afghanistan. That's why Pakistan created the Taliban. The Taliban were given both military and religious training in Pakistan. They also got lots of arms and money from Pakistan, which is why they were able to conquer (most of) Afghanistan. They were largely controlled by Pakistan, though. And under Pakistani control, they did not force the issue of Pashtoonistan. (Lately, Pakistani control has weakened.) Additionally, having some Afghan territory partially under its control gave Pakistan some extra security from the threat of neighbouring India.

    America has addressed this by telling Pakistan that unless it helps, America might rid Pakistan of its nuclear installations and support India militarily: in effect, saying that Pakistan would be liable to lose a majority of its territory (to India) rather than a minority (to Afghanistan). The president of Pakistan has made a televised speech warning people "bad results could put in danger our territorial integrity." This should help to focus the minds of those in the military, especially since Pakistan has a military government. Yet, it has had little effect on the populace, who are more motivated by sympathy for fellow Muslims. Will the low-ranking Pakistani soldiers on the ground go along and will they get enough intelligence from Afghanistan with little help from the populace?

    My guess is that Pakistan will pretend to go along, and perhaps even help find a way to get bin Laden--which is good for PR, but not for really eradicating the terrorist network. Maybe America will eventually help to formalize Pakistan's borders, which would facilitate greater Pakistani support. I have not, however, seen this discussed publicly.

    There also seems to be a common view that the Taliban should be removed from government. Indeed, it would be very difficult to eradicate the terrorist network without doing this. One approach would be to strongly support the anti-Taliban forces that currently control under 10% of (northern) Afghanistan. (This support might include bombing, but only on a small scale.) Starved of external military support, the Taliban should crumble quickly. A complicating factor is that any large military campaign in the Afghan winter is very difficult, and winter arrives in about October. Most likely, though, all this will be unnecessary: the Taliban should fall on their own, now that they are no longer propped up by Pakistan. What is in any case important is to avoid making it seem that this is American imperialism, which would unite the populace and draw wide Muslim anger.

    The military action, whatever form it takes, will make it difficult for the terrorists to train or actively maintain their network in Afghanistan. Capturing many terrorists, though, seems unrealistic. The threatened mass bombing has made this even more difficult, since many Afghans have fled population centres for safety: there seems no good way to find a terrorist, who looks and acts ordinary, in their midst. If the Taliban are removed from government, though, perhaps more Afghans would then supply intelligence.

    There is also a lot of detective work underway. Within America, and some other countries, this seems to be on track for some success, for identifying terrorists and also for hindering their financing. There appear to be many suicidal Islamic terrorists in the network that attacked America, though. Estimates are rough, but there could be several hundred who have deeply infiltrated the West. As an example, one of the highjackers had spent several years in Germany getting a technical degree. The network has supposedly spread to roughly 40 countries, which will hinder tracing it. Also, there is no real command structure: there is only a network (like the Internet is a network) with some people more influential than others; so even if someone like bin Laden is caught, the network would hardly be eradicated (a bit like taking out a few major nodes of the Internet would do little). Tracing the network is thus going to take a long effort, but should succeed.

    Diplomatic, military, and detective efforts could also be supplemented with religious efforts, though I have not seen this discussed much. Bin Laden has claimed that he is instigating a jihad. Jihads were fought many centuries ago, against the crusaders. The jihad concept was then largely forgotten. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA looked for ways to help motivate the Afghans to fight (this was during the Cold War; so the CIA was arguably justified). One of they ways the CIA came up with was the revival of the long-abandoned notion of jihad. It worked (although the defining event in the Afghan-Soviet war was probably America's decision to supply the Afghans with shoulder-launched Stinger anti-aircraft missiles).

    The Koran, though, teaches that a jihad should not harm women and children. And bin Laden himself said (in 1999) that "God ... has prohibited the killing of women and children unless the women are active fighters." Fighting the Soviet army fits with this. Crashing planes into the World Trade Center does not. Of course, religious fanatics can twist anything ("America is a democracy; so the people are directly responsible for what their government does; so the women killed in the World Trade Center were active fighters."-- maybe?). But I believe that it should be possible to use the Koran, and perhaps even Muslim clerics, to motivate Afghans against the terrorists.

    What are the overall conclusions? In the short term, there is small, but real, risk of another terrorist assault, against America or perhaps Britain (or Israel). In the medium term, the terrorist network will be attacked and largely eradicated, and America's resolve will make all countries very hesitant about sponsoring other terrorist networks. Additionally, there will be widespread, permanent, increases in security measures and both domestic and international intelligence operations. Individual terrorist incidents, however, do not require a sophisticated network or large resources (remember Oklahoma City). It is not realistic to expect to be able to prevent them all. In the long term, then, we also need to lessen the causes of Muslim grievances, even if it means facing up to our past mistakes.

    Douglas J. Keenan

    Some sources:
    The 1999 interview with Osama bin Laden-- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/tra nscript_binladen1_990110.html
    The 1998 World Islamic Front Statement-- http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw a.htm
    Some insights into Afghanistan-- http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/June/Afghan/in dex.html
    The home page of the Palestinian Authority, with many more related links-- http://www.pna.gov.ps/
    Links to insightful news stories on Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, etc.-- http://www.economist.com/countries/
    A UNICEF news release on child mortality in Iraq-- http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
    A BBC report entitled "Explaining Arab Anger" [September 19th]-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east /newsid_1552000/1552900.stm

    1. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      ...last November, after seeing children whose eyes had been blown out by Israeli bullets and watching 40000 Palestinians kept under curfew so that 235 Israelis could go about their business (in Hebron). The Palestinians have repeatedly asked for international observers, but always had this blocked by Israel and America. Palestinians have long been tortured in Israel (this is government- sanctioned)...
      You know, I'd be much more likely to accept that Israel was their real enemy if those planes had crashed in down-town Tel Aviv. But when all the justifications have been uttered, it is still America that is considered to be The Great Satan, and against who all the hatred is directed. So Occam's Razor tells me that really, US support for Israel has very little to do with it.
    2. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by tcc · · Score: 2

      I do not have the moderator status, but if I had, I would have given you +5 on this post.

      --
      --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    3. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Azog · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of comment that has stopped me from completely giving up on reading Slashdot. Thanks! Wish I hadn't already used up my moderator points.

      --
      Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
      "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
    4. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Bobzibub · · Score: 3, Informative

      + 5 from me too.

      Continuing from your post, it is interesting to see the differences between CNN's version of Bin Laden's speech and CBC's version.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/b ac kgrounders/binladen_speech011007.html

      http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10 /0 7/ret.binladen.transcript/

      And the paragraph that is most striking to me is this one:

      CNN: "People -- event of the world -- in Japan, hundreds of thousands of people got killed. This is not a war crime. Or in Iraq, what our -- who are being killed in Iraq. This is not a crime. And those, when they were attacked in my Nairobi, and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan, and Sudan were attacked."

      CBC: "When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those who are with it."

      I can't believe that this is simply the result of some hurried translator working under a deadline. The portions that are most 'altered' and are most central to his argument, and have dashes replacing the text. The rest of the text looks like two different translations, to me.

      It is unfortunate not only because Americans should know exactly why they go to war (not just their government's viewpoint), but also because Bin Laden's argument is not convincing--so a strong case for alterations was not required to make the changes.

      Hope I'm wrong.
      -B

    5. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would have been almost impossible to hijack an international flight from the Tel Aviv airport. In contrast, hijacking a domestic US flight was pretty easy.


      Also, if you read what bin Laden said in some of the sources listed at the end, he often refers to the fight against "Jews and crusaders". And in another interview that bin Laden gave after the WTC attacks, he said "I swear to God that America will never ... see [security] before we see ... it in Palestine."


      So I disagree with you and agree with Douglas.

    6. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by MisterPo · · Score: 1

      This is the most constructive, educated and controlled post I have seen on the whole mess.

      Well done sir.

      I just hope so people can read this without prejudice and learn something about how it all came about.

      Regards,

      Po

    7. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by ckedge · · Score: 1


      The CNN version you quote looks like a literal translation of what their on-air translator said (or whoever did it "live" the first time).

      CNN probably just hasn't bothered getting it re-done properly. CBC has.

      You're right, it's a big difference, and quite appaling. The third time I saw it on TV I was wondering "when the heck are they going to get a good translation done, this one is choppy as hell!"

    8. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Trinition · · Score: 2
      Attacking the U.S. is like attacking two brds with one stone. The terrorists hate the U.S. for the reasons cited in this thread. Attacking us attacks everything our government stands for.

      I don't have too much problem with the troops in Saudi Arabia, or the sanctions against Iraq... but I do take issue with what we have done to help/hide Israel's actions against Palestinians. It is too sad that the terrorists chose to attack in this way as it will only serve to hardern the resolve of those who have supported such policies. We could never change our policie in the wake of the attacks for it would be conceived to be in reaction to them.

    9. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by cburley · · Score: 1
      Among the most balanced posts containing that sort of opinion, thanks!

      There's something you might not have considered is a reason some say "poverty" or, more precisely, "American success" or "American economic dominance" has much to do with why terrorists attack America.

      The terrorists rarely -- whoever they are -- feel "connected" to political or economic power, even if they, themselves, are wealthy.

      Americans, and others in the West, are, on the other hand, accustomed to easily accessing political power to a reasonable approximation of their percentage of the pertinent population.

      In that view, if the Arab Muslim world had more democratic republics a la the US (perhaps even more "free" than the US presently is, such as a system actually based on the US Constitution), not only would they personally have more freedom to direct their lives, but the economic and political powerhouses their nations would have as a result of permitting their citizens (vs. subjects) vast economic and important political freedoms would allow many present "unresolvable" disputes to be, if not resolvable, less likely to stimulate such extreme violence.

      Whether this line of argument holds much merit, I don't myself know, being quite ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, but it stands to reason that if Palestinians demonstrated a long-term commitment to democracy, respect for the rule of law, respect of property rights, and a patient willingness to achieve generation-by-generation leaps of progress as so many other peoples have done (e.g. Jews in the USA), they'd be in a much better position to "earn" their rights vis-a-vis Israel, not so much by throwing rocks or becoming suicide bombers, but by simply buying little pieces of Israel from Israelis happy to sell to fund their retirements (in Florida, California, wherever ;-).

      I realize this is America-centric thinking perhaps, but, after all, here in the USA, our political and economic system, as screwy as it often is, has often resulted in citizens who are members of "tribe X" willingly fighting against other members of tribe X attacking the USA from the outside. I don't doubt that many Muslims will willingly help the US defend itself against whatever "jihad" is declared, because they've seen for themselves how their rights are deeper and broader here than in many areas, even those which are governed by Islamic fundamentalists (which I distinguish from Islamic extremists or militants).

      Personally, I might be killed because I was born in the USA, or because I live here, or because I'm a citizen, or I'm white, but I'm willing to die defending the rights of everyone -- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc. -- to live together in peace by subscribing to the sort of outlining of human rights as done in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      And that is what I believe is under attack by the terrorists, because I don't believe they're truly irrational (people planning suicide attacks for years tend to think things through once or twice), and I don't see them focusing their attacks on those who directly deny them the kind of political and economic power their Muslim counterparts in the USA already -- and increasingly, I hope -- enjoy. And while the USA might complicate their achieving that kind of power by, e.g., supporting Israel, neither the US nor Israel is nearly as directly responsible for such denial as the leaders the terrorists and their neighbors accept for themselves, as far as I can tell.

      In essence, many people believe the US is serving as a scapegoat for the inadequacies of other nations, and I think there's some merit to that argument.

      If that's true, the bad news is that any changes we (in the USA) make in policy, e.g. less support of Israel, are unlikely to reduce the level of hatred directed towards us. We must therefore balance such supposed improvements in international appreciation against whatever security we might give up (e.g. lose a "good friend" in the Middle East by losing Israel as a friend, if not as a nation and its citizens as a people) by pursuing such improvements. (This reminds me of a quote, something like "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while looking for a rock to throw".)

      The good news would be that there's a much more hopeful path to world peace than that outlined by many apologists for terrorists (which usually amounts to "let's leave Israel to either be pushed into the sea or defend itself using nukes") -- one in which Palestinians, as well as Muslims in many other countries, gain for themselves access to economic and political freedoms that already have proven to be a much more peaceful basis for a society here in the USA than what they're presently dealing with.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    10. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by GooseKirk · · Score: 1

      MAN, I wish there were more people in the media and elsewhere talking along these lines. Good work. So what are the solutions?

      The first grievance, the creation of a Palestinian state, should be a no-brainer. The devil's certainly in the details of that issue, but conceptually, there's no doubt that a peaceful creation of a permanent Palestinian homeland should be a top foreign policy priority. Regardless of the sticky realities, strong US support for a Palestinian state should go a long way in the Arab and Muslim world.

      The second and third grievances, Iraqi sanctions and the apparently permanent US military presence on Saudi soil are indeed intertwined. I think there is much more to this situation than we've been told, and resolutions may be more complicated than one might expect. It's all tied into a fourth grievance that goes even more frequently ignored than the first three...

      The fourth grievance would be the longstanding US policy of propping up oppressive regimes in foreign countries when it suits our own agendas. Nothing pisses off a population like this one, and someday, some way, I bet Saudi Arabia is going to go the way of Iran and once again we'll have our own screwed-up policies to blame. The hypocrisy alone of supporting regimes like this should be enough to gall any American. I know how I'd feel if I lived in a place with an oppressive government being backed by the "land of the free" Americans: pretty damn bitter and pissed off.

      Fortunately, with the Cold War gone, there's not as much incentive for America to do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, we still have reasons (or at least excuses) to engage in activities like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grievances in the Middle East. The best resolution to these grievances starts here at home: we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. If we can pull that off (and, someday, we'll have to whether we're ready or not, so it only makes sense to do it on our own timetable), then we don't have to muck around in these nation's business so much. One of the many tangible, beneficial side effects, of course, would be a reduction in the money available to the governments in the Middle East for things like building nuclear weapons and vast armies. Pull the oil plug, and the Middle East becomes Africa - poor and strategically non-critical.

      I'd like to see a Cold War-scale, moon-race kind of program set up to explore alternatives to fossil fuels. There's too many angles that fit into such a program to go into here, but theoretically, at least, America could do it. The benefits could be astro-fucking-nomical. And, we could flush above grievances 2, 3 and 4 down the toilet. Goodbye Arab terrorism.

      Of course, all discussion of such a fantasy program is moot at this point. Won't happen, thanks to... America. Way to go, chumps. Nice sort-of election of a President Oil Money and Vice-President Oil Executive, with National Security Advisor S.S. Condoleeza Rice (had a supertanker named after her, after all - how's that for national security). Such an elegant solution to a bundle of problems, a grand engineering exercise that would make those NASA boys look like weenies, a noble national goal that could provide far-reaching, permanent improvements for every single person on this planet... and fat freakin' chance.

      No, I think what'll happen instead is, none of those four above grievances will be addressed in any meaningful way. President Gump and pals will manage a pretty good war, make it look like we accomplished something (and get rid of the Taliban, which I'm excited about, but it's not really a long-term solution to anything), probably nab some bad guys, America will cheer and we'll go on about our business and nothing will change for the better. Then there will be another terrorist attack and another clampdown on our personal freedoms and so on and so forth...

      All it would take is just one leader with vision, integrity and wisdom. Who? Beats me. But we sure haven't seen the likes of that guy in a long, long time. And I bet if he shows up again, America will just elect another Gump anyway.

      Cheerful thoughts for the start of a new war. Happy bombing, everyone!

    11. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by broken77 · · Score: 1

      I think that maybe Occam's Razor doesn't mean what you think it means...

      --

      I modded the Troll Investigation and I got

    12. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whether this line of argument holds much merit, I don't myself know, being quite ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, but it stands to reason that if Palestinians demonstrated a long-term commitment to democracy, respect for the rule of law, respect of property rights"

      Rule of law like International law that stated nations shouldn't place migrants on occuiped land?

      Respect for property rights, like not razing Palestinians buildings and farms at will? Or building settlement on confiscated Palestinain land?

    13. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
      I think that maybe Occam's Razor doesn't mean what you think it means...
      I think that maybe I understand the meaning of Occam's Razor better than you do. But thanks for the condescending remark anyway.
    14. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The translation posted on CNN is what was originally broadcast on Al-Jazeera. It was probably done by someone (not a professional translator) in Qatar at very short notice. In any case, it is obviously not written by a native English speaker. It took me a little while to figure out what it was saying, but I did puzzle through it and arrived at the same meaning you have posted (from CBC).

    15. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by cburley · · Score: 1
      Whether this line of argument holds much merit, I don't myself know, being quite ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, but it stands to reason that if Palestinians demonstrated a long-term commitment to democracy, respect for the rule of law, respect of property rights

      Rule of law like International law that stated nations shouldn't place migrants on occuiped land?

      Respect for property rights, like not razing Palestinians buildings and farms at will? Or building settlement on confiscated Palestinain land?

      Yes, rule of law exactly like that. Demonstrating the ability to go with the rule of law even when inconvenient, especially when it's been used, or abused, against you.

      Everyone has a choice: to return cursing for cursing, or blessing for cursing. Those who choose the former effectively insist that the world become a worse and worse place to live, that the worst aspects of history continually be relived, amplified, and recreated against the descendants of those assumed to have perpetrated them.

      Those who choose the latter make the world a better place, and demonstrate their moral authority to conduct their lives as they see fit.

      Right now, nothing can be done to "set right" the sins to which you refer without resorting to yet more violence.

      But, right now, each and every Palestinian could decide to follow the path I suggested, which would not require them to engage in any more violence, and which has a demonstrated history of leading various peoples to a much more promising future than the Palestinians of the Middle East are likely to enjoy on their present path of suicide bombings and such.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    16. Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by broken77 · · Score: 1

      Please. Try to take it as constructive criticism. If you do in fact understand better, then why not show me? Instead, you respond with a condescending remark of your own :-)

      --

      I modded the Troll Investigation and I got

  222. your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    you spewed this nugget o'wisdom forth "Remember that each day 35000 people die from hunger or poverty in the world, and that's the fault of USA, G8 and WTO. Fix those problem first, and terrorism will disappear. "


    oh, so it's our fault eh? Why, because we won't feed you or clothe you or give you money or even wipe you ass? I ask: WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE? The US already gives more aid and forgives more debt than all those crappy UNGRATEFUL nations that you appear to be whining about. So fuck off.

    1. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats right man! The USA provides a huge amount of humanitarian assistance etc throughout the world. And we get very little gratitude shown us. For sure we've made mistakes, but the USA is not the demon some would like to portray us as.

    2. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, because your foreign policy caused much of it? How about I smack you in the face, then offer you a tissue for your bloody nose? Oh thank you very much! Retard.

    3. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      the USA is not the demon some would like to portray us as.

      Really?

      * Hiroshima, Nagazaki: how many dead civilian?
      * Vietnam war: same thing.
      People still dying today in Vietnam from your napalm and nuclear weapons.
      * Drest bombing: how many dead civilian?* Iraq bombing and embargo: same thing. In the worst hours, 3 children where dying each second because of US embargo.
      * How many people killed and tortured by Pinochet and others dictators armed by the CIA? (same thing for Ben Laden, Talibans, ...)
      * How many innocent people sentenced to death by error?
      * How can you justify USA that refused to sign treaties to forbid mines, chemical weapons, and to reduce polution
      * USA don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child by using death penalty against children (the minimum legal age to be sentenced to death is 14 in some states) and mentally deficient people
      * People dying from starvation and lack of drugs everywhere in the world could be saved with only a little part of the military budget

      And that's only of few items.

      USA is not the only country to do so kind of things. I know that my country (France) is guilty of many crimes too. But when you see the number of people killed by USA, more or less directly, in less than 60 years, how can you still pretend USA is an humanitary country?

    4. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima, Nagazaki: how many dead civilian?
      The question is, how many people would have died had the US not dropped those bombs. The decision to drop them was not made lightly, but they decided that it would save lives in the long run.

      Vietnam war: same thing. People still dying today in Vietnam from your napalm and nuclear weapons.
      There were no nuclear weapons used in Vietnam.

      Drest bombing: how many dead civilian?* Iraq bombing and embargo: same thing. In the worst hours, 3 children where dying each second because of US embargo.
      And what about Saddam stealing the UN humanitarian supplies before they reach the children?

      How many people killed and tortured by Pinochet and others dictators armed by the CIA? (same thing for Ben Laden, Talibans, ...)
      It is impossible to predict what Pinochet was going to do in the future- you are faulting the US for not reading somebody's mind and predicting the future?

      How many innocent people sentenced to death by error?
      First of all, the number of innocent people that might be sentanced to death is a lot higher than the number that would acutally be executed- the standard of proof is extremely high in a death penalty case. But there are many people working here on getting rid of the death penalty. Thats the beauty of the US- every citizen has the power to try to change things he/she doesnt like.

      How can you justify USA that refused to sign treaties to forbid mines, chemical weapons, and to reduce polution
      I _hope_ you arent talking about the Kyoto protocol- that was the most worthless anti-american "treaty" that was disguised as anti-pollution (and an ineffective anti-pollution treaty at that).

      USA don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child by using death penalty against children (the minimum legal age to be sentenced to death is 14 in some states) and mentally deficient people
      Like I said before, there are people working on this.

      People dying from starvation and lack of drugs everywhere in the world could be saved with only a little part of the military budget
      So let me get this straight- instead of defending ourselves against idiots like Osama and taking care of the needy people in our own country, you think it is our job to spend our money feeding people that dont have the common sense to live in a place with water? We already spend billions a year in humanitarian aid to other countries. The only thanks we get is our troops getting murdered in Somalia and psychos flying planes into our buildings.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    5. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France!?!?! How can you be from France and put down the USA? France is nothing but a back stabing, we help Hitler because we're pussies, country. We saved your asses and you do nothing put "poo poo" at us. First, there are a few words you should learn the first being deoderant! The US only attacks to help someone else, in WW1, we didn't have to fight. In WWII, we were bombed by Japan, so we bombed back saving Europes ass. Now we've been attacked and only France would be pussies enough to say "please don't hurt us, we will be your slaves".

    6. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already spend billions a year in humanitarian aid to other countries.

      Oh, really. Then why did it take a couple of airliners and collapsing skyscrapers before the Congress decided to pay the United Nations the debt the US owns them? Even though now there is a decision to pay the money, has even one cent been paid yet?

      Try to understand that you cannot fuck with people and then cry foul when they hit back. That's exactly what has happened. The circle of hatred must be broken, and I do hope that the dropping of food, medicine and supplies to Afghanistan does something about it.

      Without anything creating energy or heat, it's going to get cold in Afghanistan. And it won't be just bin Laden & the bad guys, but the ordinary people.

    7. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by ariux · · Score: 1

      Oh, give me a break. France, butcher of Algeria? Slaughtering colonial power for 300 years? France has been exploiting and murdering helpless tribespeople around the world for longer than the US has existed.

      There's a productive way to look at injustices. You can point at an injustice and say, "that thing is bad." Then you can gather support for your cause and try to eradicate the bad thing.

      But there's also an unproductive way, and that's where it's just used as a tool, one of many, to get at some enemy - a fact filled in behind to make the point of "you, my enemy, are bad." Those who make such use don't care about the actual injustice, except in that it gives them a handle on someone - and once that handle is useless, they'll just fall silent. Frequently such a user lives in a glass house of his own. And I assert that you, my friend, are one.

    8. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by pyramid+termite · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight- instead of defending ourselves against idiots like Osama and taking care of the needy people in our own country, you think it is our job to spend our money feeding people that dont have the common sense to live in a place with water?

      Yeah, it's all their fault for not having the common sense to be born as Americans, isn't it? Then they could live in a place with water like Los Angeles or Phoenix. That way we wouldn't be forced to bankrupt ourselves giving them food and water while we're busy bombing Afghanistan. How dare they starve to death when we're trying to kill someone else; if they were considerate like we are, they'd wait a few days to starve until we could get around to saving them. The nerve!

      I mean, like, can't they get a job at the mall or something?

    9. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      I am all for us helping out people in need, but we are not required to. Its attitudes like yours that I am opposed to- we are not forced to give anything. We have a legitimate right to defend ourselves, and if helping out the needy in other countries is going to bankrupt us, then we shouldnt help. Kilobug even went so far to say that the US should cut it's military budget so we can help more. If people hate us now even with all of the humanitarian aid that we give, giving more isn't going to help. Cutting our military budget would just mean that we would be unable to defend ourselves.

      while we're busy bombing Afghanistan

      Don't you mean busy bombing terrorists that pose a serious threat to our national security? Accoring to the UN charter, what we are doing in Afghanistan is an act of self defense. Even Musharraf in Pakistan said that this isn't an attack on Afghanistan- its just an attack on the terrorists.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    10. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by zsmooth · · Score: 1

      I agreed with your comments until you implied the death penalty should go. I suppose you'd rather put Mr. bin Laden in prison for life, guest of the US Penal system?

    11. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by pyramid+termite · · Score: 1

      Even after all that sarcasm I posted, you still haven't figured out that saying that these people "don't have the common sense to live in a place with water" was a brutally ignorant and callous statement?

      Quite bluntly, it's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot. I have news for you. When we are born we do not get to choose where we live. Some of us get to live in a good place. Some of us get to live in a bad place. The ones who live in a good place should not say that the ones who live in a bad place are dumb when they are stuck there, and don't have food. If they can't help, then at least they should not say dumb things like, "You don't have the sense to move." There. I said it in words of one syllable in the hopes that you just might understand it. But you probably won't ...

    12. Re:your kungfu...I mean propaganda is WEAK by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      I never said France was a lot better. But the fact that France and other european countries did (and still do) a lot of horrible things don't allow you to do the same.

      I'ld have react the same way if the planes crashed on Paris and the french army were bombing Kabul.

  223. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to fuck a Muslim women in the mouth - while her husband is bound and gagged. I'd like to fuck her in the mouth while he watches helplessly.

  224. Re: War, alway a mistake.... by yfarren · · Score: 1

    I gotta disagree here. There is a time when force is neccesary. There is a time when killing innocent civilians in neccesary. There are not, "ALWAYS" other options.

    I understand the sentiment that people dont like killing. Great. I agree. In the abstract, all other things being eaqual, killing is to be avoided. And I would even agree that killing is almost always horrible. But the fact that something is horrible need not mean that we shouldnt do it.

    Need we be so simpleminded so that we can either say: "Killing is horrible, dont do it ever", or: "The fuckers deserve everything that is coming to them, nuke em nuke em nuke em all, kill kill kill!"? Killing is horrific. No question. Go read Johnny Got His Gun byt Dalton Trumbo if you dont think so. Killing, and war are horrible things. No question. Unfortunately, the world we live in is a messy, and at times horrible place. Cant we accept the horror of the act of killing, without having it neccesarily mean that the atrocity is out of bounds? Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?

    There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?

  225. Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because it is ILLEGAL for the US government to give over any control or authority of American citizens to a foreign power. Period.

  226. Re:NYC airspace EMPTY - or not by Alsee · · Score: 1

    5 planes went overhead in the last few minutes.

    Either it was a hell of a fluke lull in airtraffic, or it was only a short clearing of the airspace.

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  227. Re:Germany by Bimble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pay closer attention to your World War 2 history. Even the Allies referred to some of their bombing runs as "terror bombing". Civilian populations _were_ targets of some of the Allied bombing runs. They operated under the mistaken belief that bombings would demoralize the civilian populations and make them less able to support the war effort, and possibly force an internal political end to the war. What actually happened, of course, is that the civilians got more incensed at the enemy and more supportive of the war effort.

    This happened on both sides of World War 2, of course - Germany started with a mistaken bombing of London, and British bomber command was the most enthusiastic supporter of terror bombing. Do a Google search for "Dresden bombing" if you want an example.

    I'm not saying I'm not glad the Allies won the war, of course. But I do feel the need to correct posts that suggest that Allied intentions were nothing but good, and that civilians were never purposefully targeted. Some incidents of targeting civilians probably did prevent greater casualties in the long run (Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind), but the ends gained do not change the fact that civilians were indeed Allied targets.

    As to the current bombings, we'll see what's actually getting hit. As I said above, bombing the civilian population of Afghanistan is more likely to feed their will to fight the US than to wear it down. Bombing the barely-existent infrastructure of Afghanistan will have short-term military benefits, but long-term detrimental effects on the civilian population, as Iraq has shown. Whatever happens, I don't think I'll be able to shake the feeling that this is exactly what the terrorists were hoping the US would do.

    --
    Naked.
  228. my god ... could you be any more gullible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheesh, propaganda is so successful because of people like you...

    1. Re:my god ... could you be any more gullible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's almost exactly what the nazis to the germans said about the jews : "they're stealing from us right under our noses, and by playing the pitty we let them get away with it"

      EVERY case of torture is to be taken seriously. If it turns out to be a fake, you can make a judgment. Until it doesn't, it should be considered worth investigating.

  229. Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US had NOT tried hard enough to avoid conflict.

    Why didnt the US show the taliban the "proof" that bin laden is responsible, they have said right from the start that if they were given strong evidence they would consider handing him over.

    The US doesnt want to avoid conflict, it wants to demonstrate that they are the still king of the castle. Just like any school bully.

    1. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank you very much. Took the words out of my fingers.

    2. Re:Bullies by Darchmare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ---
      Why didnt the US show the taliban the "proof" that bin laden is responsible, they have said right from the start that if they were given strong evidence they would consider handing him over.
      ---

      Because doing so would have exposed our entire intelligence network.

      At best, that intelligence wouldn't work any more.

      At worst, that intelligence wouldn't work any more and we would have to deal with the death of hundreds of our informants.

      I figure it this way: If the government has plenty of proof, they don't see any reason to give a damn whether the Taliban gets to see it (as they know they were behind it, and know it).

      Regardless, strong evidence has already been released ... Just not something that would expose our intelligence community to risk.

      --

      - Jeff
    3. Re:Bullies by Dexx · · Score: 1

      At best, that intelligence wouldn't work any more.
      From everything I've heard, it doesn't now, that US SS really dropped the ball with this one.

      strong evidence has already been released
      Where?

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    4. Re:Bullies by Danse · · Score: 2

      Our intelligence network?? From what our government has been saying, we don't have much of an intelligence network dealing with Afghanistan or bin Laden. Regardless, if we are demanding that another government hand over one of its citizens, we had better be able to show them the proof. We would accept nothing less if the same were demanded of us. But this is just another issue on which the US displays its hypocritical behavior.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      bin Laden's been indicted already for previous terrorist attacks against the US. The Taliban got to examine the evidence and let bin Laden go on his merry way. Far from being hypocritical, the US has learned that the Taliban aren't going to follow international norms and adjusted its strategy.

    6. Re:Bullies by Danse · · Score: 2

      So why not just show them? Then when they still refuse, we can take other actions. Why not do it just so we can say we really exhausted the peaceful options?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    7. Re:Bullies by Panaflex · · Score: 2

      Because showing them at a time when you are about to root him out is about the stupidist thing we could do. Exposing the little intelligence we have over there could end any possibility of solving this problem.

      Sorry, let me list Usama's past:
      1. Bombing markets and schools in Soviet war. (Violation of Geneva convention)
      2. WTC bombing ('93) (Strong indications)
      3. American base in Saudi Arabia
      4. Two Embassies (Convicted)
      5. USS Cole (Convicted)
      6. WTC destruction ('01)

      I think America has been amicable enough. Our unwillingness to de-stabilize the middle east must be weighed with the 16000+ people whose lives have been destroyed or injured.

      I say we give Usama Islamic justice. I say we hold the trial in Saudi Arabia.

      Pan

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    8. Re:Bullies by Danse · · Score: 2

      It's not even remotely that simple. We've supported terrorist groups ourselves. Should we be bombed for it? We helped bin Laden and those that became the Taliban to kick out a government that actually let women work and go to school, just because we didn't like Russia at the time. Don't pretend we've done nothing wrong here. Our past decisions are coming back to haunt us.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    9. Re:Bullies by ink · · Score: 2
      Why didnt the US show the taliban the "proof" that bin laden is responsible, they have said right from the start that if they were given strong evidence they would consider handing him over.


      Bin Laden announced that he knew of the Sept. 11th bombings beforehand today. Are you happy now?

      --
      The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
  230. Emergency head bashing at 5pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready to meet an army of rednecks armed with guns, knives, and baseball bats. You've been warned.

    1. Re:Emergency head bashing at 5pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm, I wonder why the U.S. has a bully reputation around the world.

    2. Re:Emergency head bashing at 5pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA-HA!

    3. Re:Emergency head bashing at 5pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so youre an all american huh?
      violent agianst those whos opinion you dont like....

    4. Re:Emergency head bashing at 5pm by cREW+oNE · · Score: 1

      So much for freedom of speech.

      --

      +++ATH0

  231. STUPID MOFO ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is one raped, electrocuted, beaten woman not enough for you ??????

    jezus man... what does it take you to be ashamed of what YOUR military forces did ? It is not an issue here what someone did to you, but what you did yourself; The point of the original poster was that US military are a bunch of savages *too*. Instead of apologizing and trying to explain the complexity of a war conflict like vietnam, you just barf 'huh, one charlie woman ? huh huh ? fook'm man hu hu !!'

    fucking arsehole. You're a disgrace beyond your own boundaries. I'm not an american and I ashamed of your behavior.

    1. Re:STUPID MOFO ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'll use small words since you don't seem very bright. Someone said thousands of Vietnamese women were raped. I asked for a source. Someone posted an anecdote of one woman. One < thousands.


      And I could give a rat's ass about how ashamed you feel. You obviously have a lot to be ashamed for. I don't.

  232. They already declared war by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    We're just finishing what they started. Notice that with the exception of the usual gang of idiots, even the traditional terrorist groups were quick to distance themselves from the events of Sept. 11. Now that we are paying attention, it's going to be a lot harder for any hostile group to obtain funding or support, even if that group operates only in one country to affect local politics there. Governments will not long support activities which will result in the toppling of that government and people will not long support activites which they know will bring retaliation from the most powerful nation on the planet.

    Many would have had that retaliation be more swift and more brutal. Kind of hard to destroy a nation completely while trying to maintain any sort of moral high ground, though. We will make the appropriate demonstration. On the home front, I'd like to see MUCH more money being spent on alternative energy research so that we can as quickly as possible let that region of the world dry up and blow away as it should have done years ago.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  233. BBC has an excellent timeline .. by hygelic · · Score: 1

    "1909GMT A Taleban spokesman tells AIP the US-led attacks caused no significant damage to Taleban targets, AFP reports. "

    .. yet. Just wait guys, just wait.

  234. cowardly response by speedyfirefly · · Score: 1

    As we have seen in many american bombing raids, innocent people are killed. miss targets and stray missile, unjustified target being hit. basically, i dont see this poeple giving up so easily. I disagree what so ever the americans are doing now in terrorizing the afganistanistan people. Ihope that they bring this osama bin laden to justice but by bombing a poor country for the sake of terrorist network in there is unjust. Intelligence should be the main aim in getting these people. When the world community ask for a monitoring force in palestine and israel to agree on cease fire and help stabilize the region with ceasefire the american vetoed such move. i dont get it. when there's a chance to tone down the terrorist rhetorics when there's peace in middle east, these terrorist has no reason to perform any form of terror. i'm deeply disappointed what american is doing when there's certainly some other big issues not trying hard enough by the current administration to solve. i hope for the safety of those innocent afganistan people who was sucked into the war.

    1. Re:cowardly response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're next, bub, just as soon as we track you down, you're history.

    2. Re:cowardly response by speedyfirefly · · Score: 1

      fuck you idiot.... this so typical of you guys...

  235. Re:It is time for you to realize by kruczkowski · · Score: 2

    And the UN has supports US attacks. As Tony Blair said, "This is a attack on the world not just US"

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  236. All fanatics should be attacked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope the gnu headquarters are next. RMS needs a missile in his head to straighen him up.

  237. That's an easy one. by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    Response: Say, "OK, have it your way".

    Then go to look like you're winding up for a punch, but kick the guy in the balls instead.

    Continue with, "Kicking you in the balls won't kill you, you'll live to regret it. That's direct self-defense. Civilization requires deliberation. I know why I kicked you in the balls, and can demonstrate that to anyone nearby. These witnesses know why I kicked you in the balls. Why is this different? Well, I haven't seen anyone demonstrate how bin Laden is guilty, couldn't we at the very least try him in absentia? Since we haven't, it's not obvious that he's doing the face-punching. Furthermore, did random Afghanis punch us in the face? No sir. They just want to live, just like the people in the WTC wanted to live. If you want to kill them just because that's the parameters the WTC attack set, well then do so, but don't pretend you're a magical paladin of justice. Find me someone to kick in the balls, but make sure he punched me in the face first."

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  238. Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's because it is ILLEGAL for the US government to give over any control or authority of American citizens to a foreign power. Period."

    Oh yes... I see. You know, that's exactly why the Taliban want Usama bin Laden to be tried in an Islamic court.

    Bush says, you're either with him, or with the terrorists... I say, you either accept international justice, or you don't. The US doesn't, so you have NO right to make ANY demands, until you change your policy.

    /Martin Sahlin

  239. Terrorism: act of war or simply a criminal act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    One of the gravest mistakes that has been made over the last few years is that terrorism has been treated not as an act of war, but as an act of criminal activity.

    This isn't a matter of trial. This isn't a matter of a court of justice weighing evidence. This is a matter of a sovereign country / group of people (depending on how you look at it) engaging in a form of terrorist war. Evidence -does- matter, but not in the same sense -- it doesn't have to meet some standard in a court of law. For me, I am satisfied that everyone who has seen the evidence has come out in strong support of it (including Pakistan).

    I am currently living in New York. There are people in Afghanistan who have declared war on ME and want ME and everyone else in this country dead. You can change policy in the middle east dealing with Isreal. (In fact, Bush is taking steps in that direction.) But the simple truth is that these people still want us dead.

    This is war. And I hope we win with as few casualties as possible.

    (Also, please note one -important- moral difference between America's and Britain's aims from their aims: civilian damange is attempted to be minimized on the other side, while it is *targeted* on the other side. This is war. This stuff happens in war. The Taliban brought it on themselves.)

    1. Re:Terrorism: act of war or simply a criminal act? by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      civilian damange is attempted to be minimized

      That's why NATO use uranium-based weapon that make water undrinkable in the region? That's why they make people in Irak starve to death for 10 years with their economic blocus? That's why NATO supports countries like Turkey where Kurdish are killed just because they are Kurdish? USA and NATO don't care about civilian damages as longs as it's not US citizens.

    2. Re:Terrorism: act of war or simply a criminal act? by psychothemighty · · Score: 0

      You can read our constitution here.

  240. Anti-US comment by mauri · · Score: 1

    It is quite interesting that NONE of the comments above 3 is critical of US war against Afganistan !

    It does not impress me. I do think that most of americans are in kind of war hystery.

    --
    __
    L.
    1. Re:Anti-US comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite interesting that NONE of the comments above 3 is critical of US war against Afganistan !

      It does not impress me. I do think that most of americans are in kind of war hystery.

      I'm not speaking for all U.S. citizens, but your post doesn't address the key issues:
      • When a crime (or act of war if you prefer) is committed, the perpetrator is NOT behaving in a legitimate fashion.
      • The perpetrators of this crime tried to be anonymous. If this is some holy war, why aren't they proud of what they have done? (hint: If they stepped up and admitted their actions, could they play the injured party?)
      • If the U.S. has the wrong people (hint: most of the world doesn't think so) then other suspects should have come to light.
      • If a criminal's identity becomes known to authorities, negotiations are ALWAYS done for extradition to the country where the crime took place. If the other country doesn't comply, well it could be inconvenient (hint: but that's their problem not ours).
      • We are NOT alone in thinking that we know who did this, nor are we alone in thinking that the government (Taliban) is complicit in harboring of the criminal.
      • One should not construe the lack of support of neighboring countries as bases for U.S. military attacks as support for the Taliban. Rather it might be better to think of it as if one had a crazy neighbor and the authorities had to arrest a member of that crazy neighbor's family. The other neighbors would be afraid to cooperate with the authorities, after all, what happens when the police leave the area?
      • Not One Purely Pacifist approach sounds promising . However, the U.S. is providing humanitarian assistance and using diplomatic approaches in addition to military approaches

      So, my friend, this is like nature. If you disturb the sense of well being of a large powerful creature, you need to expect that that creature is going to take direct action to remove the source of the disturbance.
    2. Re:Anti-US comment by mauri · · Score: 1

      Your comments make sense, but:

      Why has US made its so called "evidence" against Osama bin Laden available to very funny countries (like Finland and Sweden), but NOT to Afganistan and its ruling Taliban ?

      I suppose they wanted war because they talked only from power position. I am not sure if US has in fact officially requested anything from Taliban...

      And then there is this nazi rhetoric: "anyone who is not with us is against us", and so on... if it wasn't real it would be funny.

      --
      __
      L.
  241. Bullshit by Rix · · Score: 1

    The US asked them to turn over a war hero without any evidence. Of course they refused!

    How would the US respond if Iraq asked the US to turn over Bush Sr for certian execution?

    1. Re:Bullshit by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      The US asked them to turn over a war hero without any evidence. Of course they refused!

      Oh please, you are not this naive. The Taliban knows full well what activities bin Laden takes part in. They fully support his terrorist activities. You seem to think this is some legitimate government like Canada or something.

      I don't think it's in the world's best interest to let a criminal be tried by a judge and jury of criminals.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  242. No Shit! by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
    Well said. The attack on the U.S.S Cole should have been enough to inititiate this. Then, possibly, the WTC and Pentagon and PA tragedies might have been avoided via heightened security. It always hits harder close to home.

    Because it was in Yemen, we just said "Oh, Well, Gee, Guess we better not fuel there anymore" and even though we KNEW it was bin Laden's work, the government sat on its collective ass!

    Good News, though - she's been recommissioned (you'll have to find it - I gotta go) and I hope they can get sweet revenge!

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  243. Links and Observation by Davak · · Score: 1
    Links:
    http://www.aljazeera.net/live.asx
    - Live Feed

    http://www.ptv-news.com.pk
    - Paki News

    http://www.debka.com/
    - General Inside Information

    http://www.afghan-web.com/
    - Quote of the year on this web site...
    "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe."

    Interesting observation...
    Almost every major terrorist attack has been preceded by a recorded speech by Osama.

    Please assist with link-building...

    Davak
    Carotids.com

    1. Re:Links and Observation by edinho · · Score: 1
      http://www.debka.com/
      - General Inside Information

      You are kidding, right?

  244. Re:This sounds so familiar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this reply -1? It should be 1. Unless you've fallen into the sensitivity censorship trap

  245. Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fucking herb.

    as an RA, I am seen as a leader in crisis situations

    No one listens to you. Most RA's are herbs.

  246. This is getting expensive by ryantate · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Nobility is costly:

    Cost of about 75 cruise missiles fired on two targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998: ~$75 million

    Death toll: about 21 (source, source, source)

    Cost per casualty (apologies): $3.6 million

    Targets (you guess the cost): "suspected chemical weapons plant in Khartoum, Sudan, and a terrorist training complex in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. "

    -

    Dirty deeds done dirt cheap:

    Cost of full-fare airline ticket purchased by one of the hijackers (this is from memory): $2,499

    Implied rough maximum cost for 18 hijackers: $44,982

    Death toll: more than 6,000

    Cost per casualty (apologies): less than $7.50

    Estimated cost to U.S. economy, according to Economy.com: about $70 billion

    -

    They just need to get us to keep firing cruise missiles ($1m), dropping JDAM smart bombs (~$17k - src: WSJ last Fri.) and firing Maverick air to surface missiles (~$120K, ibid).

    1. Re:This is getting expensive by greenrd · · Score: 2
      I think the indirect death toll might have been a little higher than 21, because that "suspected chemical weapons plant" was in fact a pharmaceutical factory producing lifesaving medicines and vaccines. But as Chomsky pointed out, no-one's done any studies, so we don't know.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    2. Re:This is getting expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you know what Bush means when he says the U.S. needs to spend more to get out of the recession.

      Defense budget has already been raised. Good to see that those defense-donations to the Bush-Cheney ticket were worth their money.

    3. Re:This is getting expensive by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Chomsky is hardly an unbiased source. His history includes public support for the Khmer Rouge and similar organizations.

      As far as I can tell he is just as radical as any member of Al-Queda.

    4. Re:This is getting expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he's a egghead professsor and not actually a terrorist. Keep that in mind in your war with "the enemy within".

    5. Re:This is getting expensive by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Except that he's a egghead professsor and not actually a terrorist. Keep that in mind in your war with "the enemy within".

      He's an egghead professor who has makes no sense whatsoever outside his field of expertise, and should NOT be quoted as an authority on ANY topic outside his field.

  247. air strikes by dincubus · · Score: 1

    The US and Britan were using TLAM-C tomahawk missles as well as carrier based strike aircraft. there were B-1B, B-52 (which carpet bombed in Iraq) as well as B-2 bombers. those missles softened up the area and then the bombers went in to get a little more precise. who knows if there are troops in on the ground but i personally would not doubt it. anything is possible. now for me. i am getting a little nervous because i live within about an hour of a "large bomber base" and within about 30 minutes of a national monument. so anything could happen.
    bin laden made a not too smart statement on his little taped message. he directly threatened the entire US. not the best move considering the area he is in is under bombing attack at the moment

    --
    a wise man once said "two wrongs dont make a right, but three rights do make a left" and that wise man was gallagher
  248. Re:Whose war? Real Quote? by rochlin · · Score: 1

    I just think it's a shame when this kind of quote is posted without a credible reference. Too many inflamatory blurbs like this are spread as Gospel without any kind of legitimation (except for a "5" from the /. moderators)
    peacepilgrim
    has the quote, but who the heck are they? The quote doesn't appear in the standard references so far as I can figure. It might be (probably is) real, but ...

    --
    A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
  249. Extradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    AFAIK a country generally doesn't give in to extradition requests without some semblance of proof of guilt - at least enough to show cause for an indictment. The U.S. has given no proof to the country of the guilt of those parties asked for extradition for *any* of the crimes of which they are accused. They've shown them to their allies and, yes, their allies agree that there is proof - what a surprise! Hmm, yes, I can see that we (the U.S.) have backed off our policy of bullying the world around. Just imagine what it would be like if we reciprocated our apparent views on extradition with all other countries - you ask for him, you get him. No proof needed - oh, China, you'd like to indict some taiwanese visiting America on counts of treason? Sure, here you are. AFA the war, I'll leave those thoughts to another post.

    1. Re:Extradition by AdrianG · · Score: 2
      Perhaps if the Taliban Militia had not spent all their time thumbing their noses at international law and the international community, they might be considered a legitimate government, and this argument of yours might have some chance of legitimacy, itself. A band of fanatical thugs that murders anyone who disagrees with them and proclaims itself to be a government does not have the same standing to demand proof that a legitimate government might.

      Further, even if the Taliban were a legitimate government, sponsoring and protecting a group of psychopaths that routinely conduct attacks on another country is an obvious provocation to war, and all this talk of extradition procedures is simply a distraction. We are not filing papers on the Taliban in some world court, we are conducting a war against them. The Paks wanted to offer the Taliban a chance to distance themselves from the terrorists, and in recognition of public sentiment within Pakistan and of Pakistan's intended help to our war efforts, we went along and gave the Taliban a last chance. This is not about extradition; This is about trying to be sensitive to the political realities that our allies face. Treating this like an extradition request would lend legitimacy to the Taliban's claims that they are a government. It would be more correct to consider them co-conspirators that have refused to give up their accomplices. They had a chance to make a deal with the procecutor, and they blew it. Now they are paying the price.

      Adrian

  250. Lesson 1: How not to make the world a better place by lowieken · · Score: 0

    Just bombing Afghanistan with food, medicine and clothing would be quite a lot MORE EFFICIENT. Toys for the children should also be included. Who can resist that? As long as you don't throw barbies at them...

    It would also have been a hell of a lot CHEAPER. AND it could help the American economy. America is strong enough to do this. Look at the succes this brought them with the Marshall plan after World War II.

    PLUS Europe (not taking into account the UK) would become a lot more helpful.

    As an EXTRA, you would have the Arab nations support, instead of having to threaten them.

    Even the relations between Israel and the Arab world could get better with such actions, since the Israeli's could join the effort.

    It might also have a LONG TERM positive influence on reducing terrorist activity.

    But defense... oops sorry... WAR INDUSTRY would not really have made so much profit out of it.

    Oh, well, just a thought...

    BTW: Does anyone know about the reasons of the state of emergency in Florida?

  251. I don't doubt it. by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Well, while we're having this little scuffle in Afghanistan, the Middle East is heating up significantly, and the extremists are getting followers on both sides. In fact, looks like there'll be at least a scuffle, if not a full-on war, between either Hamas or Hizbollah and Israel relatively soon, and perhaps coups in Egypt and Jordan. There still may be a coup in Pakistan, as the radicals have quite a bit of support. Pakistan has nukes and delivery systems, y'know. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a nuclear power run by rabid radicals right next door to the 10th Mountain as they try to invade? Then, all we need is for China to decide now is the time to take back Taiwan, since we *can not* fight a two-front war. Surprise, WW3.

  252. you don't get it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dave, YOU are of the people binLaden has asked to be killed in Allah's name. YOU are one of the infidels. For that matter, same with your father, mother, sister, neighbor, ...need I go on? Don't you see, he and his troops DON'T CARE if you are for them or not. If people like you were the majority, we'd all be either his subjects (research human rights abuses and lack of any form of entertainment in Afghanistan) or just plain dead. You can understand that I hope. We'd all be martyrs for HIS cause. If you ever see someone murdered or even attacked UNJUSTLY while you stand and watch, I'm certain that you would feel differently about picking up a weapon and doing something that's right.

    1. Re:you don't get it, do you? by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 1

      Really? I've never met the man. There's got to be the reason he's pissed off now isn't there?

      Trying exploring that with a clear mind.
      Ask yourself why there's no threats against Canada, or Mexico, or Bazil. Make no mistake these are shithole countries too, but they are not world wide bullies.

      And by the way, nice to see you take eveything the press says as gospel. This bin laden guy could be nothing more a twinkle in a propaghandist eye, and you'd merrily march and die for the 'cause'. Stupid.

  253. The Smart Bombs are running Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God help us all!!

  254. Tomorrow's News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. to Taliban:
    All your base are belong to US!

  255. Bullshit moral equivalency by Software+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Your statement is ridiculous. The Taliban has declared itself by its actions to be an enemy of the United States by harboring a known terrorist who has had thousands of US citizens killed for nothing more than being US citizens.

    You can take your moral equivalency bullshit and choke on it. This is real life dumbass, not some classroom debate. They were warned about what we were going to do if they didn't turn the terrorists over and they didn't do anything but threaten us and try to delay.

    We didn't attack without warning, they did. Actions come with consequences and it is time that these people learned that.

    I don't welcome the deaths of innocents, but I'm not going play the moral equivalance game. We're in the right, no question about it. This is a fight, and we have to win.

  256. Imagine... by 6EQUJ5 · · Score: 2


    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan...

    Wow.

    ;)

    --

    1. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine

      Imagine there's no heaven,
      It's easy if you try,
      No hell below us,
      Above us only sky,
      Imagine all the people
      living for today...

      Imagine there's no countries,
      It isnt hard to do,
      Nothing to kill or die for,
      No religion too,
      Imagine all the people
      living life in peace...

      Imagine no possesions,
      I wonder if you can,
      No need for greed or hunger,
      A brotherhood of man,
      imane all the people
      Sharing all the world...

      You may say Im a dreamer,
      but Im not the only one,
      I hope some day you'll join us,
      And the world will live as one.

  257. Precisely why we should do something about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blah blah lameness filter ...blah blah..
    Just read the title, that says it all.

  258. May God bless... by Bongo · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Evolution/growth:

    May God bless me.

    May God bless my parents.

    May God bless my tribe.

    May God bless my country.

    May God bless my planet.

    May God bless my enemies.

  259. Re:Heh by James+Skarzinskas · · Score: 1

    You know, I've seen alot of blunt and to be frank, quite stupid comments about 'nuking the afghans', etc. I have to make this point, as seeing you people go off on rants about how nuking them away would be such a merry solution, well you know what? Maybe it takes a long time for such thoughts as, oh, say, the aftermath to sink in, but lets imagine this (pause here, as it may take a while for your simple mind to key in to 'imagine'!).

    Lets say this happens: United States gets more Afghan terrorist attacks, and the source is proved to be Usama bin Laden's planning once again. Furious, Bush presses the literal nuke button and nukes Afghanistan. America then feels momentary satisfaction; Usama is dead, along with every Afghan in the region. Then the rest sinks in. Countless Russians, Germans, Chinese die horribly with disease and suffering, which Bush is of course, completely against. Lets not forget your British friends who are all-America (or so they say) in this war. You are spreading disease and disorder to your "friends", whose future generations will grow to hate America. Even localized, peoples food, water, all affected by the radiation. Tell me, friends, is it worth the nuclear attacks on the Earth for the immediate satisfaction then a future of *further* American-haters? Even you will become sick or die *possibly* from the nuclear attack eventually, by inhalation or poisoning. I say, covert or military strikes to destroy Usama and his terrorists.

    Even if Usama dies by military/covert attacks, there are his brothers in terrorism who will go to new heights, enraged by Usama's death, and using it as new ammunition to teach people how "evil and horrible" the Americans are. Not a good situation to be in at all, once again, further generations of more centralized, yet more dangerous American-haters.

    This leaves me with one, rather amusing conclusion. The only relatively "safe" way for Usama to die would be by some sort of weather-effect, ie. lightning striking him. The chances are so astronomical that it probably would never happen; but wouldn't you call it poetic justice? Smited by Allah, I'm sure that would put off alot of his interesting friends in their endeavours to attack America.

    Oh, and on another note-- why would you call it Stan? Is there any 'Stan' left there? ^_^.

  260. Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn what an extradition treaty is, and then come back and talk smack.

  261. Re:Blair's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by The+Mgt · · Score: 1
    There's a theorey that when the cold war ended and the USA was buying back stinger missiles from the Mujahadeen fighters for $200k a piece, they were inadvertently funding the world drug trade.
    I would have thought that the sale of drugs funded the international drug trade, but what do I know.
    What have they got against smack anyway ?
  262. Re:Again that old same story about humanitarian "a by pa-guy · · Score: 0
    Wake up. I was a professional soldier for 20 years, and I can tell you without any reservations that the amount of collateral damage in Kosovo (and any other place where a MODERN, professional military goes to work) is lower now than it has been in the history of man.

    Take your shit elsewhere.

  263. Re:Lesson 1: How not to make the world a better pl by cdalemx · · Score: 1

    I don't know if they would really appeciate american toys . . as they are pretty much discusted with our culture as a whole. I agree we should not be bombing them though .. justice not violent atacks,. . they though they could acomplish something by comiting crimes against humanity, and now we are doing the same.

  264. Yeah, Yeah. . , what else is REALLY going on? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Just like the WTC thing happened a day or so before the big official report or recount or whatever it was supposed to be, was to be released regarding the corrupted election of Bush, I wonder what is really happening right now while the bombs and P.R. packs of food drop on the heads of the Afghani people.

    I was just reading the introduction to Derailing Democracy when the news hit. Interesting timing. . . It neatly points out that the American Media is a total showboad for military/corporate interests. Think I'll buy a copy if the rest of the book is as good as the intro.


    Fantastic Lad

  265. Re:Lesson 1: How not to make the world a better pl by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    Um...the current attacks are mostly clearing out air defenses for future bombings, as well as dropping tons and tons of food and medicine onto the citizens of Afghanistan. The Joint Chief claims he hopes to start that tomorrow.

  266. This war is not right by lga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why are we answering a terrorist attack by becoming terrorists ourselves? The people of Afganistan have done nothing against us and are barely able to stay alive, let alone defend themselves. I have not yet seen any proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on the world trade centre and there is no evidence that the people of Afganistan had anything to do with it.

    This war is not justice.

    Steve.

    --
    A latent existence
    1. Re:This war is not right by conebrid · · Score: 1

      First off, I agree! But it needs to be pointed out that bin Laden has committed acts of this sort in the past and has gone unpunished, and he also openly encourages terrorism. He definitely deserves to be punished, but not everybody in that entire country is a terrorist.

    2. Re:This war is not right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Guilt by association.


    3. Re:This war is not right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're giving the people of afghanistan food, dumbass. We're giving the military of afghanistan the shaft.

      Explain how this is a terrorist attack.

      You know, a terrorist attack, like killing 6,000 civilians...

    4. Re:This war is not right by lga · · Score: 1
      we're giving the people of afghanistan food, dumbass. We're giving the military of afghanistan the shaft. Explain how this is a terrorist attack. You know, a terrorist attack, like killing 6,000 civilians...

      I will explain how this is a terrorist attack. Whether civilians or not, these strikes are killing PEOPLE.

      What difference does it make to you if the relative you have lost is a civilian or a soldier? They are still a living person with relationships and friends. This attack is in response to the bombing of the World Trade Centre. Over five thousand died there - how many Afgans will die?

      I agree that the Taliban is not a good government and I agree that Osama Bin Laden is evil and needs to be brought to justice, but I disagree that military action is the way to do it. At one point the Taliban offered to put Bin Laden on trial in their country and they were turned down. Proper justice is brought about by the courts and legal punishments, not war.

      By starting this war to remove the Taliban the US is doing exactly the same thing that caused the hatred and the terrorism in the first place. Time and time again America has destroyed governments and put their own choice in place instead. This is what causes the hatred. What right has the US got to destroy governments? What right has it to choose the rulers of a country?

      Steve.

      --
      A latent existence
  267. Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tony Blair is our puppet in the UK. He'll say whatever we tell him to.

  268. What about those of us who would never punch back? by fishexe · · Score: 1

    What if all I would do would be to say "Ow, you bastard, why did you do that?"
    Some of us don't have the automatic reaction to punch back. And if you keep punching, we can take it indefinitely.

    And don't say it's just because we're pansies and it will eventually become necessary for us to punch back. Martin Luther King didn't win the fight against segregation by deciding "now is the time to punch back", but by deciding, "never is the time to punch back."

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  269. When will we be bombing Miami? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was just thinking, since harboring suspected terrorists is now a crime punishable by war, when will the cruise missiles start coming down on Miami? They've had it coming for quite some time now...

    They say it's a new war. I say it isn't.

    Nothing changed on September 11, nothing but the target, and the criminals responsible.

    //Martin Sahlin
    not anonymous, but unregistered

    1. Re:When will we be bombing Miami? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could happen

  270. hey turd, you're forgetting this part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, it's a stupid metaphor. However, somebody IS punching us, and has been on and off for 10 years. He takes credit for it most of the time (I'm sure you know the history of binladen by now). Anyways, who is gonna arrest him for assault (as you stated should be done as the proper response to the crappy little metaphor)? Just tell me who? The UN? Hello, that's us (and other countries of course) and arrest him is EXACTLY what we're trying to do.

  271. Um, whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even in the backwaters of Indiana where my sister works as a teacher, they aren't even allowed to say any prayers of any sort even if _all_ students consent to it anymore. The Bible is banned from the classroom even for literary study. I think you've spent too many of those 16 years away from the US smoking weed and dropping acid in Amsterdam.

  272. you're exaggerating the claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That does not mean, however, that in this case the United States must make every effort to reach a compromise with the Taliban.
    No one ever said "make every effort". What the poster did say was "make some effort" (paraphrasing a bit). There is a difference.
    By such logic: [deliberately extreme examples]
    The only logic you're ridiculing is your own. Good job.


    What should we compromise?
    The Taliban told Mr. Bush (whom is not "you") exactly what to compromise: information (I hesitate to use the word "intelligence"). Basically it went like this:
    Bush: Hey Taliban, give us Osama.

    Taliban: No, someone else killed your people. Osama didn't do anything wrong.

    Bush: Yes he did.

    Taliban: We don't believe you. Do you have proof?

    Bush: Yes.

    Taliban: ...

    Bush: Seriously, we have it. If you don't trust me, just ask my good friend Tony. He believes me.

    Taliban: As much as we like Tony, can we see it ourselves?

    Bush: There is no room to negotiate! *bomb bomb bomb*


    I mean just because Osama is a repeat offender, doesn't mean he should be convicted without trial and without evidence whenever anything goes wrong. Where's the beef?

    1. Re:you're exaggerating the claims by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      As I remember it:

      Taliban: We have Bin Laden under such tight control since before the WTC attack that he couldn't use a cellphone, and he doesn't have the resources to have possibly mounted such an attack!

      US: Bullshit. We've monitored his communications, and he has a quarter-billion dollar personal fortune and contributions from supporters throughout the arab world. We see his training camps on satellite.

      Taliban: Uhh... Oops! We lost him! We have no idea where he is!

      US: Bullshit.

      Taliban: Gosh, we suddenly have him under our complete control again... uh, no, we won't turn him over to you for killing thousands of your citizens... We'll... uh... We'll try him in an Islamic court if you'll just reveal everything about how you're gathering your intelligence against him - that is, an Islamic court as the Taliban defines Islam, of course, and agree to recognize us as the legit givernment of Afghanistan, which we stole fair and square, yeah, that's the ticket....

      US: Bullshit. Sorry, you had your chance...

    2. Re:you're exaggerating the claims by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      This was "flamebait"? As opposed to what it was responding to, claiming the Taliban was willing to compromise?

      this proterrorist horseshit, that is[re evidence Bin Laden might have been involved]:

      Bush: Seriously, we have it. If you don't trust me, just ask my good friend Tony. He believes me.

      Taliban: As much as we like Tony, can we see it ourselves?

      Bush: There is no room to negotiate! *bomb bomb bomb*

      Thought mine was a pretty fair paraphrase of the Taliban's arguments by comparison..
  273. A Look Back at History by RTMFD · · Score: 1

    If my memory serves me correctly, the only correct way to deal with barbarians is to kill them, enslave their families (to get rid any potential grudge-holders), burn their crops, and salt their fields. Since the US obviously cannot stomach this politically, what will it do to break their resolve now?

    The only way this war will end is when the fundamentalist (Muslims/Christians/insert fanatic sect name here) are absolutely terrified of harming the free world. A terrorist may be ready to die for his cause, but I doubt he'll want to sacrifice his mother, father, wife, and children to his cause. Just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:A Look Back at History by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      No, that's not sufficient. People can come up with bravery even in the face of terror.

      The only way this war will end is when the fundamentalists (Muslims/Christians/insert fanatic sect name here) don't feel they are being hunted down. Which is unlikely... but let's look at the current situation. I've all too often seen otherwise sensible people deciding that the thing to do is just invade the crap out of Afganistan- hell, how about all the Middle East? Hell, why not invade Canada as well, and Mexico? It'd be good for them. What the world obviously needs is an American Empire since they're obviously insane and incapable of governing themselves without staging attacks on innocent people... *etc, etc- and yes I see people genuinely believe this*

      So step back and look at this from the outside like an intelligent person: presto! Looks kinda like an imperialist Western Capitalist fanatical movement that sees nothing at all amiss with taking over most of the world. Gee, how'd that happen? What if you're in the Middle East looking at this, how confident are you that the ones in power _don't_ represent these real live American people who happen to think USA should rule over anyone who looks naughty? If you have no armies what do you do to fire a shot across their bows, aware that this could make matters worse but desperate to not be just quietly over-run?

      As Americans the best thing we can do right now is get global- the worst thing we can do is start acting all manifest destiny. We are so utterly in a position to play the Axis in the re-enactment of WWII: all we need is for Bush to vow that he will 'smash Afganistan by military action', perhaps throw in a few other countries, start implying that other governments nearby need to be peacefully occupied, and bam: we will BE the bad guys. We have legitimate boundaries that stop far short of 'the entire world'. Hell, our _culture_ of western capitalism has legitimate boundaries itself.

      The world isn't a monoculture and can't be- so peace means finding ways to tolerate other stuff in the world that is poison to YOU, it's having boundaries and not lightly ignoring them. That doesn't just go for us- Bin Laden far exceeded any sane boundaries by attacking us. Let them blow up McDonaldses in Afganistan if there ever were any, let them attack military bases and/or Western Capitalism bases that are on THEIR TURF. Their attack on us was a signal that they feel the WORLD is their turf. NOT! But by the same token, our job is to smack that notion out of them without also behaving like the world is OUR turf.

      The best possible outcome would be for Taliban, even Bin Laden maybe, to continue to exist but to stick the hell within their boundaries from now on. I for one would be very very very interested to know exactly what they figure intruded on their space so badly that they chose to go on the no-quarter assault. 'Fanaticism' isn't enough. I thought we ourselves armed them to drive the Russians out. Is it a matter of capitalism ascendant? If so they might notice that capitalism isn't as stable as the Chicago School guys think it is, and that they're reacting to the claims of other fanatics instead of trying to pay attention to what the reality is. As capitalism expands past _its_ legitimate boundaries, it begins to destroy itself with no help from terrorists, thank you- it's like the terrorists have been taking the grandiose claims of capitalist fanatics at face value, and that's stupid!

      I don't know where all this is leading, but I do know this: not having all the answers is the _proper_ state to be in. Any situation we might find ourselves in where it all seems neatly worked out and solved, is doomed to fail, because the world doesn't reduce itself to such stable terms. By nature it's totally chaotic- a stable instability- and we have got to embrace that, and not try to push for 100% solved-and-fixed-up situations. I hope we can settle for 'a job half done' in this situation, because to fully satisfy ourselves is a setup for future problems. Ever heard of the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI?

  274. Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot... by RudeSka · · Score: 1

    Actually, it should be noted that: I am far from rich, and the shirt I am wearing is polyester/cotton.

    Is military force appropriate? When "he" says no, you are supposed to punch him? What if the idiot is not male? Doesn't punching young girls violate the code of fascist chivalry? But, I digress... my answer is: Yes, it is appropriate (and expectable) for the US Military to attack Afganistan, if indeed the US wishes to remain in power. And, as anyone who has read a sentance of Machiavelli knows, a ruling class will not simply "do nothing" and let its power wither away. However, not necessarily "wishing" or expecting the US government to "do nothing", I do oppose their war efforts, and the existance of the State here in america. Because, as Tolstoy put it, Government is violence. There is no way the government could impose it's repressive "democratic" law, without coercion (i.e., the force of violence). It is true that sometimes "negotiations" are used instead of "coercion", but the difference between them is as great as the difference between demanding something, and pointing to the gun at one's side, and demanding something and holding the gun at another's face. If, at this point, you punch me in the face, I would probably run away from you before steps 5-8 were repeated too many times... Yet, I don't think you would get me to strike back as I do not believe in fighting authority through violence and I am not very strong, and would get my ass kicked anyway.

  275. Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by hey! · · Score: 2

    Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and the majority of this action will only go towards running it into the ground even more

    If you read between the lines, the military powers have learned from the Soviets that there just aren't many high value targets to attack, capture and hold in a conventional military operation.

    So, we've decided to bomb them with butter.

    The initial attacks will damage the Taliban's air defenses to make this possible.

    In the meantime, all kinds of skullduggery we won't know about for a long time is also certainly going on, but I think they're going to work hard to avoid the spectacle of the most powerful country in the world bombing an already miserable and wrecked country.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  276. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, them White House people - they's all good, white Christian folk.

  277. No "good guys" by Lion-O · · Score: 2
    IMHO its impossible to talk about the "good" and "bad" guys here. Sure, we have heard about the evidence which should proof that Bin Laden is behind this attack and it seems the Taliban regime (supported by the US when they rose to power I might add) isn't all too thrilled about handing Bin Laden over.


    Can we now talk about the US being the good innocent guys and the evil Afghanistan ? I don't think so. The real story about this whole shit will probably surfuce in / after the next 50 years or so. There have been countless of conflicts which started out with "good guys" and "bad guys" and in the end it turned out to be bullshit. Take one of the most recent afairs for example; Lockerbie (since this is happening in Holland its 'close by'). The evil terrorists who blew up an airplane. Shame shame, hunt them down and lynch 'm. Since Gadaffi wasn't too thrilled about handing them over (fair is fair; I don't see Gadaffi as a good guy :-)) he was marked yet again being an evil guy who was in the line of justice. Now, a couple of years later, the whole story has a total different approach; one of the so called terrorists has been spoken free and the other is going into higher appeal and everyone is allready considering him innocent.


    Its oh so easy to call Bin Laden the root of all evil and the Taliban as well for protecting him. Personally I'd really like to hear the story behind all this. What drove those idiots to do this? All in the name of Allah? I doubt that, the attack hasn't even been claimed by any terrorist group. So what purpose did this all have? Revenche maybe? (Lockerbie comes to mind once again) And if so; revenche for what? And if it is indeed revenche we are talking about; what role did the US, and maybe other nations as well, have? once we know the answers to those questions I think its safe to speak about good vs. evil. Now its just speculating and mindless hollow shouting.

    1. Re:No "good guys" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are cool.

    2. Re:No "good guys" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that within a week bin Laden won't have anything more to say ... ever.

  278. Oh yeah, by Augusto · · Score: 2

    > And the stupid US public is so uninformed anyway (as I can see from your posting), that he has its full backing.

    As the more informed Afghan public and "free" press. Yeah right.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  279. I agree it is time for us to be the bullies we are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, I'd like to take some U.S. citizens and put them on trial which will most likely lead to their death and I don't want to show you any proof because it might interfere with some stuff I'm doing - okay?

    What? no? Well if you don't agree then I have to consider you to be one of them, so I'll have to kill you too.

    So, you'll hand them over only if we show you proof...Hmm, no that's unreasonable, I think I'd rather just kill you too rather than risk any problems for myself. You'll put him on trial? No, that's a charade of a trial you mean, not like our well run justice system that is *only* asking to take your countrymen and kill them without showing you any proof of guilt.


    p.s. I hope your happy when there are 100,000 more dead American civilians because in all honesty, that's a minimum of estimate of what's going to happen. I would guess that one of our nuclear plants or waste sites is going to be "opened to the sky". Though they're now planning to add a few soldiers to some of them, I'll give you even odds one of them is blown up within the next 5 years. And hey, if it's Calvert Cliffs in good 'ole Lusby, Md then there won't be any president Bush or Cheney or most any of congress or the Supreme Court. And all it takes is one person inside the plant. What fun!

  280. Retaliation seems unlikely by kippa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hear the newsies making reports about a possible public fear of retaliation by terrorists for today's actions. This seems to be unlikely given the mode of operation of terrorists. They seem to operate on systems of society by examining weaknesses and exploiting those weaknesses for maximum damage. Because this process takes a long time, I don't see how they could spontaneously react unless they are carrying out some previously designed plan. I would expect a retaliation at some later date, when our attention to this subject has been diverted for whatever reason.

    1. Re:Retaliation seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that certainly was a fancy way of saying "they like to plan crap in advance so it works better" donno why thats insightful though...

    2. Re:Retaliation seems unlikely by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Because this process takes a long time, I don't see how they could spontaneously react unless they are carrying out some previously designed plan.

      But that's exactly what it is said they do have - previously designed second-stage plans dating from well before Sep 11.

      Also, as far as I'm aware it doesn't take much planning to inject yourself with smallpox and walk into an airport or metropolitan area. Once you've smuggled the smallpox in, which in itself should not be too hard (consider drug smuggling), the rest is relatively easy. That's just one suggestion.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
  281. It was about time by Achilleas · · Score: 0

    It is another thing to go against Islam (which is not a bad religion, after all) and a completely different one to go against fanatics as the Taliban.

    US, Europe is with you.

    My only fear is what Taliban & Osama Bin Laden will do for retaliation...

  282. Re:It is time for you to realize by shani · · Score: 1

    True, true. But in Afghanistan they execute people almost as often as in Texas, so that's hardly an excuse.

  283. Exactly!! MOD THIS UP! by Danse · · Score: 2

    Saved me the time of posting the same thing.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  284. heartless murderers vs. cowards by KyleCordes · · Score: 2

    Indeed. There are all kinds of ways to be a very, very bad person that have nothing to do with cowardice.

  285. Tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tomorrow, expect the Afghans to claim that we killed 10,000 Afghan civilians from our attacks.

  286. Good Timing by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Actually if you think about it, there aren't as many people at work or in the New York subway, giving various state and local governments a day to tighten up security with an eye toward preventing any additional forthcoming terrorist attacks on US Soil.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  287. Same shit, different name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, Allah. Jesus, Mohammud. See subject.

  288. Will the patriot in the striped flag please leave? by CyberDruid · · Score: 1

    I have seen this before...
    I honestly thought that those who posted it did it so we all could get a hearty laugh at the poor analysis ability of some army redneck.
    I am sure that the "pacifists" in this case would not mind kicking your ass, calling the police or whatever. What they would mind is getting so frustrated when you run away and hide, that they go and torch the entire apartment building in the ghetto where you live, hoping to get at you, while not caring about the other people who live there. NOBODY ever said "Let us forget this whole thing, smoke some peace pot and not bring the guilty (but only those) to justice".

    Civilians will most likely be hurt badly by these bombings. For example, an estimated 500 000 children died in Iraq, because of the post-war embargo... But then again... Perhaps the international effort will actually help the people of Afghanistan. This is ultimately what we all want, right? Imagine being terrorized by the Taliban daily. WTC was small stuff compared to that.

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  289. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  290. vengeance, continued by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    10. Then finally he tries to hit you, but he's too slow, and you're trained. "Cool it now, i'm just explaining something"
    11. He tries again, too slow. "Hey!" you shout , and hit him in the face.
    12. He tries again, you smack him about a bit, to make it clear that the lesson is finished.
    13. then he waits till you turn your back, and kicks your butt.
    14. Then you get outraged at this cowardly son of a bitch who hits people when they have their back turned, and he's been pushing you around far too long.
    15. Then you beat him to pulp.
    16. Then you go and tell your friends that some guy kicked you when your back was turned , and you gave him the treatment he deserved.
    17. you explain that you should hit back when sb hits you, because otherwise they'll just sweep the floor with you.
    18. agreement all around

    So

    1. when you're by far the strongest, you don't need to understand anything.
    2. you can prove that your way of acting works
    3. when you suddenly drop all defense you might be get beaten up bad.
    4. ...and the other guys might get the idea of trying to kick back too.
    5. so better keep at it.

    There's a moral here, but i forgot what it was.

    1. Re:vengeance, continued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good the kid gloves are off-you didn't forget the moral..there is none-it is beyond good and evil.

    2. Re:vengeance, continued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the moral is an age-old one. It's called 'Might makes right'.

  291. Incorrect by marx · · Score: 0

    They are good fighters - but poor civil leaders.


    This is wrong. They are poor (or unproven) fighters, but have been excellent at gathering popular support. The Taleban didn't fight to gain power, they convinced people that they would bring peace. "Taliban" means "student", i.e. they are derived from religious students, who proposed religious purity as a way to bring the Afghan society together.

    1. Re:Incorrect by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
      They are poor (or unproven) fighters, but have been excellent at gathering popular support. The Taleban didn't fight to gain power, they convinced people that they would bring peace.
      Excellent point.

      I had believed that their raise to power had involved public support, but also some degree of military action. I may be wrong on that point. However, they have also faced military action in for form of civil war. And still hold power. I believe that would show that they have, to a point, already proven themselves to be competant fighters.

      However, they also have a horrid track record as civil leaders. They may have gained popular support to take control of the Afghanistan government. But living conditions in Afghanistan has not improved under their guidance. Reports from relief agencies, ex-patriots, and news agencies portray an Afghanistan that is in civil disarray and a government who simply do not know how to form the most basic infrastructure to handle these dire conditions. And there are reports suggesting that the Taliban has lost its popularity (if not its power).

  292. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bad weather in afghanistan and the first timely
    opportunity. I would like to think that this timing is without relevance to religious interpretation.

  293. Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by Moonshadow · · Score: 2
    The gender thing...it's a fricking analogy, intended to get the point across. I don't condone such violence, and would certainly never attack someone else without being attacked first. It's meant to prove a point. Gender's irrelevant.

    You say govt is violence. Lack of government is anarchy. See how much violence you get there. Just the lesser of two evils.

    We pointed to the gun at are side. It didn't work, so now we've pulled it out and the Taliban's staring down the barral. If you just keep pointing at the gun, they're not gonna care. You have to prove you're serious.

  294. The US is always right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is sad that the US, altough very often in the right position are so selfish, so arrogant and so willing to rule the world (themselfs) that they are so ill regarded everywhere else in the world.
    Sad and stupid, they could do exactly the same and really win the support of the whole occidental world, instead of this crappy way of doing things, very sad.
    We are on the same team but this is not team play.

  295. The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative


    Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game.

    I'd like to express a minority view: If you have been reading the news since the Vietnam war, this present "war" was entirely predictable in 1980. The U.S. government began its involvement in Afghanistan 21 years ago. (See the ABC News timeline link in the article referenced below.)

    The CIA brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them in terrorist techniques. Here is a quote from an ABC News article:

    "Abu Sayyaf ... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA ..."

    For links to stories about this from MSNBC, ABC News, The Atlantic Monthly magazine, and other respected sources, see the article: What should be the Response to Violence?

    Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?

    It was entirely predictable that someone would try to bring the violence to the United States, given the violence the U.S. government has done for more than 30 years. The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time. To quote the biblical saying, "You reap what you sow."

    If you really, really love the U.S. like I do, you will think carefully about the problems of the U.S. government.

    Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable. There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money. The U.S. is the world's largest weapons manufacturer. The World Policy Institute, in a May 1995 article, "Weapons at War" said, "In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry." (The links for these statements are in the article referenced above.)

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  296. Re:Blair's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by blair1q · · Score: 2

    The drug trade doesn't need subsidies.

    They were taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

    You "inadvertently fund the drug trade" every day you fail to form a posse to track down the drug dealers in the dirty part of your town and pour drain cleaner down their throats.

    --Blair

  297. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neutron weapons are fairly clean-they were designed to kill everything in a small area with blast and heat effect and everything else with deadly radiation poisoning. A very civilized,
    "smart" nuclear weapon. You can also count on
    that area being unusable for terrorist staging
    afterwards.
    We could also just drop chemical or viral weapons in suspected areas and kill just what we want,
    or just incapacitate everyone-blinding them all
    permanently should do it, i'm sure we have chems that do this.

    Yours truly
    INSANITY.

  298. Size doesn't matter by SlamMan · · Score: 1

    Its not an issue of what we're attacking them with, but that we are attacking them.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  299. Why are we attacking the Taliban? by Giant+Pink+Duck · · Score: 1

    Why are we attacking the taliban? What exactly have they done which merits attack?

    1. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been in a cave?

    2. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by Giant+Pink+Duck · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually. I've been camping for about a week. And just came back to hear this.

    3. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Assuming you are serious and not being sarcastic, the Taliban is providing refuge for Osama Bin Ladin, refusing to extradite him to stand trial for the attacks on the world trade center. The Taliban and Osama are VERY close friends. Osama provides money and troops to the Taliban and they provide him with a "safe" haven for which to train his terrorists.
      In addition according to the British the Taliban is involved in drug trafficking, and responsible for a very large portion of the heroin that is sold in the UK.
      Not to mention the fact they should be attacked on the basis of stupidity alone, they have repeatedly said that Bin Ladin was innocent because he has no pilots and no way to train pilots in Afghanistan, which is the same as saying that the pilots who crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon had never been to the US.

    4. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      Have you seen any proof of this, and of bin Ladens involvement in the WTC attack, or are you just accepting what media and your government says as truth?

      Taliban have repeatedly offered to extradite bin Laden if the US presents them proof, or to let the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) and UN review the proof and advice on the extradition issue.

      This may be just posturing - the Taliban may be prepared to ignore any evidence.

      But the US has, by ignoring requests for a civilized legal process to be carried up prior to starting war, sunk to the level of the terrorists.

      Would the US have gone to war if it was a Western country that refused to hand over bin Laden without an extradition hearing where evidence is presented?

      Would you have bombed the UK, Germany or France, if bin Laden had been in their country, and they'd insisted on complying with their countries laws and not hand over a suspect without a hearing conducted by a court of law?

      Not likely.

      So what do you think militant Muslims are seeing this as? A justified police action, or a war on Islam that they are obliged to assist in?

    5. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      I've wondered what our response would be if some terrorists belonging to the IRA had committed an act of terrorism on U.S. soil. However, this is a hypothetical situation since it hasn't happened.

      What did happened is that thousands of innocent American citizens have died, and the Taliban is harboring and supporting the man suspected of being the brains and money behind the perpetrators. Other governments other than ours (UK and Pakistan, to name two) have seen the evidence we have against bin Laden, and have found them to be sufficient enough to side with the United States in this matter.

      It seems to me that you expect the U.S. to deal with a government, run by people who condone and aid groups who use terrorism as a tool to further their political or religious (whatever you want to call it, doesn't matter) agendas, on equal terms. I personally believe the Taliban cannot be dealt with as a legitimate government, making whatever laws they have null and void.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
    6. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that both the US and British governements have said they can't give the Taliban all the evidence because that would compromise our intel. We can't for example say "Well, Osama's right hand man is really a double agent" or "We have bugs planted in his quarters" or whatever the case may be.
      This is a cut and dry matter, if cops come to my house to arrest me for murder, I cannot demand that they give conclusive proof that I did it before I go with them (I can ask for evidence, which is exactly what the links from the highjackers to Al-Qaeda are). The time for conclusive proof is DURING the trial WITHIN the country that the crime was commited. NOT before the arrest. Furthermore my family couldn't take me into their house and refuse to hand me over to the police until solid proof is given without expecting the police to come raid the house.
      The law has always worked this way, Osama and the Taliban aren't being treated any differently than any other entity would be. It's ashame that the US bashers are seeing this as a chance to further their propaganda.

    7. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      If the US don't deal with the Taliban as another government, no matter how much the US dislike them, then the US government is being just as bad as the terrorists.

      As for harboring terrorists, and aiding groups who use terrorism, have you forgotten who financed the Taliban in the first place? Oh, yes, that was US... Hmm. And for a long time the IRA wasn't classified as a terrorist group in the US, allowing IRA to do massive fund raising in the US relatively safely. Harboring terrorists, you say? Maybe someone should have bombed the US - of course only the homes of suspected IRA members.

      Also, even Slobodan Milosevic, a man likely responsible for the deaths of far more than 6000 innocent people, was allowed hearings in his home country before being given up - the government of Serbia was given the choice. Why doesn't this apply to Afghanistan?

      I'm not saying bombing would be wrong under any and all circumstances, but that to avoid sinking to the terrorists level, and demonstrating to the world that they don't give a shit about justice, the US government should have tried legal procedures and negotiations first, and if that failed a military strike could have been considered.

      As it is now, the US has presented no evidence that bin Laden was involved in the WTC bombing - they are just asking the world to trust them.

      There is a reason that the US, and all other more or less civilized nations, have this thing called separation of power: The judiciary, the government and law enforcement is separate.

      It's there exactly to prevent what the US is doing right now: The government taking out people they don't like without proving that they're guilty of a crime.

    8. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by xQx · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      You're absolutly correct.

    9. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      hahaha!! bin laden... innocent...that's funny!

      wake up. whether or not he's responsible for the 9/11 attacks, he's still guilty of the attack on the u.s.s. cole. that's a fact. he's admitted to it.

      ok, the u.s. demanded that the taliban hand over osama bin laden. what did you think they'd do with him, kill him? yeah right. that's not our way. we would have put him on trial.

      yeah, even milosevic had a trial in his home land. where do you think bin laden is from? no, not afghanistan.

      under the beliefs (or whatever) of the taliban, they are required to protect anyone they give refuge to (i.e. bin laden). however, those same beliefs require that they be responsible for the conduct of anyone they give refuge to.

      bin laden is a suspect. you hold a trial for a suspect in order to prove his innocence or guilt. you provide the evidence at the trial. you don't need proof to initiate a trial. the taliban's request for evidence before they put bin laden on trial is utter bullshit. that's not the way it works.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    10. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      Whether he admits to anything or not is irrelevant. In the legal systems used in the US, Europe, and most of the rest of the world, admission does not make you guilty of a crime until a court of law has determined you to be so.

      As for the US killing bin Laden - it seems that is what the US is trying now, after repeatedly refusing to hand over evidence implicating him in the attack.

      As for where you're on trial - whether or not the country you're in is your homelass is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. What is relevant is whether the nation that want you extradited can fulfill the legal conditions set by the nation you're currently in. Why do you think a British court spent ages deciding on whether whether to extradite Pinochet to Spain, or let him go back to his home land (Chile)?

      And you're wrong in the case of a suspect found in a foreign country:

      First you request the foreign country to arrest your suspect, or at the very least serve him. Then you hold an extradition hearing in the country he is located, where you present at least enough evidence to prove that you have a reasonable basis for charging the person, and that your are fulfilling the legal criteria set by the foreign nation to grant extradition.

      In cases where the suspect fears for his/hers life, many foreign nations will also require you to prove that the suspect will not face the death penalty or risk bodily harm if extradited, as many countries do not allow extradition in such cases. This includes several European countries.

      Then, if the foreign court accepts your arguments, you are handed the suspect and can put him/her on trial in your own country.

      Talibans request for evidence before extradition is normal practice in any civilized country, and apparently also in some backwards fundamentalist nations as Afghanistan. But apparently the internationally accepted way of dealing with a suspect is too civilized for the US.

      Maybe all the countries that has been the subject of US atrocities should start acting the same way in order to get hold of the US politicans and military personell that have allowed, supported and carried out attacks on their nations...

      Because we all now the US government isn't hypocritical enough to refuse their victims the same kind of barbaric revenge they are carrying out on Afghanistan, right?

    11. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      Hey, the US brought forth what evidence we currently have to the UN, our western allies, and even some countries we're not really too friendly with (Pakistan). They unanimously agree that bin Laden is behind these and previous acts of terrorism against the United States.

      A terrorist group is not a government even if they call themselves that. Any type of diplomatic talks or legal hearings would be fruitless.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
    12. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      What they agree is irrelevant. They are not the nation harboring the suspect. And regardless of what you or I think about the Taliban, or whether you recognize them as the lawful government of Afghanistan or not, they are still the defacto government of Afghanistan, and the only power with legislative powers in Afghanistan.

      And my point is that noone knows whether diplomatic talks or legal hearings would be fruitless, since the US has blatantly refused to talk to the Taliban despite multiple offers from the Taliban to diplomatic talks, and to place Osama bin Laden at the fate of hearings conducted by the Organization of Islamic Countries and the UN.

      By refusing to try those options, the US government has placed itself in the same category as the terrorists: Defying international laws, common juridic practice, and resorting to warmongering before they've exhausted all other options.

      The first civilians have already been confirmed dead by non-Taliban sources (to top it off it was 4 people working in a UN sponsored organization devoted to clearing away landmines). Why is it any better for the US to kill civilians than it is for bin Laden?

      Noone is saying there's any guarantees that the Taliban would have complied with any promises to extradite bin Laden. But the US government didn't even try.

      Why should people be hunted down for killing civilians with no support in law when the US government is condoning it by doing it themselves?

      At best it is hypocrisy. At worst it is murder.

    13. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      If the US was defying international laws, the UN would be raising a stink.

      Why is it any better for the US to kill civilians than it is for bin Laden? The goal. Usama bin Laden wants Americans to die. The US wants to rid the world of organized terrorism. War is violent and innocent people die. While that is unfortunate, it's the nature of the beast.

      92% of the US population think that this war on terrorism, starting with going after bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan, is justified. Apparently you don't, and I don't think I can change your mind, as you cannot change my mind.

      This is my last post on this thread.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
    14. Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · · Score: 2

      The taliban hasn't asked for EVIDENCE, they've asked for PROOF. There is plenty of evidence floating around, the British have released alot of it to the press. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof? Evidence is required for trial/extradition. Proof is required for conviction. You don't present the conclusive proof before the trial.
      If your brother/cousin whatever were to come to your house suddenly and the cops were to come and say that he was wanted for murder, would you say give me conclusive proof or you can't have my brother/cousin?

  300. Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by RudeSka · · Score: 1

    "You say govt is violence. Lack of government is anarchy. See how much violence you get there. Just the lesser of two evils."

    Seeing how I am an anarchist, this is not really a good argument to use against me. "See how much violence you get there"? Get where? Where is anarchy? Anarchy is the absence of authority. Currently, even in places in the world were a stable authority has collapsed and lesser authorities are violently competing for power, there is no where where there is no social authority. Authority <b>IS</b> violence! It is impossible to maintain the existence of a social authority without violence. As Alexander Berkman said:
    "Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery and murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that. Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you."

    And please don't use that dreadful all-incluseive "we"... Niether you nor I had anything to do with the decision making process of the US government.

  301. so what are you saying? should we just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stay quiet and say "okay we're even"? I guarantee you that more innocent americans would die as a result (heck, they probably will anyway from terrorist response), but to think that the terrorists just say "now we're even" and walk away if we do the same is just plain stupid. Sorry ya terrorist troll....your days are numbered.

  302. Stupid by Danse · · Score: 2

    In any case, I don't care how many terrorists are out there. If we have to kill every last one of them, then that's what is required.


    You really have no clue. You don't stop terrorism by killing innocent people like we're doing right now. Those people didn't elect the Taliban. Most of them don't even like the Taliban. They are afraid of them. Yet we kill these innocent civilians anyway. Just like the terrorists killed civilians in the US. It's not racist to believe that more terrorists will be created by these attacks by the US, it's common sense. The US is killing people that had nothing to do with the attacks on us. Do you really believe that someone will think these attacks are justified when his family was just killed for something they had nothing to do with?


    Then there's this whole "War on Terrorism" thing. How do you fight this war without killing many innocents and thus creating more hate? How do you know if you've won? Seems a lot like the War on Drugs to me. We've fought it for decades and had little impact on drug availability in this country. It has been nothing but a giant black hole sucking our tax dollars and liberties away. Expect more of the same from the War on Terrorism.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Stupid by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      The US is killing people that had nothing to do with the attacks on us.

      No, the US is killing the Taliban, which had everything to do with the attacks. We are specifically avoiding the Afghan people.

      Seems a lot like the War on Drugs to me.

      The difference is that there are a LOT of people who don't want the war on drugs to be won, both from the demand side and from the supply side. With terrorism, there are very few countries in the world that support terrorists. It's a much different nut to crack. People seem to think there are millions of terrorists out there, but there really aren't that many.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Stupid by Danse · · Score: 2

      We are specifically avoiding the Afghan people.


      You buy that crap? We're blowing up sites in Kabul. INNOCENTS WILL DIE. There is no way around it when you're lobbing missiles from 1000 miles away.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:Stupid by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      You buy that crap? We're blowing up sites in Kabul. INNOCENTS WILL DIE.

      There is a difference between target military sites and attempting to avoid killing innocents, and guaranteeing no innocents will die. There is absolutely no question that innocents will die.

      As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I'm sorry that a few innocents are going to be killed in this, but preserving the civilization of the world -- not just the US -- is more important right now. Way more innocent lives will die if we don't act now.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good ol' Jefferson, huh? Well well, slow down a bit here boy! How about these grand words:

      Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free.

      Sounds might fine, huh? Kinda weird though to hear them from the president of a country that upheld slavery longer than most other civilized countries, don't ya think? Seems that he had the common blinders of his time on when he wrote it. Not to bash on him though. After all, he realized this himself:

      But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.

      So just quoting that old guy is about as useful as yelling An eye for an eye!.

    5. Re:Stupid by Danse · · Score: 2

      Way more innocent lives will die if we don't act now.


      I never said we shouldn't act. I'm saying that the actions we're taking are stupid and wrong. I'm saying that at the very least we should have presented the evidence to the Taliban to give them the opportunity to turn him over peacefully. I'm saying that regardless of whether or not they comply, killing innocents is only going to generate more hatred of the US, and subsequently more terrorists. How would you feel if your family was killed for something they didn't have any part of? Take that feeling and combine it with the active recruiting of terrorist groups which offer a method to strike back at those responsible for the unjust murder of your family and you begin to see why this most likely won't further our desire to eliminate terrorism. You don't eliminate terrorism by killing innocents. That much should be clear to us.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:Stupid by jafac · · Score: 2

      The other thing is;
      no matter how many zillions of dollars you spend on smart bombs which avoid innocent civilians, we could hit a warehouse and the Taliban will say - "hey, here's a blown-up building, it was an orphanage, and now all these poor little kids are killed by the evil Americans"

      Who do you think the average muslim will believe? And I'm not talking about the extremists. Of course, this kind of propaganda is what creates extremists.

      I remember the Iraqi propaganda during the gulf war where we blew up a "milk factory" and another instance where we hit a military command post that had women and children sheltering in the basement. I saw the surveillance photos on CNN of Iraqi Scud launchers hidden in archeological sites in Babylon (trying to create the perception that we were blowing up the archeological sites - which we did not do). And now the revisionists are talking about the "Basra Road Massacre" (where US Troops slaughtered tens of thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers carrying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of looted Kuwaiti property). To me - an average US citizen, I think that action was totally justified. They were ordered to surrender, and they just kept running with their booty. But to muslims I've talked to (even 5 years ago) - it's a widely held belief that it was the US commiting genocide.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  303. Booms in Florida by Ashcrow · · Score: 1

    I was watching the news when a loud boom hit. Sounded like a sonic boom, maybe the shuttle re-entering? Just kinda freaked me out!

  304. It's time, but for what? by melquiades · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one.

    I agree, in some sense, we're at war. But as Bush and everyone else keep pointing out, this is not really a "war" in any conventional sense: we are not fighting a nation, a territory, or even a definable coalition or group. We are fighting this nebulous thing called "terrorism".

    When people use all this language about the "War on Terrorism", I can't help thinking of how similar it is to the "War on Drugs" ... which has been a dismal failure. It's cost us huge amounts of money, damaged our freedom, and claimed high collateral damage (i.e. killed innocent people). And guess what? People still do drugs, buy drugs, sell drugs ... a lot.

    Think of the attack on Noriega, and how little that accomplished. We nailed one of the biggest names in the drug-smuggling world, and there was no noticable effect on the drug supply. The fundamental problem is that as long as there's money in drugs, if you strike down one criminal, ten will suddenly appear ready to take their place.

    The war on terrorism is going to be the same way. We'll wipe bin Laden's organization out. But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place. Only this time, it's worse than the drug war: the fuel which drives terrorism is not money but anger, and these strikes actually increase the supply of this fuel.

    So yes, I agree, it's high time we did something. Wake up: military strikes don't work in these nebulous modern quasi-wars. We need to figure out what turns people into terrorists (and no, it's not W's simplistic "hatred of our freedoms" -- get real!), and stop terrorism at the source. And no, that is not what these strikes are doing.

    1. Re:It's time, but for what? by vanguard · · Score: 1

      I think their plan is pretty close to what you're calling for. This is how I would sum it up:

      1. Attack, remove current bad element.
      2. Occupy. Keep the area safe.
      3. Pour in humanitarian aid. Help them recover and get them to like us.
      4. Leave them with a stable economy and as an ally of the western world.

      Now surely it's more complicated than that. Also, the chances of success might be slim. However, it seems like a good plan to me. I can't think of anything better. Wish us luck.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    2. Re:It's time, but for what? by bwt · · Score: 2

      The war on terrorism is going to be the same way. We'll wipe bin Laden's organization out. But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place.

      The problem with the 'escalating cycle of violence' argument is that it's a pyramid scheme. They don't have infinite supplies of terrorists in waiting. All that we have to do is kill them faster than they recruit.

    3. Re:It's time, but for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, just ask Isreal about that.

    4. Re:It's time, but for what? by THB · · Score: 2

      Actually it is mostly about hatred of freedom. They do not hate the US for being in the region, they hate them for keeping progressive values in the region. Saudi Arabias governent, while still a monachy is far more progressive than that of iraq, iran and other countries with similar oil wealth. They do not use enforce fundimentalist islamic laws.

      To the extreamists the Americans are much like the jews were to the nazis, a place to point the discontent of the citizens. Just as emmanul goldstein was in 1984.

      The only way to fight terrorism is through education, however that will not happen under an extreamist government. The only way to fix it is to oust the current government and provide a substantial amount of international aid. That is what is happening now, and must happen.

    5. Re:It's time, but for what? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Israel kills 10 to 20 palestenians for every israeli. It doesn't seem to do them any good.

      As long as palestenians would rather die then live under israeli occupation they will keep attacking. As long as israel would rather kill palestenians then let them have their own country they will keep attacking. There is no solution except genocide. The good news is that there will still be israelis lest when all the palestenians are dead.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    6. Re:It's time, but for what? by shaunak · · Score: 1

      All that we have to do is kill them faster than they recruit.

      I'd like to request you to think about what you've just written. You may be drunk, or hallucinating, or under the influence of some drugs. When you're sane again, please think about what you've just said, and if you deserve to be called a civilised, educated person.
      I'm sure Hitler would have welcomed you into the Third Reich.

      --
      -Shaunak.
    7. Re:It's time, but for what? by shaunak · · Score: 1

      The good news is that there will still be israelis lest when all the palestenians are dead.

      SLASHDOT makes me sick.

      --
      -Shaunak.
    8. Re:It's time, but for what? by xQx · · Score: 0

      The good news is that there will still be israelis lest when all the palestenians are dead.

      SLASHDOT makes me sick.
      </I>

      Here Here!

      Sometimes I feel that sentance would sound nicer with the word "palestenians" replaced with "Americans"...

      But then I have to remind myself what any civilized person would: This small percentage of uneducated, vocal tribals do NOT speak on behalf of the whole race.

    9. Re:It's time, but for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When people use all this language about the "War on Terrorism", I can't help thinking of how similar it is to the "War on Drugs" ... which has been a dismal failure.

      I tend to agree that the war on drugs has been a complete catastrophe. Its (implied) purpose, to prevent the tragedy of drug abuse, is not any nearer to accomplishment than it was fifty years ago. The erosion of civil liberties it has engendered has brought more harm than good, as well. However, drug abuse is a victimless crime, for all intents and purposes. No bowl of pot will call in a missing weed report when its sibling bowl gets smoked by some vile drug abuser.

      This is why it is doomed to fail. As long as a sufficient number of people can accomodate fellow drug users in their midst, without alerting the authorities, drug use can never be conquered. The only time it becomes a crime is when someone is caught doing it. Otherwise, it can go on undetected for years and years. You don't ever see detective stories profiling the "serial glue huffer." There's no trail of victims.

      Terrorism is completely different. I don't think anyone is so dull that they need me to point out to them what is slightly different about an act of terror.

      But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place

      Well, we're in a bind now, aren't we? We cannot, in any reasonable universe, extend our hand of friendship to bin Ladin, can we? He's declared war not just on our leaders, or our government, nor even our people, but on our very way of life. Our existence is athenema to him, and to the Taliban. There is to be no accomodation. If that's the path they want to choose, so be it. We have to choose the path of self-defense, or accomodate ourselves to destruction at their hands. If that's the way you wanna go, fine. I don't subscribe to "you are with us or against us." You can be without us, or outside of us. I however believe the only way to solve this current crisis right now is to remove the group, remove their funding, remove their personnel, remove their leaders. There doesn't seem to be much of an option.

      The way to prevent further groups from forming, obviously, is to "drain the swamp," as many have said. This means making a real commitment to improving the quality of life in that part of the world. This means getting a serious amount of money together, and a serious coordinated effort, and it means at some point imposing, or assiting in the imposition, of a less tyrranical government on the Afghan people. And ensuring that that government has more than a sheen of legitimacy to it, and is not just some puppet state.

      It means getting the Israli and Palestinian leaders together in a room and cracking their skulls, if that's what we have to do, to get them to quit provoking each other and jockeying for some specious advantage. I have spent some time getting familiar with what goes on over there, and I am having trouble sympathising with either government's position. In high school, I remember, fighting was dealt with by suspending both parties, regardless of who started it. It was a reminder that it takes two to tango. I feel the same way about the entire situation in Israel. It's like watching two six-year-olds kick each other under the chair. They need to be aware that the entire class is watching now, and think that they're acting like a couple of jackasses. It is irrelevant who "started it" today. What is relevant now is who will stop it. The first leader in that area who displays the fundamental maturity to back the fuck down and accomodate the other will be a hero.

      So this is different, but the things that should be getting done are, by and large, actually getting done. This act has served as a wake-up notice. The 21st century has started. We can go into it with all of the error and horror of the 20th, or we can make a conscious effort to change it. But there is no way we can simply let bin Ladin and his cronies continue running around in the desert planning to bomb our cities and homes. What they've done (and remember, they've as much as admitted they did it) is inexcusable, and there is only one response to an act like this, and it is to find the actors and eliminate their ability to ever act again.

    10. Re:It's time, but for what? by xQx · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that war on drugs was lost from the outset.

      I mean, when channels were following "Don't do drugs" commercials with "This bud's for you" (beer) commercials, I dunno :)

      For a country to say a substance which grows everywhere, has a thousand uses, all of them positive, but CAN be used to tune out of reality is an evil drug... yet ALCOHOL, a substance known to make people's judgement impared and provoke violent and arguementitive behaviour is good; really doesn't reflect well on the ability of their leaders.

      Ahh well.

  305. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. Has terrorism from palestinians given them what they want, that is the death of Israel? No.

  306. Attack on Taliban not Afghanistan by killmuji · · Score: 1

    People, we should make a distinction that US is not attacking Afghanistan, but that it is an attack on Taliban controlled areas. By saying that the US is attacking Afghanistan we are claiming that the attack in on the poor and opressed people of Afghanistan which had nothing to do with the WTC attacks. Just my 0.02 cents.

    1. Re:Attack on Taliban not Afghanistan by edinho · · Score: 1

      Yep. The attack is only on Talibans, not Afghanistan. Of course, expect some minimal collateral damage, say, a few thousands dead civilians?

  307. Is this the right kind of war? by gotan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a war against sationary targets. Some buildings will be destroyed with high precision. But will that work against terrorists who are in hiding, maybe not even in the country and who travel light? Or against a government, that has no scruples to hold their own people as well as the american people hostage, and that is not bound to locations like administrative buildings and the like?

    Also what damage will be done to relations with arabic countries? The early (and probably long prepared) press statement shows, that bin Laden has expected, even wanted this to happen, to kindle a "holy war". It's probably even hard to find a building in afghanistan that's worth more than the bombshell that hits it. But it gives bin Laden and other radical fundamentalists the means to polarize the islam peoples, and probably get even more followers. The war is only a few hours old, and we will only later see, what was achieved by bombing of some buildings and, on the other hand, by accusing the americans to attack the islam people of afghanistan.

    I don't know how to do it better, but the aim should be, to isolate bin Laden and other fundamentalists, to rob them of support, support from neighbouring countries, and support from their own people, to show them as the warmongers they are, and to show, how they misuse religion for their own personal goals. The point is, that the "resources" of the terrorists are people, and support from people, and not some buildings. And bombings are the wrong tools to hunt down people.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    1. Re:Is this the right kind of war? by marxmarv · · Score: 2
      to show them as the warmongers they are, and to show, how they misuse religion for their own personal goals.
      Why would he? It hits too close to home. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and Ralph Reed would have to meet a firing squad to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty. Mind you, I'd join up in a minute if they were next, but as a head of state, you don't do that sort of thing to the coalitions that serve your interests such as by getting you elected.

      -jhp

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    2. Re:Is this the right kind of war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bombing war isn't necessarily a war against stationary targets. The United States Air Force proved in Vietnam and Laos that it is capable of hitting fast-running civilians from altitudes up to 50,000 feet.

  308. Re:Germany by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    pardon my ignorance, but where do we have chistian scientists in western, continental europe ?

  309. Oh boy, another Vietnam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Dubya got his war.
    What would be a better way to raise his position in the eyes of Joe Sixpacks.
    Unfortunately, all that this will result in, is civilian casulties and a major retaliation on US soil (I'm actually ready to bet big money, that there will be a *big* terrorist strike in couple of weeks.)
    "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
    And it looks like that US government has not learned that there has been only one succesfull invasion of Afghanistan, and that was by Alexander the Great.
    Only way US will "win" this war is to send ground troops to Afghanistan.
    Lots of them.
    All willing to swim in blood.
    Their own.
    British tried, as did Soviets.
    But there is one upside to all this. Watching CNN will be like watching a videogame again. It's been about 10 years since there was anything remotely interesting on CNN, so maybe I'll start watching it again.

    1. Re:Oh boy, another Vietnam... by ariux · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, all that this will result in, is civilian casulties and a major retaliation on US soil

      Are you asserting that, if the US took no military action, there would be no such strike?

  310. rebuttal for you, stupid fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    you stated "US isnt masters of the world but is too powerfull and need realize that time to rethink your responsabilities and rights"


    sorry, but we don't have ANY RESPONSIBILITY for you, so fuck off. Helping other countries is a PRIVILEDGE of ours extended to your SORRY ASS, but it's not your RIGHT to lay claim to one thing of ours, so again I say, Fuck Off please.

    1. Re:rebuttal for you, stupid fuck by fams · · Score: 1

      forgive me,i'm not claming for help, but only discussing the use of the militar and economic power in the rest of the world by US. I really became upset when your govern came to my country and pervert them whit money to help your contry to be bigger.

  311. Re:Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thought that the bombing in hiroshima saved many more lives than it destroyed is a comforting thought isn't it? I wonder if it is true though. I have my doubts, but it sure does ease the conscience knowing we can kill millions of people in a single city and save so many lives. Which incidentally when they say it can be argued they say it can be argued it saved more "American" lives. It said nothing about lives in other countries, but no doubt those Japanese people are evil scum right?

  312. Re:Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Maybe you should do more reading and less talking.

  313. Re:Where's Michael? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Hi, Zico. What was your MOS? What's your military training? How 'bout at least that history major with concentration in military history, or work in a think tank? Hmm. well, looks like we can potentially spread around that "uninformed" tag. From reading your posts during the last several years, I wouldn't call you "moronic", but "willfully ignorant" may very well apply. Please do a bit of research as to what's happened to everyone who attempted to invade/overthrow Afghanistan, including Alexander, Genghis Khan (who managed to hold it for his lifetime by basically killing everyone he came in contact with), the Russians, the Brits, and the Soviets.

  314. oops - forgot about that by BenHmm · · Score: 1

    good point. damn. sorry.

  315. Troll? What is going on with Slashdot??? by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1

    Geezus. Any asshole can moderate? This is fucking crazy. This person has a genuine concern - somebody better metamod this!!!

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  316. Stratfor.com by kruczkowski · · Score: 5, Informative

    For anyone that wants better intel than cnn.com on what is going on, a site called stratfor.com exists. It's setup by x-military intel people who know this stuff, they have good info and a daily newsletter that is free and worth singing up for. They also provide their intel services to companys and media, but that cost a bit.

    Some links

    http://www.stratfor.com/home/sitreps.htm

    http://www.stratfor.com/preview/specialproject.h tm

    (And no I do not get a commotion for this ad)

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    1. Re:Stratfor.com by feronti · · Score: 1

      Stratfor is an excellent source of information. It was one of the first places I went, after slashdot of course:), on the 11th. They had updated analyses roughly every hour to two hours. And their analyses go very in depth... some of it's really scary stuff. These guys _really_ know what they're doing. I just wish I could afford the subscription... I used to have a full membership back around when they launched and it was free... unfortunately I can't justify the cost to get it back. I miss it :(

    2. Re:Stratfor.com by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      ANSER's Homeland Security Newsletter is pretty good, and it is free also.

      http://www.homelandsecurity.org/
      Click weekly Newsletter

      Jane's Newsbrief has a free subscription, and they are good but they usually only tell you enough of the really interesting articles to make you wish you had bought a full subscription.

      http://www.janes.com
      Click on Free News Briefs e-mail service

      I have been monitoring this site: http://www.debka.com/
      But I'm not sure how good they are, anybody else have an opinion on this site?

    3. Re:Stratfor.com by edinho · · Score: 1

      www.debka.com looks like a pro-Isreali news site with an axe to grind.

    4. Re:Stratfor.com by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I picked up on their bias.

      But are they accurate?

      Some of their articles have been right on the button. Some of them (notably the claim about China moving forces into Afghanistan) seem to be full of crap.

    5. Re:Stratfor.com by blair1q · · Score: 2

      > And no I do not get a commotion for this ad

      Not even a little jostle?

      --Blair

  317. Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the northern alliance requested financial support from the United States and its allies and requested that they bomb specific military targets like air bases. From what i heard on the radio they took out SAM targets in the areas where they plan on dropping relief supplies. I have no idea how accurate the news of the attack is though considering there are rumors that a plane has been shot down too.

  318. Lets Bomb Them Into The Stone Age!!! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Whoops, we knocked out their electricity... Okay, we bombed them back into the stone age, time to go home... Oh, wait, they're in the Amish age... Keep pounding away!

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Lets Bomb Them Into The Stone Age!!! by PMan88 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's impossible to bomb Afganistan back into the stone age. Thay are already in the stone age, or worse. Even if it was possible, it would be the wrong thing to do. The enemies are the terrorists and the Taliban for harboring them and not helping to find and/or turn them over. Attacks on Afganistan aren't attacks on the Taliban. The Taliban does not represent the Afgani people. They are only the ruling party and only are there because they have the most weapons left over from the Soviet war. So unless the Taliban and/or terrorists are eliminated, nothing has been accomplished.

    2. Re:Lets Bomb Them Into The Stone Age!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why doesn't united states of america try to bring terrorists to court, acting with allies all over the world?

      imagine this is possible, it is easy if you try

  319. Good Lord, Why cut them off? by wrecksmonday · · Score: 1

    They're probably trying to surrender. I think Uzbekistan is where US has "rented" a base. I hope the Saudi and Pakistani governments make it through this ok.

  320. Live broadcast from inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.aljazeera.net
    Its where all the channels are gettting there info and broadcast. See the little symbol on the right side of the screen its theres. Its the 'CNN'(used to refer to its respect rather than the garbage CNN spits out) of the middle east and only station broadcasting from inside there. On the site they have a live broadcast feed.

  321. Pacifists / critics to US Miltary Operations.... by nagalman · · Score: 1

    Please. Out of all the militaries of the world the US has the best recent history of doing everything in reason to limit civilian casualties and to only attack military targets. We go to great lengths to develope precision guided weapons for this reason. I assure you of this because I am a member of the US Military. Even in those situation of "oblique" civilian casualties, the parent enemy country has always had a option of stopping whatever they were doing and cooperate to releave sanctions and such.

    At least the US doesn't directly target and attack 50,000 civilians with no clear military target. War is chaotic at best and the US certainly doesn't have a perfect track record, but it does go to great lengths to ensure that military targets are only struck and targeted.

    That said I have one question to all of those who insist on a soley peacefull resoltion: I constantly hear "NO WAR! NO WAR! NO WAR!" and maybe at times the negative effects of war, but I have yet hear a detailed and effective, logical, and well explained argument on what the world should do to subvert terror attack in the future. Please fil me in.

  322. peace rallies, ugh by slavetrade55 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a university student at Dalhousie in nova scotia. They just had a peace rally here. I was disgusted. I sent off a letter to a girl i know who goes to school in ottawa who talks politics with me. She's a big peace rally advocate, so i thought maybe she could offer some insight. No response yet, but here's the letter. Maybe someone here can tell me where i'm wrong:

    They had a peace rally today on spring garden road. There were lots of Dal students, and Alexa McDonough was there and everything. I was going down to hmv to buy a cd and stopped at the rally on my way back. My apologies if i seem a little pissed off, but some of the people there were among the worst ive ever met. They seem to live not on planet earth, but in some world where the victims of terrorism are part of the problem, that the scourge of the earth is western capitalism (since we have more than most others, i guess, and don't systematically mete out our good fortune to everyone else), that we should not fight (militarily) against people who hate us and want to see us dead, that Americans are more or less war criminals, and that through non violence, inaction, severing of ties to israel (honest to god they said it was israel, and not Hamas or Islamic Jihad, that were the terrorists) and lifting sanctions on iraq we will convince Al Qaeda et al. to stop their quest to kill westerners, and pursuade Osama bin Laden to turn himself into the Hague for prosecution. Or maybe they didn't care about that last thing at all, I don't think they mentioned him by name. They kept talking about alternative ways to fight terrorism other than the use of military force, but they never said what those alternatives were. Their line was that war always results in the deaths of innocents, which i guess is true, but if youre talking about individuals supporting the taliban, who think bin laden is a hero, and think westerners are morally corrupt and must be destroyed (which is more or less what bin laden's been saying for years), then you're not really talking about innocents. That said, it is probably true that the majority in Afghanistan don't support the taliban or its protection of bin laden, but while the taliban remains a pro-terrorism government i think we've got a right to defend ourselves. Finding bin laden probably won't end everything right away, but at least they might be able to stop the flow of his money, and maybe in the process we could restore a more moderate, anti-fucked up, government in Afghanistan. That would be a plus.

    They also forgot to mention Bush's push in congress for $320 million in food/shelter/medical aid directed to the general population in afghanistan, as well as the people who've fled the country into pakistan. That's right noble of him, i think. In bush i don't see the hawkish war monger that these people make him out to be--i don't think he's that bright. I just don't think he's got much of a mind of his own. "Boy, presidenting is hard!" But i think that even that assessment is changing. He seems to get smarter by the day.

    So, here's a question: If we can't use military action (like in this situation) and we can't use economic sanctions (like in iraq) to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism, invasion etc. How exactly are we supposed to do it? Albeit in iraq its more a question of perceived threat than anything else, but saddam hussein _is_ a murderer, and _does_ use his own people as human shields, and is presently trying to develop weapons of mass destruction (he's already a big chemical weapons pimp); Economic sanctions would be lifted if he allowed UN weapons inspectors to go back in and inspect for weapons. It's that simple. But no one at that rally remotely suggested doing anything about hussein, and similarly neglected to talk about the taliban, arguably the most repressive government in the world today. The focus is all on the nexus of evil that is the USA.

    And now a word about israel. As far as israel getting pissed off in this situation goes, they have a right to be. During the gulf war, in order to maintain a coalition against iraq, Israel was basically told to do nothing, as any action on their part would just inflame muslim allies. So iraq took the opportunity to shower israel with scud missiles, and israel remained quiet. Now they smell something similar happening now. At the time they were hoping for an end to the iraqi military machine, and alot of iraqis were hoping for saddam hussein's downfall. I'm not going to speculate on the extent, but i imagine that loud at-home political opposition to the use of military force (these people today at the rally brought up the fact that alot of them had been at similar protests in 1991) helps to cripple a government's capacity for sustaining public support for a war. I guess that's the whole point. Violence is always a bad thing, of course. So instead of removing saddam, we only clean out kuwait and get back the oil to keep everything warm and happy (that will shut most people up) and as the war comes to an end, saddam goes back to doing whatever he was doing before. Even if the actual effect of these rallies is minute compared to the general disinterest of the population in finishing anything begun, the intent is still there, and is probably just a focussed illustration of people's unwillingness to do anything involving interference with others, even if the others are threatening us. I guess they think its best to try to please everyone and hope they come to feel the same toward us. Oops, i think i hear a plane smashing into a building somewhere. We're unable to even consider the possibility that people won't want to make peace with us, or see things our way; our tendency to give second chances to people vowing to kill us is kind of like self-mutilation.

    Anyway, i'm sorry this letter became a diatribe, but i'm mad, and youre one of the few peace-rally going people i know and could bitch to. Turning the other cheek sounds great, except that on planet earth people have a right to live without being killed by another slap. Responsibility has to be taken at some point for the sake of the victim.

    --RMT

    PS. When i got home i sent away for information on joining the liberal party (that's the canadian liberal party which, for you americans who have better things to do than watch canadian politics (ie. all of you) runs the canadian gov't). Thats how pissed off this made me. I intend to support any move into afghanistan as long as terrorists are hiding out there with backing from the taliban, even if i'm the only student at Dal that does. I'm all for peace, but my god people, stop fucking kidding yourselves.

    1. Re:peace rallies, ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      I think peace is wonderful of course, but sometimes you have to fight.

      Would these same people have been protesting involvement of world war 2? Or are they just trying to get some of the freedom loving glory of the 60s and the vietnam protests?

      I find it rather silly when you see the super liberal "grrrls" that are so against the usa as being a evil empire. Hey lady, in afghanistan women literelly aren't allowed to show their face in public, they have to wear a full veil. Also women are not allowed to work, if you do not have a husband to support you, the you must beg in the streets. If the Taliban shot your husband, well to bad, beg for your kids food. The feminists are defending these people?

      They need to get a grip. In afghanistan women are banned from getting more than a 8th grade education, isn't it kinda ironic to see women college students protesting in defence of the Taliban?

      I think ever since the vietnam era it has suddenly become the "in thing" to protest any kind of war and hate the government.

      Also I am sick of hearing people self rightously yell about all the innocent afghanis that will be killed. Unfortunatly these people are either poorly informed or deliberatly ignoring the facts for the sake of a holier than though feel good america bashing. The are attacking Taliban military installations and al-Qaeda training camps, not cilivian quarters.

      I live with in visual range of manhattan and my horizon used to have the twin tower peaking above near by trees and buildings. The day of the attacks i looked across the river at where the world trade center once stood, it looked as if someone had dropped a bomb on downtown manhattan. Do people think we don't need to retaliate becuase they used airplanes instead of dropping bombs on us? Do these people think that if we where bombed we should just sit back and do nothing? Essential it is the same thing, there is a gapping crater where the world trade center once stood, to me they might as well have dropped a bomb, the devistation is equal.

      I beleive the american government certainly has flaws, and i am not a rabid flag waver at all, but this attack certainly deserves a response. All these government agencies that people seem to hate so much finally are showing their worth. If so much of my tax money is going to be spent on law enforcement agencies and military then when some bastards decide to threaten the nations security with a direct assualt, then it's time to put all of these resources to use.

      It's great that the whole passive resistance thing worked for ghandi and all, but that is not going to cut it. These people need to stop trying to be cool by mindlessly bashing the government.

      This war isn't about oil, or communism, it's about removing the fanatical organizations that have and will continue to slaughter innocent american civilians. How many more attacks before these people realize this isn't the gulf war and this isn't vietnam, this is restoring security and peace to our nation and wishfully the world as well...

      I don't really want to post a giant rant or anything, but let me say i know exactly what you mean and i agree with you. Also good to see a Canadian or anyone from outside the US who seems supportive or at least understanding of this country.

      Sorry side rant i must do real quick: As an american people from other parts of the world always feel that you are ignorant if you do not intimatly know their culture. For instance people from india will say i am a stupid america if i do not know every detial of their culture. do they know every detial of every culture? no they only know their own culture. Hispanic people expect americans to know every detail of their culture and history. So do the asians, and the middle easterns and the europeans and the africans. And naturely you should try and know many cultures, but what the hell man, i can't intimatly know the details of every country and culture on earth. Do these people know any culture besides their own? Oh sorry i don't know the history of some Indian tradition, so do they know the history of some mexican tradition? no, and their not expected to, but for some reason as an american i am supposed to know every culture under the sun and if i don't know your particular culture to a tee and i am an ingoramus.

      Phew sorry, that was offtopic, but it's like listen i know some cultures, some i don't, but i can't know every culture under the sun, and if i don't happen to be a master of yours it dosn't mean i'm a small mided american prick ok, sheesh. Not really related to the parent or any particular post on slashdot, just a rant i had flopping about in my mind hehe....

  323. Where's the evidence?? by Danse · · Score: 2

    We haven't even been shown the evidence yet! Neither did we show the Taliban the evidence when we demanded that bin Laden be turned over to us. Why not?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Where's the evidence?? by Panaflex · · Score: 2

      Cause we gave them the evidence for WTC bombing in '93, the saudi military base bombing in ?'96, the USS Cole, and 2 american embasies in Africa. It's highly possible that Afghanistan provided weapons and political help that led to destabilize the Balcans as well.

      Still, no Usama has come to trial.

      How many innocent people have to die before you realize that they're laughing in our faces? Heck even the Pope is saying we should serve justice.

      Would you risk the lives of your inteligence people simply to be laughed at again?

      Pan

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    2. Re:Where's the evidence?? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      We haven't even been shown the evidence yet! Neither did we show the Taliban the evidence when we demanded that bin Laden be turned over to us. Why not?

      What part of Osama bin Laden's "confession" yesterday did you miss?

      The part we he said America had it coming?

      How about the part where he called for more of it to happen?

      How about the part where he said that Americans will not have security until Palestine does?

      he confessed...and offered up a threat of more attacks on US civilians.

      What evidence would satisy you?

      oh...that's right, none.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
    3. Re:Where's the evidence?? by xQx · · Score: 0

      Simply because he supports it doesn't mean he did it.

      Take this for example:

      I support marrage.
      People who are in long term relationships have marrage coming.
      I think more marrage should happen.

      Does that mean I'm married?

      Another example:
      I support the killing of cats.
      I `recon cats have it coming when they kill birds.
      I recon' more killing of cats should happen.

      Does that mean I've killed cats?
      Did I just admit I kiled cats?

      ... Mr Bin Laden said the day after the attacks happened, that he DID NOT DO IT, but america had it coming, and he supports anyone who does it. I don't think he's changed his party line.

      ... Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Bin Laden DIDN'T do it. (you get moderated down as flamebait for doing that)... I'm just saying he hasn't admitted to the act.

  324. People's Reactions by Brent_DS · · Score: 1
    I want to say that I fully support my nation's attack on the Taliban and various military targets. What I loathe, however, is people who rejoice in, or try to profit from the hate or suffering of others, whether innocent civillians or terrorist extremists.

    Here's a perfect example of what I mean:
    Fox News: Texas Retailer Decides its OK to Sell bin Laden Piñatas

    I'm not saying we shouldn't look for opportunities to bring about good after tragedy, but I believe in understanding and even respecting your enemy, even your mortal enemy.

    I sincerely hope that the citizens and government of America will pay heed to the lessons of the past.

    1. Re:People's Reactions by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      I agree, I think everyone who is making a blatant profit, and mostly those who are manufacturing things for sale based on this tradgedy are suspect.

      Two or three days after the 11th we were in a large retailer and they had sweatshirts, t-shirts, and baseball caps commemorating the 11th. All I could think was how sick a place we live, where people spent those days and nights cranking out nostalgia wear in order to profit. And even tho some of the money may be sent to help someone is making a buck, cos thats the American way.

    2. Re:People's Reactions by BeeShoo · · Score: 1

      But then again, these people are only making a buck because ... PEOPLE ARE BUYING THE JUNK. Want it to stop? Don't buy it. Want to see the tabloid media go under? Stop buying it. Want to see the major news programs become something resembling responsible? Stop watching them.
      In the end, the person buying the crap is just as much, if not MORE responsible.

  325. ummm...NO show some proof next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    we have been PAYING them not to grow poppies for opium. Not to mention that the Taliban control has made it worse. I'm not going to provide much linkage, as Google won't respond to me, but here's something for you dumbass:


    Here it gets worse

  326. attacks have nothing to do with slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't you stick to technology & not try to comment on world affairs, which you are not qualified to report news on?

    1. Re:attacks have nothing to do with slashdot by Aiee · · Score: 1

      See what it says below 'slashdot' in the upper left? Yes. 'Stuff that matters'. I would definately say that this is stuff that matters.

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
  327. Re:ALL MUSLIMS ARE WARLIKE AND ARE OUR ENEMIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what does this say about Jews? Are they supposed to be superseded now?

  328. Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

    I think that financial support of the Northern alliance so that they can depose the Taliban would have been a much better option.

    The only thing to be afraid of with this is the possibility of the Northern Alliance taking control of the country, and then still not supporting America. America gave bin Laden, among others, aid to fight off the Russians, and they have since turned against the US. In order to ensure stability and prevent future incidents, the US either has to control Afghanistan itself, be it through military rule, or some weak puppet, or become such a good ally to them that we view Afghanistan as a reliable ally, as much as we do Great Britain. In my opinion, the latter is not particularly likely in the near future, so I'd assume that Bush and co. are leaning towards something closer to the former.

    --
    Yes! That guy!
  329. Re:Germany by Brummund · · Score: 1

    The British bombing bastard's name was "Bomber" Harris. A tragedy he wasn't prosecuted after the war...

  330. Inform yourself - more background by jonku · · Score: 1

    1. North America is well-prepared for disasters.

    I live in Brooklyn and work in downtown NYC. The first day I was allowed back into downtown (Monday 9/17) met my partners and found that our building had just been powered up by mobile generators. That afternoon our colo servers gained access to the Internet. A week later Con Edison grid power was restored. We are back in business.

    2. Most people trust and support their (Western) government.

    Discussions with neighbors tell me that people are supporting the U.S. actions. Military personnel are, as to be expected, ready to fight and do their duty.

    3. Most Americans are uninformed about the current situation and the U.S.'s history and how it is regarded in the Middle East.

    The U.S. is seen as a dangerous, evil force amongst citizens of these countries. U.S. supported Hussein, bin Laden, and oppressive governments. It is seen as an enemy of these people. More background can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org (counterpunch.org). People I've spoken to blame the media for not informing them. It is our duty to inform ourselves about this situation and its origins.

    4. Democracy is wasted

    Unless citizens inform themselves and vote responsibility, they have no right to complain or be angry about attacks against them or actions taken by their leaders. We have a huge number of information resouces available. Use them!

    I keep my info in a house.

    --
    "Help him! Help the programmer!"
    ... "I AM the programmer ..."
  331. Screw all this moral posturing by Phaid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    All of these people bashing the U.S. and claiming it's our expansionist foreign policy to blame for all this need to get a clue. If the U.S. wasn't around, you wouldn't be here to complain about it. Are you European? You'd be speaking German, and not speaking your mind. Are you from Asia or Australia? Welcome to the Japanese empire. Fifty years ago, Americans went and fought and died to keep your countries free. There wasn't a whole lot of complaining about American interventionism then.

    And as for all of this supposed interventionism. Who created Israel? Who invaded Africa and China and India and Viet Nam and the Middle East and established colonies and set the stage for all of this hatred of the West? It was European colonialism, not American, that got these messes started. Yes, it's ancient history, and it really doesn't matter any more, but before you go pointing fingers at the U.S. be sure to look at your own hands. They aren't clean.

    For nearly the entire twentieth century, America has sent its soldiers to fight and die to support its friends. These wars were never started by us, but it was up to us to finish them. The current conflict is no different. Once again Americans are dying for the sins of other countries. And once again, we're going to end the wars that someone else has started.

    1. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel so sorry for you.

    2. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by Aiee · · Score: 1

      So very, very sorry.

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
    3. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Your post is an excellent example of moral posturing (which you decry at the same time, in a spate of unintentional irony) that completely misses the point. Sometimes, like in the fight against the Nazis, US interventionism is just. More often it isn't, e.g. in the military aid to the Indonesian regime when it was genociding East Timor in the 70s, or the sanctions against the people of Iraq.

      Read zmag.org's list of US interventions in the past 100 years and get a clue.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    4. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      All of these people bashing the U.S. and claiming it's our expansionist foreign policy to blame for all this need to get a clue. If the U.S. wasn't around, you wouldn't be here to complain about it. Are you European? You'd be speaking German, and not speaking your mind. Are you from Asia or Australia? Welcome to the Japanese empire. Fifty years ago, Americans went and fought and died to keep your countries free. There wasn't a whole lot of complaining about American interventionism then.

      Of course no one was complaining about American interventionism during WW2, because it was supported! People wanted the help of the USA and such.

      Also. I fail to see the comparison between WW2 and the 9/11 attacks.

    5. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Also. I fail to see the comparison between WW2 and the 9/11 attacks.


      So what ae we supposed to do? Sit on ou thumbs and gurgle?

    6. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I never said that you should do nothing. My point is the US involvement in WW2 is differnt to the middle-east foreign policy or 9/11 situation. So don't lay down the whole "If it wasn't for us..." thing.
      If you mean by your comment that the US should be getting into other countries affaris. It's silly, because the most of the middle-east places don't want the US around. Unlike the countries you mentioned during WW2.

    7. Re:Screw all this moral posturing by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      most of the middle-east places don't want the US around.

      Not true at all. Most of the Middle East rightly regards the US a major stabilizing force in the region. After all, the same terrorists that pulled off the WTC attack assasinated Sadat, and have carried out numerous other attacks in the Middle East trying to engender the formation of other radical Islamic states. Many of the Middle Easten governments have in fact asked the US to be involved in the egion in many ways - to contol Iraq, and to establish a framework for an eventual solution to the Palestinian problem.

      When the mess in the presidential elections was going on, many Middle Eastern people expressed concern because the believe a strong US president is essential for progress to be made in stabilizing many of the problems in the Middle East.

  332. Christian scientists by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    There are a number in the UK, and some in France and Germany.

    During the War, the Germans put some of them in to camps.

    On the chart of Nazi symbols you can see markings other than the Star of David for Jews and the Pink Triangle.

    Christan Scientists, strongly anti-Nazi Catholics and other religous persons were stuck into camps to keep them out of the general public. It wasn't just the Jews that were oppressed.

    1. Re:Christian scientists by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      While the quote of 6,000,000 Jews killed by the Germans is one of the most significant and talked about atrocities of all time, there were also something on the order of 4,000,000 non-Jews, many Christian, killed as well.

      As an example, I would refer you to a priest named Maximillian Kolbe, who offered his life in the place of a Polish officer that had a family when the Nazi captors chose 10 people to kill in retaliation for an escape from the camp.

      While the Jews faced the most significant and severe treatment (a 1/3 of all Jews in the world were put to death!), many, many others suffered similar fates as well. St. Maximillian was canonized in 1982 for his selfless sacrifice for his fellow man.

      Now, I would still be opposed to the idea of "terror bombing", you also have to take it in context. We (the Allies) were at _total war_. This wasn't the video game cakewalk in Iraq or the target practice occurring in Afghanistan at this moment (discounting any special forces action we will probably never hear about).

      The Allies very nearly lost that war, and even if you disagree with the tactics of carpet-bombing Germany or nuking entire cities in Japan, I challenge you to contrast that with the alternative, and ask the millions of people who would otherwise have died if it was worth it.

      The planned invasion of Japan that was averted by Truman's use of Fat Man and Little Boy could have resulted in 7-figure casualty numbers on both sides and would have dragged out for years as Japan's cities (echoing Churchill's famous speech) would have to be defeated street by street and building by building by the "vast mass" of Japanese citizens.

      On top of it all, we may see that these military strikes prevent a lot of bloodshed because they will illustrate to the rank and file Taliban soldiers just how insignificant they are. Expect mass defections.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Christian scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The planned invasion of Japan that was averted by Truman's use of Fat Man and Little Boy could have resulted in 7-figure casualty numbers on both sides and would have dragged out for years as Japan's cities (echoing Churchill's famous speech) would have to be defeated street by street and building by building by the "vast mass" of Japanese citizens.

      Alternately, it saved Japan from the Russian Army. They were massing for attack, felt entitled to the territory, and had a score to settle. Japan fared much better under the bombs and the subsequent US occupation.

    3. Re:Christian scientists by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Again, was it right to target civilians?

      The thinking was, I have read, first that a demonstration on some remote island, a la, the Bikini Atoll, would not have as effective in convincing the Japanese military leadership (not mention the people who were clearly fired up to fight to the last man).

      Secondly, two bombs were used just to show that this was repeatable. We didn't want them to think we were bluffing and could only do it once. Of course, IIRC, at the time we _did_ only have the two bombs, but again it worked.

      Was it the best decision possible? Maybe not. Did it save many, many lives and shorten the war? Without a doubt.

      I have no doubt that the U.S. could not avoid "collateral damage" yesterday. I also have no doubt they tried very hard anyway. But by the same token, I wonder if any Afghan citizens were killed by the Taliban's show of force the other day when they dropped some bombs, apparently to make a point.

      Anyhow, if it helps keep U.S. citizens safe, then I think it's a reasonable and just trade-off.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  333. Re:Germany by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Harris and LeMay ordered these attacks, and while some of it was done for terror, alot of industrial work had been outsourced to the houses and smaller businesses.

    In Japan, by April of '45 all most all the aircraft part production and AAA munitions were outsourced to people's homes.

    Bombing military sites in Afghanistan will have short term military benefits and no effects on a population that is under the thumb of the Taliban

  334. Arg...too much typing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Terrorist attacks and our current response do not invalidate the merit American foreign policy or national identity. America is to this day the greatest nation in the world.

    There I said it, no strings, no apologies, and no "I am so liberal that I care about the death of Palestinian children" more than the burgers I had for lunch etc... And yes I am a non-CNN consuming liberal, a bit extreme at times too. But I also have sense.

    As a first generation Chinese immigrant, I am all too aware of criticism against the United States and its actions, its unilateralism, greed, and hegemonism etc.

    But please, fellow Americans, don't give in to this crap of these appeasers and apologists. America is not the evil empire. American preeminence in the world is not a function of how much Nike, Coke or Ford we sell, or even the number of aircraft carriers and fighters in our arsenal. Those are merely reflections of the inner strength of the people and their ideals.

    Modern America is unique in the world in its embrace of secular humanism and hope filled individualism. America is not a superpower just because of its military might or its exploitation of the world. America is not Rome. America my friend, is America.

    Iraq did invade Kuwait, true and yes there was a peaceful resolution at works before American intervention. Having said that, we should also note that a "peaceful resolution" in this case would have meant that Iraq not the United States would control the rich but weak golf states and 70% of the world's oil supplies (what do you really think Saddam would have done with the 30 Billion dollar bribe that Kuwaiti offered?). I think most of the world, be it China, Japan or the EU would rather the US controlled the oil than Iraq. No one wanted to see such a fundamental shift in the balance of power in favor of a brutal dictatorship.

    The Palestinian cause, yes I hear them, I read about them and I supported it. After all I don't believe that such a once vibrant culture should disappear from the face of the world in one generation. And that proper food, education and indeed water supply for the Palestinians are responsibilities frequently neglected by Israel. But you must also see the Israeli side of the story. Killing with laser guided bomb is killing, true, but how do you ask the Israel soldiers to put down their guns, trash their fighters and go throw stones and commit suicide bombing attacks against the Palestinians. We do what we do to survive, the Israelis, who live amides the danger of destruction day and night will not want to get out of their tanks and hold hands with the Palestinians until some level of mutual respect exists. I personally think that the sentimental idealism of some of the first Zionists and their Arab counterpart, who wanted nothing but lasting peace at any cost is all but lost. And who can blame them!

    But now you are gonna say that the Palestinians are screwed because the US supported Israel and that the US is nothing but a nation controlled by blood sucking, CNN controlling Jews who wants to kill Arabs (boy would it be great if I get a penny every time I have to deal with that crock). Well bullshit to that again. The greatest supporter for the Palestinian cause my friend is not the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan or Mr. Osama Bin Ladin himself. The greatest supporter were the New York Times and the Washington Post. Anyone who ever picked up those newspapers and read the heartfelt stories of Palestinian plight will feel nothing but sympathy for those people. And notice how the public opinions turned against Israel in the month preceding the attacks. But now that the Washington and New York have both been attacked do you think those supporters will voice their pro Arab sentiments? NO! If Bin Ladin or Saddam actually gave half a rats ass about the Palestinians or his fellow Arabs than none of this shit would have happened. Don't forget that the greatest crimes against the Palestinian people have not been committed by Israel. They have been the works of Jordan, Syria etc. And since when did the Arab Council or Gulf Council ever do anything to help the Palestinian other than their occasional chest pounding, cock stroking rhetoric.

    As for Bosnia, you should know that it was the cowardice and utter incompetence of the European Union and the opportunism and moral duplicity of the Milosevic and that Croatian fellow that caused the tragedy. Yes the US supported Croatia even though it had clear evidence of ethnic cleansing. But what was done by the Serbs were an order of magnitude greater. The US managed to broker the peace and alliance of convenience between the Muslims and the Croats to balance the Serbs and end the bloody war. Was it a perfect solution, no, was it a good solution, no because the guilty were unpunished (not just Milo but also the Croats). But was the best solution under the circumstances? That I must say it was.

    Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do have brutal states with fundamentalist tendencies. And yes the United States do support them, and yes that support does have direct bearings on our national interest. But you should also know that the Saudis and UAE under American paternalism are far more moderate and good to their people than say, the Taliban. The American presents in the middle east may not be a lasting solution. But a pull out now before true Arab state building can occur will only mean disaster for the nations there. Past examples of successful American paternalism include South Korea, Japan and Germany. So the point here is that many Arab states today are weak and exploited because they do not have modern nation state institutions. The cohesive nation state bound and secularism (collectively the definition of "modernism") do not fully exist. But this is not the fault of the United State. The US seeks to preserve the status quo in these nations-in-construction. But active change for the better have to emerge from within those nations. The US and the white man cannot be casually and callously blamed for this.

    Sure there are many holes in these sweeping idealizations, racial inequalities, bigotry, misrepresentation and the necessary actions of the state (reason d'etat anyone?). But the underlying principles of equality and freedom in its foundation is strong and pervasive compared to any other nation in the world. I say this despite the discrimination and bigotry that I myself have been victims of over the years in the US. Because I know that the legal system in this nation is mature, the religious forces checked by the secular state, which itself is a post-modern institution of checks and balances. Again I say it is not perfect or even good by subjective standards. But it is a continually improving system. And civic responsibility and patriotic duty calls for criticism and self examination to improve and safe guard what we have. In this respect I applaud the remarks of those I do not agree with. But I must say of objectivity does not mean reading up on fringe group's manifestos on the internet, or listening to the puke of extreme left or right "think tanks" and thinking that all that they have to offer are true and good because CNN says the opposite. True objectivity involves a lot more commitment and common sense than that blind chase for the black and white on the infinite abyss of the World Wide Web.



    Many Americans today take this for granted and does not realize what they have to enjoy and defend.

    As for the crises of American patriotism and national identity. Lemme just say that it isn't about how many tanks that we can amass for a demonstration for the public, or how many shrines we build for our war criminals. Those are enforced and superficial displays of distorted national psyches. American patriotism is much simpler on the surface and profound at depth that that. You need but see the tears in the eyes of grown men glued to the TV set after the bombing happened, watch the long lines of White, Black, Brown and Yellow at the red cross for blood donations, attend the grand memorial service in Atlanta where half of the dignitary speakers were not fire breathing red-necks but Arabs intelligenta preaching tolerance and respect, or go to the July forth celebrations in Washington and watch the festive people on the national mall enjoy themselves on a beautiful summer day, uninhabited, untroubled and unrestrained. That is America and that is the nation that I fell in love with...

    1. Re:Arg...too much typing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I see it, Israel is neglecting the human
      rights that everyone deserve. They deny the right
      of freedom to all palestinians becouse of their
      ethnicity. I would go as far as comparing Israel
      to Germany in the second world war!

      Israel is doing an illigal occupation, they deny
      basic human rights, freedom and opress a people,
      do they really think someone would allow anyone
      else deny them freedom and human rights? Would
      any american fellow do that?!

      My two Cents.

      P.S. Stop being so subjective, objectiviness is the solution!

  335. It's about time... by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 0

    If there's anything the Clinton era taught us, it's that peace negotiations in recent years don't do squat. They hit us hard, and as the old saying goes, an eye for an eye.

    The one thing we have to remember is that we're not attacking Afghanistan as a whole. Only the Al-Queda group and their hosts, the Taliban Militia (who, by the way, are made up of alot of non-Afghani Arabs). So before any of you start flinging "towel head" comments, use your own head. We're not Anti-Arab, we're not anit-Islam. We're anti-people-who-think-they-have-a-reason-to-kill-t housands-of-innocents.

    If you want to help out, I suggest donating food and/or money to the humanitarian effort aimed at helping the innocent Afghani people. They're the ones being forced into this kind of crap by the Taliban. It will show them that we're not after them, only those who wish to control them and cause havoc around the globe.

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
  336. Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by jasno · · Score: 2

    Thats a wonderful thought that I believed in through many of my younger years. Authority causes repression, Period.

    The reason I think these theories tend to be so popular(relatively speaking) with the youth is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about basic aspects of human nature.

    People aren't inherently good. If you leave them alone together for long enough they don't settle into some peaceful state of coexistence (ok, maybe 3, 4 or even 20 people, but not 20,000 and certainly not 6 billion).

    Try it sometime. What do you think happened to the hippies? Do you have kids? If so, did you ever have to teach them to lie or steal? Selfishness and pride are in us and will eventually rip apart any social structure based SOLELY on cooperation and trust.

    Now I'm sure you believe to the core of your being that if everyone knew/thought/believed in what you believe that it could work. But they don't and they won't.

    They world is full of wonderfully architected social theories and most of them fail under the stress of real human behavior.

    Ok, so anarchy isn't a social structure, its a lack of one and it doesn't have to 'work'. Yeah, whatever. Until the authoritarians come in and kick your butts and send you back to work.

    Good luck.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
  337. Place your bets by aaroncsmith · · Score: 1

    Place your bets on the next terrorist strike... to be perpretrated by these sick fucks in about 18 hours, doubtless.

    I'll get you started:

    1. Kamikaze Hijacking (NYC, DC, LA, take your pick)
    2. Synchronized car bombings (Any number of Malls and Government buildings througout the US)
    3. Anthrax
    4. Sarin gas or other chemical agent.
    5. Smallpox
    6. Suitcase Nuke in any large population center.
    7. Man with AK-47 guns down dozens in a MacDonald's at noon. Over 5 billion served.
    8. Mass executions of Americans overseas. (Night of the Long Knives 2.0)
    9. Embassy bombings overseas. (A gimmee, I know)
    10. Botulinum
    11. Ebola

  338. The Pentagon has it right.. by q2a · · Score: 1

    On CNN an hour ago the Pentagon spelled this out clearly; We have a simple choice, offense or defense. Since we live in a free and open society the choice to live in "defense" is impossible. "Offense" is our only choice and the military assault begins now. Yea, these guys freak me out too but I can't seem to disagree with them.

    1. Re:The Pentagon has it right.. by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      Lets try to recontextualize your previous statement within the confines of the reality of the situation at hand(barring the terrorist attacks of course). OK:

      On CNN an hour ago the Pentagon spelled this out clearly; We have a simple choice, offense or defense. We must secure completely the oil in the Central Asian region. Since we live in a free and open society the choice to live in "defense" is impossible. The American and British people want to drive gas guzzling automobiles, and do so for cheaper than the rest of Europe. Oil is the only answer, and a joint British, Russian, Pakistan pipeline will be created. "Offense" is our only choice and the military assault begins now. So we can begin the end process of gaining control of the oil in the Central Asian, and reduce the prices for our allies. Dont get too excited NATO countries, we dont want your help, cos we dont want you to have our oil. All heroin profits will be divided amongst all people we sell large amounts of "Alternative Rock" on MTV. If you do not have MTV, please contact our NYC offices. Yea, these guys freak me out too but I can't seem to disagree with them. I want to drive my car, get 5 miles to the gallon, and pay less than 1 dollar a gallon.

      This does not even take into consideration the other goals at work here that cannot even be discussed.

    2. Re:The Pentagon has it right.. by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      woops... I got sources. forgot:

      Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia

      Energy Information Administration

      Follow the Oil Trail--
      Mess in Afghanistan Partly Our Government's Fault


      if ya want more goto my website and email me.

    3. Re:The Pentagon has it right.. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      christ... get off of the fucking oil subject. oil isn't the reason those terrorists slammed airliners into the wtc and the pentagon... oil isn't the reason we bombed afghan military targets... just stfu about the oil. we may want sources of oil, but we aren't going to take them as our own, u.s.-owned sources of oil. get the fuck over it...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  339. Declaration of War by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

    Has America declared war on Afghanistan yet? Attacking the incumbent Government with cruise missiles is probably a good indication that they are at war.

    I don't really see how the US can be claiming that they are not at war if the US is dropping cruise missiles on Afghan Government installations.

    God help any country in the world who does not obey ultimatims from the US in future.

    1. Re:Declaration of War by pkesel · · Score: 1

      In one sense, we probably don't have to declare war. Only Pakistan recognizes the Taliban as a government. The US has no diplomatic responsibility toward the Taliban. It could be said that the US is engaging an illegal occupying force that has taken over Afghanistan. I'd bet most of the world would concur.

      --
      - Sig this!
    2. Re:declaration of war by FatalException · · Score: 1

      The president of the united states can do whatever he wants.

      All you silly people who say, "well he hasn't declared war" make me rotflmao.

    3. Re:declaration of war by maxmutt · · Score: 1

      Under the War Powers Act the sixty day rule is correct. Congress passed a specific resolution shortly after Sept 11 concerning this and it leaves an opened ended time frame. This legislation was the closest thing to a
      Declaration of War and the probably won't be one under the current situation

    4. Re:declaration of war by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      I see, thanks

      --
      [o]_O
  340. Re:Germany by MattHawk · · Score: 1

    Calm down - he was being sarcastic :)

  341. MODERATE UP PARENT by Kahlua · · Score: 1

    good comment!

  342. I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what will happen when (or if) this is over. The way I see it you are left with three alternative endings to this travesty:
    1) The Talibans give in, after a short war. Not bl**dy likely mate! You would have to be pretty short-sighted and suffer from serious lack of knowledge about history and religion to belive this.
    2)The united states bombs the life back into oblivion and imposes an embargo on all goods and services. Thinking they have taught the naughty Taliban a lesson in diplomacy, Afghanistan civilians are left with no food, absolutely no public services and the same rotten government. (It is my expresses belief that government should and must be separate).
    3)The united states decides to go all the way with this one and in the process, starts another Vietnam-like war. A war they simply cannot win..

    All the while, terrorist attacks continue as the jihad spreads like wildfire.

    So what is it going to be this time? Are you finally going to address the problems with your foreign policy and relations or are you going to walk down the beaten path?

    Please don't misunderstand, I have no sympathy with terrorists and I grieve with the families of anyone who has lost his or her life in pointless acts of wars throughout history, but I simply think this would be a time for reflection for all Americans. Somebody out there hates everyone out there, and what ever you might believe, that is not because of the statue of liberty, "the American way" or mamas home made pie. The reason (I think) is more because of your foreign policy (or lack of) and arrogance. Please, I urge you take a moment and think about it...

  343. Islamic Extreemist Grail by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
    This reminds me of an interesting analysis of Saddam's strategy during the Gulf War by a USAF Col. He was specifically interested in the air war. Iraq's air force was criticized for fleeing to Iran where it was captured by the Iranians. The Col. pointed out that this air force was battle hardened - it had faced Isreal and Iran in years of conflict. If it fled, there was a reason.


    His belief was that Saddam had planned to sacrifice his people. Allow carpet bombing and large scale civilian casualties. Use this as propoganda to start a genuine Jihad. Once Iran joined this Jihad, Saddam would have his aircraft back.


    Of course - the plan was foiled. US and Allied smart weapons were more efficient than even the US had hoped. Civilian casualties were greatly minimalized. Saddam had little propoganda for raising allies to his cause.


    It would seem that within Islamic power politics, becoming the leader of a world-wide Jihad is the Holy Grail of extreemist leaders.

  344. One more.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tehran Times article on the attack itself.

  345. Beneath The Veil -- everyone should watch it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Last night I caught a special on CNN called "Beneath the Veil" (or something similar).

    It's a documentary made by an Afghan woman (raised in the UK) regarding the Taliban, etc. It details horrific acts perpetrated on the Afghan people by the Taliban under the guise of bringing "peace and order" to the land.

    Among the things detailed (on video, no less) are:

    Use of a football (soccer for the Americans) stadium as an execution ground. Men and women were hanged from the goal-posts, and shot on the grounds as people looked on.

    People shot for not donating large sums of money to the Taliban.

    Women not being able to go to school, and women risking their lives to teach underground classes to little girls.

    People being skinned (no joke) for opposing the Taliban.

    The list of horrors goes on and on. It's about time that the world stood up to the Taliban for what it is -- evil.

    People who portray them as "Islamic Fundamentalists" are using both words incorrectly. There is nothing about what is being done that is fundamental to the islamic faith. It is shameful to even call them Muslims.

  346. Ok... by Danse · · Score: 2

    Look back at what I said: that I didn't believe the Taliban would turn bin Laden over for any evidence.


    Well, we will never know until we show them the evidence and find out. But as with the last attacks, the evidence is all classified and we aren't showing them anything. We just keep claiming that we have this compelling evidence, but we can't show anyone. They've already told us they know where bin Laden is. They said they would consider turning him over if we show them the evidence. Why didn't we just show them the evidence? Then if they still refused, we might have a leg to stand on if we decide to take him by force. Now it looks like our evidence isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Maybe it isn't so compelling. Maybe it's complete BS. We don't know.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Ok... by DivineOb · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe you should keep up on the news. We showed our evidence to NATO members, Pakistan and others and all were convinced of his involvement...

      --

      I must burn in hell, suffer and pay for my sins
      But Gods the one who's losing, Satan always wins!

    2. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello McFly.... Anybody home in there?

    3. Re:Ok... by Danse · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen a damn thing. Pardon me if I'm not entirely trusting of the NATO governments. We were told we would be shown the evidence. Now our country is at war and we haven't even seen evidence of why we should be bombing these people. They keep saying "trust us.. we have evidence." The US would NEVER turn someone over to another country without extremely compelling evidence of guilt, and probably not even then. Why do we expect them to do something that we would NEVER do ourselves??

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:Ok... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 2

      You're confusing two separate points here. You're saying that the Taliban would have been entirely justified, and, in fact, probably correct, in not turning bin Laden over to the United States on the basis of the evidence presented prior to 10/7/2001. I'm not trying to refute that claim. I believe that it's false, but utterly irrelevant to the debate here.

      I'm saying that (a) the Taliban would never accepted that they had enough evidence to turn him over for the WTC atrocities, because (b) they had already been presented with compelling evidence that he was complicit in other atrocities and had not handed him over then. The evidence I cite in (b) is public information, presented to a jury in US District Court last year. You could find it yourself; I did a single Google search for "Kenya embassy bombing transcipt" and came up with an Israeli site with the complete trial transcript here. From looking at some of the older CNN sites, it also appears that you can get a transcript through this point in the tree. That second site also contains the full text of the standing indictment against Osama bin Laden in regard to the actions of al Qaeda. That, in itself, is a pretty damning document.

      Look, trendy as it may be to want to bad mouth the US, in this case, you don't have to trust the US gov't to realize that the Taliban are in an indefensible moral position here. There's plenty of publicly available evidence that shows bin Laden to be a murderous thug who has directed multiple acts of war against the US. You could have found it yourself, just as I did. That evidence was presented to the Taliban years ago. They should have turned him over on that basis and they did not. Complaining that they weren't shown this batch of evidence is a red herring, a dodge, and a lie. They didn't want to give bin Laden up, so they didn't. End of story.

    5. Re:Ok... by Danse · · Score: 2

      Complaining that they weren't shown this batch of evidence is a red herring, a dodge, and a lie.


      I don't believe it's a lie. They actually haven't been shown this batch of evidence. As for it being a red herring, that's not really what I'm getting at. I'm just saying that we should have given them the evidence so that if/when they still refuse to hand him over, we could at least have shown that we tried to do it the right way. In this case, we didn't even try. And Bush said we'd be shown the evidence as well. We still haven't seen it either.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:Ok... by pyramid+termite · · Score: 1

      They actually haven't been shown this batch of evidence.

      It's public information that is available on the net. Funny, the Taliban were able to have their own web site, they are able to reply in a timely matter when the media and political leaders in the West denounce them for the things they have done, and they are able to make military preparations when they see we are about to attack us, but when it comes to looking at evidence of Bin Laden's attacks of several years ago, they are suddenly unable to find this information at all. No, if they were responsible world citizens they would have looked at this evidence and acted properly on it when they were asked to. The only reason they haven't "seen" it is because they don't want to see it. Can you really state that no one in the Taliban is aware that Osama bin Laden is on our 10 most wanted list, that trial transcripts have given good evidence for his involvement in several terrorist attacks, and that almost any other country in the world, including Muslim ones, would arrest him and extradite to be tried? No, what they're really saying is that none of that is "Islamic" evidence from an "Islamic" court and so it doesn't count. We're infidels to them and nothing we say has to be listened to. Just about every country in the world begged them not to destroy those Buddha statues and they completely ignored them. They have a track record of refusing to listen to anyone; if we'd provided them with videotape of bin Laden telling Mohammed Atta, "Now I wants youse to fly them planes into them towers, capiche?", they'd have told us it was no good because it wasn't taken by an "Islamic" camera. Reasonable leaders of a reasonable government would have considered carefully the harboring of a immigrant criminal such as bin Laden and the evidence that existed against him, before refusing to deport him. The Taliban knew they would be at war if they did not choose to listen to the world's demand for justice; they have chosen, and so be it.

    7. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Two quotes:

      "What you want is irrelevant. What you have chosen is at hand." - Spock to Valeris, Star Trek VI.

      "Hope this is what you wanted. Hope this is what you had in mind. 'Cause this is what you're getting." - Tool, Ticks and Leeches.

      I'm not wasting any tears for the Taliban. They've chosen to stir a hornet's nest, and they've had all the time they needed to extricate themselves. This is what they want. I'm just hoping that the government that claims to represent me can get something right for a change . . . cure the disease without killing the patient.

    8. Re:Ok... by Danse · · Score: 2

      It's public information that is available on the net.


      Sure. Give me a link where I can find the "compelling evidence" that bin Laden is behind the WTC destruction. Bush and others keep talking about it. He said we'd get to see it, but we haven't yet. Neither did he show the Taliban. Now like I said, it doesn't matter if they still refuse to turn him over or not. At least we would have put the option out there.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    9. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason all the evidence has not been disclosed to the entire world is that this is as much an intelligence operation as it is a criminal investigation. bin Laden and al Queda straddle the line between criminals and political/military opponents. Releasing the most damning evidence against him right now would compromise _ever_ catching him or bringing him to justice. I'm sure all will be told once we can catch him.

    10. Re:Ok... by pyramid+termite · · Score: 1

      The public information I'm talking about was in reference to the trial transcripts dealing with previous terrorist attacks, and the link was already provided further up in the thread. He's already been proven to have committed enough crimes against the US that we could fairly demand that he be turned over. Our suspicion that he is likely involved in the WTC attack is an additional reason for our demands, not the sole one.

  347. Re:Where's Michael? by Zico · · Score: 1

    All those groups you mentioned were trying to rule the country themselves. That's a lot different and more difficult than the US goal of trying to weed a number of people out of the country.


    It also doesn't really recognize the reality of the situation in modern times. The Soviet military has definitely been an intimidating force, but never extremely effective. Their style of war has been more of attrition than tactics. In WWII they lost 7.5 million soldiers compared to about a third of that number lost by the Germans. In the 1980s, trying to keep up with Reagan was bankrupting their country, which ended up killing morale with a double whammy as people on the front weren't being paid regularly, and the people back home were wondering why the government was throwing their money into a place like Afghanistan while they couldn't even keep the local store shelves stocked.


    The biggest thing that this point of view misses is that the Afghanis had the strong backing of the US, both in weapons and advisors. The only hope the Taliban has of something similar is if they can convince Iran to change their stance and start funnelling them support, which is unlikely, and even then wouldn't even come close to what the US was giving the mujahideen.

  348. Whats the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the difference between this attack, and the the sept-11th attack?
    I know, american are first class deads, and the others are just second class.
    "Eye for an eye..., the earth will get blind..."

  349. China moving troops into Afghanistan by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Debka.com (right side column, 1/2 way down) has been reporting for the past couple of days that China is moving troops to support the Taliban. The report goes on to mention that Taiwan is now exposed to a Chinese takeover as we reposition our carriers to attack Afghanistan.

    In evaluating the news, be aware that debka is based in Israel and is about as reliable as Drudge - sometimes is, sometimes not.

    1. Re:China moving troops into Afghanistan by Phaid · · Score: 2

      That's pretty unlikely considering that China recently signed a pact with several other nations to fight Islamic extremists like the Taliban, and that China has been fighting Islamic Uighur separatists on its own soil. China sees Islamic militants as a serious threat and groups like the Taliban, with their practice of training and exporting terrorists, are pretty unlikely to gain any Chinese support.

      I could certainly see China sending troops in that direction to prevent people crossing its borders during this conflict, but they hardly have an interest in siding with the Taliban.

    2. Re:China moving troops into Afghanistan by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      After doing a little more research, it's clear that China hates the Taliban as much as we do (well maybe not as much). That report is obviously wrong.

      Do some research on Xingiang and you shall find more info.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    3. Re:China moving troops into Afghanistan by PMM · · Score: 0

      it would appear china has been in diplomatic negotiations with the taliban for awhile now

  350. hilarious... by Danse · · Score: 2

    This coming from the same country that refuses to sign on to an international court for fear of it's own people being tried anywhere else.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  351. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by afflatus_com · · Score: 1
    I looked at my post, wondering how it could be a troll, and see that my rather ambigous language has made it into something unintended. A more clear rewrite would be:

    "Considering that part of the propaganda campaign that bin Laden uses to try to recruit Muslims to terrorism is to try to make new recruits believe the falsehood that this is a holy war against Muslims by 'Crusaders and Zionists' (the words that he uses in his letters), and so try to try to fan the flames enough for them to become terrorists."


    Bush made an unfortuate slip once of mentioning the campaign as a "crusade" which was used by the enemy to cast the war as a war among religions. Making the attack on Sunday, while certainly not intended by the Allied forces to fan the religious aspect, it unfortuately can be picked up by the enemy's propaganda to try to recuit more recruits to terrorism in the name of protecting their religion.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
  352. Flow of refugees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the most difficult problems a country faces during war is what to do with refugees that cross into your country. Surely, you will be obligated, both to your citizens and to the world community, to put them somewhere safe with food and shelter. That prevents them from roaming loose and causing problems. This, of course, costs money that could be used for other gov't projects, and manpower, to provide the necessary resources. In effect, the country ends up with decreased productivity and possibly internal strife. That said, I wonder if the US and UK will plan on helping countries in that region by taking in the refugees they helped create by this and future attacks.

  353. RIGHT ON - mod up by Kahlua · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Please mod parent up to 5 so it is visible at top level

  354. Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by RudeSka · · Score: 1

    I really don't strongly feel the need to respond to this... but nevertheless....

    "The reason I think these theories tend to be so popular(relatively speaking) with the youth is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about basic aspects of human nature."

    I would disagree with this... I would say that "The reason I think these theories (i.e., ones which advocate authority) tend to be so popular (relatively speaking) with aggressive and fearful personalities, is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about the basic aspects of human nature". Now I would agree that human nature is not inherently "good", but I would also add that human nature is not inherently "bad" either, as the human psyche does not function in terms of what is "good" or "bad". Human being have real motives for what they do. George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, local neighborhood theives and thugs, social reformers, charity workers, revolutionaries, etc, all have their own personal drives and motives for doing what they do. Osama Bin Laden is not a terrorist because he is just a "bad" person, but because he has, what is basically, the fascist mindset (i.e., one which is both reactionary (and, therefore authoritarian) and rebellious). He sees a military/financial power oppressing "his" people, so he, like the pro-War americans, wants to bring the US to it's knees in submission. The reason why revolution by the oppressed people is possible, is not because it is the "good" people who are oppressed, but because they are not in positions of power, and therefore have the capacity for creative disobedience. I agree that the world is "full of wonderfully architected social theories and most of them fail under the stress of human behaviour", and therefore, I think it is necessary, that any revolution must not be based on the ideology of a vanduard elite, but must spring naturally from the frustration of an oppressed people. Actually, "anarchy" is a social structure, but it is not one which is architected. It is whatever social structure which is created by people who refuse to submit to repression. And "the authoritarians" do come in and attempt to "send you back to work". It has happened in history a number of times. And maybe destructive barbarism will defeat humanity once and for all... But that shouldn't stop people from resisting it.

  355. Fuck you americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think you are the justice owners, but not.

    1. Re:Fuck you americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have only done what our attackers have taught us to do. Learn to see where you stand before you act.

    2. Re:Fuck you americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      succinctly put. answered usa style

    3. Re:Fuck you americans by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      I notice this pointless argument is being done by two anonymous cowards. I guess there are both idiots in America and idiots who practice Islam.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
  356. Re: I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, every other country in the world except the US is basically banana republics anyway that changes their constitutions at the whim of the US policy of the day.

    ...NOT!

  357. No doubt? by vrt3 · · Score: 1

    There is _no_ evidence of who was behind the attacks. Everyone told you it was Bin Laden, but saying something very often doesn't make it anymore true (otherwise you could as well start to believe all MS FUD).

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    1. Re:No doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a videotape of bin Ladin praising those who carried out the attacks and proclaiming their authors as heroes in the jihad doesn't do it for you? Because it does it for me.

    2. Re:No doubt? by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, no, it doesn't. It proofs he sympathises with whoever has done it (which we knew already). We know he's an agitator. Reacting this way helps hem convince even more muslims the the west is the enemy.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  358. The algebra of this war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to read <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0, 4273,4266289,00.html">this</A> article on the algebra of this war...

    <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <P>Arundhati Roy<BR>
    Guardian</P>
    <P>
    [...]<BR>
    Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.
    </P><P>
    The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place. <BR>
    [...]</P>
    </BLOCKQUOTE>

    1. Re:The algebra of this war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Hey, you should have used "HTML Formatted" instead of plaintext! You might want to read this article on the algebra of this war...

      Arundhati Roy
      Guardian

      [...]
      Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.

      The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place.
      [...]

  359. Little did we realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Al Qaeda was responsible for wrongful imprisonments in the U.S. "including American citizens unjustly detained in our country"

  360. couldn't agree more. by Forrestina · · Score: 1

    why kill those not at fault.

    --

    -------
    "don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
    at least i can fucking think"
    Minor Threat

  361. Did the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi!

    I wonder why the US gov. didn't try to press formal charges against bin Laden using Islamic Laws in Afghanisatan?

    Is it so that the evidence is not good enough? The Talibans request to see the evidence was rejected by the US gov.

    The best soloution would have been to hold a trial in a neurral country like Schweis or the Vatikan. Maybe even in South Africa or Vietnamn?

    A trial in the US should not be possible, no US judge can free bin Laden no matter the truth.

    I think this attack is the start of a new terror wave, war gives birth to war. I hope that my dad can return safley from his business trip before the terror war starts.

  362. A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by dscowboy · · Score: 1

    ... Rebel forces struggled against an evil Empire. These rebels, who were willing to die to relieve their people from opression, did not have the military strength to face the Empire head-on. During episode IV, the rebels executed a successfull sneak-attack on the symbolic center of the Empire's power: the Death Star (the Pentagon), killing millions and millions of people in the space station who were just there to do their jobs and get paid. Undoubtedly, the Empire branded these attacks as 'cowardly', and a 'crime against humanity'. In Episode V, "The Empire (The Americans) Strike Back", rebel troops are decimated by the renlentless fury of Imperial forces and driven into hiding.

    People love to cheer for the militant, murderous rebels in a movie. But when the tables are turned, it seems that nobody in the great Empire can see any validity to rebel attacks. The ignorance, arrogance, and self-righteousness of the American public pisses me off.

    1. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Aiee · · Score: 1

      Except the empire were the ones who placed restrictions on peoples liberty. I think a better parralel to draw would be Taliban as the empire and the small partisan groups being the rebels. The result is still innocent blood on everyones hands though.

      --
      -----------------------
      I pushed the red button
    2. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rebel troups would never have killed thousands of totally innocent people for their cause... would they?

    3. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Djaak · · Score: 1

      But the rebel troups would never have killed
      thousands of totally innocent people for their cause

      Alas ! I could've done with a little more collateral
      damage to, say, ewoks for example.

      Yes this post may seem rude in the light of current
      events, but I didn't start that stupid SW paralel. I
      actually cheer when the one ewok dies in Ep. VI, I
      never cheer when I see a real person die (even if it's
      on tv).

      reality != fiction

    4. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

      In Star Wars the Death Star is a weapon of mass destruction. Prior to being blown into little bits it is used by the empire to destroy an entire planet - just as a demonstration to other planets to fall into line. The Death Star is clearly a military target.

      The WTC was not a military target. It was not a threat to Terrorists, and was filled with non-military innocent civilians. The Death Star was filled with a massive 'laser', thousands of storm-troopers, fighters, and other weapons - with every intent to destroy opposition.

    5. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a grip on reality. The movie clearly portayed the rebels as being good and the empire as being evil (e.g. the "dark side").

      We are ignorant for wanting to eliminate terrorism after a terrorist action kills 6000?

      We are arrogant for " " "?

      We are self-righteous for " " "?

      Thats nice. Do you know that Bin Laden wants you dead too?

    6. Re:A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away... by Occam's+Nailfile · · Score: 1
      The ignorance, arrogance, and self-righteousness of the American public pisses me off.

      No more, I'm sure, than your broad, sweeping generalization based on a fictional, melodramatic morality play pisses me off.

  363. update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did it end up being?

  364. you fucking liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's patently obvious that modern warfare causes more collateral damage, and the amount of civilian targets ("infrastructure" -- eg, the WTC is "infrastructure") selected by the US in Yugoslavia was cause for the high number of European pilots who outright refused their missions.

    1. Re:you fucking liar by pa-guy · · Score: 0

      Ask the people of Carthage about that.

    2. Re:you fucking liar by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      BTW, please cite references to European pilots refusing missions....

      I thought not.

    3. Re:you fucking liar by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      The WTC was not infrastructure. Infrastructure is things like roads, powerplants, manufacturing facilities etc. Things that are part of the countries ability to function.

      Yes, the WTC was very important to the US, not only for economic reasons, but also for symbolic reasons. It was not infrastructure. Therefore hitting the WTC was an act of pure terrorism.

      When you target infrastructure there WILL be some civilian casualties. This is a given, and is very unfortunate.

      BTW, Most of the civilian deaths in Kosovo (and in the Balkan's in general) since the conflict began are the result of local-vs-local conflicts, not NATO actions.

      I've been there (several times actually. I have the UNPROFOR, KFOR and SFOR medals on my rack) as an armoured trooper, not a wog (service support, ie trucker, cook, etc), and we (NATO) have done much more good than bad.

  365. You might want to add.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the United States capture black people, use their manpower for their advantage and actually even kill black people?

    Of course not.

    This, my friend is short sighted - the United States seem to believe that whatever they do is the right thing. History proves that whenever horrendous crimes have been committed by a larger group of people, those crimes had been the Right Thing To Do[tm].

    I myself, although I do not want to oppress anybody with my opinion, am a firm believer of what could be called 'left wing ideals'. I am sure it is right to have a good social system etc., yet the vast majority of peoples seem to support feudalistic systems. - Is my ideal a wrong ideal thusly? Not at all, it all depends on your viewpoint.

    Let the United States do what they intend to do - and have history judge their actions.

  366. Propaganda by horza · · Score: 2

    Secret a load of child refugees in a military installation, decorate it like the inside of a schoolroom, and wait for it to be bombed. It will make EXCELLENT footage for propaganda purposes. They aren't lives, they are pawns for Taliban games.

    Phillip.

    --
    Property for sale in Nice, France
  367. Only sheep .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ...give support no matter what....

    Even if you are in war it is your duty to scrutinize your goverment's every single step to make sure they do what has to be done and nothing else more...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  368. Don't Hold Your Breath About Declaration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States has not declared war on
    anyone or state since WWII.

    1. Re:Don't Hold Your Breath About Declaration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desert Storm involved a declaration of war.

    2. Re:Don't Hold Your Breath About Declaration by gimple · · Score: 1

      Wrong. We did not declare war against Iraq. There was a vote of support from the Congress, but no declaration of ware.

    3. Re:Don't Hold Your Breath About Declaration by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2

      You're thinking of the Security Council authorizing the use of force. Declaration of War comes from the US Congress and hasn't happened since Pearl Harbor.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  369. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how is this different from fighting those godless Commies?

  370. This calls for... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    Where's sengan when you need him?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  371. Justice and the blame game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for all the people who are saying that the american don't hold justice.

    Learn by what those who attack America have done. They preach their honor and nobility, yet they hide in the shadows like cowards. Those who are empowered by God for holy war have no need to hide in caves like pitiful animals. Unless of course they have no faith in their God.

    These cowards claim to be fighting for Islam, but will not meet with any Islamic leaders other than their own self appointed clerics. Why do they feel that their clerics represent the force of Islam without even consulting non-Taliban Islamic religious leaders?

    Those who say that America has no right to attack should remember that these cowards had to right to attack either. And in Islam, the rule of law is an eye for an eye... and if you steal a loaf of bread you lose your right hand.

  372. MOD THE PARENT UP A LIL BIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey he may sound like a troll but he knows what a lot of us are thinking

    +1, Flamebait

    Maybe?

  373. OMG (stunned) MOD THIS UP! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

    I have never, EVER seen a Slashdot post that deserved a '5 Informative' rating more. *spontaneous applause* keep posting, Douglas! It is people like you and the time they spend who make Slashdot possibly the one most powerful resource on our current state of war. Your supplying of references is the final touch. THANK you!

    1. Re:OMG (stunned) MOD THIS UP! by ectoraige · · Score: 1

      Off topic, but it strikes me that the moderator who modded the above post up, should have really modded the *original* post up instead...

      And please, don't mod this up, but rather Douglas's post.

      --
      Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
  374. 14 Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

  375. Sorry, no, bullshit by Macrobat · · Score: 1
    When people use all this language about the "War on Terrorism", I can't help thinking of how similar it is to the "War on Drugs"
    No. This war is not the war on drugs. There is a constand demand for drugs, hence a constant demand for drug suppliers. Many dealers get exactly what they want--a lot of money--and so their expectations of success are reasonably higher than someone who wants to bring down the United States. Nobody has done that, and, in the foreseeable future, nobody will.

    But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place.
    Ten, eh? Care to supply any evidence for this statistic, or are you talking out of your ass?

    We need to figure out what turns people into terrorists...
    Well, at least one of the necessary ingredients seems to be the belief that you can strike with impunity, and these strikes really will lessen that delusion.

    So your argument seems to be one (1) false analogy, one (1) made-up statistic, and several unfounded assumptions...and I'm supposed to believe you because...why, exactly?

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Sorry, no, bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot, you should be reputed for not talking out of your ass.

  376. Gandhi did it, Martin Luher King did it. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It works.

    Enough said.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Gandhi did it, Martin Luher King did it. by tjb · · Score: 1

      It only worked for ghandi because the British were inherently rational and peaceful.

      Would non-violence have worked as well if the British were willing to kill 10,000 people a day until the population surrendered?

      Somehow, I don't think so.

      Tim

    2. Re:Gandhi did it, Martin Luher King did it. by joshki · · Score: 1

      Martin Luther King was assasinated.
      'nuf said.

      --
      I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
  377. Flawed analogy: The puncher is not innocent by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    A minimum of thought shows that this makes no sense. The protestor is against harming innocent people, as he states in step 4. But hitting back at the puncher would not be harming an innocent, so the whole thing is just completely stupid and pointless.

  378. SOD's ode to Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "F**K the Middle East

    theres too many problems

    kill'em all and have a ball

    and end the f**king crisis"

    ah sweet SOD now there was a band and so soooo appropriate in our time of need.

    To all you taliban terrorists:

    In the name of SOD "Speak English or Die!"

  379. For goodness sake.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... inform yourself and stop all the paranoid nonsense....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  380. Don't believe everything you see on TV... by Triv · · Score: 1

    EVER. I mean it. There are so many politically controlled media sources in this country, it is only prudent to GET CONFORMATION of anything you hear.

    I honestly believe people should head over to
    "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting"
    for a dose of honesty to combat the rhetoric.

    Specifically, check out this one on civilian casualites...

    Triv

    1. Re:Don't believe everything you see on TV... by Kraft · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the link. It's nice to get some perspective.

      --

      -Kraft
      Live and let live
    2. Re:Don't believe everything you see on TV... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      "Part IV of the Geneva Conventions clearly states ..."

      gimme a break... the taliban isn't adhereing to the geneva conventions anyway!


      The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which Afghanistan has signed and which were often invoked by the various groups fighting the Soviet-backed regime during the 1980's and early 1990's ... While the human rights violations specifically against women committed by the Taliban transcend the circumstances of armed conflict, it is worth noting the provisions in international humanitarian law relating to the basic guarantees that must be afforded to the civilian population by an armed group. Indeed, in many respects the Taliban is widely perceived as an alien, occupying force in cosmopolitan areas such as Kabul, where women were formerly fully engaged in economic, social and cultural activities.


      Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which applies to non-international armed conflicts, requires that parties to the armed conflict accord humane treatment "without any distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any similar criteria" to all persons taking no active part in the hostilities including, among others, those placed in the midst of combat by sickness, wounds, or any other cause. Common Article 3 also specifically prohibits: "violence to life and person," including cruel treatment and torture; "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;" ...

      see how the taliban is not the recognized government of afghanistan (more of an "occupying force", as was stated above), their treatment of women is most certainly not in compliance with the geneva conventions.

      playing by the rules is a liability if only one side is forced to do so. :oP

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  381. CNN's "explosion" footage by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    explosion nothing, that "nightscope" shot is a washed out picture of someone shining a flashlight into a camera at night.

  382. Struggle by Macrobat · · Score: 1

    Funny, "Mein Kampf" translates to "My Struggle," too....

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Struggle by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right to me, both are in poverty, both think jews are part of the problem. So you cant expect democracy to magicly appear during poverty, people are to busy trying to survive (struggling) to care about politics, and they ask for God to come save them, so they are easy picken for those who enforce their religion and enhance their power.

      --
      disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
  383. There are many violent options by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Saying that "violence is our only option" is both right and wrong. Right because there has to be a violent response. Wrong because there are a great number of different violent options.

    Carpet bombing Kabul is one violent option that would fill the world with disgust. But it's not the only violent option.

    I've been pleasantly surprised by the cautious and sensible US reaction so far. Today's attacks seem to have been at serious military targets, with little potential for civilian casualities.

    1. Re:There are many violent options by danox · · Score: 1

      Today's attacks seem to have been at serious military targets, with little potential for civilian casualities.

      So says CNN, who have a history of reporting falacies during war time. Do not think for a moment that you are hearing anything other than what the government wants you to hear. Time will tell what is really happening in Afghansitan. For all we know they may very well be carpet bombing. We may not find out till later, or we may never find out. I would never move to support these strikes, because I have no idea what I would be supporting.

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
    2. Re:There are many violent options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For all we know they may very well be carpet bombing.

      Well I for one will not be giving much credence to the Taliban's body counts, into which they will no doubt insert many innocent woment and children. I will treat them with the same validity that I treated their claims that they "lost" bin Ladin and then "found" him again.

      It's going to be very hard to tell what's going on there, but I do believe this is going to get a little bit more critical examination than the usual US military operation.

    3. Re:There are many violent options by danox · · Score: 1

      I would give as much credence to the Taliban controlled media as I would to CNN. In my opinion, both are serving an agenda and neither are a trustworthy news source.

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
  384. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was monday morning over there dumbass...

  385. Re:Germany by fleadope · · Score: 1

    /* Did the US or Commonwealth forces slaughter 70,000 people when they took Rome or Vienna like the Japanese did at Nanking? */

    No, but if you know your history, (read "Slaughterhouse Five", by Kurt Vonnegut) the allied forces firebombed the city of Dresden, ostensibly to destroy the production capacity of the city. 135,000 civilians died in that attack, more than the combined total in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although the total of civilian deaths in those two cities is equally abhorrent, and about as militarily significant.)

    Are you seriously claiming that these bombings in particular, which came just weeks before the end of the war, when our enemies were practically on their knees, were neccesary to ensure our victory? Most of the historical work that I've read speculates, with good evidence, that these acts were undertaken to 'send a message' to the Soviet Union before the end of the war. Add this to the total civilian deaths in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Panama, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq (in my lifetime) and it's not a pretty picture.

    That's not to say that bombing of industrial and military sites is never necessary, or that our enemies always play fair, but how can we claim righteousness when our aims in most of these cases were so transparently political, and so at odds with our rhetoric and mythology ?

    --
    "The problems in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking which created them" --Albert Einstein
  386. Read some books... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I yo are European thank your ancestors, the US and the USSR.

    If you are Asian thank your ancestors, the British, the Chinese, the USSR and certainly the US.

    Americans did not fight to free other countries only. Had Europe and Asia fallen, the US would have been next ....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  387. Don't believe everything you read on the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can make a webpage.
    In fact.. with this comment, I just helped to build one. And according to me, Imperial Storm Troopers have taken over the Emperor Jesse Ventura and are enforcing their bizzare custom farking regeime... fark fark! www.fark.com

  388. Why do they need our support? by Tom7 · · Score: 2


    Regardless of whether I support bombings or not, I don't understand why it is important for me to "support" my country. Why does it need my support?

    I think what we need are a lot of smart people thinking about things. Why should we put our views on hold and agree with the government's rhetoric? We shouldn't be actively trying to thwart the war effort, but making our ideas known is important. Diversity of opinion is what keeps the government in check.

  389. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For about a century, it has been considered an act of treason to criticize your government during a time of war in America.

    Shame on you for your delusions of liberty.

    1. Re:WRONG by Enthrad · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That was 1995-1997, I think. And I believe it was GWB & Co who gave the Taleban the money ($US 45 million) for dismantling the opium production, earlier this year (May, I think).

    2. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Sure there is. look at this:

      In February 1998, the Taliban announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which was abolished by the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion. A very small amount of crude oil is produced at the Angot field in the northern Sar-i-Pol province. It is processed at a primitive topping plant in Sheberghan, and burned in central heating boilers in Sheberghan, Mazar-i-Sharif, and Kabul. Another small oilfield at Zomrad Sai near Sheberghan was reportedly undergoing repairs in mid-2001.
      ok, not a whole lot, but there is some.
    3. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Afghanistan is important in terms of petroleum. So the fuck what?

    4. Re:WRONG by compugeek007 · · Score: 1

      it is important as it is a destablized power vaccum in an area far ore rich with oil.

      --
      Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
    5. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing, just that the dude wasn't "WRONG"

  390. you're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're an idiot

  391. To anyone doubting these actions taken by the US by kennedy · · Score: 1

    Yes war is indeed hell, and personally i don't agree with using military action as a world policing service...

    but you've got to keep this one fact in mind. they want you DEAD. if you are american, be it anti or pro war, they want you DEAD. they want your family and friends DEAD along side you. and honestly i don't see them stopping until they themselves are infact DEAD.

    I may be holding up the peace sign in hopes for a quick resolve for this confict, but i do infact support my government and my military. our attackers have spilt american blood on american soil. they have killed americans IN OUR OWN HOMELAND!

    it's time to protect our homeland.
    just remeber next time you want to bitch about america possibly killing innocents (it's bound to happen and i hope we can minimize this..), that our attackers will gaddly look you in the eye as they kill you.

  392. Bullshit. See the facts. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    There is one place invaded.

    The refugees come from one die of the conflict only.

    Only one side is violating international law (with the support of a country that fights for international freedom).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Bullshit. See the facts. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      There is one place invaded.
      And why is that place invaded? Because that place attacked Israel, and Israel has no option but to remain there to protect itself from such attacks.

      The refugees come from one die of the conflict only.
      Obviously, as they have no country. Why? Because they refused to the UN settlement of 47, dividing Palestine into Israeli and Palestinian territories, into two countries.
      The Israelis agreed, but ofcourse you don't find that worth mentioning.

      Only one side is violating international law (with the support of a country that fights for international freedom).
      Oh really? Is it not against international law to murder innocent men, women and children?

      You should get your facts straight.

  393. I second your motion #@ +1 ; Insightful @# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest avoiding U.S. News sources.
    SAS (from Great Britain) were in Afghanistan in
    September. In all likelihood (to quote Dick Cheney), was the United States.

  394. M0 moderation? (Base case?) by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't read Slashdot for this type of news - I read CNN or BBC who do a much better job (they are pros at this) and provide more info than a pair of links to these sites.

    I think people should be able to moderate the postings. This would allow me to browse at +2 and avoid this type of submission that is surely offtopic for slashdot.

    Sure I can select not to view US stories, but some of them actually are interesting - just not these ones.

    --
    -- Mike
  395. Re:It is time for you to realize by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

    have jurisdiction over American citizens and, in the case of war crimes, military personnel as well.

    Of note is that the Proposed International Court that the US would not support had plans to charge some American military for their actions in Korea.

  396. And what happens if your goverment is wrong? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    How is the people suppossed to make their goverment accountable during war situations?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  397. disposable heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Boy.

    1. There is no evidence. (check out the cases of "Barry Bulsara" and Michael Stone in my country (uk) recently. Two high-profile convictions where there was nowhere near sufficient proof.) These days it seems that circumstantial evidence or the word of a criminal is enough for a concrete decision.

    2. I hate microsoft and everything they stand for. Sadly this also means i dislike alot of americans who don't see any sort of problem with monopolizing the world. Many are rabid even in the face of the rest of the world behaving/thinking differently.
    No one has told me to hate the US, i have formed my own views. However people's words ive seen and heard have affected me. Are these people terrorists or inciting terrorism?

    3. We don't know much about the nature of the universe or whether God exists.. are there alien life forms? Is gaia/noosphere or whatever a really perceptive idea? What gives ANY country the right to interfere with any of the others? I don't just mean now, at this terrible time in history, but at any point.

    If every "developed"/"western"/"civilised" country acted OPENLY and CONSISTENTLY for the good of the world, that would be a great start to building trust between all the peoples. And then we can get on with living the Star Trek dream (TOS+NG style btw)

    1. Re:disposable heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The evidence is reported all over the net and in print.

      2. This network caused the deaths of 6000 people, the US citizens deserve justice.

      3. Go take your medication.

      Stop dreaming and get on with your life.

  398. Israeli policies need re-evaluation by g8oz · · Score: 1

    I would say that your view is rather one-sided too. Palestinians are not blameless, but lets face it, they react to a situation they are put in by Israel. How would you feel living in a refugee camp without a nation of your own? How willing would you and your neighbours be to negotiate with an occupier who violates international law, demolishes your homes and cries victim at the inevitable backlash?

    This is not a struggle between equals. It is up to Israel to change the situation, i.e evict all settlers from Palestinan land, withdraw all troops, and offer a few East Jerusalem neighbourhoods as a capital. Then fortify the border and don't let any Palestinians in. This will mean forgoing the exploitation of cheap Palestinian labor, but hey, get over it.

    The ball will then be in the P.L.O's court. They will have to satisfy the aspirations of their people without having anyone to blame.

    1. Re:Israeli policies need re-evaluation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? Ehud Barak offered 95% of this one year ago. Without the part about fortifying the border and not letting the Palestineans in. Yassir Arafat turned it down flat and offered no compromise in return. How can you negotiate with those who will accept nothing short of the annihilation of Israel?

      > The ball will then be in the P.L.O's court.

      The ball has been in their court. The escalations since then have shown that they have no conception how to play ball fairly. Arafat has gallons of blood on his hands.

    2. Re:Israeli policies need re-evaluation by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Palestinians are not blameless, but lets face it, they react to a situation they are put in by Israel.
      Bombing dozens of citizens to death, or shooting at random people, is NOT a reaction. Not a justified one anyhow. Especially not when the other side is negotating in attempt to better the situtation (Just look at Barak's proposals in Camp David, etc.).

      How would you feel living in a refugee camp without a nation of your own?
      Pretty bad, but that doesn't mean I will blow myself on dozens of innocent civilians!

      How willing would you and your neighbours be to negotiate with an occupier who violates international law, demolishes your homes and cries victim at the inevitable backlash?
      I would be VERY willing to do anything to get me out of the situation, and negotiation is the ONLY way out of it.
      Terror is not a way out of it - it must not be, because terror may not prevail.

      Israel is the one to have accepted the Palestinian identity in the UN's division plan, and accept a situation of two states, one next to another. Guess what? The Palestinians refused and all arab neighbours attacked the newly created Israel.

      Later in 1967, Israel was under attack again, and as part of its defense, Israel conquered territories. These territories are until today known as the occupied territories.
      Bogus-idealogy settlers settled in there, and built their homes. The Palestinians have terrorized Israel in attempt to force it out of those territories in the Intifada, various terror acts, etc.

      The response to these terror acts, often by unknown attackers, and sometimes suiciding attackers, is to demolish their homes, or act against their senders, in the sometimes only way possible in the circumstances: elimination.

      Israel was forced into the territories. Israel is forced in there, and cannot, must not submit to terror.
      What you are suggesting is submittal to terror, whereas the real solution is both sides achieving an agreement. Any other solution will not resolve the conflict, and violence will continue.

      Yet another misconception of yours is that separation is so easy. If Israel one-sidedly separated itself from the Palestinians, it would have to separate their separate territories from one another, thus requiring some way of allowing passage - which is a security hole for terrorists to use.

      Another issue is the fact Israel is supplying resources (mainly water) to the Palestinians and would have to cease doing this in such a solution, being worse off than now.

      And perhaps your largest misconeption: the ball is in the Palestinian side: They are keeping the violence alive, Israel has TRIED to stop it, but it was simply continued by the other side. Submitting to terror is not the answer: Just look at what happened in Lebanon. In a much simpler situation, Israel left without an agreement, and then soldiers were abducted, and the citizens of the northern Israel are afraid for their lives in case of a terrorist infiltration.

  399. Off Topic, -1 by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall reading a few places that the United States engaged the USSR in an Arms race (tanks, nukes, bombers) because we knew they couldn't keep up with, but they'd do their damnest- and head straight into economic meltdown. If that was our plan, it certainley worked.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Off Topic, -1 by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Oh, we made to say that that was our plan... after the fact.

    2. Re:Off Topic, -1 by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      Oh, we made to say that that was our plan... after the fact.
      It was obvious to anyone who visited the Soviet Union that their statements of population, technological level, and industrial capacity were grossly exaggerated, and thus obvious that they wouldn't be able to keep up in a contest of research and production. This was fairly widely recognized, at least among US strategy analysts, from at least the mid '60s, and was widely recognized by the late '70s. The economic/industrial contest was deliberate. So were the interesting diplomatic measures: the State Department would take every visiting Soviet citizen on trips to shopping malls, fast food joints, music stores, and so forth, on the theory that they'd go back home and be rather dissatisfied with the Soviet standard of living.
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    3. Re:Off Topic, -1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should also be noted that the biggest supporter of Soviet economic estimates was our own CIA, who continued to rubberstamp ridiculous reports up until weeks before the Soviet Union collapsed.

      I'll leave out the interesting ways this information was used in domestic politics. It wasn't so obvious to the average american citizen, nor the average congressman neither.

  400. Slashdot is As good place as any by vbprgrmr · · Score: 1

    I agree with Aiee.

    Even though Slashdot is mainly a forum of technology, linux, PCs, networks, internet, etc it is a forum.
    And I am curious to know what other slashdotters think of the war.

    As to my opinion, the response of the civilized world is correct.

    Let's see. The terrorists tried to bomb the British subway system, they tried to destroy the Eiffel Tower. They blew up apartment buildings in Russia, killing hundreds. They blew up an American Embassy in Africa, killing hundreds of Africans.

    And that was all before September 11th.

  401. Our government has done no such thing by aprentic · · Score: 1

    We've been in a continual state of war readiness for 50 years now.
    And telling a nation "Give up your national sovreignty or we'll kick your ass." is not looking for the most peaceful solution.
    This is how playground bullies behave when they want your milk money, except we've got cruise missiles.

  402. in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan renamed the middle east to east and pitioned the UN to sanction the act. as a smoldering crater has been placed where the "middle" used to be.

    and somewhere in the crater is a smoldering beowolfcluster of bombs flashing all your base are belong to us.

  403. Here. Have a laugh. by Scoria · · Score: 2

    Click and watch.

    On a more serious note: My thoughts are with the brave soldiers of our nation... May they fare well.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  404. Re:Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    135,000 civilians died in that attack

    The estimates (and that's all they are) on the dead resulting from the firebombing of Dresden range so wildly that only people with an agenda even bother to quote any of them. I've personally seen (in print) numbers ranging from 25,000 to 500,000. Nobody knows how many there were, thanks to the numerous refuges, so therefore we don't bother mentioning it.

  405. Doing my part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to knock michael out of the HoF.

  406. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, indeed this is a minority point of view. Problem is, what the hell is your short term solution?

    All you did is get on your soapbox and say what's wrong with american foreign policy. But, typically, you said nothing about what should happen. Do you know? Should we send an appology to the taliban sand say "so sorry, we trained you, we are responsible, please don't bomb our buildings anymore" ?

    Besides, many (if not most) of the people we trained are in the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was in power after the russians withdrew, but the divisivness among the ranks caused them to lose power to the Taliban.

    It is easy to point finger. When you come up with a solution, maybe people will be more willing to listen.

  407. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you truly believe that you really are a fucking dumbass.

  408. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by ainsoph · · Score: 1

    I understand your fear and frustration. But do we have to go over this again and again?

    our attackers have spilt american blood on american soil. they have killed americans IN OUR OWN HOMELAND!

    We do this in other countries all over the world, spilled the blood of the people of those countries (mostly innocent), in numbers greater than those on September 11th. And while this was a horrible tradgedy, and the act of violence should not be excused, the thing I do not understand is, how come it is ok when we do it to them, and not ok when they do it to us?

    Go through the recent history books and find time after time again the corupt regimes and policies that we support (Khmer rouge for example: 3 million Cambodians killed and we supported them. Our track record is horrible.

    We have the ability to approach this differently, we give all this talk about peace, but yet we are the first people to declare war: ever notice that our violence is deeply ingrained in our psyches; war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism. The BS goes "We are a peaceful nation, one of resolve, but we'll kick your ass..." blah blah blah.

    But really the story is this:

    but you've got to keep this one fact in mind. they want you DEAD(WE WANT THEIR OIL). if you are american, be it anti or pro war, they want you DEAD. (IN ORDER TO GET SUPPORT FOR TAKING THEIR OIL WE HAVE TO PORTRAY THEM AS CRAZY AMERICAN HATING BROWN WACKOS) they want your family and friends DEAD along side you (MORE PROPAGANDA, PUT FAMILY AND FRIENDS INTO IT SO YOU WILL SUPPORT OUR ACTION TO GET CENTRAL ASIAN OIL). and honestly i don't see them stopping until they themselves are infact DEAD..(YEP, LOOKS LIKE THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MEDIA HAS YOU CONVIENCED THAT THEY ARE BROWN AND CRAZY)

    This oil thing has been planned for a long long time. Shut off CNN and check around. May as well start with your own Gubments documents here. And also think real closely at whose interests George W. Bush and company represent. OIL and ENERGY.

  409. Re:Would you really miss it? by Xross_Ied · · Score: 1

    Its called OIL.

    The middleeast has it and there is a large untapped reserve in central asia (Iran, Afghanistan and southern russian republics).

    GWB, like his father, is an oil man, if you know anything about the oil business its all about controlling the supply.

    This is not a war on terrorism its a geo-economic chess game.

    US foriegn policy has always been based on economics NOT democracy or freedom.

    --
    This sig space tolet, reasonable rate.
  410. Re:Germany by aprentic · · Score: 1

    Hold on buddy. We've done plenty of killing innocents. In fact, the bombs we dropped on on Hiroshima and Nagasiki killed mostly civillians.
    German military production had not moved to homes and small businesses at any point. There's no way you can manufacture any but the crudest military equipment without pretty advanced production facilities. My grandmother and great aunt narrowly avoided having to work in munitions plants in Austria at the time. Instead they got to be tram conductors. They were not manufacturig anything when bombs were falling around their homes.
    Don't get me wrong now. What happened during WWII was inexcuseable. The Nazi government was an attrocious regime and the people of Germany and Austria followed along like so many armed sheep. The really sad part is that we haven't learned a damned thing from this and we seem to be embarking on exactly the same path.

  411. Re:Watch your back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you punch someone in the nose while speaking in a civilised manner to them, it might only succeed if they are peace loving. A true warmonger like yourself might come and stab you in the back a few minutes later.

    Violence begets violence.

  412. Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    >>If it's a war against Terrorism,
    Nobody's hands are clean.
    But, must mankind always be so messed up? I think we better learn, in a hurry, or things will be much worse.

  413. go drink some grease you f**king american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    religious ideologies has nothing to do with the attacks.. dumbass

  414. How are you Taliban... by Gorilla_Man · · Score: 1

    All your base are belong to U.S.

    1. Re:How are you Taliban... by British · · Score: 2

      Alternate version:

      ALl your AL-Queda are belong to us.

      Al-Queda(however you spell it) is Arabic for "base", which is the name of Bin Laden's gang.

      Expect a new version of the AYB animated gif soon.

  415. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Taliban did not even exist when we were funding afghanistan against the USSR. We were funding the government which the Taliban violently overthrew in 1998.

    The Taliban is new. The only funding we've ever given them was by Bill Clinton; he gave them a few million dollars as an incentive for them to stop the opium trade, something which they didn't do.

  416. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by aprentic · · Score: 1

    Why would this surprise you? All of our presidents have been Christian. And since the attack we've been talking all kinds of trash about how god will bless us as we go about on our mission to erradicate evil.
    This has sounded like a crusade from day one.

  417. Re:Taped Television Speech - Here's the text by evil_roy · · Score: 2, Informative


    - WORLD

    Text of Osama bin Laden's statement

    Text of Osama bin Laden's taped statement, aired on an Arab television station after the US and British strikes. The remarks refer to the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, but appear to have been made before today's strikes.

    "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger.

    There is America, hit by God in one of its softest spots. Its greatest buildings were destroyed, thank God for that. There is America, full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that.

    What America is tasting now, is something insignificant compared to what we have tasted for scores of years. Our nation (the Islamic world) has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries are attacked, and no-one hears and no-one heeds.

    When God blessed one of the groups of Islam, vanguards of Islam, they destroyed America. I pray to God to elevate their status and bless them.

    Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa from the rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine - in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb.

    When the sword comes down (on America), after 80 years, hypocrisy rears its ugly head. They deplore and they lament for those killers, who have abused the blood, honour, and sanctuaries of Muslims. The least that can be said about those people, is that they are debauched. They have followed injustice. They supported the butcher over the victim, the oppressor over the innocent child. May God show them His wrath and give them what they deserve.

    I say that the situation is clear and obvious. After this event, after the senior officials have spoken in America, starting with the head of infidels worldwide, Bush, and those with him. They have come out in force with their men and have turned even the countries that belong to Islam to this treachery, and they want to wag their tail at God, to fight Islam, to suppress people in the name of terrorism.

    When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq, is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where US embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those who are with it.

    These events have divided the whole world into two sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels, may God keep you away from them. Every Muslim has to rush to make his religion victorious. The winds of faith have come. The winds of change have come to eradicate oppression from the island of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

    To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace by upon him.

    God is great, may pride be with Islam. May peace and God's mercy be upon you."

  418. what happened? can't find your chocolate bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get off your fat american ass and take a look at the real world

  419. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no oil in Afghanistan.

  420. Your forgot a few steps. by aprentic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    - Help the Northern Alliance set up a totalitarian regime in Afghanistan.
    - Bomb the hell out of them 20 years from now because yet another blowfish bit us in the ass.

    1. Re:Your forgot a few steps. by meldroc · · Score: 2

      They need to put expiration dates on puppet dictators. Eventually, they go bad, start to smell, & we'll need to get new ones. I'd give the Northern Alliance a very short expiration date - we should find fresher product.

      --

      Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
    2. Re:Your forgot a few steps. by aprentic · · Score: 1

      I think it may be more profitable in the long run not to set up puppet dictators in the first place. How bad of a track record does a policy have to have before we abandon it as flawed?

  421. on the so-called drug trade by nikster · · Score: 1

    drug trade - as opposed to terrorism - really is a home made problem. if one removed the reason for it - that drugs are illegal - then everything else - crime, drug mafia, afghan terrorist money, war on drugs spending, millions of prisoners - would go away.

    it's not easy to introduce drugs to the people w/o everybody OD-ing or getting addicted, but it can be done. considering the benefits, it is the only logical solution.

    1. Re:on the so-called drug trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not easy to introduce drugs to the people w/o everybody OD-ing or getting addicted, but it can be done. considering the benefits, it is the only logical solution.

      Actually, OD-ing is the solution, it's called natural selection.

    2. Re:on the so-called drug trade by xQx · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Like people high on LSD jumping off buildings when they thought they could fly... Thats good. They are idiots.

      I thought I could fly once... Tried it too. Fortunatly I had the common sence to TRY IT AT GROUND LEVEL.

      Fell almost 3 feet, really hurt my nose.

      You don't see ducks taking the elevator to the 30th floor of a building before they try to fly south.

  422. bin Laden must die by artemis67 · · Score: 2

    or be captured by the Allies, one of the two. If we fail to achieve this goal, then we will not have sent a message; we will only make him a more powerful foe because extremists will see him as being strong enough to survive the onsluaght of the American military in full war mode.

    We made this mistake with Hussein, and we know it. We thought that these Middle Eastern terrorists and despots would fight a war by the established rules. We now know just how wrong we were.

    This is going to be a long, drawn-out, down-and-dirty fight, and I will be greatly surprised if we don't finally kill Hussein, too, before it is all over.

    BTW, did you see the video of bin Laden today? He was spewing forth his anti-America rhetoic again, but there wasn't any passion in his voice, no fire in his eyes, no smile on his face. After all, he wanted to start a war with America, right? Now that he's got one, he looks like a man who knows he is going to die, and die soon. Defiant, but despairing. Not that I support the guy, but strategicly, he should have stuck to just blowing up the occasional embassy or military barracks; he would have enjoyed a long life of terror doing smaller stuff like that, and we never would have gone into Afghanistan after him. Blowing up the WTC towers was just plain stupid, there's just no fricken way America would let him live after that; we've got a $50 billion dollar war chest we're going to smite him with now. He's also done us the favor of uniting the entire civilized world behind us through this obscenely wicked act. bin Laden is obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree....

    1. Re:bin Laden must die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got that feeling as well. I saw dispair and perhaps he realizes he over played his hand. He had one to play. I think he would have been much more successful irritaing the US into doing something stupid and outside of world opinion and he could have achieved his goals and lived to be effective and defiant. If nukes or Anthrax gets pulled off much of the civilized world may lose it and figure what diffence does it make and start droping big ones in all out genocide. This will not achieve anything but destuction and most of the world does not want to see their worst enemy take a hit like that because they know they are next. Do you want to live in Iran when the US loses a city and it might be linked there? With the WTC this seems possible and it has scared the hell out of EVERYONE. It is not just playing around anymore.

  423. How naive. by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but your viewpoint is simply naive. A trial of Osama bin Laden would not only be entirely fruitless, but would simply leave the way open for the remaining terrorists to make further (and next time, more devastating) attacks on the US (and any other country deemed by them to not be holy enough).

    The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing WERE brought to trial. I ask you, in light of Sep 11, how much of a deterrent was that to future terrorists?

    Getting rid of Osama would only give a false peace of mind. Firstly, Osama has his own leiutenants who would take over the leadership role. Secondly, there are THOUSANDS more terrorists who are eager to continue their "cause". And beyond that, there are millions more who support them.

    So explain to me, Mr Pacifist, how putting Osama bin Laden on trial would solve the problem in any way whatsoever? I'm all for a peaceful solution, but I don't see that there is any peaceful solution that would actually solve the terrorism problem too. If you have one, then out with it, I'm all ears. This is a complex problem, the terrorist network is widespread, well-funded and well-protected, and has cells all over the world. And they are not only willing, but eager to get hold AND USE weapons of mass destruction against the US. Sorry, but a trial of a small handful of individuals will do *nothing* to solve the problem.

  424. suck the cock of the black fiend in hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ignorant piece of shit

  425. Re:War... (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little game called Fallout, check it out.

  426. Hu-llo, IRONY! by datian · · Score: 1

    The poster your responded to was obviously being sarcastic when he referred to US actions in WWII. Hint: at the end, he said "Go back to Saigon, Jane."

  427. a basterization of the religion.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States has a Christian president who is going to forgive, love and turn the other cheek right?

  428. This is not flamebait (+1 insightful) by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    To the moderators who called this "flamebait", you missed the point - rather, its a very good analogy to the situation between the US and bin Ladens army. The point is, what do you do with an enemy bent entirely on your destruction on whom reasoning doesn't work? Its simply self-defense - if someone keeps punching you over and over again, you either let him carry on until you die, or you fight back.

  429. Tales from your post: How you are a dumbshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only a christian would come up with something so creative...

  430. Check your facts (was:To those screaming, "peace!" by AdrianG · · Score: 1
    > It is a sad fact, but the Taliban are
    > well-known to have been supported by the US
    > when Soviet forces tried to take afghanistan.

    This could only be a sad fact if it were true. The fact is, the Soviets were out of the picture when the Taliban came on the scene. The Mujahadin are probably more represented by the Northern Alliance.

    > This is not war. War attacks military
    > structures. The cruel and inhumane
    > attacks on areas populated by civilians
    > is best described as mutual genocide.

    We are attacking military targets. Maybe you should get off your computer and go watch the news, or something.

    Adrian

  431. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by strider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.

    First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?

    Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.

    Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.

    In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.

    --
    The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
  432. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How have we killed over three million people? Cite your sources or it's all hogwash.

  433. Time for the bitch-cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once we've got Bin Laden in custody, we can stuff him into a maximum security prison and train a webcam on him. Then we can let him be the prison bitch, and broadcast him and his continual sodomization live 24/7 to the middle east as an example of the glorious fate awaiting other would-be terrorists.

  434. Learn the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    between "revenge" and "self-defense".

  435. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you really, really love the U.S. like I do, you will think carefully about the problems of the U.S. government.

    Perhaps your "love" is misplaced. Consider:

    To what do you refer when you use "U.S." as a subject? Maybe the thing you refer to is a "government". So your sentance would read something like "If you really, really love the U.S. Government like I do, ..." But what is government? So maybe it should be, "... really, really love the people who make up the U.S. government." Do you love Mr. G.W. Bush? Collin Powell? The group of people who present themselves as "the I.R.S." & other "governmental" agencies who take a good chunk of the value you create?

    But that's probably not what you meant. Maybe you were refering to a geographical region? "... really, really love the landscape between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans like I do..."

    But again, that's probably not what you meant. If someone who had never before heard of the concept of a "Nation-State" were to ask me for a clarification for what you meant, I think I'd have to say, "If you really, really love Freedom like I do, you will think carefully about the problems of people who act in the name of 'the U.S. government'". The main problem being, of course, the fact that "governments" (so called) are consistently the primary obstacle to the free enjoyment of Freedom all over the world.

    Moderators:This is not a troll. This is not flaimbait. You may not agree, but that doesn't make it "wrong".

  436. Hiroshima & Nagasaki by datian · · Score: 1

    Nagasaki was chosen because it was a major port and military-industrial base. In fact, ground zero in that city was the steel & material factories in the southern arm of the valley it sits in. If terror had been the sole aim of that bomb, they would probably chosen a different target like Fukuoka because of the large foreign population in Nagasaki. Hiroshima was actually a secondary target that they turned to because Shimonoseki (also a major port and military/industrial base) was clouded over.

    Conspiracy theories and racist motivations are often cited as the reason why the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan (and certainly the war had heavily racist overtones--on both sides), but the primary reason was because the invasion of Okinawa had been so costly. nearly half a million civilians and Japanese soldiers were killed, and Allied casualties were high as well. That campaign took months and was so bloody, that the US opted to use the bombs rather than stage a full-scale conventional invasion of the home islands. The US fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo can be called terror bombings, but the evidence for Hiroshima & Nagasaki argues differently.

  437. Bring it on baby! Crispy Thermonuclear Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mecca will glow in the dark for 1000 years.

  438. The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    "Yes, indeed this is a minority point of view."

    It is a minority point of view, but I forgot to mention there are some famous people who agree with me: For example, Jesus Christ and Hillel, the Jewish sage.

    "All you did is get on your soapbox..."

    It is not only my soapbox. Look at all the links to articles by ABC News, BBC News, MSNBC, and others. In the referenced article, I give many, many links to stories, and give some of my own explanation. If you download all the linked stories, there are over 325 pages. I've written only a few pages.

    "Besides, many (if not most) of the people we trained are in the Northern Alliance."

    Maybe. I would have no way of evaluating that. However, there is only one person the CIA trained who is presently at issue: Osama bin Laden.

    The fact is, the CIA designed all the procedures the terrorists used. Do you know many Arabs? I do, and planning is not their best skill. Americans are much better planners. I think if you ask a few Arabs, they will agree with this.

    "... but the divisiveness among the ranks caused them to lose power to the Taliban."

    That's not what MSNBC, CBS, ABC News, and others say. They say the CIA, or the CIA and the ISI, put the Taliban in power. DO NOT believe me. Research it yourself.

    "When you come up with a solution, maybe people will be more willing to listen."

    Plenty of people listen. It is the people who make money selling weapons who don't listen.

    You are right, I don't have complete answers. However, if the U.S. works on how to live in the world without killing for a few years, and spends 1/10th the money it spends on war-making capability, I guarantee it can do better. Non-violence can be a lot more powerful when it gets the same preparation and attention as violence.

    A quote from the article I referenced: "Israel receives an astounding $905 per year for every man, woman and child who lives there. Israel is required to spend most of this money to buy weapons from U.S. weapons makers. One Jewish leader calls it welfare for the weapons makers. Remember, Israeli citizens don't pay U.S. taxes.

    Here's another link to the article again: What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  439. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by nobodyman · · Score: 1
    The information contained in the articles you cite (an article written by yourself, I might add) is filled with misinformation possibly even lies. Ranging from the estimate of 3,000,000 killed by the US (80% of this you attribute to vietnam, which is a tough sell) to the quote "The US has the highest percentage of citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world." (which is just plain wrong, and you don't bother to back it up).

    If the United States did indeed "Sow" this act, it is for the simple reason that we support a country and a people that Osama bin Laden believes must be exterminated.

  440. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by nikster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    here's my 2c on this:

    A - the CIA has done a lot of shit in the past, including the training of afghans in terrorist techniques.

    B - that is in all likelyhood one of the reasons the WTC has been attacked and OBL has declared war on all americans.

    C - don't confuse cause and justification - the attacks on the WTC were not justifyable by _anything_.

    D - isolating and fighting the terrorists is the only option for now. like tony blair said, not acting is worse than acting at this point. i believe and support that.

    E - in order to prevent something like that from happening in the future, the CIA needs to keep it's fingers out of other countries' politics, plain and simple. no more funding of rebel forces or installing puppet regimes. it has been proven time and again that these tactics _never_ further american interests in the long run. so it's not just evil for causing a lot of suffering to innocent people - it's also plain stupid.

  441. Muslim boy, you will wake up dead in pig slop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslim boy, we are going to exterminate you backward camel fuckers once and for all. Kiss your muslim ass goodbye. We are going to feed your corpses to our swine. We will eat the sausage and shit you into the sewers.

  442. Those Who Know... by runslothrun · · Score: 0

    Protesters! Armchair Generals! Fair Weather Patriots! All Other Unmentioned Experts Insert Self Here --> (Safety Of Your Own Home)! Listen Up: America is in a way both blessed and cursed by it military policy. Cursed in the sense that as a country we have been drawn into, for whatever reason, more conflict and war then any other country on earth. We have suffered the absence of fathers, either serving or killed, more than any other country on earth. We have willing (sometimes ignorantly) given to others and had it repaid with betrayl and violence. We are blessed because as a country, we have a pool of extremely talented and well-informed citizens. They are our veterans and currently-serving militray personnel. They, more then ANY others, know full well the value, price, act, and effect of war on the individual and country. Soldiers the world-over share a special comaraderie that allows them the ability to clearly see BOTH sides of a conflict, without prejudice. To them fighting is often viewed as a job that needs to be done, a commitment made, a value taught as a child...honor. I ask that the veterans and active-duty service men posting add their comments here so that we can have the benefit of true knowledge, not psuedo-political crap. There is NO denying the truth. If you haven't been there or done that, don't reply! If you haven't ever seen the effects of war, don't reply! I think it would be a great benefit to everyone to be able to read the opinions of those who can back it up with experience. For the record, I am posting this in response to the following "mind-sets". If it doesn't apply to you, do me a favor and don't defend it. Past that, anyone who has some real knowledge should reply. If you are a college student/protester who actually thinks your opinion means anything, you are wrong. Noone cares what you think because you are wrong. In fact, most twenty-something Americans who engage in political demonstrations are just plain wrong. The audacity with which you dispense your unfounded political rhetoric is appalling. How so many people who gather together in institutions of higher education can come to the conclusion that they collectively know more than the society around them is laughable. Try delving into the MINDS of the people who have experienced from both sides what you are ignorantly protesting. Can't fathom it, can you. Now try to ask yourself why. Bet you can't answer that one, either. It takes a little maturity and experience to be able to actual have a well-founded opinion. Conclusion: Those that get a free-ride in life feel obligated to let those less fortunate know how much "wisdom" they have gained sitting around in nice, safe classrooms while the ignorant masses toiled away in cold, cruel world learning nothing. If you are an Armchair General, I suggest you do a little research into why that expression exists. There is great book of Dr. Suess cartoons from WWII that illustrates your kind perfectly. Cowards, one and all. Craven, backstabbing, possessors of twenty-twenty hindsight. Lacking the intestinal-fortitude to actually carry a rifle into battle, most of you have become so as to live out your fantasies. News Flash: Sitting around on your ass while dreaming up new and better ways to exert your (or your country's) dominance has already been done. By who, you ask? Adolf Hitler, author of "Mien Kampf" and sufferer of long-term, chronic, penis-envy (while in jail for being an annoyingly ignorant protestor/social activist, no less). Conclusion: There are those around us that feel that they are somehow "enlightened" into the age old art of war after watching endless hours of old war footage on the History (Hitler) Channel. Deep down inside, they long to be the hero and win the respect of those around them. However, unless enemy tanks and soldiers start spilling out from television sets across America these fat-asses aren't going to see much action. They know that, don't you?! If you are a Fair-Weather Patriot, don't feel to angry..yet. It's too bad that it takes an act of monumental destruction to bring out what is in the heart of almost every American. Remember those small minutes after you heard about what had happened? Remember how you felt? Many said that they continued to feel it off and on for a few days, many still do. That feeling was PRIDE. Pride in your country, pride in your community, pride in yourself, pride in American values. That feeling was so totally absent from our society that many of us where at a loss to explain why we felt it or what it was. Revel in something once thought lost and now found. But if you are one of the MANY who have sought to capitalize on this tragedy, then you are in fact a Fair-Weather Patriot. Spotting them and their actions is easy: If you bought a five-inch plastic flag for $5.00 and aren't sure exactly where the money went, you have encountered one. If you have seen television ads for "memorial coins" or watched celebrity tributes shows put on by broadcasting companies in an attempt to garner ratings and promotional revenue, you have encountered a group of them. If you have walked/driven around waving a flag and talking about how we should just "Blow all them up!", you are one. If you have actually assualted, physically or verbally, someone based on them being non-causcasian, non-Christian, or non-American, you are infinitely more deserving of the violence inflicted on the victims of the September, 11th attack. Fair-Weather Patriots love to let you know how much they "hurt". Love to talk about "gettin' it on WWF style!". Love to privately talk about how much money they have made off those of us who actually care. Love to take the opportunity to extoll the values of fascism, anti-semetism, and racism and call it "Patriotism". Conclusion: Some of us are so morally bankrupt that we are no longer able to "feel" anything. Some of us know no alligience to anything except money and power. Some of us do not know that we actually have a name. We are called sociopaths and we exist only to serve ourselves, especially when it is to the detriment of others. If none of that applies to you, great. If it does, oh well...you know yourself better then anyone else...flame on if you must. But if you're a veteran, serving on active-duty, or anyone who actually has first-hand experience (was there in some capacity, regardless of nationality or background), please reply and help cast a little light on the shadow of ignorance. ***82nd Airborne 3/505*** The Rule of LGOP's: After the demise of the best Airborne plan, a most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield. This effect is known as the rule of the LGOPs. This is, in its purest form, small groups of pissed-off 19 year old American paratroopers. They are well-trained, armed to the teeth and lack serious adult supervision. They collectively remember the Commander's intent as "March to the sound of the guns and kill anyone who is not dressed like you..." or something like that. Happily they go about the day's work.....

    1. Re:Those Who Know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh geez, please let our armed forces be no so wordy on the battlefield.. as they may be cut down before they get to the end of their sentences

    2. Re:Those Who Know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this guy's post do anything except attempt to make himself look good?

      Pissed off Guy to Slashdot:
      You all suck. I am great because I am military.

      eh???

    3. Re:Those Who Know... by runslothrun · · Score: 0

      Not sure how it makes me look good at all. The fact that I'm ex-military doesn't mean you, or anyone else sucks. I sorry that I take issue with the activities of some groups. I don't see the value they serve. I wanted people to post honest experiences that here that might have an impact on the way people think. Did you read the whole post? Sorry if I offended you.

  443. Bollocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you fail to notice how Bin Laden has only started to use the Palestinians in the last few weeks? Before then, he never claimed to be doing anything for them. He is at best, a fraud.

    He hates the West and everything it stands for. If you study Islam, you find that one of the Five Pillars of Islam is Charity. Have you ever seen Bin Laden (even though he is a billionaire) helping out those that were less fortunate? With that kind of money, he do a world of good for the Palestinians. But no. He would rather just use them.

    One last thing. Something that never gets out is how Jordon represses the Palestinian people. Read about Black September. But because Jordon is Arab, you will never hear about these sorts of things. They are free to kill Palestinians while Israel is crucified for defending itself.

    Israel will never be "driven out" of the ME. They have beaten all of their neighbors time and time again. If its get too bad, they will nuke those around them. They will turn the ME into one huge parking lot. The only option is for all countries in the region to come to a mutually agreeable solution.

    I propose that each country give up a little territory for Palestine. Since it isn't just Israel that sits on former Palestinian land. Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and Israel should each give up a little bit. That's fair.

  444. Problems and solutions by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I side with that Minority Viewpoint. But the solution has to be carefully planned.

    Let us look at our former ally, Saddam Hussein, who, while he was backed by the CIA, dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds of Northern Iraq (note: Kurds are a Persian rather than Arabic people as are the Afghans). By GW Bush's definition, the CIA therefore is an organization which harbors terrorists (like Hussein). Note that there was no stop to the military aid that was given to Iraq in the wake of that incident. Maybe we should send in the B2's-- target Langley...

    Now, one of our current allies is the equal of Hussein in every way, save that he was elected by the people. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon presided over a military operation where the IDF provided tactical support for a Lebanese militia to massacre 3,000 Palastinian refugees, mostly women and children, and we was held partially accountable by the Israeli gov't though no penalties were assessed! This incident too happened during the Reagen years. Sharon, like Saddam Hussein would probably be found guilty of serious war crimes. Yet he is our ally.


    As much as I hate to admit it, the US government has created this problem, and it can be argued that even far more devastating action would be justly deserved by the American states, just arguing from the numbers. But, like most, I diregard the numbers because I feel that all of this injustice does not excuse nor truly justify the deaths of innocent people here in America or abroad (yes, that includes the 50,000 children a year in Iraq who die because of US sanctions-- nearly ten times as many as the number of dead on Sept. 11th).

    So, in response to your question, I think the first thing that has to be done is for the realization to exist that this is a situation that we created. Then we can look at solutions. Here is what I would propose:

    1: Relax ban on foreign assassinations only in cases where the person in question was put into power or heavily supported by the American gov't in proxy wars. That would allow us to get rid of problems that we have created like the situation in Iraq.

    2: Tighten restrictions on aid given to Israel-- no blank cheque approches which were common in recent years. If Israel does not play nice with their neighbors, then they are causing problems for us and we should not help them do that.

    My point is that our country has to admit that we caused the problem so that we can take responsibility and actually clean it up. Without that realization, though, there will be no end.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Problems and solutions by lekroll · · Score: 1

      "1: Relax ban on foreign assassinations only in cases where the person in question was put into power or heavily supported by the American gov't in proxy wars. That would allow us to get rid of problems that we have created like the situation in Iraq. "

      It's interesting. I've been voicing that opinion as well among some of my very pacifist friends. I consider myself a pacifist as well. I beleive that political assasinations are incredibly nasty, but I prefer them to war, and economical sanctions. "Economical sanctions": It sounds so mild, almost harmless. Yet, it kills exactly the wrong people: it kills civilians, children, elderly. It weakens the spirit of the poor and oppressed, making rebellion less likely. It does not hurt Osamas or Saddams. It strengthens them.
      I can't see why it should only be for CIA constructs though (except for the ironic fact that CIA constructs mostly seem to be the problem..) If USA is determined to kill some Taleban for hiding OBL, then I'd much rather they popped a few of the Taleban government officials, than bomb their already fucked country even further back to the stone age.

      Political assasinations on the other hand could be targeted at Osamas and Saddams, making future Osamas and Saddams think again before they do something likely to piss America off.

      Of course, there are some operational issues with assasinating Saddam or Osama. Like finding them.
      But still....

    2. Re:Problems and solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kurds are a Persian rather than Arabic people

      Um, 'Persia' was the old name of Iran. In much the same way as Iraq used to be called Mesopotamia.
      Are you sure that's not Arabic?

    3. Re:Problems and solutions by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Persian and Arabic are culturo-linguistic terms. Arabic peoples include most North Africans, with the exception of the historical Coptic people, though now they are Arabic, and the Berbers. I also think that there are some Syrian peoples that still read/write/speak Aramaic as their native toungue. Related to Arabic and Hebrew (and Coptic) but not the same thing.

      Persian is a completely different beast. The ancient Persian language was very close to San Scrit, and these people included the people that are in modern Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan (I think), Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc. The Kurds speak a Persian language. Of course, like all good Muslims, they are also supposed to speak, read, and write Arabic, but their native language is Indo-European rather than Hamito-Semitic (or to use the more PC term Afro-Asiatic, though I feel this term is needlessly vague). Jews are linguistically closer to the Arabs than the Persians, the Turks, or, obviously the Europeans (unless you consider Yiddish or Ladino as the languages of the people).

      The third separate, distinct culturo-linguistic group in the Middle East are the Turks (related to the Mongols, actually).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  445. Dinner Anyone? by Doles · · Score: 0

    I think it's funny that our night raids are dropping bombs and our day raids are dropping food.

    Anyone for some turkey with a side of napalm?

    --
    --SD
    "I am told that I talk in shorthand and then smudge it." -Tolkien
  446. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game."

    ... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...

    ""Abu Sayyaf ... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA ...""

    Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.

    On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.

    In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.

    If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?

    "Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"

    Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?

    When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.

    To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:
    If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.
    If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.

    "The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."

    That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:
    • A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
    • Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation
    Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.

    As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.

    ... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."

    "Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."

    ... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.

    On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."

    "There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."

    Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?

    "In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."

    Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?

    Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.

    It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...

    You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.
  447. Mod Parent Up by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

    "Especially since the US-aligned Special Operations groups will be using what are, frankly, guerrilla tactics. It's going to be guerrilla versus guerrilla... They are simply trying to kill and disrupt a certain few thousand people"
    -- Parent to this post

    "'I've come to my conclusion after thirty years in the business,' my old friend Jose Flores said recently, a consummate professional even if he is a sometimes Agency contract merc, 'that we have been wasting our time. There are forty wars going on around the world. I estimate that we could settle most of them -establish real Peace, save millions of lives- if we successfully targeted about a hundred people.'

    'But then, Mario, you'd be out of business.'
    ...
    I estimated that incipient civil war could be snuffed out by snuffing out ten key individuals. This wasn't done."
    -- Paul Balor in _Manual_of_the_Mercenary_Soldier_

  448. The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    "(an article written by yourself, I might add)"

    Yes, I wrote the article I reference. But there are over 300 pages of articles to which I link that I didn't write. They come from such sources as CBS, NBC News, ABC News, BBC News, and others. This is more their story than it is mine.

    nobodyman, this is serious business. This is our country.

    You quote the article: "The U.S. has the highest percentage of citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world."

    Then you say, "(which is just plain wrong, and you don't bother to back it up)."

    In the article I did show how to find all the information yourself. Don't believe me. Do the research. ... in the history of the world is taken from a study done of prisons throughout the ages. For example, the size of ancient Roman prisons is known, and the population is roughly known.

    The article, What should be the Response to Violence? is just a part-time attempt to pull together some links. It started out as a letter to friends. It is not complete.

    I have plenty of other things to do, and I wouldn't bother with this if it weren't important. I have paid work to do, so I lose my hourly rate for work done without pay.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  449. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by joshki · · Score: 1

    The sabbath is a Jewish holiday which is observed from sundown friday evening to sundown saturday evening. The Christian Sunday is not related in any way to the sabbath other than the fact that it was specifically picked to be on a different day so as not to be confused with it. There is no prohibition in Christianity against waging war or working on Sunday -- there are only a few pacifist groups who would agree with you, and they would say all war is evil, regardless of what day it takes place on. The president (and his generals and admirals) probably picked today because it was the day that they had all the information they needed to start doing this -- not because of some religious significance. Also the time may have been picked to coincide with a time when fewer civilians would be killed -- I think we're being as careful as possible in this regard.

    --
    I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
  450. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by JohnG · · Score: 2
    but you've got to keep this one fact in mind. they want you DEAD(WE WANT THEIR OIL)
    Afganistan isn't the only country over there that has oil, we are allies with many that do.

    if you are american, be it anti or pro war, they want you DEAD. (IN ORDER TO GET SUPPORT FOR TAKING THEIR OIL WE HAVE TO PORTRAY THEM AS CRAZY AMERICAN HATING BROWN WACKOS)
    Bin ladin has personally said that the attacks were a good thing and that all Americans should die, is he in on this conspiracy of yours as well?

    they want your family and friends DEAD along side you (MORE PROPAGANDA, PUT FAMILY AND FRIENDS INTO IT SO YOU WILL SUPPORT OUR ACTION TO GET CENTRAL ASIAN OIL).
    Are you saying that none of the 5000 people dead at the WTC had friends or family? Are you saying that ALL AMERICANS, doesn't include my friends and family?

  451. Time zones and dateline say it's Monday in Kabul by primenerd · · Score: 1

    The attacks began at noon eastern time right? Well there is this line called the "International Date Line" it is the point where today becomes tomorrow, the attacks happened on the other side of this line... in tomorrow! Noon on Sunday here is early in the morning there.

    --
    AUGAUUUGCGCACAUAUCUCAGCGAAUGAAAGGGAUUAA
  452. A clarification by kjj · · Score: 2

    That 100% number is the same regardless of what we do. There is a 100% chance that some terrorist groups will "attempt" to strike at the US. Notice the emphasis on "attempt" If we do nothing they will simply wait a while longer before they attack as making more plans and trying something as coordinated as last time. Since we are striking now they will attempt a more hasty and more ricky stike back sooner. As someone else already pointed out this means there is a better chance of catching these groups before the damage is done and lives are lost. There is something that is bothering me though. What if some of these terrorist cells already have secondary attack plans in place. This would be more likely to be some plan thought up in advance as cooridinated as the Sept 11 attacks. I know many members have been caught and that hopefully will help things but there is at least one known member still out there somewhere who has not been caught. They say he fled the US but who knows. In any case we cannot just sit on around and not respond because we are afraid of what may happen. The moment we respond to these attacks with fear is the moment the terrorist have won.

  453. Stinger Missiles not an issue by AntiSaint · · Score: 1

    Between 1986 and 1989 the CIA provided about 1000 stinger missiles to the Mujahideen. Only 100-200 have not been bought back or used and those are at least 12 years old and their solid fuel motors by this stage will be very near or past the end of their shelf life.

    Russian SA-7s and British Blowpipe shoulder-fired missiles were also used by the Mujahideen.

    some stats of stinger from various sources
    Max speed MAC2.0 warhead .5kg of C4.
    Operational ceiling is 10,000 feet.

    1. Re:Stinger Missiles not an issue by Sara+Chan · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks! Do you have some references, etc.?

  454. Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fear fanatics such as the guy who posted this are the type of people who got us into this mess.

    People who believe totally and will fight and scream and kill because of what they believe in. and of course, everyone else is W R O N G.
    congrats runslothrun, you've shown that the best of us can be the worst of us

    1. Re:Fanatics by runslothrun · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Read the whole post. I am fanatical about about not liking liars, hypocrites, and those who would rather somebody else do the fighting while they sit around and talk about it. You tell me why asking someone who has been in situations of conflict (as military personnel or civilians) is bad?! I never said it had to be a pro-anything post. It should be somebody's opinion based on their experiences and why they think it is applicable to the situation now. As far as believing totally in something, you have completely lost me. What the HELL do I profess to believe that could possibly be construed as bad? Not appreciating the awe-inspiring minds of college-radicals? Not liking who talk big but never back it up? Not taking offense to people to use the events of Sept. 11th as a way to make money? Or maybe it's because I think ALL vets from around the world have something to say? Yeah, that must be it. Those vets don't know shit. We better ask a plumber his opinion...he deals with SHIT all day. Again, read the whole post or tell me what you're talking about.

    2. Re:Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt you have the intellect required to process a response to the mindless drivel you spewed upon Slashdot.

  455. The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I totally agree with A, B, C, and E.

    I'm unhappy that things have come to such a state that people feel the only thing to do is D.

    Also, I would have liked more investigation, and less emphasis on "surgical" strikes that nevertheless kill innocent bystanders.

    Bombing is not a socially skilled way to interact with people, and we were doing it long before a few mentally deranged Arabs decided to do it inside the U.S.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  456. B-1s by sconeu · · Score: 2

    They used B-52, B-1 (both based out of Diego Garcia), and B-2 (based in MO -- 27 hour mission!). The B-2s landed at Diego after their mission.

    When did the B-1 get certified for conventional weapons? I know that it wasn't used in the Gulf War because at the time it was certified for nukes only.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  457. I will go. by grepnyc · · Score: 0

    I would die for this country. I love the USA, and I love my freedom. I want my 5 month old daughter to grow up in a land of peace and freedom.

    Being from NY, to tell you the truth, I'm expecting to be hurt or killed in some way by terrorism. This doesn't stop my resolve to help though. I have already spoken to a friend of mine, a Commander in the Navy Reserves about signing on.

    I'm also in the process of applying to both the CIA and the FBI. Perhaps I have a skill that they can use.

    pressure/grep

    rm -f /bin/laden

    Hey, buddy. If you mod this down because of that troll from a few weeks back, you're an idiot.

    --


    Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
  458. You've just paraphrased GW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, basically you've just paraphrased all the things that President Bush(43) and Prime Minister Blair have been saying since after the attack and THE crux of the US military startegy in Afghanistan. Are your anti-war buddies still protesting, or are they supporting the campaign?

    BTW, for all those people who doubted him, now we know that Dubya is a capable and cunning guy (at least according the some of the democratic legistalors in his home state).

    1. Re:You've just paraphrased GW by mcelrath · · Score: 1
      It would appear that the US and UK are doing the Right Thing (tm) at the moment. Though Tony Blair put the whole thing far more eolquently than dubya ever could.

      I would venture that the success of military actions should be measured long after the first strike. Few complained when the first "advisors" were sent to Vietnam. But as days wore on into years wore on into decades... Will this "war" be short and effective, or another Vietnam? We will see.

      --Bob

      P.S. Dubya is still a C-student frat boy with the wits of a head of cabbage, and comparing his speech with Tony Blair's only highlights that. Thank goodness Dubya has intelligent advisors and speech-writers.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  459. You have... a hammer by The+Milky+Bar+Kid · · Score: 1

    "When you come up with a solution, maybe people will be more willing to listen."

    This comment has come up a few times in the past few weeks, as a response to people who suggest that violence will not help. My problem with this argument is that it assumes that we already have a solution - i.e. the bombing of afghanistan.

    I would like someone to prove to me that this is a solution, because I think that this is not entirely certain. Part of the reason this argument is offered is the classic politicians' syllogism. For those who do not know what a syllogism is, here is an example:

    All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.

    The following is the politician's syllogism:

    We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this.

    As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. Violence is bloody easy to do - hell, APES do it. But fixing the genuine problems, so that the cycle of violence doesn't continue - that's a lot trickier.

    In Vietnam, the US (with other countries' aid) bombed Vietnam (both North AND South) back to the stone age. The initial purpose of this was to prevent Vietnam from becoming communist. Guess what? Vietnam ended up communist and depopulated. Did all the bombing, all the sacrifices made by American and Australian soldiers, actually fix the situation? No.

    In Desert Storm, the violence did do part of the job. It drove Saddam out of Kuwait. But because they didn't go all the way to Baghdad, Saddam is still there, the sanctions stay up, and the area is still in a pretty bad way.

    Heck, weren't all the terrorists LIVING in the USA? Didn't a large section of the plot develop in Hamburg? Bombing Afghanistan's may eliminate the head of the network, but there are many more in other countries who may well continue on his work. And bombing Afghanistan, while an understandable move, isn't a complete solution. It isn't even close.

    --
    -- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
  460. Bullies. by flip-flop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Argh. This makes me angry. What gives the US and Britain the right to attack a sovereign nation in this manner? And what do they hope to achieve?
    Let me be clear, I realize what a bunch of madmen the Taliban are - but they were not the ones who bombed the World Trade Center. And they have been requesting to negotiate frequently during the past few weeks, which the US - with all the arrogance of a superpower - repeatedly dismissed.
    These guys are just bullies. If bin Laden were hiding in China, or even Pakistan, they wouldn't just bomb the country he is hiding in like this! They would actually have to talk things over, try and find another solution. Maybe actually reveal some evidence?? I don't think that is such an outlandish request.
    In a way I'm impressed at the way the Taliban are standing up to these bullies although it seems, they won't be around for much longer (and that is no doubt a good thing for most people in Afghanistan). But this self-righteous crusade our governments are currently on really pisses me off. Argh! Bastards. Anyway, rant over.

    1. Re:Bullies. by bandwagon_coder · · Score: 1

      The Taliban have allowed and fostered the terrorist training camps responsible for the WTC/Pentagon attacks within their borders. The US has every right to "hunt down" Osama Bin Laden, given the Taliban's refusal to extradite.
      What would your solution be to such a terrorist attack ? Would you have the US withdraw from the Mid East affairs altogether ? Would you feel the same if you had known someone killed in the WTC ?

      Your "rant" seems to underestimate the severity of the damage caused on September 11th. Even if you didn't care about the human lives lost, the economic cost to the US and the world is going to be immense. The US will most likely be in a deep recession for a long time, which is going to have repercussions on the world economy. There have been a lot of layoffs, and there are going to be a lot more ( that damn domino effect ).

    2. Re:Bullies. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      What gives the US and Britain the right to attack a sovereign nation in this manner?

      7000 dead people.

      But this self-righteous crusade our governments are currently on really pisses me off.

      Cetainly the US can be accused of being hypocritical and self-righteous. However any nation would respond to the best of it's ability when faced with an incident like this.

    3. Re:Bullies. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      what do you suggest? we all just turn the other cheek? that's how we got to where we were on 9-11. well, guess what... there are no more cheeks left.

      it's time to fight back. aggressively, but not spastic... unwaiveringly, but not blindly...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    4. Re:Bullies. by pkesel · · Score: 1

      Certain realities must be recognized. 'Negotiation' is often a ploy to dodge the real issue and drag more complexity into what shold often be tackled head on. Negotiation would have dragged the Israeli/Palestinian issue and who knows what else into the picture. Negotiation in this instance was a ploy.

      Another reality is that if bin Laden were sitting in China or Pakistan he would basically be sitting on a pile of nukes. That makes the stakes much higher. But those countries are much more succeptible to political and diplomatic coercion.

      Then also there is the reality that the 'self-righteous crusade' of the US is probably the most internationally supported thing the US has done in decades. NATO has seen the evidence and has for the first time EVER invoked the common cause charter. Pakistan, the only nation of the three who recognized the Taliban still talking to them, has seen the evidence and supports the US. Something about all of that should probably cause you to reconsider your label 'self-righteous'. With such overwhelming support could you not perhaps consider it simply 'righteous'?

      Instead of reacting with your instincts, which I acknowledge as valid, and maintaining the first view, gather more facts along the way and review. Unless you're in the diplomatic dog pit that's been going on, we don't have the facts and you've got to think about things a little. Judgement should be the last thing you do before criticism or action, not the first.

      --
      - Sig this!
    5. Re:Bullies. by vidarh · · Score: 2
      If you're going to use that argument, then US should turn its weapons on itself. The US have financed so many terrorist groups, assasins and armies that have killed civilians that 6000 dead is merely a drop in the ocean of blood caused by the US in the last hundred years.

      And when did the US follow established international procedures to request an extradition hearing, present evidence, and have a court decide on the merits of their case?

      No "civilized" nation could have extradited bin Laden without being in violation of their own laws. Some countries in Europe and elsewhere couldn't even legally extradite him under any circumstances if there is any chance that he'd risc the death penalty if extradited to the US.

      I can understand the rage, and I can understand that the US public wants Afghanistan and the Taliban "punished", but don't pretend that it's about justice - this is purely about revenge.

      Unfortunately it plays straight into the hands of the terrorists. How many more extremists are now watching the news and getting all their ideas about the US as the enemy of Islam confirmed, and start thinking about holy war?

      The US is breeding its own enemies, as so often before.

    6. Re:Bullies. by flip-flop · · Score: 1

      what do you suggest? we all just turn the other cheek? that's how we got to where we were on 9-11. well, guess what... there are no more cheeks left.

      If you are going to quote Gandhi, then let me quote him too: an eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind.
    7. Re:Bullies. by flip-flop · · Score: 1

      Instead of reacting with your instincts, which I acknowledge as valid, and maintaining the first view, gather more facts along the way and review. Unless you're in the diplomatic dog pit that's been going on, we don't have the facts and you've got to think about things a little. Judgement should be the last thing you do before criticism or action, not the first.

      Thanks for pointing that out - and I do agree with you on the need to gather more information. But I would ask you to do likewise. Don't believe everything your government tells you. And don't believe everything you see or hear in the media either - I have found some American agencies like CNN to be extremely biassed. The BBC tends to be much more balanced in its reporting. For another view entirely, go check out some English-language Pakistani or Iranian news sites. For example, you could go to Dawn or Iran News.
    8. Re:Bullies. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      true, but we'll all be equal... which is a goal, is it not? =o)

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  461. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by ainsoph · · Score: 1

    I think the Taleban needs to be taken out no doubt my friend. I also think that terrorism sucks as well.

    The thing that I was pointing out and have been, is that the attack on the Taleban has been in the works since June, and we have been planning an oil pipeline in that region for quite some time now. most likely a joint Russian/British/US affair. If you look at the Department of Energy website you will see that even the Taleban were part of this biz venture until recently. This is not a conspiracy, it is a fact.

    Go look it up. Its right there at your fingertips. Start with the department of energy website.

  462. Helping to create a monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't the same thing as being the monster. I think the Saudi and Egyptian governments would agree.

  463. The bravery of being out of range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now would be a good time to listen to Roger Waters' "Amused to Death"...

    1. Re:The bravery of being out of range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now would be a good time to listen to Richard Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries.

    2. Re:The bravery of being out of range by Occam's+Nailfile · · Score: 1

      None of us are out of range anymore. I get to feel brave just getting in the elevator. How about you?

    3. Re:The bravery of being out of range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of us ever was out of range. But some people thought they were. Maybe now those people will stop being so arrogant and realise that the way to avoid being struck by their enemies is to stop making enemies out of everyone else.

  464. China Hates Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has a growing problem in XinJiang with militant Islamic Separatists, some of whome have been trained in Afghanistan. Although they're concerned about expanding American influence to their Wester back yard, trust me when I say that they'd like nothing more than the death of OBL and the downfall of his Taliban buddies.

    Military vehicles have been streaming continuously for days into the area of China that borders Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the Taliban or Al Quaeda head that way, they're running headlong into a smackdown.

    As for Taiwan, there's really NO reason for them to attack. The US, contrary to popular belief, has NEVER supported Taiwanese independence. In fact, the official policy has always been to discourage such action in the interest of stability. All the Chinese leadership really needs to do is to hunker down on that issue. In less than a decade, the Taiwanese economy will be so enmeshed with the Mainland's that it will be INSANE for Taiwan to declare independence.

    BTW, in a recent survey of Chinese People's Liberation Army personnel, 40% said that they believed China has no significant enemies. This is the army talking folks. If the amazing rate of economic growth there stays constant, the China will continue to be about as moderate and peaceful a nation as you can get.

  465. Who mod it as troll? by LittleStone · · Score: 1

    Can't believe it. Please, this guy may not quote the best arguments in the world, you don't have to mod it as troll? Did you mod it as troll just because the guy is saying minority opinion.

    God bless America. If you think those are lies, tell your counter arguments like many others did. Mod it as troll doesn't help people understand, nor helping Americans to win the war they think they are fighting.

    --
    A sig is redundant.
    1. Re:Who mod it as troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this guy may not quote the best arguments in the world, you don't have to mod it as troll?

      Hey, I say call a spade a spade. The guy gives these amazing numbers and broad generalizations without bothering to back them up. It may not be in the same league as "frost pist" or "IF I EVER MEET YOU I'LL KICK YOUR ASS," but it's still a clear and obvious attempt to get a lot of people's goats.

  466. I think Bill Hicks said it best by xQx · · Score: 0

    [Bill Hicks]:
    I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.
    "Pick it up."
    "I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."
    "Pick up the gun."
    "Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hardrock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."
    "Pick up the gun."
    (He picks it up. Three shots ring out)
    "You all saw him - he had a gun."

  467. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So every soldier, policemen, or law enforcement agent of any kind could never be a Christian? Christ agrees with you? That in itself hints at you sententiousness and arrogance; I think you would do best to agree with Christ.

    Why did the disciples carry swords? Had he no opportunity to make absolute pacifism clear? Why will he return in war? Let me answer that; for the sake of rightousness.

    The use of a sword in a personal way is almost always suspect but Jesus commanded that one follow the law of the land including the consequences of breaking them. As it the root of most absurd arguments your lack of context is absurd.

  468. Boycot the oil companies - terrorfree-fuel by thm-1 · · Score: 1

    the main financial supporters of the fundamentalistic infrastructure are located in the oil-states in the persian gulf. they provide the money that is necessary to continously extend a fundamentalistic interpretation of the islam

    I am thinking in two direcetions:

    - The first oilcompany that advertises with "terror-free"-fuel (by buing from russia, scandinavia etc.) could not get any better PR...

    - Consumers refusing to buy any fuel from companies who fail to explain detailed that their fuel does no indirectly supports extremists.

  469. Please remember by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Not all christians supported the inquisition either. And it was definitely not supported by any reported text from Jesus in the Bible. But the christian power structure supported it. And it frequently kill of sizeable proportions of the populaiton. In southern France it killed everyone found in many towns.

    I don't think any more highly of the muslim variations.

    OTOH, I'm not really convinced that this is an appropriate way to solve the problem. I think that a better approach might be to set up well guarded aid stations, where people could come for food, medical treatment, and forged identity papers with the name an profession of their choice emblazoned on them. This would, or course, require well defended passage ways through the country so that the aid sites could be resupplied. And the freight convoys would need sufficient protection that they couldn't be successfully attacked.

    And it would only be proper to help people to relocate from place to place within the country....

    This would help build support. This would enable our agents to infiltrate as desired. This would provide protected areas that we developed, so there was no indigenous populace that would need to be guarded against. This would provide hardened targets to be attacked, that would justify in the eyes of the local populace response with deadly force. etc.

    Aerial bombardment seems extremely stupid, but perhaps this is just to get things started. And it is useful to deny the enemy any easy way to acquire outside support.

    I'm not at all sure that we should support the Northern Alliance qua the Northern Alliance. They have a history of doing some things that we probably don't want to be associated with. But split away from the mass the soldiers might well be quite useful. Ditto for Taliban conscripts (one of the main targets of the id scheme). I would expect the number of Taliban MIAs to be quite large if they had any alternatives.

    Just some thoughts off the top of my head, but aerial bombardment against THAT country! There's got to be a better way. Vietnam was bad enough, and that was flat land. This is RUGGED terrain. The Himalyas put the Rockys to shame. There really isn't any comparison.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:Please remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that few people understand the tactical reason for the air attacks. First off, we are not bombarding the entire country, carpet bomb style. No. We are attacking selected targets such as airfields, anti-aircraft, and communications facilities (along with known terrorist facilites). The goal with these strikes is not to be the be-all-end-all of this campaign. The aim is simply to gain air superiority over Afgahnistan. Without that, we can't do anything else. It doesn't matter if we are going in with ground forces, special forces, or with international aid (or all three). Without air superiority (our confidence that we can conduct air operations including airlift and troop and materiel insertions with impunity) we can't do anything.

    2. Re:Please remember by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
      Not all christians supported the inquisition either.

      On one hand, it was only the Roman Catholic Church supporting the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal and India (Goa), and in fact mainly just the Jesuits within that Church.

      [ BTW, think about who is going to be the next Pope. Barring a miracle, it's going to be Ratzinger, and guess which order he is head of? Lo! It's the Inquisition (trading under a polite name). Interesting times ahead. ]

      On the other hand, one of the first things that the Pilgrims did when they arrived in the USA was to make repressive laws protecting their style of religion. So I guess the root cause is human nature.

      But the christian power structure supported it.

      True, but only partly so, in the following ways:

      • the power structure was an artefact run by the RCC, not all of Christianity
      • the power structure was aided and abetted by secular business and political groups. This was particularly evident during the Crusades
      • If you define Christianity as ``supported [only] by any reported text from Jesus in the Bible,'' the RCC as a whole does not represent Christianity
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  470. Wrong and imperfect. by Convergence · · Score: 2

    I'll be the first to admit that the US is imperfect, but it is an entity that is run by humans, and humans are imperfect creatures.

    But, there is a distance between being imperfect and being wrong. The reasons why the US is disliked are many and varied, a lot has to do with having a different mindset and worldview... and manipulation.

    Apart from anything else, the US is the only superpower left. Thus, we can be 'blamed' for everything, both our actions, and our inactions. 'We didn't stop XYZ' 'We did help XYZ'.

    That doesn't mean that we're wrong, that doesn't mean that we are perfect.

    1. Re:Wrong and imperfect. by tsarina · · Score: 1

      True, people are human. The terrorists are human. And they are wrong. There must be some standard that even imperfect humans can be held to.

      It can be agreed that terrorism is wrong. The US has supported terrorists (i.e. OBL) and still does (Northern Alliance). That is wrong.

      It is true that governments make mistakes, but something as blatant as terrorism (and on multiple occasions) is surely wrong. It's like OBL saying "Oops, sorry."

      I fear for what may come of the US's support of the Northern Alliance. It was that sort of support that brought the Taliban and OBL to power in the first place. Have we not learned from history? We cannot do anything about what the US has done in the past, but we need to act otherwise in the future, or it is most certainly wrong.

      --

      ________
      "And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
    2. Re:Wrong and imperfect. by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Regardless of what we do, we support the Northern Alliance.

      The only other alternative is to attack them as well, and they have not done anything which justifies such an action.

      We aren't providing them with weapons that I have heard. The only aid they are receiving from us is that we are currently wiping out their enemies for them.

  471. Step back and think: what makes the terrorists tic by melquiades · · Score: 2

    Many dealers get exactly what they want--a lot of money--and so their expectations of success are reasonably higher than someone who wants to bring down the United States.

    I don't think it's fair to say that "bringing down the United States" is the goal of these or other terrorists -- perhaps rhetorically, but not really. I imagine their goals are: (1) angering and humiliating the US, (2) letting off their own anger, (3) exacting perceived retribution for perceived crimes, and (4) most of all, encouraging a polarizing and inflamatory response from the US that will get them more support and more terrorists.

    It seems to me that they were completely successful in every one of these goals.

    Ten, eh? Care to supply any evidence for this statistic, or are you talking out of your ass?

    It's a figure of speech, silly. Honestly.... If you're going to be such a pedant, read "many more" for "ten".

    Well, at least one of the necessary ingredients seems to be the belief that you can strike with impunity...

    Oh, get real. Do you honestly think that anybody intelligent enough to plan this attack would think that this arrogant, belligerant nation with the largest military in the world would turn the other cheek? I can't believe the terrorists thought there would be no response; on the contrary, I think they were counting on it. They love to see the US all shook up, behaving irrationally, and goading on the violence. A military response is exactly what the terrorists wanted. The only thing they have to be unhappy about right now is that the US actually made a stab at presenting evidence, got some support from Islamic nations, and is not killing more innocent people in air strikes than we already are.

    Other than that, the terrorists got exactly what they wanted today.

  472. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Netcraft Confirms: *BSD is dying

    Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in th recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    *BSD is dying

  473. You've got it backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We can't solve the Palestinian problem until after this mess is sorted out.


    The problem with Palestine is the Palestinians. They're noit interested in peace. They never were, even before the Balfour declaration. They're not peaceful people.


    Maybe when they come to realize they're all alone, then thy'll stop trying to kill everybody.

  474. They didn't want Hussein gone by teg · · Score: 2

    In Desert Storm, the violence did do part of the job. It drove Saddam out of Kuwait. But because they didn't go all the way to Baghdad, Saddam is still there, the sanctions stay up, and the area is still in a pretty bad way.

    If they wanted to, Saddam Hussein could likely have been disposed in Desert Storm - but removing him from power isn't as straightforward as it would look like. Another leader with very similar views could take power, gaining almost nothing. Or even more dangerous - you could get a vacuum in power, with various factions trying to grab a part of the power, with support from other countries. Iraq has a shia muslim minority, which could easily attract support from Iran. In the North, you have the kurds - or rather, a part of them. They're spread across many countries and want a country of their own. Also, there is a lot of oil to fight for. Removing the force who seems to keep it all together (rather oppressively) isn't as straightforward as it seems, it could easily be the match lighting the powder keg.

    1. Re:They didn't want Hussein gone by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      1: We know that Bush was selling weapons to Hussein even while the military buildup in Saudi Arabia was happening. This is really disturbing and strongly suggests that this war was either staged or a profit-opertunity for American weapons manufactuers.

      2: Hussein historically has had strong ties to the CIA and other organizations which looked the other way while he committed some real attrocities back in the 80's.

      3: Ramsey Clark documented the aim of controlling the Middle East in "The Fire This Time."

      Here is what I think (and I normally am not a conspiracy theorist). I think the arms sales (Iraq-gate) were deliberate and indicative of an agreement with the CIA. This means that Hussein may still be a proxy agent for the Western control of Middle-Eastern oil. The man is a monster, and we should get rid of him (but it falls upon us only because we created him in the first place), but I think he is still in power because there are certain interests at stake for having an enemy in that region.

      This allows for increased military presense, and intimidation to the OPEC nations. Note that the "International" force that patrols the no fly zone is really just Britain and the US now. These are the main powers which have historically controlled the Middle East.

      As much as I don't like Hussein, I don't think that war had anything to do with him.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:They didn't want Hussein gone by strider · · Score: 2

      "1: We know that Bush was selling weapons to Hussein even while the military buildup in Saudi Arabia was happening. This is really disturbing and strongly suggests that this war was either staged or a profit-opertunity for American weapons manufactuers. "

      You're right. It's clear that when a large multifaceted organization like the CIA doesn't act immediately on a change in policy, especially a secretive one, they are part of some giant purposeful conspiracy. It's never been the case that a beaurocracy has just been slow to act, and we wind up doing something stupid like funding the people we are trying to kill. COME ON! First off, where are you getting this? Secondly where is your evidence that any manufacturer lobbied, or met with anyone? How much equipment was sold? See my original post. Because you identify a group that could gain from a mistaken policy does not mean they are responsible for it. For instance, I got cheaper tickets to fly home because people are less likely to fly at this time. This does not mean I supported the destruction of the WTC. You need to establish a causal mechanism to make this claim.

      "2: Hussein historically has had strong ties to the CIA and other organizations that looked the other way while he committed some real atrocities back in the 80's."

      Yup. America was convinced at the time (quite wrongly and by the 80's even stupidly) that the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and make everyone a communist. We did a whole bunch of dumb shit, like funding any crappy dictator who was anticommunist. We also did some incredibly smart things like the Marshall plan. This does not necessarily indicate it was all a capitalistic plot by the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to make billions. The real money was made building star wars and bombers, not in selling Hussein weapons.

      "The man [Hussein] is a monster, and we should get rid of him (but it falls upon us only because we created him in the first place), but I think he is still in power because there are certain interests at stake for having an enemy in that region"

      If we killed every "monster" we really would be the hegemonic overlords the Chinese and others claim we want to be.

      --
      The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
  475. this attack sounds expensive.. by gnurd · · Score: 1

    50 missles alone at like 1.5 mil each?

    seriously, couldnt we just *buy* afghanistan for that much? give each one of them a couple of hundred bucks or something? get them some jeans and a big mac? a tv perhaps, let them read slashdot. perhaps they wouldnt want to fight us then...

    --
    "i was saying gnu-rd"
    1. Re:this attack sounds expensive.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, buy them off with coupons for Big Macs, some Britney Spears posters, a couple Michael Jackson cassettes from the cutout bin, and maybe a Bruce Willis video.

  476. gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1
    Al-Qaeda's first step is to drive the U.S. out of the region that they want to conquer and to sufficiently damage us that we would not have the resources to ever come back in. Al-Qaeda is manipulating the hatred and jealousy toward the United States among the many Muslims to further their own goals of political/military conquest.
    Doesn't it seem a little absurd to attack the world trade center when what you want is to remove troops from the soil of Saudi Arabia? It's much more likely that we just played right into what was a calculated attempt to provoke a military reaction. The uglier Americans seem to the rest of the world, the better sounding idiots like bin Laden will be.

    It doesn't seem like Bush knows chess at all, or maybe he can only fathom one or two moves of play--sacrificing a knight to compromise your opponent's queen is considered a good move, and it looks like the Marlboro-boy just took the bait.

    Powell has been trying hard to work through this situation with intelligence, but I don't know how long the voice of reason will sway a small-minded man only concerned with punishment.

    Yeah, we're all along for the ride, but there is no reason to choose sides in this battle of witlessness. Those in control don't care what you or I think anyway.

    1. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm sure you know far more about international diplomacy than the Bush administration. (sarcasm)

      On the other hand, you are probably right that Al-Qaeda hoped to provoke an over reaction by the United States. I doubt we "played right into their hands." They probably expected we would immediately carry out an indescrimate bombing campaign. It looks like the current administration has a VERY good understanding of how important Grand Strategy and psychological operations are going to be in this conflict, as evidenced by their repeated emphasis that "this is not a war against Islam," the humanitarian aid sent to the Afghan people, the attempts to cooperate with local Afghan opposition groups, etc.

      As for chess, I don't give a rat's @$$ how bad he is at chess. If playing chess was what ruled nations, then we should just put Deep Blue in charge and be over with it. I just care how good he is at picking cabinet members and supreme court judges. He seems to have done a bang-up job with the cabinet... A president is a manager; "the administration" is a team effort.

    2. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy, crazy replbicrat...
      Bush just a spoiled brat.

    3. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I'm sure you know far more about international diplomacy than the Bush administration. (sarcasm)
      Hey--I'll let you in on a secret, I'm not trying, because it doesn't matter what you or I say; democracy officially ended with the 2000 elections.

      I'd feel safer with deep blue at the wheel than daddy Bush's idiot son anyway.

    4. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did democracy end? Because Gore didn't win? Give it a rest already. There will be an election again in three years. Save it for the polls.

    5. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1

      Democracy ended because Gore did win.

    6. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1
      It ain't about Bush and Gore anyway, it's about being represented by people who would look after all of our interests rather than the few elite rich that can pay for elections to happen. Elections have been bullshit for as long as I can remember, but Bush vs Gore just made it official.



      But who cares about whether votes count anyway?

    7. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything the election was a tie. The counts and recounts were ridiculous wastes of time because the votes that separated Gore and Bush were less than the statistical precision of counting them. Gore didn't "win". Neither did Bush. But for better or worse, Bush is our president now. Like that other a/s said, wait until the next election (which by the way is going to happen, this is still the USA).

    8. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, fine. Because a Republican is in the White House, democracy is dead? Don't be so petulant. As far as votes counting...votes are the metric of an election -- I'd say that they matter.

    9. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1
      No, I'm not living in the one dimensional line between Democrats and Republicans.

      I'm talking about the idea that votes do count, and taking the time to make sure everything is correct--even if it means holding another election--is worth the effort to ensure that democracy remains alive.


      In the abstract way you are talking about votes, they may matter, but what Bush showed over his first eight months was that it didn't matter what the voters thought, just what his, and his financial donors wanted.

    10. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      The 2000 election and the SCOTUS decision was a fatal blow against democracy.

      The process of counting ballots should have been allowed to continue as defined by the Florida Law. The fact that it was not, but was rather subverted is a travesty.

      Thankfully our founding fathers were wise, and the damage is limited to only 4 years, so that wrongs can be righted.

    11. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In political terms, look at it this way. Bush (probably) won -- the newspaper ballot checks seemed to prove that. But his people assumed the worst and fought recount efforts and started challenging things up to the supreme court. This might have been a temporary advantage, but at the cost of the fact a certain percentage of the American populous will always believe that he stole the election. If he would have sat back and done nothing, he' would have been uncontested.

      Smart lawyering, bad bad bad politics.

    12. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      Whether Bush or Gore won was never the issue, it was the impression that the election was stolen from the people that was the injustice.

    13. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more like delusion.

    14. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry that you are delusional, but it's time to start accepting reality.

    15. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy ended because Gore did win.

      Translation: "Democracy ended by my man isn't sitting in the White House."

      Cry me a river...

    16. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am accepting reality. The reality is this
      (a) the 2000 presidential election was controversial
      (b) G.W. Bush is now our president

      Those are the facts. If you don't like them, there will be an election in three years, which I bet will not be as close. Bush will either win decidely or get his ass whooped. His handling of the present conflict will no doubt affect that greatly.

    17. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Sigh. You obviously do not get it.

      Those aren't the facts or reality that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the corruption of one particular political party, who used their power irresponsibly to circumvent the Rule of Law.

    18. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How was the republican party (or whoever it is you are vilifing) corrupt. Both parties used every legal and political trick in the book to get their man to win. Sure, both parties played rough (and in some opinions dirty) but there was no corruption. Regardless, the fact remains that the election is past and Bush is president. 2000 was a fluke and it won't happen again.

    19. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1

      Sure, both parties played rough (and in some opinions dirty) but there was no corruption.

      Why did Katherine Harris want so badly to have hard drives on computers she used to write and receive e-mails with during the post-election period to be formatted?

      2000 was a fluke and it won't happen again.


      Why?
    20. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      "The 2000 election and the SCOTUS decision was a fatal blow against democracy"

      Why?

      Was it a fatal blow to democracy when Kennedy "won" the election in 1960?

      I hate to break it to you, but electioneering, vote fraud, and partisan manipulation of election commissions has a long history in the United States. Both sides pulled out the stops to try and win the 2000 election. If Gore was elected, his victory would have been just as tainted. While I don't agree 100% with the Supreme Court's decision (yes, I read it in it's entirety) it wasn't without merit. And they are, after all, the last word on such things in our country.

      We should all work to eliminate vote fraud and electioneering, as it does damage the quality of our society. It is evil and wrong. But I would hardly call it "fatal." If it was, then we would have been dead a long time ago.

      www.quivis.com/fraud.html
      cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/current/Projects/el ec tronic-vote-counting/NYCase.html

    21. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      The Democrats tried to use a legal strategy.

      The Republicans used a strategy of abusing their political positions of power.

      One of the two strategies is referred to as Corruption.

      The fact that you don't understand the difference saddens me.

    22. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't give me this jeb bush, katherine harris, supreme court bullshit. bush won. deal with it.

    23. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Bush won by using the power of corrupt officials.

      deal with it, or face the later consequences. You can't pull off a coup like that twice in a century.

    24. Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's no use arguing with you because your mind is made up. fine. but i don't see the point of bitching about this. and don't lecture me about democracy or coups or the end of america, blah, blah. i don't buy it. for the record, i voted for gore myself. but the fact is: bush is now the president. it's not a coup - if bush delcared himself president for life or something, then it would be a coup. there _will_ be an election again in three years. i bet you a million dollars that it won't be nearly as close as 2000 was. moreover, the next time it is that close, i assure you our election system will be better prepared and capabable of counting the votes precisely. get over it.

  477. I think you are the one who is misinformed by 17028 · · Score: 1

    Let's compare what the Romans or Persians did when a city defied them (they killed every man, woman and child, or sold them into slavery) and what NATO did against Serbia. How many civilians died in Serbia as a direct effect of the bombings, 100 or so out of a couple million citizens? How many were sold into slavery? You seem to have a fairytale view of ancient warfare.

    1. Re:I think you are the one who is misinformed by pa-guy · · Score: 0
      Please read the entire thread. It was the AC that seemed to have a fairytale view of ancient warfare. I am the one that referenced Carthage. He/She/It is the person that called me a fucking liar.

      Regards

  478. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

    Yeah...um, why don't you go ahead and give me the oil export numbers for Afghanistan then. Just the simple stuff, you know, millions of barrels exported per year, etc.

    Oh that's right, there are no oil exports from Afghanistan. Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.

    People love to rail at the U.S. for its foreign policy history. In truth we have always responded cosistently, regardless of who may have come to our door. For many years following WWII the U.S. had a rigid anti-communist policy. If someone was fighting a communist insurgency, then we offered help. Period. This policy has led to some problems after the fact, especially when some of the resistance groups turned out to be less than knights in shining armor. We also moved to protect American interests overseas. If this meant stabilizing regions on which we depended for crucial materials, then it was undertaken. If you mean oil, then yes; we "interfered" in the politics of the middle east to ensure that our oil supply would not be threatened. For any American who decries this as a horrible act, I ask that you consider your comfortable life and how big a role petroleum plays in it. Gasoline, oil, plastics, asphalt, electricity; all of these depend exclusively on oil for existence. Would you rather live with or without these things? The prosperity of our nation to this day rests heavily on oil. To ensure this prosperity is the duty of the U.S. government to its citizens. And it's not like the U.S. offers a bad deal to the oil-supplying nations. We simply ask (strongly) that the oil supply remain steady, and we'll pay for as much as we can carry. The countries of the middle east have become fabulously wealthy under this arrangement. But for some reason they can't be happy with it. This I cannot explain.

  479. I don't know what makes me sadder - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The brink of war - which yes, will no doubt come with the loss of innocent life, but also the lives of many brave soldiers....

    Or what I see on Slashdot right now.

    I chose to browse these comments at -1, just out of curiousity, and I'm truely disturbed at how many legit comments have been modded down as 'flamebait' or 'troll' simply for having an opinion differing from the whole.

    I thought we here at Slashdot would have higher standards, and would allow all viewpoints equal opportunity to speak. I guess I was wrong.

    1. Re:I don't know what makes me sadder - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You reap what you sow. When moderation was being misused to supress posts based on their content, the vast majority remained silent. Soon, using moderation to suppress unpopular opinions became the norm due to the silence of the many people who knew that it was unethical. Rob Malda, Jeff Bates, Michael Sims, et al are particularly guilty because they have tacitly approved the misuse of the moderation system to suppress content.

    2. Re:I don't know what makes me sadder - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tacitly approved"? They've openly opposed this in the moderation guidelines! They've created an entire feature that lets us take karma away from people who are abusing moderation! What else are they supposed to do?

    3. Re:I don't know what makes me sadder - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What they say and what they do are two different matters. While the theory of meta-moderation might be OK, it doesn't work in practice.

      One useful change would be to simplify the moderation. First, only allow upward moderation. When you moderate down, it is often taken as an act of disrespect and provokes the trolls. Second, dump the whole karma thing. Let every post stand on its own merits. Third, only allow for 3 levels of rating: 0, +1, +2. Fourth, let Malda et al read every post and override unfair moderation. Really now, it is stupid to believe that a Perl script can substitute for good human judgment.

  480. Neat logical fallacy there. by Convergence · · Score: 2

    Yes, its true that Japan had lost the war; that it was only a matter of time.

    But, the author elides out the fact that to effect that surrender without the nuclear device would have caused hundreds of thousands of lives.

    What is the barbarous act? The use of a new weapon, or the killing of hundreds of thousands? If it is the killing, didn't the firebombing of Tokyo kill far more people? The US had already far demonstrated its abilities to firebomb cities, and firebomb many cities.

    So, while they're accurate, the war would have ended eventually had there been no Manhattan project, they're naive.

  481. Im not, sunday is prime time TV, everyone is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    basically home watching:).
    ok ill go back into my hole now.

  482. We Are the World by Baldrson · · Score: 1, Troll
    5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

    At which point the enlightened college student contacts the local authorities who use non-lethal weapons to restrain you, then put you into a detention cell where you will be introduced to your feminine side by an HIV and Hepatitis C infected ethnic gang -- thereby enlightening you as the virtues of "diversity" where even your very body contributes to the veritable cornucopia of ecological foment that is "the world".

    Everybody sing:

    We are the world...

    --
    Seastead this.
  483. Ah, this. by Convergence · · Score: 2

    http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jmt26/firebomb.htm

    Note the references to USSBS documents..

  484. America and Britain are the good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You better believe it, Jackson. You need a good ass whooping to wise you up, sonny boy. USA and UK are going to take down the Muslim creeps so hard that your head is going to swim.

  485. You do not know your history. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombing civilians won the war for the British as the attack on Berlin devirted the attack from RAF targets and won much needed relief. The was the best move Britain made.It was Britain that lured Germany into the trap.

  486. supplies, food, and medicines to the masses by deathscythe257 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how they are allocating the supply drops for the Afghan citizens. The terrorists live with the other citizens. Who knows who is actually getting these supplies? If this ends up anything like Somalia, the terrorists will begin to become warlord like and intercept any supplies, keeping them from citizens and only using them for terrorist activities. I'm quite confused on this issue. Could someone please enighten me? Or are the supply drops merely a diplomatic ploy?

    1. Re:supplies, food, and medicines to the masses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a main focus of the humanitarian airdrops are the thousands of refugees that are trying to flee Afghanistan. These people have fled the cities and are out in the countryside trying to get to Pakistan and Iran. While there might be terrorist elements among them, I doubt that any "warloard" scenario would develop. In the cities, is a different story. And it's not so much an "if" question. "Warlords" already run the country...that's basically what the Taliban are.

  487. Evidence by puckhead · · Score: 1

    Here is an an article on the BBC about the evidence.

    --
    Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
  488. War doesn't know winners. by Fuzzums · · Score: 0

    revenge or not. it's a prehistorical reaction for a super nation.

    is't was a terrible cowardly act to crash two planes into the wtc, but any, ANY war-like action isn't civilized either.

    innocent people were killed on the 11th. innocent people will be killer in the next days.

    the next days people will die for american and european principles. terrorists murdered on the 11th for their principles.

    STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE! I'm ashamed to bvelong to a nation that reacts like this :(
    War doesn't know winners.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:War doesn't know winners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not carpet bombing the nation of Afghanistan. We are attacking selected targets in support of near-future operations to go in and get bin Ladin ourselves. Regardless of this, though, your comment begs the question: what exactly would you have the United States do?

    2. Re:War doesn't know winners. by pkesel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you've no stomach to support the US feel free to find somewhere you'd be happier.

      But know that Europe and Canada and even Russia are supporting this. Japan is supporting this. Several Islamic nations are supporting this. Think carefully about what that means before you criticize. What principles are you trying to portray, and where are you going to find them?

      --
      - Sig this!
    3. Re:War doesn't know winners. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      This war and tewrrorist thing is NOT a US thing only. It's a western politics thing. I disaprove violence. i disaprove violent reactions. even though it's my own western politics.

      simply because war feeds terrorism. it will pissoff more terrorists. sadly we've seen what pissed terrorists are capable of.

      simply because revenge doesn't contribute to a solution. it's impossible to find and kill all terrorists. so killing simply is no solution.

      i'f i'm wrong, tell me why.

      [start carma-drain]

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  489. What's your point? by puckhead · · Score: 1

    Stopping Communism is a good thing.

    --
    Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
  490. Roma, Roma, uber alles? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    Just as not all Christians supported Hitler.

    This is probably a great deal more insightful than it seems. Muslims come in two major flavours, Sunni and Shi'ite, plus smaller groups not aligned with either of the above. The Sunni want nothing to do with /bin/laden and his activities.

    At the time of World War II, Christians came in four major flavours, sort of: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant (Low Anglican approx= Protestant). American (Wall Street) businesses made World War II financially and technically possible by supporting the Nazis; the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy made the war socially possible by supporting the Nazis. One of the reasons that they did this was in order to wipe out the Orthodox Church (``thou shalt do no murder!'' - ``but these are infidels!'' Sound familiar?).

    This was so well known at the time that the Pope narrowly escaped (with the use of much political and financal pressure) trial as a war criminal, and Australia went to the trouble of sending their Catholic troops against the Japanese, and non-Catholics against the Axis. If you think that the Roman Catholic Church keeps out of politics today, go and live in (for example) Mexico for a year.

    Only the Roman Catholic Church actively supported the Nazis, however, a significant majority of Roman Catholic individuals did not actively support the actions of their own heirarchy, and another significant group simply went along for the ride, that is, they wouldn't do anything hostile without prompting, but would let themselves be goaded into violence. There were also a class of people, Christian and not, including so-called Protestants, who should have protested many Nazi actions but didn't.

    It would surprise me if there were not similar groups at work within Afghanistan, and it would surprise me even more if bombing Kabul, however carefully, didn't push a lot of inert Muslims from the ``no'' camp into the ``well, OK'' camp, and from there to the ``kill the imperialist scum'' camp.

    The Q'ran is clearly and obviously stretched right out of shape to permit a lot of the violence and hatred already manifested, however it does conain a surah granting permission to attack those who attack you. Need I say more?

    Just in case anyone feels left out, not all Atheists supported the ``Communist'' (read: Atheist) purges of the likes of Mao and Lenin.

    Finally, from a military standpoint, Kabul is about the only target left in Afghanistan. You'dd be scratching to find a bridge or major intersection to bomb - let alone a military installation - in the rest of Afghanistan.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Roma, Roma, uber alles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you cite some primary sources for your arguements, in particular the notion that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Third Reich? I think you are full of shit.

    2. Re:Roma, Roma, uber alles? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
      That was quick!

      Could you cite some primary sources

      Yes, certainly. How much digging in European libraries are you willing to do, O anonymous one?

      the notion that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Third Reich

      Have a few tertiary references to get you started. Maybe you'll work your way down to interviewing a few of the people who actually lived through it, eventually. If they'll talk to a hostile interviewer at all. But I think the fact that Adolf Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing says enough by itself.

      And think about the war in Yugoslavia: Croats, Serbs, and... Muslims? What nationality is Muslim?

      The reality is Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims. The Roman Catholic church will not stop unless the world is at peace with her, that is, controlled by her. And then, history shows, she will only turn on herself. It's human nature.

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  491. Re:I don't know what makes me sadder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what they should do, but looking at this topics comments it's very the current system isn't working and viewpoints are being repressed.

  492. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by ainsoph · · Score: 1

    Yeah...um, why don't you go ahead and give me the oil export numbers for Afghanistan then. Just the simple stuff, you know, millions of barrels exported per year, etc.

    Oh that's right, there are no oil exports from Afghanistan. Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.

    Alright, you got it, ooo you got me. There are no oil exports from Afghanistan yet. But they have been planned for quite a long time.

    And mostly plans have been made to move both natural gas and oil through the region from former Soviet republics. But since I am nothing but an idiot conspiracy theorist, you might not want to read the documents from the Department of Energy like I have said in other posts.

    From the Department of Energy website:

    In February 1998, the Taliban announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which was abolished by the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion.

    The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s.


    In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed. The proposed pipeline would have transported natural gas from Turkmenistan's 45-Tcf Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and most likely would have run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border and through Herat and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan


    Besides the gas pipeline, Unocal also had considered building a 1,000-mile, 1-million barrel-per-day (bbl/d) capacity oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast via Afghanistan. Since the Chardzou refinery is already linked to Russia's Western Siberian oil fields, this line could provide a possible alternative export route for regional oil production from the Caspian Sea. The $2.5-billion pipeline is known as the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project. For a variety of reasons, including high political risk and security concerns, however, financing for this project remains highly uncertain

    Pumping Oil Out Of Central Asia

    The Geopolitics of Oil In Central Asia

    Caspian Sea Oil and Gas Production

    The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns

    Consortium formed to build Central Asia gas pipeline

    So why dont you go ahead and read those little ditties I dug up for you as you requested and remember: its easy to use a search engine, so why not try and use one before copping some sort of attitude about me being some wacko who is full of shit.

    I quote you:

    Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.

    It aint dark, its right at your fingertips.

  493. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the ISI put the Taliban in power. However, the taliban gained popularity because they rose as a unifying force following the withdrawl of the soviet forces. There CIA connection is speculation, as far as I know. They did however train members of the taliban while they were fighting against the soviets, but at that time the Taliban did not exist.

    The plain truth is, the US was engaged. There was no war at the time to warrant the killing of seven thousand civilians. Civilian casualties within a war are unavoidable. But outside a war? I think they are easily avoidable, and arguably the united states has always done everything possible to avoid them.

    Do you really think that if the US did not attack, the terrorist attacks would've stopped? Okay, let's take the peacenik approach and say we tucked tail and pulled out of middle east. Kuwait would fall again, Israel maybe. Then what? Does it stop there? India may fall to Pakistan backed by the whole muslim word. Nuclear war would be likely. What is next? China would engage the muslims on its western frontiers. Russia in Chechnya, Indonesia would end up with millions of massacred christians, africa would explode, the muslims in the balkans would probably be massacred. And in all this, since America proved weak and still a symbol of capitalism and christianity, it would still be attacked.

    Islam is a religion build on conquest and conversion at the point of the sword. You may hear otherwise from islam scholars and the media, but all you have to do is look at history.

    Luckly enough, we are not fighting the ottomans, the current threats are far less organized and skilled. But given times, a similar threat may once again arise.

  494. SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by biggles69 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I expect to be branded a Fascist Racist by some for bringing this to peoples attention but you get that.

    I am on a mailing list for a group dedicated to trying to teach people about the dangers, to society, civilization and the individual of organised religion.

    I got a mail referring me to this site regarding the true nature of Islam and what is really preached in the Koran.

    This site was produced by a group of Muslims turned atheist, contains numerous quotations from the Koran and sort of blows the comfy, trendy fantasy of Islam as a religion of love and peace out of the water.

    I think it is a must read for everybody who values democracy and freedom of choice. It shows just how necessary it is to fight this war against terrorism and gives a good idea of just what we are up against.

    It also kills the poisonous arguments of the apologists that the USA deserved what happened because of it's international policies. The terrorists who do these things hate the US in particular and the west in general because WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE! Under Islamic law only total submission to Allah is allowed and those who do not submit must die!

    It can't be stated often enough that not all MUSLIMS are the problem here. But ISLAM is!

    1. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by catseye_95051 · · Score: 2

      UM meta-moderation -- unfair.

      This is not informative, rather it is a troll.

      ALL belief systems taken to extremes are dangerous, and non more so then the poster's beleif system.

      Read between the lines and the poster is saying "All beliefs but MINE are evil and dangerous and must be destroyed."

      How is this different from that which he claims to decry?

      Extremists of any kind are dangerous not just in thmeselves but because they justify extremists of the opposite point of view.

      Chrsitinaity practoiced b yman is a relkigio nof lvoe a tolerance but practiced by extremeists it is a hate-filled thing that leads to the shooting of doctors and beating of gay men to death. In the apst it has been an excuse for the most horrendous of crimes (see "the Crusades" and "the inquisition.")

      So Islam practiced by the majority is a religion of love and respect and I've known many such muslim personally. (I ,btw, am Jewish.) Practiced by the extremists though it ebcomes as dangerous as any other extreme.

      And as dangerous the poster.

    2. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by biggles69 · · Score: 1
      UM meta-moderation -- unfair.
      Yes. It should have been higher.

      This is not informative, rather it is a troll.
      No it is a valid point I am making. I think you are just trying to be politically correct.

      ALL belief systems taken to extremes are dangerous, and non more so then the poster's beleif system. Read between the lines and the poster is saying "All beliefs but MINE are evil and dangerous and must be destroyed." How is this different from that which he claims to decry?
      You are absolutely correct. They are all dangerous. But you are also absolutely WRONG! I am an atheist. I have no belief system or beliefs and I do not even vaguely suggest the destruction of anything. The most dangerous people are the ones who are willing to fight not for freedom but for their religion.

      Extremists of any kind are dangerous not just in thmeselves but because they justify extremists of the opposite point of view.
      Again I agree with you.

      Chrsitinaity practoiced b yman is a relkigio nof lvoe a tolerance but practiced by extremeists it is a hate-filled thing that leads to the shooting of doctors and beating of gay men to death. In the apst it has been an excuse for the most horrendous of crimes (see "the Crusades" and "the inquisition.")
      Yes, Christianity has been and still is an instrument of evil in the hands of some. But I certainly do not defend it in my post so you are on my side here.

      So Islam practiced by the majority is a religion of love and respect and I've known many such muslim personally. (I ,btw, am Jewish.) Practiced by the extremists though it ebcomes as dangerous as any other extreme.
      Here, if you look at the site I referred to in my original post, you will find you partly wrong. Yes most Muslims do lead peaceful good lives and would never think of committing terorist attrocities (I pretty much stated this in my original post). But in order to properly follow the Qur'an this is not possible. The Qur'an calls for the destruction of the infidels so the terrorist were only doing what they were commanded to by their holy book.

      And as dangerous the poster.
      How am I dangerous. I am an atheist. I have no god to kill for and I don't belive that by dying while killing others I will instantly be zapped off to paradise. When was the last time you heard on the news "This morning an atheist extremist hijacked an airliner and flew it into an office tower killing x000 people?" NEVER!

      So my original point remains valid though restated here for a little more clarity. RELIGION is the problem here and Islam in particular even though most Muslims do not practice the more barbaric aspects of what the Qur'an commands.

      If you had taken the time to check out the site I provided www.secularislam.org/call.htm, written by ex Muslims, and weren't so eager to prove how politically correct you are by slandering me you might have understood my point.

    3. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but I also take the point further.

      I believe that organized religion (of any faith) has created lots of suffering in this world, and I'm afraid that it will lead to the end of this world one day.

      Why? Because the first rule of ANY religion is that you MUST believe everything in BLIND FAITH. They force you to throw away all rational judgement, ignore all your senses, and believe absolutely in everything they say. Religion makes one become super gullible, to believe in things rational human beings would call crazy.

      Think for a minute. Remember Heaven's Gate and how we thought they were crazy? Why is it then when someone says Jesus Christ was the savior we keep quiet and believe everything "he" and his bible says? What about David Koresh and the Waco incident? Was he a such a huge nut and yet Jerry Fallwell and his "teletubbies are gay" isn't?

      All religions are dangerous. One may think it teaches tolerance and unselfishness, but in actuality, organized religion has encouraged in one way or another gay bashing, KKK killings, abortion clinic bombings, witch burnings, oppression of women (ala Taliban), mass suicide, terrorism, intolerance of differences, and perhaps in the near future, the end of this world.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    4. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      ok, but... this site was created by muslims-turned-athiests. they obviously had a reason to turn athiest, so don't you think their views about islam might be just a weee bit biased?

      what's with the "they were 'there'. gee golly, they must know the truth, everything"?

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    5. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      West Superior to Islam by Don Feder

      Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's comment that Western civilization is superior to Islamic culture, while obvious to all whose minds aren't locked in a prison of political correctness, took guts to say.

      That Europeans reacted to Berlusconi -- a bright light on a continent of dim bulbs -- with outrage and horror is symptomatic of the malaise afflicting the West.

      "We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity ... and guarantees respect for human rights and religion," Berlusconi told a group of journalists. "This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries."

      "I can hardly believe Mr. Berlusconi made such remarks," wailed Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who assured us the European Union "is based on values such as multiculturalism and the meeting of different civilizations."

      For Europe's elite, it is a matter of faith that all cultures are created equal.

      Thus, a civilization that gave the world democracy, civil liberties and the industrial revolution and computer age is judged no better than a culture where democracy is unknown, rights non-existent, tribal bloodshed the norm and a few live in palaces while most inhabit hovels.

      Democracy is as alien to the Islamic world as Jimmy Dean's pork sausage.

      There are one-party regimes (Syria, Libya, Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan), oligarchies with parliamentary facades (Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority), military dictatorships (Pakistan) and traditional Islamic regimes (Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Gulf states).

      In the West, the opposition is represented. In the East, it's interred. In 1970, Jordan's King Hussein crushed PLO forces, killing 20,000 in a week. In 1982, the late Hafez Assad of Syria liquidated the entire city of Hama, center of a Sunni revolt. In 1998, the Taliban systematically slaughtered thousands of ethnic Hasara -- some had their throats cut, others were suffocated inside metal containers. An estimated 100,000 have died in Algeria's decade-old civil war.

      The Taliban judge presiding over the trail of Western aid workers accused of Christian proselytizing says they'll get a fair trial. Would that be before or after he hangs them?

      In our new ally, Pakistan, a professor is on death row for contradicting orthodox Moslem teaching. In Egypt, Saad Eddin Ibrahim was sentenced to seven years hard labor for "defaming" the nation by documenting persecution of Coptic Christians. A friend of mine, a Pakistani lawyer, was asked to lecture to an American audience on religious tolerance in the Islamic world. "I told them it does not exist," he laughingly informed me.

      On this point, you won't get an argument from Christians and animists in Sudan, Jews and Bahais in Iran, Serbs in Kosovo, Hindus in Afghanistan or Christians in Indonesia (subjected to a campaign of forced conversion).

      Diversity and tolerance aren't the only things in short supply in this part of the world, which has little of value except oil -- a resource discovered and developed by Westerners.

      Egypt doesn't give America $2 billion annually in foreign aid. Italians don't enter North Africa illegally seeking a better life. One reason fundamentalists loathe Western capitalism is the vivid contrast it provides to their backwardness.

      Islam made significant contributions to science and mathematics -- roughly a millennium ago. More recently, it has enriched humanity with such concepts as jihad, fatwa, clitorectomies, "honor killings" (of female relations accused of sex outside marriage), amputating limbs as punishment for various offenses and suicide bombings. The 19 men accused of perpetrating the horrors of Sept. 11 all had names like Ahmed and Muhammad. Would you believe it, there wasn't a Shawn or Seymour among them.

      If the Arab League is offended by this assessment -- well, I don't see any paeans to our culture penned by the mullahs or imams. They're too busy denouncing Western decadence, economics and political

      Only the West is afflicted with self-doubt. Only we have succumbed to the doctrine of cultural equivalence.

      When America went to war with Nazism and Japanese militarism, it was with the unshakeable conviction that Judeo-Christian culture was superior to these throwbacks to the Dark Ages. Those who would defend civilization must first acknowledge that it is preferable to the alternative.

    6. Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by pkesel · · Score: 1

      What a nut. If you had no belief system or beliefs you would have nothing to say. Your atheism and your opinions regarding religion are beliefs.

      Frankly, I concur that all religion is false. I don't believe it is wrong until it puts itself above the rights of others.

      You can be considered a dangerous poster because your arguments are unclear and inflamatory. When you start bashing religion you had better be very precise about what you say and be very complete in your support.

      Go think a while longer before you start bringing this up in public. Get it all together and come back. I'll probably support you when you make complete sense.

      --
      - Sig this!
  495. Re:A message to all Muslims on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslims are our enemy. They are the enemy of all free men. Destroy them before they destroy us.

  496. Shit, even General Motors found a way to benefit by Wesley+Everest · · Score: 1

    What do you mean "no one has tried to benefit by it"? Everyone is cashing in. All sorts of companies are milking people's patriotism in ads asking people to help America unite by buying their product. Bush is using his new-found popularity to ram through all sorts of policies that wouldn't fly when people were looking. Russia is using the attack as an excuse to step up attacks on their enemies. China put out a statement trying to link their fight against Tibetan dissidents to the U.S. fight against terrorism. Many companies announced layoffs immediately after the attack, either to cash in on government hand-outs or just taking advantage of the fact that few would question anything blamed on the attacks.

    Bin Laden hasn't claimed responsibility for it, but amongst his own people, he's taking credit for it. But it sounds like "credit" wasn't the biggest priority. Assuming it was Bin Laden that did it, the motivation appears to be achieving two main goals.

    1) Showing that it is possible to hurt the U.S. If a big bully is causing trouble in your neighborhood, even a symbolic attack on the bully can embolden the neighborhood.

    2) Everyone knows that if you hit the U.S., the U.S. responds with an embarrassingly over-the-top military response. And just as the attack on the U.S. united many people who previously hated each others' guts and drew people farther to the right, American cruise missiles blowing up muslims is sure to bring muslims together and strengthen the fundamentalists.

    It's an age-old trick -- provoke an attack on your own people, and then step up as the only leader strong enough to lead. The Nazis did it with the Reichstag fire, Saddam Hussein did it to maintain power in Iraq, etc. It works. And one nice thing about the trick is that when you do it, it often has the effect of creating a symbiotic relationship with the extreme elements of your enemy. That was how the Cold War worked and it's the strategy for the extreme minority factions within the Palestinians and Israelis.

  497. I'm Sure Anne Frank Would disagree with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a dutch left-winger, who cares what you think? I've got an idea--go to any person older than 70 in your town that was there during WWII, and ask them if they think that handwringing and whining did them any good when the Nazis came---

  498. CNN by psycho_driver · · Score: 1

    First thing I thought of when CNN flashed "America Strikes Back!" on the screen was The Empire Strikes Back.

    The next thing I thought was "Uh oh, we're the Empire." . . .

  499. The U.K. *Is* The U.S.'s Best Friend by Ferd+Lamarche · · Score: 1

    Hey, I'm a Canadian, too, but I think the parent poster is right. The UK is a much better friend. Where's Chrétien? What's he doing? Is he pledging the same kind of support as Mr. Blair? Is he rallying our military? No!

    I don't want to hear any of my fellow Canucks whining about this. If we want to be internationally recognized, we have to work get that recognition. Bush isn't going to say "Canada r00lz" just because we're his neighbour!

    Don't let Chrétien have a fourth term in office. This third term is bad enough. Vote Conservative or Alliance (or whoever has the best chance) and kick the bum out. I especially hope a new prime minister will ditch that left-wing hippie bitch of a governer-general Adrienne Clarkson. She sucks! Oh, and the plural of "governer-general" is governer-generals, not "governers-general". She doesn't govern shit!

    Anyway, I digress. UKians everywhere, I salute you and your prime minister! You must be proud! You're also really kind and helpful. I was having a bit of trouble with the London Underground when I visited your country a while back, and you helped me out. Thank you, UK!

    1. Re:The U.K. *Is* The U.S.'s Best Friend by Tsian · · Score: 1

      Umm... did you just say vote *alliance*... the party that perfectly emulates Canada by having a faction that wants to seperate. please.

      As for Chretien, he was being level headed... as in not charging in without information (unlike the US, who has deposed so many governments for no reason other than they wanted better oil prices...)

  500. Bin Laden's guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a videotape of a statement by Bin Laden shown on all the network news shows in which he all but takes credit for the Sep 11 attacks.

    All the people here that are demanding proof are either disingenuous or clueless.

    I have a question for those who keep mentioning Palestine: what was wrong with Barak's deal for joint control of Jerusalem? (unlike most questions here, this is not a rhetorical question).

  501. How about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I set up a little camp in my back yard and train people to kill and make war, make a video tape threatening to kill another country's people, claim responsiblity on 3 separate terrost attacks and have obvious ties with a 4th one and show clear knowledge of it before hand with no diplomatic interface, and finally expect that the FBI will not show up to arrest me;rather I am their guest.

  502. Leave it to The Onion by einhverfr · · Score: 2

    to give us the real insight here.

    I especially liked the quote from your second reference:
    "This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

    Well said, but then the Onion has often been pretty good about humorously giving us great insight.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  503. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by sh_mmer · · Score: 1

    First, let me say that I agree to a large extent with your reasoning, and I was certainly against the sort of U.S. "retaliation" that I expected in the following week or so. However, at this point, I believe military action is not as futile as you think, and I support the current U.S. military actions.

    your points (1) - (3) were certainly objectives of Osama Bin Laden. To this extent, nothing the U.S. can do nothing to revoke that success.

    Your point (4) is also correct. Certainly Bin Laden would use a cruel U.S. retaliation to build support, and to this extent, the U.S. should do what it can to prevent this from happening.

    However, Bin Laden would also profit in other ways from a lack of a decisive response. First of all, he would have a much greater chance of surviving. Beyond that, if it is perceived that the U.S. is powerless to defend itself, that the U.S. people and military are cowards, that there is no justice in the world, then terrorists will correctly perceive that they have free reign in the world.

    That may be overstating the case, but there has to be the idea of justice, even if the capture of one man does not make up for the recent tragedy. And I am confident that the U.S. can make its case to a pretty broad audience that this is a fight for justice.

    Also, I have read other posts of yours where you compare the war on terrorism to the war on drugs. While I completely agree with your ideas about the war on drugs (supply-side dosen't work and has horrible consequences), I don't think the analogy is a good one. In fact, I don't even know how to complete the analogy. I suppose it means "instead of fighting terrorists, just don't piss people off." Is this your idea? please clarify.

    --
    Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
  504. Afghanistan contributes a LOT to the world by Steeplerot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    75% of the worlds opium. I guess the smack street prices are getting kinda high for the CIA to profit much. Oh well fuck it bomb them. And watch herion become WAY more popular with the youth now that we'll have such convient access.
    Makes me all warm inside. Think it's time to take a shot soon and watch CNN and not care ahhh america I sure love being a shining beacon of freedom.

    --
    Vaughn "Its always darkest before it goes pitch black."
  505. Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love is all you need
    Just try it.

  506. Re:Kill All Muslims--even US citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm with you, brother. I hate them too.

  507. It does not matter, the support was provided by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    Did Hitler claim he was a christian?

    Yes, he died a Roman Catholic in good standing, although the reality seems to be that his beliefs tended more towards witchcraft, you know, Black Mass and that kind of thing? Also, he was a staunch supporter of Eugenics, the science of culling ``unworthy'' human beings, which is inconsistent with a Christian, even Catholic (in most cases, infidels being the obvious exception) viewpoint, but in line with Atheism.

    The issue being alluded to is that the Roman Catholic Church provided extensive support to the Nazis in a variety of forms (such as information, 5th columnists, social support, rent-a-crowd, even priests machine-gunning Orthodox opponents ``right down to the cradle''). Whether Hitler was - officially and/or unofficially - Christian is irrelevant.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  508. Rites? by mgblst · · Score: 1

    Do we have the rite to see the evidence against Osama Bin Laden?

    Or have i missed something?

  509. Kill the Taliban, then rebuild Afghanistan by Von+Rex · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I live in fear of German and Japanese terrorists every day. Don't you?

    First, destroy the Taliban. Then, use our resources to rebuild Afghanistan into a civilized country. Give the next generation of Afghans hope for the future and you won't see nearly as much terror.

    The worst thing you could do is "turn the other cheek", because that would simply prove that you kill Americans at will and get away with it. You've seen sharks with blood in the water? That's the situation we've live under.

    Here's a link for anyone who doubts the nature of the enemy:

    Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) gallery of Taliban atrocities

    The world will be a better place for all when the Taliban leaders are dead, just as the world was a better place after Nuremberg.

  510. Re:It is time for you to realize by ariux · · Score: 1

    Well, these attacks were so big that they weren't just a crime - they were an act of war.

    I'd say the line lies between three and four figures of victims.

    There are international laws of war, but they are rather looser than the ones about crime.

  511. Hitler only persecuted RCC when they abandoned him by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    Hitler persecuted the catholic faith and it's poitical infrastructure in germany to the degree he could get away with.

    Yes, but only in very limited degree, and only after the RCC had concluded that he was not going to win, and quietly dumped him. They withdrew their support carefully so as not to offend their adherents within the Riech, and so were able to play both sides of the argument right up to the last day.

    No one faith or group of people are safe from any amount of power and the will to use it.

    Too true. As I suggested below (-: you are the same AC, aren't you? :-) go and live in Mexico for a year. If you are a masochist or simply an adventuresome spirit, pose as an Evangelical Protestant.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  512. Worlds leading Software maker...Doh! LOL by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    Oh doh! Not spos'ed to say that here.

  513. Re:Check your facts (was:To those screaming, "peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont think you got this yet, the mujaheedins are the talibans and Osama Bin Laden... He was trained himself and was a leader and a warhero in Afghanistan...

    Thought, I can exuse you for your stupidity, youre
    after all an american.

    Damn, I cant belive how stupid americans are. With
    an average iq of 100 and a 270 million population,
    america must be the stupiest country in the world.

  514. A message for America and Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn about how the Muslims are planning to destroy us. Jack Chick has put together a fascinating illustrated glimpse into the dark Sewers of Islam. Learn the truth about the Muslim worship of their Moon God and the idolatry of Baal. This is a must read for all good people.

  515. Quit Crying about Innocent Civilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't noticed in the 4,000+ years of recorded history, never--and I repeat, NEVER--has a political power been forced to its knees by the loss of life in their armies. Unfortunately, armies are gathered together for one primary purpose above all others -- to DIE. Hence, the jokes about the army being "bullet sponges".

    Think back to WWII--it wasn't until the US nuked Japan (and remember, we hit civilian cities, not specific military targets) that the war was brought to an end.

    The Romans would ransack, rape and pilliage the commoners who lived in the areas they conquered, and the Mongols were very similar.

    Political powers expect their armies to die. It's when the civilians are involved in action and killed or wounded by the military actions that they rise up against their leaders and take control. Or they run to the other side.

    The Afgan people are not our enemies, but they are aware that their leaders are. If they don't have the good sense or sense of self-preservation to grab what they can and leave, well, it's not like we didn't warn them. The U.S. will NOT target specific civillian targets, but we can't be afraid of some casualties from the civilian ranks.

    (I know I'll get flamed for this, but I just had to get my 2 cents in here)

  516. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People still dying today in Vietnam from your napalm and nuclear weapons."

    WHAT nuclear weapons?

    You mean the only two nuclear weapons ever detonated (not counting tests out in the desert or ocean)? The ones detonated in JAPAN?

    1. Re:Huh? by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      The statement was related to the two previous points: I was speaking first of Hiroshima/Nagazaki, then of Vietnam, and said that people are still dying today from nuclear weapons (in Japan) and napalm (in Vietnam)

  517. Pre 9/11 events leading up to ... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Roomer Busting site

    I leave it up to the reader to read the following articles and put the pieces together for themselves to see the action/reaction balance going on.

    US Koran site

    CIA report (note religion percentage)

    Muslim culture (outside Afganistan):site 1
    site 2

    Trillion Dollar bet

    Problems caused by trillion dollar bet:

    abcnews may 98

    cnn may 98

    Bigger than the Trillion Dollar BET - x3?

    Current 2 year US stock market link comparing the DOW with the S&P and most important the NASDAQ. You can tell where the money went and also know what the dot coms were all about.
    finance.yahoo.com graph

    National Security Agency total system crash finally reported August 29th 2001

    Losing freedoms:SSSCA

  518. take off every zig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what you doing. Move zig.

  519. Re:bin laudin's bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi. I'm bin laudin.
    I'm fucking you up the ass.
    Will you stop me, or will you bend over and take it?

  520. Re:Kill All Muslims--even US citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can anyone say Hitler? Here is a better idea - go kill YOURSELF

  521. Great post by Von+Rex · · Score: 2

    Excellent post. Somebody mod this guy up to 5.

    Anybody who claims that historical issues have never been solved by violence simply hasn't read a god damn thing about history.

  522. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by grepMeister · · Score: 1
    If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.

    I agree that elements of the reaction are about as kneejerk as some of the more (IMHO) reprehensible hard-right reactions I've heard expressed, and I agree that military force is often necessary to preserve our own interests (though the "interests" are very often economic--e.g. Cuba and other Latin American communists, and to an extent perhaps the entire Cold War--and sometimes even something entirely different and baffling--I still can't explain the campaign against Kosovo). But "just vote" is offered up all too often as the solution. This is not viable.

    The general public is entirely convinced that they can only vote for one of two parties, so any real change is impossible. Meanwhile, the Republicans and Democrats beat back and forth uninteresting and irrelevant economic issues like tax cuts and budget reform (tax cuts, after all, are most significant to the wealthy, and only hurt any social services which might by some miracle resurface in the United States; balancing the budget has a similar effect; most people really only make an attempt to care about either during an election, and only then because that's all anyone talks about), and mostly get elected because of tradition and religious/social positions. It is, as they say, a "two-party system", and if you take a look at how little happens within that system, you may have pretty good reason for calling it, as Chomsky claims, a one-party system.

    He's quite the embellisher, and ostensibly very angry, but one must appreciate his ability to see the larger issues, whether or not you believe those larger issues exist, and there's no reason not to take his stance on the sanctions on Iraq.

    Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction.

    That aid "may not reach the people" or is politically unpalatable does not seem to be relevant in the case of Afghanistan which has become so high-profile in recent American PR, and that the United States is not at least partly responsible for the suffering in Iraq by denying aid is hardly questionable.

    At any rate, I think the best thing to glean from this post is that American promotion of their own interests is often highly detrimental to the rest of the world, which is a pattern we can put quite a bit of faith in having occurred throughout history, but not one we wouldn't like to change.

    You lose or we win...

  523. interesting quote by unger · · Score: 0

    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    --Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering

    1. Re:interesting quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a big fan of Hitler. If only he were alive he would make those ragheads squeal like stuck pigs. We would holocaust their asses so fast that smoke would be coming out their assholes.

    2. Re:interesting quote by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Well, when you goto hell, you can chat with him.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  524. You stupid cunt by NineNine · · Score: 1

    The US and GB told the Taliban what they had to do. They didn't agree to ONE thing that the US and GB demanded. Read the news, you stupid bastard.

  525. Re:Kill All Muslims--even US citizens by biggles69 · · Score: 1
    I am afraid you missed the point a little. So long as Muslim Americans are willing to pledge allegiance to the USA first rather than Islam they are not a threat. So long as they do not attempt to practice PURE Islam they are not a threat.

    It is only the most ignorant and uneducated people who can be sucked in by the most extreme practice and interpretation of Islam and these people are a very real threat.

    In it's most pure form Islam is no different to Nazism. It tolerates no opposition. No dissent. No difference. But it would have been foolish to suggest we had to kill all Germans! (and don't get too hung up on the goodness of Christianity because it has less than a perfect track record)

    Suggesting that we kill all Muslims makes you no better than the terrorists or the Nazis. It also denies the freedom of choice we value in the west, which is the very thing they hate us for. As for a religious war. That sort of talk is exactly like our current enemy. This is a war to defend freedom against oppression and is no different to WWII

    Further, those who argue that the terrorist problem is not about religion but economics and poverty are fools or liars. South America is rife with poverty but you don't see thousands of people from there training to become terrorists. It is an ISLAMIC problem and the only people who can truly solve it are Muslims.

    This: http//www.secularislam.org/call.htm is the link to the site in my original post. You will have to cut and paste because I don't know how to make it work properly inside the post.

    "The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine into it, the more it shrinks."

  526. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by get_mahim · · Score: 1

    What I feel most bewildering about this whole issue is the good versus evil slant that Americans put into this. I believe America, and indeed every nation, has the perfect right to do what is in it's long-term interests, including bombing nations who pose a severe threat to that nations security. However, this argument holds about the other side as well, so it gives the Afghans the complete freedom to do whatever they can in retaliation, if they feel the bombings are unjustified. And please stop saying America always has "good" in it's heart, and that even it's "mistakes" are justified by it's basically benevolent intenstions. What standards of good are we talking about? What gives America the right to define them? When a terrorist crashes a plane into a building, I am sure he is perfectly certain that whatever he is doing is for some good or the other. And American actions haven't been consistent, either, on whatever scale of goodness it has. Iraq faces sanctions for oppressing the kurds. Doesn't Turkey do the same? But it's ok for them, since they are a NATO member and a staging fround for American forces. Why is Libya an international pariah? Because 2 Libyans allegedly bombed an American airliner? What about the Iranian airliner that an American warship shot down over the Persian Gulf? Pakistan faced sanctions for a military coup? They had their most cozy relationship with the US when General Zia ruled with an iron hand in the 80s. Ferdinand Marcos was a CIA favorite too, wasn't he? And I won't even mention Israel, and "mistakes" like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, etc, etc. It was also amusing to note that Def. Secy. Rumsfeld, in a press interview after the attacks, mentioned "man-mobile SAMs" as the biggest threats to American aircraft over Vietnam. For those who don't know, these are shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that the Mujahiddeen were given in the thousands. By the US.

  527. Sick and Tired by Screaming+Lunatic · · Score: 1

    I'm sick and tired of the moderators calling anyone who mentions the word peace a troll. I agree, some of them are trolls just trying to start bickering. But I would really like to know what criteria has been set out to label posters as being trolls.

    1. Re:Sick and Tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should tie you to a fence post and wale on you till you beg for a mercy that will never come. You yellow cowards make me sick.

    2. Re:Sick and Tired by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      Moderation must be under review again. I do not understand how I can post tons of useful information (links) to support my theories and not get a single point, while people who call me a commie wacko liar conspiracy theorist (while not even checking the links which prove my point) get mod points?

      I also saw someone who was expressing genuine concern in NY about Pentagon saying there was 100% chance we would get attacked again, got modded as a troll.

      pretty odd if you ask me.

    3. Re:Sick and Tired by Screaming+Lunatic · · Score: 1

      I understand that you are angry. You may have lost someone close to you in the terrorist attacks. You may have lost your sense of security. All I would like to say is that if these attacks took place to increase the level of security then they may be justified. But if the motivation is purely revenge, that makes me sick. Bush thumps the bible every time he makes a national address. I believe the bible has a few words to say about revenge. I just wish Bush wouldn't paraphrase the parts that he sees fit. Secondly, it is ironic that an anonymous poster is calling me a coward. Thirdly, one of the best quotes I have come across that sums up this situation is: "An eye for an eye is making us blind". Would someone like to step back and explain to me what the goals of these actions are. And how these goals will actually be accomplished by bombing the crater known as Afghanistan.

    4. Re:Sick and Tired by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      No kidding. This /. moderation system isn't a way to "fairly" rate posts. It's just another method for retaliation, rating purely based on that particular moderator's point of view, etc.

      I think a better way should be devised, although I myself am bedazzled as to how to do it effectively.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
  528. evil must be opposed by darrellr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    50 million people died during WW2. I believe that had Nazi Germany been attacked sooner, before it's military and economy built up, total casualties would have been an order-of-magnitude lower.

    I was in the military during the Gulf War (although my unit was not sent). SadaamH has used chemical weapons against his own civilian population. Imagine how much damage he might have caused by now had he gained Kuwait's oil fields and been able to sell oil for $$ for the past 10 years (his oil sales have been limited due to economic sanctions since the war). Although our victory in that war was not total (mostly due to concessions we made to our allies whose bases we needed), the US and our allies performed a service to the world by containing evil (nerve-gassing his own civilians) before it grew too strong. As a soldier I'm proud to have been in the military during that fight.

    Once again the US is faced with evil. People who murder 6000 civilians for their own political purposes. Do you have any doubt that Osama would use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons if he had them? Fight evil now, or fight stronger evil later. Will we take casualties? Yes. Will there be civilian casualties? Yes.

    But fighting now is an imperative.

    1. Re:evil must be opposed by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      "People who murder 6000 civilians for their own political purposes."

      well, religious purposes, not political. but who knows, maybe their "hidden agenda" *is* political.

      *shrug*

      ...just nitpicking. :o)

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    2. Re:evil must be opposed by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      well, religious purposes, not political. but who knows, maybe their "hidden agenda" *is* political.

      Since the goal of these groups is establishment of radical Islamic states, religion and politics are the same thing. And the agenda is NOT hidden.

      What people should consider is how the goals of the foundation of radical Islamic state parallel those of Fundamentalist Chistians in the US who want to establish a Christian Government.

      It should bring you up short when you consider exactly what people like Falwell and Robertson want.

  529. Bush's Remarks by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    In his reamrks bush said a very critical thing--- Release of foreign nationals unjustly detained by taliban. My question is,under the present international legal frame work whenever such disagreements arise,what is the procedure for resolving them? troll:Does Dmitriy Skharov qulaify as an unjustly detained foreign national?

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  530. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by get_mahim · · Score: 1

    I meant US planes over Afghanistan.

  531. Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    We do this in other countries all over the world, spilled the blood of the people of those countries (mostly innocent), in numbers greater than those on September 11th

    What is the altenative? To let tyanny rule the world?

    The fact is that if the US wee to pull in it's hons and leave the rest of the world to it's own devices Europe would be part of the Soviet Union right now.

    Sure, we have made mistakes. But has the result oveall been to the good or not???

  532. OK, Mr High Horse, Tell'm that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when they are coming to kill you--I'm sure they'll be MOST impressed with your political correctness as they shoot you/crash the plane/spray nerve gas/spread anthrax/blow up your lunch cafe/stab you becuase you're an American. Get some cojones, it's us or them--

    1. Re:OK, Mr High Horse, Tell'm that by biggles69 · · Score: 1

      Firstly. I do not suffer from the mental illness of political correctness. I am just trying to use reason, unlike the fanatical scum who murder innocent people for a free ride to paradise and 72 virgin brides.

      Secondly. I am not American but an Aussie.

      Finally. If all Muslims decide to join some sort of sick holy war against freedom (the west) then I would be one of the first to say 'nuke them all'. If Muslims living in western nations take up arms against us I would want them rounded up and any guilty of terrorist acts killed and the rest deported to the middle east on old oil tankers. But killing them for simply being Muslim is not acceptable if they do not pose a threat.

      I just hope there are enough rational and intelligent Muslims out who are willing and able to exert influence over their less educated brothers and sisters, that we won't have to do that sort of thing.

      Muslims have to take a bloody good look at the philosophy of Islam/the Qur'an and it's relevance to the modern world, stop trying to blame everyone else for it's problems and take responsibility for itself.

    2. Re:OK, Mr High Horse, Tell'm that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate, get yourself a schooner of Vic and shut the fuck up.

  533. Alright then... by Danse · · Score: 2

    If that's the way it boils down, and our leaders know it, when are they gonna knock off all the bullshit rhetoric about how this was a totally unprovoked and unjustified attack on the US. It's really making me sick. Why don't they just come out and admit that we do whatever the fuck we want, and these guys have a problem with that, so we've got to kick their asses until they realize that they shouldn't fuck with us anymore?? When they gonna fucking be honest about it?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  534. Re:Lesson 1: How not to make the world a better pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will build them back up after the war. Until then, any child found playing with a Western toy would likely be burned alive by crowds of Taliban police. Any woman found giving western medicine to her baby would likely end up with her head on a stick.

    The Marshall plan worked because the Nazis were defeated and no longer around. Once the Taliban is gone we can work on rebuilding them.

  535. Can you say "brainwashed'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey kid, here's some more propaganda for ya, you're doing a great job

  536. Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by Chuck+Messenger · · Score: 1

    I always find it ironic to read great volumes of strident anti-market, anti-liberal, anti-freedom, anti-Western, anti-globalisation, etc., commentary on a high-tech forum such as Slashdot. The phrase "biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. I think it's because such forums are greatly over-represented by young people (old people like me mostly don't have the time/inclination). Young people simply haven't learned about the hard ways of the Real World. They really have no conception of the hard sacrifices which have been made by generations before them, on their behalf, to give them the world they now so blithely enjoy. And would so recklessly squander (if they had any real power). Luckily, they tend to get real as they grow more experienced. That's why our system continues to work.

    1. Re:Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by catseye_95051 · · Score: 2

      Hey!!!

      As a moderate socialist I RESENT the sugegstion that Slashdot represents socialist views.

      The children here frustrate me as much as you.

      I'd suggest you read a bit on what Socialism really is. Thsi isn't the cold-war anymore and you don't have to hate it just because its connected to our msot powerful rival. (Who, btwm, wre communists mreo then they were socialists and even their band of communism was tainted and wrong. Marx hismelf predicted the fall of the USSR because he said that COmmuniosm could happen correctly only AFTER a capitalistr phase.)

      You're never to old to widen your world-view and learn somethign new :)

    2. Re:Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Socialism can only exist in an ideal world. This, unfortunatly, is not anywhere near an ideal world. As long as there is a position that has more benefits one way or another, socialism will not and cannot prosper.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    3. Re:Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that too. Too many young people with dream-like ideals and socialist tendencies (*cough*mp3s*cough). But nevermind I won't get into that since it would be totally off-topic.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    4. Re:Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by Chuck+Messenger · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned Socialism. But now that you brought it up...

      There are all sorts of -isms, most of them being anti-thetical to free choice in one way or another. Give people freedom to choose, and they create a market economy on their own volition.

      Of course, it's also the case that in any democracy, there will be a majority which is in favor of helping themselves to some of the wealth of the rich minority. That's what Socialism is about, I'd say. So some degree of Socialism is inevitable, and even desirable (in that democracy is desirable). The big political arguments center around finding the right balance.

      Still, the Good Stuff (high tech, etc) comes from free market economics, not from Socialism (e.g. government research). (Again, except in that free choice is only possible in a democracy, and a democracy is only possible with Socialism.)

      (This leads into the argument by the Socialist crowd about how the Moon program supposedly gave rise to the computer industry. And how the govt (if not Al Gore) created the Internet. Etc. All pretty lame arguments. Free and vigorous competition, backed by property rights and large dollops of capital is what creates and drives high tech. The new twist is Open Source. I don't have a good way to categorize that yet -- it's a brand-new phenomenon, which I'm still trying to come to grips with. It's not Socialism, which is about redistribution of wealth. So what is it? Something new.)

  537. Slashdot US-Centric...read the faq. by Vermifax · · Score: 1

    From the Faq:

    Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
    Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

    --

    Vermifax

    Logout
  538. TV News Babes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the coming weeks, you will be seeing a log of pretty, pert, young (and not so young) news babes. It's hard to keep track of who's who without a scorecard. For your TV viewing enjoyment here is that scorecard. Happy viewing!

  539. Re: War, alway a mistake.... by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1
    >I gotta disagree here. There is a time when force is neccesary. There is a time when killing innocent civilians in neccesary. There are not, "ALWAYS" other options.


    That is seldom true and I don't believe it true in these circumstances.


    >Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?

    That's giving up, giving in. It just leads to another round.


    >There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?


    You are not quite right here. The Taliban has continued to offer to negotiate. It is Bush who has been obdurate. Like the Taliban, we should remember that there is, as yet, no public evidence to link Bin Ladin to these events. Given that he is an Afghani resident and maintains his innocence to the Afghani govt. (the Taleban) it would not be reasonable to 'hand him over' to another country without evidence being produced. I mean, do you think that Bin Ladin could get a fair trial in America?


    The way to handle this better might have been to make war on Afghan problems not Afghanis. Start at the Pakistani border, just build new towns, farms, roads, schools, hospitals, the infrastructure they need and let 'wealth' do the invading. Sure it is slow. But is less costly in lives and would gain America immense respect in the eyes of the entire world, particularly Muslim countries. Bin Ladin would be isolated and eventully picked up. Undetermine his power base. Instead of ten years of war, a ten year Marshall Plan. Spread a little good...

    --

    Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

  540. Cutting off oil by tenordave · · Score: 1

    Haha, I'd tend to agree, but it would take quite some time for the planet to get back in shape concerning power distribution, alternate power methods, and transportation...other than a lot of lost time (which shouldn't have been lost, we should have converted long ago...), no harm done.

    --
    http://students.washington.edu/djwatson
  541. War profiteering -- NOT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The problem with the leftist critique of the arms industry is that, knowing nothing of business, they throw around numbers in ways that are intended to impress people:
    "In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."
    Ohh, wow! That's sooo much money!!!

    Wait, that's $4.2B/year on average. "Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable" ??? That's peanuts!

    Put the numbers in context: American consumers spent $6.7T last year. We're a nation that spends $4.5B/year on movie tickets! Or $3.9B/year on taxi fares. We spend $47B/year on shoes, for god's sake! And $34B/year on personal computers. [Source: Dept of Commerce. Very interesting reading!]

    Anyone who wants to make an obscene profit wouldn't sell weapons; he'd sell, I dunno, software. ;-)

    1. Re: War profiteering -- NOT. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


      AC, you are missing the point. The U.S. weapons makers sell weapons to both sides. The U.S. weapons makers sell weapons to both the U.S. government and to the other side of many conflicts. The U.S. government itself always pays far more. If a poor country has a billion dollars of weapons, the U.S. government fights with 10 billion dollars, or a hundred.

      The selling to both sides is about money. It is similar to the situation where Robert Moses paid billions of dollars to destroy New York city neighborhoods. Sometimes rich people support powerful politicians because it is profitable, even though it is destructive to their country.

      The U.S. weapons makers sell weapons to both the Israelis and Arabs. Somebody posted a message earlier saying that U.S. weapons makers were still selling weapons to Saddam Hussein during the buildup for the Gulf War between the U.S. government and Iraq.

      This is a lot bigger than you seem to realize. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you pay your share of $3.2 billion to Israel every year so that Israel can buy weapons made in the United States. Then you pay so that the U.S. government will be able to fight conflicts due to political instabilities in the region.

      Everything I've said is meant to be conservative. Most people don't realize how many people have been killed by the U.S. government, so I added links to the number of people killed in three countries to the article, What should be the Response to Violence? Search on "Vietnam". The numbers are greater than I said earlier, because I was not counting all the countries, or deaths due to Agent Orange, or other civilian deaths.

      The article is just a part-time, unpaid effort. I will try to post more links to sources for weapons expenditures later. For now, here is just one: See the Oct. 6, 2001 Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service article by Paul Richter, Stingers old but could pose threat. "Stingers" are very expensive missiles made in the United States. The Taliban has them.

      --
      Bush's education improvements were
  542. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by melquiades · · Score: 2
    That may be overstating the case, but there has to be the idea of justice, even if the capture of one man does not make up for the recent tragedy.

    I absolutely agree that there needs to be justice. It seems fairly likely that bin Laden is guilty; he should be captured and locked away to rot, and the use of force is justified in that mission -- but only force that will actually accomplish it. I just don't think that air strikes are likely to "smoke him out", as Rumsfeld put it. I do, however, think that they're at least as likely to kill innocent people as kill terrorists. I guess I don't have a lot of confidence that the US's military response will be truly just, if only because of past precedent.

    If it is perceived that the U.S. is powerless to defend itself, that the U.S. people and military are cowards, that there is no justice in the world, then terrorists will correctly perceive that they have free reign in the world.

    Very true. I would be more supportive of the current strikes if I thought that they had a good chance of making the terrorists hurt in any serious way, or cause them more pain than benefit.

    You compare the war on terrorism to the war on drugs....I don't think the analogy is a good one....I suppose it means "instead of fighting terrorists, just don't piss people off." Is this your idea? please clarify.

    Not really -- more like "fight terrorism by not pissing people off, for starters." Here's how I'd complete the analogy:
    • These are difficult, perhaps intractible, problems, and real solutions are very hard to come up with.
    • Given that, our first directive should be to at least not take action which makes the situation worse.
    • Thus, the primary criterion for any military action should be that it is perceived as just by the whole world, and does not kill innocents. The US has done much more on this front in the last few weeks than I'd expected, but I am still skeptical, since we've failed so miserably on this in the past. Previous pinpoint bombing turned out to actually kill a lot of civilians; nobody's managed to convince me that bombings can really be "pinpoint". Let's see what the casualties from today are like...maybe I'll change my mind.
    • Though we certainly can't let them off the hook ... no way in hell! ... destroying terrorist organizations is not an effective long-term solution. We need to look beyond immediate punishment to large-scale fixes. Establishing just foreign policy and curbing the CIA's destructive mucking abroad (e.g. creating bin Laden in the first place) would be a start. And no, I'm not a genius, and I have no definitive answer on what such fixes would be. But we should be searching for these answers with the same zeal and resources we put into the military operations.

      The search for these causal solutions should be a national priority. It should involve the finest minds in the world, it should receive funding, it should receive open and probing public debate ... and it should not be crimped by nationalist arrogance. None of this is happening right now.

  543. WHAT?!?! Flamebait?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  544. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by delong · · Score: 1

    Why is it hardly questionable that we are partly responsible for Iraqi suffering? It is HIGHLY questionable. The *UN* sanctions are a result of Iraqi aggression. The Hussein regime is fully responsible for the imposition of the sanctions, and is fully responsible for their retraction. The UN set very clear guidelines for lifting of sanctions. The regime has adamantly REFUSED to abide by the terms of surrender, and abide by the terms which would lift sanctions. To say that America is responsible for the intransigence of Saddam Hussein is reprehensible at best.

    It is even more reprehensible that anyone claim Americans are responsible for the death of Iraqi citizens, because the Iraqi regime chooses to spend its UN allowed oil sales profits to build palaces and rebuild its air defenses rather than buy food and medicine. Why is no one holding the Iraqi regime responsible for their criminal neglect? Especially when it is OBSCENELY CLEAR (http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801. html) that the provisions for food and medicine purchase from oil sales is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT to provide for Iraqi needs.

    Derek

  545. Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
    Anti-war marches wouldn't have stopped WWII. But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict.

    You mean, were we not human. We are by our natures a violent species. Observe children--the most natural of men. Observe savages. We are a brutal, bloodthirsty species. I have no doubt that the first tools we fashioned were clubs to kill our fellows. Just look at chimpanzees.

    It is religion which civilises us, which encultures us, which teaches us that just maybe slaying our neighbour is not the best of ideas. It is civilisation which codifies and restricts murder to the few.

    Financing and arming are no more than eating and fashioning tools. They are what we excel at. War is the great shame of our race--but we can no more avoid it than can the Earth reverse in her course. All we can do is to try to minimise its likelihood, make it unprofitable and otherwise attempt to avoid it. But make no mistake: their will be war as long as there are men upon the earth.

    That's why we need a military. That's why we need, sometimes, to fight and to kill. Because if we don't, the other guy will. The pacifist's dream--that if we don't, the other guy won't--is just that: a dream. It's a noble dream, but a dream nonetheless.

    1. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "It is religion which civilises us, which encultures us, which teaches us that just maybe slaying our neighbour is not the best of ideas. It is civilisation which codifies and restricts murder to the few."

      You were kidding with this comment right? Religion is to divide people. To put people into two categories; us (the chosen ones) and them (heathens). With the possible exception of budhism all religions have a word meaning "not us".

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by cburley · · Score: 1
      Religion is to divide people.

      I realize you might well be thoroughly indoctrinated into the atheist, religion-hating point of view, but for those who might yet be sitting on the fence...

      ...religion is fundamentally about uniting people -- people who would, naturally, consider themselves, their families, and perhaps their tribe as "us" and everyone else as "them", regardless of the consequences, absent any modern sense of "teaching" or "preaching".

      Religion generally teaches that there is a conscious presence unperceived by the five human senses that somehow guards and guides people to treat each other -- regardless of tribe, race, gender, and so on -- better than they otherwise might think necessary.

      Sure, people distort religion to make it tribal, racist, sexist, but those people are acting out of their own base human instincts, either their own beliefs, or manipulating the base instincts of others to obtain power for themselves.

      And, of course, people acting on base instincts of thinking in terms of "us vs. them" look to their religious training to justify, rather than rebuke, those instincts. Do those instincts take the blame? No; religion generally does, even though atheism in its similarly generalized forms probably murdered more innocents in the 20th Century alone than did all religions in the first 20 centuries put together.

      Even atheism, as a teaching, is much like religion in that it is a civilizing tool. While I'm unaware of any fundamentals of atheism that approach the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule, in terms of teaching adherents to treat others well regardless of their genetic, cultural, or intellectual ancestry, the mere act of trying to convince someone else that they are foolish to believe in one God or many gods is, itself, an act of faith, hence a sort of religion.

      (That is, it's an act of faith that there's actually another "mind" being preached to, that the other "mind" might convert to atheism in this case, and that such a conversion would be a thing worth pursuing, despite no objective evidence whatsoever that any of these things are true. And by "objective evidence" I mean the sort of evidence atheists themselves would accept if it supported the belief in the existence of one God.)

      In that sense, I see people who blame religion for violence as just as religious as myself, even though they are trying to differentiate me from them, because they are demonstrating a faith that, somehow, because of their repeating such claims, they're going to make the world a better place in their eyes, by either enlightening me, or by succeeding in getting me punished by others whom their words enlighten. (I'm unimpressed by arguments they might make that they don't really care -- taking time to post, even to speak, is a form of caring for one's fellow man, IMO. After all, in my experience, atheists treat even the preaching, i.e. speaking, of religious beliefs as an affront to their own belief systems -- why else did "Malcontent" post here, after all, except in response to mere opinion?)

      So, while certain religions (e.g. strains of atheism, collectivism) try to distance themselves from other religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) by calling them "religious", preaching hatred and ridicule of their adherents in an "us vs. them", divisive fashion, and so on, they're all part of the overall tapestry called "civilization".

      True, most religions, strictly speaking, "divide" people. That's necessary for any body of teaching to survive, I believe; else, how are the teachers of the body to be chosen out of the new generation? Without any distinction made between those who can teach the body of teaching well and those who can't, the body itself would surely die, especially in the presence of difficulties challenging the population to be educated.

      But not all religions, by any means, teach the next thing implied by the poster, that "us" are good and "them" are bad, to be attacked, etc. Many Christian strains do not teach that, for example -- after all, Christ Jesus' own teachings are pretty clear on how to deal with one's "enemy", which is the most extreme way to describe someone who disagrees with one's views, and it doesn't involve attacking them in the least.

      In that sense, while it might be the case that a true, pure Christian wouldn't commit violence to defend himself or anyone else, it isn't hard to see why many who value the teachings of Christianity -- or Islam, Judaism, etc. -- and who might follow them imperfectly, might choose to commit violence, even extreme violence, to defend those belief systems, or, more specifically, their vessels -- citizens and the societies they form that are better examples of those idealized ways of life than are those who would wipe them out.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    3. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by aprentic · · Score: 1

      You mean, were we not human. We are by our natures a violent species. Observe children--the most natural of men. Observe savages. We are a brutal, bloodthirsty species. I have no doubt that the first tools we fashioned were clubs to kill our fellows. Just look at chimpanzees.
      While it is tempting to look at our violent bloody history and assume that war is in our nature it is a fallacy.

      As far a science is concerened, it is widely known that the failure to observe an event (proglonged periods of peace in human societies) does not indicate that said event cannot or does not exist. It only indictaes that we haven't observed it yet.

      On a more humanistic level, we are neither chimpanzees nor children. We have the intellect to see the horrors, and inefficiencies of war. If we are undergoing any advancement as a species surely this is one flaw worth evolving away from.

      Besides anthropology, and zoology suggest that homicide (much less war) are only engaged in after a certain level of wealth is attained. While our earliest tools (and those of chimpanzees) are weapons, they are primarily for hunting other species. Killing off members of your own species just isn't profitable when you depend on them for your own survival.

      That's why we need a military. That's why we need, sometimes, to fight and to kill. Because if we don't, the other guy will. The pacifist's dream--that if we don't, the other guy won't--is just that: a dream. It's a noble dream, but a dream nonetheless.
      I'll agree with the second part, sort of.
      First of all, I'm not a pacifist, I'm a rather well trained martial artist, and I respond to attacks with levels of violence that make even rather violent people cringe.
      Second, the pacifist dream is an end to violence, it does not indicate the method to achieving this goal. Most pacifists would agree that the method should be non-violent, but anyone can see that it's likely to take more than simply not being violent.
      It is possible to diffuse violence before it starts. This is often quite difficult but the rewards (or rather lack of costs) are generally worth it.

    4. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      What is it with these religious nuts. Why do keep insisting that atheism is somehow a religion or even a body of thought or philosophy. Atheism is nothing more or nothing less then a non belief in god. To say that I belong in a religion called atheism because I don't believe in god is just stupid. What religion do I belong in if I don't belive in UFOs? What religion do I belong in if I don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Please refrain from this kind of bullshit it makes it very hard for people to even listen to you after you make such a stupid remark.

      Having said all that.

      Most people take their religion lightly. If pressed they may claim to be a christian or jew only because their parents were or they were born into a religion. For the vast majority of the world god is someone you pray to when you want your team to score a touchdown. These are normal people you meet everyday with their diversity of opinions on just about any subject.

      There are a minority of people who actually make a stab at actually practising their religion. These people go to church regularly and read the bible and whatnot. Since it's just about impossible to practice any religion faithfully (especially in this modern world) they do what they can and ignore the rest. I have always said that if these people were actually practising christians (as opposed to church going christians) there would be no poverty or hunger in the united states.

      And then you have the vocal wacko contingent. I don't have to tell you about them. They go from town to town preaching that homosexuals ought to be killed and that abortion clinics ought to be bombed. Of course none of the churchgoing christians condemn them and the football praying christians don't really care that much anyways.

      Now of the above people groups two and three clearly believe that there is a "us" who are saved and will go to heaven and the them who are doomed to burn in satans flame forever. To them world is pretty much black and white and good and bad. They believe in some "absolute truth" which just happens to coincide with their religion. Like it or not it's these people who are in charge of any religion and it's these people who cause untold suffering and death in the world. Go look around and see much misery this silly and irrational belief in some invisible man in the sky has caused (and is still causing). Christian or Moslem or Jew all of them are convinced that the others are to be converted or killed but never ever left alone to live as they want.

      As I said before the only exception to is Budhism which is by and large a non theistic religion (they don't belive in an invisible man in the sky).

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by cburley · · Score: 1
      What is it with these religious nuts. Why do keep insisting that atheism is somehow a religion or even a body of thought or philosophy. Atheism is nothing more or nothing less then a non belief in god. To say that I belong in a religion called atheism because I don't believe in god is just stupid. What religion do I belong in if I don't belive in UFOs? What religion do I belong in if I don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese?

      As I thought I made clear -- apparently to anyone else except you -- I meant "atheism" taken as broadly as you take "religion".

      You can pretty much replace "atheism" and a few irrelevant details above and the truth of it remains the same:

      What is it with these atheistic nuts. Why do they keep refusing to believe their atheism is somehow a religion or even a body of thought or philosophy? After all, it's defined as a "doctrine" in the dictionary! Meanwhile, religion is nothing more or nothing less then a belief in God or the supernatural. To say that I belong in what they call religion -- but what they identify as an exercise of tyranny, the source of all evil in the world, etc. -- simply because I believe in God is just stupid.

      Then you go on to say a bunch of stuff I pretty much agree with 100%, except for this:

      Of course none of the churchgoing christians condemn them

      You obviously haven't been paying attention, perhaps too blinded by your willingness to paint "religious nuts" like myself with such a broad brush.

      Like it or not it's these people who are in charge of any religion and it's these people who cause untold suffering and death in the world

      There's plenty of suffering and death caused by atheists in similar positions -- or have you not learned of the facts of history, e.g. read the Black Book of Communism?

      What you seem to confuse is the concept of rule with the concept of religion. Here, I'll try to educate you with an analogy.

      A person with a bow and arrow sets up a target in an open field and shoots at it. He is engaging in what many would call "target practice".

      Another person with a bow and arrow shoots an arrow into a man's chest, killing him. He is engaging in what many would call "murder".

      Now, those who confuse these two might look at the fact that the murderer is shooting at a target, so they might insist that the culprit is "target practice".

      These people will preach to the high hills how "target practice" -- by bow and arrow, by gun and bullet, etc. -- is the cause of all suffering and evil in the world.

      Every time they see someone murdered by anything involving a projectile, in their minds, they identify that as "target practice". They generally disregard the actual motivations of the murderers, and they also disregard, or belittle, the many other murders and similar evil acts that are perpetrated without the targeting of a projectile.

      Then, whenever anyone stands up an points out that their engagement in target practice is crucial to defending the innocent against evil acts, they are told, by these confused people, "you are just more practitioners of target practice, you are the source of all the evil in the world".

      That's what you are doing, confusing "religion" with "evil". You ignore the fact that much evil is committed by those who reject religion outright and force their doctrine -- aka atheism -- down the throats (sometimes quite literally) of their victims. You ignore the fact that the vast majority of those who do practice religion and believe in God actually contribute much good in the world. You look at people who rule, who commit evil, and if you can find any trace of "religion" in their beliefs or in their ability to hold on to power, you blame religion, but you refuse to do the same when it comes to atheism.

      So, again, I know I can't convince you, but by illustrating the irrational arguments you resort to as such, I hope to prevent others from falling down the deep chasm of despair that is a lifetime of belittling deeply held religious beliefs.

      Christian or Moslem or Jew all of them are convinced that the others are to be converted or killed but never ever left alone to live as they want.

      As I said before the only exception to is Budhism which is by and large a non theistic religion (they don't belive in an invisible man in the sky).

      You really should stop discussing religion in ways that exhibit your vast ignorance of the subject. Perhaps you should undertake a study of comparative religions.

      For example, I'm a member of a smallish, yet international, Christian group that neither believes in "an invisible man in the sky" nor in the necessity of converting or killing others. In fact, our church documents require us to be married by clergy of other denominations -- meaning that, if we converted/killed everyone else overnight, we'd be unable to get married according to the rules of our church -- and state that, among man's inalienable rights as granted by God himself are those of self-government, reason, and conscience.

      Further, at least a few of us actually believe this stuff -- that we have no right, certainly no necessity, of imposing our will on others, either in act or in thought.

      Yet you have stated that we do not exist, or are liars, by saying that "all Christians" believe in converting or killing everyone, never letting them live as they see fit.

      Either you are wrong, or I am lying.

      Which is it?

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    6. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " There's plenty of suffering and death caused by atheists in similar positions -- or have you not learned of the facts of history, e.g. read the Black Book of Communism?"

      The difference is suble yet important. When the communists (who were atheists) killed it was not because they were atheists. They did not kill only the religous for example they were indiscriminate. In the case of religion inspired killings (take osama bin laden for example) he kills because he is a muslim and his target is christians. He is channeling his god and his god apparently is telling him to kill infidels. This type of behaviour is not limited to muslims and as I said before christians have done the same thing over and over agian throughout history.

      "For example, I'm a member of a smallish, yet international, Christian group that neither believes in "an invisible man in the sky""

      What does this mean. How can you be a christian and not believe in God? In order to be a christian you have to believe in god who is invisible and lives in the sky. Not only that but you also have to believe that Jesus Christ was his son, that jesus was born of a virgin mother mother, and the jesus was resurected. You also have to accept that the bible represents the word of god. Without all this you not a christian. So you are either a chistian or you don't believe in the invisible man in the sky.

      BTW when you say "other denominations" do you mean being married by muslim clerics, budhist clerics, perhaps wiccan or druid clerics? How about a cleric of the church of sata? Or do you mean another denomination of the christian church?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    7. Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by cburley · · Score: 1
      When the communists (who were atheists) killed it was not because they were atheists. They did not kill only the religous for example they were indiscriminate.

      They were hardly "indiscriminate" -- at best, they killed the religious, destroyed or occupied their churches, with little regard for their particular religious beliefs.

      In the case of religion inspired killings (take osama bin laden for example) he kills because he is a muslim and his target is christians

      No, he kills because he his a mass-murdering tyrant and finds it easier to use religion as an excuse, compared to the mass-murdering tyrants of the past century who used atheism and communism (which are, of course, tightly related) as their excuse.

      What does this mean. How can you be a christian and not believe in God? In order to be a christian you have to believe in god who is invisible and lives in the sky. Not only that but you also have to believe that Jesus Christ was his son, that jesus was born of a virgin mother mother, and the jesus was resurected. You also have to accept that the bible represents the word of god. Without all this you not a christian. So you are either a chistian or you don't believe in the invisible man in the sky.

      Bzzt. Wrong. Like I said, you really ought to actually learn something about religion, rather than blindly accept that anti-religious hatred with which you've clearly been indoctrinated.

      Simply put: I am a Christian. I believe Jesus was born of a virgin as a child of God and was resurrected. I believe we all are children of God -- after all, the first two words of the prayer Jesus himself gave us all to pray are "Our Father". And I believe God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omniactive.

      More to the point, I don't so much believe that God is a man who lives in the sky, as that God is the intelligence, the divine Mind, that created both man and what we see as the sky.

      That some Christians disagree with this is indisputable, but they do not define Christianity for me.

      when you say "other denominations" do you mean being married by muslim clerics, budhist clerics, perhaps wiccan or druid clerics? How about a cleric of the church of sata? Or do you mean another denomination of the christian church?

      Depends on how the local authorities define "clergyman who is legally authorized" (and, no, my religion's church has no clergy as such, that is, that meets this definition).

      This is just one way in which a particular Christian sect assuredly does not outline a goal of "converting or killing everyone else" as you blindly claim is the case for all of them.

      Meanwhile, if you're so hung up on my use of the word "atheism", then simply replace it with whatever word you use, or might make up, to describe your crusade against religion and religious people, then replace my use of "atheism" in my earlier post with that word, and actually respond to the issues I raise, instead of constantly pursuing your witchhunt against the religious?

      In particular, if it isn't atheism that causes you to post anti-religious rhetoric in response to someone saying something a little bit positive about religion, what is it that so motivates you? Make up a word for that, use it instead of "atheism" in my earlier post, and respond.

      Stop continuing to sling mud at religion and "religious nuts" as you call people like me. Explain your own evident hatred and bigotry, why it's preferable to the hatred and bigotry practiced by those who are religious, and why you refuse to criticize tyranny per se and instead focus on religion's (but not atheism's) use of it as the source of all evil.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  546. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jefferson wasn't a Christian. But he was probably the last one with the balls to admit it (urm, Reagan, ahhm).

  547. More fun for/with Osama by phillymjs · · Score: 2

    Osama's prison menu should be all-you-can-eat ham, bacon, pork chops... you get the idea. I'm interested to see just how devout a Muslim that fucker is-- would he starve to death, or eat the flesh of an unclean animal?

    Also, what's a terrible way for a Muslim to die? I know Osama thinks he'll become a martyr and go off to paradise with his friggin' virgins or whatever-- what could be done to him so he'll believe he'll be damned, and not greet the Reaper with open arms? Someone on here wrote a while back that a dishonorable death would be if he were killed and/or buried while wrapped in the skin of a pig. Any truth to that?

    ~Philly

    1. Re:More fun for/with Osama by yatest5 · · Score: 1

      I don't support OBL in any way, but I'm pretty sure his religious beliefs are *just* about strong enough to starve himself to death in the face of such pathetic provocation. You ignorant fuck.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    2. Re:More fun for/with Osama by phillymjs · · Score: 2

      Yeah, sure seems that way when you consider that true Islam eschews murder, suicide, etc, and yet OBL and his minions have no trouble with doing any of those things.

      Oh, and let's not forget having respect for women, which I'm sure is why some of the hijackers were reported to have been getting lap dances at some titty bar in Florida a day or two before heading off to meet Allah.

      Bin Laden and his ilk just seem to pick and choose which tenets of Islam they want to follow, so wondering whether or not he'd chow down on some scrapple if he was offered nothing else to eat is hardly ignorant. Might be kind of nice for all the other Muslims who worship this guy to see what a charlatan he is, just conveniently chucking aspects of his alleged faith when they become inconvenient to him.

  548. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Sara+Chan · · Score: 1
    Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation

    Actually, I thought that the UN estimates 95% of all food aid gets distributed to those for whom it was intended (sorry I don't have a link for this). And according to this post, US-dictated sanctions have led to the death of half a million Iraqi children.
  549. Only sheep .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...blindly criticize their government.

  550. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by sh_mmer · · Score: 1

    On the point of fighting terrorism on fronts other than military ones, I absolutely agree with you. The political response should be far stronger then the military one. I am also afraid that the U.S. won't do enough once the military operation is through, but the real point of the argument right now is whether the U.S. should or should not have acted militarily now.

    The Brits, who have better intelligence in Afganistan than we (the U.S) do right now, think that Osama is still in Afganistan, and if the Taliban are quickly disposed, there is a good chance of getting the guy. It would be harder later.

    Anyway, you have said repeatedly that these strikes do the terrorists more good than harm. I have tried to make the opposing case. Look, how about this: I think (1) money, and (2) places to operate with impunity are far more important assets to Osama than widespread public anger. Actually, I personally think ignorance is just as good as anger from his perspective. Just convince somebody that you're God's messenger and you've won (him).

    Anyway, I agree, we need a lot more diplomacy, and to stick to it longer than we probably have in the past, but I think this is a war that we can win. Anyway, we're going to see..

    --
    Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
  551. Maybe... by neema · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is a response to this.

  552. On acts of war, and criminal acts. by archivis · · Score: 1

    Declairing war upon a nation, then dropping a bomb into the military command center of that nation is not a crime. It is an act of war. By using a civilian jet filled with civilians as your bomb, one treads into the area of war crimes.

    But it is an act of war, first and foremost.

    Dropping a pair of civilian plane bombs into a major civilian economic center in an area of maximum population density is an act of terrorism.

    Sept 11th began as acts of terrorism, and became acts of war.

    --
    In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
  553. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the US is immediately responsible? What about the responsibility of the Iraqi government to its *own* people? They make enough money from oil sales, they could feed and provide medicines. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801.h tml

  554. Chew on this. by Ayatollah · · Score: 1

    F everyone here who has posted some generic statement saying he supports the US "not killing innocent people" and reccomends they not make any mistakes. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    Look at the way the government has responded to these attacks. More than three weeks after the attacks, with US agencies working around the clock to get a grip on the situation, preliminary military strikes have occured on specific an known targets, most of which have been abandoned long ago in fears of just such an attack. This isn't an armada of weapons landing throughout the country to eradicate all possible terrorists. The government is doing everything it can to prevent the loss of innocent lives, and you can be damn sure they are giving everything they can to prevent the kind of mistakes and shortsighted efforts which would only serve to make the situation more painful and deadly for the entire world.

    While the US et al are kicking terrorists' asses all over the world, we still need to keep an eye on our backs as the possibility of another terrorist attack is so high, it is a question of when, not if.

    I support the government all the way. I have faith in our system and our goals, and I believe that while there will be no absolute defining victory or triumph over all terrorists, our efforts will save the lives of thousands, possibly (dare I say) millions of people.

    In time, we will prevail.

  555. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by melquiades · · Score: 2

    I think (1) money, and (2) places to operate with impunity are far more important assets to Osama than widespread public anger.

    I think it's about a draw; in the long term, the anger is more important -- money and loci of operation are largely dependent on a base of public anger. Certainly the anger has a much larger effect on the post-bin-Laden presence of terrorism.

    On the money front, I absolutely support the freezing of assets, and I'm boggled that it wasn't done sooner. Sure, military operations by the US will cost the terrorists money, but I doubt it will run them dry. We should cut the money off before it gets to them in every possible way.

    As for places to operate ... well, we'll definitely make it harder for them. But most of their bases of operation are likely in towns and crowded cities, even in homes inhabited by both the guilty and the innocent. Any military operation that really squeezes terrorists out of their hiding places will involve massive loss of innocent life. I'd rather have their families, friends and neighbors squeeze them out. Yes, that's starry-eyed idealism -- but face it, so is the fairy-tale idea of bombing them out of hiding!

    The Brits...think that Osama is still in Afganistan, and if the Taliban are quickly disposed, there is a good chance of getting the guy. It would be harder later.

    That's quite possible, and a tough call. If I had more confidence in the US's ability to pull of such a military operation in a non-harmful way, I suppose I would approve much more of the current military action. If in the coming weeks and months it emerges that there really was a very small loss of innocent life, I will change my tune.

    I think this is a war that we can win. Anyway, we're going to see.

    Yes, only time will unwrap this package. I, too, believe that we can win, but I fear the damage that will be done along the way.

    Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful, articulate discussion. I fear that the "United We Stand" rhetoric, while good in some ways, has stifled much of this kind of debate -- especially in the public arena. Such debate is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy, and is extremely important in winning this quasi-war.

  556. Glaring self-contradiction by Macrobat · · Score: 1
    You say:

    most of all, encouraging a polarizing and inflamatory response from the US that will get them more support and more terrorists. It seems to me that they were completely successful in every one of these goals.

    Then you say:

    The only thing they have to be unhappy about right now is that the US actually made a stab at presenting evidence, got some support from Islamic nations, and is not killing more innocent people in air strikes than we already are.

    So which one is it? 'Cause it ain't both.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
  557. USA IS the Evil Empire by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't know if this guy's facts & figures are all correct, but the gist of his argument is true. The USA is the Evil Empire. While it is those in power (political/economic/religious) that direct the evil, most citizens seem guilty of ignorance. Whether the numbers killed by the USA are 3 million, or 300 (5,000 more Iraqi children die every month now as did before sanctions), it really doesn't matter. What matters is that the USA puts economic and power greed ahead of principles of humanity, just as Bin Laden puts religious delusions ahead of principles of humanity. Both a insideously evil.
    George Bush is spinning bullshit about "freedom", but then has polcies which only serve the rich and powerful. I mean the guy is willing to poison the world if it will make money for his elite mates. Compare the WTC attacks with allowing an entire planet to be poisoned when you can actually try to do something about it -(Kyoto)Sure it isn't as immediate, and doesn't make good TV, but 'Planeticide' is pretty darn evil in my book.

    Stop loving the USA and waving you dumb flag and start loving humanity (no matter what colour or geographical location).

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
    1. Re:USA IS the Evil Empire by Miragejp · · Score: 0

      Why should I love humanity when I hate people? Not just the whiny, smarmy, "freedom-of-speech (but only for those who think like me)" poodle-shit liberal fucks like you, but almost all people. I hope you fall and break your fucking hip and be paralyzed for life (or get hit by a truck and be maimed, with a limp and a speech impediment).

      --
      In general, modern problems have medieval solutions...
    2. Re:USA IS the Evil Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i got your back on the metamod, max.

      good post.

  558. ...to stop aiding terrorists in the first place by TPFH · · Score: 1
    Here is a really interesting article detailing the support the United States government has given to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. (I wish it had a bibliography however.) The biggest supporters of the Taliban, including bin Laden, were Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States.

    The United States government supported Osama bin Laden. We funded, armed and trained his forces, both in war and terrorism. We helped build his terrorist army to fight a superpower, the Soviet Union. I don't like communism, but our politicians created a monster in Afghanistan. Now it seems that monster has attacked us.

    Those that are now protesting against the bombing in Afghanistan condemned the Taliban long before tragedy of September 11. And yet the United States continued to fund them through May of this year.

    I do think that something should be done about the Taliban's tyranny, but you have to realize that the Afghans are the first victims, not our enemies.

    If we are really to put an end to terrorism we must stop our politicians from creating terrorists in the first place.

    --
    This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  559. Chill ... it's just rhetoric by melquiades · · Score: 2
    It seems to me that they were completely successful...The only thing they have to be unhappy about right now is...
    So which one is it? 'Cause it ain't both.

    Ah, an errant pedant.

    OK, the terrorists weren't completely successful -- just very successful. Our response could have been worse, and they could have been more successful, but they still did pretty well for themselves.

    Suffice it to say that we have allowed the terrorists to meet their objectives.

    Happy?
  560. The best day I've had in three weeks. by Picass0 · · Score: 2

    The United States and British allies did the right thing today. Way to go, President Bush. I'm glad I voted for you.

    I support our right to strike military and terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I hope that civilian casualties can be held to a minimum, but those who are killed die as a result of the Taliban's decisions. I am also pleased we have dropped humanitarian aid for the benefit of the refugees. I hope Afghanistan can be liberated and given back to her people.

    For the US to not take action is to invite further attacks. Indeed, those attacks will happen with or without our action. The US must make it understood that the worse we are attacked, the stronger our response, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. Any nation that would make the mistake of attacking the US with biological agents must pay the ultimate price.

    1. Re:The best day I've had in three weeks. by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1
      "For the US to not take action is to invite further attacks. Indeed, those attacks will happen with or without our action. The US must make it understood that the worse we are attacked, the stronger our response, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. Any nation that would make the mistake of attacking the US with biological agents must pay the ultimate price."

      The situation isn't that simple. Our response is probably the one that Bin Laden and Co. were expecting and hoping for. What isn't going to go along with his plan is that the Muslim world is more disgusted than admiring of Al-Qa'ida's handiwork and he probably won't get all the help he was imagining, even from other terrorist groups.

      Here's some better thought out analysis of Al-Qa'ida's rational from

      http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109242145.htm (I'm pretty sure they won't mind the free publicity since this is from their free/non-subscription section).

      The goals of Al-Qa'ida's members are essentially simple. They see the Islamic world as occupied by non-Islamic forces, either directly or through puppet regimes. They wish to end the occupation and unite Islam. The United States, as the leading power in the world and the patron of many Islamic regimes, is the center of gravity of the anti-Islamic world. If the United States can be broken, or at least expelled from the Islamic world, other anti-Islamic powers such as Russia, China and Israel will crumble.

      Al-Qa'ida does not expect to destroy the United States directly. It fully understands the severe limits on its resources. Rather, bin Laden's strategy is to force the United States into a series of actions that will destabilize the governments of Washington's Islamic partners and lead to their collapse. For instance, such an outcome could occur for Islamic countries that cooperate -- due to pressure by Washington -- with the U.S. campaign against terrorism.

      A collapse would likely force the United States into a direct occupation of these countries, exposing U.S. forces to attacks on terrain favorable to the enemy. In such an occupation, be it in Indonesia or Morocco, bin Laden is confident his forces could generate an uprising against the United States that would force its withdrawal.

      Bin Laden does not believe the United States could defeat an uprising for several reasons. First, the experience of foreign powers in suppressing mass, popular uprisings has been poor. Second, although the United States has important interests in the Islamic world, they are not on a scale to justify the expense and casualties involved in a long-term occupation. Finally, bin Laden regards the United States as morally corrupt and incapable of major exertion in the face of adversity.

      ...

      Second, within the United States, bin Laden's forces will continue intermittent attacks against a variety of targets with the aim of destabilizing U.S. psychology, creating doubts about the capabilities of the U.S. government, driving home the costs of the war to the American public and generating confidence in the Islamic world.

      It would then be logical to assume other assault groups are already present in the United States, either awaiting activation or authorized to act on their own initiative. It is likely, given the extreme operational security maintained, that support-team members of the first assault group are unaware of the existence of these other groups and that minimal, if any, communication is taking place between them and Al-Qa'ida.

      They have a natural advantage in that U.S. forces are weakened because they cannot define the enemy's target set with any certainty and therefore must be dissipated. Since the targets vastly outnumber the defenders, Al-Qa'ida has created at least a temporarily superior position.

      In the first thoughts on a counterattack, the United States appears to have three missions. First, prevent any further attacks by Al-Qa'ida against American assets. Second, kill Osama bin Laden and destroy Al-Qa'ida and all of its linked organizations on a worldwide basis. And third, punish all countries that have supported Al-Qa'ida, beginning with Afghanistan.

      ...

      Follow-on countries comprise the final theater of operations. The United States has already suggested that, in due course, Iraq would be added to the list of countries considered a state sponsor of the Sept. 11 attacks. Bin Laden would like to see several other countries added to that list. Indonesia is an excellent example of a country that is already destabilized, has a growing Islamic movement and is critical to U.S. interests. In other words, follow-on theaters of operation may not be areas of American choosing.

      Each day this week, STRATFOR will discuss American responses in each theater. But in order to respond, the United States must remember the following: Its enemy is dispersed, has designed redundancy into its systems and seems to understand how our systems work, at least well enough to have evaded them on and prior to Sept. 11. It has shown it knows how to extract maximum advantage out of a relatively small numbers of operatives and has men who are prepared to go to their certain death.

      It is also an enemy that may have structured a war plan based on a faulty assumption, which is that the Islamic world is perched on the edge of a volcano of populist Islam and that the U.S. response will trigger it.

      The American perception of bin Laden is that, being isolated in Afghanistan, he is a marginal player with a sophisticated network of operatives and that his dream of an Islamic uprising is merely a fantasy. The United States also believes that an exercise of decisive force in Afghanistan, and the disabling and disruption of bin Laden's network in the United States and the rest of the world, will delegitimize him permanently.

      Bin Laden has played his cards. We must now consider how the United States will play its hand.

  561. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Lede+Singer · · Score: 1
    Ok, so perhaps our government has made mistakes...and grevious ones at that. I don't know the reasons for all of our attacks and I'm sure that there are soem I heavily disagree with. A simple fact remains, however, we have been attacked...no, let me back up, the world has been attacked, on many occasions, and on September 11th, by some organization. There are groups of people out there that want to see America, Europe, and possible any non-islamic country either dead or converted, and are apparently willing to sacrifice their lives for it.

    I don't like violence, and I don't like rash actions, but like the recent Prime Minister of Isreal said, if we don't do something now, do we want to wait until until these groups have the ability to do exactly what they want...to kill us all?

    Maybe we're ignorant, and maybe we're hypocticial because we've only chosen to act now, but the fact remains that something has to be done. I don't know what the best thing for us to do is, but I do know that it has little or nothing to do with just sitting back and waiting for our, and the free worlds, destruction.

    Please, I'm not trying to be militaristic, or disrespectful of human life, regardless of it's nationality, but there are ways that an organization such as Al Queda can kill millions and millions of people, and I don't think that rethinking our foreign policy is going to stop that.

  562. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by sh_mmer · · Score: 1

    I think we mostly agree, but I can't let a couple of you last points go without answer.

    Yes, that's starry-eyed idealism -- but face it, so is the fairy-tale idea of bombing them out of hiding!

    Bombing raids are done to knock out military munitions to make it safer to insert and extract small teams to carry out specific seek and destroy missions. Bombing's not the end of the campaign. At least that's what the generals are telling us. Whatever, just details, but it supports my point that the attacks might not be so futile.

    Also, in regard to anger, people have found plenty of reasons to hate the U.S. before this, not all of which the U.S. should apologize for. Our affluence and the fact that we're not an Islamic state are two of them. Our support of Israel is one we might consider, but one that's not likely to change at this point. A campaign against the Taliban is small by comparison. The people who won't understand our reasons for doing so are likely to be thouroughly indoctrinated to hate us already.

    As you said, thanks for a thoughtful discussion. email me if you like.

    --
    Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
  563. Re:Will the patriot in the striped flag please lea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, an estimated 500 000 children died in Iraq, because of the post-war embargo...

    I am getting so sick of hearing this. The care of the Iraqi people is the responsibility the Iraqi government, who has plenty of oil-money to provide food and medicine. (http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801. html)

  564. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by nexthec · · Score: 1

    I have plenty of other things to do, and I wouldn't bother with this if it weren't important. I have paid work to do, so I lose my hourly rate for work done without pay.
    That implys that I would actually pay to read it, which is false

  565. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by grepMeister · · Score: 1
    Well, I apologize for my uninformed commentary. Indeed, I have been towing the Iraqi line.

    I did, however, turn up this article on the booming economy of Northern Iraq (from Radio Free Europe), attributed there to thriving black market exports to Turkey, Iran, and southern Iraq. Interestingly, Rubin points out that during his visit to the area in Iraq he claims is doing so well, he "I watched smugglers load sacks of rice and grain (and whiskey) for export", which is consistent with the more left-wing report from the area.

    What's more, in the north, the UN takes responsibility for distributing the cash from the oil sales provided by the inefficient oil-for-food program ("the north ... can use the money to finance U.N.-approved projects"), while Hussein is allowed to use the money as he pleases.

    But with (hardly unreasonable) statements from the UN such as "Iraq... is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait" and the immediately following "all Iraqi statements made since 2 August 1990 repudiating its foreign debt are null and void", they have other things to deal with. In fact, Iraq's economy was not doing well before the war, and has sagged ever since due to the sanctions (see Kamil Mahdi, Rehabilitation Prospects for the Iraqi Economy, which conflicts to a certain extent with the reports of illicit trade supporting the northern economy, but only by deemphasizing its impact on the areas nearest the markets for it).

    You are, of course, correct in pointing out that US and UN actions are two very separate things--but I would argue that this does not extend to the actions of the Security Council. I am also embarrassed for speaking before I knew what I was saying. However, I am not convinced.

  566. Story and related links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HI,

    here is a story and plenty of related links.

  567. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Karl_Hungus · · Score: 1

    Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil. Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions. In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.


    Few terrorists are bombing victims? Few bombing victims are alive after becoming bombing victims. By your logic, you have no reason to undertake retaliatory action unless YOU were a 9/11 victim PERSONALLY.

    As for how many lives bombing saved, that is a question you should pose to every Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Grenadan, Libyan, Panamanian, Iraqi, Serb, Sudanese, and Afghan (among others) you meet. While many disagreed with their political leadership, I'm sure theyd've preferred that their innocent countrymen not die. Set aside will be our actions in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Iran, as they don't involve aerial bombardment per se, but rather differing levels of meddling and interference (i.e., assasinations, propaganda and sabotage.) To a lesser extent, our presence in places like Haiti, Japan and the Phillipines brews some resentment, even if the overall effect is stabilizing in some places. Just because there are no bullets flying in a country where we have troops on the ground is an inadequate basis for concluding that they love us. Also to be ignored is our tampering in an Australian PM election in the 1970's. Still, you have to admit that this is a long and varied list.

    As to our world being fucked up, yes. I believe there are people whose deaths would make the world a better place. My list differs from yours. Who decides, then?

    If we generally try to do the right thing, why did we sit on our asses and let Rwanda and the Congo turn into such bloody messes? If we're the good guys, why didn't we drop support for the Apartheid regime in SA until after institutions starting divesting themselves of their shares of companies who did business there due to grassroots pressure? The boardrooms of America stood up and struck a blow for freedom only after it bit too deeply into their bottom line. This last example is a case of Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason. Do you honestly think wed've given two shits if Kuwait had been a poverty-stricken African or Asian nation?


    Bombing is always profitable if you're a bombmaker. Think about it for a second. If planes get shot down, it becomes profitable for aircraft manufacturers. When civilian infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, it becomes profitable for international civil engineering companies. And because you need oil to do all of this, it is always profitable for petroleum producers. If there were companies that cloned humans for use as soldiers, they would profit too.

    Everyone else doesn't rule the world. Our mistakes are magnified because of our economic, political and military stature. The more power we have, the more responsibility there is to use it wisely and humanely. IOW, the consequences of a toddler somewhere ordering an aerial bombardment are practically nil, as he doesn't have the power to do so. As for Pakistan's ISI and their culpability, I suggest you research who supported and liased with them. "We all do stupid things?" This is not letting your coonhound steer your pickup into a fishin' hole. This is war. War means killing. Killing is irreversible. It's not a mistake you can fix, no matter how much you wished you'd torched the right hooch. Innocents still die.

    The profiteering argument dates from WWI because weapons production was not industrialized on a sufficient scale prior to that war. The assertion that it only arose after a certain point in time does nothing to detract from its cogency. And BTW, Bush, et al still want to go ahead with NMD even after 9/11. Doesn't that make your chest swell with patriotic pride?

    Bombing now may prevent future suffering by killing people who were going to bomb us. Bombing can never end the suffering of those already bombed. There is a world of difference between the two. It should also be a given that bombing always creates human suffering. If it's only a matter of where, then all you have to fall back upon are the accidents of race or nationality or religion. Being loyal, honest, compassionate, pious etc. will not save you. That's what terror is.

    I want the people who planned and bankrolled 9/11 tormented to the point of insanity, rolled up in a pigskin, and thrown into the coldest stretch of ocean we can find. I know getting to that point will involve innocents being killed. That's the part I have a problem with. We have killed or will soon kill people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, just like the people in WTC had nothing to do with U.S.-Israel policy or U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Innocent is innocent. Rejoicing in the death of one innocent human being is an expression of our animality and not our humanity. A sober and serious people would know that already.

    --

    --
    Freeper Logic
  568. Al Qaeda? by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    If you'll notice, Osama bin Laden's organization is called "Al Qaeda". This is Arabic for "the Base".

    In light of our first attack upon Afghanistan, it could be said that...

    "Al Qaeda are belong to us."

    --
    Why bother.
  569. Book by Yossel Bodansky 2 years ago. by ckedge · · Score: 2


    I was wandering about the bookstore today, and guess what I came across?

    A book written two years ago,

    ...by the director of the US Senate Standing Committee on Terrorism,

    ...it's last paragraph was utterly prophetic;

    http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0761535810.01.LZ ZZZZZZ.jpg

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761535810

  570. What fruits do they bare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we should not look at what fruit men of this country bear. Rather, I feel we should look at the fruits that the country itself produces. You're a fine example. What lead you to be so fruity? Do you eat much fruit? Are you what you eat?

  571. Re:Whose war? (correction) by bonch · · Score: 0

    "So you WANT them to kill civilians? I'm confused."

    Meant to say, "So you WANT them to want to kill civilians?"

  572. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by thonot · · Score: 1
    Islam is a religion build on conquest and conversion at the point of the sword. You may hear otherwise from islam scholars and the media, but all you have to do is look at history.

    Really? That's odd, I could, and often do, say the same thing about Christianity. Look, for instance, at how Charlamagne treated the Saxons- i.e. conversion by the sword. Or maybe you would like to look at the practices of Martin Luther- i.e. conversion by torture. Hell, the entire conversion of Europe was acomplished by conquest, slaughter, torture and oppression not to mention the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the witch hunts.

    Does that mean all modern Christians are war-mongering, imperialistic monsters? Didn't think so.
    The history of all organized religions is stained with the blood of the innocent, it is not fair make broad assumptions about any relgion based on the atrocities that have been commited in its name in the past, or the present for that matter.

  573. IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND READING THIS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING:

    If you are Mulsim, and you are reading this, you are in violation of your country's anti-Internet laws. Your country's laws claim that the Internet may advance ideas that are not of or against Islam in some shape or form. Duh. Therefore, you are not allowed to be on the Internet. Please rectify the situation by destroying your computer and then removing the clitoris of a virgin. Only then are you clean in the eyes of Allah and your fair government. Thank you.

    1. Re:IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND READING THIS... by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      Um, Muslims belong to more than one country, idiot.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
    2. Re:IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND READING THIS... by ShinGouki · · Score: 1

      why respond to trolls? seriously...

      he/she will never understand, you will never change their mind, stop trying :)

      --
      -dk
      Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
    3. Re:IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND READING THIS... by jonese_67 · · Score: 1

      I know I'm wasting my time.

      --
      - jonese (http://farmaccidentdigest.com)
  574. Blair sucked my cock like a Hoover. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only that, but he's got a nice tight ass that makes my cock get all raw from hours and hours of ass ramming fun.

  575. I fucked Blair in the ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Blair's gay male lover and it is time I come forward to tell the world that he sucks dick like a Hoover vacuum. It's fucking unbelievable. He swallowed an entire load from my shit pasted cock. What a guy.

  576. Bends over? OOOHHH YEAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He *is* my bum-buddy, and he sucks my dick like a Hoover vacuum. It's incredible, I wish Bush sucked my cock like Tony Blair can. And when he bends over and presents that nice tight ass to receive my cock, I lose all control!

  577. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by geschild · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror."

    Your point being exactly what? The original poster was rightfully pointing out that if you give a child matches you should not be surprised if it sets your house on fire. To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate.

    "Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?

    When somebody threatens American insterests [..], it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. [..]"

    I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period. Your comment about American interests is very nice though. It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world. To hell with woman and children dying, the gas-prizes will rise! Especially ironic if you remember that the US are the largest consumer of energy per head (2 times as much as Europeans per head, the source for this is slightly dated and in Dutch, my native toungue. Use Google for material on this.) President Bush even went as far as to block any environmental regulation because of economic consequences. Remember, I'm considered a right-wing sympathathizer (to European standards).

    Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit.

    "Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person."

    Maybe not, but if the US is on moral high-ground like it likes to think than it would rather have others make money off of it than get a bit of extra cash from poverty stricken people that are pressured out of their last belongings by a dictator that uses the money to buy the weapons. Not to mention the fact that those weapons get sold on and used against US troops in new conflicts not at all related to the original ones. You are right however that we will never be able to assess what governements have had influenced what conflicts. Whether the publics inability to gauge any such influence means that it doesn't happen I'll leave up to your own conscience *cough*Nicaragua*cough*.

    It may now seem that I'm a pacifist. Not so. I think force can be very well justified especially if you can take out the people that are waging war against you. The problem with your reasoning is that you're turning the argument upside down. You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US. I'm sorry to shatter your reality here but countless people the world over feel mis-treated or left alone by the US, justifiable or not. Like you do now, they feel that the US waged war on _them_. You better learn to deal with that reality because if you don't you will be in for a world of hurt. You may end up being the next Israel, and there will be the (western) world to support you and you will still have handled the situation wrong.

    To use your own words as a conclusion: "But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis."

    Please don't blindly follow that star spangled banner, please. I say this for your own good.

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
  578. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Government isn't going to stop propping up the Taliban for a long time. Remember that they are still fighting the war on drugs.

    If the US really wanted to overthrow the Taliban then they just have to stop giving them money.

    But the US doesn't want the Taliban to stop beating the shit out of the farmers who grow poppies. So in the end Afganistan will get the crap bombed out of them by the American Government and have the shit beat out of them by the Taliban government. If I was an Afgan I'd wan to lay the smack down on America too.

  579. He's clearing my cum outta his sinuses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he sucks my dick (like a Hoover vacuum I might add), Blair usually takes my whole load. It fills all his sinus cavities and makes a big mess. When he's touching his nose, he's trying to clear the jizz out so he can breath

  580. Loyal? Yes! He'll keep sucking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blair won't support the US for as long as it suits him. He's been sucking my cock like a Hoover for years now, even though it pleasures me more than him. Blair is a loyal bum-buddy, and as long as Bush puts out, he will too. ;)

  581. God bless Blair's big cock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention he sucks dick like a Hoover, AND he swallows! It's un-fucking-believable!

  582. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >If the United States did indeed "Sow" this act, it is for the simple reason that we support a country and a people that Osama bin Laden believes must be exterminated.

    Have you asked yourself why?

    "Because he's a stoopid muslim", does not quite cut it.

    Terror does not come up without a reason, it's a reaction of frustration against a bully nation who does what they see fit with people they never have seen even on postcards.

    Have you even seen any news reporting except the pentagon modified version from Iraq? That's no fight Good against Evil. The sanctions against the country are a disgrace to freedom and democracy. Shame on you!

  583. The cameras are to film our acts of gay sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He put those cameras there so that he could record every possible moment of our gay sexcapades. (He frequently sucks my cock like a Hoover out in public - it's lots of fun, sometimes people join in by fucking him up the ass.) You should appreciate what we're trying to do for the porn industry!

  584. TONY BLAIR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tony Blair sucks dick like a Hoover.

  585. SUCKS DICK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tony Blair sucks dicks like a Hoover

  586. LIKE a HOOVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tony Blair sucks dick like a Hoover!

  587. Re:Check your facts (was:To those screaming, "peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I cant belive how stupid americans are. With an average iq of 100 and a 270 million population, america must be the stupiest country in the world.

    Ummm... By definition, the average IQ is 100... Supidity and ingnorance are the not the same thing, but apparently you're too stupid to know that.

  588. The non-violent response to violence by Caid+Raspa · · Score: 2
    Do you really think the world will become a better place to live in if you run around punching 'naive' students? The 'school bully' approach has not worked before, and it will not work now.

    Your analogy is rather bad, but let me tell you about my almost non-violent response to your scenario. I could be one of those students. I got my degree a few years ago, but I still do protest against violence. My response would be the following.

    The main point of non-violence is that violence is caused by anger. You should not take revenge. Do not get carried away by anger. Control your feelings, do not let them control you.

    Steps 1-5 go according to your scenario. 5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

    6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

    I would not punch you, just say that you are just like the terrorists, practising violence against the innocent. I would also note that we must make sure that the violence does not continue.

    7) Wait until he agrees with you that since he has pledged not to commit additional violence it would not be right for him to strike you back.

    8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

    If there is a police officer nearby, I would get you arrested at this stage. If not, I would block or dodge your punch, or step a few steps backwards.

    9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

    At this point, I understand that I am dealing with a violent and dangerous lunatic. I call for a few other students, and we use the least violence needed. We grab you and pull out the joint at your shoulder. After this, we apologize and get some medical aid to you.

    Once, during the Gulf War, our pro-peace protest got attacked by some fascists (the real ones with swastikas etc.) during a protest. We had to defend ourselves, and cast them to a shalow ditch no-one of them got hurt. They broke me two ribs, but I did not get angry. I am proud about that.

  589. yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Who's got the bombs?


    Yeah. I thought so. And if that's not enough, we could eliminate them all just with our standing army.

    1. Re:yes, but... by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      The salient question was "are you ready to die?". This wasn't a rhetorical question, and I think you're misreading me as a pacifist. I'm not in the least pacifistic. However, The average American has *no* idea what war entails, as your post illustrates handily. War in Afghanistan is an ugly, ugly business, and I don't think the US is ready to do it. What percentage of casualties are you prepared to accept to that standing army? (bane of liberty, remember)

  590. More relief by MrJones · · Score: 0

    I feel more relief now that the attack have been started.
    We donçt have to wait no more every day for the attacks to start.
    And I hope the retaliation ends soon.

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  591. Flamebait ? Rare voice of truth, rather ! by GreenEggsAndHam · · Score: 1

    Typical of this place, if it says anything less than "let's go and kick butt" it must be anti-American.

  592. Links to people killed were added to the article. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    Links to sources for the number of people killed in three countries have been added to the article, What should be the Response to Violence? . Search on "Vietnam".

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  593. Mod this up! by lohen · · Score: 1

    I'm really impressed by your arguments here. A couple of other examples backing up your 'rule of law' argument - the longest lasting empires in history have always had some form of definite legal structure. With the Chinese, Roman, Ottoman &, I vaguely believe, Abyssinian empires (OK, so the last was fairly small, but it did stick around for ~1500 years, if I remember my Thesiger correctly), the vast majority of the populace were controlled by a system of laws that bound and dictated 'civilised' behaviour. I'm uncertain about other long-lasting nations/empires, but would be happy to be better informed. It may not have applied to the rulers, or even sometimes the ruling classes, but it did create the basic framework within which many complex and valuable institutions could exist. It also was often quite divergent with modern, Western, judicial practice but I guess that's progress for you. Incidentally, the Ottoman empire was brought down partly by Western sponsored Saudi nationalists back in WW1 - does this sound familiar to anyone?

    --
    "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
  594. Have you even heard of ethics? by lohen · · Score: 1

    Or history, for that matter? The day we allow our governments to commit any such actions of genocide as you describe would be the day that we prostitute ourselves and our integrity for very short term gain. And for your information, much of the middle-east has been immensely valuable historically. It was the first place to have really successful agriculture, which laid the groundwork for the first civilizations, such as the Sumerians and Babylonians, also of the middle east. The middle-east was also the origin of the knowledge which allowed the Renaissance to take place - knowledge of the Ancient Greeks which had been substantially expanded upon. This is fundamental to our own culture.

    More recently, Afghanistan provided a major stumbling block to the USSR, which in turn helped lead to the victory of the West in the cold war, and so to the increased potential of democracy and human rights to spread to the rest of the world. Let's build a better world, not destroy it and burn in the ruins.

    --
    "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
  595. History repeats its self - Bill Hicks by xQx · · Score: 0

    Bill Hicks was an American commedian in the early 90s. He was the inspiration for Tool's record, Eulogy.

    Get on Morpheus and listen to what he had to say about the pursian golf war... So much of it relates it's not funny.

    Bill Hicks - Come back shane (From his Brighton album) (Also known as "Bullies of the world") (about America arming the world then going over to killt them)
    Bill Hicks - The War (from his Relentless album) (about "The Persian Gulf Distraction")
    Bill Hicks - Waco (from Rant in E minor) (about the reliability of US news sources)

  596. Re:Germany by ariux · · Score: 1

    I'll put my money here:

    We're bombing to wipe out the Taliban's conventional military assets like planes, tanks, and artillery pieces. After that, there'll be a ground attack (possibly in concert with the Afghan opposition), supported by now-unopposed air power.

    The effect will be to reduce the Taliban from a dominant power to a guerilla force, fighting with rifles and mines, and to drive them into remote areas.

    After that, we'll try to install a friendlier government and keep it shored up with (sigh) yet more arms shipments. The Taliban will last forever as guerillas, but, without an arms supplier and under aerial surveillance, won't be a serious threat.

    We'll have achieved our objectives of spectacularly (and significantly, to onlookers) punishing the Taliban and ending the Afghanistan where the likes of Al Kida can operate openly.

    Pakistan makes me more nervous - it's internally unstable, it has nukes, and India is itching to get involved.

  597. BBC Documentrary by kisak · · Score: 2, Informative

    If one want some background information on the sad history of the Afghanistan wars uptil now, one should check out :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/progra mmes/panorama/default.stm

    Here Afghanistan - The Dark Ages contains a RealPlayer video of a 44 min documentary showed yesterday on BBC Panorama. The program gives indepth analysis of what has been happening in Afghanistan the last 20 years and how the Taliban came in power. It describes how life has been in Afghanistan under the Taliban. The video also shows the only known TV tapes of the Taliban leader Mullah Omar and gives the journalist story of meeting Osama bin Laden.

    All respect to BBC for their quality programs.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  598. I hate moslems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke the filthy bastards and make the world a better place. Death to moslems.

  599. perhaps an Anthrax attack by pallex · · Score: 1

    Well, there was one guy dead, from around the same area that Atta came from. Looks like a classic `we can do this - heres proof`. But the US government have said its not. Hell, thats proof enough for me. Its GOT to be a coincidence!

    `Shop as usual.....and avoid panic buying` - Negativland.

  600. Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by ariux · · Score: 1

    Thats a wonderful thought that I believed in through many of my younger years. Authority causes repression, Period.

    I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with someone who saw the sixties.

    When I went to college in the nineties, I found an intellectual wasteland full of cultish marxist professors, angry crowds parroting slogans they couldn't explain if asked about, and aging, cynical ringleaders egging them all on to nowhere.

    Did I learn something there? Sure. But I didn't learn the lesson they thought they were trying to teach. I learned about the evils of human stupidity and of authority misused.

  601. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by lekroll · · Score: 1

    "Islam is a religion build on conquest and conversion at the point of the sword. You may hear otherwise from islam scholars and the media, but all you have to do is look at history. "

    thonot already replied, telling why this is a silly argument, but in addition, you're making the terrible mistake of calling Islam the ennemy.
    It is not. Islam can easily live in peace with other religions, and mostly do so in large parts of the world. There are those, like Osama Bin Laden, who wishes for an all out war between Islam and the "infidels". Luckily, these people are few and far between. Unluckily, OBL plays his cards brilliantly. And we play right into his hand. He wants a war. What he does, is he executes a heineous atrocity of hitherto unimaginable scale. USA obligingly and predictably responds in exactly the way he knew they would: By bombing the shit out of Afghanistan.

    What will this lead to ? Pakistans already rather extremist (but so far managebly so) moslems are of course going nuts, burning american flags etc.
    Iran is condemning the inevitable loss of civilian life. Bin Laden is, of course, still at large in Afghanistan, and now there is no chance in hell that they will ever under any circumstances be delivered out. I doubt he will be found. His next logical step will be further terrorist attacks in USA, to keep people spooked, and to make sure the few people talking peace in America won't be heard. He may flee to some other moslem state, in order to goad America into bombing them as well. His hope is to make America look as ugly as possible in the eyes of Moslems everywhere, in order to turn this into a war between the west and Islam. I hope he fails, but if we keep playing into his hands, he might succeed.

    But what to do then ? I certainly understand the wish to capture and kill OBL, and I agree: He must die. But he must die in a way that doesn't create ten new Bin Ladens. The best way, would be if he was denounced and killed by Moslems. The Northern alliance maybe. I can only hope that the longterm US plan is to give large scale humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, while supporting the northern alliance, and see it through, so Taleban falls forever. Further, USA *must* change it's foreign policy. If you look at it cynically, it is way cheaper, and way more effective to buy peace by giving aid, than by beating the shit out of those who hate you. Make them love you in stead, by helping them economically, by educating, etc. This is the only way to make democracy happen, and it is also an absolutely certain way of making democracy happen. Even a regime as horrible as Taleban could have been "educated" and "aided" away. Now of course, they can't. So end this war as quickly as possible, help Afghanistan rise again, and stop pampering the Israelis. Stop letting them get away with stuff you wouldn't suffer anyone else to do. Just be fair and impartial towards Israel and Palestine.

    Also, it shouldn't be USA shouldering this alone. It should be UN, and we should ALL be involved.

  602. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by afflatus_com · · Score: 1

    Very sound points. This morning I thought of another possible reason, may have been to take a weekend day, when the US stock exchange was closed, so that there wouldn't be a sudden dramatic event right in the middle of the trading day that might start a sell, snowballing onwards.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
  603. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by lekroll · · Score: 1

    "In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1. "

    No. If they wanted to kill as many americans as possible, they would have waited an hour or so. They would have gotten about 10 times as many casualties. No the goal of this terrorist act, was to make america go to war, and in doing so, getting the rest of the Moslem world to hate America, hopefully leading to global war between Islam and the West. *That* is the goal of OBL. And we're playing right into his hands.

    "When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs. "

    So why doesn't this deterrent work ? You yourself quote a number of occasions where USA has done this (Diplomatic pressure, ultimatum, war) and always, the outcome is the same: nobody backs down. When you go to a government, saying :"Do this, or we'll bomb the crap out of you" ALL governments always have, and always will refuse to do whatever it is.

    Sometimes war is inevitable: WWII was inevitable by 1936 (but not before) WWIII was avoided because USA back then knew what needed to be done after WWII: The Marshall plan. If the allied forces had done something like that after WWI, then maybe WWII could have been avoided. Germany doesn't keep peace with america now because they fear american might, they keep peace with america because the two nations are friends.

    In the end, that's the only way to have peace.
    All that "peace through superior firepower" is stupid, simplistic and horribly dangerous.

  604. over 0x400 comments! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd only expect this volume if a government pledged support for anime and communism.

  605. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate."

    To continue your analogy, we gave these "children" matches, but they got their own Zippo. We trained them to mount counter-insurgency operations within their own borders, operations that heavily relied on one source (CIA) for money, weaopns, and other assistance. They learned about avoiding foreign intelligence services while setting up international cells while not relying on any one resource too heavily all by themselves.

    Between this comment and some other comments made by the original poster, it seems that some of you don't feel that the Afghanis are capable of thinking for themselves, that we are required to hold their hands for them to do anything. What is this, the White Man's Burden?

    "I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period."

    ... and not more than two setences later...

    "It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world."

    Well, which is it? Should we attack fewer people or more? We have the responsibility to defend everybody else BUT ourselves? And you wonder why this hasn't gone well with voters?

    "Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit."

    Someone asked his drill seargent why they needed to learn knife fighting when "some prof type" could just "push a button" and nuke them.

    "You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US."

    No, I tried to point out that there are no simple solutions or simple reasons for any of this. Unlike what the original poster seems to feel, 9/11 was not entirely the US's fault. However, I am also aware that this was not entirely bin Laden's fault, either. As in many other examples in recent decades, what our interests are doing there in harm's way to begin with is very questionable. But I still feel that the response we saw on 9/11 to our foreign policy was disproportionate, and we are still well within our rights to go after these people (a point that I and the original poster seem to disagree on).

  606. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by joshki · · Score: 1

    that's another good point -- I hadn't thought of it, but it does make sense.

    --
    I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
  607. Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by cburley · · Score: 1
    Thank you both for your back-and-forth discussion, it was interesting to read!

    Note that I don't take the "United We Stand" rhetoric to be necessarily militant -- standing for freedom and human rights does not necessarily mean killing those who oppose such things, even less-so does it mean killing innocents.

    I do hope you, sh_mmer, turn out to be right that these attacks aren't futile. I have much more confidence in the focus on the overall success of the mission to generally defang international terrorism now than I did during the Clinton years, but I still don't see much evidence that the US government as a whole is truly committing itself to its fundamental purpose of defending the US from attack. (I don't question the commitment of the military and organizations such as the FBI, but expect that, as the present levels of concern taper off, activities irrelevant to defense and unnecessary for government to undertake will once again occupy most of the attention of members of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, who, rather than focusing on defending our nation, tend to prefer playing Santa Claus, or Robin Hood with an Uzi, "nannying" our children in lieu of expecting responsible parenting, and changing the rules of the game of golf.)

    What I've long admired about American character (as I perceive it) is the ability of its military and police to focus both effectively and narrowly on a tactical goal without being distracted by hysteria, prejudice, etc. as is more typical of other cultures, especially older ones.

    In that sense, an American military or police action is less like a grenade going off, killing anyone in the area, than like a fast-moving train, rolling over anything in its way, but staying on its tracks.

    I tend to believe this is the result of the US history of being a society of individual achievement, rights, and responsibility, in which those concerns are typically elevated above those of personal issues such as race, nation of birth, etc.

    But this is a challenging time, our military has been through a very challenging time, so I don't assume it will succeed.

    For my part, I did publish a proposal for peace that might have made military action unnecessary, but it failed to attract much attention, and I did not propose it as a means to deny the military the support it needed to do its job.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful discussion!

    --
    Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  608. Why hasn't anyone addressed this question? by xQx · · Score: 0

    I have a very simple question, and I believe the American public needs to ask their leaders to address it for them to be in ANY WAY justified in their retalliation toward the 'terrorists'

    My question:

    The act committed on America on the 11th of September was not an irrational one. It was carefully planned and executed.

    What would drive a group of people to pay the ULTIMATE PRICE (their life) to punish America for something?
    What has America done to provoke this response? AND
    What is America doing to prevent *themselves* from provoking such a response in the future?

    (Okay, thats 3 questions, but it's really one :P )

    1. Re:Why hasn't anyone addressed this question? by philipm · · Score: 0

      1) trolls

      2) trolls

      3) new moderation scheme

      --


      Take this personaility test.
    2. Re:Why hasn't anyone addressed this question? by Flabdabb+Hubbard · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should take a look at the controversial news site adequacy.org. They have a moderation system over there which ensures no trolls slip through the net.

    3. Re:Why hasn't anyone addressed this question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) There is no ultimate price paid... although they are in "hell" for their actions, they went to it thinking that the Jihad declared by Al Queda and bin Laden ensured their ascent to heaven by dying for their cause. Their twisted, fundamentalist indoctrination by cowards who lead Al Queda made them believe this (note that the supposed leaders would never do such a thing...). What drives them is the belief that the US is the great satan and must be destroyed if the fundamentalist life is to be assumed around the globe... in fact we are only one of a great many satans in their eyes. They would destroy pretty much any nation that would allow their people to vote and partake in commerce and allow women to be in society, etc... They hate us most because they feel we have interfered in Palestine.

      2) We got involved where we shouldn't have to ensure Oil and support Isreal. The Zionists in this country have power and money and influence, and that has acted to direct US politics into interfering in Palestine. We also interfer in the Middle East in the name of Oil. It's wrong, and stupid. However, it is not deserving of an attack like the WTC...

      3) One out of two things we should have done. First is to utterly destroy Al Queda and any other fanatical terroristic group (I would really like to toss in ANY fundamentalist muslim movement honestly). The thing we are not doing is disengaging from the Middle East by looking to use our own oil reserves (which grow steadily as technology impoves for finding it in our own sphere of influence)... we need to ignore Israel entirely in my opinion. It's insane we prop up that "government" since they stepped in 50 years ago and stole Palestine from the people who had been living their peacefully for centuries. There are plenty of country-less nations in the world, what makes the people of Jewish faith in Israel so different that after a thousand + years they can just steal back what they lost? It's insane. Let them settle it without ours (or anyone elses) intevention... unfortunately that is the only reasonable resolution to their deliema, and the way many other nations have settled their issues in the past in similar circumstances. We are the bad guy on this one in a sense... but we did NOT deserve the WTC attacks in response either. This kind of terrorisim is NEVER right.

  609. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, he made half that shit up or got it from www.democraticunderground.com, which is more or less the same.

  610. FLAMEBAIT??? by poemofatic · · Score: 1

    Great work, moderator(s). If it's not banging the drums for war, it's flamebait. The above post is a well-articulated call for moderation. Too bad it didn't get the moderation it deserved.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

  611. Breaking News.... by NTSwerver · · Score: 1



    This just in.

    --
    -----------------------
    Moderator's essentials
  612. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That implys that I would actually pay to read it, which is false

    He clearly stated that he has paid work to do so that he is losing money by writing this instead of doing that paid work. If there's some concept here that's too dificult for you to grasp then let me know and I'll try to rephrase it in one syllable words.

    My apologies if English isn't your first language, but if it isn't then you should be more cautious in your responses based on your inability to comprehend.

  613. WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As a member of the US Army, I find the comment of "If a single innocent Afganistan citizen is killed by our military actions, then we are no better than terrorists ourselves" COMPLETELY ignorant of the facts.

    IF we killed a civilian it was solely a fact of collateral damage, Unavoidable. (I must also ask - what are they doing next to a militarized Taliban target?)

    WE are attacking "militarized" targets. THEY attacked DEFENSLESS civilians.

    When the US military attacks a target, the greatest care is taken to minimize the loss of civllian life. THOSE bastards attack civillians.

    1. Re:WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, thanks to your 8 year reign of terror by the liberal fanatics of this country... wait for it... Bill "Blow Job" Clinton and the President Hillary! What does Waco Texas have to do with the comment above though?

      A better example would be the fire bombing of say Tokyo... but that was a different kind of war too.

      The army comment was right, yours was dumb.

  614. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh, C'mon!

    Granted the US has done some reprehensible things in the past, including arming/training bin Laden and his cronies. You speak of the things the US has done to bring the tragedy of 11-sep on itself.


    What about the Taliban? What about Saddam Hussien? Haven't their actions brought about the sufferings of their own people? Don't these people bear any responsibility for the plight of their people?


    Bin Laden et al a responsible for the WTC bombings - he has said so publicly - wherein 6000 innocent civilans died. Now the Taliban whines to the world "US attacks have killed 20 civilians". Hussien has used chemical weapons against his own people. Bin Laden has declared "there are no American civilians". Good thing we here in the US doesn't look to these people for moral guidance.


    I never thought I would say this, but W. has handled this superbly. Precision strikes to minimize or if possible eliminate civilian casualties, humanitarian aid. I have said all along that it's time for the US to fish or cut bait: do we really believe the things we say we stand for, or will we go in guns a'blazin' and kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? So far I feel the US is upholding the principles our country was founded on.


    I don't care how you slice it: killing 6000 innocent civilians is wrong and it's evil. The people killed in the WTC had no more control over the actions of the US government than the Afghani people had over the Taliban - and we aren't (purposefully) killing civilians; that's Bin Laden's game.


    While I realize it's popular to castigate the Big, Evil USA, you should not let these so-called leaders off the hook: they, too, deserve to reap what they have sown.

  615. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    sorry dude, I don't know about the 3Mil but, he's right about the prison thing...

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  616. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the record, we have been giving over $100mil in aid to afghanis the past few years.

  617. really? by festers · · Score: 1

    Show me where the troops are and I'll enlist.

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  618. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombing is not a socially skilled way to interact with people, and we were doing it long before a few mentally deranged Arabs decided to do it inside the U.S.


    Uh, buddy, violence has *long* been the way things have been done. Islam vs. Christianity ever since Absolom and Issac. Fighting over the same peice of desert shit. It ain't ever gonna change cuz its a holy war. Only the weapons will.

  619. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by aprentic · · Score: 1

    He was Christian just not a member of any specific denomination. But he was raised Episcopalian.

  620. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bin Laden et al a responsible for the WTC bombings - he has said so publicly - wherein 6000 innocent civilans died.

    Really, I must've missed that CNN Report?

    Prehaps you should tell the afghans / taliban, since all they were asking for was some solid proof before they'd hand over Mr Bin Laden... and I would've thought 'Bin Laden Admitting publicly' would constitute hard evidence.

  621. America is to this day the greatest nation .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    If you fail to see how that is offensive then there is no wonder why we have the mess we have.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  622. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the record, we have been giving over $100mil in aid to afghanis the past few years.
    Seems a bit of a waste now we're spending $20B to bomb the shit outa them.

  623. Please Mod Parent Up... by poemofatic · · Score: 1

    ..it can't be "overrated" with a score of 0.

    Also, I can add some context to the quote. Hearken back to WWI. Here was America, with as many or more citizens of german descent than british, and we were generally wary of taking sides in European wars. Then, within a very short time, all of the elites in the U.S. and most of the populace becomes raving warmongers, renaming hamburgers to "victory burgers" -- or some such, to avoid the name "Hamburg". Picturs of Kaiser Wilhelm with fangs, slobbering green ooze posted on public buildings. It was a masterpiece of British propagnda which whipped the nation into a frenzy and brought us into the war. This made an impression on a lot of people, including Hitler, who realized the power of p.r. and vowed that the next war would not be lost because Germany's propaganda was inferior to that of Britain.

    It think this quote should be trotted out and paraded next to all of the presidentail platitudes about good and evil, "america is a shining beacon of light, and the darkness hates the light", etc. Let people decide which quote seems more truthful.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

  624. Observations (long) by ChelleyBean · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So we are at war.

    It is an ugly thing, war. I truly wish that we could have avoided this, but I don't see what other option we had. If we do not strike back in response to the September 11 attack, then they will say "See? America is a country of cowards! They will not even defend themselves! Watch, we can do it again!" Then another set of planes will be hijacked and flown into buildings, or truck bombs will be used or perhaps even something worse. Living in a major overland trucking hub for the United States brings the threat of truck bombs very close to me, and it's not a pleasant thought.

    Of course, the strikes will not stop terrorism either. We struck, so they will strike. The difference is that by taking military action we have a better chance of putting an end to the attacks more quickly.

    There are some that are saying the 9/11 attacks were a crime, and therefore military action is uncalled for. The OKC bombing would have been declared an act of war if it hadn't been for the fact that it was a local boy who did it, not a well disciplined, highly organized group of people with backing and support from governments. The Taliban regime is not even officially recognized by some world governments, so perhaps this isn't a "war" at all.

    To those who think peace is possible, I truly hope you are right. OBL despises us, as do his people. The Taliban despises our freedoms and us. We are allowed to speak our minds, to criticize our government. Our daughters are allowed to attend school and become doctors, lawyers and astronauts. Our way of life is seen as decadent and corrupt and there are those that fear the people of Afghanistan may look over and see what we have and want it for themselves. This is not a war based on actions we have taken against the Afghan peoples; this is a war based on a way of life and a difference of religions. OBL makes no bones about the fact he would like to see the US destroyed, or at the very least eradicated of Christianity and the Islamic faith the official religion. If he succeeded (which he will not) he would then move on to other countries, one by one, until all that was left would be the more conservative Islamic countries who frown on his actions. Then those he would try to conquer as well. It's his way or the highway.

    Yes we've made some bonehead maneuvers regarding Palestine. That's not up for debate. How many times in the past decade, though, have we sent our sons and daughters overseas with the very real possibility of death to defend or protect Muslims? My cousin could probably tell you, she's getting sick and tired of her husband being shipped out for every mission that rolls around.

    Should the Taliban be booted out of Afghanistan? The woman in me says "Hell Yes!" Wives and daughters are treated little better than animals there, and that doesn't sit well with me. They cannot even get decent health care because no man other than their husbands is allowed to look upon them, and since women cannot be educated it's highly unlikely they'd have access to a female doctor. Women have been beaten within an inch of death and beyond for daring to seek medical care or for violating some rule of dress. Men have even been beaten and worse for something so simple as the length of their beards. If the newspapers are to be believed, refugees fleeing over the border into Pakistan are saying the Taliban is conscripting men by force, even down to boys as young as 11 and 12. Coming into their homes and dragging them away. We know why they are doing it, but that doesn't make it right.

    Do we have the right to strip out the Taliban and put our own puppet government in it's place? No, we do not. Our forefathers fought a bloody and hard war for the right to govern themselves. We should give no less to any we wish to help. Just because a representative republic works for us does not mean that it is the right government for everyone.

  625. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by geschild · · Score: 1

    Funny. You provide my arguments for me. Since the CIA trained these people, you think that all they were taught was to hold firearms and sidewinders? Not so. They were taught to _think_ and _be creative_ in a very _distructive_ manner. So yes the CIA and the SAS are very much to blame for the effectiveness of these new terrorists. Deny that and you turn a blind eye. These people may have been given matches and 'invented' the zippo but they were taught _how_ to invent. The afghans are human beings and therefore very capabable of original thought. The difference here being that this destructive mindset does not come natural, it was exported to them by the US governament.

    To clarify the duality in my post. I would have rather had that they had fought the moral wars instead of the interest wars. That way I would've had both my wishes: less bombing (because those moral battles could have been fought without wars or bombings) _and_ less _meddeling_ in US economic an political interest. Nice huh, two birds, one stone.

    As to how you could sell this to the public: if you were to do the 'right thing' as defined in the US constitution for others, meaning defending democracy instead of perverting it to fend of communism to name one how could you _not_ defend this to the public. Especially as it would only have taken monetary pressure and not the waste of US soldiers' lives. (And less money at that, at 1-2M$ a pop those 50 tomahawks are a nice budget, not to mention the rest of this effort.) To add to that you would've created goodwill instead of 'badwill' which would have saved the US people a lot of trouble and money now wouldn't it have?

    Your comment about this drill-sergeant is wasted on me. If you're going to even consider a nuke as 'proportional' you're not worth talking to, you're insane.
    9/11 _is_ entirely Bin Ladens fault if the evidence is really as hard as we're being told. He lit the zippo. The fact that the US is being hated so much that he could gather followers to act out his perverseties is in a large part the US' fault. I think that the people who have hatred as their first motive should be found and contained or killed if necesarry including Mr. Bin Laden. I do not think that the current way of 'solving' this problem is going to achieve that goal. We'll see. Just don't be surprised if BL lives to see 90 as a respected Mulah while the US gets it's share of foreign terror attacks the coming years because of this 'retalliation'. (I quote it because that's the way its going to be perceived by the terrorists and their followers, not because I see it that way.)

    Thank you for the mind-jog.

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
  626. Ignorant. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Muslims can eat anything when they are under duress.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  627. Right to kill ... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    What gives the US and Britain the right to attack a sovereign nation in this manner?

    7000 dead people.

    Using that logic the 500000 Iraq children that have died (lets forget about the estimated 200000 civilians dead during the Gulf War) would give ObL the right to attack the US.

    Messy world we live in ...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Right to kill ... by mftuchman · · Score: 1

      The Iraqi children who died during the sanctions are the solely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. He broke the treaty and brought the sanctions and the suffering of his people upon himself. He can end the suffering at any time by adhering to the treaty that he signed.

      It just just politically more expedient for him to gratify is ego at the expense of his people.

      --
      You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
    2. Re:Right to kill ... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      lets forget about the estimated 200000 civilians dead during the Gulf War

      You have swallowed the propaganda of a genocidal madman hook line and sinker.

      The people who died in Iraq are the sole responsibility of Saddam Hussien. His regime invaded Kuwait and Iran, not the other way around. Saddam conducted wars of extemination against his own people.

      The UN has given the Iraqi govenment the wherewithal to pay for food and medicine with humanitarian relief through a variety of mechanisms including sale of oil. Saddam has taken any money he can get from these means and spent it on his military rather than buying food for the needy of his country. Not to mention the internal wars of genocide using chemical and biological warfare he has conducted against his own people. This man stands in the first rank of the mass murderers of the 20th century.

      I think it is despicable that you have chosen to align yourself with such a person.

    3. Re:Right to kill ... by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

      Sanctions do not cripple leaders of rogue nations, they cripple their poorest people, while their leaders blame those who put down the Sanctions. In other words, the sanctions are against the people of Iraq. ObL's followers (let's ignore him for a moment) are drawn from these and other people of the "Islamic State" who are angry at the US for having a foreign policy that is insensitive to the people of the middle east.

      --
      - - -
      giftedu ;)
  628. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by geschild · · Score: 1

    I resent that you make me out to chastise the USA over this. I'm not. I'm making the point that the big display of righteous innocence is a load of bull-shit. There are very clear reasons as to why this happened. The terrorists attack was only the last event in a long chain and that chain could've been broken along the way in so many locations that I don't even want to think about it. I place the blame for the terrorists attack squarly with the terrorists and I do not in any way condone attacks on civilians through whatever twisted way of designating them military targets or other ways. I place the blame for nursing large amounts of people into hating the US with the US. That make it clear?

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
  629. A "flamebait" posting? Truth sometimes hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on boys and girls. Rating the posting above as "flamebait" is a shame. Go back to Kindergarten (or Disney World) where the world is rosy.

  630. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't you read the fucking article he referenced before trolling? You are as fooled as anybody.

  631. Look at with some Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Okay... there is a real mixed bag of responses on this board about the attack. There are also an awful lot of mis-conceptions intermingling with liberal rhetoric.

    First off... lets look at the forces deployed.

    4(1) Aircraft carriers, each with 80 - 100 aircraft. A dozen B52's at Diego Garcia (bolsering the normal compliment to something like 30 total bombers). EF111 and F15E out of Oman and Egypt, B1s in Egypt also. Additionally there are 1000 men from 10th Mountain in Uz protecting about 60 tactical and strategic airlift AC (deployed for psyops and dropping of relief supplies), at least 3 MAU in region (Marine Action Unit, a heavy regiment or short brigade depending on who you talk to), as well as elements of the 82, 101, and 25th divisions on 24/12 standby. You also have Seals, Rangers, SAS and other special operators in Afghanistan designating targets and training resistance to the Taliban while hunting for bin Laden and Al Queda assets. There are also at least 15 cruise missle launching platforms assisting the carriers in the region, with the capability to launch up to 270 cruise missles before retiring for reloads.

    The press got it wrong by stating that the F14 was carrying out strikes... while it has a clear weather daytime bombing capacity with optical sights, it cannot bomb at night effectively and with accuracy. Very few of the navy's F14 fleet was uprated for all weather day/night precision bombing missions... most likely they were A6 and QA6 AC.

    The campaign is text book and public... it is taking out C3 (not CnC) targets, as well as knocking flat the few threats to humanitarian airdrops. There are 12 million airdrop packages available to drop in Afghanistan, supporting up to 3700 people each. Power is taken out for more psychological purposes, as are radio and television assets as they exist. Human casualties all around are limited by the strikes being carried out at night and with precision munitions as well, and there is added psychological warfare benefits from keeping your enemy up all night while they man their AAA systems to respond to intrusion and attack.

    Afghanistan doesn't even rate as a 3rd rate military power. It lacks supplies, fuel, modern weapons (almost every weapon system in country dates back to the 80's), manpower, and ammunition. They don't have an airforce of much mention (some left over Frogfoots and Hinds mostly, as well as some decaying Mig 21's and 23 Floggers that are questionable and risk the pilots lives more than anything else). Their tanks, when they run, are mostly ligher T54's or PT76 style light combat tanks, some BTR50/60 and BRDM 1 apc's and recon light armoured vehicles, and lots of GAZ style trucks. Their anti-aircraft defense is laughable mostly, with the biggest threat being the 1960's style radar systems and alot of handled low perfromance missles like Stingers. Their artillary is nearly useless, the tubes being shot out a long time ago, and their rocket artillary is nearly out of ammo to.

    Best reasonable estimates put the Taliban with 40000 men under arms (most likely less given the defections in the last week), with Al Queda militia giving them another 1800... these are the people who would resist a ground incursion or attempt to grab bin Laden, and they are very brave and knowledgable hill fighters that deserve alot of respect.

    Now, that I have the garbage basics out of the way, lets look at some things.

    First off, this is political. Don't think for a second that it isn't. History is replete with religious conflicts, but everyone was at its heart a political conflict. In fact, logic dictates that religion is an artificial construct of mankind to explain away the unexplained (which is something we cannot tolerate... we as a species with thought and insight must have an explaination for everything, and we make up one for what we can't explain). That's not to say religion is false neccesarily, only that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and understood for what it is.

    Taking that a step further, you can also argue that religion is further corrupted from idea by politics. Religion introduces moral values that reflect the values of societal leadership often times. It's all relative...

    Bin Laden and the fundamentalist muslim fanatics would lead the world to believe this is a religious conflict... it is not. The majority of Muslims denounce fundamentalisim outright. It's a perversion of the muslim faith, dictated by politics and swathed in religious re-interpretation to suit a need or needs.

    Is the US guilty of something. Oh yes... sadly so. We have interferred in Palestine and the Middle East for many years. Zionist influence in this country has guaranteed this, as has the political need for oil. We prop up movements and governments instead of letting the region handle it's own business, all to meet our own political agendas. Most major world powers are guilty of similar things too, good or bad.

    Terrorism is the last, desperate stage of a political movement or nation that is no longer empowered to act politically or with a world voice. It is polticial... the act of killing innocents in a public and brutal fashion in order to effect a political change of heart in the populace of a target country that results in the support or change needed to make your own movment successful. With rare exception it has not yielded a single positive result in the last 100 of years history (that positive result being the meeting of a political movments goals that has taken up terrorism as it's tool of effecting political change).

    The WTC was not terrorism as we have known it. There were no public warnings as typically seen in other terrorist campaigns. There were no claims of accountability for the attacks, nor any statements of why they took place and demands to make them stop. This is a new form of destructive terrorism by a small, but international, group of criminals and madmen for the sake of destruction and the vague hope of change to their own twisted and perverted needs. The PLO is a terrorist group, but with a goal and specific agenda that right or wrong, makes them a political entity to be negotiated with... Al Queda is not this at all.

    Our attacks are not terroristic either. They are the reasonable and expected advancement of a well announced and public political agenda, with great world backing and general public acceptance (92% of the US population approved according to several polls from several press sources both liberal and conservative). This is the application of violence, political action, psychological warfare, back alley dealing and intelligence, as well as humanitarian effort to effect positive change in Afghanistan that will result in the destruction of Al Queda as a force that can launch attacks on the scale of the WTC. No really hidden agenda, no lack of communication or announcing of intent, no fundamental lack of moral base.

    For those who espouse a pacifist moralization or liberal view point, that is your right. You can do so because men and women in uniform are right now defending your right to do so... while the US has done some really nasty shit in the Middle East, we always did so in a more or less open fashion. We did not train Al Queda (training freedom fighters that could reclaim their homeland from soviet domination is not training terrorists!), we did not harm the Afghani people. We suffered from a brutal attack by a shadowy organization of fanatics and moral-less people who have twisted a relgion into some unimaginable sickness and hide behind a billion other souls, citing religious need and vieling political aspirations that even they know will never come to pass.

    The leaders of Al Queda would never risk their own lives, they recruit simple people with a vunerable mindset and indoctrinate them with a bastardized version of religion that results in another human weapon against everthing they do not have or cannot understand. They are truely cowards and psychotics who think they can effect political change world wide by destroying innocent life... their world view and political entrenchment is far worse than even Stalins or Mao's purges, even Hitlers camps. They wish to impose their views on everyone at any price, including the use of biological or nuclear weapons, all in the perverted name of their twisted version of Allah. They deserve to die a thousand deaths and burn in the very hell they fear.

  632. And his legacy will last longer. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    So, not 'nuf was said.

    He changed the world.

    Bombs don't.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  633. That is true... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ...and when nobody is willing to scrutinize and criticize it is important to get out of either sheep mentality.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  634. �� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KSLKAYNWTLWZXX

  635. Moderators, please by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 1

    This is simply not a flamebait. End of story.

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  636. Here's an odd question... by sphealey · · Score: 2
    Hardly. The Vietnam War was a proxy war between the US and the USSR, an extended campaign in the Cold War. North Vietnam had essentially zero industrial capacity for fighters, bombers, aircraft, firearms, radios, and anti-aircraft missiles. Without vast infusions of Soviet materiel, the US would've promptly conquered North Vietnam. (Of course without the Soviet presence there would have been no need to.)

    Well, that's one theory, and well worth considering.

    But here's an odd question: why don't the Vietnamese hate the US (in general, on average)? If there is any people on earth who would have a right to take revenge on the US for killing 100k's of their people, bombing their industry, defoliating their land, etc. (not to mention betrying their trust after WWII), it would be the Vietnamese.

    And yet we don't seem to see that behaviour, either in international relations or a a personal level. US citizens I know who have gone to Vietnam as tourists are have been treated either on a friendly, or neutral, basis, and I even know a few army-types who have been invited to attend seminars by the Vietnamese army (on topics such as "Beating the crap out of sophisticated helicopters in a jungle envirnment, natch).

    Any thoughts on why this is? Because they won, and they know it? Or something else?

    sPh

    1. Re:Here's an odd question... by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      But here's an odd question: why don't the Vietnamese hate the US (in general, on average)?
      A good question. I don't know a lot about Vietnamese culture, but I suspect there are several factors. For one thing, the US occupied the south without too much razing and pillaging. If US forces had behaved like the Japanese occupation of Nanking the situation would be different. Another big factor is that the government after withdrawal was fairly rational and progressive, unlike Pol Pot or Chairman Mao. A moderate communist government that isn't a blatant tool for Moscow is not such a bad thing. Yet another factor is that they prevailed in battle. There's also the fact that many of the extremists and nutcases got themselves killed.
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

  637. Re:Hitler had a Point, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler had a point too. In his time, the 1930's, many people in the Democratic West were sympathetice to his points about the harsh provisions of the Versailles treaty and what was considered "legitimate rights" of German minorities in Czechoslovakia.

  638. How Are You Taliban? by rsimmons · · Score: 1

    All your base are belong to us!

    Oh, No! Somebody set up us the bomb!

  639. You've grossly simplified the war in Vietnam by DG · · Score: 2

    As a brief aside, you've fallen into the trap than many non-students of military history often discover when they discuss the war in Vietnam - that old chestnut about how "you cannot defeat guerillas".

    The truth is actually much more complicated and subtle than that.

    The war in Vietnam was not conducted as a "pure war", ie, a conflict in which a military force is instructed to defeat the enemy by any means possible (within the boundries of what the laws of warfare delimit).

    Examples of these types of wars would be the Gulf War, and WWII.

    Vietnam was played out on the stage of the Cold War, which imposed a large number of arbitrary (and conflicting) limitations on the types of operations that the American military could carry out. They were never given the opportunity to fight with their full capacity. Instead, they were subject to restrictions imposed by the political side of their government.

    No military professional in their right mind would re-fight the Vietnam war on those terms. It gave far too much advantage to the enemy - an enemy, it must be said, that had an astute awareness of the political situation in which they were operating and who played it to full effect.

    Whenever the US Army and North Vietnemese regulars met in open battle with the gloves off, the North Vietnamese were soundly defeated. It is not at all unreasonable to presume then, that had the US Army been given free reign to persue open battle in all conditions, that they would have defeated the North Vietnamese and won the war.

    The Americans had similar successes against the Vetcong, (the "terrorist" arm of the conflict) whenever the 'Cong were within reach. The failure there was not a superiority of the 'Cong's fighting ability or tactics, but rather the limitations placed on the American forces that prevented them from striking at the bases that these units operated out of.

    Vietnam was a political loss, not a military one.

    Those circumstances do not exist today in modern Afganistan. There are some simularities - most noteably, in the harshness of the terrain - but the political situation is entirely different. An invasion of Afganistan could succeed in accomplishing its goals, as there is no political necessity to limit the scale or type of military actions taken.

    One final point - I think you'll find that the military professionals who are planning and conducting these strikes are very much aware of the situation on the ground. Vietnam taught many lessons. There will be no indiscriminate carnage. Instead, strikes will be conducted against verifiable targets of known military signifigance. Civillian casulties will undoubtably occur, but they will be minimised as much as possible within the framework of the mission at hand.

    The civillians killed on 9/11 were not granted such accomodations. Do not forget that.

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  640. Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by Yunzil · · Score: 1
    It was monday morning over there dumbass...


    Afghanistan is +9 from EST. If the attacks started noon EDT, that translates into 11 AM EST, which means it was 8 in the evening on Sunday in Kabul.


    Dumbass.

  641. Re:Time zones and dateline say it's Monday in Kabu by Yunzil · · Score: 1
    Noon on Sunday here is early in the morning there.


    Bzzt. Noon Sunday EDT is 8 PM Sunday in Afghanistan.

  642. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Really? That's odd, I could, and often do, say the same thing about Christianity. Look, for instance, at how Charlamagne treated the Saxons- i.e. conversion by the sword.

    What's really interesting is that in the Islamic calendar, it's about 1400. Which, if you set the Christian clock back 600 years, you'd find a lot of bloodthirsty "mullahs," (knights and priests) saying the same kind of all-or-none kind of thing you see bin Laden saying today. I wonder if it just takes 2000 years for a religion to "grow up." Being an atheist, of course, I could care less. Whenever it's war, it's about money or religion. And there's not a lot about money that isn't ultimately about religion, and not a lot about religion that isn't ultimately about money.

  643. Revenge != Justice by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > So every soldier, policemen, or law enforcement agent of any kind could never be a Christian?
    > That in itself hints at you sententiousness and arrogance; I think you would do best to agree with Christ.
    I think you should take a closer look at what Christ taught:

    > Why did the disciples carry swords?
    Christ didn't condem the carrying of swords -- he condemned the *use* of them:

    Matthew 26
    Verse 51
    With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
    Verse 52
    "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

    > Had he no opportunity to make absolute pacifism clear?

    He did, but he didn't use pacifism in one instance.

    John 2:15
    So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

    HOWEVER, he said WE are NOT to resort to violance. Seems like pacifism to me.

    Matthew 5
    Verse 38
    "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7]
    Verse 39
    But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    And also

    Romans 12:19
    Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

  644. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He said so on his videotaped interview released Sunday, I believe.

    Not that it would have mattered WHAT evidence the US presented; do you really think the Taliban would hand over a Muslim to anyone? After all, Bin Laden didn't come to Afghanistan until after the US Embassy bombings in 1996, which I believe he took credit for. Knowing that Bin Laden had bombed the emabassies, and in the process, killed hundreds of civilians, the Taliban offered Afghanistan as a base for Bin Laden after the Sudan was about to give him up. The US had the means and the opportunity to shoot down the plance that carried him to Afghanistan, but we did not.


    I know the US has done some really bad things; some public some not so public. Still, that does not excuse killing thousands of people who had nothing to do with those things. Right now the US is taking great pains to limit any bloodshed to armed combatants. Bin Laden killed thousands of folks who were just trying to make aliving and feed thier families. In doing so he created thousands of orphaned children.


    Saddam Hussien attacked a Muslim country (Kuwait). All he had to do was get rid of his NBC weapons and allow the UN (NOT the US) to verify he had done so and voila, no more sanctions. In his lust for conquest, he has not done so, and so HE, not anyway else, is responsible for the plight of the Iranian people. Hussien used chemical weapons on Muslims! Why isn't he being denigrated? Strange how Bin Laden recently decided he's for removing UN Sanctions and for a Palestinian state. He never cared about those goals until he was in the crosshairs, trying to rally Muslims against the US to save his own skin. Bin Laden is using Muslims and Islam to provoke an all out war between Muslims everywhere and the West. Don't let him get away with it.

  645. BAD MODERATION by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2
    Who moderated this as flamebait?? It is well-argued and based on facts. Just because the conclusion doesn't fit with a moderator's preconceptions, they claim that it is flamebait?


    Take some pride is Slashdot. Moderate honestly.

    1. Re:BAD MODERATION by blair1q · · Score: 2

      It's moderated as flamebait because of the characterization of Israeli retaliations as "brutalization".

      The brutality is the heavily rationalized suicide bombing designed to terrorize Israel into quitting its nation. The retaliation is just retaliation. Tit-for-tat. Plucking it out of the context does not make it brutality. Labeling it brutalization is begging to be flamed.

      If the Palestinian side were richer, Israel would be extinct. If the Israeli side were richer, they could afford to clean Hamas et al from the Palestinian areas, and the rest of the Palestinians might just be willing to live peacefully alongside Israel.

      With almost the entire world involved in ridding us of this religion-camouflaged terrorist nonsense, it's only a matter of coming around to it on the schedule before Hamas et al are cleaned out of the Palestinian lands.

      With the malignancy removed, we'll see what the remaining people can do about brokering peace.

      --Blair

  646. Re:Pacifists / critics to US Miltary Operations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here here! Well spoken. I am waiting for an enlightened peace arguement as well.

    Probably something like this: "Economic sanctions will force the taliban to end their support for terrorism!"
    Ten years later when those sanctions have no effect we will hear, "Millions of children are dying every day due to U.S. supported sanctions! What an evil country!"

  647. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I resent that you make me out to chastise the USA over this.
    > I'm not. I'm making the point that the big display of righteous
    > innocence is a load of bull-shit.

    Let's get soemthing straight right up front: Those 6000 people in the WTC WERE innocent. They were not combatants. They were murdered. And that is simply the plain, unvarnished truth. And if you resent that, fuck off.

  648. Re:Links to people killed were added to the articl by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    I checked. It seemed heavily biased and rather unfocused. It did cite several media and gov sources that show:
    150,000 Cambodians died in bombings
    40,000 Vietnamese died from unexploded ordnance since the war.
    37 soldiers died in mine-clearing operations
    As many as 120,000 soldiers died in Iraq

    Grand total is 308,285. No other sources were cited, it just states 14 nations bombed and 3,000,000 killed. Not exactly credible evidence.

  649. British Empire ended 56 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But some British still don't seem to be aware of that fact. So they behave the same way they did for centuries, sending their army. But how high is the percentage of Muslim population in their cities as of today? I wouldn't be surprised if seeing the next major suicide action taking place in a place like London's financial district.

  650. Re:You people make me sick, Score -1, Troll, prob. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... terroristic attacks planned or executed by Al Queda have taken place through out Europe, Africa, Asian, and now the US. How are you ducking that bullet... do you live in Anarctica? Moron....

    "Treat others the way you would like them to treat you. " A nice, mushy thought, totally devoid of reality. Since Al Queda blew up 5K+ innocents in NYC alone, they must want to be treated that way then... right? Again, moron...

    You are not religious, but then you paraphrase christian morals and bibilical references *see above*? Hmmm... moron. Liberal trash moron monkey...

    As to one group deciding anothers fate... Al Queda decided the fate of thousands (and millions more affected by the attack in a multitude of ways). What's your point? Moron...

    Those in power write history and dictate terms. The bible is a nice guide on how to do things right... maybe something to aspire to. However, just turn on the news and watch for a night and understand that we as humans are just not ready or willing to go there yet. We have deep rooted, possibly geneticly ingrained, issues that are diametrically opposed to each other. Hopefully we will evlolve and loose our built in fears and hatreds, and learn to accept differences and live in harmony. Until then, Darwinism is a valid rule of thumb and we have the big stick.

    If we don't act, they will, and it won't just be against the US. You will suffer too if they act and we *we being the civilized world, such as it is* do not.

    Grow up moralist troll... moron...

  651. CCTV cameras cut crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm.. no they don't? Got any figures to back this up? Didn't think so.

    Don't be a sheep :)

    1. Re:CCTV cameras cut crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have figures that refute the assertion?

  652. Not Bullies but Victim of Bullies by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2

    What gives the US and Britain the right to attack a sovereign nation in this manner? And what do they hope to achieve?

    The fact that they where attacked first, it's called self defence, and it is the best response to a bully. Any lets be clear it is OBL and his cronies who are the bullies, like most bullies, they pick on theose they think are weak, American Civilians.

  653. Blair's Not Sloppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He swallows every last drop!

  654. I'm "Backing" Blair All The Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only am I fucking Blair's tight ass, so is all the rest of the United States. Fucking and fucking, harder and harder... Blair screams like a woman for more. Brits like it up the ass.

  655. Blair's got more power than just his words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His intense sucking action is greater than that of a Hoover vacuum. Not to mention that he swallows every last drop of my load. As an American, it's satifying to know that there are some Bits out there like Blair who can still suck dick like pros.

  656. declaration of war by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    To anyone's knowledge, has war been 'officially' declared on the Taleban? Otherwise, legally, the president can only keep military strikes going for 60 days, right? Combined with the lack of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, this attack on Afghanistan isn't very legal, is it?

    --
    [o]_O
  657. Iraqi sanctions hurtful? BULLSHIT! by Skip666Kent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While his people starve at the hands of the 'dreadful sanctions from the West', Saddam has managed to do much to rebuild his army and infrastructure, all the while very successfully (as witnessed in the parent post and all the drooling support it has garnered) using the sanctions as a perfect excuse to starve his own people into a frenzy of racial hatred and win the support of bleeding-hearts in America itself.

    He has barely scratched the surface of what he could gain for his people with the Oil for Food program as it would eliminate the unofficial but worldwide support he gets as a 'poor victim' who only needs to pose occasionally for the camera with his hands in the air saying "My poor people. What can I do against these terrible impositions from the West?"

    Wake up for Chrissakes, and stop playing into their hands like a bunch of puppets.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  658. Let's do some research and find ways to stop. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    You are exactly right that violence is an old tradition. So, let's do some research and find ways to stop.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  659. The article quotes a CNN story that says 3 million by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    You didn't read carefully, or you visited the article earlier and forgot to do a View/Reload to reload your browser, so that you were reading an old version.

    The article says, "The lowest figure sometimes quoted, including only deaths due to military action, is 1.740,000." The article quotes a CNN story that says 3,000,000.

    Comments like yours are helpful because I didn't realize before how many people don't know the numbers.

    The government of Vietnam claims that civilian casualties were far higher. I haven't been able to find a link to that in English, so it is not in the article.

    This is important if the United States is your country, or if it isn't.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  660. Re: Ok, lets get redundant by Husaria · · Score: 0

    So, you're basing your facts on slashdot posts now?
    Hussein is killing the children, not the US, UK, UN or any other entity. He can stop making weapons and let us look to see if he is abiding by those rules.
    He is the one killing those children, and we have good reason not to lift the sanctions, because he will be making weaponry that can kill much more than a half million over the process of a decade, but more like a half million within 5 seconds.

    --
    Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
  661. Yes...*empty* rhetoric... by Macrobat · · Score: 1
    ...that's why the phrase "empty rhetoric" is an insult. No, the terrorists weren't even very successful, according to your criteria. They showed themselves to be backstabbing jackals, galvanized world opinion against them (even lessening their support in the Middle East), and look like they've pretty much guaranteed their exit from power.

    I'll grant that a U.S. military response was one of their objectives. But I'm pretty sure this is not the kind of action they planned for. So no, we haven't given them what they wanted. I understand that you desperately want to believe that avoiding military conflict is the way to go, but you haven't put forth anything like a convincing case for it.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Yes...*empty* rhetoric... by melquiades · · Score: 2

      The phrase "empty rhetoric" is an insult.

      Yes, it is -- and insults, too, are empty rhetoric. Welcome to the world of political debate. :)

      ...galvanized world opinion against them...

      For the very most part, yes. But there is already a new round of anti-US riots among the very people whom the terrorists hope to push over the edge into joining them. I maintain that they were successful in generating the polarizing and inflammatory response they wanted.

      I simply do not believe that we are capable of a military response which will achieve our long-term goals. I may be wrong; you may be wrong. Most likely, we are both wrong. Honestly, only time will decide the effects of our actions.

      I understand that you desperately want to believe that avoiding military conflict is the way to go...

      No, I do not want to believe it. I do believe it. Please respect that.

  662. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what is "the right thing"? So many people are so narrow-minded that they believe that there is only a singular "right" and "wrong". What is right to you may be extremely wrong to someone else. "Morals" and "ethics" are all relative.

    This is the problem with the U.S., always trying to cram their belief system down other peoples' throats. I'm sick of the righteous attitude that America and its citizens ooze.

  663. Beowolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine a beowolf cluster of these?

    1. Re:Beowolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a beowolf cluster?

  664. Re:Iraqi sanctions hurtful? BULLSHIT! by D.+J.+Keenan · · Score: 1
    Why should I believe you and not the information cited in my original post?

    I gave an example of pencils being banned. I told how the sanctions inspectors have repeatedly quit in disgust at the humanitarian misery they cause. I cited a UN report which concluded that sanctions caused the deaths of half a million children. You ignore all this and you provide nothing to support your claims.

    One poster (in another thread) cited the relative success of the Kurdish (northern) part of Iraq, which is not under Saddam's control. He claimed this showed that it was Saddam, not sanctions, that caused the bulk of the misery. This is misleading, but at least the poster gave a reason and a reference.

    I know of three reasons for Kurdish Iraq to be richer than the rest of Iraq. First, Kurdish Iraq gets about 40% more money, per person, from the UN than non-Kurdish Iraq. Second, Kurdish Iraq controls the flow of contraband between Iraq and Turkey, skimming off up to $1 million/day. Third, Kurdish Iraqi agriculture, being rain-fed, does not rely on the crumbled irrigation network (unrestored due to sanctions). For more details, see here and here.

  665. LP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lAst PoST, muther-effers!

  666. Re:Iraqi sanctions hurtful? BULLSHIT! by jafac · · Score: 1

    God DAMN I wish I had some mod-points for you, my friend.

    I, for one, am sick to death of this "poor starving Iraqis" bullshit.

    Iraqis problems originate from one person, and that is the "Hero" Saddam.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  667. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strawman arguments are one method of trolling, I guess.

  668. Rumor going around by Rimbo · · Score: 2

    There's a rumor that the bodies of the terrorists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon have been found, and they were given a burial...

    ...along with the bodies of dead pigs.

    Apparently, in fundamentalist Islam, being buried with a dead pig means that you go directly to Hell.

    I can't say for sure, but I've heard that this is going to be a new US policy regarding the terrorists, but it's being kept hush-hush.

    1. Re:Rumor going around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bin/laden is going to hell anyway because he's GAY! fag towelhead.

  669. Transcript of chat session between US and Afgha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bin Laden: What happen?
    Thug: Somebody set up us the bomb. And cruise missiles.
    Thug: We get signal.
    Thug: Main screen turn on.
    bin Laden: It's You!!
    Bush: How are you gentlemen!!
    Bush: All your al Qaeda are belong to us.
    Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
    bin Laden: What you say!!
    Bush: You have to chance to survive make your time.

  670. LP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lAst PoST, muther-effers!

    -ac

  671. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by strider · · Score: 1

    "And what is "the right thing"? So many people are so narrow-minded that they believe that there is only a singular "right" and "wrong". What is right to you may be extremely wrong to someone else. "Morals" and "ethics" are all relative.

    This is the problem with the U.S., always trying to cram their belief system down other peoples' throats. I'm sick of the righteous attitude that America and its citizens ooze."

    My answer to this is very simple; if morals are completely relative and there is no right and wrong then why is shoving belief systems down people's throats wrong? Hell, why not indoctrinate everyone in one set of beliefs where the most powerful are always right? It might end allot of conflict. Yes allot of morality is very relative. No all morality is not relative. No because it is impossible to make a perfect deterministic judgment about what is right and wrong it does not follow that you can never try. Notice I said trying to do the right thing. I think you clearly seem to feel people have a right to believe what they want. This is "morally" right. I don't think I need to explain how deeply problematic this becomes quite quickly. What about countries who force their people (or try to force their people) to believe in a certain system? Is this wrong? If we tolerate "nations" rights to do this how do we make this distinction and what is a "nation". Ultimately I will present you with a challenge:

    Let us just say there is some government whose "morally relative" policy is to kill a certain segment of its population, consisting of, let's say 20 million people. We have the power to stop this, but cannot do it without telling them what is "right". Without ever appealing to morality, come up with a way we can interfere. And if you think we can interfere come up with a system which differentiates between this example and leveling sanctions when a country say, forces six year olds to work in sweat shops. The U.S. is faced with being an incredibly powerful nation in a very fucked up world. It makes mistakes. Its history is rife with error. Does this mean it can never ever do anything in the future? Why or why not? How culpable is the U.S. if it doesn't interfere with genocide and other "human rights violations"? It's easy to critique decisions when you never have to make one yourself or critically evaluate your own.

    --
    The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
  672. LP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lAst PoST, muther-effers!!

    -ac

  673. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by strider · · Score: 1

    I wanted to e-mail you this reply, hopefully you will read this.

    "Few terrorists are bombing victims? Few bombing victims are alive after becoming bombing victims. By your logic, you have no reason to undertake retaliatory action unless YOU were a 9/11 victim PERSONALLY."

    I define victim in broader terms than this. For example if your mother, father, brother or sister was killed in the blast. Or if you were wounded by shrapnel. Bin Laden does not claim to be motivated by this, and the people who actually flew the planes appear to be predominantly wealthy individuals who's motivations are mainly religious. Osama Bin Laden himself claims this is true. They think it is part of Islam to kill the impure, like Jews or Americans if they happen to live in "Muslim lands".

    "As for how many lives bombing saved, that is a question you should pose to every Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Grenadan, Libyan, Panamanian, Iraqi, Serb, Sudanese, and Afghan (among others) you meet. While many disagreed with their political leadership, I'm sure theyd've preferred that their innocent countrymen not die. Set aside will be our actions in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Iran, as they don't involve aerial bombardment per se, but rather differing levels of meddling and interference (i.e., assasinations, propaganda and sabotage.) To a lesser extent, our presence in places like Haiti, Japan and the Phillipines brews some resentment, even if the overall effect is stabilizing in some places. Just because there are no bullets flying in a country where we have troops on the ground is an inadequate basis for concluding that they love us. Also to be ignored is our tampering in an Australian PM election in the 1970's. Still, you have to admit that this is a long and varied list."

    Weather the victims prefer it does not deal with the substance of my argument. My argument is based on whether or not U.S. action in the last 30 (I would broaden it to 50 but the figures or only 30) years saved more than it killed. Certainly many of the operations you bring up were all or in part ill considered. But, honestly, 3-million isn't as many as it sounds. During de-Kulakization alone Stalin killed 4-million via starvation (I would recommend the historian Sheila Fitzpatrick on the subject). Would other communists have done the same? The leaders at the time thought so. They were often very wrong, but not always. In all of those cases the people we fought killed many. I don't know what they would add up to, but I am certain they are well over 3 million.

    "As to our world being fucked up, yes. I believe there are people whose deaths would make the world a better place. My list differs from yours. Who decides, then?"

    In the future, I hope an international body. With the "multilateral" nature of current U.S. action I think you can see things are already (thank god) headed in that direction. In the meantime, someone has to. Because I don't have a mathematical model, which charts good, and evil does not mean that I can never act. Never acting can cause more damage than action.

    "If we generally try to do the right thing, why did we sit on our asses and let Rwanda and the Congo turn into such bloody messes? If we're the good guys, why didn't we drop support for the Apartheid regime in SA until after institutions starting divesting themselves of their shares of companies who did business there due to grassroots pressure? The boardrooms of America stood up and struck a blow for freedom only after it bit too deeply into their bottom line. This last example is a case of Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason. Do you honestly think wed've given two shits if Kuwait had been a poverty-stricken African or Asian nation?"

    Now you begin to support more action? Which is it you want. Your argument can't explain Somalia and Kosovo; they were not rich. Apartheid is the most damaging of your examples. But remember I do not pretend the U.S. is always right but generally tried to do the right thing. In the Congo and Rwanda the general feeling was that American action would not work, and that it was going to happen anyway. Was this correct? It is hard to say. I fear some of the feeling may have been racist. I think it has more to do with memories of Vietnam and the "jungle". Most Americans are very frightened of "jungle" warfare. Deciding when to act and when not to is a tricky thing.

    "Bombing is always profitable if you're a bombmaker. Think about it for a second. If planes get shot down, it becomes profitable for aircraft manufacturers. When civilian infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, it becomes profitable for international civil engineering companies. And because you need oil to do all of this, it is always profitable for petroleum producers. If there were companies that cloned humans for use as soldiers, they would profit too."

    Yup, bomb makers make money from bombing. That doesn't mean they are responsible for the bombing. I find it highly problematic to try to maintain the argument that Kosovo was done for the sake of defense budgets. I really don't see evidence for your claim, especially since most politicians who generally seem to speak for the defense industry seemed to complain that it would never work.

    "Everyone else doesn't rule the world. Our mistakes are magnified because of our economic, political and military stature. The more power we have, the more responsibility there is to use it wisely and humanely. IOW, the consequences of a toddler somewhere ordering an aerial bombardment are practically nil, as he doesn't have the power to do so. As for Pakistan's ISI and their culpability, I suggest you research who supported and liased with them. "We all do stupid things?" This is not letting your coonhound steer your pickup into a fishin' hole. This is war. War means killing. Killing is irreversible. It's not a mistake you can fix, no matter how much you wished you'd torched the right hooch. Innocents still die."

    You make two arguments here. First you claim that when a more powerful nation does something wrong it is worse than when a less powerful nation does it. I disagree with this, though some moral philosophers may maintain that only outcomes matter and not intentions. I think if you point a gun and fire it at someone with intent to kill them you are as morally culpable whether or not the bullet is a dud. Secondly you claim that killing is irreversible so should never be done. While I agree that killing should only be done after great contemplation I think it is possible to create a situation where killing is the right thing. Let's assume there is an equal chance Bin Laden gets a nuclear weapon as not (and I don't think this is true, this is just a demonstration of the type of argument where killing would be justified). Now we can drop a bomb that has a fifty percent chance of killing him and a fifty percent chance of killing 10 innocent civilians. You drop the bomb.

    "The profiteering argument dates from WWI because weapons production was not industrialized on a sufficient scale prior to that war. The assertion that it only arose after a certain point in time does nothing to detract from its cogency. And BTW, Bush, et al still want to go ahead with NMD even after 9/11. Doesn't that make your chest swell with patriotic pride?"

    No, I think the missile defense system is one of the stupidest pieces of policy Bush has proposed. I think it sends the wrong message and tends to promote distrust of the U.S. I also think you can make a much stronger argument that defense contractors might have a role to play in the decision. I bring up the WWI because I think it is important to note because of the "fortress America" isolationism so popular at the time. It caused us to not try to change the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and then to not try to rally Europe against an expanding Hitler. This results of this are the reason the argument is no longer fashionable.

    "Bombing now may prevent future suffering by killing people who were going to bomb us. Bombing can never end the suffering of those already bombed. There is a world of difference between the two. It should also be a given that bombing always creates human suffering. If it's only a matter of where, then all you have to fall back upon are the accidents of race or nationality or religion. Being loyal, honest, compassionate, pious etc. will not save you. That's what terror is."

    Of the people being hit by the bombs yup, it can only harm them. See my early example for why this might be, regrettably the right decision. I might here note that I don't get all teary eyed and patriotic about it. I think it is sad and terrible. I don't get filled with patriotic pried when talking about the "good war" of WWII. I am sad that Americans had to die and kill people in order to prevent a greater evil from killing even more and making millions suffer.

    "I want the people who planned and bankrolled 9/11 tormented to the point of insanity, rolled up in a pigskin, and thrown into the coldest stretch of ocean we can find. I know getting to that point will involve innocents being killed. That's the part I have a problem with. We have killed or will soon kill people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, just like the people in WTC had nothing to do with U.S.-Israel policy or U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Innocent is innocent. Rejoicing in the death of one innocent human being is an expression of our animality and not our humanity. A sober and serious people would know that already"

    I don't rejoice. I am not happy. I didn't cheer. I cried. But that doesn't change the cold, hard fucked up decision. If we disregard the implications of our inaction in order to protect our shallow sense of morality, where will we be?

    --
    The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
  674. Its all about the oil... by Suicyco · · Score: 1


    Osama Bin Laden is primarily fighting to overthrow the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, the major US backed nation in the middle east. King Faud's regime is corrupt and brutal, having public beheadings, public dismembering, executing children, etc. Much akin to the Shah of Iran. Bin Laden wants to overthrow the Saudi royal family. There is actually a lot of support for this activities in Saudi Arabia.

    The problem here is... we back the Saudi royals. We arm them and we support their actions against their citizen's. Osama has warned the US many times in the past to not be involved in the internal struggles of Saudi Arabia or else we become combatants in what he perceives as a civil war. We did not remove ourselves from the equation hence we are now part of it.

    Imagine this: Osama Bin Laden succeeds in overthrowing the Saudi regime. Who now is in charge of the oil from the largest oil producing nation in the world? An anti-American islamic fundamentalist. Sound like Iran? Except he now controls the oil.

    Of course we would never let that happen, so we attack in the name of fighting terrorism. But it all boils down to the gasoline in your car. That is the ONLY reason we have ANY interest in this region of the world, all else is smoke and mirrors. Isreal, Palestine, etc. has nothing to do with it. Mess with our oil, YOU DIE. End of story.

    1. Re:Its all about the oil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [Oil] is the ONLY reason we have ANY interest in this region of the world, all else is smoke and mirrors. Isreal, Palestine, etc. has nothing to do with it.

      You're saying that in order to make the oil-owning Arabs happy, we are strongly supporting Israel against the Palestinians??? Methinks NOT.

    2. Re:Its all about the oil... by Suicyco · · Score: 1


      Isreal is our ace in the hole. If all else fails, we want a powerful ally in a part of the world that hates the west. We are not trying to simply placate the middle east, we have an active interest in controlling it. That doesn't always mean making people happy. It does mean maintaining control and backing a nation in the middle east that has nuclear weapons and a formidable military is in our own best interest. I never said it was about making the arabs happy. Its about keeping them "in line." Through whatever means necessary. That is the basis of American imperialism.

  675. Re:Iraqi sanctions hurtful? BULLSHIT! by GooseKirk · · Score: 1

    I note that you posted this even after Keenan's reasoned response. Nothing wrong with hating Saddam, but you and your pal there are simply underinformed. If you really hate Saddam so much, why would you want to support sanctions that hurt the common people while only helping empower and enrich Saddam? Doesn't make any sense.

    Of course, it makes sense if the goal is to keep Saddam in power, which may or may not be the actual intent of US foreign policy in that region. One hates to attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by simple incompetence, and that's got to be more true in the State Dept than just about anywhere else on the planet, but in this case there should be enough lingering, unanswered questions to raise a doubt. Stop and ponder: is there any potential reason why the US might want to have an excuse to maintain a large military force in the Middle East?

    Crazy talk? Maybe. Makes more sense than what you guys have posted, though.

  676. Economics of this situation... by RoninAdmin · · Score: 1

    I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but the first salvo of bombs cost about 3.6% of Afghanistan's GDP in 1980 (only figure I could find 3.6 billion)... Maybe we should drop watermelon's on them instead.

  677. flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, please note that someone who knows nothing about US foreign politics and has swallowed every tiny bit of US propaganda thrown at him is capable of producting a flamebait too, regardless if he means well or not. The parent of this post is clearly such.

  678. Like Terry Pratchett wrote by Aiee · · Score: 1

    "A lie can get around the world before truth has got it's boots on".

    --
    -----------------------
    I pushed the red button
  679. Re:Kill All Muslims--even US citizens by Occam's+Nailfile · · Score: 1
    There are three levels of ignorance. The shallowest, most easily corrected, is "adult" ignorance, or simple lack of knowledge. One displaying adult ignorance can be easily corrected by a simple statement of the facts. The adult is invited to examine reality, which is done with a gracious thank you, and life moves on.

    The intermediate level of ignorance is the "adolescent." Here we have lack of knowledge compounded by lack of motivation to learn. The adolescent does not know the truth of facts, and lacks the fundamental motivation to discover them. They can be placed in front of him and he will grudgingly accept their existence, but otherwise he forges onward in his ignorance, somewhat blissful and innocent. The adolescent can fall either forward into adult ignorance, or backward into the deep stage, the fatal stage of ignorance.

    This is "infantile" ignorance. The ignorant infant is unaware of reality, and flat-out refuses to accept evidence of his error or lack of knowledge. In a five-year-old child, infantile ignorance is "cute." The child refuses to believe that the world more complex than his on-the-spot interpretation, and objects outside of his perspective are not real, and therefore need not be considered. It is innocence and this is endearing, for it reminds us of when the world was simple and cast in shades black and white.

    An adult who displays infantile ignorance is disgusting in the same way as an adult who has shit his pants. Bigotry and prejudice are two examples of infantile ignorance; the unrepentant refusal to be shown the truth or reality of facts regarding one's world. In an adult there is no innocent excuse for it; it's wilful and deliberate behavior. There's nothing to be done about the adult who displays infantile ignorance except to send them back to the "kid's table" to eat their meal, play with their feces, and drool on themselves. You cannot engage in adult conversation about important matters with the wilfully ignorant. There's a reason the term "like arguing with a four-year-old" was invented, and a reason it is a metaphor for futility.

  680. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by delong · · Score: 1

    And why does it not extend to the Security Council? There are 15 seats on the UN Security Council. The US has one. Russia, China, and France, which hardly could be called US shills, have veto power. Why is it not also the fault of Russia, China, France, Britain, and 10 other nations? The fact that deaths due to Saddam Hussein's negligence under UN sanctions, imposed as a condition of surrender to a *UN* military action (REQUIRING the explicit consent of all the Permanent SC members, who could have prevented action with a simple veto), are universally blamed on the United States, SPEAKS ABSOLUTE VOLUMES of the agenda of the accusers.

    This is about responsibility. Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent defeat of Iraqi forces. Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for agreeing to the terms of surrender to UN coalition forces, with attendant sanction regime. Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the lack of compliance, and thus the continuation of the sanctions regime. Saddam Hussein is, as I have shown, directly responsible for misappropriation of funds intended for famine relief and medical supply. How, exactly, is the United States responsible for this? What, precisely, IS Saddam Hussein responsible for? It would seem he is blameless. A virtual gilded angel.

    Derek

  681. B-2s? by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    I guess I'm running behind on this, but I just read that B-2s flying nonstop from from Missouri (!) were involved in the bombing. Is this the first time B-2s have ever been used in combat?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:B-2s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were used in Kosovo. I'm not sure if they were used any time before that, though.

  682. long term: start thinking by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    In the long term, then, we also need to lessen the causes of Muslim grievances, even if it means facing up to our past mistakes.
    Aha, what's the budget for that?

    a bit more general task maybe, make them less inclined to take to aggression against US. Improving the situation in Israel and Iraq would be one track of the several.
    The long term, that's the part that is important but not urgent. that tends to be the part that never happens. A bit like public health: we know prevention would be best, but the only thing we come up with is after the fact fixing up.
    But it's now that the budget is being made.
    I'd like to see a significant part of the budget spent on something more long lasting than "war on terrorism". Not that the latter is a bad approach. It's just not enough.
    It's worthwile to start thinking about what can be done. Come up with some ideas. Collect initiatives from organisations that claim they can make a difference.
    Anyone?

    Give me a first, how about a minute silence for the people who died in Iraq in the war, and after.

  683. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by geschild · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid you're right. My bad for reacting.

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
  684. Draining the swamp and other opinions... by Macrobe+101 · · Score: 1
    A couple more comments from the latest UK Guardian newspaper:

    On Al-Jazeera - the only TV channel with access to Afghanistan, and one of the few 'independant' channels in the Arab world.

    [BTW, I'm still not too sure what I think of Colin Powell asking Qatar to muzzle their 'free press'...]

    A good piece on airdropping aid and other issues.

    And a piece on why it is about Islam (and about the USA, not the whole Western world).

    Some interesting views there. Especially the facts and figures for those aid drops, which at least partly undermine Bush & Blair's humanitarian claims.

  685. A quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess who said that Bin Ladin is of the same moral fabric as our founding fathers? Ex-pres. Ronald Ray-gun.

    Back when Ladin was a terrorist trained & sponsored by the US.

    Funny how times change.

  686. mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yhid id noy s trsl yrdym nsy domryhinh brty dyupif yhsy domrnofy nrbrt eill unfrtdysnf?

  687. Picture of a plane by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    Funny, there is a picture of a plane on his back.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  688. Clearing up Religion by aprentic · · Score: 1

    This isn't quite correct.
    Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The non belief in god which you were referring to is known as Agnosticism. There's a subtle distinction and most people ignore it but it's pretty important.
    Agnostics believe that the existance or non-existance of god is unknowable. Most of them also believe that because of this, the actual existance or non-existance of god is irellevant too.
    Atheists believe that god does not exist. The usual explanation for this is that since noone can prove the existance of god, it must be unproveable. Therefore god does not exist.
    Depending on how you define religion (whichever definition you pick it's widely disputed), atheism qualifies. After all noone has ever shown the non existance of god with anything even remotely resembling a rigorous proof.

    Also Budhism is is not the only exception.
    Taoism, and Humanism are both non-theistic religions (at least in theory).
    While Budhism is technically a non-theistic religion in practice many adherants treat the various Budhasa and Bodhisatvas as deities. They are looked to for guidance and frequently asked to intervene on the behalf of humans.

    1. Re:Clearing up Religion by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Atheist is someone who does not believe in god. An agnostic is not so sure. That is the main difference. Agnostism is simply straddling the fence. Neither one can be classified as a religion by any test. They have no religous text, no hierarcy, no churches, no white guys in funny hats passing down edicts.

      "Depending on how you define religion (whichever definition you pick it's widely disputed), atheism qualifies. After all noone has ever shown the non existance of god with anything even remotely resembling a rigorous proof. "

      I guess I would like to hear one definition of religion which would include the atheists and not the boy scouts or the american bar association. If you define religion so broadly that it would include the atheists then you would also include the AMA, the republican party, and the national gay and lesbian alliance. Come to think of it that would be a good idea. If homosexuals declared homosexuality a religion they would have constitutional protection why haven't they thought of that yet?

      By the way after you graduate from high school and go to collage if you take a logic course you will learn that it's impossible to prove a negative. It's impossible to prove the non existance of something. Besides which the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that an invisible man lives in the sky, this man created the universe, he also put a man in the belly of a whale, he also said to kill homosexuals, and he also disaproves of you walking around naked and masturbating. In other words you not only have to prove that god exists but that he also created the universe and wrote the bible. While you are at it maybe you can explain his obsession with the human sexual practices.

      "While Budhism is technically a non-theistic religion in practice many adherants treat the various Budhasa and Bodhisatvas as deities. They are looked to for guidance and frequently asked to intervene on the behalf of humans."

      There is a large contingent of people who have taken the elements of budhism and hindusim as a body of religion. By and large they have convinced themselves that the hindu gods were different incarnations of the budha. Budha himself never affirmed the concept of reincarnation nor did he advocate any deity. Once when pressed about reincarnation he said something like the following.

      "If a nightwatchmen lights a candle and at the end of his shift snuffs out the candle. If the relieving nightwatchment relights the candle is it the same flame?"

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  689. another reason that motivates them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several things that motivate the terrorists - the troops-in-Saudi-Arabia issue, Israel / Palistine, sanctions on Iraq, but there is another major one that has been completely ignored by the media.
    They [the terrorists] are also motivated by a sense of Arab nationalism. They view Turkey's official status of being a prospective member of the European Union [although I doubt it'll ever happen because the _real_ Europeans are deeply against the idea] as being the *infidels* trying to imperialise their *kaffir culture* on the *purity* of Arab/Islamic civilisation.

    This is why the terrorists planned to carry out a poison-gas attack on the European parliament, which would've killed all the elected representatives of the E.U. They were caught before they executed their plan.

    I am not surprised that the media has not reported about the Turkey Issue.
    1) it would be too obscure & complicated
    2) would rock too many boats with the Turkish government (aka corporate media apleasement of a US ally)

  690. A Fresh take perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a text transcript of Alexander Cockburn's talk on AM Live on 26 September 2001.

    What did move those kamikaze Muslims to embark, some many months ago or even years, on the training that they knew would culminate in their deaths as well of those (they must have hoped) of thousands upon thousands of innocent people? Was it the Koran plus a tape from Osama bin Laden? The dream of a world in which all men wear untrimmed beards and women have to stay at home or go outside only when enveloped in blue tents? I doubt it. If I had to cite or tell people what might have steeled the resolve of those kamikaze Muslims, surely it would have included the exchange on CBS (the American Network) in 1996 between Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Lesley Stahl, a reporter with CBS. Albright was maintaining that sanctions on Iraq had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein and then Leslie Stahl asked her this question: "We have heard that half a million children have died, I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"

    And Albright answered "I think this is a very hard choice, we think the price is worth it." That exchange became famous all over the Middle East. I'll bet the Sept. 11 kamikazes knew it well enough, just as they could tell you the crimes wrought against the Palestinians. So would it be unfair today to take Madeleine Albright down to the ruins of the Trade Towers, remind her of what she said at that time and point out that the price turned out to include that awful mortuary as well? Was that price worth it too, Mrs. Albright?

    Mere nitpicking among the ruins and the dust of the 6500 people? I don't think so. America has led a charmed life amid its wars on people. The wars mostly didn't come home and the press made as sure as it could that folks, including the ordinary workers in the Trade Towers, weren't really up to speed on what was being wrought in Freedom's name (Freedom as George Bush frequently invokes it). In Freedom's name America made sure that any possibility of secular democratic reform in the Middle East was shut off. Mount a coup against Mossadegh as they did in the mid-1950s, and you end up with the Ayatollah Khomeni 25 years later. Mount a coup against Kassim in Iraq, as the CIA did, and you get the agency's man, Saddam Hussein.

    What about Afghanistan? In April of 1978 an indigenous populist coup overthrew the government of Mohammed Daoud, a dictator who had formed an alliance with the Shah of Iran. The new Afghan government was led by Noor Mohammed Taraki, and the Taraki administration embarked on land reform, hence an attack on the opium-growing feudal estates. Taraki, a leftist, communist probably, went to the UN, where he managed to raise loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields.

    Taraki also tried to bear down on opium production in the border areas of Afganistan held by fundamentalists - the mujahideen, since the latter were using opium revenues to finance attacks on Afghanistan's central government, which they regarded as an unwholesome incarnation of modernity that allowed women to go to school and outlawed arranged marriages and the bride price.

    At that time the mujahideen were not only getting money from the CIA but from Qaddafi in fact, who sent them $250,000. In the summer of 1979 (now listen carefully to this one) the U.S. State Dept. produced a memo making it clear how the U.S. government saw the stakes, no matter how modern-minded Taraki might be or how feudal the mujahideen. "The United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever set backs this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. The overthrow of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history being inevitable is not accurate."

    Taraki was killed by Afghan army officers in September 1979. Hafizullah Amin, educated in the U.S., took over and began meeting regularly with U.S. embassy officials at a time when the U.S. was arming Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a fundamentalist, U.S.-backed regime in Afghanistan, the Soviets invaded in force in December 1979.

    Well, the typists and messenger boys and back office staffs throughout the Trade Center - ordinary working people didn't know that history. How could those people in the Towers have known, when U.S. political and journalistic culture is a conspiracy to perpetuate their ignorance? Those people in the Trade Towers were innocent portions of the price that-Albright insisted-in just one of its applications as being worth it. It would honor their memory to demand that in the future our press offers a better accounting of how America's wars for Freedom are fought, and what the actual price might include.

    The above is a text transcript of Alexander Cockburn's talk on AM Live on 26 September 2001.

  691. A Fresh take perhaps? by MD_Geist · · Score: 1

    This is a text transcript of Alexander Cockburn's talk on AM Live on 26 September 2001. What did move those kamikaze Muslims to embark, some many months ago or even years, on the training that they knew would culminate in their deaths as well of those (they must have hoped) of thousands upon thousands of innocent people? Was it the Koran plus a tape from Osama bin Laden? The dream of a world in which all men wear untrimmed beards and women have to stay at home or go outside only when enveloped in blue tents? I doubt it. If I had to cite or tell people what might have steeled the resolve of those kamikaze Muslims, surely it would have included the exchange on CBS (the American Network) in 1996 between Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Lesley Stahl, a reporter with CBS. Albright was maintaining that sanctions on Iraq had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein and then Leslie Stahl asked her this question: "We have heard that half a million children have died, I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?" And Albright answered "I think this is a very hard choice, we think the price is worth it." That exchange became famous all over the Middle East. I'll bet the Sept. 11 kamikazes knew it well enough, just as they could tell you the crimes wrought against the Palestinians. So would it be unfair today to take Madeleine Albright down to the ruins of the Trade Towers, remind her of what she said at that time and point out that the price turned out to include that awful mortuary as well? Was that price worth it too, Mrs. Albright? Mere nitpicking among the ruins and the dust of the 6500 people? I don't think so. America has led a charmed life amid its wars on people. The wars mostly didn't come home and the press made as sure as it could that folks, including the ordinary workers in the Trade Towers, weren't really up to speed on what was being wrought in Freedom's name (Freedom as George Bush frequently invokes it). In Freedom's name America made sure that any possibility of secular democratic reform in the Middle East was shut off. Mount a coup against Mossadegh as they did in the mid-1950s, and you end up with the Ayatollah Khomeni 25 years later. Mount a coup against Kassim in Iraq, as the CIA did, and you get the agency's man, Saddam Hussein. What about Afghanistan? In April of 1978 an indigenous populist coup overthrew the government of Mohammed Daoud, a dictator who had formed an alliance with the Shah of Iran. The new Afghan government was led by Noor Mohammed Taraki, and the Taraki administration embarked on land reform, hence an attack on the opium-growing feudal estates. Taraki, a leftist, communist probably, went to the UN, where he managed to raise loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields. Taraki also tried to bear down on opium production in the border areas of Afganistan held by fundamentalists - the mujahideen, since the latter were using opium revenues to finance attacks on Afghanistan's central government, which they regarded as an unwholesome incarnation of modernity that allowed women to go to school and outlawed arranged marriages and the bride price. At that time the mujahideen were not only getting money from the CIA but from Qaddafi in fact, who sent them $250,000. In the summer of 1979 (now listen carefully to this one) the U.S. State Dept. produced a memo making it clear how the U.S. government saw the stakes, no matter how modern-minded Taraki might be or how feudal the mujahideen. "The United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever set backs this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. The overthrow of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history being inevitable is not accurate." Taraki was killed by Afghan army officers in September 1979. Hafizullah Amin, educated in the U.S., took over and began meeting regularly with U.S. embassy officials at a time when the U.S. was arming Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a fundamentalist, U.S.-backed regime in Afghanistan, the Soviets invaded in force in December 1979. Well, the typists and messenger boys and back office staffs throughout the Trade Center - ordinary working people didn't know that history. How could those people in the Towers have known, when U.S. political and journalistic culture is a conspiracy to perpetuate their ignorance? Those people in the Trade Towers were innocent portions of the price that-Albright insisted-in just one of its applications as being worth it. It would honor their memory to demand that in the future our press offers a better accounting of how America's wars for Freedom are fought, and what the actual price might include. The above is a text transcript of Alexander Cockburn's talk on AM Live on 26 September 2001.

  692. Then search for yourself by poemofatic · · Score: 1

    A quick google search will bear things out. You are right, in that I've mixed up Sukarno and Suharto again. The latter overthrew the former. Actually a council of generals did that of which suharto was the leader. Here are some quotes for you:

    NYTimes June 19, 1966. In a piece titled "A Gleam of Light in Asia", James Reston calls the massacres "a hopeful political development."

    NYTimes March 12, 1966. In a piece titled "Elated U.S. Officials Looking to New Aid to Jakarta's Economy", Max Frankel writes:

    "The Johnson Administration found it difficult to hide it's delight with the News from Indonesia, pointing to the political demise of President Sukarno and the communists."

    Some declassified documents from the National Security Archives are at http://www.pir.org/foia/indolist.html

    You can also find more documents offline. For instance, declassified cables from Jakarta embassy officials stating that

    "that the embassy and the U.S. G[overnment] were generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army was doing."
    (Embassy to State, 5 November 1965; quoted in Kahin and Kahin, "Subversion as Foreign Policy")

    To verify my statement that we armed the military explicitly in order to commit the massacres, look at Frederick Bunnell, "American `Low Posture' Policy Toward Indonesia in the Months Leading to the 1965 `Coup,'" in "Indonesia" 50 (October) 1990, 59-60, wherein Bunnel writes and quotes from other embassy cables:

    "The U.S. quickly fulfilled an army request to the embassy, on 6 November 1965, for weapons "to arm Moslem and nationalist youth in Central Java for use against the PKI," as part of the overall army policy "to eliminate the PKI.""

    For further U.S. support to the army in December, see Robinson, "Dark Side of Paradise".

    Here is another declassified embassy cable of December 20, 1965:

    "Elimination of Communists continues apace....Ban of PKI... brings total of province-level areas in which party formally terminated to 14. Only 11 more to go! Continuing massacre in Bali....American observer reports many headless bodies encountered on roads....Tourists would probably be well advised to postpone pleasure trips to island of the gods."

    I sense elation in that quote, don't you?

    Well, I don't have time to do more digging for you, but the record is out there. It's not hard to find. The best thing about the U.S. is that ours is the most open nation on earth. The worst is that when someone is confronted with a claim which violates Received Opinion, they stop reading. I hope you're not in the latter category. Do your own digging for more context/info to the above. Also,
    The NSA (Archives, not Agency) is still in a lawsuit over other, still classified documents, but they have even more docs.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    1. Re:Then search for yourself by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Actually its your wresting of the reactions that I'm concerned with. I've done digging but I make an important distinction between an act of war and the war. Your comments seem to pit reactions on a war with a particular act in the war which many Americans denounced. No one was dancing in the streets becuase people died.

      In fact your commentary and the commentary of *many* others leads me to conclude that Americans (governed by the people for the people) actually abhore that massacre.

      To illustrate my point I'll use your own quotes to show how its in front of your eyes but you are wresting it into an uncomfortable position.

      Your specificaly mention that the elation came from the killing of 500,000 'leftists'. However from your comments...

      "Hopefull political development" would infer something other than a massacre but a "political development". This smells of taking a line out of context.

      For possible context lets look at the next quote... "pointing to the political demise of President Sukarno and the communists."

      Then after setting up the context of one military action you work in generalized campain comments..."that the embassy and the U.S. G[overnment] were generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army was doing." Thats even a generalization of a generalization!

      However I digress, plenty of books and articles have been written showing a collective bereaving of those killed during that revolution as well as your comments.

      But interestingly it shows a point that I admit is what I've been trying to say this whole time. That its the shady "subversive" few in government that aren't checked by the American people that cause all the problems. When America acts as a whole it does very well. When those riding on American power for their own purposes (cheap beef, fruit, etc...) get to determine foreign policies we have problems.

      I harbor no "collective white guilt" for their actions as they do not represent me, no matter how much I sympethize with those that felt the ill effects of them. Their actions were without my knowledge or condoning.

      Instead of complaining about the government, I want to fix it. Just as I hope the Afhans realise that no good government will happen if they don't do it themselves. That goes double for our government. They won't do a good job without our personal observation and involvement.

      Your obviously a smart person, with a good heart. You should help fix the government. Luckily we have a government where that is possible. Remember one Gorbechov changed a nation faster than hundreds of thousands of student protests.

  693. clarification and maybe common ground by poemofatic · · Score: 1

    First, more context for the "political development" line is this: Indonesia had a boisterous democracy in which opposition parties were allowed. One of them was the communist party ,PKI, which had 3 million members. The US helped to instigate a coup in which a group of generals took power and began to "elimante" the PKI. This was happening at the time of the vietnam war, when we were trying to eliminate another communist party with widespread support. So the "political" and "military" action were one in the same: elimination of the PKI. Of course the supporters of this, in public, preferred to call it a political action. This qualifies as euphemism in my book. Or at least understatement. Here is the more context for the first quote you question:

    "One of the most persistent complaints among officials in Washington is that our political troubles in Vietnam are not balanced adequately
    by reports in the press of the more hopeful political developments elsewhere in Asia.

    The savage transformation of Indonesia from a
    pro-Chinese policy under Sukarno to a defiantly
    anti-Communist policy under General Suharto is,
    of course, the most important of these developments. Washington is careful not to claim
    any credit for this change in the sixth most
    populous and one of the richest nations in the
    world, but this does not mean that Washington had
    nothing to do with it.

    There was a great deal more contact between the
    anti-communist forces in that country and at least
    one very high official in Washington before and
    during the Indonesian massacre than is generally
    realized. General Suharto's forces, at times
    severely short of food and munitions, have been
    getting aid from here through various third
    countries, and it is doubtful if the coup
    would ever have been attempted without the American show of strength in Vietnam or been sustained without the clandestine aid it has
    received indirectly from here."

    Now, when I say the US, I don't mean Joe six-pac. Joe six-pac, as you said, was unaware and didn't approve of the action. But that's the problem, isn't it? I think we agree on this point. The difficulty I face is when someone tries to tell Joe six-pac what is going on, that massacres are being committed, and that our military forces are being used to kill civilians in order to achieve political or economic gains, then Joe six-pac shoots back that I am suffering from white guilt, and that he doesn't want to hear about his country doing bad things, and that I am somehow taking pleasure in pointing out things which would be better swept under the rug as unfortunate abuses of power.

    Personally, the emotion I feel is not guilt over anything, but exasperation in trying to point out that things like sealing the border with Pakistan (through which all food and economic activity to afghanistan flows), bombing what little infrastructure is left, refusing to negotiate, restarting the civil war with the northen alliance. These will be the atrocities that, 30 years from now, someone on slashdot will be pointing out. And I am hampered by this zoroastrian rhetoric coming from our administration, which paints America as some sort of saintly country, and afghanistan as evil, and shouts down most calls for a diplomatic and multinational solution as unpatriotic.

    I am not gorbachev, but this is not Russia. America is a democracy and the only way we can change the "sneakiness" is by exposing it and publicizing it, and putting public pressure on our officials to stop it. I've enough faith in the public that if they get enough information, if they truly know our history and are sufficiently suspicious of our leaders' claims, that they will know how to reign in the empire we have built. But the naivete must be the first thing to go before we can really intelligently affect foreign policy.

    Another reason to publicize America's foreign policy past is to put the situation into more context. I'm upset by the action-thriller lens with which many see most of our foreign conflicts. It's like a mono-a-mono match between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Reagan vs. Khadaffi, Clinton vs. Noriega, Bush vs. Hussein, Bush vs. Bin Laden. It's like we have no idea why the second most popular name for boys in Pakistan is now "Osama", or why a wall street journal poll of wealthy Saudi businessmen showed that 80% of them considered america to be a dangerous bully. Why so many in the middle east view this as an attack on Islam. Why theaters and banks are being burned in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Egypt. Why the Palestinians have taken to the streets in cheers after hearing bin Laden's speech. All we see is the evil Osama (who is mostly a figurehead) vs. freedom fighter Bush, with no history, no context, no humility that we may not know the best thing to do, and no sense of repercussions of the human or political consequences.

    The third reason to point these things out, of course, is to rant on slashdot, and argue, and vent. Thank you for your kind words and for the debate. Most of the time I doubt anyone even reads these rants. Hopefully, the next thirty years will be much better.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    1. Re:clarification and maybe common ground by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, I think one change in phrasiology would help out a lot then. Change the USA overcharectarization to either US Government or "Those in the US Government".

      I agree that these things need to be exposed, but in the right way. If they are exposed sensationaly then people will assume that your motives are not well intentioned. If they are exposed in a shouting match with a deaf media then you will look like a shouting lunatic. It works to measure reproaches to specific people and activities. Then no one can blame you of taking the actions of some as cause for retribution against entire masses.

      It was a scarey day when I realized that government has two faces, like a polished sepulchre. Shiney on the outside but full of dead bones inside. I realized that the world looked different from inside the government than outside. And if I was going to make change, I was going to have to get inside the government. Politics like football is a game that is decided by players, not spectators.

      Its much the decision that I hope the Afghans are making now. (Btw, the revolution with the northern alliance never stopped long enough to be considered as "Starting up again.") Unfortunately revolution is the only means they have to enact change. Its a price of blood, and a reward of freedom.

      I entirely agree with you that action thriller violence is a pacifying influence. It turns people into the self justified cut and dried heros, from their movie seats. That is just the kind of spectatorship I would like to see come to an end. One who participates in the actual events often has a much different view than a spectator. And real life violence is horrible.

      That never seems to come across in artistic media. There is just something already polished and glamourized the second you digest a situation in order to present it to another person. Much like the data even you have collected and digested.

      I tell you, your just the kind of person that needs involvement in politics as much as a national government needs you. This part of the sepulchre can only be cleaned from the inside.

    2. Re:clarification and maybe common ground by poemofatic · · Score: 1

      You're right about the phraseology. It's easy to get my emotions raised in the general din and clamor. And being so confrontational doesn't accomplish much in this case when everyone else has high passions from Sept. 11.

      I'll just rant now and give my 2 cents on what I'd do if I was in power.

      There are two issues here. One is nation building for afghanistan. The other is the "war" against terrorism. About the first, I think the Afghans are very tired of war, and that bombing them will not bring them closer to democracy. We like to think that, so our bloodlust seems more noble. I think bombing will probably strengthen the radical factions among them -- those groups calling for war and vengeance. Just like it has in Israel. Just like it has in the US. But Iran, for instance, has made a lot of progress recently with Khatami and liberalization. That was after a period of economic development and relative peace. Now they want our blue jeans. As soon as you no longer live in a cave, the mindset of the stoneage will also lessen.

      For dealing with terrorism.
      First, Afghanistan played little role other than it's leaders harboring bin laden, to whom they owe much because of his help in the war against Russia. And if the fact that the leaders of a country harbor/finance terrorists is reason to be bombed, then many nations deserve as much, including our own.

      Again, our real desire is bloodlust, and not justice. Most of the funding comes from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Manpower comes from Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, Yemen. Look at the nationalities of the terrorists. We wont bomb those countries because they are allies. But they don't have the political will (ability?) to shut down the radical (and popular) mosques and "education" centers, or to stop the flow of money to al-quaeda cells (in hamburg, egypt, etc.). There is trouble, especially in Pakistan, where the dictator just fired two of his top generals (who were sympathetic to the Taliban) with rioting in the streets. If it becomes destabilized, it will be a taliban-type state with nuclear weapons. So in this case, at least, sanity has prevailed and we are not targeting them.

      So what can we do? I think that this article (http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/klar e/) outlines a better plan than what we're doing. Read it, and then reread bin laden's speech, if you're spending as little time working today as I am:). Also, restraint, now, on our part, would do a great deal to boost our standing in the Islamic world. It would cut one of bin laden's strengths. After he is isolated, we could negotiate, and I think the taliban were willing to negotiate (but not capitulate) to his extradition and trial. Possibly the Hague, as was done with the lockerbie bombings. The end result would be a safer, saner middle east. bin laden behind bars, and most importantly, al quaeda would be a weakened, rougue network without the popularity/influence it now enjoys. At least I would try this route. You can always bomb/invade. You can never unbomb.

      Finally, the last benefit to moderation might be that we wont have a "minister of Fatherland security", and hacking wont be considered terrorism, we wont add 60 billion to our military budget, and a lot of bad laws wont get passed by a cowed congress.

      That's my 2 cents, and probably why I will never get elected to any sort of office. I appreciate your encouragement, though.

      --

      When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    3. Re:clarification and maybe common ground by On+Lawn · · Score: 2

      Its funny how most of us feel that we can't make a difference. Just get active in a particular party and find ways to contribute localy. Don't join protests, nothing gets done there. Align yourself to get into places where you can make change. Don't settle for just "asking" for change.

      I think you have pretty good ideas, and would have a better shot than most in finding a way to make them happen. If you found a way in, you'd find that you aren't alone and there are many who would want to promote you and your agenda. There are many who feel the same way but lack the courage to stand out.

      Remember that it is easier to be appointed to a position than elected. Also remember in Catch 22 where all the real work and power was wielded by a private 0-class. I think you know what I'm getting at.

      I can tell you this becuase Slashdot has moved on past this story. This isn't something I'd feed to the masses.

  694. Re: Ok, lets get redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the post that Sara cited. It rebuts you.

  695. 4 UN Workers Killed by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

    Just saw on the news that 4 UN Workers were killed, adding to the civillian casualties already taken. Native Afghanis who were employed by a company contracted by the UN to clear minefields.

    Of course, the US has suggested that it was probably an attack launched on the ground which destroyed the building.

    The US is hammering an already crippled nation into the ground. It no longer cares about Bin Laden, as it has realised that there is no hope of actually killing him (allowing him to sit back and plan attacks on the US from some other safe standpoint, note: I still have strong doubts that it was actually him). In fact, Bin Laden is probably loving it as the US has visibly galvanised the opinion in the minds of the ~1 Billion Muslims from West Africa to South East Asia that the US is nothing but an aggressor state out to punish every man, woman and child of Islamic descent for the crimes of a few fundamentalists (whether or not this is true).

    The stance taken by the leaders of the US makes me sick to the core.

    --
    - - -
    giftedu ;)
    1. Re:4 UN Workers Killed by danjerdanjel · · Score: 1

      Was just looking for URL's to qualify my report.. Couldn't find anything anywhere.. Just this audio clip at CBC.

      Other news items of interest are this (explaining the US change in motives) and this (showing the growing anti-US response worldwide) at smh.com.au. Otherwise unsurprisingly little except for how great the states is. Bleh.

      --
      - - -
      giftedu ;)
  696. LP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lAst PoST, muther-effers!!!!!!

    -ac

  697. If at first noone believes you, quote sources. by aprentic · · Score: 1

    I. First I will cite Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com)
    Atheist: One who denies the existence of God.
    Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.
    Religion: (definition 4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
    Faith: (definition 2.b.1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
    Since according to your own statement (which is also incorrect but I'll get to that later) "It's impossible to prove the non existence of something." Atheism is indeed a religion.

    II. Now, on to your condescending statement about my education.
    1) When I graduated from college they were still less than 2000 registered users on /.
    2) I took logic in high school.
    3) It is possible to prove the non existence of something (see below)
    4) You misspelled college.
    Collage: an artistic composition made of various materials (as paper, cloth, or wood) glued on a surface.
    College: a body of clergy living together and supported by a foundation.

    III. What burden of proof? I'm not arguing the existence of God I'm arguing the status of Atheism as a religion. Since this arguement rests on the non existence of a proof for the non existence of God, the burden would be on you to:
    1) Prove the existence of a proof for the non existence of God. Or,
    2) Dispute the definitions of Atheism, Agnosticism, Religion, or Faith as provided by Merriam-Webster.

    IV. Sidharthas opinions on reincarnation are not relevant in a discussion on the status of Buddhism as a theistic religion. While I have already agreed that Buddhism (in it's original form) is non-theistic, I still maintain that Buddhism is theistic because in practice Buddha is treated as a god.

    Apendix: How to prove the non existence of something.
    1) Assume that something exists.
    2) Show that this assumption creates a paradox.
    3) Since the assumption is the only variable in the proof it must be incorrect.
    Caveats: You will still have to rely on axioms, and definitions for your proof but if you aren't willing to accept those then logic pretty much goes out the window.
    Example: Prove the non-existance of a triangle containing parallel edges.
    1) Assume that there exists a triangle containing parallel edges.
    2) The sum of the angles between those lines and the third line is 180 deg. (definition of parallel lines)
    3) The remaining angle is non zero (definition of intersecting lines)
    4) The sum of the angles of this triangle is not equal to 180 deg. (180 + != 180)
    5) The sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. (corollary of the definition of a triangle)
    6) The assumption in 1 must be false. Therefore there does not exist a triangle containing parallel sides.
    Notes:
    1) I left out some steps but filling them in is left as an exercise to the reader.
    2) This proof assumes cartesian coordinates. In polar coordinates the sum of the angles of a triangle don't have to add up to 180 deg.

    1. Re:If at first noone believes you, quote sources. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Apparently you are a person who believed that the dictionary is a suitable reference for discussing complex topics like the nature of atheism or the existance of god. I hate to break it to you but life is infinately more complex then can be described in a few sentences in a dictionary.

      Take this for example.
      Faith: (definition 2.b.1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

      According to you atheism is a religion because atheists have faith that god does not exist. This is pure bullshit. Atheists don't believe in god because there is no proof of god. They don't believe in god in the same way that they don't believe in the easter bunny or santa clause. It has to do with the lack of proof don't you see. In other words they have no faith and therefore they are atheists.

      As for the rest of your post. You apparently believe that proving the existance of god (or the non existance) is somehow similar to geometric proofs. I don't think any further conversation with you on this topic is likely to be reasonable or sane so I'll drop it.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  698. No, you should get your facts straight. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Please, go and check the several UN resolutions regarding this matter. That is international law.

    Also there is one reason why the term "occupied territories" is used.

    I will not mention Amnesty International. Oh! I did. Damn.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:No, you should get your facts straight. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Please, go and check the several UN resolutions regarding this matter. That is international law.
      Again, international law forbids murder of women and children.
      Arafat's support of terror is by no means valid resistance. NO TERROR IS VALID.

      Also there is one reason why the term "occupied territories" is used.
      Because they are occupied and they are territories?
      Israel didn't roam in there, it was forced in there by an attack from there.

      I will not mention Amnesty International. Oh! I did. Damn.
      Try looking at the whole picture, you seem to be blind to the most important facts:
      - UN division program, rejected by Palestinians, while Israel accepts it.
      - Israel being attacked by all surrounding arab countries in its inception.
      - Israel is attacked again and again throughout the years, defending itself while occupying strategic territories.
      - Israel signs peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and initiates a process with the Palestinians.
      - Israel makes an unprecedented offer to the Palestinians, to divide Jerusalem, return to 67-like lines agreeable on the Palestinians, but the Palestinians reject it with no offer of compromise of their own.
      - The Palestinians start the violence that gets hundreds of violent Palestinians killed, dozens of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of innocent Israelis.

      Try being a little more objective.

  699. What is the objective of the sanctions? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    To get rid of Hussein or to make him look bad.

    If the former, sanctions are failing by all measures. Miserably. The only thing they are achieving is killing innocent people. This is akin to try to execute a crminial by shooting squad, but the squad keeps killing people around the condemned guy who remains untouched.

    If the later, then lets go for it. Lets keep Saddam another 20 years and 1 million more children later please.

    If one loses sight of the objective and does not have a measure of when to change tactics once it is evident the current tactics don't work to reach the objective, one runs the risk of keep doing stupid things that damage innocent people.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  700. LP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LaST pOst, muther-effers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  701. we'll see by Kahlua · · Score: 1

    Since Canada isn't ruled by arrogant fuckwits like you, the rest of the world doesn't hate Canada like they do the US, so no one's going to be flying planes into Canadian buildings.

    5 bucks says it happens one day, because Canada exists financially, militarily, and culturally with the western world. I think it's a very safe bet.

  702. Re: Ok, lets get redundant by Husaria · · Score: 0

    I'm looking at it and I see nothing but troll material.

    --
    Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
  703. Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Karl_Hungus · · Score: 1

    I agree with the broader definition of victim you clarified. What OBL thinks about Jews & Xtians I don't know; I thought they were accorded special status as "Children of the Book". At any rate, he's using religion to justify murder, which is utter bullshit no matter who tries it. But there are always underlying political concerns: The "troubles" in N. Ireland are about who rules there, not about whether the Pope is the antiChrist or not. Religious affiliations become shorthand for political orientations in situations like that, as I'm sure you know.

    I also agree that Stalin was a grade-A butcher, which is why saying 3 million human beings "isn't as many as it sounds" is so reprehensible. If you want to figure that we killed a million less than Stalin, you ply the same waters as people like Chomsky, who have pointed out the tremendous cost in human lives owing to our blowing up that Sudanese pharma plant, destroying vaccine stock and to the effects of sanctions against Iraq. Pointing to Stalin and saying, in effect, "See? We're not so bad" is NOT an effective moral argument. While he was unquestionably worse, this shouldn't be a game where you can murder n-1 or n-1,000,000 people and cite someone else's monstrous precedent. I don't really think you mean it that way, but the comparatist approach doesn't hold up here. The original issue was US bombings going back thirty years, so drawing in the actions of others from beyond that time frame doesn't really bolster any assertion.

    As for Rwanda and Congo, there are other forms of intervention besides dropping bombs. Calling for intervention should not equate to bombing. The fact that it seems to for so many of us is not an encouraging sign. Kosovo: I never said bombmakers were responsible; I said they made money off of it. And they did. Try to imagine having a vested financial interest in the deaths of others. The more killed, the more money you get. If it goes on long enough, maybe you can redo the kitchen, or put a down payment on a second or third home. Many people sleep very soundly with this weight upon their shoulders. Somalia was such a mess I don't know what to say about it. We did seem to start out trying to do the right thing, but I think taking sides was the big mistake.

    I will certainly give you the point that a specific act is as bad as it is, no matter which country did it. As I said, dead is dead. Intent, though, is not always divinable. We don't seem to agree at all on the other point. You sum me up as saying the irreversibility of death precludes killing (which is exactly what I said,) then concoct a scenario for killing innocents while saying you agree with me. I should introduce my caveat: proven willingness to take innocent human lives denies you this cover. This applies to EVERYONE. Terrorists, heads of state, Secretaries of State. If someone kills you, does it matter much whether they were elected, appointed, or self-appointed? You're still dead. If there's no safety in innocence, pray tell why anyone should refrain from mass murder? You're not safe anyway, and you might tag your nemesis in the process if you're lucky. Where does that leave us?

    I think I'm asking you to consider the moral perils of action while you're asking me to consider the moral perils of inaction. Plainly, both exist. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think "shallow morality" is more descriptive of the popular notion that we now have carte blanche for whatever the hell we want to do whereever the hell we want to do it no matter what and no matter who gets hurt.

    --

    --
    Freeper Logic