US Starts Attacking Afghanistan

Doesnt look that big right now by jgaynor · 2001-10-07 05:05 · 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

Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 05:33 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Grendel+Drago · 2001-10-07 06:40 · 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
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by jetgirl25 · 2001-10-07 06:41 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Master_Eagle · 2001-10-07 07:00 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by drunkmonk · 2001-10-07 07:05 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by thrig · 2001-10-07 07:14 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by KyleCordes · 2001-10-07 07:36 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Bradee-oh! · 2001-10-07 08:15 · 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
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 09:05 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by FFFish · 2001-10-07 09:53 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by AdrianG · 2001-10-07 10:10 · 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
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by nathanh · 2001-10-07 20:11 · 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.
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by biglig2 · 2001-10-07 20:20 · 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?
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Zeinfeld · 2001-10-08 01:17 · 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/
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ergo98 · 2001-10-08 02:51 · 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."
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by ichimunki · 2001-10-08 04:14 · 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
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Telek · 2001-10-08 07:26 · Score: 2

Funny you should mention times of india...

India silently approves attacks

--

If God gave us curiosity
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by Telek · 2001-10-10 04:15 · 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
Re:Doesnt look that big right now by FFFish · 2001-10-10 05:09 · 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.

BBC News coverage by jonathan_atkinson · 2001-10-07 05:06 · 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

political stunt by Simm0 · 2001-10-07 05:11 · 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.

Uh oh... by metlin · 2001-10-07 05:15 · 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 =)

Re:Uh oh... by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 05:32 · 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

Where From? by Bluesee · 2001-10-07 05:15 · 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.

Re:Where From? by Ravagin · 2001-10-07 05:18 · 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.
Re:Where From? by weeeee · 2001-10-07 05:22 · 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.
Re:Where From? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-10-07 05:34 · Score: 3, Funny

The British are particpating but I have no idea what they are using.

Bond, James Bond.
Re:Where From? by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 05:36 · 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.
Re:Where From? by cymen · 2001-10-07 06:22 · 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.
Re:Where From? by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 06:43 · 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.
Re:Where From? by cymen · 2001-10-07 06:48 · Score: 2

It isn't only the Taliban that Uzbekistan would be concerned with...
Re:Where From? by psych031337 · 2001-10-07 07:00 · 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
Re:Where From? by Ravagin · 2001-10-07 07:08 · 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.
Re:Where From? by Rogerborg · 2001-10-07 09:54 · 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.
Re:Where From? by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 17:28 · 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...

the bombings by Syn404 · 2001-10-07 05:16 · 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.

Re:According to Bush by Skyshadow · 2001-10-07 05:17 · 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.

The Israeli Intelligence Version by wytcld · 2001-10-07 05:19 · 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

Re:The Israeli Intelligence Version by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 05:24 · 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.

Re:According to Bush by psych031337 · 2001-10-07 05:21 · 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

Food and Supplies by Bonker · 2001-10-07 05:22 · 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!

Re:Food and Supplies by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 05:53 · 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.
Re:Food and Supplies by jacobito · 2001-10-07 06:20 · 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.
Re:Food and Supplies by sheldon · 2001-10-07 06:24 · 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.
Re:Food and Supplies by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 06:34 · 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

Re:It is time for you to realize by Anonymous Coward · 2001-10-07 05:26 · 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.

Re:Bombing by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 05:27 · 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

Re:According to Bush by NutscrapeSucks · 2001-10-07 05:28 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 05:28 · 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.

Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver justice by afflatus_com · 2001-10-07 05:29 · 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

Re:More needless loss of life. by CheechBG · 2001-10-07 05:29 · 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.

Cowards? no, Idealogues. by metalhed77 · 2001-10-07 05:30 · 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.

the next step... by psych031337 · 2001-10-07 05:32 · 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

Re:the next step... by garcia · 2001-10-07 05:54 · 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.
Re:the next step... by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 06:47 · 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.
Re:the next step... by supabeast! · 2001-10-07 07:05 · 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.
Re:the next step... by Danse · 2001-10-07 07:51 · 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
Re:the next step... by Guppy06 · 2001-10-07 07:54 · 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.
Re:the next step... by BWJones · 2001-10-07 08:06 · 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.
Re:the next step... by sigwinch · 2001-10-07 08:43 · 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. ;-)
Re:the next step... by Eil · 2001-10-07 08:55 · 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.
Re:the next step... by Rogerborg · 2001-10-07 09:40 · 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.
Re:the next step... by bwt · 2001-10-07 10:10 · 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
Re:the next step... by mandolin · 2001-10-07 10:26 · 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?
Re:the next step... by bwt · 2001-10-07 10:35 · 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.
Re:the next step... by DickBreath · 2001-10-07 10:44 · 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.
Re:the next step... by Rogerborg · 2001-10-07 22:32 · 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.
Re:the next step... by bwt · 2001-10-08 11:20 · 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.
Re:the next step... by DickBreath · 2001-10-09 03:28 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Kilobug · 2001-10-07 05:33 · 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.

12:32 CDT update by TheHawke · 2001-10-07 05:34 · 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.

Re:Hmm by phaze3000 · 2001-10-07 05:37 · 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.

Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-07 05:37 · 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.

Actually, most informed sources by FallLine · 2001-10-07 05:38 · 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.

Re:Hmm by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 05:39 · 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

Re:Gulf War by DrEldarion · 2001-10-07 05:41 · 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 --

Re:More needless loss of life. by psych031337 · 2001-10-07 05:41 · 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

Re:It is time for you to realize by Kilobug · 2001-10-07 05:41 · 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.

Re:This sucks by Convict6446 · 2001-10-07 05:42 · 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.

Sigh.... by RelliK · 2001-10-07 05:43 · 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.

Re:Sigh.... by RelliK · 2001-10-07 06:09 · 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.
Re:Sigh.... by bnenning · 2001-10-07 07:24 · 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.
Re:Sigh.... by rjamestaylor · 2001-10-07 08:51 · Score: 2

Those who support retaliation fail to realize that the Spet. 11 attack was itself a retaliation.
Shut up.

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Now what? by Animats · 2001-10-07 05:43 · 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.

Re:Now what? by garcia · 2001-10-07 05:59 · 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.
Re:Now what? by rtaylor · 2001-10-07 08:01 · Score: 2

Giving the northern alliance power in Afghanistan isn't exactly going to help anything over there either.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Now what? by Rogerborg · 2001-10-07 09:51 · 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.
Re:Now what? by bwt · 2001-10-07 11:01 · 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.
Re:Now what? by bwt · 2001-10-07 11:04 · 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.
Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · 2001-10-07 12:00 · 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.
Re:Now what? by ckedge · 2001-10-07 18:23 · 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?
Re:Now what? by greenrd · 2001-10-08 00:22 · Score: 2

What about the IRA? What about the School of the Americas?

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · 2001-10-08 03:01 · 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.)
Re:Now what? by AxelBoldt · 2001-10-08 04:51 · 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.
Re:Now what? by scheming+daemons · 2001-10-08 05:22 · 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
Re:Now what? by jafac · 2001-10-08 07:33 · 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.
Re:Now what? by StevenMaurer · 2001-10-08 09:51 · 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.
Re:Now what? by greenrd · 2001-10-08 13:50 · 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
Re:Now what? by AxelBoldt · 2001-10-09 03:00 · 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.
Re:Now what? by On+Lawn · 2001-10-09 05:43 · 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.

Re:Hmm by jeffy124 · 2001-10-07 05:44 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 05:44 · 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

Re:It is time... by Trekologer · 2001-10-07 05:45 · 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.

Re:It is time... by vt_milhouse · 2001-10-07 05:46 · 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.

Re:It is time... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · 2001-10-07 05:46 · 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.

Re:finally... rm -rf /bin/laden by jhanson · 2001-10-07 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Say what you may ... by Augusto · 2001-10-07 05:49 · 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.

Jaw Jaw rather than War War by totierne · 2001-10-07 05:50 · 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

Not necessarily just political by FallLine · 2001-10-07 05:54 · 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.

'Innocent Bystander' at a terrorist camp??? by purduephotog · 2001-10-07 05:55 · 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.

Re:More needless loss of life. by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 05:56 · 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

Damn... by aiken_d · 2001-10-07 05:58 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Kilobug · 2001-10-07 05:58 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-07 05:59 · 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.

Re:At Least.. by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 06:01 · 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

To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Hacker+Cracker · 2001-10-07 06:01 · 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!

Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 06:16 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 06:17 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 06:31 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 06:41 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 06:44 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by motherhead · 2001-10-07 06:49 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 06:49 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · 2001-10-07 06:54 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 07:01 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 07:03 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by bnenning · 2001-10-07 07:06 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 07:07 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Jeremi · 2001-10-07 07:09 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 07:11 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2001-10-07 07:16 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · 2001-10-07 07:16 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 07:18 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by mmontour · 2001-10-07 07:23 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by On+Lawn · 2001-10-07 07:23 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 07:28 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by LS · 2001-10-07 07:31 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 07:33 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 07:33 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 07:35 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by rfsayre · 2001-10-07 07:54 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 07:55 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by hey! · 2001-10-07 07:56 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by ruin · 2001-10-07 08:29 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 08:33 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 08:35 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 08:40 · Score: 2

three words: Not Exact Parallel

It would be ridiculous to argue that our attack against Japan was not justifiable.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 08:44 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by greenrd · 2001-10-07 08:47 · Score: 2

Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes: http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 08:49 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by greenrd · 2001-10-07 08:51 · Score: 2

The script fails at step 3 because I say "It depends".

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by LS · 2001-10-07 08:51 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · 2001-10-07 08:56 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 08:59 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 09:05 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 09:07 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 09:07 · 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?
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 09:07 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 09:09 · 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")
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 09:19 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 09:19 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by wass · 2001-10-07 09:20 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by motherhead · 2001-10-07 09:22 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2001-10-07 09:33 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 09:39 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · 2001-10-07 09:47 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 09:48 · 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. :(
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 09:50 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 09:53 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Dolly_Llama · 2001-10-07 09:58 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · 2001-10-07 10:02 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by RelliK · 2001-10-07 10:20 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Absynthe · 2001-10-07 10:24 · 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?
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 10:29 · 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. .
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 10:45 · 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?
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 10:49 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 11:27 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 11:41 · 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..
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 11:57 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 12:21 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by HiThere · 2001-10-07 12:30 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2001-10-07 12:47 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 14:51 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-07 14:55 · 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?
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Mike+Schiraldi · 2001-10-07 15:31 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 16:27 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-07 17:18 · 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!
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sara+Chan · 2001-10-07 17:25 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 17:33 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 18:59 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 19:28 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2001-10-07 22:50 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Sara+Chan · 2001-10-08 02:38 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by sheldon · 2001-10-08 03:10 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-08 06:24 · 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
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by jafac · 2001-10-08 10:44 · 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.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance by Moofie · 2001-10-08 13:07 · 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!

Bush speech available by oo7tushar · 2001-10-07 06:02 · Score: 2, Informative

President Bush's speech is now available for download: to 911/ca site

--
internet like monkeys'

I can't believe americans by krist0 · 2001-10-07 06:02 · 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.

Re:I can't believe americans by dragons_flight · 2001-10-07 07:50 · 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.
Re:I can't believe americans by Augusto · 2001-10-07 08:09 · 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.
Re:I can't believe americans by greenrd · 2001-10-07 08:14 · 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
Re:I can't believe americans by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:03 · 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
Re:I can't believe americans by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 10:22 · 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.....

Blair's the man by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:03 · 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 /.

Re:Blair's the man by sql*kitten · 2001-10-07 06:35 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by sheldon · 2001-10-07 06:36 · 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*)
Re:Blair's the man by Derkec · 2001-10-07 06:59 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · 2001-10-07 08:22 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by ostiguy · 2001-10-07 08:45 · 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
Re:Blair's the man by ameoba · 2001-10-07 09:31 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by sconeu · 2001-10-07 12:11 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by Fred+Ferrigno · 2001-10-07 14:44 · 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".)
Re:Blair's the man by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 17:06 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · 2001-10-07 17:33 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 17:53 · 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.
Re:Blair's the man by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-07 18:23 · 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
Re:Blair's the man by sheetsda · 2001-10-09 04:09 · 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.

war as entertainment by _|()|\| · 2001-10-07 06:04 · 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"?

Re:It is time... by garcia · 2001-10-07 06:05 · 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

Re:More needless loss of life. by AntiNorm · 2001-10-07 06:05 · 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...

Re:This sucks by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 06:06 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by steveha · 2001-10-07 06:06 · 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

It's pretty black and white by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:10 · 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 /.

Re:It's pretty black and white by Velox_SwiftFox · 2001-10-07 08:56 · 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.

Re:It is written by JohnG · 2001-10-07 06:12 · 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.

Next possibility by Forager · 2001-10-07 06:13 · 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

Re:Next possibility by FFFish · 2001-10-07 06:53 · 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.

Solving the 'Terrorism' brain teaser puzzle: by Jon+Peterson · 2001-10-07 06:13 · 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

Submarines and ships, according to blair by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:13 · 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 /.

Whose war? by voiceofthewhirlwind · 2001-10-07 06:14 · 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

Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 06:32 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by _Sprocket_ · 2001-10-07 07:01 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by FFFish · 2001-10-07 07:18 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by CokeBear · 2001-10-07 07:37 · 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
Re:Whose war? by rtaylor · 2001-10-07 07:55 · 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
Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 08:09 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:21 · 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
Re:Whose war? by vrt3 · 2001-10-07 09:20 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by duffbeer703 · 2001-10-07 09:23 · 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
Re:Whose war? by Danse · 2001-10-07 09:24 · 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
Re:Whose war? by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 09:24 · 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
Re:Whose war? by Danse · 2001-10-07 09:28 · 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
Re:Whose war? by wass · 2001-10-07 09:43 · 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
Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 11:00 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 15:14 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by warpeightbot · 2001-10-07 17:29 · 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
Re:Whose war? by joshki · 2001-10-08 01:41 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by JWhitlock · 2001-10-08 04:25 · 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...
.
Re:Whose war? by jafac · 2001-10-08 08:31 · 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.
Re:Whose war? by JWhitlock · 2001-10-09 06:46 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jburkholder · 2001-10-07 06:15 · 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.

Re: America will never learn by Panaflex · 2001-10-07 06:16 · 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.

Yah, we're being careful, but... by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:17 · 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 /.

Re:Yah, we're being careful, but... by talonyx · 2001-10-07 06:22 · 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.

What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:20 · 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 /.

Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by tcc · 2001-10-07 06:32 · 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.
Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by sql*kitten · 2001-10-07 06:42 · 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.
Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by FFFish · 2001-10-07 07:07 · 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.
Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by Mad+Browser · 2001-10-07 07:16 · Score: 2

In a country where the average lifespan is 46 years, 13 is middle age!

--
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Re:What the fuck is the Taliban doing? by kruczkowski · 2001-10-07 08:09 · 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

Live video coverage?! Where can I find it?! by JhAgA · 2001-10-07 06:20 · 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.

Re:Germany by Wyatt+Earp · 2001-10-07 06:27 · 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.

Re:It is time... by steveha · 2001-10-07 06:29 · 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

Re:More needless loss of life. by Badmovies · 2001-10-07 06:31 · 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

Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by pHaze · 2001-10-07 06:31 · 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.

Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by elmegil · 2001-10-07 07:36 · 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
Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by BenHmm · 2001-10-07 08:03 · 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
Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by victim · 2001-10-07 08:22 · 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
Re:Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 09:35 · 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

What is going on? by bluemilker · 2001-10-07 06:35 · 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.

Re:What is going on? by IvyMike · 2001-10-07 07:28 · 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?
Re:What is going on? by psych031337 · 2001-10-07 08:02 · 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
Re:What is going on? by dragons_flight · 2001-10-07 08:06 · 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.
Re:What is going on? by blair1q · 2001-10-07 08:08 · 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
Re:What is going on? by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:10 · 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
Re:What is going on? by blair1q · 2001-10-08 05:39 · 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

Legitamacy of anger/hate by yfarren · 2001-10-07 06:39 · 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.

Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by rodgerd · 2001-10-07 07:10 · 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).
Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate by tempestdata · 2001-10-07 07:24 · 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

Re:want an end to war, or just terrorism ? by Omnifarious · 2001-10-07 06:39 · 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

Soviet vs. US Afghanistan by _Sprocket_ · 2001-10-07 06:40 · 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.

Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by MrDalliard · 2001-10-07 06:40 · 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.

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · 2001-10-07 06:40 · 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

Re:More needless loss of life. by JabberWokky · 2001-10-07 06:41 · 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

Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-07 06:41 · 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.

Re:Innocent bystanders by jacobito · 2001-10-07 06:43 · 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.

It isn't propaganda by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:43 · 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 /.

The actor? by sheldon · 2001-10-07 06:47 · 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.

racist idiot by ColGraff · 2001-10-07 06:49 · 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 /.

The start of an endless war by JhAgA · 2001-10-07 06:50 · 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.

Re:The start of an endless war by blair1q · 2001-10-07 08:05 · 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
Re:The start of an endless war by dragons_flight · 2001-10-07 08:27 · 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.
Re:The start of an endless war by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 09:38 · 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.
Re:The start of an endless war by Chris+Johnson · 2001-10-07 09:56 · 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.
Re:The start of an endless war by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 10:41 · 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!

Osama Has Promised Retaliation... by Lethyos · 2001-10-07 06:53 · 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.

International coverage.. by T.Hobbes · 2001-10-07 06:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Re:International coverage.. by T.Hobbes · 2001-10-07 07:26 · Score: 2

one more.. Independent Online (South Africa)
Re:International coverage.. by greenrd · 2001-10-07 07:50 · 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

Re:More needless loss of life. by jacobito · 2001-10-07 06:54 · 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.

Re:To those screaming, "peace!" by Aiee · 2001-10-07 06:58 · 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

Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2001-10-07 07:00 · 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.

Re:Surprised that Bush took Sunday to deliver just by goliard · 2001-10-07 07:00 · 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 -*-

How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by MrEd · 2001-10-07 07:02 · 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!

Re:How to teach belligerent navy chiefs by Moofie · 2001-10-07 07:30 · 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!

Re:Ben Laden has a point, unfortunately. by Peaker · 2001-10-07 07:04 · 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?

"yay for the good guys" by mad_clown · 2001-10-07 07:05 · 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

Re:It is time... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · 2001-10-07 07:08 · 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.

Re:According to Bush by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2001-10-07 07:09 · 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.

The Terrorists: a perspective by D.+J.+Keenan · 2001-10-07 07:09 · 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

Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 10:11 · 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.
Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by tcc · 2001-10-07 13:56 · 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.
Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Bobzibub · 2001-10-07 14:31 · 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
Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Trinition · 2001-10-07 22:39 · 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.
Re:The Terrorists: a perspective by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-08 15:02 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 07:09 · 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.

Re:Spelling: "Taliban" or "Taleban"? by RussGarrett · 2001-10-07 07:11 · 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 :)

Re:A gray world by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 07:14 · 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.

Re:Germany by Bimble · 2001-10-07 07:15 · 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.

They already declared war by Greyfox · 2001-10-07 07:21 · 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?

Re:It is time for you to realize by kruczkowski · 2001-10-07 07:28 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · 2001-10-07 07:29 · 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

That's an easy one. by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · 2001-10-07 07:30 · 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

Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by jeffy124 · 2001-10-07 07:31 · 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.

Re:It is time... by On+Lawn · 2001-10-07 07:37 · 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.

This is getting expensive by ryantate · 2001-10-07 07:42 · 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).

Re:This is getting expensive by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:16 · 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
Re:This is getting expensive by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-07 15:27 · 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.
Re:This is getting expensive by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-08 06:47 · 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.

Re:WW3 by yfarren · 2001-10-07 07:43 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Mad+Browser · 2001-10-07 07:43 · 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

Re:It is time... by Jonathan · 2001-10-07 07:46 · 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.

Re:It is time... by mcelrath · 2001-10-07 07:47 · 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.

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · 2001-10-07 07:47 · 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

Imagine... by 6EQUJ5 · 2001-10-07 07:49 · Score: 2

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan...

Wow.

;)

--

Re:This sucks by hey! · 2001-10-07 07:51 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 07:52 · 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?

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 07:55 · 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.

Re:The Evidence against bin Laden by jeffy124 · 2001-10-07 07:56 · 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.

Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · 2001-10-07 07:56 · 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.

Re:A gray world by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-10-07 07:56 · 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.

This war is not right by lga · 2001-10-07 07:56 · 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

Re:Same ol' same old by Sly+Mongoose · 2001-10-07 07:59 · 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).

Re:Blair's the man - Thanks by hey! · 2001-10-07 08:02 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 08:02 · 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.

No "good guys" by Lion-O · 2001-10-07 08:03 · 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.

Re:It is time... by megaduck · 2001-10-07 08:03 · 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.

Oh yeah, by Augusto · 2001-10-07 08:03 · 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.

Retaliation seems unlikely by kippa · 2001-10-07 08:04 · 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.

Re:Retaliation seems unlikely by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:20 · 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

Exactly!! MOD THIS UP! by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:05 · 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

heartless murderers vs. cowards by KyleCordes · 2001-10-07 08:05 · Score: 2

Indeed. There are all kinds of ways to be a very, very bad person that have nothing to do with cowardice.

Good Timing by Greyfox · 2001-10-07 08:05 · 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?

Re:Bullies by Darchmare · 2001-10-07 08:05 · 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

Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 08:08 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Velox_SwiftFox · 2001-10-07 08:09 · 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.

Re:For great justice!! by Platinum+Dragon · 2001-10-07 08:10 · 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.

The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-07 08:10 · 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

Re:Blair's speech, stinger missiles and drugs by blair1q · 2001-10-07 08:10 · 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

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 08:10 · Score: 2

And in a war situation, the pacifist would be annihilated.

Sorry.

Re:It is time... by Darchmare · 2001-10-07 08:14 · 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

Re:It is time... by Platinum+Dragon · 2001-10-07 08:14 · 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.

Re:Not that big? by drsoran · 2001-10-07 08:16 · 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.

Stupid by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:17 · 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

Re:Stupid by Danse · 2001-10-07 10:06 · 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
Re:Stupid by Danse · 2001-10-07 13:07 · 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
Re:Stupid by jafac · 2001-10-08 08:44 · 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.

Re:It is written by JohnG · 2001-10-07 08:18 · 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".

Re:It is time... by CaseyB · 2001-10-07 08:19 · Score: 2

They kill their own people.

Um, last I checked, the US did that too.

It's time, but for what? by melquiades · 2001-10-07 08:19 · 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.

Re:It's time, but for what? by bwt · 2001-10-07 09:47 · 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.
Re:It's time, but for what? by THB · 2001-10-07 16:50 · 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.
Re:It's time, but for what? by Malcontent · 2001-10-07 18:05 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Auckerman · 2001-10-07 08:20 · 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

Is this the right kind of war? by gotan · 2001-10-07 08:22 · 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

Re:Is this the right kind of war? by marxmarv · 2001-10-07 18:51 · 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.

Re:Same ol' same old by greenrd · 2001-10-07 08:25 · 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

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 08:28 · 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.

Re:According to Bush by blair1q · 2001-10-07 08:29 · 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

Stratfor.com by kruczkowski · 2001-10-07 08:29 · 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

Re:Stratfor.com by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 14:54 · 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?
Re:Stratfor.com by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 19:42 · 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.
Re:Stratfor.com by blair1q · 2001-10-08 05:45 · Score: 2

> And no I do not get a commotion for this ad

Not even a little jostle?

--Blair

Re:you're exaggerating the claims by Velox_SwiftFox · 2001-10-07 08:32 · 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...

peace rallies, ugh by slavetrade55 · 2001-10-07 08:32 · 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.

Where's the evidence?? by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:33 · 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

Re:Where's the evidence?? by Panaflex · 2001-10-07 16:22 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · 2001-10-07 08:33 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Velox_SwiftFox · 2001-10-07 08:39 · Score: 2

They kill their own people.

Um, last I checked, the US did that too.

Not for shaving, we don't.

Re:Bullies by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:40 · 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

Re:Lets Bomb Them Into The Stone Age!!! by PMan88 · 2001-10-07 08:45 · 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.

Re:Incorrect by _Sprocket_ · 2001-10-07 08:46 · 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).

Christian scientists by Wyatt+Earp · 2001-10-07 08:47 · 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.

Re:Christian scientists by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-07 09:13 · 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.
Re:Christian scientists by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-08 02:40 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Danse · 2001-10-07 08:50 · 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

Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · 2001-10-07 08:50 · 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.

Arg...too much typing by Anonymous Coward · 2001-10-07 08:51 · 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...

Re:Just a naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiot.. by jasno · 2001-10-07 08:55 · 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/

Re:It is time... by Moonshadow · 2001-10-07 08:56 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Mad+Browser · 2001-10-07 09:02 · 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

Islamic Extreemist Grail by _Sprocket_ · 2001-10-07 09:05 · 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.

Re:It is time... by ostiguy · 2001-10-07 09:06 · 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

Ok... by Danse · 2001-10-07 09:07 · 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

Re:Ok... by Danse · 2001-10-07 13:11 · 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
Re:Ok... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · 2001-10-07 16:48 · 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.
Re:Ok... by Danse · 2001-10-07 18:15 · 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
Re:Ok... by Danse · 2001-10-08 04:38 · 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

China moving troops into Afghanistan by jmichaelg · 2001-10-07 09:14 · 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.

Re:China moving troops into Afghanistan by Phaid · 2001-10-07 11:00 · 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.

hilarious... by Danse · 2001-10-07 09:16 · 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

Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 09:25 · 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.

Re:Screw all this moral posturing by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:27 · 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

Re:It is time... by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 09:27 · 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

Re:It is time... by bwt · 2001-10-07 09:27 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 09:30 · 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

Re:It is time... by Danse · 2001-10-07 09:31 · 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

Re:Gulf War by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:31 · 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

Re:Innocent bystanders by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:34 · 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

Re:A Look Back at History by Chris+Johnson · 2001-10-07 09:35 · 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?

Re:More needless loss of life. by greenrd · 2001-10-07 09:40 · 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

Propaganda by horza · 2001-10-07 09:45 · 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

This calls for... by Ed+Avis · 2001-10-07 09:47 · Score: 2

Where's sengan when you need him?

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

OMG (stunned) MOD THIS UP! by Chris+Johnson · 2001-10-07 09:49 · 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!

Flawed analogy: The puncher is not innocent by Gorimek · 2001-10-07 09:53 · 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.

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Glytch · 2001-10-07 09:54 · Score: 2

This is not America, this is the Internet. Learn the fucking difference, you drooling mouthbreather.

Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2001-10-07 09:58 · 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.

There are many violent options by Gorimek · 2001-10-07 10:02 · 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.

Why do they need our support? by Tom7 · 2001-10-07 10:13 · 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.

Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 10:17 · 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.

Re:It is time for you to realize by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 10:23 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 10:42 · 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

Here. Have a laugh. by Scoria · 2001-10-07 10:42 · 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?

Re:Not that big? by defile · 2001-10-07 10:47 · 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.

Re:It is time... by SubtleNuance · 2001-10-07 10:49 · 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?????

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Anonymous Coward · 2001-10-07 10:49 · 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.

Re:you dont really want him by DickBreath · 2001-10-07 11:03 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Chagrin · 2001-10-07 11:06 · 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

Re:It is time... by mike_g · 2001-10-07 11:11 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Nexum · 2001-10-07 11:14 · 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.

Re:Taped Television Speech - Here's the text by evil_roy · 2001-10-07 11:14 · 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."

Your forgot a few steps. by aprentic · 2001-10-07 11:17 · 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.

Re:Your forgot a few steps. by meldroc · 2001-10-07 13:07 · 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

bin Laden must die by artemis67 · 2001-10-07 11:18 · 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....

Re:It is time... by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 11:26 · 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.

Re:It is time... by John+Miles · 2001-10-07 11:26 · 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.

Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-07 11:30 · 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.

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by strider · 2001-10-07 11:34 · 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

The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-07 11:44 · 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

Problems and solutions by einhverfr · 2001-10-07 11:54 · 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

Re:Problems and solutions by einhverfr · 2001-10-08 16:02 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by fanatic · 2001-10-07 11:58 · 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

Re:How are you Taliban... by British · 2001-10-07 12:00 · 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.

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by Guppy06 · 2001-10-07 12:10 · 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.

Mod Parent Up by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 12:12 · 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_

The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-07 12:13 · 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

Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by JohnG · 2001-10-07 12:14 · 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?

Re:It is time... by Trepidity · 2001-10-07 12:18 · Score: 2

And bombing Afghanistan will?

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

A clarification by kjj · 2001-10-07 12:21 · 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.

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Dolly_Llama · 2001-10-07 12:21 · 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

The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-07 12:23 · 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

B-1s by sconeu · 2001-10-07 12:26 · 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.

Bullies. by flip-flop · 2001-10-07 12:39 · 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.

Re:Bullies. by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-07 14:55 · 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.
Re:Bullies. by vidarh · 2001-10-08 01:43 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jonathan · 2001-10-07 12:46 · 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?

Re:Off Topic, -1 by sigwinch · 2001-10-07 12:46 · 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. ;-)

Please remember by HiThere · 2001-10-07 12:58 · 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.

Re:Please remember by leonbrooks · 2001-10-07 16:34 · 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

Wrong and imperfect. by Convergence · 2001-10-07 13:01 · 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.

Re:Wrong and imperfect. by sheldon · 2001-10-07 14:58 · 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.

Step back and think: what makes the terrorists tic by melquiades · 2001-10-07 13:04 · 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.

They didn't want Hussein gone by teg · 2001-10-07 13:07 · 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.

Re:They didn't want Hussein gone by strider · 2001-10-07 14:05 · 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

Re:Bullies by Danse · 2001-10-07 13:13 · 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

Neat logical fallacy there. by Convergence · 2001-10-07 13:13 · 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.

Re:It is time... by paul7e · 2001-10-07 13:15 · 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.

Re:This sucks by hey! · 2001-10-07 13:19 · 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.

Ah, this. by Convergence · 2001-10-07 13:22 · Score: 2

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jmt26/firebomb.htm

Note the references to USSBS documents..

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 13:25 · 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.

Re:According to Bush by einhverfr · 2001-10-07 13:30 · 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

Re:War doesn't know winners. by pkesel · 2001-10-07 13:43 · 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!

Roma, Roma, uber alles? by leonbrooks · 2001-10-07 13:44 · 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

Re:Roma, Roma, uber alles? by leonbrooks · 2001-10-07 14:06 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by einhverfr · 2001-10-07 13:45 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by einhverfr · 2001-10-07 13:52 · 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

SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by biggles69 · 2001-10-07 13:59 · 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!

Re:SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ISLAM by catseye_95051 · 2001-10-07 15:47 · 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.

Re:Don't Hold Your Breath About Declaration by Dolly_Llama · 2001-10-07 14:01 · 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

Re:Pacifying?! No, it's just cold war continues... by Dolly_Llama · 2001-10-07 14:06 · 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

Re:It is time... by Zeio · 2001-10-07 14:13 · 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.

Leave it to The Onion by einhverfr · 2001-10-07 14:13 · 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

Afghanistan contributes a LOT to the world by Steeplerot · 2001-10-07 14:17 · 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."

It does not matter, the support was provided by leonbrooks · 2001-10-07 14:21 · 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

Kill the Taliban, then rebuild Afghanistan by Von+Rex · 2001-10-07 14:23 · 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.

Hitler only persecuted RCC when they abandoned him by leonbrooks · 2001-10-07 14:29 · 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

Re:It is time... by Jonathan · 2001-10-07 14:29 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Rimbo · 2001-10-07 14:35 · 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.

Great post by Von+Rex · 2001-10-07 14:54 · 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.

Re:It is time... by RelliK · 2001-10-07 14:56 · 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.

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-07 15:03 · 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.

evil must be opposed by darrellr · 2001-10-07 15:08 · 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.

Re:evil must be opposed by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-08 06:43 · 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.

Re:To anyone doubting these actions taken by the U by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-07 15:16 · 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???

Re:Screw all this moral posturing by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-07 15:20 · 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?

Alright then... by Danse · 2001-10-07 15:23 · 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

Re:It is time... by Absynthe · 2001-10-07 15:31 · 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.

Re:Slashdot pretty Bolshy! by catseye_95051 · 2001-10-07 15:55 · 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 :)

Re:It is time... by mcelrath · 2001-10-07 15:55 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 16:19 · 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.

Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by melquiades · 2001-10-07 16:35 · 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.

Re:It is time... by RelliK · 2001-10-07 16:46 · 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.

Re:It is time... by MMBKG · 2001-10-07 16:48 · 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.

Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 16:50 · 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.

Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · 2001-10-07 18:16 · 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.
Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · 2001-10-08 19:36 · 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.
Re:Mankind's Propensity for Warfare by Malcontent · 2001-10-09 18:04 · 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.

Re:Bullies by Panaflex · 2001-10-07 16:54 · 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.

More fun for/with Osama by phillymjs · 2001-10-07 16:56 · 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

Re:More fun for/with Osama by phillymjs · 2001-10-08 01:55 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Bob+Uhl · 2001-10-07 17:03 · 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.

Maybe... by neema · 2001-10-07 17:14 · Score: 2

Maybe this is a response to this.

Re:Step back and think: what makes the terrorists by melquiades · 2001-10-07 17:33 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Zeio · 2001-10-07 17:40 · 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.

Chill ... it's just rhetoric by melquiades · 2001-10-07 17:46 · 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?

The best day I've had in three weeks. by Picass0 · 2001-10-07 18:06 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 18:16 · 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.

Re:Bullies by Danse · 2001-10-07 18:18 · 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

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 18:29 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 18:31 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 18:34 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-07 18:34 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 18:44 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-07 18:49 · 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

Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-07 18:51 · 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

Al Qaeda? by Lethyos · 2001-10-07 19:04 · 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.

Re:Don't believe everything you see on TV... by Kraft · 2001-10-07 19:05 · Score: 2

Thanks for the link. It's nice to get some perspective.

--

-Kraft
Live and let live

Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-07 19:15 · 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

Re:Bullies by ink · 2001-10-07 19:16 · 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.

Book by Yossel Bodansky 2 years ago. by ckedge · 2001-10-07 19:18 · 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

Re:It is time... by Zeio · 2001-10-07 19:25 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-07 19:34 · 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.

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris by geschild · 2001-10-07 19:52 · 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?

Re:It is time... by Zeio · 2001-10-07 19:53 · 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.

The non-violent response to violence by Caid+Raspa · 2001-10-07 20:50 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-07 21:06 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-07 21:19 · 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.

Links to people killed were added to the article. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-07 21:35 · 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

BBC Documentrary by kisak · 2001-10-07 22:33 · 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 ---

Observations (long) by ChelleyBean · 2001-10-08 01:39 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · 2001-10-08 02:00 · 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?

Re:It is time... by karmawarrior · 2001-10-08 02:06 · 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?)

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-08 02:19 · 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.

Here's an odd question... by sphealey · 2001-10-08 02:33 · 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

Re:Here's an odd question... by sigwinch · 2001-10-08 08:10 · 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. ;-)

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-08 03:02 · 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.

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-08 03:07 · Score: 2

I'm sorry that you are delusional, but it's time to start accepting reality.

You've grossly simplified the war in Vietnam by DG · 2001-10-08 03:08 · 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

BAD MODERATION by Sara+Chan · 2001-10-08 04:04 · 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.

Re:BAD MODERATION by blair1q · 2001-10-08 05:53 · 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

Re:Innocent bystanders by ConceptJunkie · 2001-10-08 04:09 · 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.

Not Bullies but Victim of Bullies by Martin+Spamer · 2001-10-08 04:38 · 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.

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-08 04:43 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Danse · 2001-10-08 04:44 · 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

Re: War profiteering -- NOT. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-08 05:03 · 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

Iraqi sanctions hurtful? BULLSHIT! by Skip666Kent · 2001-10-08 05:23 · 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

Let's do some research and find ways to stop. by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-08 05:23 · 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

The article quotes a CNN story that says 3 million by Futurepower(tm) · 2001-10-08 05:38 · 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

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-08 06:41 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-08 06:49 · 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.

Re:Screw all this moral posturing by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-08 06:55 · 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.

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-10-08 07:06 · 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

Re:Right to kill ... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2001-10-08 07:09 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Jon+Chatow · 2001-10-08 07:11 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-08 08:14 · 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

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · 2001-10-08 08:21 · 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.

Rumor going around by Rimbo · 2001-10-08 08:37 · 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.

Re:It is time... by NMerriam · 2001-10-08 10:14 · 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.

Re:It is time... by jafac · 2001-10-08 10:25 · 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.

Re:It is time... by squiggleslash · 2001-10-08 11:04 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Zeio · 2001-10-08 11:18 · 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.

Re:It is time... by Paul+Komarek · 2001-10-08 11:46 · Score: 2

Here here! Nicely put on all accounts.

-Paul Komarek

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-08 12:53 · 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.

Re:Extradition by AdrianG · 2001-10-08 13:24 · 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

Re:Yes...*empty* rhetoric... by melquiades · 2001-10-08 16:16 · 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.

B-2s? by Sloppy · 2001-10-08 17:19 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · 2001-10-08 20:28 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · 2001-10-09 00:58 · 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?

Re:gwbush doesn't know a thing about chess by sheldon · 2001-10-09 02:26 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by vidarh · 2001-10-09 03:37 · 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.

Re:Why are we attacking the Taliban? by JohnG · 2001-10-09 06:48 · 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?

Re:Then search for yourself by On+Lawn · 2001-10-09 09:25 · 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.

Re:clarification and maybe common ground by On+Lawn · 2001-10-09 11:09 · 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.

Re:you're exaggerating the claims by Velox_SwiftFox · 2001-10-09 14:45 · 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..

Re:clarification and maybe common ground by On+Lawn · 2001-10-09 15:04 · 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.

Re:Clearing up Religion by Malcontent · 2001-10-09 17:51 · 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.

Re:So how many.... by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2001-10-10 02:57 · 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?

Re:If at first noone believes you, quote sources. by Malcontent · 2001-10-11 17:01 · 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.

Slashdot Mirror

US Starts Attacking Afghanistan

600 of 2,549 comments (clear)