[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>from Beer:
Who does have a solution? I would love to hear a real one, but real ones get drowned out in the fashionable clamor for vengeance. Respond? Are we not already doing just that? Afghanstan is now a land of smoldering ruins, and bin Laden is as of yet, nowhere to be found and on the loose. He may not even be in Afghanistan!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you even care whether of not you get the story right? I saw the footage from Kabul. There were quite a few buildings still standing. Fact is Afghanistan doesn't have a lot of high value targets. The only way our bombs would have had any effect at all was to bomb directly Taliban positions.
[quote]<strong>Strange also, our sudden dislike for the Taliban; I have the impression that altho' they weren't on 'buddy-buddy' terms with the Bush Administration, just before Sept 11 we sent them $45 million to help them in their supposed "opium-eradication" program (ha!).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No we didn't. We sent aid via the UN. We didn't give any money to the Taliban. We were quite careful about that. Nothing sudden about our dislike for the Taliban.
You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you even read the article??? They are trying to change the subject to save their worthless backsides. They could give a rats @$$ about diplomacy. But thei are appealing to the apologists such as a few posting on this forum to stop the US from doling out their judgement.
From the Article, first paragraph even:
[quote]<strong>"A Taliban spokesman said the world should move on and forget about the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, focusing instead on U.S. actions in Afghanistan."</strong><hr></blockquote>
and then It goes on to say:
[quote]<strong>He said the deadly hijackings were carried out by people in the United States ? not the Taliban ? and were "the problem of (President) Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair."
"This is not our problem," Agha added"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have known that my post would fly right over your head. How can anyone be so blind as to not see that there is nothing here to be respected? They are terrorists, and now they are scared for their lives. And we are coming for them.
[quote]November 19, 2001 -- EARLY on Nov. 9, the Taliban regime ruled almost 95 percent of Afghanistan. Ten days later, it controlled just 15 percent of the country. Key to this quick disintegration was the fact that, awed by American air power, many Taliban soldiers switched sides to the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance.
According to one analyst, "Defections, even in mid-battle, are proving key to the rapid collapse across Afghanistan of the formerly ruling Taliban militia."
This development fits into a larger pattern; thanks to American muscle, Afghans now look at militant Islam as a losing proposition. Nor are they alone; Muslims around the world sense the same shift.
If militant Islam achieved its greatest victory ever on Sept. 11, by Nov. 9 (when the Taliban lost their first major city) the demise of this murderous movement may have begun.
"Pakistani holy warriors are deserting Taliban ranks and streaming home in large numbers," reported The Associated Press on Friday. In the streets of Peshawar, we learn, "portraits of Osama bin Laden go unsold. Here where it counts, just across the Khyber Pass from the heartland of Afghanistan, the Taliban mystique is waning."
Just a few weeks ago, large crowds of militant Islamic men filled Peshawar's narrow streets, especially on Fridays, listening to vitriolic attacks on the United States and Israel, burning effigies of President Bush, and perhaps clashing with the riot police. This last Friday, however, things went very differently in Peshawar.
Much smaller and quieter crowds heard more sober speeches. No effigy was set on fire and one observer described the few policemen as looking like "a bunch of old friends on an afternoon stroll."
The Arabic-speaking countries show a similar trend. Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, notes that in the first week after the U.S. airstrikes began on Oct. 7, nine anti-American demonstrations took place. The second week saw three of them, the third week one, the fourth week, two. "Then - nothing," observes Indyk. "The Arab street is quiet."
And so too in the further reaches of the Muslim world - Indonesia, India, Nigeria - where the supercharged protests of September are distant memories.
American military success has also encouraged the authorities to crack down. In China, the government prohibited the selling of badges celebrating Osama bin Laden ("I am bin Laden. Who should I fear?") only after the U.S. victories began.
Similarly, the effective ruler of Saudi Arabia admonished religious leaders to be careful and responsible in their statements ("weigh each word before saying it") after he saw that Washington meant business. Likewise, the Egyptian government has moved more aggressively against its militant Islamic elements.
This change in mood results from the change in American behavior.
For two decades - since Ayatollah Khomeini reached power in Iran in 1979 spouting "Death to America" - U.S. embassies, planes, ships, and barracks have been assaulted, leading to hundreds of American deaths. In the face of this, Washington hardly responded.
And, as Muslims watched militant Islam inflict one defeat after another on the far more powerful United States, they increasingly concluded that America, for all its resources, was tired and soft. They watched with awe as the audacity of militant Islam increased, culminating with Osama bin Laden's declaration of jihad against the entire Western world and the Taliban leader calling for nothing less than the "extinction of America."
The Sept. 11 attacks were expected to take a major step toward extinguishing America by demoralizing the population and leading to civil unrest, perhaps starting a sequence of events that would lead to the U.S. government's collapse.
Instead, the more than 4,000 deaths served as a rousing call to arms. Just two months later, the deployment of U.S. might has reduced the prospects of militant Islam.
The pattern is clear: So long as Americans submitted passively to murderous attacks by militant Islam, this movement gained support among Muslims. When Americans finally fought militant Islam, its appeal quickly diminished.
Victory on the battlefield, in other words, has not only the obvious advantage of protecting the United States but also the important side-effect of lancing the anti-American boil that spawned those attacks in the first place.
The implication is clear: There is no substitute for victory. The U.S. government must continue the war on terror by weakening militant Islam everywhere it exists, from Afghanistan to Atlanta.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>This development fits into a larger pattern; thanks to American muscle, Afghans now look at militant Islam as a losing proposition. Nor are they alone; Muslims around the world sense the same shift.</strong><hr></blockquote>Interesting. Hopefully 9/11/01 will do the same for militant Islamic extremism as 4/19/95 did for militant US extremism - make it lose credibility.
Remember how all the hostages were released after the Gulf War, and then there was a series of Israeli-Palestinian accords?
People said that because of the Gulf War, Arabs would hate the US, but it actually ushered in a more positive period, at least for a while.
You could also see the shift in Iran, right smack in between Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the US has gone to large-scale war with in the past 10 years. And yet there is increasing pro-Western sentiment among the Iranian people.
You could also see the shift in Iran, right smack in between Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the US has gone to large-scale war with in the past 10 years. And yet there is increasing pro-Western sentiment among the Iranian people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, part of that is because they don't like the Taliban too. In fact they've been supporting the Northern Alliance for a while now.
Here's something about "root causes" from last week's NY Times.
[quote]Since Sept. 11, few phrases have become as familiar as "root causes." Forthright condemnations of the attacks have often been accompanied by assertions that, ultimately, the "root causes" of terror must also be addressed. And the implication is that if those causes are not eliminated, terrorism can be expected to continue.
It is remarkable how much agreement there is on the nature of these root causes. Many American intellectuals have cited American policy toward Israel, the poverty of Arab lands and inequalities and inequities reinforced by Western actions. The Vatican Synod in October, after condemning the "horror of terrorism," called for the elimination of the root causes of poverty and inequality. And similar declarations were made by many nations at the United Nations this week.
But it is worth thinking about just what premises about terrorism and fundamentalism lie behind these arguments.
First of all, these judgments accept a view of terror that has been held by many terrorist groups throughout modern history. The theory is that terrorism is an extreme reaction to grievous and long-festering injustices that have not been redressed by other means. Such claims were made by European anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century, by the radical Baader-Meinhoff gang in the 1970's and, of course, by Islamic terrorist groups ranging from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda. This might be called the "injustice theory" of terrorism and it is now widely held.
But at the very least this theory is inconsistently applied. Timothy McVeigh and his collaborators, for example, asserted that their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only recourse was terror: the Oklahoma City bombing. Yet, no one suggested that his act had its "root causes" in an injustice that needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism. The injustice theory is apparently invoked only when one sympathizes with its conclusions.
The current invocations of injustice theory are also seriously flawed. Consider just one supposed root cause of Islamic terrorism: poverty. The implication is that to help stop terror, poverty must be ameliorated. There are, of course, very good reasons to eliminate poverty. Yet while some poverty-stricken people may engage in terror, there may be no essential relationship. Poverty can easily exist without terror (think of the American Depression). And terror can easily thrive without poverty.
The European fundamentalist wars between Protestants and Catholics, which involved substantial terror, crossed all economic boundaries. The left-wing terrorists of the 1970's and 80's were solidly middle class. The leaders and many of the main operatives in contemporary Islamic terrorist groups are, at the very least, middle class; some Al Qaeda operatives were highly educated; and bin Laden, of course, is a multimillionaire.
Moreover, the injustice theory, with its list of root causes, leaves no room for religious passion, irrational ambitions or cultural and tribal schisms. So it is unable to take into account the role played by fundamentalism. For fundamentalism, as the term is now used, involves a set of beliefs that lie beyond particular resentments. Fundamentalism can even be associated with a self-sacrificial renunciation of material pleasures; even suicide is sanctioned if it will further the fundamentalist goal. Under fundamentalism, in both its religious and political forms, every aspect of life is governed by a single set of ideas. All of history, all of natural law and all actions of the divinity, are seen as leading up to the present moment, granting incomparable power and authority to the fundamentalist. Those laws also demand that they be accepted universally and that great battles must be waged on their behalf.
The fundamentalist does not believe these ideas have any limits or boundaries. Goals are not restricted to a particular place or a particular time. The place is every place; the time is eternity. That is why fundamentalism is often expansionist; it must extend its reach as part of the great battle. In this context, one man's terrorist, as the maxim goes, is far from being just another man's freedom fighter. The goals of fundamentalist terror are not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition.
This is precisely the sort of mental universe that the philosopher Hannah Arendt associated with what she called "totalitarian terror." Writing more than a half-century ago, she was primarily thinking of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, but the ideas have far greater resonance.
Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend that law over all of humanity. Reality, Arendt suggested, never modifies totalitarian ideas; events do not prove those ideas wrong or diminish belief. Instead, totalitarianism modifies perceptions of reality to suit the ideas; the world is changed to fit with the vision of totalitarianism. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of totalitarian ideas. Opposition is guilt, punishment is death.
If contemporary Islamic terror can be considered a variety of totalitarian terror, it becomes clearer just how limited the injustice theory and the question of "root causes" are. No doubt, injustices and policies can be argued over, but not as root causes of terror. Totalitarianism stands above such niceties. No injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions. Claims of "root causes" are distractions from the real work at hand.<hr></blockquote>
If there is anything we can be hopeful of, it's that we as Americans and many many other nationalities nowadays do not hold our grudges like way back when. While Serbia/Bosnian tensions can be traced back 800 years, this is becoming more of an exception to the rule, where it once seemd to be (historically) the de facto standard temperament.
I consider American feelings towards these things and while it may seem fickle in the short term (like how support for this battle was waning before some recent breakthroughs), in the long term, we seem to ready to make friends quite readily: the British from the old revoutionary/1812 days, the Russians/Soviets from the Cold War, we welcome Iran to be our friends, etc.
Obviously, we've been fair-weather friends to some when we thought they didn't need us or want us (Pakistan, Afganistan), conversely, we've stuck around when some didn't want us around (Saudi Arabia, Somalia). We've tried to bring self-determination to people but in the wrong way (Vietnam), we've supported those who we thought would bring freedom to others only to mistakenly bring those monsters to power (Phillipines). We've done plenty of things the wrong way. I think generally we try to do the right thing.
[quote]on that "U.S. aid to the Taliban lie" and where it came from.<hr></blockquote>
I recall hearing this from Bill O'Reilly, the conservative commentator, talking on the conservative Fox News Channel, which is owned by the conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Therefore it must be true.
[QB in the long term, we seem to ready to make friends quite readily: the British from the old revoutionary/1812 days, the Russians/Soviets from the Cold War, we welcome Iran to be our friends, etc.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
In stead of the etcetera you might have considered a "provided they keep doing as we tell them"
The English have been the U.S lapdog for decades now, part of the reason why your past governments never condemned the atrocities commited by the English army in the north.
The Russians only became your friends after they embraced capitalism, which actually didn't make them much richer than before and created the ruthless Russian Mafia.
Iran is now your friend because you need them and were scared shedless that they would get involved along with some other surrounding states and you'd have a second Korea on your hands.
I seriously doubt if we were "afraid" of Iran, Iraq or any other country becoming "involved". The idea is that there is an aftermath to any military involvement and the fewer involved parties the better. The US doesn't want to involve itself in a never ending US against Islam war. This is not about that. It is about destroying the first of many terrorist organizations and that specific government overtly supporting that organization. To distabalize the entire region would be rather stupid - therefore we looked for and found other countries that believe that terrorisim must be delt with, even within their own borders. That we have made mis-steps in foriegn policy in the past because of a long cold war makes no difference right this minute or in the future. The decisions to involve and respect other countries efforts to end terrorism and our dealings with them with a better understanding of their needs and wants is important. The end of terrorisim is important for the entire world. How we follow up on it is just as important because it can preclude giving reasons (or excuses) for further terrorism.
And do I note a slight attitude that Communisim lost the cold war and that Russia is now experimenting with dreaded capitalisim - get over it.
And England is far from being the US's lap dog. (Oh these cold war sayings.) We have many disagreements with England and we compromise with them as much as they compromise with us. But you see it is not just England supporting the US in europe. It is the entire of NATO.
As far as the original thread goes - I respect the Palastinian that picks up a rock to throw at an armed Israel soldier for his belief. I disrespect the Palastinian that raps himself up in dynamite and blows up a disco full of unarmed civilians. I respect the Palastinian that picks up arms to defend his beliefs and fellow Palastinians against armed soldiers - he is a freedom fighter. I disrespect the Palastinian that shoots up a school bus and he should be caught and punished - preferably by Palistinians. I respect an unarmed student standing in front of tanks in Tennamin Square in China. I respect anyone, no matter the belief, that partakes in non-violent protest - no matter the consequences to themselves. I disrespect any one that targets civilians of any country with violence - no matter how right their cause. I respect any freedom fighter that joins an armed rebellion against a military force who do not target civilians for violance. There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Who is the target and how do they conduct their campaign for their cause. I might not agree with their cause and I might even take up arms or support the opposition, but as long as civilians are not the target, I will respect him even if he is my enemy.
Well, this whole terrorist thing obviously makes you happy in some perverse way. You see things as having a political motive only. Yes, it's true, none of us (including you) is innocent. So I guess it's all a wash, right? They're doing what they believe in, so it must be a good thing for the balance of the universe. Have a happy life thinking that to yourself.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:<strong>I recall hearing this from Bill O'Reilly, the conservative commentator, talking on the conservative Fox News Channel, which is owned by the conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Therefore it must be true.
[quote]<strong>In stead of the etcetera you might have considered a "provided they keep doing as we tell them"</strong><hr></blockquote>
What nation on earth has a different, more noble position? Would Ireland still have nothing but love for England if English schools began teaching anti-Irish propaganda?
Think before you speak.
[quote]<strong>The English have been the U.S lapdog for decades now, part of the reason why your past governments never condemned the atrocities commited by the English army in the north.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does our "condemnation" matter to you?
[quote]<strong>The Russians only became your friends after they embraced capitalism, which actually didn't make them much richer than before and created the ruthless Russian Mafia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, once they dropped the communist regimes that murdered tens of millions of their own for dissent. I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to snuggle up to that.
[quote]<strong>Iran is now your friend because you need them and were scared shedless that they would get involved along with some other surrounding states and you'd have a second Korea on your hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iran is our friend? Someone should go tell them that, because they still have plenty of public hate for us.
You have very little knowledge of the region.
[quote]<strong>So what would you call these?
Terrorists or soldiers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to answer your question with a question, but:
What does Bloody Sunday have to do with the U.S. conflict with Afghanistan? What was the U.S. supposed to do about that? Arrest British soldiers?
[quote]Was it Cyndi Lauper who sang: "I see your true colors shining through, I see your true colors..etc.."? Don't be afraid to let them show.<hr></blockquote>
Groverat, I thought that my sarcasm was amply sufficient... ok, next time....
They are incapable of reasoning and so are you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They're wrong and I'm right. Why do you think I'm "incapable of reasoning"? Because I know right from wrong? Don't you? Murder is wrong and we should never respect the people who do it.
Listen to the hatred of the terrorist. They are religious bigots bent on spreading their their Islamic law to everyone. What's to understand? What's to reason with?
Should we "respect" the KKK and it's members? How about the Nazis? Should we reason with the KKK or the Nazis? I see very little difference between them and the terrorist.
People have this silly fantasy that the US caused this to happen. That if only we had done this and not that then no one would hate us. That mistakes were made and should have been avoided.
Fact is there no right or wrong moves for the US. No matter where we go or what we do we will be hated by some group for some reason. If we help one country the other will hate us. If we don't help then we will be hated. If we don't help enough we will be hated. If we ignore then then we're cruel if we help too much then we are "imperialist". No matter where we go and what we do we will be hated by someone for some reason.
And the reason is that the world is full of hateful people. These people need someone to hate. They need someone to blame for their lot in life. They make a life of spreading misery and hatred. They can?t live in the world with the rest of us so they would rather kill us.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I recall hearing this from Bill O'Reilly, the conservative commentator, talking on the conservative Fox News Channel, which is owned by the conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Therefore it must be true.
Don't be afraid to let them show. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you people ****ing stupid or what? Read the site SpinSanity. It's nonpartisan and only seeks to put some Sanity into the spin.
The idea that the US aided the Taliban is a lie. It was started by an LA Times writer. It's been repeated about 10,000 times over. Even by that fool Jesse Jackson on Oprah.
[quote]Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."<hr></blockquote>
[quote]They're wrong and I'm right. <hr></blockquote>
Exactly! And that's where you're wrong. There is no wrong and right, just the perspective that different groups of people put the same situation in.
As for Bloody Sunday and what it has to do with Afghanistan, I was informed that a terrorist is someone who kills innocent people. These soldiers killed innocent people. So they are terrorists? Well they are by your definition of one.
You're not willing to call them terrorists though because they were supposedly on the right side of the conflict.
I can not believe that I am being told by the same people that say it is right to attack the Taliban and Al Quada for what they did, that the IRA are terrorists for doing the exact same thing.
Just to give you a quick run of events:
Ireland - we're all running around happily playing hurling and killing each other.
Just across the Irish sea a king decides, hmmm we need a bigger empire, let's go over and start killing those Irish people.
Boom! We're part of Great Britain.
Here we are running around, a lot less happy and we decide:"Damn, we're not gonna take this" so we revolt. Then we go on and do that for another 750 some years. We get our butts kicked, then all of a sudden we've found it! Eureka! cries Michael Collins. We're not going to attack them en masse! We're gonna shoot them one by one in the streets!
It works too. We got them shedding their pants.
-Time out!- who attacked who first? Exactly! Just don't forget...I shall continue....
So here we are running around our country shooting everyone and everything working for or co operating with British rule. So across the sea people see that they're losing...so what do they do? Indeed! They call us murderers! We are the bad guys all of a sudden! Who attacked who first again?
So they say to us:"Let's talk, but send us Collins" So we send the man over, we negociate and negociate and negociate until we're told: "Listen, it's this or nothing. You can have your free state but we keep the north. If you don't agree that's fine. We'll just send some more black and tans over to burn your houses."
So Collins, a man who loves his country and wants peace so much he would die for it, signs it. We'll take that and then we'll see what we can do from there. And we're still doing it. We're talking again, and I'm all for it. But in the end we should have it all. Until then, I will not be happy.
If the U.S is right for attacking Al Quada, the IRA is right for attacking anything to do with the English military. They attacked us first.
So the least you could do is be a little consistent. If you say it's right to bomb because you were attacked that's fair enough, but then don't call someone else wrong for doing the exact same.
Not that that has anything to do with the original post though but some people don't mind not sticking to the point just so they don't have to admit they're wrong.
Bloody Sunday was not a terrorist act. It is considered an atrocity. I realize that this does little for the victims because the out come is the same. The thing is that the ill trained and fearful soldiers that committed the act and their leaders are subject to international law. (The same as the Serbs during the war in Kosovo and the United States in Viet Nam at Mi Lai.) I can name several other incidents in Africa that would be considered as atrocities rather than terrorist acts and yes they too will never be brought before the bar of international justice. Does the symantics make me feel better if I am on the side of the victims - hardly. It just means that civilians were targeted which is wrong and is addressable before the court of public opinion and if handled correctly before the World Court.
The unfortunate problem with any of this is that it just fosters more bloodshed. I don't know the ins and outs of the Irish rebellion and I certainly don't even want to try to sort out the right and wrong after a war of several hundred years with fathers teaching sons hate from one generation to another. I will have to state that the IRA targeting civilians on a one to one basis or enmass does not help their side of the argument as far as world opinion is concerned.
I helped in some measure to fight a war in Africa that lasted 25 years. My side went to great trouble not to target civilians as we were fighting on what we considered our territory. The enemy was not quite so willing to follow the rules of war and I lost close civilian friends to assasination and in one case to a group of soldiers opening up on unarmed civilians in a market place. We as a group decided not to respond in kind, but to continue a campaign directed at the military. It took 25 years and the loss of over a million people on both sides to finally win, but we did. Do I now hate the enemy that we defeated because of their atrocities during the war. No. I hate the people that did the actual killing and the leaders that allowed it to happen - not the rest of the people of that country. Thankfully most all of the people of my side feel the same way as I do. It makes for much better relationships on both sides. The only thing that I can say is that civil war is never pretty, but neither side needs to target civilians specifically to win.
Do I respect the terrorist that targets a group of civilians to "make a statement" - a resounding NO! Do I respect a soldier that commits an atrocity - again a resounding NO! So in the case of the Irish rebellion I respect neither side as both sides have targeted the civilians on both sides rather than the military or armed forces. Dispicable behavior on both sides has assured that the rebellion will not be over - even if the fighting ceases - until at least 2 generations have lived togeather in peace.
Comments
<strong>from Beer:
Who does have a solution? I would love to hear a real one, but real ones get drowned out in the fashionable clamor for vengeance. Respond? Are we not already doing just that? Afghanstan is now a land of smoldering ruins, and bin Laden is as of yet, nowhere to be found and on the loose. He may not even be in Afghanistan!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you even care whether of not you get the story right? I saw the footage from Kabul. There were quite a few buildings still standing. Fact is Afghanistan doesn't have a lot of high value targets. The only way our bombs would have had any effect at all was to bomb directly Taliban positions.
[quote]<strong>Strange also, our sudden dislike for the Taliban; I have the impression that altho' they weren't on 'buddy-buddy' terms with the Bush Administration, just before Sept 11 we sent them $45 million to help them in their supposed "opium-eradication" program (ha!).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No we didn't. We sent aid via the UN. We didn't give any money to the Taliban. We were quite careful about that. Nothing sudden about our dislike for the Taliban.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind.
Did you even read the article??? They are trying to change the subject to save their worthless backsides. They could give a rats @$$ about diplomacy. But thei are appealing to the apologists such as a few posting on this forum to stop the US from doling out their judgement.
From the Article, first paragraph even:
[quote]<strong>"A Taliban spokesman said the world should move on and forget about the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, focusing instead on U.S. actions in Afghanistan."</strong><hr></blockquote>
and then It goes on to say:
[quote]<strong>He said the deadly hijackings were carried out by people in the United States ? not the Taliban ? and were "the problem of (President) Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair."
"This is not our problem," Agha added"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have known that my post would fly right over your head.
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34628.htm"; target="_blank">VICTORY SHIFTS
THE MUSLIM WORLD</a>
By DANIEL PIPES
[quote]November 19, 2001 -- EARLY on Nov. 9, the Taliban regime ruled almost 95 percent of Afghanistan. Ten days later, it controlled just 15 percent of the country. Key to this quick disintegration was the fact that, awed by American air power, many Taliban soldiers switched sides to the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance.
According to one analyst, "Defections, even in mid-battle, are proving key to the rapid collapse across Afghanistan of the formerly ruling Taliban militia."
This development fits into a larger pattern; thanks to American muscle, Afghans now look at militant Islam as a losing proposition. Nor are they alone; Muslims around the world sense the same shift.
If militant Islam achieved its greatest victory ever on Sept. 11, by Nov. 9 (when the Taliban lost their first major city) the demise of this murderous movement may have begun.
"Pakistani holy warriors are deserting Taliban ranks and streaming home in large numbers," reported The Associated Press on Friday. In the streets of Peshawar, we learn, "portraits of Osama bin Laden go unsold. Here where it counts, just across the Khyber Pass from the heartland of Afghanistan, the Taliban mystique is waning."
Just a few weeks ago, large crowds of militant Islamic men filled Peshawar's narrow streets, especially on Fridays, listening to vitriolic attacks on the United States and Israel, burning effigies of President Bush, and perhaps clashing with the riot police. This last Friday, however, things went very differently in Peshawar.
Much smaller and quieter crowds heard more sober speeches. No effigy was set on fire and one observer described the few policemen as looking like "a bunch of old friends on an afternoon stroll."
The Arabic-speaking countries show a similar trend. Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, notes that in the first week after the U.S. airstrikes began on Oct. 7, nine anti-American demonstrations took place. The second week saw three of them, the third week one, the fourth week, two. "Then - nothing," observes Indyk. "The Arab street is quiet."
And so too in the further reaches of the Muslim world - Indonesia, India, Nigeria - where the supercharged protests of September are distant memories.
American military success has also encouraged the authorities to crack down. In China, the government prohibited the selling of badges celebrating Osama bin Laden ("I am bin Laden. Who should I fear?") only after the U.S. victories began.
Similarly, the effective ruler of Saudi Arabia admonished religious leaders to be careful and responsible in their statements ("weigh each word before saying it") after he saw that Washington meant business. Likewise, the Egyptian government has moved more aggressively against its militant Islamic elements.
This change in mood results from the change in American behavior.
For two decades - since Ayatollah Khomeini reached power in Iran in 1979 spouting "Death to America" - U.S. embassies, planes, ships, and barracks have been assaulted, leading to hundreds of American deaths. In the face of this, Washington hardly responded.
And, as Muslims watched militant Islam inflict one defeat after another on the far more powerful United States, they increasingly concluded that America, for all its resources, was tired and soft. They watched with awe as the audacity of militant Islam increased, culminating with Osama bin Laden's declaration of jihad against the entire Western world and the Taliban leader calling for nothing less than the "extinction of America."
The Sept. 11 attacks were expected to take a major step toward extinguishing America by demoralizing the population and leading to civil unrest, perhaps starting a sequence of events that would lead to the U.S. government's collapse.
Instead, the more than 4,000 deaths served as a rousing call to arms. Just two months later, the deployment of U.S. might has reduced the prospects of militant Islam.
The pattern is clear: So long as Americans submitted passively to murderous attacks by militant Islam, this movement gained support among Muslims. When Americans finally fought militant Islam, its appeal quickly diminished.
Victory on the battlefield, in other words, has not only the obvious advantage of protecting the United States but also the important side-effect of lancing the anti-American boil that spawned those attacks in the first place.
The implication is clear: There is no substitute for victory. The U.S. government must continue the war on terror by weakening militant Islam everywhere it exists, from Afghanistan to Atlanta.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>This development fits into a larger pattern; thanks to American muscle, Afghans now look at militant Islam as a losing proposition. Nor are they alone; Muslims around the world sense the same shift.</strong><hr></blockquote>Interesting. Hopefully 9/11/01 will do the same for militant Islamic extremism as 4/19/95 did for militant US extremism - make it lose credibility.
Remember how all the hostages were released after the Gulf War, and then there was a series of Israeli-Palestinian accords?
People said that because of the Gulf War, Arabs would hate the US, but it actually ushered in a more positive period, at least for a while.
You could also see the shift in Iran, right smack in between Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the US has gone to large-scale war with in the past 10 years. And yet there is increasing pro-Western sentiment among the Iranian people.
<strong>
You could also see the shift in Iran, right smack in between Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the US has gone to large-scale war with in the past 10 years. And yet there is increasing pro-Western sentiment among the Iranian people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, part of that is because they don't like the Taliban too. In fact they've been supporting the Northern Alliance for a while now.
Here's something about "root causes" from last week's NY Times.
November 17, 2001
CONNECTIONS
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/17/arts/17CONN.html"; target="_blank">Exploring the Flaws in the
Notion of the 'Root
Causes' of Terror</a>
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
[quote]Since Sept. 11, few phrases have become as familiar as "root causes." Forthright condemnations of the attacks have often been accompanied by assertions that, ultimately, the "root causes" of terror must also be addressed. And the implication is that if those causes are not eliminated, terrorism can be expected to continue.
It is remarkable how much agreement there is on the nature of these root causes. Many American intellectuals have cited American policy toward Israel, the poverty of Arab lands and inequalities and inequities reinforced by Western actions. The Vatican Synod in October, after condemning the "horror of terrorism," called for the elimination of the root causes of poverty and inequality. And similar declarations were made by many nations at the United Nations this week.
But it is worth thinking about just what premises about terrorism and fundamentalism lie behind these arguments.
First of all, these judgments accept a view of terror that has been held by many terrorist groups throughout modern history. The theory is that terrorism is an extreme reaction to grievous and long-festering injustices that have not been redressed by other means. Such claims were made by European anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century, by the radical Baader-Meinhoff gang in the 1970's and, of course, by Islamic terrorist groups ranging from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda. This might be called the "injustice theory" of terrorism and it is now widely held.
But at the very least this theory is inconsistently applied. Timothy McVeigh and his collaborators, for example, asserted that their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only recourse was terror: the Oklahoma City bombing. Yet, no one suggested that his act had its "root causes" in an injustice that needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism. The injustice theory is apparently invoked only when one sympathizes with its conclusions.
The current invocations of injustice theory are also seriously flawed. Consider just one supposed root cause of Islamic terrorism: poverty. The implication is that to help stop terror, poverty must be ameliorated. There are, of course, very good reasons to eliminate poverty. Yet while some poverty-stricken people may engage in terror, there may be no essential relationship. Poverty can easily exist without terror (think of the American Depression). And terror can easily thrive without poverty.
The European fundamentalist wars between Protestants and Catholics, which involved substantial terror, crossed all economic boundaries. The left-wing terrorists of the 1970's and 80's were solidly middle class. The leaders and many of the main operatives in contemporary Islamic terrorist groups are, at the very least, middle class; some Al Qaeda operatives were highly educated; and bin Laden, of course, is a multimillionaire.
Moreover, the injustice theory, with its list of root causes, leaves no room for religious passion, irrational ambitions or cultural and tribal schisms. So it is unable to take into account the role played by fundamentalism. For fundamentalism, as the term is now used, involves a set of beliefs that lie beyond particular resentments. Fundamentalism can even be associated with a self-sacrificial renunciation of material pleasures; even suicide is sanctioned if it will further the fundamentalist goal. Under fundamentalism, in both its religious and political forms, every aspect of life is governed by a single set of ideas. All of history, all of natural law and all actions of the divinity, are seen as leading up to the present moment, granting incomparable power and authority to the fundamentalist. Those laws also demand that they be accepted universally and that great battles must be waged on their behalf.
The fundamentalist does not believe these ideas have any limits or boundaries. Goals are not restricted to a particular place or a particular time. The place is every place; the time is eternity. That is why fundamentalism is often expansionist; it must extend its reach as part of the great battle. In this context, one man's terrorist, as the maxim goes, is far from being just another man's freedom fighter. The goals of fundamentalist terror are not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition.
This is precisely the sort of mental universe that the philosopher Hannah Arendt associated with what she called "totalitarian terror." Writing more than a half-century ago, she was primarily thinking of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, but the ideas have far greater resonance.
Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend that law over all of humanity. Reality, Arendt suggested, never modifies totalitarian ideas; events do not prove those ideas wrong or diminish belief. Instead, totalitarianism modifies perceptions of reality to suit the ideas; the world is changed to fit with the vision of totalitarianism. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of totalitarian ideas. Opposition is guilt, punishment is death.
If contemporary Islamic terror can be considered a variety of totalitarian terror, it becomes clearer just how limited the injustice theory and the question of "root causes" are. No doubt, injustices and policies can be argued over, but not as root causes of terror. Totalitarianism stands above such niceties. No injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions. Claims of "root causes" are distractions from the real work at hand.<hr></blockquote>
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
If there is anything we can be hopeful of, it's that we as Americans and many many other nationalities nowadays do not hold our grudges like way back when. While Serbia/Bosnian tensions can be traced back 800 years, this is becoming more of an exception to the rule, where it once seemd to be (historically) the de facto standard temperament.
I consider American feelings towards these things and while it may seem fickle in the short term (like how support for this battle was waning before some recent breakthroughs), in the long term, we seem to ready to make friends quite readily: the British from the old revoutionary/1812 days, the Russians/Soviets from the Cold War, we welcome Iran to be our friends, etc.
Obviously, we've been fair-weather friends to some when we thought they didn't need us or want us (Pakistan, Afganistan), conversely, we've stuck around when some didn't want us around (Saudi Arabia, Somalia). We've tried to bring self-determination to people but in the wrong way (Vietnam), we've supported those who we thought would bring freedom to others only to mistakenly bring those monsters to power (Phillipines). We've done plenty of things the wrong way. I think generally we try to do the right thing.
I forgot where I was going with this...
I recall hearing this from Bill O'Reilly, the conservative commentator, talking on the conservative Fox News Channel, which is owned by the conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Therefore it must be true.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[QB in the long term, we seem to ready to make friends quite readily: the British from the old revoutionary/1812 days, the Russians/Soviets from the Cold War, we welcome Iran to be our friends, etc.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
In stead of the etcetera you might have considered a "provided they keep doing as we tell them"
The English have been the U.S lapdog for decades now, part of the reason why your past governments never condemned the atrocities commited by the English army in the north.
The Russians only became your friends after they embraced capitalism, which actually didn't make them much richer than before and created the ruthless Russian Mafia.
Iran is now your friend because you need them and were scared shedless that they would get involved along with some other surrounding states and you'd have a second Korea on your hands.
Friends...please...
And do I note a slight attitude that Communisim lost the cold war and that Russia is now experimenting with dreaded capitalisim - get over it.
And England is far from being the US's lap dog. (Oh these cold war sayings.) We have many disagreements with England and we compromise with them as much as they compromise with us. But you see it is not just England supporting the US in europe. It is the entire of NATO.
As far as the original thread goes - I respect the Palastinian that picks up a rock to throw at an armed Israel soldier for his belief. I disrespect the Palastinian that raps himself up in dynamite and blows up a disco full of unarmed civilians. I respect the Palastinian that picks up arms to defend his beliefs and fellow Palastinians against armed soldiers - he is a freedom fighter. I disrespect the Palastinian that shoots up a school bus and he should be caught and punished - preferably by Palistinians. I respect an unarmed student standing in front of tanks in Tennamin Square in China. I respect anyone, no matter the belief, that partakes in non-violent protest - no matter the consequences to themselves. I disrespect any one that targets civilians of any country with violence - no matter how right their cause. I respect any freedom fighter that joins an armed rebellion against a military force who do not target civilians for violance. There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Who is the target and how do they conduct their campaign for their cause. I might not agree with their cause and I might even take up arms or support the opposition, but as long as civilians are not the target, I will respect him even if he is my enemy.
[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: ac2c ]</p>
Terrorists or soldiers?
[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Was it Cyndi Lauper who sang:
"I see your true colors shining through,
I see your true colors..etc.."?
Don't be afraid to let them show.
[quote]<strong>In stead of the etcetera you might have considered a "provided they keep doing as we tell them"</strong><hr></blockquote>
What nation on earth has a different, more noble position? Would Ireland still have nothing but love for England if English schools began teaching anti-Irish propaganda?
Think before you speak.
[quote]<strong>The English have been the U.S lapdog for decades now, part of the reason why your past governments never condemned the atrocities commited by the English army in the north.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does our "condemnation" matter to you?
[quote]<strong>The Russians only became your friends after they embraced capitalism, which actually didn't make them much richer than before and created the ruthless Russian Mafia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, once they dropped the communist regimes that murdered tens of millions of their own for dissent. I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to snuggle up to that.
[quote]<strong>Iran is now your friend because you need them and were scared shedless that they would get involved along with some other surrounding states and you'd have a second Korea on your hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iran is our friend? Someone should go tell them that, because they still have plenty of public hate for us.
You have very little knowledge of the region.
[quote]<strong>So what would you call these?
Terrorists or soldiers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to answer your question with a question, but:
What does Bloody Sunday have to do with the U.S. conflict with Afghanistan? What was the U.S. supposed to do about that? Arrest British soldiers?
Groverat, I thought that my sarcasm was amply sufficient... ok, next time....
<strong>
To them you're the terrorists.
Basically, you are the people you despise.
They are incapable of reasoning and so are you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They're wrong and I'm right. Why do you think I'm "incapable of reasoning"? Because I know right from wrong? Don't you? Murder is wrong and we should never respect the people who do it.
Listen to the hatred of the terrorist. They are religious bigots bent on spreading their their Islamic law to everyone. What's to understand? What's to reason with?
Should we "respect" the KKK and it's members? How about the Nazis? Should we reason with the KKK or the Nazis? I see very little difference between them and the terrorist.
People have this silly fantasy that the US caused this to happen. That if only we had done this and not that then no one would hate us. That mistakes were made and should have been avoided.
Fact is there no right or wrong moves for the US. No matter where we go or what we do we will be hated by some group for some reason. If we help one country the other will hate us. If we don't help then we will be hated. If we don't help enough we will be hated. If we ignore then then we're cruel if we help too much then we are "imperialist". No matter where we go and what we do we will be hated by someone for some reason.
And the reason is that the world is full of hateful people. These people need someone to hate. They need someone to blame for their lot in life. They make a life of spreading misery and hatred. They can?t live in the world with the rest of us so they would rather kill us.
It?s just that simple.
<strong>
I recall hearing this from Bill O'Reilly, the conservative commentator, talking on the conservative Fox News Channel, which is owned by the conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Therefore it must be true.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
then later in responce to the above
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Was it Cyndi Lauper who sang:
"I see your true colors shining through,
I see your true colors..etc.."?
Don't be afraid to let them show.
Are you people ****ing stupid or what? Read the site SpinSanity. It's nonpartisan and only seeks to put some Sanity into the spin.
The idea that the US aided the Taliban is a lie. It was started by an LA Times writer. It's been repeated about 10,000 times over. Even by that fool Jesse Jackson on Oprah.
Read the link this time.
<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html"; target="_blank">http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html</a>;
[quote]Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."<hr></blockquote>
Exactly! And that's where you're wrong. There is no wrong and right, just the perspective that different groups of people put the same situation in.
As for Bloody Sunday and what it has to do with Afghanistan, I was informed that a terrorist is someone who kills innocent people. These soldiers killed innocent people. So they are terrorists? Well they are by your definition of one.
You're not willing to call them terrorists though because they were supposedly on the right side of the conflict.
I can not believe that I am being told by the same people that say it is right to attack the Taliban and Al Quada for what they did, that the IRA are terrorists for doing the exact same thing.
Just to give you a quick run of events:
Ireland - we're all running around happily playing hurling and killing each other.
Just across the Irish sea a king decides, hmmm we need a bigger empire, let's go over and start killing those Irish people.
Boom! We're part of Great Britain.
Here we are running around, a lot less happy and we decide:"Damn, we're not gonna take this" so we revolt. Then we go on and do that for another 750 some years. We get our butts kicked, then all of a sudden we've found it! Eureka! cries Michael Collins. We're not going to attack them en masse! We're gonna shoot them one by one in the streets!
It works too. We got them shedding their pants.
-Time out!- who attacked who first? Exactly! Just don't forget...I shall continue....
So here we are running around our country shooting everyone and everything working for or co operating with British rule. So across the sea people see that they're losing...so what do they do? Indeed! They call us murderers! We are the bad guys all of a sudden! Who attacked who first again?
So they say to us:"Let's talk, but send us Collins" So we send the man over, we negociate and negociate and negociate until we're told: "Listen, it's this or nothing. You can have your free state but we keep the north. If you don't agree that's fine. We'll just send some more black and tans over to burn your houses."
So Collins, a man who loves his country and wants peace so much he would die for it, signs it. We'll take that and then we'll see what we can do from there. And we're still doing it. We're talking again, and I'm all for it. But in the end we should have it all. Until then, I will not be happy.
If the U.S is right for attacking Al Quada, the IRA is right for attacking anything to do with the English military. They attacked us first.
So the least you could do is be a little consistent. If you say it's right to bomb because you were attacked that's fair enough, but then don't call someone else wrong for doing the exact same.
Not that that has anything to do with the original post though but some people don't mind not sticking to the point just so they don't have to admit they're wrong.
The unfortunate problem with any of this is that it just fosters more bloodshed. I don't know the ins and outs of the Irish rebellion and I certainly don't even want to try to sort out the right and wrong after a war of several hundred years with fathers teaching sons hate from one generation to another. I will have to state that the IRA targeting civilians on a one to one basis or enmass does not help their side of the argument as far as world opinion is concerned.
I helped in some measure to fight a war in Africa that lasted 25 years. My side went to great trouble not to target civilians as we were fighting on what we considered our territory. The enemy was not quite so willing to follow the rules of war and I lost close civilian friends to assasination and in one case to a group of soldiers opening up on unarmed civilians in a market place. We as a group decided not to respond in kind, but to continue a campaign directed at the military. It took 25 years and the loss of over a million people on both sides to finally win, but we did. Do I now hate the enemy that we defeated because of their atrocities during the war. No. I hate the people that did the actual killing and the leaders that allowed it to happen - not the rest of the people of that country. Thankfully most all of the people of my side feel the same way as I do. It makes for much better relationships on both sides. The only thing that I can say is that civil war is never pretty, but neither side needs to target civilians specifically to win.
Do I respect the terrorist that targets a group of civilians to "make a statement" - a resounding NO! Do I respect a soldier that commits an atrocity - again a resounding NO! So in the case of the Irish rebellion I respect neither side as both sides have targeted the civilians on both sides rather than the military or armed forces. Dispicable behavior on both sides has assured that the rebellion will not be over - even if the fighting ceases - until at least 2 generations have lived togeather in peace.