NO "Not clean" war - BUT CLASS WAR

[dozzer]

Osama Bin Laden admitted being responsible for the WTC attacks in the tape he released, He also said a few times that his terror attacks will not stop!! Not only you fail to see how dangerous this man and his group is, you decide that any attack on them could be compared to the Holocaust!

Sorry, I must have missed that. Those tapes were not dated and as far as I know he never admitted to these attacks on the US. He has stated that there is a holy war against America and yes, of course he is a bloody dangerous man. But he is only one man. His followers are just as dangerous and not all in hiding in Afghanistan. Thus bombing Afghanistan only serves to further their view that America (and the UK - remember we are "staunch friends" with America) is the enemy.

Initial reactions of "Oh my God it's WW3" are understandable. Any war we are involved in has that fear. If a plane was flown into Sellafield the whole of Northern Europe would be taken out (according to the Independant - which I hope is wrong).

People are scared in the UK and America. But people are even more scared in Afghanistan where these bombs will only cause devastation, are highly unlikely to uncover Osama Bin Laden, and will strengthen the resolve of Islamic extremists worldwide. What are we going to do? Bomb them all?

 

[Stuart Holmes]

I appreciate these clarifications. Can I ask for some more though?

Danray - I understand that you are opposed to war as such and therefore to the bombing of Afghanistan. I presume also that you are opposed to the Taliban (I infer this from your being on this list) and to Osama bin Laden (I think I'm right in inferring that too). So, if bombing Afghanistan and taking part in the overthrow of the Taliban is not something you do support what woudl you do? It seems to me that opponents of the military action have to provide a credible alternative course of action that would serve to reassure very scared populations in the west (not to mention elsewhere) and prevent further terrorist attacks. It is one thing to denounce western governments for political one upmanship (though I think there is a lot more to this than political posturing) but we also need credible analyses and alternatives.

Similarly to snooch - I think there is more to this than the corporations interest (as if they have one interest and are sure what it is, short term a war is not in their interest as it damages speculator confidence) and there is such a thing as politics internal to the Middle East and it was to there that the attack on the US was really aimed. But anyway, what would you suggest should be western policy. Do nothing, completely withdraw from all influence in the middle east or what?

And finally. dozzer's point that: 'bombing Afghanistan only serves to further their view that America (and the UK - remember we are "staunch friends" with America) is the enemy'. Indeed, but is this a bad thing? The implication of this argument is that 'we' should just stay out of things unless we get caught up in it all but presumably there are instances where one has to get caught up in things and sometimes wars are unavoidable. So you have to make clear why 'we' shouldn not wish to be enemies of Bin Laden or Taliban or Islamic Fundamentalism or propose another way of goign about things.

Incidentally, all these questiosn are asked not necessarily because I disagree with you all but because I need to be clear on what the arguments and interpretations are and, in the end, need more than just 'yes!', 'no!' or 'its all capitalisms fault', however true such responses might be.

Stuart

 

[Termite Man]

All war is wrong , all violence is wrong . Evidence or not what happened on sept. 11th and the current war are both wrong . Innocent people always die the guilty are normally the ones who escape ( look at pinochet , the bastard has got away with the deaths of over 30,000 with American help ) . It's irrelevent arguing about whether this war is just , it isn't no war ever is .

 

[Termite Man]

Stuart wars are avoidable if the people who have to fight them refuse , it's not just the governments that kill it's the soldiers as well ( these people choose to enter the army/navy/airforce and generally they support the action they are told to fight in!

 

[ttaM]

You said it Mr Zero! The people who die in any war are just grunts, or as is ALLWAYS the case civies who if not killed are financially ruined displaced and generally made miserable

As to boming Afg conventionally speaking you bomb a target to disrupt his capacity to respond, given that all that opposes US/UK contemporary mil power is several million AK47s Toyta 4by4s and tanks built in the mid 60s it is perhaps more for our benifit than theirs: Just holes in the sand, or destroying already battle damaged buildings carpet bombed by the soviets.

 

[Stuart Holmes]

Mr. Zero,

So, what do you do if a bunch of people are quite happy to kill and be killed (and to attack any target civil or military with whatever weapon)? If they won't refuse to fight because they are committed to their cause, they see all the people of one part of the world as their enemy and believe their greatest victory will be their death as it will bring them eternal glory then what would you do? Let them get on with it? Stand by and let them kill you? Of course wars are unjust and of course lots of people die in them. That doesn't make denouncing them the only thing we have to do. We have to be able to say, credibly, what should be done instead. So, what's your answer?

Stuart

 

[ttaM]

Stu people generally carry out acts of violence for reson, we need to understand their motivation as much as 'comdat them'

The scale of Sept 11th is simptomatic of the level of fealing in the middle east, we should look at what we (the west) have done to bring about such acts, whether the people who comitted them are of sound mind or not

[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: big_red_one ]

 

[danray]

Stuart,
No i'm not really against the taliban.
Nor am i really against Bin laden. He's just doing what he believes to be just a right. Much like the americans beleive they are doing. and in this respect I think all parties involved in this war are as bad as each other. And all of them have some sort of skelton in the closet. I do not condone violence in any way. whether that be from bin laden, bush, the ira, whoever. Theres no point taking sides because all sides are acting like hypocrites.

Maybe a credible alternative would be for external regimes to keep the fuck out of other peoples business and not to use poorer nations to fight there pathetic political squabbles.
In this respect i think Saddam aid it best.

"these are the sown seeds of your foriegn policy"

The longer we meddle in others affairs for our own gain rather than humanitarian reasons, they longer this sort of shit will go on. We made our bed, but we think we can just change the sheets and no-one will see the stains.

 

[dozzer]

SH

There was no implication in my argument that we should "just stay out of things".

There is no changing the views of the people who already believe that "we" are the enemy.
My point is that this will increase hatred and increase the chances of more attacks.

The Taliban/OBL are already trying to put out the message that our attacks are attacks on the Muslim faith. I believe this will increase the number of America/UK hating Muslims. We have already seen backlashes and protests in Pakistan showing that even people "on our side" are not happy about us bombing their own kind. How can this not increase hatred of America/UK?

Unfortunately, I don't have the answers/alternative. I'm not that clever.

 

[snooch]

this is more like stu's answer and question page, stew you will be a world of knowledge by the time you log off mate, well i blame the west, i don't condone (spelling?) or ignore the actions of any regime, however, history mate that's what it all comes down to. many will slag me off for mentioning authors and texts that they see as being intellectual crap, however its this intellectual crap that has kept our voices true against the continuous oppression of world authority. so NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN,MICHEAL ALBERT and a host of other historians political analysts and generally top notch anarchist scholars all point to the same thing, look at the true past, there we will discover, the hypocracy and disgusting actions of the leaders and superpowers of the past, AND IT IS THERE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE AND TAKE POSITIVE ACTION TO PREVENT ATROCITIES SUCH AS THOSE WE WITNESSED IN NEW YORK AND LAST NIGHT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.
what are anarchists? what's their history where do they get off saying they're gonna solve the worlds problems? with an open mind and a level head you will realise stew, in time that all other alternatives be they conservative, socialist, fascist, liberal, all offer nothing but lies and double standards. why have anarchist's failed up till now? well we've been cheated many times by the communists and socialist leaders, we thought we could trust institutions which may have shown some glimmer of hope, also we ain't liked by the state, much literature, if allowed to be published is hidden or destroyed, history is formed to suit the leaders of the time and the media are scum baggs who are all drones with their heads drummed full of middle class, white, male rhetoric. So there you go, i recommend you get some books from the ak press website, a lovely bunch of people who will be happy to answer your questions. best of luck stew and for anyone else reading this pile of shit, take care.

 

[Nemo]

MOBYMONSTER: I am unbelievably pissed off at your slanderous, right-wing and totally unfounded statement. If you direct your precious eyes to the archived threads and look at the WTC one, you will see several condemnations from me on one thread alone. So before you say such outrageous things about me, use your eyes instead of just assuming. If all that you can say is that you have not seen any condemntaion from me, a.) you have not been looking very hard, b.) look, c.) stop talking out of your arse, and d.) piss off.

PEACE TO ALL!

[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]

 

[Man Of Kent]

Excellent. Plenty of comdemnation for the bombing, but as yet not one single suggestion on how to stop attacks like the one at WTC from happening again. If we sit back and do nothing we will be attacked (had the US bombed Afghanistan before OBL started his campaign?) OBL attacked the US embassy in Kenya before a single US bomb was aimed at him. So what next - do we sit back and wait for his next move - or do we go and get him and his cronies?

Any actions you can suggest, or just more hot air?

 

[Nemo]

And what the hell good will bombing do? You say that if we do nothing we will be attacked again, and that may be true. However, with the bombing, it is practically guaranteed that there will be another attack. If you think that this will solve anything whatsoever, then you are extremely naïve. Do you think that Bin Laden will lie down and die? Do you think that the Taliban, who have nothing to lose, will quietly surrendur? This attack will simply cause more death and more desire for vengeance.

PEACE TO ALL!

 

[pk]

It's true.

Having read through Mobymonster's typing, it's come to my attention that he is one of the biggest dickheads that has ever visited these boards, and the best thing is he's probably sitting in front of his screen now thinking "I'm right, you know".

Classic.

Well done Nemo, don't take that sort of crap mate.

 

[nutritional_value]

Nemo,

Actually, in NO post (in the "politics/protest" board) have you even ONCE condemned the attacks on the WTC/Pentagon.

Not even ONCE.

You came closest in the following two quotes, but in both cases you are denying that you have not condemned terror.

This is not the same.

So, where have you actually condemned the murder of 6000 civilians?

Furthermore, I find your excessive use of swear words and exaggerations as highly offensive.

Nemo
member
Member # 727
posted 29 September 2001 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darin, I don't believe anyone here has demonstrated anything less than utter distaste for and anger at the New York attacks and I have certainly seen no one say that this is a legitimate tactic.

Nemo
member
Member # 727
posted 06 October 2001 04:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you seem to be putting words into my mouth. Terrorism is not okay and I have said that countless times.

[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: nutritional_value ]

 

[nutritional_value]

Nemo,

However, with the bombing, it is practically guaranteed that there will be another attack.

So are you afraid? Some of us have been living with the threat of terror for years. If you don't answer back, they will think you are afraid, then they will attack again. You must NEVER appease terror. You must NEVER give in to them or reward them. These are not rational people. You do not know what makes them tick.

I agree that the Palestinians deserve their freedom. But, if you reward terror, then it is the end of the world as we know it. I am not exaggerating. Reward terror, and anything goes. Even an anarchist such as yourself (or those idiots who burn down Macdonalds) are day-old kittens compared to these guys, no matter how big and brave you think you are. No joke!

If you think that this will solve anything whatsoever, then you are extremely naïve.

Bombing them out of existence might help. Arabs respect power and strength. Bombing might arouse massive protests, but the terrorists will think twice the next time they decide to attack America.

(I humbly decided to enclose this disclaimer, just in case I'm wrong - you can never tell with irrational people what will happen next.)

 

[nutritional_value]

Nemo,

Excuse me for ranting - for last 48 hours have had a bad case of London belly (UK version of Delhi belly). In great pain. No joke!

NV

 

[Nemo]

"Nemo
member
Member # 727
posted 11 September 2001 06:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is unbelievable. An utterly calous act desgined to hurt innocent civilians. Most likely, thousands of people will die as a result of this thoughtless, selfish action. My fury, disgust, and shock at this attack cannot be expressed. I may hate the American government but I would not wish this upon anyone. Whoever is responsible is an utterly reprehensible bastard with utter contempt for life.
I hope all the US posters and everyone else is okay.

Pax vobiscum, Nemo

That condemnation enough for you? Or do you want me leaping up and down crying for vengeance? Look at the WTC/Pentagon thread in the archives.

Also, do I not have a right to be angry if people deframe me, misquote me, and insult me for no reason? I have, until now, tried to maintain restraint but Mobymonster's post was too much. Before you libel people, learn something about them.

PEACE TO ALL!

 

[nutritional_value]

Don't want you jumping up and down for vengeance, but don't want you 1) acting worse than Neville Chamberlin talking about peace in our time while millions of innocents are persecuted, 2) saying that the world is black and white, i.e. that retaliation is never justified, that everyone wants to live in peace, that terror begets terror.

 

[Derek]

There is a way to stop the attacks and that is to use international law to combat terrorism. The USA though has so far refused every request put to the United Nations to set up an international court to try terrorists and to set up international laws against terrorism. This is because of Americas role in international terrorism such as its support for right wing militias in Columbia would be exposed.

The causes of terrorism also have to be tackled as well. The causes of middle eastern terrorism are western imperialism in the middle east such as Americas arming of Israel and its imposition of sanctions on Iraq which have killed one million Iraqis since the end of the Gulf War. And an ending of third world debt and economic exploitation of third world countries that causes extreme poverty in third world countries and causes hatred against the west.

This war will not stop international terrorism it will only incite even more people to carry out more terrorist acts in revenge. Israel has not been able to stop terrorism by Palestinians with bombing and military action.

 

[Talby]

The US are saying this could take years, the initial pursuit of bin Laden now extends to Afghanistan as a whole, other countries will be next. The crusade to end terrorism is going to get very messy. I'm not defending the Taliban, it hardly needs saying that their leadership are disgusting murderous filth, but violently helping a bunch of local gangsters (Northern Alliance) to power is exactly the kind of solution that brought us the Taliban. Anyone who thinks this will vanquish rather than exacerbate terrorism is a fool, terrorist networks are nebulous and as such impervious to surgical strikes. As the campaign intensifies and widens to other nations, more aspiring suicide bombers will rally to the call of bin Laden and his ilk.

Anyone who accepts the line that civilian casualties are being minimized has forgotten what the media told us during previous 'wars'. Don't believe the hype, civilians will be dying awful deaths and they feel pain and horror the same as us. That may be a ridiculous thing to say, but some do seem unable to accept that people 'over there' are human beings.

Respect to Nemo.

 

[nutritional_value]

Israel has not been able to stop terror because international pressure prevented it from taking the sort of action that the US is now taking (despite many people's belief to the contrary).

When Israel did take such action, as in Lebanon in 1982-4, it did succeed in stopping PLO terror. However, Islamic terror (Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad) entered the arena following PLO withdrawal, and Israeli non-withdrawal (i.e. the Israeli's didn't get out when they were ahead and then made mistakes that facilitated the growth of the Islamic movements).

So, bottomline is, such action as the US is taking does work, but you have to realize when the objectives are acheived, you have to withdraw immediately rather than make new enemies and get bogged down.

 

[johnwisehammer]

Actually, the reason why Israel has failed to end terrorism is because you can't conquer a guerilla force when they are on their home turf.

The reason why Islamicist groups became popular was not because Israel succeeded in ending PLO 'terror' but because the PLO write itself out of the game by refusing to support on-the-ground struggle against Israeli occupation for the fear that resistance structures outside itself would emerge while they were in exile, while Islamicists were coming up with the money and weapons.

In your model, who exactly would the Israelis bomb?

 

[Johnny Canuck]

History: Vietnam. Bad thing.

US wanted peace talks. Ho Chi Minh said he did too, but fighting continued.

Paris peace talks were set up, but for months, the N. Vietnamese stalled the process by arguing about - wait for it - the table configuration at the talks. Square table? Round table? Space in the centre? What a conundrum!

Then Nixon began carpet bombing Hanoi with B52s. Within days, the table problem was solved, and the North Vietnamese were sitting at it, talking turkey.

Then public opinion in the US got so bad, that the bombing of the enemy country was stopped, and surprise surprise!, the talks stalled, and the war continued.

Who knows, that may somehow be relevant.

A few weeks ago, 5 or 6 thousand people who got up to go to work, were incinerated or crushed to death. Does that qualify as a 'surgical strike'?

None of you want war; bombing is bad. Well, instead of criticizing the US, let's hear your workable solution. I'm all ears.

Steelgate suggests international courts. Good plan. Only problem, I don't think bin Laden is going to turn himself in at the local police station. If you want to try him, you have to get him, which probably means (gulp) bombing his followers, and ground troops making the arrest. Sounds a lot like war, doesn't it?

We could try him in absentia, but that would be a bit of a farce, wouldn't it?

So step up with your solutions. And when you do, for a bit of verisimilitude, imagine for a moment that the buildings had been British, or whatever your country is, and that your mother, or sister, or fiancee, was the one taking the header out of an 85th floor window. Does that change anything for you?

 

[nutritional_value]

JWH,

That's usually true, but Israel *did* succeed against the PLO in Lebanon. The PLO couldn't "support on-the-ground struggle against Israeli occupation" because no country bordering Israel accepted them. That's why they ended up in Tunisia.

The Islamic groups had an "explosive" start (bombing US Marine and French bases) but for the next few years were fairly small, building up their infrastructure. If Israel had left Lebanon in 1982-3 after the PLO had evacuated, the Islamic groups would have been deprived of their support bases (no-one to fight), and in any case, in S.Lebanon, the Israelis only really became unpopular from 1984 onward (until then the people were more concerned with domestic foes).

(I use the term "correct" to mean scientific military. So, please don't try to catch me out on this.)

Don't know who the Israeli's would bomb now. Perhaps wouldn't bomb, just increase use of force. The only real solution is peace, but "correct" application of force would work. In this regard, the current situation bears much resemblance to Vietnam, where the US military complained of political interference, preventing them from doing what they thought they needed to do.

Regarding Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, rather than proving that "you can't conquer a guerilla force when they are on their home turf", it actually doesn't. International and domestic Israeli pressures prevented the "correct" usage of force in Lebanon as well. Even the couple of "major" offensives that Israel launch were actually quite restrained (compared with the "correct" way).

NV

 

[William of Walworth]

I'll add my support to what Nemo's been saying -- he's got a lot more courage in standing his corner than I have. I'm as near to being an absolute pacifist as is possible and I abhor all violence and war and terrorism. Escalation solves nothing. Killing children and civilians or even "just" making them homeless (see Reuters link posted by Charlotte) also solves nothing.

Go on then, Gung Ho crew. Gang up and dump your bullying right wing shit on me -- at least it's only words, unlike the bombings of civilians that you also encourage -- AND THER FUTURE BOMBINGS OF AMERICAN AND OTHER CITIZENS, that you're ENCOURAGING by turning Bin Laden into an even bigger hero/martyr among some in the Middle East, than he was before.

Peace to all

W of W

[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: William of Walworth ]

 

[Nemo]

To all the pro-war brigade, given that you're all talking in analogies to try to justify yourself, what would you be saying right now if your family had US bombs raining down on their heads? I bet you wouldn't be so jubilant then. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Rasrave and Whowhere).

The fact that this so-called 'war on terrorism bears a striking resembelance to Israeli policy over the years should be mentioned, surely the fact that Israeli policy has not succeeded should show that this will not succeed in wiping out terrorism? Yes, it might kill a few people who would otherwise carry out further terrorist acts but, for every one you kill, two will spring up in his place. It is like a hydra really. Do you really think that this attack is anything more than a cynical ploy to gain popularity?

Thanks to W of W, Talby, and PK.

PEACE TO ALL!

 

[mobymonster]

pk, nemo and anyone else that think this fits,

Instead of sitting in the comfort of your home spouting your anti US, UK and western rhetoric and in the main agreeing with anything that is anti west, why don't you go into these other countries that you so admire and help the people there, you could for instance go and help the Taliban fight against these westen terrorists, of course at the same time you would be aiding a group that treats women like shit,and has brought the country into the stone age much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia.

Although you scream your hate at the West you take all the benifits one of which is the freedom of speech which is not allowed in many of the countries outside of the West.

And saying you have"utter distaste for and anger" for the WTC murders is not the same as screaming hystericaly "holocaust", and Blair and Bush are war criminals what about Bin Ladan I expect that he is to you a hero of the wonderful anti west freedom fighters.

Bin ladan did no negotiating before he attacked the WTC so why should the West negoiate with him and his supporters ?

No, you sit in your comfortable house, enjoying you night out at the pub or clubbing or whatever, with your full stomach.

To make yourselves feel as though you are helping the anti West freedom fighters go and scream "pig" at the police or even better go trash a MacDonalds that will realy make you feel big and will help all the oppresed masses of the world (but only those masses who hate the West)

Is dickhead really the best insult you can come up with, 3 out of ten for that, you must try harder.

By the way this is part of the agreement you "signed" when you joined this site:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any .... abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, etc etc

So calling me a dickhead could be construed as ; vulgar, hateful, obscene and profane.

which is breaking your agreement.

Don't worry I won't complain it's not worth the effort.

I await your inevitable invective with much interest.

LOVE, LIGHT AND PEACE TO YOU ALL.

mobymonster

 

[rasrave]

Sorry Mobymonster, but I think you are wasting your time on this one...there's no one there. Nemo, Pk, and the rest of the gang have turned off their (made cheaply abroad) computers (run on The Great Satan Software), put on their (made in a sweatshop in the Phillipines) Jeans, Gone off to drink their government-sponsored beer, had a nice fat meal, and now are chanting in order to solve the world's problems...
The same old bollox from the same old wastes of space...if only they weren't so actively enjoying their middle-class lives (and for God's sake don't tell them that's what it is!!) and spent more time organizing labor unions in Malaysia, or helping feed the poor in Ecuador I might actually think that they were as politically involved as they (laughably) claim to be...
"all right then lads, the peace rally is over, it's off to the pub then...Hey, let's take my mummy's pollution-causing vehicle to get there, it's raining and I don't want to get my new hairdo wet"
What a joke..at least the rest of us are not trying to claim to be political science majors, just trying to debate and learn something...
Oh Dear, now they will call me names (or even worse, arrogant) again...

 

[Derek]

rasrave, we are fighting capitalism here in the UK!!! Global capitalism has to be fought all over the world and especially where it is strongest in western countries. We don't choose to were sweat shop made clothes, and try our best to buy from ethical shops. If we end up buying these things by mistake it is not our fault as we didn't choose to live under global capitalism.

But that doesn't mean that we should fight against capitalist imperialist exploitation of the world that is destroying the environment and exploiting the Third World which is causing hatred in Third World countries against the west and has incited the terrorist bombings that happened on September the 11th.