N
nutty
Guest
Nemo-great posts- i'll buy you a pint if your in Brighton on Sunday.
NV-I agree, you are a racist and a bigot, so keep up your act
NV-I agree, you are a racist and a bigot, so keep up your act
Tromaville
Substandard in every way
the most stupid thing ever said:
"Trom, no I wouldn't have fought. World War Two was a war fought by two imperialist powers, Britain wanted to protect its empire that was the reason it went to war. Hitler wanted to build an empire in eastern europe which conflicted with Britains economic interests. The war didn't achieve anything though as eastern europe was occupied by the Soviet Union which was led by Stalin who killed even more people than Hitler. "
so then steelgate if you hadn't have fought in the Ghetto you would have been killed.... Hitler was wanting to negotiate with Britain at time of Battle of Britain -- this would have allowed britain to keep its empire!!! You Fuckwit ....
Derek instead of going to library to pull i suggest ytou try to learn some things
"Trom, no I wouldn't have fought. World War Two was a war fought by two imperialist powers, Britain wanted to protect its empire that was the reason it went to war. Hitler wanted to build an empire in eastern europe which conflicted with Britains economic interests. The war didn't achieve anything though as eastern europe was occupied by the Soviet Union which was led by Stalin who killed even more people than Hitler. "
so then steelgate if you hadn't have fought in the Ghetto you would have been killed.... Hitler was wanting to negotiate with Britain at time of Battle of Britain -- this would have allowed britain to keep its empire!!! You Fuckwit ....
Derek instead of going to library to pull i suggest ytou try to learn some things
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Finally, a debate...
To my naysayers, I won't rule out the possibility that I am nearsighted, foolish, illogical, etc. Can you admit the same?
Thankfully, I am allowed to be wrongheaded, or flawed in my reasoning, or in disagreement with others, without fear of arrest or execution. Would I have that freedom in the society that you envision?
My use of the term 'wog', was to highlight that racism is not a purely American phenomenon; you have it in your country too. We don't use the word here (we have other words); I first heard it from older Brit co workers; e.g. 'The wogs begin at Calais...'.
British, French etc. racism can be as virulent as anything on this side of the Atlantic.
As for my being a racist fuckwit or troll, I suppose it is possible, but being a person of color (a 'wog'), I tend to identify more with the other side of that equation.
Bezzer, you are right that the American population was subjected to taxation without representation; hence, the Boston Teaparty. Unfortunately for your example, the taxmasters of the day were..British.
Not having a pot to piss in was not necessarily an impediment to leaving Ireland, etc, in days gone by. Before this century, it was possible for an emigrant to get his or her passage paid by a future employer - if the person was prepared to work as an indentured labourer for a number of years. A pretty extreme solution, no doubt, but those were extreme times.
The right to bear arms may have helped with the colonization of the West, but I don't think that that was the reason it was entrenched in the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the 1770s, the idea of Manifest Destiny had not yet been formulated. The West was part of the French and Spanish Empires. The true western migration could not really begin before the Louisiana Purchase.
Yes Bezzer, much, if not most of the great philosophical movements were created by European thinkers. Problem was, the repressive governments in the Europe of the day, would send anyone trying to implement them, to the gibbet. Thus, the 'free thinkers' were forced to emigrate to places like the US, to implement their social experiments.
JWH, you are right that federal states exist in Europe, but the thrust of my point involved the separation of powers. The US has a Federal system, counterbalanced by strong State governments, with their own areas of legislation, their own court systems, etc. I don't think too many European countries, aside from Switzerland, can say the same. Or is there a High Court of Lancashire?
JWH and Nemo point out that some in the US get a raw deal, such as women, blacks, gays, etc. I'm not sure what that proves. Women, blacks and gays have had it rough in most societies. All I know is that in the US, women aren't circumcized against their will, they aren't burned at suttee, they don't wear veils, they rank amongst the richest citizens (Walton, Mars, Johnson). The mayors of most large American cities are black, the National Security Advisor is a black woman, the so-called black middle class is larger than it ever has been before. Gays are gaining spousal benefits and spousal insurance coverage, and they enrich the urban life of many cities. Don't get me wrong, there's still lots of work to be done, but the work is being done, and it is evident in the streets. Does anyone recall the status of women, blacks and gays in the 60s?
Nemo, you don't want to be blamed for your system of government. Last time I looked, England (if that's where you live) is a democracy. Who should I blame, if not you? During your history, you've gone from tribal elders, to monarchy, to the divine right of kings, to a Puritan Chancellor, to a parliament under the thumb of a king, to a democratic parliament. You've fought for rep by pop, for no taxation without representation, etc. I guess it is possible for people to change their system of government.
I found it encouraging that my earlier remarks generated some passion amongst you. For some, your logic degenerated to name calling (calling me a 'ridiculous cunt' may make you feel better, but it does little to advance your argument.) I got the feeling that some of you would have taken a poke at me, had my handsome face been available. All that, just because you don't like what I have to say. Now imagine how the Americans are feeling now, after Sept. 11. Perhaps their passion is somewhat understandable.
As you know, the passion in the US public is taking the form of bloodlust. If the US government was the evil hegemony you think it is, why did they not simply nuke Afghanistan, Iraq etc. in the first twelve hours? The American public would have supported it, and the imperial warlords you believe them to be, would not care about world opinion. Why are these evil men taking the time to actually find the perpetrator, and to build an international concensus? What overlord would bother with that.
Finally, I invite any or all of you to post a few paragraphs detailing how your own lives have been trodden upon by the American jackboot. I invite descriptions of jobs lost, schooling deferred, loved ones snatched in the night, etc. because of the existence of demon America.
p.s. I am Canadian. We just don't use 'eh' in our written communication...
To my naysayers, I won't rule out the possibility that I am nearsighted, foolish, illogical, etc. Can you admit the same?
Thankfully, I am allowed to be wrongheaded, or flawed in my reasoning, or in disagreement with others, without fear of arrest or execution. Would I have that freedom in the society that you envision?
My use of the term 'wog', was to highlight that racism is not a purely American phenomenon; you have it in your country too. We don't use the word here (we have other words); I first heard it from older Brit co workers; e.g. 'The wogs begin at Calais...'.
British, French etc. racism can be as virulent as anything on this side of the Atlantic.
As for my being a racist fuckwit or troll, I suppose it is possible, but being a person of color (a 'wog'), I tend to identify more with the other side of that equation.
Bezzer, you are right that the American population was subjected to taxation without representation; hence, the Boston Teaparty. Unfortunately for your example, the taxmasters of the day were..British.
Not having a pot to piss in was not necessarily an impediment to leaving Ireland, etc, in days gone by. Before this century, it was possible for an emigrant to get his or her passage paid by a future employer - if the person was prepared to work as an indentured labourer for a number of years. A pretty extreme solution, no doubt, but those were extreme times.
The right to bear arms may have helped with the colonization of the West, but I don't think that that was the reason it was entrenched in the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the 1770s, the idea of Manifest Destiny had not yet been formulated. The West was part of the French and Spanish Empires. The true western migration could not really begin before the Louisiana Purchase.
Yes Bezzer, much, if not most of the great philosophical movements were created by European thinkers. Problem was, the repressive governments in the Europe of the day, would send anyone trying to implement them, to the gibbet. Thus, the 'free thinkers' were forced to emigrate to places like the US, to implement their social experiments.
JWH, you are right that federal states exist in Europe, but the thrust of my point involved the separation of powers. The US has a Federal system, counterbalanced by strong State governments, with their own areas of legislation, their own court systems, etc. I don't think too many European countries, aside from Switzerland, can say the same. Or is there a High Court of Lancashire?
JWH and Nemo point out that some in the US get a raw deal, such as women, blacks, gays, etc. I'm not sure what that proves. Women, blacks and gays have had it rough in most societies. All I know is that in the US, women aren't circumcized against their will, they aren't burned at suttee, they don't wear veils, they rank amongst the richest citizens (Walton, Mars, Johnson). The mayors of most large American cities are black, the National Security Advisor is a black woman, the so-called black middle class is larger than it ever has been before. Gays are gaining spousal benefits and spousal insurance coverage, and they enrich the urban life of many cities. Don't get me wrong, there's still lots of work to be done, but the work is being done, and it is evident in the streets. Does anyone recall the status of women, blacks and gays in the 60s?
Nemo, you don't want to be blamed for your system of government. Last time I looked, England (if that's where you live) is a democracy. Who should I blame, if not you? During your history, you've gone from tribal elders, to monarchy, to the divine right of kings, to a Puritan Chancellor, to a parliament under the thumb of a king, to a democratic parliament. You've fought for rep by pop, for no taxation without representation, etc. I guess it is possible for people to change their system of government.
I found it encouraging that my earlier remarks generated some passion amongst you. For some, your logic degenerated to name calling (calling me a 'ridiculous cunt' may make you feel better, but it does little to advance your argument.) I got the feeling that some of you would have taken a poke at me, had my handsome face been available. All that, just because you don't like what I have to say. Now imagine how the Americans are feeling now, after Sept. 11. Perhaps their passion is somewhat understandable.
As you know, the passion in the US public is taking the form of bloodlust. If the US government was the evil hegemony you think it is, why did they not simply nuke Afghanistan, Iraq etc. in the first twelve hours? The American public would have supported it, and the imperial warlords you believe them to be, would not care about world opinion. Why are these evil men taking the time to actually find the perpetrator, and to build an international concensus? What overlord would bother with that.
Finally, I invite any or all of you to post a few paragraphs detailing how your own lives have been trodden upon by the American jackboot. I invite descriptions of jobs lost, schooling deferred, loved ones snatched in the night, etc. because of the existence of demon America.
p.s. I am Canadian. We just don't use 'eh' in our written communication...
N
nutty
Guest
Johny Canuck:
Good post. I wax arrested for sleeping on the beach in LA a few years ago. I was detained for 8 hours, had my fingerprints taken and photo etc. I know it's not on the level that you are indicating, but they would not return the photo's etc, and I felt the whole experience was way over the top for kipping on a public beach. But anyway, good response.
Good post. I wax arrested for sleeping on the beach in LA a few years ago. I was detained for 8 hours, had my fingerprints taken and photo etc. I know it's not on the level that you are indicating, but they would not return the photo's etc, and I felt the whole experience was way over the top for kipping on a public beach. But anyway, good response.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Thanks, N.
You're right, the LAPD did go way over the top. I had a friend who was arrested in the South for sleeping beside his car under an overpass, without his pants on. He was in his sleeping bag, with underwear on, but the cop was flabbergasted that my friend "didn't have no britches on".
I never said they were perfect...
You're right, the LAPD did go way over the top. I had a friend who was arrested in the South for sleeping beside his car under an overpass, without his pants on. He was in his sleeping bag, with underwear on, but the cop was flabbergasted that my friend "didn't have no britches on".
I never said they were perfect...
D
darin
Guest
Many of you have been saying that "bin Laden could not get volunteers to stuff envelopes if Israel had withdrawn from Jerusalem like it was supposed to--and the US stopped the sanctions and the bombing on Iraq." What is so utterly rotten at the very core of that kind of thinking is (1) If any of you knows what was in the minds of the murderers, it is your solemn responsibility to inform us of the source of his information, and also to share it with the authorities. (2) If you do not know what was in their minds--as seems enormously more probable--then why do you rush to align yourself with the politics of a madman? Who volunteers for such a task at such a time?
As Christopher Hitchens pointed out recently, not only is it indecent to act as self-appointed interpreter for the killers, but it is rash in the highest degree. The death-squads have not favored us with a posthumous manifesto of their grievances, or a statement of claim about Palestine or Iraq, but we are nonetheless able to surmise a fair amount about the ideological or theological "root" of their act and if we are correct in this, then we have considerable knowledge of two things: their ideas and their actions.
First the actions. The central plan was to maximize civilian casualties in a very dense area of downtown Manhattan. The killers have not brought forth any "demands." they have not even admitted to doing it. Therefore, we can deduce that their only desire is to kill. They do not have a political argument to make. And, with all of the planning this killing obviously took, it's clear the killers' plan was designed and incubated long before the mutual-masturbation of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak "process." The
Talibanis have in any case not distinguished themselves very much by an interest in the Palestinian plight. They have been busier trying to bring their own societies under the reign of the most inflexible and pitiless declension of shari'a law -- they're too busy raping and killing their own people. This is known to anyone with the least acquaintance with the subject.
So much for what the methods and targets tell us about the true anti-human and anti-democratic motivation. By their deeds shall we know them. What about the animating ideas? There were perhaps 700 observant followers of the Prophet Muhammed burned alive in New York on September 11. Nobody who had studied the target zone could have been in any doubt that some such figure was at the very least a likely one. To the Wahhabi-indoctrinated sectarians of Al Qaeda, only the purest and most fanatical are worthy of consideration. The teachings and published proclamations of this cult have initiated us to the idea that the tolerant, the open-minded, the apostate or the followers of different branches of The Faith are fit only for slaughter and contempt. And that's before Christians and Jews, let alone atheists and secularists, have even been factored in.
As before, the deed announces and exposes its "root cause." The grievance and animosity predate even the Balfour Declaration, let alone the occupation of the West Bank. The gates of Vienna would have had to fall to the Ottoman jihad before any balm could begin to be applied to these psychic wounds.
And this is precisely, now, our problem. The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They are condemned, and they deludedly believe that they are commanded, to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous. The very first step that we must take, therefore, is the acquisition of enough self-respect and self- confidence to say that we have met an enemy and that he is not us, but someone else. Someone with whom coexistence is, fortunately I think, not possible. (I say "fortunately" because I am also convinced that such coexistence is not desirable).
But straight away, we meet people who complain at once that this enemy is us, really. Did we not aid the grisly Taliban to achieve and hold power? Yes indeed "we" did. Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power? There is good reason to think that a Taliban defeat would fill the streets of Kabul with joy.
Finally, the argument that, if America didn't do such nasty things around the world, she wouldn't be attacked, is factually naive. As I tried to show last week, the connection between America's misdeeds and their attacks can be rather tenuous. And so more sophisticated doves offer a more sophisticated answer: "blowback." Our foreign policy doesn't just create enemies in a general sense, it creates them in a very specific sense: We fund and train the people who later attack us. During the Panama invasion, doves gleefully noted Manuel Noriega's ties to the CIA. During the Gulf war, they gleefully noted America's semi-support for Saddam as a counterweight to Iran. And today antiwar commentators instruct us that the CIA, through its support for the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, created Osama bin Laden.
At first glance, blowback might not seem like a good historical argument for doves to make. After all, by condemning the U.S. for getting into bed with Noriega and Saddam and bin Laden in the past, doves acknowledge that they are worthy of condemnation--which might suggest that America should atone for its past wrongs by opposing them now. But doves aren't making a point about America's enemies; they are making a point about America. The assumption behind blowback is that the U.S. can't atone--that as long as it intervenes around the world, it will foster evil. To go to war against bin Laden today will only create more bin Ladens tomorrow.
Which makes it of more than mere historical interest that, as applied to the United States and Afghanistan, the blowback theory is dead wrong. American intervention in the Afghan war didn't create Osama bin Laden. In fact, if the United States bears any blame for bin Laden's terrorist network today, it's because in the 1980s and '90s, we didn't intervene in Afghanistan aggressively enough.
As bizarre as it may sound to the antiwar left, the CIA was deeply wary of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. The Agency didn't think the mujahedin rebels could beat Moscow, and it feared that if it ran the war, it would take the blame if things went awry. As Vincent Cannistraro, who led the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group from 1985 to 1987, puts it, "The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, and to maintain plausible deniability. For the first six years following the 1979 Soviet invasion, the U.S. provided the mujahedin only Eastern-bloc weaponry, so the rebels could claim they had captured it from Soviet troops rather than received it from Washington. And while America funded the mujahedin, it played barely any role in their training. To insulate itself, the U.S. gave virtual carte blanche to its allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to direct the rebel effort as they saw fit.
This is where bin Laden comes in. After Moscow invaded, he and other Arab militants went to defend Afghanistan in the name of Islam. The Pakistani government allowed them in, and the Saudis gave them money, hoping to foster a Sunni Islamist network to counter the Shia network of rival Iran. Riyadh thought the network would espouse the monarchy's brand of conservative, rather than revolutionary, fundamentalism. And that idea seemed less naÔve in the 1980s when bin Laden was still a loyal Saudi subject, and before Islamist rebellions had broken out in Algeria and dramatically intensified in Egypt.
Had the U.S. been present on the ground in Afghanistan, it would have known about this. And it probably would have tried to stop it--if only because the Arab volunteers were aiding a virulently anti-Western Afghan rebel leader named Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, who opposed not only the Soviets, but the Western-backed mujahedin as well. But the U.S. wasn't present on the ground, and it had only the vaguest knowledge of the Arabs' presence and aims. In retrospect, that might seem hard to believe. But remember, contrary to bin Laden's later boasts, the Arabs were few in number (most came after the war, once bin Laden's network was established) and played virtually no military role in the victory over the Soviets. And the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.
And if U.S. disengagement contributed to the formation of bin Laden's network during the war, it contributed to it after the war was over as well. In 1992 the Communist regime in Kabul finally fell. Afghanistan needed foreign aid to reconstruct its shattered infrastructure, and an intense diplomatic effort to force its fractious mujahedin leaders to lay down their arms. The logical source of that financial assistance and political intervention was the U.S., which enjoyed the goodwill of many mujahedin leaders. But by all accounts, once Afghanistan's troubles lost their cold war significance, the Bush père and Clinton administrations paid them virtually no high-level attention. Neither administration tried seriously to negotiate a truce between the parties, and U.S. aid, which had totaled roughly $3 billion in the 1980s, dropped, by the end of 1994, nearly to zero.
For two more hideous years, mujahedin factions fought each other and preyed on an already brutalized population. Had ordinary Afghans not been desperate for the civil war to end, and for a leadership with at least some moral code, they would not have backed the Taliban, the religious students coming from the Pakistani border. And had Afghanistan not faced a political vacuum, Pakistan would not have armed those students in the hope that through them, it could dominate its neighbor to the northwest.
America's abandonment of Afghanistan was of a piece with its abandonment of countries like Liberia, Somalia, and Congo, which also disintegrated after cold war dictators fell. In Liberia the resulting anarchy produced the murderous Charles Taylor. In Somalia it produced the murderous Mohamed Farah Aideed. In Congo it produced the genocidal Hutu refugee camps. And in Afghanistan it produced the Taliban. Except that the Taliban didn't just harbor tribal killers, they harbored Al Qaeda, which brought its savagery all the way to America's shores.
So the doves are wrong: There was no blowback. America's involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s didn't help create Osama bin Laden; Saudi Arabia's involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s helped create Osama bin Laden, in large part because the United States was too timid to direct the war itself. Similarly, it wasn't America's intervention in Afghanistan in the 1990s that created the Taliban; it was Pakistan's intervention and America's non-intervention. Doves might consider this as they counsel the U.S. to respond to September 11 by leaving the rest of the world to its own devices. After all, it was leaving the rest of the world to its own devices that got us into this in the first place.
As Christopher Hitchens pointed out recently, not only is it indecent to act as self-appointed interpreter for the killers, but it is rash in the highest degree. The death-squads have not favored us with a posthumous manifesto of their grievances, or a statement of claim about Palestine or Iraq, but we are nonetheless able to surmise a fair amount about the ideological or theological "root" of their act and if we are correct in this, then we have considerable knowledge of two things: their ideas and their actions.
First the actions. The central plan was to maximize civilian casualties in a very dense area of downtown Manhattan. The killers have not brought forth any "demands." they have not even admitted to doing it. Therefore, we can deduce that their only desire is to kill. They do not have a political argument to make. And, with all of the planning this killing obviously took, it's clear the killers' plan was designed and incubated long before the mutual-masturbation of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak "process." The
Talibanis have in any case not distinguished themselves very much by an interest in the Palestinian plight. They have been busier trying to bring their own societies under the reign of the most inflexible and pitiless declension of shari'a law -- they're too busy raping and killing their own people. This is known to anyone with the least acquaintance with the subject.
So much for what the methods and targets tell us about the true anti-human and anti-democratic motivation. By their deeds shall we know them. What about the animating ideas? There were perhaps 700 observant followers of the Prophet Muhammed burned alive in New York on September 11. Nobody who had studied the target zone could have been in any doubt that some such figure was at the very least a likely one. To the Wahhabi-indoctrinated sectarians of Al Qaeda, only the purest and most fanatical are worthy of consideration. The teachings and published proclamations of this cult have initiated us to the idea that the tolerant, the open-minded, the apostate or the followers of different branches of The Faith are fit only for slaughter and contempt. And that's before Christians and Jews, let alone atheists and secularists, have even been factored in.
As before, the deed announces and exposes its "root cause." The grievance and animosity predate even the Balfour Declaration, let alone the occupation of the West Bank. The gates of Vienna would have had to fall to the Ottoman jihad before any balm could begin to be applied to these psychic wounds.
And this is precisely, now, our problem. The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They are condemned, and they deludedly believe that they are commanded, to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous. The very first step that we must take, therefore, is the acquisition of enough self-respect and self- confidence to say that we have met an enemy and that he is not us, but someone else. Someone with whom coexistence is, fortunately I think, not possible. (I say "fortunately" because I am also convinced that such coexistence is not desirable).
But straight away, we meet people who complain at once that this enemy is us, really. Did we not aid the grisly Taliban to achieve and hold power? Yes indeed "we" did. Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power? There is good reason to think that a Taliban defeat would fill the streets of Kabul with joy.
Finally, the argument that, if America didn't do such nasty things around the world, she wouldn't be attacked, is factually naive. As I tried to show last week, the connection between America's misdeeds and their attacks can be rather tenuous. And so more sophisticated doves offer a more sophisticated answer: "blowback." Our foreign policy doesn't just create enemies in a general sense, it creates them in a very specific sense: We fund and train the people who later attack us. During the Panama invasion, doves gleefully noted Manuel Noriega's ties to the CIA. During the Gulf war, they gleefully noted America's semi-support for Saddam as a counterweight to Iran. And today antiwar commentators instruct us that the CIA, through its support for the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, created Osama bin Laden.
At first glance, blowback might not seem like a good historical argument for doves to make. After all, by condemning the U.S. for getting into bed with Noriega and Saddam and bin Laden in the past, doves acknowledge that they are worthy of condemnation--which might suggest that America should atone for its past wrongs by opposing them now. But doves aren't making a point about America's enemies; they are making a point about America. The assumption behind blowback is that the U.S. can't atone--that as long as it intervenes around the world, it will foster evil. To go to war against bin Laden today will only create more bin Ladens tomorrow.
Which makes it of more than mere historical interest that, as applied to the United States and Afghanistan, the blowback theory is dead wrong. American intervention in the Afghan war didn't create Osama bin Laden. In fact, if the United States bears any blame for bin Laden's terrorist network today, it's because in the 1980s and '90s, we didn't intervene in Afghanistan aggressively enough.
As bizarre as it may sound to the antiwar left, the CIA was deeply wary of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. The Agency didn't think the mujahedin rebels could beat Moscow, and it feared that if it ran the war, it would take the blame if things went awry. As Vincent Cannistraro, who led the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group from 1985 to 1987, puts it, "The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, and to maintain plausible deniability. For the first six years following the 1979 Soviet invasion, the U.S. provided the mujahedin only Eastern-bloc weaponry, so the rebels could claim they had captured it from Soviet troops rather than received it from Washington. And while America funded the mujahedin, it played barely any role in their training. To insulate itself, the U.S. gave virtual carte blanche to its allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to direct the rebel effort as they saw fit.
This is where bin Laden comes in. After Moscow invaded, he and other Arab militants went to defend Afghanistan in the name of Islam. The Pakistani government allowed them in, and the Saudis gave them money, hoping to foster a Sunni Islamist network to counter the Shia network of rival Iran. Riyadh thought the network would espouse the monarchy's brand of conservative, rather than revolutionary, fundamentalism. And that idea seemed less naÔve in the 1980s when bin Laden was still a loyal Saudi subject, and before Islamist rebellions had broken out in Algeria and dramatically intensified in Egypt.
Had the U.S. been present on the ground in Afghanistan, it would have known about this. And it probably would have tried to stop it--if only because the Arab volunteers were aiding a virulently anti-Western Afghan rebel leader named Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, who opposed not only the Soviets, but the Western-backed mujahedin as well. But the U.S. wasn't present on the ground, and it had only the vaguest knowledge of the Arabs' presence and aims. In retrospect, that might seem hard to believe. But remember, contrary to bin Laden's later boasts, the Arabs were few in number (most came after the war, once bin Laden's network was established) and played virtually no military role in the victory over the Soviets. And the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.
And if U.S. disengagement contributed to the formation of bin Laden's network during the war, it contributed to it after the war was over as well. In 1992 the Communist regime in Kabul finally fell. Afghanistan needed foreign aid to reconstruct its shattered infrastructure, and an intense diplomatic effort to force its fractious mujahedin leaders to lay down their arms. The logical source of that financial assistance and political intervention was the U.S., which enjoyed the goodwill of many mujahedin leaders. But by all accounts, once Afghanistan's troubles lost their cold war significance, the Bush père and Clinton administrations paid them virtually no high-level attention. Neither administration tried seriously to negotiate a truce between the parties, and U.S. aid, which had totaled roughly $3 billion in the 1980s, dropped, by the end of 1994, nearly to zero.
For two more hideous years, mujahedin factions fought each other and preyed on an already brutalized population. Had ordinary Afghans not been desperate for the civil war to end, and for a leadership with at least some moral code, they would not have backed the Taliban, the religious students coming from the Pakistani border. And had Afghanistan not faced a political vacuum, Pakistan would not have armed those students in the hope that through them, it could dominate its neighbor to the northwest.
America's abandonment of Afghanistan was of a piece with its abandonment of countries like Liberia, Somalia, and Congo, which also disintegrated after cold war dictators fell. In Liberia the resulting anarchy produced the murderous Charles Taylor. In Somalia it produced the murderous Mohamed Farah Aideed. In Congo it produced the genocidal Hutu refugee camps. And in Afghanistan it produced the Taliban. Except that the Taliban didn't just harbor tribal killers, they harbored Al Qaeda, which brought its savagery all the way to America's shores.
So the doves are wrong: There was no blowback. America's involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s didn't help create Osama bin Laden; Saudi Arabia's involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s helped create Osama bin Laden, in large part because the United States was too timid to direct the war itself. Similarly, it wasn't America's intervention in Afghanistan in the 1990s that created the Taliban; it was Pakistan's intervention and America's non-intervention. Doves might consider this as they counsel the U.S. to respond to September 11 by leaving the rest of the world to its own devices. After all, it was leaving the rest of the world to its own devices that got us into this in the first place.
Yes, I am English JC, but I can't actually vote, I'm underage, and even if I could there's still a malingering, declining autocrat right at the top and would be whatever party I voted for ('cos none of them have the balls to get shot of the mad old crone).
I just pointed out the raw deal certain sections of the US population get because you seemed to be saying it was all equality and freedom. The fact that there are token representitives of minorities in power proves nothing. When the US has a black, female, muslim president (although I doubt I will live to see it given that they have all been white, male christians so far), I will believe that they are really trying. I acknowledge the fact that people get a raw deal for similar reasons here although, fortunately, they have not been persecuted under the law for many years, unlike in the US.
As regards Afghanistan, the US have already said that it was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible, failing to show any evidence but already preparing for military action. This shows they are an imperialist hegemony. Also, I believe the reason for their waiting is purely logistic, tempered with a cynical desire to spread the message of the terrible wrong that has been done to them and gain support. They had very few troops in the region on Sep. 11th and so needed to build up. Given current international feeling, they can use other countries' troops instead of their own and therefore accomplish their design whilst having none of their own soliders killed. This is probably very cynical of me but that is certainly the way it seems.
Hmm, ways my life has been affected by America. I have to suffer the vile, inflamatory, warmongering rhetoric of their stupid, reactionary politicians on the news each night as they proclaim a 'crusade.' This is a form of oppession. US cultural imperialism, another form of oppression. The fact that, according to Bush's flawed 'logic,' I am pro-terrorist simply because I fail to back any US retalitation thinks itself justified in carrying out.
And I do not just think about myself; when one thinks about all of the victims of US and western foreign policy, the count runs into thousands, if not millions. I would not be a socialist if I did not take all of these victims of an agressive, imperialist foreign policy into account.
<Edited to add> And your point is Darin? You seem to be giving us a detailed history without trying to put a point. Are you condemning us for condemning violence by anyone or are you condemning us for condemning violence by the US or what?
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
I just pointed out the raw deal certain sections of the US population get because you seemed to be saying it was all equality and freedom. The fact that there are token representitives of minorities in power proves nothing. When the US has a black, female, muslim president (although I doubt I will live to see it given that they have all been white, male christians so far), I will believe that they are really trying. I acknowledge the fact that people get a raw deal for similar reasons here although, fortunately, they have not been persecuted under the law for many years, unlike in the US.
As regards Afghanistan, the US have already said that it was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible, failing to show any evidence but already preparing for military action. This shows they are an imperialist hegemony. Also, I believe the reason for their waiting is purely logistic, tempered with a cynical desire to spread the message of the terrible wrong that has been done to them and gain support. They had very few troops in the region on Sep. 11th and so needed to build up. Given current international feeling, they can use other countries' troops instead of their own and therefore accomplish their design whilst having none of their own soliders killed. This is probably very cynical of me but that is certainly the way it seems.
Hmm, ways my life has been affected by America. I have to suffer the vile, inflamatory, warmongering rhetoric of their stupid, reactionary politicians on the news each night as they proclaim a 'crusade.' This is a form of oppession. US cultural imperialism, another form of oppression. The fact that, according to Bush's flawed 'logic,' I am pro-terrorist simply because I fail to back any US retalitation thinks itself justified in carrying out.
And I do not just think about myself; when one thinks about all of the victims of US and western foreign policy, the count runs into thousands, if not millions. I would not be a socialist if I did not take all of these victims of an agressive, imperialist foreign policy into account.
<Edited to add> And your point is Darin? You seem to be giving us a detailed history without trying to put a point. Are you condemning us for condemning violence by anyone or are you condemning us for condemning violence by the US or what?
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
D
darin
Guest
No,
My point is that to view this kind of atrocity as a legitimate way to open a political debate with the US is silly. And, as someone else posted recently, to feel that "This attack is someone with our political views going too far," is naive and fool-hardy. This killer killed anyone he could; he did not check to check to see if he could spare you if you happened to have a progressively-political credibility. This killer has views that are fascist in the extreme. And also, to say that these people are like the IRA, and so "why is the US getting its knickers in a twist?" -- which other posters have said -- is also underestimating the problem. The IRA have a goal. These people have no stated goal other than to kill people who belive differently than them. And so when people on this site ask: "Well, what do we think of all this?", i have to answer that reasonable people can think only one thing. that this was an evil attack, not to be supported in any way. That seems obvious enough, until one readds the idiocy thrown around this site's baords.
My point is that to view this kind of atrocity as a legitimate way to open a political debate with the US is silly. And, as someone else posted recently, to feel that "This attack is someone with our political views going too far," is naive and fool-hardy. This killer killed anyone he could; he did not check to check to see if he could spare you if you happened to have a progressively-political credibility. This killer has views that are fascist in the extreme. And also, to say that these people are like the IRA, and so "why is the US getting its knickers in a twist?" -- which other posters have said -- is also underestimating the problem. The IRA have a goal. These people have no stated goal other than to kill people who belive differently than them. And so when people on this site ask: "Well, what do we think of all this?", i have to answer that reasonable people can think only one thing. that this was an evil attack, not to be supported in any way. That seems obvious enough, until one readds the idiocy thrown around this site's baords.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Nemo; first of all, if you are underage, I applaud your level of critical thought, even if I don't agree with you.
The election of a black president will be fine, but doesn't prove the state of emancipation. Does the lack of a blind president mean that all blind people are second class citizens?
The terrible wrong done them? Do you disagree? 6000 dead qualifies as a terrible wrong. Even Castro and Arafat have said as much. That much innocent death is never a good thing.
The Americans didn't need to wait. They had at least two carrier groups in the Gulf at the time. They, and the subs that accompany them, carry nuclear warheads.
If the only effect on you is disruption of regular viewing, then change the channel, or read a book.
The election of a black president will be fine, but doesn't prove the state of emancipation. Does the lack of a blind president mean that all blind people are second class citizens?
The terrible wrong done them? Do you disagree? 6000 dead qualifies as a terrible wrong. Even Castro and Arafat have said as much. That much innocent death is never a good thing.
The Americans didn't need to wait. They had at least two carrier groups in the Gulf at the time. They, and the subs that accompany them, carry nuclear warheads.
If the only effect on you is disruption of regular viewing, then change the channel, or read a book.
Tromaville
Substandard in every way
Nice one to all on the last few posts. nice to see some good discussion going on ...
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
This darin has been posting the same long, tedious and boring post all over the place. Its like an OXO cube - square, stock and bland.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Plus, in reply to the original post...
1. WW I was a fight between Christian nations that dragged the whole world into it, killing millions of people.
2. WW II was a fight between Christian nations that dragged the whole world into it, killing millions of people.
3. Hitler was a Christian. Didn't stop the goodness of his Christian heart from gassing millions of Jews.
4. And so on.
So lets blame the whole Christian world then. This includes the whole of the West, and particularly America. What we're really talking about is Christian fundamentalism here.
Christian fanatics. Who needs 'em? Certainly not Urban75. So go away, you sad losers. Before you piss enough people off to start another attack on your precious cities. And if that seems below the belt, it might because the truth does hurt sometimes.
1. WW I was a fight between Christian nations that dragged the whole world into it, killing millions of people.
2. WW II was a fight between Christian nations that dragged the whole world into it, killing millions of people.
3. Hitler was a Christian. Didn't stop the goodness of his Christian heart from gassing millions of Jews.
4. And so on.
So lets blame the whole Christian world then. This includes the whole of the West, and particularly America. What we're really talking about is Christian fundamentalism here.
Christian fanatics. Who needs 'em? Certainly not Urban75. So go away, you sad losers. Before you piss enough people off to start another attack on your precious cities. And if that seems below the belt, it might because the truth does hurt sometimes.
bezzer
!i!iCommodore 64!i!i
“Bezzer, you are right that the American population was subjected to taxation without representation; hence, the Boston Teaparty. Unfortunately for your example, the taxmasters of the day were..British.”
yes this was exacly the point I was trying to explane to you. The reason why there was an american revoultion was because of the navigation acts, the stamp acts ect ect , which were imposed by the british government. But I am taking a marxist perspective to historical articualtion, which basicaly states that war ( or revoulition if you prefere ) is an invitable out come of capitilism. now what intereasts me about the american revolution, is that around the time of the 1770s america, as in the colinised states, was not a desperate people stugling for freedom, it had its own class system of affluent land owners. It was a revoulition between the gentry of two continents, for the control and ( unhinderd ) production of the wealth of the new worlds reasosrces. The bosten tea party was lead by merchants, that did not want to be under cut, by the english east indian company, importing tea. It makes me sick when people use terminolgey like the “american revolution of freedom”. John winthropes city on a hill, a beacon to the old world, was not such a new brave dream.
“Thus, the 'free thinkers' were forced to emigrate to places like the US, to implement their social experiments.”
Rousevue, the social contract, the french revolution ? you cannot argue that any political ideoligey post amircan revoltion, has had its “ social experiments “ conducted souley in america.
Take a look at english parlementry history, over the coarce of history we have seen a slow ebbing of power from sougverine monorches to parlementarians, representative of the population. It is one of the most unigue systems of law in the world, one which has slowley evolved with time and circumstance. As a result it is proberley one of the few instutions of this planet not to have a written consution as a fundemental basis. In your original argumet, you espousing the merits of the cheaks and balences of a fedral system with a writain constuion, as being comparably suprior system of government. When the fact being, over the coarce of time it has been the root cause, to a lot of americas social problems. It’s a rigid form of government. And a two tear political system. Don’t you think domocracey should have a little bit more divercity ?
“The right to bear arms may have helped with the colonization of the West, but I don't think that that was the reason it was entrenched in the Constitution2
maybe you should read up on decomitionig of fire arms from terrorist organisations, because that’s what the milliatas in amerca were ( and still are ). Buy the time the american revolution had finished ( which was the longest war in american history prior to vietnam ) it would have been impossible to decomition the firearms from the millitias, The right to bear arms was a realistic move on behalf of the fedral government.
“At the time the Constitution was drafted, the 1770s, the idea of Manifest Destiny had not yet been formulated. The West was part of the French and Spanish Empires. The true western migration could not really begin before the Louisiana Purchase.”
Then what was the sevan years war about prior to the american revoltion ? was it perchance so the eastern sea board of the colinising states did not become isolated ? manifested destiny, had not yet been formulated, are you sure ? yes the sevan year war did involve the british armey but it also involved the colinists. I think britan and the engish colinists both had a “ manifested destiny “ realised.
“ Not having a pot to piss in was not necessarily an impediment to leaving Ireland, etc, in days gone by. Before this century, it was possible for an emigrant to get his or her passage paid by a future employer - if the person was prepared to work as an indentured labourer for a number of years. A pretty extreme solution, no doubt, but those were extreme times”
indentured labour, yes I know this, and that’s why I disagreed with my own hypothisis on irish migration. The point I was making ( which I think you well know ). Is that you cannot apply your natzi eugenic hypothisis with in history. Inasmuch as segments of humaitiy being superior to others due to migration . And that’s why I called you “ a ridiculas cunt “. I really hate those kinds of genralisation, because this is a form of racisim.
“Finally, I invite any or all of you to post a few paragraphs detailing how your own lives have been trodden upon by the American jackboot. I invite descriptions of jobs lost, schooling deferred, loved ones snatched in the night, etc. because of the existence of demon America.”
My brothere and ( american ) sister in law almost got crushed to death from the crashing down of the world trade center on manhatten island. Which was a result of american foraighn policey.
yes this was exacly the point I was trying to explane to you. The reason why there was an american revoultion was because of the navigation acts, the stamp acts ect ect , which were imposed by the british government. But I am taking a marxist perspective to historical articualtion, which basicaly states that war ( or revoulition if you prefere ) is an invitable out come of capitilism. now what intereasts me about the american revolution, is that around the time of the 1770s america, as in the colinised states, was not a desperate people stugling for freedom, it had its own class system of affluent land owners. It was a revoulition between the gentry of two continents, for the control and ( unhinderd ) production of the wealth of the new worlds reasosrces. The bosten tea party was lead by merchants, that did not want to be under cut, by the english east indian company, importing tea. It makes me sick when people use terminolgey like the “american revolution of freedom”. John winthropes city on a hill, a beacon to the old world, was not such a new brave dream.
“Thus, the 'free thinkers' were forced to emigrate to places like the US, to implement their social experiments.”
Rousevue, the social contract, the french revolution ? you cannot argue that any political ideoligey post amircan revoltion, has had its “ social experiments “ conducted souley in america.
Take a look at english parlementry history, over the coarce of history we have seen a slow ebbing of power from sougverine monorches to parlementarians, representative of the population. It is one of the most unigue systems of law in the world, one which has slowley evolved with time and circumstance. As a result it is proberley one of the few instutions of this planet not to have a written consution as a fundemental basis. In your original argumet, you espousing the merits of the cheaks and balences of a fedral system with a writain constuion, as being comparably suprior system of government. When the fact being, over the coarce of time it has been the root cause, to a lot of americas social problems. It’s a rigid form of government. And a two tear political system. Don’t you think domocracey should have a little bit more divercity ?
“The right to bear arms may have helped with the colonization of the West, but I don't think that that was the reason it was entrenched in the Constitution2
maybe you should read up on decomitionig of fire arms from terrorist organisations, because that’s what the milliatas in amerca were ( and still are ). Buy the time the american revolution had finished ( which was the longest war in american history prior to vietnam ) it would have been impossible to decomition the firearms from the millitias, The right to bear arms was a realistic move on behalf of the fedral government.
“At the time the Constitution was drafted, the 1770s, the idea of Manifest Destiny had not yet been formulated. The West was part of the French and Spanish Empires. The true western migration could not really begin before the Louisiana Purchase.”
Then what was the sevan years war about prior to the american revoltion ? was it perchance so the eastern sea board of the colinising states did not become isolated ? manifested destiny, had not yet been formulated, are you sure ? yes the sevan year war did involve the british armey but it also involved the colinists. I think britan and the engish colinists both had a “ manifested destiny “ realised.
“ Not having a pot to piss in was not necessarily an impediment to leaving Ireland, etc, in days gone by. Before this century, it was possible for an emigrant to get his or her passage paid by a future employer - if the person was prepared to work as an indentured labourer for a number of years. A pretty extreme solution, no doubt, but those were extreme times”
indentured labour, yes I know this, and that’s why I disagreed with my own hypothisis on irish migration. The point I was making ( which I think you well know ). Is that you cannot apply your natzi eugenic hypothisis with in history. Inasmuch as segments of humaitiy being superior to others due to migration . And that’s why I called you “ a ridiculas cunt “. I really hate those kinds of genralisation, because this is a form of racisim.
“Finally, I invite any or all of you to post a few paragraphs detailing how your own lives have been trodden upon by the American jackboot. I invite descriptions of jobs lost, schooling deferred, loved ones snatched in the night, etc. because of the existence of demon America.”
My brothere and ( american ) sister in law almost got crushed to death from the crashing down of the world trade center on manhatten island. Which was a result of american foraighn policey.
D
darin
Guest
Patel,
ppinting out that my posts are long doesn't really debate any of the points I raise. But then again, seeing how your idea of a debate is to talk enthusiastically about "bombing [our] cities again" shows that real debate, real critical thinking, is not a strong suit.
Now, I am not a Christian, and I would never argue on the side of the church. But do you really believe that recent wars have been fought over, as you call it, Christian fundamentalism? When was the last Christian suicide bombing, or the last time Christian fundamentalists -- as annoying as they are -- murdered 6,000 "infidels" in one day, for no reason other than the religion they practise?
Ah, why do I bother? How can I argue with some moron who threatens another bombing? Shame on you.
ppinting out that my posts are long doesn't really debate any of the points I raise. But then again, seeing how your idea of a debate is to talk enthusiastically about "bombing [our] cities again" shows that real debate, real critical thinking, is not a strong suit.
Now, I am not a Christian, and I would never argue on the side of the church. But do you really believe that recent wars have been fought over, as you call it, Christian fundamentalism? When was the last Christian suicide bombing, or the last time Christian fundamentalists -- as annoying as they are -- murdered 6,000 "infidels" in one day, for no reason other than the religion they practise?
Ah, why do I bother? How can I argue with some moron who threatens another bombing? Shame on you.
K
kissthecat
Guest
Long and extremely boring and full of absolute bollox. Apart from that it's .. Nah It's still bollox.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Well, at least I managed to elicit a reply that hasn't been posted on 10 other threads. So it's a good start.
Plus darlin darlin', I have nothing to be ashamed of. I know what I said might be a bit close to the bone, but the truth hurts sometimes, I know.
Plus darlin darlin', I have nothing to be ashamed of. I know what I said might be a bit close to the bone, but the truth hurts sometimes, I know.
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
At the risk of repeating myself from the other thread, you're talking eloquent crap: Bin Laden isn't interested in killing people just because they're of a different faith. If that was true, why not head for Eastern China (for instance), because none of them is Muslim, and it would be a fuck of a lot easier to set off a big bomb there than in the US.
In fact, Bin Laden wants to see the insitution of Khalifah, the ovethrow of the Israeli state and explusion of settlers, the rejeciotn of 'secular' governments in counteis with lots of Muslims and the removal of US troops from Saudi territory.
"My point is that to view this kind of atrocity as a legitimate way to open a political debate with the US is silly."
Well, I don't see anyone commending it as a good way to open political debate - but trying to understand motivation is not the same as condoning action. Do you mean we should just stop thinking about it and uncritically accept whatever someone with a crest and a press conference tells us is what's true.
"And, as someone else posted recently, to feel that "This attack is someone with our political views going too far," is naive and fool-hardy."
Agreed - but who said it and where?
"And also, to say that these people are like the IRA, and so "why is the US getting its knickers in a twist?" -- which other posters have said -- is also underestimating the problem."
Right, it's a difference of scale - quantity, not quality.
"The IRA have a goal. These people have no stated goal other than to kill people who belive differently than them."
Bin Laden has concrete political goals, as we've said. And hold on, this wouldn't be the same "Christian Fundamentalist" IRA that goes around shooting Protestants just because they're Protestant, would it?
"And so when people on this site ask: "Well, what do we think of all this?", i have to answer that reasonable people can think only one thing. that this was an evil attack, not to be supported in any way. That seems obvious enough, until one readds the idiocy thrown around this site's baords"
Understanding is different from support.
Cross-posting across the very same boards is just tedious and rude.
In fact, Bin Laden wants to see the insitution of Khalifah, the ovethrow of the Israeli state and explusion of settlers, the rejeciotn of 'secular' governments in counteis with lots of Muslims and the removal of US troops from Saudi territory.
"My point is that to view this kind of atrocity as a legitimate way to open a political debate with the US is silly."
Well, I don't see anyone commending it as a good way to open political debate - but trying to understand motivation is not the same as condoning action. Do you mean we should just stop thinking about it and uncritically accept whatever someone with a crest and a press conference tells us is what's true.
"And, as someone else posted recently, to feel that "This attack is someone with our political views going too far," is naive and fool-hardy."
Agreed - but who said it and where?
"And also, to say that these people are like the IRA, and so "why is the US getting its knickers in a twist?" -- which other posters have said -- is also underestimating the problem."
Right, it's a difference of scale - quantity, not quality.
"The IRA have a goal. These people have no stated goal other than to kill people who belive differently than them."
Bin Laden has concrete political goals, as we've said. And hold on, this wouldn't be the same "Christian Fundamentalist" IRA that goes around shooting Protestants just because they're Protestant, would it?
"And so when people on this site ask: "Well, what do we think of all this?", i have to answer that reasonable people can think only one thing. that this was an evil attack, not to be supported in any way. That seems obvious enough, until one readds the idiocy thrown around this site's baords"
Understanding is different from support.
Cross-posting across the very same boards is just tedious and rude.
D
darin
Guest
PatelsCornerShop,
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that the attack was deserved? Well, it seems obvious that you are, but, with something as deranged as that, one needs just to make sure.
In this case, the morally just, in your mind, is the terrorist? That doesn't give you pause?
1) Don't you think that 6,000 dead (children and "politically progessive" among them) goes a bit too far to be a legitimate salvo in a debate about foreign policy? 2) If the killing really was about US foreign policy -- if the murderers have a legitimate goal -- then why have they not stated that goal? Why have they not even taken responsibility? Isn't it probable that the only goal was causing death? Is that what you champion? If so, you are a zealot, as much a demagogue as any Nazi who ever polished up his boots. You must be proud.
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that the attack was deserved? Well, it seems obvious that you are, but, with something as deranged as that, one needs just to make sure.
In this case, the morally just, in your mind, is the terrorist? That doesn't give you pause?
1) Don't you think that 6,000 dead (children and "politically progessive" among them) goes a bit too far to be a legitimate salvo in a debate about foreign policy? 2) If the killing really was about US foreign policy -- if the murderers have a legitimate goal -- then why have they not stated that goal? Why have they not even taken responsibility? Isn't it probable that the only goal was causing death? Is that what you champion? If so, you are a zealot, as much a demagogue as any Nazi who ever polished up his boots. You must be proud.
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. The fact that many people here have very limited patience with US foreign and military policy does not mean that we implicitly condeone such atrocities.
As for your comment about the IRA, I think you are confusing means with motives. The means these people and the IRA used are very similar. Their motives are different. And you are wrong in that these people have no motives. If they are Islamic extremists (and I have yet to see any evidence), then they aim at an extension of Islam and at the very least a reduced US. I may not agree with some of these motives but to say that whoever did this had no motives is blatantly untrue, simply because, had they not had any motives, they would not have done it.
As for your later comments, none of us have supported the attack here. Just because we have no immediately jumped up and down at the US government's idea to start another war does not mean that we support the attack.
JC, I agree that it is a terrible wrong and I believe I have said as much several times. However, I believe that 6000 dead is a terrible wrong be they American OR Afghan OR Palastinian.
Did I say the 'disruption of my regular viewing' is the only thing done to me? I also said what the Americans do to other people deeply concerns me, as does their support for such oppressive régimes as Israel.
Thanks btw.
Darin again, PCS isn't advocating bombing US cities again, he's just pointing out that blaming all of Islam for the actions of a few people shows either a very logically challanged mind or flawed logic or both.
Re. christian fundamentalists, they have been killing people for their religion since before the birth of Islam. It can be argued that the Nazis were christian fundamentalists and they killed over 6,000,000 people.
<Edited to add because I can't type fast enough> Darin, PCS was not condoning the bombing, he has condemned it along with the rest of us. Insulting him for raising legitimate points will not get you anywhere.
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
As for your comment about the IRA, I think you are confusing means with motives. The means these people and the IRA used are very similar. Their motives are different. And you are wrong in that these people have no motives. If they are Islamic extremists (and I have yet to see any evidence), then they aim at an extension of Islam and at the very least a reduced US. I may not agree with some of these motives but to say that whoever did this had no motives is blatantly untrue, simply because, had they not had any motives, they would not have done it.
As for your later comments, none of us have supported the attack here. Just because we have no immediately jumped up and down at the US government's idea to start another war does not mean that we support the attack.
JC, I agree that it is a terrible wrong and I believe I have said as much several times. However, I believe that 6000 dead is a terrible wrong be they American OR Afghan OR Palastinian.
Did I say the 'disruption of my regular viewing' is the only thing done to me? I also said what the Americans do to other people deeply concerns me, as does their support for such oppressive régimes as Israel.
Thanks btw.
Darin again, PCS isn't advocating bombing US cities again, he's just pointing out that blaming all of Islam for the actions of a few people shows either a very logically challanged mind or flawed logic or both.
Re. christian fundamentalists, they have been killing people for their religion since before the birth of Islam. It can be argued that the Nazis were christian fundamentalists and they killed over 6,000,000 people.
<Edited to add because I can't type fast enough> Darin, PCS was not condoning the bombing, he has condemned it along with the rest of us. Insulting him for raising legitimate points will not get you anywhere.
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
D
darin
Guest
Nemo,
First, how can it be argued that the Nazis were Christian fundamentalists? Now, I am not a Christian, and I think fundamentalism is bad in any form -- as is extremism, which many people on this site seem to subscribe to.
Now, when you say that no one on this site has "demonstrated anything less than utter distaste for and anger at the New York attacks;" is that so? PatelsCornerShop has shown, in fact, something quite less that "utter distate." Also, I see posts up everywhere that seem to display something other than anger, including the first one after the attacks, which read: "Well, what do we think of all this?"
As to motive: you are right. They have a motive, and it is the spread of a radical Islam. It is nothing specific -- such as, the removal of British troops from Northern Ireland. They want to "kill infidels". (read some of the published writings of Bin Laden.
Finally -- has the US started another war? I must have missed it. For all the talk of the "bloodthirsty Americans," heedless of "colateral damage," well, show me proof of a hasty US. Not one American bullet has been fired, three weeks later.
Now, I know al of Islam is not evil. How silly would be anyone who said that! But this strand of radical Islam is evil, it is not politically progressive -- it is a hundred times worse than America. The taliban rapes its women, it kills any dissenters, etc.
Finally, just because I am an American, doesn't mean I agree with my government much of the time. YEs, the US government has done awful things. Yes, Bush is a moron. But for people on this site -- and I've seen them do it -- applaud this attack, or say "this is a good message gone too far" -- well that is zealotry.
JC, I agree that it is a terrible wrong and I believe I have said as much several times. However, I believe that 6000 dead is a terrible wrong be they American OR Afghan OR Palastinian.
Did I say the 'disruption of my regular viewing' is the only thing done to me? I also said what the Americans do to other people deeply concerns me, as does their support for such oppressive régimes as Israel.
First, how can it be argued that the Nazis were Christian fundamentalists? Now, I am not a Christian, and I think fundamentalism is bad in any form -- as is extremism, which many people on this site seem to subscribe to.
Now, when you say that no one on this site has "demonstrated anything less than utter distaste for and anger at the New York attacks;" is that so? PatelsCornerShop has shown, in fact, something quite less that "utter distate." Also, I see posts up everywhere that seem to display something other than anger, including the first one after the attacks, which read: "Well, what do we think of all this?"
As to motive: you are right. They have a motive, and it is the spread of a radical Islam. It is nothing specific -- such as, the removal of British troops from Northern Ireland. They want to "kill infidels". (read some of the published writings of Bin Laden.
Finally -- has the US started another war? I must have missed it. For all the talk of the "bloodthirsty Americans," heedless of "colateral damage," well, show me proof of a hasty US. Not one American bullet has been fired, three weeks later.
Now, I know al of Islam is not evil. How silly would be anyone who said that! But this strand of radical Islam is evil, it is not politically progressive -- it is a hundred times worse than America. The taliban rapes its women, it kills any dissenters, etc.
Finally, just because I am an American, doesn't mean I agree with my government much of the time. YEs, the US government has done awful things. Yes, Bush is a moron. But for people on this site -- and I've seen them do it -- applaud this attack, or say "this is a good message gone too far" -- well that is zealotry.
JC, I agree that it is a terrible wrong and I believe I have said as much several times. However, I believe that 6000 dead is a terrible wrong be they American OR Afghan OR Palastinian.
Did I say the 'disruption of my regular viewing' is the only thing done to me? I also said what the Americans do to other people deeply concerns me, as does their support for such oppressive régimes as Israel.
Darin, The Nazis were christian fundamentalists in that most, if not all of their leaders were such.
Re. PCS, his comments were meant as sarcasm, not as an incitement to violence.
All I can say to that is that a.) it was posted immediately after first news of the attacks came through so the true nature of them wasn't known, and b.) what is the matter with it anyway?
Also, how can you dispute the fact that the US wants war? The reservists called up, the troops and hardware going to teh gulf, the roping in of allies. And we are told constantly by that unspeakable imbecile Bush that it is war.
That's no excuse for US agression. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. If the US is better than them, they have to prove it by NOT STOOPING TO THEIR LEVEL.
Yes, this would be zealotry but I have seen no one say that on this site. If they did put it in those terms, then yes, I would condemn them but I have seen no one say it is a 'good message.'
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
Re. PCS, his comments were meant as sarcasm, not as an incitement to violence.
All I can say to that is that a.) it was posted immediately after first news of the attacks came through so the true nature of them wasn't known, and b.) what is the matter with it anyway?
Also, how can you dispute the fact that the US wants war? The reservists called up, the troops and hardware going to teh gulf, the roping in of allies. And we are told constantly by that unspeakable imbecile Bush that it is war.
That's no excuse for US agression. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. If the US is better than them, they have to prove it by NOT STOOPING TO THEIR LEVEL.
Yes, this would be zealotry but I have seen no one say that on this site. If they did put it in those terms, then yes, I would condemn them but I have seen no one say it is a 'good message.'
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
"Not one American bullet has been fired, three weeks later."
Apart from all those in Israel/Palestine, obviously.
Apart from all those in Israel/Palestine, obviously.
I think Darin meant "no bullets have been fired by US forces against anyone in Afghanistan" JWH, and he'd probably be technically correct. Although I agree with you that people seem to be pointedly ignoring what's happening in the middle east. How strange and unexpected.
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
bezzer
!i!iCommodore 64!i!i
"Not one American bullet has been fired, three weeks later."
well apart from the skude missles that were lanched three years ago?
as george monibot pointed out on question time...
with in 4 months time we will be looking at a humaniterin crisis which will be the equivelent to ethoipia in 1985, maybe evan more deverstating ? involving 7.5 million people dead ?
if this is the case then it is importent to pull out all milltery operations in the persian gulf, and assiste the aid agenceys in any way they can, before the winter sets in and the hindu kush comes down from the mountins.( 7.5 million lives are at risk, innosent lives )
why ? maybe its becuse they know what western millitery hard ware can do.
[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]
well apart from the skude missles that were lanched three years ago?
as george monibot pointed out on question time...
with in 4 months time we will be looking at a humaniterin crisis which will be the equivelent to ethoipia in 1985, maybe evan more deverstating ? involving 7.5 million people dead ?
if this is the case then it is importent to pull out all milltery operations in the persian gulf, and assiste the aid agenceys in any way they can, before the winter sets in and the hindu kush comes down from the mountins.( 7.5 million lives are at risk, innosent lives )
why ? maybe its becuse they know what western millitery hard ware can do.
[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]
D
darin
Guest
All right, to answer the question about whther this attack is about Palestinian grievances with Israel, and by proxy, the US.
First, neither the Talibanis or Bin Laden have distinguished themselves very much by an interest in the Palestinian plight. Read some of Arab world's cricitsms of Bin Laden -- they say that he is not interested enough in the PLO's fight. As for the taliban, they have been busier trying to bring their own societies under the reign of the most inflexible and pitiless declension of shari'a law -- they're too busy raping and killing their own people, basically, to care about the "peace process." They don't want peace. Ever. This is known to anyone with the least acquaintance with the subject.
Now, to those who say that the killer's motivation is clear, I repeat: The killers have not brought forth any "demands." they have not even admitted to doing it. Therefore, we can deduce that their only desire is to kill. They do not have a political argument to make -- other than the deaths of innocents. And, with all of the planning this killing obviously took, it's clear the killers' plan was designed and incubated long before the mutual-masturbation of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak "process."
So much for what the methods and targets tell us about the true anti-human and anti-democratic motivation. By their deeds shall we know them.
PS -- There were perhaps 700 observant followers of the Prophet Muhammed burned alive in New York on September 11. To the Wahhabi-indoctrinated sectarians of Al Qaeda, only the purest and most fanatical are worthy of consideration. They feel that tolerant followers of Islam are fit only for slaughter and contempt. And that's before Christians and Jews, let alone atheists and secularists, have even been factored in.
As before, the deed announces and exposes its "root cause."
The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They want to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous.
The relativist attitude is what is galling. I'm not the one saying two wrongs make a right. Anyone who dignifies this act of xenophoblic murder with a rational cause is doing just that.
All across America, too, there are people who say that this enemy is us, really. Did we not aid the grisly Taliban to achieve and hold power? Yes indeed "we" did. Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power?
There is good reason to think that a Taliban defeat would fill the streets of Kabul with joy.
Those who say the US should do nothing are naive. Innocent lives should be spared, of course, of course, of course. But to do nothing is an invitation to further attack -- which, as PatelsCornerShop suggests, would be a good thing. If WWII was just cbecause it rid the world of an evil power, then an action that removed the Taliban from power would be justified on the same grounds.
First, neither the Talibanis or Bin Laden have distinguished themselves very much by an interest in the Palestinian plight. Read some of Arab world's cricitsms of Bin Laden -- they say that he is not interested enough in the PLO's fight. As for the taliban, they have been busier trying to bring their own societies under the reign of the most inflexible and pitiless declension of shari'a law -- they're too busy raping and killing their own people, basically, to care about the "peace process." They don't want peace. Ever. This is known to anyone with the least acquaintance with the subject.
Now, to those who say that the killer's motivation is clear, I repeat: The killers have not brought forth any "demands." they have not even admitted to doing it. Therefore, we can deduce that their only desire is to kill. They do not have a political argument to make -- other than the deaths of innocents. And, with all of the planning this killing obviously took, it's clear the killers' plan was designed and incubated long before the mutual-masturbation of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak "process."
So much for what the methods and targets tell us about the true anti-human and anti-democratic motivation. By their deeds shall we know them.
PS -- There were perhaps 700 observant followers of the Prophet Muhammed burned alive in New York on September 11. To the Wahhabi-indoctrinated sectarians of Al Qaeda, only the purest and most fanatical are worthy of consideration. They feel that tolerant followers of Islam are fit only for slaughter and contempt. And that's before Christians and Jews, let alone atheists and secularists, have even been factored in.
As before, the deed announces and exposes its "root cause."
The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They want to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous.
The relativist attitude is what is galling. I'm not the one saying two wrongs make a right. Anyone who dignifies this act of xenophoblic murder with a rational cause is doing just that.
All across America, too, there are people who say that this enemy is us, really. Did we not aid the grisly Taliban to achieve and hold power? Yes indeed "we" did. Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power?
There is good reason to think that a Taliban defeat would fill the streets of Kabul with joy.
Those who say the US should do nothing are naive. Innocent lives should be spared, of course, of course, of course. But to do nothing is an invitation to further attack -- which, as PatelsCornerShop suggests, would be a good thing. If WWII was just cbecause it rid the world of an evil power, then an action that removed the Taliban from power would be justified on the same grounds.
Darin, you seem to be confusing condemnation of US foreign policy with agreement with and sympathy for Bin Laden and the Taliban. To be honest, none of them are greatly appealing to me. I, like you, would never condone religious fanatacism but neither would I condone an imperialist foreign policy with the blood of millions on its conscience. Why am I being ordered to choose? I have to choose between a régime which promises much and doesn't deliver and a régime which promises little and doesn't deliver. Some fucking choice. If the US actually lived up to its promises I might consider some (limited) support, but to be honest, I don't see that happening.
As for the killers not having a clear policy; the fact that these targets were picked and the attacks planned carefully would suggest otherwise I am afraid. The fact is that you do not get, as a general rule, groups of people who desire only to kill people, that these attacks happened does suggest that there must be some motivation for them.
The same goes for the US government and all the other people who are kissing Bush's arse until it bleeds.
As for your comments about the Taliban, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THEY, OR BIN LADEN WERE INVOLVED.
But without looking for a cause, how are we supposed to prevent comparable acts occuring in the future? I guarantee that war and more death will not do it.
Fine, I'm naïve, but at least my way there aren't so many innocent people lying dead.
And to attack is to ensure one.
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
As for the killers not having a clear policy; the fact that these targets were picked and the attacks planned carefully would suggest otherwise I am afraid. The fact is that you do not get, as a general rule, groups of people who desire only to kill people, that these attacks happened does suggest that there must be some motivation for them.
The same goes for the US government and all the other people who are kissing Bush's arse until it bleeds.
As for your comments about the Taliban, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THEY, OR BIN LADEN WERE INVOLVED.
But without looking for a cause, how are we supposed to prevent comparable acts occuring in the future? I guarantee that war and more death will not do it.
Fine, I'm naïve, but at least my way there aren't so many innocent people lying dead.
And to attack is to ensure one.
Pax vobiscum, Nemo
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Did I hear darin use the word 'infidels' back there?
Yes. I did. Sort of ironic that he/she would use it really - its a term that Christian 'crusaders' originally used against the Muslim 'infidel'. Perhaps this is a case of deja vu?
I do find it amazing that this discussion is so heavily weighted in terms of Bin Laden, the Taliban and the like. When there is absolutely no evidence that would stand in a court of law to link their involvement to the bombings.
I also find it amazing that the conversation should be such that people are now talking about taking action against the Taliban on account of the horrible things that they do to women etc. They want to find any justification to vent their lust for revenge on an easy target. I would like to remind them that they are more than just close friends with another fundamentalist regime that oppresses women - Saudi Arabia.
Until people start to be consistent in their arguments, nothing they say about justice, freedom or democracy will be taken seriously. For as long as there is inconsistency and hypocrisy, there never can be any justice. And a person who is unjust is an easy target for anyone.
Yes. I did. Sort of ironic that he/she would use it really - its a term that Christian 'crusaders' originally used against the Muslim 'infidel'. Perhaps this is a case of deja vu?
I do find it amazing that this discussion is so heavily weighted in terms of Bin Laden, the Taliban and the like. When there is absolutely no evidence that would stand in a court of law to link their involvement to the bombings.
I also find it amazing that the conversation should be such that people are now talking about taking action against the Taliban on account of the horrible things that they do to women etc. They want to find any justification to vent their lust for revenge on an easy target. I would like to remind them that they are more than just close friends with another fundamentalist regime that oppresses women - Saudi Arabia.
Until people start to be consistent in their arguments, nothing they say about justice, freedom or democracy will be taken seriously. For as long as there is inconsistency and hypocrisy, there never can be any justice. And a person who is unjust is an easy target for anyone.
nutritional value:
I really dont know what to say to you: I Think you were brought up in an environment that gave you your opinions, hatred and fear of Islamic as well as fanaticism about the apartheid state of Israel is just natural to you:
Please understand the 'allies' could of toppled Sadamn Hussein after the gulf war; remember the Kurds and others groups instigated an uprising. The allies refused to support this uprising and stopped short of finishing Sadamn off, as it would of led to a democratic government in Baghdad, which in turn would have destablised the whole middle east.
America is insisting on the UN sanctions as this will prevent a popular uprising against sadamn: ie how can people organise a democratic movement when they literally cant even organize a decent meal for their children:
The sanctions are thus ensuring that when change comes in Iraq it will be in the form of a coup by one of sadamns cronies: ie another iron fisted ruler that the west will hail as a friend (like sadmn was b4 he invaded kuwait).
amerikkka consistently opposes popular democratic movements anywhere in the world:
chile,indonesia,east timor,argentina, nicaragua, post war europe, vietnam, columbia, and so fucking on:
ps STEVE I m really disappointed in you , I mean I know you are a liberal and not into a revolution or anything but that link you but up refering to americans helping terrorists and it was about NORAID I mean: the article mentions the three republicans arrested (and held without any evidence being produced): I mean whos side are you on??? The generals or the campesinos???
not only is america funding the facist columbian regime with plan columbia but the sas has operatives on the ground helping to train the government death squads!!!!!!!!
incidently it was the sas who requested the arrest of the three men so as to destabilise the peace process!!!!
Instead of tryna get a dig in at republicans whenever you can you should consult the facts and leave your orange sash at home!!!!
yoker
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: YOKE ]
I really dont know what to say to you: I Think you were brought up in an environment that gave you your opinions, hatred and fear of Islamic as well as fanaticism about the apartheid state of Israel is just natural to you:
Please understand the 'allies' could of toppled Sadamn Hussein after the gulf war; remember the Kurds and others groups instigated an uprising. The allies refused to support this uprising and stopped short of finishing Sadamn off, as it would of led to a democratic government in Baghdad, which in turn would have destablised the whole middle east.
America is insisting on the UN sanctions as this will prevent a popular uprising against sadamn: ie how can people organise a democratic movement when they literally cant even organize a decent meal for their children:
The sanctions are thus ensuring that when change comes in Iraq it will be in the form of a coup by one of sadamns cronies: ie another iron fisted ruler that the west will hail as a friend (like sadmn was b4 he invaded kuwait).
amerikkka consistently opposes popular democratic movements anywhere in the world:
chile,indonesia,east timor,argentina, nicaragua, post war europe, vietnam, columbia, and so fucking on:
ps STEVE I m really disappointed in you , I mean I know you are a liberal and not into a revolution or anything but that link you but up refering to americans helping terrorists and it was about NORAID I mean: the article mentions the three republicans arrested (and held without any evidence being produced): I mean whos side are you on??? The generals or the campesinos???
not only is america funding the facist columbian regime with plan columbia but the sas has operatives on the ground helping to train the government death squads!!!!!!!!
incidently it was the sas who requested the arrest of the three men so as to destabilise the peace process!!!!
Instead of tryna get a dig in at republicans whenever you can you should consult the facts and leave your orange sash at home!!!!
yoker
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: YOKE ]
Wish I had time to join in this one -- Nemo puts me to shame though as do a few other ultra articulate and well informed peeps.
I don't agree with Yoke on NORAID but more later.
W of W
I don't agree with Yoke on NORAID but more later.
W of W