Re: Just what would you suggest be done?
Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US bombing WILL kill more innocents than the 9/11 tragedy and serves no real purpose.
[link|http://www.zmag.org/monbiotbackyard.htm|If some people are "confused" about this war, it may be because they remember the rationale for it: Killing thousands of civilians is unconscionable.
Though you wouldn't know much about it from watching TV news or skimming the front pages, large numbers of Afghans -- many of them children and
elderly -- are facing the likelihood of starvation because the bombing has forced recurrent halts to the movement of food-aid trucks from Pakistan into
Afghanistan. Concern is growing among humanitarian aid workers that about 100,000 people are now in imminent peril. By winter, the number could
be in the millions.
Meanwhile, on television, we see footage of air-dropped meals that amount to no more than 1 percent of what's needed to prevent people from
starving. That's called good PR.
]
Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US is indeed EXcluding CIA and the US of A as a "terrorist training camp/sponsor state" as per the US war Against Terrorism's definition.
[link|http://www.zmag.org/monbiotbackyard.htm|For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government. ]
Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US attack on Afghanistan is unlawful and violates the rule of law because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is not willing to handover OBL without any proof which the US and UK claimed they have (anyone seen any?)
[link|http://www.zmag.org/whatssocomples.htm|And what is Washington\ufffds agenda? Remarkably the stated aim is to get bin Laden and to try him or perhaps just execute him ourselves.
We could stop the bombing and have him tried in a third country, the Taliban has noted, but that\ufffds not acceptable. So for this
minuscule gradation of difference, we are told that Washington is willing to risk 7 million people. Behind the rhetoric, to me the real
goals appear to be to delegitimate international law, to establish that Washington will get its way regardless of impediments and that
we can and will act unilaterally whenever it suits us \ufffd the technical term for which is to ensure that our threats remain \ufffdcredible\ufffd --and
to propel a long-term war on terrorism to entrench the most reactionary policies in the U.S. and around the globe, and, along with all
that, to terminate bin Laden and others. Risking seven million people\ufffds lives for these aims is worse than doing it only for the minuscule
gradation of trying bin Laden ourselves rather than having a third country do it, because the additional reasons are all grotesquely
negative, supposing such calculus is even manageable by a sane mind. ]
