Post #18,623
11/17/01 8:02:09 AM
|
No, it is a matter of intent.
Every criminal trial hinges on intent. It was the intent of the Taliban to kill as many innocents as possible. Killing innocents was precisely their objective.
In contrast, it is our intent to kill as few innocents as possible consistent with our own protection.
Further, it is the intent of the Taliban to force us to kill as many of their own civilians as possible by interlacing military targets into civilian areas.
Once again, every criminal proceding hinges on intent. The intent of the Taliban is to maximize innocent deaths. The intent of the U.S. is to minimize innocent deaths consistent with protecting our own innocents.
There is no judgement here that one group of civilians is of greater value than another, though that could easily be done.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #18,662
11/18/01 12:38:59 AM
|
Re: No, it is a matter of intent.
You know what, Andrew? I totally agree with your subject line.
That's where "our" views differ from your view.
The US have not proven to the world, especially the muslim majority that the it was al Qaeda and Taliban who were without any doubt, responsible for 9/11.
What "we" have seen is that after 9/11, the US declared "war on terrorism" and "claimed" that al Qaeda was responsible, and refused the Taliban "legitimate request" for proof of guilt before handling over OBL and at the same time branded the Taliban, then legitimate government of Afghanistan as accomplice and initiate bombing of a sovereign country, allying itself with the NA.
To "us", the intent is that the US is trying to find a quick scapegoat. To "us", the intent is that the US is not bothering to look into what went wrong the first time, the second time, the third time etc with the ME, and instead to repeat what it does best, brute force (economically, militarily, politically) its way through.
A simple revelation of proof OR simply an act of concession to the request of the Taliban on handling OBL to a third party for trial would have shown to the world that the INTENT of the US was indeed against the ones responsible for 9/11.
Yet it was a terrorist-like ultimatum, hand them over or we'll bomb you to kingdom come.
Who suffered the most out of the bombing of Afghanistan? The Taliban, al Qaeda or the civilians? So who IN REALITY is being targetted? Peaceful solution to this "war" is an idealistic dream, but so is this "bombing of Afghanistan" being a solution to terrorism.
To "us", the intent that the majority of the US population "chose" to ignore the daily sufferings of those innocent civilians in Afghanistans and Iraq who has to endure the bombing raids, yet dwelled heavily on how terrible it was for a one day, 2 hours tragedy of the WTC.
I hope this will stand to clear up any misunderstanding that "we" are simply blindly anti-US and will condemn US regardless of what it does. I do know that there are such folks around, and they do not exists purely to be anti-US-only.
|
Post #18,667
11/18/01 5:43:52 AM
|
Idealistic fantasy
We did not yet have conclusive proof that al Qaeda was responsible for the WTC attack.
We did have conclusive proof that al Qaeda was responsible for the embassy bombings, which also killed a lot of people. This in itself was sufficient for action against bin Laden (or do you hold that by time proof is established it's too late to take action?).
All evidence we did have pointed to al Qaeda, and there were no credible alternatives, save Iraq, and little evidence pointed to Iraq.
Now for the fantasy. Do you really think the Taliban would turn bin Laden over to any court where there was the slightest possibility of a guilty verdict? Representatives of the Taliban indicated bin Laden probably has more influence over the Taliban than Omar has. It was simply a propeganda ploy, and obviously quite effective for those who want to believe.
Omar and bin Laden are tied very close, and bonded by cross mariages. The most fanatical Taliban soldiers are Arabs under bin Ladin's control. All evidence is al Qaeda and the Taliban are inseperable at this time.
So once again, we already had sufficient reason for action (embassy bombings). We had the video of a bin Laden interview made two weeks before WTC in which he said something very big was going to happen in two weeks. We had a long list of attocities committed by the Taliban, and no way to logically separate the Taliban and al Queda.
Now we have an internal al Queda recruitment / training video which all but states outright al Queda did WTC.
And who suffered the worst? The Taliban got smashed and lost nearly all of Afghanistan within a few weeks. They are on the virge of losing Kandahar, their stronghold and the only city they still hold. Al Queda lost it's primary war strategist, Mohammed Atef (though it may be hurt almost as much by internationl arrests and freezing of funds).
Meanwhile, civilians are celebrating in Kabul and the other cities. Music is once again heard in the streets. Women have cast off the burka and gone back to their work. Now they can get medical attention and education again too. Men have had their beards trimmed or shaven as they prefer, without fear of being beaten or killed for that.
Yes, some civilians were killed in our attacks - not our intent, but inevitable in any war against an army that hides among civilians. Very, very few were killed compared to the number the Taliban killed for "crimes against Islam".
It'll be a while before the Taliban is mopped up in Afghanistan, and longer to fade in Pakastan, and al Queda will still be tough, but our main effort in Afghanistan must be to keep the tribal wars from becomming as bad as the Taliban. This is going to be hard, because the Afghan tibes have no intention whatever of stopping killing each other. It's tribal custom, you know.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot: "World Opinion" will blame us for trying to stop them from killing each other.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #18,673
11/18/01 8:46:26 AM
|
Re: Idealistic fantasy
>Now for the fantasy. Do you really think the Taliban would turn bin Laden over to any court where there was the slightest possibility of a guilty verdict? Representatives of the Taliban indicated bin Laden probably has more influence over the Taliban than Omar has. It was simply a propeganda ploy, and obviously quite effective for those who want to believe.
We will never know. But the fact that the US decided to forego and ignore a legitimate request in every sense of the word by a ruling regime, in an internationally recognized sovereign country, to provide proofs before they (the Taliban) decides what they will do, spoke volume.
Andrew, you are assuming "we" who are critizng the actions taken by the US as total idiots who have no perspective of our own. That premise is wrong. Whether you believe or not, I'll leave it to you.
>And who suffered the worst? The Taliban got smashed and lost nearly all of Afghanistan within a few weeks. They are on the virge of losing Kandahar, their stronghold and the only city they still hold. Al Queda lost it's primary war strategist, Mohammed Atef (though it may be hurt almost as much by internationl arrests and freezing of funds).
Perhaps you have genuinely forgotten that there are approx 7.5 millions of Afghanistani who are at the verge of starvation, forced out of their home by bomb drops that also happened to "accidentally" hit Al-Jazeera broadcast station etc.
And how does that prevent/deter fanatical Egypt/Saudi nationals from more terrorist attacks? And now, add to them more that are pushed to the extremes from other muslim countries in view of the "injustice" done to a weak and defenseless muslim country. So will the US next target an entire religion because some of them are linked by birth/marriage etc to the terrorists?
>Meanwhile, civilians are celebrating in Kabul and the other cities. Music is once again heard in the streets. Women have cast off the burka and gone back to their work. Now they can get medical attention and education again too. Men have had their beards trimmed or shaven as they prefer, without fear of being beaten or killed for that.
Possible propoganda here? I mean, haven't millions already fled their home and at the verge of starvations? Aren't the NA that "liberated" Kabul and the other cities also beginning to loot and murder? Who has the greater NEED to propogandize? The UN/Red Cross/AI or the NA? Then again, your guess is as good as mine since I have nothing to prove my position since all I have are 2nd/3rd hand accounts/reporting.
>Oh, yes, I almost forgot: "World Opinion" will blame us for trying to stop them from killing each other.
World opinion are usually divided, and you're probably correct that SOME portion will blame the US regardless of what it does. But using that as an excuse to ignore suggestions/solutions/resolutions provided is extremely foolish.
I can only point you to the fact that the US once cheered the Taliban from ridding Afghanistan of the NA, and is now propping NA back in power. Of course, how that will turn out is anybody's guess. But once again, US has meddled/taken side/assisted with another sovereign country's INTERNAL dispute. I wonder how you feel if UK or Iraq or hack, Cuba meddled/taken side/assisted with US internal dispute.
I believe you are intelligent enough to really see the overall picture that "we" are "advocating".
|
Post #18,692
11/18/01 3:25:47 PM
|
False:
in an internationally recognized sovereign country, to
provide proofs before they (the Taliban) decides what they will do,
spoke volume. IIRC, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (maybe one more?) recognized the Taleban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. And while I too am cognizant of the evil effects of most mob-actions, and the malleability of the Murican Peepul (and all others) to demagoguery - I find your list here, to be really reaching, as in your ref to "forgetting about the starving". That impending fact has been regularly on the agenda of even our Valley-speak inane talking News-heads since square 1. There are internal matters - just say 'Ashcroft' - of ominous local trend, and there are bound to be some stupidities in the actions to date. But not on the scale of arrant knavery you portray: that is more akin to agitprop of earlier days and re Vietnam -- where we really Were being stupid and arrogant beyond belief. And we have not yet exorcised That Demon, despite pronouncing it dead on the usual Holidays.. Many are in denial still. We have factions who'd like to duplicate that atrocity in Afg. Thus far they are not calling the shots. If they do, we'll talk again. Ashton
|
Post #18,721
11/18/01 11:33:30 PM
|
Re: False:
>And while I too am cognizant of the evil effects of most mob-actions, and the malleability of the Murican Peepul (and all others) to demagoguery - I find your list here, to be really reaching, as in your ref to "forgetting about the starving".
>That impending fact has been regularly on the agenda of even our Valley-speak inane talking News-heads since square 1.
Heh, those are the "we" that I was referring to... where "we" consist of folks who have tried and continue to try to bring attention to the numerous "flaws" in the current "War against Terrorism", albeit not totally in agreement with each other.
|
Post #18,753
11/19/01 10:32:51 AM
|
We smashed Al-Jazeera station?
Could you point me to a link?
|
Post #18,851
11/19/01 5:13:23 PM
|
Re: We smashed Al-Jazeera station?
[link|http://www.zmag.org/flandersarabcnn.htm|[link|http://www.zmag.org/flandersarabcnn.htm|http://www.zmag.org...sarabcnn.htm]]
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1653000/1653887.stm|[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1653000/1653887.stm|http://news.bbc.co..../1653887.stm]]
[link|http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/display.php3?article_id=9938|[link|http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/display.php3?article_id=9938|http://www.indymedi...icle_id=9938]]
|
Post #18,854
11/19/01 5:49:23 PM
|
Not a peep from CNN. I am disgusted!
|
Post #18,904
11/20/01 12:23:08 AM
|
al-Jazeera
Need a bit more information to guesstimate the intent of that attack. Agree with the comments in links re US antipathy towards the network:
Whether al-J. is perfectly unbiased? (Hah - like all Our Networks??) or slanted a bit against: fact is they have indeed transmitted US rebuttals - more than lip-service IMhO to their aiming for some 'diversity of opinion', as is their claim.
To the extent US folk decry their existence: that's dumbth, if it stems from the usual ignorance - hypocrisy if it is because they present opposing opinions to ours [at all]. We do that periodically - and it is always execrable when we do. But we also do that at home; you have to be hypocrites to call a Corporate-purchased government, 'freely elected'.
As for this attack: too soon to tell if it was intentional IMO.
A.
|
Post #19,053
11/20/01 9:50:36 PM
|
Typical; once again you fsck up otherwise near-perfect post:
For 98% of your post, you're coming off as a reasonable and insightful thinker... And then you have to go make yourself look like a stereotypical blinkered Merkin with that stupid "Oh, yes, I almost forgot: "World Opinion" will blame us for trying to stop them from killing each other" comment we've seen you whine almost constantly for the last two months.
Which one is the real you?
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,675
11/18/01 9:44:08 AM
|
Legitimate government of Afghanistan?
No, I don't think so.
Only three countries recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government, and one of them, Pakistan, pretty much had to or face troubles with its border and citizens.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #18,678
11/18/01 10:30:16 AM
|
Ok, "legitimate" might be pushing it...
but was there another one that was recognized by anyone?
Serious question, as AFAIK, none.
|
Post #18,687
11/18/01 1:44:24 PM
|
UN Representation held by Pres. Rabbani.
[link|http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9810/21/taliban.un/|CNN Story from 1998]. The Taliban was never recognized by the UN as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. A quote from the story by a Taliban representative: Mujahid outlined the Taliban position in a 10-page document that lists the reasons why the Taliban should be recognized as the true government of Afghanistan and explaining their position on human rights, women's rights, drug proliferation and tensions with Iran and other neighboring countries.
"The time has come to give Afghanistan what the world owes it, a chance to build on what works well for Afghans," he wrote.
"Recognition of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan has no ill consequences to any nation and will be great and good step for the fiercely independent people of Afghanistan." Hmmmm.... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #18,688
11/18/01 1:52:45 PM
|
Also, Rabbani has returned to Kabul.
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/17/ret.chance.otsc/index.html|CNN link.] So, President Rabbani -- the man recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate leader of Afghanistan -- is moving to allay concerns that the Northern Alliance is consolidating its power on Afghanistan ahead of any political agreement to bring all the different factions together. Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #18,722
11/18/01 11:34:45 PM
|
Thanks for the info.
|
Post #19,055
11/20/01 9:53:33 PM
|
Actually, he didn't say "government".
It's still a separate *country*, isn't it, however "legitimate" or "illegitimate" (or "recognized" or "non-recognized") the *government* is? Scott: Only three countries recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government, and one of them, Pakistan, pretty much had to or face troubles with its border and citizens. But what TT actually wrote, was: But the fact that the US decided to forego and ignore a legitimate request in every sense of the word by a ruling regime, in an internationally recognized sovereign country, to provide proofs before they (the Taliban) decides what they will do, spoke volume. and But once again, US has meddled/taken side/assisted with another sovereign country's INTERNAL dispute. And the fact remains, it's the *country of Afdghanistan* you're bombing. Also, it's been two months now since Bush declared bin Laden guilty, and we still haven't seen the proof he didn't deign to show the Taliban. Wasn't that supposed to be, like, forthcoming? Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #19,262
11/23/01 8:22:03 PM
|
Uh, wrong?
What "we" have seen is that after 9/11, the US declared "war on terrorism" and "claimed" that al Qaeda was responsible, and refused the Taliban "legitimate request" for proof of guilt before handling over OBL and at the same time branded the Taliban, then legitimate government of Afghanistan as accomplice and initiate bombing of a sovereign country, allying itself with the NA. Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #19,266
11/23/01 9:56:40 PM
|
Ah, OK. Yeah, I missed 1 out of 3 places he mentioned it.
But even so, that request from a *de facto* government doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Also, my two points remain.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
