One concern

Post #10,086 by Fearless Freep 9/21/01 11:33:50 AM Reply	One concern For the most part I thought the speech was pretty good I'm pretty seriously concerned about one aspect, which was a reiteration of other speeches given recently When the talk turns to fighting against all terrorism, I get concerned simply because it's not spelled out what terrorism really is, so where do you stop? What 'terrorists' wll we go after? And what will that cost in terms of cooperation? An example: Saudi Arabia has good reason to support us against Al Qaeda. Bin Laden is an exiled Saudi with strong support there in his plans to overthrow the Saudi government for their allowing U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. However! If we are going against all terrorists, then that would reasonably seem to include certain Palestinian groups. Can we distinguish the terrorist arms of the PLO from the political? Will the PLO let us? Do we have to fight the entire PLO? Does it make sense to? Will the rest of the Arab world, especially the Saudis, who will support us against bin Laden really support us against the Palestinians? Now take the same question and reapply it to the IRA in Northern Ireland... Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #10,116 by mmoffitt 9/21/01 1:22:13 PM Reply	What about Israel's terrorist attacks on Palestineans? Oops, sorry, those weren't terrorist attacks, they were "covert operations, secret even in success". The Resident's speech sickened me. Has everyone but the 12% who didn't think he made a compelling case forgotten that we put these guys in power back when we were fighting the "Evil Empire"? Has everyone forgotten that we sent 2,000 missles into Lebanese neighborhoods in response to 1 terrorist killing 200 Marines? HOW ABOUT OUR SHOOTING DOWN A CIVILIAN AIRLINER? The Resident's propaganda notwithstanding, HERE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS SO MANY IN THE ARAB WORLD DO NOT LIKE US: 1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return. 1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria. 1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. 1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms. 1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region. 1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability". early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim. 1963: U.S. reported to gives Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor. 1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war. 1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO. 1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt. 1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt. 1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." 1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail. 1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid. 1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290. 1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and two Libyan planes shot down. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing two, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter. 1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing more than 10,000 civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense. 1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks. 1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner. 1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq. 1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights. 1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declares that "the price is worth it." 1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier. 1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter. 1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
Post #10,118 by bepatient 9/21/01 1:39:44 PM Reply	So...its our fault, right? We have implemented policies in the region that make us the "unfavored"...so the 6500+ lives lost are just retribution? And we did not put these guys in power. Check your facts. And you site increased association with Iraq in the late 80s. Based largely because of the dispute with Iran...which had recently taken US citizens hostage...so we were financially supporting someone in a fight against a country that had conducted acts of war against the US. And you still seem to ignore that the Gulf War was a direct response to the Iraqi invasion. And a dimplomatic solution would have been reached had only Saddam withdrawn the troops. Instead, he massed them on the Saudi border. But we told him it was ok, right? Sure you can take over Kuwait...and why not threaten the northern oilfields in Saudi too? We don't care. Even Saddam Hussein isn't that stupid. He, like BinLaden, doubted our resolve and our ability to act. Big mistake. And you weren't listening to the speech either. Terrorist groups with >global reach<. This was how he gets out of addressing groups like the IRA...where the activity is regional. BUT, I would not be surprised to see shared intel and action against any group that conducts an act of terror in any location. So...if I were the IRA...I don't think it would be wise to bomb Herrods ever again. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,204 by mmoffitt 9/22/01 11:31:54 AM Reply	Reading for Content 101. The point of the list, which btw is not my creation - apologies to true author, I must've finger-fscked the cut from my email, but the point is that the Resident "misspoke" [that's the Republican word for lying, right?] when he said that the reason the terrorists committed this deplorable, indefensible act, was because they hate freedom and democracy. As the list points out, there are other far more compelling reasons for them to lash out against us than the overly simplistic "they don't believe in Murican Democracy" rationale given by Dubya. (Aside: Perhaps that is what he was told to simplify things to the point that even he could understand them? I remember during the campaign an interview in which he could not identify many of the world leaders he's now talking about. He's new at this, but, "give him a chance", right?). I guess for a Polly-Anna its difficult to accept that we, too, are not without sin when it comes to terrorist actions.
Post #10,206 by bepatient 9/22/01 11:47:38 AM 9/22/01 11:49:19 AM Reply	All that that list attempts to do... ...is try and defend the indefensible. In essence...to turn the blame back at us for the taking of those civilian lives. I can read for content. I can also read for purpose. The entire purpose of items like these are to deflect blame away from the terrorists. Sorry. I won't accept that line of reasoning. I will not accept a verdict of contributory negligence in an act as heinous as this. And you...in an effort to tar W with any brush you can lay your hands on...will now call him a liar with no proof except a list of items with questionable history leading you to surmise a terrorist's intent. I suggest you [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/\| read the speech. ] On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?" They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. Now...my friend...in addition to overstating your case...would you assume that your buddy Gore would have included your list in a speech designed to calm and then rally the people of the United States? Give me a fucking break with this Reading for Comprehension bullshit. You are the clueless one here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Sept. 22, 2001, 11:48:22 AM EDT Edited by bepatient Sept. 22, 2001, 11:49:19 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #10,221 by TTC 9/22/01 5:12:07 PM Reply	Re: All that that list attempts to do... The blame for the bombing lies SQUARELY on the terrorists who have commited this heinous act. HOWEVER, imnsho, Americans should have seen this coming in view of all of the prior actions as listed in [url=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=10116]here[/url]\|http://z.iwethey.or...6]here[/url]]. Are the bombing action justifiable? Not in any RATIONAL sense. But if you were to use the same EMOTIONAL outrage you have against the terrorists and view it from the perspective of those whose homes are consistently bombarded for non-compliance with US sanctions, you kind of get an understanding of what some fanatics will do to the American government. That in essense is, imnsho, what many of those who "toed" this line are implying. Yes, it's a tragic tragedy. But for the Americans to act like it's totally innocent of being in the "same shoes" as those of the terrorists is trying to whitewash history to suit American's propoganda. I especially "like" all the "defense" that all America targeted were military installation and not civilians and that ample warnings have been given and any civilian casualties were "collateral damages" and placing the blame on the opposing governments (note, government, not the people). And the current direction of amassing large amount of troops in the Mid-East, that's exactly the kind of actions "expected" from the US. One question I've wondered is, if ALL Taliban is asking for proofs in order to hand over OBL, and that the FBI/CIA are so DAMN sure it was him (with proofs of course I hope), then what's stopping the US government from doing so and show once and for all that the US indeed has the moral high ground instead of appearing as another instance of "I have the military might, so do as I say OR ELSE" that has been the impression for many non-Americans. There is no doubt that almost everyone eympathized with the tragedy. Whether the US can take advantage of the "soft-spot" it has of many who held the belief that US is arrogant and change their impression depends on its action, but so far, it has not changed mine. Altenatively, you can take this post as written by an anti-American idiot, if that suits you better.
Post #10,222 by mmoffitt 9/22/01 5:18:54 PM Reply	Very Well Said.
Post #10,230 by bepatient 9/22/01 7:54:44 PM Reply	Seen this coming? We should have expected this? We should have somehow thought it our due? I'm sorry you don't understand my point...which is simply...to use these lists to claim that we should have expected this act...is to turn at least a portion of the blame on ourselves. No matter how you come back afterwards and say otherwise. How can you say "we should have seen this coming" without a tacit "we did something to >deserve< it". How many soldiers killed on the Cole. How many civilians killed in the Embassies in Africa. How many marines killed in Saudi and Beirut. We've seen it. And up until now we have reacted, in their eyes, with >weakness<. And the current direction of amassing large amount of troops in the Mid-East, that's exactly the kind of actions "expected" from the US. I completely disagree. Osama Bin Laden declared his jihad because there are US troops on Saudi soil. It has fuck all to do with all of those other things that you've listed. He pushed once...got limited response, pushed again and got a couple of cruise missiles...he pushed again and now he will pay dearly (hopefully). The Taliban would not accept ANY proof...and if you think they would you are kidding yourself. Many have claimed we put them in power....and again you are kidding yourself. Bin Laden was expecting us to lob a cruise missile or 2 at a couple of camps. He was not expecting us to turn the free world against him. To freeze his assets. To declare war on the Taliban for supporting him. He was expecting us to react with weakness. I believe he was wrong. I hope I am right. What are we, the US, to do in this region. If we act...we are being the "big bully imperialist power"...and if we don't we are "evil capitalists that have no compassion for those in need". Damned if we do, damned if we don't. The only way to solve this now is to grind them to dust....and to force those who assist them (the Taliban, Khadafi, Hussein) to pay dearly for that support. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,253 by Ashton 9/23/01 3:57:20 AM Reply	It's one thing to understand 'their' motivations, another to deem those adequate for this orders-of magnitude escalation. Listing some of the grievances of others is not tantamount to inferring that the lists imply, "we had THIS coming". We've made beaucoup errors, and there's no other country without their own list of ignorant actions too (the French in 'Algeria' - er, over and over - always a bit short of intelligence about who their foes were, each time). Let us not forget the Netherlands - culpable in some of the nearest -genocidal atrocities in Africa, early last century. And the Belgians! - some real cutthroats in their merchant class. Europe looted Africa. India saved somewhat, for having little to loot. But (virtual) slavelabor appears to be the current raw material of interest to the world of the rich: US and Europe. One difference between us and all others is - our unequalled power of $ and arms, which colors and magnifies the consequences of our errors. We mention 'democracy' a lot and so, much more is expected from us. We are also quite variable in our own grokking of the intricacies of the intrigues we step into: Picking Ngo Dinh Diem as surrogate in Vietnem, for one. Ignoring the locals' objections then and there, and .. in a pattern across our own neighbors, from the CIA-sponsored assassination of Allende in Chile, through Guatemala, Nicaragua (the US-anointed Freedom Fighters + Ronnie's naive US-flag waving over these thugs) .. and more, just in this hemisphere. (Cuba gets its own thread: Bautista was Our Kind of guy). Now we have the Drug Warz: Hey everybody! we need so many of these drugs which we try to Prohibit(!) - you* have to stop answering our demand!, whatever it does within Your country. Because, we have the power to force you to. I think it's hardly debatable by now: the extent and details of our causing many others to pay any price, bear any burden...* as a consequence of our cynical deals with local despots -- against our very own hallowed principles. And with the likes of Sam Walton Walmart practically dictating what he will pay the workers in our neighborhood today (or threaten to move on to the next near-bankrupt country, already pillaged in previous deals) - we indicate that in every case: massive US bizness profit is a much more compelling criterion than our claimed 'ideals'. (Not that our actions inhibit our sanctimony of ever claiming.. those ideals, as we evade them.) Still, and for all the unsettled and even ongoing minor atrocities - some due to sheer ineptness rather than just greed: No, we should not have 'expected' 9/11! (expected as in 'earned'). We should have expected something though.. virtually any day IMhO, for all items mentioned on this short list - and especially for the fact of all the periodic warnings that even made it through our happy-talk newsfotainment Corporations. (As other posts have mentioned since 9/11 - even the idea of using planes in this way is NOT new. In fact I recall that argument being a part of the design of containment structures for nuc. reactors - all along, certainly by the early '60s.) And yes, I know - for every Murican (or any others') 'atrocity' -- always are there the skilled rationales and rationalizations. Even before the lawyers begin. Locals ignore these - talk is cheap, and they stay dirt poor. Somehow.. the idea that a Chosen People should control ~ HALF (\ufffd depending on the item) of the world's wealth with <5% of its population: appears to me to be the simplest possible place to begin, if there is anyone around who has trouble imagining.. Why should anyone dislike us, a lot? Ashton
Post #10,264 by bepatient 9/23/01 9:14:06 AM Reply	Well I guess it just depends... ...on who you listen to and how much truth you attach to their statements. Bin Laden's beef has always been very simple....there are US troops "in the holy land". The "holy land" in reference is Saudi. He declared a jihad against us because we didn't leave after the Gulf War. bluke pointed out the accuracy of the list put before us of "questionable" diplomatic decisions over the course of years. And, there is and can be no satisfaction to some...as our actions are questioned...our lack of action would also be questioned. Damned in both directions. Because there is a certain element that can never be satisfied. And I'm sorry that you, too, (surprisingly) seem to be missing the tacit assumption of complicity that those lists imply. Sure they don't imply the scale of the atrocity...but had it only been 15 soldiers aboard a boat...they probably wouldn't be so quick to back away from that position. Instead its 6500 (and rising) innocent civilians. I cannot accept even a hint of that complicity. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,285 by Ashton 9/23/01 5:31:00 PM Reply	Yes it seems than bin-L's beef is quite provincial.. And that especially - the nature of what "he says" is his beef - underscores the utter inappropriateness of the acts of 9/11. It was the act of no-longer humans in the throes of ultimate Religious-insanity: My Idea IS Right = supersedes all other persons' ideas and their lives too. We / No One "deserved" this insanity. To imagine so, is to become a mechanical part of a computer game, a non-human being. As we have become militarily invincible, so have we become less and less sensitive to the many in the world who simply - do not want to live as Muricans live, embrace their 'values' (farmily or other), subordinate all of life to: mercantile machinations 24/7. In that sense, how could we not hear-fron the many many less-powerful, whose lives are daily affected by our powerful worldwide actions and yes - manipulations ?? But in attention-getting manner, not in doomsday scenarios for all who want a more-open society, free as possible from theological zealotry of all the infinite stripes. And finally it IS about - The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper and others). I agree with those who ID this atrocity on that scale. Underlying it all is the fact too, of how much easier is destruction of a complex (organism?) than its creation - symbolized by the ~7 years to construct the towers, an hour to doom them - seconds! for their compression into dust + thousands of ordinary human beings. I believe this is the 'scale', order of magnitude of what has been launched. No existing 'slogans' can capture the opened Pandora's box, or accurately describe the nature of the quality of all decisions that must be made, next and for the foreseeable. 9/11 ended one era. (The one of "luck" from the infinite possible destructive mechanisms?) Good luck to us all then. And.. restraint. Nobody 'knows' how to deal with matters on such a scale as this. Ashton
Post #10,223 by mmoffitt 9/22/01 5:20:14 PM Reply	Nonsense. Defend? Bullshit. See any of my earlier posts. You obviously CANNOT read with any comprehension. Probably not your fault. You have clearly demonstrated that on matters such as these, you are blinded by the Right.
Post #10,231 by bepatient 9/22/01 8:02:11 PM Reply	You seem to have a problem... ...understanding yourself. You post a list of things that the US has done in the region that, you say, gives those in the region a reason to hate us. Do you think that, in this context, that does anything OTHER than attempt to excuse their behavior? Obviously you think you can do one without the other...I seem to disagree. You also call W a liar...based upon misquotes of his speech....and then tell me I need to comprehend things better. Wow. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,119 by Fearless Freep 9/21/01 1:52:03 PM Reply	That was my point Oops, sorry, those weren't terrorist attacks, they were "covert operations, secret even in success". One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Difficult to get everyone to agree on who 'all terrorists' are Has everyone but the 12% who didn't think he made a compelling case forgotten that we put these guys in power back when we were fighting the "Evil Empire"? Read the other post above; we didn't put the Taliban in power, that was a Saudi/Pakistani back door deal. (However, we did seem to allow it once we found out) Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #10,137 by screamer 9/21/01 4:25:48 PM Reply	NO! You write: "Read the other post above; we didn't put the Taliban in power, that was a Saudi/Pakistani back door deal. (However, we did seem to allow it once we found out)" What do you mean "allow". Do you mean we didn't send troops in right away? As far as I can tell, only three countries acknowledged the legitamicy of the Taliban government... Saudi Arabia, (either United Arab Emirates or Iraq) and Pakistan. We have consistently refused to acknowledge them in the UN or any other "REAL" government. There are two sides to every story, but flying commercial civilian jets into civilian office buildings defies any sane defense. The Palestinians have a "just" complaint, the Taliban are just using them and any other legitimate cause to fulfill their prepubescent dreams of world domination. They are full of shit and don't deserve rational discourse. They are the terrorists. They are in Syria, they are in Egypt, they are in Saudi Arabia, and they are in Afghanistan. They are not, however the general population of any of these countries. I posted a good link in the Religion forum if you would like to know more about the Taliban. A long time ago (think the Middle Ages), the refugees from medieval Europe that founded this country separated church from state to keep just this kind of fascism (and the fascism of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition or Hitler's Nazi Germany) from happening here. The Taliban are fascist and oppress their own people. Those that in any way try to defend the absolute cowardice of the folks who did these bombings are either in denial about what actually happened or are simply full of shit. In other words, to call these subhuman cowards "freedom fighters" is an insult to fighters and freedom. If someone flies a commercial plane into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon or American Embassies in African (ala you may be a redneck), they are most probably f*&king terrorists... OK. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #10,138 by Fearless Freep 9/21/01 4:37:32 PM Reply	NO! What do you mean "allow". I mean "looked the other way when we could've taken them out", as some were recommending we should do. The 'other post' I referred to is [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=10109\| here] which links to an article [link\|http://www.politicsol.com/guest-commentaries/2001-09-18.html\|here] which makes the point that For years, I begged the previous administration, our government, to support those resisting the Taliban regime, to support the former King Zahir Shah, and to let him head an interim government until a more democratic process could be put in place. This was an alternative we had. Instead, the only response that I got from the previous administration was stonewalling, stonewalling that and stonewalling my request to find out what the government's real policies were. In other words, to call these subhuman cowards "freedom fighters" I didn't call the Taliban freedom fighters,; my point was that there are other groups in the world (IRA? Basque Seperatists in Spain?) who some one consider 'terrorists' and others would consider not. Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #10,144 by screamer 9/21/01 5:22:51 PM Reply	Thanks for the clarification... I jumped into this discussion without checking the other links. Understood now. Sorry for the noise. I understand the need to want to try to understand the "why's" of this tragedy, but I don't think fascism can be intellectualized. I think I was reacting more to the post you were responding to. Not that I disagree that many of these monsters were "our" creation, that also means that these monsters are our responsibility. I understand that there are many "tweeners" out there... I.E. "countries that harbor terrorists"... by that broad definition, we would have to attack ourselves, because we harbored some of the pilots for years before September 11. I honestly believe that our government is targeting known terrorists organizations right now... Ones they have known about for years but feared to do anything about them because of the potential for negative world opinion. They now have carte blanche to take care of business as they see fit. I expect that our leaders will act brutally, swiftly, and very openly... This retaliation is to serve as a deterrent to future "wannabe" terrorists or any countries that would harbor them in the way that the Taliban are permitting Bin Laden. That is just my interpretation... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #10,139 by Simon_Jester 9/21/01 4:39:49 PM Reply	wait a minute.. There are two sides to every story, but flying commercial civilian jets into civilian office buildings defies any sane defense. The Palestinians have a "just" complaint, the Taliban are just using them and any other legitimate cause to fulfill their prepubescent dreams of world domination. The Taliban have dreams of prepubescent world domination?
Post #10,147 by screamer 9/21/01 5:34:44 PM Reply	Well, I took the liberty of implying that they were SANE. If they are not, they are merely committing mass suicide for themselves and the fanatics that may follow. If they were sane, my reasoning goes something like this. The Afghanistani rebels who "whooped" the big bad super power - the former Soviet Union - actually believe that they were responsible for the fall of communism. A preposterous notion for anyone who knows anything at all about the former Soviet Union... but let's just say that these folks (war torn, broke, illiterate, with no televisions, radios, easiely manipulated, etc...) believe this is true, because they are told this by their government... They have this notion that if they goad the "great satan" into war by blowing up symbols of their financial and military power (and probably the Pittsburgh plane was headed for the Capitol or White House), that they can rally the entire Muslim nations behind their "Jihad" (again, a foolish notion - millitarily, all of the Islamic countries combined pose little to no threat to a determined NATO, let alone atomic/neutron bomb if too many soldiers showed up)... No, I have to think that these fundamentalists truly believe that they are truly representing Islam and that the "others" will be enlightened and join in... Or else, they really are just suicidal maniacs... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #10,203 by mmoffitt 9/22/01 11:21:21 AM Reply	I guess the Taliban didn't benefit from the... power vacuum we created, right? Geez, Mikem I wish I had tunnel vision. I'd be such a better American.
Post #10,129 by Another Scott 9/21/01 3:20:24 PM Reply	A counterpoint. Hi Mike, A counterpoint from [link\|http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=788407\|The Economist] The seeds of discord Perhaps it would be more profitable to look deeper into the past. During the half-century of the cold war, the United States undoubtedly subordinated principles as well as causes to the overriding concern of defeating communism. The great upholder of laws at home was happy to trash them abroad, whether invading Grenada or mining Nicaraguan harbours. It propped up caudillos in Latin America, backed tyrants in Africa and Asia, promoted coups in the Middle East. More recently, it has been willing to kick invaders out of Kuwait, to strike at ruthless states like Libya and Iraq and, moreover, to go on trying to contain them with sanctions and, in Iraq's case, with almost incessant bombardment. Is it here perhaps\ufffdespecially in the Middle East\ufffdthat America has gone wrong? No. The Economist has not been an uncritical supporter of American policy in the Middle East. We have been more ready to argue the Palestinian case than have recent administrations and believe that the United States could sometimes have done more to restrain Israel. We have also pointed out that the policy of sanctions against Iraq, whatever its intention, in practice punishes innocent Iraqis and thus allows Saddam Hussein to blame the West, notably America, for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. Perhaps nothing does more to fuel anti-American resentment in the Arab world. Such criticisms as we have made, however, in no way imply that we think America was wrong to fight the Gulf war or to try to disarm Saddam afterwards. It was also right to stand by Saudi Arabia as an ally, however much that annoyed zealots. Similarly, whatever Israel's mistakes, America can hardly be accused of having failed to try to bring it to a peace: every administration of recent years has attempted to bring the two sides together, and none has come closer than Bill Clinton's last year. America defends its interests, sometimes skilfully, sometimes clumsily, just as other countries do. Since power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, it steps into places where disorder reigns. On the whole, it should do so more, not less, often. Of all the great powers in history, it is probably the least territorial, the most idealistic. Muslims in particular should note that the armed interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, both led by America, were attacks on Christian regimes in support of Muslim victims. In neither did the United States stand to make any material gain; in neither were its vital interests, conventionally defined, at stake. Those who criticise America's leadership of the world's capitalist system\ufffda far from perfect affair\ufffdshould remember that it has brought more wealth and better living standards to more people than any other in history. And those who regret America's triumph in the cold war should stop to think how the world would look if the Soviet Union had won. America's policies may have earned it enemies. But in truth, it is difficult to find plausible explanations for the virulence of last week's attacks, except in the envy, hatred and moral confusion of those who plotted and perpetrated them. Cheers, Scott.
Post #10,205 by mmoffitt 9/22/01 11:40:47 AM Reply	Well put. I'm not at all sure that I disagree with the viewpoint you posted. What I disagree with vehemently is the notion that Amercians can do no wrong. I don't think its wise for the only remaining super-power to have an official policy of "you're either fer us, or agin us". That attitude can cause far more problems in the world, imho. I object to the Resident's speech because it was too belicose, which plays into the terrorists mindset.
Post #10,224 by bluke 9/22/01 5:21:43 PM Reply	Get your facts straight Your list of historical events is full of mistakes half truths etc. 1)1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return. As a goodwill gesture during the Lausanne negotiations in 1949, Israel offered to take back 100,000 Palestinian refugees prior to any discussion of the refugee question. The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel's existence. (Nadav Safran, Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press, p 336. So extreme was the Arab position that the former director in Jordan of UN aid to the Palestinians, Ralph Galloway, stated: The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don\ufffdt give a damn whether the refugees live or die. (Ralph Galloway, UNRWA, as quoted by Terence Prittie in The Palestinians: People History, Politics, p 71) That destruction of Israel \ufffd and the rights and freedoms of Israelis \ufffd would be the goal of repatriated Palestinian refugees was, in the past, explicitly admitted by Arab leaders. For example, the post-war Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, declared: ... in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly \ufffd the intention is the extermination of Israel. (Al-Misri, 11 October 1949, as quoted by N. Feinberg, p109) 2) 1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war. First of all it is UN Resolution 242 not 244. Second of all despite the resounding victory in this war, Israel immediately turned to the Arab states with an offer to negotiate peace. The Arabs rejected the Israeli overtures outright at the Khartoum Conference with the statement: "No peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of the state of Israel." Lastly and most importantly, Resolution 242 calls for an end to the state of war and requires Israel to withdraw to "safe and recognized borders". The Resolution does not require Israel to retreat to the pre-Six Day War border separating the Israeli and Jordanian forces. General Stowe, former Under Secretary of State and one of the main architects of Resolution 242, has said time and again that the wording in the resolution is not vague and that the omission of specific borders was done intentionally. The determination that Israel must withdraw to 1967 borders, which were nicknamed by Abba Eban "Auschwitz Borders", is a fiction staunchly maintained by the Arabs and by the rest of the world. The Security Council never demanded that from Israel. 3)1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO. This was a bad thing? The US supported the existing government against a band of terrorists. 4) 1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt. Since Sadat was the President of Egypt your claim makes absolutely no sense 5) 1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt. So I guess the US should have let Israel lose the war and the Arabs slaughter the Jews (after all their slogan was throw the Jews into the sea). 6) 1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). This was a bad thing? We should have just aquiesed to Saddam Hussein's takeover of Kuwait? You remind me of Neville Chamberlain in 1938. Appeasement of dictators never works.
Post #10,233 by bepatient 9/22/01 8:08:59 PM Reply	Don't bother them... ...with the truth. It'll shatter their world view. We're the bad guys...remember? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,351 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 11:10:39 AM Reply	Not the Bad Guys, just not the Completely Innocent.
Post #10,365 by TTC 9/24/01 12:50:58 PM Reply	Re: Don't bother them... Facts or YOUR preferred view of facts? Fact is, no one here is trying to JUSTIFY the action. Fact is, folks here are trying to show you that when emotions rules, rationale goes out the window, as shown by the terrorists, AND by the many Americans, civilians and politicians alike who called for the nuking of the whole Arab region. JUSTIFIABLE? Fact is, up until now, the CIA and FBI have made themselves looked kinda foolish by proclaiming long dead persons and innocent "Arabic" persons as terrorist involved in the 911 incident. Yet everyone, including the Taliban "authority" are supposed to believe that their claim that OBL is involved and hand him over. JUSTIFIABLE? Fact is, the US is AGAIN using its military and economic strength to "strongarm" other nations with "if you are not with us (US), you are with the terrorists" into submission. JUSTIFIABLE? Fact is, you are denoucing everyone who does not choose to view the events from a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN's POV.
Post #10,373 by addison 9/24/01 1:25:11 PM Reply	Re: Don't bother them... Yet everyone, including the Taliban "authority" are supposed to believe that their claim that OBL is involved and hand him over. JUSTIFIABLE? Bin Laden has been indicited, I believe, in a US court already for other terrorist activities. That would indicate that there is certainly some evidence that he's behind terrorism. Add to that his warning, AND the Taliban's tacit admission he's organizing terrorist activities, and yeah, they're supposed to believe it, they're aware of it. Fact is, the US is AGAIN using its military and economic strength to "strongarm" other nations with "if you are not with us (US), you are with the terrorists" into submission. JUSTIFIABLE? You mean like when we strongarmed Japan from building a SE Asia empire? Now, you're right. There is some overstatement going on. And we have been dancing with the devil for too long - and letting the terrorists build their networks with too little impedance. Sure. And so this is the overreaction. But Bin Laden apparently was behind the murders of many (non-Americans) with the Embassy bombings, and apparently was the driving force behind this attack. What is the "proper" reaction in this case? Addison
Post #10,396 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 4:03:01 PM Reply	Ah. There's the rub. >>What is the "proper" reaction in this case? I was at the airport yesterday and a couple of pilots were discussing this. One of them said, "Well, I sure am glad the election turned out the way it did. Can you imagine Al Gore handling this?" The other replied, "Yeah. He'd want us to go over and hug them to death." I found the remarks curious for a variety of reasons (which I'll spare you in deference to yourself and Beep). However, the one thing we cannot do, imo, is allow the rage that I myself felt immediately following the tragedy, and that many others continue to feel, to dictate our response. But even that depends on what the purpose of the response is. If we only want to strike back - kill anyone or anything for fear of being perceived as having done nothing, then all this saber rattling, nuke 'em talk, etc. makes sense. But is that what we truly want? Wouldn't it be better if we diminished (to the extent possible) the likelihood that this will happen again? Thinking we can kill every like minded person in the world is a fool's errand. And unless you can accomplish that, an exclusively violent response will be ineffective. Massive retaliation against those who "might" be "associated" with those responsible could bring even more violence, heighten anti-US sentiment and encourage even more oppressed people to believe that we are "evil", leading to more atrocious actions.
Post #10,401 by bepatient 9/24/01 4:33:30 PM Reply	It is this line of reasoning... Massive retaliation against those who "might" be "associated" with those responsible could bring even more violence, heighten anti-US sentiment and encourage even more oppressed people to believe that we are "evil", leading to more atrocious actions. ...that makes us a continued target. In their mind...this is weakness. This is how we've ALWAYS responded. Change is good. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,405 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 4:46:16 PM Reply	So, violence, does not lead to more violence?
Post #10,413 by bepatient 9/24/01 5:04:51 PM Reply	In this case I would have to give a qualified yes. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,414 by Another Scott 9/24/01 5:07:44 PM Reply	Talking past each other, I think. - None of the people who will be prosecuting the war from the US (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) are talking about exclusively military actions. - Those on the US side are working to make sure nothing else is done to the US or "our interests" by those responsible for the Pentagon and WTC attacks. That's why things like crop-duster-restrictions are in place; today's freezing of assets of suspected terrorists, etc.; etc. - Just about everyone recognizes the risks of poorly targeted attacks by the US. That's why they're stressing intelligence help from other countries so strongly. It's not a matter, in my mind, of being against violence versus being against terrorists. We're against both. IMO, the overriding objectives have to be, in this order: 1. Stopping attacks by the specific group responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. If that means that the guilty group has to be terminated, then so be it. The US must be able to defend itself. 2. Working with allies to root out similar terrorist organizations. 3. Working with allies to reduce the appeal of violent fundamentalism by improving the economic and political situation in countries around the world (including places like Saudi Arabia which are our nominal allies). If these 3 things can be done simultaneously, then great. But #1 has to be completed first. You can't put out a fire in your house by worrying about whether the water from the fire hose is going to make your carpet mildew.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #10,400 by bepatient 9/24/01 4:30:32 PM Reply	Interesting... ...that you give all sorts of reasons why we should have expected something to happen...yet deny that the list indeed gives some culpability to the US in these acts. Funny how I can't let that little slip in logic pass. And you rail on facts versus "my view" of the facts. Et tu TTC? What is your solution? Should we just sit back and wait for DNA evidence on a wire transfer of funds from a Bin Laden bank account to a terrorist cell? These folks are COUNTING on the fact that we will act as we always have acted...with weakness. What was our response to Lockerbie, the USS Cole, the african embassies? Was it one of strength or weakness. NOT FROM YOUR POV...but pretend to be a terrorist...just for a second. You sponsored the killing of nearly 10,000 civilians in the past 4 years...and the best that the "enemy" has come up with so far was the destruction of a pill factory and the capture of a couple of terrorists who will view life in prison as a tribute to Allah. Fact is I am denouncing anyone who wishes to continue the trend of pussyfooting around the terrorist issue. Yes we should use all of the combined might of the United States and anyone who care join Mr Sam in a quest to hunt down and punish anyone involved in this action...either directly or by implicit support. Lets see if you think this a "patriotic" issue if the next target is somewhere closer to your home...or if the next attack happens to be biological...and kills millions (perhaps billlions) worldwide. And please let me see a link to these "long dead persons and innocent Arabic persons" that we've blamed for these attacks. Certainly innocent people have been questioned in relationship to this case. If I were to commit some heinous act...I'm sure than many who knew me (completely innocently) would still be questioned...its called "investigation". And are you attempting to make us believe that the Taliban would hand Bin Laden over >even with incontrovertable evidence<? I somehow doubt this. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,353 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 11:15:36 AM Reply	I lost the mail, but here is a link. [link\|http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm\|http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm] I had intended to give the author credit, but finger-fscked my cut/paste operation apparently.
Post #10,404 by bepatient 9/24/01 4:45:55 PM Reply	Wow... ...Looking for views from noted left thinkers...look no further. Thats a flashing banner on the the zmag site. And [link\|http://healingtrauma.protest.net/\|just in case you get beat up at the next rally] Hmmm...and TTC questions >my< biased view of the facts. Wow again. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #10,406 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 4:49:59 PM Reply	One for you ;-) [link\|http://www.rushlimbaugh.com\|http://www.rushlimbaugh.com]
Post #10,412 by bepatient 9/24/01 5:04:05 PM Reply	He has a web site? Never seen it till now...it sucks about as bad as his radio show. Rush has long past his relevence. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!