Re: Cant even you see ...

Post #14,926 by dmarker2 10/24/01 9:45:45 AM Reply	Re: Cant even you see ... The reverse logic in this .... "So, here we have a bunch of guys, and they are guys, hiding behind innocents. How innocent are civilians if they allow such a thing? Do they have any choice?" You are stating that the US is no different from the murderous bastards who carried out the Sept 11 attack except for this pithy admonition "'they' started it, 'they' deserve whats coming to them " !!! think about it !!! So what is the price if US starts extending 'collateral damge" using the justification that Taliban fighters are moving in amongst civilians. We are not there just to kill Taliban & their minions - it is terrorists we are after or have you too forgotten this in the hunt to kill any one we deem as tainted with terrorist association no matter how far removed. I might even hear the OBL trap clanging shut already (except I keep saying thank god Powell is in charge). Soooo sad !!!! Cheers Doug Marker
Post #14,928 by addison 10/24/01 9:51:04 AM Reply	You're not seeing something very important. The Taliban moved troops into Civilian areas. That has not resulted in our bombing of those civilian areas - yet - and if we do, we will be trying our hardest not to hit civilians. That's the difference between "us and them". And you keep making a distinction between OBL and the Taliban - despite the testimony of most involved that they are tied at the hip, and would have been involved with the bombing. They certainly were running "training camps". The US goal appears to be to remove the Taliban from power, as part of the strike against terrorism. If you hide behind civilians, and the civilians are hit, who's fault is that? Its a damn shame, but you cannot avoid accidentally killing people who were not your target. So who's responsibility is it? The person shooting, or the person trying to use the shooters sensiblities against them by hiding behind someone "innocent"? Remember, the Taliban has said that there *are no "innocent" Americans". Addison
Post #14,937 by dmarker2 10/24/01 10:25:43 AM Reply	Re: maybe we are honing in on something here "That's the difference between "us and them"." How ?, the Taliban (really just a convenient label) is different in what way ? When we talk of the Taliban who are you meaning - the ones Colin Powell will approve of as part of the new Govt ?, the current spiritual leader Mullah Omar ?, the 2 Taliban idiots who keep appearing on CNN (the Hekel & Jekyl act), the council of Mullahs ?. Again I feel you are trying to do here what you are quite good at (in a complimentary way) you are trying to boil the situation down into its simplest elements but the reality hin this case is it isn't that simple. I say again that calling everyone you can attach the Taliban label to as muderous, is an appaling over simplification and lends itself to dehumanizing the real people caught up in this awful crisis. We are not on a turkey shoot to pop off every Taliban turkey - they are not our target. It is terrorists and their infrastructure. Taking our fury out of so called Taliban soldiers and collateral civillians solely because we have switched our venom from terrorists we can't see to people in Afghanistan we call Taliban, is not wise. The original terrorists in their perverse way did that to the victims in the US. Cheers Doug PS - I was arguing right from the start that Taliban and OBL were one and the same (check the posts) but I will now qualify that by saying that I always meant the current Taliban leaders and esp Mullah Omar. I never extended that to ordinary soldiers & citizens under Taliban rule. Also I will say here & now that Powell will include Taliban moderates in the new Govt (those left after the turkey shoot :-)
Post #14,999 by gtall 10/24/01 4:13:54 PM Reply	Re: Cant even you see ... You are stating that the US is no different from the murderous bastards who carried out the Sept 11 attack except for this pithy admonition I stated no such thing. I asked a rhetorical question to the effect of "how do we treat a situation where the guilty hide behind the innocent." I didn't go further to claim that we are therefore justified in killing off the bastards making us murderous bastards. In fact, I didn't claim to hold any position on the matter except to state that the U.S. is getting pushed into holding a position. Which position, or rather which view the U.S. should take, I specifically did not say. So what is the price if US starts extending 'collateral damge" using the justification that Taliban fighters are moving in amongst civilians? Precisely, I inserted a question mark at the end of your statement. I should have stated that as another rhetorical question. We are not there just to kill Taliban & their minions - it is terrorists we are after or have you too forgotten this in the hunt to kill any one we deem as tainted with terrorist association no matter how far removed. I don't get how asking the question I asked gets you to the point that you think I think we should kill them all. If you are equating the Taliban with the whole populace (outside of the Northern coalition), you might think I said that. But I distinctly said that the Pashtun warlords (and left unsaid that presumed the people under their control) were not Taliban. I do not believe they consider themselves Taliban if what I read is correct. Rather, it appears they merely went with the flow in order to get some sort of stability. You are right that bin Laden thinks he has a trap. At the beginning of the U.S. attacks I said in one of these messages that I would rather have waited and jerked the Taliban around a bit longer. However, there would have been a danger in doing that also by giving bin Laden more time to plan more attacks. The Taliban, in my estimation, are a small percentage of Afghanis. We will make them stronger by bombing the wrong things, even if the Taliban are hiding behind them. But I think the question still remains: if the Taliban are going to support bin Laden, who has stated his goal is to kill Americans whenever he can, and if the Taliban hide behind their own innocents, what should the U.S response be? To kill them makes us as bad as they, to not kill them makes us dead. Saying we should go after only the terrorists is a laudable goal. Is it realistic? I don't know. I can argue both ways. (1) if we kill'em all, we got the terrorists. Of course to do this means we will spawn more hatred which will spawn more terrorists. So we don't win. (2) to let them be means we haven't killed the terrorists which will spawn more terrorists because nothing succeeds like success and the terrorist wannabees are going to line up behind bin Laden who will be seen as the victor. So we don't win. You would presumably argue we can get bin Laden without killing the civilians. I don't know if we can do that. Suppose bin Laden now hides out amongst the civilians? What would you have our next move be? Gerard Allwein
Post #15,001 by Ashton 10/24/01 4:40:16 PM Reply	Heh.. luck? Your logic is impeccable here (no sarcasm implied whatsoever). Only metaphor suffices to describe our position now .. Deep Doodoo? Rock//HardPlace.* And I wouldn't blame Dubya (if he stays the course in similar fashion as to date) for tactical errors if.. even I (!) couldn't have foreseen better. Seriously: I believe it shall indeed be a matter of Luck, far more than any Wonkish stratagems / Brilliant psycho-coups / Military actions - until some next event forces (?) a sharp branch into yet-Newer territory - whether that is ~ about Ramadan? winter starvation spectre? a next action 'here'? .. Simply, nobody could possibly extrapolate historical 'warfare' to find a popular EZ next angle. IMhO analysis fails, at the moment. Ashton
Post #15,031 by dmarker2 10/24/01 7:47:36 PM Reply	Re: Cant even you see ... Thanks for the clarification - I am in agreement. The one question you rightly raise that I have an answer to is the issue of how vigoriously we go after Taliban soldiers in civillian areas. The point I have been attempting to make is that they (Taliban soldiers) are not the primary target & should only be hit when they get in the way of attacking the primary target. I fear that too much propaganda has now demonised too many ordinary Afghans into being Taliban and that 'Taliban' = the enemy = kill when the original target was terrorists + camps + (OBL) = enemy = kill All I keep reading from certain people is a new equation that goes terrorists = Taliban = kill & bad luck collaterals. That appals me. It paints a picture of reverse logic of the perverse logic of the original terrorists and the other point I keep trying to make is that people outside the US who don't see all Taliban as = terrorists, would be justified in getting upset. This has proved an interesting topic. Has reminded me a lot about how opinions shift & get moulded. Cheers Doug
Post #15,091 by gtall 10/25/01 8:28:13 AM Reply	Ashton has a kernel of a good idea ... ..damn, now I have to remember what I thought I read. I apologize for the length of this. But I think it important these issues are fleshed out. My main point is in the last paragraph. I think Ashton said something to effect that it will be serendipity that resolves the issue here. From you (Doug), I actually do agree that there is a difference between the Taliban management and the Taliban grunts. If we can pursue the notion that the Taliban management is a bunch of PHBs, and considering they haven't taken a vote on which direction to go, there is a chance the rank and file aren't on the same page. This is in direct contra-distinction to the notion that the rank and file are mindless drones who will only follow orders. Certainly there are those, but their whole army being like that strains credibility. I think we do not actually know how much of the rank and file are mindless drones. Now on to Ashton's idea. Time is an important concept. I think we have been arguing about the "here and now", I do not think we should be arguing about the future. I think we should be arguing about the continuum between where we are now and an unending future. Most of us know enough systems theory to realize that a cross-section of behavior is not good for analysis of a problem as a systems problem. We need to think of it as a process. And not even necessarily a process to an end, but a process that may have no end. We want to control the process itself, not always go immediately for a concrete solution. Next, serendipity takes time to reveal itself. It is much like research in this respect, you cannot preordain "I will be creative today and solve that math problem that is kicking my butt." It takes time, opportunism, a break. Democracies are long lasting institutions. They have the ability to stick to a policy for a long time. We should use that to our advantange, but move quickly when the opportunity arises. So, even if we cannot get bin Laden today, we have just signed an agreement with Uzbekistan, we have Pakistan's leaders ostensibly on our side, and we sure have India's and Iran's attention. Suppose Colin Powell (our next President) announced that we would be there for a very, very long time, say 50 years, and supplied a Marshall Plan for South Asia. I think we need to let the Taliban know we will be in their face for rest of their lives, and those lives might be shorter because of it. Now for the hard part, we'd have to wait for Ashton to work (I've suggested to the State Dept. that Ashton give Frick and Frack, the Taliban Twins, a good talking to but they were aghast at the inhumanity). We don't have to kill them all, we only have to kill the ones we can get when we can get them. But we cannot stop killing them. And innocents will die, ours and theirs. But ours will die regardless of whether we get bin Laden and the Taliban. The genie is out of the bottle. I've been reading a book on Islam, bin Laden thinks he's a Latter Day Muhammed. To kill him before beating him is to raise a martyr that will inflate his victories and his message. It would be more prudent to beat him senseless and inflict failure for a time before killing him. I cannot emphasize enough that we absolutely must cause bin Laden to fail in a recognizable way before he's dead. Only then will the terrorist wannabees see they will die for nothing. That probably means, in the short term, taking Afghanistan away from the Taliban. Killing them all isn't going to inflict the kind of victory we need. Gerard Allwein
Post #15,141 by Ashton 10/25/01 5:20:07 PM Reply	Heh.. nice lateral pass near the (endzone?) Yes, mine was no more than the germ - but you've gone on to a zygote at least (shall we abort it or transmute it?). Paraphrasing.. concur that our strength ever lies in process; our 'results' include Jefferson, Hamilton AND Father Couglan, Joe McCarthy. And what we need now and next is - as you point out - refinement of that process, daily modifiable with er 'targets of opportunity'. Serendipity indeed (Thanks, 3 Princes of Serendip - now immortal - but what else did they do?)! Full marks too re bin-L. Who could argue against idea that OUR best use of him [cackle] would be just as you suggest: by all means, humiliation (gradual or instant) first! Defeat (of his ideas / tactics / rhetoric?) BEFORE death! Er.. if I get that commission to trade nastiness with Da Muslim Man -- are you available for writing-up my 'invective hurling device' ? (Actually have a prior commitment: development? support of an .org for emendment of The Patriot Act, as rammed through sans ANY debate of final form and: operative today. At least when.. tryin to do Good n'stuff) Cheers, Ashton PS Y'know, that website opened today? - for sending in suggestions [kewl move for Any Govt. I thought] - should hear your above synthesis asap IMhO. No flattery intended, but neither the reverse.
Post #15,275 by gtall 10/26/01 1:38:06 PM Reply	Re: Heh.. nice lateral pass near the (endzone?) yeah, well, I have years of survival among the terrorists in academia, the most vicious I know. One doesn't go for victory, one goes for humilation, victory is only the icing you wipe in their face after the humilation. ...and I doubt you'll need my meager talents in wordsmithing with the Taliban, you hold your own quite well. Don't forget to bring a lighter with you, those beards have got to be flamable. By the way, one tactic I've always thought would be fun is the old trick with lighter fluid, blowing it out of one's mouth, while lighting it (or was it alcohol). Anyhow, when engaged in vigorous debate with Frick or Frack, I would get endless hours of enjoyment watching the look on their faces as you fry their turbans with a well aimed shot, then tell'em the Great Satan sent you... Gerard Allwein
Post #15,285 by Ashton 10/26/01 2:29:54 PM Reply	I'm certain that you know my fav academia quote (!) Attrib to Henry the Kissinger, ~ The reason that academic debate is so vicious is that, so little is at stake..* * or was it conversation? life? Now That's umm droll.. I once went with a visiting German grad student of Oriental art, whom I'd met years before in Hamburg. We went to some demi-faculty couple's house in Berkeley. The 'competition' and back-biting within every dripping phrase was .. well I'd wished mightily I'd brought a tiny tape recorder. When we left (blessedly) we looked at each other with same smirk ~ Gawd, are you sure you wanna hang out with These twits? No problem for her - she was enroute to China! (Before Nixon). What seems faster and more condensed than academic flow is.. West Wing !! I mean - do policy wonks actually swap repartee at these hypersonic levels? (I note that some of the better quips are from the Repub. loyal opposition - I'd even call that, more balance than just about anywhere on the Tube??) re face time with the Big-T, I'd imagine a quick rehearsal with some 3 Stooges flicks ... point to the Head Honcho's er shirt-front - as he looks down, raise hand up and tweak nose. These folk look literally as if.. were a smile to happen on those faces? they'd crack the concrete. OK.. we won't get this chance with the Big-T, but t'would be glorious.. Yours most faithfully in their disservice, Ashton
Post #15,395 by gtall 10/27/01 7:37:22 AM Reply	Re: I'm certain that you know my fav academia quote (!) I think politics anywhere is nasty, except that in academia there is a lot of unused brainpower that goes into making others' lives miserable. That does tend to magnify trifles. But also, academia is very intense, research is hard and very self-absorbing and a lot is not generally done in the moderating company of others. That makes one confront internal demons and sometimes one loses...hehehehe... Gerard Allwein
Post #15,230 by dmarker2 10/26/01 8:11:00 AM Reply	Re: Greatly enjoyed that ... You do take the time & depth to think about these things & it shows. Am guessing there is age & wisdom behind your perceptions & comments. I really got a laugh (as I'm sure Ashton did) about him dressing down Hekel & Jekyl (I hope I'm not too old to be the only one who remebers those two irreverent crows - if not I am sure other will see the funny side of the label). To me at this time, if Musharraf can control Pakistan, and is doing so because US has a close link to him, then the Taliban leadership are toast. They have no meaningful friends if Musharraf don't like em. Musharraf recently got rid of the head of his intelligence service (pro Taliban) arrested to scientists who helped the Paki Nuki development because they were pro taliban - this guy just keeps impressing me as to what a great leader he is. At first I regarded him as a typical Paki military dictator, but after watching him in his meetings with Indian leaders incl Vijapy I changed my opinion, now since this crisis I truly admire the guy & hope he hangs in there for some time. He has what it takes to help US succeed in a just settlement of the crisis with Taliban & Afghanistan. His hosting of the recent Afghan tribal council & their pronouncenments leave me feeling my faith in Powell & Musharraf is fully justified. You are quite right re Bin Laden - the same was done to Saddam Hussien (privately I can debate a lot about him, his actions & policies) but from the realpolitik position he was enemy. Many shallow brained short sighted gung-ho people argued that the US fu**ed up in not killing him during gulf war - these people never listened to Bush & Cheney & the commitments they made to coalition partners to get them on board. But, by keeping Saddam where he was afterwards, he was just like a big mean tiger that had its teeth pulled, was great to frighten the masses with, his roar was great but he had no bite & US leaders knew this but many ordinary folk couldn't grasp this. A toothless Saddam who had been publicly whupped was a far easier figure to deal with than some other hard nosed aggressive replacement fresh from the farm. Same was done with Kaddafi (Gaddafi) - he too was made a toothless tiger & wheeled out to roar at and frighten the frightenable . Yup - we now need to do it to OBL - don't martyr him - pull his teeth & castrate the bastard & wheel him out when we need to scare the masses. So far, if Musharraf holds good, and the new Afghan admin says they don't want him (per their recent declaration) then it is looking very much like OBL can be made in to an unwanted wimpering fool (sort of). US has succeeded in do it before (as above) I think they may be about to do it again & yes there is a strong degree of wanting it to turn out this way (grin). Chhers Doug
Post #15,276 by gtall 10/26/01 1:42:27 PM Reply	Re: Greatly enjoyed that ... Yup, I rememeber Heckel and Jeckyl, wonderful cartoons. All I have to do is ask my students about my wisdom and I get immediate feedback on precisely what they think about that. I've learned not to ask. Do you remember Frick and Frack? I've seen them, that'll put a lower bound on my age...I'm that old. Gerard Allwein
Post #15,287 by Ashton 10/26/01 2:37:30 PM 10/26/01 3:07:55 PM Reply	OK.. Spike Jones! (In Der F\ufffdehrer's Face)____:-\ufffd Hmm we need an anthem: With slight rewording.. In Der Mullah's Face Maybe Mr. Jones' heirs can use the royalties? Edited by Missing User 70 Oct. 26, 2001, 03:07:55 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #15,329 by dmarker2 10/26/01 7:23:56 PM Reply	Re: OK.. Spike Jones! & the city slickers - beetlebomb Is his enduring memory for me. Dad was a Spike Jones fan. I recall that once, in the spirit of Spike Jones (who may have 1st done this) he took a 78 of 'Mule Train' (Frankie Lane) and drilled an extra hole near the centre - got a few hours laugh out of the distorted version that played. I still occasional mimic Spike Jones calling of the race in the Bettlebomb song. Esp remember "'Banana peel' slipping up on the inside rail". Also of a slightly later era was Gerard Hoffnung & his 'orchestra'. RE Frick & Frack - rings a bell but can't recall em ? Cheers Doug
Post #15,398 by gtall 10/27/01 7:42:52 AM Reply	Re: OK.. Spike Jones! & the city slickers - beetlebomb I remember Spike Jones records, they were great. Frick and Frack were a pair of clowns with the Ice Follies. They did the most amazing things on skates. There is some kind of store called Frick and Frack's, so if you do a web search, that is all you'll see...interlopers! Gerard Allwein
Post #15,420 by a6l6e6x 10/27/01 10:45:05 AM Reply	Also, Car Talk on NPR - "Click & Clack the Tappit brothers" Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #15,442 by Ashton 10/27/01 5:47:43 PM Reply	They seemed closest that.. '50s Murican culture could abide of genuine satire. I was never sure (?) if some of their barbs re the obvious Baddies contained.. a bit of double entendre for Us'ns too (??) :-\ufffd (I didn't later - really think there was a nascent Swift there, of course..) But I'd bet that the later 'martyr'-comics, hounded from small club to small club by the Righteous Police (even arresting them from time to time!) .. all had heard Spike's stuff as kids. Y'know? (Some of the words we kids made-up to pop-songs - would have gotten us the same treatment.. had we been a bit older and louder. Naturally too - we had yet to learn from life - just How deceitful had been our class courses, esp. re 'civics' and 'democracy' and the rule of law equally applied (even to Corporations!) and all that other cant, intended to mollify our umm periodic questions.) Ah.. antiAuthoritarianism.. may Her banner ever wave free, in the winds of blowhards! Ashton the Despicable lousy teamplayer
Post #15,409 by wharris2 10/27/01 8:30:44 AM Reply	Dinner music for people who aren't really hungry The black and blue Danube Waltz is classic. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,419 by dmarker2 10/27/01 10:37:27 AM Reply	Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry Look you miserable bored cretin, if all you can do is snipe from the gutter just fuck off and attach your pathetic responses to someone elses posts. You neither add intelectual value of any note nor do you exhibit any ability to research your topics in any measure of depth. You add nothing !!!. I gave you my email contact me directly so we can really thrash this out. Cheers (& don't bother responding here). Doug (inspired by CRC)
Post #15,439 by wharris2 10/27/01 5:23:38 PM Reply	Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry What in hell are you talking about? It's a real Spike Jones album. The Black and Blue Danube Waltz is a track on the album. You brought up Spike Jones. I was adding flavor to the topic, or so I thought. I didn't think it was me who shoved a cactus up you to make you show such hostility. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,456 by dmarker2 10/27/01 9:25:40 PM Reply	Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry I apologise - I was reacting to three other of your posts, and took this one to be in the same vein. But, you say you were not sniping here and I accept that and unreservedly appologise here in this thread. I am sorry I allowed a cactus up my bum and yelled at you. Cheers Doug
Post #15,465 by wharris2 10/27/01 11:00:38 PM Reply	Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry Much as I may rabidly attack your posts, I stop here and: oh god, accept apology and apologize in return if some of my foaming at the mouth postings may have cut into you. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,467 by dmarker2 10/28/01 12:55:41 AM Reply	Re: We live in interesting times I know that this Afghan business is getting to us all. It is a struggle to keen sensible under the intensity we are experiencing. The Afghan campaign could still go well or badly & I know we all want to see US actions come out on top and in front politically, militarily and morally. The more this business goes on, the more we will be tempted to react to each others imagined or perceived remarks. I value being part of this ezboard community & really do feel I learn a lot from the many talented people here. I was not proud of myself for having had a go at you & saying what I said, so the apology was genuine. Thankfully, within a week I am on holdiay & going to NZ & Oz to catch up with family. Anyway - thanks for accepting my apology, what I said was harsh & not a real refelction of our potential to deal with the issues & stresses we all feel. Thanks Doug
Post #15,472 by wharris2 10/28/01 3:36:15 AM Reply	cackle now we're going to argue about which apology to what insult to accept. ROFLMAO! "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,474 by dmarker2 10/28/01 3:48:39 AM Reply	Re: cackle Rather that than the alternative (V B Grin) Cheers - Doug Actually, argument and debate are what hones the intellect, the argument then is the value of intellect over feeling/emotion - now that actually gets into the DNA of the persons concerned - life is an amazing place
Post #15,009 by kmself 10/24/01 5:14:32 PM Reply	Human Shields, Information Warfare The US now says the Taliban are dispersing its military assets (strikes are going against single tanks and planes, rather than clusters), and are moving military assets into civilian locations. The US has communications capabilities for reaching Afghan civilians, including radio and leaflets. My suggestion would be to advise the Afghan population of what is being done by the Afghan government (or lead thugs, if you will), and that in relatively short order, such targets may be considered fair targets. To the extent possible, the US should provide for transit and shelter for displaced refugees. Today's news reports are that 85% of the population of Kandehar has fled the city. The Taliban are once again trying to hijack the US, in this case, public opinion in the United States and elsewhere, by putting the Afghan population at risk to further the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. I agree with your point that civilian casualties should be minimized. It's a no-brainer from a military and diplomatic perspective given this mission. It should be clear though, as I said before, that the accounting for these casualties must lie with the Taliban. Again, from the historical perspective, the record of Afghans against themselves is far worse -- shellings of Kabul during the civil war were indiscriminate and heavy. The US need not be limited to aerial attacks -- though this is both a safe (to our forces) and relatively effective way of striking at targets. Where necessary, commando raids may be utilized. Our experience in Somalia however shows that such raids in urban areas can be exceedingly risky to both the strike force and local populations, and may in fact put civilian populations at far higher risk than bomber missions. This variable is largely a function of the local population's own response. I think your broader message is this: the US must accomplish its military goals without poisoning local, regional, and world opinion. At the strategic level I agree. At the tactical level, I reject your proposal, it is too limiting. It should also be realized that much of the outcry against US actions is likely traceable to three sources: Regional endemic antipathy toward the US. Protests fomented at the direct or indirect initiative of ObL and Al Qaeda. Governments insecure of their own weak mandate or legitimacy promoting a public face to quiet their own populations. This isn't to say that the protests aren't a real issue. It does suggest that their intensity and existence have little to do with the actual facts on the ground in Afghanistan. A corrolary is that managing the news stream about the war will be as significant as the ground action itself. This doesn't mean restricting access to information -- the US gains credibility by admitting its successes (preferably by understating them) and its failures, in an early, timely fashion. The Taliban's own credibilty is falling rapidly among unbiased observers in the light of internal contradictions, unsupported allegations, and clear distortions of the record. What is key, however, is that the US ensure that there is fair, free, and unbiased presentation of its record within the Middle East region. Al Jazeer Television is one clear source. I disagree with attempts by the Bush Administration to attempt to muzzle this source. I feel the station would be far more useful if it's seen to broadcast both the Taliban/Al Qaeda perspective, and a US/Alliance story. Seen side-by-side, truth generally outshines lies. Our own experience with IWETHEY -- from IWE through ezBoard and zIWE, as well as other online fora -- should show this. Yes, there are extremeists (shills), but the general public ain't as stupid as you fear. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,012 by Ashton 10/24/01 5:49:05 PM Reply	Is there reason to believe US means to stifle al-Jazeera? If so, I missed that. A recent report (PBS somewhere) portrayed a-J. as (already) having a mandate of ~~ presenting 'balanced' views. (Let's acknowledge that that is always arguable, at best.) Hasn't a-J. already presented videos of US POV (maybe even : Powell hisself? IIRC, and I'm not sure that I do). What seems clear in any event: al-J. is the ONLY mouthpiece listened to er religiously by: most all of the very folk who need the Propaganda War deciphered - and this IS That-kind, more than any other kind of 'war' IMhO. A.
Post #15,018 by kmself 10/24/01 6:29:38 PM Reply	Yes Along with free press throughout the known universe. Frankly, the attempts to stifle press are quite disturbing. A la Bill Mahr and The Onion. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,021 by Ashton 10/24/01 6:45:02 PM Reply	No less disturbing, for being so utterly unsurprising :[
Post #15,022 by addison 10/24/01 6:45:52 PM Reply	What? A la Bill Mahr and The Onion. And those are? Haven't heard anything about them. I've heard a lot about Mahr's stupid comments "That were misunderstood", but haven't heard of that. Addison
Post #15,026 by Ashton 10/24/01 7:21:55 PM Reply	Well.. both are still in bizness [link\|http://www.theonion.com/onion3738/privileged_children.html\|Onion's Documentary on the Protagonists] And Mahr.. is still around. Sears bailed (at least initially, dunno about now) as sponsor + some other Horrified Sponsor for Liberty and Free Speech - whose name I forget. For a couple days the only 'sponsor' was yep: CD-Sellers a la late-night Tee Vee. ABC at least kept the show on air, whatever the sponsorless period did to bottom line. I forget where Onion transgressed the Authorized Post-9/11 Speech Rules. I recall hearing its chief honcho interviewed on NPR, at the time - but not what Bad Thing he had done. (Didn't expect to hear about it on ABCMSNBCCBS, now did we?) HTH. A.
Post #15,063 by kmself 10/24/01 10:09:00 PM Reply	Mahr was publicly censured, Onion commented on it Note that "censured" != "censored". One is a chastisement, the other a muzzling. WH Press scty said words to the effect that "you can't say things like that now". The Onion's piece "Liberties sacrificed in the name of freedom" (or vice versa -- this is memory, not quote) was a parody, but one of the more frighteningly tell-it-as-it-is ones I've ever seen. It wasn't the truth, unadorned, but close. My point: there's been a bit of a push from the Administration to chill the press. It's not been well received. It also doesn't appear to have been fully successful, thankfully. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,036 by dmarker2 10/24/01 8:11:23 PM Reply	Re: A well argued and reasoned case - thanks From this case I can clearly see where we diverge. It is the issue of how important the Taliban soldiers are in the grand scheme of things. I believe they are not important other than when they get in the way of the primary goal. I fear that the balance has shifted away from terrorists & OBL = target to now an all out assault on Taliban & Taliban controlled troops. The primary goal is terrorism & OBL. We don't need to chase Taliban soldiers into civillian areas - US is not invading Afghanistan. We just need to capture OBL & killing 1000s of Afghans be they Taliban soldiers or civillians, is distorting the moral high ground the US started out on. I fully agree that OBL has to be hit but there is more than 1 way to get him and when the civillian & ordinary Afghan death toll becomes too high, the bombing avenue may have achieved its mission. Cheers Doug
Post #15,046 by Another Scott 10/24/01 9:20:12 PM Reply	I think you're missing something. Hi Doug, The primary goal is terrorism & OBL. We don't need to chase Taliban soldiers into civillian areas - US is not invading Afghanistan. We just need to capture OBL & killing 1000s of Afghans be they Taliban soldiers or civillians, is distorting the moral high ground the US started out on. (Paraphrasing) "Those who harbor terrorists will receive the same treatment as the terrorists." The US position, as stated by Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush, is that as long as the Taliban government resists in giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda, they'll be treated as if they are the same as al Qaeda. Since the Taliban has made it clear that they'll never give up bin Laden, the US position is that the Taliban will be removed as the government of Afghanistan. The current thinking in the US is the US, along with the UN, countries in the region, and political groups inside Afghanistan, will work to replace the Taliban government. It's really that simple, from the US position. If Taliban troops resist, they will be attacked. The US will continue to target hostile equipment and forces with great attention to minimizing civilian casualties. But civilians will continue to be killed. It's terribly unfortunate, but as long as the US hasn't achieved it's mission of removing al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the Taliban government as long as they resist, then civilians will be in some danger there. Everyone knows that no war will eliminate civilian casualties. We try to minimize them, but we can't eliminate them (because equipment fails, mistakes are made, etc.). My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #15,089 by dmarker2 10/25/01 8:23:10 AM Reply	Re: I think you're missing something. This thread is a deviation from the original theme of Ramadan & Bombing but I am willing to enter into it .... "The US position, as stated by Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush, is that as long as the Taliban government resists in giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda, they'll be treated as if they are the same as al Qaeda." I agree & this is clear - the Taliban Government is already pay that price - agin I will put the case that the people under Taliban control do differ in degree from those at the Omar level, the Mullas council, the political military leaders, the ordinary soldiers & the citizens. So as long as we are clear that the Taliban Government are in trouble & that the layers below will suffer at varying levels. The point I want to restate is not to lump all them together as a they (an issue I took up elsewhere) - these people vary in culpability for the Sept 11th attack & to not recognise this courts disaster in the dealings with Afghanistan and other nations. "It's really that simple, from the US position." If we ignore the layers of Afghan society, it is that simple - yes. "If Taliban troops resist, they will be attacked." Thats well understood. - Again I raise the issue of just when where and with how much intensity they need be attacked. Remember many of these are just Afghans at tender ages & with guns sent to 'defend Afghanistan'. I have no problem with us attacking any of them that get in the way or try to stop the attacks on the OBL facilities and on OBL. "The US will continue to target hostile equipment and forces with great attention to minimizing civilian casualties. But civilians will continue to be killed. It's terribly unfortunate, but as long as the US hasn't achieved it's mission of removing al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the Taliban government as long as they resist, then civilians will be in some danger there. Everyone knows that no war will eliminate civilian casualties. We try to minimize them, but we can't eliminate them (because equipment fails, mistakes are made, etc.)." Yes - this too is understood but you do know there are 100,000s of refugees wandering accross Afghanistan due to the disruption, break down of law & order etc: etc: and that winter is weeks away & many have no food & no aid. Some agencies argue that close on 1 million are fleeing their homes. I ask you just how high the collateral count should be allowed to climb ? BUT, In reality I am certain that US leaders are putting enough pressure through the current campaign & that there is a high probability that very soon a new Govt will be elected in Afgahanistan. What will be done with OBL I can't guess but Taliban as such (Omar & his council) will be gone. So called 'moderates' will be included as I am also convinced that US does not want to leave Afghanistan in a political vaccume that will exacerbate the death & misery back when the Northerners were in control. Cheers Doug
Post #15,068 by kmself 10/24/01 10:22:09 PM Reply	Taliban troops Their elimination is vitally important so long as the ultimate US strategy is to send in its own soldiers. I expect to see this happen -- it's going to be a mix of commandos and occupation troops in strategic areas. When this is done, the enemy's going to have to be weakened, destroyed, confused, disarmed, imobilized, and liberated from its resources, sufficiently that our own boys are at minimum risk. From a military perspective, there's no other rational choice. Missions toward this goal are militarially defensable to the point that they do not engender a stronger civilian animosity to the US troops than the regular Taliban army would pose. From a diplomatic stance, additional constraints are imposed, and our views approach convergence. The difference is that I am advocating as full a disclosure as possible to civilians of actual danger zones, and, to the extent practicable, accomodations for noncombatents. NPR news as I listen now just cited a third-party aid worker reporting an anti-aircraft unit being relocated on top of a Kabul apartment complex. Draw your own conclusions as to the response the Taliban are hoping to elicit. My one complaint with this action and Kosovo was the apparent assumption that smart weapons and highly accurate targeting systems allowed civilian life in a war zone. In the past, this has lead to incidents such as the bombing of the Chinese embasy in Belgrade, and several confirmed reports of targeting mistakes or failures in the current conflict. We should advertise Afghanistan as a hot zone, with potential for free fire in all areas, other than those specifically designated for refugeess. These refugee zones must be either swept for opposition forces, or effectively neutralized by distancing and/or isolating them from any possible role in conflict. Effectively quarantine zones. Actual military policy should not meet the stated policy, but the understanding is that it could at any point in time. Doing this removes a tool from the enemy's arsenal: our conscience, and any justified external fomentation. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,090 by dmarker2 10/25/01 8:26:22 AM Reply	Re: Taliban troops - US invasion ? "so long as the ultimate US strategy is to send in its own soldiers." I don't believe it is in current policy for US to occupy any part of Afghanistan. I believe they will accept invitaion of Nothern alliance to use northern city if captured, as a military staging point but I sincerely doubt that any US leader has stated as fact that US will invade & sieze control ?. For the other points - they make sense. Cheers Doug
Post #15,133 by kmself 10/25/01 4:00:55 PM Reply	Occupation Two facts: Air power has never won a war. It's tipped scales, but not been sufficient of itself. We don't have a ground base in Pakistan. The Uzbeks are one option, but the nation is landlocked. An Afghan base of operations is a likely necessity. A base of operations will require perimiter security. We will also eventually have to rebuild the country. Someone's going to have to be there for it. There will be ground troops. There will be an occupation. It need not be the entire nation, but it will exist. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,210 by wharris2 10/26/01 2:55:27 AM Reply	Re: Occupation * Air power has never won a war. It's tipped scales, but not been sufficient of itself. In another series of posts, I made the same statement and was disagreed with re: bosnia/Kosovo. I've read the glowing gushing reports about the effectiveness of the air campaign, and I seem to remember the results somewhat differently: Nobody was yielding anything until the mob showed up at Milosovich's door and "persuaded" him to step down. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,299 by kmself 10/26/01 3:52:30 PM Reply	Bosnia I can't pretend to know the situation there fully, but there was a mix of local resistance, and air power backed by credible threat of force in the event things got tremendously out of hand. I'd chalk it up to a "tipped the balance" situation. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,304 by Arkadiy 10/26/01 4:33:56 PM Reply	Kosovo When I mentioned Kosovo in the other thread, I did not say "Bosnia" at all. I don't know how the war in Bosnia played out. But in Kosovo, we bombed Miloshevich into submission. And no, Clinton declared from the start that there will not be any ground troups (and got pounded for that by military people - you don't remove a threat like that). And no, the "mod" at MIloshevich's door appeared a few months (or a year) later, way after he pulled from Kosovo. One of the reasons the mob formed was that defeat. Their current president, Costunitsa (sp?) like us even less than M, but he is elected and seems to be sane enough to deal with. That said, I have to agree that air compain is not likely to brinmg victory in Afghanistan. They are already way too low for bombing to matter much politically.
Post #15,649 by kmself 10/29/01 11:08:28 PM Reply	Occupation update: SF Chron, US to base ops in Afghanistan [link\|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/10/29/national1623EST0664.DTL&type=printable\|Pentagon considering setting up a base inside Afghanistan for possible ground operations] ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Monday, October 29, 2001 \ufffd2001 Associated Press (10-29) 14:57 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is considering setting up a base inside Afghanistan from which commandos, and possibly conventional ground troops, would launch missions against Taliban and terrorist targets, defense officials said Monday. This option, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted at in a Pentagon news conference, could indicate the U.S. military is planning more aggressive moves against the Taliban, the Islamic militia that rules most of Afghanistan and harbors Osama bin Laden. [...] Troops on the ground will likely be needed to capture or kill bin Laden and other leaders of his al-Qaida network, but past wars in Afghanistan -- notably the former Soviet Union's failure after 10 years of fighting -- have shown the high cost of a conventional large-scale ground invasion. Rumsfeld was asked about a USA Today report that said U.S. forces may soon establish a forward base in Afghanistan that would support 200 to 300 commandos. The newspaper, quoting an unidentified defense official, said the base might be in northern Afghanistan. "You're asking if we're considering doing something additional in various ways," Rumsfeld said. "Needless to say, that's our job -- to consider much different things, and we do." He said he had nothing to announce. A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. planners were considering many possibilities, including the idea of a forward operating base in Afghanistan and other ways of using ground forces. If the base were in northern Afghanistan, it likely would be established at an existing air field to facilitate the movement of U.S. troops and supplies. Having the base would make commando raids somewhat less complex, but would provide Taliban and al-Qaida forces with a new U.S. target. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers likely would be needed to protect the base from attack. [...] `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #15,116 by bluke 10/25/01 11:12:35 AM Reply	Who is going to deal with these refugees? There are already over 100,000 refugees with nothing but the clothing on their backs as a consequence of the air attacks. Is the US going to feed all these people? Provide them shelter? The civilian casualty count looks low, but when you take into account the refugees it really is not.
Post #15,182 by Ashton 10/25/01 11:19:17 PM Reply	Changes like a kaleidoscope daily.. Good question, but may be rendered moot if.. Taleban is shortly replaced, bin-L declared 'permanently missing in action' (whether actually assassinated or not - as in Chinese press). So they could go home / with food parcels, emptying out overburdened Pakistan suburbs as well - easing pressure on That regime. Etc. Could happen (?) A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!