And rightly so.

Post #9,839 by marlowe 9/20/01 11:44:58 AM Reply	And rightly so. This is an insult to the intelligence, in any culture. They're blatantly stalling, to give him time to make himself scarce. Peer pressure my ass. This isn't grade school. This is international terrorism. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #9,841 by brettj 9/20/01 11:49:19 AM Reply	So we should not show any patience here?! Bomb first, ask questions later? You are obviously an expert on terrorism and the Islam religion so I guess you must be right. Me, I'm sorta uninformed on those subjects so I try not to judge others until I have all the facts. I'm just weird that way.
Post #9,845 by marlowe 9/20/01 11:57:56 AM Reply	It's getting a bit late for patience, don't you think? This kind of crap has been going on for years, and it just keeps getting worse. They should've turned over the bastard when we first asked, back in `98. It was the Clinton administration first crossed that fine line between patience and weakness. So please, don't bandy that "patience" word around in this context. It doesn't apply. Hasn't for years now. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #9,847 by rsf 9/20/01 12:04:23 PM Reply	So how long should we wait? Until bin Laden dies of old age? Ray
Post #9,855 by brettj 9/20/01 1:03:47 PM Reply	Maybe until Bin Laden gives his response to the leaders? Maybe until we work with the clerics with a plan to accomplish justice? Maybe something else? I'm just throwing out options so we don't walk into a trap (in other words, Jihad). Does that make any sense? Looking at alternative views? What is the definition of democracy?
Post #9,858 by addison 9/20/01 1:13:24 PM Reply	Maybe until he slips away? Maybe until we work with the clerics with a plan to accomplish justice? Screw 'em. They gave him sanctuary. They promised that he'd be good. Either he lied to them, or they're lying to us. If he lied to them, they should be gift-wrapping him for us. Since they're not, I don't have a lot of sympathy for 'em. Now, this does presume that is is Bin Laden behind this. But the Taliban is sure backing away fast from their prior promises that it wasn't him, that he didn't have communication with the outside, etc. I'm just throwing out options so we don't walk into a trap (in other words, Jihad). We had something similar 60 years ago. Fanatical devotion and all that. We won. I'm not very worried about the Jihad. Europeans likely more are - and most are the Muslims in the US who aren't buying into it. Let them declare a Jihad. They've got no friends if they do - they're trying hard to placate us without giving up too much. Chechnya is a result of us backing the Afgan rebels - (and the destablizing problem was why the USSR went into Afganistan in the first place). Russian doesn't want to help. China fears Islamic fundamentalism. India, well, they like dead Muslims more than live ones. Pakistan - is in severe deep trouble financially, India is about to crush them economically, and can't afford to help Afganistan this time. They've got nothing but the ruggedness of the hills - and that ain't much when it comes to Special Forces. Their power base is about to disappear (most of it is running for Pakistan now). Negotiate with people who throw acid on women who aren't covered head to toe, who deny women medical treatment and education? Who suppored, fed, housed, and helped Bin Ladin in his training and missions? Only if we damn well have to. Addison
Post #9,861 by brettj 9/20/01 1:28:42 PM Reply	You are not worried about an Afghan/Pakistan Jihad?! Whereby they gain control of Pakistan's 20 nuclear bombs? Maybe you might want to re-think your concern about this. The threat is real.
Post #9,865 by addison 9/20/01 1:37:46 PM Reply	No. I think you'd better think about it. Sit down and consider what a "jihad" is. Who's going to jihad? The afganistani's running for the border? Nope. The Pakistani's trying to eke out an existance? Nope. So tell me, what do you think we should do to the people who fed, housed, and supported Bin Ladin? And no, there's not a lot of threat there. They're (the extremists) surrounded by enemies. They're not a threat. Except with something like the hijacking. The Taliban are bluffing, stalling for time. We're doing the exact right thing not buying into the bluff. Addison
Post #9,873 by brettj 9/20/01 1:48:07 PM Reply	Do you know who trained Bin Laden?! The U.S. helped him. Hmmm. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. P.S. I appreciate your measured responses to my questions / opinions. I realize I am treading on sensitive ground.
Post #9,875 by addison 9/20/01 1:54:38 PM Reply	Yep. Not that it matters. We trained him to fight the Soviets, in a guerilla war. He decided to become a terrorist. Not that we probably didn't encourage that thought. But that doesn't matter. Should we somehow go after the US Army for Timothy McVeigh? But they trained him. Or who trained him to drive? No. Bin Ladin has been protected by Afganistan for 4 years - and during those 4 years apparently has devised and set into motion multiple plans for attacking innocent bystanders - not just Americans, but many nationalities. They're not blameless anymore. And they know it. They'd promised his behavior, and now its not excusable by any stretch. And they're culpable as he is... You're saying we should sit down and talk with the people who enabled him to run his terrorist empire. I've got a problem with that. They know how to get out of this. They hand him over with apologies, and radio addresses claiming they didn't know, and its not the way of Islam. Addison
Post #9,877 by brettj 9/20/01 2:01:19 PM Reply	The courts of International Law will make those decisions. First we get the key people involved and then we can find out who helped them and who didn't. In other words we need more facts before the International Coalition can make judgements. If the U.S. starts violating International Laws, then we are no better than those we will bring to justice. Will you listen to the President when he asks for patience, or is he as "off-base" as I am? :)
Post #9,879 by addison 9/20/01 2:09:09 PM Reply	You mean, the ones who don't... Have a concept of Freedom of Speech, for instance? As far as I know, there are no international courts claiming jurisdiction. And the concept of them is probably very faulty. Most governments have a completely different concept of "freedom" than the US was founded on, and still has. Will you listen to the President when he asks for patience, or is he as "off-base" as I am? :) Who has said not to be patient? I said that there's no reason to wait for/on the Taliban to discuss or come to an agreement. There's not. I'm not saying we need to rush into anything - but neither do we need to obey the Taliban's timeline. They've got no standing anymore, except as possible targets/defendants. They're not disassociating themselves from the main target, with lots of prior warning and knowledge. They're stalling, trying to negotiate. So far, they've not advanced a starting position worth taking even at face value. Addison
Post #9,884 by brettj 9/20/01 2:19:18 PM Reply	As just heard on CNN, the Clerics are waiting for a U.S. ... ... response. If we respect their decision to ask bin Laden to leave then they will work with us. If we reject their authority to rule in their own land, then we get a Jihad instead. I prefer to try to work with them in order to end ALL terrorism? I suspect we'll need their help to fight other groups too. Terrorism must be dismantled bit by bit until we gets to the roots and causes. This takes wisdom, not bombs. People will have to decide if they want to continue to help evil or start cooperating to achieve peace and justice. Those that don't want to change their ways should be prosecuted to the full extent of world law, in my opinion.
Post #9,893 by bepatient 9/20/01 2:43:35 PM Reply	Wording... ..they are still referring to the man as their "guest". We won't, nor should we, accept that as a decision. They are as much our enemy as Bin Laden. They offer safe harbor to terrorists. This is not a time for patience...they view our patience as weakness. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,896 by addison 9/20/01 2:50:05 PM Reply	Which raises the question.. People will have to decide if they want to continue to help evil or start cooperating to achieve peace and justice. People are not created equal, at least in mindset. Which raises the question who do you want to "cooperate" with. Do you want to help people who stone women for speaking? If we respect their decision to ask bin Laden to leave then they will work with us. That's BS. Ok, ok, ok, Binnie did all sorts of bad things and organized plots to kill thousands, and we helped, but tell ya what, we'll tell him to leave, and not come back, Deal? That's not cooperating. That's saying "screw you and the horse you rode in on". The Taliban promised that he would behave. They assured that he was not working on terrorists acts. They're culpable and responsible. How much do you want to work with them? Meanwhile, their "demands" were that if we give THEM money, and STOP giving money to those heretical moderates (Who apparently don't stone women, but still don't think much of them). So. They want our "international aid" - in other words, give us money. And we'll kick him out. Maybe. When he wants to go. Nah, that's utter horseshit. If they want to go to war, well, they're about to find out the only way you can about the Truth of God's Existance. Terrorism must be dismantled bit by bit until we gets to the roots and causes. This takes wisdom, not bombs. How does it take wisdom? The problem with "terrorists" is that any cause can start with such an act. Anti-abortionists. Anti-government. Anti-Roses-in-the-town-park. Wisdom doesn't (always) deal with disgruntled people. It doesn't deal with criminials or the insane. Sometimes, you have to have a response, and show you're willing to have, and use such a response. But if you want to live what you're saying, go over - and be sure to take your daughters (if you have them), if not, find some female family members for the grand trek, and let us know how the 1600s feels like. Addison
Post #9,881 by rsf 9/20/01 2:17:00 PM Reply	Yea, we helped him. But it was so he could fight for an independent Afghanistan instead of a Soviet puppet state. We didn't help him to become an international terrorist. BTW, we helped the French Underground too. Does that mean if they turned against us, we are getting our 'just desserts'? Ray
Post #9,897 by Another Scott 9/20/01 2:52:02 PM Reply	Evidence, please. Lots of people make this claim, but don't provide any evidence to back it up. The CIA supported the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Not bin Laden. Bin Laden was a fundraiser for the war, not a fighter. My evidence? An interview with Milton Bearden, the CIA man responsible for the operation in Afghanistan. [link\|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/bearden.html\|Here]. Because so much of what we hear about Osama bin Laden comes out of his Afghanistan experience, I'm trying to get this straight, he was mostly a philanthropist and a financial contributor, and a minor combat figure, who happened to dabble in combat? ... I can possibly give him credit for having been present and accounted for at one major battle in ... Baktia Province in 1987. Beyond that, I simply cannot say that there is any war record at all. What I can say is that the hype that surrounds Osama bin Laden--most of it generated by the US media and backed up by statements that verge on hyperbole from the United States government--that this man was literally swinging through the valleys of the Hindu Kush with a dagger in his teeth and single-handedly driving out the Soviet army, this did not happen. The Afghan people did that. The Arab role in the combat situation on the ground was minimal to nonexistent, period. And to suggest otherwise is simply to either gloss over history or to create history for your own reasons. I can imagine someone out there watching saying. "This is the CIA talking." You're not going to admit that you created the most dangerous public enemy in the world. You bet I would. If I could look you in the eye and say, "Trust me, Osama bin Laden was my guy. If it wasn't for the CIA he wouldn't be anything then, he wouldn't be anything today," if I could say that with a straight face, I think that would speed up the process of removing Mr. bin Laden as a source of great, great concern for the United States. I can't say that because it's simply not true. You can find nobody who is familiar with the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan in those years that would say bin Laden played any role other than the fund-raiser. ... I suspect none of us here were there, so we don't have first-hand knowledge of the situation. But it would be good to present evidence for your claims. Cheers, Scott.
Post #9,985 by duke 9/20/01 8:57:32 PM Reply	Absolutely wrong. At the time bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia, he had rabid anti-American views. We didn't train him. Rumors and urban legands. (or maybe you can provide links that are more than speculation and innuendo?) Most probably, quite a bit of money we funnelled into Afghanistan resistance found its way into bin Laden's hands, but we did not "train" hiim in anything.
Post #9,867 by marlowe 9/20/01 1:40:52 PM Reply	If they were capable of doing that... they'd have done it by now. And they'd have nuked us, instead of piddling around with airplanes. And in case you haven't noticed, the Jihad is already under way. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #9,870 by brettj 9/20/01 1:44:27 PM Reply	They did this terrible act hoping to overthrow Pakistan ... ... government and get to the bombs. (in my opinion) The Pakistan government is very worried that Pakistan Taliban supporters my attempt to overthrow the government. Maybe you missed the Pakistan President's 15 minutes speech yesterday on CNN?
Post #9,874 by addison 9/20/01 1:50:04 PM Reply	Nope. How will they deliver them? The Pakistani bombs should be very large. Atomics gains them far more attention than they'd want. Maybe you missed the Pakistan President's 15 minutes speech yesterday on CNN? I didn't. And you might want to stop sounding so incredulous. Did you hear what he said? INDIA. INDIA. INDIA. In other words, if we don't help the US, they'll turn to INDIA.... Pakistan and Bangladesh are poor, poor countries. They want to start seeing the prosperity that India is. They won't, if they're controlled by the fanatics. 20 weapons don't mean diddly. If they nuked the US, Islam could quickly drop out of the top 10 religions, within minutes. Plus, you have to deliver the weapon. And coincendentally, atomic weaponry like that is sometimes easier to track - far easier than the average person travelling the US. Addison
Post #9,900 by Ashton 9/20/01 3:11:41 PM Reply	Again: The Taliban are NOT 'Afghanistan', as several have tried to point out here, via refs to the complex history. A majority (60+% has been estimated?) of Afghans are the first victims of the group of thugs and sociopaths with the T-name. As with any guerrilla logistics - you won't find too often (that is - possess the means of predicticing locales!) "pure concentrations of Taliban" - suitable for GPS targetting via smart-weapons. Tough. "Human Intel" = that which we lack, for reasons also mentioned. We find ways to off only Taliban or - we become exactly like them, with the ever-ready euphemism, collateral damage. Weasel words. Vengeance is a dish that should be eaten cold, as our French amis long ago pointed out. No instant gratification is available just today - only instant disgrace. No matter how much we yearn for that EZ Quick Solution to all things. A.
Post #9,878 by rsf 9/20/01 2:06:25 PM Reply	All ready there. I'm just throwing out options so we don't walk into a trap (in other words, Jihad). If you hadn't noticed, we are already in the middle of Jihad. bin Laden and Al Qeada have embarked on war against anything Western. To them all Americans are the enemy. This includes women and children. This even includes American Muslims. They have attacked or aided others in the first WTC bombing, the bombing of our embassasies in Africa, the bomging of the USS Cole, and now (it is believed) the 9/11 destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon. And the attacks aren't limited to US interests. Recently, the German government twarted a plan to bomb a high level EU meeting attended by 600+ delegates. bin Laden has said that his intent is not to get the US out of the Middle East, or to get the US to stop supporting Isreal. Rather, his intent is to destroy Western culture and to expand his brand of Islam throughout the world. And by harboring bin Laden, knowing what he has done and plans to do, the Taliban has effectively been participating in these attacks. If we go into Afganistan with guns blazing, the Taliban and their supporters will fight and fight hard. Most of the World's Muslims will rally together to fight us. Most people in the Middle East already despise us. Even the rich westernized ones who wear Levi's, chat on their cellphones, and eat McDonald's burgers (the WSJ had an eye opening article about this yesterday). With an attack now international terrorism will undoubtly increase. Many more Americans will die. But you know what? Even if we back down and let the diplomats take over, even if we turn the other check and declare 'give peace a chance', terrorism will not stop. The Islamic terrorists of the world will not capitulate even if we acquiesce to their unstated demands. Instead, they will take our inaction as a sign of weakness. It will tell them that their attacks are wearing us down and that they are on the road to victory. Either way, we are in for a fight. Ray
Post #9,862 by Another Scott 9/20/01 1:30:31 PM Reply	Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 [link\|http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ECC+3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off&showxref=on\|Here] There's a time for understanding and negotiation. This isn't the time. The persons responsible must be punished. Yes, we must be careful. You're right to be worried about the consequences of our actions and about what we can do to prevent future occurrances. But first the people responsible for the Pentagon and WTC and Pennsylvania crashes must be caught and punished. It's not about retribution, in my mind. It's about preventing these people and these organizations from doing more damage in the near term. Once the near term is taken care of, then you worry about the more distant future. If your house is on fire, it doesn't make much sense to worry about the Sun turning into a red giant and swallowing the Earth in a few billion years. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!