How to respond to "Peace Activists"

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by whosmatt: [b] EXACTLY. And therein lies the problem. "black gold" is USA's crack habit, and until we figure that one out, we NEED the middle east. [/b][/quote] Isolationism... True, but world trade goes beyond oil. We've come to rely on cheap labor from many poor nations. Is that helping their economy, hurting ours, or what sort of combination?

[Tedster]

Nika said... >>>"Rules of war". Hmmm. >>>So here's how I see it. We've gotten accustomed to a way to fight a war - tanks, bombs, airplanes, yadda yadda. The Al Qai'da network has declared war on us, and are smart enough to recognize that they're not going to have much luck if they meet us in open fields with trenchcoats on. So they're breaking what we perceive to be the "rules of war" but we're all just people, and it's not like our "rules of war" really matter to them. Why should they? Hopefully that's a lesson we learned in Vietnam...

[GY]

[quote]Originally posted by PeeTee: [b]Looks like you Yankees bit off more then you can chew...or spew. Are you ready to die from anthrax, little girl?[/b][/quote] I take your comment as a death threat. A threat from a coward that has no "profile". I'll bet you wouldn't say that to my face you fucking coward. You are a big man behind your keyboard.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]I'm not sure if we're watching the same "war". If the US wanted to focus on: "Killing poor Afghanis protecting their way of life" as you put it, we could do so easily. We have complete air superiority, and have the firepower to wipeout just about everyone. I don't think there is any reason to believe what we're doing is anything approaching this. Just the opposite.[/quote] Guitplayer, I love you man but I don't think you really read my posts this time...or you at least assumed you knew what I was saying before finishing. Maybe go back and read them instead of assuming I don't know shit? [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Neither of us are watching this war...we're watching TV. From what I know of Afghanistan there really is no separation between Civilians and Soldiers...EVERYONE is a soldier...8 year old kids carry Grenades/AK47s...The Taliban won't be taken out without a lot of POOR people being [b]killed for protecting their their way of life[/b]. I know enough about War to know that it's impossible to differentiate between Innocent/Guilty in that situation. Bin Laden and his rich associates aren't going to be in the line of fire...Poor will die (not even really knowing what for), Rich people will profit...DEFINITION="WAR" always been this way...always will be. Also, just so we're not confused... The Taliban aren't confirmed terrorists...in fact most Taliban just don't have the means for anything like that. The Taliban don't "Harbor" Bin Laden...he Harbors them...he was there first...they're all afraid of him...he has the weapons, money, technology...friends. Let's not confuse who's really in control over there. The Taliban are not necessarily Al'Quada, a few of the leaders are rumored to be connected to that group but most aren't. Bin Laden is the closest connection to Al'Quada and NOT THE ONLY LEADER OF THAT GROUP. So maybe reread my earlier posts with that in mind...The objectives of this War are not crystal clear...we've all got some serious homework to do. This message has been edited by Steve LeBlanc on 10-21-2001 at 02:16 PM

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]I have to kick myself for even STARTING to get involved in this conversation, but here goes. So I'm an idiot. Guitplayer, Thanks for the historical past, but I'm afraid that your version only goes back 6005 years, and the conflicts in that region according to the Muslims goes back much further than that. In other words, as long as you hold that Bible in your hand and use it to even start to figure out what the problem is you continue to have a line drawn between them and your ability to understand. First put that book down and THEN try to see what's going on. Remember that they have a book as well that not only completely disagrees with yours in almost every way, but it is in a separate mindset and a separate language. It's kind of like you negotiating a peace contract with.......rain. Not only is it not going to help you at all to keep speaking English, but you're going to have to re-assess your definition of "negotiating" altogether. My wife is not known for great one-liners, but she said something on September 11 that has not left my mind. She said "Is it just me, or is 'Israel' about the dumbest idea of the 20th century". Hmm. Perhaps we should be blaming Great Britain. It was all their idea to start with! OK, now on to my point: Did any of you see the movie "The Patriot" staring Mel Gibson? Remember the premise of that movie was that they were fighting the revolutionary war with the Brits? OK, remember that Mel and his "militia" were using "unconventional" war tactics such as jumping out of trees, killing officers (mercy me!), fighting battles where there was no preset battlefield, and using devious tactics to get an upperhand. And remember that Lord Cornwallis kept complaining about "how am I supposed to fight a war with people who don't follow the rules of war"? I think he may have even called the militia "terrorists" at one point in the movie for having killed several officers in a surprise attack. Eventually because they continued to march through fields in red trenchcoats all in a row and the militia continued to disturb the redcoats notions of "war" the US won and Lord Cornwallis retreated. "Rules of war". Hmmm. So here's how I see it. We've gotten accustomed to a way to fight a war - tanks, bombs, airplanes, yadda yadda. The Al Qai'da network has declared war on us, and are smart enough to recognize that they're not going to have much luck if they meet us in open fields with trenchcoats on. So they're breaking what we perceive to be the "rules of war" but we're all just people, and it's not like our "rules of war" really matter to them. Why should they? So I'm thinking that we need to readjust how we fight wars if we plan on getting anywhere. We also need to recognize that THEY started the war with US, and there must be a reason why! And it doesn't sound to me like the reason why has much to do with us infiltrating their society. I'm thinking it's more about our troops in Saudi Arabia, but that's just me. Anyway, sorry about the blasphemy of associating our "patriots" with their "terrorists". I just happen to see some parallels. Perhaps others do as well. Nika.[/b][/quote] Nika, You may have slightly misinterpreted my post, but I think we're in agreement on most of your comments. Let me clear up that I'm no bible thumper, far from it, but I did want to make the point that from at least the biblical accounts this conflict involves people with a common "family" history. I know that not everyone knows the biblical accounts about the history of the religions, and I thought my "comments" were clearly "mocking" the fact that God was just having fun making all this happen. The "great puppetmaster" so to speak. I'm certainly not saying the New Testament, The Book of Genesis, or the bible in general is an accurate accounting of history. Far from it IMHO. I'm only saying that some of the roots of the hatred here can be traced back to these accounts. For example, the Jews believe that God took their side. So you can understand that they feel the "right" to inhabit Israel, and feel justified in having few concerns about the Palestinians who previously inhabited it. Of course, prior claim has never been much of a viable detirmination for "ownership" of territory. If it was, the US would belong to the Native Americans. Sorry, it isn't going to happen. Force has made nations. The US and Britain used force to create and sustain Israel and the Israelis themselves have developed the strongest force in the region. Force is going to be the only thing to remove Israel and so far the enemies of Israel have been unable to make this happen. I have to admit that I have not studied Muslim history or the Koran. So I don't know how their "history" about Abraham and Ishmael differs from the accounts in Genesis. However I don't think there is a dispute that Muslims believe that Mohammed was descended from Abraham and Ishmael... Right? I think we're in agreement that Israel was a construction of the western allies after WWII, and in pure geopolitical terms it's crazy to create a nation that is completely surrounded by its enemies... especially ones who are also committed to its destruction, and base some of that hate on religious grounds. But it was created, and now the world is dealing with the consequences. Regarding another of your points. In a post a few weeks ago, I also pointed out that the American Revolutionaries were probably viewed as "terrorists" by the European powers of the day. One point you don't make, but is relevant, is that the revolutionaries were "traitors" in the mind of the British government, and the "Loyalist" colonists. They were British citizens involved in a armed rebellion against the "legitimate" government. The British troops were not "occupation troops" but rather the forces of the legal government. If this happened today, our founding fathers would be included on the list of “terrorists” to be addressed by the “war against terrorism”. If the revolution had failed, there would certainly be a different description of the revolutionary fathers. They would be deemed traitors. Doesn't the telling of history ALWAYS belong to the victors? Two words: Benedict Arnold. As far as your comments about the way we operate in this new war, your points make a lot of sense. In most cases, military leaders have always been prepared for the "last war". We need to be concerned about this issue. You could make the point that the Taliban have also been preparing for their "last war"... in their case it was a civil war against the Northern Alliance or their battle against the Soviets. They are NOT PREPARED to battle against us in any kind of conventional way. Virtually all of our tactics and forces don't match the Soviet ones they defeated. The Soviets were concerned about claiming and holding territory, especially the cities. We aren't. They were interested in propping up their puppet government, we aren't. They didn't have the sophisticated systems such as stealth, satellites, drones, night vision, and so on. We do. They had conscription troops who didn't understand why they were there, and had little motivation other than personal survival. Our volunteer troops are highly motivated by 9-11, are extremely well trained and equipped, are fighting a war with the backing of the nation behind them. We've only used airpower and limited special forces so far. They sent in divisions of conventional troops. I think we're doing a great job of learning from and avoiding Soviet tactics that would play into the hands of the Taliban. Do we need to alter our tactics to fight a long-term war against terrorism? Yes. Have we done this? We don’t know yet. Remember we only see the parts of the war that the military WANTS us to see. So we don’t know the full range of tactics and probably won’t for decades to come. But remember again the victors get to write the history, and one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Let's hope that history records the terrorists as that. Heaven help us! [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] guitplayer

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] Guitplayer, I love you man but I don't think you really read my posts this time...or you at least assumed you knew what I was saying before finishing. Maybe go back and read them instead of assuming I don't know shit? [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Neither of us are watching this war...we're watching TV. From what I know of Afghanistan there really is no separation between Civilians and Soldiers...EVERYONE is a soldier...8 year old kids carry Grenades/AK47s...The Taliban won't be taken out without a lot of POOR people being [b]killed for protecting their their way of life[/b]. I know enough about War to know that it's impossible to differentiate between Innocent/Guilty in that situation. Bin Laden and his rich associates aren't going to be in the line of fire...Poor will die (not even really knowing what for), Rich people will profit...DEFINITION="WAR" always been this way...always will be. Also, just so we're not confused... The Taliban aren't confirmed terrorists...in fact most Taliban just don't have the means for anything like that. The Taliban don't "Harbor" Bin Laden...he Harbors them...he was there first...they're all afraid of him...he has the weapons, money, technology...friends. Let's not confuse who's really in control over there. The Taliban are not necessarily Al'Quada, a few of the leaders are rumored to be connected to that group but most aren't. Bin Laden is the closest connection to Al'Quada and NOT THE ONLY LEADER OF THAT GROUP. So maybe reread my earlier posts with that in mind...The objectives of this War are not crystal clear...we've all got some serious homework to do. [/B][/quote] Steve, I love you too man! I'm not trying to attack you personally here. I think you know that. I see you in the "ALL WAR IS WRONG" camp. It's not hard to understand your feelings about this. If every conflict can be resolved without war. I'm in. War should always be a last resort. Does war always kill innocents in (sometimes) huge numbers while letting the leaders who start it remain safe? In almost EVERY case. Can there be a war that ONLY targets the leaders or even just the soldiers? No. Not in modern warfare. If a nation wages war, should it at least "attempt" to limit civilian deaths? Yes, if it can. Should this desire to limit "wrongful" deaths prevent a nation from EVER going to war? We obviously start differing here. I think NO. Are there times where war IS justified? Again we differ. I think YES. Can the Taliban stop this RIGHT NOW! I think YES. (I think from your comments you think NO, since you say Bin Laden controls THEM)... I think the Taliban don't have a clue as to what they have asked for. They believe that because of what happened to the Soviets, they are gonna kick our ass. WRONG! But they are willing to see the deaths of thousands of their own people to make the point. But keep in mind, against the Soviets, THEY were willing to have a million of their people die in battle. Compared to about 20 thousand soviet troops. THEY are WILLING to sacrifice their people. If the Taliban met our demands, would we stop the battle? Yes. We're not trying to destroy the poor Afghans. We would even HELP them this time, learning from our mistakes after the Soviet departure! Steve, I don't think either one of us are going to change their minds about this. I just want you to know that I also HATE war. But I think we're in a situation that REQUIRES it. And I think, that from the admittedly "filtered" news that we receive, we're doing what a responsible war hating nation does when in this situation. TRY to minimize death to OUR PEOPLE first. THEN, attempt to limit civilian deaths, THEN try to limit the deaths of conscripts, THEN try to get the whole thing over as soon as possible. If you have a great idea that will actually work instead of this war... Make it public, I'll be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon with you. Peace. I mean it. guitplayer

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]I have to kick myself for even STARTING to get involved in this conversation, but here goes. So I'm an idiot.[/b][/quote] Yep! There are no simple answers to this dilemma, but people keep insisting there are. I, for one, believe we are doing what must be done with the military, to set the stage for any attempt at a cessation of hostilities from both sides. [quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]Guitplayer, Thanks for the historical past, but I'm afraid that your version only goes back 6005 years, and the conflicts in that region according to the Muslims goes back much further than that. [/b][/quote] Yes, guitplayer, thanks for the concise bible summary. But, Nika, further than 6005 years? Really? Based on what? I'm certainly interested in understanding this part of the equation better. [quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]My wife is not known for great one-liners, but she said something on September 11 that has not left my mind. She said "Is it just me, or is 'Israel' about the dumbest idea of the 20th century". Hmm. Perhaps we should be blaming Great Britain. It was all their idea to start with![/b][/quote] This isn't funny in the least. The British took a piece of land under their control, decided to relinquish control to Jews in the region in an attempt to promote the area as a refugee country for displaced survivors of WWII, and your wife thinks it's a flat out dumb idea? The comment is an outright insult to the Jews who lived under outside rule in many countries and were mistreated simply because they managed to thrive. Pograms, the Shoah, the Spanish inquisition, and many times having been conquered in present day Israeli territory gave birth to the idea that the Jews needed a place to call their own, to avoid genocide. The British helped make it a reality. Prior to 1948, Christians called most of the 1st world their countries. Islam lay claim to most of the Middle East, Buddhists had China, etc... but the Jews were aliens everywhere. Try relating to that. [quote]Originally posted by Nika: OK, now on to my point: Did any of you see the movie "The Patriot" staring Mel Gibson? Remember the premise of that movie was that they were fighting the revolutionary war with the Brits? [b]OK, remember that Mel and his "militia" were using "unconventional" war tactics such as jumping out of trees, killing officers (mercy me!), fighting battles where there was no preset battlefield, and using devious tactics to get an upperhand. And remember that Lord Cornwallis kept complaining about "how am I supposed to fight a war with people who don't follow the rules of war"? I think he may have even called the militia "terrorists" at one point in the movie for having killed several officers in a surprise attack. Eventually because they continued to march through fields in red trenchcoats all in a row and the militia continued to disturb the redcoats notions of "war" the US won and Lord Cornwallis retreated. "Rules of war". Hmmm. So here's how I see it. We've gotten accustomed to a way to fight a war - tanks, bombs, airplanes, yadda yadda. The Al Qai'da network has declared war on us, and are smart enough to recognize that they're not going to have much luck if they meet us in open fields with trenchcoats on. So they're breaking what we perceive to be the "rules of war" but we're all just people, and it's not like our "rules of war" really matter to them. Why should they?[/b][/quote] I'd stop while you are ahead, if I were you. You just gave the U.S. gov't a perfect excuse to level Afghanistan and other terrorist harboring states. If attacking civilians with no connection to military objectives is OK by them, and you want us to fight by their rules, then our obvious course of action is to kill anything and everything that moves in Afghanistan and several other countries in the region. We'll show them how to do it right. A few nuclear bombs and we'll have won the war. So, are we idiots if we use nuclear weapons or idiots if we attempt to strike at this cancer, destroy it, and then come in as we did in Germany and Japan and help rebuild their country as a Socialist or Democratic gov'ts? One seems unconscionable, the other arrogant, yet the latter worked in dealing with two vastly different cultures, one of which was dedicated to fighting until their last citizen was dead. [quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]So I'm thinking that we need to readjust how we fight wars if we plan on getting anywhere. We also need to recognize that THEY started the war with US, and there must be a reason why! And it doesn't sound to me like the reason why has much to do with us infiltrating their society. I'm thinking it's more about our troops in Saudi Arabia, but that's just me.[/b][/quote] I disagree. It's about a tiny minority controlling the entire region. Every government I've read about in Iraq, Iran, & Afghanistan has been out for power and money at the expense of the rest of the population. Stealing food from your people is no way to show you care. This isn't relegated to the middle east, of course. [quote]Originally posted by Nika: [b]Anyway, sorry about the blasphemy of associating our "patriots" with their "terrorists". I just happen to see some parallels. Perhaps others do as well. Nika.[/b][/quote] No problem. There are definitely some parallels, but the terrorists cross the line when they attack 6000 civilians who did not attack them. The U.S.S. Cole incident, maybe even the U.S. Embassy bombings, could be analogous to our patriots (Though I condemn them both), the WTC attack, IMO, cannot. ------------------ Neil [b]Reality[/b]: [i]A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.[/i]

[Nika]

Neil, [b]Yes, guitplayer, thanks for the concise bible summary. But, Nika, further than 6005 years? Really? Based on what? I'm certainly interested in understanding this part of the equation better.[/b] Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that historical documents from the Muslim side go back much farther than 6005 years. The 6005 years number is the age of the universe according to the strictest interpretation of the Bible - adding up all of the years in Numbers and Deutoronomy combined with the succession of Kings later on in the first testament. In fact, I think that the exact date of the beginning of the world according to these texts is something like October 10, 4004BC. Anyway, my understanding of it is the the Muslim faith does not hold to the same calendar in their historical texts. [b]This isn't funny in the least. The British took a piece of land under their control, decided to relinquish control to Jews in the region in an attempt to promote the area as a refugee country for displaced survivors of WWII, and your wife thinks it's a flat out dumb idea? The comment is an outright insult to the Jews who lived under outside rule in many countries and were mistreated simply because they managed to thrive. Pograms, the Shoah, the Spanish inquisition, and many times having been conquered in present day Israeli territory gave birth to the idea that the Jews needed a place to call their own, to avoid genocide. The British helped make it a reality. Prior to 1948, Christians called most of the 1st world their countries. Islam lay claim to most of the Middle East, Buddhists had China, etc... but the Jews were aliens everywhere. Try relating to that.[/b] Hold on, pal. You're talking about [i]my[/i] family here. My mom is Jewish and it is specifically of the group you're talking about. And I know a pretty penny's worth about the events leading up to the British giving Palestine to the post-war Jews. I caution you to tell [i]me[/i] what is funny and what isn't. You put yourself on an enormous pedestal when you start declaring what is humorous and what isn't, as though you are some sort of authority on the subject and we must ask your permission so as not to offend who......??? MYSELF?? The statement is still valid. Telling one type of people that they have to leave their homes and their homelands to make way for their enemies is not the most brilliant of ideas. Hindsight is pretty good, and I'll bet that if we had it to do all over again Israel would not have happened in the way it did - a testament to the notion that it was not the most brilliant examples of forethought in the 20th century. You may disagree. [b]I'd stop while you are ahead, if I were you. You just gave the U.S. gov't a perfect excuse to level Afghanistan and other terrorist harboring states. If attacking civilians with no connection to military objectives is OK by them, and you want us to fight by their rules, then our obvious course of action is to kill anything and everything that moves in Afghanistan and several other countries in the region. We'll show them how to do it right. A few nuclear bombs and we'll have won the war. So, are we idiots if we use nuclear weapons or idiots if we attempt to strike at this cancer, destroy it, and then come in as we did in Germany and Japan and help rebuild their country as a Socialist or Democratic gov'ts? One seems unconscionable, the other arrogant, yet the latter worked in dealing with two vastly different cultures, one of which was dedicated to fighting until their last citizen was dead.[/b] You read that out of my post. I in no way came up with any ideas. I only said that we have to approach this in other ways. Remember that many of the terrorist cells are in the US. Where, exactly, would we drop these nuclear bombs? I'm sorry, maybe I failed to mention that part of adapting our "rules of war" means doing it intelligently. Dropping big bombs on innocent civilians while the culprits are here in our own country hardly seems the intelligent way to go about any military or other type of war procedure. [b]No problem. There are definitely some parallels, but the terrorists cross the line when they attack 6000 civilians who did not attack them. The U.S.S. Cole incident, maybe even the U.S. Embassy bombings, could be analogous to our patriots (Though I condemn them both), the WTC attack, IMO, cannot.[/b] Neil, But that's where YOU draw the line. The fact that you draw a line somewhere signifies that you are making a judgment call about what OK warfare is and what isn't OK. Perhaps that's easy for you - first person warfare is OK. Third person is not? I'm still a little more torn on this matter. From their perspective we've been invading their lands for years. They finally "retaliated" for our unfair and unwarranted occupation of their countries. Now where exactly are you going to draw a line on this one? Our invasion of their lands or their retaliation? Or is it HOW they retaliated? It sounds like you've got this whole thing much more figured out than I have. It sounds easy for you to see black and white and draw lines in the sand with what's OK and what isn't. I'm afraid that I'm not yet knowledgable enough to be able to do such a thing. This sounds like a problem that has more information available to its historical contents than I have been able to acquire in my short lifetime. Perhaps I'm not alone in this. Nika.

[Tedster]

Wasn't the Islamic faith founded in like ~500 AD? At any rate, it is a younger tradition than Christianity, is it not?...although certainly the seeds were there before Mohammed.

[KenElevenShadows]

Yes, it's a more recent religion than Christianity, although built on many of the same beliefs. The difference, in part, is that the Muslims believe that while Jesus was a great prophet, he was not the son of God. They believe that no one is the son of God, and that Jesus was one in a line of great prophets, with Prophet Mohammed being the most recent. As a side note, one of the reasons that some Muslims, particularly in Iran, persecute the Ba'hai is because the Ba'hai believe that Ba'hullah (sp?) is the most recent in the line of prophets. The Muslims disagree with this view. ------------------ Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/Nectar http://www.elevenshadows.com 4 music, travel, more! http://www.cdbaby.com/elevenshadows

[KenElevenShadows]

>> Prior to 1948, Christians called most of the 1st world their countries. Islam lay claim to most of the Middle East, Buddhists had China, etc... but the Jews were aliens everywhere. Try relating to that.>> The Buddhists do NOT "have" China. If you don't believe me, ask a Tibetan. Ask them if they are allowed to have Dalai Lama pictures in their home. Ask them about their right to religion. Ask them about how only about 12 of their original 6,000 monasteries are still standing, the rest having been reduced to rubble by the Chinese armies. Ask Amnesty International about how widespread religion is in general in China. I doubt you're going to get much of an answer about the proliferation of Buddhism in China. While you're at it, ask them about how the Muslims are treated as well. ------------- Regarding the main reason why I am responding to your post, I'd agree -- the Jews, largely during WWII, were being persecuted, that much is certain. This doesn't necessarily mean that the U.N. resolution of 1948 was a well-conceived idea, unless you feel that forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to move from their homeland is a great idea. I'm going to greatly condense history here, but basically, after hundreds of years of Muslim rule, the British came to, er, "administrate" this area. During this time as a "British protectorate", the very name of which conjures up nightmares, many Jewish people immigrated to this area, mostly affluent Jewish people. As you have pointed out, many of them were fleeing from persecution from the Germans, and very well may have saved their lives by moving here. Because of this mass influx of Jewish immigrants, conflicts arose between the new Jewish settlers and the native inhabitants, most of whom were Arab Muslims (and a small population of Arab Christians). The Jewish immigration and land purchases displaced many of the locals. What further fueled this conflict was the fact that the Muslims, Jews, and Christians shared common places of worship. In 1948, in an attempt to solve this problem, the British decided to try and partition the two sides, something they tried around this time with India and Pakistan as well -- and see how that is working out? The two sides were sectioned off so that there was a Jewish side and an Arab side, with Jerusalem as an international zone that was free of Jewish or Arab rule. Immediately after the British pushed this through into law (with the aid of the U.N.), the neighboring countries of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq had an absolute fit, and the factions went to war. After this bitter war, Israel had gained much of the Gaza area and parts of Jordan, extending their borders past the U.N.-sanctioned zones. Additionally, Jerusalem was divided into Israeli/Jordanian rule. However, in 1950, Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital, although this was not recognized by most other countries. I could go on about further conflicts and all, but the basic bit of this is that many Palestinians were displaced, pure and simple, from what was rightfully their home. Put yourself in the place of a Palestinian for a moment. Would you like to live in a refugee camp? Do you consider whole villages, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, to be a great idea you can get behind? How about being a second-class citizen in your own homeland? Do you feel that, in addition to this scenario, it's okay for the world's richest country to pump billions and billions of dollars to provide the army that has forced you by tank and gun to move from your ancestral home with more tanks and more guns (and bombs and planes and money...)? ------------------ Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/Nectar http://www.elevenshadows.com 4 music, travel, more! http://www.cdbaby.com/elevenshadows This message has been edited by Ken/Eleven Shadows on 10-21-2001 at 05:11 PM This message has been edited by Ken/Eleven Shadows on 10-21-2001 at 05:12 PM

[Tedster]

>>>The Buddhists do NOT "have" China. If you don't believe me, ask a Tibetan. Ask them if they are allowed to have Dalai Lama pictures in their home. Ask them about their right to religion. Ask them about how only about 12 of their original 6,000 monasteries are still standing, the rest having been reduced to rubble by the Chinese armies Neil said "had" China, not "have" China. We know that since Mao took over, only the Communists have had China. We're talking about pre 1947 or so...when Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc...were the religions and/or philosophies of China. This message has been edited by Tedster on 10-21-2001 at 05:27 PM

[VerySoon]

Terrorists aren't going to do dick squat to Canada, cause we don't have military bases spread throughout the world. Nor do we support Israel by sending them money and arms. How close are those Israeli tanks to Palestine now? 4 months ago, practically every American was making fun of ole' Dub-Yah. He also wanted to disregard some long-range missle treaty. Funny how all of this happens, and the American public practically hands over a blank cheque to ole' Dub-Yah and says, "here you go, Georgie...fight those terrorists!" Looks like you're starting to get chummy with China. Remember those guys? You know...the ones that forced your spy plane to land. Can we all guess what's gonna happen next?

[Hippie]

To bring up the past 2000 years of unrest in the middle east region, in regards to the actions on sept.11, is clouding the issue; Any way you look at it, it is ILLEGAL to hijack airplanes and kill innocent people. By bringing up all the past "percieved" injustices that American gov't. may or may not have done is irrelevent. If an American were responsible for these acts, (remember Tim McVeigh?) he'd be on death row, too. The Taliban needs to learn that we do not tolerate terrorism, no matter who does it. It has nothing to do with their religion, race, etc. If the Taliban feels they have been screwed by America or any progressive nation, why didn't they join the UN? That is the place to do your bitching. -in these modern times, if you wanna play politics, and be taken seriously, you have to do the "protocol" shit that's required. These fuckheads had no interest in doing any of the "civilized" actions required. -But then again, the Taliban would have to delegate a representative to the UN that is literate and somewhat educated to join. -yea [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] They wanted to pick a fight for the last 8 years, we looked the other way several times now, (as good people do),[tell the peaceniks that one], but now it has gone too far. BTW: if the Taliban thinks we are "soft", why are they cowering in their caves?? Hey, come on out and fight like big tough men, bring it on, let's dance!

[Nika]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] To bring up the past 2000 years of unrest in the middle east region, in regards to the actions on sept.11, is clouding the issue; Any way you look at it, it is ILLEGAL to hijack airplanes and kill innocent people. By bringing up all the past "percieved" injustices that American gov't. may or may not have done is irrelevent. If an American were responsible for these acts, (remember Tim McVeigh?) he'd be on death row, too. The Taliban needs to learn that we do not tolerate terrorism, no matter who does it. It has nothing to do with their religion, race, etc. [/b] I'm not sure I understand your point. Yeah, sure, so it's illegal. So what. Are they supposed to respect that fact? Maybe we should have told them ahead of time that it is illegal to do such things. Then they might have listened. Might I remind you that smoking marijuana is still against the law as well? Sure, if we catch them alive we prosecute. I'm not sure where legalities enter into this. Fighting wars rarely fits into any laws. I'm sure the Afghanistan government has laws about outside troops coming into their country and bombing their government offices at night also. Hmm.... [b]If the Taliban feels they have been screwed by America or any progressive nation, why didn't they join the UN? That is the place to do your bitching.[/b] Well first they have to formally recognize and respect the UN. I can't imagine why they didn't go through the traditional means of getting bullied around. "Hey, if anyone wants to get bullied around, make sure you come and ask us nicely." I'm afraid that it's not like some people don't play by the rules of the game. It's that when they get beaten enough they find a new game to play. Can't say as I blame them. [b]-in these modern times, if you wanna play politics, and be taken seriously, you have to do the "protocol" shit that's required. These fuckheads had no interest in doing any of the "civilized" actions required. [/b] They don't [i]have to[/i] do anything, and I'll point out that they ARE being taken pretty seriously. And again, I can't blame them for not doing any of the "civil" actions that WE require. I'm thinking that the great patriots of our own country hardly partook in "civil" actions. I recall events like a Boston Tea Party, a revolutionary war, and other instances of colonial rebellion yet for some reason we find these events to be heroic whereas similar acts of lawlessness are cowardly by our enemies. Hmmm..... Nika.

[timrocker]

There are two viewpoints I have heard a lot of lately. One is the "we brought this on ourselves with our American consumption lifestyle and foreign policy" viewpoint. The other one is the "we are on the side of right and justice" viewpoint. I don't think either one of them holds water. In the first instance, I just feel like it's incredibly evident that the hijackers themselves brought this on us. Because they could. In the second instance, I don't think there's any right or justice being done in this operation. There's a clear goal of preventing further terrorism of this type and from this type of organization. There is the manpower and finance, and the will of the American people to achieve that. Because we can. So let's.

[the stranger]

All I know is if some guy who was 100 times stronger than me decided that his interests would be better served by shacking up in my living room and dictating/manipulating my affairs (covertly or otherwise), I'd be pretty fucking pissed. How long have we violated sovereign nations to serve ourselves? We reap what we sow. I say we have absolutely no business in the middle east to begin with. The general public is really stupid. The politicians ratings are at an all time high, as is the general publics trust of the government to do the right thing. Hello!?

[fuzz]

[b]The general public is really stupid. The politicians ratings are at an all time high, as is the general publics trust of the government to do the right thing. Hello!?[/b] and you know the politicians and just digging that fer sure.... ???can you get to that???

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by PeeTee: [b]Terrorists aren't going to do dick squat to Canada, cause we don't have military bases spread throughout the world. [/b][/quote] Last time I checked Canada was a NATO member. Share the wealth, pal.

[Anderton]

<<[Madonna] cant play guitar, doesnt really write her stuff, uses auto tune extensively on her vocals and knows NOTHING about the dynamics of world events. So why in the world would CNN give her drivel any air time at all?>> See my thread on the AOL/Madonna connection, and remember that CNN is an AOL/Time Warner company. I've gone out of my way not to enter into this, because the nuances and complexities of this entire scene are difficult to fathom in a forum. Once you get past the obvious - Sept. 11 - there are so many shades of gray it's hard to know where to start, as well as many internal contradictions within US foreign policy, Islam, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia...you name it. The whole thing is a mess. Many people will die in the years ahead, but my biggest fear is that when all is said and done, little will have been learned, and little will change.

[timrocker]

Craig, you are absolutely correct. It's learning that is most precious and necessary with all of this strife, bloodshed, and outrage. And for learning to be effective, it needs to start with correct and verifiable knowledge. Dr. Destructo, the scenario you described (stronger individual shacks up in my living room and takes over) begins with an "if" and has no resemblance to our nation's dealings with other nations. We have been generous to the point of over-doing it, and respectful of their identity, desires, and different worldview. And yes, it is not at all uncommon for a nation, just like an individual, to bite the hand that feeds him. Extremists in any given ideology need someone to point out and blame in order to keep the hatred and fear alive that really is the foundation of their views. That's true of every single ideology. You will see this in your own experience. We just didn't bring this on ourselves. And, no, God didn't bring this on ourselves either. It is up to us (I mean the U.S. military and its' allies) to put a stop to that type of terrorist activity and move ahead from there. I'd call that a plan of action. Please just consider these things, and give them their moment in the light.

[geoffk]

Well if you punch me in the nose, I obviously should..burn down your neighborhood---or maybe the county you live in--since those people have harbored a nose puncher. And then I would make it illegal to clench your hand into a fist, since that might be used as a nose punching object. And I would investigate any organization that you gave money to since they might be in favor of nose punch strangers. Is this reasonable? Obviously, no. If you punch me in the nose for any reason then it's a matter for the police and the courts. The same now. Even though these events were so horrible, they still MUST be dealt with via the UN and the World Court. That is the only way that more terrorists aren't going to be created, and more innocent people will not starve. The Taliban already offered to turn Bin Laden over to a 3rd party court. Why is this dismissed out of hand?

[whosmatt]

[quote]Originally posted by PeeTee: [b] Can we all guess what's gonna happen next?[/b][/quote] No. Why don't you enlighten us?

[Danny M]

[quote]The Taliban already offered to turn Bin Laden over to a 3rd party court. Why is this dismissed out of hand?[/quote] It's dismissed out of hand because no 3rd party would find him guilty. As soon as they did, they would be on Al Qaeda's hit list. I don't trust the US government implicitly, but I trust them more than the UN, and a boatload more than the Taliban. -Danny ------------------ Less is not more. More is more.

[arthurcanaveralskies.com]

"The Taliban already offered to turn Bin Laden over to a 3rd party court. Why is this dismissed out of hand? " Because, despite the propaganda we hear on the news, the US government's main goal is not to simply get Bin Laden and his organization. It is certainly one of the goals, and it is the one that will garner the most international (and national) support for the US gov. Justice for Sept. 11th is a no-brainer. But our main goal is to control the oil pipeline route from Kazakhstan (the largest untapped oil field in the world) that will go through Afghanistan. To do so, we are going after the unstable and untrustworthy Taliban government (for whom we formerly offered support, until they got out of line), in hopes of ultimately installing a more US friendly puppet regime in its place. If we get Bin Laden in the process, it'll be icing on the cake. I know this is hypothetical, but if Bin Laden were hiding out in Saudi Arabia or Egypt (where, supposedly, most members of his organization are from), the US government's response would probably be very different. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Egypt, and others have horrible governments with histories of nasty human rights violations too. But they ARE on board with US oil policies, so no bombs will fall on them. Our global economy is based on oil. It's the new gold standard. It's almost all about oil.

[arthurcanaveralskies.com]

Whoops, double post. Actually, I've started a new thread about Big Oil for those who wanna yap about Black Gold, Texas Tea. This message has been edited by Macartie on 10-23-2001 at 06:27 PM

[gtrmac]

Here's Unocal's statement on the matter of the proposed pipeline. I'm sure there are other players in the game. Updated Sept. 14, 2001: Unocal reiterates prior statements The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan. Part of this pipeline would have crossed western Afghanistan. However, Unocal suspended its participation in the CentGas consortium in August 1998 and formally withdrew from that consortium in December 1998. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban. The pipeline was never constructed. During this time, Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war. We met with many factions, including the Taliban, to educate them about the benefits such a pipeline could bring to this desperately poor and war-torn country, as well as to the Central Asian region. At no time did we make any deal with the Taliban, and, in fact, consistently emphasized that the project could not and would not proceed until there was an internationally recognized government in place in Afghanistan that fairly represented all its people. Our hope was that the project could help bring peace, stability and economic development to the Afghans, as well as develop important energy resources for the region. Unocal suspended its participation in the CentGas consortium (see statement). The company officially withdrew from the project in December 1998 (see statement below). After several incorrect reports appeared, including one published in Pakistan in February 1999, Unocal reconfirmed its position regarding this matter in another statement dated Feb. 16, 1999. It doesn't take much to read between the lines.

[the stranger]

[quote]Dr. Destructo, the scenario you described (stronger individual shacks up in my living room and takes over) begins with an "if" and has no resemblance to our nation's dealings with other nations. We have been generous to the point of over-doing it, and respectful of their identity, desires, and different worldview. [/quote] Are you serious?! LOL [quote]And yes, it is not at all uncommon for a nation, just like an individual, to bite the hand that feeds him.[/quote] We feed for OUR gain. The negative implications forshadow the outcome. [quote]Extremists in any given ideology need someone to point out and blame in order to keep the hatred and fear alive that really is the foundation of their views. That's true of every single ideology. You will see this in your own experience.[/quote] My own experience makes me see that this country is the most hypocritical in history. Look at our history in the last 50 years. We have been involved in situations in every corner of the globe that didn't pose a threat to the citizens of the U.S. Capitalist democracy (oxymoron) is the "true" way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who says? Extreme is the genocide of an entire race to found a "free" nation. Images of children running with fleash afire from the rain of napalm is extreme. A government controlled by economics is extreme. Profit. The brutalization of a wrongly arrested man...raped with a broom by those who are charged to protect and serve. That is extreme. Sex, violence. No, violence first! Whatever sells! Hey, let's run the images of mass death over and over and over and over and over. Ratings. Government, auctioned off to the highest bidder. Representation denied. Above all else, fix blame. Sue the bastards. Scapegoat. People who kill their own children. People who eat other people. Rape. Molestation. Starvation. Homelessness. Drug addiction. This is my country. And were not extremist? [quote] We just didn't bring this on ourselves. [/quote] I say we did.

[Tedster]

Except that our violence is mainly on TV and in the inner city. Violence there is everywhere...kids running around with AK-47s. Bombed out buildings. Say what you want. I advocate isolationism. Fuck everyone equally.

[KenElevenShadows]

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We just didn't bring this on ourselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I say we did. ********* We most certainly did. -Ken/Eleven Shadows and d i t h er and Nectar, too... http://www.elevenshadows.com