I was watching the news with pleasure, seeing the Taliban
flee from Kabul. May they all meet Allah soon.
Then it struck me that there are people
on this board who are against this from happening.
Shame on them. It's always wonderful to see fascists
flee. This is an update to those on the board
who lectured me as if they were experts on
military strategy, as well as those who seemed so
upset over America finally turning the guns on
the fascists.

I hope the bombing continues to be so effective,
and I hope some sort of halfway decent country can
be formed in the aftermath. What the people of
Afghanistan are beginning to have, at the very least,
is HOPE. If not much, certainly more than before.
It may not end up any better, but there's
a possiblity. Some men have already shaved
their beards, and some women have already removed
their veils. If the mission continues to be fought
properly, there's every reason to believe Afghanis
will be cheering in the streets someday soon.
Yet certain people here would deny them the chance
for that day in the sun.
Give war a chance.

Very good article in the new BRad Pitt issue of
Vanity Fair on Osama Bin Ladin. I did not know
one of his first entrances into ISlamist politics was to
go after the first female leader of the Middle East,
in Pakistan, like the sexist freak he is.

But the thing we're all dying to hear is of course...what did Brad Pitt have to say? Any exciting insights into the international man of mystery? Hmmm?

> I was watching the news with pleasure, seeing the Taliban
> flee from Kabul. May they all meet Allah soon.
> Then it struck me that there are people
> on this board who are against this from happening.
> Shame on them. It's always wonderful to see fascists
> flee. This is an update to those on the board
> who lectured me as if they were experts on
> military strategy, as well as those who seemed so
> upset over America finally turning the guns on
> the fascists.

> I hope the bombing continues to be so effective,
> and I hope some sort of halfway decent country can
> be formed in the aftermath. What the people of
> Afghanistan are beginning to have, at the very least,
> is HOPE. If not much, certainly more than before.
> It may not end up any better, but there's
> a possiblity. Some men have already shaved
> their beards, and some women have already removed
> their veils. If the mission continues to be fought
> properly, there's every reason to believe Afghanis
> will be cheering in the streets someday soon.
> Yet certain people here would deny them the chance
> for that day in the sun.
> Give war a chance.

> Very good article in the new BRad Pitt issue of
> Vanity Fair on Osama Bin Ladin. I did not know
> one of his first entrances into ISlamist politics was to
> go after the first female leader of the Middle East,
> in Pakistan, like the sexist freak he is.

> But the thing we're all dying to hear is of course...what did
> Brad Pitt have to say? Any exciting insights into the
> international man of mystery? Hmmm?

I'm saving the Pitt article for last, but it may be the article
I heard comments in the media about in which Pitt discusses
his mental breakdown. All I can tell you, though, is he's
shirtless on the cover, and I try not to look at the pics
too long as they make me feel rather inadequate.

This really does need to be rubbed in a few faces, considering
the content of their previous rants....

Some weeks back, Grim O'Grady wrote:
>>>>>
You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
>
the bombing is nothing but a public relations campaign.

> This really does need to be rubbed in a few faces, considering
> the content of their previous rants....

So have no innocent people been murdered? - you numbty.

> Some weeks back, Grim O'Grady wrote:
> You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb
> the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
> A dunce cap for her.

I'm a him, as you well know but you still use childishness to try & 'prove' your point. We will not know the full extent of the coalition bombing of Afghanistan is for quite a while as you well know these things are kept out of the public domain, it's part of your brainwashing therapy. - numbty

> These people, as well as the other voices of stupidity on this
> board (hello, Fred Flintstoned!), needed no prompting for their
> 2 cents when the war began. In their claims of moral
> superiority, they threw all kinds of deranged attacks at people
> -- "You think Afghanis are cockroaches who need to be
> exterminated"; "You support murdering innocent
> children"; "Bush and Blair are
> just as low as Bin Laden and deserve the be arrested too!"
> --
> but who's side were they really on?

I can only speak for myself in what I said, I was always & will always be on the side of the innocent. I see you are using those 'clever' words like "stupidity" again. - numbty (again)

> Their silence is noticed.

My silence as only been broken now because of you & your gung-ho clap-trappings. - you numbty.

> If the world followed their advice the citizens of Kabul would
> still be under the medievel terror regime. I am now cheering
> along with the innocent people of liberated Afghan cities as
> they watch their gang of opressers run for the hills to say
> their prayers. Some of them are finally playing music again. One
> wonders if Grim
> O'Grady, Suzanne, and the rest of that sorry lot of peacenik
> wannabes feel any happiness inside as the American coalition
> scored it's first victory of the war. The war that the decent
> people knew had to
> be fought. The war that cannot be lost.

Were to start? I'm glad you are cheering for the innocent, well how about showing some remorse for the innocents who won't be cheering because your beloved coalition have murdered them. I'm no peacenik, has if you'd bother to read my original postings back in September you'd know that I'm not a pacifist. I'm not the owner of a gun (unlike yourself who owns several) but I'm quite capable of violence. What 'decent' people are these that have killed innocent people? I think it is you young person who is going to get their nosed rubbed in it, unfortunately as more & more of the truth is established about the innocents that have died in your bloody war. The war is already lost to those innocents that have been murdered. - golden nugget numbty.

> Yes, the bombing has worked like a charm, and the pacifists and
> pessimists are the stupid ones. You live and you learn.

One day, possible when you are older (yes, I'm being patronising) you might just regret that statement. - sad numbty.

> The Taliban will soon be a memory. The terrorist network is
> next.
> And if future anti-civilization monsters start thinking about
> emulating Bin Laden, the good people of the world will slam down
> the hammer on them as well. We don't need the support of a few
> Chomsky-worshipping dolts who spoke of our bombing campaign as
> "silent genocide," but perhaps they ought to digest
> that
> being the voluntary spin-meisters for fascists does not make you
> moral or a friend to the oppressed. And perhaps they will
> overcome
> their irrational, extremist disgust for all things America and
> learn to be a bit more level-headed.

Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that trained & armed them in the first place) will be just another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next regime the coalition are priming?
I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is next." Who are they? You think the coalition are the 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even though they'd asked them not to. So where's the next big push on terrorism going to be? Are they going to start off in their own back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the mob he belonged to? Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk! You are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England? Are they going to receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb those in foreign parts.
Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the word 'pacifist' to me.
sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
peace off
Grim O'Grady

>>Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that trained & armed them in the first place) will be just another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next regime the coalition are priming?>I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is next." Who are they? You think the coalition are the 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even though they'd asked them not to.>So where's the next big push on terrorism going to be?>Are they going to start off in their own back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the mob he belonged to?>Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk!>You are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England?>Are they going to receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb those in foreign parts.>Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the word 'pacifist' to me.
sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
peace off Grim O'Grady

This is very a long & boring reposte to loafing oaf/mr so&so, I suggest if you are not they then you leave now... otherwise be prepared to have your adjectival pants bored off you & donated to a charity of your choice.

You have been warned!

I will state my case for the last time as there is no point in trying to discuss with the numbty loafing oaf (very apt you wear the title so well & live up to every conception of it) mr so&so. He is so rightous but the terrorist bin laden is still out there alive & kicking, which he seems to have over looked, the total numbty.

I have agreed all along that the terrorist bin laden ought to be sought out & brought to justice, along with any terrorist organisations.
I am opposed to the innocent slaughter by the coalition forces.

> Well, as you should know if you read any varied news sources the
> coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal
> factions.

Is that right? Let's see what becomes of this statement.

> But I'm sure that's still not good enough for you.

You know me so well, thank you for telling me what to think.

> It is humorous isn't Mr. Grady, that bombing has done more for
> Afghanistan in the past two months than any form of diplomacy or
> tolerance for the Taliban has in the past ten years?

It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no humour in that.

> So obviously bombing does specifically work Grim, no matter what
> comes of it afterwards. Certainly your only other option is
> diplomacy alone, and I think unless you desire to be perceived
> as a complete dunce at this point, holding such a sentiment is
> useless.

I assume you are not talking about the bombing on Sept' 11th (at least I hope you are not).
Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware that goes with them if they are not to be used? Over 30 years ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke & his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found? 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits & still bombing?

> In fact, bombing can make a diplomatic effort more real, and
> much easier, as it has in this case.

If you was including the bombing of Sept' 11th (surely not) then is this the diplomatic responce?

> It's funny, this whole event will get swept under the rug by
> people like Grady, in the manner that Kosovo was.

Don't make me laugh (though you make a better comedian than someone to be taken seriously). Yugoslavia was the result of "the > coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal > factions." after ww2.

> Hey, ask the poeple of Kosovo if bombing works Grim.

Hey numbty ask the innocent dead ones how great it is!

> Innocent people were killed in WWII but surely you wouldn't
> consider military force useless in liberating the jews, would
> you?

Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world, with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.

> Well, maybe you would.

> Has it ever occurred to you that some people must die in order
> for other people to live and be liberated? I'm sure you haven't,
> which exhibits a gaping flaw in your own logic.

Is that what your coalition trained & armed the taliban for?

> So, basically we should have just done nothing and more innocent
> people could have been killed intentionally by the Taliban,
> instead of indirectly when trying to liberate them form it?

I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll invent (as you did in the past) something completely different. Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy is a waste of time & that military intervention is the best option?

> Are you honestly trying to defend that notion?

That innocent people should not be murdered? Yes of course I am. Idealistic, simplistic but surely better than your notion that innocent people will be killed.

> Don't ever say that you are for the innocent, for you truly
> aren't. You are for your own comfortable ideals that don't fully
> address the actual plight of those being opressed. It's about a
> political idenditity for which you sacrfice pragmatism in order
> to remain a fringe entity.

WTF. So now after all I've stated, thanks once again to you for telling me what I truly am. That's what the fascists do you know tell people what to do & think. The coalition trained & armed the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, just like it has done with other dictators in the middle east countries, & why? Because it wants to be the worlds police force & have control over nations & commerce in oil rich countries & it's surrounding neighbourhoods. Therefore being in cohesion with the oppressors of these nations. Talk a look in the mirror of pragmatism, have you actually read some of the 'facts' that you've come out with?

> It's pathetic, and offensive for you to even pretend that those
> in favor of military action are the ones who are causing
> innocent casualites, when your own position would have left many
> more to be murdered, tortured and made to be misreable so as to
> preserve your own religious notion of peace at all costs.

READ ABOVE POSTING, YES THE ONE THAT YOU NEVER SEEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

> How very, very sad, that you even made an effort to respond to
> this. I am shcoked that you see no good coming from what has
> occurred recently. Your own far left brainwashing has really
> done a number on you.

I see innocent people have been murdered, that's very sad, something you haven't had the decency to show any remorse for. If my own far left brainwashing has done a number on me as you so eloquently put it, at least I managed to escape the far right brainwashing that you can not appear to escape from, I made a choice you are but a sheep.

> I actually said to myself that I really can't imagine anyone
> opposing what has occurred through the bombing efforts, but I
> was again caught off guard. Unlike you, maybe Suzanne is smart
> enough to keep her mouth shut, and not seem as ridiculous and
> chidlish as you have, for there is no other way a response that
> opposes this effort can now be perceived.

(Talking to yourself eh? - careful with your admissions here). I told you in our original arguements that I'd had enough of trying to debate with you as it fell upon your deaf ears/blind eyes because you just became so selective & stupid with your own arguements. You forced me out of retirement by your gung-ho "look how righteous I am" statement. Childish, hnmmmn, I'm opposed to murder you are all in favour of it, well if that's being childish pass me a rusk.

> You've lost any chance at securing a highground on this subject.
> It is best that you relent, and admit that you were mistaken,
> and that force is sometimes necessary.

READ MY POST IN CAPS FURTHER UP - NUMBTY. Mistaken my arse.

> Your family really should conisder an intervention, and a
> serious attempt at deprogramming is in order.

When you out grow your mind numbtiness then let's talk about the order of deprogramming, you see at least I've taken a step out of the arena where I was programmed to believe in father christmas etc.

> What's your point?

STOP MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. (IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO IGNORE?)

> We couldn't bomb them or physically restrain them. We sugested
> and asked them to refrain. It's not like we are absolutely upset
> about it. It would have been ideal if they hadn't, but they did,
> and we're not really angry about that. They weren't doing
> anything horrible.

Selective bombing now are you? Have you seen the pictures of the taliban supporters being tortured, obviously not, but I bow down to your knowledge of what is 'horrible'! I see where your justice department lies.

> And the terrorist network that is next is anyone that is deemed
> a threat to national security.

Who's national security?

> Could be Iraq.

Oh no not that old chestnut, now who armed & trained that fellah & his band of oppressors there? Who bombed the fcuk out of Iraq & who despite all this bombing who is still their dictator, oh yes bombing innocent people really works, well done.

> He was caught and imprisoned without us having to resort to
> force. Those who were found to be invovled were sought out. He
> was not acting on part of a militia or any other group.

He was a nutter from an organisation of nutters he didn't get to where he is today by himself. Organized terrorists, (is that bells ringing? or is it just x-mas).

> And if someone is found to be plotting or enacting terrorist
> acts against us, then they will be sought. If they resist then
> there will be force used, just like there is force being used in
> this instance.

So racial hatred is ok with you, or do you have to wait until an act is done before going in all guns blazing?

> We obviously are going to be conncerned with those organizations
> that are an immediate threat to our own national security.

For that read "my comfortable white middle class world". (it must be catching this speaking for other people malarky)

> Besides, I don't have to agree with Bush's absurd position that
> we are going to eliminate every form of terrorism. I don't agree
> with it.

So which terrorists (besides race hate groups, as you've already made your position clear on them) are you also going to allow?

> Take it up with him. I agree with certain particulars. I can
> only speak for myself, and I'm not here to defend Bush. I'm here
> to defend the use of force as a tool for peace. And I think
> that's really what is being debated.

Great quote, "I can only speak for myself", as you like to speak for me so much. "force as a tool for peace" Idiot bully - that's marvelous.

> If the Ku Kulx Klan is found to be plotting terrorist attacks
> then that effort will be rightfully deconstructed. In fact,
> efforts have been intercepted in the past.

So you know admit the kkk are a terrorist organisation but you don't bomb the areas where they live? hnmmmn now why's that then?

> You know Grim, they are indeed mointoring domestic groups like
> the KKK over here, and have been for a long time.

But not bombing them, you told me in our earlier 'debatings' that bin laden has been monitored for years also.

> Grim, why would we need to bomb a domestic terrorist group?

So it's ok to have your own homebased terrorist organisations, d'uh terrorists murder people, that's why you need to do something about them.

> You're, making no sense, and it's quite disturbing. Unlike the
> Taliban, there's no need to bomb them to accomplish the
> objective. They are arrested and if they resist, fire fights
> ensue.

I'm making no sense, unlike your words of wisdom.

> Are you aware that some of the terrorist cells involved on 9/11
> have been recently taken apart in America without being bombed?
> Does that register with your logic? They were aligned aspects of
> Al Qaida, and they obviously were dealt with without being
> bombed. Does it occur to you that we may be bombing Afghanistan
> for a reson? Oh dear Jesus this is absurd.

Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously you've changed tact. Oh exspensive Christmas guy, this is absurd.

> There's a great logistical differences between attacking
> domestic terrorism and attacking a violent, foreign regime.

Yep, don't @#!!! on your own doorstep comes to mind.

> That comment was just embarassing. Please think these thinks
> about before posting, or just stop responding altogether.

I'm not sorry that you feel embarrassed & I only hope you take your own advice & stop responding all together now.

> You must be trolling with these thoughts. I feel guilty even
> responding, but there might be some impressionable child out
> there reading over this right now.
> sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
> peace off Grim O'Grady Okay, well, this concludes the
> "Maniac Hour" here on Channel Ten.

Impressive, I bet you could become a scriptwriter for Letterman.

> Please address any appreciatable letters to "Blind and
> Illogical Pacifist (AKA Grim O'grady).

My eyes are wide open & I'm no pacifist illogical or otherwise.

> Thanks for watching.

I'll leave you with this quote "Empty vessels make the most noise".
You've been a great audience, & it's goodnight from both of us.

Okay, it's official, you're nuts, but this is a bit fun, so I'll indulge you.

A majority of your post was incoherent and mangled gramatically, but we'll see what we can do.

>>It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no humour in that. So obviously bombing does specifically work Grim, no matter what
> comes of it afterwards. Certainly your only other option is
> diplomacy alone, and I think unless you desire to be perceived
> as a complete dunce at this point, holding such a sentiment is
> useless.

>>I assume you are not talking about the bombing on Sept' 11th (at least I hope you are not). Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware that goes with them if they are not to be used? Over 30 years ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke & his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found? 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits & still bombing?>If you was including the bombing of Sept' 11th (surely not) then is this the diplomatic responce?>Don't make me laugh (though you make a better comedian than someone to be taken seriously). Yugoslavia was the result of "the > coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal > factions." after ww2.>Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world, with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.>I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll invent (as you did in the past) something completely different. Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy is a waste of time & that military intervention is the best option?>Selective bombing now are you? Have you seen the pictures of the taliban supporters being tortured, obviously not, but I bow down to your knowledge of what is 'horrible'! I see where your justice department lies.>Who's national security?>Oh no not that old chestnut, now who armed & trained that fellah & his band of oppressors there? Who bombed the fcuk out of Iraq & who despite all this bombing who is still their dictator, oh yes bombing innocent people really works, well done.>He was a nutter from an organisation of nutters he didn't get to where he is today by himself. Organized terrorists, (is that bells ringing? or is it just x-mas).>So racial hatred is ok with you, or do you have to wait until an act is done before going in all guns blazing?>So which terrorists (besides race hate groups, as you've already made your position clear on them) are you also going to allow?>So you know admit the kkk are a terrorist organisation but you don't bomb the areas where they live? hnmmmn now why's that then?>But not bombing them, you told me in our earlier 'debatings' that bin laden has been monitored for years also.>Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously you've changed tact. Oh exspensive Christmas guy, this is absurd.

> This is very a long & boring reposte to loafing oaf/mr
> so&so, I suggest if you are not they then you leave now...

Oh, but this is too intriguing to leave to just 2 other posters...

> I have agreed all along that the terrorist bin laden ought to be
> sought out & brought to justice, along with any terrorist
> organisations.

...which is what we've been DOING, in part.

> I am opposed to the innocent slaughter by the coalition forces.

War = casualties, some civilian. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

> It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress
> Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no
> humour in that.

You totally missed his point that, quite frankly, the use of force HAS yielded some positive results for the people of Afghanistan (and no, no no, not the dead ones, I know).

> Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions
> on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all
> these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware
> that goes with them if they are not to be used?

If you turn on the news, you will see that they ARE being used. They're not using sticks and stones, you know.

> Over 30 years
> ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke &
> his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found?

They're working on it.

> 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that
> bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like
> 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits
> & still bombing?

Because it is in these cities that the Taliban operates!! We're not just going around dropping bombs in schools and mrkets! We are knocking out key facilities which are impairing their ability to operate.

> Hey numbty ask the innocent dead ones how great it is!

> Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world,
> with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed
> 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.

The point is: IT HAPPENED.

And since it happened, something needed to be done. Christ! It's almost as if you're saying, "shame on Germany for 'allowing' such a monster to come to power; there's nothing we could (or should) do about it."

> I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from
> your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I
> SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know
> this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll
> invent (as you did in the past) something completely different.
> Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy

huh?
Is "voting for democracy" supposed to be an option in 'fixing' things in Afghanistan? That doesn't even make sense.

> is a waste
> of time & that military intervention is the best option?

So far, YES.

> That innocent people should not be murdered? Yes of course I am.
> Idealistic, simplistic but surely better than your notion that
> innocent people will be killed.

I just don't understand: WHAT, DO YOU PROPOSE, SHOULD BE DONE??

> I'm opposed to murder you are all in favour of it, well if
> that's being childish pass me a rusk.

Don't be a moron. I don't believe So&So and Oaf are in favor of murder! Murder is an unfortunate by-product of war and you need to accept this.

Anyway, to reiterate So&So's point, if you're opposed to the unintentional killings of the military in their attempts to liberate Afghanistan from the grips of the Taliban, then I would assume you're also opposed to the DELIBERATE MURDER of innocent individuals by the Taliban for "breaking" the most absurd "laws" of their f-ed up "religion."

> STOP MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. (IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO
> IGNORE?)

There's a difference between "kill" and "murder" - try not to make that mistake again.

> Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity
> of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register
> with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously
> you've changed tact.

That is for YOUR government to take care of. I'm sure Tony Blair has been monitoring terrorist elements in HIS country.

Amidst all your rantings and ravings, you still haven't given us any insight as to how YOU, Grim O'Grady, would go about solving this problem.

Seek out and kill bin Laden?

We're on it! But guess what?

That won't put an end to terrorism.

So that's my question to you. Would you mind answering it?

Oh, my god. This is a true american speaking... Exactly what propaganda sheets have you been reading?

I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how un-terrorlike he was?!

And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.

If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have happened.

By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.

USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.

L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance ?

Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.

"Oh the rhythm of life".

"Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your intellect.
Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.
But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so aptly execute.

Let's talk in ten months time.

BTW, how's Kosovo and Serbia nowadays? What about America's promised support to Romania after the bombings on Kosovo?

So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide after inflicting the wounds.

I'll be looking forward.

The bin laden funeral fund

>>L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance? Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory
> switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.

What's your point? So it's a bad thing? There is no reason to be cheering at all? The fact is they are glad, and so are many other people, whether it's because of immediate relief or a sense of long term hope.

You have to start somewhere. Oh, but I forgot, if we had handle this by giving out hugs and counciling the Taliban on exactly why what they're doing is wrong, then everything would have transitioned perfectly, and a new dawn would break with butterflies dashing about and candy canes for everyone.

This knee-jerk cynicism is sickening and says a lot.

> "Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your
> intellect.

So, are you suggesting that strategic bombing doesn't work? You wouldn't dare go that far would you?

If you were one of the ones claiming that we should first attempt to understand the Taliban and Al Qaeda so that we could better appease them, then I'm sure many would be amazed by your own intellect.

> Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and
> the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.

You honestly cannot be serious employing such a false analogy as this one.

Terrorist attacks bent on revenge and military strikes designed to elimniate a violent army are two completely different purposes and scenarios. This display of logic is rather shocking.

> But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether
> or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so
> aptly execute.

No, we were specifically told that violence only begets violence and that the entire Muslim world would rise up against us, and that we would never achieve anyhting in Afghnaistan. We were only bombing rocks and tens remember? Also, it would be a quagmire similiar to Viet Nam, and the Taliban are relentless and will fight to the death.

We were told the same thing in Iraq only to watch as soldiers surrendered to television crews and Kuwait was effeciently protected from invasion.

Yeah, I see, now it's about some mysterious agenda that we have planned, such as an oil pipeline, right?

> Let's talk in ten months time.

No, let's talk about it now. No one knows what will happen in ten months time and no one is attempting to predicitthat. We are simply asserting that our intitial plan has worked, and has given more hope for change than any diplomatic effort ever could have.

> So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a
> decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide
> after inflicting the wounds.

Well, certainly it's never about liberation or protecting one form opression and attack, right? It's always about the idea of nation building that rarely ever works with an outside force involved, and the idea that the United States is supposed to support these liberated nations indefinitely, all the while ignoring its own problems.

So, eseentilaly we are required to not only fight for these nations, but support them financially as well right? We are suppossed to ignore any problems in our own country and concern ourselves with anothers economic success. I see. All the while we bare both the economic and military burden.

That's not realistic. A country has to take responsibilty for its own governement once the threat is eliminated, and only so much can be expected from the United States.

America was begged by the U.N. and the people of Somlia to help them in their civil war, and to get aid to them that was being intercepted, yet what happened when we obliged? We were attacked and many soldiers were killed.

Therefore we stayed out of the conflict in Rawanda because of that failure and were lambasted for it.

But again, nothing the U.S. does will ever appease your kind because your own brand of idealism never has to be tested. Even if it were and it failed, you would most likely blame the lack of ideal application as the source of its failure.

In the mean time, there are immediate problems to deal with that don't respond kindly to ideal application.

> L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance ?

> Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory
> switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.

> "Oh the rhythm of life".

From the NY Times today:
======
In Kabul, DVD's and TV's Fill the Shopping Bags; Burkas Sit
on the Shelves
Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov. 17 --
Two teenage boys spent the day savoring one of the rituals
of youth the world over. They cruised the city to see and
be seen, to pick up a favorite album, perhaps to shed a bit
of adolescent awkwardness....

...

In a narrow basement passageway of the Sarai Ahmadshahi market,
Wahid, a slender 20-year-old thread salesman, sat down with
his burka-clad female friend just a few feet away to enjoy
a 15-minute chat this afternoon. Such a long discussion in
public would have been both scandalous and illegal under the
Taliban, which decreed that an unmarried woman could speak
to a single man only long enough to make a quick purchase.

"With the freedom we have, women can sit on a chair and
talk," Wahid said, blushing like a schoolboy.

After thinking about it for a moment, he agreed to ask
his friend if she would speak to a foreigner. When asked if
she was happy with the changed in Afghanistan, she said,
"Yes." Her smile was so bright it glowed through the mesh
of her Burka.
======

You think you know what is best for the people of Afghanistan
more than they do. Well, they have lived under the most closed
and oppressive regime in the world for years, and they are
cheering their liberation. Apparently you think they are too
stupid to know they are wrong to cheer? Are they wrong to
cheer? What is it you're saying? Do they not deserve the
same kind of pleasures in life YOU enjoy? Would you not
want to be liberated if you found yourself under a Taliban
style regime?

> "Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your
> intellect.

So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?

> Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and
> the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.

Yes, Oklahoma City, where a madman indiscriminately bombed
innocent people. And Sept. 11, where 19 state-sponsored
mass murderers indiscriminately missiled innocent people.
Quite a contrast from the coalition bombing campaign, which
had the most precisely aimed bombs in warfare history,
targetting the people who oppress, murder, and starve their
own people, and seek to impose such a life everywhere else.

> But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether
> or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so
> aptly execute.

So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?

> Let's talk in ten months time.

I can see you're hoping for the worst for the people of
Afghanistan.

Also from the NY Times today:
======
Crawford, Tex., Nov. 17--
The Bush administration said today that it would apply
intense pressure on the Northern Alliance...not to create
a government on its own but to fulfill its promise to
let the United Nations put together a broad coalition
to rule the country.
======

Difficult, sure. May fail, yes. But not worth trying?
Would you prefer to send the Afghan people back to the Taliban?
Deny them the hope for peace and some sort of better country?

> BTW, how's Kosovo and Serbia nowadays? What about America's
> promised support to Romania after the bombings on Kosovo?

They're doing better than they were under the fascist Milosevic.
Even Serbs are beginning to agree that they're better
off without their genocidal maniac, who today is standing on the
block.

Oh the Rhythm of Fred F and the Lot: Always opposing the downfall of fascist terror regimes.

> So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a
> decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide
> after inflicting the wounds.

More humanitarian aid is getting into Afghanistan today than before
the bombing, which might save thousands from starving to death
this winter.

> I'll be looking forward.

What you're looking forward to is something horrible happening
to the Afghan people, to confirm the ideology you're invested
in. I hope world leaders learned from the past and will not
leave Afghanistan in chaos. And I hope people within Afghanistan
understand their responsibility in making a break from the
past. The rhetoric suggests they have. The eyes of the world
are upon them, which will hopefully make all involved act
properly.

Whatever happens, I cheer over the fall of the Taliban,
and the success of the first phase of the war, while
you oddly boo.

> Oh, my god. This is a true american speaking...

I'm American by chance of birth. Not sure what "true American"
means, but if it means I believe the Declaration of Independance
is the greatest document ever written, that all people
in this world deserve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
(an ideal Usama bin Laden adhors as "satanic"),
and that American policy is right when it is acting to encourage this end and wrong when it is not, then yes, I am a true American. Haven't
yet been able to figure out what the f*&k people like you are,
but whatever it is it's nothing I'd be proud of.

>Exactly what
> propaganda sheets have you been reading?

Just watching the news.

Everyone is influenced by propaganda to an extent, but I make
a sincere effort to have a balanced view. You, on the other
hand, make such purely propagandistic declarations as
"America is nothing more than a terror regime," and still have the
gall to talk of others being propagandists. Where's even the
attempt on your part to be balanced?

> I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one
> thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries
> freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that
> Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen
> by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how
> un-terrorlike he was?!

I was talking about current events. I've read the book "The
Trial of Henry Kissinger," and I know about the evils of
American leaders in Chile. You seem to have misinterpretted
my statement about "irrational and extremist" America bashing.
I have most certainly not suggested my country never does
stupid, bad, or evil things. But America has also done some
smart, good, and beautiful things, which people like you never
seem to notice. You really don't know anything about America
at all. It is you who takes the black and white view on things:
America, always wrong; America, always evil.

You, in the current events, are not happy about
the liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban,
which makes *you* the child of those on the
side of Pinochet in Chile, not me.

> And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much
> thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're
> going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.

Well, I didn't know it was their strategy for the Taliban
to take power (is it just possible that some ill in this
world occurs without American intent and design behind it?),
but they did stupidly, selfishly abandon the country in a state of chaos - after helping to remove foreign occupiers - and to the extent
that American policy had the awful consequence of helping
the Taliban rise, it makes America morally responsible to
help clean up the mess. America did not meet that
moral responsibility until after self-defense was added
to the mix, which is too bad, but makes me no less
exhilerated to see the Taliban go down.

In contrast, your view appears to be, the Taliban should be
left in power to go on murdering, persecuting, oppressing,
and planning to spread murder, persecution and oppression
throughout the region and the world. It is only when
American guns are turned on fascists that people like you
start taking an active concern about those countries...and
you shamefully choose the side of the fascists.

> If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you
> deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for
> USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have
> happened.

Whenever someone begins, "I'm not saying blah-blah-blah, BUT..."
you can bet blah-blah-blah is precisely what they're saying.

Individuals are morally responsible for their own actions.

I'm sorry about your lack of consideration for the 5000 murdered people in NYC, DC, and PENN, who were just trying to live their lives.

If you'd like some backround on the worldview of bin Laden
there's an extensive and fascinating article called
"The Revolt of ISlam" in the Nov. 19 issue of the New Yorker,
on newstands now. (Don't worry, it has critiques on
American policy.) I've already gone in depth about my
interpretations on the terrorists on this board, which
can be found with the search feature.

> By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern
> alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody
> history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.

We know you're hoping for the worst.
I don't know what's gonna happen, duh. I'm just happy phase one was a success and the Taliban will soon be history. The Afghan people
are happy for this as well, which means you're not on
their side.

I'm also happy that the terrorist network is in a state of disaray,
which will help prevent them from planning future, bigger mass
murders. I saw they found some plans for nuclear weapons
the other day. What a lovely world we'd have to look forward
to if the majority of the world agreed with you. Instead,
the good and decent people of the world
have proven they will rise up and defend what is worth defending
against an enemy it cannot co-exist with.

Sure, we also now know we can't count on *you* when we're in
a pinch, but ah well, so be it.

> USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.

Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.

I was curious if you'd express relief that you were wrong
about the bombing, and happiness that Afghan cities are
being liberated from the Taliban. But, no, not good
old Grim.....

> So have no innocent people been murdered? - you numbty.

5,000 innocent people were murdered in New York, D.C., and
PEnnsylvania. You never seem to have them in mind. When
the Taliban took power, they went down the streets randomly
shooting adults and children for the sport of it. They
then set up the most closed and oppressive "government"
in the world, and were so incompetant they have been
causing the starvation of one out of four children.
They emulate the nazis in making perscuted groups wear
markers, not to mention their ambitions. They treat women as lower than dogs. And they welcomed in a foreign terrorist network seeking to bring death and destruction to the entire world.

They committed the final provocation with their indiscriminate
bombings of innocent people, and were met with the most
discriminating bombings of guilty people and their infrastructure. Of course bombs sometimes go off target, causing tragedy.
The blame is on the regime who forced the bombs to fall upon them.

Meanwhile, the people in liberated cities celebrate, have hope,
are getting more humanitarian aid to prevent starvation, are no
longer beaten in the streets, no longer shot dead in their soccer stadium (they were playing *soccer* there the other day!), etc etc etc. Thousands of lives are being saved, and have a chance at a life more worth living. Doesn't mean all is
cheery for the future, but it's a helluva good start.

> I'm a him, as you well know but you still use childishness to
> try & 'prove' your point.

I was going to do the "her/him" thing, but I remembered
one of your comrades posted "you go girl!" to you in a previous
thread.

>We will not know the full extent
> of the coalition bombing of Afghanistan is for quite a while as
> you well know these things are kept out of the public domain,
> it's part of your brainwashing therapy. - numbty

You condemned the bombing before it began, on the assumption
that anything America does is by definition evil. You were
wrong.

I told you in the previous thread that it was clear America
had to act, that I'd judge the results, and that there was
every reason to believe the people of Afghanistan would
cheer in the streets (this was obvious if you had genuine empathy
for them).

And the people of Afghanistan did cheer the bombing of their
own regime. Looks like you were not on their side.

> I can only speak for myself in what I said, I was always &
> will always be on the side of the innocent. I see you are using
> those 'clever' words like "stupidity" again. - numbty
> (again)

Does anyone here think Grim O'Grady is not stupid? I ask
seriously.

> My silence as only been broken now because of you & your
> gung-ho clap-trappings. - you numbty.

> Were to start? I'm glad you are cheering for the innocent, well
> how about showing some remorse for the innocents who won't be
> cheering because your beloved coalition have murdered them.
>I'm
> no peacenik, has if you'd bother to read my original postings
> back in September you'd know that I'm not a pacifist.

Yawn.

>I'm not
> the owner of a gun (unlike yourself who owns several)

I love the way you care whether I own guns.

>but I'm
> quite capable of violence.

Oh yeah? Well, I'm non-violent, except in the fewest
of scenerios, such as self-defense.
I wouldn't want to be "quite" capable of harming
others.

>What 'decent' people are these that
> have killed innocent people? I think it is you young person who
> is going to get their nosed rubbed in it, unfortunately as more
> & more of the truth is established about the innocents that
> have died in your bloody war. The war is already lost to those
> innocents that have been murdered. - golden nugget numbty.

We've seen the credibility of the "truths" you offer. Anyone
can do a search of your messages on topic since Sept. 11
and see how Grim O'Grady ought to be declared the weather-vane of
Morrissey-Solo. Whatever Grim says is true you can count on
being false. A person unsure of what to think could simply
follow this strategy, taking the opposite view of Grim, and get along quite well.

> One day, possible when you are older (yes, I'm being
> patronising) you might just regret that statement. - sad numbty.

LOL! (Yes, I'm laughing at you.)

> Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that
> trained & armed them in the first place) will be just
> another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next
> regime the coalition are priming?

Well, if fascists take over Afghanistan again, they can count
on you to protest anyone who attacks them.

I'm aware this only sets the clock back ten years for
Afghanistan. But phase one worked like a charm.
Give war a chance!

Or, keep crying over the destruction of the Taliban....

Just quit using "innocent kids" in Afghanistan
as propaganda tools. They are better off today
than two months ago, as the whole world can see.

I remain convinced that you want tragedies to happen to
innocent Afghanis so you can hold them up and condemn
America. You just ain't convincing in your compassion.
You've invested yourself in the worst happening, so
you feel no joy when something good happens.

> I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is
> next." Who are they?

Duh!

We blew up on of their leaders already. Happy day. YOu know,
it's really doing the terrorists a favor. They say they wanna be martyred. Ok, then, we'll help them meet Allah. Strange, though, that as much as they claim to want this, they run and hide in
caves.

The rest of your message is just too idiotic to even deal with.
You really ought to go back to holding your tongue.

>You think the coalition are the
> 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they
> couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even
> though they'd asked them not to. So where's the next big push on
> terrorism going to be? Are they going to start off in their own
> back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations
> that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter
> who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the
> name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the
> mob he belonged to? Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru
> for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk! You
> are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku
> klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England? Are they going to
> receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't
> mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb
> those in foreign parts.
> Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that
> you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing
> you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or
> not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's
> ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the
> word 'pacifist' to me.
> sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
> peace off
> Grim O'Grady

> I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one
> thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries
> freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that
> Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen
> by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how
> un-terrorlike he was?!

What does this have to do with Afghanistan and what does this have to do with every administartions handling of foreign matters? I cannot debate the comment above for I do not know the history of it in full detail, and I'm quite confident you don't either.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be about the degree of America's philanhropic good, it has to do with what is effective in fighting an enemy.

> And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much
> thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're
> going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.

Whether the U.S. would have been involved with Pakistan's intelligence service or not, the Taliban would have taken over Afghanistan because they were bolstered by the Pakistani government and were desired by the people.

This constant implication of every little involvement the U.S. has had with foreign governemnts, in terms of degrees is rather desperate. I mean, I could implicate great Bitain and all of human history in a simliar fashion.

In fact, I could just as easily claim that we are in this mess beacuse of the British Empire, and even beyond that, the Soviet Union.

You also fail to mention the Soviet Union and Argentina in your equation and it was the Soviet Union that did more for the chaos now seen in Afghanistan than the United States.

Whether you disagree with how the U.S. handled the aftermath of the Soviet invasion or not, America's interest in keeping the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan helped free the country from a Communist take over, something that the country had every right to desire.

International affairs are genrally about self-interest and getting something out of it. Ask Osama Bin Laden. An action doesn't have to be comepletely philanthropic for there to be any good to come out of it.

Thinking in such a manner is being wishful and denying the reality of human psychology. The world is not an unconditional place. Intimate relationships are not unconditional and neither are foreign affairs.

> If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you
> deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for
> USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have
> happened.

Yes, we saved Kuwait form invasion, Kosovo from bloody opression, helped keep Afghanistan from Soviet rule, and are currently helping oust the Taliban. Is it all for philanthrpic good? No, but it doesn't matter.

The U.S. is not perfect, but to place the blame of Bin Laden's desires and his own philsophy on the United States is absurd. I assume if we went back in history and reversed every decuision that somehow trickled down to someone having a grievance with us, the there would be no Islamic extremists, no violent regimes and the world would be at peace correct?

What an unbelievable extrapolation and a complete denial in asking for the responsibilty of anyone else involved.

The Soviet Union led Afghansitan through a decade of bloody war and the United States single handedly created the problem in Afghanistan? Islamic extremeism and the opression of Islamic people by their own religious doctrine has created an atmosphere of archaic hatred for outside influence, yet, the United States as always is at fault.

This is the reality of modern times. No one is willing to place blame on anyone else for their actions because they are all eventually deemed justify when it comes to attacking the United States.

However the providing of aid and the protecting of European oil resources in the Gulf get swept under the rug.

Still no acknowledgement of the atmosphere that is bred in Islamic culture that allows the proliferation of extremist views to dominate and be hardly refuted.

No, this is just about Israel, and somehow Nicaragua, Cambodia and a slew of other grievances devised by partisan politics.

It's funny, for if an extremist Christian group attempted the same antics in the West, there would be no devised grievances set out by far left academics over the idea of opression or the ignorance of cultural and ideological relativism. No, the ones comitting the violent acts would be deemed silly, dangerous, primitve and fascist.

You see none of that being said about Islamic extremists because saying so interferes with partisan politcs. islamic extreemists are figthing the same hated enemy as far left academics and politcal heads.

> By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern
> alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody
> history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.

We've endorsed a broad based governemnt made up of tribal factions. No one has endoresed the N.A. as the expected government of Afghanistan. That is something that the Afghani coalition will have to determin. That's not the U.S.' decision. The N.A. alliance was there before Sept. 11 and were the only major army figthing the Taliban. We have no choice, whether we could have achieved this through a diplomatic effort alone, to involve the N.A. in the discussion over Afghanistan's future.

That's all we can do. Certainly you don't abandon the idea of defeating the Taliban because the N.A. alliance might do bad things as well. You have to act wisely, diplomatically and refrain from endorsing any one group in particular.

But I'm certain if the Afghani coalition makes a bad decision, then the U.S. will be blamed for not having waved a magic wand and creating a swift utopia.

>>USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.

How about the TAKE A NICE DUMPY DUMP ON STICKLER fund? that'd go over pretty well I think. We can get a group together? sure,we can get people to donate and see just how much it's going to cost me to dump all over your face. Where do I sign up??

> I was curious if you'd express relief that you were wrong
> about the bombing, and happiness that Afghan cities are
> being liberated from the Taliban. But, no, not good
> old Grim.....

If no innocent people have been murdered then I am wrong about the bombing BUT as you well know innocent people have been murdered.
Of course I'm happy for the liberated ones just sad for the murdered ones kind of doesn't make me feel like running & jumping for joy, like your goodself.

> 5,000 innocent people were murdered in New York, D.C., and
> PEnnsylvania. You never seem to have them in mind.

Why do you tell lies, people only need to put in a search of my past posts in September to see that I did have them very much in mind, but if people did start re-reading your replies they'd see your made up lies also, so you wouldn't want that would you?

When
> the Taliban took power, they went down the streets randomly
> shooting adults and children for the sport of it.

Whilst the coalition have randomly bombed cities murdering innocent adults & children but neither make it right.

They
> then set up the most closed and oppressive
> "government"
> in the world, and were so incompetant they have been
> causing the starvation of one out of four children.
> They emulate the nazis in making perscuted groups wear
> markers, not to mention their ambitions. They treat women as
> lower than dogs. And they welcomed in a foreign terrorist
> network seeking to bring death and destruction to the entire
> world.

Have I ever stated that I'm mister taliban supporter or number 1 fan? No, never but if you'd bother to read my previous posts you'd understand that.

> They committed the final provocation with their indiscriminate
> bombings of innocent people, and were met with the most
> discriminating bombings of guilty people and their
> infrastructure. Of course bombs sometimes go off target, causing
> tragedy.
> The blame is on the regime who forced the bombs to fall upon
> them.

Finally you admit it to be a tragedy, that's the first time you've admitted any feelings towards the innocent people being murdered.
Still no remorse for them or their families I see but I guess your having to much of a party for that.

> Meanwhile, the people in liberated cities celebrate, have hope,
> are getting more humanitarian aid to prevent starvation, are no
> longer beaten in the streets, no longer shot dead in their
> soccer stadium (they were playing *soccer* there the other
> day!), etc etc etc. Thousands of lives are being saved, and have
> a chance at a life more worth living. Doesn't mean all is
> cheery for the future, but it's a helluva good start.

Bravo.

> I was going to do the "her/him" thing, but I
> remembered
> one of your comrades posted "you go girl!" to you in a
> previous
> thread.

I don't actually know the person you are refferring to, so lose the 'comrade' please. As I've explained that I'm married to an American woman I think that's more than enough information for even you to work out my sex. Obviously I gave you to much credit.

> You condemned the bombing before it began, on the assumption
> that anything America does is by definition evil. You were
> wrong.

There you go again you & your paranoia, at least you got one part right, yes I was opposed (& still am) to the C O A L I T I O N bombing. Never have I used the words "anything America". Please read my original posts for proof.

> I told you in the previous thread that it was clear America
> had to act, that I'd judge the results, and that there was
> every reason to believe the people of Afghanistan would
> cheer in the streets (this was obvious if you had genuine
> empathy
> for them).

Not everyone is cheering in the streets, not everyone survived, life in Afghanistan is easy for you to overlook, why's that?

> And the people of Afghanistan did cheer the bombing of their
> own regime. Looks like you were not on their side.

Not the dead ones or the families of the dead ones, silly boy.

> Does anyone here think Grim O'Grady is not stupid? I ask
> seriously.

Reasoned & sensible arguement there, anything else you'd like to call me whilst you are at it, it doesn't hurt me unlike the bombs on the innocent people of Afghanistan.

> Yawn.

Stay awake one day you may just learn something.

> I love the way you care whether I own guns.

No I just think it helps explain your blood lust mentality.

> Oh yeah? Well, I'm non-violent, except in the fewest
> of scenerios, such as self-defense.
> I wouldn't want to be "quite" capable of harming
> others.

Whilst you own numerous guns you are very capable of hurting yourself & others. Actually remember that daft analogy you gave me about what I'd do if I saw someone being raped? I know you answered it for me (wrongly as you do to most things) I said I would go to their aid & do whatever I could but whilst on my way I wouldn't just punch whoever was in the vacinity. Whereas you following on would go shoot up the neighbourhood, if what you believe of the coalition bombing is true.

> We've seen the credibility of the "truths" you offer.
> Anyone
> can do a search of your messages on topic since Sept. 11
> and see how Grim O'Grady ought to be declared the weather-vane
> of
> Morrissey-Solo. Whatever Grim says is true you can count on
> being false. A person unsure of what to think could simply
> follow this strategy, taking the opposite view of Grim, and get
> along quite well.

I cannot understand your audacity or stupidity that you could post that, were I've been wrong I've admitted it, can't recall your honesty anywhere though. If people could be arsed to read your posts then they would see your make believe lies about what I suposedly said.

> LOL! (Yes, I'm laughing at you.)

Well I just feel sorry for you.

> Well, if fascists take over Afghanistan again, they can count
> on you to protest anyone who attacks them.

If only you could understand my posts previously you'd understand how foolish you have just made yourself look.

> I'm aware this only sets the clock back ten years for
> Afghanistan. But phase one worked like a charm.
> Give war a chance!

Gung-ho!

> Or, keep crying over the destruction of the Taliban....

If only you could understand my posts previously you'd understand how foolish you have just made yourself look.

> Just quit using "innocent kids" in Afghanistan
> as propaganda tools. They are better off today
> than two months ago, as the whole world can see.

I'll stop using them as "propaganda tools" when you get your coalition to stop murdering them ok.

> I remain convinced that you want tragedies to happen to
> innocent Afghanis so you can hold them up and condemn
> America. You just ain't convincing in your compassion.
> You've invested yourself in the worst happening, so
> you feel no joy when something good happens.

Oh look paging mr paranoia once again. How can you feel so good about death?

> Duh!

?

> We blew up on of their leaders already. Happy day. YOu know,
> it's really doing the terrorists a favor. They say they wanna be
> martyred. Ok, then, we'll help them meet Allah. Strange, though,
> that as much as they claim to want this, they run and hide in
> caves.

osama bin laden is still out there or have you forgotten that? & I told you in the beginning before the slaughter began that they would be hiding in caves but no just keep on bombing the cities where innocent people are going to get murdered.

> The rest of your message is just too idiotic to even deal with.
> You really ought to go back to holding your tongue.

I'll go back to holding my tongue when numbties like you have stopped posting your filth in here.

Grim O'Grady

> No I just think it [owning guns] helps explain your blood lust >mentality.

A gun is just an object. Like many objects, such as the box cutters
the mass murderers used to kill 5,000 people, they can be used for
either good or ill. All I've ever shot are clay pidgeons while skeet shooting and targets while at the firing range. It's a good time and I'm a pretty good shot. You don't have to like my hobbies, and since I live in a free country I don't have to care whether you approve of them.

> Whilst you own numerous guns you are very capable of hurting
> yourself & others. Actually remember that daft analogy you
> gave me about what I'd do if I saw someone being raped?

No, I never posted any such analogy. Don't know what you're
talking about.

Sorry, I had forgotten you were married. Why was that relevant again?

> No, I never posted any such analogy. Don't know what you're
> talking about.

My mistake I thought that you & mr so&so were one & the same, it was he who posted the 'rape' analogy. But as both of you were attacking me in the same manner & at the same time it was an easy mistake to make. I'm sorry if I offended you though as you both appear to piss from the same pot you probably will take no offence to me mistaking you for him.

> Sorry, I had forgotten you were married. Why was that relevant
> again?

The relevance was that you called me 'her'.

Mr Grim O'Grady

> My mistake

Mistakes come naturally to you, weathervane.

> The relevance was that you called me 'her'.

No, the relevance of telling me some dolt American found her
dolt soulmate in England. Were you illustrating for us how,
as there's a brain drain into America, there's also a dolt drain
out? Whatever the case, please don't reproduce. But if you
do, your kids will be safe from Usama bin Laden now that
some enterprising Afghan is about to become a millionaire by
bringing us his head. The question is, will they be
safe from you?

I'm glad those other two retards who responded to me have
run away. Fools. It's so boring to hear over and over
again how no good can ever be done so lets just sit
around and watch the world fall apart.

As a movie buff, I was touched to see the Kabul cinemas had their
first screenings in 5 years to standing room only crowds.
Good can be done. (Lets hope they're spared Harry Potter.)

Anyway, it's Thanksgiving vacation for me. I look forward to
sipping Italian wine in front of the TV, watching Islamist
nazi freaks get blown up by way cool bunker busting bombs.
Merry Ramadan! Give my regards to Allah!

Much to be thankful for.

At least I'm honest & human you struggle to make either of those 2 categories.
So do the world a favour & leave it.
love & peace off
Grim O'Grady

> Well, I can't speak for him, but I can say "yes", and
> they should be thanking us as well. We scratched their backs and
> they sratched ours. It could not have progressed this quickly
> without our help or theirs. We simply helped them do something
> that they originally intended to do. They didn't volunteer.

That's the rosey side. The USA used the N.A. to do the dirty or most dangerous work. I have a feeling that something similar happened against the Russians in Afghanistan. But it's just a feeling.
Strange though. The USA supported the "Afghan freedom fighters" against the Russians, but they didn't support them against the Taliban. At least, not until they became handy again.

> Certainly you wouldn't claim the N.A. achieved this on their
> own.

NO. Nor did the USA achieve this on their own. Let's have that clear as well.

> They certainly don't.

> What's your point? So it's a bad thing? There is no reason to be
> cheering at all? The fact is they are glad, and so are many
> other people, whether it's because of immediate relief or a
> sense of long term hope.

What my point is (be assured, I'll go through lenghty explanations if needed): what's the use of referring to cheerful Afghans? Are they happy? Sure, and that's good. But does it MEAN anything?

I'm not so sure. I hope they can continue to be cheerful and happy; but after the Russians retreated from Afghanistan, the USA abandoned the Muhjaheddin and the political void was quickly filled by warlords and other paramilitary groups. No fun for the Afghans.
I'll be very much looking forward to the post-Taliban era, and the way in which the international community, USA first, will deal with it.

So yes, the Afghans cheer. They did that too when the Taliban came into power; and look what they ended up with. Let's not be fooled by the cheers of the first days, right? It's not because of their cheers that the USA can soothe their conscience and silently retreat with Osama's head in a bucket. OK?

> You have to start somewhere. Oh, but I forgot, if we had handle
> this by giving out hugs and counciling the Taliban on exactly
> why what they're doing is wrong, then everything would have
> transitioned perfectly, and a new dawn would break with
> butterflies dashing about and candy canes for everyone.

> This knee-jerk cynicism is sickening and says a lot.

Yawn.
They are glad.
The situation was horrible. There may be some relief.
Good.
But let's not be fooled.
The USA had plenty of time to care about the ill fate of the Afghans. And what's next? Are they going to help the oppressed Burmese population? Huh?
The "Palestinians" also cheered on Sept. 11.
That's easy and empty rhetoric.
If you really feel happy and satisfied with the anti-terror campaign because of some Afghan cheers, well that could be called "knee-jerk optimism".
Or just plain stupidity.
The problems the Afghans face are rather impressive, and the fear of falling under a new reign of gratuitous violence by different factions and warlords is real.

"cynicism" ? Call it realism.
Oh, who's the idealist here?

> So, are you suggesting that strategic bombing doesn't work? You
> wouldn't dare go that far would you?

Am I saying that it doesn't work? Where? Irony is not your best, is it? To put it in very simple terms: of course throwing bombs "works": it kills, destabilizes, undermines, threatens, shakes and what not.
Sure, it works.
What is more important, however, is what it does NOT do: it doesn't build any new things; it doesn't come with a solution on its sleeve. You'll need more international effort and support, and for a longer time, than just a bombing campaign to get the Afghan people back to a civilised level of normality for those regions.
So, yes, it "works". Pfft. Trivially.
So it worked, and now all back home for a nice Xmas supper with the family - is that what you want?

> If you were one of the ones claiming that we should first
> attempt to understand the Taliban and Al Qaeda so that we could
> better appease them, then I'm sure many would be amazed by your
> own intellect.

We do understand them, don't we? Come on, use your loaf. What happened to all the CIA guys and girls who've been listening endlessly to tape recordings of telephone conversations, e-mail exchanges (hello, Echelon!) and the lot? Al Quaeda was unknown till Sept. 11? Fool me!
The intelligence agencies in the USA have tapes of plenty of conversations of people belonging to the network. Those guys had even air training in the USA (were those Florida air schools bombed?) - don't tell me this is something that comes out of nowhere. There's a good understanding of how they work, where they are, who they are.
And why hasn't anything been done?
Do you as Americans feel happy with an administration that has to wait until something like Sept. 11 happens before they seriously start digging into the matter, freezing bank accounts and tracing those people all over the world? Do you?

> You honestly cannot be serious employing such a false analogy as
> this one.

Oh no? Don't tell me bringing down the WTC missed the point the terrorists wanted to make. Don't tell me it didn't "work" ...

> Terrorist attacks bent on revenge and military strikes designed
> to elimniate a violent army are two completely different
> purposes and scenarios. This display of logic is rather
> shocking.

Metonymy is not logic.
As an expert in distorted logic, you then must be capable of explaining this "logic": the Taliban have been in power for 6 years. There hasn't been any attempt at breaking their primitive and oppressive regime before the attacks on the USA.

Don't tell me now that removing the Taliban from power was the first goal of the military attacks on Afghanistan. That's a nice and even necessary corollary. But if that had been the first one on the list, the USA shouldn't have waited that long.

So the American bombings on Al Q. and the Taliban are not based on revenge?
What then? Filanthropy? Ah ... I see, you called it "Eternal Justice".
Hearing today in the case America vs. Taliban, with Judge "America".

Aren't we making a fool of the notion of "justice" here?

> No, we were specifically told that violence only begets violence
> and that the entire Muslim world would rise up against us, and
> that we would never achieve anyhting in Afghnaistan. We were
> only bombing rocks and tens remember? Also, it would be a
> quagmire similiar to Viet Nam, and the Taliban are relentless
> and will fight to the death.
> We were told the same thing in Iraq only to watch as soldiers
> surrendered to television crews and Kuwait was effeciently
> protected from invasion.
> Yeah, I see, now it's about some mysterious agenda that we have
> planned, such as an oil pipeline, right?

Wrong again. What about the "war against terrorism" that is fought inside the USA? You have the right skin colour, religion (or at least not the "wrong" one), nationality, is it? The military tribunals that are now installed - you don't have to fear them, do you? That there is an ongoing racial and religious discrimination is not your problem ... civil liberties apply only to the "real" Americans, apparently?

Ah. The muslim world would rise up against you ... where do you stand on that? You think they didn't? Everyone's good buddies with George and the blokes now? Is that really so? There's no resentment, you feel, amidst Muslims?

And violence doesn't beget violence? With the Taliban gone, no terror attacks ought to be feared on American targets, you mean?

(P.S. Kuwait was indeed *really* invaded - it gave the Iraqi soldiers the occasion to commit a number of hideous atrocities for which, so far, I have seen noone trying to get Saddam Hussein behind bars - this is a sidenote, really)

> No, let's talk about it now. No one knows what will happen in
> ten months time and no one is attempting to predicitthat. We are
> simply asserting that our intitial plan has worked, and has
> given more hope for change than any diplomatic effort ever could
> have.

Yes. And Bambi's got a nice pair of legs.

Has there BEEN any diplomatic effort in the past? Oh , yes, the UNO was upset when they blew up an old statue of Buddha and tried to ask them not to do it (when it had already been done). Ah, yes, the Buddha - that was a moment of international diplomacy. The Afghans must have felt the heartfelt compassion.
But what happened in the years before that? How much hard talk was spoken with the Taliban? Who tried to stop the drugstrade? Was there an embargo? Tell me, WHAT efforts have been done? Did ANYONE pressurize Pakistan ?
And it's just a matter of responsibility that now the Taliban are kicked out, those who kicked them out (and we agree the N.A. and the USA share the responsibility) take care in finding something decent to replace them and monitor the changes.

Good. The bombs got the Taliban kicked from their seats. Nice. But I happen to be interested in what follows - see, removing the Taliban from power alone is not a solution. It's a start. Part of the solution lies in what comes now. I said I'll be looking forward.

No predictions can be made?
You can predict very easily that if no sustained effort is offered, Afghans will be at the mercy of the local warlords again. Should that be the legacy of the bombings for the civilians?

How much do you really care about the Afghans?

> Well, certainly it's never about liberation or protecting one
> form opression and attack, right?

It certainly isn't. If it were, the USA would have quite a lot of work to do. But from the target they choose, you can see it's not about democracy, political freedom and oppression in the first place.

> It's always about the idea of
> nation building that rarely ever works with an outside force
> involved, and the idea that the United States is supposed to
> support these liberated nations indefinitely, all the while
> ignoring its own problems.

"Its own problems"? How come the Al Quaeda network and the Taliban are not the "own problems" of the USA all of a sudden?
Come on. The Taliban have been enjoying themselves in Afghanistan for 6 years. Clinton sent some missiles after the bombings on the African embassies, but for the rest ... what has been done?

> So, eseentilaly we are required to not only fight for these
> nations, but support them financially as well right? We are
> suppossed to ignore any problems in our own country and concern
> ourselves with anothers economic success. I see. All the while
> we bare both the economic and military burden.
> That's not realistic. A country has to take responsibilty for
> its own governement once the threat is eliminated, and only so
> much can be expected from the United States.

Well, as soon as your George W. will be busy with dealing with America again, tell him to sack the entire CIA and FBI lot for negligence and incompetence.
And spare us this "we are required to fight for these nations" rhetoric.
You DON'T fight for these nations.
The agenda is an American agenda. Not an Afghan agenda; not a Yuguslav agenda, not an Israeli-agenda, not a Palestinian agenda.

Do you really believe that this is all done in honour of the Afghan people? To grant them political freedom and happiness? George Bush on his crusade for civil liberties?

He'd better marry my grandmother!

What is it, two peoples killing each other and the USA shout "shut up now, I'm watching telly".

OK. Close your borders again, ignore the rest of the world. And hope that one day you're not going to find another plane going down on a national symbol.

Haven't you lot learned anything?

Colin Powell even speaks of a "moral obligation" towards the Afghans to build up something new and lasting. To intervene in Afghanistan's political future more prominently, to support them on the humanitarian level ... and what is it that you want? Return to Ypsilanti and watch the Chicago Bulls play?

> America was begged by the U.N. and the people of Somlia to help
> them in their civil war, and to get aid to them that was being
> intercepted, yet what happened when we obliged? We were attacked
> and many soldiers were killed.

Osama had his guys there as well, remember. Somalia was a disaster because of a very bad organization by the USA and UN. Many rangers got killed. Yes. "Collateral damage" the Somali will say.

> Therefore we stayed out of the conflict in Rawanda because of
> that failure and were lambasted for it.

and rightly so!
But then everyone who tried to intervene in Ruanda got lambasted (the French accused of pro-Burundi measures, the Belgians got themselves killed, ...). Striking though, US forces after the "debacle" in Somalia, apparently knew what was being planned in Ruanda a year later. Did anything happen to prevent it?

Ah, you'll accuse me again of being anti-American. That's your mistake. Suffice it to say that more than just the Americans knew what was being prepared in Ruanda; no one thought it to be important.

> But again, nothing the U.S. does will ever appease your kind
> because your own brand of idealism never has to be tested. Even
> if it were and it failed, you would most likely blame the lack
> of ideal application as the source of its failure.

My idealism? And you're realistic, aren't you? Funny you accuse other people of the idealism you like to wrap yourself in. "America should focus on its own problems". Now, in this "global era" ... how backwards is that?

> In the mean time, there are immediate problems to deal with that
> don't respond kindly to ideal application.

I guess your chicken are hungry. "Il faut cultiver son jardin" ... well go ahead. Play the national hymn, be proud and reactionary. "United you stand". Indeed.
You don't move.

The world is more and more global problem; Sept. 11 should have taught you that.
Try to listen.

> From the NY Times today:
> ======
> In Kabul, DVD's and TV's Fill the Shopping Bags; Burkas Sit
> on the Shelves
> Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov. 17 --
> Two teenage boys spent the day savoring one of the rituals
> of youth the world over. They cruised the city to see and
> be seen, to pick up a favorite album, perhaps to shed a bit
> of adolescent awkwardness....
> In a narrow basement passageway of the Sarai Ahmadshahi market,
> Wahid, a slender 20-year-old thread salesman, sat down with
> his burka-clad female friend just a few feet away to enjoy
> a 15-minute chat this afternoon. Such a long discussion in
> public would have been both scandalous and illegal under the
> Taliban, which decreed that an unmarried woman could speak
> to a single man only long enough to make a quick purchase.

> "With the freedom we have, women can sit on a chair and
> talk," Wahid said, blushing like a schoolboy.

> After thinking about it for a moment, he agreed to ask
> his friend if she would speak to a foreigner. When asked if
> she was happy with the changed in Afghanistan, she said,
> "Yes." Her smile was so bright it glowed through the
> mesh
> of her Burka.
> ======

> You think you know what is best for the people of Afghanistan
> more than they do. Well, they have lived under the most closed
> and oppressive regime in the world for years, and they are
> cheering their liberation. Apparently you think they are too
> stupid to know they are wrong to cheer? Are they wrong to
> cheer? What is it you're saying? Do they not deserve the
> same kind of pleasures in life YOU enjoy? Would you not
> want to be liberated if you found yourself under a Taliban
> style regime?

Wrong assumptions.
It's not wrong for THEM to cheer. It's wrong for US to cheer at their cheering.

The work starts, now.

Basically, in these 6 years the Taliban established their oppression, nothing much has been done for the Afghan people. Pretending you helped them to get rid of the Taliban is no big deal. That wasn't America's target for about 5 long years. There's no room for heroic feelings here, please.

> So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?

Wrong again.
I'm glad to see they lost a lot of the international support they initially had. But I won't take the outbursts of joy of the Kabul population as a consolation. Much more will have to be done or they'll have perhaps a less oppressive regime, but still an oppressive regime. The N.A. are no saints either.

> Yes, Oklahoma City, where a madman indiscriminately bombed
> innocent people. And Sept. 11, where 19 state-sponsored
> mass murderers indiscriminately missiled innocent people.
> Quite a contrast from the coalition bombing campaign, which
> had the most precisely aimed bombs in warfare history,
> targetting the people who oppress, murder, and starve their
> own people, and seek to impose such a life everywhere else.

And no innocent people were missiled in Afghanistan?
Anyway.
The attacks on the WTC had the intended effect. The bombings in Afghanistan as well.
"Bombing works". Yeah ... we know. It destroys.
It doesn't build anything anew. And will you be happy to leave all that to the poor Afghan people?

> So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?

Wrong again. I'm not interested in whether or not they have a television programme or not; there are, quite frankly, more and much more urgent problems that should be dealt with.

> I can see you're hoping for the worst for the people of
> Afghanistan.

No. I'm terribly annoyed at the way the USA is managing the "peace" part of their military missions. They generally don't have any "peace" part.

> Also from the NY Times today:
> ======
> Crawford, Tex., Nov. 17--
> The Bush administration said today that it would apply
> intense pressure on the Northern Alliance...not to create
> a government on its own but to fulfill its promise to
> let the United Nations put together a broad coalition
> to rule the country.
> ======

> Difficult, sure. May fail, yes. But not worth trying?

It's not about trying. It's about making it happen, about monitoring the democratic process. Helping. Your pal above here is just all too quickly back to his own barn and backyard to feed the chickens. "urgent problems at home". Yeah. If even Colin Powell acknowledges that the Americans cannot repeat the mistakes they made when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan ...
And we yet have to see how the N.A. reacts. Oh, they'll meet in Berlin next week. But they declared at the same time that the meeting was "merely symbolic". And that the real political discussions about power and territory will have to be held in Afghanistan. That game is not over yet. It's up to the International community and the USA & UK first (they have the military power there now) to ensure that all deals and negotiations are fair and open.

> Would you prefer to send the Afghan people back to the Taliban?

I wouldn't. But then it's not so much what I want, but what they want. And it doesn't seem that the N.A is very united; nor does it seem that the other factions are wanting a government of national unity.
Who's imposing what on whom? If there can be "strategic" bombing, let's hope there can be "strategic" diplomacy.

> Deny them the hope for peace and some sort of better country?

Oh. What a pacifist vocabulary.

> They're doing better than they were under the fascist Milosevic.
> Even Serbs are beginning to agree that they're better
> off without their genocidal maniac, who today is standing on the
> block.

Oh. They're doing "better" in Kosovo. Yes they probably are, 'cos they're not fighting anymore. Point is: how remote is war in Kosovo? Not much, alas. Yes they have had free elections. Sadly though, Rugova was too fast to point out that they (Kosovo) want independence. Not good. Macedonia rings a bell?

The Serbs are doing better? They're still nationalistic as ever. You think they turned filo-American? They have it better - sure, the embargo is lifted. What about the damage that had been done? Who's paying?

> Oh the Rhythm of Fred F and the Lot: Always opposing the
> downfall of fascist terror regimes.

Ha. L.O. I wished your brains weren't as soft as your feelings for the USA.

> More humanitarian aid is getting into Afghanistan today than
> before
> the bombing, which might save thousands from starving to death
> this winter.

Well well.
Sure there's more humanitarian help than before the bombing, the need is indeed much higher now than before. "Oh good, they can finally get it now!". You did create the need first, remember.

And this mighty "might". Provided that they get back safely, escape local armed groups of foreign (Pakistani/Arab/Chechen) fighters, across the mine-fields, find a shelter, and indeed return before the winter. And what after the winter? What with the refugee camps in the no-man's-lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Are you now turning on me because I denigrate or deny them any help?
That would be foolish, wouldn't it? Let's say that it is one thing to get the aid into Afghanistan. It is another matter to get it to those who need it. Time is running out.

> What you're looking forward to is something horrible happening
> to the Afghan people, to confirm the ideology you're invested
> in. I hope world leaders learned from the past and will not
> leave Afghanistan in chaos. And I hope people within Afghanistan
> understand their responsibility in making a break from the
> past. The rhetoric suggests they have. The eyes of the world
> are upon them, which will hopefully make all involved act
> properly.

Who's having an ideology here, eh?
From what I recall in newspapers, interviews and TV reports, most Afghans abroad condemn the bombing of their country. And they are relieved that the Taliban abandoned Kabul. Talk with some Afghans. They know the void that has been created has never in the past generated much good. I hope the USA spends as much on Afghanistan in humanitarian and other aid as it spend in military involvement in the area. That would be fair. It may help.

> Whatever happens, I cheer over the fall of the Taliban,
> and the success of the first phase of the war, while
> you oddly boo.

Nah. You're just happy about the USA, the successful bombing campaign, and like to usurp the initial joy of the Afghans to validate your own point of view, that bombing was a good thing.
Did you care about Afghanistan, say, three years ago? Are you going to write Bush to ask for a military intervention in Burma so the Burmese can finally be freed from an oppressive and brutal military regime? Since the USA are in the region, why not free Chechenia from an oppressive Russian military force?

Oh well. And you think it's easy to be the good one. "A bomb a day keeps the terrorists away".
Sickening, no?

That the Taliban have been removed from power is a direct result from their backing Osama and his killer crew. It does not result in the first place from their bad record in terms of human rights and internal policies. Bombing Afghanistan wasn't intended in the first place to free the Afghans from an oppressive regime. Sparing the civilians wasn't done because of the civilians. It was a matter of pragmatics, in order to avoid irritation in the muslim world.

Face it.

And hope you don't get locked up under the special anti-terror laws that are being made "at home". Quote your favourite NY Times William Safire on this one, please.

> Wrong assumptions.
> It's not wrong for THEM to cheer. It's wrong for US to cheer at
> their cheering.

It is not wrong for me to cheer.

I cheer because:

(1) The most vile, medieval, barbaric regime in the world is on its last legs, giving the people of Afghanistan the chance to work for a new future...not without anxiety, but certainly with hope.

(2) As I noted in September, and as the people of Afghanistan are
confirming, the enemy of Americans and the enemy of Afghanis is one and the same. When I wrote that there was "every reason
to believe the people of Afghanistan would cheer in the streets"
after their regime is bombed, it was simply a matter of being
in touch with human nature as well as informed and genuinely empathetic about the realities in Afghanistan. (They were like "the jews in concentration camps" wrote one Afghan observer at www.salon.com in September.)

(3) This is a turning point in the larger battle against Islamist/fascist fundamentalism in general, an enemy I have failed to
see evidence that your lot of comrades on this board grasps at all. An enemy that has been plaguing the region and the world beyond for decades, and is currently the biggest threat to civilization everywhere.

The message of the Islamist is now being
undermined by the sight of the people of Kabul publicly rejecting
their wacko vision for the world. The voices of secularism and modernity now have the encouragement to speak out against those who have bullied them into silence for decades. The politics of "delfection," in which undemocratic, corrupt regimes such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia promote extremist, fanatical anti-American, anti-jew, anti-Israel feelings through their religous schools, mosques, and newspapers is becoming less acceptable, and will hopefully cease to be mainstream. (This last sentence is not saying there are no legit gripes against America or Israel.)

(4) Ordinary people embracing the freedom (which you were unmoved by) is a victory for Western humanism, and sends important messages to all actors in these events.
It sends a message to Northern Alliance warlords that
freedoms must be respected. It sends a message to the region that repression is despised. It sends a message to America that it must remember the values it claims to stand for (but has not always), values like democracy, religious pluralism, and individual liberty.

(5) Regimes who harbor terrorists are now on notice as they witness what happened to the Taliban. And the Taliban itself is being rendered harmless to the world at large.

(6) Good people of the world have proven that when a monster like Usama bin Laden come along, they will rise up and take him out. The elements of the fringe left who believe nothing good can ever be done anywhere, who ask themselves each day what they can do to help give cover to the Milosevics and Talibans of the world, are outnumbered to a degree which renders them thankfully irrelevant.

(7) Finally (well, not really finally, as I can list a hundred good reasons to cheer), I have been personally, emotionally moved, as a human being and lover of freedom, by the Afghan people.

So, silly fool, why is it, again, "wrong" for me to cheer?

Those outside of Fred F might want to stop reading here, as the rest is rather tedious. I'm indulgant.....

>But I won't take the outbursts of joy of the
> Kabul population as a consolation. Much more will have to be
> done or they'll have perhaps a less oppressive regime, but still
> an oppressive regime. The N.A. are no saints either.

A search for the message I posted to Mr. So & So at the start of these events shows my awareness of the past of the Northern Alliance warlords, well before the Taliban-protecting Left scrambled to piss on the parade of the liberated people of Afghanistan. (BTW: "Less oppressive" = better, duh.)

What do you want. Afghanistan is one hell of an effed up country. (I'm not sure if it can even be called a "country.") But it's noteworthy that you say "much more will have to be done." By implication, this means the bombing was a start on the right path. Notice you didn't say, "The bombing failed/made things worse, we need to go back to the drawing board."

How about what you wanted done in September? (You're "Fred Flintstoned," correct?)
When asked to lay out your ideas, you offered
us exactly two useless sentences (paraphrasing): "Put Usama
on trial" and "Go after their money." So enough of your
lecturing now.

> "Bombing works". Yeah ... we know. It destroys.

Yup, bombs destroy. They destroyed the Taliban. woo hoo!

Usama bin Laden's plans for nukes were recovered thanks to the bombing, and yes, those nukes would have destroyed thousands of lives, and their target may have been you.

> It doesn't build anything anew. And will you be happy to leave
> all that to the poor Afghan people?

Are newspapers unavailable to you? The United Nations is acting already.

> I'm not interested in whether or not they have a
> television programme or not; there are, quite frankly, more and
> much more urgent problems that should be dealt with.

I'm sorry the people of Afghanistan did not recieve the talking
points from the Taliban-sympathizing wing of the Left. They're a real fly in your ointment, eh? I'm sorry you find their reaction so annoying. But they are not the pawns of your ideology, they are just regular human beings wanting a chance at life. Do you know what it means to an Afghan woman to be able to walk in the sunshine without veils covering her face? NEither do I, but I can imagine, and I can't comprehend you dismissing it as not "urgent" or "interesting."

Those of us who have had the luxury of world travel (and I noted with no surprise that "Margitrichert" has told us she has not set foot outside of Europe (in the thread asking what Thanksgiving is about)...) learn one lesson above all: That people are mostly the same everywhere. They want the same things. They have the same feelings. The shaving of beards, the removal of veils, the going to the cinema, the digging up of TV sets they buried when the Taliban took over, the flying of kites, this is a profound event to witness. You just don't understand because you have your head too far up your ass and you're too busy trying to spin things. Students of history might be reminded of the liberation of PAris in WW2.

> No. I'm terribly annoyed at the way the USA is managing the
> "peace" part of their military missions. They
> generally don't have any "peace" part.

America has a mixed record. I don't know about "generally" though. That's a subjective conclusion. Does a rebuilt Germany and a rebuilt Japan count for anything?

Are you aware that the only people in Iraq not suffering
starvation and repression are those in the internationally protected Kurdish area? That is good that can be done by an international community. I'm sure you'll continue to tell us we can only do wrong, in your ever-constant moaning and groaning every step of the way.

> It's not about trying. It's about making it happen,

You weren't in favor of making anything happen except
sitting around waiting for Usama to kill thousands more people!

The next paragraphs are further confirmation of your thinly veiled desire to see the worst occur. But if the worst happens, you'll still have been wrong about everything thus far, so why not just come on board? You're allowed to change your mind, you know. It's not dishonorable to do so.

I have a few further responses if you scroll down.

>about
> monitoring the democratic process. Helping. Your pal above here
> is just all too quickly back to his own barn and backyard to
> feed the chickens. "urgent problems at home". Yeah. If
> even Colin Powell acknowledges that the Americans cannot repeat
> the mistakes they made when the Russians pulled out of
> Afghanistan ...
> And we yet have to see how the N.A. reacts. Oh, they'll meet in
> Berlin next week. But they declared at the same time that the
> meeting was "merely symbolic". And that the real
> political discussions about power and territory will have to be
> held in Afghanistan. That game is not over yet. It's up to the
> International community and the USA & UK first (they have
> the military power there now) to ensure that all deals and
> negotiations are fair and open.

> I wouldn't. But then it's not so much what I want, but what they
> want. And it doesn't seem that the N.A is very united; nor does
> it seem that the other factions are wanting a government of
> national unity.
> Who's imposing what on whom? If there can be
> "strategic" bombing, let's hope there can be
> "strategic" diplomacy.

> Oh. They're doing "better" in Kosovo. Yes they
> probably are, 'cos they're not fighting anymore. Point is: how
> remote is war in Kosovo? Not much, alas. Yes they have had free
> elections. Sadly though, Rugova was too fast to point out that
> they (Kosovo) want independence. Not good. Macedonia rings a
> bell?

> The Serbs are doing better? They're still nationalistic as ever.
> You think they turned filo-American? They have it better - sure,
> the embargo is lifted. What about the damage that had been done?
> Who's paying?

> Ha. L.O. I wished your brains weren't as soft as your feelings
> for the USA.

I love the way your calling me stupid comes right after your confused ramblings about Kosovo, a sub-topic you came here to "educate" us on. I'm thinking you spoke in ignorance, looked into it after, were surprised by what you found, didn't know how to handle it, and tried bluffing your way. Explain to me clearly why the bombing of Milosevic was wrong.

> Well well.
> Sure there's more humanitarian help than before the bombing, the
> need is indeed much higher now than before. "Oh good, they
> can finally get it now!". You did create the need first,
> remember.

Gee, I thought Mother Nature and a terror regime combined to
create starvation in Afghanistan.

> And this mighty "might". Provided that they get back
> safely, escape local armed groups of foreign
> (Pakistani/Arab/Chechen) fighters, across the mine-fields, find
> a shelter, and indeed return before the winter. And what after
> the winter? What with the refugee camps in the no-man's-lands
> between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

> Are you now turning on me because I denigrate or deny them any
> help?
> That would be foolish, wouldn't it? Let's say that it is one
> thing to get the aid into Afghanistan. It is another matter to
> get it to those who need it. Time is running out.

> Who's having an ideology here, eh?
> From what I recall in newspapers, interviews and TV reports,
> most Afghans abroad condemn the bombing of their country.

I see Afghan opinions count after all, but only when they coincide with your ideology.

Anyway, your assertion is suspicious. First of all, you treat "Afghans abroad" as a monolithic group, when if anything is true about the people of Afghanistan
it's that they are deeply divided by tribe and ethnicity, not to mention that they are individuals beyond this (startling, btw, how even the Taliban's own ethnic tribe is turning on them!).
I'm not sure that a few TV interviews of a few individuals
is enough for you to appoint yourself spokesman.

NEverhteless,
it does seem logical that there would be concerns as the bombing
began. After all, pessimists told them that America
would "bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age," that America
would "take its wrath out on innocent civilians." They even had
the biggest propagandist in American politics, Noam Chomsky, making
speeches at M.I.T. warning that by October America was to have
intentionally starved several million Afghan civilians in a "silent genocide." And, anyway, I wasn't without my own concerns about the bombs. It was not out of the realm of possibility that the bombing could have been carried out irrationally and immorally, and if I had loved ones there I'd have been worried as hell, and making damn sure I told the U.S. government to not act recklessly.

So, I'll pretend you have evidence, and concede 100% of "Afghans abroad" opposed the bombing 2 months ago. What are they saying today?

May the entire world judge the bombs, including "Afghans abroad," but in particular Afghans in AFGHANISTAN (you know, those people cheering whom you're so dismissive of?). The results speak for themselves, as do the liberated peoples. This is becoming one of the greatest war victories in world history. And if "Afghans abroad" monolithically disagree, then I must simply disagree with them. Just as you simply disagree with the people in Afghanistan feeling happy about their regime being bombed.

>And
> they are relieved that the Taliban abandoned Kabul. Talk with
> some Afghans. They know the void that has been created has never
> in the past generated much good. I hope the USA spends as much
> on Afghanistan in humanitarian and other aid as it spend in
> military involvement in the area. That would be fair. It may
> help.

> Nah. You're just happy about the USA, the successful bombing
> campaign, and like to usurp the initial joy of the Afghans to
> validate your own point of view, that bombing was a good thing.
> Did you care about Afghanistan, say, three years ago?

First, I live here, and, like all Americans, by choice, so of course I like the USA. And a good portion of my family and friends are in New York. So obviously I want the people who ordered the mass murder of thousands there taken down, and am happy for the USA that this is happening. But I would want it no matter where the atrocity happened. Apparently it makes a difference to you that it happened in America. Do I have to go over all the non-Americans who have suffered and died because of USama bin Laden and his partners in theocratic barbary? Will that help you see the light? Or perhaps I should direct you to the projection of thousands of children worldwide starving and falling into further poverty as a consequence of the worldwide economic impact of Sept 11? I suspect you're a lost cause.

Second, I did care quite a bit about
Afghanistan starting about 4 years ago, when Clinton
made some speeches about the Taliban and when I read some articles
on women there. I have an interest in extremism and religious fantacism in general, which is tied into my dislike for religion. I have a hard disc full of articles from that time, as well as published articles in a student rag. I became obsessed when they blew up the Buddha, which deeply upset me. Did you care about Afghanistan 3 years ago? And if so, why would you be confused about
how you should react to the fall of the Taliban? This is one of those no-brainers, dear.

>Are you
> going to write Bush to ask for a military intervention in Burma
> so the Burmese can finally be freed from an oppressive and
> brutal military regime? Since the USA are in the region, why not
> free Chechenia from an oppressive Russian military force?

I am totally ignorant about these countries, outside of the film Beyond Rangoon some years back and vague recollections of Russians involved in something wicked in a former Soviet state (you're aware Russia has thousands of nukes, right?).

All I can say is: I support U.S. policies which encourage "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all people everywhere - in particular encouraging the peoples of those nations to take this responsibility on themselves - and I oppose U.S. policies which discourage these values. The specifics of policies is case by case, duh.

You can list all the troubled spots in the world, it doesn't change the fact that you oppose toppling the urgent threat of the Taliban. I'll never understand why, so maybe we should just give it up.

> That the Taliban have been removed from power is a direct result
> from their backing Osama and his killer crew. It does not result
> in the first place from their bad record in terms of human
> rights and internal policies. Bombing Afghanistan wasn't
> intended in the first place to free the Afghans from an
> oppressive regime. Sparing the civilians wasn't done because of
> the civilians. It was a matter of pragmatics, in order to avoid
> irritation in the muslim world.

You have a small point here.

> Face it.

It's a point I have adressed in half a dozen messages.

> And hope you don't get locked up under the special anti-terror
> laws that are being made "at home". Quote your
> favourite NY Times William Safire on this one, please.

I'm glad you're concerned about the American homefront (ha!), even
though you couldn't care less about the atrocity here, or the nuclear bombs Usama bin Laden was preparing, but overwhelmingly, with only a few exceptions, Americans at home have been a model to the world of how to react to such an attack. As long as we keep the dangerous Attorney General Ashcroft in check, everything should be fine.

One can only speculate about how exemplary the reaction of other countries would be to a similar attack, and such speculations I'll leave for you to think about on your own.

>>Wrong again. I'm glad to see they lost a lot of the international support they initially had.>But I won't take the outbursts of joy of the Kabul population as a consolation.>Much more will have to be done or they'll have perhaps a less oppressive regime, but still an oppressive regime. The N.A. are no saints either.>The attacks on the WTC had the intended effect. The bombings in Afghanistan as well.>Wrong again. I'm not interested in whether or not they have a television programme or not; there are, quite frankly, more and much more urgent problems that should be dealt with.>No. I'm terribly annoyed at the way the USA is managing the "peace" part of their military missions. They generally don't have any "peace" part.>It's not about trying. It's about making it happen, about monitoring the democratic process.>Helping. Your pal above here is just all too quickly back to his own barn and backyard to feed the chickens. "urgent problems at home". Yeah. If even Colin Powell acknowledges that the Americans cannot repeat the mistakes they made when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan."

And we made mistakes, and no one is denying that. Our mistake was ingoring the inherent mood of the country, and those washing in to take over.

Yet, every sign we have received so far suggests that things are being done differently than before and that's all you can hope for.

>>And we yet have to see how the N.A. reacts. Oh, they'll meet in Berlin next week. But they declared at the same time that the meeting was "merely symbolic". And that the real political discussions about power and territory will have to be held in Afghanistan.>That game is not over yet. It's up to the International community and the USA & UK first (they have the military power there now) to ensure that all deals and negotiations are fair and open.>I wouldn't. But then it's not so much what I want, but what they want. And it doesn't seem that the N.A is very united; nor does it seem that the other factions are wanting a government of national unity.>Who's imposing what on whom? If there can be "strategic" bombing, let's hope there can be "strategic" diplomacy.>Deny them the hope for peace and some sort of better country?
Oh. What a pacifist vocabulary.>Oh. They're doing "better" in Kosovo. Yes they probably are, 'cos they're not fighting anymore. Point is: how remote is war in Kosovo? Not much, alas.>Yes they have had free elections. Sadly though, Rugova was too fast to point out that they (Kosovo) want independence. Not good. Macedonia rings a bell?>Well well. Sure there's more humanitarian help than before the bombing, the need is indeed much higher now than before. "Oh good, they can finally get it now!". You did create the need first, remember.>And this mighty "might". Provided that they get back safely, escape local armed groups of foreign (Pakistani/Arab/Chechen) fighters, across the mine-fields, find a shelter, and indeed return before the winter. And what after the winter? What with the refugee camps in the no-man's-lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan?>Are you now turning on me because I denigrate or deny them any help?
That would be foolish, wouldn't it? Let's say that it is one thing to get the aid into Afghanistan. It is another matter to get it to those who need it. Time is running out.>Who's having an ideology here, eh? From what I recall in newspapers, interviews and TV reports, most Afghans abroad condemn the bombing of their country.>I hope the USA spends as much on Afghanistan in humanitarian and other aid as it spend in military involvement in the area. That would be fair. It may help.>Nah. You're just happy about the USA, the successful bombing campaign, and like to usurp the initial joy of the Afghans to validate your own point of view, that bombing was a good thing.>Did you care about Afghanistan, say, three years ago? Are you going to write Bush to ask for a military intervention in Burma so the Burmese can finally be freed from an oppressive and brutal military regime? Since the USA are in the region, why not free Chechenia from an oppressive Russian military force?>Oh well. And you think it's easy to be the good one. "A bomb a day keeps the terrorists away". Sickening, no?>That the Taliban have been removed from power is a direct result from their backing Osama and his killer crew. It does not result in the first place from their bad record in terms of human rights and internal policies. Bombing Afghanistan wasn't intended in the first place to free the Afghans from an oppressive regime. Sparing the civilians wasn't done because of the civilians. It was a matter of pragmatics, in order to avoid irritation in the muslim world.>And hope you don't get locked up under the special anti-terror laws that are being made "at home". Quote your favourite NY Times William Safire on this one, please.

> We do understand them, don't we? Come on, use your loaf. What
> happened to all the CIA guys and girls who've been listening
> endlessly to tape recordings of telephone conversations, e-mail
> exchanges (hello, Echelon!) and the lot? Al Quaeda was unknown
> till Sept. 11? Fool me!
> The intelligence agencies in the USA have tapes of plenty of
> conversations of people belonging to the network. Those guys had
> even air training in the USA (were those Florida air schools
> bombed?) - don't tell me this is something that comes out of
> nowhere. There's a good understanding of how they work, where
> they are, who they are.
> And why hasn't anything been done?
> Do you as Americans feel happy with an administration that has
> to wait until something like Sept. 11 happens before they
> seriously start digging into the matter, freezing bank accounts
> and tracing those people all over the world? Do you?

You're so silly. As if nothing was being done before September 11!
Most of what was being done was what YOU HAVE TOLD US WE SHOULD DO *AFTER* SEPTEMBER 11. Diplomacy, spy games, going after money, putting individuals on trial, etc. Been there, done that, thanks. September 11th proved that was not nearly enough. So use YOUR loaf.

I don't know why I'm arguing with someone who asks why
we didn't bomb flight schools. Okay, I'm officially done with you after this post.

> Well, as soon as your George W. will be busy with dealing with
> America again, tell him to sack the entire CIA and FBI lot for
> negligence and incompetence.

Call me crazy, but I blame the terrorists for the terrorist attacks.

> The world is more and more global problem; Sept. 11 should have
> taught you that.

Bill Clinton was correct that the worldwide rise in terrorism (not just in the Middle East, not just against America) is the "dark side of globalization." Some pockets of people are having difficulty
accepting an ever-smaller world with intensifying influences and changes in their cultures.

>>That's the rosey side. The USA used the N.A. to do the dirty or most dangerous work. I have a feeling that something similar happened against the Russians in Afghanistan.>But it's just a feeling. Strange though. The USA supported the "Afghan freedom fighters" against the Russians, but they didn't support them against the Taliban. At least, not until they became handy again.>NO. Nor did the USA achieve this on their own. Let's have that clear as well.>What my point is (be assured, I'll go through lenghty explanations if needed): what's the use of referring to cheerful Afghans? Are they happy? Sure, and that's good. But does it MEAN anything?>I'm not so sure. I hope they can continue to be cheerful and happy; but after the Russians retreated from Afghanistan, the USA abandoned the Muhjaheddin and the political void was quickly filled by warlords and other paramilitary groups. No fun for the Afghans.>So yes, the Afghans cheer. They did that too when the Taliban came into power; and look what they ended up with. Let's not be fooled by the cheers of the first days, right? It's not because of their cheers that the USA can soothe their conscience and silently retreat with Osama's head in a bucket. OK?>"cynicism" ? Call it realism.
Oh, who's the idealist here?>Irony is not your best, is it? To put it in very simple terms: of course throwing bombs "works": it kills, destabilizes, undermines, threatens, shakes and what not. Sure, it works. What is more important, however, is what it does NOT do: it doesn't build any new things; it doesn't come with a solution on its sleeve.>You'll need more international effort and support, and for a longer time, than just a bombing campaign to get the Afghan people back to a civilised level of normality for those regions.>We do understand them, don't we? Come on, use your loaf. What happened to all the CIA guys and girls who've been listening endlessly to tape recordings of telephone conversations, e-mail exchanges (hello, Echelon!) and the lot? Al Quaeda was unknown till Sept. 11? Fool me!>The intelligence agencies in the USA have tapes of plenty of conversations of people belonging to the network. Those guys had even air training in the USA (were those Florida air schools bombed?) - don't tell me this is something that comes out of nowhere. There's a good understanding of how they work, where they are, who they are.>And why hasn't anything been done? Do you as Americans feel happy with an administration that has to wait until something like Sept. 11 happens before they seriously start digging into the matter, freezing bank accounts and tracing those people all over the world? Do you?>Oh no? Don't tell me bringing down the WTC missed the point the terrorists wanted to make. Don't tell me it didn't "work" ...>Metonymy is not logic. As an expert in distorted logic, you then must be capable of explaining this "logic": the Taliban have been in power for 6 years. There hasn't been any attempt at breaking their primitive and oppressive regime before the attacks on the USA.>So the American bombings on Al Q. and the Taliban are not based on revenge? What then? Filanthropy? Ah ... I see, you called it "Eternal Justice". Hearing today in the case America vs. Taliban, with Judge "America".>Aren't we making a fool of the notion of "justice" here?>And violence doesn't beget violence? With the Taliban gone, no terror attacks ought to be feared on American targets, you mean?>(P.S. Kuwait was indeed *really* invaded - it gave the Iraqi soldiers the occasion to commit a number of hideous atrocities for which, so far, I have seen noone trying to get Saddam Hussein behind bars - this is a sidenote, really)>It certainly isn't. If it were, the USA would have quite a lot of work to do. But from the target they choose, you can see it's not about democracy, political freedom and oppression in the first place.>"Its own problems"? How come the Al Quaeda network and the Taliban are not the "own problems" of the USA all of a sudden?
Come on. The Taliban have been enjoying themselves in Afghanistan for 6 years. Clinton sent some missiles after the bombings on the African embassies, but for the rest ... what has been done?>Osama had his guys there as well, remember.>Somalia was a disaster because of a very bad organization by the USA and UN. Many rangers got killed. Yes. "Collateral damage" the Somali will say.>and rightly so! But then everyone who tried to intervene in Ruanda got lambasted (the French accused of pro-Burundi measures, the Belgians got themselves killed, ...). Striking though, US forces after the "debacle" in Somalia, apparently knew what was being planned in Ruanda a year later. Did anything happen to prevent it?>Ah, you'll accuse me again of being anti-American. That's your mistake. Suffice it to say that more than just the Americans knew what was being prepared in Ruanda; no one thought it to be important.>My idealism? And you're realistic, aren't you? Funny you accuse other people of the idealism you like to wrap yourself in. "America should focus on its own problems". Now, in this "global era" ... how backwards is that?

> You're so silly. As if nothing was being done before September
> 11!
> Most of what was being done was what YOU HAVE TOLD US WE SHOULD
> DO *AFTER* SEPTEMBER 11. Diplomacy, spy games, going after
> money, putting individuals on trial, etc. Been there, done that,
> thanks. September 11th proved that was not nearly enough. So use
> YOUR loaf.

Oh how very logical, then, that George W. Bush should start freezing bank accounts only now, claiming 'there was not enough support in the past to do so'.
"been there, done that"? When, what, how and who's done it? Please be specific.
Yes. Diplomacy, trial, freezing bank accounts generally does work. Only, it has not been done. I repeat: it has NOT been done.

The USA proposed (in 1999) the first sanctions against the Taliban to the UN - and not because of their bad record in human rights, but because they refused to hando over Osama BL. You can check that out in the annual reports of the UN. Those sanctions were;
a) interdiction of internation flights to the Afghan national air carrier
b) foreign possessions of the "taliban" were frozen (though little was known about their foreign possessions, and in the countries where they count (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, nothing has been done)
c) foreign investments were halted.
Consequence of these sanctions (again, see Iraq): a poor population getting poorer.
That's about it. And they weren't successful. Why? Because they weren't really in the interest of the USA.
The USA only wanted Osama Bin Laden, and didn't care too much about the Taliban. That's why the sanctions didn't destabilize the Taliban.
Next political failure (inspired by the USA, and adopted by the UN, and met with little resistance by the EU - except for France perhaps): a political isolation of the Taliban. The USA closed the Taliban presence in New York refusing to see them as representatives of Afghanistan.
Consequence: the Taliban only exacerbated their political and military advances towards fundamentalism.
In the same sense, Massoud wasn't really recognized as a political alternative either.
Two options were left at that time: (a) let time do its work (and that could be either Massoud winning, or the Taliban winning) and (b) a military intervention.
The UNO didn't approve of the last option; the USA preferred the first one, misjudging the military strenght of the taliban rather completely (we're talking about 1999)).

So, you're factually wrong (once more, I have to add). The spy games have been going on since 1999, there have been sanctions - yet the nations with most power in the region (yes, I'm referring to the USA) haven't been very "firm", to say the least.

The questions therefore still stand - why hasn't anyone put Pakistan under more pressure? Why hasn't anyone been looking closer into the complex relations that make the Afghan patchwork? Why didn't anyone pressurize Pakistan, lift the sanction, try to negotiate with the Taliban before they embarked on the final path towards autodestructive fundamentalism? Because everyone thought that would be the best option. "Let live and let die".

It's this kind of self-enlightened interest - of the USA first, of the EU next, that has been one of the most destabilizing factors in the Afghan political and military scene.

Point made: the international comunity has silently favoured the continuing of tribal wars in Afghanistan, rendering the situation frozen on the political front, and desperate on the humanitarian front.
So, again ... why cheer?
A sense of humility is more appropriate.

> I don't know why I'm arguing with someone who asks why
> we didn't bomb flight schools. Okay, I'm officially done with
> you after this post.

Oh your sense of humour is ... nonexisting.
I don't know why I'm still explaining something to someone who still doesn't have the basic insight in the conflict in that area.

> Call me crazy, but I blame the terrorists for the terrorist
> attacks.

Hm. And you probably also blame the USA for their attacks on Afghanistan ...

> Bill Clinton was correct that the worldwide rise in terrorism
> (not just in the Middle East, not just against America) is the
> "dark side of globalization." Some pockets of people
> are having difficulty
> accepting an ever-smaller world with intensifying influences and
> changes in their cultures.

the statement made by Clinton is obviously populistic and makes no sense. 1) there are more "dark sides to globalization" than the one he mentions. 2) It precludes the search for other causes of "international terrorism". And one of those causes is precisely the "intensifying influence" imposed upon people by the USA and other large trade associations. Oh - in case you don't get it: not the "influence" part is the problematic part, the "imposed" part is the one where it hurts.

Are you done with me now?
Good.
Now back to school again and check your facts.
If you please.

The idea that the Clinton administration was twiddling its
thumbs and doing nothing to try and defeat bin Laden's network
is absurd. It was a top priority. Just because things aren't
in the headlines every day doesn't mean there is no activity.

And while I'm on this crap again, the intelligence agencies
you put more blame on than the terrorists themselves have
derailed many terrorist attacks before and after Sept. 11.
They are not psychic nor superhuman. We should look into
what holes the terrorists exploited, but there are always
more holes. Which is why we cannot co-exist with the
freaks who commit such acts.

Now then...

> Oh how very logical, then, that George W. Bush should start
> freezing bank accounts only now, claiming 'there was not enough
> support in the past to do so'.
> "been there, done that"? When, what, how and who's
> done it? Please be specific.

New York Times, Sept. 25, 2001
Bush Freezes Assets Linked to the Terrorist Net
By David E. Sanger and Joseph Kahn

Midway through the article:
==========
In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order that sought to freeze the assets of Mr. bin Laden and and Al
Qaeda, though it did not include many of the other organizations linked to Al Qaeda that were on the list today.....
...

The Clinton administration began tracing funds to Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda in 1998.
==========

What Bush did was go further, for instance threatening sanctions
against countries and financial insitutions. And, as Bush said,
there was not support to go that far before the latest terrorist atrocity.

> Yes. Diplomacy, trial, freezing bank accounts generally does
> work. Only, it has not been done. I repeat: it has NOT been
> done.

So, we're supposed to sit around hoping bin Laden can't pull
off another madman attack -- hoping someone named Fred FlintSTONED
is correct, that he is some sort of expert?

Here's what an expert in international banking had to say
in an opinion piece in USA TODAY:

==========
Elusive terror money slips through government

traps

By Jane E. Hughes

Hunting down terrorists' money makes for compelling headlines, but the unfortunate reality is that freezing the financial assets of terrorists is highly unlikely to shoot a silver bullet into the terrorists' hearts. Instead, it's likely to be about as debilitating to the bad guys as a stubbed toe.

U.S. officials liken the hunt for terrorist money to their anti-money-laundering efforts that supposedly have been so valuable in the war on drugs. But there are several fallacies in this argument. Most obviously: When did we win the war on drugs?

Drug trafficking, use and profits are all flourishing despite 15 years of increasing pressure on bankers to identify ''suspicious transactions'' that theoretically should lead law enforcement agents to drug barons. Putting bankers on the front lines in the war against drug traffickers has produced floods of suspicious transaction reports, but few impoverished and imprisoned ex-drug traffickers.

In addition, terrorist finances are the mirror image of money laundering. Money laundering is the act of depositing ill-gotten gains into the banking system, then whipping them through enough accounts (and countries) to blur the original source of the money and make it look legal. Terrorists do the exact opposite; they deposit funds that were probably earned legitimately into the financial system. The funds are transferred and eventually withdrawn for the purpose of
committing illegal acts. In the battle against money laundering, the focus is on the depositor; here we are looking for those who withdraw the money.

Hunting for a needle

Perhaps most compelling, money laundering by drug traffickers involves
breathtaking sums of money. Terrorism, by contrast, is a bargain-basement operation. The International Monetary Fund estimates that money laundering amounts to as much as 5% of the world's gross domestic product, or $1.5 trillion per year. U.S. officials believe that it cost terrorists a mere $500,000 or so to create the horrors of Sept. 11. Consider that some $1.2 trillion passes through foreign exchange markets every day, then imagine hunting for that $500,000.
It's a needle-in-a-haystack story -- except this needle is trying to evade the hunter.

In the next few months, it probably will be relatively easy to feed thousands of suspect names into worldwide databases to track down and freeze funds associated with them. But there's a lot more where that came from. Lucrative sidelines such as drug trafficking and smuggling, plus the willingness of well-heeled Islamists to finance the cause, suggest that money will never be a binding constraint for terrorists.

Reversing this is well nigh impossible. Bankers can sometimes flag individuals to law enforcement authorities because their transactions smell funny (large cash deposits, ties to foreign politicians, etc.). But it is hard to see how bankers will identify small, innocuous withdrawals as possibly linked to terror. We won't track down too many bad guys by following the trails of suspicious financial transactions.

Money flows without records

The terrorists' use of the paperless hawala system further complicates the picture. Hawala is a trust-based, time-tested method of money transfer that is widely used in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It works worldwide through networks of money-changers, who generate no records of their transactions. Most of these are undoubtedly innocent: A Somali immigrant in Minneapolis, say, visits his local hawala agent to send money to his cousins at home, who lack access to a formal banking system. Hawala has worked for generations and is unlikely to be dented much by the U.S. government's efforts to rein it in.

Official efforts to hunt down terrorists' assets may hurt the bad guys a little. But we need to be realistic: For every financing network that we break up, there are plenty of wealthy and rabidly anti-American Islamists anxious to provide the relatively small sums of money it takes to attack us. And for every funds-transfer network we disrupt, there are thousands of others to replace it. We're just fooling ourselves if we think the solution is that painless.

Jane Hughes, a finance professor at Brandeis University's Graduate
School of International Economics and Finance, is the author of
International Banking: Text and Cases.
==========

My conclusion: Freeze the assets, as merely ONE prong in the war.

> So, again ... why cheer?

I posted a rather extrensive list of reasons for why I cheered.
See message titled: "You should cheer my cheering their cheering!"

> Oh your sense of humour is ... nonexisting.

Your comrade Grim O'Grady recently gave us entire
paragraphs offering similar arguments.

> Hm. And you probably also blame the USA for their attacks on
> Afghanistan ...

> Are you done with me now?

Yup.

Unless you'd like to share with us your brilliant reasons
why the bombing of Milosevic was wrong. Still waiting on that.

If anyone thinks George Bush and John Ashcroft are heroes in this, they need a reality check. If they think Bill Clinton is responsible, they need a brain transplant.

If anything, GWB and JA helped to perpetuate this mess. Now we cheer as our rights are taken away and war crimes are being committed in one of the poorest countries in the world. I wonder how quickly the oil pipeline will be installed once this mess is over?

>I wonder
> how quickly the oil pipeline will be installed once this mess is
> over?

The oil pipeline, yes. That is one of the carrots being waved
in front of the warlords' faces to convince them to do the right
thing and not make the mistakes they made before. It's called financial incentive. "Psst, don't blow these negotiations, you'll get rich if you play ball."

Ah, but it appears that Putin is outmaneuvering the boy king in the quest to secure rights to move oil across the prize. 7.5 million starving afghans are acceptable collateral damage.

> The oil pipeline, yes. That is one of the carrots being waved
> in front of the warlords' faces to convince them to do the right
> thing and not make the mistakes they made before. It's called
> financial incentive. "Psst, don't blow these negotiations,
> you'll get rich if you play ball."

What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals? That'll show them!

> The oil pipeline, yes. That is one of the carrots being waved
> in front of the warlords' faces to convince them to do the right
> thing and not make the mistakes they made before. It's called
> financial incentive. "Psst, don't blow these negotiations,
> you'll get rich if you play ball."

this is where you've been hiding?

> What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were
> all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did
> we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals?
> That'll show them!

i think the aid drop that killed the woman is the most ironic thing i've heard yet. instead of spending money on smart bombs, we should buy cans of spam and use them as warheads.

In the end, the US doesn't care about the suffering people of Afghanistan. They cloak it in this "ooooh, they make their women walk in shrouds! we must save them!" sorta thing, but if you are going to do that, drop some bombs on Saudi Arabia. They're just as bad. They also funded some of Osama's stuff. Along with some of the Egyptians and the Syrians.

And why do you need to replace an entire government if you are going after one guy? Can't you bomb them, get your guy, and leave afterwards? You can't honestly argue that if you leave the Taliban in power then these things will continue unabated. They have funding from other nations! They can simply go somewhere else and have an army of willing and able people.

no, basically, again, America saw a window they had been looking for and had no excuse until that day.

I was on vacation. Wasn't that sad but funny? Killer aid packages! I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. The northern alliance treats women just as bad as the Taliban. Never mind the war crimes and mass murders. They are riding this for all it's worth.

Now the Republican Administration is offering US citizenship to any afghani's who cooperate. (I thought republicans hated immigrants?) If they don't cooperate they fly them to Cape Island for a nice, quiet military tribunal. They're trying to set Guam up for Military Tribunals also. But as long as we are saving these poor oppressed people, it's all ok!

If only we had a press corps that cared or was unbiased.

Nice to hear from you again.

"It would be nice if this was a dictatorship...As long as I was the dictator." GWB

> If anyone thinks George Bush and John Ashcroft are heroes in
> this, they need a reality check. If they think Bill Clinton is
> responsible, they need a brain transplant.

Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in terms of national defense.

Let's not forget the U.N. either who put enormous pressure on the United States to back down from seeking Saddam Hussein when it had the perfect chance to do so.

If anyone here stil thinks that international courts and diplomatic pleading is going to effectively destroy violent regimes, well, you're a very imaginiative soul.

As for the terrorist themselves, well, they are repsonsible for thier actions alone, and blaming anyone for their violent expression is rather pathetic.

>>If anything, GWB and JA helped to perpetuate this mess. cheer as our rights are taken away and war crimes are being
> committed in one of the poorest countries in the world.>I wonder how quickly the oil pipeline will be installed once this mess is over?

> What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were
> all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did
> we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals?
> That'll show them!

As the bombing has been a brilliant success, I'm hoping
for a new and better government to emerge from the negotiations
in Germany which America made possible.

I found a nice editiorial in the Washington Post...

========
Despite the Naysayers
By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, November 28, 2001; Page A35

A month ago, the anti-war and the anti-American elements of the left in the United States and in Europe were howling that war in Afghanistan was unjust because: The attacks of Sept. 11 were mere criminal acts, to be properly dealt with by the police and the courts; war would likely cause the deaths of millions of innocent Afghans through bombing and through a bombing-induced famine; war was unlikely to succeed against the never-say-die Taliban; and war would not buy America peace but only more war.

What have we learned since? We have learned that it would have been impossible to extract Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from Afghanistan without war. Some had presumed that the Taliban could hand over bin Laden and his lieutenants for extradition and trial. But al Qaeda was symbiotically integrated with the Taliban, with al Qaeda the militarily and financially superior force. The Taliban could no more turn over al Qaeda than they could turn over themselves.

We have learned conclusively that the Taliban were not the government of the Afghan people. They were a foreign tyranny imposed on the Afghan people. The power that came from the barrel of a gun in Afghanistan came ultimately from guns held not by Afghans but by tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries imported by the Taliban and al Qaeda. Destroying Afghanistan's occupiers did not mean killing innocent Afghans but freeing them from fascist oppression.
We have learned that bombing did not result in the death of millions, but in the rescue of millions. Thanks to liberation, food is pouring into Afghanistan now, and the millions of refugees who fled the Taliban are beginning to return home.

We have learned that the Taliban would rather switch than die. We have learned that al Qaeda had constructed in Afghanistan a system for training, dispersing and financing thousands of anti-American terrorists now at large in the world.

In light of the refutation of almost every major criticism and alarm from the left, what have we heard from the peacemongers? Well, mostly, a determined silence. And where the silence is broken, it is to obfuscate.

James Carroll, a writer with a long pedigree as an anti-warrior, argued in the Boston Globe yesterday that it remains the case that, as the headline put it, "This War Is Not Just." He makes three main points.

The first point is that we (although not Carroll) are too "ignorant" to pronounce on this war: "The United States government has revealed very little of what has happened in the war zone. Journalists impeded by restricted access and blind patriotism have uncovered even less." But a glance at the Globe's news section on any given day proves this false. Afghanistan is swarming with reporters who are working independently and free of any U.S. restraints. These journalists have been, and are, reporting daily from every liberated area of Afghanistan and frequently from areas where fighting continues. Six, so far, have been killed on the job.

The "massive bombardment" of Afghanistan, writes Carroll, has been "to what effect?" We just don't know, he suggests. Yes, we do. Again, reporters have filed stories on the bombing effects from all over Afghanistan, including almost every bombed city. Leaving aside the gross libel in the suggestion that American reporters' "blind patriotism" has kept them from fully revealing the truth, what about the many foreign reporters covering the conflict? Has their blind love for America also led them to hide awful realities?

The second point is that "the celebrated results" of the war -- "collapse of the Taliban, liberation of women -- are welcome," but "are relatively peripheral outcomes, unrelated to the stated American war aim of defeating terrorism." But this is also manifestly not true. The collapse of the Taliban is not a "peripheral outcome." It is in fact one of the two "stated American war aims" of the war in Afghanistan (the other is the collapse of the Taliban's partner, al Qaeda, which is being effectively pursued). And, it would seem evident, the collapse of the government that provides state-sanctioned support for the world's largest and most dangerous terror network is indeed integral to "the stated American war aim of defeating terrorism."

The third point is the Old Original Canard that this all should have been handled by "police action, not war. The criminals, not an impoverished nation, should be on the receiving end of the punishment." But the criminals -- the murderous fascists of al Qaeda and the Taliban -- are the ones being punished. "The impoverished nation" is composed of the Afghan people, who have been for weeks thanking us for rescuing them from the tyranny of the criminals.

Carroll bemoans the criticism his camp has come in for. "Next, we will be called 'kooks,' " he writes. No, no, not at all.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company
========

> What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were
> all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did
> we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals?
> That'll show them!

It amazes me that there are people out there who actually believe that you can extract a regime and a massive terrorist sect by treating it solely as a "police matter."

This implies that you can walk into the country and simply extract those you need to extract without engaging in any such military combat by those who you are attemtping to capture, and who have an army themsleves.

Here's a little tip for those of you who are still leaning in this direction philosophically: When you are faced by an army, you have to treat the matter militarily, because you are being faced by an opposing military.

This is just naivete in its most spectacular form. Quite amazing.

There is a reason that you bomb someone and destory artillery caches, and that's because those things are going to be used against you when you attempt to engage those opposing you.

If anything a military effort is the only kind of effort that allows a police effort to be even remotely possible.

Let's just hold an internationl hearing, gather all the proper papers, collect non-existent intlelligence, allow those who we are seeking time to gather themselves, plan, and do what it is they want to do, because they know we are going to be tied up in "civilized" beaurocracy for quite a while.

You simply can't approach violent armies in this manner.

And then, when you are ready to go get who you want, how exactly do you get them? And not just them, but all of those involved? What if those wanted are in the thousands, and are all gathered in one area ready to attack you when you arrive to "arrest" them?

You know how police treat this? With an army. It's called a swat team. The same thing of relative scale that the military applies to its own operations.

When bombs and artillery shells are flying your way, do you still treat I like a police matter?

If that is realistically the case then we could spend less money and less time, and capture all the violent offenders we happen to desire.

The term "kooks" is much too placid to describe such thinking.

> Now the Republican Administration is offering US citizenship to
> any afghani's who cooperate.

It's a wonderful idea, can you deny it? Oh wait, I forgot, we have to wonder if you actually WANT terrorists brought to justice....

The tribunals: Although constitutional, I don't support them in the manner Bush wants them, and feel Bush sometimes lets his high poll ratings go to his head. I would support them if they were subject to civilian review and narrowly applied to...well, people like bin Laden rather than some small fry in Minneapolis.
I hope congress steps in for some fine tuning. It's a difficult issue not just because of national securtity concerns in a time of war, but also because the judge in the 1993 terrorist trial remains to this day in need of 24 hour a day security.

I don't expect you comrades to be thoughtful on the complexities, as you guys are always knee-jerkingly and boringly in condemnation of everything America does.

> If only we had a press corps that cared or was unbiased.

No such thing as unbiased. The majority of the press
right now is biased against mass murdering fascists. A small minority, however, agree with the comrades here. After all,
that's where you guys get all your material from, so you can't honestly argue they are being silenced. It's just that most people
view those voices as extremist kooks who wish ill upon the people
and things they hold dear, so they are pushed to the fringes,
such as silly web sites like www.zmag.org. I guess that's
democracy at work. And are they wrong to feel that way? I see the influence of those elements in the press on this board when our own Margitrichert can barely contain her admiration for 4000 people murdered. You have the freedom of press (in America
anyway) but you don't have the right to force people to listen. And isn't that what really bugs ya?

> Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of
> responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in
> terms of national defense.

I didn't wanna reply to DL's comment, because only a very small person would let partisan politics interfere with their evaluation of the success of the bombing campaign.

Anyway, it's likely that the same brilliant and rational bombing campaign would likely have been followed had Gore been prez.

I can't praise Bush's war on terrorism enough (so far anyway!),
but if this crisis is over by the next election it is highly unlikely
I will vote for him.

There's just so many knee-jerk reactions on this board it's pathetic.

You call us commies while the current "appointed" administration with no mandate is making a power grab ignoring the other branches of government and you support that. John Ashcroft has a history of taking away civil liberties but he is an American Patriot?

Congress is trying to step in for fine tuning as you say but JA is too busy too answer for what he is doing. What do you think about that? They are re-writing the Bill of Rights and don't care to answer for it.(But he has time to strike down an Oregon law for Doctor assisted suicide because it doesn't gel with his religious beliefs). The man annoints himself in Crisco oil, he's admitted it.

You support tribunals ...
That are secret.
With no appeal.
Where you are not permitted to face your accusers.
Where heresay is allowed.
Where evidence does not need to be produced.
Where your conversations with your defense attorney are recorded.
Where a 7-5 decision can put you away as opposed to a 12-0 decision?
Where the jury is not made up of your peers.

And you call us commies? Oh please.

The ways they are written, they could put you away for life and there is nothing you can do about it.

As far as the citizenship for imformation deal, what are your opinions on this...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011130/ts/attacks_investigation.html

As far as my opinion for the biased news, Hell even the AP was publishing stories based on White House Script before they happened. It's happened three times this year. A story would come out at 1:30am in the morning describing events that are supposed to take place at 8:00 am.

Don't you care about 7.5 million innocent lives?

A Brilliant success...

Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2 Billion dollars later, thousands of innocent people killed...soon to be near 7.5 million innocent people killed, war crimes and atrocities committed, Russia has a more secure footing in the region, we piss off a whole generation of Muslims, we are allied with a faction that cares as much about women's rights as the last one...oh wait...we'll have that wonderful new pipeline soon!

Why not just glass them?

Oh give me a break. The right harped on that "aspirin factory" for years and I make a sarcastic joke about our so called smart bombs hitting hospitals and red cross buildings and you make that to be my whole argument.

The whole point was that...some of the people here portray their arguments that bombing and military action are the final, best, or only solution. Then someone who "I assume" thinks along those lines, brings up "financial incentive" as an alternative. Then you criticize me for thinking there might be alternative solutions. Why don't you tell loafing Oaf that financial incentives and other alternatives will never work?

> Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of
> responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in
> terms of national defense.

Agreed. But some are more guilty than others. The worst things were helping them to develop biological and chemical weapons programs, and selling them advanced weaponry, and the killing squads in South America and Asia.

> Let's not forget the U.N. either who put enormous pressure on
> the United States to back down from seeking Saddam Hussein when
> it had the perfect chance to do so.

They wanted to get him. They took the chance that his own people would overthrow him. At the time I supported the action taken against Iraq. I felt it was a mistake that we didn't go in and get him. What pressure did the UN give that so scared the US that hasn't really seemed to work at any other time?

> If anyone here stil thinks that international courts and
> diplomatic pleading is going to effectively destroy violent
> regimes, well, you're a very imaginiative soul.

Well, when countries only use them to their own advantage and ignore them otherwise then of course. But there are still other alternatives than this and large scale military action.

> As for the terrorist themselves, well, they are repsonsible for
> thier actions alone, and blaming anyone for their violent
> expression is rather pathetic.

Not sure which point you are discussing here....so no comment.

> Hmm, yes, I see. Our newly elected president is immediately
> responsible for helping to motivate the terrorists. I'll chalk
> this up to an emotive statement, for I am fairly sure you would
> be unable to rationally explain it in any sane way.

Our newly selected President is using this to bolster support for most of his hard line agenda while doing something Pakistan, India, and France have all reported we were going to do anyways.

> I'm no Bush supporter outside of this military effort, but such
> a statement makes little sense whatsoever. If anyhting, Bush's
> cabinet is doing the best possible job in cleaning this mess up.
> i'll give credit where credit is do.

I'll have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, who do you support?

> What "war crimes" are bng comitted?

The executiuon of prisoners that are surrendering.
Door to Door killing squads

> IIn fact, I dare you to explain.

Look at non-US reports of what happened at the prison.

> And this is the primary issue that is being kicked around by
> anti-war protesters now that there is little in the way of
> justifiable and sensible critique of the military effort.

You must watch the Factor.

> However, if this sudden, surreptitious pipeline conspiracy
> somehow arises in the future (and it's not as simple as that)
> I'm sure the natural resource bargaining table would be much
> preferred to the former concerns fo the country.

There's nothing sudden about it.

> If this is the best you and people like you can do in terms of
> critiquing the intitiaitve, you will have to find a much more
> dire consequence than the idea of a pipeline being constructed.

Yes, billions of dollars is no reason at all. It's all about saving those Afghanis and eliminating the terrorism. I wonder if we will do any better than we did with the war on drugs? We could do as Ann Coulter demands and convert them all to Christianity.

> Though, again, ridding a country of a violent regime as a
> byproduct of one's own national defense effort seems to be of
> little consolation to you. If only we could start over again,
> and treat this with international diplomacy alone.

Yes, didn't we help Iraq a little while back with a violent regime? Oh, they're much better off now. Come to think of it, didn't we help Afghanistan out way back when. Well I'm sure the 7.5 million Afghanis that starve/freeze to death this winter will be happy we saved them.

> Things would be so much better that they are now.

To tell you the truth I would be happy to discuss with you and go into details on all of these issues that we may or may not disagree on. If you wish to do it here, then lets narrow this down to one issue or topic at a time and I'll discuss to your heart's content. The problem with these forums is that these debates get astronomically big and it takes too much time to properly respond for your or my own content. You pick the topic.

If you want to know where I look get some of my insane information, well you can look at...

www.buzzflash.com
www.fair.org
www.mediawhores.com
www.TheNation.com
www.Salon.com
www.Democrats.com
www.Slate.com
www.TruthOut.com
Consumerwatchdog.org
The Smudge Report
www.consumersunion.org
The-Truth-News
www.bartcop.com

If you want to find some sites with people who have the time and will be happy to debate your every question/point/opinion/fact/etc. let me know and I will be happy to provide.

http://www.actforchange.com/liberty/flash.html

> You call us commies while the current "appointed"
> administration with no mandate is making a power grab ignoring
> the other branches of government and you support that. John
> Ashcroft has a history of taking away civil liberties but he is
> an American Patriot?

See my message titled "You should cheer my cheering their cheering,"
where I clearly state my dsilike for Ashcroft. I believe I called
him a dangerous man who must be kept in check.

I don't know what you're saying I support. You have a very active imagination.

> Congress is trying to step in for fine tuning as you say but JA
> is too busy too answer for what he is doing. What do you think
> about that?

I clearly stated the legislative branch should go over the tribunals
and take out the excessive aspects.

>They are re-writing the Bill of Rights

No they aren't. The Supreme Court held such tribunals to be constitutional.

> You support tribunals ...
> That are secret.
> With no appeal.

Are you stupid or something? You apparently have the reading
comprehension of a 6 year old. I clearly stated I would only
support military tribunals if they are subject to civilian review.
That means appeal, dummy. And I had other stated requirements
for my support as well. What I support is a comprise to a middle
ground, which takes into account the legitimate concerns and problems on both sides if and when we bring those who commited not crimes, but illegal acts of war against us.

> And you call us commies? Oh please.

I don't recall calling anyone a communist.

> As far as the citizenship for imformation deal, what are your
> opinions on this...
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011130/ts/attacks_investigation.html

I'll check it in a few minutes, whatever it is.

> Don't you care about 7.5 million innocent lives?

What on earth are you talking about?

> Oh give me a break. The right harped on that "aspirin
> factory" for years and I make a sarcastic joke about our so
> called smart bombs hitting hospitals and red cross buildings and
> you make that to be my whole argument.

> The whole point was that...some of the people here portray their
> arguments that bombing and military action are the final, best,
> or only solution. Then someone who "I assume" thinks
> along those lines, brings up "financial incentive" as
> an alternative. Then you criticize me for thinking there might
> be alternative solutions. Why don't you tell loafing Oaf that
> financial incentives and other alternatives will never work?

Reading Is Fundamental.

The financial incentive is for encouraging the post-Taliban Afghan tribes to rise above their past and take responsibility for building
a better country now that America's bombs have removed their fascist
regime.

> A Brilliant success...

> Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2 Billion dollars
> later, thousands of innocent people killed...soon to be near 7.5
> million innocent people killed, war crimes and atrocities
> committed, Russia has a more secure footing in the region, we
> piss off a whole generation of Muslims, we are allied with a
> faction that cares as much about women's rights as the last
> one...oh wait...we'll have that wonderful new pipeline soon!

Oh dear. Weren't you the one asking for an "unbiased" media?
Apparently that means CNN standing for the Chomsky News Network. Deranged fanaticism, conspiracy theories, and anti-American
hate-mongering 24 hours day.

> Reading Is Fundamental.

> The financial incentive is for encouraging the post-Taliban
> Afghan tribes to rise above their past and take responsibility
> for building
> a better country now that America's bombs have removed their
> fascist
> regime.

And replaced it with another one.

I was reading your earlier posts to come up with my assumptions. I thought you made your position quite clear.

You called me comrade, which was popular slang once upon a time...that is where I apparently mistook your political opinions of me.

As far the juvenile insults, save those for the schoolyard or there really is no point.

> Oh dear. Weren't you the one asking for an "unbiased"
> media?
> Apparently that means CNN standing for the Chomsky News Network.
> Deranged fanaticism, conspiracy theories, and anti-American
> hate-mongering 24 hours day.

Sorry, lets keep bombing them until infinite justice is carried out in our crusade against the evil-doers and those who support terrorism.

> It amazes me that there are people out there who actually
> believe that you can extract a regime and a massive terrorist
> sect by treating it solely as a "police matter."

I don't actually believe all of them give two sh*ts about defeating
the enemy, so nothing amazes me.

> And replaced it with another one.

I'm more optimistic than you.

The clock is turned back ten years, but with the added lessons learned over that time, as well as the eyes of the world focused upon them. It's hope and a chance for something better. Apparently you'd prefer condemning them to the Taliban forever,
which would only kill thousands of Afghans as well as thousands of the rest of us.

I saw an Afghan woman in Germany today demanding a female voice
in the new government. She's not given up. She quite clearly
feels there is now hope.

> Sorry, lets keep bombing them until infinite justice is carried
> out in our crusade against the evil-doers and those who support
> terrorism.

Sounds good to me.

But I'd probably take the word "infinite" out.

Have you read anything of the accomplishments of the Northern Alliance? Any of the deeds they are accused of? Does this erode your optimism? Just curious what you've seen.

Do you prefer condemning 7.5 million innocents to death this winter for the sake of freeing the Afghani people? Also, when we bomb water treatment facilities we are condemning a generation of Afghanis.

That's great for the Afghani woman. There are many brave women in Afghanistan. Hopefully in the future they can be in the crowd at the football stadium and not be the horrific spectacle.

> I'm more optimistic than you.

> The clock is turned back ten years, but with the added lessons
> learned over that time, as well as the eyes of the world focused
> upon them. It's hope and a chance for something better.
> Apparently you'd prefer condemning them to the Taliban forever,
> which would only kill thousands of Afghans as well as thousands
> of the rest of us.

> I saw an Afghan woman in Germany today demanding a female voice
> in the new government. She's not given up. She quite clearly
> feels there is now hope.

> Sounds good to me.

> But I'd probably take the word "infinite" out.

Why waste the money then. Just nuke'em.

> And replaced it with another one.

There has been no regime that has authoratatively replaced the Taliban. The N.A. has agreed to the coaltion proposal, and that's all you can hope for. other ethicic tribes are involved in the dsiscussions of Afghanistan's future.

It doesn't matter anyway, to get rid of the Taliban you would have had to involve the Northern Alliance in any sense, diplomatically or military, so your point is moot.

*Throws a few straws to the ground*

Here, grasp.

> Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2 Billion dollars
> later, thousands of innocent people killed...soon to be near 7.5
> million innocent people killed, war crimes and atrocities
> committed, Russia has a more secure footing in the region, we
> piss off a whole generation of Muslims, we are allied with a
> faction that cares as much about women's rights as the last
> one...oh wait...we'll have that wonderful new pipeline soon!

Let's count the extrapolations:

1. "Pissed off a whole genration of Msulims...." Okay, well, obviously you cannot prove that, as it it is your hunch. Also, what happen to all of the outside freedom figthers that were going to wash into Afghanistan and figth for all of Islam? Well, as reported from many different sources they have returned home dejected.

2."Thousands of people killed...." As oppossed to the thousands of people that are killed annually by the Taliban's stronghold. People dying doesn't make an inititative necessarily wrong, especially if it is done as a defense measure and will liberate even more people. It's called a value judgement.

Thousands of innocent people were killed in WWII, yet, I hope you wouldn't think the war effort was wrong.

Life decisions cannot be perfect, that is where the major flaw in yor thinking lies. You apparently believe that there is this ultimate decision we can make that can preserve the absolute good for everyone involved.

3. "We are allied with a faction...." We are coordianted, and no one in the United States government has come out in endorsement of the N.A. or stated that they are as an alliance in any sense other than acknowledging their existence as an army that is figting the same enemy and coordinating their effort in that respect. The U.S. cannot erase the N.A., therefore, their existence in this war effort must be acknowledged. It's not a matter of perfect choice. The U.S. needed to perform an effort in Afghanistan and ignoring the N.A. was not going to help them, or make the N.A. any more placid or resolved in their own intentions.

The destruction of the Taliban was inevitably going to involve the advancement of the N.A., which is why we have helpd to set up a coalition of ethnic tribes to discuss the future of Afghanistan, instead of allowing the N.A. to do what they please.

I guarantee you that no one involved now is going to allow the N.A. to dominate the country from here on out. it's not strategially wise, nor is it politcally sound either.

At his point, one must ask, what can anyone do to please you?

4. "Soon to be near 7.5 million people killed...." This has got to be your most gross extrapaolation. I must challenge you to present a valid, provable source for this inofrmation. This is the most ridiculous proclamation.

Obviously you have ignored reports of massive amounts of aid now being able to make its way into Afghanistan because the Taliban are not there to intercept or to stifle its distribution.

You obviously have not heard the reports of people being able to now make it back to their homes now since the figting in many of the areas has ceased.

We have been warned about the massive amounts of starvation casualties since the beginning of the war, and this catastrophe keeps getting pushed back further and further, but it's coming, right?

You have failed to note the massive amount of people starved every year because of the Taliban, and I'm sure you will take any of those relative casualties propped up by the Taliban's existence and proclaim the sole responsibilty of the United State if they are somehow not saved.

Please lay off the gross extrapolations unless you can proivde credible, provable sources for your information. One person's opinion, or one perosn's hunch is simply not good enough.

> Sorry, lets keep bombing them until infinite justice is carried
> out in our crusade against the evil-doers and those who support
> terrorism.

Did this statement have purpose, or was it another sarcastic extrapolation of the intention in order to dramatize your point.

This is a common debating response when somen is unable to actually combat the points being made. They simply end up making exaggerated quips designed to emotively thrust their feelings forward.

Do you even know why bombs have been used? You seem to imply that is for the sheer thrill of it, or a trivial expression of anger as if no sense of rational strategy has involved in the action.

> Have you read anything of the accomplishments of the Northern
> Alliance? Any of the deeds they are accused of? Does this erode
> your optimism? Just curious what you've seen.

Why are you obsessively harping on the N.A. alliance when they have yet to show any sign of attempting to overtake the country and establish themselves as the actual governement? They haven't. They have cooperated with the coalition that has been devised. What else do you want? You refuse to realize that they would have been a factor whether we diplomatically destroyed the Taliban (which is impossible) or whetehr used military force.

You don't really seem to understand what exactly has transpired or you have intnetionally ignored it to bump up your point.

It is naive to believe that even if the N.A. alliance tried to assert their will, that they wouldn't be oppossed. They canot do whatever it is that they want to do a this point. The world has obviosuly learned a lesson in Afghanistan, and thankfully they are approaching it in the proper manner thus far.

This N.A. aspect is being stretched. It is a newly adopted point by the peace cult designed to focus attention on a new opposition to this war. There's not much else to drone on about so you have now jumped on the "Look how evil the N.A. is" bandwagon.

It doesn't fly. They have cooperated thus far, and that's all anyone can hope for.

Again, they would have been a factor no matter how we handled this situation, and there are many more benefts to be had through dealing with the N.A. than simply allowing the Taliban to harbor Osama Bin Laden and continue on their merry way. And in the meantime we can we shuffle papers in an internaional court, while we are laughed at.

> Do you prefer condemning 7.5 million innocents to death this
> winter for the sake of freeing the Afghani people?

We have already adressed this absurd extrapolation in another post, but just to remind you, massive amounts of aid have already been shipped to Afghanistan to last through the winter. Will everyone be saved? No, but more people have a chance of being saved now than they did under tha Taliban. Afghan starvation existed long before this military initiative began.

Again, that's all we can do, and more people have a chance of getting aid now than they did before. People have returned to their homes.

Why you ingore these points is beyond me.

Convenience perhaps?

Also, when we
> bomb water treatment facilities we are condemning a generation
> of Afghanis.

First off, there is no verifiable proof of how extenisve the damage in Afghanistan is. Besides the coaltion has already proposed spending billions to reengineer Afghanistans roads and it's immediate construction necessities.

Of course, you ignore these proposal.

All you have argued thus far is your hunch of what could and what will occur. Nothing you ahve said is proven or even currently occuring in Afghanistan at this point, and there is even efforts be waged in regards to all of your concerns.

We were warned about many ills coming out fo this war as soon as we entered it, and as of yet, not one of them has been proven true.

> Why waste the money then. Just nuke'em.

Why should we? We would only being providing you with one more secretly wished for catastrophe that would prove all of your suspicions correct and mark you morally fabulous for your intellectual insights into all of this.

You could thus be right, and who wants to please you?

> Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2

> http://www.actforchange.com/liberty/flash.html

Is this the new alarmist angle be pushed? You are definitely pulling out all the stops.

> The executiuon of prisoners that are surrendering.
> Door to Door killing squads Look at non-US reports of what happened at the prison. You must watch the Factor.

No, I don't and I am not a conservative. I like to think of myself as a circumstantialist.

>>There's nothing sudden about it. Yes, billions of dollars is no reason at all. It's all about
> saving those Afghanis and eliminating the terrorism. I wonder if
> we will do any better than we did with the war on drugs? We
> could do as Ann Coulter demands and convert them all to
> Christianity.

Bad analogy. Do you understand the inherent differences in fighitng an unwinnable drug war, and trying to destroy terrorist sects?

Do you honestly need an explanation.

Under your philosophy we essentially must give up. There's just too many obstacles, right?

> Yes, didn't we help Iraq a little while back with a violent
> regime? Oh, they're much better off now. Come to think of it,
> didn't we help Afghanistan out way back when. Well I'm sure the
> 7.5 million Afghanis that starve/freeze to death this winter
> will be happy we saved them. If you want to know where I look get some of my insane
> information, well you can look at...

For the few alternative ones that you lsited....

www.fair.org - Politcally biased watchdog organization. I know I naively subscribed to it, and have faild to unsubscribe. Don't you find it interesitng though how few action alerts FAIR has produced since this event. They are only a handful and many are mere elastic concerns.

Either the media has been mostly fair and accurate, or they have simply lost their will.

www.mediawhores.com - Far left alternative media source. Often posts unverifiable news reports that are mere hearsey.

www.TruthOut.com - I stay away from any inofrmation source that has "Truth" in the title.

The-Truth-News - I stay away from any inofrmation source that has "Truth" in the title.

> As far the juvenile insults, save those for the schoolyard or
> there really is no point.

I was just in insulting you. And you should have used this
message to apologize to me.

> Why waste the money then. Just nuke'em.

Because we're only after tha Taliban/terrorist network.

> secretly wished for catastrophe

Yeah, it really does seem to be what certain people here wanted.
Shows how little they actually care about the Afghan people.

> Have you read anything of the accomplishments of the Northern
> Alliance? Any of the deeds they are accused of? Does this erode
> your optimism? Just curious what you've seen.

We've already been over this.

What I see is that nothing could possibly be worse than
the Taliban/terrorist network, and our brilliant, just,
restrained, and rational bombing campaign is removing them
from power with very few civilian casualties. They are the most
precisely targetted bombs at just targets in the history of warfare. The success of those bombs is a wonderful turn of events for the Afghan people and for the entire world at large.

> Do you prefer condemning 7.5 million innocents to death this
> winter for the sake of freeing the Afghani people? Also, when we
> bomb water treatment facilities we are condemning a generation
> of Afghanis.

The Afghan people were starving and facing catastrophe before Sept. 11 because of a draught combined with the incompetance and wickedness of the Taliban regime. In the wake of the bombing, more aid is
going in than before.

What I preferred NOT supporting was comdemning the entire Afghan
population to living under the most medieval, closed and repressive
regime on earth, and condemning the outside world to future
mass-murders of ever-escalating deadliness.

> That's great for the Afghani woman. There are many brave women
> in Afghanistan. Hopefully in the future they can be in the crowd
> at the football stadium and not be the horrific spectacle.

The Afghanistan correspondant on MSNBC drove around the track in
the soccer stadium recently, filming Afghans PLAYING SOCCER and
BASKETBALL. Thank you, American bombs.

A village is destroyed. And America says nothing happened
by Richard Lloyd Parry in Kama Ado, Afghanistan 12:29am Tue Dec 4 '01 (Modified on 1:32pm Tue Dec 4 '01) article#7577

At the moment when nothing happened, the villagers of Kama Ado were taking their early morning meal.
04 December 2001

The village where nothing happened is reached by a steep climb at the end of a rattling three-hour drive along a stony road. Until nothing happened here, early on the morning of Saturday and again the following day, it was a large village with a small graveyard, but now that has been reversed. The cemetery on the hill contains 40 freshly dug graves, unmarked and identical. And the village of Kama Ado has ceased to exist.

Many of the homes here are just deep conical craters in the earth. The rest are cracked open, split like crushed cardboard boxes. At the moment when nothing happened, the villagers of Kama Ado were taking their early morning meal, before sunrise and the beginning of the Ramadan fast. And there in the rubble, dented and ripped, are tokens of the simple daily lives they led.

A contorted tin kettle, turned almost inside out by the blast; a collection of charred cooking pots; and the fragments of an old-fashioned pedal-operated sewing machine. A split metal chest contains scraps of children's clothes in cheap bright nylon.

In another room are the only riches that these people had, six dead cows lying higgledy-piggledy and distended by decay. And all this is very strange because, on Saturday morning – when American B-52s unloaded dozen of bombs that killed 115 men, women and children – nothing happened.

We know this because the US Department of Defence told us so. That evening, a Pentagon spokesman, questioned about reports of civilian casualties in eastern Afghanistan, explained that they were not true, because the US is meticulous in selecting only military targets associated with Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida network. Subsequent Pentagon utterances on the subject have wobbled somewhat, but there has been no retraction of that initial decisive statement: "It just didn't happen."

So God knows what kind of a magic looking-glass I stepped through yesterday, as I travelled out of the city of Jalalabad along the desert road to Kama Ado. From the moment I woke up, I was confronted with the wreckage and innocent victims of high-altitude, hi-tech, thousand-pound nothings.

The day began at the home of Haji Zaman Gamsharik, the pro-Western anti-Taliban mujahedin commander who is being discreetly supplied and funded by the US government. The previous day I had followed him around Jalalabad's mortuary, where seven mutilated corpses were being laid out – mujahedin soldiers of Commander Zaman who had been killed when US bombs hit the government office in which they were sleeping. And now, it had happened again.

There they were in the back of three pick-up trucks – seven more bloody bodies of seven more mujahedin, killed when the guesthouse in which they were sleeping in the village of Landi Khiel was hit by bombs at 6.30am yesterday morning.

Commander Zaman is a proud, haughty man who fought in the mountains for years against the Soviet Union, but I've never seen him look so vulnerable. "I sent them there myself yesterday,'' was all he could say. "I sent them for security.''

But the commander provided us with mujahedin escorts of our own, and we set off down the road to Landi Khiel. We found the ruins of the office where the first lot of soldiers had died, and the guesthouse where they perished the previous morning. And there, in the ruins of a family house, was a small fragment of nothing. It was the tail-end of a compact bomb. It bore the words "Surface Attack Guided Missile AGM 114", and a serial number: 232687. It was half-buried in the remains of the straw roof of a house where three men had died: Fazil Karim, his brother Mahmor Ghulab, and his nephew Hasiz Ullah. "They were a family, just ordinary people," said Haji Mohammed Nazir, the local elder who was accompanying us. "They were not terrorists – the terrorists are in the mountains, over there.''

So we drove on in the direction of the White Mountains, where hundreds of al-Qa'ida members, and perhaps even Osama bin Laden himself, are hiding in the Tora Bora cave complex. A B-52 was high in the sky; a billow of black smoke was visible, blooming out of the valley. Something, surely, was happening over there. And then we reached the ruins of Kama Ado. Among the pathetic remains I found only one sinister object * an old leather gun holster with an ammunition belt. It is conceivable that a handful of al-Qa'ida members had been spending the night there, and that US targeters learnt of their presence.

But after 22 years of war, almost every Afghan home contains some military relic, and the villagers swore they hadn't seen Arab or Taliban fighters for a fortnight. Certainly there could not have been enough terrorists to fill the 40 fresh graves. One person told me a few holes contained not intact people, but simply body parts.

We had been warned that white faces would meet an angry reception in the village where nothing happened, but I encountered despair and bafflement. I had only one moment of real fear, when an American B-52 flew overhead. We halted our convoy, clambered out of the cars and trotted into the fields on either side. The plane did a slow circle; I was conscious of electronic eyes looking down on us, the only traffic on the road. Then, to everyone's relief, the bomber veered away.

Before we left the city, an American colleague in Jalalabad telephoned the Pentagon and informed them of our plans to travel to the village where nothing happened. I can't help wondering, in these looking-glass times, what that B-52 would have done to our convoy if that telephone call had not been made. Perhaps nothing would have happened to me too.

------------------------------------------
Don't give me that BS that our bombing campaign is leaving few civilian casualties. ESPECIALLY when we bomb water treatment facilities. A whole generation is going to be decimated. And the laughable article from the Australian woman...give me a break, "7.5 million innocent people dying is ok...because they haven't died yet" I guess we'll get her opinion on the situation in March. Your "they were going to die anyways" argument is insulting.

> Is this the new alarmist angle be pushed? You are definitely
> pulling out all the stops.

The Bush administration asked for an elimination of Habeas Corpus (sp?), and I'm an alarmist.

> I was just in insulting you. And you should have used this
> message to apologize to me.

lol

> lol

You ran to reply to my message about tribunals, all worked up
into a frenzy, not bothering to read what I wrote before ranting and raving and telling me I support things I certainly do not and clearly indicated I did not. You were a fool and deserved to be called one.

A bigger person would have said: "I'm sorry, I was wrong."

Instead, you still are a fool.

> The U.S. is doing this? Oh, the N.A. alliance? Well, we have
> little control over that, and it isn't our responsibilty. It
> certianly isn't going to make me oppose the military effort, nor
> should it.

We should take some responsibility for the situation we are helping to create as far as the Northern alliance goes. Rumsfield has stated that if they, (the N.A.), ask us to bomb, we bomb, and if they ask us to stop, then we stop. The NA would still be losing their civil war if not for us. Now we bomb the crap out of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance moves in. We allow them their military successes and have allied ourselves with them. They then commit atrocities and we turn our back. Perhaps we should renegotiate the alliance. There's already enough hot water with the NA and the heroin trade.

> If it is simply about combatting prisoners being killed, I have
> little sympathy.

The reports are saying there is more to it than that. Besides, just because they are a prisoner, it's ok to execute them. You at least have that much sympathy don't you?

> No, I don't and I am not a conservative. I like to think of
> myself as a circumstantialist.

Of course that's better than the current opportunist.

> It doesn't work that way. It's a conspiracy theory. Many nations
> attempted to negotiate with Afghanistna before this affair, and
> that is what you do, you negotiate. It's not some tyrannical
> process. If the chosen Afghnai government wants to negotiate a
> pipeline, then that is up to them.

Of course it's a conspiracy theory. Anything the government denies is a conspiracy theory. Like global warming.

> Bad analogy. Do you understand the inherent differences in
> fighitng an unwinnable drug war, and trying to destroy terrorist
> sects?

So you believe the war on drugs is impossible, (I agree), but the war on terrorism is winnable? Even if our goal was as narrow as wiping out OBL's organization...it would be near impossible. You narrowed it down to "terrorist sects", which is more saner than a war on terrorism, but the US has sold this war as a "War on Terrorism". The objective is to make the world safe from terrorism. That was my point. It is unwinnable, like the war on drugs. We can't even find the guy who bombed the Atlantic Olympic games or the mysterious mailer of anthrax in our own country. Yet, destroying a few sects in Afghanistan is possible. We may injure them, but we can't destroy them. Maybe, if we ever catch OBL, I might be more willing to consider your view point. But someone will replace him in the organization and there will always be somebody to fund them.

> Under your philosophy we essentially must give up. There's just
> too many obstacles, right?

The US "giving up" is not my philosophy.

> For the few alternative ones that you listed....

Just curious, since there are no unbiased sites, which left leaning and right leaning sites would you recommend or ones that you actually visit?

For not being a consevative you seem very reactionary towards a left leaning and/or leftist site.

> You ran to reply to my message about tribunals, all worked up
> into a frenzy, not bothering to read what I wrote before ranting
> and raving and telling me I support things I certainly do not
> and clearly indicated I did not. You were a fool and deserved to
> be called one.

"I would support them if they were subject to civilian review and narrowly applied to...well, people like bin Laden rather than some small fry in Minneapolis. "

I replied to your willingness to support something, no matter in what regard, that went against the Constitution. Even the Nazis were allowed to face their accusers in their tribunals.

But you stated you would suuport them given those two conditions. This implied that you would support these tribunals in their present form if their was some "civilian" review and as long as it only applied to accused or known terrorists. That was one of my concerns. That is what I was debating.

> Instead, you still are a fool.

> A bigger person would have said: "I'm sorry, I was
> wrong."

Yes and a smaller person would have compared your intelligence to a 6 year old, and expressed their opinions while name calling.."dummy". But I guess I'm neither.

Why don't you stop lying? You should have just apologized.

> Yes and a smaller person would have compared your intelligence
> to a 6 year old, and expressed their opinions while name
> calling.."dummy". But I guess I'm neither.

You are not just a dummy with the reading comprehension skills
of a 6 year old. You are also a liar.

> The right harped on that "aspirin
> factory" for years

You realize it *was* an aspirin factory, right?

And that many civilians died?

And that the Clinton administration could have sought further confirmation to find out it was not a just target, as an aspirin factory can't get up and run away?

> We should take some responsibility for the situation we are
> helping to create as far as the Northern alliance goes.

There is only so much responsibilty we can actively acknowledge and concern ourselves with. We can only condemn the acts if proven guilty and support prosecution of them, but we cannot stop the war, or begin figthing the N.A. over them.

> Rumsfield has stated that if they, (the N.A.), ask us to bomb,
> we bomb, and if they ask us to stop, then we stop. The NA would
> still be losing their civil war if not for us. Now we bomb the
> crap out of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance moves in. We
> allow them their military successes and have allied ourselves
> with them. They then commit atrocities and we turn our back.
> Perhaps we should renegotiate the alliance. There's already
> enough hot water with the NA and the heroin trade.

Do you know that nothing has been rpoven? That is why an investigation must take place, to try and prove that a crime has been committed. You don't automatically assume that a crime has been committed because a few reports claim it might have. There has to be an investigation, and you don't stop in the middle of a war, just so you can hold a proper inevstigation.

This is how completely looney many of these assertions are. You completely dismiss the reality of what is occuring and what is at stake.

We can't control the entire Norhtern Alliance, and everyone of its troops, and certainly you don't stop a war because you suspect some individuals comitted a crime. More is at stake here than the suspicion that a war cirme was comitted by the Northern Allince.

You would put more peopel's life in danger by allowing the Taliban to regroup because of your own suspicions.

What exactly do you propose we do, stop the conflict right now to see if there was a crime comitted at this partcular prison?

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has to do what it has to do and if war cirmes are proven after the conflict is over then they can be prosecuted as such, but nothng has been prvoen so please stop jumping to conclusions.

The U.S. could allign itself with anyone and they could end up comitting a war crime, but you don't stop a necessary confluict because you suspect someone did so. And jsut because you are "aligned" with someone and they committ a crime doens't mean you jeopardize your won operation becasue of it.

You are searching for any reason to call this war off,a nd whther yu liek it o rnot, the war msut continue, especially at this crucial point.

This is reality, not some game of stop and start, through idealsitic decision making.

> The reports are saying there is more to it than that. Besides,
> just because they are a prisoner, it's ok to execute them. You
> at least have that much sympathy don't you?

I said that if it simply involved the death of those combatting, not surrendering, then I have little sympathy.

And the reports are just that, reports. Again, a crime has to have a degree or proof attached ot it, not mere specualtion.

Again, we cannot be knwoeldgebale and repsonsible for every possible act the N.A. takes. They are there, and we have to have them fight. We don't have a choice. There are no other realistic options.

> Of course that's better than the current opportunist.

Um, tell em exactly how I am an "opportunist" for supprting the war effort? I dare you to do so. Sounds like another emotive attack.

I would like to know how I am benfitting from the current war as an "opportunist."

That comment was really stupid.

> Of course it's a conspiracy theory. Anything the government
> denies is a conspiracy theory. Like global warming.

That's splendid logic. Anything the government denies is alwasy a conpsiracy? So, it could enver be because it isn't true, right? It's always a cover up, and nothing but, correct?

What I find ironic about the far left, is that they are the most ovcal supportters of governemnt intervention, yet they thhin the governmen ti sautomatically conspiratory.

That's not a good bases upon which to desire even more governemnt intervention.

But I digress.

And by the way, there is no overhwleming sicentific consensus on the consequences of global warming, or if it is even due solely to particular emissions.

If you are truly a believer in sicence and the Scientific method, then you would not make such bold assertions.

This is not in direct defense of Bush's position, for I would love to see him out of the White House next election, nevertheless it is true.

> So you believe the war on drugs is impossible, (I agree), but
> the war on terrorism is winnable?

No one knows for sure if it is winnable, but at the very least you can defeat particular terrorist groups. No one can ever successfully, %100 abolish the desire of terrorism, or the desire for someone to carry out an attack, but you can make it difficult and you can lessen the odds that it will occur.

In fact, you have to. You have no other choice, and certainly sitting by and wishing the problem would go away, or tinkering with dimplomatic intitiatives that haven't worked, is essenitally doing nothing to stop violent perpetrators.

You cannot guarantee absolute safety, but you can guarantee that a particular terrorist group, once demolished will not be the one to attacks you,a nd that's all you cna do, and what you must do.

CERTAINLY GIVING INTO TERRORIST GREIVANCEs, NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL THEY ARE, OR HOW SIMPLISTICALLY YOU PERCEIVE THEM TO BE, IS NOT GOING TO STOP TERRORISM, IT WILL ONLY EMBOLDEN IT.

So don't dare tell me that the proper way to address this matter is to make sure no more tempers flare, or we should simply alter the actions that make certain people mad. That's not combatting terrorism, that's sponsoring it through placating it, and is endanegring even more lives by rewarding it.

We cannot be concerned with the possible grievances of every individual and how he or she construes them. Our policy cannot and should not be shaped by intimidation or the mere threat of violence, and your philsophy has essentially dictated that it should.

Again, thre's more to terrorism than just being angry. Carrying out signifcant acts, requires coordiantion, money, communication, and trianing camps.

Fighting those deisgns can decrease terrorism greatly.

Even if our goal was as narrow
> as wiping out OBL's organization...it would be near impossible. You narrowed it down to "terrorist sects", which is
> more saner than a war on terrorism, but the US has sold this war
> as a "War on Terrorism".

What's your point? It's a mantra. So what? I agree, you cannot realisticaly battle every possible terrorist group, but you can certainly destory and concern yourself with those groups that are the most powerful and effective.

Still, it has to be your midneset to combat any terrorist threat.

And we have indeed narrowed it down to terroist sects in terms of priority. Do you think Bush is realistically thinking he is going to be able to attack a million different terroist groups at once? I don't think so, but our biggest concern at this moment is our most urgent threat.

The objective is to make the
> world safe from terrorism. That was my point. It is unwinnable,
> like the war on drugs.

You can make the world safer by elmineating those groups that have the strongest agenda and have the loftiest of intentions.

All drug cartel's intentions are generally the same: To transport drugs. A terrosits agenda could be to different degrees.

Cetainly destroying a sect that plans on making a nculear bomb is going to save many more lives than stopping a lone sucide bomber who intends on blwoing himself up in a mall.

You have to focus on the agenda, and destroying particular agendas can make poeple safer.

Would you agree that the attentiveness that caught the bomber in Canada, who was planning to blow up an L.A. airport saved many lives? Well, the same applies.

We can't even find the guy who bombed the
> Atlantic Olympic games or the mysterious mailer of anthrax in
> our own country. Yet, destroying a few sects in Afghanistan is
> possible. We may injure them, but we can't destroy them.

Do you not know the inherent differences in circumstancers. A one time bomber can do what he intended to do and disappear forever without ever placing himself in the line of investigation, as can an Anthrax terrorist. Also, we don't know if we can catch the Anthrax mailer or not. It is much too early to say we can't ever.

Terroist sects generally act out of organizational attempts, not necessarily through mere randomness, nd they react concurrently

Terrorist sects also require communication and funds to do what theyd
do. It is a completely differnt set of corcimstances.

You don't know if we can destory AL Qaeda or not, cetainly trying to do so is the wisest maneuver, and there is a perfectly rational reason to believe you can.

Again, not trying to do so won't make usany safer.

Maybe,
> if we ever catch OBL, I might be more willing to consider your
> view point. But someone will replace him in the organization and
> there will always be somebody to fund them.

It's not jsut about someone replacing him. It's about a thoroughly organized communications network. And just because someone replaces him does not mean he can be be as effective or as organzied. You always try and destory the leader of any group, for the reaosn that the leader may hold a special skill in organziaing, funding or rallying his people to a cause. That is not aguarantee with each sucessor.

There are strategic commanders as well who hold particular skills that may not be replaceable, and also you have to constantly monitor the funding of the group as best as you can.

What you are implying is that it is futile, which is a completely cnynical and fairly weak mindset to posess. Certianly thinking as you do is not going t make anyone safer.

If indeed you can never stop their funding, then stopping their leadership and orgnaizationl skills is of the greatest importance.

Afghanistan is a very important place for the orgnazation and training of the terrorists. It's not merely a hideout.

> The US "giving up" is not my philosophy.

But if it si all futile as you have implied, what else does one do?
Certainly waiting on international law to do what it, in theory, might to do, isn't goiong to make anyone safer.

Violent regimes are not affected by international diplomacy, because they do not adhere to international law.

Have you ever seen someone trying to be aprrehended by the police who was detemrined to fight to the death?

Is that always a very peaceful transaction?

The sam applies to intenraitonal law. You cna have the greatest of intentions, but if your suspect is unwiling to cooperate, then you have to use force, as domestic law enforcement offciers do when someone refuses to submit.

It doesn't matter how you habndle it diplomatically, you will eventulaly have to use force, and waiting around to do so, only allows the situaiton to worsen and for your suspect to gain power.

Sanctions don't work. Threats don't work. Peace doens't work. Ingorance of the perpetrator doens't work? the what does work? Force works. It is the only thing tyrants comnprehend.

How else would you suggest that we deal with Hussein? Obviously sanctions haven't weakened him and universal condemantion hasn't eiher.

He will only leave when he is captured or destroyed. So what good does acting peacefully do in these instances?

The idea of peace requires all willing parties, not jsut one. You leave yourself open for exlpoitation if you take such a route on your won.

And for what? So you can attempt to assert a moral highground, with little concern for the safety of millions of people?

> For not being a consevative you seem very reactionary towards a
> left leaning and/or leftist site.

I am responding to the ideas of the "far" left, not the left in general. there are those on the elft that do support the military campaign. The far left is an irrational, extremeist group, bent on utopian ideals and unproven social theories.

I am only conncerned with reason and what is eventually probvable. I am not into emotional uprising, and false accusations that are based on hunches an hearsay, and one's own personal wishes of utopia.

I know you would love for me to be a conservative because it could then give you a rather clear platfrom from which to debate me on, since philosophical absolutes are what you seem the most comfortable with.

People are more important than ideas, and the far left is merely a cult of ideas.

> You realize it *was* an aspirin factory, right?

Aspirin factory or chemical weapons?

> And that many civilians died?

According to you, our bombs are magical, and don't kill hardly any civilians.

> And that the Clinton administration could have sought further
> confirmation to find out it was not a just target, as an aspirin
> factory can't get up and run away?

That was the whole point. I mentioned the hospital bombings and red cross building bombings and the rebuttal was don't focus on a military accident that happened last week. Whether you believe it was an "aspirin factory" or a location where they were developing chemical weapons, the right harped on it as a "military blunder" for years. And I am told to forget something that happened a week ago.(At the time of the posting)

Is there any way we can keep these down to a half page or so? I have tried to shorten my response.

> There is only so much responsibilty we can actively acknowledge
> and concern ourselves with. We can only condemn the acts if
> proven guilty and support prosecution of them, but we cannot
> stop the war, or begin figthing the N.A. over them.

I really have to disagree with you here. We can do more and you know it. We are not powerless in this matter as you suggest.

> Do you know that nothing has been rpoven? That is why an
> investigation must take place, to try and prove that a crime has
> been committed. You don't automatically assume that a crime has
> been committed because a few reports claim it might have. There
> has to be an investigation, and you don't stop in the middle of
> a war, just so you can hold a proper inevstigation.

What? A fair trial? Why not just throw them in military tribunal? Seriously though, Why can't an investigation be carried out? Even if this were the front line, we could still do some investigating, conduct interviews, gather evidence. We don't have to put anybody in danger to do that. Allowing genocide to continue, if it is occurring, is not something I'm willing to accept.

> This is how completely looney many of these assertions are. You
> completely dismiss the reality of what is occuring and what is
> at stake.

Among other things, I thought freedom and human rights were at stake? I guess the human rights of the victims weren't included in that equation.

> We can't control the entire Norhtern Alliance, and everyone of
> its troops, and certainly you don't stop a war because you
> suspect some individuals comitted a crime. More is at stake here
> than the suspicion that a war cirme was comitted by the Northern
> Allince.

The puny U.S. has "no" control over the northern alliance? I seriously doubt that.

> You would put more peopel's life in danger by allowing the
> Taliban to regroup because of your own suspicions.

The Taliban regroup? This military action is a rout. Where are they going to regroup to? So they weren't ready for us the first time, but if we allow them to regroup, then we will be in serious trouble.

> What exactly do you propose we do, stop the conflict right now
> to see if there was a crime comitted at this partcular prison?

Stop taking my suggestions to absolute. My proposal was to investigate the situation, and take action if war crimes were committed. It appears there have been war crimes committed. Is your proposal "allow genocide to continue because the Taliban might regroup and we can't let that happen"? The Taliban has regouped several times since the beginning of this. They are well trained. It doesn't matter, we control the air, and we have the finances and technology and superior armed forces.

> That's ridiculous. The U.S. has to do what it has to do and if
> war cirmes are proven after the conflict is over then they can
> be prosecuted as such, but nothng has been prvoen so please stop
> jumping to conclusions.

> The U.S. could allign itself with anyone and they could end up
> comitting a war crime, but you don't stop a necessary confluict
> because you suspect someone did so. And jsut because you are
> "aligned" with someone and they committ a crime
> doens't mean you jeopardize your won operation becasue of it.

> You are searching for any reason to call this war off,a nd
> whther yu liek it o rnot, the war msut continue, especially at
> this crucial point.

Your argument is pretty much the same, over and over. Allow atrocities to be committed, don't investigate until it's a good time to investigate. Well, they announced yesterday they were going to expand this war. Maybe in a few years we can come back and find the mass graves and wonder how we could have let something like this happen. Like Vietnam, central America, Asia, etc.

> Um, tell em exactly how I am an "opportunist" for
> supprting the war effort? I dare you to do so. Sounds like
> another emotive attack.
> I would like to know how I am benfitting from the current war as
> an "opportunist."
> That comment was really stupid.

I was referring to GWB and not yourself. (There was no reference to you. I said "as opposed to" the current opportunist, perhaps I should have put in GWB) I thought you were attempting to lighten things up a bit so I made my own light remark.

> That's splendid logic. Anything the government denies is alwasy
> a conpsiracy? So, it could enver be because it isn't true,
> right? It's always a cover up, and nothing but, correct?

That is why it is called a theory.

> What I find ironic about the far left, is that they are the most
> ovcal supportters of governemnt intervention, yet they thhin the
> governmen ti sautomatically conspiratory.

Calm down, your typing is suffering. You have something against the far left? I thought you weren't conservative?

> That's not a good bases upon which to desire even more
> governemnt intervention.

> But I digress.

That's forgivable. I do all the time.

> And by the way, there is no overhwleming sicentific consensus on
> the consequences of global warming, or if it is even due solely
> to particular emissions.

Now I know you're a conservative. The Bush administration about two months ago acknowledged it. Some "righties" still think it doesn't exist or that it can be attributed to volcanos.

> If you are truly a believer in sicence and the Scientific
> method, then you would not make such bold assertions.

How much scientific data do you need???

> This is not in direct defense of Bush's position, for I would
> love to see him out of the White House next election,
> nevertheless it is true.

Well I'm very happy to know we have some more common ground.

> We cannot be concerned with the possible grievances of every
> individual and how he or she construes them.

What about human rights and pesonal freedoms? Are you saying more government is acceptable in this situation? When does it become a concern. When 100 innocents die? When a thousand die? When a million innocents die? When 10 million die? When?

> Fighting those deisgns can decrease terrorism greatly.

That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying there is more than just "bombing them back to the staone age".

> Do you know how important the
> training camps in Afghanistan were to Al Qaeda?

No tell me. Some tents and ammunition...what else? Food supplies, instructors and ideas. There are terrorist training camps all over the world. Al Qaeda exists outside of Afghanistan. There are several nations that protect them. If we go about this the wrong way there will be more.

***Trying to make this shorter so I edited, will sum up at end***

> You don't know if we can destory AL Qaeda or not, cetainly
> trying to do so is the wisest maneuver, and there is a perfectly
> rational reason to believe you can.

Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or soon, the Northern Alliance? I don't think we can destroy Al Qaeda without heavy collateral damage and many innocents getting in the way.

> It doesn't matter how you habndle it diplomatically, you will
> eventulaly have to use force, and waiting around to do so, only
> allows the situaiton to worsen and for your suspect to gain
> power.

I'm not against force. It is how that force is applied, and who is targetted, and what collateral damage is caused, and how much force is used.

> And for what? So you can attempt to assert a moral highground,
> with little concern for the safety of millions of people?

My "moral highground" is because I am concerned for the lives and safety of millions of innocent people. American or otherwise. You have something against morals?

> I am responding to the ideas of the "far" left, not
> the left in general. there are those on the elft that do support
> the military campaign. The far left is an irrational, extremeist
> group, bent on utopian ideals and unproven social theories.

> I am only conncerned with reason and what is eventually
> probvable. I am not into emotional uprising, and false
> accusations that are based on hunches an hearsay, and one's own
> personal wishes of utopia.

That is why I want an investigation. That is why I am against military tribunals.

> I know you would love for me to be a conservative because it
> could then give you a rather clear platfrom from which to debate
> me on,

Well, you think global warming is make believe. You are against "big government". You think "far lefties" are crazy to put it nicely. You seemed to imply that the far left is wrong for wanting government intervention and regulation.

> since philosophical absolutes are what you seem the most
> comfortable with.

You seem to be the one comfortable with absolutes.

> People are more important than ideas, and the far left is merely
> a cult of ideas.

Ummm, interesting thought.

To sum up, I appreciate you taking the time to give such a lengthy response. We both seem to want the same thing, a safer world where people can live freely, safely, avenge the deaths of the innocents of 9-11, etc. You just seem to be willing to ignore collateral damage, and ignore mistakes that can create bigger problems in the future.

> There has been no regime that has authoratatively replaced the
> Taliban. The N.A. has agreed to the coaltion proposal, and
> that's all you can hope for. other ethicic tribes are involved
> in the dsiscussions of Afghanistan's future.

> It doesn't matter anyway, to get rid of the Taliban you would
> have had to involve the Northern Alliance in any sense,
> diplomatically or military, so your point is moot.

> *Throws a few straws to the ground*

> Here, grasp.

My point being we are removing one Taliban to replace it with another Taliban. Then you say it is unavoidable if we want to remove the first Taliban. So then what's the point?

Are you trying to show me how to grasp at straws? Are you an expert or something?

> That was the whole point. I mentioned the hospital bombings and
> red cross building bombings and the rebuttal was don't focus on
> a military accident that happened last week. Whether you believe
> it was an "aspirin factory" or a location where they
> were developing chemical weapons, the right harped on it as a
> "military blunder" for years. And I am told to forget
> something that happened a week ago.(At the time of the posting)

This is a war. Different situation. And the missiles Clinton
fired at the aspirin factory were *aimed at* the aspirin factory.

All people were asking for with the aspirin factory attack was a
justification for the timing, because it occurred on a date
that was, on its face, suspicious. The administration had
reasons to suspect it was a legit target, but they haven't adequately explained why they didn't take more time to confirm.

> This is a war. Different situation. And the missiles Clinton
> fired at the aspirin factory were *aimed at* the aspirin
> factory.

> All people were asking for with the aspirin factory attack was a
> justification for the timing, because it occurred on a date
> that was, on its face, suspicious. The administration had
> reasons to suspect it was a legit target, but they haven't
> adequately explained why they didn't take more time to confirm.

First of all this isn't really a war but a military action. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Second of all, the Red Cross Buildings and hospitals were specifically targeted. The Pentagon admitted it.

Suspicious date? Wag the dog? Now who is spouting conspircay theories? You can't have it both ways.

> Why don't you stop lying? You should have just apologized.

> You are not just a dummy with the reading comprehension skills
> of a 6 year old. You are also a liar.

I didn't lie. I produced your quote that said you supported them from a previous post. Now you change your story. Instead of admitting the truth, you start calling me names, and calling me a liar trying to discredit me or provoke me. If I'm sorry for anything, I'm sorry for you.

> What? A fair trial? Why not just throw them in military
> tribunal? Seriously though, Why can't an investigation be
> carried out?

Because there is a particular neutral organization that carries such investigations out and as soon as the area is rendered safe, then they can do so.

Actually they already plan to carry out an investigation as standard procedure in such instances, but you logically have to wait until it's safe to do so.

Again, we can't stop the war in order to do so.

Even if this were the front line, we could still do
> some investigating, conduct interviews, gather evidence.

Maybe they are, I really don't know for sure. I don't relly know how the invesitgation process transpires.

> The puny U.S. has "no" control over the northern
> alliance? I seriously doubt that.

Well, we couldn't stop them from taking Kabul. We can condemn them, but we cannot control their actions unless we fight them. Obviously telling them to restrain themselves is not going to work, and that's all you can do to try and curb their actions. If we demanded that they not take Kabul, and they did, well, then how can we lecture some on how to treat those they are battling.

Even so, they can simply do it surreptitiously.

I don't think it's as simple as that really.

> The Taliban regroup? This military action is a rout. Where are
> they going to regroup to?

They could strategize or move to organized locations. Flee to the mountains where it is difficult to fight them. Prepare themselves in any possible way. Store and secure anti-aircraft artillery. Allow time for the perpetrators to dig in or or improve their cloaking.

The point is, when fighting you don't presume your enemy is weak or has nothing planned. The more time you waste the higher risk you run, in every sense.

So they weren't ready for us the first
> time, but if we allow them to regroup, then we will be in
> serious trouble.

We don't now. You certainly don't assume that you are going to seek them any way and at any time. It's a serious matter, not a baord game.

You have people you are trying to protect, and you cannot assume lack of strategy, just because you are confident. We've learned our lesson in that respect.

Certainly, continuously warning someone over action is not going to help any eventual action.

> Stop taking my suggestions to absolute. My proposal was to
> investigate the situation, and take action if war crimes were
> committed. It appears there have been war crimes committed. Is
> your proposal "allow genocide to continue because the
> Taliban might regroup and we can't let that happen"?

I'm sorry, but this is where your naivete of how battles are fought is displayed. Again, the prison riot is over. The Taliban are retreating into the mountains, and we are searching for Osama Bin ALden, and other key Al Qaeda figures. If an investigation can go on safely, then fine, but any notion that this war should be stopped, solely because there is a suggestion that after the Taliban soldiers formed an upsurgence, they were unethically killed, will only protract the battle, allow Al Qeda to cloak themselves even more efficeintly, and allow them to form a strategy in the mountains.

We can not put our own servicemen in danger, or put the objective at risk, simply because there was a suspicion that some N.A. soldiers acted unethically in combat towards a combattant. That notion, to me, is absurd.

This objective has been successful thus far, and it should not be jeopradize on suspicions.

If an invesitigation can go on while the objective continues, then fine, but it would be ludicrous and potentially self-destructive to halt it now over such suspicions.

The
> Taliban has regouped several times since the beginning of this.
> They are well trained. It doesn't matter, we control the air,
> and we have the finances and technology and superior armed
> forces.

You are forgetting a well known tough area of Afghan figthing, and that is the mountains and the numerous bubkers that ammunition and soldiers can b hidden in.

In fact, it is our relentless air strikes of Taliban members attempting to rush towards the saftey of the caves in the mountains that has kept this threat somewhat in check.

So, you are simplifying what is occuring. Also, there has been no evidence that the Taliban has significantly regrouped since the beginning of this war, and that's because they haven't been given a chance to do so. That's the conept of relentless figthing.

Finally, you don't know what they have planned or what thay are capable of, so suggesting that through your own deduction it wouldn't be big deal to give them a breather, while we sort a couple of issues out is pointless.

It's pure conjecture on your part, since I am quite sure that you are not a military strategist and I am also quite confident that most strategist would vehemently disagree with you.

> Your argument is pretty much the same, over and over. Allow
> atrocities to be committed, don't investigate until it's a good
> time to investigate. Well, they announced yesterday they were
> going to expand this war. Maybe in a few years we can come back
> and find the mass graves and wonder how we could have let
> something like this happen. Like Vietnam, central America, Asia,
> etc.

And you argument changes from success to success, morphing itself into a new tailor made grievance that reaches for a reason to stop figthing those who desire to destroy you.

Maybe you should leave the future to the future as well. But we are sure that no matter what the U.S. does, somoene will critcize it.

Hunches, and bleak cynicsim is all you have, because at the front of your mind, trying to dimplomatically wrangle with tryrants as threats of destruction and opression go on under your nose. All to preserve your own sense of civlity, not to save lives or to secure your defense.

One day you will relize that the world is a harsh place and people sometimes have to die before there is any imrpovement. There are those who figth to the death for their own freedom and own liberation, yet, again, under your philosophty they are doing ill.

That is called "morally projecting" and is something that many far left extremists delight in. Never stopping to consider the grotesque simliarities with religious extremists.

The argument is the same beacuse the argument remains unasnwered and undefeated.

My position has continually proven successful, while your's is altered with each passing success.

> I was referring to GWB and not yourself. (There was no reference
> to you. I said "as opposed to" the current
> opportunist, perhaps I should have put in GWB) I thought you
> were attempting to lighten things up a bit so I made my own
> light remark.

I apologize.

> Calm down, your typing is suffering. You have something against
> the far left? I thought you weren't conservative?

I'm not conservative. I simply agree with conservatives on the war effort. I really don't know how criticzing extremeists is being conservative. Have you ever seen me criticize far right conservatives and religious zealots? It's a site to behold.

> Now I know you're a conservative. The Bush administration about
> two months ago acknowledged it. Some "righties" still
> think it doesn't exist or that it can be attributed to volcanos.

This is not true, and although I disagree with Bush's seeming lack of interest in environmental issues, I don't blame him for not being knee-jerk about the global wamring issue.

I used to believe the absolute global warming rhetoric, but after researching the issue, I found that there is no general consensus by scientists that it is occuring for reasons other than normal climate change. There is no consensus if it wil even be detrimental in any way.

I would be more than happy to accept the theory as fact if there was a general sicnetific consensus on the issue, which there clearly is not. Having a handful of scientists claim that it so, is not how scientific factualizaing works. There has ot be a peer consensus on the matter, and it's a complex issue that is difficult to get any clear consensus on.

I'm only concenrned about what science says, not what politicians or special interest groups say.

I don't believe billions upon billions of dollars should be poured into an unproven theory. When there is suffcient consensus and evidence, then I say go forward.

>>How much scientific data do you need??? What about human rights and pesonal freedoms? Are you saying
> more government is acceptable in this situation?

No, which is why I don't believe that federalizing airport security is necessarily going to make us safer, or why I beleive in anything that limits constitutional freedom.

When does it
> become a concern. When 100 innocents die? When a thousand die?
> When a million innocents die? When 10 million die? When?

You perform an obejective that is important to your present and future security. You don't statistically tally up the posibble number of casualties and devise a cut off mark.

You do all you can to avoid civilian and military casualties. Though, you finish your obejctive.

Backing out because people die will only bring more violence from those who are figting you. It has happened in the past, and it will happen again if we use that philsophy.

We pulled out of Somalia when people died. The enemy was emboldened. We pulled out of Lebanon when people died. The enemy was emboldened.

Pulling out when things get tough and bloody can potentially cause more casualties in the future than it saves.

Ask bin laden how he feels about it. "Any time America's blood is spilled they run."

So the philsophy is, "only kill enugh Americans until they pull out."

It's the real world, and unless we get some resolve and we accept casualties on all sides, nothing of value will be accomplished. Saddam could have been destroyed with further military action, but would you say restraining ourselves has helped many people?

Honestly dll, you seem like a nice enuggh perosn, but I honestly think you are bieng naive when it comes to violent people. You cna only figth violent people, especially if the are planning to destroy you.

What aboutt the nucler weaponry that bin Laden had ambitions ofr? would yu honestly sugges twe hang back and hope that international law stops that intention? That is aserious amtter of National defense. To even suggest that we restrain oursleves fomr ending that threat is erroneous to me.

It's just not reality.

> That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying there is more than just
> "bombing them back to the staone age".

Right, there is dimplomacy as well, whcih can only be perfomred when the opressors are gone. We are actively pursuing diplomacy as well.

Bombing shouldn't be all that we do, and I am confident that it isn't.

> No tell me. Some tents and ammunition...what else? Food
> supplies, instructors and ideas. There are terrorist training
> camps all over the world. Al Qaeda exists outside of
> Afghanistan. There are several nations that protect them. If we
> go about this the wrong way there will be more.

Al Qaeda's headqaurters is in Afghanistan and it trains the members that eventually get dispersed to other countries.

Not to mention nucelar planning and testing.

It's also a safe refuge for suspected terrorists, and if that is where the leaderhsip and training lies, then logically you want to destory it. The problem is, it can only be destroyed through a military act.

Also, I am simply pleased that the Taliban is getting ousted period, so that's good enough for me, and a very important step in not allowing the safe refuge of terrorists, or nuclear planning. The Taliban itself was starting to becom more seriously anti-American as it aged.

> Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or soon, the Northern Alliance? I don't
> think we can destroy Al Qaeda without heavy collateral damage
> and many innocents getting in the way.

I agree. Which is why war is tragic, but necessary. However, we simply don't know how many innocents have been killed and there is even a question of the Taliban causing many of them to be used as human shields, which a humanitarian organziation recently accussed them of doing, therefore causing many of the suspected casualties.

Of course that cannot be our repsonsibilty. That's merely the sickness of the Taliban.

> My "moral highground" is because I am concerned for
> the lives and safety of millions of innocent people. American or
> otherwise. You have something against morals?

Moral absolutes? Yes.

> Well, you think global warming is make believe.

No, I said that global wamring is occuring hwoever there is no consensus on its negative effect, or even it's exact cause.

> To sum up, I appreciate you taking the time to give such a
> lengthy response. We both seem to want the same thing, a safer
> world where people can live freely, safely, avenge the deaths of
> the innocents of 9-11, etc. You just seem to be willing to
> ignore collateral damage, and ignore mistakes that can create
> bigger problems in the future.

And I acknowledge and understand your position as well and I appreciate you being generally respectful in your response.

> I didn't lie. I produced your quote that said you supported them
> from a previous post. Now you change your story. Instead of
> admitting the truth, you start calling me names, and calling me
> a liar trying to discredit me or provoke me. If I'm sorry for
> anything, I'm sorry for you.

More lies.

Anyone can go back through the thread and see....

You were ranting and raving about me supporting tribunals without
appeals and so forth, and Ashcroft destroying the bill of rights,
etc etc. You were screaming "you support this!" Why can't you just admit you got carried away? Would it hurt you so much to say
you were in error? Nothing more to say about it, except it just confirms why I don't respect you.

Anyway, I watched some of the committee session on the tribunals
and I found myself agreeing with many of Senator Hatch's words,
but then agreeing with many of Senator Feingold's words. It's
not a very clear-cut issue. Finding the best middle ground seems
best.

Side note: I have read what you have replied with. If there are parts I have skipped it does not necessarily mean that I agree or disagree. I'm just trying to keep these things short. If there is a point you wish me to respond to that I have skipped please let me know. For the most part I tended to remove debates that went off subject into another area. (Although I kept some) One's that we could easily start a whole other thread on, or removed parts where you were emphasizing a point and I had already responded.

> Actually they already plan to carry out an investigation as
> standard procedure in such instances, but you logically have to
> wait until it's safe to do so.

They are already carrying out an investigation into those soldiers deaths of the errant smart bomb. That only happened yesterday. There is no excuse as to why we can't investigate it. We just may not like the negative publicity if the results are not favorable.

> Well, we couldn't stop them from taking Kabul. We can condemn
> them, but we cannot control their actions unless we fight them.

We provide them with weapons, recon, money, air support, intelligence. We have more to with them being in Kabul than they do. They're just trying to tone down our involvement so that other Muslim nations are not too upset with our invading a Muslim country.

> Even so, they can simply do it surreptitiously.
> I don't think it's as simple as that really.
> They could strategize or move to organized locations. Flee to
> the mountains where it is difficult to fight them. Prepare
> themselves in any possible way. Store and secure anti-aircraft
> artillery. Allow time for the perpetrators to dig in or or
> improve their cloaking.

The bunker buster bombs will penetrate anything they can make in a year, let alone a week. Napalm can smoke them out of any cave complex. There is no where for them to regroup that we couldn't wipe out in a matter of hours with no loss to our side.

> The point is, when fighting you don't presume your enemy is weak
> or has nothing planned. The more time you waste the higher risk
> you run, in every sense.

The whole point, I feel, is a bit moot now. The Pentagon is engaging in a full investigation a day after 3 US soldiers died from an errant bomb. They have the capacity to have a 100 investigations and not have it hamper the war effort at all. So we can argue about the danger of giving the Taliban time or not and it won't matter, the Pentagon has time to make investigations, regardless whether it gives the Taliban time.

> I'm sorry, but this is where your naivete of how battles are
> fought is displayed.

The Pentagon must be naive also. They are conducting an investigation into the deaths of 3 US soldiers placing the whole US contingent of soldiers at risk by allowing the Taliban to regroup.

> If an invesitigation can go on while the objective continues,
> then fine, but it would be ludicrous and potentially
> self-destructive to halt it now over such suspicions.

That is what I have been saying pretty much. Regardless, even if we gave the Taliban a year, we could still wipe them out in a matter of weeks. Especially with the NA running "operation human shield".

> In fact, it is our relentless air strikes of Taliban members
> attempting to rush towards the saftey of the caves in the
> mountains that has kept this threat somewhat in check.

Bunker busters make the caves tombs. Napalm make the caves death traps.

> So, you are simplifying what is occuring.

I think you are trying to make things seem more dangerous than they are. The biggest threat to US service men over there are land mines and apparently our smart bombs. Also undetonated remnants of our cluster bombs.

> It's pure conjecture on your part, since I am quite sure that
> you are not a military strategist and I am also quite confident
> that most strategist would vehemently disagree with you.

Well the Pentagon disagrees with you. But you are right about my military background. Although I have been known to play a mean game of Risk.

> Maybe you should leave the future to the future as well.

I will not close my eyes. Although I would probably be much more happier in an innocent naive sort of way.

> But we are sure that no matter what the U.S. does, somoene will
> critcize it.

Agreed.

> One day you will relize that the world is a harsh place and
> people sometimes have to die before there is any imrpovement.
> There are those who figth to the death for their own freedom and
> own liberation, yet, again, under your philosophty they are
> doing ill.

Under this argument then...do you feel genocide is just?

> That is called "morally projecting" and is something
> that many far left extremists delight in. Never stopping to
> consider the grotesque simliarities with religious extremists.

It's ok for the US to "morally project" and wipe out the oppressive govenment of Afghanistan, or liberate Kuwait, etc., but I can't be concerned with war crimes being committed.

> The argument is the same beacuse the argument remains unasnwered
> and undefeated.

I am asking for an answer and you wish to wait and possibly ignore what may have occurred. To tell you the truth, I'm sure an investigation has already occurred or is occurring.

> My position has continually proven successful, while your's is
> altered with each passing success.

I disagree.

> I apologize.

No need to, but I appreciate the sentiment. In these debates it is very easy to misconstrue statements made. Especially with no verbal and non verbal cues. Also, with them lasting several weeks and our own lives moving on it can be very difficult to keep the flow of the debate going.

> I'm not conservative. I simply agree with conservatives on the
> war effort. I really don't know how criticzing extremeists is
> being conservative. Have you ever seen me criticize far right
> conservatives and religious zealots? It's a site to behold.

What do you disagree with far right conservatives on? What do you disagree with them on that isn't a principle for religious zealots?

Do you feel John Ashcroft is a religious zealot? Do you feel GWB is very/extremely religious?

> This is not true, and although I disagree with Bush's seeming
> lack of interest in environmental issues, I don't blame him for
> not being knee-jerk about the global wamring issue.

This is a whole other debate. He has more than lack of interest. He declared the Kyoto protocol "dead". In 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 "Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Then he is placed in office by the Supreme Court and declares dead an international protocol. I don't think the other 165(?) nations felt it was dead.

> No, which is why I don't believe that federalizing airport
> security is necessarily going to make us safer, or why I beleive
> in anything that limits constitutional freedom.

So you think that Airlines in a drive to make a profit and hiring the cheapest security that they can get is better than federalizing airport security? The company that is used the most by airlines for hiring security was fined over $1.5 million dollars last year for violating regulations in hiring procedures. In other words they were providing personel for airport security that had no business being there. That aside, when the guy at McDonalds is making more than the guy responsible for your safety on an airplane, there is something seriously wrong.

> What aboutt the nucler weaponry that bin Laden had ambitions
> ofr? would yu honestly sugges twe hang back and hope that
> international law stops that intention? That is aserious amtter
> of National defense. To even suggest that we restrain oursleves
> fomr ending that threat is erroneous to me.

These "warnings" I personally feel are all bs. Just presented to keep the public backing for the war at a high level. I mean, I'm sure OBL wouldn't mind dropping a bomb on LA or NYC or DC, but they have came out with these terrorist warnings every other week or so. We had warnings about the bridges, we had warnings about him obtaining a nuclear weapon, now it's a dirty bomb. A couple of days ago they said the noose is very tight around OBL's neck right now and we are narrowing in on him. Then they say he is building a "dirty" bomb. Well if we are so close...why don't we just follow the trucks that are delivering the supplies for the dirty bomb? Seriously though, I think these warnings are all designed to keep our resolve high.

> Al Qaeda's headqaurters is in Afghanistan and it trains the
> members that eventually get dispersed to other countries.

Al Qaeda used to be in Sudan. Before that I think it was Saudi Arabia. Do you think the nwew government in Afghanistan will fight to wipe out Al Qaeda?

> Not to mention nucelar planning and testing.

Why plan and test when he can buy one on the open market for about 40 million?

> Also, I am simply pleased that the Taliban is getting ousted
> period, so that's good enough for me, and a very important step
> in not allowing the safe refuge of terrorists, or nuclear
> planning. The Taliban itself was starting to becom more
> seriously anti-American as it aged.

I have no love for the Taliban. I have no love for the Northern Alliance either. The US liked the Taliban there because they added stability to the region. I don't think they were becoming more anti-US. They were just becoming more religious extremist and narrow minded.

And to please the people who feel we waste their time with these discussions...When do you think Morrissey is coming out with a new album?

> More lies.

Do you deny making this staement?

"I would support them if they were subject to civilian review and narrowly applied to...well, people like bin Laden rather than some small fry in Minneapolis. "

First of all, the whole argument of a military tribunal is to keep things secret. How can you have civilian review? If you want civilian review then move them back to civilian courts.

Second of all it is affecting Joe small fry in Minneapolis. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the government for the 500+ people being detained.

> Anyway, I watched some of the committee session on the tribunals
> and I found myself agreeing with many of Senator Hatch's words,
> but then agreeing with many of Senator Feingold's words. It's
> not a very clear-cut issue. Finding the best middle ground seems
> best.

Here is the conspiracy theory all bundled up for you. This guy is offering money too.

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/portland.html
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html

And to please the people who feel we waste their time with these
discussions...Do you think Morrissey looks better with the hearing aid or without it?

> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/portland.html
> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html And to please

Not even Chomksy would stoop this low. Not to mention, he is offering the exemely confident and handsome sum of $1,000 for someone to essentially take him seriously.

This war has really brought brought out the nutters.

> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/portland.html
> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html

> Not even Chomksy would stoop this low. Not to mention, he is
> offering the exemely confident and handsome sum of $1,000 for
> someone to essentially take him seriously.

> This war has really brought brought out the nutters.

Do you think that there is a chance, no matter how slight, that there could be some truth to some of this?

> Do you think that there is a chance, no matter how slight, that
> there could be some truth to some of this?

As comparable to chances of there being a loch ness monster?

No.

Some assertions are so far fetched and so inherently oblivious to even the superficial rational of their premise that they can be dismissed outiright. Any idea doesn't automatically deserve attention just because it is proposed.

Like the existance of God for example.

Are there minsicule chances of anyhting being possible, of course? But it doesn't mean that you go around taking seriously all miniscule possibilities, even if someone asserts their truth. There are only so many propositions you can take seriously in life.

Like in science, the premise must be sound before there can be any rational dedication given to seeking the validity of it.

I think the premise itself is absurd, and fails to acknowledge the massive amounts of people that would have to be involved for it to be kept quiet.

Even Chomsky dimisses a JFK cover up on the basis of there needing to be too many people involved.

This is even more massive than a JFK cover up. No, it's just laughable. I don't beleive any governemnt agnecy is that @#!!!ing confident and bold to even entertain such an idea.

The CIA is one of the clumsiest beauracracies on the planet and... No, it's just dumb to even consider.

It's quite offensive actually. And the $1000 dollar reward makes it seem all the more sideshowlike.

>>They are already carrying out an investigation into those soldiers deaths of the errant smart bomb. That only happened yesterday. There is no excuse as to why we can't investigate it. We just may not like the negative publicity if the results are not favorable.>We provide them with weapons, recon, money, air support, intelligence. We have more to with them being in Kabul than they do. They're just trying to tone down our involvement so that other Muslim nations are not too upset with our invading a Muslim country.>The bunker buster bombs will penetrate anything they can make in a year, let alone a week.>Napalm can smoke them out of any cave complex. There is no where for them to regroup that we couldn't wipe out in a matter of hours with no loss to our side.>The whole point, I feel, is a bit moot now.>The Pentagon is engaging in a full investigation a day after 3 US soldiers died from an errant bomb. They have the capacity to have a 100 investigations and not have it hamper the war effort at all. So we can argue about the danger of giving the Taliban time or not and it won't matter, the Pentagon has time to make investigations, regardless whether it gives the Taliban time.>The Pentagon must be naive also. They are conducting an investigation into the deaths of 3 US soldiers placing the whole US contingent of soldiers at risk by allowing the Taliban to regroup.>That is what I have been saying pretty much. Regardless, even if we gave the Taliban a year, we could still wipe them out in a matter of weeks. Especially with the NA running "operation human shield".>I think you are trying to make things seem more dangerous than they are. The biggest threat to US service men over there are land mines and apparently our smart bombs. Also undetonated remnants of our cluster bombs. One day you will relize that the world is a harsh place and
> people sometimes have to die before there is any imrpovement.
> There are those who figth to the death for their own freedom and
> own liberation, yet, again, under your philosophty they are
> doing ill.

>>Under this argument then...do you feel genocide is just?>I am asking for an answer and you wish to wait and possibly ignore what may have occurred.>To tell you the truth, I'm sure an investigation has already occurred or is occurring.>What do you disagree with far right conservatives on? What do you disagree with them on that isn't a principle for religious zealots?>Do you feel John Ashcroft is a religious zealot?>Do you feel GWB is very/extremely religious?>So you think that Airlines in a drive to make a profit and hiring the cheapest security that they can get is better than federalizing airport security?>The company that is used the most by airlines for hiring security was fined over $1.5 million dollars last year for violating regulations in hiring procedures. In other words they were providing personel for airport security that had no business being there. That aside, when the guy at McDonalds is making more than the guy responsible for your safety on an airplane, there is something seriously wrong.>These "warnings" I personally feel are all bs.>Just presented to keep the public backing for the war at a high level. I mean, I'm sure OBL wouldn't mind dropping a bomb on LA or NYC or DC, but they have came out with these terrorist warnings every other week or so. We had warnings about the bridges, we had warnings about him obtaining a nuclear weapon, now it's a dirty bomb.>A couple of days ago they said the noose is very tight around OBL's neck right now and we are narrowing in on him. Then they say he is building a "dirty" bomb. Well if we are so close...why don't we just follow the trucks that are delivering the supplies for the dirty bomb? Seriously though, I think these warnings are all designed to keep our resolve high.>Al Qaeda used to be in Sudan. Before that I think it was Saudi Arabia. Do you think the nwew government in Afghanistan will fight to wipe out Al Qaeda?>Why plan and test when he can buy one on the open market for about 40 million?>I have no love for the Taliban. I have no love for the Northern Alliance either. The US liked the Taliban there because they added stability to the region. I don't think they were becoming more anti-US. They were just becoming more religious extremist and narrow minded.

He presented "facts" with sources. He is asking you to dispute them. Do you disagree with his facts or his conclusions. And if you disagree with his conclusions, how do you resolve the contradictions that his "facts" create with the story we are being told?

I get the impression from you that anything the government tells you, you believe as fact. Anything the US press tells you, you believe as fact. Are you saying any other source that disagrees with these two outlets is lying.

I'll keep this short...

Some of your justification for what is going on is because the Taliban refused to hand over OBL.

Afghanistan does not have an extradition treaty with the US. They are not being anti-US but anti-diplomacy. England, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, all currently have people in custody that are responsible for terrorist attacks against the US. Should we take out Englands government since they are not handing over 3 suspects in the African Embassy bombings? The 3 are currently fighting extradition to the US.

I disagree with your safety in caves theory. We just took out Tora Bora with no US casualties. We didn't suprise them before they had a chance to run to the caves. They were there, dug in, and we wiped them out. In fact the US Govt. and US press has not mentioned one US casualty in any of the campaigns aside from one dead CIA guy and 3 dead soldiers. (Funny that the ruler in waiting was injured in that, coincidence?) Millions of US soldiers are not going to die if we would have waited a few days.

Besides if a 2,000 pound bomb hits the caves, it may not kill them, but they'll sure have a fun time digging their way out. It would be interesting to see the numbers on the amount of ordinance we have dropped on Afghanistan. I'm sure it would be staggering.

You argued with me on the Pentagon investigating, it's ability to investigate, and if it would investigate...
Read the headline
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011206/us/afghan_us_military_25.html

Thank you for the exchange.
Take care yourself

>> This is a war. Different situation. And the missiles Clinton
>> fired at the aspirin factory were *aimed at* the aspirin
>> factory.
>>
>> All people were asking for with the aspirin factory attack was a
>> justification for the timing, because it occurred on a date
>> that was, on its face, suspicious. The administration had
>> reasons to suspect it was a legit target, but they haven't
>> adequately explained why they didn't take more time to confirm.
=========

> First of all this isn't really a war but a military action. Only Congress
> has the power to declare war.

War or military action - isn't that a difference without a distinction?
War was declared on us, we face imminent threat, and congress gave approval and funding for the military action, for Bush to do all that is necessary in prosecuting what the government refers to as "the war on terrorism." Which is a rather unusual war, given that we're not actually fighting another country.

Whatever you call it, the point still stands.

>Second of all, the Red Cross Buildings and
> hospitals were specifically targeted. The Pentagon admitted it.

In the previous post you talked of "blunders." Now I'm not sure
what specifically you're referring to. Were these military targets?
Why did they target them? Who targeted them?

I certainly would not support any targeting of innocent people. Ever.

The aspirin factory was a target chosen by Clinton *personally*, and he issued the order without going through the normal channels and
consultations. This was explained in the NEw Yorker magazine. IOW,
the Sudan attack was Clinton's personal, individual military action.
And it turned out to be an unjust target.

He could have and should have known this before he ordered the attack.

> Suspicious date? Wag the dog? Now who is spouting conspircay theories? You
> can't have it both ways.

What parts are we calling theory? The wag the dog aspect remains a theory, yes. That's important if we want to charge Clinton with a criminal
abuse of power, something that is not of paramount concern to me. Many a president has gotten away with abuses, and many more surely will. The timing was quite nice for Clinton and his poll ratings on the very day he most needed a distraction from his scandals. Merely circumstantial evidence, correct. Unrefuted, but unproven.

But it's not necessary to prove that in order to condemn the attack as the reckless killing of innocent people.

That the attack was needlessly reckless seems proven. If there's proof to the contrary, where is it? Why couldn't Clinton wait until he had better information? The factory could not move. It did not have to be hit on that day. It turned out it shouldn't have been hit at all, and he would have known this had he waited for more intelligence and followed the normal procedures.

Isn't this just the sort of act that makes people resent America?

That Americans like yourself were so apathetic you couldn't have cared less? That you never even asked for justification? That you shrugged your shoulders?
That you attacked those who did ask for an inquiry? Told them to "move on" because they were rocking the boat?

Now you're going to turn around and tell me you're morally outraged about the current actions? Against the TALIBAN and BIN LADEN? Against people who are committing mass-murders around the globe? Who are actively trying to get nukes?

How the hell one can run around covering for Clinton's attack on Sudan, with no regard for the "collateral damage" of such a bullsh*t action, and then come on here claiming to speak for civilian casualties today, I do not follow.
You either care about civilian casualties or you do not.

Well, I do follow: Clinton is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican and you're very caught up in that. Doesn't mean anything to me; Democrat-Republican is another one of those differences without a distinction to my mind.

You tell us Bush is killing 7.5 million (!) innocent people! Whoa. You're painting him as Adolf Hitler, you realize. Not exactly level-headed thinking.....

I can morally justify the attacks on the war criminals in Afghanistan, even though I know that all military actions result in unjustified killings and tragedies and can scar people for the rest of their lives. I don't shrug that off, but the case is powerful that the war is necessary and is, so far, making the world a better, safer place. The people we are targeting are some of the most evil mass-murderers and fascists to ever claim to be part of the human race. You don't have to agree, but certainly the case can be argued. I don't
support any military actions until the government makes the case to me.

I wonder if you can morally justify lobbing missiles, in peace time, at an aspirin factory, based on uncomfirmed suspicions, suspicions that turned out false and we would have known were false had we tried to confirm them, and resulting in the deaths of no one knows how many civilians. When I say no one knows how many, your favorite guy Chomsky estimates 10,000, but as he's unreliable I can only say...logic suggests many have died, and in that case one death would be too many.

And if you can morally justify that, I still wonder how you justify shrugging
off the casualties.

It's years on now. Clinton and his followers prefer to change the subject.

6 months on, an excellent CBS documentary on 9/11 last night,
and I'm in the mood for some updates on the old war debate here.
To refresh memories, I intend to keep updating till the wacko views
I saw posted here can never be bought into by rational minds again.

On December 6, Morrissey-Solo contributor under the screenname "DL,"
with high fives from Suzanne, wrote this to me, relating to debates on 9/11:

> Here is the conspiracy theory all bundled up for you. This guy is offering
> money too.

> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/portland.html
> http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html And to please the
> people who feel we waste their time with these
> discussions...Do you think Morrissey looks better with the hearing aid or
> without it?

It seems DL is even more of an extremist kook than his lefty mentors
at the almost always kooky ZMAG.ORG. First read DL's links,
then...here is what one ZMAG columnist, David Corn, says
about the insanity DL bought into.....(in the second half he discusses
this money offering nutjob DL loved).....




When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad (http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/cornterror.cfm)

The need to continue these updates was hit home to me by an article
in the Guardian by one of MY heroes, Salman Rushdie, one month back.
The link is below.

Rushdie sums up pretty well how the anti-war crowd
have been wrong on everything they said, across the board (much
to their furstration, as of course they wish the illest of will upon
my home). It also amused me when Rushdie recounts the London diatribes about American obesity, etc., that he ran into recently. Reminded me of this forum.
It seems some of the British here are just mindless conformists to
their culture's trendy, ignorant prejudices. How thoughtful!

Here's the article......




Anti-Americanism Has Taken The World By Storm (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4350590,00.html)

would you like to know what's wacko?

that we send all of our money to a bunch of squabbling war lords whose newly installed "government" will probably most likely topple in less than 5 years while there are hungry, unemployed people having to live on the streets with their small kids who were being taxed to death in their low-waged jobs to fund this operation.

> that we send all of our money to a bunch of squabbling war lords whose
> newly installed "government" will probably most likely topple in
> less than 5 years while there are hungry, unemployed people having to live
> on the streets with their small kids who were being taxed to death in
> their low-waged jobs to fund this operation.

those stupid Americans should just get proper jobs. serves you right for having such a pathetic education system. (how many americans can find america on a map ..... is it still only 50% or has it gone down?)

> those stupid Americans should just get proper jobs. serves you right for
> having such a pathetic education system. (how many americans can find
> america on a map ..... is it still only 50% or has it gone down?)

you can send them all to graduate school and have everyone get doctorates. however, there will still be the same number of well paying jobs at the computer firm as there was the day that only half of them could find Australia on a map.

> would you like to know what's wacko?

> that we send all of our money to a bunch of squabbling war lords whose
> newly installed "government" will probably most likely topple in
> less than 5 years while there are hungry, unemployed people having to live
> on the streets with their small kids who were being taxed to death in
> their low-waged jobs to fund this operation.

How much do low wage earners pay in taxes?

The overwhelming majority of the people of America support their tax dollars going to this war. It's not all our money. Policies addressing domestic poverty
are a separate issue. Most of us feel western civilization is worth preserving and it's money well spent, thank you.

The war effort is saving countless of the poorest people of the
world from starvation and enslavement, if the poor are truly your concern.

And, as Salman Rushdie noted, we kept Pakistan's nukes out of Bin Laden's
hands.

Now, care to address whether you still concur with DL's Big Oil conspiracy theory?

> you can send them all to graduate school and have everyone get doctorates.
> however, there will still be the same number of well paying jobs at the
> computer firm as there was the day that only half of them could find
> Australia on a map.

Yeah, that makes sense, you econ whiz.

> Yeah, that makes sense, you econ whiz.

what? you can't even identify what supply and demand looks like when put to practical application?

did someone approach you and say "oh, you have a college degree! let me create a job for you!"? that sounds more like communist russia, don't you think?

but then again, i'm sure the companies that shut down operations in the states and subsequently open a factory in mexico were strictly doing it because the mexican workforce is so much more highly educated than the american one.

> How much do low wage earners pay in taxes?

actually, believe it or not, Enron paid about as much taxes per year as your average worker at mcdonald's.

a company, may i add, who benefitted massively from government policies and economic aid and got it for nearly free, while there are many tax payers who had paid loyally for years, are laid off, and can't get any liveable money to help them through the bad economy.

> The overwhelming majority of the people of America support their tax
> dollars going to this war. It's not all our money. Policies addressing
> domestic poverty
> are a separate issue. Most of us feel western civilization is worth
> preserving and it's money well spent, thank you.

i want you to think about what you have just said.

Why they can't win, as defined by me:

let's say for the sake of argument they are planning a widespread assault. let's identify the problems any nation would have in carrying it out against the US:

1. Geography.
not only is the US way the hell across the ocean and thus if they send their military over, we would have long since blown them out of the water before they came, but we are also surrounded by friendly nations that would not provide these countries with a home base to launch operations.

2. weaponry.
yes, they might detonate a nuclear device. however, they do that at the risk knowing that we are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and don't care if they lived or died anyway. they would be beckoning their own nation's genocide. what we did to japan is a sign that we would.

3. lack of unity within the opposition. they can't do it by themselves, however, all of them have interests at stake.

its like if you worked at a 7-11 and someone comes in late one night, pulls a gun on you, and takes your cash. then, they send the police out, round up whoever did it, and then they say "with confidence, i can tell you this will never happen again!"

basically, that's what 9-11 was. you can send them all to prison, you can change the government, but it won't stop someone else from saying, "look what america has done to my brother! i will die for him and our cause!"

so, i ask, how do you change the mindset of a people? like how do you go up to someone and convince them not to rob the convenience store, even if they know its wrong, and even if they know they stand a good chance of being caught, spending time in jail, and subsequently ruining the rest of their lives? in other words, how do you get rid of desperation?

> The war effort is saving countless of the poorest people of the
> world from starvation and enslavement, if the poor are truly your concern.

yes, destroying a country and cutting off supply routes in the middle of the desert suddenly makes manna spring from the earth....

> And, as Salman Rushdie noted, we kept Pakistan's nukes out of Bin Laden's
> hands.

> Now, care to address whether you still concur with DL's Big Oil conspiracy
> theory?

oh yes. i completely agree with it.

America is like the mooching relative that shows up to your house, wants everything their way, and then acts shocked when someone asks them to have manners.

...many Britons find it really hard to sympathise with the typically OTT response to the WTC attacks (and those tacky blue lights 'shining up to heaven' (ohmygawd)) because Americans seem to have extremely short memories when it comes to the horror, outrage and loss that terrorism attacks bring.

After all, we should never forget the IRA and their peddlars in terror, Noraid, and their lucrative collection boxes (esp round St Patricks Day when 'Irish Americans, 36 times removed, remember their, ahem, 'heritage') on the streets of NYC for the past 30 years.

A colossal amount of funding for the atrocities we have been inflicted with in Great Britain and Ireland for THIRTY YEARS has come directly from the same New Yorkers who put their bucks in them little Noraid boxes year after year after year, and who are now denouncing terrorism and throwing their hands in the air with rage at the 'mindless loss of life'.......these same people must remember they have blood on their hands from London, Manchester, Warrington, Enniskillen... I could go on.

Loss of life from terrorism, whether it's one life or a thousand, is appalling.... but is the loss of an American life any worse than the loss of a child outside his local McDonalds in Warrington, blown to bits by an IRA bomb left in a bin?

Wake up America.

actually, believe it or not, Enron paid about as much taxes per year as
> your average worker at mcdonald's.

> a company, may i add, who benefitted massively from government policies
> and economic aid and got it for nearly free, while there are many tax
> payers who had paid loyally for years, are laid off, and can't get any
> liveable money to help them through the bad economy.

> i want you to think about what you have just said.

> Why they can't win, as defined by me:

> let's say for the sake of argument they are planning a widespread assault.
> let's identify the problems any nation would have in carrying it out
> against the US:

> 1. Geography.
> not only is the US way the hell across the ocean and thus if they send
> their military over, we would have long since blown them out of the water
> before they came, but we are also surrounded by friendly nations that
> would not provide these countries with a home base to launch operations.

> 2. weaponry.
> yes, they might detonate a nuclear device. however, they do that at the
> risk knowing that we are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and don't
> care if they lived or died anyway. they would be beckoning their own
> nation's genocide. what we did to japan is a sign that we would.

> 3. lack of unity within the opposition. they can't do it by themselves,
> however, all of them have interests at stake.

> its like if you worked at a 7-11 and someone comes in late one night,
> pulls a gun on you, and takes your cash. then, they send the police out,
> round up whoever did it, and then they say "with confidence, i can
> tell you this will never happen again!"

> basically, that's what 9-11 was. you can send them all to prison, you can
> change the government, but it won't stop someone else from saying,
> "look what america has done to my brother! i will die for him and our
> cause!"

> so, i ask, how do you change the mindset of a people? like how do you go
> up to someone and convince them not to rob the convenience store, even if
> they know its wrong, and even if they know they stand a good chance of
> being caught, spending time in jail, and subsequently ruining the rest of
> their lives? in other words, how do you get rid of desperation?

> yes, destroying a country and cutting off supply routes in the middle of
> the desert suddenly makes manna spring from the earth....

> oh yes. i completely agree with it.

> America is like the mooching relative that shows up to your house, wants
> everything their way, and then acts shocked when someone asks them to have
> manners.

> did someone approach you and say "oh, you have a college degree! let
> me create a job for you!"? that sounds more like communist russia,
> don't you think?

> but then again, i'm sure the companies that shut down operations in the
> states and subsequently open a factory in mexico were strictly doing it
> because the mexican workforce is so much more highly educated than the
> american one.

No, but they are a cheaper work force. So, are you against Mexico getting jobs? What about their poor and unemployed? You're a Pat Buchanan economic nationalist?

I really don't know what I am. I'd have to take it case by case as to what particular corporations are doing to their workers. But, you know, we live in a dynamic economy. You've got to have skills that are in demand. Some jobs leave, but some new jobs are created.

Economics is not an area I have much knowledge on, but isn't it the case
that when one country is in a later stage of development, certain industries
must shift to countries in earlier stages of development? For example,
certain electronics products once made in Japan then started being made
in, say, Korea?

> 6 months on, an excellent CBS documentary on 9/11 last night,
> and I'm in the mood for some updates on the old war debate here.
> To refresh memories, I intend to keep updating till the wacko views
> I saw posted here can never be bought into by rational minds again.

Please do a a google search on "Operation Northwoods". You don't think the American government is capable of something I suggested? Hell, the joint Chiefs of Staff were ready and willing to do this, with a unanimous recommendation to the President. So don't tell me that the whole idea is absurd for rational minds.

> here is what one ZMAG columnist, David Corn, says
> about the insanity DL bought into.....(in the second half he discusses
> this money offering nutjob DL loved).....

David Corn's main argument is basically that there is no need to argue. Good one.

The money offering nut job that I loved? I think I mentioned him one time in a post and said go make your $1,000. I assume you already collected from this nutjob since his claims are so preposterous and you have such a sound rational argument against his claims.

In this era what has the war on terrorism produced? Bush has hit the "trifecta" as he himself stated twice with a smile on his face. War, recession, and a national emergency. Allowing him to basically do whatever he wants. His critics are denounced as traitors or doves, while the extreme right wing wraps itself up in the flag. "OBL wanted dead or alive" has become, "he's not important" and we have suceeded. Regardless if you think the pipeline was an incentive for the war, it is being built none the less, now that the "greedy Taliban" is out of power. So display your sad, pathetic, American flag sticker on the back of your car... the one that supports terrorism to fight terrorism in the name of God.

I leave for a couple of months and you are still trying to debate me. You're funny.

> How much do low wage earners pay in taxes?

too much.

> The overwhelming majority of the people of America support their tax
> dollars going to this war.

bullsh*t. The majority of Americans didn't vote for the idiot.

> It's not all our money.

Who's money is it?

> Policies addressing
> domestic poverty
> are a separate issue. Most of us feel western civilization is worth
> preserving and it's money well spent, thank you.

The war is producing more enemies than eliminating.

> The war effort is saving countless of the poorest people of the
> world from starvation and enslavement, if the poor are truly your concern.

OMG Do you actually believe that? Travel outside the US much?

> And, as Salman Rushdie noted, we kept Pakistan's nukes out of Bin Laden's
> hands.

> Now, care to address whether you still concur with DL's Big Oil conspiracy
> theory?

There's more to this than oil.

> Please do a a google search on "Operation Northwoods". You don't
> think the American government is capable of something I suggested? Hell,
> the joint Chiefs of Staff were ready and willing to do this, with a
> unanimous recommendation to the President. So don't tell me that the whole
> idea is absurd for rational minds.

No, I just wanted you clearly on record as a lunatic. And now you're dismissed.

> David Corn's main argument is basically that there is no need to argue.
> Good one.

No, his main argument was that you are a gullible moron and your theories are rather impossible and absurd.

> The money offering nut job that I loved? I think I mentioned him one time
> in a post and said go make your $1,000. I assume you already collected
> from this nutjob since his claims are so preposterous and you have such a
> sound rational argument against his claims.

> In this era what has the war on terrorism produced? Bush has hit the
> "trifecta" as he himself stated twice with a smile on his face.
> War, recession, and a national emergency.

The recession began well before the war started, and while your buddy
Bill Clinton was in office btw, and appears to be ending. The national emergency was brought upon America by foreign attackers, as was the war.

>Allowing him to basically do
> whatever he wants. His critics are denounced as traitors or doves, while
> the extreme right wing wraps itself up in the flag. "OBL wanted dead
> or alive" has become, "he's not important" and we have
> suceeded. Regardless if you think the pipeline was an incentive for the
> war, it is being built none the less, now that the "greedy
> Taliban" is out of power. So display your sad, pathetic, American
> flag sticker on the back of your car... the one that supports terrorism to
> fight terrorism in the name of God.

I don't put stickers on my car and I don't believe in God. But I'm quite
excited about whiping Islamic fascism off the globe.

> I leave for a couple of months and you are still trying to debate me.
> You're funny.

Well, you obviously don't leave. I'm not sure if you post under another
screenname, or if you usually just lurk. But as I said, people like you
threw a lot of accusations, theories, and opinions around, and it's fun
for me to update on how well they're looking as time passes and
truths emerge.

> bullsh*t. The majority of Americans didn't vote for the idiot.

This is a response to my comment that the vast majority of taxpayers support
their tax dollars going to the war. You're trying to make it that if one
didn't vote for Bush one doesn'r back the war. But of course the polls
are clear that this is a war the people support. Furthermore, Al Gore
would be waging the same war, and indeed just last week he scolded Bush
for carrying too small a stick in waging the war!

> The war is producing more enemies than eliminating.

>> The war effort is saving countless of the poorest people of the
>> world from starvation and enslavement, if the poor are truly your concern.

> OMG Do you actually believe that? Travel outside the US much?

As I matter of fact I do travel, but I wouldn't have to to know the truth of what I said. And I wasn't even a born citizen of America, btw.
Now what is it that you fail to grasp about the Taliban and Osama bin Laden enslaving people and putting them in conditions which lead to mass starvation?
And what is it that you don't udnerstand about them seeking to spread this
to more nations? It's quite clear that removal of the Taliban has saved thousands andf thousands of lives from enslavement and death, most urgently in Afghanistan, but also throughout the region, into Asia, and of course future direct and indirect terrorist victims across the globe. So again, if you and Suzanne care so much about the poor of the world, why wouldn't you be happy to see the Taliban removed? Oh because that would mean having to support something your government is doing, and one thing you know for sure, you'll never cheer on something George W. Bush executes. What a small person you are.

> No, I just wanted you clearly on record as a lunatic. And now you're
> dismissed.

> No, his main argument was that ""you"" are a gullible moron and your theories
> are rather impossible and absurd.

Wow! He called me out specifically? Didn't see that in the argument. Just remember him making his main point...something along the lines of..."the best counter argument to this is not to argue it." No, you are the gullible one here. Now go heil usurper boy, and give Rush my worst regards. I also like your debate tactics. Name calling, the last refuge of a person with no argument.

> The recession began well before the war started, and while your buddy
> Bill Clinton was in office btw, and appears to be ending. The national
> emergency was brought upon America by foreign attackers, as was the war.

Changing history? Sorry, but there was no start of the recession during Clinton. If you remember, the economy was so superheated during Clintons last year that Bush said we needed a tax cut and Greenspan raised interest rates something like 8 consecutive times to cool it off.

> I don't put stickers on my car and I don't believe in God. But I'm quite
> excited about whiping Islamic fascism off the globe.

Islamic fascism? The only fascists in this conflict wave the red, white, and blue. Please take your "destroy the arabs" crusade somewhere else.

> Well, you obviously don't leave. I'm not sure if you post under another
> screenname, or if you usually just lurk. But as I said, people like you
> threw a lot of accusations, theories, and opinions around, and it's fun
> for me to update on how well they're looking as time passes and
> truths emerge.

I said I was away for two months. That means, for the most part... I left...then I came back Are we going to have a semantic argument on this? I thought I was quite clear.

I'm curious why you ignored my "Operation Northwoods" request. It seems to put a big hole in your lunatic theory. Of course I think this was in our other thread so sorry if I'm confusing you but in case you missed it...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

> This is a response to my comment that the vast majority of taxpayers
> support
> their tax dollars going to the war. You're trying to make it that if one
> didn't vote for Bush one doesn'r back the war. But of course the polls
> are clear that this is a war the people support. Furthermore, Al Gore
> would be waging the same war, and indeed just last week he scolded Bush
> for carrying too small a stick in waging the war!

Really? Missed that comment by Al Gore. Please post a link I would be interested in reading the story. Thanks in advance. As far as polls are concerned, their not worth the paper they're printed on. Any Psycho 101 class will teach you that. The way you present a question, you can pretty much get whatever response you want. Since in the last 18 years we have gone from 50 corporations controlling the vast majority of US media to only SIX, I tend to think that the information I get isn't as trustworthy as I once received.

> As I matter of fact I do travel, but I wouldn't have to to know the truth
> of what I said.

Nice... Say whatever you want, you don't care if it is the truth. Why do I bother?

> And I wasn't even a born citizen of America, btw.
> Now what is it that you fail to grasp about the Taliban and Osama bin
> Laden enslaving people and putting them in conditions which lead to mass
> starvation?
> And what is it that you don't udnerstand about them seeking to spread this
> to more nations? It's quite clear that removal of the Taliban has saved
> thousands andf thousands of lives from enslavement and death, most
> urgently in Afghanistan, but also throughout the region, into Asia, and of
> course future direct and indirect terrorist victims across the globe. So
> again, if you and Suzanne care so much about the poor of the world, why
> wouldn't you be happy to see the Taliban removed? Oh because that would
> mean having to support something your government is doing, and one thing
> you know for sure, you'll never cheer on something George W. Bush
> executes. What a small person you are.

Do you honestly believe the Taliban had some sneaky way of destroying the whole world by wielding their might and causing mass starvation throughout the middle east and Asia?

I find it so laughable that you always try to assume the moral high ground but are the first to resort to name calling and belittle everyone else's opinion that doesn't fit so neatly in your world view. If you think GWB is a champion for the poor and the downtrodden then have another one.

As far as globalization is concerned please tell me how this radio interview strikes you?...

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=125&row=1

> give Rush my worst regards.

I'm not a republican. I'm not a part of any party. I'm some hard to define
mix of liberal and libertarian, probably more of the latter, if you just know.
Your simplistic brain apparently can't see beyond the traditional left-right
spectrum.
Rush, to me, is the worst kind of commentator, not because he's conservative
but because he is a psrtisan shill.

I voted against both major parties in the last election.

> Changing history? Sorry, but there was no start of the recession during
> Clinton.

Econmists are not even in agreement that there is in fact a
recession right now, but if there is it began before Bush did anything
which could impact it. The only argument you could make is that he
is doing things that might slow recovery.

> Islamic fascism? The only fascists in this conflict wave the red, white,
> and blue.

Oh, well that's interesting! So now America is fascist, and the people
who chopped off Pearl's head on video after making him state he is a Jew, and the people who enslaved women, and the people who blew up an ancient Buddha,
and the people who issued a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and assasinated
Anwar Sadat, and mass murdered people in Africa and NY, etc etc etc, the people who want to spread a brand of Islam more extremist than even Wahabbism, and wipe out the impure of the world, they AREN'T fascists?

>Please take your "destroy the arabs" crusade somewhere
> else.

If you accuse me of racism you'll need some evidence.

> I said I was away for two months. That means, for the most part... I
> left...then I came back Are we going to have a semantic argument on this?
> I thought I was quite clear.

> I'm curious why you ignored my "Operation Northwoods" request.
> It seems to put a big hole in your lunatic theory. Of course I think this
> was in our other thread so sorry if I'm confusing you but in case you
> missed it...

> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

I'm not interested in discussing whether our government conspired to make 9-11 happen. That you seriously entertain such a theory is honestly quite sad.
I've not said there have been no wacko ideas entertained by those in power
at various points in history. But we know who did 9-11. And it's simply impossible for it to have been a big American conspiracy.

> Really? Missed that comment by Al Gore. Please post a link I would be
> interested in reading the story. Thanks in advance.

It was discussed on Meet The Press this past Sunday, with Tim Russert,
Bill Kristal, and that Friedman NYTimes guy. Tim Russert read Kristol and Friedman an excerpt from a recent Al Gore speech where he characterized the Bush approach as "speak loudly and carry a small stick." Kristol's response was to quote a senior Democrat as saying he wished Gore would "go away." Friedman said it wasn't wise to attack Bush from the right. If anything, Bush should be criticized for his unidimensional policy. I'm sure transcripts are available.

Here's further proof:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218284,00.html

>As far as polls are
> concerned, their not worth the paper they're printed on. Any Psycho 101
> class will teach you that.

Oh, I quite agree with you about polls. Funny how you, who used to shill
so much for Bill Clinton - Mr. Poll himself - would acknowledge this now.
But any person who actually leaves his house and interacts with the populace
knows the vast majority of the people back this war.

>The way you present a question, you can pretty
> much get whatever response you want.

OK, deny reality futher, that seems to be something you're fond of.

>Since in the last 18 years we have
> gone from 50 corporations controlling the vast majority of US media to
> only SIX, I tend to think that the information I get isn't as trustworthy
> as I once received.

Yes, that is a problem. But when you go searching for your alternative,
supposedly more credible sources of info, I'd advise you to be suspicious
of a man who posts a $1,000 offer for anyone who can disrpove his looney tunes
conspiracy theories.

> Do you honestly believe the Taliban had some sneaky way of destroying the
> whole world by wielding their might and causing mass starvation throughout
> the middle east and Asia?

The Taliban was the model held up for the Islamic fascists to spread. Al Quaeda has been in many countries, some of which they have been threatening to sweep Taliban style Islam into. From Pakistan to the Phillipines, and elsewhere. Furthermore, as Pakistan had Taliban sympathizers in their military plotting a coup, and Pakistan has nukes, the potential damage America's military is rescuing the world from is tremendous to say the least.

But if we just take Afghanistan alone, that's thousands and thousands of poor
people suffering and enslaved, with no education, medical care, or food.

>If you think GWB is
> a champion for the poor and the downtrodden then have another one.

I don't think compassion for the downtrodden is Bush's driving force
in life. Nor do I think it is yours.

> As far as globalization is concerned please tell me how this radio
> interview strikes you?...

> http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=125&row=1

You know that transcript looks awfully long. I'm not in the mood.
Summarize it for me if you'd like. Is it something about how evil
globalization is? How we should take to the streets and smash up
Starbucks? Or what? I'm a bit tired and I have a couple other messages
to get to.

If it is that, then all I have to say is, I'm not an economist, but
the word "globalism" excites me. It suggests a modern, internationalist vision for the world which I quite like. When I saw people taking to the streets in Seattle, it left me scratching my head. What is it they want? Some sort or rural, agrarian, old fashioned society? Which
doesn't seem possible or desirable. It's incredibly CONSERVATIVE when I think about it. So, my conclusion is the anti-glabalization movement are a very conservative band of odd bedfellows, and whatever road
they'd like to take society down you can count me out.

At the same time, I do believe our democracy is deeply corrupted by corporations. And I certainly don't need to be told about this
from someone who opposed investigating Clinton's scandals, many of which
related to his being bought and paid for by big business. You can count
me in favor of smashing the corruption of both parties, and I shall not vote for either one until that happens. Sadly, thanks to 8 years of Bill Clinton, the populace has been hardened to it, told that "everyone does it" and just accept it and shut up.

As a closing to you, my advice is to get your principles straight so you have some consistancy. Principles are what interest me about other people, not what political wing, party or label they attach themselves to. I happen to
have a good memory, and my memory of your postings stretches back a ways.
I have to tell you I haven't a clue what your core principles are.

> ...many Britons find it really hard to sympathise

And many Britons find it extremely easy to sympathize, thankfully.

Of course, more than a few British were murdered
in the atrocity in NY as well. As were people from around the whole
world.

>with the typically OTT
> response to the WTC attacks (and those tacky blue lights 'shining up to
> heaven' (ohmygawd))

OTT = over the top? So you found the beams of light both "tacky" and
an example of America's over the top grieving? Now, not that I turn
to a culture which was worked up into hysteria over the accidental
car crash death of one "princess" for advice on how not to be "over the top,"
but explain to me what the appropriate level of grieving is for a whole
city devastated, 3,000 people murdered in one hour, in the largest and
most indiscriminate international terrorist atrocity in history? Maybe I'm just effed up, but I honestly don't know what an appropriate level of grievance
is on that. The two beams of light, well you know, we all can have our asthetic tastes, but you're the first I've heard call them "tacky."
I find them rather haunting and touching. More importantly, people
emotionally NEED such things. So be a mocker of people's pain and attempts
to deal with it if you must, but don't do so and then flip around in the nextb sentence and say it is WE who do not feel the horror, outrage and loss.

As for England's domestic terrorism problem with the IRA, and a few Irish-Americans backing it, I'm not sure what your point is beyond a weak attempt to rationalize your unsympathetic heart. You won't find me stopping by the funeral of that child's family you mentioned in order to mock the flower arrangements and choice of music.

>because Americans seem to have extremely short
> memories when it comes to the horror, outrage and loss that terrorism
> attacks bring.

> After all, we should never forget the IRA and their peddlars in terror,
> Noraid, and their lucrative collection boxes (esp round St Patricks Day
> when 'Irish Americans, 36 times removed, remember their, ahem, 'heritage')
> on the streets of NYC for the past 30 years.

> A colossal amount of funding for the atrocities we have been inflicted
> with in Great Britain and Ireland for THIRTY YEARS has come directly from
> the same New Yorkers who put their bucks in them little Noraid boxes year
> after year after year, and who are now denouncing terrorism and throwing
> their hands in the air with rage at the 'mindless loss of
> life'.......these same people must remember they have blood on their hands
> from London, Manchester, Warrington, Enniskillen... I could go on.

> Loss of life from terrorism, whether it's one life or a thousand, is
> appalling.... but is the loss of an American life any worse than the loss
> of a child outside his local McDonalds in Warrington, blown to bits by an
> IRA bomb left in a bin?

> Wake up America.

> actually, believe it or not, Enron paid about as much taxes per year as
> your average worker at mcdonald's.

> a company, may i add, who benefitted massively from government policies
> and economic aid and got it for nearly free, while there are many tax
> payers who had paid loyally for years, are laid off, and can't get any
> liveable money to help them through the bad economy.

And I support corporate crime and bribed politicians since when?

This isn't a thread about Enron. I hope a full investigation results
in prosecutions, and I hope there is political reform to counter the
buying of politicians. The political componant of the Enron scandal
simply exposes once again that both parties are deeply corrupt. Hopefully
the scandal will turn out to be a good thing.

> i want you to think about what you have just said.

I do view it as a clash of civilzations. The modern, secular, democratic,
pluralistic world clashing with the theocratic, fasctist, dark age world.

> Why they can't win, as defined by me:

I agree they can't win, as they are backwards religious freaks. But we can lose. Or be seriously damaged.

> let's say for the sake of argument they are planning a widespread assault.
> let's identify the problems any nation would have in carrying it out
> against the US:

Why should we do this for the sake of argument? Why don't we just stick to what is actually happening, which is what they call asymetrical war.
They don't intend to send an army over here. They intend, and have, sent
terrorist agents who want to kill as many people indiscriminately as they can.
Under the belief this can help them spread Taliban style fascism beyond Afghanistan, as well as their religious freak desire to dedicate their lives to killing the impure of the world.

> 1. Geography.
> not only is the US way the hell across the ocean and thus if they send
> their military over, we would have long since blown them out of the water
> before they came, but we are also surrounded by friendly nations that
> would not provide these countries with a home base to launch operations.

> 2. weaponry.
> yes, they might detonate a nuclear device. however, they do that at the
> risk knowing that we are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and don't
> care if they lived or died anyway. they would be beckoning their own
> nation's genocide. what we did to japan is a sign that we would.

You doubt that one of these religious freakazoids would even hesiate for a second to detonate a nuke in NY, London, LA, Chicago, or any other Western
city? We've recovered the proof of their plans to do so. I'm of the mind
it's probably gonna happen sooner or later, and if it does I hope we don't
end up in a police state as a result. We already stopped their plan, which was in motion, to blow up LA Interntaional Airport in 2000. Perhaps we've stopped other attacks since 9-11, who knows. But it's impossible to stop em all. YEs, they can seriously eff up your whole world, Suzanne. YOUR world. YOUR life. We cannot coexist with them, so they must be wiped away.

> 3. lack of unity within the opposition. they can't do it by themselves,
> however, all of them have interests at stake.

> its like if you worked at a 7-11 and someone comes in late one night,
> pulls a gun on you, and takes your cash. then, they send the police out,
> round up whoever did it, and then they say "with confidence, i can
> tell you this will never happen again!"

> basically, that's what 9-11 was. you can send them all to prison, you can
> change the government, but it won't stop someone else from saying,
> "look what america has done to my brother! i will die for him and our
> cause!"

Obviously we have very different views on 9-11, and that's just the way we'll
have to leave it.

But who is the speaker in your quote, talking about what was done to his
"brother"? If it's one of the terrorists, that's really funny to me.
My response is, "No, look what YOU are doing to MY brothers AND SISTERS
in Afghanistan and elsewhere!" As Afghans fight side by side with Americans to purge the foreign religious nazis. Excuse me if I don't find the Al Quaeda vision for the Middle East anything but wacko fascism, slavery, and backwardness.
I'm sorry if I don't share a soft heart for, or project my views into
the mouths of, the people who kidnapped a Jewish journalist, put him on
video, told him to declare he is a Jew, and then chop off his head.
Sorry if I'm not "down," Suzanne. Sorry if I don't "feel their pain."
Sorry if I want them stamped off the face of the earth.

If a good person who has good visions for the Middle East wants to talk about
problems with American policy, that is a person I will listen to. That is
also a person who does not try and enslave thousands of people in darkness
and indiscrimintaely murder innocent people.

I saw an intersting tidbit on Usama the other day. Yes, he wants to turn
his region into a concenration camp and purge the impure, but funnily
enough he arranged to have his own kids educated while denying the same
for the Afghanis who's country he invaded and occupied.

> so, i ask, how do you change the mindset of a people? like how do you go
> up to someone and convince them not to rob the convenience store, even if
> they know its wrong, and even if they know they stand a good chance of
> being caught, spending time in jail, and subsequently ruining the rest of
> their lives? in other words, how do you get rid of desperation?

We're not talking about conventience stores. We're talking about the indiscriminate mass murder of thousands of people.

As for desperation, yeah, Adolf Hitler was desperate to see his visions
become a reality too. Killed him. Good deed, that was. Japan once invaded Nanking, China and used people as bayonet practice. Desperate, they were, in their hatred for Chinese, and their desire for a Japense empire. Went to war with them. Good deed, that was. Those hijackers, were they desperate? Living a middle class life in Floirda and Hamburg. But their brains were infected by viruses. Usama, a spoiled millionaire, infected by Saudi Arabia's state religion, then took it to the next level. I'm not gonna smoke a peace pipe with such people. Give up or die, as the prez says. No place for them in this world.

> yes, destroying a country and cutting off supply routes in the middle of
> the desert suddenly makes manna spring from the earth....

> oh yes. i completely agree with it.

COMPLETELY agree? Please elaborote on what you're agreeing with.

> America is like the mooching relative that shows up to your house, wants
> everything their way, and then acts shocked when someone asks them to have
> manners.

Who asked America to have manners? The people seeking to enslave the Middle East? Kill all the Jews? Then the Christians and atheists? Then the impure muslims? Or is it the people who can't quite acknowledge it was actually Arabs who flew the hijacked planes?

We can talk about manners, but not in relation to Usama bin Laden and his atrocities. They're morally responsible for their actions. I won't muddy those waters.

America has a piece of everyone in the world in it. Yes we are run by a goverment that some people find offensive. Does America think much of the government? No. We pay our taxes and bills but as you all know from around the world we cant make a whole hell of a lot of change with any governement other than going to your little ballet to vote - but it still then doesnt even affect the fucks at the top. Also rememebr that everyone here is here from another part of the world with only one hope, a brighter future. Yes that sounds so gay and lame, but shit.... everyone here has ran away to just LIVE. JUST FUCKING LIVE. Without threats of bombs or death every-fucking- where. Youll say that we dont know terror. Thank fuccking god my grandparents got the fuck out where they were so that we could enjoy LIFE.

Yes we have it great here, and i wish you were here. But unfortunately youve already been tainted ... maybe your kids will have a good life.

I know there are quite a few things i am not touching on but its the basics.... And no I am not a redneck pro american from the south or a hippie stoner kid.... Just a person.

> I'm not interested in discussing whether our government conspired to make
> 9-11 happen.
Fair enough.

> That you seriously entertain such a theory is honestly quite sad.
Cheap shot. Say you won't discuss it and then take your jabs. Discuss it or don't don't discuss it

> I've not said there have been no wacko ideas entertained by those in power
> at various points in history. But we know who did 9-11. And it's simply
> impossible for it to have been a big American conspiracy.
What happened in the 60's is fact. Not some whacko idea. You think it can never happen again? Live in your box.

> It was discussed on Meet The Press this past Sunday, with Tim Russert,
> Bill Kristal, and that Friedman NYTimes guy. Tim Russert read Kristol and
> Friedman an excerpt from a recent Al Gore speech where he characterized
> the Bush approach as "speak loudly and carry a small stick."
> Kristol's response was to quote a senior Democrat as saying he wished Gore
> would "go away." Friedman said it wasn't wise to attack Bush
> from the right. If anything, Bush should be criticized for his
> unidimensional policy. I'm sure transcripts are available.
If Gore wants to fight this time... I think most dems would agree...Gore in 04.
MSNBC is second only to FOX in licking Dubya's boots. I would rather look for the actual transcript of what he said. Not second hand information from a shill like Russert.

> Here's further proof:
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218284,00.html Oh, I
> quite agree with you about polls.
Oh yes Time. The magazine that had Bush as man of the year and Rudolph Guiliani as newsmaker of the year. Wonder which Republican will win it next year. OBL should have received the nod over Guiliani, that is obvious. He made the news. Guiliani took the reigns when Dubya vacated them while hiding in the midwest somewhere.

> OK, deny reality futher, that seems to be something you're fond of.
Did you attend College? If I ask a question like..."Should Al-Queda pay for what it did to the US?" I would get a pretty positive result. I could say America supports the war. If today I asked, "should America continue the war now that the Taliban has been removed from power?"...Do you think I would get the exact same number of "Yes" votes that I did in the previous question. Both questions could be used to help define America's present support for the war. I could then go on my weekly pundit show and say...America loves this war using the results from the first question!!! I could further change the question to change the results in whatever direction I wanted to.

> Yes, that is a problem.
We agree then here at least.
> But when you go searching for your alternative,
> supposedly more credible sources of info, I'd advise you to be suspicious
> of a man who posts a $1,000 offer for anyone who can disrpove his looney
> tunes conspiracy theories.
On the other hand you have these corporations, that have Far Right Wing Presidents, CEO's, etc., that run the major US News Media news outlets. They hire people with far right agendas, and fire the ones that disagree. I have news clippings if you wish to see proof. So some guy on the street asks him to prove him wrong should not be trusted...while FAUX news says "we report, you decide." More like "we distort, you you decide". You have shows like Crossfire with registered republicans representing the political left. You have Larry King with 6 panelists, 5 of them republicans. I could say more, but you get the general idea.

> The Taliban was the model held up for the Islamic fascists to spread. Al
> Quaeda has been in many countries, some of which they have been
> threatening to sweep Taliban style Islam into. From Pakistan to the
> Phillipines, and elsewhere. Furthermore, as Pakistan had Taliban
> sympathizers in their military plotting a coup, and Pakistan has nukes,
> the potential damage America's military is rescuing the world from is
> tremendous to say the least.
The US helped put the Taliban in power. I have no love for the Taliban and it's politics, but where I disagree is that I do not believe them to be the global threat you describe that should be destroyed at all costs. They lack the ability to deliver the nuclear devices. Suitcase bombs are what we have to worry about. Those can be gotten without the help of Pakistan, or any other place threatened with your fascist coup.

> But if we just take Afghanistan alone, that's thousands and thousands of
> poor people suffering and enslaved, with no education, medical care, or food.
The USSR was helping Afghanistan achieve change along these lines. Women were attending universities, etc. But the US aided the Afghani resistance and allowed the Taliban to come into power. The US was concerned about USSR inroads into the middle east. Again, it's oil vs. "were the good guys".

> I don't think compassion for the downtrodden is Bush's driving force
> in life. Nor do I think it is yours.
But I don't run for office on a platform of compassion either. I don't wage wars and kill civilians in the name of God. I don't throw out the Constitution, and the Geneva treaties, to do what I like with my enemies. I don't mock people about to be executed and laugh to myself.

> You know that transcript looks awfully long. I'm not in the mood.
> Summarize it for me if you'd like. Is it something about how evil
> globalization is? How we should take to the streets and smash up
> Starbucks? Or what? I'm a bit tired and I have a couple other messages
> to get to.
It basically explains how the World Bank bleeds countries dry. Also, how countries get into the mess into the first place. Witht the US holding the controlling 51% interest.

> If it is that, then all I have to say is, I'm not an economist, but
> the word "globalism" excites me. It suggests a modern,
> internationalist vision for the world which I quite like. When I saw
> people taking to the streets in Seattle, it left me scratching my head.
> What is it they want? Some sort or rural, agrarian, old fashioned society?
> Which
> doesn't seem possible or desirable. It's incredibly CONSERVATIVE when I
> think about it. So, my conclusion is the anti-glabalization movement are a
> very conservative band of odd bedfellows, and whatever road
> they'd like to take society down you can count me out.
I say if you scratch your head and wonder...then do take the time to read up on these subjects. Read what the protestors have to say and not just listen to what the nightly recap has to offer at the end of the day. Some of their views are too extreme. But others have very valid points. Still others only want compromise and what can work for both opposing viewpoints.

> At the same time, I do believe our democracy is deeply corrupted by
> corporations. And I certainly don't need to be told about this
> from someone who opposed investigating Clinton's scandals, many of which
> related to his being bought and paid for by big business.
Oh please show me your proof. Reagan had the most corrupt administration on record. Where are the indictments in CLinton's Presidency relating to his policies. I believe it was MSNBC that reported 11 times in one hour that Ken Lay stayed at the CLinton White House. He never stayed once. That's a fact. He did stay in Bush 1 white house though. That's also a fact. Try picking up a copy of "The Hunting of an American President" by Joe Conason.

> You can count
> me in favor of smashing the corruption of both parties, and I shall not
> vote for either one until that happens. Sadly, thanks to 8 years of Bill
> Clinton, the populace has been hardened to it, told that "everyone
> does it" and just accept it and shut up.
Was Clinton an Angel? No. But he is not the Devil you make him out to be. Whatever CLinton did, this country prospered in record numbers. And he did this, with the whole time a rabid right wing, well funded and organized, putting a monkey on his back while the dems put a knife in his back. Just remember, the one's yelling the loudest about this war never served one day in uniform.

> I'm not a republican. I'm not a part of any party. I'm some hard to define
> mix of liberal and libertarian, probably more of the latter, if you just
> know. Your simplistic brain apparently can't see beyond the traditional
> left-right spectrum. Rush, to me, is the worst kind of commentator, not
> because he's conservative but because he is a psrtisan shill.
> I voted against both major parties in the last election.

You have these ideals that you are not right wing and that Rush is a shill. Yet, you often mimic the party line with the best of them.

> Econmists are not even in agreement that there is in fact a
> recession right now, but if there is it began before Bush did anything
> which could impact it. The only argument you could make is that he
> is doing things that might slow recovery.
First you tell me there was a recession. Now you tell me there may not be arecession. In the last two quarters of Clinton, there was a slowing. Not a recession. Not negative growth. Why do you defend Bush so vigorously but then claim to be non-partisan or from neither side? Bush received a better economy from Clinton than Clinton received from Bush1. Name the last republican in office that did not have a recession. The party of fiscal responsibility indeed.

> Oh, well that's interesting! So now America is fascist, and the people
> who chopped off Pearl's head on video after making him state he is a Jew,
> and the people who enslaved women, and the people who blew up an ancient
> Buddha,
> and the people who issued a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and assasinated
> Anwar Sadat, and mass murdered people in Africa and NY, etc etc etc, the
> people who want to spread a brand of Islam more extremist than even
> Wahabbism, and wipe out the impure of the world, they AREN'T fascists?
Using your points...The US has supported terrorism in several countries. The US has bombed countries without warning killing innocent civilians. They have bombed embassies without provocation. The US has invaded 18 countries since WWII without a declaration of war. The US forces it's political and economic viewpoints on the world. The US has supported terrorists and politicians responsible for genocide and ethnic cleansing. They have destroyed economies of entire countries. THe US has video taped executions. The US has been cited by the UN as having a miserable Human Rights record. There are two sides to every coin.

> If you accuse me of racism you'll need some evidence.
I did not call you a racist. I said to take your "kill the arabs" message somewhere else. This was made into your Pro-war at any cost viewpoints. You don't seem concerned with the "collateral damage" or loss of life. You don't seem concerned with the causes of 9-11 or any opposing viewpoints. You only seem concerned with Winning the war on "Terra" and pity the poor arab who get's in the way.

Now that the Taliban is smashed and the whole region is very unstable, and there is a power vaccum, and there is a whole lot of anti American sentiment in the entire middle east...how do you think Al-Qaeda will fair now? Oh well, as the politicians tell you...the details of this war are not important...we only need to know that we are winning!!! Hooray for democracy.

> You have these ideals that you are not right wing and that Rush is a
> shill. Yet, you often mimic the party line with the best of them.

No, what I do is allow myself to be free in my beliefs, rather than feeling
I must be a protector of a party, or "the left," or whatever. I did
not vote for President Bush, and I found him shockingly unqualified for
the job. (Although I do think Powell is a tremendous improvement
over Albright.)

In contrast, the hack journalist you admire - Joe Conason - made his entire
career by being the biggest Clinton shill in the mainstream media. He
is the left's equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, and I have no respect for either.

Furthermore, I do not find it "right wing" to support a war against theocratic fascism. I find it to be supportive of a war defending quite liberal ideals,
such as secularism, democracy, modernism, science and technology, free thought,
women's rights, and so forth.

> I did not call you a racist. I said to take your "kill the
> arabs" message somewhere else. This was made into your Pro-war at any
> cost viewpoints. You don't seem concerned with the "collateral
> damage" or loss of life. You don't seem concerned with the causes of
> 9-11 or any opposing viewpoints. You only seem concerned with Winning the
> war on "Terra" and pity the poor arab who get's in the way.

First of all, we've been over the collateral damage thiong before. You're
the one who shrugged your shoulders at the collateral damage of Clinton's
reckless attack on a Sudan medicine factory. Second, you damn well did
intend to imply I am racist when you put the words "kill the arabs" into
my mouth. I advocate self-defense against state sponsored mass murder
in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. This is not wanting to "kill
all arabs." The only people I want dead are the people who committed
atrocities. And btw, Afghans are not arabs. Most of the arabs in Afghanistan
have been deranged, brainwashed foreign occupiers who have been using that country to support their international terrorism.

> Now that the Taliban is smashed and the whole region is very unstable, and
> there is a power vaccum, and there is a whole lot of anti American
> sentiment in the entire middle east...how do you think Al-Qaeda will fair
> now? Oh well, as the politicians tell you...the details of this war are
> not important...we only need to know that we are winning!!! Hooray for
> democracy.

I recommend you read what one of your leftist socialist comrades wrote
recently, entitled "Can There Be A Decent LEft?"

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml

I found this portion particularly interesting:

============
Many left intellectuals live in America like internal aliens, refusing to identify with their fellow citizens, regarding any hint of patriotic feeling as politically incorrect. That’s why they had such difficulty responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11 or joining in the expressions of solidarity that followed. Equally important, that’s why their participation in the policy debate after the attacks was so odd; their proposals (turn to the UN, collect evidence against bin Laden, and so on) seem to have been developed with no concern for effectiveness and no sense of urgency. They talked and wrote as if they could not imagine themselves responsible for the lives of their fellow-citizens. That was someone else’s business; the business of the left was...what? To oppose the authorities, whatever they did. The good result of this opposition was a spirited defense of civil liberties. But even this defense displayed a certain willful irresponsibility and ineffectiveness, because so many leftists rushed to the defense of civil liberties while refusing to acknowledge that the country faced real dangers--as if there was no need at all to balance security and freedom. Maybe the right balance will emerge spontaneously from the clash of rightwing authoritarianism and leftwing absolutism, but it would be better practice for the left to figure out the right balance for itself, on its own; the effort would suggest a responsible politics and a real desire to exercise power, some day.

But what really marks the left, or a large part of it, is the bitterness that comes with abandoning any such desire. The alienation is radical. How else can one understand the unwillingness of people who, after all, live here, and whose children and grandchildren live here, to join in a serious debate about how to protect the country against future terrorist attacks? There is a pathology in this unwillingness, and it has already done us great damage.
==============

Since you sent me a new message, I thought I'd go back to this
unfinished business. At the time I got very caught up in work.

> If Gore wants to fight this time... I think most dems would agree...Gore
> in 04.

Are you including yourself in "most dems"?

If so, that is fascinating. You've gone up and down this forum
saying Bush's foreign policy is the very definition of evil.
And yet you seem to suggest you would vote for Gore, who
at the very least would have the identical foreign policy,
and as quotes I gave you reveal, his attacks on Bush's foreign
policy have been from the right. Furthermore, his running
mate, Joe Leiberman, wanted more troops in Afghanistan than
Bush sent, and he is cealry a hawk on Iraq.

> MSNBC is second only to FOX in licking Dubya's boots. I would rather look
> for the actual transcript of what he said. Not second hand information
> from a shill like Russert.
> Oh yes Time. The magazine that had Bush as man of the year and Rudolph
> Guiliani as newsmaker of the year. Wonder which Republican will win it
> next year. OBL should have received the nod over Guiliani, that is
> obvious.

To refresh, I cited Time and Meet the PRess as reporting a Gore speech.
Now these were direct quotes which are not in controversy. Yet,
once again, you think you can just deny reality whenever you please.
So explain to me, if they were direct quotes which Gore does not
challenge, why are you challenging them? Because Time magazine
does a silly, meanignless gimmick each year to pick a "person of
the year"? OK.....

>He made the news. Guiliani took the reigns when Dubya vacated
> them while hiding in the midwest somewhere.
> Did you attend College? If I ask a question like..."Should Al-Queda
> pay for what it did to the US?" I would get a pretty positive result.
> I could say America supports the war. If today I asked, "should
> America continue the war now that the Taliban has been removed from
> power?"...Do you think I would get the exact same number of
> "Yes" votes that I did in the previous question. Both questions
> could be used to help define America's present support for the war. I
> could then go on my weekly pundit show and say...America loves this war
> using the results from the first question!!! I could further change the
> question to change the results in whatever direction I wanted to.
> We agree then here at least.

What we agreed on was that polling is largely a propaganda tool.
But if you're going to try and argue, in the teeth of all evidence,
that America does not support the war, you're gonna have to do better
than just making up this reality you want off the top of your head.

> On the other hand you have these corporations, that have Far Right Wing
> Presidents, CEO's, etc., that run the major US News Media news outlets.
> They hire people with far right agendas, and fire the ones that disagree.
> I have news clippings if you wish to see proof. So some guy on the street
> asks him to prove him wrong should not be trusted...while FAUX news says
> "we report, you decide." More like "we distort, you you
> decide".

So don't watch FOX.

>You have shows like Crossfire with registered republicans
> representing the political left.

So don't watch CRossfire. (BTW, the "from the left" hosts on
Crossfire are James Carville and PAul Begala. Inventing reality
again?)

>You have Larry King with 6 panelists, 5
> of them republicans.

So don't watch Larry King.

>I could say more, but you get the general idea.

I have gathered you're rather worked up over TV news. Why not rent a good movie instead? I recommend Mulholland Drive, an excellent movie which will take your mind completely away.

Most of the below you should know my views on, and I obviously failed
in making an impact on you, so oh well. One comment down below though.....

> The US helped put the Taliban in power. I have no love for the Taliban and
> it's politics, but where I disagree is that I do not believe them to be
> the global threat you describe that should be destroyed at all costs. They
> lack the ability to deliver the nuclear devices. Suitcase bombs are what
> we have to worry about. Those can be gotten without the help of Pakistan,
> or any other place threatened with your fascist coup.
> The USSR was helping Afghanistan achieve change along these lines. Women
> were attending universities, etc. But the US aided the Afghani resistance
> and allowed the Taliban to come into power. The US was concerned about
> USSR inroads into the middle east. Again, it's oil vs. "were the good
> guys".
> But I don't run for office on a platform of compassion either. I don't
> wage wars and kill civilians in the name of God. I don't throw out the
> Constitution, and the Geneva treaties, to do what I like with my enemies.
> I don't mock people about to be executed and laugh to myself.
> It basically explains how the World Bank bleeds countries dry. Also, how
> countries get into the mess into the first place. Witht the US holding the
> controlling 51% interest.
> I say if you scratch your head and wonder...then do take the time to read
> up on these subjects. Read what the protestors have to say and not just
> listen to what the nightly recap has to offer at the end of the day. Some
> of their views are too extreme. But others have very valid points. Still
> others only want compromise and what can work for both opposing
> viewpoints.
> Oh please show me your proof. Reagan had the most corrupt administration
> on record. Where are the indictments in CLinton's Presidency relating to
> his policies. I believe it was MSNBC that reported 11 times in one hour
> that Ken Lay stayed at the CLinton White House. He never stayed once.
> That's a fact. He did stay in Bush 1 white house though. That's also a
> fact. Try picking up a copy of "The Hunting of an American
> President" by Joe Conason.

> Was Clinton an Angel? No.

I love the way you are so specific and thorough about the corruptions
of politicians you dislike, but yet can only muster the vague
"he's no angel" when it comes to BIll Clinton. What the eff does that
mean? You know what, I don't care, because I've washed my hands of
the man.

But I must point out I supported investigating Reagan, and impeaching him.
Not only was he a lying crook, he also had alzheimers disease for most of his
second term. With consistancy in my principles, I also supported impeaching the corrupt Bill Clinton. I wanted to see a legitimate impeachment trial, not the farce which took place (I hate to tell you this, but Trent Lott did NOT
want Clinton removed from office.) And I wanted Clinton out of power.
BEcause a president, to me, is a mere servant of the people, not a king.
A temporary employee, to be fired when caught redhanded. That's my view
of presidents. I don't worship them. I don't invest myself in supporting
them to such a degree that I would find myself selling out my core principles.
You know, Gore would probably be president today had Democrats fired
Bill Clinton.

>But he is not the Devil you make him out to be.
> Whatever CLinton did, this country prospered in record numbers. And he did
> this, with the whole time a rabid right wing, well funded and organized,
> putting a monkey on his back while the dems put a knife in his back. Just
> remember, the one's yelling the loudest about this war never served one
> day in uniform.

Spin spin spin.....

> Since you sent me a new message, I thought I'd go back to this
> unfinished business. At the time I got very caught up in work.
Fair enough

> Are you including yourself in "most dems"?
Haven't decided 100% for sure. Will see how his campaign goes. He was not my original choice to replace Clinton last time. (no, not Nader either) But I voted for him when he won the ticket.

> If so, that is fascinating. You've gone up and down this forum
> saying Bush's foreign policy is the very definition of evil.
> And yet you seem to suggest you would vote for Gore, who
> at the very least would have the identical foreign policy,
> and as quotes I gave you reveal, his attacks on Bush's foreign
> policy have been from the right. Furthermore, his running
> mate, Joe Leiberman, wanted more troops in Afghanistan than
> Bush sent, and he is cealry a hawk on Iraq.

IMHO Lieberman was Gore's big mistake. Gore was trying to distance himself from Clinton because of Monica and the right-wing hatred of Clinton. Was hoping to secure some states in the northeast and hopefully get some of middle America. As far as Gore's policies would exactly mimic Bush's...that is absurd. I do not even think 9-11 would have happened...or at least as bad as it did if Gore were in office. At the very least, we wouldn't have this gun nut, religious fundamentalist as AG calling the shots, we wouldn't have a shadow government, and we wouldn't have Tom Ridge running a paid for by taxpayers but accountable to no one, homeland security offfice.

> To refresh, I cited Time and Meet the PRess as reporting a Gore speech.
> Now these were direct quotes which are not in controversy. Yet,
> once again, you think you can just deny reality whenever you please.
> So explain to me, if they were direct quotes which Gore does not
> challenge, why are you challenging them? Because Time magazine
> does a silly, meanignless gimmick each year to pick a "person of
> the year"? OK.....

Direct quotes which you remember cannot be questioned? All's I asked for was a link to the speech or a transcript. I don't remember denying reality. The "liberal" media distorts the news all the time. If some pundit on TV makes a claim I should take that as fact? So Clinton killed those 30 or so people, did crack cocaine with prostitutes, has at least 3 bastard children, ran the CIA when he was governor of Arkansas, etc. Those claims have been made by pundits.

> What we agreed on was that polling is largely a propaganda tool.
> But if you're going to try and argue, in the teeth of all evidence,
> that America does not support the war, you're gonna have to do better
> than just making up this reality you want off the top of your head.

So you do agree with me now that polling is largely a propaganda tool? I got the impression that you didn't feel that way. Obviously, used responsively, polling can be very useful in determining public policy. But when used as propaganda, can be quite detrimental to the system.

We'll see how much Merica loves this war in the upcoming elections. If America votes with the Chicken hawks and the Senate becomes Republican controlled, I will concede the America loves this war. When the actual body counts come home though, America isn't going to be too happy about it then.

> So don't watch FOX.

But I'll miss my X-files reruns. You know us conspiracy nuts.

> So don't watch CRossfire. (BTW, the "from the left" hosts on
> Crossfire are James Carville and PAul Begala. Inventing reality
> again?)

Nice try or a cheap shot? I will assume you were unaware that Carville and Begala joined the show two weeks ago. My comments were made, what?, 5 weeks ago? The new Crossfire is much better. I would recommend it to anyone here. Although I would recommend the hour long version, as the half hour version on repeat is edited down and IMHO leans right after editing. I think the new crossfire is "the closest thing" we have to a balanced platform currently in the National media. Why do you think all of the hierarchy of the political right are shunning the new Crossfire.

> So don't watch Larry King.

And miss Ann Coulter's wisdom? Also wouldn't want to miss out if Larry get's married a 14th time...or whatever.

> I have gathered you're rather worked up over TV news. Why not rent a good
> movie instead? I recommend Mulholland Drive, an excellent movie which will
> take your mind completely away.

Thank you. Perhaps I will. Someone else was recommending it to me also.

> Most of the below you should know my views on, and I obviously failed
> in making an impact on you, so oh well. One comment down below though.....

> I love the way you are so specific and thorough about the corruptions
> of politicians you dislike, but yet can only muster the vague
> "he's no angel" when it comes to Bill Clinton. What the eff does
> that
> mean? You know what, I don't care, because I've washed my hands of
> the man.

It's not my job to tear Bill Clinton down. I like the man. I liked his accomplishments. He did an excellent job as President. I admitted the man has faults. What do you want? You know I am far left in my views. You try and get a far right person to admit that Bush has faults and see the answer you get. Do the same for Reagan. You may have washed your hands of the man but did you know they are still trying to impeach him over a year after he has left office.

> But I must point out I supported investigating Reagan, and impeaching him.
> Not only was he a lying crook, he also had alzheimers disease for most of
> his second term.

It is suspected he had Alzheimers for most of his second term. Their is some debate as to when it hindered him. Depending on your support of him it either is used to explain away his mistakes...or say it didn't set in or was diagnosed until after he left office to support the administration in keeping something like that secret from the public he is accountable for. Yes the man was a crook, honored Nazis, etc., the man's list of crimes is long as well as those of his administration.

> With consistancy in my principles, I also supported
> impeaching the corrupt Bill Clinton.

Just curious...what corruption are you referring to? Don't make me laugh and say Whitewater, or the trashing of the white house, or the rape of Air Force One, etc. The man has been accused of every wild story the right can throw at him. The man has been investigated more than probably anybody on the history of the planet, and they discovered he cheated on his wife.

> I wanted to see a legitimate
> impeachment trial, not the farce which took place

What crime for the "legitimate" impeachment trial? Trying to create peace in the middle east?

> (I hate to tell you
> this, but Trent Lott did NOT
> want Clinton removed from office.)

haha, tell me another. Did you eally hate telling me that?

> And I wanted Clinton out of power.
> BEcause a president, to me, is a mere servant of the people, not a king.

Oh please. Clinton governed more down the middle of the spectrum. He took views from both camps and created some strong policies. He worked very hard to better this country. He was in command during this countries greatest economic expansion ever. He constantly did interviews and press conferences, STANDING UP and being accountable to a media that loved to hate him because there was quick buck to be made in made up scandals. Oh yeah, and he cheated on his wife. All this while the media and a rabid delusional right investigated him mercilessly for every made up accusation. Think of what he could have accomplished if they supported him and his policies.

Bush is the wannabe king. He doesn't answer to the people. The naked emperor is losing his midas touch. He has spent almost as much time on vacation as he has on the job. The man cannot speak, has no compassion, and only cares about the right wing policies of the last 20 years...supporting the industries and fat cats that support you while screwing the planet, the people, and the environment.

> A temporary employee, to be fired when caught redhanded. That's my view
> of presidents. I don't worship them. I don't invest myself in supporting
> them to such a degree that I would find myself selling out my core
> principles.

What are these core principles you would be selling out. I can only assume that you hate Bush twice as much as Clinton.

> You know, Gore would probably be president today had Democrats fired
> Bill Clinton.

No Gore would be President today, if a corrupt Supreme Court had not bypassed principle and law, to create "new law" and hand the Presidency to someone who never accomplished anything on his own, an at least twice convicted felon, was AWOL during wartime, the illegal abortion, etc.

> Spin spin spin.....

> No, what I do is allow myself to be free in my beliefs, rather than
> feeling
> I must be a protector of a party, or "the left," or whatever.

I consider myself free in my beliefs also. I believe Bill CLinton was definitely the best President of the last 50 years. Don't imply I only have these feelings because I blindly defend my political party.

> I did
> not vote for President Bush, and I found him shockingly unqualified for
> the job. (Although I do think Powell is a tremendous improvement
> over Albright.)

We agree about Bush. I believe Powell turned Clinton down for the job at one time. It was up to Powell to want the position. this wasn't some brilliant move by Shrub. I think he is quite qualified for the job, and is doing a great job, but he has his own skeletons. His help of the cover up of the Mai Li massacre is well documented.

> In contrast, the hack journalist you admire - Joe Conason - made his
> entire
> career by being the biggest Clinton shill in the mainstream media. He
> is the left's equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, and I have no respect for
> either.

Please back that up. Please elaborate how he is a hack journalist. Please dipute anything in "The Hunting of the American President". The only thing you seem to have respect for is the "war on terra".

> Furthermore, I do not find it "right wing" to support a war
> against theocratic fascism. I find it to be supportive of a war defending
> quite liberal ideals,
> such as secularism, democracy, modernism, science and technology, free
> thought,
> women's rights, and so forth.

So you believe that no questions should be asked. America is once again the shining beacon for justice and righteousness. I cannot question a war? I should blindly follow?

> First of all, we've been over the collateral damage thiong before. You're
> the one who shrugged your shoulders at the collateral damage of Clinton's
> reckless attack on a Sudan medicine factory.

Oh please, as I said before it was a chemical weapons facility. Stop spouting the right wing handbook. "Clinton didn't do enough against terrorism! Clinton did too much against terrorism!" Stick with a line and keep to it please.

> Second, you damn well did
> intend to imply I am racist when you put the words "kill the
> arabs" into
> my mouth.

Hey...you're the one supporting the war without question. What? Do you think we are attacking France or England here? If you take that comment personally as a racist comment then maybe it's too close to home and to near the bone?

> I advocate self-defense against state sponsored mass murder
> in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. This is not wanting to "kill
> all arabs." The only people I want dead are the people who committed
> atrocities.

And if the US governemt was involved in committing those atrocities? Again we come back to this. You say the only people you want dead are the bad guys. But you support a war that targets civilian populations. Let me give you some needle and thread so you can just sew your eyes shut.

> And btw, Afghans are not arabs. Most of the arabs in
> Afghanistan
> have been deranged, brainwashed foreign occupiers who have been using that
> country to support their international terrorism.

Afghans are not arabs huh? none of them? Ummm, where did you get this information? Brainwashed by religion. There's a novel concept.

> I recommend you read what one of your leftist socialist comrades wrote
> recently, entitled "Can There Be A Decent LEft?"

The guy attacks leftist scholars, writers, and thinking. He refers to leftists as "them" and "they". He is not a leftist. I read most of the article and disagree with many of his assumptions and assertions. Besides...it's all opinion. If I wanted to debate opinion with him, why waste my time with you. I can just email him and debate him. We can both start throwing articles from both sides of the aisle with anyone's opinion if you like. Where would that get us?

Walzer, for someone who used to preach there was no such thing as a moral just war...sure seems like he found one.

> IMHO Lieberman was Gore's big mistake. Gore was trying to distance himself
> from Clinton because of Monica and the right-wing hatred of Clinton. Was
> hoping to secure some states in the northeast and hopefully get some of
> middle America.

No, to win the White House you have to convince the independants. The people
who didn't want Gore to distance himself from Clinton were already voting
for Gore no matter what. The people on the fence, according to all of
Gore's research, wanted him to distance himself.

> As far as Gore's policies would exactly mimic
> Bush's...that is absurd. I do not even think 9-11 would have happened...or
> at least as bad as it did if Gore were in office.

I really don't know how to respond to something like this. 9-11
wouldn't have happened had Gore been President? Since your
statement is 100% insane, what can I say to you?

>At the very least, we
> wouldn't have this gun nut, religious fundamentalist as AG calling the
> shots,

So Joe Leiberman is not a religious wacko? He can't even use electrcity on
Saturdays.....

Clinton had Republicans among those in charge of his foreign policy.

>we wouldn't have a shadow government, and we wouldn't have Tom
> Ridge running a paid for by taxpayers but accountable to no one, homeland
> security offfice.

> Direct quotes which you remember cannot be questioned? All's I asked for
> was a link to the speech or a transcript.

Okay, I realize this was a few months ago. To refresh your memory,
you asked for links, and I provided them. I don't have a link to
the whole speech, and if you really care as much as you claim to,
do your own research. But again, the news reports on what he said are not
in dispute and were direct quotes.

>I don't remember denying
> reality. The "liberal" media distorts the news all the time. If
> some pundit on TV makes a claim I should take that as fact? So Clinton
> killed those 30 or so people, did crack cocaine with prostitutes, has at
> least 3 bastard children, ran the CIA when he was governor of Arkansas,
> etc. Those claims have been made by pundits.

> So you do agree with me now that polling is largely a propaganda tool? I
> got the impression that you didn't feel that way.

I never disagreed with that. Again, I understand this is a few months ago.
Just click on the previous messages in the thread.

>Obviously, used
> responsively, polling can be very useful in determining public policy. But
> when used as propaganda, can be quite detrimental to the system.

> We'll see how much Merica loves this war in the upcoming elections. If
> America votes with the Chicken hawks and the Senate becomes Republican
> controlled, I will concede the America loves this war. When the actual
> body counts come home though, America isn't going to be too happy about it
> then.

Excuse me, but the Democratic Party is supportive of the war, so that issue
is not really in play in the Congressional elections. That's kinda like been THE WHOLE EFFING DEMOCRAT STRATEGY SINCE SEPT 12, duh, so the election
is not a vote on the war.

> But I'll miss my X-files reruns. You know us conspiracy nuts.

> Nice try or a cheap shot? I will assume you were unaware that Carville and
> Begala joined the show two weeks ago. My comments were made, what?, 5
> weeks ago? The new Crossfire is much better. I would recommend it to
> anyone here. Although I would recommend the hour long version, as the half
> hour version on repeat is edited down and IMHO leans right after editing.
> I think the new crossfire is "the closest thing" we have to a
> balanced platform currently in the National media. Why do you think all of
> the hierarchy of the political right are shunning the new Crossfire.

I think Crossfire is for morons and CNN is desperate. What they do is put one partisan shill on one side, another on the other, and they both give their talking
points. First of all, a lot of issues have more than just two sides.
What if an issue has 5 sides?
As I've told you, I don't consider myself a very good fit with the
two party system as we have it. And I don't have respect for people
who just follow a party line without thinking. I don't think anyone
ever learns anything from Crossfire except what the official stand is
from the two major parties on a given issue. You'll never hear anyone
say, "You know, you make a good point there, and have shown me the complexity
of the issue, so I'll have to give it more thought." You'll never
hear Carville attacking the official democrat position. You'll never
hear that bow tied dork saying a Democrat did something right. Etc.

> And miss Ann Coulter's wisdom? Also wouldn't want to miss out if Larry
> get's married a 14th time...or whatever.

> Thank you. Perhaps I will. Someone else was recommending it to me also.

> It's not my job to tear Bill Clinton down. I like the man. I liked his
> accomplishments. He did an excellent job as President. I admitted the man
> has faults. What do you want? You know I am far left in my views.

If you loved Clinton's policies you are not far left.

If it's not your job to want the light shined on corruption in high office,
then you are part of the problem.

>You try
> and get a far right person to admit that Bush has faults and see the
> answer you get. Do the same for Reagan. You may have washed your hands of
> the man but did you know they are still trying to impeach him over a year
> after he has left office.

> It is suspected he had Alzheimers for most of his second term. Their is
> some debate as to when it hindered him. Depending on your support of him
> it either is used to explain away his mistakes...or say it didn't set in
> or was diagnosed until after he left office to support the administration
> in keeping something like that secret from the public he is accountable
> for. Yes the man was a crook, honored Nazis, etc., the man's list of
> crimes is long as well as those of his administration.

> Just curious...what corruption are you referring to? Don't make me laugh
> and say Whitewater, or the trashing of the white house, or the rape of Air
> Force One, etc. The man has been accused of every wild story the right can
> throw at him. The man has been investigated more than probably anybody on
> the history of the planet, and they discovered he cheated on his wife.

I've already gotten into that more than I care to any longer. Why
are the Clintonoids so obsessed that they can't move on?

> What crime for the "legitimate" impeachment trial? Trying to
> create peace in the middle east?

Well, gee, every president can say they did this or that good thing.
It doesn't excuse abusing power and obstructing justice and taking bribes,
or wasting a year of our nation's time lying to save his own wrothless behind. Try "Sellout" by David Schippers or "No One LEft To Lie To" by Chris
Hitchens. I've already gotten into all this stuff before here.
And quite frankly, as you can think of nothing Clinton ever did wrong,and would most definitely like to be wearing the ex-presidential knee pads,
what would be the point. You're a true believer.
As far as trying to get peace in the Middle East, during that summit
he seems to have been more concerned with negotiating with Israel
about the MArc Rich pardon....

> haha, tell me another. Did you eally hate telling me that?

> Oh please. Clinton governed more down the middle of the spectrum. He took
> views from both camps and created some strong policies. He worked very
> hard to better this country. He was in command during this countries
> greatest economic expansion ever. He constantly did interviews and press
> conferences,

Actually, he didn't do many press conferences.

>STANDING UP and being accountable

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure THAT will be on his gravestone....

> to a media that loved to
> hate him because there was quick buck to be made in made up scandals. Oh
> yeah, and he cheated on his wife.

No one tried to impeach him when he lied about Gennifer Flowers.Think about it.

>All this while the media and a rabid
> delusional right investigated him mercilessly for every made up
> accusation. Think of what he could have accomplished if they supported him
> and his policies.

> Bush is the wannabe king. He doesn't answer to the people. The naked
> emperor is losing his midas touch. He has spent almost as much time on
> vacation as he has on the job. The man cannot speak, has no compassion,
> and only cares about the right wing policies of the last 20
> years...supporting the industries and fat cats that support you while
> screwing the planet, the people, and the environment.

> What are these core principles you would be selling out. I can only assume
> that you hate Bush twice as much as Clinton.

> No Gore would be President today, if a corrupt Supreme Court had not
> bypassed principle and law, to create "new law" and hand the
> Presidency to someone who never accomplished anything on his own, an at
> least twice convicted felon, was AWOL during wartime, the illegal
> abortion, etc.

Well, as someone who voted for Ralph Nader, not because I'd actually want
the socialist in power, but because he was a chance to vote for an honest person
and for someone who would eff up the election, I was quite pleased by the whole process getting gummed up. I actually got what I voted for for once. And
it was all very amusing to me.

Now it seems to me the election was a tie, and our system was ill-equipped
to handle it. It also seems to me that if you ask people who like Bush,
they'll tell you the Florida Supreme Court was nuts, and if you ask people
who like Gore, they'll tell you the U.S. Supreme Court was nuts. I have
yet to meet one person where this does not hold true. Thus, my conlcusion is,
it's all very subjective.

Anyway, I don't really care about why Democrats think I should be angry
that Al Gore is not my president. I don't miss the guy. It is all way too Sept. 10th. I'm more concerned with trying to prevent one of our cities
from getting nuked. And, anyway, I'm still thinking about your latest
bizarre view, that 9-11 would not have occurred had Gore been elected.
Yikes.

> I consider myself free in my beliefs also. I believe Bill CLinton was
> definitely the best President of the last 50 years. Don't imply I only
> have these feelings because I blindly defend my political party.

> We agree about Bush. I believe Powell turned Clinton down for the job at
> one time. It was up to Powell to want the position. this wasn't some
> brilliant move by Shrub. I think he is quite qualified for the job, and is
> doing a great job, but he has his own skeletons. His help of the cover up
> of the Mai Li massacre is well documented.

> Please back that up. Please elaborate how he is a hack journalist. Please
> dipute anything in "The Hunting of the American President". The
> only thing you seem to have respect for is the "war on terra".

I've read that guy in Salon and seen him on TV and it was clear to me
during the 90s he made a conscious decision to be Mr. Shillboy for
Slick. I haven't read his book on the last election, because
quite frankly I am not worked up over that whole episode, and I don't
know why you keep bringing it up. I see
no reason to feel upset about Gore losing a too close to call election.
He could have won had he condemned Clinton and then taken his campaign
into swing states like my own - Ohio.

> So you believe that no questions should be asked. America is once again
> the shining beacon for justice and righteousness. I cannot question a war?
> I should blindly follow?

I think you should believe whatever you want to believe. But the rest of us
have the freedom to not respect those views if we think they are wrong.

> Oh please, as I said before it was a chemical weapons facility. Stop
> spouting the right wing handbook. "Clinton didn't do enough against
> terrorism! Clinton did too much against terrorism!" Stick with a line
> and keep to it please.

Is Seymore Hersh of the New Yorker part of the right wing handbook?
Is Noam Chomsky?

> Hey...you're the one supporting the war without question. What? Do you
> think we are attacking France or England here? If you take that comment
> personally as a racist comment then maybe it's too close to home and to
> near the bone?

Support your implied allegations or shut up.

> And if the US governemt was involved in committing those atrocities? Again
> we come back to this. You say the only people you want dead are the bad
> guys. But you support a war that targets civilian populations. Let me give
> you some needle and thread so you can just sew your eyes shut.

Targets civilians?

> Afghans are not arabs huh? none of them? Ummm, where did you get this
> information? Brainwashed by religion. There's a novel concept.

> The guy attacks leftist scholars, writers, and thinking. He refers to
> leftists as "them" and "they". He is not a leftist.

LOL, you oughta look up who he is.

> I
> read most of the article and disagree with many of his assumptions and
> assertions.

Of course you do, but he happens to make some excellent points.

>Besides...it's all opinion. If I wanted to debate opinion with
> him, why waste my time with you. I can just email him and debate him. We
> can both start throwing articles from both sides of the aisle with
> anyone's opinion if you like. Where would that get us?

> Walzer, for someone who used to preach there was no such thing as a moral
> just war...sure seems like he found one.

> No, to win the White House you have to convince the independants. The
> people
> who didn't want Gore to distance himself from Clinton were already voting
> for Gore no matter what. The people on the fence, according to all of
> Gore's research, wanted him to distance himself.

Ummm...this doesn't respond to my statement. I said he was trying to distance himself from Clinton because of Monica nd the Right Wing hatred. The right wing pretty much controls most of the media and Gore wanted to give them as little ammo as possible. You're basicly agreeing with me that saying he was trying to swing voters his way by distancing himself from Clinton. That was his mistake. I would bet money if the 22nd ammendment was repealed, Clinton would be our 44th President.

> I really don't know how to respond to something like this. 9-11
> wouldn't have happened had Gore been President? Since your
> statement is 100% insane, what can I say to you?

Yougave me a scenario, I gave you an opinion. Bush told the CIA to back off of investigating Al-Qaida. He told them to back off OBL. Would Gore have done the same? I don't think so. He's not owned by big oil. He isn't currently in a business group with the Saudis.

> So Joe Leiberman is not a religious wacko? He can't even use electrcity on
> Saturdays.....

As I said...Gore's big mistake. On that same point Lieberman wasn't appointed to his position by a selected President with no Mandate. He was voted in. Joe doesn't annoint himself with Crisco oil to emulate scenarios in the Bible like Ashcroft.

> Okay, I realize this was a few months ago. To refresh your memory,
> you asked for links, and I provided them. I don't have a link to
> the whole speech, and if you really care as much as you claim to,
> do your own research. But again, the news reports on what he said are not
> in dispute and were direct quotes.

You gave me a link to Russert mentioning the comment. I asked for someone more reliable.

> Excuse me, but the Democratic Party is supportive of the war, so that
> issue is not really in play in the Congressional elections. That's kinda like
> been THE WHOLE EFFING DEMOCRAT STRATEGY SINCE SEPT 12, duh, so the
> election is not a vote on the war.

9-11 changed all the rules. On 9-10, Bush was being heavily criticized, the economy was tanking big time, the big story was unemployment, and his "poll numbers" were in the toilet. Lucky Bush hits his "trifecta", declares his crusade on Al-Qaida, and uses it as an excuse to pass every bit of legislation he wanted passed before 9-11. If his justification is wrong, then his coatails won't get anybody elected and all of the republicans who blast anyone who questions what we are doing will not get re-elected. Only in the last two months have we seen any real dissent from the right and that mostly involves the Administrations policies with Isreal.

> I think Crossfire is for morons and CNN is desperate. What they do is put
> one partisan shill on one side, another on the other, and they both give
> their talking points. First of all, a lot of issues have more than just two
> sides. What if an issue has 5 sides?
> As I've told you, I don't consider myself a very good fit with the
> two party system as we have it. And I don't have respect for people
> who just follow a party line without thinking. I don't think anyone
> ever learns anything from Crossfire except what the official stand is
> from the two major parties on a given issue. You'll never hear anyone
> say, "You know, you make a good point there, and have shown me the
> complexity
> of the issue, so I'll have to give it more thought." You'll never
> hear Carville attacking the official democrat position. You'll never
> hear that bow tied dork saying a Democrat did something right. Etc.

Umm...What show would you recommend then to people for a balanced view?

> If you loved Clinton's policies you are not far left.

You just made a statement regarding people being able to think for themselves, etc. People shouldn't blindly follow the party, etc. I can be far left and like the policies Clinton enacted. Although I fall way short of extreme left.

> If it's not your job to want the light shined on corruption in high
> office, then you are part of the problem.

Haha, Then when I say I want 9-11 investigated you call me a psycho for questioning our just war. What the right wing did to CLinton was beyond insane and completely partisan and had little to do with corruption in high office.

> Well, gee, every president can say they did this or that good thing.
> It doesn't excuse abusing power and obstructing justice and taking bribes,
> or wasting a year of our nation's time lying to save his own wrothless
> behind. Try "Sellout" by David Schippers or "No One LEft To
> Lie To" by Chris
> Hitchens. I've already gotten into all this stuff before here.
> And quite frankly, as you can think of nothing Clinton ever did wrong,and
> would most definitely like to be wearing the ex-presidential knee pads,
> what would be the point. You're a true believer.
> As far as trying to get peace in the Middle East, during that summit
> he seems to have been more concerned with negotiating with Israel
> about the MArc Rich pardon....

haha. You claim all of this corruption. I want to know where is the punishment. We wasted more time and man hours and they still only have that he cheated on his wife. That's it. That's all you have. Taking the cheap shot of me wearing presidential knee pads. You have nothing so you result to insults. Weak.

> Actually, he didn't do many press conferences.

You should be a comedian. The right always complained that Clinton was a media hog. Always trying to get into the spotlight, etc. Now that the boy king can't put coherent thoughts together they have to cover for him. He almost never has press conferences. (Pretty pathetic considering the events of 9-11)The story came out yesterday that they edit the transcripts of what he said in a speech so that he doesn't look like an idiot, essentially changing history. Since Bush hides from the press, now they like to say...."well Clinton do that many either".

> No one tried to impeach him when he lied about Gennifer Flowers.Think
> about it.

Oh this one is good. He admitted to having sexual relations with her one time in 1977 based on a "very loose defintion of relations". It was not intercourse but a grope and grab session. He said that was all. At one point Gennifer Flowers made a pass at him and but he didn't reciprocate. Gennifer FLowers claims it was a 12 year tumultuous affair starting in 1977. We have a contradiction with no concrete evidence to back up either claim. Yet you assume Clinton lied and should be impeached for it. These those high crimes and corruptions you're referring to? Gee maybe we need to spend another $70 million dollars and devote the FBI to investigate...there might be high crimes here!!! It's a he said-she said, don't start claiming facts not in evidence. With all that aside...it's still a partisan cock hunt trying to bring him down.

Shall we talk about convicted felons who lied?

> Well, as someone who voted for Ralph Nader, not because I'd actually want
> the socialist in power, but because he was a chance to vote for an honest
> person
> and for someone who would eff up the election, I was quite pleased by the
> whole process getting gummed up. I actually got what I voted for for once.
> And it was all very amusing to me.

Ralph Nader is not honest. Hey for kicks, next year, maybe you can send in a voting ballot for your cat or something. More things to gum up democracy, what a hoot.

> Now it seems to me the election was a tie, and our system was ill-equipped
> to handle it. It also seems to me that if you ask people who like Bush,
> they'll tell you the Florida Supreme Court was nuts, and if you ask people
> who like Gore, they'll tell you the U.S. Supreme Court was nuts. I have
> yet to meet one person where this does not hold true. Thus, my conlcusion
> is, it's all very subjective.

Yes, I know, you don't get out much. Take a vacation will you?

> Anyway, I don't really care about why Democrats think I should be angry
> that Al Gore is not my president. I don't miss the guy. It is all way too
> Sept. 10th. I'm more concerned with trying to prevent one of our cities
> from getting nuked. And, anyway, I'm still thinking about your latest
> bizarre view, that 9-11 would not have occurred had Gore been elected.
> Yikes.

Haha. Your justification for war is spreading what you believe to be is the pinnacle of human achievement. Democracy and capitalism! Then when one of the basic rights of democracy is taken away, and the system is "gummed up", you feel quite pleased, and think how wonderful it all is. Then come out and say that it's so yesterday...there's a new train to jump on and that is old news. Go back to watching your MTV...you might miss the next fad to come by.

> I've read that guy in Salon and seen him on TV and it was clear to me
> during the 90s he made a conscious decision to be Mr. Shillboy for
> Slick. I haven't read his book on the last election, because
> quite frankly I am not worked up over that whole episode, and I don't
> know why you keep bringing it up.

Don't worry...the movie will be out soon

> I see
> no reason to feel upset about Gore losing a too close to call election.
> He could have won had he condemned Clinton and then taken his campaign
> into swing states like my own - Ohio.

Haha...You love to preach the greatness of Democracy. Try backing it up. If it was too close to call...how can there be a loser? But that little fallacy doesn't bother you one bit does it? He did win. The media recount proved it. The New York Times buried it in paragraph 27 or something of their article that stated something like.."Bush won recount"...if you use a method of recounting that was not being used or even being considered by the courts. You...the advocate of Democracy should be sreaming for a new vote.

I think Gore would have done better had he not distanced himself from Clinton and chosen anyone but Lieberman to be his running mate.

> I think you should believe whatever you want to believe. But the rest of
> us have the freedom to not respect those views if we think they are wrong.

> Is Seymore Hersh of the New Yorker part of the right wing handbook?
> Is Noam Chomsky?

If they spout that line then they are quoting the party line. Besides...you completely sidestepped your contradiction. You have basically justified everything against the war on terror as necessary. But then turn around and start bashing Clinton for "bombing a baby milk factory"...or whatever.

> Support your implied allegations or shut up.

Oh boo hoo. Did Mr. "personal insult" get offended that I might have implied something? It's fair game to say that I'm using the presidential knee pads though? All the shots you took at me...and then, you feel, "I implied"... you are a racist...and you get all offended. Your ego is as thick as your belief system and arguments...paper thin. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. I wonder why?

> Targets civilians?

Bombing water treatment facilities, hospitals, red cross buildings, embassies. Not too mention the reports of entire villages wiped out. Then you have your category of accidental bombings.

> LOL, you oughta look up who he is.

pigeon hole. What happened to your belief of more than two sides to an issue?

> Of course you do, but he happens to make some excellent points.

For your belief system, I'm not suprised.

> If they spout that line then they are quoting the party line.
> Besides...you completely sidestepped your contradiction. You have
> basically justified everything against the war on terror as necessary. But
> then turn around and start bashing Clinton for "bombing a baby milk
> factory"...or whatever.

The point was, Clinton did not follow normal channels in ordering the attack,
and did not wait until he had accurate intelligence. We were not at war
and the factory was not going anywhere.

> Oh boo hoo. Did Mr. "personal insult" get offended that I might
> have implied something? It's fair game to say that I'm using the
> presidential knee pads though? All the shots you took at me...and then,
> you feel, "I implied"... you are a racist...and you get all
> offended. Your ego is as thick as your belief system and arguments...paper
> thin. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. I wonder why?

You have no basis to say I am a racist. why aren't YOU a racist
for supporting policies that don't seem to care about Afghans, Kurds, Jews, etc?

> Yougave me a scenario, I gave you an opinion. Bush told the CIA to back
> off of investigating Al-Qaida. He told them to back off OBL. Would Gore
> have done the same? I don't think so. He's not owned by big oil. He isn't
> currently in a business group with the Saudis.

As I recall, the first time Islamic terrorists tried to knock down
the Twin Towers, Al Gore was VP. They also were stopped at the last
moment from blowing up LA international airport on new years 2000.
Furthermore, the terrorists who carried
out this act were in America putting it together while Al Gore was VP.

> You gave me a link to Russert mentioning the comment. I asked for someone
> more reliable.

I gave you Time magazine.

> Umm...What show would you recommend then to people for a balanced view?

TV news is good for breaking news.

> Oh this one is good. He admitted to having sexual relations with her one
> time in 1977 based on a "very loose defintion of relations". It
> was not intercourse but a grope and grab session. He said that was all. At
> one point Gennifer Flowers made a pass at him and but he didn't
> reciprocate. Gennifer FLowers claims it was a 12 year tumultuous affair
> starting in 1977. We have a contradiction with no concrete evidence to
> back up either claim. Yet you assume Clinton lied and should be impeached
> for it.

My point was that he lied about Gennifer Flowers but he wasn't impeached for that, because it did not involve corrupting the legal system. Therefore,
his impeachment was over issues other than an affair.

> Ralph Nader is not honest. Hey for kicks, next year, maybe you can send in
> a voting ballot for your cat or something. More things to gum up
> democracy, what a hoot.

I can not imagine Ralph Nader being involved in anything corrupt. I cannot
imagine him using the life of a man on death row to get a bump in the polls,
as Clinton and Bush have done. I can't imagine him accepting bribes.
I can't imagine him doing anything like the deep corruptions and immorality
of other politicians. I have political differences with Nader, as
he is a very paternalistic person in his views, but he is a good person.
I know Democrats have "excommunicated" him as they are very stalinistic
about their politics, and that is to their shame.

> Haha. Your justification for war is spreading what you believe to be is
> the pinnacle of human achievement. Democracy and capitalism! Then when one
> of the basic rights of democracy is taken away, and the system is
> "gummed up", you feel quite pleased,

Nader exposed problems in our election system. He also helped prove
that both candiates were people that the nation felt, basically, "Can't they BOTH lose?"

BTW, doesn't it show you how open I am to dissent, given that Nader opposed
the bombing?

> The point was, Clinton did not follow normal channels in ordering the
> attack,
> and did not wait until he had accurate intelligence. We were not at war
> and the factory was not going anywhere.

You never made the point as I recall. You only chastized him for bombing a milk factory. It was a chemcial weapons plant that was in violation of the UN sanctions/treaties etc. Wasn't going anywhere but the chemical weapons being generated inside...with technology and supplies given to Iraq by the Reagan administration...were going places. Perhaps soon to be used against civilians, our allies, our boys in uniform, or us.

We are not at war now. Only Congress can decalre war. SO Bush is not following protocol...but you only attack CLinton. Wonder why? You support the current military invasion, but we only sought UN approval to take out air defenses to capture Bin Laden. We blatantly changed that and took out the entire Taliban government.

> You have no basis to say I am a racist. why aren't YOU a racist
> for supporting policies that don't seem to care about Afghans, Kurds,
> Jews, etc?

I never said you were. If the shoe fits though...Just deny it and be done with it. Stop crying about it. You take it so personally but you hurl insults whenever you like. Characteristics of a bully.

> As I recall, the first time Islamic terrorists tried to knock down
> the Twin Towers, Al Gore was VP. They also were stopped at the last
> moment from blowing up LA international airport on new years 2000.
> Furthermore, the terrorists who carried
> out this act were in America putting it together while Al Gore was VP.

Yes, and Clinton tried to triple the budget to fight terrorism. THe republicans in power, said how ridiculous Clinton was being and that nothing would happen to America. Gore headed a report to make the airlines safer and that sought to greatly hinder the ability of events like 9-11 to happen. This report was shelved by the republican led Congress. Then shelved again by the incoming Bush administration.

Also notice that the Clinton administration was able to stop a terrorist attack. Bush read "the hungry little caterpillar" while New York burned even though he was fully aware of the situation. He then hid in the midwest. Clinton...who was in Australia at the time arrived in NY ahead of Bush to help the healing process begin. How sad for our country.

> I gave you Time magazine.

And again I asked for a link to the speech and gave you examples of why I didn't like time.

> TV news is good for breaking news.

The internet is better

> My point was that he lied about Gennifer Flowers but he wasn't impeached
> for that, because it did not involve corrupting the legal system.
> Therefore, his impeachment was over issues other than an affair.

His impeachment was over them asking him whether he had sexual relations with Monica. The definition of "is", etc. They were digging in his pants while handcuffing his policies and administration. While right pundits pounded away at him with Rupert Murdoch, William Scaife, and Jerry Falwell paying anybody and everybody to step up and say whatever lie they could to slander the President.

> I can not imagine Ralph Nader being involved in anything corrupt.

Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking.

> I cannot imagine him using the life of a man on death row to get a bump in
> the polls, as Clinton and Bush have done. I can't imagine him accepting
> bribes. I can't imagine him doing anything like the deep corruptions and
> immorality of other politicians. I have political differences with Nader, as
> he is a very paternalistic person in his views, but he is a good person.
> I know Democrats have "excommunicated" him as they are very
> stalinistic about their politics, and that is to their shame.

Accepting bribes by CLinton and Gore? Gee, wonder why the man most investigated in the history of the planet wasn't put i jail? Oh that's right...wrongly accused. and what's this about using a man on death row?

That Stalinistic comment is BS. If that were the case we would have dumped Zell Miller and Gary Condit years ago. Those two run as Dems and vote the Republican party vote on about 95% of the issues. Those two have been closet republicans for years. Same with Traficant. That guy is ridiculous. Oh...but I'm being Stalinistic for never liking them as Dems.

> Nader exposed problems in our election system. He also helped prove
> that both candiates were people that the nation felt, basically,
> "Can't they BOTH lose?"

No, he helped the nation lose. He accepted money large sums of money from the right wing to help hurt Gore's chances. Gore still got the 2nd largest total of votes all-time. Nader said that Bush and Gore were essentially the same and so would be there policies. You still follow that?

Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.

> BTW, doesn't it show you how open I am to dissent, given that Nader
> opposed the bombing?

So only Nader can disagree with you. Too bad for anyone else.

Pretty much everywhere in the world those derenaged fuckheads live there fighting.

With the jews,Uk,Africa etc etc

There horrible shitbags

> Since you sent me a new message, I thought I'd go back to this
> unfinished business. At the time I got very caught up in work.

> Are you including yourself in "most dems"?

> If so, that is fascinating. You've gone up and down this forum
> saying Bush's foreign policy is the very definition of evil.
> And yet you seem to suggest you would vote for Gore, who
> at the very least would have the identical foreign policy,
> and as quotes I gave you reveal, his attacks on Bush's foreign
> policy have been from the right. Furthermore, his running
> mate, Joe Leiberman, wanted more troops in Afghanistan than
> Bush sent, and he is cealry a hawk on Iraq.

> To refresh, I cited Time and Meet the PRess as reporting a Gore speech.
> Now these were direct quotes which are not in controversy. Yet,
> once again, you think you can just deny reality whenever you please.
> So explain to me, if they were direct quotes which Gore does not
> challenge, why are you challenging them? Because Time magazine
> does a silly, meanignless gimmick each year to pick a "person of
> the year"? OK.....

> What we agreed on was that polling is largely a propaganda tool.
> But if you're going to try and argue, in the teeth of all evidence,
> that America does not support the war, you're gonna have to do better
> than just making up this reality you want off the top of your head.

> So don't watch FOX.

> So don't watch CRossfire. (BTW, the "from the left" hosts on
> Crossfire are James Carville and PAul Begala. Inventing reality
> again?)

> So don't watch Larry King.

> I have gathered you're rather worked up over TV news. Why not rent a good
> movie instead? I recommend Mulholland Drive, an excellent movie which will
> take your mind completely away.

> Most of the below you should know my views on, and I obviously failed
> in making an impact on you, so oh well. One comment down below though.....

> I love the way you are so specific and thorough about the corruptions
> of politicians you dislike, but yet can only muster the vague
> "he's no angel" when it comes to BIll Clinton. What the eff does
> that
> mean? You know what, I don't care, because I've washed my hands of
> the man.

> But I must point out I supported investigating Reagan, and impeaching him.
> Not only was he a lying crook, he also had alzheimers disease for most of
> his
> second term. With consistancy in my principles, I also supported
> impeaching the corrupt Bill Clinton. I wanted to see a legitimate
> impeachment trial, not the farce which took place (I hate to tell you
> this, but Trent Lott did NOT
> want Clinton removed from office.) And I wanted Clinton out of power.
> BEcause a president, to me, is a mere servant of the people, not a king.
> A temporary employee, to be fired when caught redhanded. That's my view
> of presidents. I don't worship them. I don't invest myself in supporting
> them to such a degree that I would find myself selling out my core
> principles.
> You know, Gore would probably be president today had Democrats fired
> Bill Clinton.

> Spin spin spin.....

I guess the media is doing their job well.

> Pretty much everywhere in the world those derenaged fuckheads live there
> fighting.

> With the jews,Uk,Africa etc etc

> There horrible shitbags

Is evil something you are....or something you post?

se in

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

that hitler wanted the muslims to help him against the jews...

the text comes here:

"

The Mufti and the Fuhrer

By Mitchell Bard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.

The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1

In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
"

in

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitq2.html

you can read:

"
Hitler and the Mufti
(November 28, 1941)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti, Haj Amin Husseini, on 28 November 1941. The notes were taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt and are quoted in Fleming's "Hitler and the Final Solution", p. 101-104. Also geheime Reichssache 57 a/41, Records Dept. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Pa/2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fuehrer then made the following declaration, requesting the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart:

1) He (the Fuehrer) would carry on the fight until the last traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been obliterated.

2) In the course of this fight, the German army would - at a time that could not yet be specified, but in any case in the clearly foreseeable future - gain the southern exit of Caucasus.

3) As soon as this breakthrough was made, the Fuehrer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"

this ends the question of Hitler`s opinions on muslims.

Is fascism returning to Europe? It seems like most of Europe wants
all Israelis to be killed, and now I see in the paper today that 20% of France
is offically supportive of the National Front.

I'm a little tired of European nations trying to lecture America when
they have not seemed to have learned as much as they should have from
their 20th Century of Atrocity in Europe.

> Is fascism returning to Europe? It seems like most of Europe wants
> all Israelis to be killed, and now I see in the paper today that 20% of
> France
> is offically supportive of the National Front.

i saw yesterday a guy on tv talking that the problem with the election in france was that the left wing was too much divided. He said that the sum of votes of all leftist candidats were bigger than the sum in the latest election. He said also that the national front was pratically in the same position as ever.

I don`t know but it`s sure the the extreme right in europe has a stable but not so growing basis of votes in europe - anyway i am not so secure about that.

> I'm a little tired of European nations trying to lecture America when
> they have not seemed to have learned as much as they should have from
> their 20th Century of Atrocity in Europe.

yes, i agree completely with you on that point. I try to learn a lot about the atroccities caused by the nazis, and is impressive how people can forget that.

every country has someone in it they hate, generally speaking of course.

Surely making a statement like "Europeans are very rascist" and "Germans are idiots" does nothing more than fan fire on the flames. That being said, I remember being in Berlin in '93, and seeing a bunch of skinheads wandering around. It made me pretty uneasy, as the grandson of a Jew who lived in Nazi-occupied Denmark during WWII, and whose Jewish-Dutch great-aunt spent the war in a labour camp.

I think people are generally afraid of what they don't understand. When people live in communities which have remained unchanged for centuries, and then another ethnic group comes in, then there is a sense of dispalcement and confusing. This is particularly so in lower socio-economic areas, where people who are poor or uneducated feel threatened that the immigrants are "taking our jobs" or whatever. It's this lack of understanding or empathy which is the root of virtually all evil in this world.

As Christ said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And as someone else posted earlier, there *is* still a strong left-wing in France .... it's just that it is divided, whereas the extreme right united in a "protest vote" and managed to get this savage elected. A man who is practically a holocaust denier, and who thinks the death camps were a "minor detail" of WW II.

That being said, Loafing Oaf, don't get *too* self-righteous with your European friends. Remember that only a few decades ago Blacks and Whites couldn't use the same drinking fountains, couldn't go to the same schools and couldn't site with the white folks on the bus. A place where any black who was too "uppity" (ie. educated, clever or articulate) was likely to get lynched in a public place with a big crowd, food stalls etc. For many people in the South, a Lynch was a great day out for the whole family. The photo below was actually printed as a postcard.

Don't let it happen where you live ..... take to the streets of necessary.

STH


http://members.tripod.com/maddogx_78/madpix/lynch_a.jpg

Le Pen's victory suggests that a small French film from a couple years
ago called I Stand Alone (AKA One Against All), in which an angry Frenchman walks around Paris ranting and raving about everything and everyone he hates, tapped into something.

> That being said, Loafing Oaf, don't get *too* self-righteous with your
> European friends. Remember that only a few decades ago Blacks and Whites
> couldn't use the same drinking fountains, couldn't go to the same schools
> and couldn't site with the white folks on the bus. A place where any black
> who was too "uppity" (ie. educated, clever or articulate) was
> likely to get lynched in a public place with a big crowd, food stalls etc.
> For many people in the South, a Lynch was a great day out for the whole
> family. The photo below was actually printed as a postcard.

You're right about lynching. I read a bit about that for a paper in school
once, and I was shocked to find out that when lynching was at its peak (much longer ago than just a couple decades however) it was not only an outing for the whole family, but that people, even children, would take home body parts as a souvenir! Which just goes to show you how real hard core sickness can be perfectly mainstream in a culture.

Nevertheless, and I may be wrong (as I do think more people are fascist
sympathizers then will outwardly admit it), but I don't think 20% of America would vote for an equivalent of the National Front here. Extremists don't
stand much of a chance in America, which is either a credit to our culture,
our system, our (I think) both. Furthermore,
when there were fears that non-Arab Americans might backlash against their
Arab-American neighbors late last year, our government went on and on to the point of almost being annoying to remind everyone this would be intolerable.
As a result, there were only a tiny handful of isolated incidents.

In contrast, look what happens in Germany:

======
BERLIN - Police in Berlin apologized Tuesday for a police official's suggestion in an interview with Israel's Army Radio that Jews should stop wearing religious symbols in the German capital to avoid anti-Semitic attacks by Arabs.

The director of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial called the suggestion offensive.

"Perhaps the Berlin police have good intentions, but the proposal points to a basic problem in Germany and Europe in general, a lack of will to fight anti-Semitism," Avener Shalev said in Jerusalem.
[...]
======

And this from Netscape:

======
BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) - World Jewish leaders blamed Europe's political and intellectual elites Tuesday for indirectly fueling anti-Semitic violence that has swept Western Europe in recent weeks.

The World Jewish Congress (WJC), holding an emergencyexecutive meeting two days after the stunning electoral success of the far-right in France, urged European
governments to kill off anti-Semitism before it spread.

"To the political and intellectual leaders we send the following
message -- we will never forget that once again you are
standing by and doing nothing while synagogues burn in your
cities," the Congress said in a statement.

It said media prejudice and pro-Palestinian statements by
many politicians and prominent intellectuals had encouraged
extremists in Europe to attack Jews and their property.

"The WJC notes with concern that European intellectual and
political elites are creating an ambience in which
anti-Semitism is considered legitimate," it said.

According to figures from the Congress, there have been 300
anti-Jewish attacks in the last three weeks, ranging from
graffiti daubed on Jewish property to fire-bombings of
synagogues and physical assaults on rabbis.

The WJC said in would set up a European Jewish Information
Center to monitor anti-Jewish attacks, suggest ways to
prevent them and respond to media reports on the Middle
East which it deems biased against Israel.

"We find Europe pretty sick. European Jewry is confronted
with the strongest wave of anti-Semitic attacks since the end
of World War Two," Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary-general
of the Paris-based European Jewish Congress, told Reuters.
[...]
=======

Now I should say this article goes on to suggest that being
anti-Israel makes one a racist. I personally find much to attack
Ariel Sharon on without being against Jews. If by anti-Israel they
mean against the existance of Israel, I would agree with them, but
if they mean just criticism of Israel, I would not. However, it seems
perfectly obvious to me that, just as Europe would not give a damn
if Tawain were invaded by the Chinese, they similarly wouldn't care
if Middle East Arabs ended Israel's existance entirely. Which makes
me think that, despite the problems with American foreign policy,
America struggles more sincerely with morality, and is willing to stand up for the Tawains and Israels when the rest of the world will sit idly by.

Thanks Loafing Oaf .... good articles.

And (if this wasn't already obvious) I wasn't suggesting that lynching was happening a few decades ago. well, it probably stillwas, but not on the scale of, say, 100 years ago. I don't hink we had anything similar in New Zealand, but I know that in Australia it was actually legal to hunt Aboriginals (the indegieous people) up until, I think, the 1920s. Scary stuff ....

> Now I should say this article goes on to suggest that being
> anti-Israel makes one a racist. I personally find much to attack
> Ariel Sharon on without being against Jews. If by anti-Israel they
> mean against the existance of Israel, I would agree with them, but
> if they mean just criticism of Israel, I would not. However, it seems
> perfectly obvious to me that, just as Europe would not give a damn
> if Tawain were invaded by the Chinese, they similarly wouldn't care
> if Middle East Arabs ended Israel's existance entirely. Which makes
> me think that, despite the problems with American foreign policy,
> America struggles more sincerely with morality, and is willing to stand up
> for the Tawains and Israels when the rest of the world will sit idly by.

I think this is true. It's funny that there are always US aid agencies in other parts of the world whenever distaster strikes. I didn't see any Arabic/Asian aid agencies rushing to the US in the aftermath of September 11th.

The difficulty with the Israel situation (and I say this as someone who has Jewish ancestery & is fairly pro-Zionist) is that you can't really say *anything* critical about the situation without being labelled an anti-semite. I always think of Jerry's uncle in "Sienfeld" who would take any slight against him, like bad service in a restaurant etc., as anti-semitism. A few of my friends are Jewish, and they all think Sharon is a madman, and are quite critical of the situation in Israel/Palestine, and yet their more liberal perspective is never recported on in the medis, at least not here.

> The difficulty with the Israel situation (and I say this as someone who
> has Jewish ancestery & is fairly pro-Zionist) is that you can't really
> say *anything* critical about the situation without being labelled an
> anti-semite. I always think of Jerry's uncle in "Sienfeld" who
> would take any slight against him, like bad service in a restaurant etc.,
> as anti-semitism. A few of my friends are Jewish, and they all think
> Sharon is a madman, and are quite critical of the situation in
> Israel/Palestine, and yet their more liberal perspective is never
> recported on in the medis, at least not here.

I think deep down a lot of Jewish people are afraid that Sharon is doing,
or planning to do, shameful things. He's a dangerous
guy given his record in the past. He's been associated with a rather
racist type of Zionism, and thus I can't trust him. That said, a lot of the people who attack Israel in the harshest terms do not have consistancy in this regard when it comes to non-Jewish states. They are soft on Iraq, who last time I checked has committed atrocities against Kurds. They don't seem up in arms about what Russians are doing to Muslims in Chech--ah I can't spell it.... I'm not sure what to think of what's going on now in Israel, as I'm far from an expert on such things. But you get the vibe that most of the world does not want Israel to survive.

BTW, since I'm sure Iraq will be more and more in the headlines in the months to come, there's an extensive article in the new Atlantic Monthly which goes into the personal life of Saddam, from how he dines, to how he treats those around him, to what his favorite movies are. It helps to answer the question of why someone would be so evil - does he believe he is good when he looks in the mirror?

> BTW, since I'm sure Iraq will be more and more in the headlines in the
> months to come, there's an extensive article in the new Atlantic Monthly
> which goes into the personal life of Saddam, from how he dines, to how he
> treats those around him, to what his favorite movies are. It helps to
> answer the question of why someone would be so evil - does he believe he
> is good when he looks in the mirror?

Interesting .... is this mag online? The bookstores here in NZ don't carry a whole lot of decent foreign magazines unless they're about celebrities. Any chance you'd post me a photocopy in exchange for a mix CD of brilliant NZ post-punk pop from the early 80s?

Interesting question .... to quote Morrissey "is evil something you are, or something you do?"

STH

> BTW, since I'm sure Iraq will be more and more in the headlines in the
> months to come, there's an extensive article in the new Atlantic Monthly
> which goes into the personal life of Saddam, from how he dines, to how he
> treats those around him, to what his favorite movies are. It helps to
> answer the question of why someone would be so evil - does he believe he
> is good when he looks in the mirror?

Interesting question. I don`t think is the case of Saddam Hussein, but the cruelest dictators ever (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin) were "idealist" people who had their own ideas of how an ideal world should be. And the worst thing is that they had power to put their "ideas" onto practic.

I think sometimes is a dangerous thing to be an idealist.

> Interesting question. I don`t think is the case of Saddam Hussein, but the
> cruelest dictators ever (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin) were
> "idealist" people who had their own ideas of how an ideal world
> should be. And the worst thing is that they had power to put their
> "ideas" onto practic.

> I think sometimes is a dangerous thing to be an idealist.

The thing with Saddam is, according the the article, that he's all about
vanity. Ridiculous statues honoring him, a Koran written in his own
blood, a tediously long movie about his life he had made (imagine if you had to be raised in IRaq and had to sit through Saddam's film in school!). And he believes long after he is dead people will look back and finally appreciate him for his strength, when the Muslim world regains power. He wrote a novel about a king who was stern and after he died the people learned to admire that. So apparently he believes his harshness and cruelty is necessary, and even if people hate that now, in 500 years he will be remembered as a great man. He's from a very different culture and now really in his own world. Never having traveled much, and now cut off from even Iraq behind walls and people only telling him what he wants to hear.

> Interesting .... is this mag online?

I'm not sure.

>The bookstores here in NZ don't carry
> a whole lot of decent foreign magazines unless they're about celebrities.
> Any chance you'd post me a photocopy in exchange for a mix CD of brilliant
> NZ post-punk pop from the early 80s?

Sure. It's a great article. Written by the author of Black Hawk Down,
and rather lenghty. Gives a good look into his world, his tastes, and his mind. The author interviewed people who worked closely with Saddam and have since fled the country. They tell of having meetings
with Saddam, and how they aren't allowed to talk unless asked a direct
question, and everyone is afraid to even sneeze, just acting like they
are dutifully taking notes on a load of bullcrap. One guy stopped airing...I think it was
bad Saddam poetry or something...on TV and Saddam called him in...and
he sweated through his clothes as Saddam told him he is not to judge
the quality of such things. There's a lot of anecdotes like that.
Some rather brutal. I'm happy to xerox it. Or, um, photocopy! (Do
you guys call it "xeroxing" in NZ?) Email me at ikeepminehidden@aol.com

> Interesting question .... to quote Morrissey "is evil something you
> are, or something you do?"

> STH

> Interesting question. I don`t think is the case of Saddam Hussein, but the
> cruelest dictators ever (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin) were
> "idealist" people who had their own ideas of how an ideal world
> should be. And the worst thing is that they had power to put their
> "ideas" onto practic.

> I think sometimes is a dangerous thing to be an idealist.

BTW, Fabricio, Saddam has a whole bookshelf loaded with books about Stalin.
Scary eh.

But then he also loves Hemingway.

> Is fascism returning to Europe?

Has fascism ever left the World? If you want an up to date picture of fascism on a global scale but mainly about Europes nazi scum (as the publication is a U.K. one) try this link below (Searchlight).

> It seems like most of Europe wants
> all Israelis to be killed, and now I see in the paper today that 20% of
> France
> is offically supportive of the National Front.

I don't think that's true, people are pissed with Sharon but it doesn't mean that they want to see the rest of the Israelis killed, same about Iraq they hare pissed with Hussein but as we all know it's not him the Americans & British are going to kill it's the Iraqi's who will suffer & die.

> I'm a little tired of European nations trying to lecture America when
> they have not seemed to have learned as much as they should have from
> their 20th Century of Atrocity in Europe.

I think if you check out Tony Blairs stance G W Bush's missus could site him for divorce he's that far up his arse.
Learning from history, hmmn, now why does the name Rodney King suddenly come to mind, strange fruit!

But do check out the Searchlight link, it even has a link to the USA.

Finally fascism unfortunately can't be beaten by yapping here or by our 'leaders', you need to be on the street to smash fascism, go get involved in anti-nazi work in your area, leafletting your own area against the nazi bnp party in the U.K. May elections is easy enough, go here if you want to find out for your own area (U.K. only obviously) http://www.anl.org.uk/campaigns.htm

Well that's my tuppence worth (for today)
love
Grim




Searchlight (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/)

I think Britain is being ripped apart by the whole race issue.If the French vote for LE PEN isnt that there right to vote.

If the Italions,Spanish,austrians and danes declare that immagration does nowt for there countries and we have a left wing labour party thats there shout.

One has to wonder if we were not paying billions on bogus refugees would our health system and rail network be such a joke.Would our police be over strected??????????

I live in the most multi racial City outside of London.I work in the biggest Muslim area of Birmingham and the WHITE people in the local area are treated like shit.

There are Kosovans who have been in the UK 2 years in designer clothes,driving mercs etc etc and they call this country TREASURE ISLAND cos its so easy to take the piss.Every refugee that comes in is another vote for Commie Labour.

SEARCHLIGHT is a joke.Its organised by a bunch of radical left wing weirdo lesbians with dreadlocks who come from a village in Oxford and rebel agasint there upper crust parents for a few years before they take over daddies company.

Like the politicians these people do not live in the streets where Muslim-Black leaders do everything in there power to push the white people out for there own gain.Its so so easy for them these days.Even the police have said to us "We cant do our jobs,its a joke,they are so protected and they know how to bend things"

I'm planning to leave the UK over the next 5 years.Its on its last legs!

> Has fascism ever left the World? If you want an up to date picture of
> fascism on a global scale but mainly about Europes nazi scum (as the
> publication is a U.K. one) try this link below (Searchlight).

> I don't think that's true, people are pissed with Sharon but it doesn't
> mean that they want to see the rest of the Israelis killed, same about
> Iraq they hare pissed with Hussein but as we all know it's not him the
> Americans & British are going to kill it's the Iraqi's who will suffer
> & die.

> I think if you check out Tony Blairs stance G W Bush's missus could site
> him for divorce he's that far up his arse.
> Learning from history, hmmn, now why does the name Rodney King suddenly
> come to mind, strange fruit!

> But do check out the Searchlight link, it even has a link to the USA.

> Finally fascism unfortunately can't be beaten by yapping here or by our
> 'leaders', you need to be on the street to smash fascism, go get involved
> in anti-nazi work in your area, leafletting your own area against the nazi
> bnp party in the U.K. May elections is easy enough, go here if you want to
> find out for your own area (U.K. only obviously)
> http://www.anl.org.uk/campaigns.htm Well that's my tuppence worth (for
> today)
> love
> Grim

Planning to leave eh, good the UK doesn't need people like you, it will also be interesting to see what people think about you in THEIR country - hopefully it will open your eyes a bit. Oh and so this country is on its last legs is it, you obviously didn't grow up in the 70s.

There is only one answer for the likes of Le Pen, or any fascist for that matter and that is a simple hole in the head.

People like you are just fodder for them.

There are things which need addressing on the race relations issue, but being nothing but fodder for the extreme right is only too easy for the neanderthals isn't it.

> I think Britain is being ripped apart by the whole race issue.If the
> French vote for LE PEN isnt that there right to vote.

> If the Italions,Spanish,austrians and danes declare that immagration does
> nowt for there countries and we have a left wing labour party thats there
> shout.

> One has to wonder if we were not paying billions on bogus refugees would
> our health system and rail network be such a joke.Would our police be over
> strected??????????

> I live in the most multi racial City outside of London.I work in the
> biggest Muslim area of Birmingham and the WHITE people in the local area
> are treated like shit.

> There are Kosovans who have been in the UK 2 years in designer
> clothes,driving mercs etc etc and they call this country TREASURE ISLAND
> cos its so easy to take the piss.Every refugee that comes in is another
> vote for Commie Labour.

> SEARCHLIGHT is a joke.Its organised by a bunch of radical left wing weirdo
> lesbians with dreadlocks who come from a village in Oxford and rebel
> agasint there upper crust parents for a few years before they take over
> daddies company.

> Like the politicians these people do not live in the streets where
> Muslim-Black leaders do everything in there power to push the white people
> out for there own gain.Its so so easy for them these days.Even the police
> have said to us "We cant do our jobs,its a joke,they are so protected
> and they know how to bend things"

> I'm planning to leave the UK over the next 5 years.Its on its last legs!

> Finally fascism unfortunately can't be beaten by yapping here or by our
> 'leaders', you need to be on the street to smash fascism, go get involved
> in anti-nazi work in your area, leafletting your own area against the nazi
> bnp party in the U.K. May elections is easy enough, go here if you want to
> find out for your own area (U.K. only obviously)
>

you seem to be forgetting that the national front in france and the freedom party of austria - or any far-rigth party for that matter - were voted for by people in free and fair democtic elections. surly the whole point of democracy is to give people the rigth to choose who govens them, even if we find that choice repugnent, and is the very essence of democracy. and to say we'll smash them on the the streets because we don't like the result is the very essence of fascism.

please take a bath, you reek of fascism.

> you seem to be forgetting that the national front in france and the
> freedom party of austria - or any far-rigth party for that matter - were
> voted for by people in free and fair democtic elections. surly the whole
> point of democracy is to give people the rigth to choose who govens them,
> even if we find that choice repugnent, and is the very essence of
> democracy. and to say we'll smash them on the the streets because we don't
> like the result is the very essence of fascism.

> please take a bath, you reek of fascism.

Fascism is not about democracy, check out their/hitlers policies? You need to fight fire with fire, hitler got in via the back door of democracy but how many elections did they have once he'd got in to office? How many political opponents did they kill? The concentration camps where full of Trade Unionists, Communists, Socialists as well as Jews, Travellers, Homosexuals & those with mental health problems &/or learning difficulties & anyone who opposed hitler. Wake up & smell the burning flesh Connie.

Do you think if Morrissey was around at the time of the concentration camps he would have had an easy ride?

It's time you pulled the plug on your bath of ignorance & wash yourself down to the sewers with it.
love
Grim

> Fascism is not about democracy, check out their/hitlers policies? You need
> to fight fire with fire, hitler got in via the back door of democracy but
> how many elections did they have once he'd got in to office? How many
> political opponents did they kill? The concentration camps where full of
> Trade Unionists, Communists, Socialists as well as Jews, Travellers,
> Homosexuals & those with mental health problems &/or learning
> difficulties & anyone who opposed hitler. Wake up & smell the
> burning flesh Connie.

but we all ready have a far-rigth goverment in austria, and as far as i know there has never been any mass deportations, or the building of concentration camps, or political violence, or the stifiling of free speech, or the overthrow of democarcy. in fact, they have have proved themselves to be a modern and reponsible goverment. you call the likes of M le pen a fascist, but his nationalism is essentially not about rigth against left, fascism against democracy, but of locality against the centre. his most vehement attacks have been againt france's centralised, bureaucratic, political system. he believes in the decentralisation of power away from brussels to the nation state, from the nation state to the townhall, so people can govern and administer their own communites. this is a strong feature of the nationalism of most far-rigth parties across europe. the fact is, most modern far-rigth parties do genuinely accept the values of political democracy.

you seem to be crudely equating all far-rigth parties to hitler's nazis, which ignores modern reality, and i noticed you mentioned communists in your piece. considering that stalin's communists persecuted and murdered far more people than hitler's nazis, would it be fair to equate all modern day marxist and marxist parties with stalin, like the marxist vanessa redgrave for instance? and if i should, should i go round to her house and club her brains out with a baseball bat?

both your messages were crude, turgid pieces of rethoric, based on political ingnorance and predjudise. take a look in the mirror, you'll see a grimm sigth.

As ever with young Seans post, every line has a spelling mistake or a grammatical error. Funny how all advocates of repatriation are such inarticulate oafs.

> I think Britain is being ripped apart by the whole race issue.If the
> French vote for LE PEN isnt that there right to vote.

France didn't vote for Le Pen...he ahs no chance of getting in

> If the Italions,Spanish,austrians and danes declare that immagration does
> nowt for there countries and we have a left wing labour party thats there
> shout.

A left wing Labour party? Not for about 10 years we haven't.

> One has to wonder if we were not paying billions on bogus refugees would
> our health system and rail network be such a joke.Would our police be over
> strected??????????

We aren't paying billions. Do some research.

The rail service would be a shambles, because its a private company. Unless Railtrack were shelling out "billions" for charitable purposes, which wouldn't have pleased their shareholders too much.

> I live in the most multi racial City outside of London.I work in the
> biggest Muslim area of Birmingham and the WHITE people in the local area
> are treated like shit.

It must be very tough for you. My heart bleeds

> There are Kosovans who have been in the UK 2 years in designer
> clothes,driving mercs etc etc and they call this country TREASURE ISLAND
> cos its so easy to take the piss.Every refugee that comes in is another
> vote for Commie Labour.

Terrible eh, people driving cars and wearing nice clothes. How dare they come in here and work hard and spend their money. Disgusting!

> SEARCHLIGHT is a joke.Its organised by a bunch of radical left wing weirdo
> lesbians with dreadlocks who come from a village in Oxford and rebel
> agasint there upper crust parents for a few years before they take over
> daddies company.

Don't know anything about Searchlight, but as ever, you resort to stereotypes.

> Like the politicians these people do not live in the streets where
> Muslim-Black leaders do everything in there power to push the white people
> out for there own gain.<

Example please?

have said to us "We cant do our jobs,its a joke,they are so protected
> and they know how to bend things" <

The police have always had their fair share of right wing thugs ( see the miners strike, Stephen Lawrence...in fact im surprised you havent joined

> I'm planning to leave the UK over the next 5 years.Its on its last legs!

Good show...one racist arsehole less. Roll on 2007!

That's back to school again for you.
A far-right government in Austria? Well, if you think that OVP equals FPO, then yes. But you'd be the only one to do that.

And LP in France is all about the local powers against the central one?
Erm ... how long do you think LP has been politically active in France? Well before the debate about an Euro-centralistic policy ever surfaced. And what was he talking about then? Right, anti-semitic, xenophobic and openly racist statements. "La France pour les Français" means anything to you?

New to the international political scene, aren't you?

And ... isn't it a fact that Hitler's "national socialist" were regularly and democratically elected in 1933, before he established his autoritarian regime?

Please stop accusing other of political ignorance.

> but we all ready have a far-rigth goverment in austria, and as far as i
> know there has never been any mass deportations, or the building of
> concentration camps, or political violence, or the stifiling of free
> speech, or the overthrow of democarcy. in fact, they have have proved
> themselves to be a modern and reponsible goverment. you call the likes of
> M le pen a fascist, but his nationalism is essentially not about rigth
> against left, fascism against democracy, but of locality against the
> centre. his most vehement attacks have been againt france's centralised,
> bureaucratic, political system. he believes in the decentralisation of
> power away from brussels to the nation state, from the nation state to the
> townhall, so people can govern and administer their own communites. this
> is a strong feature of the nationalism of most far-rigth parties across
> europe. the fact is, most modern far-rigth parties do genuinely accept the
> values of political democracy.

> you seem to be crudely equating all far-rigth parties to hitler's nazis,
> which ignores modern reality, and i noticed you mentioned communists in
> your piece. considering that stalin's communists persecuted and murdered
> far more people than hitler's nazis, would it be fair to equate all modern
> day marxist and marxist parties with stalin, like the marxist vanessa
> redgrave for instance? and if i should, should i go round to her house and
> club her brains out with a baseball bat?

> both your messages were crude, turgid pieces of rethoric, based on
> political ingnorance and predjudise. take a look in the mirror, you'll see
> a grimm sigth.

> but we all ready have a far-rigth goverment in austria, and as far as i
> know there has never been any mass deportations, or the building of
> concentration camps, or political violence, or the stifiling of free
> speech, or the overthrow of democarcy. in fact, they have have proved
> themselves to be a modern and reponsible goverment. you call the likes of
> M le pen a fascist, but his nationalism is essentially not about rigth
> against left, fascism against democracy, but of locality against the
> centre. his most vehement attacks have been againt france's centralised,
> bureaucratic, political system. he believes in the decentralisation of
> power away from brussels to the nation state, from the nation state to the
> townhall, so people can govern and administer their own communites. this
> is a strong feature of the nationalism of most far-rigth parties across
> europe. the fact is, most modern far-rigth parties do genuinely accept the
> values of political democracy.

I can't speak for how the far right work in Austria, but I can tell you about the nazi scum that are the british national party, having read quite a bit about them (not just in the trashy daily newspapers).

> you seem to be crudely equating all far-rigth parties to hitler's nazis,
> which ignores modern reality, and i noticed you mentioned communists in
> your piece. considering that stalin's communists persecuted and murdered
> far more people than hitler's nazis, would it be fair to equate all modern
> day marxist and marxist parties with stalin, like the marxist vanessa
> redgrave for instance? and if i should, should i go round to her house and
> club her brains out with a baseball bat?

Yes, far right in my book = nazi scum. I wouldn't equate Marx or Lenin to Stalin, Stalin was almost as much a fascist dictator as hitler in my opinion. Stalin created the term 'Communism in one country' which is alien to Communism, just as deceptive as hitler calling his party the National Socialist Workers Party. Neither were for workers power.

> both your messages were crude, turgid pieces of rethoric, based on
> political ingnorance and predjudise. take a look in the mirror, you'll see
> a grimm sigth.

Thanks for your constructiveness I'm warming to you with ever post!
love
Grim the politically ignorant.