Terrorist Barbecue:

RE: Ha!

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-21-01 AT 02:09PM (GMT)[p]Thank you Xotor.

And Kharn, EVERYTHING that you've said in this thread (except for your first statement) has been contraditory of every other post that I've read from you since the attacks.

Things are a little different when it hits close to home. If this had happened in Belgium, and one of us rotten pig-f*cker Americans had said that Belgium had this coming due to it's foreign policy (or lack there of) you'd get a bit pissed. I think we are doing the right thing here; if there wasn't some other country around like the US, then they would focus their attention elsewhere, say like Britain. No Britain? How about Germany? No Germany? Hey, I got it; BELGIUM!

I'm not saying that we are doing some noble thing by letting these attacks be brought to bear against us alone, stoically doing this so other countries don't have to, like some paragon of virtue, but those attacks where a slap to the face of this great nation (notice how I said "great nation", not "greater nation than any other").

Let's break this down on a personal level, using people instead of countries or idealogies; If someone slapped you in the face, what would you do?

"Did we give up when the GERMAN'S bombed Pearl Harbor?"

BTW, if you're trying to get past this anti-American thing that you were apparently raised with, you're losing that fight.
 
RE: Ha!

>And Kharn, EVERYTHING that you've said
>in this thread (except for
>your first statement) has been
>contraditory of every other post
>that I've read from you
>since the attacks.

Duh. What you're talking about are probably my AOF posts. That was just after the attack, when my undeveloped brain didn't have time to process the info. It has now.

>Things are a little different when
>it hits close to home.
>If this had happened in
>Belgium, and one of us
>rotten pig-f*cker Americans had said
>that Belgium had this coming
>due to it's foreign policy
>(or lack there of) you'd
>get a bit pissed. I
>think we are doing the
>right thing here; if there
>wasn't some other country around
>like the US, then they
>would focus their attention elsewhere,
>say like Britain. No Britain?
>How about Germany? No Germany?
>Hey, I got it; BELGIUM!

Belgium? Man, I'm supposed to hate that country, why the hell would I be sad about that? (well, I don't actually hate the country, but I'm "supposed" to)

I'm Dutch, in case you hadn't noticed.

And I'm afraid you're making the mistake of thinking everyone feels the same about human life. It's true that the closer something hits to home, the more pissed off people get, but even if that was true for everyone, the world is a village these days. It's impossible for something to hit "far from home", as long as it's in the Western world. An attack on America is exactly the same as an attack on Europe, for most Europeans. That's why everyone's so willing to help and not care about the human rights of the Afghans.

Also, I care about human life, not Dutch life, not American life, not islamic life, but HUMAN life. That's why I don't approve of the attacks on America, nor do I approve of the attacks from America. Everyone is just shedding more blood and I don't approve of any of it.

These attacks won't solve anything. The proper way to respond to an attack is NOT to provoke more attacks. If attacking back means there won't be any more attacks, then fine, but that's rarely true. If you're punched by a bully in high school, do you think he'll stop punching you if you punch back? No, he'll just beat you into a pulp. But this isn't high school, and neither the terrorists nor America can be considered bullies. There are better ways to solve this, because the way it's done now only makes it worse.

>BTW, if you're trying to get
>past this anti-American thing that
>you were apparently raised with,
>you're losing that fight.

Dude, at the very least, I'm fighting, and that's WAY more than you can say about most extremists.
 
RE: Ha!

Kharn, you seem to be saying that all of this is America's fault? You value human life? What do you think Osama Bin Laden wants? Remove USA troops out of Saudi Arabia, free Plaestine AND he wants to set up an extreme Islamic state. You know, one of those ones where the women don't get educated? And where people are killed 'cause their beards aren't the right length? Do you think these people value human life? Do you?

Also. Since when was America responsible for the worlds problems? Yes they make foreign policy decisions based on their own needs. Every country does that. In Australia a while ago we had a thing with East Timor where we sent up troops to help them gain independence from Indonesia. During the process, the Indonesian troops (TNI) commited atrocities like mass-killing etc... Now, Australia has evidence of this stuff (from a place called 'Pine Gap' which can pick up walkie-talkie transmissions from Indonesia) but we aren't using it to bring the TNI generals to justice. Wanna know why? Because we actually WANT better relations with Indonesia and having their generals thrown in jail does not good relations make.

Having their generals in jail would really piss them off and could trigger a war. Maybe not, but the THREAT IS REAL. Indonesia has a population of 150 million. Australia has a population of 19 million. Sure we would have USA support in a war, but WE DON'T WANT A WAR.

Another thing. Are you one of these people that believes diplomatic solutions can ALWAYS be found? I hate to say it, but they can't always be. USA has been trying to get Osama for YEARS via diplomatic solutions. None have succeeded. Same with Iraq. Economic Sanctions are a diplomatic solution in a sense. And if you're one of those people that think Suddam Hussein would help Iraq if sanctions were lifted, you are sadly disillusioned.

Million dollar question:
If sanctions against Iraq were lifted today. What would Saddam spend the money on:

A) The poor starving children of Iraq
B) Iraq medical supplies for hospitals
C) Helping the country economically
D) Building another palace for himself (I think he already has 20 or something ridiculous)

If you chose D - YOU WIN!!!! There was a time when Saddam asked all the people of Iraq for their gold jewellery to help fight the war against people trying to overthrow him. A year later, for his birthday, Saddam was given a brand new GOLD carriage. Can you put two and two together and come up with four?

The sad reality is, if neither side is willing to compromise, then one side will have to be destroyed or beaten until it surrenders. Which side that ends up being, we'll have to wait and see.

DarkUnderlord
----------------------
 
RE: Ha!

If sanctions against iraq were lifted the people of iraq would get a better life. They would get better medical care. Why? Because the money would have flown into the country and people would generaly get a better life.
Before the war when iraq was on the side against the us they did not have almost any crime and most people was rich. Sadam was a dictator yes but people lived well there was wery little crime and children did not run in the street looking for food.
After the war people are dying of diseases that we do not think of as lethal in our part of the world. Crime rates are going way upp and children are running in the streets fighting with dogs about food. and sadam got more loyal people than ever.
If any of you Americans care about human lives, as you say you does then yuo remove the sanctions so people could get a better life.
The iraq army went to war supported by Amerian equiepment and uniforms. Before the war it was okay that sadam was an dictator because he was not a pain in the ass for USA He was their dictator.
What would happen if the sanctions got raised is that millions of people would live a better life and sadam would make the US loke like a gang of losers. But that is no problem because people would live better lives.
"The sad reality is, if neither side is willing to compromise, then one side will have to be destroyed or beaten until it surrenders. Which side that ends up being, we'll have to wait and see."
That is bullshit!! But offcourse it is american bullshit so it is probaby right yes?
Sadam will win this because he will sitt there until he dies and he will have shown the world that they could not get him. Or he will be killed by Americans and be a martian he wins again.
The ones that are the real losers in all of this is the people in iraq wich seems to come in the second line.
 
RE: Ha!

>Kharn, you seem to be saying
>that all of this is
>America's fault?

I do not appreciate it when someone twists my words. I said about exactly the opposite as what you're saying. It's the terrorists fault, but America is reacting in the wrong way. Why do think that in a fight, both kids get punished, not just "the one that started it"? "They started it" is not a good excuse to kill them all

>You value human
>life? What do you think
>Osama Bin Laden wants? Remove
>USA troops out of Saudi
>Arabia, free Plaestine AND he
>wants to set up an
>extreme Islamic state. You know,
>one of those ones where
>the women don't get educated?
>And where people are killed
>'cause their beards aren't the
>right length? Do you think
>these people value human life?
>Do you?

Oh, and that justifies bombing those people? I suppose it's alright to kill people just to "save" them. Oh, please...

Oh, and let's take a look at what America wants to replace the Taliban with. The most important thing is, of course, that the new government is pro-America. Easily done, you can take the Northern Alliance...Oh, but look, what a coincidence, they're totalitarian assholes that'd just as soon put a bullet through someone's head as the Taliban would. Does America care?

No, of course not, human life isn't important, the "American economy?" is.

>Also. Since when was America responsible
>for the worlds problems?

I stated nothing of the sort. *I* said America's attacks were wrong. This has nothing to do with being responsible for the worlds problems, but with CAUSING the worlds problems.

Y'know, your message looks mostly as if it is not replying to my post. You might want to reread it.

>Another thing. Are you one of
>these people that believes diplomatic
>solutions can ALWAYS be found?

Of course not. Are you one of those people that believes the ends ALWAYS justifies the means? One of those people that believes killing millions will make the death of thousands right?


>What would Saddam spend
>the money on:

The money would not be Saddam's to spend, duh.

>The sad reality is, if neither
>side is willing to compromise,
>then one side will have
>to be destroyed or beaten
>until it surrenders. Which side
>that ends up being, we'll
>have to wait and see.

Trie, destroying the Taliban would do the world a service, but not like THIS. America isn't destroying its enemies, its destroying EVERYONE and rending the world into two (islamic and non-islamic), which is EXACTLY what the terrorists wanted.

And I think the situation has turned very 1984-ish (good book, btw). One instant, America is claiming their goal is a war against terrorism, and then suddenly the goal is removing the Taliban. And nobody notices. This is double-think in a way that would make any civilized man shudder.
 
RE: Ha!

I didn't say I had one. I'm a simple human being, and a child besides, I'm not solving any world problems.

But I have heard several good suggestions. The most sensible thing I've heard yet is "The way to kill terrorism is to take away its reason of being, not by killing the terrorists"

And bombing Afghanistan REALLY won't solve anything. All those innocents dead aren't going to convince anyone to stop acts of terrorism, y'know, it'll just create more terrorists.
 
RE: Ha!

>Kharn, you seem to be saying
>that all of this is
>America's fault?
>I do not appreciate it when someone twists my words. I said >about exactly the opposite as what you're saying. It's the >terrorists fault, but America is reacting in the wrong way. Why >do think that in a fight, both kids get punished, not just "the >one that started it"? "They started it" is not a good excuse to >kill them all

>....This has nothing to
>do with being responsible for
>the worlds problems, but with
>CAUSING the worlds problems.

Are you saying America is CAUSING the world's problems??? Kind of like saying, it's their fault??? (Come on, say it, I know you want to)

>You value human
>life? What do you think
>Osama Bin Laden wants? Remove
>USA troops out of Saudi
>Arabia, free Plaestine AND he
>wants to set up an
>extreme Islamic state. You know,
>one of those ones where
>the women don't get educated?
>And where people are killed
>'cause their beards aren't the
>right length? Do you think
>these people value human life?
>Do you?

>Oh, and that justifies bombing those people? I suppose it's >alright to kill people just to "save" them. Oh, please...

So we should just ignore the fact that they kill people? You want us to stop killing them but you don't seem to care about them killing themselves or each other or other factions?

>Oh, and let's take a look at what America wants to replace the >Taliban with. The most important thing is, of course, that the >new government is pro-America. Easily done, you can take the >Northern Alliance...Oh, but look, what a coincidence, they're >totalitarian assholes that'd just as soon put a bullet through >someone's head as the Taliban would. Does America care?

I'm sorry.... You seem to know quite a bit about the Northern Alliance. I haven't read anything like this. Can you tell me where you found this information please?

>No, of course not, human life isn't important, the "American >economy?" is.

Again, You seem to care about America killing Taliban soldiers but not about Taliban soldiers killing other Afghanistani's?

>Also. Since when was America responsible
>for the worlds problems?

>I stated nothing of the sort. *I* said America's attacks were >wrong. This has nothing to do with being responsible for the >worlds problems, but with CAUSING the worlds problems.

Just to point it out again, are you saying America is CAUSING the world's problems????

>Y'know, your message looks mostly as if it is not replying to >my post. You might want to reread it.

I must apologise, that is my bad habit of reading a bit more into messages than what is written.

>Another thing. Are you one of
>these people that believes diplomatic
>solutions can ALWAYS be found?

>Of course not. Are you one of those people that believes the >ends ALWAYS justifies the means? One of those people that >believes killing millions will make the death of thousands >right?

And the thousands of innocent Afghani' women being stoned to death because they talked to a man is okay?? Should we let them do this?

>What would Saddam spend
>the money on:

>The money would not be Saddam's to spend, duh.

Wealthier people = more taxes = wealthier dictator.

A wealthy Dictator who just happens to want to invade Kuwait (that is how all this started) AND wants to seriously hurt America. And this is what we want????

>The sad reality is, if neither
>side is willing to compromise,
>then one side will have
>to be destroyed or beaten
>until it surrenders. Which side
>that ends up being, we'll
>have to wait and see.

>True, destroying the Taliban would do the world a service, but >not like THIS. America isn't destroying its enemies, its >destroying EVERYONE and rending the world into two (islamic and >non-islamic), which is EXACTLY what the terrorists wanted.

How is this becoming Islam versus Non-Islamic? Because certain people are convinced that America wants to kill all of the Islamic people. How are these people being told this? Why, at those terrorist and religious training camps/schools of course!

Kind of like propoganda, only from their side!

>And I think the situation has turned very 1984-ish (good book, >btw). One instant, America is claiming their goal is a war >against terrorism, and then suddenly the goal is removing the >Taliban. And nobody notices. This is double-think in a way that >would make any civilized man shudder.

America asked nicely for Osama. The Taliban said no and eventually said they are protecting him. What do you do when you can't send your police force into another country? You send in the troops.

One last thing, you said in an earlier post that Osama and his organisation are just human beings, not the demons that they're pictured out to be. I agree with that, but might I point out that they are human beings who want to rid the world of the USA. Interestingly enough, they say there are non-believers (American troops) in Saudi Arabia and they should be removed. When did these people start talking for the leader of Saudi Arabia? Also, notice how America isn't trying to boot all the Muslims out of America claiming they are spoiling Christian holy ground???

That said, Kharn, you want America to stop attacking Osama Bin Laden/The Taliban. However, the Taliban and Osama will not stop attacking the US. Even if we did all their demands and let these nice people have a country where they could kill whoever they felt like, they'd still hate America. And, more importantly, we'd still hate them.
 
RE: Ha!

>>I didn't say I had one. I'm a simple human being, and a child >>besides, I'm not solving any world problems.

So, you hate what America's doing but have no alternative? Come up with an alterntaive or shut the hell up and stop complaining.

>>But I have heard several good suggestions. The most sensible >>thing I've heard yet is "The way to kill terrorism is to take >>away its reason of being, not by killing the terrorists"

What is their reason for being. Wait... I'll let you think that through. Hint: Terrorist not like America. Reason for being = America. Destory America, remove terrorist problem. What a great IDEA!!!!

>>And bombing Afghanistan REALLY won't solve anything. All those >>innocents dead aren't going to convince anyone to stop acts of >>terrorism, y'know, it'll just create more terrorists.

It will either get Osama who will then face criminal trial (if not killed). Which will cause more acts, but, the idea is that without their leader, the networks will be set back.

Also, hijacking and flying planes into buildings won't give these people what they want either. It'll only make America bomb them some more.

If Osama wants to use his money and power for good and turn Afghanistan around WITHOUT killing innocent American's, no-one is stopping him. Osama could really kick-start the Afghani economy if he wanted to. But no, he wants to kill the non-believers (Read: You and me, unless you're a muslim, then you're okay).
 
RE: Ha!

>So, you hate what America's doing
>but have no alternative? Come
>up with an alterntaive or
>shut the hell up and
>stop complaining.

Oh, right, I, a simple human being, have no alternative, so naturally, we should all parade after America and say it's allright that they're killing all those innocents.

Also, it's not even about offering a different "solution", because these attacks on Afghanistan don't qualify as a solution. They only make the problem worse, they're a part of the problem, so any solution would be better than that.

>What is their reason for being.
>Wait... I'll let you think
>that through. Hint: Terrorist not
>like America. Reason for being
>= America. Destory America, remove
>terrorist problem. What a great
>IDEA!!!!

Oh, and you think they "just" hate America? They woke up one morning and decided "Hey, let's hate America". Yeah, right.

It might not have occured to you, but they have reasons for hating America. America has been judging the world with a double morale for ages. Everything they do is right. Let's starve countries "in the name of freedom".

And what's America doing RIGHT NOW? Giving those people more reasons to hate them. And that's the problem, so it's hardly much of a solution.

And please don't start about them doing anything in the name of the islam. Religion is a reflection of society, not the other way around.

>It will either get Osama who
>will then face criminal trial
>(if not killed). Which will
>cause more acts, but, the
>idea is that without their
>leader, the networks will be
>set back.

A very stupid idea. If you kill the leader, he becomes a marter, a hero, and more people will follow in his wake. Heck, Osama isn't even the brains of the organisation!

You even said so yourself, this will only cause more acts of terrorism. So war against terrorism? No! War FOR terrorism.

>Also, hijacking and flying planes into
>buildings won't give these people
>what they want either. It'll
>only make America bomb them
>some more.

My point exactly. So they're wrong too.

>If Osama wants to use his
>money and power for good
>and turn Afghanistan around WITHOUT
>killing innocent American's, no-one is
>stopping him. Osama could really
>kick-start the Afghani economy if
>he wanted to. But no,
>he wants to kill the
>non-believers (Read: You and me,
>unless you're a muslim, then
>you're okay).

They would stop him if he wouldn't give them oil.
 
RE: Ha!

>Are you saying America is CAUSING
>the world's problems??? Kind of
>like saying, it's their fault???
>(Come on, say it, I
>know you want to)

Yes, it did sound like that, sorry.

I'm saying America is causing THIS world problem. Al'Kaida is not attacking America unprovoked, though I will not go as far as calling it "their fault"

>So we should just ignore the
>fact that they kill people?
>You want us to stop
>killing them but you don't
>seem to care about them
>killing themselves or each other
>or other factions?

Ah, so now killing justifies killing?

For everyone they kill, we should kill another one of them? Or two, as is more likely.

Your logic is beautiful.

>I'm sorry.... You seem to know
>quite a bit about the
>Northern Alliance. I haven't read
>anything like this. Can you
>tell me where you found
>this information please?

"Taliban". Fascinating booklet. Don't have it right here, so I can't give you the writer's name.

>And the thousands of innocent Afghani'
>women being stoned to death
>because they talked to a
>man is okay?? Should we
>let them do this?

So it's about them suddenly?

If that's true, then please explain why America hasn't done anything about them until they suddenly bothered them? Let the bully beat up everyone until he touches you, hu?

>How is this becoming Islam versus
>Non-Islamic? Because certain people are
>convinced that America wants to
>kill all of the Islamic
>people. How are these people
>being told this? Why, at
>those terrorist and religious training
>camps/schools of course!

It's Islamic world vs non-Islamic world, not Islamic against non-Islamic.

And it's made possible to pitch these two worlds against each other because America is now attacking the Islamic world. No good reason to find a better way?

>America asked nicely for Osama. The
>Taliban said no and eventually
>said they are protecting him.
>What do you do when
>you can't send your police
>force into another country? You
>send in the troops.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

>One last thing, you said in
>an earlier post that Osama
>and his organisation are just
>human beings, not the demons
>that they're pictured out to
>be. I agree with that,
>but might I point out
>that they are human beings
>who want to rid the
>world of the USA. Interestingly
>enough, they say there are
>non-believers (American troops) in Saudi
>Arabia and they should be
>removed. When did these people
>start talking for the leader
>of Saudi Arabia? Also, notice
>how America isn't trying to
>boot all the Muslims out
>of America claiming they are
>spoiling Christian holy ground???

...

I didn't even see the point of this piece.

For the last time: I'm not pro-Taliban. I'm not justifying anything the Taliban or the Al'Kaida does or did...I just don't agree with the way America is dealing with it, not even because it's morally wrong, but because it'll have EXACTLY the opposite effect that people want.

>That said, Kharn, you want America
>to stop attacking Osama Bin
>Laden/The Taliban. However, the Taliban
>and Osama will not stop
>attacking the US. Even if
>we did all their demands
>and let these nice people
>have a country where they
>could kill whoever they felt
>like, they'd still hate America.
>And, more importantly, we'd still
>hate them.

But this way they'll only hate America more. Tell me, how exactly does that help anyone?
 
Policy Change

>>You value human
>>life? What do you think
>>Osama Bin Laden wants? Remove
>>USA troops out of Saudi
>>Arabia, free Plaestine AND he
>>wants to set up an
>>extreme Islamic state. You know,
>>one of those ones where
>>the women don't get educated?
>>And where people are killed
>>'cause their beards aren't the
>>right length? Do you think
>>these people value human life?
>>Do you?
>
>>Oh, and that justifies bombing those people? I suppose it's >alright to kill people just to "save" them. Oh, please...
>
>So we should just ignore the
>fact that they kill people?
>You want us to stop
>killing them but you don't
>seem to care about them
>killing themselves or each other
>or other factions?
>
>>Oh, and let's take a look at what America wants to replace the >Taliban with. The most important thing is, of course, that the >new government is pro-America. Easily done, you can take the >Northern Alliance...Oh, but look, what a coincidence, they're >totalitarian assholes that'd just as soon put a bullet through >someone's head as the Taliban would. Does America care?
>
>I'm sorry.... You seem to know
>quite a bit about the
>Northern Alliance. I haven't read
>anything like this. Can you
>tell me where you found
>this information please?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4273924,00.html

I would say that the Northern Alliance is probably worse than the Taliban. The NA is a bunch of old Soviet cronies that nobody in Afghanistan likes because they were responsible for many massacres, playing both sides of the table with regards to Soviet powers and Afghanistan liberators, and they held the same strict cultural policies the Taliban holds. The Taliban isn't all that bad actually, and they certainly didn't want the Sudanese exile Osama bin Laden to reside in their own country, but were powerless to stop him.

>>No, of course not, human life isn't important, the "American >economy?" is.
>
>Again, You seem to care about
>America killing Taliban soldiers but
>not about Taliban soldiers killing
>other Afghanistani's?

Northen Alliance "Afghanese?" Sure. The Taliban doesn't kill their own unless they're attacked by them.

>>What would Saddam spend
>>the money on:
>
>>The money would not be Saddam's to spend, duh.
>
>Wealthier people = more taxes =
>wealthier dictator.
>
>A wealthy Dictator who just happens
>to want to invade Kuwait
>(that is how all this
>started) AND wants to seriously
>hurt America. And this is
>what we want????

Iraq invaded the filthy-rich Kuwait because Kuwait was drilling DIAGONAL wells into Iraqi oil reserves. Iraq pleaded with the United Nations for YEARS and never received any support or help. To defend Iraqi's interests Saddam invaded Kuwait.

No nation ever invades another without prior cause. It isn't like the invasion of Kuwait wouldn't've gone unnoticed, but Iraq was pushed against a wall with no help from other powers.

>>And I think the situation has turned very 1984-ish (good book, >btw). One instant, America is claiming their goal is a war >against terrorism, and then suddenly the goal is removing the >Taliban. And nobody notices. This is double-think in a way that >would make any civilized man shudder.
>
>America asked nicely for Osama. The
>Taliban said no and eventually
>said they are protecting him.
>What do you do when
>you can't send your police
>force into another country? You
>send in the troops.

Well the Taliban did say they would hand him over if he were given a "fair" trial in a neutral country.

I seriously don't know how America "knows" that Osama did it. The evidence is circumstantial, there are no direct ties, and quite frankly, I think it is impossible that anyone could've pieced together the trail of breadcrumbs in only a few weeks.

One last thing is that Osama denied involvement, something a guy like him would probably not do if he actually planned the attack. I mean, it was a job well done, and why not take credit for it if you're already hated?

I think America is looking for someone to hit, and while getting rid of Osama wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think he is directly responsible.

>One last thing, you said in
>an earlier post that Osama
>and his organisation are just
>human beings, not the demons
>that they're pictured out to
>be. I agree with that,
>but might I point out
>that they are human beings
>who want to rid the
>world of the USA. Interestingly
>enough, they say there are
>non-believers (American troops) in Saudi
>Arabia and they should be
>removed.

That may also mean that he wants the Saudi family removed from power in Saudi Arabia. They're not well liked in the Arab world.

>When did these people
>start talking for the leader
>of Saudi Arabia? Also, notice
>how America isn't trying to
>boot all the Muslims out
>of America claiming they are
>spoiling Christian holy ground???

But it isn't a Christian holy ground, unless you're Mormon and think that the New World used to be where all those Old Testiment events happened. The holy land happens to be near Israel, and Christians *DID* try to remove Islamic people from the holy land hundreds of years ago with little success.

>That said, Kharn, you want America
>to stop attacking Osama Bin
>Laden/The Taliban. However, the Taliban
>and Osama will not stop
>attacking the US.

You mean only Osama. The Taliban had no beef with us.

>Even if
>we did all their demands
>and let these nice people
>have a country where they
>could kill whoever they felt
>like, they'd still hate America.
>And, more importantly, we'd still
>hate them.

Disgruntled Islamic people in those countries are mostly annoyed with these issues:

* America supporting Israel, a state that treats the Palestinian minority within the country as a sub-class, in what are distinctly non-American "freedom loving and equality" ways.

We also support them basically for no reason. Hell, Israel won't even extradite serial-killer criminals to us simply because they're citizens of Israel. They are also pretty worthless as trade partners and continue to push into Palestian lands. They are considering building a third Jewish temple over one of the most holy sites in Islam, the "Great Dome" if I remember right.

* America's support of virtually totaliarian states like the Saudi Family of Saudi Arabia and the leadership of Egypt, which have VERY poor human rights policies and were not elected by the public, simply because they support/semi-support the USA.

You see, these disgruntled people don't really hate America or what it stands for, in fact they admire it and probably envy it. The most popular show in Palestine (because of Satellite dishes) is Baywatch and other sitcoms/shows that depict the "American life," however much an illusion that is. They like our brand names, our way of life, and how we have many freedoms.

What they don't like about it is the double standard we hold where we preach democracy and freedom, and yet support the states as described above. They would like us more if we actually helped overthrow the governments of their nations and helped establish more western governments and policies.

That is why if we are to be successful in Afghanistan, we had better NOT put the Northern Alliance into power but instead help bring about a western-style government with the backing of our military power and influence. We need to establish trade relations with that government, bring social change, and develope their infrastructure. GW Bush complained that we, as the United States spend too much time as "Nation Builders" but the truth is, the only reason we've seen such crap from that is that we never finish the job and we let the first "pro-America" or "not-the-enemy" regime take power and we call it a job well done.

If we are to come out of this war the good guys we need to take Afghanistan in our arms and make it a useful, industrialized nation that is not left out to dry once we've found and killed our target.

Imagine if we had done that with Iraq? Not only would we have had an "oil buddy," we would've had a foot in the door of the Arab world in terms of openness, understanding, and not only that, a place where we could jumpstart other such campaigns in other nations.

If we are truly what we preach, we will go out like missionaries and spread the word and bring about social change in other nations. Without that we will never be understood, except by those who are angry with us for not creating that change.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Policy Change

>So, you hate what America's doing
>but have no alternative? Come
>up with an alterntaive or
>shut the hell up and
>stop complaining.

Oh, right, I, a simple human being, have no alternative, so naturally, we should all parade after America and say it's
allright that they're killing all those innocents.

-------MY REPLY---------
What innocents? You keep saying 'all' those innocents. As I understand it, yes, there have been some civilian casualties
but I didn't think there were thousands. I am aware that the Taliban has claimed 'hundreds' of civilian deaths. But I'd
prefer to believe the American propoganda at this stage, rather than the Taliban propoganda.

Incidentally, everyone is a simple human being. Are Americans somehow not human? Do you believe that there is some super-being
who's going to come down and sought this all out? Some kind of 'teacher' figure to break up the schoolyard fight? Perhaps
the UN? The same UN that didn't even blink when a million innocent tootsies were slaughtered in Rwanda. (Or were the hootoos slaughtered? I'm not sure...)
-------MY REPLY---------

Also, it's not even about offering a different "solution", because these attacks on Afghanistan don't qualify as a
solution. They only make the problem worse, they're a part of the problem, so any solution would be better than that.

-------MY REPLY---------
You have no alternative to war. As I see it, there seem to be two options, do what America is doing and hunt down
Bin Laden AND his organisation itself, or do nothing, sit back, and wait for the next terrorist attack. The third,
Diplomatic solutions, have already been tried and failed. And honestly, if YOU can't think of another solution, then
how is America going to? I haven't yet heard of any other plausible way to stop this.
-------MY REPLY---------

>What is their reason for being.
>Wait... I'll let you think
>that through. Hint: Terrorist not
>like America. Reason for being
>= America. Destory America, remove
>terrorist problem. What a great
>IDEA!!!!

Oh, and you think they "just" hate America? They woke up one morning and decided "Hey, let's hate America". Yeah,
right.

-------MY REPLY---------
No, I don't believe they just woke up one morning and thought that. A large number of them are brainwashed by their own
propoganda in training camps from a young age, where children are taught to fight off evil America. I also believe they
have very strong beliefs for hating America. But I do believe their beliefs are wrong. They hate America because American
troops are in Saudi Arabia. Why are American troops in Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia hasn't thrown them out yet.
Why not? Because they don't want to. And since when did the people of Afghanistan speak for the government of Saudi Arabia?

Also, Osama Bin Laden has said in his video, 'America will not know peace until Palestine does'. I say again, what I said
once before, why is America suddenly responsible for the worlds' problems? Yes, America supports Israel, but America wants
peace in Palestine. Israel has the power to give Palestine an independent state, not America. But these people blame America.
-------MY REPLY---------

It might not have occured to you, but they have reasons for hating America. America has been judging the world with
a double morale for ages. Everything they do is right. Let's starve countries "in the name of freedom".

-------MY REPLY---------
So it's okay is it? They have reasons for hating America so they can send Anthrax letters letters with the words, 'Death to America' in them because they have a reason? Well, America has a reason for launching the action it has. Or didn't that occure to you?

By the way, every country has double standards. As an Australian I understand this. Australia recently took America to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) because America imposed unfair trade tariffs against Australian lamb. Yet at the same time, America runs
around proclaiming 'Free Trade!', 'Free Trade!'. America only wants free trade for its own products, it couldn't give a
stuff about anybody else. So they are hypocrites, yes.

But Australia has done the same thing many times as well. Looking after its' own interests ahead of anybody elses.
It's politics. Has your country (I presume the Netherlands?) done anything similar? Or are you squeaky clean?

Here's an idea, let's send Anthrax letters "in the name of freedom" for Palestine. Everything that Osama Bin Laden does is right. Look
at it from the other side of the fence as well. In this issue, both sides believe that what they are doing is right.
-------MY REPLY---------

And what's America doing RIGHT NOW? Giving those people more reasons to hate them. And that's the problem,
so it's hardly much of a solution.

-------MY REPLY---------
True. I agree. This will piss off a lot them. But, the American plan is more far-reaching than this.

The idea being to get rid of all the people who are plotting murderous acts against its innocent civilians. Yes, all those Americans in
the WTC were innocent. And I'm not suggesting that therefore we can kill all their innocent people. America is going
after the people who are RESPONSIBLE. NOT THE INNOCENT PEOPLE. America doesn't deliberately slaughter innocent civilians
unlike some people.
-------MY REPLY---------

And please don't start about them doing anything in the name of the islam. Religion is a reflection of society, not the
other way around.

-------MY REPLY---------
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
-------MY REPLY---------

>It will either get Osama who
>will then face criminal trial
>(if not killed). Which will
>cause more acts, but, the
>idea is that without their
>leader, the networks will be
>set back.

A very stupid idea. If you kill the leader, he becomes a marter, a hero, and more people will follow in his wake. Heck,
Osama isn't even the brains of the organisation!

-------MY REPLY---------
Which is why America is going after the ENTIRE organisation, including its supporters and backers like the Taliban.
Not just Osama Bin Laden. America wants the whole package.
-------MY REPLY---------

You even said so yourself, this will only cause more acts of terrorism. So war against terrorism? No! War FOR
terrorism.

-------MY REPLY---------
Again, what is the alternative? Sit back and wait for a terrorists' nuclear weapon to go off in NYC? Either way, there
will be terrorist attacks against America. By launching this operation, you send a clear message: Attack us, and you
will be dealt with.

Any further terrorists will then very clearly understand the consequences and it may disuade some from doing so. They might
even search for other ways of getting their message across. Perhaps even peaceful ways. Although I very much doubt it.
-------MY REPLY---------

>Also, hijacking and flying planes into
>buildings won't give these people
>what they want either. It'll
>only make America bomb them
>some more.

My point exactly. So they're wrong too.

-------MY REPLY---------
Okay, we're wrong and they're wrong. So, how about you run over to Afghanistan, roll up on Osama's door-step and tell
him that? How about you say, "Hello! I'd just like to say that you're wrong and you should stop. Perhaps you can
protest peacefully?"

How much longer do you think you'll be alive after you say that? More importantly though, do you think it will change his
mind, or the minds of ANYBODY ELSE who hates America?
-------MY REPLY---------

>If Osama wants to use his
>money and power for good
>and turn Afghanistan around WITHOUT
>killing innocent American's, no-one is
>stopping him. Osama could really
>kick-start the Afghani economy if
>he wanted to. But no,
>he wants to kill the
>non-believers (Read: You and me,
>unless you're a muslim, then
>you're okay).

They would stop him if he wouldn't give them oil.

-------MY REPLY---------
I don't understand. Are you telling me that America just kills anybody who doesn't give them oil? You know,
there are a lot of things America buys from other countries. Those things it pays for and if those countries don't want
to sell, than America looks elsewhere. Get out of this 'America Kills for Oil' idea. Yes, that is what they were protecting
in Kuwait when Iraq made its move. But.... Kuwait wanted them there to protect it. America didn't force themselves upon Kuwait.
America was protecting Kuwaits interests just as much as its own.
-------MY REPLY---------





Kharn

Oct-25-01, 03:22 PM (GMT)
30. "RE: Ha!"
>Are you saying America is CAUSING
>the world's problems??? Kind of
>like saying, it's their fault???
>(Come on, say it, I
>know you want to)

Yes, it did sound like that, sorry.

I'm saying America is causing THIS world problem. Al'Kaida is not attacking America unprovoked, though I will not go as
far as calling it "their fault"

>So we should just ignore the
>fact that they kill people?
>You want us to stop
>killing them but you don't
>seem to care about them
>killing themselves or each other
>or other factions?

Ah, so now killing justifies killing?

For everyone they kill, we should kill another one of them? Or two, as is more likely.

Your logic is beautiful.

-------MY REPLY---------
Not quite what I intended. What I meant to get across was that you seem to be rather annoyed that America is killing the
Taliban and its supporters because these people want to destroy America. Yet, you don't seem to care that the Taliban is
killing its own people because its own people want to destroy the Taliban. Again, how about this time you run over to the Taliban
and tell them that they should stop killing their own people. Or is it only Americans killing people that concerns you?
-------MY REPLY---------


>I'm sorry.... You seem to know
>quite a bit about the
>Northern Alliance. I haven't read
>anything like this. Can you
>tell me where you found
>this information please?

"Taliban". Fascinating booklet. Don't have it right here, so I can't give you the writer's name.

-------MY REPLY---------
So you would personally prefer Afghanistan to be run by the Taliban? The Northen Alliance are a bunch of murdering
bastards just like the Taliban? So we might as well leave the Taliban there? The problem with that is the Taliban want
to murder innocent Americans for no particular reason. Oh, I'm sorry, they want a Palestinian state, so that somehow
justifies the killings?
-------MY REPLY---------

>And the thousands of innocent Afghani'
>women being stoned to death
>because they talked to a
>man is okay?? Should we
>let them do this?

So it's about them suddenly?

If that's true, then please explain why America hasn't done anything about them until they suddenly bothered them? Let the
bully beat up everyone until he touches you, hu?

-------MY REPLY---------
This was actually in response to your 'killing millions justifies the killing of thousands' comment. I was merely pointing
out that if you are so concerned about the deaths of all these people, how come the deaths of women by the Taliban
doesn't seem to concern you in the least?
-------MY REPLY---------


>How is this becoming Islam versus
>Non-Islamic? Because certain people are
>convinced that America wants to
>kill all of the Islamic
>people. How are these people
>being told this? Why, at
>those terrorist and religious training
>camps/schools of course!

It's Islamic world vs non-Islamic world, not Islamic against non-Islamic.

And it's made possible to pitch these two worlds against each other because America is now attacking the Islamic world.
No good reason to find a better way?

-------MY REPLY---------
True, Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda want an Islamic world vs non-Islamic world in the belief that they would win.
This is what THEY want. And it's made possible to pitch these two worlds against each other because of some idiot sending
Anthrax in the mail with letters saying:

"Death to America
Death to Israel

Allah is Great"

As well as all the other terrorist attacks. They knew that sooner or later America would HAVE to respond with a little
more than just a few cruise missiles. They will now turn this, using their propoganda, into an Islamic world vs non-Islamic world
fight. I ask you again, what better way? If YOU can't think of one, do you really believe that American Blood-Thirsty Generals will?
Do you even think they're trying to?
-------MY REPLY---------

>America asked nicely for Osama. The
>Taliban said no and eventually
>said they are protecting him.
>What do you do when
>you can't send your police
>force into another country? You
>send in the troops.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

-------MY REPLY---------
What you said was, "One instant, America is claiming their goal is a war against terrorism and then suddenly their goal
is removing the Taliban." This is why I wrote what I wrote because one instant terrorism was Osama Bin Laden, the next
minute, the Taliban decided to join him.
-------MY REPLY---------

>One last thing, you said in
>an earlier post that Osama
>and his organisation are just
>human beings, not the demons
>that they're pictured out to
>be. I agree with that,
>but might I point out
>that they are human beings
>who want to rid the
>world of the USA. Interestingly
>enough, they say there are
>non-believers (American troops) in Saudi
>Arabia and they should be
>removed. When did these people
>start talking for the leader
>of Saudi Arabia? Also, notice
>how America isn't trying to
>boot all the Muslims out
>of America claiming they are
>spoiling Christian holy ground???

...

I didn't even see the point of this piece.

-------MY REPLY---------
I was merely pointing out that their REASONS (which you continue to argue for why they are doing this) are false reasons.
These people have no interest in removing American troops. Do you really believe Osama and all his supporters would turn around and say, "Oh, thankyou
America for removing those troops from our holy land and giving a state to Palestine and giving us a little EXTREME Islamic state
where we can all grow long beards and force women to remain uneducated even if they want it. We will leave you alone now."
-------MY REPLY---------

For the last time: I'm not pro-Taliban. I'm not justifying anything the Taliban or the Al'Kaida does or did...I just don't agree
with the way America is dealing with it, not even because it's morally wrong, but because it'll have EXACTLY the opposite
effect that people want.

-------MY REPLY---------
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now we can focus on the real issue. The way America is handling this situation.
As I said before neither you nor I nor anyone else I know can think of another way to deal with this. But, I believe America
MUST respond in some way. And seeing as American Generals won't exactly be looking for a peaceful solution, I doubt
America will find another way. One thing is for sure though. THERE WILL BE MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS. Regadless of America's response.
America could sit on its arse and do shit-all and still be hit. America could pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia and it will
still be attacked. By fighting back, America is making a stand for everything that it is. Peace, freedom, the American way, whatever
other slogans there are. By doing this, America sends the message to the world that it WILL NOT TOLERATE violations of its freedoms.

If a bunch of idiotic terrorists want to respond with another attack. THEN SO BE IT. But I assure you. The attack was going to come anyway.
In actual fact, the attack is probably already planned. Of course, that's presuming the terrorists organisation isn't destroyed (or damaged) with the American response.
-------MY REPLY---------


>That said, Kharn, you want America
>to stop attacking Osama Bin
>Laden/The Taliban. However, the Taliban
>and Osama will not stop
>attacking the US. Even if
>we did all their demands
>and let these nice people
>have a country where they
>could kill whoever they felt
>like, they'd still hate America.
>And, more importantly, we'd still
>hate them.

But this way they'll only hate America more. Tell me, how exactly does that help anyone?

-------MY REPLY---------
They hate the US anyway. How can people who want to destroy the US hate the US any 'more' than they do now?
-------MY REPLY---------


DarkUnderlord
---------------------
Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)
 
RE: Policy Change

>Disgruntled Islamic people in those countries
>are mostly annoyed with these
>issues:
>
>* America supporting Israel, a state
>that treats the Palestinian minority
>within the country as a
>sub-class, in what are distinctly
>non-American "freedom loving and equality"
>ways.
>
>We also support them basically for
>no reason. Hell, Israel
>won't even extradite serial-killer criminals
>to us simply because they're
>citizens of Israel. They
>are also pretty worthless as
>trade partners and continue to
>push into Palestian lands.
>They are considering building a
>third Jewish temple over one
>of the most holy sites
>in Islam, the "Great Dome"
>if I remember right.
>
>* America's support of virtually totaliarian
>states like the Saudi Family
>of Saudi Arabia and the
>leadership of Egypt, which have
>VERY poor human rights policies
>and were not elected by
>the public, simply because they
>support/semi-support the USA.
>
>You see, these disgruntled people don't
>really hate America or what
>it stands for, in fact
>they admire it and probably
>envy it. The most
>popular show in Palestine (because
>of Satellite dishes) is Baywatch
>and other sitcoms/shows that depict
>the "American life," however much
>an illusion that is.
>They like our brand names,
>our way of life, and
>how we have many freedoms.
>
>
>What they don't like about it
>is the double standard we
>hold where we preach democracy
>and freedom, and yet support
>the states as described above.
> They would like us
>more if we actually helped
>overthrow the governments of their
>nations and helped establish more
>western governments and policies.
>
>That is why if we are
>to be successful in Afghanistan,
>we had better NOT put
>the Northern Alliance into power
>but instead help bring about
>a western-style government with the
>backing of our military power
>and influence. We need
>to establish trade relations with
>that government, bring social change,
>and develope their infrastructure.
>GW Bush complained that we,
>as the United States spend
>too much time as "Nation
>Builders" but the truth is,
>the only reason we've seen
>such crap from that is
>that we never finish the
>job and we let the
>first "pro-America" or "not-the-enemy" regime
>take power and we call
>it a job well done.
>
>
>If we are to come out
>of this war the good
>guys we need to take
>Afghanistan in our arms and
>make it a useful, industrialized
>nation that is not left
>out to dry once we've
>found and killed our target.
>
>
>Imagine if we had done that
>with Iraq? Not only
>would we have had an
>"oil buddy," we would've had
>a foot in the door
>of the Arab world in
>terms of openness, understanding, and
>not only that, a place
>where we could jumpstart other
>such campaigns in other nations.
>
>
>If we are truly what we
>preach, we will go out
>like missionaries and spread the
>word and bring about social
>change in other nations.
>Without that we will never
>be understood, except by those
>who are angry with us
>for not creating that change.
>
>
>-Xotor-
>


First of all I'd like to say I did my reply to Kharn before reading yours. Secondly, alas, I agree with you. America does support a lot of countries that have 'up the creek' values.

And America is hypocritical etc... etc... But what else can you do? It's interesting the thing you said about Kuwait (never knew that, drilling sideways, hah!) but it is typical.

America doesn't have the power to overthrow the 'evil' in the world. China and many other countries are just far too capable of causing serious damage to America. So America doesn't want a war it can't win. (Which is presumably why they're picking on Afghanistan). That said, though, America is presumably doing a good thing by removing the Taliban then? From what you said.

America could really use its influence and set up some kind of 'shrine to all things good' in the middle east. A country where boatloads of people wouldn't arrive on my countrys' (Australias) doorstep every week.

But I want to point out that military action is the only way to do this.


DarkUnderlord
---------------------
Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)
 
RE: Policy Change

Again, back to square one.

Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. These people have hated America for a LONG time, and nothing is going to change it. In fact, many of those in the middle-east are a bit scared of too much US influence as it would disrupt their way of life and numerous petty laws and that sort of thing. It's the cultural clash present when people that believe women are dirt face people who think the opposite.

So Kharn can go waving his daisy-chains all he wants, it still doesn't remove the fact that no matter what else that has been done, it's not worked at all. Diplomacy and whatever, it has not worked.

So, like cancer, when the tumor becomes malignant, it's time for a little bit of 'surgery'. Of course, there is a danger of some civilian casualties, but when a group is executing civilians on their own for very little use and most of the money in the country is going to make one organisation fatter while the rest of the people starve...

For fuck's sake, Kharn. Stop making it sound like the US is bombing civilians. Last I knew, that was the terrorist's agenda. If the US didn't give a shit, why would they be distributing food to people who haven't eaten in a long time due to the country being raped in the past and is still feeling a political, economic, and literal rape by the group in power?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html

Sure, let's talk nice-nice to the Taliban.

Kharn, you're getting about as ridiculous as Terra Fuckwit.
 
RE: Policy Change

"Killing Osama bin Laden will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire comrades to take hostages to demand his release. Therefore, I suggest we do neither. Let the Special Forces, Seals, or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital, and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex-change operation. Then we return her to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban."

-author unknown

Would be a fitting treatment.

http://tihlde.org/~larstr/wtc/twomen.jpg

How true, for most Arabic countries.

Or, even worse...

http://tihlde.org/~larstr/wtc/Osama3.jpg

Genetically cross him with Rowan Atkinson. That...that's horrible. Almost too evil to comprehend...
 
RE: Policy Change

>And America is hypocritical etc... etc...
>But what else can you
>do?

The truth is that there really isn't much we can do. We try, but when worst comes to worst, we're really only concerned about our own welfare, and that is understandable.

>America doesn't have the power to
>overthrow the 'evil' in the
>world.

No we don't, and it really isn't our job, but our support for some regimes is something we can withdraw. I for one would provide less support of Israel simply because it isn't worth much to us to provide that support. Maybe we should take a true neutral stance with them since they do have the capabilities to defend themselves. It is causing a lot more hardache than anything.

>China and many other
>countries are just far too
>capable of causing serious damage
>to America.

Argh! Why do people keep thinking that China or Korea or other communistic states have any stake in trying to cause the USA harm?!? They don't.

If anything they wouldn't give a DAMN if we started rooting out evil in other places in the world. Did China even voice any kind of opinion when we started bombing in Yugoslavia *before* their OWN structure was hit? Hardly.

And it isn't like China or those other nations could do anything to us even if we spent a lot of our resources "fighting evil." We've got the most capable army on the planet, and nothing less than a full-scale nuclear war will ever dethrone us.

>So America doesn't
>want a war it can't
>win.

Then why are we taking on this war against terrorism? Or how about the drug "war?" Wars are GREAT ways to dump resources and create jobs.

>(Which is presumably why
>they're picking on Afghanistan). That
>said, though, America is presumably
>doing a good thing by
>removing the Taliban then? From
>what you said.

No, I have no beef with the Taliban. I certainly prefer them above the Northern Alliance. *I'm* saying that if we're in the business of removing the Taliban for whatever reason, we should at least establish our own government under our standards (including their's too), not just leave it a smouldering crater and let them figure it all out.

>But I want to point out
>that military action is the
>only way to do this.

But it can't be the only way.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Policy Change

Exactly.

Everyone is fanatically talking about stopping terrorism, killing Bin Laden (who, indeed, has not been proven guilty. From what I heard, even the world leaders that DID get to see the evidence, didn't get to see it for long. They got to spend 1 hour with a book of hundreds of pages. Yippeee) and dismantling Al'Kaida.

I think Jan Marijnissen stated it best: "In my opinion, effective morality is more important than pure morality. If you go and do something because you consider it morally correct, and it is morally correct, but you don't look at the consequences it has, you may look back later and find you acted very immorally."

And this discussion should really about what these actions will have for effect. The moral correctness is no longer an issue, everyone is evil now, what's important is who will be good in the end.

The three goals now seem to be 1) dismantling the Taliban 2) killing Bin Laden and 3) dismantling Al'Kaida. Let's look at howl likely it is to get those goals:

1) This goal is harder to reach than some people think. You have to understand what the Taliban ("Koran students") are about. They are relatively young men, with the 40-year olds being considered veterans, but this doesn't make them inexperienced.

These are people that know nothing but war. I think Ahmed Rashid described them best: "These boys descended from a generation that had never known piece in the country - an Afghanistan that wasn't at war with foreign armies and itself. They had no memories of their tribe, their elders, their neighbours, nor to the etnic melting pot of inhabitants of their villages and home country. These boys were what the war had created; they were tossed from the sea unto the beach of history"

The reason the Taliban was so sucesful in 1994 was that Afghanistan had just gone through 2 years of bloody civil war. This was a horrible period, everyone was killed at random, women and young boys were raped, nobody was sure of his property or life. Into this the Taliban stepped, the only "army" to propegate a belief, instead of "look at my gun and give me your money". They never stole any civilian's stuff, or killed anyone needlessly, or raped any women. This carried them forward on a wave of popularity and they moved as a storm through the country.

Their support from the people has diminished heavily, but hasn't dissapeared. They're not opressors that everyone wants to get rid off. A lot of people aren't happy with them, but a lot of people are, especially if they remember the state Afghanistan was in before them.

You can't just go in and "remove" leaders like them. Afghanistan is one of the most unhospitable countries in the world and it is theirs. If it comes to a person-to-person battle, the American "superior training and equipment" will fail, and it will be 10 Western soldiers dead against every Taliban dead (they've done it before, they once beat an army of one warlord with 70 deaths on his side and 1 on theirs).

And if you remove them, what then? If America "forces" Western policies on this country, they'll likely be hated for it. If they put one other party in control, the situation of 1994 will return. The party will abuse the country worse than the Taliban did, their popularity will return and they'll come back as leaders (don't think for one instant you can kill them all. Heck, we haven't caught "all German war criminals" to this date, and they're living/lived in OUR OWN TERITORY", don't think for one instant you can get the whole Taliban).

It's a very dangerous game America is playing. I trust Powell is smart enough to resolve this, though (that man's got some brains under his belt).

Probably the best thing to do after "removing" the Taliban is instituting a ISLAMIC form of government (council of village elders, etc.), maybe partially Westernised, but NOT a complete Western government. The muslims would just see that as an attack on their own way of life and independance, and they would revolt. Not everyone wants "democracy", I think they would just want a fair government, created by their own islamic rules (remember, the islam ties government and belief together very strongly), and maybe, very carefully, kept in check by Western forces.

2) As your own secretary of defense stated: "Capturing Bin Laden will be very difficult. He is a rich man and has many countries to flee to" or the like.

Heck, I'd be surprised if Osama is even still in Afghanistan right now!

Capturing Osama would take an extreme stroke of luck, or a wave of death and war being carried through the entire world for the next decennia, and nobody is willing to do that just to capture one man.

Let's face it: Capturing Osama is difficult or impossible.

3) Al'Kaida can't be easily dismantled either. It was recently stated that they were "spread over at least 20 countries". 50 is more like it, if you ask me, including the USA.

Terrorist organisations aren't like a form of government like the Taliban...They can't be captured, dismantled, dethroned. A year after you think "Now we have the entire Al'Kaida network" a building will spontaneously explode somewhere.

Heck, I'd be impressed if the USA manages to even dismantle the cells in Afghanistan, but they'll never, ever manage to dismantle the whole Al'Kaida.

He, even if you dismantled the whole organisation, it would relive years later on the memory of heroes, and there are many, many more terrorist organisations, so...

Realistically speaking, I think the USA might just manage to overthrow the Taliban (though, most likely, it'll only get a fraction of Afhanistan, with the Taliban holding the rest) and truthfully, though I admire the people (they remind me of the ancient people of Sparta. Raised for war from day one, the truly tough elite of the world), what they're doing is evil, and should be stopped, and I suppose it is worth the cassualties is making.

Doing that, though, will take everything America has for at least the coming half year. As I pointed out above, America may have an impressive fighting force, but removing these people is not something done easily, they're legends, ghosts, soldiers with fanatic belief, and their status among the people could easily have an effect of "kill one and two more appear".

So "war against terrorism"? Sad as it may be, this (removing terrorism) is a goal that can't be achieved by anyone, let alone a nation removed far from the "source of the problem". So I suppose this war is a good thing, PROVIDED it is handled properly afterwards, but the whole mentality of "let's get dem terrorists" is unfounded and those who truly believe this will result in the end of the Al'Kaida are sadly mistaking.

PS: Xotor...

"No, I have no beef with the Taliban. I certainly prefer them above the Northern Alliance. *I'm* saying that if we're in the business of removing the Taliban for whatever reason, we should at least establish our own government under our standards (including their's too), not just leave it a smouldering crater and let them figure it all out."

I don't agree with this. These are people with a whole different set of values than us. They don't give two cents of a fuck about our "freedom" and "democracy" and if we go in their waving our guns and shouting "we will show you the path to liberation" they are most likely to think "Oh God, not more dictators" and attack us, with their nails and teeth, if necessary.

It is not important for these people to be "free", these are people that have known nothing but death since the day they were born, and free is only an abstract value. If you've seen enough people getting killed in your life, you will understand that it has no value to anyone, except those comfortable enough to care about it (read: the Western world). This is why the Taliban is still in power there.

What these people want is simple. They want to be able to believe what they want to believe (which is what the Taliban feeds on, and which is why the Northern Alliance is still there, feeding from shiitism, which the Taliban will never accept) and they want to live. It isn't really any concern of their who rules, as long as he allows them that much.

And that's why "we should at least establish our own government under our standards (including their's too)" is wrong, and would result in nothing less than another bloody civil war.

These people need to be allowed the freedom to have their own government, run by mullahs and sjeiks. The best system for them would probably be a simple leader (president) with executive power, who is checked by a council (senate) of mullahs (tribe leaders). The only change we might make is to make a system to elect the mullahs, which I'm not sure they have now, and to expand the power of the mullahs (who have no real power now).

This is basically the system they had when Ahmad Shah Abdali was elected king in 1761, in a Loya Jirga of tribe leaders. And it worked, very very well (until the last king, Zahir Shah, was overthrown in 1973). From what I understand, the system had corrupted by then, and they had reasonably good reason to overthrow him, but it's a system that could work for a country like this.

What's more important is that it would work better and meet with less resistance than if we tried to "force" our own system upon them, adding just a few of their values and, in effect, giving them little choice or freedom, which is what you seem to propose.

Best thing to do after this is over is that. Give the Afghans the idea that they're not being changed, that the Western World isn't doing anything with them, but that they're simply returning to the system they got from Ahmed Shah Abdali (note: Ahmed Shah Abdali is considered a "saint" by muslims, especially in Afghanistan, if used properly, that fact will allow for this system to be integrated peacefully)
 
RE: Policy Change

>PS: Xotor...
>
>"No, I have no beef with
>the Taliban. I certainly prefer
>them above the Northern Alliance.
>*I'm* saying that if we're
>in the business of removing
>the Taliban for whatever reason,
>we should at least establish
>our own government under our
>standards (including their's too), not
>just leave it a smouldering
>crater and let them figure
>it all out."
>
>I don't agree with this. These
>are people with a whole
>different set of values than
>us. They don't give two
>cents of a fuck about
>our "freedom" and "democracy" and
>if we go in their
>waving our guns and shouting
>"we will show you the
>path to liberation" they are
>most likely to think "Oh
>God, not more dictators" and
>attack us, with their nails
>and teeth, if necessary.

On the contrary, many of the citizens who have access to worldwide television admire and envy the American way of life. I remember hearing (sadly) that the most popular show for people in Palestine is "Baywatch," a show that most Americans revile.

If they don't want our form of "freedom" they haven't had access to view it. In states like Palestine where satellite dishes dot the landscape, the people love the American way of life, citing that it is a confident, care-free way of life (from the sitcoms they see), but what they really don't like about the USA is while we have all this freedom loving-ness, we don't help overthrow oppressive regimes like their own governments or in many eyes, Israel.

They are not willing to give up their American products, their name brands, their "American dress," but they hate us for the fact that we don't bring it to them. It is a love-hate relationship.

Any anti-freedom people have been brainwashed by their leaders and situation.

>It is not important for these
>people to be "free",

Or is it that they have nothing to compare "free" to?

>these
>are people that have known
>nothing but death since the
>day they were born, and
>free is only an abstract
>value.

And when their eyes have been opened?

>If you've seen enough
>people getting killed in your
>life, you will understand that
>it has no value to
>anyone, except those comfortable enough
>to care about it (read:
>the Western world). This is
>why the Taliban is still
>in power there.

The Taliban maintains its power by enforcing a lack of information. The people who even have TVs and the like aren't ALLOWED to see what the outside world is like. Do you think we're using jets to send out radio transmissions because we're trying to block the airwaves over Afghanistan? No, we're delivering messages they can't receive anyway. Why do you think those missionaries are being held for trying to convert Muslims? They don't LIKE outside ideas and they will keep them out by whatever means possible.

>What these people want is simple.
>They want to be able
>to believe what they want
>to believe (which is what
>the Taliban feeds on, and

I hardly think that the people their are simply content to live out a simple life if they've see what it is like on the "other side." It is like the country boy going to the big city, he fears it because he doesn't understand it, and if he knew more about the big city, he would want to become part of it.

>which is why the Northern
>Alliance is still there, feeding
>from shiitism, which the Taliban
>will never accept) and they
>want to live. It isn't
>really any concern of their
>who rules, as long as
>he allows them that much.

To think that they want a simple life is really narrow minded.

I think "survival" and "making a suitable life out of life" is higher on their priority list than merely having the right to free religion. Afghanistan is probably the most desolate area on the planet next to Sibera and Tibet, these people probably want a better life than scrounging about on the dead land that makes up most of Afghanistan.

I am sure they would appreciate a government that would take care of them rather than merely saying they're in charge, and sitting on their asses.

>And that's why "we should at
>least establish our own government
>under our standards (including their's
>too)" is wrong, and would
>result in nothing less than
>another bloody civil war.

Would it? Against who? After you remove the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, who is left? The powerless populace? Why WOULD they oppose a government who's purpose is to restore order, peace, and relative prosperity? Do not these people want jobs, a peaceful way of life, and a less oppressive government? Would not industrializing the nation be a good thing in that it would provide jobs, an economic infrastructure, and improve the standard of living? If anyone has voted "no" they know no better.

>These people need to be allowed
>the freedom to have their
>own government, run by mullahs
>and sjeiks.

Oh that's really romantic Kharn, but who's going to go in an enforce that system? Who is going to provide that government with the power and economic infrastructure to maintain power?

Is it not our goal, if not our obligation, to help rebuild this broken nation after we've kicked it down? Do we not want a Western-friendly government in place so that we don't get another Taliban? No we don't want a puppet government, but at least we should have a government created by the people, under our influence. We should bring about something like what became of South Africa, a government established much like our own, but of their people, by their people, and a government we have influence over.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
*grins* taken from the onion.

HIJACKERS SURPRISED TO FIND THEIRSELVES IN HELL
'We Expected Eternal Paradise For This,' Say Suicide Bombers

JAHANNEM, OUTER DARKNESS—The hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon expressed confusion and surprise Monday to find themselves in the lowest plane of Na'ar, Islam's Hell.

"I was promised I would spend eternity in Paradise, being fed honeyed cakes by 67 virgins in a tree-lined garden, if only I would fly the airplane into one of the Twin Towers," said Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, between attempts to vomit up the wasps, hornets, and live coals infesting his stomach. "But instead, I am fed the boiling feces of traitors by malicious, laughing Ifrit. Is this to be my reward for destroying the enemies of my faith?"

The rest of Atta's words turned to raw-throated shrieks, as a tusked, asp-tongued demon burst his eyeballs and drank the fluid that ran down his face.

According to Hell sources, the 19 eternally damned terrorists have struggled to understand why they have been subjected to soul-withering, infernal torture ever since their Sept. 11 arrival.

"There was a tumultuous conflagration of burning steel and fuel at our gates, and from it stepped forth these hijackers, the blessed name of the Lord already turning to molten brass on their accursed lips," said Iblis The Thrice-Damned, the cacodemon charged with conscripting new arrivals into the ranks of the forgotten. "Indeed, I do not know what they were expecting, but they certainly didn't seem prepared to be skewered from eye socket to bunghole and then placed on a spit so that their flesh could be roasted by the searing gale of flatus which issues forth from the haunches of Asmoday."

"Which is strange when you consider the evil with which they ended their lives and those of so many others," added Iblis, absentmindedly twisting the limbs of hijacker Abdul Aziz Alomari into unspeakably obscene shapes.

"I was told that these Americans were enemies of the one true religion, and that Heaven would be my reward for my noble sacrifice," said Alomari, moments before his jaw was sheared away by faceless homunculi. "But now I am forced to suckle from the 16 poisoned leathern teats of Gophahmet, Whore of Betrayal, until I burst from an unwholesome engorgement of curdled bile. This must be some sort of terrible mistake."

Exacerbating the terrorists' tortures, which include being hollowed out and used as prophylactics by thorn-cocked Gulbuth The Rampant, is the fact that they will be forced to endure such suffering in sight of the Paradise they were expecting.

"It might actually be the most painful thing we can do, to show these murderers the untold pleasures that would have awaited them in Paradise, if only they had lived pious lives," said Praxitas, Duke of Those Willingly Led Astray. "I mean, it's tough enough being forced through a wire screen by the callused palms of Halcorym and then having your entrails wound onto a stick and fed to the toothless, foul-breathed swine of Gehenna. But to endure that while watching the righteous drink from a river of wine? That can't be fun."

Underworld officials said they have not yet decided on a permanent punishment for the terrorists.

"Eventually, we'll settle on an eternal and unending task for them," said Lord Androalphus, High Praetor of Excruciations. "But for now, everyone down here wants a crack at them. The legions of fang-wombed hags will take their pleasure on their shattered carcasses for most of this afternoon. Tomorrow, their flesh will be melted from their bones like wax in the burning embrace of the Mother of Cowards. The day after that, they'll be sodomized by the Fallen and their bowels shredded by a demonic ejaculate of burning sand. Then, on Sunday, Satan gets them all day. I can't even imagine what he's got cooked up for them."



"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top