Bin laden: freedom fighter?

[Guest]

This is a revised post I wrote about six months ago on the old Smarks Board and seeing how this board seems to have loads of new people and far more right wing I thought I'd post it again (plus I posted in the Smarks Krew orginally).

It sums up pretty well my feelings on the "War on Terror" and it's "moral" is espeacilly relevant to the current Israel/ Palenstian crisis.

I'd enjoy all feedback either on the opinons expressed or how I wrote it/ how my style could be improved.

 

 

When is a Terrorist is a Terrorist?

When is a Freedom Fighter is a Freedom Fighter?

 

These two questions blow apart the so-called “War on Terrorism” and Blair’s New World Order wide open. It’s fairly easy to decide what a terrorist action is i.e. Sept 11. Bombings, Israel bombing Palestine buildings or America bombing Al Jazzera’s Afghan studio.

 

What is more difficult is to decide who is a terrorist, because it is a subjective insult there is no such thing as a universal definition of “terrorist”. Whether you think a group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter entirely depends on your political bias. The USA’s recent attempt to right such a definition has already resulted in a difference being made between “Good Terrorists” and “BAD Terrorists” and has also been manipulated by both Russia and India to clampdown on their Islamic Separatists. The fact is some people thought of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, the British authorities called Ghandi a terrorist and some Americans STILL see the IRA as Freedom Fighters fighting the Colonial rule of the fascist British.

 

Just look at Bin Laden; as we see him as an evil man attacking democracy while alot of the Arab world sees him as fighting American Imperialism and if you look at the objectives of Al Queada they don’t look so bad:

 

1. Overthrowing the corrupt Saudi regime

2. America to stop the illegal bombing and the sanctions on Iraq

3. The creation of a Palestinian State

4. Referendum on the status of Kashmir

5. Chechnya to gain independence from Russia

 

Now out of those 3 of them (3-5) concern the self-determination of a group of people. One of them concerns the overthrow of an autocratic, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship (propped up by the US) and at least two are in compliance with two UN resolutions (2 and 4).

 

Now if a terrorist organization with these aims had been presented to you and if you didn’t know it was Al’Queda you would probably support them. You will find in all five of them the local people will support what Al’Queda are trying to achieve, hell I do and I’ve been a Tory since I was 9.

 

There is no doubt that Bin Laden was fueled by a racist hatred of America although he has several legitimate reasons, which are:

 

1. America propping up the Saudi regime

2. America bombing and sanctions* on Iraq

3. America abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet war.

4. America’s funding and support of Israel

 

*Their UN sanctions but of the five permanent members of the Security Council only the USA and the UK take any notice of them.

 

The fact is no matter how evil Sept 11 was you can easily argue that Al’ Quada had good reasons for doing so; he was not attacking democracy but in their eyes striking back at America for all the things America’s done to the Arab world.

Let’s also cut the bullshit about democraticry and human rights, the fact is that in the Muslim world only one country has a stable democracy and that is Turkey. The rest of them are ruled by dictators, a lot of them propped up by America. And even if they did it wouldn’t matter, as western bankers will be telling their democratically elected governments how to run their economies. We left the only the bullet as a means for these people to make a difference and that is what people like Bin Laden feed from.

 

So what’s my point? Well go back to your History lessons; go back to the Numberg trials or the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. What are we spoon-fed? That as what the Allies did was wrong and hurt innocent people but it was for a good and honest cause so it was excusable (which was a lie anyway). Well the fact is Bin Laden and his followers believe that they are in the right so don’t they have the right to take the nessacry actions so good triumphs?

 

The fact is in a War of absolutes there is no room for compassion, there is no room for innocents, there is no room for causalities; they are all just collateral damage.

 

Bush

Bin Laden

Heads?

Tails?

 

 

It's a dangerous idea to suggest that Bin Laden and Bush are morally equal and I don't myself believe they are, but I'd like  add some points that have came to my notice during the past six months:

 

All these points (except 4) assume moral equality between Al'Queda and the USA. I know deep breaths, relax.

 

1) It's now likely that more people were killed in the American Campagin than in the Sept 11th bombings (now less than 3,000) so by just the math surely America's the worser party?.

 

2) America stuck a TV Station, Power Plants and other typical civialan buildings saying that these were supporting the Tailban's war effort.

By this reckoning then the attacks on the WTC was justified as this was a key part of America's Captialist Project and of course the Pentagon (although its more the civil service wing of the miltary) and Camp David are both Miltary/ Political sites.

 

3) America claims that anyone signed up to the Tailban was as good as a member of Al' Queada, they were one and the same (contradicted by giving the two different treatment at Camp X-Ray) so they were at war with America not milta in a civil war.

However this mirrors the Islamist excuse for the civilan deaths caused by Sept 11th, that as Al' Queada was striking against American Captialism/ Imperialism then as most Americans support this system and those who don't probably have "loose morals" that Al'Queada is also fighting against then these are just cogs in the machine and are just as much a part of the war effort as a Stealth Bomber Pilot.

 

4)The right wing commentator Simon Jenkins said about two months ago that most experts were saying that a two month seige with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on board would have resulted in Bin Laden being served up on a plate and a moderate Pastun government in its place. So was the 4,000 dead in Afghanstan worth it when you still haven't found Bin Laden and are being sucked into a 5 year gurrellia war (UK Amry Sources)?

 

I'd challenged anybody to answer these points (espeacially 1-3) without falling back on their bad guys we're good guys. We know that but it's lazy and simpilistic. Better standards are expected of states espeacially one as powerful and rightoeus as America. Just saying "Yeah well they did that..." is childish in the extreme.

 

Lots of Love

Will

xxx

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<This is a revised post I wrote about six months ago on the old Smarks Board and seeing how this board seems to have loads of new people and far more right wing I thought I'd post it again (plus I posted in the Smarks Krew orginally).

It sums up pretty well my feelings on the "War on Terror" and it's "moral" is espeacilly relevant to the current Israel/ Palenstian crisis.

I'd enjoy all feedback either on the opinons expressed or how I wrote it/ how my style could be improved.

 

 

When is a Terrorist is a Terrorist?

When is a Freedom Fighter is a Freedom Fighter?

 

These two questions blow apart the so-called “War on Terrorism” and Blair’s New World Order wide open. It’s fairly easy to decide what a terrorist action is i.e. Sept 11. Bombings, Israel bombing Palestine buildings or America bombing Al Jazzera’s Afghan studio.>>>

 

 

Hmmm, the homicide bombers from Palestine don't get mentioned in this list. Interesting.

 

 

<<<What is more difficult is to decide who is a terrorist, because it is a subjective insult there is no such thing as a universal definition of “terrorist”. Whether you think a group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter entirely depends on your political bias. The USA’s recent attempt to right such a definition has already resulted in a difference being made between “Good Terrorists” and “BAD Terrorists” and has also been manipulated by both Russia and India to clampdown on their Islamic Separatists. The fact is some people thought of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, the British authorities called Ghandi a terrorist and some Americans STILL see the IRA as Freedom Fighters fighting the Colonial rule of the fascist British.

 

Just look at Bin Laden; as we see him as an evil man attacking democracy while alot of the Arab world sees him as fighting American Imperialism and if you look at the objectives of Al Queada they don’t look so bad:

 

1. Overthrowing the corrupt Saudi regime

2. America to stop the illegal bombing and the sanctions on Iraq>>>

 

 

Sanctions aren't illegal and the bombings were done when Iraq VIOLATED the cease-fire.

 

 

<<<3. The creation of a Palestinian State>>>

 

 

Let's go ahead and say it---the last thing in the world Arafat wants is a Palestinian state. Yassir desperately does NOT want a state for his people.

 

 

<<<4. Referendum on the status of Kashmir

5. Chechnya to gain independence from Russia

 

Now out of those 3 of them (3-5) concern the self-determination of a group of people. One of them concerns the overthrow of an autocratic, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship (propped up by the US) and at least two are in compliance with two UN resolutions (2 and 4).>>>

 

 

Iraq's violations of the ceasefire (gee, how are those weapons inspections going, anyway?) make #2 a necessity. Iraq is KNOWN (for a fact) to have actively pursued biological weaponry before they invaded Kuwait and kept trying for it afterwards.

 

 

<<<Now if a terrorist organization with these aims had been presented to you and if you didn’t know it was Al’Queda you would probably support them. You will find in all five of them the local people will support what Al’Queda are trying to achieve, hell I do and I’ve been a Tory since I was 9.>>>

 

 

A group's ACTIONS mean far more to me than their expressed desires.

 

 

<<<There is no doubt that Bin Laden was fueled by a racist hatred of America although he has several legitimate reasons, which are:

 

1. America propping up the Saudi regime

2. America bombing and sanctions* on Iraq>>>

 

 

Iraq has repeatedly violated the terms of the cease-fire that kept us from ousting Saddam in the first place.

 

 

<<<3. America abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet war.>>>

 

 

Why in the world SHOULD America support Afghanistan after the war? I thought a big part of his beef was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Would he suddenly not mind our presence in Afghanistan?

 

 

<<<4. America’s funding and support of Israel>>

 

 

He will have to get over that.

 

 

<<<*Their UN sanctions but of the five permanent members of the Security Council only the USA and the UK take any notice of them.>>>

 

 

Then the rest of the permanent members are wrong. Just because most people do the wrong thing does not make the ones who are doing the right thing incorrect.

 

 

<<<The fact is no matter how evil Sept 11 was you can easily argue that Al’ Quada had good reasons for doing so;>>>

 

 

No, you absolutely cannot. They killed innocent civilians.

 

 

<<<he was not attacking democracy but in their eyes striking back at America for all the things America’s done to the Arab world. >>>

 

 

Then those idiots are wrong and their extinction will only be a bonus for the world-at-large.

 

 

<<<Let’s also cut the bullshit about democraticry and human rights, the fact is that in the Muslim world only one country has a stable democracy and that is Turkey. The rest of them are ruled by dictators, a lot of them propped up by America.>>>

 

 

And I say we abandon ALL of them. Let Saudi Arabia twist in the wind. Screw the Kuwaitis. Abandon Egypt. Cozy up to Turkey, keep Israel propped up, and let the rest of the Muslim world wallow in misery.

 

 

<<<And even if they did it wouldn’t matter, as western bankers will be telling their democratically elected governments how to run their economies. We left the only the bullet as a means for these people to make a difference and that is what people like Bin Laden feed from.

 

So what’s my point? Well go back to your History lessons; go back to the Numberg trials or the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. What are we spoon-fed? That as what the Allies did was wrong and hurt innocent people but it was for a good and honest cause so it was excusable (which was a lie anyway).>>>

 

 

The Nuremberg trials were the punishment of people who committed unspeakable evil on the world.

 

The bombings of Japan saved lives on both sides.

 

 

<<<Well the fact is Bin Laden and his followers believe that they are in the right so don’t they have the right to take the nessacry actions so good triumphs?>>>

 

 

Nope. You seem to forget that the U.S didn't bomb Japan out of the blue. We were attacked and at war long before the nukes were rightly dropped.

 

 

<<<The fact is in a War of absolutes there is no room for compassion, there is no room for innocents, there is no room for causalities; they are all just collateral damage.

 

Bush

Bin Laden

Heads?

Tails?>>>

 

 

Hmm, Bush is pro-democracy; Bush didn't have American pilots fly planes into buildings to kill thousands of innocents in a cowardly sneak attack---they're not even close.

 

 

<<<It's a dangerous idea to suggest that Bin Laden and Bush are morally equal and I don't myself believe they are, but I'd like  add some points that have came to my notice during the past six months:

 

All these points (except 4) assume moral equality between Al'Queda and the USA. I know deep breaths, relax.

 

1) It's now likely that more people were killed in the American Campagin than in the Sept 11th bombings (now less than 3,000) so by just the math surely America's the worser party?.>>>

 

 

Nope. EVERY death in Afghanistan is the fault of the terrorists who hide amongst the people---and the terrorists INITIATED the conflict.

 

 

<<<2) America stuck a TV Station, Power Plants and other typical civialan buildings saying that these were supporting the Tailban's war effort.>>>

 

 

Yup, they did. Of course, if the U.S wasn't attacked, none of this would be happening.

 

 

<<<By this reckoning then the attacks on the WTC was justified as this was a key part of America's Captialist Project and of course the Pentagon (although its more the civil service wing of the miltary) and Camp David are both Miltary/ Political sites.>>>

 

 

That is laughable, at best. The Taliban claims to be doing it for the good of Muslims---how many Muslims died in the WTC? Any guesses?

 

Who FED Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled the country? Why, the West, led by America.

 

 

<<<3) America claims that anyone signed up to the Tailban was as good as a member of Al' Queada, they were one and the same (contradicted by giving the two different treatment at Camp X-Ray) so they were at war with America not milta in a civil war.>>>

 

 

Yup. And it's a fair comment.

 

 

<<<However this mirrors the Islamist excuse for the civilan deaths caused by Sept 11th, that as Al' Queada was striking against American Captialism/ Imperialism then as most Americans support this system and those who don't probably have "loose morals" that Al'Queada is also fighting against then these are just cogs in the machine and are just as much a part of the war effort as a Stealth Bomber Pilot.>>>

 

 

World of difference in opposing a group that masterminded the massacre of thousands of your people and opposing a group because you don't like their morals.

 

We NEVER liked the Taliban's actions. We've thought they were bad people for a while now.

 

Had they not attacked us, though, we would have never bothered them.

 

 

<<<4)The right wing commentator Simon Jenkins said about two months ago that most experts were saying that a two month seige with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on board would have resulted in Bin Laden being served up on a plate and a moderate Pastun government in its place. So was the 4,000 dead in Afghanstan worth it when you still haven't found Bin Laden and are being sucked into a 5 year gurrellia war (UK Amry Sources)?>>>

 

 

Absolutely. bin Laden isn't the key. Heck, bin Laden couldn't pull off an attack like 9/11 again if he wanted to. (he lacks the money and personnel). Heck, nobody has seen bin Laden since December (the most recent video of him was shot months ago) so he might well be dead.

 

We're at war with a group of people who don't mind killing young children and women. It's not going to be a quick campaign.

 

 

<<<I'd challenged anybody to answer these points (espeacially 1-3) without falling back on their bad guys we're good guys. We know that but it's lazy and simpilistic. Better standards are expected of states espeacially one as powerful and rightoeus as America. Just saying "Yeah well they did that..." is childish in the extreme.>>>

 

 

In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists.

                                 -=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists.

                                -=Mike

 

 

other than the four canadians the americans killed. (The first time in nearly half a century that Canadian soldiers have died in combat.

[Guest Some Guy]

These two questions blow apart the so-called “War on Terrorism” and Blair’s New World Order wide open. It’s fairly easy to decide what a terrorist action is i.e. Sept 11. Bombings, Israel bombing Palestine buildings or America bombing Al Jazzera’s Afghan studio.

 

I agree with the 1st, Israel is retaliating to Palestinian Homocide bombers and terrorism, as Mike said it is interesting that you didn't mention this, Al Jazzera is an enemy of the US, through their channel they spew hatred and promote violence against America and Israel, so I have no problem with them being bombed.

 

Lots of love,

Some Guy

xxx

 

The USA’s recent attempt to right such a definition

 

should be "Write" not "right", I'm not being a wise ass, you asked for feedback.

 

Just look at Bin Laden; as we see him as an evil man attacking democracy while alot of the Arab world sees him as fighting American Imperialism and if you look at the objectives of Al Queada they don’t look so bad:

 

1. Overthrowing the corrupt Saudi regime

2. America to stop the illegal bombing and the sanctions on Iraq

3. The creation of a Palestinian State

4. Referendum on the status of Kashmir

5. Chechnya to gain independence from Russia

 

He *IS* an evil man attacking Democracy. You forgat to list killing all Americans, Jews, and non-fundamentalist Muslims onm his list of objectives.

 

Well the fact is Bin Laden and his followers believe that they are in the right so don’t they have the right to take the nessacry actions so good triumphs?

 

No.  Hitler thought he was in the right too, does that make him noble some how?

 

1) It's now likely that more people were killed in the American Campagin than in the Sept 11th bombings (now less than 3,000) so by just the math surely America's the worser party?.

 

No, they started a war and we are winning it.

 

2) America stuck a TV Station, Power Plants and other typical civialan buildings saying that these were supporting the Tailban's war effort.

By this reckoning then the attacks on the WTC was justified as this was a key part of America's Captialist Project and of course the Pentagon (although its more the civil service wing of the miltary) and Camp David are both Miltary/ Political sites.

 

Once again, they started the war, we are retaliating to degree we feel necessary.  If we started the war and it was then fought on American soil than they would be legitimate targets, but as such we didn't, so they aren't.

 

3) America claims that anyone signed up to the Tailban was as good as a member of Al' Queada, they were one and the same (contradicted by giving the two different treatment at Camp X-Ray) so they were at war with America not milta in a civil war.

 

They should all be treated the same, the only reason they aren't is because teh Lefists started crying about the (fair)treatment of terrorists and murderers.

 

4)The right wing commentator Simon Jenkins said about two months ago that most experts were saying that a two month seige with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on board would have resulted in Bin Laden being served up on a plate and a moderate Pastun government in its place. So was the 4,000 dead in Afghanstan worth it when you still haven't found Bin Laden and are being sucked into a 5 year gurrellia war (UK Amry Sources)?

 

What the President says is what matters and who you should listen to, a commentater gives an opinion, with out knowing for sure what he's talking about.  Bush said from the begining that this would take years.

 

I'd challenged anybody to answer these points (espeacially 1-3) without falling back on their bad guys we're good guys. We know that but it's lazy and simpilistic. Better standards are expected of states espeacially one as powerful and rightoeus as America. Just saying "Yeah well they did that..." is childish in the extreme.

 

It is not childish to state facts, it is not childish to realize that there is good and evil in this world, and it is not childish to recognize it.  

 

It's a dangerous idea to suggest that Bin Laden and Bush are morally equal and I don't myself believe they are, but I'd like  add some points that have came to my notice during the past six months:

All these points (except 4) assume moral equality between Al'Queda and the USA. I know deep breaths, relax.

 

What is it with leftists and "assuming moral equality"? I don't get it. Whats the point? Why not live in reality and realize what is right and what is wrong? I don't mean that as an insult, but as a real question, which I would like an answer to.  I've asked that question to people before and they start ripping apart America rather than answering it, so if that's what you're response would be, save it, I've heard it before.

[Guest]

In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists.

                                -=Mike

 

 

other than the four canadians the americans killed. (The first time in nearly half a century that Canadian soldiers have died in combat.

You could argue that it is the fault of the terrorists indirectly becasue those Canadians wouldnt even be there if not for the attacks. America did directly kill them but it was a complete accident.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

i'm not denying that it's an accident.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists.

                               -=Mike

 

 

other than the four canadians the americans killed. (The first time in nearly half a century that Canadian soldiers have died in combat. >>>

 

 

World of difference between accidental friendly fire and an intentional kill.

                      -=Mike

 

...And, again, if the terrorists didn't do what they did, nobody would be in Afghanistan---so that death is STILL their fault.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists.

                               -=Mike

 

 

other than the four canadians the americans killed. (The first time in nearly half a century that Canadian soldiers have died in combat. >>>

 

 

World of difference between accidental friendly fire and an intentional kill.

                      -=Mike

 

...And, again, if the terrorists didn't do what they did, nobody would be in Afghanistan---so that death is STILL their fault.

[Guest]

Oh, please. If a journalist goes to Afghanistan and steps on a landmine and dies, is that the terrorists' fault too? After all, the journalist wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks. Damn you, bin Laden!

Uh no, I don't think so. The Canadian deaths were the fault of the American pilot who dropped the 500 lb bomb. It still doesn't mean our military is, as a whole, evil, incompetent, or criminally careless. That sort of shit happens in wartime.

But it wasn't the terrorists' "fault." Assigning blame that way is downright delusional. Let's keep things clear, shall we? There are far more serious charges to bring against al Qaeda et al than nonsense like this.

[Guest muzanisa]

The American military's record of killing people in friendly fire incidents is actually pretty horrendous. The people who do it tend to get away with it as well.

Blaming Bin Laden for those deaths is really stretching it. If you're going to use cause and effect like that then you can go back to the dawn of time.

[Guest Bruin]

Okay, I see that this has changed into a conversation about Fratricide. It's a damn war, it happens. Do I suppose everyone is now going to bring up every single death that was made in EVERY war that was caused by their own allies? It's simply a lack of communication. Shit happens in times of war. Fratricide happens all the time. Anyway, can we get back onto the actual topic?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Oh, please. If a journalist goes to Afghanistan and steps on a landmine and dies, is that the terrorists' fault too?>>>

 

 

Absolutely.

 

If they didn't do what they did, nobody would be over there in the first place.

 

 

<<<After all, the journalist wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks. Damn you, bin Laden!

Uh no, I don't think so. The Canadian deaths were the fault of the American pilot who dropped the 500 lb bomb. It still doesn't mean our military is, as a whole, evil, incompetent, or criminally careless. That sort of shit happens in wartime.

But it wasn't the terrorists' "fault." Assigning blame that way is downright delusional.>>>

 

 

Absolutely not.

 

Again, the ONLY reason anybody is there is because the terrorists initiated the violence. All deaths are, thus, their fault.

 

 

<<<Let's keep things clear, shall we? There are far more serious charges to bring against al Qaeda et al than nonsense like this. >>>

 

 

You view this as nonsense. I view this as placing blame where it is appropriate.

                              -=Mike

[Guest]

You seem to be a little unclear on the concept of basic causality, Mike. "Fault" usually refers to direct responsibility. You can try to place blame wherever you wish, but you can't change the plain, simple, black and white facts by merely repeating "absolutely" a few times. That hypothetical landmine was probably left by the Soviets, not al Qaeda terrorists. And that very real bomb which killed four Canadians was dropped by an American pilot.

You're not even arguing for any actual point here; you're just redefining words to make yourself feel better. Pity it'll probably work.

[Guest DrTom]

Bin Laden is no freedom fighter; he is an evil, vile terrorist who places no value on human life and will kill as many people as he can while trying to accomplish his objectives.

 

Wantonly killing 3000+ innocent civilians does not make someone a freedom fighter.  It makes them a terrorist who should be executed with all available haste and prejudice.

 

No amount of moral relativism will change that.  Just because someone is following what the believe does not make them right.  Beliefs aren't holy, and if your beliefs happen to be the extermination of numerous peoples, then you should simply be shot in your fool fucking head and left to die in a ditch.

[Guest]

Yeah, what Tom and Some Guy said. I didn't bother to address the original topic because it seemed obvious that the entire column was written specifically in order to provoke a reaction, rather than as a serious argument for a valid position.

I'd really like to believe that even Will Cooling isn't that fucked in the head.

[Guest Some Guy]

Marney the landmine would be the USSR's fault for putting the mines there and teh Terrorist's fault for attacking America and hence drawing the Journalist over to Afghanistan to report on the war.  But I would also put some blame on the Journalist for being stupid enough to set foot on a warzone.  As far as the Canaidian deaths, 4 deaths pales in comparison to what America had to go through.  Canada is our ally, they chose to fight with us, and by choosing to fight with us they knew that the possibilty of accidental deaths were there.  It happens in every war on all sides.  It is sad when it happens, but certainly no reason to stop or curtail a just and effective war effort.

[Guest]

I agree completely; the dead Canadians aren't strategically significant. By no means am I saying that our military as a whole should beat itself up over them. But, nevertheless, al Qaeda didn't kill them. Come to that, you could make an equally valid argument that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews for failing to counter German cultural anti-Semitism, or for staying in Germany after Hitler came to power. It'd be stupid, annoying bullshit, of course, just like saying that bin Laden's directly responsible for the Canadian deaths.

[Guest Some Guy]

The Holocaust is far different from 4 dead Caniadians, you've extrapolated beyond reason here.  I didn't say it was all bin Laden's fault, the fault is split up between Amer., Canada, and the Terrorists, with the terrorists taking about 95%, the US 4%, and Canada 1%.  Those are arbitrary numbers, but resemble whose at fault pretty closely, IMO.

[Guest]

you've extrapolated beyond reason here.

Not at all. You're attributing direct consequence to indirectly related actions, and the parallel is exact. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of the Jews. Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. He is not responsible for the deaths of those Canadian soldiers. Not 95% of them, not 9% of them; not now, not ever.

All this stupid emotional crap denigrates the war effort and the genuine sacrifices made by military personnel. Soldiers go to war knowing damned well that they might die. There is no draft. These people volunteered for the job. Bin Laden isn't forcing them to go there and he bears no responsibility for their presence. What arrogant insulting nonsense. They're in Afghanistan of their own free will because they want to serve their country. If they are killed by the enemy, yes, that can be laid at bin Laden's door. If they die in a fucking accident, that has nothing to do with terrorism. Tell me, was that soldier who died in Virginia during a training exercise (shot by a local policeman unaware of the schedule) also a victim of bin Laden? They might not have conducted the drill if it weren't for 9/11... my God! It's true! We're all victims! Let's bitch and whine and maybe find someone to sue!

Christ Jesus. Just shut up. Osama bin Laden has far more serious things to answer for. Don't obscure his real crimes with this pissant shit.

[Guest]

<You could argue that it is the fault of the terrorists indirectly becasue those Canadians wouldnt even be there if not for the attacks. America did directly kill them but it was a complete accident.>

 

Personally I blame the Americans for doing such bussiness with the Bin Laden family that Osama could waste aload on his Jihad.

 

< In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists>

 

Say a giant is walking across the hills and by accident he steps on a house and kills 5 people, in retilation the townspeople attack the giant. Now who has initiated the violence; the giant for accidently stepping on those five people or the townspeople for attacking the giant?

 

I personally think its the giant as he caused the townspeople to react. Now if go to Bin Laden's followers are lead to believe that America is the cause of the Muslim world's problems (and you got to admit America's had a role to play) so they think that their action was in retilation to America's support of Israel, propping up of the Saudi Royal Family, etc so America and its actions is the first cause of the chain of events that climaxed in Sept 11th.  

 

<What is it with leftists and "assuming moral equality"? I don't get it. Whats the point? Why not live in reality and realize what is right and what is wrong? I don't mean that as an insult, but as a real question, which I would like an answer to.  I've asked that question to people before and they start ripping apart America rather than answering it, so if that's what you're response would be, save it, I've heard it before.>

 

The reason that you assume moral equality is that both sides think they are equally virtous and their cause equally just. So the only way to understand why this is happening and try and stop it is to assume moral equality. And this isn't some "leftist" thing Reegan did it with Britian and Argentina over the Falklands (when Britian was clearly in the right) and Clinton assumed moral equality between the Republicans and the Unionst despite being pro-republican. Both allowed America to play a part in peace neogations as an honest broker and in Ulster's case it achieved some results.

 

<Hmmm, the homicide bombers from Palestine don't get mentioned in this list. Interesting.>

 

Why? That by not mentioning them I don't think Sucide Bombing is a terrorist action? Okaaay!

 

Lots of LOVBE

Will

xxxx

[Guest]

Wonderful! MR. COOLING shows up just in time to contribute his invaluable and invariably ridiculous perspective on the issue.

Will, shut up, grow up, take your head out of your ass, and stick the goddamn "LOVBE" in your shoe. At the moment no one cares about Osama bin Laden's reasons for attacking the United States. Correcting your lame, simplisitic, and heavily prejudiced analogy would involve those townspeople going to another town which the giant protects and butchering 3000 completely innocent inhabitants, because they're too fucking cowardly to take on the giant. That is what happened. There is no moral defence.

We didn't start this fight. But we are going to finish it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<You could argue that it is the fault of the terrorists indirectly becasue those Canadians wouldnt even be there if not for the attacks. America did directly kill them but it was a complete accident.

 

Personally I blame the Americans for doing such bussiness with the Bin Laden family that Osama could waste aload on his Jihad.>>>

 

 

I's not America's fault when a one-time ally turns out to be a bad person.

 

 

<<< In the end, we're there because we were attacked. We did not INITIATE the violence and every single death in Afghanistan is solely the fault of the terrorists

 

Say a giant is walking across the hills and by accident he steps on a house and kills 5 people, in retilation the townspeople attack the giant. Now who has initiated the violence; the giant for accidently stepping on those five people or the townspeople for attacking the giant?>>>

 

 

Since the phras you used was "accidentally", then if the giant attempted to make amends it's not his fault. If he intentionally killed them, he's the one to blame for all of the subsequent violence.

 

Of course, America didn't do anything to initiate the violence here.

 

 

<<<I personally think its the giant as he caused the townspeople to react. Now if go to Bin Laden's followers are lead to believe that America is the cause of the Muslim world's problems (and you got to admit America's had a role to play)>>>

 

 

America has NOT had a role to play. America has had NOTHING to do with the nifty little despots in that area stealing all of the money from oil and allowing the citizenry to wallow in misery. America has had NOTHING to do with creating a press in those fiefdoms that is under as much gov't control as the Soviet news system back in their heyday.

 

And, in the end, America has done MORE to help Muslims than the Muslim states have. We fed Afganistan for years after the Taliban took power.

 

Where were their Muslim "brothers"?

 

We give tons of money to several countries.

 

Where are their Muslim "brothers"?

 

 

<<<so they think that their action was in retilation to America's support of Israel, propping up of the Saudi Royal Family, etc so America and its actions is the first cause of the chain of events that climaxed in Sept 11th.>>>

 

 

They'd be wrong and they're now being forced to learn the errors of their ways.

 

 

<<<What is it with leftists and "assuming moral equality"? I don't get it. Whats the point? Why not live in reality and realize what is right and what is wrong? I don't mean that as an insult, but as a real question, which I would like an answer to.  I've asked that question to people before and they start ripping apart America rather than answering it, so if that's what you're response would be, save it, I've heard it before.

 

The reason that you assume moral equality is that both sides think they are equally virtous and their cause equally just. So the only way to understand why this is happening and try and stop it is to assume moral equality. And this isn't some "leftist" thing Reegan did it with Britian and Argentina over the Falklands (when Britian was clearly in the right) and Clinton assumed moral equality between the Republicans and the Unionst despite being pro-republican. Both allowed America to play a part in peace neogations as an honest broker and in Ulster's case it achieved some results.>>>

 

 

When somebody attacks us out of the blue, there is no moral equivalence. They DESERVE every ounce of misery we choose to inflict upon them.

 

After all, they brought it upon themselves.

 

 

<<<Hmmm, the homicide bombers from Palestine don't get mentioned in this list. Interesting.

 

Why? That by not mentioning them I don't think Sucide Bombing is a terrorist action? Okaaay!>>>

 

 

It's just odd that you list the Israeli RESPONSE to the bombers---but not the act of the bombers.

                      -=Mike

[Guest Some Guy]

"Why? That by not mentioning them I don't think Sucide Bombing is a terrorist action? Okaaay!"

 

No, it's just rather conveniant that you neglected to mention the Homicide bombers, while you ripped America and Israel and stuck up for the Palestians and bin Laden. I suppose by your logic that since Israel would be "the giant" stepping on the Palestinians, then they are morally justified in killing Iraeli teenagers at a night club or children at school.  

BTW, drop the "Lots of LOVBE" and the "xxxx" shit, it's very condesending and won't help you gain any respect.

[Guest]

And, incidentally, if we're a "giant" (and/or "the Great Satan") why is it so surprising and shocking to these miserable little bastards when they get squashed? You want to pick a fight when you're completely outclassed, expect to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter. Morality aside (although we're acting with one hell of a lot of restraint and consideration), on 9/11 al Qaeda slapped an 800 lb gorilla in the face. They don't have any reason to whine now that they're being torn in half and smashed into bloody ruin. Just what the fuck did they expect? "Thanks so much for butchering our innocent civilians in vicious, cowardly sneak attacks; we now see the error of our ways and we'll revise our policies accordingly?" In this context the Israel/Palestine situation is exactly the same. And so is the message.

Surrender. Now. Or face the consequences.

[Guest Some Guy]

Allah will save them, I guess.

[Guest]

They can have Allah. I'll place my bets on a fleet of B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers and Apaches with JDAMs, 30mm autocannons, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes. Let their bloody Korans save them from real Hellfire.

[Guest Some Guy]

They can have Allah. I'll place my bets on a fleet of B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers and Apaches with JDAMs, 30mm autocannons, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes.

So would I.  I'll take tangible weapons over an invisible man in the sky any day.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<I agree completely; the dead Canadians aren't strategically significant. By no means am I saying that our military as a whole should beat itself up over them. But, nevertheless, al Qaeda didn't kill them. Come to that, you could make an equally valid argument that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews for failing to counter German cultural anti-Semitism, or for staying in Germany after Hitler came to power. >>>

 

 

1) The Jews were unable to counter anti-Semitism in Germany. It's not as if they ENJOYED it---and scarily enough, anti-Semitism is coming back in vogue amongst the more enlightened European countries.

 

2) Jews DID leave Germany by the truckloads. But unless they went to America, they were STILL out of luck. Europe (France was a major player here) couldn't WAIT to send off their Jews to get incinerated. Not all Jews left because not all Jews were able to leave.

 

 

<<<It'd be stupid, annoying bullshit, of course, just like saying that bin Laden's directly responsible for the Canadian deaths. >>>

 

 

If he didn't attack, Canada and the U.S wouldn't be there.

           -=Mike

[Guest]

You have more stamina for reiterating the same damn thing over and over again than I do, Mike. I've said everything I wanted to and you aren't answering it; you're ignoring it in favour of burning straw men. Fine. Have it your way.

We're in agreement on the fundamentals; I won't quibble over the irrelevant details. As Leonard Pitts said, "On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish."

We can hammer out the whys and the wherefores later, if anyone still cares.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

And, incidentally, if we're a "giant" (and/or "the Great Satan") why is it so surprising and shocking to these miserable little bastards when they get squashed? You want to pick a fight when you're completely outclassed, expect to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter. Morality aside (although we're acting with one hell of a lot of restraint and consideration), on 9/11 al Qaeda slapped an 800 lb gorilla in the face. They don't have any reason to whine now that they're being torn in half and smashed into bloody ruin. Just what the fuck did they expect? "Thanks so much for butchering our innocent civilians in vicious, cowardly sneak attacks; we now see the error of our ways and we'll revise our policies accordingly?" In this context the Israel/Palestine situation is exactly the same. And so is the message.

Surrender. Now. Or face the consequences. >>>

 

 

Spectacular point, Marney. The Palestinians are getting what they deserve---and more interesting, they're getting what they WANTED.

 

Think about it--- Arafat worked for 18 months to goad Israel into a military response. When the Israelis ignored the bombings, he sipmply unleashed more. He knew that he'd EVENTUALLY force a reaction and the Passover massacre did the trick.

 

Israel finally responded.

 

And the foreign policy crowd behaved EXACTLY how Yassir wished for them to behave--- they blamed Israel. And just as Arafat hoped, they've begun to unleash pressure on Israel to go back to their old borders. Arafat played the world (especially the idiotic EU and corrupt UN) for suckers and, as tends to be the case, they fell for it--hook, like, and sinker.

 

And the world seems to be COMPLETELY oblivious to a few things:

 

1) If Arafat was really following the Oslo Acords, why is his terrorist network so wel-organized presently? He should've abandoned it years ago.

 

2) The Jenin "massacre"---most of the deaths were caused by explosives RIGGED BY THE TERRORISTS to go off when Israeli troops made their search (this has been admitted by prisoners). The press repeats the tales of the "massacre" while ignoring that there were huge stockpiles of weaponry AND terrorists in that camp weeks before the IDF entered.

 

Yes, Israel has not allowed any journalists or independent sources to verify the Palestinian claims---but it's a friggin' war zone. Should a journalist be killed while covering the story, any guesses as to which side will be blamed for it?

 

3) Israel got blasted for refusing to allow int'l search and rescue teams to enter Jenin. Truth is, Israel simply demanded that they be allowed to make sure that no terrorists were snuck in amongst the teams---not exactly an unfair request. The int'l community refused to go along---so Israel didn't refuse to allow them access; the int'l community simply said they wouldn't do it.

 

4) The UN Relief and Works Agency has been in the back pocket of Arafat for a long time. Schools they run feature considerable anti-Israel propaganda. Weapons have been stockpiled in UNRWA facilities. Why in the world should Israel trust groups like this to be impartial and to simply supply food?

 

5) The UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel yet SUPPORTED Palestine's bombings (their "Armed struggle") by a vote of 48-5.

 

At this point, I now firmly support Israel in whatever they choose to do. Most of the world has shown---as they did in the 30's and 40's---that the deaths of a bunch of Jews is not exactly a major concern of theirs.

 

I said last week that Israel expelling every Palestinian might be a bad idea.

 

I no longer think so.

 

If the UN sees nothing wrong with what Palestine has wrought, then Israel had best do whatever necessary to protect itself.

 

Not too many other countries seem ready to help them out.

                    -=Mike

 

...Glad that Britain is run by intelligent people and not the blind, shit-throwing monkeys that populate continental Europe.