I'm not as informed as many, but it seems to me that alot of the posts I read come from people who are not realistic at all!! It IS a complex issue, but not to the extent people are making it. There are these sort of Chuck Norris guys who are all "kill the bastards" and these artsy fartsy types who are like "war is wrong, two wrongs don't make a right" . Both back up their claims with ridiculous biased political "facts" like Bin Laden is a saint or every arabic person is the devil.
It is far more intelligent and articulate than I can be at this time, but it argues my side fairly well...better than I could at least.
Here is Ken -
While I don't agree with having fun with Arab names right now, appearing 'racist' at this juncture should be the least of our worries. This is all part of the base problem we have right now, which is that there comes a time in the life of every empire when its citizens begin to worry, more than anything else, about appearing uncivilized.
We used to be feared. That is the whole point of being a superpower. Then we inevitably hit that point of economic and political comfort that all superpowers do, and decided to pretend that because we no longer which to be violent that no one else really does either. We've begun to argue that all violence is equally bad, whatever the circumstances and motives behind it. This has been noteworthy particularly in the tendency of too many to acquait Israel's acts of defensive violence with those of its enemies.
Well, now we're in the same boat, and we have to realize that the only thing that protects a country is strength, not treaties or feel-good homilies about the brotherhood of mankind. Should we hate all Arabs or Muslims because of terrorists? No. Should we be afraid of judging harshly, in words and especially in deeds, those Arab countries and collectives who wish to see us destroyed, for fear of looking 'racist'? We must not.
Too many people here already, in my opinion, are worried about us 'overreacting.' There's no such thing in this case. Terrorist organization's like Bin Laden's -- and even if, somehow, he's not behind this, he and his organization should have been and must now be rooted out and killed for the attack on our embassy in Kenya, amongst over previous acts -- must no longer recieve the support of any government. These governments must be made to pay such a price that their own citizens would revolt, out of fear, were they to learn that their leaders were risking arousing our wrath.
Gary worries about 'universal condemnation'. From who? Europe? The French? Countries that have been winking at and coddling and harboring terrorists for decades in hopes of placating them? China? A government that is basically a terrorist organization to its own people?
On what basis should we be concerned with their condemnation? *Americans* were killed here. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of them. Our military headquarters was attacked, resulting in, at present count, some 800 casualties. Our seats of government were put at risk. Compared to these facts, what matters the condemnation of other countries?
Like Israel, we must now become an inherently peaceful people who ensures the safety of our own (although we don't literally face the destruction of our country, as Israel does) by exacting a price on our enemies that they dare not provoke again. We must no longer fear being labeled as 'jingoistic' for asserting, clearly, that American lives are more important to us than the lives of those that would conspire against us, and those that give them the resources to do so.
We have been barbarically attacked, our fellow citizens killed in a cowardly fashion with no warning. Any violence we commit against the countries that harbor these elements is entirely righteous. We must no longer fear our own strength. Others must fear it.
The fact is, if we had attacked more aggressively in the past, after Kenya, after the first World's Trade Center bombing, after Lockerbee, if we had been willing to risk 'comdemnation' by killing dozens or perhaps hundreds or even thousands (although that's quite unlikely) of innocents while raining destruction down on the governments supporting these terrorists, then the potentially tens of thousands of Americans who are dead today because of these attacks would still be alive. Every time we've used even limited force in the past, terrorism has come to a standstill. Now the amount of force we've told the world we'd be willing to use has become too limited, and our enemies no longer fear us.
This must change.
Another excellent arguement....
here she is...
Ah, another day of no work here at the Federal Center. OK, my first and last comment on September 11th in this forum.
>If I harbour a murderer, am I guilty of murder? I've done something wrong, >but not murder.
Wrong.
In that regard, you're just as bad. If not worse, because the perps here are dead whereas the harborer (harbourer?) is still in business.
If it comes out that this wasn't the work of home-grown crazies, and was, in fact, the work the network of cockroaches associated with Middle Eastern terror, than we need to roll up our sleeves and start the killing with any means at our disposal, including strategic nuclear weapons. Regimes, and maybe entire countries, need to be exterminated.
In the end, any thuggish government which turned a blind eye to these animals in their midst needs to be obliterated from the face of this world and poured as gas into the atmosphere.
Over-reaction? By attacking our defense structure, financial structure, and our civil air network, are very way of life-our existance as civilized people; by murdering THOUSANDS of American civilians, they are indeed saying they want us, as Americans, dead. These terrorists, whoever they might be, and the powers which harbor them, feel the same way about us that the Nazis felt about the Jews or the Turks about the Armenians. Only we are not helpless, we are the United States of America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, the titan of democracy and the chief defender of the freedom of man's mind and spirit. They, the terrorists and the terrorist pirate states that support them, represent the converse. The Taliban, in my eyes, represents a spectre of the world's dark ageas a voice beckoning us back to the crypt wherein lurks everything opposed to the use of the rational mind. And, in particular, imaging how a woman feels about these dreadfully misogynistic tyrants. I've made a life for myself by my own hands and mind, a life impossible under the thumb of these evil fanatics. I'll die before submitting to these worthless, human pieces of garbage. It is them or us, simple as that. I vote US. All opposed? The motion carries.
Are we to stand back and get all mealy-mouthed about this? Not if we want the Rights of Man to prevail against the forces of darkness. I'm not overstating this. Here, as a Scot, maybe you'll get this: are we to move on, onto broad, sunlit uplands, or are we to kowtow to these vermin and regress back to a new dark age.
This is war. This attack made the people who plotted Pearl Harbor look like paragons of honor. We must fight this as total war and not be particularly pleasant with our distinctions of who was actually in on this particular attack and who was just standing on the sidelines. It's time to clean house and speak to these people in the only language they understand: force and death. If the Taliban stood by and let this happen, Kabul needs to be flattened, perhaps with atomic weapons.
These people respect force and force only. You don't negotiate with alligators. You kill. And when their countries are obliterated, when their wretched cities are smashed, when these bandit regimes have been reduced to uninhabitable wastelands, then maybe, in their dim way, they'll see that we are a red hot stove burner and not to be touched. Did England try to talk to Hitler? Well, yes. History records the result of that in 1938. Aren't you glad your forebears rolled up their sleeves and got down to the work at hand, the utter destruction of the Nazi state? Now Germany comes to England as a rational partner, a friend who can be reasoned with and mutual deals made for the advancement of all.
Retaliation? It will come. Just make sure that each time it does, another avalanche of destruction and death awaits the perps and anyone around them.
Them or us.
E.V.
Check out jabootu.com's message board for the rest...source, etc.
Here's my two cents, if anybody cares for it.
Blaming everyone in the Middle East and targeting the Arabic peoples living in the U.S. is not only wrong but idiotic. Just because they're Middle Eastern or Muslim doesn't mean they're evil, and those people in Palestine and Iraq we see celebrating in the streets are not representative of the entire cluster of nations in which they live. Haven't we learned anything in the decades since the Japanese internment camps?
That said, we need to find the specific individuals responsible for the attack and wipe them out in order to make it clear that this must never happen again.
The scary thing about this is that terrorism could become the standard means of warfare in the new millennium. Who needs expensive nukes or dangerous chemical weapons when you can just get three guys with box cutters to hijack a plane and crash it into the White House?
Alright, now I'm p**sed off. Chad, you're
probably a nice enough guy, but these
comments make me so f**king angry, I'll
probably never visit Jabootu again.
There is so much sickness in this way of
thinking, it borders on anti-life.
As what goes around comes around, I'll
be blasted too, but here are my views and
why I find your posts so abhorrent:
The one thing all humans share (animals too,
but I won't get into that) is subjective
consciousness. We all have our unique,
individual points of view. That doesn't
make all men brothers, but it gives us a
framework to relate to each other.
Sometimes that foundation crumbles, and it
is no longer possible to communicate. But
communication, real mutual understanding,
is the only way to have any kind of
lasting social structure. Without it,
chaos beckons.
Now the first thing that needs to be
communicated is selfhood; you are "I"
as I am "I". Second, the fundamental
sameness of biology: we have the same
needs, to eat, drink, sleep and excrete.
Our experiences differ, but in these
fundamental aspects we are the same.
If you can get across these two things,
there's no reason why both parties
can't "live and let live"... if however,
the second party refuses to acknowledge
this commonality, you have a problem.
If you HAVE made every effort to communicate
your fundamental needs, and they are
ignored (power doesn't come into this),
violence occurs. So what? you might
say; we're in that situation now with
Saddam/Bin Laden/ect. For the moment,
yes. But we didn't use the method above,
the method that gives us at least a 50%
chance.
So? you say again, we didn't respect the
terrorist's "selfhood"? What kind of
touchy-feely crap is that! Of course
we did; we're reasonable, live-and-let-live
people.
Oh really? Then tell me, how many terrorist
attacks have we sanctioned? How many more
lives were lost indirectly because of our
economic greed? Because of our empire
building? Not that America is alone in this
respect - other countries do it too, and
far worse - but they've never had as much
power to abuse. Does the phrase "the
chickens coming home to roost" ring any
bells? The mentality of blaming it all
on "the other" has a simple root - it's
subject/object consciousness.
Do you not see that all communication
needs to start on an equal footing?
Between subject and subject? When you
treat people as objects they will respond
likewise. You cannot communicate with
"the other party" any more than you can
kill the bogeyman - BECAUSE THEY DON'T
EXIST! Violence is the result of a
failure to communicate between subjects.
That's ALL it is. And the consequences
of this failure? Why, that's what we
call "evil". Handy little concept.
Too bad we made it a cause rather than
an effect, a philosophical abstraction
rather than clear-cut reality. We
externalize evil, and try to wipe it
out with force. But force will
not make the Talibans of the world
go away; rather, it will justify
their methods. Because from their
*subjective* viewpoint, that's
exactly what they're doing. The
comparative "righteousness" of their
actions is irrelevant.
Now, as for America: it is a great
empire. No more, no less. And the
problem with empires is that they are
built on a shoddy premise, that of
intra-species competition.
In all biological evolution, it is
the species that learn to work together
amongst themselves that survive and
thrive. Yet Social Darwinists have
managed to justify man's neuroses as
survival instincts. Make no mistake,
we possessed these bad habits already;
it just took longer for a sophisticated
re-inforcement mechanism to develop.
But I digress: the main thing to
remember about empires is that they
don't last. They don't rule forever.
They make their contributions to the
world, and vanish. America, though
perhaps the best of these empires, is
no different. You people speak of
fighting for your country; I can
understand that. You associate this
country with all that is good in
yourself, and perhaps other qualities
you are lacking. But it is a mistake
to identify with one's country; it is
a construct, and does not speak for
the human race. I'll never see
myself as "American"; furthermore, it
would be an insult to myself and my God
to insert the words "and country" after
His name. And when you understand how
remote America looks to the dancing
Palestinians/Afghanis, and how remote
their deaths are to us, you will
realize how stupid it is to hate any part
of the world. But if you don't get it,
how do you expect them to? Oh, that's
right - you don't. You just want to
bomb them back to the Stone Age.
Look past your nation's agenda. Stop
pretending God's on your side. Get this -
violence IS violence. We bleed them dry,
they cut us deep. Same amount of blood
loss either way. If the US can stand
strong in this crisis and open up new
channels of communication, instead of
reacting with more violence, then more
power to it. If not, then what happens
happens, and we citizens of America
(and Israel, and China, and everywhere)
must face the consequences.
To start with, it's funny that us mean, warmongering types are often more respecting of opposing views than the peaceful, 'tolerant' ones. It must be nice to be so self-righteous that you can afford to view us barbarians from your airy moral heights.
El Chupacabra, you're wrong. You're just utterly wrong. 'Violence is bad' might be true, but in an imperfect world you must make allowances for scale and motivation. To that extent that you, or anyone, says "All violence is equally bad," that's a childish and ultimately dangerous remark made by someone uncomfortable with the fact that he's living in the world he is. Well, guess what, so are the rest of us. But some of us decide to look past comforting but inapplicable principles and decide to get some dirt and blood on our hands in order to minimize actual human suffering in the world.
One way you do it is with rules. Even in war. Especially in war. That' s why those who break these rules must be quickly and severely punished. And that includes countries, not individuals. I'm sure some decent individual Germans were killed when we went into Europe and liberated the death camps. But that's not something you can overly fret over, lest you put yourself in the position where you don't liberate them at all.
Have we, i.e., our government, condoned terrorism? Undoubtedly, although much less than you're implying, and certainly less than any superpower in history would have done. I should also note the obvious truth that no other country in history could have been trusted with being the sole owners of the A-bomb and not abuse the power this gave us.
Moreover, the condoning of terrorism you mention was in the context of a Cold War with an expansionist state that was the most murderous, to its own citizens, in human history. (Except maybe for China, since records are so much harder to come by.) We supported those who wanted to make their countries democracies, like Nicaragua. Once the people there were allowed to hold free elections, and actually got the chance to oast the government that was oppressing them, we withdrew. When the Soviets thought a country was feeling it's oats, it sent in tanks. Think Prague of 1968.
Do you really want to make a contribution? Then make yourself understand that **not everyone wants peace.**
These terrorists attacked us for two reasons. One is that we sorta-kinda make an effort to see that Israel remains a country on the map. The other is more basic: They fear not our military inclinations but rather our cultural might and our political and economic systems. Americans are raised to accept defeat on what they in their hearts believe , as long as they can feel they were able to participate in the Marketplace of Ideas. We believe in letting the best ideas, the best systems win, even when this conflicts with what we believe in personally. This is why no nation on Earth has spent as much effort worrying about the morality of its actions.
These Islamic groups, the ones we're talking of here, including governments, don't subscripe to the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas. They're not willing to test their ideas against ours, because they know in the long run they'll lose. They know the citizen of their own countries will seek the freedoms we stand for. And unlike us, these groups and governments are willing to initiate violence to avoid this competition.
To do so they break the only rules that preserve the entire world from chaos. And this is why they must be stopped, forcefully, before the countries disinclined to use violence are made to stop observing them as well.
Welcome to reality.
I apologize to Andrew if this is the sort of message he doesn't care for on his board.
Ken, one of the things I've always enjoyed about your reviews is the thorough, rational approach to take. Your political commentary is even better.
I had hoped, with the severity of Tuesday's events, that even the bleeding hearts might get a clue. I suppose that was too much to expect.
Some people decided that spanking their children, even as a last resort, was wrong. It made them feel like bullies. Now they wonder why their stereos are being stolen and their dumpsters are catching fire. I write the crime reports for a community newspaper. I know what I'm talking about.
This is the same thing, only on a larger scale. It's time to take off the belt.
El Chup made the point that Evil Is the resault of lack of Communication. No. Evil is selfishness. And evil people will communicate the words the target wants to hear...to set them up for the killing stroke. How else could these pilots live among our prople, and not reconise their simple humanity.? They are pathological killers, and have no compassion lurking in them. Attacking soldiers is what warriors do, but monsters target the helpless, BECAUSE they are Helpless. I said evil is selfishness. To steal, weather a T.V. set, or a life that in not trying to harm your life, is selfish. The "Me,Myself, and I". in its ultimate expression. The differance between the T.V. and the life is one of scale, and scale of effect, but same in principle. Jesus...(Yeah, He's important to me)...said "Do to others as you would want them to do to you". And, "Love others AS you love your self." Include the other as much as you can, and remember they are like you. Satan IS selfishness, and those like him, care for no one but themselves. Sorry if i'm pontificating, but it is the only way i know to explain it. Conciter this, though. Look how many people GIVE to those in need, and and compare their numbers to those that TAKE. Evil as a mere lack of communication is P.C., and so "ST, Next Gen."...but, sadly, it just ain't real.
Israel has not been defending itself against ruthless barbarians at the gate; they STOLE their country from the Palestinians -- with buttloads of help from the US. A hundred Palestinians have died for every Israeli scraped in a suicide bombing. Their moves have been offensive, not defensive. Is Israel's hyper violence working? Um -- NO!!! Israel has systematically stripped Palestine of its culture, its rights, its pride, and its land. And WE"VE helped. Even though the sight of dancing Palestinians makes me ill, I still can see the forest for the trees. It's rocks vs. rocket launchers over there, Ken. And the launchers all have stickers that read "Made in the USA."
The horrific events of Tuesday are not acts of war ... they are cruel acts of desperation and frustration commandeered by an upper class rich f**k who himself won't die for a cause. Gee, sounds a lot like our last few presidents, but I meant bin Laden.
I don't want to see our military blindly wiping out civilians over this ... like Sudan (an act that Bush's current buddies all denounced as cowardly at the time, if you recall). I want us to take out the people who backed Tuesday's attack ... and ONLY those people. I don't want to "send a message" because our typical "message" is the reason these people were willing to die and kill in our own aircraft in the first place. We've already sent enough messages -- Tuesday was the reply.
Get mad at the fact that our commercial airlines are so greedy that they couldn't implement proper security measures. Be p**sed at the fact our government is so lax, they allow "known bin Laden associates" to learn how to fly planes in Florida. Yes Ken, WE HARBOR KNOWN TERRORISTS, TOO!!!! Not only do we harbor them, we often train them to do a variety of unsavory things.
We CAN over-react to this, and if we do, we'll see another hideous tragedy like this in my lifetime. I'd rather be calm and cool, and kick the asses of the people who caused this ... not the asses of everyone surrounding them.
Very true. I've been wrestling with the question of how these people could have lived among Americans for a time, and still want to do this to them. I think your answer is as good as any I can come up with.
I have a great respect for human life, which is why I think someone needs to suffer for taking it in this manner, and on this scale. I also believe that being human requires more than just the the right chromosomes. It requires at least a shred of humanity in your heart. Lose that, and you become an inhuman monster. Monsters should be caged or destroyed. Caging bin Laden would only invite more terrorism, so that leaves one option. I only fear that none of the methods available will allow him to suffer enough.
At the risk of further alienating Abby, who runs a great website and whose work I highly respect, let me offer these contrasting opinions:
Israel was given their country by mandate, as I understand it, of the U.N. Perhaps Palastinians have a legitmate gripe about this, just as, no doubt, American Indian tribes have over losing their lands. But that wouldn't justify current-day terrorism on the part of American Indians, and it doesn't justify Palastinian terrorism. If they want to make their case to the international community to dissolve Israel entirely, let them do so. The fact is, few people would support them. Otherwise, let them learn to live in peace with their new neighbors.
Moreover, and this seems obvious, the Jews of Israel are more than ready to live peacefully with Muslims and/or Arabs, but the latter refuse to live peacefully with Jews. This isn't a land issue, it's a religious issue, and thus seemingly not open to diplomatic solutions as we, a more or less secular nation, know them.
Abby, do you really believe that Israel is the instigator of violence? Because this view, held by many people, always leaves me baffled. Every time Israel has moved to capture more land, it's been to buffer themselves from specific attacks. Then they historically offer to return it if their opponents will live there peacefully. On this they have been rebuffed again and again.
Israel moves as a nation to use force, allowing their actions to be judged by the community of nations. Rocks against rockets? The terrorists go into crowded pizza joints and explode bombs. Then Arafat throws up his hands and says, "Don't blame me." Too often, we don't.
Your comments about the greed of the airlines are thoughtful, even if you don't express them that way. Although the larger question, of course, isn't the greediness of Big Business, but of ourselves. If consumers demanded increased security and offered to pay higher ticket prices, the airlines would have been happy to supply it.
But, seriously, are you asking us to place matters of laxness and 'greed' against those who cold-bloodedly come to this country to use our own citizens to destroy our infrastructure? I can't agree with you there.
Your fears that the U.S. military will "blindly" wipe out civilians is unwarrented. No country in the history of this planet has ever evinced the sort of concern over the lives of innocents, even in enemy countries, that ours does. This includes your comments here. But what if -- say -- the Taliban herds their own citizens onto military or governmental grounds in an attempt to deter us from attacking them. Do we just turn our jets around and leave?
I quote: "Be p**sed at the fact our government is so lax, they allow "known bin Laden associates" to learn how to fly planes in Florida. Yes Ken, WE HARBOR KNOWN TERRORISTS, TOO!!!!"
Indeed. I haven't heard that the government knew that these folks were known associates of bin Laden. If that's true, it's horrifying, and someone should be held accountable. But I'm not sure I get your larger point. Is it that we knew *these exact guys* were terrorists, and knowingly harbored them in the belief that they would only commit acts of terrorism against other countries? Because that's what we're talking about here.
I agree that we should, to the extent possible, only seek to kill those and destroy the infrastructure of those directly and indirectly responsible for Tuesday's attack. By your remarks I assume you support the use of assassinations, which is another way of saying "We employ limited force to kill one guy rather than trying to get him through a mass strike that kills many others." I agree. After bombing military and government buildings to suppress resistance, we should send in troops and kill those we can identify as the ones behind this.
Many our people talk of how we should fear provoking further violence from our opponents. Rather, let them fear us. They violated the rules of nations, now let them pay the price.
Is just about to be made illegal in Scotland. England is expected to follow shortly.
There's talk about outlawing it here in Ontario, Canada as well. It shouldn't be overused, but I think it must be an option when the situation warrants.
My point was really that some people in the middle east are in need of a paddling, on a much larger scale.
I am not a violent man, in fact I have never been in a phsyical confrontation in my entire life, something of which I am very proud of.
Yet I would gladly enlist in the armed forces and defend my country to the death.
I AM an "AMERICAN" and proud to call myself that.
I also harbor no ill will to those fearing that any violent response will be an overreaction to this atrocious and inhumane act. I can understand a deep and very human need to keep an 'us' apart from a 'them.' (i.e. we will not murder thousands of innocents like they do). To me it is an understandable and in no way a poor reflection of these individuals heartfelt beliefs that turning the other cheek, that being civil and diplomatic will somehow stop this.
It will not, however. History has shown that time and time again. We need to understand that certain individuals hate us, want to see us gone, erased - not just as a world power, but from the map entirely.
We also need to understand that this is not a war of communication, nor politics, nor land rights, or even big business. It is a war of ideology. Everyone of us needs to understand that the Fundamentalist Jihad beliefs are that we are Evil Incarnate, we are devils, not even true human beings, and that we should be eradicated. Any group of warriors that is willing to commit suicide for their cause are to be feared and respected. If anyone thinks that inaction or diplmoacy will solve or end this needs to understand this...these people do not want to talk, they want to kill. We cannot ignore, or underestimate, the level of their hatred of us.
Sadly I do not believe that the events of September 11th are in anyway shape or form the ending of this. It is simply the first attack on United States soil, but it will not be that last - irregardless of the actions our government takes. The battle to come will be very similiar to that in Vietnam, long and apparently pointless. Terrorist activities, now that the line as been crossed, will NO DOUBT continue in the United States. We may well begin to live in a country where you have to check your purse, backpack, or shopping bags when entering a store, movie theater, sporting event, church...the list goes on, for these are the targets they choose. Not the communication centers, military installations, and weapons factories that we do. They will car bomb churches, mosques, and synagogues; suicide bombers with stroll into sporting events, may well go into crowded theaters showing Spiderman or Star Wars Episode 2, or festivals and cultural events (Mardi Gras? Thanksgiving Day Parade?).
Whether or no not you consider yourself an American or not 'America' as a country, as an ideal, as a concept, was attacked. All the humanitarian beliefs (irregardless of our errors and short tem mistakes) has been assaulted. If it does not somehow fight back it will fall, slowly, painfully. The days of it being any kind of power, holding any kind of respect in the world will be gone. Many want this day to come, even some of our citizens seem to think this may be a good thing. It is not. The lifestyle that all of us have taken for granted for so long, the privileges that are sometimes confused with freedoms or rights, will be gone. And when some despot snaps his or her fingers we, as a collective, will only jump and shake and say "Just don't hurt us, we'll do anything you say to avoid that." The entire cultural and political landscape will change. For a minority it will, at first, seem to be a good thing, but in the end it will mean pain and suffering, exploitation and humiliation for us all. Please, I do not exaggerate. The history or our entire 'civilization' (which has always been very uncivilized) points this out.
And to the individual that does not 'consider myself "American"'. May I ask what you DO consider yourself. What cause, belief, ideology are you willing to believe in that you would willingly and without thought lay down your life for? If the answer to that is "There is not one worthy of it" then you will loose this fight and be forced to live under whatever regime/government/country replaces the land you quite freely (as is your right) admit to not being a part of. You can place yourself on a self-righteous pedestal if you wish, just know that you are alone there and there will always be those in the world that will kill you for that arrogance. Just take comfort in the idea that the government attacked, that the government mobilizing its forces at this moment, allows you the freedom to say and believe that and, if we loose (which we very well might) the one that replaces it may not.
God be with you all (even the the atheists amongst us).
Chadwick H. "Chadzilla" Saxelid
Thanks, Chad.
I hope you don't mind, but I've posted your note on our board. It saves me the trouble of stating the same things, only less well.
I want to take this moment to point out a reader review dripping with irony over at Stomptokyo.com. It is for the Chuck Norris v Terrorist flick called Invasion U.S.A. - a movie that quite proudly shoves our arrogance and naviete as a nation right in our faces (check out how the terrorists arms themselves through AMERICAN sources). I think that it is, in light of current events, very interesting reading.
And thank you Ken for your too kind words and response.
I also want to commend all for not dropping to the bitter level of a flame post fistfight about these events.
"Specific assassination" is the answer, I believe. Any supposedly "anti-Islam" country could have been the target - in this case this particular snake chose the US. I've said it elsewhere "a body cannot function without a head" - identify the head and cut it off. It's gone too far now for "civilized" responses - Islamic fundamentalism has been the biggest threat to peace and stability for many years. More outrages will undoubtedly follow, but the time has come to face the threat head on.
Ken: You draw a comparison between Palestinians and American Indians ... which is very accurate. Of course, Native Americans fought the best they could to hold their land for several hundred years before being completely, violently subjugated -- and they were similarly demonized for their self preservation. Few blame them in retrospect. Interestingly, they often fought back with weapons we gave them -- as well as with weapons the French the British gave handed out.
Yes, I do believe Israel is the instigator of violence. They've intentionally and systematically eroded the culture, heritage, and land of an entire people -- and they've done so with our tools. Israel has not been particularly neighborly historically speaking -- and Sharon has made it clear that he's not interested in arriving at an "understanding". Palestinians ARE in occupied reservations, for the most part. Yes, it's rocks vs. rocket launchers. A homemade bomb vs. high-tech, US sponsored missiles. It's a hundred eyes for an eye. It hasn't solved a damned thing. It's created a people with nothing to lose.
I urge everyone to look for Joe Sacco's graphic novel titled Palestine: A Nation Occupied. It really changed my perspective of the culture and ideology of Palestine back in the early-nineties, before those original peace accords were signed. The man who wrote it is still considered an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- by own our government at that.
As for our commercial airlines, how many miilions or billions in profits have these companies turned this past decade alone? How many American workers were laid off to achieve those numbers? I know of five people myself. I can look up some exec salaries and stocks on Yahoo, but I think that might be too depressing at the moment. That money likely went to cushy beach houses -- not security. So yeah, we should be ticked that the opulent comfort of an elite few can outweigh the security of many. This can be applied to our poorly-paid Federal border checkpoint people, too.
It has indeed been confirmed that at least one terrorist pilot was a "known associate of bin Laden" -- a terrorist linked to the bombing of a truck in Israel. And we gave him flying lessons. And we let him live/work here. And we knew who he was.
Yeah, we should be angry at the attackers. But we also should really look at ourselves. REALLY look at ourselves. And our own priorities. Bush says we are "STEEL," but where are the steelworkers? They're unemployed in these parts ... what's it like where you live?
In the name of eradicating drugs, we handed the Taliban 50 million smackeroos just a few months ago.
This statement gets me, Ken:
"No country in the history of this planet has ever evinced the sort of concern over the lives of innocents, even in enemy countries, that ours does."
Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua ... all of our activities in those nations (and so many more) run concurrent to your statement, as would our attacks on Sudan's pharmaceutical companies. We've done some really s**tty things in Iraq since the war, too -- and not to Hussein. We've given loads of cash to people who should be on America's Most Wanted. We call them "freedom fighters" if there's something to gain; "terrorism" when we stand to lose. We've done good things as well, like in Ireland, don't get me wrong, but starting violent conflicts in foreign nations to gain financial/strategic advantages has been an American hobby for way too long. Before we declare war on anybody, I think we really need to reflect on our once and future concept of foreign diplomacy. If there was ever a time to re-evaluate our behavior abroad, it's now.
If we were as strong as we fancy ourselves, we should be able to take bin Laden and his strongest supporters without having to harm MORE innocent citizens than we already have. I'm not against a military strike -- I'm against a sloppy, emotionally motivated "all-hell" show of extreme force . Which is what we've done in the past, and the end result was Tuesday's horror, like it or not. Many of these people have already "paid a price;" that's why they're striking out.
My dad, a decorated Nam vet, cried for most of this week. He's my biggest hero. He feels emmasculated, betrayed, and violated, but beyond his anger and disgust, his greatest fear is another Vietnam. He doesn't wish that on anyone -- us or another nation. For my dad's sake, I'd like to see whoever made him cry suffer greatly, but not if it's going to create a dozen even angrier, more desperate people in the guilty party's place.
Oh and you can't alienate me. You never added a WG.com to your links page ;)
Your letter obviously deserves a response as thoughtful, but I don't have the time right now. I'll try to get back to you in the fashion you deserve, hopefully this weekend. I hope this doesn't make me look cowardly.
One point, though: I'm sure you noticed that I don't get around to updating my links very oftens. However, I have been working on an actual piece on the three or four sites I'm most impressed with and yours is one of them.
I can understand your passion even if I don't agree with your views. So if my doing such an article in the near future disturbs you in any way, I would of course forgo any reference to your site, and with no hard feelings. Although it certainly warrants all the attention it can get.
shouldn't someone say: "& now we return you to your regularly scheduled (b)movie"?
This is just one of several discussions on this board. The movie threads are picking back up again as well. We all have to talk these things out, so why not here, among people whose opinions we respect. As a movie fan, I think I've heard some interesting perspectives on this board. I've never met any of you, but I feel that I do know you all in some small way. Many of us share similar tastes and philosophies, so this seems like the place to come to discuss something so important, among people who are probably viewing it from a similar perspective.
Well first -- we should all enjoy as much free speech while we can ... where we can. The way some of our representatives are talking, it might not be for much longer.
But Ken: I was kidding about the link. You're not alienating me. I just strongly disagree with your remarks to Chupacabra. Feel free to address my comments however you wish, though I'll probably have more to add myself in such an event.
The propaganda machine is rolling along at full speed. I'd be un-American if I didn't question its validity, what with so much at stake. The question in my head has been "why?" and as far as I can tell, the answer is not "because they're EVIL." The answer is far more complex than that.
It was stated earlier that the war at hand is one of ideologies.
It is an inherent position of those who support going to war that America's ideology is better or more perfect than that of the people in the Middle East with which we are having our differences. There is no question that Americans have committed acts against other countries that are reprehensible. It is my opinion that these acts are really against the ideology defined as we believe in the Constitution. On the other hand it is important that everyone remembers that the cultures that hate us do not believe in our Constitution. Generally in the Middle East religious considerations have outweighed individual rights in their forms of government - certainly this is true from the perspective of Islamic fundamentalists -they favor the institution of the religious dictatorship. In view of this it is also my opinion, then, that America has a basis for it's ideology that is OBJECTIVELY MORALLY SUPERIOR to the instituitions of these other places.
The bottom line for me is this:
First - It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the minds of those who believe their religion is more important than individual rights. (Why? Because their reality is informed by FAITH, not by rational thought.)
Second - Since rational discourse CANNOT work, we must convince them with FORCE.
Third - The scope of the force used could extend to the degree that they will have to be obliterated if our IDEOLOGY in this country is to survive. I, for one, do not want to give up my rights nor do I wish to sacrifice the institutions that define them, in spite of our horrifying track record of staying faithful to them.
Let's not kid ourselves here, the issues at stake are the survival of the principles that America was founded on - the principle of the Constitution. Without this we might as well have let Hitler take over the world.
First of all, I don't believe the Taliban can
be reasoned with. I don't think even bombs
will do it. Surpress them, maybe, but in
the end it changes nothing.
If you find my views self-righteous and
childish, so be it. I respect your
honesty if nothing else.
You say we should meet violence with
violence, and end with "welcome to
reality". Who are you to define
reality? Your reality is as much
a construct of ideals as mine.
I am, and will always be, a
conscientous objector.
The ability NOT to take orders,
NOT to support our country's war
machine, is what I value. Our
enemies do not exercise this
option, which makes it all the
more vital that we do.
Sincerely,
Paul AKA El Chupacabra.
To Al B. and Abby. While i mostly agree with Ken (Ironbottom) Begg, i do understand your point of view. Al B, you seem to equate Faith with Irrationality. I disagree, in principle. It can be so, but it may depend on your definition. To me, Faith (Religious,in this case), if a belief in things that have not happened yet, but are seen as a future event. What you have "Faith" in may be at the root of the question. For myself, i do believe that man does not know what he is doing. History shows that we human beings are, in effect, Arrogant, selfish, hardheaded, stubborn, willful....children. Abby, you had "Faith" in your dad, because while a small frightened, little girl, he and your Mom did the best they could to feed you, care for you and protect you. You knew they loved you, and like me, as you grew up, you could forgive your parents their mistakes and faults, because you came to understand they were only doing the best they knew how, as their parents did before them. I have Faith that God will work out the world, and in his time, correct this sad planet, after haveing given us time to do what We Will....for we are creatures of free will....and letting us learn the lesson...that we can't do it ourselves, any more then a baby can. Human Babys need intense attention from the parents to survive, and i think thats a lesson in humility and compassion God has built into us, so we can have some idea how he feels towards us....by living it. As Parents! I do not know everything there is to know. This life is a Boot Camp, and a school, and a playground. Do we "Play well with others"? I have Faith that things will work out, i just don't know what will , in detail, happen. Irrational? Not nessarily. Depends on what you have faith IN. I don't believe in Evolution, because ( Hold on to 'yer shorts!) i conciter it...Irrational! (no.i won't argue the point, i'll just state my reasons, and let you have at it.)I.E. i mean its Not logical or repeatable as an experiment in scientific methodology. Do i know all there is about life, and what will happen in future? No. But, i belive it will explain it's self, as time goes by. Let me sum up, Before you get eyestrain! I believe this world, as we know it, will end. It will be the beginning of something infinatly better, for the living, And the Dead! I believe i will see my Dad agine,among others, and all the dead will THEN have a chance to understand why the world has been like it now is. It would take a long time to explain, and you have your own lives to live, so, lets just say........i have Faith...in Hope and Charity. Not in Hate and Violence and selfishness. Your friend in the "What, me worry?" T- shirt, Flangepart!
I am not against faith per se as long as it doesn't conflict with rational action. Some, such as Randian Objectivists, do argue that all religious faith is evil, but that is not exactly my point of view. I was only saying that because our enemies are informed in their views by faith it would be pointless to try to argue against them by appealing to reason. They would perceive a change based on such arguments as an immoral action. Perhaps a better way to describe it is that this war is really about whose moral outlook is correct. When I look at it that way I think we win hands down, mainly because I think that people have more to gain by following our way of life rather than theirs.
I'd like to point out that Isrealis and Palestinians come from essentially the same stock, so really, they were *both* there first. Arguing over who the land "rightfully" belongs to is like a little kid whining, "He got a bigger piece of pie than I did!", only even more ridiculous, because the Palestinians still have a significantly larger chunk of what used to be Palestine than the Isrealis do. Also, the Isrealis were willing to share with people of all races and religions, which the Palestinians were not. That superior sense of tolerance is what initially swayed the US- and many other countries- toward their position, and why we're still on their side today.
I'd also like to dispell any fears of a mass slaughter of innocents by saying that 1) in the Gulf War, we practically bent over backwards trying to protect as many Iraqi civilians as possible, and I see no reason why it would be any different now, and 2) the Afghan government is *ruled by* a group of people who's ultimate goal is the extermination of anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim. We're not talking about a minority dissident group that just happens to be based in that country. We're talking about an embyronic Nazi regime, just with different ethnicities being targeted. If that's not worth going to war over, what is?
I don't see how any woman can stick up for Islamic fundamentalists.
A short, loudmouthed, redheaded virus to infect your board! The previous talk of being an 'objector' to the 'war-machine' reminded me of this article. I can think of a few major things he forgot to mention or where his specifics are wonky, but it's nice to read this nonetheless.
This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing:
************************************
America: The Good Neighbor.
Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks asprinted in the Congressional Record:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted
out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars
and forgave other billions in debts. (And a bunch of hard-work on their own - E.V.) None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the
streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by
tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing
aboutthe decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the
Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them?
Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? (There's Airbus but they stink. -E.V.)
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the
store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not
pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other
people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else
raced to the Americans in trouble? (LaFayette? That was some time ago, however. -E.V.) I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned
tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing
with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their
nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."
Stand proud, America! Wear it proudly!!"
*********************************
This is one of the best editorials that I have ever read regarding the
United States. It is nice that one person realizes it. I only wish that
the rest of the world would realize it. We are always blamed for
everything, and never even get a thank you for the things we do.
It has become fashionable of late to put down the U.S. even among Americans. I hope, if any good could come out of this war, it's the recognition that the U.S. is one of the best darn countures in the whole wide world!
E.V.
Well you see, Lester, before the US sunk truckloads of money into Afganistan -- you know, when the dirty stinking commies were in control -- women were granted equal rights. They entered the workforce and were guaranteed an education. It was quite a revolutionary period in the middle east. Then the CIA trained bin Laden to help end it all. He did a great job. The veils and abuse went back into effect.
So I guess since the CIA is pro-Islamic values, I shouldn't stick up for them either.
And Erin: ask a Lebanese person how much they were warmly accepted by Israel.
Also Erin, you might be interested in knowing that Madeleine Albright both admitted and embraced the fact that a half a million children in Iraq died as a result of our sanctions. Her statements were broadcasted all over the middle east -- that a half million dead children was acceptable.
If anyone besides me is still asking "why" instead of "how can we nuke their asses?" the answers are indeed out there. Though I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a whole lot easier than looking for answers.
FYI: I understand it's from 1974. Hence the draft dodger reference. Neat anyway.
Abby wrote:
>
> Well you see, Lester, before the US sunk truckloads of
> money into Afganistan -- you know, when the dirty stinking
> commies were in control -- women were granted equal rights.
> They entered the workforce and were guaranteed an education.
> It was quite a revolutionary period in the middle east. Then
> the CIA trained bin Laden to help end it all. He did a great
> job. The veils and abuse went back into effect.
The idea there was to protect a smll, relatively defenseless country's sovereign rights from an invader that that counry hadn't provoked. Maybe it was a mistake; I don't know. I certainly don't think everything the US does is right.
But on a side note: look how Bin Laden has repaid us for our help. Even if he wasn't behind *this* attack (and that's looking less and less likely every day), we know he's been behind other attacks.
> And Erin: ask a Lebanese person how much they were warmly
> accepted by Israel.
Before or after the terorist attacks started? Was the harassment systemic or from individual fanatics? And again, its not as if the Jews don't hav an equally valid ancestral claim to the land.
>
> Also Erin, you might be interested in knowing that Madeleine
> Albright both admitted and embraced the fact that a half a
> million children in Iraq died as a result of our sanctions.
> Her statements were broadcasted all over the middle east --
> that a half million dead children was acceptable.
I never said no civilians were killed, just that we did our best not to kill any more civilians than was necessary. The only way to avoid civilian casualties altogether is to not go to war in the first place. Not that having no wars would be such a bad thing, mind you, but sometimes it's not an option. There are times when there's no "right" thing to do, and the best you can hope for is to choose the lesser of two evils.
If we were as anxious to blast any civilian who crosses our path as the rest of the world likes to believe, then why didn't we bomb Saddam Hussein when he was lining up *his own people* to act as human shields for his own sorry ass?
>
> If anyone besides me is still asking "why" instead of "how
> can we nuke their asses?" the answers are indeed out there.
> Though I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a
> whole lot easier than looking for answers.
I believe the ongoing FBI and CIA investigations are all about asking "who" and "why"? You'll notice we haven't made a single offensive move so far. That's because the investigation isn't finished. Nor do the majority of Americans condone attacking anyone because of their ancestry. Unfortunately, it only takes a few morons to do a lot of damage, but that's not the fault of the rest of us who are getting unfairly lumped in with the lunatics.
I was always opposed to the sanctions in Cuba as well. They never accomplish anything except hurting the people. Not that you should care, Abby, but your arguements don't amount to a hill of beans. You're just naming things that happened in the past, none of which has much to do with the present. You'd make a good politician. and it's Mr. 1/2jr. to you.
"You're just naming things that happened in the past, none of which has much to do with the present. "
Whoa. Holy crap. That is quite possibly the most disturbing and thoughtless sentence I've read all week. We are doomed.
Erin, I assume you know that you can't be a citizen of Israel if you're not Jewish. I also assume you know that both the UN and the Red Cross (the same folks we've been giving blood to) have declared that Israel is in violation of human rights in respect to their treatment of the Palestinians ... the same was said of their occupation of Lebanon.
Also, have you ever read this:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"
That was uttered by Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister.
As for the Gulf, George Bush Sr. says the reason we didn't kill Saddam was because that would have left US in charge, which we were not prepared for. HE said that. So we left all the Iraq rebels whom we asked to rise against their leader to fend for themselves, and they were promptly slayed by the army we didn't defeat. If you ask me, that's why he was not re-elected.
Abby implications that women enjoyed equal rights under the Soviet puppet regime are, I suppose, correct in the sense that women were equally empowered to be ruthlessly butchered by the invading Soviet troopers. They stood shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts as they were burned alive, shot, stabbed, and starved.
I guess women were singled out for special treatment in that they were raped before being murdered by the Soviet bastards and their vile puppet allies. Is this the enlightened regime of which you speak, Abby? The one that murdered tens of thousands of rural Afghans in the '80's? The ones that you trumpet for their equal rights?
'Boatloads' of money? This is an overstatement. We sent them small arms, particularly shoulder-mounted stingers, in the '80s. As for arming the Taliban, I have heard of no such thing. Perhaps you can reveal your sources.
The assertation that the CIA, that favorite boogeyman of lefty paranoids, is "pro-Islamic values" is just tripe.
But the best slice of nonsense is the implication that a million children have died in Iraq because of the sanctions. This is a baldfaced lie. If Albright said it, and I want to see the source of this idiotic quote, then she is a bigger dunce than even I thought possible. The duress that the common people in Iraq face is a direct result of Saddam and Saddam alone. And any children who died, died at Saddam hands.
Nothing angers me more than apologists for Saddam who instead try and put the blame for his murder and insanity on the U.S.
"I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a whole lot easier than looking for answers."
You, Abby, would be Exhibit A of this, except the word "oversimplication" would have to be replaced with "outright daydreaming."
E.V.
Taliban -- Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia By Ahmed Rashid: Gives a great history on the rise of the Taliban, and the wars in Afganistan. Also goes into great detail how the CIA trained and brought together Islamic extremists -- notably bin Laden. The American government has never denied its role in pitting Islamics against Muslims against commies.
It's available at most larger bookstores.
A Female Afgan's Perspective -- Posted Last Week I cannot find any news feeds detailing the $40-$50 million Bush gave to the Taliban this past May (2001) to "combat drugs," but it did happen. It was mentioned in numerous artucles last week as an afterthought. I don't know about you, but handing even $1 million to an oppressive government constitutes support.
I'll post more links tomorrow. I'm off to watch some Hammer flicks.
Just for starters...
"The American government has never denied its role in pitting Islamics against Muslims against commies"
Did they have any difficulty telling the Islamics from the Muslims? LOL!
Why should America not support a group combating invading commies like we did in the '80s in Afghanistan.
"I cannot find any news feeds detailing the $40-$50 million Bush gave to the Taliban this past May (2001) to "combat drugs," but it did happen."
I can't find any articles detailing the martians that landed in my backyard last night. But it happened. Seriously, if it happened in May, what budget was it under, last year's or this year's? I'll need to read more.
The "Female Afghan's Perspective" is interesting. I like the "thousands of schools" the CIA set up. That's a lot of schools. And to think the CIA specifically set them up to teach religion.
Frankly, I don't believe this. They'll have to do better.
Outside of that, I think this RAWA site makes me support military involvement EVEN MORE. Apparently, this group of heroic women stand up to the loathsome Taliban. Here they (correctly) plea for the US to consider carefully who they retaliate against. I suspect we will. I think the target is clear: the Taliban. Did you read the whole RAWA site? Their first leader was murdered by KGB-backed thugs. Don't you feel the opponents of those thugs should have been supported at the time? I do. And the CIA thought so too. God bless 'em.
(An aside: here's one of the greatest problems I see in debates on the internet: the urge to post half-baked, unverfified blather and claim it's TRUTH. I see it everywhere. People latch on to any old thing they find on the internet that supports their shady arguments.)
Bottom line: idiotic foreign aid is a hallmark of American foreign policy. It's been going on for 100 years. The Americans who invaded Russia in 1918 found themselves being shot at by Reds with American rifles. I'm against much of it. But it does have its uses. Leverage, for example, as we are seeing now with Pakistan.
"I'll post more links tomorrow."
I look forward to it. This is too easy. While you're at it, post some links that show the Kurds Saddam gassed. Or maybe a montage of the murdered Afghans the Soviets slew--Soviets that the U.S., apparently unjustly in your eyes, fought by arming the native Muslims to defend themselves. Oh, don't forget, I'd like to read about the million children the sanctions have apparently killed.
"I'm off to watch some Hammer flicks."
I'm off for a midnight ride under the stars!
Eva
Pardon me: "RADICAL Islamics against muslims against commies."
My bad. But that IS what happened.
$43 Million To The Taliban in 2001It's all I can find at the moment. Newsfeeds expire rather quickly though. I'll snuff out the BBC tomorrow.
About US-Funded Afgan "Schools"Laugh it up.
I'll one-up you on the Kurds ... just not tonight.
Back to Saddam for a moment: I mentioned Madeline's remarks because, like the dancing Palestinians from last Tuesday, they were broadcasted over and OVER again in the middle east. While some might see it as a leftist agenda, the Arab world saw it as something much more.
Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Got time for only one counterpunch this morning, but it's a doozy:
"$43 Million To The Taliban in 2001! It's all I can find at the moment. Newsfeeds expire rather quickly though. I'll snuff out the BBC tomorrow."
Don't bother. You didn't dig enough. This whole "story" is bosh. I wish you've had looked closer, maybe you would come across a factual news source instead of taking the third-hand word of "womensenews." The Taliban did not get one penny of this money. As a matter of fact most of it was not money. To be specific, it's $28 million worth of wheat, $5 million worth of other food, and $10 millionin "livelihood and food security" programs. The aid was administered and distributed by the UN, bypassing the Taliban government. I'm shocked that, so long after proof was presented that this article was BS, people still think it's news. Really. It's sad how much people on the internet are so eager to believe something so scandalous because a feminist version of the Maoist Sojoiner lied about it, yet they continue to either ignore or not bother to seek out a multitude of legitimate news sources that would give the truth. The story that the Bush
administration gave money to the Taliban simply is not true. Here are some actual NEWS sources that discuss this aid factually and in
the proper context:
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010518/world/04afghanistan.shtml
http://english.sohu.com/20010518/file/0887,244,100016.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200105/18/eng20010518_70346.html
http://asia.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
Please note that this from a variety of news sources from all over the
world, none of which (for example the Communist Chinese People's Daily)
have any interest in making Bush look good.
Oh and by the way this aid was not just supported by the Bush
administration, but also by the Foundation for a Feminist Majority:
http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=18374
Why would these people support it? Because it's NOT money for the
Taliban. It's emergency food aid for starving refugees in Afghanistan.
It's aid for the VICTIMS of the Taliban, not for the Taliban dammit! And
it has nothing to do with the drug war.
Eva
Something of interest to those debating American-Israel relations, peace agreements, accords, etc.
http://english.hk.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/afp/article.html?s=hke/headlines/010917/world/afp/US_push_for_terror_coalition_sparks_rift_with_Israel.html
I now return to the Swiss Sidelines and being quite neutral.
Thank you and God bless (even those atheists out there).
This has to be the longest post response i've ever seen! Corse, after 9/11/01, what else could have fired us up so much? Man....hope no one goes postal. Figurativly, i mean.......
You really have to learn to communicate more directly. Your passive agressive insults bounce off me. I 'm guessing you're a little older than me. in your time, knee jerk liberalism was considered a sign of intelligence. Come to where I live Boston, you can buy an authentic looking poncho and live in Cambridge, listen to peter gabriel and study tai chi in a half assed manner. I can see you in WWII " Oh what if our bombs miss Hitler and hit innocent brownshirts." "I f I was German, I might resent America as well"
Sorry I dropped out of this -- I, uh,
hand my hands full on other fronts.
To Eva: I found this sa day or two after I posted:
http://www.spinsanity.org/
It rails on LA Times columnist Robert Scheer for birthing the false Taliban info. It has a few links to other sources who misquoted the deal as well. I believe the quotation I saw came from Salon, a source I don't usually trust, but had been turning to since the attacks. While I feel like a tool for believing everything I read in this case, I'm also greatly relieved to know we aren't financing the Taliban. That bit really ate at me when all of this first went down.
Though even the conservatives have been complaining about the aid, as linked from spinsanity:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010914.shtml
To Lester: you'd do well to NOT pigeonhole me as a liberal. Or as a pacifist. I don't know tai-chi, nor do I own a Peter Gabriel CD. I do smoke and own a gun, though.
Right now, we (the US) haven't done anything brash, for which I am thankful. Bush has calmed down on the raging war talk, and we seem as if we are strategizing our attacks. As I stated, my main concern is twofold -- I don't want to see an "all-hell" attack that ends up hurting more of those who don't support extremist than it hurts the guilty parties, nor do I want us to create a new generation of terrorists from our actions. The other side is that I don't want us to approach foreign policy from a 'business as usual' stance. I want someone to yell to Sharon and Arafat, "OK you two: down to the principal's office NOW!!!" If that's "bleeding heart," so be it. To me, avoiding the foreign policy issue fails to address what motivated these attacks.
Never did get around to watching that Hammer flick -- my boyfriend and I ended up talking about the attacks instead.
Nothing unreasonable or overly liberal about that at all. There are foreign policy issues that need to be addressed. It is quite a different thing to say that the attack was motivated, at least in part, by US foreign policy than it is to suggest that the attack was somehow invited by it. It's not generally a good idea blame the victim in any crime. Was this entire lengthy and heated debate a result of a simple misunderstanding?
Judging from his excellent State of the Union speech (give the speechwriters a raise or bonus or something for some truly brilliant writing dubya) and his mantra of "this is a 'new' kind of war with many different battlefields" and his announcement of the first shots being, quite wisely, an attempt to freeze terrorists money sources ("Get them fighting each other" he said) instead of a flurry of impressive looking bombing runs this is a President that looks to have an idea as to how to fight.
My favorite Bush quote is "I'm not going to shot a two million dollar missile at a empty ten dollar tent and hit a camel in the but. When we strike it will be decisive."
We can only hope.
No, I never intended to cast blame on the victim. No one "deserves" to be the object of such cruelty. But I do think US foreign policy hasn't done enough to eliminate an environment in which wealthy, religious nutjobs like bin Laden can convince people that the US does deserve it. Diffusing that environment without strengthening it is going to be key to any successful anti-terrorist campaign. I'm hoping that the lack of an all-hell assault indicates our leaders realize this. Doesn't change the fact that I still want to see the perpetrators' heads on sticks, though.
And as an aside, I wrote to the LA Times Columnist who first published the piece about Bush giving $43 million in aid to the Taliban for wiping out opium production (I REALLY dislike passing along bad info). I asked him if he could provide evidence that the $43 million in food ended up in the hands of the Taliban. He replied:
"Have you followed the most recent reports stating that all of the aid ended up in the Taliban's hands? The UN and other aid distributors were never able to act independently of the Taliban. Finally, the $43 million was a bonus to reward the Taliban for their drug policy as was made clear in the NYTimes article on my web site."
I said:
"No, I have not read that all of the aid ended up in the Taliban's hands. According to what I've read, 1,400 tons were seized on the 24th -- 65,000 tons of wheat were promised by the $43 million deal. Over 13, 000 tons were not seized, and continue to be distributed to people in Afghanistan. I've also read criticism directed at the World Food Project for NOT allowing more aid to fall into the hands of the Taliban. No matter how you slice it, it doesn't change the fact that the aid was not directly handed to the Taliban.
Moreover, $43 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $114 million in aid provided in 2000. The $43 million doesn't seem like a significant anti-drug bonus considering that the Bush administration planned $124 million in aid this year (as announced in May) -- $10 million, not $43 million, more than last year."
And right after I replied, I read that Bush just sent another 100, 000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan, doubling what we sent last year. Curious ...
Abby wrote....
"And right after I replied, I read that Bush just sent another 100, 000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan, doubling what we sent last year. Curious ..."
Not really when you consider the psychology of the move. We attempt to send aid to those suffering there, in return we hope to build up the anti-Taliban resentment and foster a revolution, etc. That's the idea, at least I like to think it is.
And I'm really sickened by this "Blame the Victim" mentality that's creeping out from under the far left rocks now that the shock as begun to wear off. As I commented to one co-worker - America is far from being the only country with skid marks on its underwear. I really wish they'd get over it and understand we were attacked for reasons far more complex than simple foreign policy issues (which do play a somewhat large role nonetheless).
Let's just hope we learn and handle situations in other countries with a little more diplomacy than has been shown in recent memory.
I've run across a couple of people who have expressed the opinion that the US brought it on themselves. It seems the "smug, self-righteous Canadians" Gordon Sinclair spoke of 30 years ago are still alive and well. Depending on the situation, I usually say one of two things:
It's all right to have your way with any woman if she wears a short skirt and flirts with you. You should see the reaction that gets.
For the more intelligent (ie. not knee-jerk bleeding-heart twits), I take a different approach:
A few years ago, I took a very active part in a campaign to keep a Wal-Mart store out of my community. It was bigger than us, had more resources than we did, and had a much greater reach. The project's developers greased a few wheels in the community, and did their best to bend local officials to their interests. We made a very strong case that big box retailing, in general, hurts small community-based family businesses, pays poorly, takes money out of the community, and contributes to the Americanization of Canada (no offence). We also felt that it didn't fit with our community values. I personally made the case that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward a sort of corporate feudalism. I considered that store to be a threat to my way of life.
You might disagree with me on that. The point is that we made our case, and we did it peacefully. We worked within the rules. That is what civilized people do to gain support for their causes. The project is still in appeals, but if it is built, I simply will not shop there. I'll tell other people why I won't shop there. I absolutely will not be trying to blow it up, or driving my van through the front door. If I did, that would be a crime. The cops would use as much force as necessary to haul my ass in, and they would throw the book at me. The fact that I thought I was doing right, or that I might have some legitimate concerns would not enter into it.
So it is with the terrorists and their supporters.
Thanks.