[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The more I think of it, these MUST be the most opressed and put upon people in the history of the world. The causes of terrorism and anti-western attitudes SHOULD be considered above all of our other concerns. We should all stop whatever it is we were doing with our lives, and consider the plight of these people above any other concerns.In fact, WHAT other concerns?

Just look at the region. Isn't it OBVIOUS that those dastardly Israelis are picking on everyone else? How dare anyone support them, or offer aid to them. How dare they defend themselves. OBVIOUSLY they must the the lone agressors. Everyone else is peaceful, and of course practice sweet, humble religions of tolerance and love. They just want to worship in peace, yet HOW can they breath with the weight of this horrible, huge, rouge nation bearing down on them constantly?!

How dare anyone ever even dare SUGGEST that perhaps it might be everyone else in the region that needs to get over and get along with Israel... no, it's the Israelis who OBVIOUSLY have the upper hand and must make all the consessions here.

And ya know, the US is just horrible... the 'great Satan'. My, how we've dicked around in this area, and now there are things like hopeless poverty, and burning resentment, leading to terrorisim being justified... and of course we're to blame.

We're the ONLY ones who can fix anything that we've caused to happen here. Don't look to anyone else for pete's sake. Dammit, the oil shieks are too busy buying fleets of luxury cars, vast palaces, huge chunks of Beverly Hills, lear jets and sampling every single whore on the planet... they can't be expected to clear their busy scheduels to help out any of thier fellow Islamic people! What an utterly UNREASONABLE request! The military leaders of many of these nations, are too preoccupied buying up surplus Soviet military hardware to lift a finger of aid to anyone. Heck, it gets EXPENSIVE playing war-games out in the desert with tanks and jet aircraft. Black market nukes are hard to find at any price, and running chemical weapon plants takes a lot of funding! At least fuel prices are reasonable. Let 'em eat oil eh?

Yup. The world's most picked on, put out, down-trodden people. We need to feel the pain of the Afganistan nation in particular, and shoulder the blame, and excuse the feeling of a need for terrorism.

We western scoundrels helped them out in a war, helped them beat an agressive, conquering enemy, then *gasp* left them to fend for themselves all by there lonesome. What an evil, criminal thing to do. So of course they are now all hopelessly starving, scraping for food, and it's all our fault of course. But *ahem* never mind that some amoung them seem to find the means to amass great fortunes and are multi-millionares. Never mind they are next door to some of the most insanely, naturally wealthy nations on earth. It's far better to use that money and do such helpful and constructive things for the host country, such as... train terrorists to bomb skyscrapers half way around the world. That's of course INFINTLY more important and more productive than feeding anyone. And sure, the Afgans practically have those dirty Israelis in thier backyard, so they have lots of room to crow about any US support there.

So we should just forget about Israel... the popular kids on the block don't like her. So screw 'em.. we helped them out, but now we should just pull out, and leave them to fend for themselves. Ooops, wait a minute... didn't we DO that already and now we're told that we have to make consessions for terrorist strikes against us because we did?

Well... but this time it's different. In this case, that would be just and reasonable, the peace-loving thing to do...everyone follow?

So I say we stop being so shelfish in the west, and own up to our responcibility in making folks in this region the most picked on and worthy of revenge seeking people on earth. Let's all try to do just a little more understanding. Their problems are worthy of the constant, and continued focus of the entire world. Huge, insurmountable problems. People picked on them. People have taken over ********VAST******** areas of their land. People do bad things to them like make them swim in oil money. Now, we owe it to them, to allow them to dictate the terms of global peace.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[maxelson]

Yes, Oh, yes. It is painfully obvious that you have all the answers on this region.
Go get informed before you start spouting. I suggest starting with the writings of T.E. Lawrence. Then go back to the Bible, follow that up with the Q'uoran. Then do a bit of research on the ancient history of the region. I am pretty sure Prince Faisal also wrote substantially about the British incursions into the area, about the separate tribes and their subsequent unity.. There have to be a buttload of publications on the Soviet (attempted) occupation.
Yah. Judge, judge, judge. Lets condemn the whole region. Swell Idea. Smart, too.

Oh. Yeah. Badda BING...

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Like I said Maxelson... OF COURSE everyone else needs to focus their time and effort entirely on them. They are the most picked on, downtrodden, misunderstood people on the planet, so of course that follows.

I notice you have SUCH a list of counter arguments that proves anything I said wrong.


British incursions? I've pointed that out myself. Sure, GREAT reason to hate the US. Russian invasions? ANOTHER great reason to hate the US.

Oh yeah, by the way, you're a mental midget.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[dogzilla]

Originally posted by maxelson:[/QB]

Here, let me rework your post into something appropriate for Islamic Fundamentalists:

-----------

Yes, Oh, yes. It is painfully obvious that you have all the answers on this region.
Go get informed before you start spouting. I suggest starting with the writings of [Winston Churchill in his "History of the American People"]. Then go back to the [Declaration of Independence], follow that up with the [Bill of Rights]. Then do a bit of research on the [18th-century history of Britain]. I am pretty sure [many people] also wrote substantially about the British incursions into the area, about the separate [states] and their subsequent unity.. There have to be a buttload of publications on the [Japanese] (attempted) occupation.
Yah. Judge, judge, judge. Lets condemn the whole region. Swell Idea. Smart, too.

-----------

OK, there we go. Now does America have your support to begin committing random terrorist acts on civilian populations of countries that piss us off and trying to wipe out, say, Canada?

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: dogzilla ]

[Robert Jung]

CRASH has the mistaken notion that the only grief the terrorists have with the United States is our support of Israel.

While Israel is part of what's bugging them, it's not the only thing. Others include US manipulation of middle eastern countries (Iran, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan being the most prominent) and a fear that Western values will take over traditional Muslem ones -- conservatives like the Taliban and bin Laden don't want to wear Levis, drink Coca-Cola, or listen to N*Sync (though I don't blame them for that last one ).

Note that, also, not all Middle Eastern countries feel that way. Moderate and liberal countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have no beef against the United States, and many others will be glad to leave the US alone if we leave them alone. The problem is that we've already shown that we aren't willing to leave them alone, and that worries them...

[maxelson]

Originally posted by dogzilla:
<STRONG>

Here, let me rework your post into something appropriate for Islamic Fundamentalists:

-----------

Yes, Oh, yes. It is painfully obvious that you have all the answers on this region.
Go get informed before you start spouting. I suggest starting with the writings of [Winston Churchill in his "History of the American People"]. Then go back to the [Declaration of Independence], follow that up with the [Bill of Rights]. Then do a bit of research on the [18th-century history of Britain]. I am pretty sure [many people] also wrote substantially about the British incursions into the area, about the separate [states] and their subsequent unity.. There have to be a buttload of publications on the [Japanese] (attempted) occupation.
Yah. Judge, judge, judge. Lets condemn the whole region. Swell Idea. Smart, too.

-----------

OK, there we go. Now does America have your support to begin committing random terrorist acts on civilian populations of countries that piss us off and trying to wipe out, say, Canada?

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: dogzilla ]</STRONG>

So, where does that come from? I point to some history and you spin it into me being an unamerican slime who would champion the terrorists? I really do not understand what point you are trying to make.

First mistake: comparing the western mindset to an Islamic mindset. Our history is not theirs nor is it even remotely similar. Second, I'll point out the word you used: FUNDAMENTALISTS. Here's another word: EXTREMISTS. THESE are the enemy. NOT the people of the region. Did you miss the point of Bush's (excellent) speech last night?

CRASH- Oversimplification, BaddaBingBoy- that is what I accuse you of. I offered you places to look, documentation by people who are-were there. Firsthand information from both sides and historical data that will help give an understanding and perspectives as to the origins of the issues. I give you this because me telling you ANYTHING does no good. You would not believe me if I told you the sky was blue and up (you'd say it was a liberal plot to tarnish Bush or some other such comedy). So, I really don't bother anymore. You are intentionally obtuse just for the sake of being adversarial. Either that or you really are just that obtuse. Why should I argue with you? You do not want to understand anything. You offer little of value. It is all knee jerk emotional responses. Reactionary and overly reactive.
How about this: in order to effectively fight an enemy, you have to understand that enemy. Know WHY he does/ thinks/ reacts/ attacks. So do your friggin' patriotic duty and learn something about these people.
As far as wealth in the region- well, I 'll just tell you to research that one as well for the same reason I give above. The information is quite easy to find. Do you want to look for it? I have a deep suspicion as to the answer: NO. Because it counteracts your tiny view of the world. But hey. I'm no psychologist. Just a mental midgit. Right? "Dude"?

Here you go- no spin, no junk, just encyclopedic reference material : http://travel.dk.com/wdr/AF/mAF_Intr.htm
Of course, you will need to interpret some of this information and use some critical thinking skills and then make some inferences. Up for the challenge? Or shall we resort back to your age honored technique of name calling.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[finboy]

Crash, we musn't oversimplify things, no matter how powerful the intellectual vacuum of our opponents.

Next, I think that this conflict WILL bring people to find out about the Middle East. It's happening already. Thankfully, people are doing their own research and ignoring the media -- folks are finding out that America isn't really to blame for all this. Who knew? Max, that's what I want to see come from this, folks find their own info and realize that those that are spouting anti-American rhetoric, even subtly, are hostile to our way of life.

As far as oversimplifying things is concerned, sometimes things are simple. They don't need watering down. They are prima facia valid arguments and obvious to people with a little objectivity.

Finally, when does the major media or the Left NOT oversimplify to sway public opinion? In most cases, they HAVE TO oversimplify and obscure, since their arguments don't bear up to serious scrutiny.

[maxelson]

Finboy-
1) When did this become a partisan issue?
2) Why need that be?
3) I'm your "opponent"? Really. C'mon.
I never considered you an idiot- I do not disrespect your opinion. I find you to be firm in your beliefs and I applaud that wholeheartedly. I even appreciate your point of view, though I may disagree at times (and I like your writing style, but that's neither hither nor thither).
I agree with you about the rhetoric. I just do not want to see it come from Us. Let the terrorists do that. Let them play that game. We need to prove ourselves better. To simply say it is not enough in this world. What we are fighting is not just guns and bombs and biological agents. We are fighting a very effective propaganda machine. Their audience is extremely uneducated- barely literate- and that is a population ripe and ready for manipulation.
More later. Got a Quicksilver that is giving me issues.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

First off, I'm not out to 'oversimplify' things.. I want CLARIFICATION. From what we've been hearing, I'm sorry, but one IS led to belive we're talking about the most downtrodden, picked on people on the planet.

Maxelson, OF COURSE you'd miss the point entirely. Bravo. I've been the LAST to deny that this area hasn't been messed over by people for centuries. But you know what? As for people who've been dicked over in this world--certainly by European nations--GET IN LINE on the greviance list!

I think it's a perfectly valid question, in light of recent events, that WHY aren't other regions of the world, where people have been horribly opressed, sprouting terrorists left and right? Why is having been abused by some country or another in the past, an excuse for terrorism?

Specifically, what REALLY is the big excuse in a region like this, litterally SWIMMING in natural wealth? Why is it when you've been horribly pestered by Europeans and Russians for centuries, you don't go and bomb them... you bomb the US?

I guess Ghandi should have taken a page from Bin Laden, is basically the logic of you people who seem to think being messed with by western powers=excuse to become terrorists.

I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask: "Okay, WHAT really IS the excuse to have some of these nations in such bitter terrorist producing poverty, while others roll around in pools of cash with luxury car fleets and lear jets parked out in front of the palace? WHY don't the downtrodden focus some of their rage against the LOCALS there who don't help them, rather than some country thousands of miles away? Why don't they take some of their anger out on nutbag, fundamentalist jerkoffs who lord it over them, rather than the US?"

I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask: "If so many people here really aren't religous loonies, WHAT, pray tell, really and truly is the problem with leaving Israel alone and letting them be? Is the battle over that tiny little strip of nothing REALLY worth all the bullcrap and bickering?"

But no. I can't ask these questions. It's unfair. It MUST all be the fault of the US and we got what we deserved I guess.

How dare I questiont the notion that: Whatever the US has done in the middle east in the past= iron clad excuse for terrorism.

How dare I want some REAL qualifications for that, before I just buy it hook line and sinker.

By the way maxelson, where have you been in the middle east, since you think you know so much about it? Me, I've been to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I found 100% of the people I met there some of the most friendly I've ever met anywhere. I don't for a minute buy that they are all religious nuts, I think like people anywhere, most of them just want to get up everyday, go to work, feed their families and get on with things. I just think they all (with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey) have insane fundamentalist governments who are really behind all the crap that goes on in the region.

[finboy]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>Finboy-
1) When did this become a partisan issue?
2) Why need that be?
3) I'm your "opponent"? Really. C'mon.
I never considered you an idiot- I do not disrespect your opinion. I find you to be firm in your beliefs and I applaud that wholeheartedly. I even appreciate your point of view, though I may disagree at times (and I like your writing style, but that's neither hither nor thither).
I agree with you about the rhetoric. I just do not want to see it come from Us. Let the terrorists do that. Let them play that game. We need to prove ourselves better. To simply say it is not enough in this world. What we are fighting is not just guns and bombs and biological agents. We are fighting a very effective propaganda machine. Their audience is extremely uneducated- barely literate- and that is a population ripe and ready for manipulation.
More later. Got a Quicksilver that is giving me issues.</STRONG>

Max, we can quibble about stuff, and go back and forth, on issues such as domestic policy and our philosophies of life. But I'm taking a confrontational stance with this because it's obvious to me that there are lots of folks ready to light candles, sing "Give Peace a Chance" and forget about it. That is not acceptable. To the extent that I read that into your posts (here and elsewhere) and I'm wrong, then I apologize. But to the extent that you're saying "wait," be sure to find that word out of a sense of prudence. We cannot afford to wait any longer, and we cannot allow the rest of the world to blame us for the actions of a bunch of psychos. I don't have the "kill 'em all and let Allah sift through the fallout" attitude, by a long shot, but there is only one viable solution here, and it involves interpersonal violence. Arguing about that doesn't fix anything or change the situation. Arguing about "causes" doesn't help anything either -- I'd bet that none of those folks at the WTC were advisors in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

[maxelson]

Look- I'm just going to put aside the hostile tone and just talk. I hope I can, anyway.
First off, Crash, i guess it is true. I did misunderstand. Here's why- the post seemed to take on an incredibly sarcastic tone. To be honest, I simply thought you were being sarcastic. And I do think it is oversimplified. There is no one answer. No one event or attitude or whatever. Yes the people are trodden upon, but from where I stand, it is most often by their own governments who are enjoying the fact that they can reap the rewards and just point the finger at the big bad US for all of their troubles. Lets take a look at all of those poor Iraqis- I'd say that the rulling class is living quite well. Weapons are being built. Military well provided for. People starving. Who is blamed? The US.
I never claimed to be an expert on the mideast. I have studied the history over the years, payed close attention to whats going on and drew a few conclusions. I've even been there. I agree with your assessment of the governments. I do not think that this has anything to do with Islam. I think it has to do with just getting the big bad "other". If it was not us, it would be some other Infidel. But the US is perceived as being the infidel, a sucking leach. We take their oil and display our arrogance. We claim to go to war to protect a country and the perception is that it is not justice but our own self interest that propels us. We throw our influence around and try to bend the world to our will (let's take a moment now to remind folks that I am merely projecting... no... can that... not projecting- reiterating what BinLaden said in his interview with that reporter a few years back). And, in order to build up as much force as possible, they use their strongest incentive- Islam. Easy manipulation. Hell, look at the Fundamentalist Christians here- they do the same... somehow I can't see Falwell inspiring anyone to crash a plane for God, though.


BTW, I've only been to Isreal, Egypt and Jordan. Aside from the weather, I loved it and enjoyed the company of lots of people and still keep contact with many friends there. Friends who have many and varying opinions on what is happening and what is to come. Their opinions about last week are not varied.

As for the Israeli conflict. I'm out on that one. That issue is 2000 years old. God gave us this land. No he didn't. He gave it to us and we were here first (now THAT's oversimplification). I do believe that our continued support of Israel is a factor in this.
I'm tired.
I'm going home.
Sh*t. We want to fight this? We cannot even stop fighting ourselves. I have had it with the black and whites. I have had it with "I'm right, you're wrong". I've had it with the planes bombs and box cutters and dying in the name of *insert deity here*. I've had it with the hypocrisy.
I want desperately for these people to pay for this. I just know that it can only get real bad from here. This sh*t did not start last week. It has been going on for years. And it is going to keep going.
Maybe *insert deity here* will send the friggin' plague down on all of us and we will get what we ALL deserve.
Mankind fvcking sucks.
Skip the finger pointing. It takes two.

[deedar]

Fin & Max - Guys (I assume)... Boy, do I ever appreciate the stimulating dialogue and excellent writing skills and style that you both have. Thanks for posting to these boards - it's folks like you that raise the bar.., a bar constantly pulled lower by the likes of butthead68. Thanks again.

Anyway, I've gotta agree with finboy here - there is a time and a place for everything and now is the time for response. It's not acceptable to wait, to discuss the philosophical and geopolitical reasons why this happened... there will be plenty of time for that later. The terror attacks are .... words fail me here ....reprehensible, disgusting, horrifying, ...??? I cannot find the right word. We must respond and we must respond now. Like it or not, this IS war (and I don't like it). If we don't respond now, and take some of these folks out, it will certainly get nothing but worse. I don't mean a full frontal assalt in the conventional sense, but rather some selective deployment(s) of special forces where they are needed (afghanistan and iraq come immediately to mind) and gut this damn loose-knit group of their leaders. sure there will be more people to take their place, that's why this war will be protracted. In the short term, their activities may (will) increase, but, over the long hall, I think that with a combination of force, diplomatic and econmomic pressure, this "movement " can be brought to it's knees.

Lest you think that I am a war-mongering conservative... I'm not. I am a 47-year old, left wing tree-hugger that's simply sick and friggin tired of my country being kicked around - from inside and out. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to stand (take it) for it any more!

Keep it up guys - both of you are great!

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: deedar ]

[BRussell]

I basically agree with Crash about the fact that the US is not the bad guy in the region that has been portrayed. From what I understand, bin Laden's issues with the US have less to do with Israel and more to do with our forces being on Saudi Arabian soil.

bin Laden's views are based on religious bigotry, pure and simple: get the infidels off our holy land, or we will blow them up every chance we get.

However, I disagree with the more militaristic positions (represented, I think, by finboy), because it's not really a war, no matter how many times GWB says it is. There is no clear objective, no one will know when it's over, we don't know exactly who the enemies are, there is no land-grab that can be reversed, no capital to take, no army to drive back, no aircraft to shoot down.

This is law enforcement: Get the guys who did it, try to prevent others from doing it again. But that's not a war. With the Gulf War, there was a very clear objective - Iraq out of Kuwait. Period. We did it, we knew when it was over, and we stopped when we had accomplished that goal.

This, by the way, is exactly the debate that is currently ongoing in the Bush administration. Powell is arguing for restraint, Rumsfeld for massive force against not only the Taliban and bin Laden, but also Iraq. That would be a disaster, in my opinion.

It was clear that the use of the military in this type of situation contradicts the Powell doctrine, and my suspicion that he was against "war" in this situation has been confirmed by several articles today on cnn and other sites.

Here's the link from the cnn story.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is pushing for a limited military component in this self-declared war against terrorism and instead wants to place more emphasis on less traditional "tools" in the United States arsenal -- financial, political, diplomatic and legal, according to several senior State Department officials familiar with the department's planning.

That is why, officials point out, the Treasury Department is in the midst of setting up task forces to deal with the financial aspect of this campaign.

One official said the military is a "blunt instrument" and should be kept to a "minimum" in order to maintain the idea that "this is not a war against Islam."

"If collateral damage is extensive it could wind up in a matter of weeks or months in a holy war," said this official.

In addition, this official said to use the word "war" in this campaign will be a misnomer as this will likely be a drawn-out, multi-faceted campaign lasting years.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and others, on the other hand, are pushing to broaden this campaign in the short term, to target so-called state sponsors of terrorism like Iraq, State Department officials and diplomatic sources tell CNN.

Conservatives should realize that what skeptics like me are saying is exactly what conservatives said about some of Clinton's actions. They asked: what's the exit strategy? They said: Don't use the military unless there is a clear military objective.

So, I'll ask about this war: when is it over? What is the discrete military objective?

[deedar]

Discrete objectives:

1. OBL
2. Taliban
3. OBL operatives (about a half-dozen or so, can't remember their
names, but we know who they are).
4. Saddam Hussein and sons
5. Massive airlift of food and medical supplies into affected areas

Badda-boom, badda-bing

[BRussell]

Originally posted by deedar:
<STRONG>Discrete objectives:

1. OBL
2. Taliban
3. OBL operatives (about a half-dozen or so, can't remember their
names, but we know who they are).
4. Saddam Hussein and sons
5. Massive airlift of food and medical supplies into affected areas
</STRONG>

I agree with getting OBL and his guys (although, apparently it's a very loose network all over the world). But it sounds like a job for the CIA and special ops, not carriers and B2s. Not a war.

The problem is, these are individuals, not military objectives.

We tried to kill Hussein for months. And he was in palaces, not caves in mountains like this guy. And we already have been trying to get OBL for years.

[deedar]

Ahem.... "eliminating" these individuals can be considered military objectives. The carriers/planes/etc are as much for show as for support. If we really set our sights on Hussein, we would get him. The problem was, that "removing" him he was not one of our objectivesa during the gulf war.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by maxelson:
[QB]Look- I'm just going to put aside the hostile tone and just talk. I hope I can, anyway.
First off, Crash, i guess it is true. I did misunderstand. Here's why- the post seemed to take on an incredibly sarcastic tone. To be honest, I simply thought you were being sarcastic. And I do think it is oversimplified. There is no one answer.

Well, you're exactly correct Maxelson, my original post was pretty much pure sarcasm and parody to a degree. That's basically my writing style. But at the core, there were a few basic questions that I really do have... and think we all could use some sort of answers to them. For example, I've NEVER gotten a favorable answer to the question of why don't the wealthier people/nations/goverments/royal families of this region do a little less exploiting of the poor and impressionable people, and a LOT more supporting them. It's also something I've wondered about before these recent events.

I'd be distrustful of ANYONE who thinks there is one simple answer, or any overall solution to the problems of the middle east. To be certain, even the questions I have-- although there are some answers out there to be found to a few of them-- are still for the most part in the realm of the rhetorical. I certainly don't have answers for what to do overall, but I DO have a lot of questions.

Yes the people are trodden upon, but from where I stand, it is most often by their own governments who are enjoying the fact that they can reap the rewards and just point the finger at the big bad US for all of their troubles. Lets take a look at all of those poor Iraqis- I'd say that the rulling class is living quite well. Weapons are being built. Military well provided for. People starving. Who is blamed? The US.

You and I have absolutely NOTHING to disagree about with the above. Seems to me you've got the same questions I do. Many people for years have wondered the same things... and the hows and whys that allow this to happen? Why does it happen so intensly in this region? Other areas of the world are torn apart by strife, have bullying goverments, don't particularly like the US, perhaps have been 'messed with' by us and other nations--still they don't seem to go around declaring all out 'Jihad' on us.

I never claimed to be an expert on the mideast. I have studied the history over the years, payed close attention to whats going on and drew a few conclusions. I've even been there. I agree with your assessment of the governments. I do not think that this has anything to do with Islam. I think it has to do with just getting the big bad "other". If it was not us, it would be some other Infidel.

I've never been one to religion-bash--let people take solace in whatever faith they want... but I must admit I DO have some questions about Islam, and I do find it hard to totally disconnect it from everything that happens in this region-- including insane, out of control fundamentalist governments. Now, yes, I'm full aware that not everyone who practices Islam is bad, sides with terrorists, etc. Probably it's another case of the few giving a bad image to the many. But I guess I just don't see *enough* denouncing of the negative things, by the good Islamic people to be totally convinced that all is wonderful. I dunno.. it's a touchy subject to even get into... but suffice it to say, I still find something 'amiss' with the way Islamic leaders handle the way governments, terrorists groups, and high profile individuals manage to butcher their faith, which in turn implies an acceptance of, and even a support of atrocities that take place in the name of their faith. I'd be just as critical of any other religious group that existed in a region with so many violent fundamentalist groups that claim their faith, and more of the decent people didn't take MAJOR steps to stand up and denounce those that misrepresent the faith.

But the US is perceived as being the infidel, a sucking leach. We take their oil and display our arrogance.

I'm not sure we 'take' their oil from them, rather we seem to pay them through the nose for it. But yeah, it's increasingly obvious we need to watch our step in this section of the world from now on, and step lightly, lest we touch off more fires here and there. But that's not going to be so easy with a 'war on terrorism' about to start... so I guess we're in for another big ol' $hit sandwich.

We claim to go to war to protect a country and the perception is that it is not justice but our own self interest that propels us. We throw our influence around and try to bend the world to our will (let's take a moment now to remind folks that I am merely projecting... no... can that... not projecting- reiterating what BinLaden said in his interview with that reporter a few years back). And, in order to build up as much force as possible, they use their strongest incentive- Islam. Easy manipulation. Hell, look at the Fundamentalist Christians here- they do the same... somehow I can't see Falwell inspiring anyone to crash a plane for God, though.

I still think we're getting half the picture on the whole 'going to war' thing. I've heard this over and over-- and it's as if we just marched into all the places and said "Okay, we're here, and we're taking charge of this war, weather you like it or not!" But from other accounts, I've heard it said that virtually each time we've gotten involved millitarily in this region, we've been asked, even petitioned for help. Take the whole Afganistan conflict. It's painted that we 'used' Bin Laden to achive our goals against the Soviets... granted. I'm sure that's true. But the flip side of the story is, Bin Laden also was probably MORE than happy to use us to further his own ends at the time. It's hardly as if he said "no thanks, we don't want your help, your money, your weapons... etc." So it seems most of his beef is really that we pulled out at the end of the war, rather than set him up as the puppet dictator or whatever it is he wanted. I doubt VERY seriously he, or people like him, give two $hits about the common people of Afganistan. Yeah, yeah sure, probably a simplification to some degree, but I'm willing to bet it cuts close to the core issues.
In terms of the Gulf war, again it's always bantered around as if Kuwait never asked for, or wanted our help, which is totally not the case.

BTW, I've only been to Isreal, Egypt and Jordan. Aside from the weather, I loved it and enjoyed the company of lots of people and still keep contact with many friends there. Friends who have many and varying opinions on what is happening and what is to come. Their opinions about last week are not varied.

Same here just about all the above... except never been to Jordan. I actually loved the weather...even Egypt in the summer. One defintly learns QUICK why people in the region dress as they do; loose fitting, layered garments, preferably cotton, are the only way to go. Leave the Banana Republic crap at home and dress like the people who have lived in the region for centuries and understand it do!

As for the Israeli conflict. I'm out on that one. That issue is 2000 years old. God gave us this land. No he didn't. He gave it to us and we were here first (now THAT's oversimplification). I do believe that our continued support of Israel is a factor in this.

Well, I posted that map for a reason. I think that taking a look at the region really illustrates a few basic undeniable things.. I dunno, perhaps only I see it. Of course I don't think the ONLY problem here is the Israel conflict... but I think it serves as the PERFECT metaphor for the fact that tiny, almost 'blink and you'll miss them' mole hills in this region somehow seem to get turned into HUGE mountains on which to kill and die over. That then calls into question... well, if this is SUCH an issue to live or die for, then isn't it *reasonable* to assume that many other misunderstandings can easily get blown WAY out of proportion in this region as well? Sure, everyone isn't out of control, but I wonder... how many trips has Salman Rushdie made to the Middle east in the past 10 years?

[Nile Crocodile]

"This is law enforcement"

Oh? Well someone put a call into the Kabul office of the FBI and have them round up all the terrorist.

**** ? Who knew it was that simple.

[Face Ache]

Now, if before registering for forums you had to do an IQ test and the result was posted alongside your names, we could all save a lot of reading.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by deedar:
<STRONG>Ahem.... "eliminating" these individuals can be considered military objectives. The carriers/planes/etc are as much for show as for support. If we really set our sights on Hussein, we would get him. The problem was, that "removing" him he was not one of our objectivesa during the gulf war.</STRONG>

Killing Hussein absolutely was an objective in the gulf war.

But you're right, killing individuals can be a military objective. They have only been a military objective in the past, however, in the context of a larger strategic plan involving land. If we got the land, it didn't matter if we couldn't get the individuals. In this, getting specific individuals is an end in itself. And not only specific individuals, but individuals that engage in or plan specific actions. That's where I think the problem lies.

Actually, the only parallel I can think of is Noriega in late 1989. We used the military to overthrow one gov't and replace it with another. The problem with that model is that these terrorsists are a loosely-knit organization are all over the world, rather than residing in one specific place. If Noriega had somehow escaped, it wouldn't have mattered, because we could have replaced the gov't anyway. If these terrorists scatter and hide, we haven't accomplished our goal yet.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>"This is law enforcement"

Oh? Well someone put a call into the Kabul office of the FBI and have them round up all the terrorist.

**** ? Who knew it was that simple.</STRONG>

What makes you think law enforcement is simple? If it was so simple, we wouldn't have any crime.

War is the solution that oversimplifies the situation. My point in using the analogy to law enforcement is to indicate that it's not nearly as simple as "bomb and invade." It's an ongoing fight, rather than a discrete goal.

It amazes me that people are saying "shutup, it's war, don't analyze it any more than that." Because if you listen to the Bush administration, they're definitely moving away from the simplistic use of the term "war" that characterized Bush's statements in the three or four days following the hijackings. Now, when he uses the term, even he qualifies it.

Here is a quote from Bush's speech:

We will direct every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war - to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

And the term "war" has hardly passed from the lips of either Powell or Cheney, and I've watched long interviews with both of them in the past week (Cheney on Meet the Press and Powell on Late Edition).

It sounds to me like some folks here have a much more simplistic view of this than the leaders they say they are supporting and I am criticizing. In reality, you are the ones that are not with the program.

My criticism comes from viewing this as a war. I see two possibilities:

a. Bush is using the term merely to look tough. If that's the case, he'll have a perception problem over the coming years, when people realize the war won't actually ever be won. Americans won't like the idea of the US being in a constant state of war without any foreseeable end.

b. Bush really sees it as a military war. If that's the case, we're going to lose the war, because, as the quote earlier in the thread states, the military is a blunt instrument. And this requires a sharp instrument. I'm glad that Powell is there, because he, of all people, knows better. If this is the way Bush sees it, I wouldn't be surprised to see Powell leave before Bush's first term is up. If Bush sees this as war, it violates every principle Powell has ever stated about the use of American military might.

[holiday]

Wow. Good stuff here! Just a few thoughts off the top of me head. Firstly, if we were to really leave Israel alone as someone suggested in an earlier post that state would disappear off the face of the earth within a year. The USA, thanks to some very skillful lobbyist, grants Israel more than 5 billion dollars a year. That is billion not millions. Where do you think the lion�s share of that welfare check goes? Unemployed single Jewish mothers? Nope. The Military. Now think what the Israeli � Palestine situation would be like if Palestine got matching funds or Israel did not get the annual welfare check. The state of Israel is a soap bubble in a raging desert sandstorm. My prediction is that within 50 years there will no longer be a sovereign nation called Israel. It is unfortunate that feel I must state that I am not an anti-Semite because if I do not I know I will be flamed endlessly. Secondly, I just read a couple of very interesting essays that relate to this thread�s topic. The first is Edward Said�s introduction to his book "Orientalism", and the second is an essay by a Marshall G.S. Hodgson entitled, �The Impact of the Great Western Transmutation: The Generation of 1789�. The second essay is fascinating. Basically it states that between 1600 and 1800, the western world underwent a relatively sudden general cultural transformation that decisively set it apart from the rest of the world (the primarily the middle eastern and asian) and lifted it to a position of social, political, military, economic dominance. The western �transmutation�, as Hodgson calls it, involved cultural transformations within the economy, within the intellectual world, and within general society. These cultural transformations within the western world quickly culminated into a Euro-American world hegemony. This transmutation to �supremacy� did not occur because the western society was in any way better but happened due to chance and circumstance.
Depending on how one views the �western transmutation�, it can been seen as either the epicenter of some horrific earthquake sending out ripples and shockwaves or a glorious blossoming of modern (and western) culture that has effected nearly every human being since. The �western transmutation� greatly reinforced the old-new, modern-ancient dichotomy. As Hodgson states at the very end of the section in the essay entitle Why Only the Occident, �Hence the Transmutation, once it got well under way, could neither be paralleled independently nor be borrowed wholesale. Yet, it could not, in most cases, be escaped. The millennial parity of social power broke down, with results that were disastrous almost everywhere.� This statement is true in every instance that the �transmuted west� or modern culture has encountered an agrarian, nomadic, pastoral or basically non-western culture. The former seems to always consume the latter. Think of such encounters as the American Indian � European settler struggle, the Communist Chinese � Tibetan nationalist conflicts, Vietnam and more recently the American � Arab conflict. Of course, this theory of transmutation is only one aspect of the situation the USA presently finds itself. My point is to illustrate that our current state of affairs is extremely complicated and deeply rooted in the historical development of the world, as we know it today. Thirdly, I find it very disheartening that a vast majority of those living in the United States have stated (at least from what I�ve gathered on the news) they are willing to give up the one thing that really guarantees freedom and safety from oppression and random acts of violence at the hands of those with power, their civil liberties, if it may on an off chance occasionally stop a terrorist bomb from going off. If this is truly the case the terrorist have accomplished a great deal. They have struck terror into our hearts, driven us to blindly lash out with violence, lead us to embrace idiot nationalism and swindled us into giving up our constitutional rights in order to protect ourselves from the boogieman. That is all for now. For the very few of you in MacNN forum land with the patience to read this entire post I hope this thread continues with the level of high caliber contribution I have already read in order to better understand this incredible situation we are presently facing. My apologies for the spelling and grammatical errors, my fingers sometimes work faster than my brain. Thank you everyone. Keep it kind. Keep it cool.

[vega24]

I'd like to say something about the idea of killing Suddam Hussien during the Gulf War. Killing Suddam was never even really considered I think, in any great detail at least. The notion being if we get rid of Saddam, then we would have to occupy Iraq. And so, that brings up the questions (1) How long would we have to occupy Iraq and (2) how would the rest of the Islamic nations in that region feel about "The Great Satan" being in control of Iraq. The reason I wanted to bring this up was because the US might go in and remove the Taliban from power, either directly with brute force or indiretly through the help of the Northern Alliance. I would hope it's through the use of the Northern Alliance so that no occuping US forces would need to be left behind but then again they may get treated the same way the Kurds were treated in northern Iraq. (left for dead after the mission is over)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Okay, pardon more of my confusion over the Middle East, in particular Afghanistan, but is this the work of a rational nation? In today's news: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc...ban/index.html
"The United States has demanded that the Taliban deliver bin Laden -- the man U.S. officials say is behind the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington -- to U.S. custody. The Taliban have refused without seeing evidence.

In a statement to the the Qatar-based television network Al Jazeera, [Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar] said killing either bin Laden or himself would not deter further attacks on Americans. He warned the United States it would avoid conflict only if it withdraws its military from the Persian Gulf, stays out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leaves Islam and Muslims alone."

So again, I have some questions. Why is it that Pakistan--which actually IS on the Persian Gulf-- isn't the country with the major beef over us being there, and isn't the country being such international dickwads? And again, from WHAT ***practical***logical***reasonable*** standpoint does Afghanistan have any business being concerned with what goes on in Israel, or feel they can dictate the United States's position there? As I joked before, yeah sure, that's an issue that's just right in their back yard. I know, I know... hand me all the ancient Islamic religious reasons that they hate Israel and feel that justifies them in the modern world to irradicate all jews, but I qualify my question with **PRACTICAL and LOGICAL** reasons--that one would expect of modern, mature, thinking, reasonable people-- not religious fundamentalist nutcases or Nazi-esqe swine. And for those of you who keep saying it's not a big part of the cause of all the goofiness coming out of the middle east, then WHY is this demand so high up on the list here?

Then, after all the demands "US must do this, and US must do that, and US must stay out of this area that's 4 countries away from us" bullcrap, I run across THIS little tidbit in the same news article:

"After years of civil war and drought, Afghanistan has become increasingly reliant on international food aid, much of which comes from the United States."
Gee, we're just sooooo evil to the Afghan people. My sympathy cup starts to runeth over.

"The Taliban also took over the World Food Program's supply of food in Kandahar on Monday as well as their offices, a spokeswoman said. The warehouse held 1,400 metric tons of food."
Great,so now the little babies take the food from their own people for whatever nutcase reason. Now just WHO will get blamed when the people starve I wonder?

You'll forgive me if I have other questions, such as "WHAT the hell century are people living in over there, where this type of asshole government even has the ability to come to power in a country!?"

Finally, isn't it about time the nutcases of this region stopped feeling it's everyone ELSE on the planet who has to stop everything they are doing, and cow-tow to them,spend all our time learning what pissed them off and what doesn't... rather; THEY need to spend a little time learning what EVERYONE ELSE is really all about, and collectively GROW THE F UP a little bit?!? That was king of my whole point with this thread to begin with, that got lost in the shuffle.

But hey, I'm sure I'm being unfair by raising such questions. I'm supposed to somehow accept the premise that the US really is evil.. even though we FEED people who hate us (!!) and our country is made up of every type of person, from all walks of life--including many from the Islamic world. Basically, to hate the US is to hate yourself, because chances are, no matter where you are from, your countrymen are here, and are proud to call themselves Americans.

But in the simplistic, wacko world that fundamentalist idiots like Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar live in, it's all just some one-sided monolith that they can slap an easy label on, and then declare all out Jihad against.

At the core of this issue, I find it even more baffeling the DEAFNING silence from the other countries of the middle east. What if, let's say, Finland suddenly started acting the way Afghanistan has? (Not to pick on Finland or anything) Suddenly they are taken over by some fundamentalist NUTWAD dictator govt. that demands everyone just let them sponsor the slaughter the Irish, cause they have some ancient religious book that tells them that the 'leprican people' are to be erradicated. Never mind that Ireland doesn't border Finland... they feel they can demand the US presence get out of Ireland, or else they'll continue sponsoring terrorists who attack America. Okay, bizzare enough, but then, imagine the other European nations basically sitting around and kind of thumb twiddling and whistling, barely noticing that their neighbor has basically gone F'ING insane. Sweden sort-of, maybe would let us use their country as an airbase if need be....reluctantly. Everyone else would kind of just smile knowingly, offer a few sparce words denouncing terrorist acts-- but basically offer an overall silence on the matter, and even kind of hint that any violence that happened/will happen as a result of the US not cow-towing to Finland's nutwad demands is, well... it's our fault.


Would people sit around and make excuses, quote out of religious books that supposedly justify modern international actions, or would more people want to know WHAT THE F was wrong with people, and why is anyone with half a brain anywhere in the world putting up with it?

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vega24:
<STRONG>I'd like to say something about the idea of killing Suddam Hussien during the Gulf War. Killing Suddam was never even really considered I think, in any great detail at least. The notion being if we get rid of Saddam, then we would have to occupy Iraq.</STRONG>

No, you're wrong about that. We definitely had people tracking him and trying to bomb him. It was common knowledge at the time. Cheney et al. openly talked about it to the press. He was considered a military target rather than an assassination target.

What you're talking about applies to taking the ground troops into Baghdad, which Powell and Bush and others didn't want.

But, I agree with your general point that the last thing we want to do is invade Afghanistan and leave our military there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

...a fear that Western values will take over traditional Muslem ones -- conservatives like the Taliban and bin Laden don't want to wear Levis, drink Coca-Cola, or listen to N*Sync

Yup, always follow the fashion trail.


Watch by Casio- $55 at Afghanistan’s one and only Big K, lovingly re-dubbed “KKK-Mart” by the local Taliban government.

Beard 'do'- Asadabad Supercuts.



Cover- The Gap $15 w/ Taliban student pilot discount.
Cammo Jacket- The Afghan Army/Navy surplus store- $85 (No one is really sure what to make of a ‘Navy’ store in Afghanistan.)

Cammo Terrorist Power Tie- Muhammad’s house of Suede and Camel Leather at the outer Boobilahara Fashion Island. - $150, gift from wife#3.

Deluxe 'instant hideout' tent- $55 at local Target.

Machine gun- Big 5 Sporting Goods in the Kabul Fashion Mall-$295, plus 2 day waiting period to check religious background (Normally). For a man in a turban with a mask and another big gun- Free/ no waiting period.



Shaw- Young Urban Terrorist Outfitters, in the old town Kabul Shopping Center- $160
Headgear custom made by Rubbermaid- $25

Bookshelf and gun rack by IKEA- picked up while away on secret business meeting in Sweden- $95 and $65 respectively. (Also picked up some of that awesome Lingonberry drink mix).

Books= overdue, from various libraries worldwide- except "US is Great Satan' editon of the World Book Encyclopedia, bought off traveling Afghan Camel merchant, set -$14; bartered down to $5.

Realistic brand Microphone- downtown Kabul Radio Shack $12.

Flannel headgear: Via internet and airmail from Seattle based ‘House of Grunge” $35.

Pissed-off-Revolutionary-style jacket- borrowed from good buddy Fidel Castro. "Hey! We wear same size!"


Bert- Gift received, after a very generous donation given to support his local PBS station (station GSTN). NOTHING sucks worse than having to suffer through an Afghan beg-a-thon while you’re stuck in a mountain cave, so basically Bin called up and paid the entire fund-raiser amount, so he could get back to watching the The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, and Teletubbies. (Bert is used, in certain high-risk security situations, as a stand in for Bin Laden himself.)

Shirt- bought from a guy in an outdoor Baghdad flea market who swore it's an authentic Armani- $325

Perhaps the real reason Bin is so ticked off at airlines. Before his brilliant career as a terrorist, he worked as a Saudi airport baggage handler.

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]