A war between the US and her allies vs. the Arab nations?

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Thu Sep 13, 2001 2:09 pm

@Stoner - just drop in on the latest chat

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Sep 13, 2001 2:27 pm

I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Thu Sep 13, 2001 2:53 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.

Not necessarliy true. I also think the solution should be a just and peaceful one. However, there is such a thing as defending ourselves. The terrorists were defending nothing; it was a flat-out unprovoked attack. Secondly, if we went to war, we would do our level best to destroy only military/government targets with minimum loss of civilian life. The terrorists, on the other hand, intended to cause as much loss of civilian life as possible. They slammed into a major city, in a heavily populated civilian area. Thirdly, there was no warning of these attacks; whereas in war at least you've been notified that war has been declared and you know the enemy is coming after you.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:04 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.

Hello Thorin!

How are you doing?

Wars can be fought at many levels, Thorin. If the US would run ahead of themselves and strew bomb mats and send 100s of missiles at a country full of citizens at innocent as them in the WTC, that's certainly no better than a terrorist act.

But wars can be fought with financial, diplomatic and political means too, not only weapons. And if military means are necessary, I also think there's a difference between warfare according to the UN Geneva-convention, and terrorist attacks that intentionally strikes innocent citizens.

But in general, I'm really a pacifist - I'm against all war, but I realise it's a utopia to believe the human race can live without it

I sincerely hope the US and NATO are going to demonstrate to the world what the difference is between terrorist organisations and democratic states.

nael · Post by **nael** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:53 am

remember the only reason, the US is linign up allies now, is not for military power. no one can really contribute enough to make a difference. what is simportant is gettign the world to stand behind us while we make our attacks. it will all seem a bit hypocritical at first, since some civilians will be hurt. but there is a difference between a military target with a few civillian casualties and outright attacking civilians. but with the nations of the world already agreeing to stand by us when we attack, they cannot condem us afterwards.
we need them for moral support, not military support.
the only country that would allign against us, is iraq, and we already know we can spank him 1,000 times by sundown.
why do you think we left him in power? putting aside the fact that we outlawed assassinating a country's leaders, we kept him there because he is an EASY target. if he were removed, who is to say that soemone with half a brain might step up.
in US military exercises, the intelligence officers playing Saddam, beat the US armed forces with the known capabilities of saddam at the time of the gulf war.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 7:59 am

If we go to war, a lot of innocent civilians will die. A lot of them died in the Gulf War, though we never saw that since the military totally controlled the media in that war. In the 19th century, war was about troops lining up and shooting each other. In the 21st century, war is about the death of civilians. Look at every war going on in the world right now--the main victims are civilians. We will do whatever we have to do, but I think we Americans should stop kidding ourselves that we can have a war with a clean conscience. We should have learned that from Viet Nam.

I do not believe the Taliban will give up Bin Laden. They are as fanatical as the people who destroyed our WTC. They get a ton of financial support for their regime from him. They've already been embargoed to death and they don't care. We have to work on the countries that "claim" to be our "friends"--Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Algeria. They have to make a choice--whether they want to continue to lend their support to these fanatics, or to try to rid themselves of them. The Middle East has been in deep trouble for a long time--the rise of fanaticism in Egypt for example has been so severe in recent years, that even my Lebanese friends are afraid to go there. Sadat, who is seen as a great friend and hero in the USA, is seen as a sell-out in Egypt. Algeria is in the midst of a civil war, and when I was in Morocco last year, I heard horror stories of massacres going on right across their borders. Libya fell to these guys a long time ago, and has effectively begun to control the Sudan, who they have been at war with for over a decade. It's not all just about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe that a lot of this is the fallout for ****ed up policies during the cold war. We treated Pakistan as a favored nation because they were anti-Soviet. We gave them money and weapons. Now they are a nuclear power and constantly threatening India. India has been begging us to do something about Pakistan. We haven't. Now they are helping the Taliban. We gave the Taliban money and weapons because they were anti-Soviet, and now they are in power and look at the grief they've caused. We gave Saddam Hussein money and weapons because he was anti-Iranian. We gave Iran money and weapons through the Iran-Contra scandal, to fund another ****ed up war in Central America. I believe our government secretly liked Khomeini, because unlike the Shah, he was anti-Soviet. Iran was one of the biggest military powers in the world under the Shah, but since we funded both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, they are hardly the powers they once were. It is not surprising to me that a lot of people over there hate us, what is surprising to me is the fact that we continue to support regimes that are in no way democratic, who have not acted as our friends, and esp. when we have no more cold war and no reason to play favorites.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:32 pm

You know you are so right... Israel will not be defeated. Ever.

At least according to Revelation anyway! ^_^;;

Though Israel did lose some wars back in Biblical days, they were only because of lack of obedience to Jehovah, thus it was sin/capture/repentance/freedom/judge rule for them. But it wasn't promised in the Bible that "Thou wilt not lose battleth if thou ceaseth to obeyeth meeth" in the Bible. Meaning, it wasn't promised that God will whoop all butts of Arabs back in Bible days, but he would if they obeyed Him. But now it is promised that they will get their temple back, and their land will even get to be the site of New Jerusalem!

nael · Post by **nael** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:38 pm

@shadow - well, for starters...these "Arabs" follwo the same God as Jews do.
and does ruthless attacks on innocent civilians sound like they are following God's will. and no, i am not talkign about the attacks her ein the US, but rather the slaughter Israel has been commiting against their neighbors. Israel has violated more UN treaties than any other country in the world. and need i remind you that it was through a viscious war that they stle lands from all their neighbors.
there is absolutely nothign righteous abotu israel.

CM · Post by CM » Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:49 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Interesting, thanks for the info, Fas

If you have any good links, please post them

Do you dare to speculate about the future yourself?

@Stoner Cold: You don't need to read all the 10 pages to join the Breathing thread - just jump in

Ok BBC does not archive, meaning they reuse their links everyday.
However i do have the RAIN article, which i get via e-mail.

The article:

Taliban agrees to hand over Laden to Saudi Arabia

ISLAMABAD, Feb 20: Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia has told Pakistan that it is willing to hand over Saudi dissident and terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to his native country to face trial, a leading Pakistani daily reported on Monday.

The offer to send bin Laden to Saudi Arabia was made by Taliban's supreme leader Mulla Mohemmad Omar to Pakistan's Interior Minister Moinuddeen Haider during the latter's recent visit to Kabul, 'The Dawn' quoting authoritative sources said.

Omar offered to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia even without Haider raising the issue, the newspaper said.

"We never raised the Osama issue. It was raised by no less a person than Mulla Omar during the talks," it quoted a high level Pakistan official.

The paper quoted the official as saying that Omar told Haider that if Saudi Arabia was not willing to accept Osama because of political repercussions in the country, Kabul was ready to shift him to another Musilm Country. He however did not name any particular country, the official said.

The Saudi Government has already stripped bin Laden of his citizenship for his terrorist activities at home and abroad. Since then he has stayed put in Afghanistan under Taliban patronage.

Source: Research And Information Network (RAIN)

=================

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:00 pm

@Fas: Thanks for posting the article. If you have the time, I appreciate your posting of other material than the standard Europe/US news.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:23 pm

@C Elegans: Hope this would help. Got it from my country's leading newspaper. [url="http://www.inq7.net"]www.inq7.net[/url]

New York hijacker was
in Manila--Malacañang
Posted: 11:09 PM (Manila Time) | September 14, 2001
By Martin P. Marfil, Stella O. Gonzales and TJ Burgonio
Inquirer News Service

Under questioning

US AUTHORITIES believe that a hijacker who took over one of the four planes used in the terrorist attacks in their country is the same man questioned days earlier by Philippine authorities, Malacañang announced on Friday.

Rigoberto Tiglao, spokesperson for President Macapagal-Arroyo, told reporters that the supposed hijacker was one of three men held in a raid at the Bayview Hotel in Manila and subsequently released.

But he did not disclose to reporters the man’s identity or the particular plane used.

In Tokyo, where she was winding up her four-day state visit, the President said Philippine police and the US Central Intelligence Agency were working together in gathering evidence in connection with the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.

She told members of the Japan National Press Club that one such joint operation concerned three men carrying Omani passports who were questioned last week by Philippine police at the Bayview for taking video footage of the US Embassy compound on Roxas Boulevard.

The President described the operation as "a gathering of evidence" that occurred "when I was away."

She gave no other details, saying these were confidential. But she said no arrests were made.

The President left Manila for Japan on Wednesday afternoon.

At the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the brother of a pilot arrested Wednesday in Venice, Florida, in connection with the Tuesday attacks was held for questioning yesterday afternoon.

Immigration officers held Mohammad Bokhari, himself a pilot of Saudia Airlines, shortly before he was to fly a plane to Jeddah around 4:30 p.m.

"What brother?" a flushed Bokhari said when asked by Naia immigration chief Samuel Vallada if Adnan Bokhari was his brother.

"We have very reliable information that they are brothers," said Immigration Commissioner Andrea Domingo, who was at the airport to oversee Bokhari’s arrest. There are four Bokhari brothers who are all pilots, Domingo said.

Agents of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency took custody of Bokhari for investigation. Another pilot of Saudia Airlines took his place on the scheduled flight.

Earlier in the day, Domingo issued a hold-departure order on Bokhari, invoking national security.

It was the sudden change of pilots of the Saudia flight to Jeddah that "alarmed" immigration officers, Domingo said.

She said the name of the scheduled pilot, a Captain Alyamani, had been crossed out and replaced with that of Bokhari in the manifest.

Bokhari piloted a Saudia plane to Manila on Tuesday.

According to Tiglao, Philippine authorities raided Bayview Hotel on Sept. 12 after US officials informed the Philippine government that the name of one of the three men questioned by police had appeared in the flight manifest of one of the hijacked planes used in the terrorist attacks.

Bojinka

The President also said she was willing to allow the use of Subic and Clark if these were needed by the Americans in any action they would take against those responsible for the attacks.

During socials in her hotel Thursday night with Manila-based reporters covering her visit, the President was asked about the Philippine government’s actions with regard to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Right now, for instance, the CIA and the police in the Philippines are already working together on evidence gathering," she said.

At Friday’s news conference, she said Philippine police had also reconstructed and sent to the United States information gathered from Abdul Hakim Murad, an accomplice of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

"(During) the interrogation of (Murad), there were many pieces of information that he revealed which are now material to the investigation regarding the incident in New York," the President said.

One important confession extracted from Murad when he was arrested by the PNP in January 1995 was the supposed plan of Yousef to plant explosives in US airlines and detonate these over the Pacific. The plan was codenamed "Bojinka."

Murad was arrested during a police raid at the Josefa Apartments in Malate, Manila, a week before Pope John Paul II arrived in the Philippines.

He was turned over to US authorities three months later to stand trial in the United States in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planting of a bomb in a Philippine Airlines flight bound for Tokyo on Dec. 11, 1994.

The bomb, placed under the seat of a Japanese national, exploded and killed the passenger.

Officials had said the bombing of the plane was a test run for later attacks on US airlines.

The arrest of Murad led police to the trail of Yousef, who was picked up in Pakistan on Feb. 7, 1995, through the efforts of Philippine, American and Pakistani authorities.

Murad had also disclosed Yousef’s alleged links with the Abu Sayyaf. He had said that Yousef met with Abu Sayyaf leaders in Manila in 1994 to coordinate the training of the band’s members in Mindanao.

Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a brother-in-law of suspected international terrorist Osama bin Laden, had reportedly used Islamic charity organizations as conduits to give money to the Abu Sayyaf.

Khalifa had been described by Philippine authorities as an associate of six supposed Muslim extremists who were arrested in Caloocan City in 1995.

The six were alleged associates of Yousef and Murad.

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:01 am

If the US sits around til Feb 20 for these folks to MAYBE hand over Bin Laden, I will be surprised and dissapointed. How many more attacks could he plan in 5 mo?! It's not gonna happen. The US activated the Reserves today, something's about to happen, soon. Colin Powell(sp) said today more or less, "If you aren't with us, then you are against us". At least that is the way I took it.

Am I for war? Well I am NOT for us sitting around waiting for the next attack.

As Forrest says:"that's all i've got to say bout that"

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: ]

justAidan · Post by **justAidan** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:48 am

Originally posted by Yshania:
It is currently esimated that there were 500 Brits in the WTC. 100 I think are now confirmed dead.

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Yshania ]

There is also 1,500 Irish working over there all dead, no including any Irish Desent

Overkill · Post by **Overkill** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:09 am

--------------------------------------------
Originaly Posted by Stoner Cold

oh, and why is the US a 'she'? i always think of countries as 'its' more than 'shes' or even 'hes'.
--------------------------------------------

i always call my computer a "she". And sometimes i have fantasys about her in a thong and....oh errr never mind.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 5:40 am

Well... come to think of it, U.S. stands for UNCLE Sam... must be a HE then.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 5:42 am

Originally posted by Overkill:
i always call my computer a "she". And sometimes i have fantasys about her in a thong and....oh errr never mind.

Er, you need to take break from the computer.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:52 am

Originally posted by Overkill:
i always call my computer a "she". And sometimes i have fantasys about her in a thong and....oh errr never mind.

What does your computer look like?

;;

I also always call my computer a "she," but that's because she is a real b*tch. ^^;;

KidD01 · Post by **KidD01** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:14 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<SNIP>
I also always call my computer a "she," but that's because she is a real b*tch. ^^;;

ROFLMAOTIC Same with me, especially when Bill "Sh*T-Head" Gates launch Win95 And its genre. Those OS really ticks you off ! Anyone got news about Win XP ? Some reviews say they are steady as the rock but lack compability with certain competitor software i.e AOL instant messenger (That's monopoly in its purest form

) And I happen to know that XP was tested using Intel processor, anyone try it with AMD processor ? I happen to use AMD and the Win98 OS really cause me big time to reinstall

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: KidD01 ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:56 am

Well pakistan has stated that they will fully cooperate with the U.S.
Afghanistan warned neighbors that they will retalite if they side with the U.S.
U.S has already started to move in supplies to Pakistan, in the capital of Islmabad.

Well, if the U.S does get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists it will be good news for many Middle Eastern countries and Pakistan.
Why?
Because the Taliban and terrorists and fanatics controlled the countries, and preventd many of them to take action against them, for example Pakistan. Maybe finally these countries can begin to rebuild once these fanatics are taken away.

[url="http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/15/latest.htm"]full cooperation[/url]

KidD01 · Post by **KidD01** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 9:02 am

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
Well pakistan has stated that they will fully cooperate with the U.S.
Afghanistan warned neighbors that they will retalite if they side with the U.S.
U.S has already started to move in supplies to Pakistan, in the capital of Islmabad.

Well, if the U.S does get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists it will be good news for many Middle Eastern countries and Pakistan.
Why?
Because the Taliban and terrorists and fanatics controlled the countries, and preventd many of them to take action against them, for example Pakistan. Maybe finally these countries can begin to rebuild once these fanatics are taken away.

Thorin, the updated news from CNN stated the Talibans just announce that they attack any neighbooring country and US allies if the provide support or staging for US. I wonder how Afgan and Pakistan gonna react now ?