War Against Taleban(Afganistan).

CM · Post by CM » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:15 am

Xandax nothing is at extremes and diplomacy is not the art of winning but of compromise.
The US is not willing to compromise at this point.
Now the carrot and stick policy.
First you provide the proof and then you say that you would say lift sanctions if they hand him over.
Everything is up for grabs.
You get Pakistan which has strong links - according to the western govts and media - to force and arm twist the taliban.

Second you have psychos as well.
If you read "Concerns in Europe" by Amnesty International, should i believe that Every european is a xenophobic racist who hates immigrants?
It can be found at the website, it covers violations of human rights within European nations.
In the majority of these case the people are muslims.

You can't define a majority by a minority.
But that is what the West does when the think of Muslims.
Yes you will have psychos but do you think they hold the majority hostage?
Also if the proof is concrete how can they refute it?
And still remian credible?

Well i guess you don't believe it.
But if the muslim nations denounce Osama and the Taliban, the afghani people aren't happy and the moderates within the taliban could be forced to hand over information.
Everything is not black and white.
Like Iran there are moderates and Extremists.
The same with the Taliban.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:16 am

Originally posted by Weasel:


I'm on the other side, action now. Everyday they have in peace is another day they get more dug in. Another day they move what little tanks and troops into towns where innocent people will be used as shields.

The government choose to starve their own people. Put the blame for the starving on the US if you want to, but the truth is...their government caused this. To let your country starve over one man and his followers. The truth is, the US played a card...give him up. If he would have been given up , the attacks would not have been supported. The US won on the bluff. Even giving him to another country besides the US would have saved them. I'm no genuis, but even I can see the mistake they made here.

You equate terrorism with the Taliban. This I think is wrong. Sure the Taliban support osama bin laden but you won’t defeat terrorism by bombing the country. The networks are in the USA and Europe.

I don’t support the taliban anymore than i support sadam hussain. But the USA and UK governments can't escape part responsibility for the dead in Iraq and if they persue a policy that kill innocents in Afghanistan they can’t escape responsibility for that either.

It is similar to a hostage situation. A hundred people are held hostage in a building. The objectives are to bring the hostage takes to justice and save as many as possible.

Do we bomb the building killing most of them including the criminals? No of course not. Any policeman who did that would be seen as incompetent, dangerous and most important - part responsible for the many deaths.

@ Xandax. Things are being done all over the world that will help. Bombing a third world country is not one of them.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:37 am

Originally posted by Fas:
Xandax nothing is at extremes and diplomacy is not the art of winning but of compromise.

I know this, I'm just trying to find out what people are thinking in this crisis and beliving, I'm not jugding anybody - I'm curious ( so don't try to jugde me.)

Originally posted by Fas:

The US is not willing to compromise at this point.

This is true, the US-people and goverment will not be happy untill they get OBL.

Originally posted by Fas:

Now the carrot and stick policy.
First you provide the proof and then you say that you would say lift sanctions if they hand him over.

The sanction against Pakistan has been lifted, IIRC.
and again IIRC it has been proven that OBL was behind the bombings of the amrican destroyer in Sudan(?) and several ambasies.

Originally posted by Fas:

Everything is up for grabs.
You get Pakistan which has strong links - according to the western govts and media - to force and arm twist the taliban.

This will be hard, becuase it seems that there are many supporters for the Taleban in Pakistan.
I've said it before, and I still belive that civil unrest will occur in Pakistan, and this will cause sever unstability in this region.

Originally posted by Fas:

Second you have psychos as well.
If you read "Concerns in Europe" by Amnesty International, should i believe that Every european is a xenophobic racist who hates immigrants?

Whitout a doubt, and our goverments are trying to secure these people before they do any harm. They do not support them, and most of these psychoes are domestic and not international.

The IRA and ETA are AFAIK localised in the areas where they wish to "achive" their cause. (Ei. Britan and Spain)

Originally posted by Fas:

It can be found at the website, it covers violations of human rights within European nations.
In the majority of these case the people are muslims.

Yes - but even if you could compare human rights violations, I'd say that our "sheet of crimes" are somewhat smaller.

Originally posted by Fas:

You can't define a majority by a minority.
But that is what the West does when the think of Muslims.

I don't define the majority by the minority and never have.

Originally posted by Fas:

Well i guess you don't believe it.
But if the muslim nations denounce Osama and the Taliban, the afghani people aren't happy and the moderates within the taliban could be forced to hand over information.
Everything is not black and white.
Like Iran there are moderates and Extremists.
The same with the Taliban.

AFAIK only 3 countries had diplomatic relations with Taleban and Afganistan before the war and IIRC only 1 or 2 have now.
If this is not "international diplomatic pressure" I don't know what is.
And still the Taleban has done as they pleased.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:41 am

Originally posted by Tom:

<snip>It is similar to a hostage situation. A hundred people are held hostage in a building. The objectives are to bring the hostage takes to justice and save as many as possible.

Do we bomb the building killing most of them including the criminals? No of course not. Any policeman who did that would be seen as incompetent, dangerous and most important - part responsible for the many deaths.

Well seeing as if a plane currently is belived hijacked it could be shot down, I'd say that your scenario, if extreeme, is a possibility.

Originally posted by Tom:

@ Xandax. Things are being done all over the world that will help. Bombing a third world country is not one of them.

Name them, and give me your oppinion of them, and what should be done.
I just asked what was your belive on what should be done.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:45 am

@Weasel, I still understand few of your words, i'll try to reply it anyway.

Weasel:
So if every other country decided to stand up to the USA, the USA could just blow them off.

My the military has gotten strong here in the US.(sarcasm!!)
[...]
Do products bring money it the US?
Is the government run by money? Does the policy come from said government?
I believe you need to check your 'procedence'

[...]
If you don't like how it's run....leave. Point Blank.

You know the world is more complicated than you are saying. We both know.
A country who assume a isolacionist economic policy is blewed, ended. There is no way to become free of the international comunity under a globalization process.

But what I want to say is not this(above).
Why we are talking about this?
I say already for you, I'm not anti-USA.
I have restriction to lots of things.
I try to change it.
Our last posts is yadda yadda yadda...(not important, paralelal) why we start?

Originally I was talking about great catástrophes of the war, USA wars. And them you talk to the others country do something against USA. I am not a country. For me don't use USA products, Why?
I am not anti-USA(again)
I don't say USA is Bad.

Can you clarify your restrictions to my opinions, please. (because I am understanding really few )

BTW, The milytary really grow strong in the USA, you can explode the world. Maybe more than one time.

CM · Post by CM » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:03 am

I know this, I'm just trying to find out what people are thinking in this crisis and beliving, I'm not jugding anybody - I'm curious ( so don't try to jugde me.)

I am not judging you Xandax i would never try to do that.
That is a just an opening statement, i tend to type like i am writting a Poli sci term paper!

This is true, the US-people and goverment will not be happy untill they get OBL.

And that is not good, and only leaves a military option.

The sanction against Pakistan has been lifted, IIRC.
and again IIRC it has been proven that OBL was behind the bombings of the amrican destroyer in Sudan(?) and several ambasies.

Nope the sanctions on Afghanistan.
Nope the american destroyer in the Gulf of Yemen.
And i have not heard of any proof.
I would love to see it.
But so far i have seen none.

This will be hard, becuase it seems that there are many supporters for the Taleban in Pakistan.
I've said it before, and I still belive that civil unrest will occur in Pakistan, and this will cause sever unstability in this region.

Support for the taliban is support against the US.
The age old chinese saying comes to mind.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The US is my enemy, the taliban is the enemy of the US.
The taliban is my friend.
That is now most muslims think.
I don't like Osama or the Taliban.
But unless i see the proof i will not judge them before that.

Whitout a doubt, and our goverments are trying to secure these people before they do any harm. They do not support them, and most of these psychoes are domestic and not international.

The IRA and ETA are AFAIK localised in the areas where they wish to "achive" their cause. (Ei. Britan and Spain)

Agreed.
But the concerns in Europe deals with polic brutality in European nations to crime and violations of human rights.

Yes - but even if you could compare human rights violations, I'd say that our "sheet of crimes" are somewhat smaller.

They are much much smaller.

I don't define the majority by the minority and never have.

My bad - i was making a more generalized comment.

AFAIK only 3 countries had diplomatic relations with Taleban and Afganistan before the war and IIRC only 1 or 2 have now.
If this is not "international diplomatic pressure" I don't know what is.
And still the Taleban has done as they pleased.

Because they have had no choice.
They either have to hand Osama or go to war.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:17 am

Originally posted by Fas:
And that is not good, and only leaves a military option.

And why should the US in this "be the bigger man" so to speak.
They have suffered numerous thousands in casulties due to the work of few men, and now it is belived that a country support these men, or at least obstruck the possibility to caputre the prime suspect.
Why shouldn't the muslims be the "bigger persons" - especially when we often hear that Islam is a compasionate religion?

Originally posted by Fas:

Because they have had no choice.
They either have to hand Osama or go to war.

Nobody before the 11th September forced any country to not have diplomatic relations with Taleban. It was not looked upon as good, but there was nobody forcing them, and yet at that time only 3 countries had these relations. This is counting numerous Islamic countries. Should this not symbolise dissaprovel.

Originally posted by Fas:

But the concerns in Europe deals with polic brutality in European nations to crime and violations of human rights.

Yes - but again, (as you stated yourself, didn't bother to quote it) the "rapsheet" of European countries are far smaller, and at least we don't hang and maim our political opponets and civilians, in the name of a religion.

Where Denmark violates civil rights (in the eyes of Amnesty International) is in solitude confinment where a suspect is placed, so to not obstruct the investigative work by the police - this I can't compare to what goes on in ei. Afganistan

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:33 am

@Gruntboy

You say you feel it.
You say you feel the pain of loose someone inocent, in a war(terrorism).

They were totally inocent, and could be taken in an violent, coward act.

How can you say that the inocent people of Afeganistan diying now are just consequences, or that the real responsible is someother.

If you know that the responsable for such violence don't is, even a little, more important than the violence itself

This USA attack is reproducing the pain you feel.

You are not diferent from that mother who loose her children in Afeganistan. In fact you are very close to her, almost equal, you both feel the same.

Your pain have turned into revenge? Psicological closure(get Bin Laden)?

Awnser if wish.
If you don't want to talk about it, its ok too.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:38 am

Fas - you conveniently skip the fact that they have a second choice - hand over bin Laden.

The US has been betrayed by so many countries, why the hell would the gov't want bin Laden handed over to a middleman? Doesn't work for the American people. They don't trust other countries; they've got no reason to trust them.

Hand over all the evidence? Do prosecuters hand over all their evidence to apprehend a suspect? No. That would destroy their case. They hand over all their evidence during a trial. I've seen enough evidence in the newspapers alone to have bin Laden be suspect enough to be 'legally' aprehended. You want better evidence then let's see bin Laden in a court room.

Carrot and Stick policy?
Yes, yes! Let's throw funds into their country and neighboring areas to gain their support! Just like China, where the corrupt governments squandered the money and the ROC got kicked out and moved to Taiwan! Our so-called peaceful assitance there ended with the unfavorable gov't in power.

Don't you people get it? Peace is all nice and good for idealism, and it's a great concept. But some people don't understand negotiations, don't understand peace. They only understand one thing: a show of power, and war is the only show of power they respect.

We can't live in a truly peaceful world.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. The Americans have a freedom to live their lives - the vigilence is holding on to that freedom by denying others the right to take their life.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:47 am

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
@Weasel, I still understand few of your words, i'll try to reply it anyway.
.

I believe till someone translates for you what I said...Our conversation is at a end.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:47 am

@Quark - Sorry, I posted this then I read your post. Its amazing how we said practically the same thing. I think your is more eloquent actually.

There is no way to appease everyone.
I have been thinking about a solution to the Jerusalum/Palestinian(sp?)problem. My solution is there is no solution.
Islam will never be at peace until Israel is dust. (I hope I'm wrong)
How many peace deals can the US/UN broker between Israel and the Palestinians? Each ending in violence. They dont want peace.

Dont forget, America is made up of people from every nation on earth.
Where else can you say that? Maybe some other western societies but certainly not anywhere in the middle east. Why is that? Intolerance. Political, religous, and racial intolerance. I feel the root of the hatred for the US is envy. We do have a beautiful, prosperous, and fertile country. Just move here. Everyone else does.

@FAS - The US is not in the business of jailing people without cause (I hope)unlike the Taliban. Let OSB stand trial. If he is innocent then fine. Let the UN(or somebody) hold court and we will present a case there. Its funny how OSB can spew anti american rhetoric and threats against civilians, yet be portrayed as incapable of pulling this off. Now everyone is shocked that we want to get/kill the invoker of terror. My point is, you would never offer up your entire case to an opposition. I think doing so would expose the sources and allow the terrorists to address their own weaknesses. It would also open up the world forum for endless debates about the validity of said proof, and that would just add to the pile of unsolved problems in the middle east. The "provide proof" (so we can delay and stall any actions for a thousand years) thing is moot. Try something else.

The "Carrot and Stick" thing has worked wonders for the Palestinians hasnt it.(sarcasm alert)

Also, you keep saying dont drop "pop-tarts" on starving people? I'm sure you have plenty to eat as I do. Lets ask the refugees if they would rather die from starvation or eat a pop tart.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:02 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
I believe till someone translates for you what I said...Our conversation is at a end.

See, I don't know if you are joking or serious.
If you want to still talk, or not.

Ok my english is a trash, but you are a little reticent, don't you? Or at least reticent in your last posts?

Anyway if you have some restriction or opinion please go ahead. I'll try. Or if you want a clarification of my lasts posts. Ask for it.
I don't want that my language ignorance interrupt the dialog.

[If I have destroyed(no better term) your patience, sorry]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:12 am

Originally posted by Tom:

You equate terrorism with the Taliban. This I think is wrong. Sure the Taliban support osama bin laden but you won’t defeat terrorism by bombing the country. The networks are in the USA and Europe.

If a country harbors terrorist, they are no better than the terrorist. If given a chance to turn over the terrorist and you decline, you are contributing to terrorism.

To kill a group...cut of it's head, then start going on down the line.

Originally posted by Tom:

I don’t support the taliban anymore than i support sadam hussain. But the USA and UK governments can't escape part responsibility for the dead in Iraq and if they persue a policy that kill innocents in Afghanistan they can’t escape responsibility for that either.

But right here in this thread we have people wanting to sanction another country...with a carrot. Do you think it will work?

Or will it be three years down the road be the children dying in Afghanistan.

The reason the US and Britain now has this hanging over them is because of the 'bleeding hearts' Saddam Hussien should had been killed.

But ...

"The people might get hurt if you invade"

"The US will stick a dictator in place"

Originally posted by Tom:

It is similar to a hostage situation. A hundred people are held hostage in a building. The objectives are to bring the hostage takes to justice and save as many as possible.

Do we bomb the building killing most of them including the criminals? No of course not. Any policeman who did that would be seen as incompetent, dangerous and most important - part responsible for the many deaths.

Simaliar to a point, but most people don't have a death wish. Did the one's in the planes demand anything? In a hostage situation , you have a group holding another group to get something. The only demand I saw was the demand all Americans die.

I might be cold hearted, but I believe in giving back what you give me. In double.

Now if you mean Afghanistan is being held hostage... a country with ?10 million? people, how many are holding it this way? 1000? 10,000? people. Why are the other 9 million and 990,000 people not doing anything?

And what are there demands...more Americans die?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:13 am

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
Dont forget, America is made up of people from every nation on earth.
Where else can you say that? Maybe some other western societies but certainly not anywhere in the middle east. Why is that? Intolerance. Political, religous, and racial intolerance.

Factually inaccurate. First: the US is not among the nations that have the highest percentage of immigrants in their population. That would be many of the Western European nations. The US had an enormous surge of immigration around 1880-1925, but only experienced brief, mild bursts after that (such as the Italians who arrived post-WWII, and the Vietnamese who were admitted after the Vietnamese Conflict). There is actually a very small number of immigrants who journey to the US and remain each year.

As for the MidEast, intolerance has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of immigration; in fact, immigration has been high in the past. Part of the Islamic tradition involves welcoming the destitute and providing hospitality to those who are homeless, particularly if there are fellow believers. When the Israelis drove out massive numbers of Palestinians after the Seven Days War, Jordan accepted them at once. This was not because "they had to"; far from it. They could easily have pleaded a lack of living space, since the MidEastern nations have some of the least arable land on the face of the Earth. Instead, they took in all the Palestinians who wished to come.

Similar wars and conflicts in the region have also met with an enormous flight of refugees, who were accepted in foreign MidEastern nations. Pakistan, for example, has *several million* Afghani political and economic refugees, who fled there over the last few years. The mind boggles at the idea of the US permitting several million economic refugees from Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia or other CA and SA nations to simply settle and take citizenship. It would not be allowed. Everybody from trade unions to big corporations to three guys on a corner wearing ski masks and holding iron bars would object loudly, and the politicians, craven to the core, would parrot their remarks and scream with outrage in print.

None of this is meant as an attack on the US, as I'm sure you're aware, having read my posts elsewhere concerning the MidEast. The reasons behind immigration and the reasons to halt it are complex matters, and each nation really needs to be examined for its own specific background, without the use of sweeping, all-inclusive remarks. (The US actually has been responsive to one group of immigrants: those from Cuba.) However, facts are facts, and what you posted above sounds either like inherent prejudice or a blanket acceptance of prejudicial statements from others. There are many good sources for information on the MidEast, its dozens of cultures and history, that can really surprise.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:31 am

@Fable
I only have to walk around my floor and see four or five different nationalities represented. My point was that the US is a mesh of different nationalities and religions. Does that diversity of cultures and religions exist in the middle east on the same scale? I want people (Fas) to realize that when you say "Americans" or "the US" you you are not calling the name of a foreign faceless demon. You are actually addressing the diversity of the world in a sense.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:46 am

Originally posted by Quark:
you conveniently skip the fact that they have a second choice - hand over bin Laden.

Not that I really want to get involved in this discussion, but I do find myself wondering: Is the Afgan Government even capable of handing over bin Laden? He may be too powerful and they too weak?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:52 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Not that I really want to get involved in this discussion, but I do find myself wondering: Is the Afgan Government even capable of handing over bin Laden? He may be too powerful and they too weak?

Good point.

But if they are to weak, another group needs to take their place...a group picked by the afghan people.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:58 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
Good point.

But if they are to weak, another group needs to take their place...a group picked by the afghan people.

Definitely.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 12:17 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Factually inaccurate. <snip>

LOL...i guess thats the diplomatic way to say WRONG!!!!

Originally posted by fable:


<snip> without the use of sweeping, all-inclusive remarks.<snip>

yeah but....thats my style.

I do respect your opinions and your penchant for posting facts and figures. I tend to shoot from the hip too much possibly, but I try to mix in a certain amount of logic along with the emotion.
You can be sure what I say are my words and opinions. Opinions available for counter points or corrections by all.
I have no problem being wrong. I just dont have to like it!

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 12:39 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
Ivan, you conveniently ignore the fact that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. American and Japanese lives.

Quark, is this a joke? If not, where did you learn this? It is not at all a fact that the H-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. Please post references to support this outrageous statement of yours.

Let me ask you something: do you know the rationale for dropping the 2nd bomb? Do you know why Nagasaki was chosen as target?