[Caesar Augustus]

I was wondering about my fellow reefers feelings about our choice to strike back. I personally am all for it. As a history major I can back up with historical fact that aggressors only understand aggression. Has anyone studied WWII?I find it distressing that so many people in our own country are saying things like "we deserved it" and "force is wrong". No one deserves to have their bulding burned down during breakfast. They have a right to their opinion, but I wonder if they realize that the ONLY reason they have that right and can't be punished for it is because we have fought in the past when threatened or attacked. The only reason they have the right to burn that flag is because many men died with that very flag flying proudly in front of them. Just a thought, what say you?
Keep the faith,
Napoleon

[saltjunkie]

I say the exact as you! please, no offense to anyone here. But that is one of the many problems iin America, the passavists.
They are the ones who take your children away when you want to punish them, and now, they want to take america and its freedoms away!

[Gabriel]

Passivism is not a problem. It is a belief that it is possible to live in the same room/house/community/world without unnecessary fighting, even if that means allowing others to have their way more often in order to keep the peace. If more people believed in peace, more energy could go into meaningful things, such as research into captive breeding of those darn starfish.

But being a passifist does have its limits, and I believe mine have been reached. It is obvious that those who attacked us have no interest in listening to our brand of reason, and must be forced out of power for the good of mankind. I only hope that our administration continues until this task is complete (i.e., that the aptasia have been eradicated) rather than quit too early (i.e., when the visible aptasia have been injected).

There will always be other bin Ladens to deal with; hopefully, the reasonable countries in this world will collectively hit them with a big ole stick when they poke their despicable heads out to take aim.

There is nothing more despicable than murder in the name of God. HE does not smile at this cruelty; only men do.

Sorry for the tirade. I must get off my soap box now and go figure out why I cannot get a loving pair of brittle stars to hold hands in peace and make babies.

Kevin M.
Commander, US Public Health Service

[Caesar Augustus]

very well said. Both of you. It is important to remember what st. Augustine said, "hear the other side"
Napoleon

[Ninong]

Well, if you're wondering what St. Augustine would say about "our choice to strike back," he would be all for it. St. Augustine favors the waging of "just wars" while cautioning that we not merely wage, but "lament the necessity of just wars."

Ninong

[wgscott]

The question would then turn to whether this qualifies as a "just" war. Most people would not debate that the war against Fascism in WWII was a just war, even if there were some ulterior motives.

Although most people, apart from very strict pacifists (like Christains who actually believe their own doctrine rather than just trying to stifle everyone else with it), would believe a military response is justified (including me), there are those (again including me) who see the current bombardment of Afghanistan as having little, if anything, to do with preventing further acts of terrorism, punishing the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 massacre (one more aptly characterized as a Crime Against Humanity rather than a "mere" act of terrorism), or bringing them to justice.

1. The fact that this so-called war has nothing to do with preventing terrorism can be seen from the simple fact admitted by the FBI that the attack makes another such attack a 100% certainty. So if the reason for having the war cannot be to prevent terrorism, assuming that the FBI (and the government) believe what they say. Add to that the likely resentment that this will create throughout the Muslim world and elsewhere, and you have a recipe for enhancing the probability of future terrorist attacks.

2. The fact that this so-called war has nothing to do with punishing the perpetrators is obvious from the facts that (1) the ones who did it are already dead, and (2) the ones who planned and organized it, apart from those already dead, have had a month to flee the war zone, and anyone with any money in Afghanistan has checked out long ago.

3. The fact that this war has nothing to do with bringing the perpetrators to justice is similarly obvious. If this was the goal, wooing and bribing the Talliban into handing over bin Laden would have been much more effective. Providing meaningful and cogent evidence to the public that bin Laden was responsible would have also been more convincing. And, again, the bin Laden crew aren't just sitting in some CIA-constructed bunker waiting for the bombs to fall on them. Anyone with any cash has long ago fled.

The question then becomes, if the war is not in fact justifiable by these criteria, why are we having it? I think the answer probably has more to do with the economy than fighting terrorism. After the Supreme Court elected Bush, the Rumsfeld-type cold-warriors were faced with a huge problem, the collapse of the internet bubble.com economy, and these folks wanted to gear up military spending as in the early eighties under the guy whose name I am Altzheimering on at the moment. But there was a major difficulty this time. The Soviet Union no longer exists. They desparately required a new enemy, and one that would be around for a long time. Now, through the grace of Allah, they have it. Hence the pronouncements that it will be a protracted conflict, the crackdown on civil liberties, and the like. The so-called war is designed to perpetuate the problem, not to get rid of it.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wgscott

The question would then turn to whether this qualifies as a "just" war.

It is certainly a just war on our part because it is a war of self-defense. It is an unjust war on the part of the religious fanatics who perpetrated the unspeakable acts of war against 6,000 innocent civilians because it is a religious war from their perspective. None of their perceived grievances with U.S. foreign policy justified their extreme actions. Only religious crackpots who equate the killing of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians with "sainthood" could even begin to rationalize such acts as morally acceptable. To such people, the taking of innocent human life is a duty that Allah has placed upon them. History repeats itself, I guess. It seems that all organized religions lapse into such rationalizations from time to time. I was shocked to hear that the head Islamic cleric in Saudi Arabia declared that the Palestinian suicide bombers were not "suicide" bombers but saintly martyrs. The significance of this distinction is that the Koran forbids suicide and those who commit suicide are not supposed to go to heaven, but those who give their lives in defense of Islam are martyrs guaranteed eternal bliss. So here we have the leading religious figure in Saudi Arabia blessing the actions of brainwashed young men who blow themselves up in the middle of Pizza parlors in Israel, slaughtering innocent children in the process.

Most people would not debate that the war against Fascism in WWII was a just war, even if there were some ulterior motives.

The wars that were initiated by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan in the 1930's were wars of conquest--unjust wars. Defense against an unjust war is just.

Although most people, apart from very strict pacifists (like Christains who actually believe their own doctrine rather than just trying to stifle everyone else with it), would believe a military response is justified (including me), there are those (again including me) who see the current bombardment of Afghanistan as having little, if anything, to do with preventing further acts of terrorism, punishing the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 massacre (one more aptly characterized as a Crime Against Humanity rather than a "mere" act of terrorism), or bringing them to justice.

The current bombardment of the Taliban and al-Qaida has much more than "little, if anything" to do with preventing further acts of terrorism. It will not prevent all future acts of terrorism but it will prevent any future acts by the people whom we have assisted in achieving martyrdom status.

A government, especially a democratic government, would not survive in office very long if it did not respond forcefully to the sort of attack that was visited upon our country. Retribution is a part of human nature that has evolved with our species as an aid to our survival. Some people may consider that our base nature. Those people seem to place Homo sapiens at a higher level of development than the historical record would support. Retribution has a certain amount of deterrent effect on other would be perpetrators and, at the same time provides a certain amount of satisfaction to the citizens of the country that was unjustly attacked in the first place. The fact that our military response could very well incite hundreds of individual acts of terrorism worldwide against us and our allies is beside the point. Osama bin Laden and his buddies have been trying to incite a world-wide war against the infidels for the past several years anyway.


The question then becomes, if the war is not in fact justifiable by these criteria, why are we having it? I think the answer probably has more to do with the economy than fighting terrorism.

We are having it because we were attacked on September 11, 2001. And, judging from the complete success of our enemies, we had no clue it was coming. Whether our engagement in military actions against terrorist organizations worldwide has any economic impact is beside the point.

... the crackdown on civil liberties...

I haven't seen a single bill since Sept. 11th. that in any way infringes on our civil liberties, including legislation that passed this week.

Regards,

Ninong

[Biomanjcs72]

I agree that the repubs we elected want to rebuild the military, but I agree also, that we need to. WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN MILITARY SUPERIORITY!!!!! THe chinese have over 1 billion, yes folks, that's one billion bodies in their armed forces. And at last check, we weren't just holding hands with those guys over there. Anyone remember a little incident with a recon plane a few months back????

anyway, I digress, I agree with the campaign, almost wish i wasn't too old for any of them to take me. it'll take a while, they'll get us a few more times, but ultimately, we'll get them.

Go buy a flag.


JCS

[wgscott]

The War In Afghanistan
47 Questions and Answers
and additional links for further Information

http://www.zmag.org/55qaframe.htm

[wgscott]

Originally posted by Ninong
It is certainly a just war on our part because it is a war of self-defense.

Plans for bombing Afghanistan and removing the Taliban were formulated weeks prior to the Sept. 11 massacres. The Afghanis did not attack us. It is possible bin Laden did, although the evidence released to the public is hardly compelling.

We are having it [the war] because we were attacked on September 11, 2001. And, judging from the complete success of our enemies, we had no clue it was coming. Whether our engagement in military actions against terrorist organizations worldwide has any economic impact is beside the point.

If we were attacking those who attacked us, I would agree with you. But equally strong cases can be made at this point for attacking Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Strangley, the Iraq link hasn't been pursued, despite reports in the international press (like Sunday's Independent) that Iraqi diplomats met with the same hijacker that is suspected of spraying anthrax in Florida. Shouldn't that merit just a tad of media attention in the US?

... the crackdown on civil liberties...

I haven't seen a single bill since Sept. 11th. that in any way infringes on our civil liberties, including legislation that passed this week.

There are 700 people under arrest currently who have not been charged with any crime, or who have been charged with trivial crimes like errors on student visas.

The ACLU is taking a somewhat dimmer view of the latest round of anti-terrorism legislation.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wgscott:

The Afghanis did not attack us.

And we are not attacking them. We are attacking al-Qaida and the Taliban. Al-Qaida is predominately non-Afghani and the Taliban includes a large percentage of Pakistanis. It is unfortunate that innocent civilians are killed in warfare but at least we are not intentionally going after them, unlike the people who attacked us.

It is possible bin Laden did, although the evidence released to the public is hardly compelling.

His own statements and recruiting videos are compelling.

P.S. - Looks like the evidence is becoming more compelling, even to certain Pakistani Muslim Clerics: http://www.unitedstates.com/news/fcontent/757541/

Let's not forget that in a 1997 interview Osama bin Laden boasted that his al-Qaida operatives were responsible for the killing of 18 U.S. Rangers in Somalia, where they were on a humanitarian aid mission distributing food to the population that was being deliberately starved during a civil war.

(P.S. 10/18/01) --

AP report:

Report: Bomb Kills Bin Laden Aide
By Salah Nasrawi
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, Oct. 18, 2001; 12:39 p.m. EDT

CAIRO, Egypt –– A veteran al-Qaida fighter was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan, a London-based Islamic group said Thursday. It was the first reported death of an established figure from Osama bin Laden's terror network in the nearly two-week bombardment.

The Egyptian militant, identified by his nom de guerre Abu Baseer al-Masri, was killed by a U.S. bomb Sunday near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, the Islamic Observation Center said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.

The center said two of his comrades, a Chinese Muslim and a Yemeni, were injured. No details were given.

New update as of 10/20/01:

"Meanwhile the private Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press said Friday that an aide to bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan when a grenade exploded in his hands, and did not die in a U.S. bomb attack.
Abu Baseer al-Masri, an Egyptian, died in a Jalalabad hospital on Oct. 13, two days after a grenade he was holding exploded, causing extensive arm and chest injuries, AIP said.
Earlier reports had said al-Masri was killed by U.S. bombing around the eastern city, which is a center for guerrilla training camps."

Al-Masri was a longtime member of the Egyptian radical group al-Gamaa al-Islamiya and had been in Afghanistan for at least 10 years, much of the time in al-Qaida camps, according to former fighters in Afghanistan. He was reportedly close to bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, also an Egyptian. There was no way immediately to confirm the report of al-Masri's death.

The Islamic Observation Center acts as a public relations outfit for Islamic fundamentalist groups and has passed along statements for them in the past. It has been regularly reporting war news from Afghanistan since U.S. strikes began Oct. 7.

Its director, Yasser el-Sirri, is believed to have contacts among suspected Muslim militants around the world. Egypt says el-Sirri is a former military chief of Islamic Jihad, another radical group, and sentenced him to death in absentia in 1994 for alleged involvement in an assassination attempt on the then-prime minister. He denies the charges.

The center on Thursday also relayed a statement from Mohammed Atef, the military commander and the No. 3 leader of al-Qaida, warning that U.S. troops will suffer the same fate in Afghanistan they did in Somalia, where bodies of slain soldiers were dragged through the streets.

El-Sirri said Atef made the brief statement in Afghanistan. He refused to say how it came into the hands of the center.

"America will not realize its miscalculations until its soldiers are dragged in Afghanistan like they were in Somalia," Atef, an Egyptian, was quoted as saying.

In October 1993, guerrillas reportedly trained by bin Laden shot down two U.S. helicopters over Mogadishu, Somalia, killing 18 soldiers who were trying to capture a Somali warlord. Jeering mobs then dragged the bodies of some of the soldiers through the streets.

The incident prompted the United States to pull out of a U.N. peacekeeping operation in Somalia.

According to evidence released by the British government, Atef traveled to Somalia several times in 1992 and 1993 to organize violence against U.S. and U.N. peacekeeping troops. On each occasion he reported back to bin Laden, who was based at the time in Khartoum, Sudan.

Other intelligence reports suggested that he also supervised the slaying and dragging of the bodies of the American soldiers in Mogadishu.

Atef, whose daughter in married to bin Laden's son, is believed to be a former police officer. His association with bin Laden started in the early 1980s when he helped him recruit fighters for the Afghan war with the Soviet occupation forces. He is now principally responsible for training al-Qaida members in terrorism.

In October 1999, the FBI charged Atef and other al-Qaida members in a conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals. The FBI's indictment pointed to the Aug. 7 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as being part of the conspiracy.

© Copyright 2001 The Associated Press



Mohammed Atta is very clearly tied to bin Laden, even appearing in videos with him. Besides, we have about two years worth of recorded bin Laden cell phone conversations, before the genius realized that we had the technology to intercept his satellite enabled cell phone conversations and stopped using cell phones. Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but I have found dozens of links between bin Laden and the bombing of our embassies in Africa, including intercepted phone conversations, to say nothing of confessions: http://www.msnbc.com/news/643721.asp

But equally strong cases can be made at this point for attacking Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Strangley, the Iraq link hasn't been pursued, despite reports in the international press (like Sunday's Independent) that Iraqi diplomats met with the same hijacker that is suspected of spraying anthrax in Florida. Shouldn't that merit just a tad of media attention in the US?

Iraq, yes, Saudi Arabia, no. The difference is that the Saudi royal family has been fighting Osama bin Laden for the past 8 years, mainly as a matter of self-survival, since he has been critical of the royal family. He has been disowned by his family and stripped of his Saudi citizenship. The Saudis negotiated his turnover with the Taliban in September 1998 (a month after the embassy bombings) but when they went to Kabul to accept him, the Taliban reneged on their agreement. Bin Laden owns the Taliban... bought and paid for.

Yes, much of the contributions to the so-called charities that funnel money to al-Qaida originate in Saudi Arabia--even among members of the royal family--but that is a complicated situation that involves extortion and radical clerics that are opposed to the royal family. Eight of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and, according to press reports, approximately half of the non-citizens who have been arrested are Saudi nationals. It just so happens that Saudi Arabia was a big backer of the Mujahideen back in the early 1980's, when it was perceived as a fight between Islam and the Soviet Union. In fact, any member of the Saudi National Guard who wanted to join the Mujahideen was allowed to take a six-month paid leave of absence to serve in Afghanistan. It is quite likely that most of these were from the radical fringe elements of Islam, like the Wahhabi sect.

As far as the Saudi royal family is concerned, they number in the thousands and many of them are susceptible to arm twisting to contribute to the faith. It's not easy figuring out which of your critics you can safely jail for a few years and which you should allow to remain free. It's not like there is any real legal system to provide guidance. Anyway, the royal family is all in favor of U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia and the threat from Saddam Hussein is only one of their reasons.

As far as Iraq is concerned, there is ample press coverage of their involvment, you just have to look for it. There is little doubt that Ramsey Yussef was an Iraqi agent. The Clinton administration just decided to settle on an identity for him that allowed them to avoid a confrontation with Iraq in the 1993 WTC bombing. After all, he had 15 different passports under at least 12 different identities. If you read between the lines, there is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that Saddam Hussein is deeply involved in the terrorist campaign against the United States, and they expect to do something about it at the appropriate time--Colin Powell notwithstanding.

There are 700 people under arrest currently who have not been charged with any crime, or who have been charged with trivial crimes like errors on student visas.

The 744 people under arrest have been charged with being in the country unlawfully or are being held under material witness warrants. All have been provided with access to legal counsel--in fact, the many who are Saudi nationals are being represented by high-priced legal talent provided by the kingdom. Please note that I italicized the word our in my comments about civil liberties. The present bill authorizes a 7-day hold of non-citizens without filing charges, subject to judicial review. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me under the circumstances. It is a bit late for them to start checking on student visas. If they had done that earlier they might have picked up two or three of the hijackers who came over on student visas but did not attend school. And I believe I would be very interested in talking to the 35 Arab students who all attended the same truck driving school in Denver, all paying cash, all using the same interpreter, all receiving licenses without being able to speak English--even though that is a requirement--and none of whom took advantage of the school's job placement program.

It is my fervent hope that the FBI is currently double checking the student visa of every Arab student in this country, especially those enrolled in flight school.

The ACLU is taking a somewhat dimmer view of the latest round of anti-terrorism legislation.

Good, that's their job. Tell them not to worry too much, Rep. Conyers has worked over the House version of the bill and it is likely that the conference committee will put out a final bill closer to the House version than the Senate version. Many of the provisions of the House bill expire in 5 years, unless extended by a new act of congress. (P.S. 10/18/02 - The actual sunset date will be Dec. 31, 2005 and it's a done deal.)

Regards,

Ninong

[Mikeman]

the truest thing I have ever heard

Although most people, apart from very strict pacifists (like Christains who actually believe their own doctrine rather than just trying to stifle everyone else with it)

[Ninong]

The anti-terrorism bill will be on the President's desk by the time he gets back from China.

Ninong


Facta, non verba. Fiat justitia.

[Ninong]

Translation of radio broadcasts by U.S. Forces into Afghanistan--similar messages on leaflets have been dropped from aircraft:

"Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead. Highly trained soldiers are coming to shut down once and for all Osama bin Laden's ring of terrorism, and the Taliban that supports them and their actions.

"Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons.

"You have only one choice ... Surrender now and we will give you a second chance. We will let you live. If you surrender no harm will come to you. When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."



Ninong

P.S. - That last paragraph leads me to believe that we are only days away from sending in ground forces.

[wgscott]

A long time ago some dweebs from the Soviet Embassy gave me a little book of propaganda about their invasion of Afghanistan. The similarities of the propaganda are embarassing. Let's hope this does not entail similarities in outcome.

The Soviets committed near-genocide. They still couldn't win.

[wgscott]

There is an excellent editorial in yesterday's San Jose Mercury news;

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premiu...dit/040328.htm


and a really enjoyable column in today's business section:

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premiu.../herhold18.htm

[Ninong]

The SJ Merc editorial is a bit misleading in saying:

"The legislation allows the government to hold suspects for seven days without explanation.

"After a week, the officials would have to release people or charge them with criminal or immigration violations."

That only applies to non-citizen suspects and is an increase from the previous 48 hours. Also, this provision will expire on Dec. 31, 2005. I won't challenge their use of the phrase "without explanation," but I believe "without filing charges" would have been more accurate. According to the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., their hired U.S. attorneys have been in contact with all Saudi nationals that have been detained and are rendering all possible assistance.

Did you see that Berkeley's city council voted 5-4 to call for a halt to U.S. military action in Afghanistan? (P.S. - Anyone who would like to see just how far out of the mainstream Berserkeley is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/MN215797.DTL )

If you liked Larry Ellison's national ID suggestion you will love the Oakland Airport's new face recognition ID system which they are in the process of setting up right now--first in the nation.

Ninong

[wgscott]

Everything I just typed vanished in the haze. Did you notice the second one was a parody? It took me awhile this morning.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wgscott
Did you notice the second one was a parody?

Not until just now. Originally I read only the opening paragraph and noticed that it was the supposed brainchild of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy. I figured they had too much time on their hands now that they were no longer occupied with dreaming up suggested MS remedies for Thomas Penfield Jackson.

Ninong

[schrocat]

Originally posted by wgscott
A long time ago some dweebs from the Soviet Embassy gave me a little book of propaganda about their invasion of Afghanistan.

Were they your controllers?