|
Oh, to be a Kabulian. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cweb |
and one last thing for today (I promise):
about being a pacifist (meaning doing nothing when some cruelty happens). Im for the dead for a "child-******" for example and I cant stand that we are actually releasing some ed-up head because of "good behaviour" after 10 years and he s or kill someone 2 days later. If someone has commit a proved (that is the main problem) murder he deserves to die. Osama deserves to die too. BUT YOU HAVE TO SOLVE THE REAL PROBLEMS!!! And you have to kill him, not a folk!!!! |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by cweb
@Eugene:
Israel secure???? hmm...dont think so! they are facing terror almost every day!m and it wont be solved until they accept a state named palastina (if it ends after that is of course another question).
|
Israel has the tightest security in the world - at its airport, on the streets, everywhere. I've been to Israel.
The reason I bring up Israel is because this is the only country in the world which has the official law to NEVER give in to terrorist demands at ANY time. If there is a hostage crisis in Israel, and the terrorists have some demands, - those demands will NEVER be met, even if there is a threat to the hostages' lives. Instead, there will be a force operation to take out the terrorists. The force operation may or may not succeed. It will *most likely* succeed (because the military unit is top-notch, experienced, and professional), but there is no 100% guarantee that everyone will be safe. There IS, however, a 100% guarantee that terrorists will NEVER get what they demand - and they know it. There is a serious philosophy behind this law. There have been no hostage crises or hijackings in Israel since the 70's. |
|
|
| cweb |
sorry man I just dont get it! Israel may have the best security on airports (they need to have that) and are the only ones who never fullfill terrorists commands. But what exactly does that for them? They have been attacked in differnet other ways, terrorismus is still there. So that will lead to my argument that you cant fight the symptoms, because they will re-occur in other ways!
Beside that: most terrorists (at least not these) do not hijack a plane for money, they do that in belief.
But in normal life you're right to a certain part. You cant let terrorist succeed!
My problem is, that the way the US (and Israel too) try to stop terrorism is completely the false way. You cant bomb a whole country for more or less one man! That will return to you!!! And we have not even mentioned the "colleteral damage". |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by cweb
sorry man I just dont get it! Israel may have the best security on airports (they need to have that) and are the only ones who never fullfill terrorists commands. But what exactly does that for them? They have been attacked in differnet other ways, terrorismus is still there. So that will lead to my argument that you cant fight the symptoms, because they will re-occur in other ways!
Beside that: most terrorists (at least not these) do not hijack a plane for money, they do that in belief.
But in normal life you're right to a certain part. You cant let terrorist succeed!
My problem is, that the way the US (and Israel too) try to stop terrorism is completely the false way. You cant bomb a whole country for more or less one man! That will return to you!!! And we have not even mentioned the "colleteral damage". |
cweb, I'm worried that you're not getting enough sleep :stongue:
you also have a paper to write, don't you? :D
In closing I want to say that I'm amazed by how naive you are. Your arguments are like those of a 10-year-old. Do you think, if there was any more effective way of getting the terrorists, they wouldn't use them? Who told you it was 'against the whole country'? In securely located and guarded caves and tunnels, where the terrain is rough, there is little room for options -- and the enemy must be stopped. The fact that the government is helping the terrorists, and harboring them, is not helping matters either. No, they're not bombing for 'more or less one man,' this is simply absurd, they're bombing the camps and many institutions of Al-Qaeda that has thousands and thousands of fighters and planners. Have you heard about how well-organized that group is? They have facilities, managers, camps, you name it. :rolleyes: And if you think they're 'just blindly bombing' you're wrong, because first of all they have top information, and secondly they're doing other things indirectly, like freezing their financial accounts, building a coalition against terrorism, etc. |
|
|
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
Hookay, this offtopic but relative to this discussion. From this website (I'm having trouble linking it), http://www.rense.com/general15/ww.htm, is a snippet of the article:
| quote: | Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen aknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Michael Rivero
The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax. |
Basically, this noid is saying the U.S. government (Shadow government, what have you) is staging inhouse terror, that the invasion of Afghan was planned well in advance, and corporations want its oil.
Interesting article but baseless.
Here from this website (http://www.larouchein2004.com) are snippets of LaRouche (future presidential candidate?):
| quote: | Excerpt from a 9/11 interview:
LaRouche: Take Osama bin Laden: [He] was created by the U.S., British, and Israeli intelligence services, as a part of the so-called Afghan operations. He still is a controlled asset of those interests, which are largely buried in the special covert operations section. Now, of course, obviously, our military, top military, had nothing to do with this. But there are people who are ``off the reservation,'' as we saw reflected in the Oklahoma City bombing, and there are people off the reservations who are used, who are deniable....
Announcer: Well now, who are the people though, that would, I mean, are you saying these people are domestic terrorists in the United States?
LaRouche: No, they're not terrorists. These are not terrorists. They may terrify people, but they are not terrorists. That is, the idea that this is an international terrorist operation, is utter nonsense, and it's very dangerous to go looking for the wrong adversary, and ignore the right one. The point is, there are certain people, very powerful people, behind the scenes in various governments: the British government, the U.S. government, the Israeli government--not Sharon, I don't think Sharon would have had anything to do with this--but, who are determined to have the United States take the nature of the conflict between certain people in Israel and the surrounding neighbors, and use that to involve the United States in a geopolitical conflict in the Middle East. And some of the reaction of the suckers, including the President of the United States, who doesn't really know too much, who was pushed in that direction yesterday.
Announcer: So, you're not buying the conventional wisdom here, as to this being Osama bin Laden, or anyone else?
LaRouche: I doubt that there's any wisdom behind the people who think so. I think the point is, anybody who understands -- Look, there were certain features of these developments yesterday, which immediately attracted all of our attention. I had over the, since then, since yesterday morning, I've been reaching out to old, high-level military and intelligence people around the world, including Russia, as well as Western Europe and elsewhere, and we put together, from the U.S. side, and from these areas, a very good cross-check picture of what happened. It could not happen -- Look, the United States could not have done that to the Soviet Union during the high point of the conflict of the Cold War. We didn't have the capability to do to the Soviet Union {then}, what was done to us yesterday.
Introduction to 9/18 press release:
Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. gave an extensive interview today to the newsweekly Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), stressing the grave dangers, but also the tremendous opportunities, facing the world in the wake of the onrushing financial collapse and the first in what will probably be a series of attacks against the United States by rogue networks within the United States, whose aim is an eventual coup d'état against the U.S. government. EIR is a international newsweekly of which Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. is the founder and contributing editor.
|
..Who knows, the equation of conspiracy is a very small (100x) possibility since US's (ah) clandestine secret operations are not under the juridisction of the executive branch; nor answer to the high command of the military (ie: Philadelphia project, building highly classified armor suits, and what not).
...Personally, I doubt this but the US have been known to work in secrecy and deception (ie: Kissinger era, anyone?).
...Though, I do disagree with Renegade's assessment of Bush's character but agree he has lofty objectives. The idea is (correlating with noids' conspiracy theories) Bush may not know all the details and history of US's covert and secret operations (legal or not). He only goes on what he is given, trusting his advisors that he's not being hoodwinked. Bush may have gave the order to invade, but he could have been subtly manipulated into doing so.
All these events remind me of Nixon's relationship with Kissinger, who was the real mastermind behind the intrigue and corruption. The persuasive engineering of a Kissinger seems relative to current events: the puppet master behind the puppets. The only difference here is Bush has more integrity than Nixon.
One wonders if Kissinger still is in power? Maybe he has a prodigy.. :eek:
...And the way I perceive the condition of WTC and up to now is like the karma timeline:
1. US has a karmic pattern of interceding (coercively and covertly) into other countries' affairs.
So it's like pre-determined Fate of US playing the game of connecting dots until the last one is reached. It's inevitable, these microcosmic (ie: muslim hate) and macrocosmic (ie: terrorist attacks) events intertwine to create some fated outcome for the human race. Sort like a ridiculous, long-winded sufferable lesson we all must learn together but do it individually.
So no matter how much we rile against or praise (or agree with) the current outcomes because we have our own pre-determined reality in our minds, it is all illusive (if one follows buddhic philosophy).
That is basically how I perceive all this. I neither agree or disagree but observe, discern, and reflect what will happen is unstoppable by nature. What happens before and after WTC will shape or transform the past into the present as the future.
...Just flow with the karma wave, so to speak. The essence of cold harmony is what I am alluding to. It's the closest a person could ever get to being objective, sitting behind a computer.
u4ea <- comfy in the armchair |
|
|
| ProjektZwo |
man it took me forever to read this thread. my reactions are that renegade talks full of , but looks so smart doing it. who are u to criticize bush? i think hes doing the right thing. u have to remember that the job of presidency isnt just about doing the right thing but about doing that mixed with what the public wants. its about being politically correct in the publics eyes. u have to look at it this way renegade: pacifism may be the noble answer, but what about the 256 million americans - they wont stand for the usa to stand idly by. they all want revenge. not to mention, whoever said that you cant be pacifist with terrorists, i agree. terrorists are extremely unreasonable and are usually deluded by their own thoughts. if you lay dormant or in a pacifist nature, they may find it easier to achieve their goals. and i dont buy the story (which i read in full) that there were no terrorists and secret american groups did everything. i dont buy that at all.
and i dont buy into all that conspiracy theory crap. i know u4ea that its not ur thoughts, but i think its a bunch of garbage.
and something everyone needs to consider: before u come on here and attack other people's opinions, remember that only a handful of people really high up really know whats going on. u can't come on here and tell people they're wrong, or what happened 20 years ago in some country. u dont know what happened for sure! all you kno is what u read in some newspaper - or what u saw on tv. so renegade, before u come on here again criticizing some1's opinion, remember that u are not the authority. u have been subjected to the same subtle tv propaganda and news reports that the rest of us have seen. i'm sure there is a LOT of stuff that has happened and is going on that u dont know about. for all u kno something totally different could be happening. and how do u know that the NA was killing innocent peeps when they took kabul? b/c u saw it on tv? b/c u read about it? yeah thats what i thought. unless ur there i cant believe what u say. besides how do u know that those 'innocent' peeps were not part of the rioting public that supported the taliban? there were a lot of peeps that did support the taliban even though they werent in the taliban. maybe those protestors that were killed were violent supporters?
my point is that none of us knows the tru story here. we all have the same sources of information. and the guys who are running the show r the only ones who know whats really going on. so lets tone down the opinion arguements and welcome what everyone else has to say. im sure a lot of peeps (like myslf) wanted to voice are opinions but were afraid to do so b/c they get attacked by peeps who think they kno everything that is going on and think theyre right. :)
i guess in a sens i am the 'pacifist' in this thread? im not attacking anyone but trying to welcome others. i guess twidling my thumbs as you say. hee hee. :) |
|
|
| cweb |
Yeah, about being "naive" I think thats a question of point of view. Blindly thrust a government is not very usefull, we had that before!
whore are you to critisize bush??? Yeah right, need I'm to be high profile politician to weven say a bad word about bush or what? Do you live in a democracy right?
the taliban and the al-qaida organisation is way too much overrated, that puts terrorism perhaps 2 years back, but it will return even stronger.
Just bomb! In 2 years you have another "ground zero" without making real solutions! |
|
|
| hypronix |
well... as the US helped Osama in the war against the russians, and he turned against them, so can the Northern Alliance... I can't exactly say it would be fun, but...
yeah, I hope things get better there from now on... |
|
|
| jzmhed1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[B]
As Ghandi once said, "if everybody took an eye for an eye, the entire world would be blind".
|
ghandi was wrong..if everybody took an eye for an eye, we'd still be left with one eye. hehe;) |
|
|
| Renegade |
Okay, to save time I'm not going to respond to all your queries, I'm simply going to enunciate what I believe with regards to this issue, and you can all take what you wish from it.
Firstly, yes, in this case I am promoting the pacfist cause. This means, essentially, that I do not believe that the military action against Afghanistan was the right choice. This, you must understand, is not because I'm a peace-protesting hippie or anything of the sort, it's because, on this occasion, given all I know about the situation, it seems like the only sane choice.
For instance, I do recognise that, on occasions, military action is the best way to acheive what needs to be done. I can think of two cases, off the top of my head, in recent times, where US military involvement was justified:
- The Gulf War
- In Yugoslavia (Kosovo) a couple of years back
Here, the military response was the correct solution, and I appluad the US for the way that they were able to conduct both these operations. So why do I support military action in these cases but not in Afghanistan? For three reasons:
- In both the above cases the objective was clear
- In both the above cases the objective was acheivable
- In both cases the acheivement of the said objective was likely to directly bring about a set of clear benefits, both in the short term and the long term
For point one, the objective in the Gulf was to forcefully remove Sadam Hussein and his Iraqi army from Kuwait, the objective in Kosovo was to end the ethnic purging in the province, and depose Slobodan Milosevic from power as the dictator of Serbia.
For point two, the objective was easily attainable in the Gulf as the US army by far outweighed the Iraqi army, and this sheer force of numbers (and the technological superiority) meant that the US could succeed in driving the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait quickly and with a minimalisation of loss on their own side, while in Kosovo it was a similar story: get the Serbian army out of Kosovo, get into Belgrade and forcefully remove Milosevic from power (I know, in reality, it wasn't quite that simple, but you get my drift).
For point three, the victory in the Gulf produced the short-term benefits of ensuring oil production in Kuwait wasn't reduced significantly (which could have impacted greatly on the worlds economy) as well as maintaining the independence of the state and the people of Kuwait. In Yugoslavia, the military victory prevented the further genocide of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and succeeded in ousting Milosovic from power and bringing him to justice, much to the delight of most of the Yugoslavian people.
So now look at the Afghani war in relation to these three points that are required, in my opinion, to justify military action:
Is the objective clear?
No-one here seems to be able to give me a clear, definate response on what the objectives of this war are. The most common sentiments reflect the attitude of "well, we have to do something" to which I would probably agree, but is that, in itself, justification for war? I wouldn't have thought so, no.
So allow us then, to analse the possible, tangible objectives of this war:
- Get Osama Bin Laden
- Quash terrorism by weakening terrorist camps and murdering members of terrorist factions
- Boot the Taliban out of power
These were the only three that I could come up with. These, by the way, represent the three courses of action, not the methodology behind them. Therefore, suggesting that the war is necessary to warn terrorists against future attacks, or that it is revenge for what happenned on Sept 11 simply represents the methodology behind the war, not the tangible aims of the war needed to acheive these two things. Thus, the "warning" or "revenge" policy can only be acheived via acheiving one of the above three objectives.
Anyway, let's look at each one of these, starting from the bottom.
Yes, booting the Taliban out of power is a clear objective, and, quite clearly, it was relatively easily attainable: but will it bring about both short and long term benefits? Quite simply, I doubt it. Like I said, the NA are just as bad as the Taliban, and while they may not support anti-US terrorism, they still advocate terrorist activities, as evidenced by what has happened over the past few days. So how long before the anti-US sentiments return? I suppose all we can do is wait and see, but we'll see if the situation is as rosy in 20 years.
Besides all this, I simply question the logic behind booting the Taliban out of power in the first place (given that the replacements are hardly any better). I mean, the same thing is going on in dozens of other countries around the world, so to justify this military strike as a humanitarian mission to help the people of Afghanistan is fairly hypocritical given the number of places around the world in similar or even worse trouble. Where were the US in Fiji, Timor or Zimbabwe? Does George Bush have any idea what's happening in these places? Or is he even capable of locating them on a map?
The support for the Taliban amongst the people of Afghanistan is quite high, particularly in the south, where the Taliban have retreated to, where the support for them is overwhelming. Thus, even though I dislike the Taliban as much as the next person, I can only question the methodology behind the usurpment of their power.
The objectives of the other two are not quite so clear cut. Get Bin Laden? What does that involve then? Does Colin Powell know exactly what needs to be done to acheive that? How much expenditure - both in terms of money and human life - is justified in this objective? Do we just keep on going until we find Bin Laden? How exactly do we go about finding him in the first place?
Then there's the even more vague notion of "battling terrorism". So what's the objective then? Keep on murdering Arabs until we can be certain that no more terrorists exist? Does Geroge Bush honestly believe that these military strikes are likely to prevent – or at least reduce – future terrorist activities?
Is the objective attainable?
Given the three objectives I believe underlie the methodology of the war, is the objective of the war, as a whole attainable?
Well, again, I doubt it. Many senior US officials - including Colin Powell - have expressed explicitly the doubts they have that Osama Bin Laden can be located, much less be brought to justice. And besides, even if there was any degree of certainty that he could be found, you still have to question the degree of force justifiable to find him. How much money and how much human life needs to be sacrificed before we can say his capture isn't worth the expenditure? George Bush has been given a $40 billion budget, by the US senate, for the purposes of this war. Is any man, assuming that the capture of Bin Laden must be one of the main objectives of the war, worth that sort of money? Even though I think that, ideally, he does deserve to be captured and brough to justice, it's important to remember that he is just one man, and his incarceration or murder will only mean that someone else will stand up and take his place. I can remember tu_face comparing terrorism to the mythical Greek monster Hydra, where if you cut off one head two more will spring up in its place: and this, I feel, stands true here.
As for quashing terrorism, this is even less attainable than the capture of Bin Laden. No amount of military action can scare terrorists into submission: remember that these are people who are willing to die for what they believe. This war is only providing them with justification for the actions they are willing to commit in the first place: the US, so to speak, are just treading on peoples toes. They are adding fuel to the fire, and this war is likely to make terrorist hatered grow, and the possibility of more terrorist attacks all the more real.
Is attainment of the said objectives likely to bring about both short term and long term benefits?
Will the capture of Osama Bin Laden bring about any tangible benefits?
The main one, and the point that represents the entire rationale underlying the entire war in my opinion, is that Bin Laden’s capture, or murder, will satisfy the desire that the American people have had since Sept 11 to extract revenge on anyone directly or indirectly responsible for the attacks. This need to extricate justice – which could be seen to be a form of resolution to the entire issue (they’ve caught him, the good guys have won, it’s all over); this nationalistic pride – seem to have been the main motivation underlying all American political activities since the original attacks.
To capture Bin Laden is important to the world, as it represents closure of the issue, and re-erects the perception held world-wide – and particularly by the Americans themselves – that America is fundamentally invincible, and that anyone with the temerity to challenge them – even those as rich, powerful and fanatical as Bin Laden – will be defeated, brought to justice in one quick sweep of the US’s military arm. The capture of Bin Laden is probably the most tangible victory, in this sense, that can possibly arise from this war.
I agree, entirely, that Bin Laden does deserve to be brought to justice for what happened on Sept 11, but, the question is, at what cost? Do we just keep on invading countries, spending money and killing people until he is found? Especially given the doubt currently held that we would ever find him at all? Even then, apart from the fact that justice will be seen to be done, are there any other possible benefits that can arise from his assassination? Potentially, but again, I would still argue that there isn’t. It’s important to remember that should he be killed, there are thousands of Arab men with the determination, skill and power to adequately take his place: perhaps their fervor will even be magnified in the shadow of his death.
In the short term, yes, ensuring that Osama Bin Laden is incapacitated with regards to planning future terrorist attacks, will bring about tangible benefits, but the question as to how long the postive effect of these attacks will linger in Afghanistan must be questioned.
Anyway, for those who lack the inclination to browse through all that text, the main issues I’m raising here are:
- The vague, ambiguous, objectives given as justification for this war
- The distinct possibility that these objectives can never be reached
- The distinct possibility that even if these objectives are reached, they will offer no real benefits
Given the three points above, I can only bring into question the logic governing this war.
I think, ultimately, this war is the result of the uncertainty and helplessness manifest in the US since the Sept 11 attacks, and the overwhelming desire around to do anything to extract retribution for them. I don’t see the point in flailing wildly in the dark, simply because you find it so important to do anything rather than nothing. There is something very sinister about the motives behind this war: with a lot of patriotic pride at stake, the US government has seen it fit to divide the entire issue into right vs wrong, good vs evil, black vs white. They, in their own, misguided self-righteousness, have failed to question the motivation behind these attacks, and instead have left themselves more prone to future events of a similar nature.
Not that I’m anti-US in any way – quite the opposite. I have supported their decisions in other cases (such as the activities in Iraq and Kosovo) and still hold the belief that in many ways, this world would be a much less hospitable place if it weren’t for the US. They have done a lot of good, and generally use the overwhelming economic power they possess for the betterment, and propagation of what is fundamentally right.
However, regardless of which way I try to look at this war, I fail to see the point in it.
So what would I do then? What course of action would I, as one promoting the pacifist cause, take?
The first would be to question why the attacks happened in the first place. There is no shame in being morally malleable: to admit that you may have been in the wrong, even if you were acting with the best of intentions. I would ensure the US troops were moved away from Islamic holy places, as it is quite clear that the US presence offends many Muslims in the region. I think even though the terrorists we are talking about here are probably not open to negotiation, there is still the possibility of compromise. Remember, we should be talking about how we can prevent a war, not how we can win one (I’m sure even some of the non-pacifists here will agree that this is a reasonable point).
Other than that, I do condone the use of restrained military force, for instance in the weakening of the Al Quaida training camps. This makes sense, ultimately, because it is congenial to the premise that should be central to the post Sept 11 world: to prevent terrorist attacks from occuring again. I have no qualms with justifying limited military action, but the force being demonstrated at the moment is excessive and unnecessary. I think the Americans, assuming they do genuinely wish for peace and the prevention of anti-US sentiments in the region, would be best suited to leave the majority of the territory they have occupied, and leave things be. This does not necessarily apply to Israel, which is the topic for a different thread altogether, but, yes, it certainly should apply to all of the Muslim countries.
All I’m trying to do is to promote the idea that war can and should be avoided, even if the Americans have, during the course of this battle, added to the almost irreparable damage they have done to their image in the region already. It is not a war with the Islam world and the western world remember: Bin Laden, for starters, respected the Western world enough to be schooled in the UK, and you never see the Union Jack – or the flag of any other western civilisation being burned in the street. The qualm of these terrorists is with the US, and I think that the US should be examining why – even if it does turn out that they are entirely in the right.
Allow me to reiterate that in not in any way supporting the actions of the terrorists – I shall say, once more, that anyone involved in any sort of terrorist activity is, by definition, an inhuman bastard – and, with that, I am not anti-US for the most part, and I should hope, in all honesty, that this post is not going to be interpreted in that way. My qualm is with the way the Afghani battle is being fought, and why it should have started at all. I simply use the US as an example as they, obviously, are more involved with proceedings over there than any other country. All I want is to ensure is that this senseless war doesn’t escalate to the point where thousands should be killed for the sake of rather transparent differences in nationality and religion – which is what this war is slowly degenerating into.
I promote the pacifist cause because I believe it is the only way we can avoid such a situation.
If you’ve read this far then I thank you, even if you don’t agree with me. No matter what happens in the world from this point on, I can only hope that common sense prevails and that humanity, in time, can learn to overcome this senseless bull. If we can’t, then I really do fear for us all. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
Hey Renegade,
first of all thanks for all the effort and time invested in your post! Even though i don't share your conclusions and arguments i enjoyed reading it due to the clear message transmitted in it and the effort, it gave me the feeling u really care / spent lots of time THINKING about the conflict.
I'll try and respond, but not now. Gotta enjoy da weekend after all ;)
Hope to write it tomorrow
cya |
|
|
| cweb |
| UGH! same here. will read tommorrow as Im leaving home in the next 5minutes...wish all of you a great sat. night! |
|
|
|
|
