Ah, sounds nice, but they’d just claim the west has corrupted these good muslims, and nothing would change.
It really is like arguing with creationists, I think.
Interesting that you say so.
The CIA admits that it pumped in huge amounts of cash and also the infamous Stinger missiles into Afghanistan. The Taleban are the same kinda people the US government used in the fight against the Soviets. The US leaders have nurtured these very same terrorists for their own means. Hell they even made one of the Rambo movies about Afghanistan. What do you propose to do about a US policy which permits this?
Pakistan has long been supporting the scores of terrorist organizations spreading terror in Kashmir. They call these “freedom-fighters” but they use patently terrorist means, blowing up schools and roads and hospitals in India. And the US now is forming an alliance with Pakistan. Nothing is being said about Pakistan’s history of support to these terrorists. Doesn’t this mean that US leaders have a rather selective definition of terrorism ?
The US bombed a medicine factory in Sudan. Till date there’s been no conclusive proof forth-coming that that particular facility had anything to do with the bombings of the US embassies. So what about the US leaders who carried out, what in the eyes of many, is a patently terrorist act?
In Ireland, a significnt amount of funding for the conflict comes from fund-raising in the United States. And the conflict is based on terrorist acts on both sides. The people of the United states are actively invloved in funding this conflict. So by ur logic, Every US citizen is responsible, for people that die in Ireland, bcoz of funds raised in the US.
And now you are advocating an all out war against Afghanistan. Innocent people will die. The US will win. The US will have its revenge. But knowing the nature of jihad, there will be more Bin Ladens.
Then what?
It is why I think that we should actively depose the Taleban governments of both Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. Whatever action we take cannot leave these organizations in place just as bin Laden’s machine must be destroyed as well.
Zenster: The United Arab Emirates? What brought them into the discussion? The fact that some of their nationals are among Osama bin Laden’s supporters?
To the best of my knowledge ( and correct me if I’m wrong ) the UAE is just what the name suggests, a confederacy of small royalist states in the southeatern quadrant of the Arabian penninsula. I doubt Osama bin Laden has any more respect for their government, than he does for Saudi Arabia’s crown government.
- Tamerlane
Here’s what Henry Kissinger has to say on this subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.kissinger.cnna/index.html
It has come to my attention that the United Arab Emirates is also run by a Taleban government. I support the immediate overthrow of all Taleban governments as threats to world peace and security. I see a direct link between all Taleban governments and the current tragedy that we have gone through. The inablility of the Taleban to correctly interpret Islam’s across-the-board ban upon suicide and the initaiation of force for the taking of human life convinces me that all such groups are a menace to modern civilization.
An additional feature of overthrowing the United Arab Emirates is that we may be able to recover some of the economic damage to our country through appropriation of their oil reserves. This deserves further investigation as the burden of unfair economic damage placed upon the United States by this atrocity is something worthy of redress.
I am also currently revising my own advocacy of bombing Kabul out of retaliation. It may prove that the southern city of Kandahar has a much denser population of Taleban officials and therefore may be more worthy of our attentions. The intransigence of the Taleban regime and their immediate posture concerning threats to Pakistan all show that they must be removed from power at the first opportunity. Continuing reports of public support by the Afghani people for the Taleban government in their country only serve to strengthen my resolve upon this subject.
Even if the Taleban only seek the re-establishment of the “Caliphate” of old, their condoning of terrorism in the pursuit of such ends still presents sufficient threat to the modern world. I do not see much of a middle ground because of this and am obliged to advocate their immediate removal from power. Due to their visciousness and malign intent I have extreme difficulty in not supporting their extermination. Modern civilization has come too far to be put at risk by a few backward maniacs who are unafraid of killing themselves and millions of others in their attempts to reverse centuries of progress.
I am advocating overthrown of the Taleban government. I do not wish to see the entire country of Afghanistan brought to ruin unless they are unable to see the error of their ways. Even then, this is not something that I hope for. Sadly, I must wish for a world that is rid of terrorist scum like Osama bin Laden and the Taleban mullahs that support him much more than I can worry about the Afghani people. The time has come for action and we must not flinch in dismantling their already dangerous organization. Much worse will follow if these Taleban scum are not eradicated immediately. Any delay only gives them further opportunity to perpetrate another atrocity like the one we have already seen.
First of all, it’s “Taliban.”
Second, surely you have a cite for this, right?
Third, I would like to know what “a Taliban government” is, since the Taliban is specifically the name of one of the Afghan factions which fights for control over the nation. You really don’t think the Taliban is some multinational octopus, do you?
Fourth, turning once again to the CIA World Factbook (and they are sort of in a position to know–indeed, to need to know–these sorts of things):
The Factbook also mentions that:
For those of us to whom these things do not happen to conveniently “come to our attention,” can you please explain where all these “Taliban governments” are? As far as the rest of the world can see, there is only one. In Afghanistan.
Not that I agree for a moment with the actions of terrorists, but it is generally unwise to make oneself an authority on interpreting other people’s religions for them.
Great Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!
Of course you have cites of these reports as well. I’ll wait for them in your next post. Since a) most Afghanis, if asked, would probably say, “Taliban who now?”, b) as previously cited, the Afghani population has a literacy rate somewhere around 31% for men and 15% for women, and c) as previously cited, the average Afghani is not exactly swimming in information, having no newspapers, telephone or television, I’m curious as to how this support is derived and whether, if in fact it does exist, it is in any way meaningful.
This is patently false. It is definitely time for you to check your sources, maybe do a little reading. Here’s a start:
http://www.uae.org.ae/general/index.htm
http://www.emirates.org/
http://www.hejleh.com/countries/uae.html#7
This alone is telling enough (from emirates.org):
Let’s see… it’s got acknowledgment of women as full citizens, reference to a Constitution, acknowledgement of all 7 states’ leaders united under a common government. Does this sound like the Taliban? There is also the fact that the UAE is a government fully recognized by the US and UN.
Thank you for the corrections concerning the United Arab Emirates. I withdraw my speculation about them and any role they might have, but firmly maintain my line on Afghanistan. I have no desire to spread misinformation.
And so, Extremists in the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are now safe from the wrath of America. Yet a moment ago, some were willing to call air strikes in on population centers in those nations, because of the fact that their governments might have shared educational credentials with that of the government of Afghanistan.
The whole point is that some of our true enemies are in nations filled with our friends! The whole population of Iran is not rabidly anti American, a portion of them are. The purpose of terrorism is to inflame hostilities to force an engagement of the moderate people in Islamic countries. The terrorists really don’t care enough about the west to even decide if there is any chance that we can be brought to view affairs in Muslim countries to be none of our business. What they want is war with America. They want every Muslim country to have to choose to stand with the infidel (that’s us) or stand with the faithful (that’s them).
The suicide bombers went out drinking at a titty bar, the night before they went on their mission. This is not Islamic fundamentalism; it is the disassociative behavior of a mentally deranged man. They serve a cause far different than Islam. The cause is the consolidation of enough political clout to allow a small number of people a large amount of influence on the politics of twenty countries. Killing Americans is only important if it gets us to do something that will allow them to use our response as a rallying point for groups that would otherwise be as likely to kill each other as anyone else.
Fundamentalist Imams and clerics are a highly diverse group. If you look around long enough, you can find a nut case with a scholastic history. Don’t forget that we have Robertson, Fallwell, Phelps, and a hundred others who would lead a jihad of their own, if given a chance. Opinions on matters of theology are no more difficult to find in Islam than they are in Christianity. It is almost a sure thing that many of them will disapprove of a nation where Sex, and Drugs, and Rock and Roll are the nostalgic background of our moderate elders. But disapproval is not the same as jihad. If our actions are aimed at the destruction of Islam, or can reasonably be perceived as accomplishing that, even the moderate leaders of the people of Islam will declare us the enemy.
We don’t want to attack Islam. We don’t want to attack Arab culture, or even Middle Eastern Governments. If they choose to attack us, then we will be forced to respond. We don’t want to attack innocents.
What we want to attack is terrorism. We need to make that clear to ourselves, and to everyone else involved. Yes, terrorists in the Middle East are among the most active, and destructive. Yes, a number of them claim religious reasons for their barbarity. But we must not be willing to go to war with an entire country because of the acts of beasts. We can make clear that the community of civilized nations will not conduct business as usual, or business of any sort with nations which deny their responsibility for murderers operating from within their own borders. That responsibility must weigh upon our own conduct, too.
However much we might wish to have revenge now, we cannot attack the most convenient target, and vent our rage at the world. The world will not comply with our desire out of fear. The world will despise us, and conspire to kill us all the more. Revenge against those who perpetrate these acts is what we really want, and nothing else will do. Yes, it will be far harder, take much longer, and be much less cathartic than a massive explosion of our military rage. But that juggernaut of destruction we could let loose would roll across the world in a growing cataclysm of death. It cannot help to wash over us too, in the end.
If we scatter bombs across nations, we will reap a bounty of avengers who shall grow up in the craters of our bombs. It is not possible to change the minds of a people with force. Let us attack the real enemies of our nation. We can find the terrorist organizations, and the legitimate fronts they hide behind. We will have to have patience, and we will have to make many hard choices. It will be expensive, and it will be cruel. It won’t stop terrorism at once. It will require that we accept many tough choices, to limit our dependence on others. We will have to choose our friends among nations by the criteria of just and decent behavior, rather than political expedience, or profitability.
There are no quick solutions.
Tris
“The short path has always this, as it’s chief character. It doesn’t go far.” Unknown
The government of Afghanistan has declared a Jihad upon the United States. I can only believe that this constitutes a formal declaration of war in the eyes of the Administration.
Some side issues:
Attacking Afghanistan from the north will not be doable. The supply routes to the border are on old Soviet gauge rails which do not have the rolling stock necessary to support the movement of troops and materiel.
Pakistan is nervously offering us assistance. Afghanistan has responded by moving Scud missles to their border with Pakistan. We will have to install Patriot missle defense batteries. We need to be very worried once the war starts so that Pakistan does not get the itch to launch any of its nuclear weapons. We certainly do not want Afghanistan to ever get their hands on them.
Pakistan is one of the best candidates as a jumping off point for military operations. They have coastal access for shipping and standard rail gauge. Pakistan also wants us to forgive debts of $30 Billion USD in return for their cooperation (which I see as blackmail). We are also supposed to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s incursions on the traditionally Indian area of Kashmir.
Who knows what we shall do about the Islamic schools in Pakistan that spawned the Taleban movement in the first place. There more than likely exists training camps too.
Iran refuses to join with us even though the Sunni Taleban are sworn enemies of the Shi’ite Muslims. I suppose all of the male children who will be able to serve are still young enough to suckle. They’ve killed most of their male population in their idiotic wars.
The intracacies of doing business in the Middle East.
Hello? We are waging war on terrorism, and that logically includes those who aid terrorism. If a government aids terrorism, then we are going to fuck with that government unless they change their actions, and quick.
Essentially, people have been able to avoid making direct choices all these years. No more is that possible. Now it is, side with the terrorists, or side against them. My enemy’s enemy is my friend and all, at least in this plight.
We want to be able to threaten unchecked or at least severe military action. This isn’t to scare the terrorists, its to get the government to wake up. Turning a blind eye to these actions isn’t going to cut it anymore. Period. The free citizens of a free country have decided that their government should respond swiftly and powerfully to this attack.
You don’t want to give us military support? Fine. You don’t want to give us an economic hand? Fine. Just don’t get in our way.
Is this a crusade or an anti-crusade crusade? Who gives a shit. Terrorism has got to stop. It has NOT demonstrated its effectiveness it acheiving its ends. After more than ten years of terrorist attacks, no one has succumbed to their demands, and countries get more and more hostile. Peace is never going to be acheived while terrorism is around, and any backing out due to terrorism is only going to encourage that behavior.
Are you saying you want to now? No, you are saying we shouldn’t attack governments. Well, we won’t; all they have to do is not harbor terrorists. See? Is it really so hard?
Yeah, no shit. Pakistan has our support, I’m sure, because of promises to lift some trade sanctions and other economic oppression we’ve imposed on them. As the one country who recognized the Taliban as a government it must have been a painful decision for them, but they stood up for the interests of their citizens first unlike some Middle Eastern governments (coughIraq) who figure to milk the hatred from their citizens for some quasi-religious end (is it politics dressed up as religion? Religion dressed up as politics? The Will to Power alone? who knows).
Every country must make its own decisions, and it should make those decisions based on the interest of its citizens first. Any government who puts someone else’s interests first deserves to be toppled.
“OTTAWA (Reuters) - Iran has sent a message to the United States via Canada saying it will not oppose targeted military strikes against those believed responsible for last
week’s terror attacks, a Canadian newspaper said Tuesday.”
Other reports that have not been substantiated indicate that the Taliban may hand over bin Laden if certain terms are met. The terms were that; bin Laden be released to neutral Islamic authorities, that sanctions against Afghanistan be lifted, and that funding for the rebels in the north be stopped.
Diplomacy seems to remain as a viable option here.
Actually, I believe this was a statement made by one Taliban cleric that was then promptly disavowed by a government spokesman there who noted that they had not even met yet to decide what steps to take. While this does show that there are clearly some particularly nutty extremists within the Taliban (that is, extremists even by Taliban standards), it is by no means clear at this point that they will gain the upper hand. I guess time will tell.
It came to my attention today that the Taliban controls almost all of Afghanistan excep for a small northern section where the Afghan government resides… can anyone confirm this?
If its true, and we go after the Taliban, it’d be hard to miss them.
Perhaps, this is the most disgusting thing of all about theocracies. Maggots like the Taleban swaddle themselves in a mantle of religiosity as they carry out patently political agendas. America, as a country that has a deep and abiding respect for religious beliefs, is hamstrung by its own moral code as it attempts to deal with these duplictious vermin.
How ironic it is that our moral compunctions will prevent us from lobbing a few cruise missiles into the the conclave of 200-300 of their clerics who will meet to discuss the surrender of bin Laden. Overlooking the obvious furor that would result from such an act, it would certainly decapitate the theocracy in Afghanistan in one fell swoop.
Instead, I can only envision another Vietnam-like scenario where our soldiers can neither speak the language nor distinguish the civilians from their antagonists. So many useless deaths of our military personnel and the local citizenry will result from our having to dislodge these parasites from the Afghani people. I still am unable to withdraw my advocacy of straight-out bombing in order to disable the Taleban. I think enough Americans have died already.
I can’t believe that no one has responded to this yet. This is perhaps the most transparently disgusting thing I have ever read on this message board. It is ignorant, bigotted drivel.
To suggest that the people of Waco were brainwashed or supported any of the horrible things Koresh is accused of having done (none of which have been proven, and it’s rather difficult to prove them now) is ridiculous. Waco is a perfectly ordinary town, no different from McVeigh’s hometown. (He was from OKC, wasn’t he?) To suggest that if he happened to have been from Waco, a small town that happened to be home to one of many radical anti-government fundamentalist groups in the US, it would acceptable to drop bombs on the homes of the many fine people there is reprehensable.
I assure you that no more people in Waco beleive in child abuse and armed conflict with the rest of the US than beleive in terrorism who live in OKC. If bombing Waco would be acceptable, so would bombing Oklahoma City. In fact, based on what you have written, I see no reason why you would not support that.
Suppose that the terrorist were traced not to Afganistan, but to your home town. Suppose that someone, possibly someone in power, had harboured them there, without your knowledge. What would you do then?
Well, if what i posted above is true, they should be hard to miss.
I’m searching for support of that now…