So, Anahita; what’d you think of those “Israeli terrorists” when they rescued the crew and passengers of that FRENCH AIRPLANE that got hijacked to Entebbe?
Methinks you know not of what you assert.
It might or might not be a slur, but you assumed the comment was made because of an abiding hatred of Jews. There is nothing to indicate that in her post.
She disagrees with the conduct of the State of Israel. That is very different from hating Jews.
The facts above prove that. I am sure that the people on the plane are thankful. After all, my point is that MANY MANY countries could be classified as terrorists, using the losely framed definition of the “War on Terrorism.”
Get it?
You can cut and paster, ver nice. The plain truth is that Israel has bent over backwards to obtain peace with Palestine, even to the point of ex-PM Barak negotiating handing over East Jerusalem to the PA. Arafat refused.
There has NEVER been a peace initiative on the part of Palestine. It has always been Israel that has tried to negotiate a peace settlement. Read today’s op-ed by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times and get back to me. Here’s a pertinent bit:
I am talking about defining “Terrorism” with reference to the “War on Terrorism” not the Middle East Peace Process. That is another thread entirely, and would be even further hijacking of this thread.
The point is, if Palestinians are terrorists, then so is the State of Israel. BTW, it sounds like you are justifying the killing of the people mentioned in my admittedly very long cut n’ paste article.
I am merely pointing out to you how difficult it is to target the enemy when the enemy is “Terrorism” (i.e. The War on Terrorism).
Well, we’ve already demonstrated that Hoe’s opinions weren’t logical. They, it seems, were based purely upon ill-informed emotion.
Well, seeing as you find that so funny, let’s see:
France: Ministry of Defense.
England: Ministry of Defense.
Portugal: Ministry of Defense.
Argentina: Ministry of Defense.
Russia: Ministry of Defense.
I could go on, but burying you in more examples of your lack on knowledge would be tedious. I think you have some appologising to do here. Or were you deliberately being ignorant?
Nice generalization. Similar broad, fallacious brushes could be applied to many nations. Hmmm… Who started the Viet Nam war? Who went around sinking civilian vessels because said civilians disagreed with gov’t policy? What gov’t still maintains a force of foriegn mercenaries as an offical part of their defense structure? See? It’s easy to pick-and-choose to create contrived assaults. You’ve not even done that well.
[sub]JFTR: I personally have no issue with the French way of doing things. Some residents of France, however, could use a bit of loosening-up.[/sub]
Facts? Enlighten me. All I’ve seen so far are assertions based on falsehoods, or on nothing at all. If you’ve got a point, show me. Frankly, at this point, I’m in more contempt of you than I am of Hoe. He, at least, has youth and inexperience to excuse him.
Americans take no interest in our foreign policy?
Have you seen American Forgeign Policy? Its such a convoluted, inconsistant mess BECAUSE we take interest in it…Remember how long it took to get US troops into Bosnia?..Remember how fast we pulled out of Somolia?..Remember that we basically let Bin Laden declare war on us for 10 years before we actually sent any troops anywhere?
Sheesh…
I disagree. A. She didn’t question Israel’s conduct; she called it a terrorist nation. B. In her lengthy c&p job, she quoted Palestinian propaganda outlets.
Terrorism is pretty easy to define, the use of terror to spread fear and confusion, like flying civilian airplanes into skyscrapers or bombing a crowded bus. Israel, like the US, is waging aggressive war on military and governemnt targets to end terror, not to spread it. The point YOU fail to get is that Israel, like the US, wishes only to be allowed to exist in peace.
Well, yes, that is a tough question. But your simple-minded, nay, deceitful, attempts to conflate Palestinian murder of innocents with Israel’s military defense is beneath contempt.
For the various responses, snotty or not here are my answers.
Bin Laden is not a member of any known military unit. If I go out and buy a handgun and begin shooting people in another country, do I classify as a soldier or a private citizen gone bonkers and shooting people in another country for some weird ass reason? By your definition of Soldier, Charles Whitman was a soldier, Bundy was a soldier, the two students in Columbine were soldiers, and so forth, and so on. You have reduced soldier to it’s lowest common denominator, a guy who kills a citizen of a country.
Bin Laden is a civilian who leads a civilian group of people. By acting against the Al Quada we’re acting against civilians. Just settle yourself with this. I don’t have a problem with it.
The Geneva Compact does apply to Bin Laden because according to it, if he is not holding a rifle and surrenders at the point of our entry into that cave we must take him alive and in a non-humiliating fashion. If he were truly smart, he would activate the other clause in the convention that allows for a third humanitarian party such as the Red Cross to come in and make that retrieval.
Of course, since we’re just using the NA in a non-official fashion to do our groundwork for us, and the NA is not a high party member, they can go in and shoot anyone they want. Which is exactly what they’re doing right now. Besides. Fuck the NA. If a mouse in your house gives me permission to start fires on your bed, do I have the right to do that? Hell, let’s use a better analogy. If the KKK gives Saddam Hussein permission to begin carpet bombing the United States does that mean he legally has the right to do so? By the example that you’ve given he does and Saddam can go ahead and begin his bombing runs without any sort of reaction from us.
Next.
The Taliban were a government within Afghanistan. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubbles, but here’s the definition of government.
gov·ern·ment (gvrn-mnt)
n.
The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
A governing body or organization, as:
The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
The persons who make up a governing body.
A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
Political science.
Nowhere does it say that a government is not a government if the US doesn’t recognize it. That’s just vanity and stupidity.
The NA tried to influence the Taliban, which was a government, through terrorist acts. Thus, they are a terrorist organization. Simply saying that something doesn’t exist does not make it so. They, the Taliban, were the ruling body of Afghanistan since '96. The NA has tried to blow them up, shoot them, and so forth since then. Just because Tom Brokaw hasn’t told you so, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
Since the Taliban is a government, this (the bombing) is akin to Britain coming to the US and dropping bombs on us for one of our people. Would you support that scenario?
“Bloody cheerio chaps, Milwaukees gone in our war on Evil!”
Next.
I’ve already stated that my thoughts on how the Taliban came into power are simply opinion on my part. I was refuting the idea that they didn’t exist until they mysteriously conquered all of Afghanistan in a single year as some people had thought apparently when they responded to my first post. However, it’s still suspicious to me that a small group of people with little to no money were suddenly given this money by some guy around the same time that the US began showing extreme interest in the affairs of Afghanistan. Then suddenly the man is a bank-rolled millionaire and buys surplus military vehicles for the group of people to use. I don’t know, maybe I’m just paranoid. Back then however there were no tensions between the US and Bin Laden. It’s only been the last few years in which he’s gone psycho with his attacks against us. Maybe they got the money from somewhere else. After all, by all news reports Bin Laden came from a wealthy background. But a background wealthy enough to purchase all the guns and vehicles that the Taliban needed? Anyone know how much Bin Laden was worth back in '94?
Once again, you can be a jerk-off to me all you want with baseball analogies that make it seem like you have a logical argument. Of course there’s nothing I can do to say or persuade people who have their mind set so far up their asses that they can’t see beyond red, white, and blue. Like Anahita said, the USA isn’t the center of the universe and like I said, our time according to history is drawing to an end as a world power. Nature has a way of balancing the tree and the tree is about to snap. Let’s just hope that the balancing act leaves some of us around.
By the by, there’s only 3 strikes in baseball. Apparently I’m special and got a fourth chance. Remind me to be grateful sometime.
Nailbomb
-And there was the little boy who was crucified on a pair of rowing oars…-
But bin Laden is NOT just some nut who picked up a handgun and started shooting people. He is the head of a well-funded and armed paramilitary terrorist organization, so your comparison to Bundy and Whitmore holds no water.
The rest of your post is too incoherent to rebut. Could you restate your points in a more easily comprehensible fashion?
First of all, Bin Laden has an official seat of power in the Taliban Government, he is also related (by marriage) to Muhammed Omar…Third of all, Al-Queda is supported by the Taliban…So, a better analogy might be that Britain attacked the United States because Dick Cheney ordered the Boy Scouts to bomb Parlament and the US not only supported the actions, but refused to hand over Cheney or break up the Boy Scouts despite years of terrorist activities against the UK…And of course, its all the UK fault because they set up the US to begin with…
But then, they would get points for supporting the Confederacy against the terrorist United States in the Civil “War” (if only for a little while)…
Welp… I couldn’t read any farther than this… so sorry to the posts below it.
I fight for them Hoe. Wanna make something of it? It’s my country and I love it damn it.
Of course, to answer gobear as well… If someone fights for the Taliban… and that’s their choice and desire… then so be it. I don’t see the problem. It’s just one more enemy.
So, by that token, if I hire fifty para-militaries and attempt to wrest control of the British government, I am still a private citizen even though I lead an army?
Except that by defining them as civilians, you define them to have rights given normally to non-combatants. By your twisted logic, had Klebold and Dylan run into the streets and started firing on cops, it would have been immoral and illegal of police officers to fire back because it would have denied Dylan and Kleibold their civil rights to a fair trial.
The fact is, Bin Laden runs a well-armed and well-trained organization which is devoted to destroying the United States. They have de facto declared war, even if you wish to niggle on the point that they de jure have no right to.
However, that would involve said third party to also follow your twisted sentiment that a de facto declaration of war is not as important as a de jure declaration of war. By that token, the North Vietnamese and North Koreans should have been arrested for breaking the Geneva Convention because they were shooting at United States soldiers, and the U.S. had never de jure declared war upon North Vietnam or North Korea.
Except that the KKK controls no significant territory in the United States, and makes no claim to be the government of said state. The Northern Alliance claimed to be the rightful government of Afghanistan, and controlled significant areas in the north.
Question for you, along those lines- during the U.S. Civil War, were both the Confederate and Union governments legal governments? If so, then the U.S. has full rights to work with the NA as the legal government of Afghanistan because what had been going on was a civil war.
A) Terrorism involves attacks upon civilian populaces for the purpose of influencing a government. Please indicate any attack upon a solely civilian populace the NA has done. Any.
B) What was being fought was a civil war which had been going on since '89.
So why, then, do you believe that saying the NA is a terrorist organization makes it so? You have yet to disprove that they ever controlled areas of Afghanistan. You have yet to prove that they ever made attacks against civilian populaces. Again, by your definitions, the North was a terrorist organization during the Civil War- they were attacking a real Confederate “government” that had a cabinet and everything.
No, you’re just sadly misinformed and confusing “idle speculation” with “actually researching facts”. Otherwise, you’d recognize that most of bin Laden’s money comes from his family, and the Taliban’s major supporter during the civil war was Pakistan, not the United States. Bin Laden had been a declared enemy of the United States since he was linked to the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. Trying to claim that the US then turned around a year later and gave him millions of dollars is so paradoxical that I wonder how your brain functions. Oh, wait, I forgot- you don’t bother to actually look things up, you merely ruminate with idle speculation and associate your fantasy scenarios with absolute fact.
Yutz.
[Even moderators miss a ** tag every once in a while. -JMCJ]
[Edited by John Corrado on 12-05-2001 at 01:41 PM]
Nailbomb - may ai say that you tend to ramnble long and hard, without making much of a new point in any of your posts. But what’s more offensive is your very poor choise of username - it is offensive to me, and I guess it may be to anyone aware that nail bombs are regularly used by terrorists. Anything you are trying to imply there?
Of course, it is your right to pick that name, but I just thought I’d add my 2 pennies.
Hoe, on the other hand, has apparently made a brilliant choice of user names.
Is there still any interest in the OP here? I’d have to agree that this is a mis-guided soul, not because he chose to learn about another religion - that’s admirable, but because he picked the absolute worst group to allign himself with. Trial is in order, but unless it is shown that he has fought against our forces the death penalty is not.
I’m not sure if you are distinguishing “attacks on civilians” from all-purpose thuggery. The NA was guilty of plenty of human rights abuses when they ran the country. I’m not sure if you meant to deny this, so I’ll not bother looking up cites for now.
Is this true? I don’t recall this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
Indicted for it, actually.
I agree with everything that John said except:
[quote]
Terrorism involves attacks upon civilian populaces for the purpose of influencing a government./quote]
The only problem there is that Khobar Towers and Lebanon are both considered to be terrorist attacks and those were directed against purely military targets. A better definition of terrorism, IMHO, is the use of violence to inspire fear for political gains.
Things I’d like to address in Nailbomb’s post above and beyond John’s replies:
Don’t be stupid. The KKK makes no claim to being the government, is not recognized by any state as a government, is under the jurisdiction of US law, does not control set territory, nor make any claims to it. All that taken together is in contrast to the NA which DOES have exclusive control of territory, makes claims to the territory, and makes claims to be the legitimate government of Afghanistan. All that is missing to make it a government in international standing is recognition from a chunk of other states and the UN (which the Taliban didn’t have either).
Also, wherever did anyone say that the Taliban should not react to our bombing runs and just sit there and take it? Did anyone say that? Or are you just making things up? I thought so.
Fine, let’s take your definition of government and use it on the NA.
Well, well, well, it looks like they fit the definition just as well as the Taliban does. So I guess that they are a government then, aren’t they? So following through to the logical conclusion, I guess the NA is not a terrorist organization according to this definition:
Since we’ve proven they are a government according to your definition. Brilliant job, Sherlock.
And sadly, yes, a government must be recognized by other states for it to have a say in signing treaties and being members of IGO’s, etc. If a government is not recognized as the legitimate ruling body by the US, then in US foreign policy, they are not a government. If a government is not recognized by the UN, then it has none of the powers/rights of sovereignty that a legitimate state would have. Sorry to have to break that to you.
So since the Taliban is not a recognized government, whereas the US and Britain are, your little analogy doesn’t hold in the real world. Sorry.
**
Well, last time I checked, the Taliban never conquered all of Afghanistan, just a large chunk of it. That’s where the NA came from, they were the coalition ruling the areas that the Taliban had not conquered.
Um, no. Bin Laden inherited $80 million in 1968 when his millionaire father died in a helicopter crash. Intelligent investments did the rest.
Maybe you should:
You have been consistently proved wrong, Nailbomb, perhaps the problem is not us being ignorant, perhaps the problem is you not knowing what the hell you are talking about.
The USA is not the center of the universe, but it is the center of world affairs for the time being. And yes, that will indeed change, but probably not very soon, and probably not in anyway except a very gradual recession of influence.
And yes, I did give you four strikes. In fact, I’d have given you as many as you needed until you got a hit. Just like I would when playing against my 6 year old cousin in an actual game. Seems fairer that way.
Not at all- I make no pretense that the NA are brilliant bastions of civil rights. However, accusing them of being terrorists is different from saying they are thugs.
Is this true? I don’t recall this.
[/QUOTE]
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html
“Group members are suspected of association with… the 1993 World Trade Center bombing”
According to this, investigation into the 1993 bombing was what lef the U.S. to notice bin Laden in the first place.
“bin Laden has already been linked to the 1993 bombing…”
“compelling evidence that men connected with him have bombed the WTC before…”
There ya go. That’s ABC, CNN, and the Washington Post. But, of course, every American recognizes those sources as right-wing sources with an extreme pro-government bias. Or so nailbomb will claim, I expect.
Actually, the NA is recognized by the United Nations as the Legitimate Gov’t. Rabanni, the political leader of the NA was the leader of the Afgan Gov’t until deposed by Taliban.
It was the Taliban that was lacking international recognition. Prior to 9-11, only three nations (IIRC) recognized the Taliban as the Gov’t of afganistan, and today, I think that only one nation still has deallings with the Taliban-as-gov’t.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, Tranquilis. I knew that Rabanni was still the official UN recongnized guy but I had thought that his ties to the NA had faded away over the years.