Extremism

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:55 am

It has affected all of us.

Where does it come from? And more importantly Why?

I put this here, because I dont want to just focus on the religious sort, but any form of it.

What drives people to the extremes of anything?

Lets discuss a disturbing element to a world we inhabit.

And lets discuss it now. I use the train to go from work and back, and I use the tube alot in London. So it's just a mathematical equation for me.

How about you? Do you fly? Use the tube? Busses?

Can WE be made extreme? What would it take?

I find myself living in a very disturbing world. No peace, and people starving when there is a surplus of food to be shared.

What the hell is going on?

Ocnbrz · Post by **Ocnbrz** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:20 am

Since 9/11 it is something that has certainly been brought to the forefront for many of us. Does extremism stem from human stupidity, or malice, or is it just idealism gone awry? We seem to see a lot of "Me"ism out there as well.

Since 9/11 I am not so willing to fly. I worry about doing so yet I know the chances of it happening again are not as probable as I might think. Still it colors my decisions concerning travel.

Could some of this extremism be addressed if we as a society were more concerned with the plight of our fellow man as it were instead of so focused on our little corner of the world? I wonder sometimes....

Why, if these issues bother us so much, do we do so little to address them?

What could we do that would make a difference?

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:40 pm

extreme problems require extreme measures to fix them. currently, the problems are being fixed in extreme ways by people with extremely different ideas on how they want the world to look 10-20-30 years from now.

we must decide as one, on ONE equally beneficial set of extreme measures to get our world back on track for the common good.

BUT there are two things you can't argue with:

selfish and stupid which rule supreme.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:35 pm

I think we must first define “extreme. What you call extreme I may call moderate or even passive. What if we remove the extremes on both ends of the scale? The extreme is then closer to the center. We must be careful about who we call extreme because if we are successful in removing them the day will come when we are the extreme.

Rather than fight against extremes we should fight against evil.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:49 pm

Define "evil."

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:53 pm

Geez.....what is wrong with living your own life...................I really do not care about extremists................they have their own agenda.

Did you want to talk about the US involvement in Iraq?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:44 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Define "evil."
Great question.

I would try to define it as that which would cause harm. There are people who are seeking to destroy life and have stated that is their goal. I think we could say that is evil and needs to be stopped before it is successful.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:35 pm

Say more about that, please. "People who are seeking to destroy life" could apply to many forces active in the world.

What's "evil?"

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:32 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Say more about that, please. "People who are seeking to destroy life" could apply to many forces active in the world.

What's "evil?"
There is a line that once crossed takes us out of good and into evil. If that line was clearly marked we wouldn't need judges for anything but sentencing.

There is plenty that is clearly on one side or the other. The war against terrorism is clearly a war against evil. Good isn’t blowing yourself so you can murder others. Good isn’t trying to kill your neighbors because you don’t like what they believe. Good doesn’t target children to murder.

Some evil is obvious, some masquerades as good and some we never see. This much I know, evil doesn’t have benefits for mankind. The problem is getting enough altitude to understand what is ultimately good for us all. That’s why we seek wisdom from sources we believe reside at that altitude.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:42 pm

Clint wrote: There is a line that once crossed takes us out of good and into evil. If that line was clearly marked we wouldn't need judges for anything but sentencing.

There is plenty that is clearly on one side or the other. The war against terrorism is clearly a war against evil. Good isn’t blowing yourself so you can murder others. Good isn’t trying to kill your neighbors because you don’t like what they believe. Good doesn’t target children to murder.

Some evil is obvious, some masquerades as good and some we never see. This much I know, evil doesn’t have benefits for mankind. The problem is getting enough altitude to understand what is ultimately good for us all. That’s why we seek wisdom from sources we believe reside at that altitude.Dang, I'm glad you're back. Have I told you I'm glad you're back? I'm glad you're back. :-6

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:12 am

Accountable wrote: Dang, I'm glad you're back. Have I told you I'm glad you're back? I'm glad you're back. :-6
Thank you sir. You are very kind. Have I told you I'm glad to be back?

weber · Post by **weber** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:23 am

Clint wrote: I think we must first define “extreme. What you call extreme I may call moderate or even passive. What if we remove the extremes on both ends of the scale? The extreme is then closer to the center. We must be careful about who we call extreme because if we are successful in removing them the day will come when we are the extreme.

Rather than fight against extremes we should fight against evil.

Hi Clint

I like your way of thinking, of putting thoughts on paper. Your next two posts also. You obviously have a clear thinking mind an I enjoy that. There is very often a fine line between many opposites in life. I remember saying once that there is a fine line between love and hate and there is.....one must love first before they can hate. Life can be very interesting.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:24 am

Clint, what you've said about "evil" is so ambiguous that it seems anyone can decide arbitrarily that they, themselves, are fighting it. Ergo...extremism.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:29 am

Accountable wrote: Dang, I'm glad you're back. Have I told you I'm glad you're back? I'm glad you're back. :-6

I'm so glad that you're glad that Clint is back 'cos I'm darned glad too....welcome back Clint....what took you so long :-6 ?

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:38 am

Not all forms of extremism is evil....depends what subject you're discussing.....extreme sports, extreme politics etc.

The word Extremism is now inextricably linked to terrorism and from what I gather, most stems from some kind of 'axe to grind'. Trouble is that all the resources go in to treating the sickness and little into why the sickness started in the first place. I often use a Problem solving tool called the '5 WHYs'....I wonder what would happen if we used this techinque elsewhere.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:45 am

Bez wrote: Not all forms of extremism is evil....depends what subject you're discussing.....extreme sports, extreme politics etc.

The word Extremism is now inextricably linked to terrorism and from what I gather, most stems from some kind of 'axe to grind'. Trouble is that all the resources go in to treating the sickness and little into why the sickness started in the first place. I often use a Problem solving tool called the '5 WHYs'....I wonder what would happen if we used this techinque elsewhere.

The way I see it, extremism doesn't give in and anything that doesn't give in usually ends up being harmful either to something or someone or to the one being extremist.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:56 am

Lulu2 wrote: Clint, what you've said about "evil" is so ambiguous that it seems anyone can decide arbitrarily that they, themselves, are fighting it. Ergo...extremism.
It is possible to spend so much energy hating a group of people we have conveniently labeled that we can’t let the label go. We might have actually built a philosophical castle on the foundation of a word. If the word fails us the castle crumbles and we are exposed.

The fact that we can’t neatly categorize everything is a large part of what makes life worth living. It’s when we have value judgments to make and we have to consider whether we are doing right or wrong that life is being lived to its fullest. Spare me from a neatly categorized, black and white world. I can’t think of anything more boring.

There are extremes but they are not always evil. If I decided to give everything I own to the poor it would be an extreme thing to do but it wouldn’t be evil.

We have to decide what is evil and what isn’t. To say that extreme views are evil is dangerous. I could label a group, calling them “extremeophobes. I could then campaign against their existence.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:56 am

Bez wrote: I'm so glad that you're glad that Clint is back 'cos I'm darned glad too....welcome back Clint....what took you so long :-6 ?
Great to see you again Bez. Thank You!

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:10 am

weber wrote: Hi Clint

I like your way of thinking, of putting thoughts on paper. Your next two posts also. You obviously have a clear thinking mind an I enjoy that. There is very often a fine line between many opposites in life. I remember saying once that there is a fine line between love and hate and there is.....one must love first before they can hate. Life can be very interesting.

Thank you for your kind words. I think you are right about love and hate. It's intersting that the word "hate" in Biblical terms usually means that you think less of one than you do another. We tend to think of "hate" in the extreme terms of wishing one was dead.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:15 am

Clint wrote: Thank you for your kind words. I think you are right about love and hate. It's intersting that the word "hate" in Biblical terms usually means that you think less of one than you do another. We tend to think of "hate" in the extreme terms of wishing one was dead.

Interesting view of hate, Clint.

I never really thought of it that way but I suppose we tend to think of "hate' in the extreme. I don't like to think in terms of "hate" at all anymore. It takes much too much energy to hate in that manner. When I use the word hate, mostly it is just something I don't like and avoid.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:20 am

weber wrote: The way I see it, extremism doesn't give in and anything that doesn't give in usually ends up being harmful either to something or someone or to the one being extremist.

Yep...I think you're right....moderation in all things is probably the best course :-6

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:09 pm

Clint wrote: It is possible to spend so much energy hating a group of people we have conveniently labeled that we can’t let the label go. We might have actually built a philosophical castle on the foundation of a word. If the word fails us the castle crumbles and we are exposed.

The fact that we can’t neatly categorize everything is a large part of what makes life worth living. It’s when we have value judgments to make and we have to consider whether we are doing right or wrong that life is being lived to its fullest. Spare me from a neatly categorized, black and white world. I can’t think of anything more boring.

There are extremes but they are not always evil. If I decided to give everything I own to the poor it would be an extreme thing to do but it wouldn’t be evil.

We have to decide what is evil and what isn’t. To say that extreme views are evil is dangerous. I could label a group, calling them “extremeophobes. I could then campaign against their existence.

unless you name and isolate the evil you're after you will end up shooting holes in just about everything else. ambiguity is safe and leads to nowhere.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:53 pm

Extremism, its an interesting one alright. Well like all human ideas its an old one isn't it. I think we should really be more specific in what we are talking about. What we are experiencing today is a cultural and religious slide into conflict between basically Islamic culture and Western culture. There are other variations on this going on in the world, but thats the one would be I guess pertinent to the people on this forum as everyone here is basically Western in background. Why this has happened is complicated involving politics, history, religion, the media, and good old fashioned intolerance, polarization and well hatred really. I live in a country whose history has been shaped by religion and intolerance, and I have seen it firsthand in Northern Ireland and its not very pretty. I've been watching events in England in the last few weeks, and it definetly seems that their is a lot of mistrust and suspision between non-muslim people and muslims at present, or at least it keeps getting into the headlines. It seems hard to even have a debate as muslims seem super-sensitive to what they percieve as "attacks" or what have you against their ideas, and non-muslims seem to be increasingly concerned that some people within the muslim community are perhaps not interested in co-existing peacefully within other in mainly non muslim countries, but want to impose, by intimidation, their agenda on those others. This also seems to be happening in most other western European countries, which all have relatively large muslim communities within them. I think some of this is caused by the media sensationalizing issues, which then take on a life of their own, and some is genuinely caused by intolerance at ground level.

What I know from my own country is that, whatever people may wish to believe, religion can be a terrible force when it becomes negative and is used as an identity and as a way of defining groups considered seperate. I would also say that muslim leaders in western countries have a big responsibility to provide their own people with guidance away from those that would teach muslims that they should consider non-muslims as "other" or seperate from them, it seems at the moment that they are very much aware of their own sensitivities without seeming to concerned with the sensitivities of others who do not share their faith or concerns regarding things like the situation in the middle east etc. What the traditional majority secular and christian people need to do is not to panic into reactionary stances and remember while I think its true that there are people within islam trying to preach hate and intolerance of others, the great majority of muslim people are not extremists or have hidden agendas, they are just people with a different religion. Its gonna be hard I think, as these things have a momentum of their own, and the situation in the world being as it is with Islamic terrorism, war in Iraq and Afganistan, Israel-Palestine, all of these issues, make it harder for people to be open about what they think, but its important to keep trying.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:57 pm

Scrat wrote: I think extremism is only a matter of opinion and perspective. For a Palastinian to get on a bus with a bomb and kill a bunch of Israelis is extremism to the Israelis. To the Palastinian the killing of his family members or whatever was extremism to him. Thus he seeks revenge - yadda yadda. This is a pointless discussion if you don't move towards a solution. Extremism is to vague a concept to grasp and to act upon.

If you look at the patterns its easy to see that one extreme begets another extreme, it's a question of finding a balance in some form. You can't look at Extremism from an emotional point of view or any other than a cold, scientific point of view that MUST be solution oriented.

Yes I am going to use the Soviet Union as an example here but please bear with me.

After WWII in the Transdneister and Crimean regions of Eurasia and parts of the Caucasus Russia, was involved in various conflicts with certain ethnic groups. They shipped large amounts of the inhabitants out of the areas to the east. To some people that was a horrible thing to do, in ways it was and can legitimately be called extreme. But it worked.

Because it was solution oriented. They found out who the troublemakers were in general, and shipped them out. The trouble stopped.

It's pointless IMO to debate this issue. Solve it anyway you can.

When a Palestian gets on a bus and blows people up thats political violence, as when an IDF soldier perhaps shoots a Palestinian throwing stones on the West Bank. Extremism is a particular position that one takes on any subject in which dialogue with another, percieved enemy is ruled out of the question and a fundamentalist, particularlist view is taken on a subject. For instance there are religious extremists and there are vegetarian extremists, (though vegetarian extremists tend to restrict their violence to acts against lettuce).

For instance there are animal rights extremists in the U.K. that attack and harras those involved in animal testing, and their are pro-life extremists in the U.S. that shoot clinic workers. Its not related to any particular cause but is a particular mode of though that tends to see everything in hightened, mutually-exclusive, black-and-white terms. Its not a worldview that I ascribe to. In short, extremism certainly leads to violence, but it is not violence in itself.

In terms of looking at political solutions to problems that are completely rationalist and scientific, thats a slippery slope. For instance, the Turkish solution to the problem of Greek communities on its shores was to destroy them (symrna 1923), Armenians, to destroy them (1 million died in forced marches in the 1920's). The Nazi's solution to a percieved "Jewish problem" in Europe was a clinical extermination that they somehow believed in their twisted version of morality was a humane solution to a problem of "vermin", as they had lost all sense of human decency. Had the British had taken that approach to the 19th century "Irish Question" then I wouldn't be here talking to you, you cannot deal with human problems of identity and conflict as if human beings were just cattle to be numbered and dealt with as per your own wishes and because the causes of conflict can be difficult to understand and resolve (I'm not saying that you do, just making a general point), its a very dangerous and unpleasant concept.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:32 pm

Scrat wrote: For the sake of the people that desire to live in peace you can remove the troublemakers and have an obligation to do so for the sake of peace and stability.

Sacrifices must be made. Make them.

Who gets to decide who the troublemakers are? Is there some objective test you can apply? Is the troublemaker the one being removed or the one who thinks they have the right to choose?

Extremism is not a 21st century phenomenon we've always had it. What is going on now is what has been going on down through the ages, warfare over resources, religon, politics, just for the sheer love of a good fight or for power and control. Hatred was a tool, if you were going to take anothers land or make slaves of them then judging them less than you made things easier and those who would live in peace learned to be warlike or disappeared.

All that is different is the scale and the fact that we no longer live in isolated communities where we didn't know what was happening at the other end of the country never mind in the neighbouring one until well after the event if at all. We know our neighbours and are less ready to believe what we are told by our leaders. The world is much smaller and we are all interconnected. People care what happens to others and as time goes on beahaving as we did in the past gets less and less attractive. People now know what warfare is like and persuadng an educated world aware population to suuport a war is getting hard for politicians to do. I'm not worried about extremists i worry we start to stereotype people and learn to hate again and listen to those that want to live in the past and let the idiots get control again.

posted by galbally

In terms of looking at political solutions to problems that are completely rationalist and scientific, thats a slippery slope. For instance, the Turkish solution to the problem of Greek communities on its shores was to destroy them (symrna 1923), Armenians, to destroy them (1 million died in forced marches in the 1920's). The Nazi's solution to a percieved "Jewish problem" in Europe was a clinical extermination that they somehow believed in their twisted version of morality was a humane solution to a problem of "vermin", as they had lost all sense of human decency. Had the British had taken that approach to the 19th century "Irish Question" then I wouldn't be here talking to you, you cannot deal with human problems of identity and conflict as if human beings were just cattle to be numbered and dealt with as per your own wishes and because the causes of conflict can be difficult to understand and resolve (I'm not saying that you do, just making a general point), its a very dangerous and unpleasant concept.

Very well put. Funny how advocates of social darwinism never believe they might be a failing subspecies of humanity and seem surprised that most see straight through to the flaw in their arguement.

I live in a country whose history has been shaped by religion and intolerance, and I have seen it firsthand in Northern Ireland and its not very pretty. I've been watching events in England in the last few weeks, and it definetly seems that their is a lot of mistrust and suspision between non-muslim people and muslims at present, or at least it keeps getting into the headlines. I

So do I and with the original reason for the bigotry lost in the mists of time. Every 5th of November we celebrate setting fire to a catholic, just think if fawkes had been a muslim-would we ban bonfire night in case it offends?

In a town near where I live someone set fire to the local mosque, probably one of the same low lives that will kick the head in of someone they consider to be the wrong kind of christian.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:23 pm

Clint wrote:

There is plenty that is clearly on one side or the other. The war against terrorism is clearly a war against evil. Good isn’t blowing yourself so you can murder others. Good isn’t trying to kill your neighbors because you don’t like what they believe. Good doesn’t target children to murder.

Could you justify that?

How was the invasion of Afghanistan a war against terrorism? The Taliban did not have any control over OBL and could therefore not hand him over to the US. The US, with all their capability, could not capture him in 7 years so how did they expect the Taliban to do so in 7 months?

How was the invasion of Iraq a war against terrorism? There has been no evidence that Iraq supported OBL or any other terrorist organization. He held no Wepons of Mass Distruction. What was the link to the War Against Terror?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:47 pm

What was the link? Money, oil, revenge, arrogance. I'm sure Condolleezza could explian it for us. :rolleyes:

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:06 pm

So, terrorism isn't evil and should be tolerated? Interesting. Justify that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:57 pm

Clint wrote: So, terrorism isn't evil and should be tolerated? Interesting. Justify that.

You did not state that terrorism is evil, your statement was "The war against terrorism is clearly a war against evil.". I question whether the War Against Terror is fighting terrorism in the first place.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:14 am

Raven wrote: It has affected all of us.

Where does it come from? And more importantly Why?

I put this here, because I dont want to just focus on the religious sort, but any form of it.

What drives people to the extremes of anything?

Lets discuss a disturbing element to a world we inhabit.

And lets discuss it now. I use the train to go from work and back, and I use the tube alot in London. So it's just a mathematical equation for me.

How about you? Do you fly? Use the tube? Busses?

Can WE be made extreme? What would it take?

I find myself living in a very disturbing world. No peace, and people starving when there is a surplus of food to be shared.

What the hell is going on?I think it's our tendency to do exactly what we're doing in this thread - allow lesser details distract us from the original reason for doing a thing.

I'm sure most extremists start out with the best of intentions, if only for their own side. But sometimes they let the short-term situation pull them off the track of their long term goals. It may be their hate for the other side taking precedence over the welfare of their own; struggling so long and hard for power & influence that the power becomes the goal instead of the purpose; or maybe allowing petty differences distract from opportunities for real progress. It's really easy to let things snowball out of control.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:52 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: Could you justify that?

How was the invasion of Afghanistan a war against terrorism? The Taliban did not have any control over OBL and could therefore not hand him over to the US. The US, with all their capability, could not capture him in 7 years so how did they expect the Taliban to do so in 7 months?

How was the invasion of Iraq a war against terrorism? There has been no evidence that Iraq supported OBL or any other terrorist organization. He held no Wepons of Mass Distruction. What was the link to the War Against Terror?

I disagree the Taliban not only knew where he was they actively protected him. They allowed him to plan the 911 attacks unmolested and permitted Afghanistan to be used as terrorists training and staging area for attacks on the US and the American and Israelis embassy's in Kenya..The Taliban had an opportunity before the US attacks and assistance to the Northern Alliance began to capture and turn bin Laden over. They chose not..

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:58 am

Scrat wrote: Sounds like what the Israelis did to the Palastinians and that definitely fits what European Americans did to the Native Americans.

So what is good?

Be back tomorrow GMC.

The IDF does not deliberatley target non-combatants although they do kill them as a result of missing targets. The worst that can be said is that they are careful enough when targeting in civilian areas. If the Israelis were really trying to kill civilians you would see casualty numbers in the tens or hundred of thousands..The Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorist deliberatley and indiscriminatley kill women and children. Any jew is a legitimate target to them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:19 am

zinkyusa wrote: I disagree the Taliban not only knew where he was they actively protected him. They allowed him to plan the 911 attacks unmolested and permitted Afghanistan to be used as terrorists training and staging area for attacks on the US and the American and Israelis embassy's in Kenya..The Taliban had an opportunity before the US attacks and assistance to the Northern Alliance began to capture and turn bin Laden over. They chose not..

Have you any evidence of active collusion? How were they supposed to stop him? (Remember, the US couldn't manage to drag him out of his hidy hole with far more resources than the Taliban had)

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:21 am

zinkyusa wrote: The IDF does not deliberatley target non-combatants although they do kill them as a result of missing targets. The worst that can be said is that they are careful enough when targeting in civilian areas. If the Israelis were really trying to kill civilians you would see casualty numbers in the tens or hundred of thousands..The Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorist deliberatley and indiscriminatley kill women and children. Any jew is a legitimate target to them.

So how do you justify the severe damage in the non-Hozbolah areas of Beruit?

How do you explain the accusations of war crimes from Amnesty for exactly that?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:35 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: Have you any evidence of active collusion? How were they supposed to stop him? (Remember, the US couldn't manage to drag him out of his hidy hole with far more resources than the Taliban had)

Bryn, I don't know how much faith you have in wiki but here is a link that says there was collusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Relationship with Osama bin Laden

In 1996, Saudi Citizen Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama Bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban [8].

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama Bin Laden and several Al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court [9]. The Taliban protected Osama bin laden from extradition requests by the U.S. variably claiming that Bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan [10] or that Washington “cannot provide any evidence or any proof that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that “Without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man [11]. Evidence against Bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records but no physical 'proof' to date links Bin Laden to allegations made by US intelligence and Government channels [12][13].

The Taliban continued to harbor Bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence [14], yet also offering to hand him to a third nation. In 2004 Bin Laden took personal responsibility for ordering the attacks on New York and Washington in a videotape broadcast on Al Jazeera.

My main source is the Official US Government Report on the 911 Attacks which is full of testimony, references to satellite imagery and electronic intercept which point the finger and full Taliban for bin Laden and his group.

Here is another link:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.

The Taliban recognized the need for international ties but wavered between cooperation—they claimed to have drastically cut opium production in July 2000—and defiance—they pointedly ignored international pleas not to destroy the 2000-year-old Buddhist statues of Bamian. However, they made no effort to curb terrorist activity within Afghanistan, a policy that ultimately led to their undoing.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:43 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: So how do you justify the severe damage in the non-Hozbolah areas of Beruit?

How do you explain the accusations of war crimes from Amnesty for exactly that?

A lot of that damage was caused by IDF attacks on dual purpose military/civilian targets such as infrastrucuture and egress routes. Perfectly legitimate miliatry targets. I repeat if the IDF was trying to intentionally inflict civilian casualities on the anyone they could have done so on a horrific and unprecedented scale. In a war sometimes there are mistakes unfortunatley. Contrast that with the indiscriminate launching of untargetable rockets in the direction of Israelis towns, schools and kibutzes by Hezbollah. They fired from homes and hospitals and stored their weapons in Mosques..

Amnesty International has a long history of anti-Israel bias and a short memory for Islamic atrocities they are not a valid source for documenting war crimes IMO.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:46 am

zinkyusa wrote: Bryn, I don't know how much faith you have in wiki but here is a link that says there was collusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Here is another link:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

Without looking further I won't pass comment but I still do not see how they could possibly have physically handed him over (assuming that he decided he'd rather not go). The Taliban did not have him in custody or any physical control over him nor did they have the strength to get him against his will.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:02 am

zinkyusa wrote:

Amnesty International has a long history of anti-Israel bias and a short memory for Islamic atrocities they are not a valid source for documenting war crimes IMO.

Given the work that Amnesty do world wide and the need for them to be impartial to be accepted I rank them alongside the Red Cross in the believability stakes.

The countries who complain about them most are the ones with the most to hid / the worst record.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:35 pm

posted by zinkyusa

Amnesty International has a long history of anti-Israel bias and a short memory for Islamic atrocities they are not a valid source for documenting war crimes IMO.

Maybe you should have a look at their web site. At a rough count only about one in twenty of the reports even mentions the US. or Israel. The middle east is not the only place where horrors occur. Criticising Israel is not having an anti israeli bias if the allegation made is actually true. Pretending that this is all one sided is just sticking your head in the sand.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17098

Israel/Lebanon: Hizbullah committed War Crimes in attacks on Israel - new report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0 ... 01,00.html

Arab women singers complicit in rape, says Amnesty report

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17119

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17117

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17116

Bryn, I don't know how much faith you have in wiki but here is a link that says there was collusion:

Here's an even better link

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/91 ... 0report%22

I trust you wont accuse your own senate of being anti american.

I think pakistan is a bigger problem that Iran or North Korea. They already have nuclear weapons and are not exactly a stable democracy.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:31 pm

Accountable wrote: I think it's our tendency to do exactly what we're doing in this thread - allow lesser details distract us from the original reason for doing a thing.

I'm sure most extremists start out with the best of intentions, if only for their own side. But sometimes they let the short-term situation pull them off the track of their long term goals. It may be their hate for the other side taking precedence over the welfare of their own; struggling so long and hard for power & influence that the power becomes the goal instead of the purpose; or maybe allowing petty differences distract from opportunities for real progress. It's really easy to let things snowball out of control.

I agree with you in that these discussion inevitably end up in people making position statements about one conflcit or another. Extremism is to me very simple, its when people become exclusivist in their outlook to a point where they become so partial that they justify any act in the name of some outcome without it seems any consideration or even the possibility of questioning the "rightness" of what they are doing. Its actually a pretty common human trait if you wade through history impartially.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:36 pm

"Extremism is to me very simple, its when people become exclusivist in their outlook to a point where they become so partial that they justify any act in the name of some outcome without it seems any consideration or even the possibility of questioning the "rightness" of what they are doing. Its actually a pretty common human trait if you wade through history impartially."

++++++++++++ Well said!

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:22 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: You did not state that terrorism is evil, your statement was "The war against terrorism is clearly a war against evil.". I question whether the War Against Terror is fighting terrorism in the first place.
What does that have to do with extremism?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:20 pm

Clint wrote: What does that have to do with extremism?

Just as much as your original statement to which I was objecting.