ForumGarden

Lulu2 wrote: I'm confused...which country was the U.S. bombing when Osama Bin Laden hit the WTC?


If you look up Bin Laden's history it's quite...humourous?

Gulf War and start of U.S. enmity

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the Saudi Arabian ruling House of Saud at risk both from internal dissent and the perceived possibility of further Iraqi expansionism. In the face of seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his Mujahideen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.

After some deliberation the Saudi Monarch refused bin Laden's offer and instead opted to allow United States and allied forces to deploy on his territory. Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and his Saudi citizenship was revoked.

Shortly afterwards, the movement which came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.


he was mad because after the US armed and trained him, they stole his thunder.

Sudan

In 1991, Sudan's National Islamic Front, an Islamist group that had recently gained power, invited al-Qaeda to move operations to their country. For several years, al-Qaeda ran several businesses (including an import/export business, farms, and a construction firm) in what might be considered a period of financial consolidation. The group was responsible for the construction of a major 1200 km (845mi) highway connecting the capital Khartoum with Port Sudan. But they also ran a number of camps where they trained aspirants in the use of firearms and explosives.

In 1996, Osama bin Laden was asked to leave Sudan after the United States put the regime under extreme pressure to expel him, citing possible connections to the 1994 attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak while his motorcade was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A controversy exists regarding whether Sudan offered to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. prior to the expulsion. There are conflicting reports on whether the Sudanese government ever indeed made such an offer, but they were prepared to turn him over to Saudi Arabia who declined to take him.[citation needed]

Osama bin Laden finally left Sudan in a well planned and executed operation accompanied by some 200 of his supporters and their families traveling directly to Jalalabad, Afghanistan by air in late 1996.
So he tried a new life somewhere else, and the US had him booted.

ah, who cares? No one's looking for him anymore anyway.

Lulu2 wrote: Koan, I understand that you don't want to participate in violence. How would you propose the world deal with people like Osama Bin Laden and the multiple terrorist cells around the globe?Lulu, you're new here so allow me to explain. :yh_glasse You see, Koan has such love and admiration for the US, she actually believes all ideas and original thought come from here.



Since all ideas and original thought comes from the US, no one anywhere else can act except in reaction to a US stimulus.



Therefore, all terrorist acts must have originated from some US stimulus.



Therefore it's all our fault.



So to get the terrorists to stop something we started them doing, we have to show them how by not fighting back. This will inspire them to put down their bombs.



Got it?

The US is certainly not the only country responsible for aggression.

Even Canada is making itself a target now.

The problem is not what to do after someone walks up and whacks you on the head with a stick, the problem is how to stop poking them until they want to hit you.

Why do we have to bomb towns and cities and civilians....wouldn't you think that with modern technology and 'special forces' that the powers that be, could target only terrorists and trouble makers...or would that take us back to the days of Stalin etc ? just a thought !

Bez wrote: Why do we have to bomb towns and cities and civilians....wouldn't you think that with modern technology and 'special forces' that the powers that be, could target only terrorists and trouble makers...or would that take us back to the days of Stalin etc ? just a thought !


Do we actually know what the troublemakers want? We might be able to negotiate for peace if we focus on why the people are mad.

koan wrote: Do we actually know what the troublemakers want? We might be able to negotiate for peace if we focus on why the people are mad.


I asked that question the other day koan. Got no replies, but the root causes of the problems seem a good place to start.



I know that some of the ill feeling goes back into history, like Israel and Palestine, but we have to forget, but learn from the past and move on....tough to solve the troubles of the world isn't it ?

K.Snyder wrote: Good..

Then what are we all fighting for?


Very good question, which not enough people ask or if they do accept what they are told or that others are better placed to decide for them or even that you shouldn't question what you are told about other religons or other races countries because you don't know enough to have an opinion.

If I had a simple answer I would give it. All those who want war should bugger off and leave the rest of us alone. It's easy to say stand up and be counted but even in america the land of the free it seems speaking out against the war is not an easy thing to do without being accused of not supporting the troops, supporting terrorism, or just plain unpatriotic. However, since I am not in america, or even american, I hope you are going to tell me that's a load of rubbish. You cxan even say that's a load of bollocks if you like, since that's arguementative withoit being insulting.

posted by lulu2

I'm confused...which country was the U.S. bombing when Osama Bin Laden hit the WTC?


I suggest you have a read of the 911 report for a bit of background.

This is a very old style conflict being fought in new ways, realpolitic and religious fervour make a dangerous mix. You can't change the past but our politicians can't seem to learn from the past or conceive that their policies might actually be wrong. Saying I was wrong seems to be regarded as a sign of weakness.

gmc wrote:

It's easy to say stand up and be counted but even in america the land of the free it seems speaking out against the war is not an easy thing to do without being accused of not supporting the troops, supporting terrorism, or just plain unpatriotic.




It depends on what America knows what our roll in the war is. I find it odd for someone to speculate in this regard considering that the majority of America, in the late '60s and early '70s, protested to great lengths for the government to pull our troops out of Vietnam.

Americans from my own perspective, and of course I feel the same way, do not care what others label them to be when they feel what the government does in "their name" is not congruent with their morale values. We believe in doing what is right, and not what is popular....sometimes its just hard knowing the difference between the two, as we are forced to put our trust in people with high positions in society.

koan wrote: The US is certainly not the only country responsible for aggression.



Even Canada is making itself a target now.



The problem is not what to do after someone walks up and whacks you on the head with a stick, the problem is how to stop poking them until they want to hit you.


Koan I really dont think were prodding anyone with a stick. We arent toying with Peru or Argentina or Borneo or Sweden. Why ? Because they dont want global terror. Theres no reason to get involved with them. These people that were at war with want to disrupt what seems to be working fairly well for most of the rest of the world. They live as religious zealots.

They are--->Extremists

That requires extreme response. You act as if they are reasonable. Thats ludicrous Koan. You yourself say the only reason they strap bombs to themselves is because they dont have planes. I beg to differ. They used planes quite effectively on 9/11.

They have social disorder, they are governed by tyrants, they have no political skills, they apparently seem unable to compromise. Everyone has to compromise. Its the only way for the world to work. Its why we have police, we break the law we pay the penalty. Social chaos is unproductive.



Do we actually know what the troublemakers want? We might be able to negotiate for peace if we focus on why the people are mad.



Negotiating with terrorists now ? They sieze a plane full of people and barter. A life for this, another life for that. The world would be at their mercy (as if were not already)

What could it be that they really want ?

Or is it possible that nations of people have been misguided by the few that can work the crowd into a frenzy. Jim Jones had that skill, so did Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin and the list goes on. Killing off segments of society just aint gonna cut it Koan. Thats what they want because I believe thats what theyve been told they want. So the Jews are gone, all is well with the world then ? I doubt it they hate westerners as much as they hate Zionists. They say it all the time. Thats the difference between us and them. We dont hate them, we dont want to obliterate them. We just want peace. I think thats an accurate statement.

Nomad, I get the feeling that, with some folks here, it's all Western civilization's fault and we deserve to be the victims of terrorists. We just need to sit back and let them vent their spleens over their well-deserved ire until they "get" our new, non-violent attitude.

Forget the fact that Islam means "surrender" and that non-Muslims are regarded as impure and should be subjugated. Forget the fact that these people are willing to kill innocents in their struggle to take over the world. And forget the fact that they've announced they'll never stop.

OF COURSE there are moderate Muslims and OF COURSE many of them deplore what's happened. BUT...take a look at what's happened in Western Europe, which has accepted and attempted to integrate Muslims into its society. See how well it's worked.

These are people who intend to convert you and me, willingly or unwillingly, into their control.

Doesnt that all wring very close to "cleansing" or "genocide" ?

Islam supports MISSIONARY work....there are countless missions/mosques in the States attempting to convert. Sounds much like the Christians around the world, doesn't it? And what happened to many of those primitive cultures?

GONE!

Come to think of it, Nomad....what does one do with a society considered "impure?" One CLEANSES it. This is what's happening in parts of Africa today...fundamentalists are taking over and imposing a "Talibanesque" form of mandated behaviors.

I just dont know why this never occured to me before. In all seriousness Im having trouble seeing the difference Lu.

Well, perhaps the difference is in who's doing the CLEANSING/SAVING/PURIFYING and who's the victim?

Ever seen the film "At Play in the Fields of the Lord?" These Christian missionaries go into the Amazonian jungles to "save" the locals and wind up destroying them.

I imagine the survivors would claim they'd been the victims of a massacre, while the remaining missionaries would claim they'd only been trying to save the natives from the flaming pits of hell.

Don't you suppose the Taliban excuse their abuse of women by claiming they're merely preserving the womens' innocence? Don't you suppose the Christian missionaries who forced Polynesian women into full-length garments believed the same?

I still feel pain thinking of what the Catholic priests did to destroy the Maya history when they burned the sacred codices.

Just as an aside, does the US which purports to hold freedom as its highest value, have a HUMANITARIAN right to step into other countries where women are set on fire for being raped or burning their husband's dinner, where children are maimed and killed, where people are at the mercy of the mass of crazy lunatics who do these things? Or do we just turn our back because we don't want to "start" anything....

I've pondered that one myself, RedGlitter. What about Muslim countries where little girls' genitals are "cleansed" through "female circumcision?" (What a nasty euphemism that is.)

Lulu2 wrote: I've pondered that one myself, RedGlitter. What about Muslim countries where little girls' genitals are "cleansed" through "female circumcision?" (What a nasty euphemism that is.)


Yes that is abhorrent too, Lulu.

But then I am reminded of that scene in "Roots" where the elders cut off part of the boys' business. Where do we draw the line and try to "educate" ( I use that word loosely here.) On the one hand, the christian missionaries thought they were educating all the peoples they tried to convert and some of those peoples, like the cannibals needed to change. Or did they? Should the CMs have just let them do their thing as long as it didn't hurt us? Or were they right in trying to make them more civilized?

Maybe that's the key factor. Maybe these crazy countries who burn, stone and behead women (and men) and bomb other countries for their lunatic religious beliefs are just not civilized.

RedGlitter wrote: Just as an aside, does the US which purports to hold freedom as its highest value, have a HUMANITARIAN right to step into other countries where women are set on fire for being raped or burning their husband's dinner, where children are maimed and killed, where people are at the mercy of the mass of crazy lunatics who do these things? Or do we just turn our back because we don't want to "start" anything....




Great point ! Thats the line I was speaking of. What is the line ? Or is that just none of our business ? When I call "them" back asswards, that action alone would indicate how primitive they are.

AND....the problem's compounded when those cultures which believe it's ok to treat women/girls in certain ways move into cultures where that behavior is NOT acceptable.

What then? Western Europeans are grappling with this problem as we speak.

Some years back, enormous numbers of Vietnamese moved into Texas and Southern California and happily began living in ways which were abhorrent to their neighbors.

Does the "entrenched" group HAVE to accept those practices of their new neighbors in the name of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?"

Lulu2 wrote: AND....the problem's compounded when those cultures which believe it's ok to treat women/girls in certain ways move into cultures where that behavior is NOT acceptable.



What then? Western Europeans are grappling with this problem as we speak.



Some years back, enormous numbers of Vietnamese moved into Texas and Southern California and happily began living in ways which were abhorrent to their neighbors.



Does the "entrenched" group HAVE to accept those practices of their new neighbors in the name of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?"




Now it starts getting messy doesnt it ?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do??

RedGlitter wrote: When in Rome, do as the Romans do??


Sounds reasonable to me but you know damned well it doesnt work like that.

Scrat wrote: That's what the serfs of medievil Europe did. Don't forget that its the upperclasses of societies that start wars for gain or to preserve the status quo.



Bow down to your master.


Heres a fair question. Considering that our politicians are heavily influenced by lobbyists, sure they may go in with pure ideas but they dont come out that way, how does on not bow to the master ? Id love to hear a solution as to how to eliminate the greed and cunning that pervades our govt. Isnt the best we can do to vote well and hope for the best ?

Scrat wrote: We can do 2 things and one of them is voting. The other is to get money out of politics. You do that by forcing the media to give free access to politicians for elections. That's a step.


Thats the problem though dont ya think ? Its all about the $

Scrat wrote: We can do 2 things and one of them is voting. The other is to get money out of politics. You do that by forcing the media to give free access to politicians for elections. That's a step.I think you can more properly say that the gov't would pay the media to give the access. Problem is, that would mean giving access to the Green Party, Libertarians, et al. The Republicrats would never go for that.

Diuretic wrote: I wish I had a really good point to make but I feel this is going to be a bit muddled, for various reasons. However I shall give it a try.

I read gmc's immediate post and K.'s post. Illuminating, both of them. In a good way.

It seems to me that immediately after 9/11 Americans were lied to by their own government. And the lies kept coming. And now it's possibly the case that the deluge of lies, very clever lies and propaganda by master propagandists, have hardened into fictional "truths" which many Americans still believe. I know if I had been an American in the wake of the 9/11 atrocities I would have put my implicit trust in my government - what choice would I have had? As an observer from afar I know that that trust was betrayed.

I believe Americans have been lied to by the Bush Administration, by a compliant legislature (save for a few brave souls who refused to surrender their critical faculties) and by a media that has not only been compliant but has been complicit. Small wonder Americans are now confused about why Iraq is a continuing and utter disaster and after 5 years of fighting in Afghanistan bin Laden and his gangsters have not been found.

I also believe that when the real truths, as opposed to the manufactured "truths", are revealed, that there will be massive anger against the Bush Administration and the co-facilitators.


I have no doubt that this is a possibility to somewhat of an extent, but to be honest im having a hard time in believing the notion that Washington is this "evil, lying, deceitful monster hell bent on power, greed, and cold blooded murder....

You understand how ludacris this sounds to me right?

*You understand how ludacris this sounds to me right?*__________________

I do. About 87%.





Am I right ?

(I'm steering this back to a question asked up above. I commented that Islam seeks to convert the world and someone else questioned that.)

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200410 ... mv&ak=null

And..if you've not seen this dynamic woman risking her life.....

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200410 ... mv&ak=null

Nomad wrote: In the big picture wouldnt you agree that its really the terrorists oppressing them ? Or can you twist their methods of suicide bombing into liberation somehow ?


Only if you include within your definition of terrorists the Israelis and their sponsors.

The Middle East is NOT one sided and all of the spin and blame will not make it so.

Lulu2 wrote: Koan, I understand that you don't want to participate in violence. How would you propose the world deal with people like Osama Bin Laden and the multiple terrorist cells around the globe?


In the first instance by not funding them and training them to be good terrorists.

Not helping him with the design and construction of Tora-Bora would have helped as well.

Lulu2 wrote: I'm confused...which country was the U.S. bombing when Osama Bin Laden hit the WTC?


For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

History is slow in the making, the bombing need not be current to be direct cause and effect.

I see! So the bombing in the London tubes was the fault of those who oppressed Muslims during slave times and Indian occupation?

Lulu2 wrote: Nomad, I get the feeling that, with some folks here, it's all Western civilization's fault and we deserve to be the victims of terrorists. We just need to sit back and let them vent their spleens over their well-deserved ire until they "get" our new, non-violent attitude.

Forget the fact that Islam means "surrender" and that non-Muslims are regarded as impure and should be subjugated. Forget the fact that these people are willing to kill innocents in their struggle to take over the world. And forget the fact that they've announced they'll never stop.

OF COURSE there are moderate Muslims and OF COURSE many of them deplore what's happened. BUT...take a look at what's happened in Western Europe, which has accepted and attempted to integrate Muslims into its society. See how well it's worked.

These are people who intend to convert you and me, willingly or unwillingly, into their control.


Let's sit back and think for a while.

For some time I, and several others, have been trying to bring some balance to a very lop sided equation. In the US media, and in the posts of several members here, there is a totally black and white situation in the Middle East and is says Isreal good, Palestine evil, Islam evil.

The world doesn't work like that.

If you look at the posts then you will see that it is not all "Western civilization's fault and we deserve to be the victims of terrorists" but a statement that "It's not all the fault of the Palestinians and Islam is not the root of all evil in the world".

If a lot of the posts point out the wrong done by the West and by Israel it's to try to counter the large volume of posts saying evil scum and facist murderers.

To pick but a single point from your post - "take a look at what's happened in Western Europe, which has accepted and attempted to integrate Muslims into its society. See how well it's worked." - I do, every day, and I see it working very well thank you. No-one is trying to convert me, no-one is pressurising me or terrorising me. What is the problem from your viewpoint?

If the Palestinians *are* evil scum and facist murderers then ask yourself why they are so. To Golem's stock answer of "they're fanatics sworn to drive every Israeli into the sea and destroy Israel", ask why this should be so - it did not start out that way and *if* it has now reached that point then there must be a cause.

Without examining the root causes we will never understand what is happening today - just reading the spin in the papers teaches you nothing but what the system wants you to think (which is, in itself, educational).

I fear that the situation in the Middle East has gone beyond "turn the other cheek" but war upon raid upon repression upon hate will not solve it. Trying a bit of understanding, talking on both sides and marginalising the fanatics on both sides might be a good start.

Lulu2 wrote: I see! So the bombing in the London tubes was the fault of those who oppressed Muslims during slave times and Indian occupation?


What was that in response to?

The bombing of the London tubes was a direct consequence of Blair taking us into Iraq.

The bombers were British and have directly said as much.

Their nationality hardly matters, does it? They are part of a lunatic group which is determined to PUNISH every misdeed they find, based on their mandate from Allah.

I understand what you're saying about history being full of errors, suppression, empires built on conquered nations, etc, Bryn. Nothing of that can be undone.

What we're dealing with now is, as I said, a lunatic group which will not respond to reason, non-violence or mediation. They are looking for an excuse...and an excuse they'll find. Because they want to conquer the world and that means bringing you and me and every other "impure infidel" under the heel of Islam.

Remember that I'm discussing a lunatic fringe.

Lulu2 wrote: Their nationality hardly matters, does it? They are part of a lunatic group which is determined to PUNISH every misdeed they find, based on their mandate from Allah.

I understand what you're saying about history being full of errors, suppression, empires built on conquered nations, etc, Bryn. Nothing of that can be undone.

What we're dealing with now is, as I said, a lunatic group which will not respond to reason, non-violence or mediation. They are looking for an excuse...and an excuse they'll find. Because they want to conquer the world and that means bringing you and me and every other "impure infidel" under the heel of Islam.

Remember that I'm discussing a lunatic fringe.


Their nationallity is important as is the trigger that caused them to act.

Blaming it on Islam as a root cause is not only a gross mirepresentation but is also a source of more resentment and an entrencement of the "demonisation" process that the media have been trying to instill.

This is a specific case with a spefic cause.

This woman is living openly not far from me, in a small town where she's probably easily discovered. I fear for her safety.

As am I...look what happened to poor S. Rushdie! His "peace loving" fellow-Muslims tried to kill him. I'm quite sure there's a price on her head, as well.

Diuretic wrote: I'm with her though, secular humanism is the only logical option for humanity. Once the world is totally secular humanist there will be no religious wars and superstitition will be driven from the human mind. Big job I know but it will happen.


Wow, LuLu, and you accuse religions of trying to force their ideology on others. You know that I abhor theocracies as much as you do, but I absolutely respect the right of anyone to worship and believe however they wish. And we know that even if religious wars cease there will be other wars to take their place. Far more wars have been fought in history for reasons other than religion. What you subscribe is the very tactic taken by Communist regimes and other totalitarian governments to keep the people subservient to the state, and the result has been murderous. Religious people in oppressive regimes all over the world meet and worship in secrecy least they suffer imprisonment or death. Talibanish indeed.