We are the war criminals now - Robert Fisk Article

Ronan|Raven · 01-12-2001 2:28pm

I deleted my post, I checked it this morning and cna safely say it came out more or less as the complete opposite as I had set out to make yes 2am and several vats of beer do make for irresponsible posts

Anyway I didnt go and post to stir **** so that is all but am sorry if it may have looked like that

gandalf · 01-12-2001 3:37pm

Which makes him look like an anti-semite.

An anti-semite is a person who hates Jews. Not someone who disagrees with the actions of Israel or Israelis (because it's quite obvious that Fisk disagrees with them), but someone who hates Jews. Come on!

JustHalf you have more or less contradicted yourself in those 2 posts.

As regards to Kabul, Fisk wasn't the only one who didn't want the NA to take the city. The "George & Tony" show originally didn't want them to go in either. The difference between Kabul and the other cities in Afghanistan is that it is the capital and the seat of power.

Gargoyle btw its personal insults we are homing in on. As well as racist. I have edited one insult at the end of Red Mooses post out. Red Moose keep it civil please or as they say in Pulp Fiction "I'll have to get medieval on your ass".

Chaos Engine your obviously not listening to me if you want to post comments like "Bush is Evil" please back them up or be prepared to have very few posts left intact on the Politics board.

Gandalf.

Aspro · 01-12-2001 9:52pm

Originally posted by Gargoyle[/i}
If the US really did want to "take over the world" and create an "evil empire" as so many on these boards aspouse, they would have: a) already done it, or b) plunged the world into nuclear winter trying. History shows that whenever there is one power in the world that has overwhelming military force as the US does, they attempt to conquer all they can, most of the time laying waste to any people in those lands that resist them. (European 19th century colonization ring any bells?) The US has not done this. Think about it; it could be a lot worse.

The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Think about it the next time you put on your jeans and runners, watch the news, fill up your car and go for fast food.

They don't need to roll in with the tanks and B-52s to establish their domination. They've done it with the dollars - with the institutions they control - the IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.

It's only when former friends like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban get too big for their boots and threaten US imperialism's economic interests in a particular region that military intervention has to be justified.

What's would the point be in "plunging the world into a nuclear winter"? It wouldn't make much economic sense to vapourise the market for your products and the cheap labour producers of your wealth.

The anti-war sentiments of myself and others on this board aren't intended as "USA bashing" or support for "terrorists". It's that we're sick of being lied to by the George and Tony club.

Gargoyle · 02-12-2001 5:03am

Originally posted by Aspro

The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Think about it the next time you put on your jeans and runners, watch the news, fill up your car and go for fast food.

They don't need to roll in with the tanks and B-52s to establish their domination. They've done it with the dollars - with the institutions they control - the IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.

<snip>

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers, eat at American restaurants, wear Amercian clothes, or work for American companies. People do so because they choose to do so - because it is beneficial to them. This is the fundamental way a free market works. Sorry, but I really don't see this as "taking over the world" in the traditional imperialist sense.

JustHalf · 02-12-2001 2:29pm

Originally posted by gandalf
JustHalf you have more or less contradicted yourself in those 2 posts.

Nope. If I was to say that Fisk didn't disagree with the Israelis, I would be telling a barefaced lie.

He comes across as an anti-semite. Just because he disagrees with the actions of Israel doesn't mean he isn't also an anti-semite. It's obvious he disagrees with the actions of Israel. I think he also comes across as an anti-semite, both for the manner in which he conveys his disagreement (I don't think he gives very good reasons for doing so), and the location (I've only read articles of his which relate to Afghanistan, yet in all that I have read he takes a dig at Israel).

Originally posted by gandalf
As regards to Kabul, Fisk wasn't the only one who didn't want the NA to take the city. The "George & Tony" show originally didn't want them to go in either. The difference between Kabul and the other cities in Afghanistan is that it is the capital and the seat of power.

What would you do gandalf? Would you hang around outside the city after the Taliban ran away?

I'd take the city.

gandalf · 02-12-2001 4:07pm

Originally posted by JustHalf

What would you do gandalf? Would you hang around outside the city after the Taliban ran away?

I'd take the city.

Nope I'd take it. I was just pointing out to you that it wasn't only Fisk who disagreed with the NA taking Kabul.

Gandalf.

Magwitch · 02-12-2001 7:35pm

The only eye witness I saw interviewed on TV was an ITN journalist who was being treated for shrapnel. She had, she siad been injured in grenade blast, set off by a prisoner, which prompted the attack.

The claims about the CIA agent Micheal have been contradictory. American claims from the Whitehouse siad he had been in the same room as 80 prisioners with only one CIA companion as company. The second CIA guy was apparently unarmed. It was claimed that a few Taliban fighters through themselves at him and he shot two before he was over powered. The other CIA officer apparently ran to the other side of the fort and called in air strikes.

This is completely at odds with the ITN eyewitness reporter (who at least has a leg injury to back up her story). Secondly, any CIA officer on the scene and that close to the centre of events would not walk into a room of 80 Taliban armed with 1 pistol. Field officers would be alot more savy than that (not to mention well trained). The Whitehouse version of affairs seems ridiculas, and I think it is. But according to the only other credible version the US should have nothing to hide. Thirdly wold a CIA officer be either equiped or trained in guiding in air-strikes? I think not. A case of too much spin perhaps?

Typedef · 03-12-2001 3:22am

Originally posted by Aspro

The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Here, Here. The USA has become just another Imperialist, hegemonic and dictatorial power, just like every other power through histroy. Bottom line, the US is run by small minded and opportunistic people, just like every other country. Still while the Soviet Union was a player it was possible to view the Americans as saviours, the American propaganda seemed so credible, the standard of living in the US was so comparitively high, so how could the US be wrong. Ask a stupid question. Look at how the US corsely dropped Nuclear weapons on what 300,000 Japanese civilians and then ask your self the question, how could the US ever again be right? Come on, at which point did protecting democracy, equality, freedom, and the "american way" necessitate incinerating and irradiating hundreds of thousands of civilians? In the future (if humanity still exists), say 300 or 400 years from now, history will not judge the Americans through the media - miasma that is US propaganda. I'm sure the Spanish inquisition seemed reasonable at the time and that the clerics propaganda seemed valid but, histroy did not concour.

Let's face facts, for all the talk of the US about capitalism, opportunity, equality etc, the reality is the US is an imperialist entity just like the UK was, just like France was, just like Russia, then the USSR, and then Russia is. Just like any imperialist entity the US has systematically gone about defeating it's enemies to establish it's hegemony. Here is the kicker, with the US as the world's only "superpower" the only thing left for the US to do is decline, think about it, sooner or later another power (who will probably be suitably unpalletable) will rise to challenge American hegemony and that will be a kind of relative decline for the US. This is enivatible and similarly sooner or later either humans get past squabbeling like chimpanzees and get our act together as being sentient participants of a greater-civilisation or we self-destruct in some kind of vauntable and sutiably righteous war.

Gargoyle · 03-12-2001 4:44am

Typedef, I cordially invite you to read my response to the post you quoted, since you conveniently ignored it the first time.

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers, eat at American restaurants, wear Amercian clothes, or work for American companies. People do so because they choose to do so - because it is beneficial to them. This is the fundamental way a free market works. Sorry, but I really don't see this as "taking over the world" in the traditional imperialist sense

Hobbes · 03-12-2001 8:50am

Originally posted by Red Moose
It's tit for tat. If you can't afford to be in the game, then stay the **** out of it.

tit for tat? The Taleban attacked the US?

That's funny I thought you invaded because the Taleban refused to hand over Bin Laden because of lack of evidence supplied and that he wouldn't get a fair trial (both true). But then the US had told everyone they were invading Afganistan around Sept-Oct long before the 11/9 attack.

Hmm, I see Spain is refusing to hand over people arrested in connection of the 11/9 attacks because they said they won't get a fair trial in the US (which TBH is also true). When do you's plan to invade Spain?

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers,

My computers were made in Taiwan. Does anyone have a machine that says "Made in the USA"?

JustHalf · 03-12-2001 10:52am

If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm

It's pretty convincing.

Also if I remember correctly, the Taliban would only hand over bin Laden on the condition he was handed over to an Islamic court.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

Also, your point with regards to American computers is pedantic. Nike (for example) may not make their shoes in America, but they're still an American company, and their produce is still American.

bonkey · 03-12-2001 11:22am

Originally posted by JustHalf
If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm

It's pretty convincing.

Its pretty unconvincing if you ask me.

Pretty much all of it is background information, indicating the motive. Most of the rest is circumstantial - something which would never get a conviction in a civilian court of law in the US (which, however, *would* get a conviction in a military court where the onus of proof is apparently lessened).

Which, of course, is all covered nicely by the lead-ion comment of "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources ". In other words - we may have evidence, but we cant use it. Now, the simple fact is that if you cant use evidence, it effectively doesnt exist. The whole legal process is set up in order to try and ensure a fair process. We cannot make exceptions here and say "sure, you can just tell us that you have the evidence. You dont need to produce it", simply because we dont like bin Laden, or because of the scale of these atrocities.

One comment which really interested me was "6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom". First of all, this has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, and is more a case of showing that these people are so dangerous that we have to go after them anyway. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. It also belies the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda - which has been a persistent thread on these boards and in the media.

I also noted with interest that the only place which has anything other than circumstancial evidence was : There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release.

This of course, goes straight back to the "we know he's guilty but you'll just have to trust us" argument which I've seen before.

Now - lets be honest here. I believe Al Qaeda is guilty of carrying out these attacks. With any officially recognised government or military, the highest person in command is always held accountable for atrocities, or accountable for fross negligence if they were not aware of the atrocities. For these reasons, Osama could be held accountable. However, the doc which linked to is nothing more than media appeasement for those protesting the wrongness of the current actions, and pretty poor spin at that.

It shows motive. It shows similarities in methodology. It fails to offer proof. More correctly, it specifically refuses to offer proof.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

I think you may have missed the sarcasm

Of course, I may be missing information, and assuming its sarcasm

jc

Hobbes · 03-12-2001 12:57pm

If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm

No I don't want evidence. I was saying that the Taleban were told to "Hand over or else". No evidence was presented to them and what was wouldn't stand up in court.

Now the US may have actual evidence (which they haven't shown anyone) but we expected to believe that any sane person would hand over people in their country with what the US showed? I don't think so.

It's pretty convincing.

Erm no it isn't. It pretty much says in the first part that "We can't show you the evidence, take our word for it".

the Taliban would only hand over bin Laden on the condition he was handed over to an Islamic court.

Because they probably believed he would get a fair trial, even if he was guilty. How would you feel about it if Afganistan had said "Hey US, we have proof of an American killing people in our country but we can't show you the proof just hand them over". Do you think any sane person would of handed them over?

As pointed out elsewhere already a lot of countries aren't too happy about the way the US is going with regards to it's secret trials (Which contrevene the UN Human rights charter). Spain was cited eariler as one country which won't be handing over people they caught with regards to the attacks. Because they don't believe the US will give them a fair trial.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html
About how the war in Afganistan was planned 4 years in advance.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
More proof (or linkage off too). One in particular ...

The BBC's George Arney reported September 18 that American officials had told former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik in mid-July of plans for military action against the Taliban regime:

There is also a story about it on news.bbc.co.uk (can't find the link again) which is dated some months before the towers attack.

Also, your point with regards to American computers is pedantic.

But then so where yours. Believe it or not but most of the US profits are made from exports or business with foreign industries. US Companies have offices in other countries because it is cheaper for them to do so.

Nike (for example) may not make their shoes in America, but they're still an American company, and their produce is still American.

So America stands for the use of sweatshops and unfair treatment of children in creating goods?

Hmm, If I was you I would of picked a better example.

JustHalf · 03-12-2001 1:52pm

I honestly don't think that article from wsws.org supplies any sort of evidence. I don't see the mention of anywhere near as many sources as required to make any of this plausible.

Examples of stupidity from the article Hobbes quoted:

As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.

There is no reason to think that September 11 was merely a fortuitous occurrence. Every other detail of the war in Afghanistan was carefully prepared. It is unlikely that the American government left to chance the question of providing a suitable pretext for military action.

The Minneapolis field office had Massaoui arrested in early August, and asked FBI headquarters for permission to conduct further inquiries, including a search of the hard drive of his computer. The FBI tops refused, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent on Massaoui’s part—an astonishing decision for an agency not known for its tenderness on the subject of civil liberties.

Gosh, conspiracy theories are great, aren't they?

Also, the globalresearch page is little more than quotes from a book--quotes that are not linked together very well, for the article makes no clear point.

Also, if the US was really this bad, why would they allow the UN to set up a new government?

Originally posted by Hobbes:
No evidence was presented to them and what was wouldn't stand up in court.

Well, if you bothered to read it you'd see that it says that at the very top of the page.

Originally posted by Hobbes:
But then so where yours. Believe it or not but most of the US profits are made from exports or business with foreign industries. US Companies have offices in other countries because it is cheaper for them to do so.

What? I was correcting you for nit-picking, and coming to the wrong conclusion. You might as well say: "This 50p says Eire on it, therefore this coin is the country of Ireland"

Originally posted by Hobbes:
Because they probably believed he would get a fair trial, even if he was guilty. How would you feel about it if Afganistan had said "Hey US, we have proof of an American killing people in our country but we can't show you the proof just hand them over". Do you think any sane person would of handed them over?

As pointed out elsewhere already a lot of countries aren't too happy about the way the US is going with regards to it's secret trials (Which contrevene the UN Human rights charter). Spain was cited eariler as one country which won't be handing over people they caught with regards to the attacks. Because they don't believe the US will give them a fair trial.

There is a big difference between Spain saying they will not hand over people to the US and the Taliban saying they will only hand over bin Laden to an Islamic court. For a start, why should a suspected criminal be tried in a court flavoured with religion?

JustHalf · 03-12-2001 2:02pm

Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Anyway, now for some manual quoting...

Originally posted by bonkey
Pretty much all of it is background information, indicating the motive. Most of the rest is circumstantial - something which would never get a conviction in a civilian court of law in the US (which, however, *would* get a conviction in a military court where the onus of proof is apparently lessened).

I think it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that bin Laden is a very, very evil man; who had the motivation and means to carry out the attacks. The evidence linking him directly to the attacks, however, is only referred to, and not given.

Originally posted by bonkey
Which, of course, is all covered nicely by the lead-ion comment of "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources ". In other words - we may have evidence, but we cant use it. Now, the simple fact is that if you cant use evidence, it effectively doesnt exist. The whole legal process is set up in order to try and ensure a fair process.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

Originally posted by bonkey
One comment which really interested me was "6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom". First of all, this has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, and is more a case of showing that these people are so dangerous that we have to go after them anyway. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. It also belies the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda - which has been a persistent thread on these boards and in the media.

How does it belie the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda?

Originally posted by bonkey
Now - lets be honest here. I believe Al Qaeda is guilty of carrying out these attacks. With any officially recognised government or military, the highest person in command is always held accountable for atrocities, or accountable for fross negligence if they were not aware of the atrocities. For these reasons, Osama could be held accountable. However, the doc which linked to is nothing more than media appeasement for those protesting the wrongness of the current actions, and pretty poor spin at that.

I disagree.

Originally posted by bonkey
It shows motive. It shows similarities in methodology. It fails to offer proof. More correctly, it specifically refuses to offer proof.

But at least gives a reason for doing so (whether you agree with it or not)

bonkey · 03-12-2001 2:35pm

Originally posted by JustHalf
Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Apologies. /me has cleaned up the post.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

You see, this is the stem of the matter. The US has consistently taken the line that the evidence itself would reveal information about the methods and/or technology available to them for evidence gathering, which they are not willing to compromise.

Whether or not we believe that they have the evidence, we should not allow the legal system to be corrupted to the extent that is being done here. The US want to be able to try bin Laden *and other foreign nationals* in a closed military court. This is such a dangerous precedent, I dont even know where to start.

I mean - how long before any foreign national suspected of terrorist-related crimes can be held indefinitely without charging, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal. IIRC, all of the legislation to enable this has already been proposed and/or passed.

Then, how soon before an American stands suspected of terrorist activities, and the rules change so that all terrorist suspects can be held indefinitely without charge, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal.

America, for better or for worse (a bit of both, I think) is the protector of the Western World in a lot of respects. More correctly, protects the western world's way of life by ensuring that activities throughout the rest of the world do not threaten this. To be honest, I wouldnt have a huge problem with that, were it done in a proper manner. What I do have a problem with is that the protector should be forced to maintain the principles it is trying to uphold.

Basically, bin Laden is almost definitely guilty. However, if he is denied his rights under the judicial system, then the price of "freeing the world from terrorism" will be the abandonment of justice.

jc

We are the war criminals now - Robert Fisk Article

Comments