10 day fast against the war in Afghanistan

DadaKopf

I got this email in today and some of you might be interested in it. Either that or some people may be interested in discussing it (its merits or whatever) but most likely, there'll just be the usual barrage of sarcastic comments from people who don't lift a finger to do anything except complain because it's too easy.

>Today, Oct 25th, a small group of individuals started a symbolic 10
>day fast and vigil opposite the Dept of Foreign Affairs IVEAGH HOUSE,
>ST STEPHENS GREEN.
>
>Some of us participating will fast for the full 10 days, others for a
>day or 2.
>
>By fasting and vigiling we hope to-
>
>Bear witness to victims of violence world-wide, North, South, East and
>West.
>
>Challenge the concept of collective responsibility - to state
>vehemently that the bombings of Afghanistan are not being done in our
>names.
>
>Call upon Minister Brian Cowen, at a time when Ireland is in a position
>to be a voice of sanity in UN Security Council, to courageously
>challenge the ethics and legality of air strikes that will kill more
>innocent people.
>
>We welcome participation by anyone who can spare a few hours. Bring
>music, poetry, babbas etc.
>
>LOCATION opposite Dept of Foreign Affairs, 80 St Stephens Green,
>Dublin 2
>
>TIMES October 25th to November 3rd 10 AM Onwards

WhiteWashMan

do you think it will actually acomplish anything?
not saying whether i think its good or bad, it does however seem a little bit pointless.
you will always have objectors to every conflict. you will always get someone who has the poler opposite opionion to yours, but is it always nessecary to voice it?

Gargoyle

LOL, I'm still waiting for you antiwar types to come up with another way to guarantee our safety. All you seem to do is criticize and not offer anything useful.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
LOL, I'm still waiting for you antiwar types to come up with another way to guarantee our safety. All you seem to do is criticize and not offer anything useful.

Thats interesting, because I'm still waiting for all you pro-war types to come up with a shred of an argument as to how bombing Afghanistan and possibly invading it later on is making me any more secure than I was before all this started.

All you seem to do is say that if we dont bomb them they will attack. I say that they will attack even more *because* you've bombed them. Al Qaeda is an international organisation, based in something like 29 known countries. Exactly how is bombing Afghanistan going to stop them attacking the US, or make life any better? All you are doing is making sure that they will attack again as soon as possible.

So you're not really offering anything useful either other than beating the old "its a better option than doing nothing" drum, without showing WHY its better than doing nothing.

I mean look at it. Net achievements to date :

1) Damage to the hardware of the Taliban, who were probably not directly behind the attacks.
2) Al Qaeda have lost some training camps, and probably some men. No known loss of terrorist ability
3) The Taliban have gained massive support in the middle East as evidenced by 5000 Pakistanis trying to come help them, and by reports on the ground coming from inside Afghanistan.
4) Massive humanitarian cost to the innocent Afghanis who were never responsible for anything in all of this, and to the UN who have lost personnel and resources because the US cant figure out where to bomb in the first place and have hit UN sites they were given the coordinates for before the attacks.
5) Al Qaeda are even more pissed at the US, and even more likely to conduct atrocities against the good ol' Red White n Blue.

Basiucally put...the attacks have achievedf nothing and cost a lot. Explain again why this is a good thing.

jc

DadaKopf

And to support your point, bonkey, and to reply to Gargoyle's comment:

It may so happen that if terrorist reprisals ravage America again, people will start wondering whether this military action was at all a good thing, whether it at all added to national security. I argue that it can't and that American people's liberties are being curtailed as a result. Afterall, that's all America really cares about - some notion called freedom.

When people's freedom gets threatned, America has historically had a tradition to get out there and march and show the politicians that there are people who oppose government policy - I can think of Haymarket, anti-war protests against Vietnam, the Democratic National Convention riots of 1968 in Chicago, Martin Luther King, the million man march and even anti-war marches across America today. People march when they feel they're affected and the politicians are unreceptive.

When you consider that you're living in a democratic country and peaceful protest is enshrined in the constitution because people have a right to express their opinion, marches are a correct way to communicate levels of opposition to government policy or societal inequalities.

If you believe the anti-war camp hasn't a solution you're wrong: the solution is to stop the bombing, find a solution through dialogue and politics, to feed starving Afghanis (afterall, that's why the UN is supposed to be around) and a change in US foreign policy.

You can accuse protesters of being idle but when you think about it for a second, it's you who is being idle, and people like you, but opinions will change if or when there are more attacks on your beautiful motherland.

Goodshape

heh.. its interesting to see that the two 'anti-war' posters have the "insane poster" tags.

...anyway, I wish I had something long and meaningful to write, but I dont... so I'll just agree with DadaKopf and Bonkey.. I dont see this "war" achieving anything.....

The Gopher

Im really pissed off with you anti war whiners.What other way is there to get binLaden?Come on...................give me an anwser.Come on!!!!!!I assume u cant think of a good one can you.Now heres the reasons for bombing Afghanistan
It WILL all but wipe out Al Qaeda.They depend on the exiles in Afghanistan for funds and equipment.
If the US wins the war soon they will supply enough food to the 5 million starving people.If they dont win these ppl will die.
Itll finally get the loony Taliban out of power.

So there you have it.A few thousand Afghan civillians may die in the attacks,but itll ultimately save the lives of 5 million.So by killing 5000 u save 5 million.Donbt take a genius to work out the best option.

JustHalf

Originally posted by The Gopher
Im really pissed off with you anti war whiners.What other way is there to get binLaden?

*cough* *cough* Saying "Oh, Taliban; yeah, guess we *will* provide you with the evidence you asked for, and we won't try him but allow the Hague or other neutral country to try him." *cough* *cough*

That's if the only purpose of this war was to get Bin Laden. It isn't. I believe the purpose of this war is to achieve the fastest and most effective way of eliminating a massive threat to the safety of the US. Bin Laden himself isn't the only threat.

Originally posted by The Gopher
Come on...................give me an anwser.Come on!!!!!!I assume u cant think of a good one can you.Now heres the reasons for bombing Afghanistan. It WILL all but wipe out Al Qaeda.They depend on the exiles in Afghanistan for funds and equipment.

It will in it's arse.

Originally posted by The Gopher
If the US wins the war soon they will supply enough food to the 5 million starving people.

No, they won't. They'll probably assist the aid agencies, but they won't provide food for that number of people.

Where did you get this number from, anyway?

Originally posted by The Gopher
Itll finally get the loony Taliban out of power.

Deposing a government because they do not agree with your ideals is no reason to start or continue a war.

Originally posted by The Gopher
So there you have it.A few thousand Afghan civillians may die in the attacks,but itll ultimately save the lives of 5 million.So by killing 5000 u save 5 million.Donbt take a genius to work out the best option.

Right then, Gopher. Work out the best option. If it doesn't take a genius, you should have no problem.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Gopher
Im really pissed off with you anti war whiners.What other way is there to get binLaden?Come on...................give me an anwser.Come on!!!!!!I assume u cant think of a good one can you.

OK, for a start, bin Laden is not the real issue. Al Qaeda is. While it would be nice to bring bin Laden to justice, a real effort at stopping terrorism would be a far more useful step.

If you're determined to get bin Laden, then patience is what is required, and better intelligence.

I very much doubt bin Laden will be found in the current attacks anyway, but that remains to be seen.

Now heres the reasons for bombing Afghanistan
It WILL all but wipe out Al Qaeda.They depend on the exiles in Afghanistan for funds and equipment.

Let me get this straight. You believe that attacking Afghanistan will all but wipe out an international terrorist consortium known to be based in over 29 countries.

Care to explain how?

Oh - you did - by claiming it will cut off their resources.

The only exile in Afghanistan with serious cash is bin LAden himself, and I very much doubt that the money is there with him.

If he is smart, he will also have arranged to have other people capable of accessing the money in the ebent of his demise/capture.

The various terrorist organisations under the Al Qaeda umbrella all have their own sources of funding - Al Qaeda is more a "pooling of resources and efforts" to use them to better effect. It is unbelievably naieve to believe that these resources were all moved to some cave in Afghanistan so bin Laden could keep an eye on them.

The simple fact of the matter is that the concept of attacking Afghanistan to supress Al Qaeda is laughable. It has been hyped by the press but is nothing but pure propaganda.

Furthermore, the Taliban have gained massively in popularity since these attacks. If the US replce them, who will they put in power? And how will they keep them there? What if the majority of the public *want* the Taliban back at some point? Will you deny them their democratic right (as American's see it) to choose their own leaders?

Now, getting back to a better solution. The better solution was not to attack Afghanistan at all, but to try something intelligent like having patience and using intelligence to track down and deal with terrorists - not just bin Laden - any and all Al Qaeda terrorists.

To those who take the "oh, so you just want us to sit back and get bombed again" attitude I say that you will get bombed again anyway, and more severely because you attacked Afghanistan. You wish to believe otherwise, then you go right ahead. I'll accept your apology when you get over your anger at the next atrocity carried out on Americans. Only you'll probably take the stance then that you should have bombed more people and bombed them harder. Peace trough superior firepower, innit. It has never worked and will never work.

So, considering that the US has attacked Afghanistan, there probably no longer is a better solution. You threw them all out the window when the first missile landed. This does not mean that you made the right choice though, simply that you have removed any option of having a better one.

You have three options at the moment :

1) Stop attacking and start a serious humanitarian effort to improve international perception if the US among the common man. Improve international policy along the way so the US is not interfering as much in foreign affairs. At the same time, spearhead a genuine international anti-terrorist movement, based on intelligence-gathering, and cooperating with police forces and/or militaries internationally to act on this information.

2) Continue the way you are going, which is highly ineffectual.

3) Stop this stupid bombing, and send in a proper ground-force. Try taking on the Taliban in their back yard in terrain not suited to the typical US military equipment. Try taking the Taliban on when they are entrenched in urban areas. try doing this without killing large numbers of civilians so that they dont all turn against you as well.

On the face of things, option 3 will appeal to you, and when the US go for this, they will end up in another Vietnam - unable to tell the common man from the enemy, wreaking havoc, taking huge losses, destroying public support at home and what is left of it abroad, and probably ultimately leave with the Taliban still in power, or at least still highly powerful.

For me, option 1 is the best solution. It requires admitting responsibility for past offences, admitting that you are not as perfect as you make out, and basically eating a slice of humble pie. While it is the best option, it will not be taken. I predict option 3 will be taken with results close to those outlined.

Conclusion - you can put them out of ruling power, but you cant get rid of them. If the US replaces the Taliban, they consign Afghanistan to a long period of increased internal strife.

You see this as a good option. I dont. Time will tell.

jc

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by DadaKopf
but opinions will change if or when there are more attacks on your beautiful motherland.

i think youve hit it there.
maerica got hit and america wants its peice of bloody justice.
if it were dublin, id probably be a rabid dog for revenge.
it depends on who you are.
if there are more attacks on america, then it hink they will really go to town on afgahnistan.
what it will achieve who can say.
but i would have to say that hte stratagists must have some sort of long term plan. they really arent that stupid, but who can say what it is. as someone famous im sure (think it was shakespear) wrote, the best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry

Clintons Cat

but i would have to say that the stratagists must have some sort of long term plan.

i think the future is partition

Northern Afganistan supported by Russia and Iran with Mazzir al sherrif as the capital

Southern Afganistan supported by pakistan and America with kabul as the capital.


Its the only way to prevent one side from slaughtering the other
as soon as the occupation is over.

Dont get me wrong i really hope the king of afganistan can reunite the country and prevent the sort of inter ethnic attrocities that both sides have participated in the post soviet era.
I just dont think he has got much of a chance of avoiding suicide bombers and gunmen.Especially at the upcoming istanbul conference.

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat

i think the future is partition

<snip>

Its the only way to prevent one side from slaughtering the other
as soon as the occupation is over.

While in part I agree with you, I find it distasteful that the US and other nations can decide the fate of a nation like this because they disagree with who is in power.

Yes, the Taliban are in power, but to remove them and keep them gone, the US will require constant military presence in teh area for some time. Even of they are willing to do this, how impartial will they be? Will they allow governments to be brought into power (i.e. through the much-beloved democratic system) who they also disagree with, or will they take an intrusive role.

And what happens if another nation (such as Pakistan) fall under the influence of a radical group of extremists like the Taliban? Off to sort them out as well?

God but humanity depresses me.

jc

Gargoyle

Look, this thing can go one of two directions:

a. The Islamic countries realize that supporting terror is a losing strategy and something that will not be tolerated. They finally begin to crack down on terrorists and people who support them, in physically, finacially, idealogically. The middle east becomes a safer place. The world becomes a safer place.

b. The governments of Islamic countries are overthrown and their successors are more funtamentalist and use more terrorism to acheive their goals. More and more terrorist attacks occur against the US and other western nations. Alternative energy sources are discovered and the world no longer has a need for the massive amounts of Arab oil. There really is a holy war between the Islamic world and the rest of the world. The war doesn't last long...millions of muslims are wiped off the face of the Earth.

Lets hope that if we put our foot down here and now, it never comes to option b.

By removing safe haven for terrorist training and making sure they do not have safe haven to conduct their training, we put them on the alert. Will they still try to carry on? Sure. Will it be much more difficult? Definitely. When they have no more safe haven, it will be much easier to root them out.

If the Taleban are insitant upon being bedfellows with Al Queda to the last breath, so be it; let them die with Al Queda. The sooner it is over with, the better it will be for the US, the civilized world, and the Afghan people.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey


And what happens if another nation (such as Pakistan) fall under the influence of a radical group of extremists like the Taliban? Off to sort them out as well?

God but humanity depresses me.

jc

Unfortunately, yes. Pakistan has an estimated 10-15 complete nuclear warheads. If they fall under extremist control, they could kill hundreds of millions if not taken out. This is the risk you take when making a deal with the devil.

IMO we should have dealt with Russia and the former Soviet republics, not Pakistan. If Pakistan's govt. falls, it could get very ugly, very fast.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Unfortunately, yes. Pakistan has an estimated 10-15 complete nuclear warheads. If they fall under extremist control, they could kill hundreds of millions if not taken out. This is the risk you take when making a deal with the devil.

And this is exactly what depresses me.

If they fall under extermist control, then attacking them is the most likely thing to make them use their nukes. Not attacking them doesnt make it much safer either though.

Lose / lose situation.

So, of course the obvious "win" is to go and just destroy all extremists everywhere and turn the world into a police state run by whoever has the most guns to enforce their opinion at any point in time.

No - thats a lose too.

Every which way but lose.

IMO we should have dealt with Russia and the former Soviet republics, not Pakistan. If Pakistan's govt. falls, it could get very ugly, very fast.

I dont think it would make much difference. Pakistan's problem is the pro-taliban. The fact that they allowed the US some access to their airspace may have exacerbated things, but the problem was always going to escalate once the US were on their neighbour's doorstep.

jc

Von

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
do you think it will actually acomplish anything?
not saying whether i think its good or bad, it does however seem a little bit pointless.
you will always have objectors to every conflict. you will always get someone who has the poler opposite opionion to yours, but is it always nessecary to voice it?

The idea is to get publicity and remind the public to question what's going on. There's an election coming up so politicians might actually pay attention to public opinion.
After the attacks I thought that since the US had worked with the Taliban, they'd offer massive infrastructural and food aid in return for handing bin Laden over or perhaps getting info on his location on the quiet. It would have cost much less than the gigantic military operation. The taliban is strapped for cash and they want to stay in power. Maybe they would have gone for it. Stupid idea really. Much more sensible to bomb the country for weeks then try to use the northern alliance thugs as cannon fodder.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by The Gopher

So there you have it.A few thousand Afghan civillians may die in the attacks,but itll ultimately save the lives of 5 million.So by killing 5000 u save 5 million.Donbt take a genius to work out the best option.

Consider this Gopher. That may have been the thinking behind Al Qaeda's carrying out of the September 11th attacks. They hope that by killing thousands of Americans, the US will withdraw from the Middle East, leaving them (Al Qaeda) in a stronger position to either destroy Israel and/or establish a Palestinian state.

Now, you think killing 5000 Afghans is acceptable to achieve the US aims. Are you unable to see their directly opposite viewpoint, that it is acceptable to kill 5000 Americans to achieve their aims?

DadaKopf

By Gargoyle:
Unfortunately, yes. Pakistan has an estimated 10-15 complete nuclear warheads. If they fall under extremist control, they could kill hundreds of millions if not taken out. This is the risk you take when making a deal with the devil.

Don't you think it a little strange, then, that up till Sept 12th, America considered Pakistan a rogue state? One of those nuclear capable states which was politically unstable. Don't forget, it was General Musharraf whose name Bush couldn't remember in a 60 Minutes interview during his election campaign.

Oh you worry about the Taliban taking power of Pakistan, stealing those missiles and firing them at America but you don't even think of the war that has been raging in Kashmir for the last decades or the widescale conflict that would be unleashed if India decided to retaliate.

It's just a little too convenient that Pakistan is no longer a Rogue State, that most of the Afghani opium production takes place in Northern Alliance-held territory and American language has quietly stopped referring to the Taliban as the unofficial political force in Afghanistan, now they are the exacting political force, the 'ligitimate' one if you will.

Your two last replies were full of lies and blatant propaganda. Just try to open your eyes a little and you might just see what's going on.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by DadaKopf


Your two last replies were full of lies and blatant propaganda. Just try to open your eyes a little and you might just see what's going on.

I'm sorry that sensible discussion is impossible for you. Just keep in mind that you don't know me at all.

You should turn your words back on yourself.

DadaKopf

By Gargoyle:
By removing safe haven for terrorist training and making sure they do not have safe haven to conduct their training, we put them on the alert. Will they still try to carry on? Sure. Will it be much more difficult? Definitely. When they have no more safe haven, it will be much easier to root them out.

Maybe you aren't too familiar with the nature or terrorism. Ireland is a very small island and in spite of huge efforts in Northern Ireland to root out the IRA (let's not get into an argument over this), the IRA still has arms caches, still is capable of terrorist attacks, still trains in the Irish countryside. Now when you compare that to an organization that has cells in at least 26 countries, I think it proves that terrorism cannot be simply solved by a few billion dollars' worth of munitions and an agreement from a hated nation that it'll stamp out the spectre of terrorism. It simply doesn't work like that. So if you honestly believe that US military action in any country in the world is going to stop Al Quaeda and if you think that any country would be able to, yet alone willing, to help protect America from terrorist attacks by clamping down on groups they don't like, you're sorely mistaken. Terrorism and politics just doesn't work like that. Look at Hamas, despite all Israel's efforts, Hamas still flourishes because of Israeli military action.

The reason I say you are misled by propaganda is because the American media has convinced America that it's actually possible to defeat Al Quaeda [what have the Taliban got to do with it? well, they need an actual combatant enemy]. Furthermore, it has already branded the Taliban an evil force which must be met with equal force of retaliation in the name of Infinite Justice. I say that 'equal force' expired long ago and the only long-term solution is dialogue and a change of US Foreign policy.

I'm against this war, not war in general. War is a careful tool of diplomacy to only be utilised when diplomacy fails and it is a valid option and is deemed just, in accordance with careful theory. This war is entirely unjust - you among others are instantly making the assumption that war = action and talking = inaction. This is incorrect. Both are tools of action but war is not the applicable tool this time. But then, im sure you eat your soup with a fork.

The Gopher

Originally posted by JustHalf
*cough* *cough* Saying "Oh, Taliban; yeah, guess we *will* provide you with the evidence you asked for, and we won't try him but allow the Hague or other neutral country to try him." *cough* *cough*



No, they won't. They'll probably assist the aid agencies, but they won't provide food for that number of people.

Where did you get this number from, anyway?

Deposing a government because they do not agree with your ideals is no reason to start or continue a war.

Right then, Gopher. Work out the best option. If it doesn't take a genius, you should have no problem.

Well ive got a few points to argue here methinks.
No1-The figure of 5 million was constantly quoted on all the news at the beginning of the strikes.
No2-The US army will directly supply the food,just like they did in Somalia.
No3-If you think that a government should be loony enough to force half the population to wear a circus tent with a wire mesh window[and thats when they actually let the women out]and should be allowed to harbour a psychopathic terrorist than be my guest.
No4-Its painfully obvious that binLaden is responsible.If the Taliban could be arsed they would actually look at all the records which can prove binLaden was behind it and financed it.Sure,if hes tried in the US he will be guilty to the jurors before he takes the stand.But if tried in Afghanistan the judge will have found him innocent before anything happens.So,which is best?The US trial u dumbasses!
No5-In response to your request,it is better to kill 5000 civillians and save the lives of 5 million than to let 5 million die.Think about it,if the US wins with that many civillians dead,for every 1 civillian killed 1000 will survive.

Superman

Ok i like to see people trying and doing there best and maybe it may change the mind of atleast 1 person.

but bear in mind that :

me and the other 1.6ish muslims will be fasting anyway caus its Ramadan !

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Superman

me and the other 1.6ish muslims will be fasting anyway caus its Ramadan !

only 1.6ish muslims?
not too many eh?

Loomer

Originally posted by The Gopher
So there you have it.A few thousand Afghan civillians may die in the attacks,but itll ultimately save the lives of 5 million.So by killing 5000 u save 5 million.Donbt take a genius to work out the best option.

Your a moron. Its safe to assume you have absolutely no interest or knowledge of history or politics by your succint words. I fear that people with your diminished intellect are holding positons of power in the States. I take offence to the label of anti-war whinger, why? because I have bothered to form an opinion based on my exposure to more than just WWF, Baywatch and the drivel called news you see on most of the channels.

P.S. Moron

Loomer

Just read this http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/...430&method=full

Very good bit of reporting, portraying the "flip-side" of the situation. Credit to Hobbes for finding this.

I ask that all you pro-war fascists read this before making anymore uneducated responses. You'll probably put it down to "Commie" propoganda or something.

Please just realise that this campaign amongst other things is morally corrupt and of course you don't have to be a genius to realise there is more than veiled revenge for Americas interest in Afghanistan. Duh!!!

Lemming

Originally posted by Loomer
Just read this http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/...430&method=full

Very good bit of reporting, portraying the "flip-side" of the situation. Credit to Hobbes for finding this.

Just to let ye all know, that link ain't working any more .. oh well

I ask that all you pro-war fascists read this before making anymore uneducated responses. You'll probably put it down to "Commie" propoganda or something.

Please just realise that this campaign amongst other things is morally corrupt and of course you don't have to be a genius to realise there is more than veiled revenge for Americas interest in Afghanistan. Duh!!!

Now .. at risk of sounding like one of Loomer's "Pro-War Facists", I'm going to say the following:

To those that are protesting about the morality of this campaign (and I'm sure there are underlying motives above and beyond the "official" reasons), please think about this ....

Channel 5 news yesterday showed an interview with 5 young UK muslims - born and bred - who showed a disturbing level of hatred for the west, despite the fact of where they have lived their whole lives.

This is the mindset that carried out the Sept.11 attacks. I would ask the anti-war people this ... if said people had 10 of us lined up, 5 anti-war and 5 pro-war/non-anti-war-but-not-pro-war ... do you think that these people would stop and ask you what you thought?? Nooooooooooooo - there would be 10 dead non-muslim-westerners lying on the street.

So I would ask you to stop burying your heads in the sand on that point (excuse me if I seem dismissive, but that is my opinion). I personally take no pleasure in seeing people hurt, but I'll not stand by and let someone attack me. They (Al Queda) attacked me, they attacked you, the y attacked us.

Now, before Loomer accusses me of "tarring with my brush" yet again, I'll make the point that those people I mentioed above are NOT representatives of the Islamic faith.

I could also argue that since some of you consider the american/west assaults as immoral, by the same token the Al Queda standpoint is also immoral, since it is in contradiction of the Islamic faith on several points. Most notable of these is that civilians should not be targetted in a jihad. The attacks on the twin towers targetted civilians. Those that carried the attacks out were perfectly aware of this and did not care.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Loomer
I ask that all you pro-war fascists read this before making anymore uneducated responses. You'll probably put it down to "Commie" propoganda or something.

Excellent Loomer. All pro-war people are fascists and uneducated who dismiss everything against their opinion as "Commie"

Almost a case of the pot calling the kettle black here. I'll let everyone mull over the irony of this.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Lemming, I see where you're coming from- you've taken the argument deeper than most advocates of this war. But let me ask you this- why are these people so hateful? Or any of these Islamic extremists so hateful? Western foreign policy in the region is one of many factors that has inflamed these people to breaking point. Unbridled anger, even hatred for Western policies in the region exists amongst the vast majority of people in the middle east. The extremists are just those who feel something must be done, and that it must be done with their own hands. Remember, a lot of people over there don't see 11/9 as an undeserved atrocity, merely a centuries-overdue redressing of the balance. From the way that Israel was created out of nothing, to the Suez crisis, to Iran contra, the Gulf war, the list of injustices in the region is almost endless. The West created most of these problems, even set up and backed the Taleban (with Pakistan's support) to fight the Soviet invaders. The US in particular, supported brutal regimes in the region, as long as they weren't communist and gave the US what they want (eg- Saudi Arabia providing the US with oil, despite being a brutal regime). And look at Israel's response- far from being cooperative in the peace process, they condemned an assassination of a high-profile leader(something they've been doing themselves in the name of "self-defense"), and then proceeded to roll tanks into Bethlehem. Where's the justice in the 2 billion dollars a year plus intelligence and logistics support that the US provides them, if they abuse it in this fashion?

Another example of hypocrisy is the way in which the US sought Pakistan's aid so swiftly after the crisis broke- a nation which was established via a military coup. A stance which, I might add, is contrary to several historical principles of the Republican party. I believe it was Eisenhower, when questioned about his foreign policy, who said rather bluntly: "I won't dance with the devil just so I can feed a single angel"

I'm not condoning the acts of 11/9 by any stretch of the imagination- but you can certainly understand the reasons behind the hatred that prompted the attacks. We owe it to ourselves to find a long-term and broad-reaching foreign-policy response within the context of the crisis. That response sadly, hasn't even been structured, and I doubt if it will ever come. This crisis isn't going to be resolved by military action, as bonkey says, I only believe it will encourage more OBL's and more Al-Q'aedas to spring up from the ashes. That is of course, assuming that the US can destroy Al-Q'aeda in the first place. War isn't the answer imho. Time, as jc points out, will tell.

Occy

Lemming

I agree completely in that the west has an awful lot of rather unpleasant questions to answer Bob. That I'll not dispute. But if I may just add to your arguement (and as I've stated elsewhere - only to be labelled a facist by Loomer) - the Arab world itself has to ask itself some very hard questions, and be prepared not to like the answers.

What I'm about to write is what I extracted from a very well written article by some british based arab professor who's name and job-title escapes me .. DOH!!

He basically stated that the Arab world itself needs to wake up to the concept of world politics and to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for everything that happens to them. By this I mean that it is always the extremists who seem to rise to power. The average arab, who for all intents and purposes may well be just as appalled as us by all that's happening (on both sides) but they don't seem to speak up and say "You do not represent me!" They turn a blind eye. They seem to accept these people as their leaders.

The extremists in power are also very quick to ask for foriegn assistance whenever disasters occur - a case of "We don't like you and will kill you given any chance - oh, and by the way we need your help".


Excuse me if that seems very harsh (and its a VERY short and synopsised take) on what was written. The actual article was rather well written indeed, and had several very good and arguementative points in it.

Loomer

Oops http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11392430&method=full

By the way I was posting with tongue firmly in cheek

Loomer

I wish to refrain from debating this matter further but to say that the most unfortunate thing is that the Allieds ham-fisted approach is only serving to overshadow the terrible tragedy that occured on Sept. 11

Magwitch

I am not going to compare American morality with that of the Taliban and give the "Guru's" someting to bang on about endlessly. But even as a pro-war advocate I do have time for other opinions and arguments. My main problem with the anti-war movement is that no confessed anti-war advocate has put forward a viable alternative solution yet. Not one.

There are as many Afhgans who support the war as there are opposed and I think many would be bemused by the anti-war arguments after they have suffered years (in the post-Russian era) of famine, Tribal genocide and religious persecution. It is these Afghans who see the Allies as the only hope Afghanistan has of ever being united and pushing Pakistan out of its internal affairs. It is blinkered in the extreme only to critisies the war from the prespective of America and the allies interferring in Afghan affairs, when Pakistan (yes a "FOREIGN" country) has suceeded in installing a government by proxy through the Taliban and lent unquestioning support to it though successive atrocities and devisive religious edicts. And maintain that government in power through a legion of "foreign" Islamic fighters (Chechyns, Saudi's etc). Ossama Bin Laden provides "body guards" to the Taliban leaders. Nothing like a gun at your back to insure loyality.

As to how this war will end, that is a question of military strategy and there is no question that air-power is not the solution. To be fair, the anti-war movements time would be better spent trying to push for more decisive and coherant action, not none at all, to end the suffering that was already there before American planes took to the skys. A broad based and representitive Afghan government is already in formation (to include the Pushtan) so we can already see the future shape of the country and no doubt aid will be forth comming to insure future stability.

I have NO time for those who claim moral ground in their anti-war argument. Where were they when Hindu's were forced to wear badges and atrocities against civilians were being carried out on a weekly basis? I saw no protests on our streets. It is about time those who are pro-war ignored those who are simply "Anti-America" at the drop of a hat. Those people fasting would bo better to advertise a food-run to gather aid for the displaced and persecuted - but maybe that is not a "trendy" enough issue. The suffering of the Afgan people certainly did not interest them before America became involved.

Noone can justify the deaths of innocent civilians if there is no credible goal - and that is where the pressure should be excerted. But as I siad - answers on a post card - if someone out there has the actual balls to put forward an alternative solution other than war that would work (or at least one that they would be prepared to defend). Sitting around and waiting for OBL to pull another stunt to eclypse the previous one(s) is not a solution. Talking to the Taliban or conceding to their demands in the face of OBL's actions would only show other extremists that terror works if you think big. In any real democracy there should be discenting voices and contrary opinions, but it is becoming increasing clear that the anti-war camp is running low on credibility the longer it fails to be anything other than negitive. And this is probubly the worst out come of this crises within the west.

Lemming

well said magwitch (as per usual !!)