quote:

---

Good night! The aid drops are being done in exactly the same spots where the bombs and missiles are going!

---

Several people seemed to be leaping to the conclusion that those of us who regret this action are somehow sympathetic to bin Laden. In a country where people have become accustomed to thinking of debate in terms of phone-in show extremes, that sort of simplistic thinking is predictable, if regrettable.

It is also, of course, wrong. I can't imagine that this action is directed first of all at bin Laden, for one thing -- not any time soon, anyway, and the American military are not stupid enough to be thinking that among themselves. This is aimed at getting the Taleban out, an end I would wish, the means so wrong, though, that there's inevitably going to be worse to fear.

quote:

---

Question to Rasmus Raven: which of Bin Laden's grievances can be considered "reasonable".

---

Good point.

quote:

---

Lalance you're just a baiter.
Sorry, me no play that game.

---

I'm avoiding getting into a situation where you types stuff words in my mouth via simplistic black-and-white for-me-or-against me logic.

Which I will not be drawn into.

If you actually want to know what bin Laden's grievances are, though, I believe there are three (I'm recalling from memory of Tariq Ali's talk):

The Saudi regime is corrupt and oppressive, and is supported by the US, which now has military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The ongoing US and British war against Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem is unjust.

If you want to understand the sources of anger that go into creating bin Ladens of the world, you'll have to understand why to many in the mideast those three statements do seem quite reasonable. Why, also, will it seem unreasonable to many people that they should live in fear for their lives -- why constant misery for them is natural -- but others should expect complete security, even while supporting the conditions that create fear and insecurity around the world?

Unless you address those questions, you don't have a viable political strategy for dealing with the threat from bin Ladens and his like. And if you don't have a political strategy, you have no strategy at all.

Dealing with those questions is analysis, which is what is needed now, not rhetorical posturing.

Now don't go blathering with innuendo that I support bin Laden. I have been a BIG HUGE critic of bin Laden, the Taliban, and all like them, probably before you even knew they existed, before he committed any atrocities against Americans. I have no time for his brand of fundamentalism, which is a brand created in Saudi Arabia and nourished by America + Amoco, if you want to know. So don't bore me with suggestions that I support bin Laden, mm-kay? If it had been up to me, there wouldn't be any bin Ladens now. If you can deal with that, then we can have a rational discussion.

Which of Bin Laden's claims are reasonable? Well if you read the text, you will find that he says that Americans cry when their children die, but not when foreign children die in bombing attacks.

I think that is true.

I still support the bombing of Bin Laden's lair, and also the destruction of the Taleban.

But for those of us who are serious, and not provocateurs for Stockie Day, it is important to understand the sources and extent of the public support which Bin Laden may call upon in the Islamic world.

-------------------------------------------------------
All without warfare; another week and they might have moved towards handing him over and then he could be tried in the U.S. Why the force now, it seemed that the U.S. was
--------------------------------------------------------

To step back in history a bit, there were children killed at Coventry by the German bombing. There were children killed at Dresden by Allied bombing. Nobody in their right mind supports the killing of children.

But you reach a point where you have to do something to preserve your freedoms. Should Britain have rolled over and played dead after Coventry (and the other raids), and desisted from vigourously attacking the Nazi regime?

Sorry about that. Americans will feel secure when Muslims feel secure. That is reasonable.

quote:

---

Should Britain have rolled over and played dead after Coventry (and the other raids), and desisted from vigourously attacking the Nazi regime?

---

Maybe Bin Laden is incensed that the Saudis permit American troops on their own sovereign territory. Maybe he hates the Americans and Israelis because of the Palestinian issue. Whatever.

What about the millions upon millions of law-abiding Muslims who would never resort to violence in their search for justice? Better to oust the Tabliban and Bin Laden, and spend real money (a Mid-East Marshall Plan) to encourage democracy.

quote:

---

It is "Shoot first and ask questions later." It is John Wayne.

---

Shoot first?

No that would be the part when they ASKED the Taliban to close camps designed specifically to randomly kill innocents and turn those that do the killing in.

quote:

---

Diplomacy is better than warfare.

---

I concur. But if diplomacy isn't going anywhere, then military action is a last resort.

That is different from thinking about how to minimize his support in the Mideast, though.

I believe that, since the time of Mossadegh in Iran, the US has opposed secular regimes in the mideast because they may be subject to popular pressure to nationalize oil reserves. It was also a handy anti-Soviet policy to support mullahs and clerics everywhere.

As opposed to some here, I generally supported the Iraq war, because I thought that Saddam Hussein had committed a naked act of aggression. But I thought that the US would at least pressure Kuwait to take a few faltering steps to democracy; grant basic rights to women, and so on.

But no, the US and allies simply placed the same reactionary monarchy back in place, and to hell with any democratic aspirations.

quote:

---

No matter how you feel about politicians world-wide, I think it a grave injustice to use the word "politician" next to the name "Bin Laden". He is a dangerous, deranged terrorist. In his zeal to repress individual freedoms, he is also a fascist.

---

All of which has been true of a good many politicians. The fact that they many were also dictators is beside the point.

quote:

---

What peace-at-all-cost activists forget is that by allowing a regime like the Taliban to continue in Afghanistan, you actually cause the death of innocent people, especially women and children.

---

quote:

---

It's not too far-fetched to presume that once the Taleban and Bin Laden are ousted, the life expectancy of most people in this tormented country will increase drastically.

---

Yes, and I'm sure the women and children who are living in refugee camps at this moment are ecstatic that the benevolent States has stepped in to give them the much better alternatives of leaving their homes to face starvation, sickness, and death by cold, or staying where they are and getting killed by missiles. THe people who died today certainly won't have "drastically increased life expectancies" - I think that they were actually drastically decreased, since they were just blown to smithereens. Oh, yes, that's a great alternative. We certainly are making things better. (she said in a sarcastic voice filled with frustration and sadness).

And I doubt that whoever comes next, if the Taliban is actually ousted, will be any better. I have faint hope that some democratic, liberal humanitarian with a strong interest in promoting women's rights will be put in power. That doesn't even exist in the West yet.

My soapbox: I am angry and I feel powerless. The voices of peace in America, Canada and the rest of the world are being silenced and denounced, because so many people buy into the State-sanctioned idea that peace isn't a viable alternative. After all, it takes time, money and energy to make peace. Much better to spend that time, energy and money on killing instead. "War ain't good but it's all we got so oh well " seems to be the prevailing attitude. It makes me sick. I know that there are families just like my own who are suffering in Afghanistan right now, and whether I like it or not my own leaders, people who theoretically should care what I think, are the ones supporting it. My own money is supporting it. Frankly, since Sept. 11 I have lost faith in our world leaders. My cynicism has progressed to the point that I now believe that the countries of the world support this military action because they obviously are getting something out of it - oil money, building ties with the US, something - not because it's a good idea that really will eradicate terrorism (ha, ha, ha - eradicate terrorism - that's a good one). Greed, personal gain - these seem to be the driving force in today's politics - and yes, incredibly, I truly did not realize this before. I am saddened that there are no countries speaking out against this war, not even Canada. At the same time I understand why not, because they are obviously afraid of or somehow in cahoots with the US. But since when did the US set world policy? Does no one have the courage to stand up for peace?

And why does this NEED to be a world war, anyway? Why isn't it just another Gulf War? Various countries weren't all pledging their allegiance to the American flag then, not to this extent. Why now?

These are rhetorical questions, really. But I am truly dismayed. Most of all I am horrified to see borders closing against "terrorists" and actual military action beginning. I have no illusions that the West will open up its doors to the innocent men, women and children trying to flee their deaths in the Middle East. It all reminds me too much of the Second WW, when Swizerland, Canada and others turned away Jews, despite the fact that they were being slaughtered. In the witch hunt to protect ourselves against terrorists, and to avoid angering the US, we will also be closing ourselves off to people who don't deserve to die. Don't kid yourselves.

And if something else blows up in the U.S. or elsewhere in retaliation, then it will only continue this vicious circle.

In the words of Pearl Jam, "it's evolution, baby".

I want to know what to do. Talking seems to be having no effect. And censorship seems to be on the rise, as well, so who knows if we will even be able to talk freely soon.

Humanitarian efforts must begin as soon as it is safe to do so, though, both for the people who have fled and the people that remain.

If you look at the G-8 countries and Scandinavia, you'll see jurisdictions that legally enforce equal pay for equal work, a woman's right to reproductive freedom, freedom of sexual expression, freedom to wear what you like. Freedom to drive a car. Whatever.

What amazes me is that people like you take these things for granted. Try living in a country where you have to wear a veil, where you can't vote or drive a car. Or have a job.

Can the western democracies go even further in promoting women's opportunities. Probably, but they've come a long way, thanks to the western values of liberal democracy, of separating Church and State.

If you want the terrorists to stand trial at an international court (and I think that would be a great idea) you have to get them into custody first. They had their opportunity to come peacefully and didn't. I don't think it's too likely that you can get armed people out of a country that seems intent on protecting them without some form of military intervention.

Sigh. Pick one small statement in my entire rant to quibble with, one that isn't even the real point - which is remove the Taliban, and life isn't likely to drastically improve for the people of Afghanistan. There is still drought to contend with, and other militant governments to take the Taliban's place.

And what is the picture of protesters supposed to prove?

You're the one smoking something if you believe that in the West women get pay equal to men, or that our current governments have a STRONG INTEREST (my words) in promoting the values I listed (which is different than "believing" in them or just paying lip service to them). Bush, for example, cancelled funding for planned parenthood courses etc. for women in Third World countries that were vital in helping these women take control of their lives and avoid disease and unwanted pregnancies. Aboriginal peoples and other ethnic groups in Canada and the States and Britain etc. are still marginalized. Etc, etc etc...I am sure you can read other previous threads about this stuff.

Also, the world court was never mentioned. The offer was US court or nothing. Would things have been different if the Hague was the place the States wanted to try bin Laden? Maybe. I don't know, but again, now we never will know because the option wasn't even presented.

Nonviolent short-term protections HAVE been put in place - hence the new security at borders, airports, etc., and economic actions to cut off "terrorist" money (not that I necessarily agree with all of that either but that's a seperate discussion altogether).

Seems to me that bombing Afg. only puts the American people in even more danger of reprisals. Because now it becomes revenge for the very real military strike.

Overall I don't think waiting at least another month or two (at least) would have prevented true justice (not just revenge) from being done. But then of course, people might have had time to more calmly think things through and Bush might not have had the same support (ie excuse)that he does now.
And if you really want to look at it the way you have described, starting a real war isn't any better as a short term solution than "doing nothing". It's a long term proposition.

Also, I would like to actually SEE the conclusive proof of bin Laden's involvement. Have you seen it yet? Bush's and Tony Blair's word isn't quite enough for me. (Not saying that bin Laden isn't a bad guy but IMHO that's not enough to actually bomb Afghanistan over).

And Dr. Conway - good point, as always.

So let me spell it out for you in really simple words so you can understand. We don't like it when groups like the Taliban oppress women. And we wish that the US would stop propping up those types of dictatorships. But even more so, we wish that the US would stop funding people like Hussain and the Taliban into tyrannical power over their citizens, and then bombing the hell out of their citizens later when they decide they don't like those leaders anymore.

But you know what, Lalance? Many babblers, notably Rasmus, have posted articles that outline this position quite clearly, and you either didn't read them, or read them and didn't understand them, so I guess there probably isn't much point in even posting this message. I don't necessarily want you to agree with my position, but at least you could acknowledge it. Arguments with you are like this:

Lalance: I say A. You are saying B.
Others: No, I'm saying A is wrong because of C.
Lalance: So you're saying B.

quote:

---

If you hate the West so much, try living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Sudan. It might be an eye-opener.

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Citing "outrage" over the oppression of women, slavery, and the sponsorship of international terrorism, President George W. Bush today announced bombing strikes against Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria.

"The evil treatment of woman will not stand," Bush said. "We shall not rest until their untolerable condition have been lifted to that of the United States of America."

The fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of Islam is highly influential in Saudi Arabia, which has been criticized for its repressive treatment of dissidents and women. Civil and human rights are also severely curtailed in the other countries under attack, some of which have been cited by the US State Department as sponsors of international terrorism.

In Sudan, Christians and animists in the south of the country have been attacked and enslaved by the fundamentalist Muslim government in the north.

quote:

---

Question to Rasmus Raven: which of Bin Laden's grievances can be considered "reasonable".

---

I think Rasmus_Raven was referring to three historical points in bin Laden's speech. I'm paraphrasing Alexander Rose from the National Post, Oct 8, 2001 page A5.

1. The tragedy of Andalusia; by 1482 Muslims lost control of Moorish Spain. bin Laden was trying to point out to Muslim's that to stop the spread of Western influence they must stop fighting amongst themselves.

2. bin Laden calls for Muslim's to rise against the infidels. Could he be talking about Saladin and his 1187 ousting of the second Crusade invaders.

3. bin Laden's final point about the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922.

I hope this begins to put bin Laden's comments into a historical light.

Questions:
Do these references justify bin Laden's actions? How far back can one reasonably go to find past grievances to justify present actions? Doesn't this parallels other conflicts like the one going on in Northern Ireland, Hitler invading the Sudenland, American militia's attacking the US government (re: Oklahoma bombing)?

quote:

---

Do these references justify bin Laden's actions?

---

Of course not. Neither rasmus_raven, nor anyone else on this board, is claiming they do.

quote:

---

Send it to The Onion, 'lance.

---

Thanks. This isn't quite up to their standards, but I'd like to write for them.

How absurd it is to claim that you can bomb your way either to justice or to freedom.

quote:

---

Yet Saudi Arabia is no "rogue state". Why?

In 1933 the Saudi royal family gave the first oil concession to the Standard Oil company for $250,000. But it was not until after World war Two that that the oil revenues started flowing big time. In 1945 the Americans were permitted for the first time to put their bases on Saudi soil, in Dharan.

The oil revenues have enabled the Saudi royal family to keep their subjects sweet - for example by the provision of free schools and hospitals. However the luxiourous life style of the Saudi royal family has never gone down well with radical Wahhabi believers. So, in order to head off any challenges and possible assassination attempts, a good part of the oil revenues has gone into funding the world wide spread of the radical Wahhabi cause as well. When new Mosques and religious schools appeared in Usbekistan, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Nigeria, the money mostly came from Riyadh......who had largely got it from oil sold at American gas stations.....by the oil barons who now head American politics, e.g. the Bush family and Dick Chaney of the Halliburton group. (It is well established that the Bush family and the bin Laden business empire, from which Osama bin Laden originally stemmed, have been connected. )

At least 12 of the 15 suicide attackers of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were Saudi citizens (there were no Afghanis nor Palestinians as far as is known). They all came from one region in Saudi Arabia, the one too from which Osama bin Laden came - the province of Asir where militant fundamentalists from Egypt have long had a presence. The Saudi secret service have largely left the fundamentalists there alone.

---

quote:

---

How absurd it is to claim that you can bomb your way either to justice or to freedom.

---

Demonstration at the US Consulate in Toronto as Cruise Missiles hit
Kabul - Oct.7.2001
Report by Gary Morton for http://CitizensontheWeb.com

The USA and Britain attacked Afghanistan with cruise missiles today,
and Prime Minister Chretien appeared on TV to tell Canadians to keep
living normal lives. Those words were ignored as a crowd gathered to
protest at the US Consulate shortly after the bombing began. This time
protesters face media, police and governments that do not want to
tolerate dissent or allow the freedom that used to belong to the West.

Though the missile attacks on Afghanistan are billed as surgical
strikes against terrorist bases, the attacks are massive and against
cities like Kabul.

* The next demonstration at the US Consulate in Toronto is Tuesday Oct
9th at 5 pm.

Photo

quote:

---

The RAF did not just defend Britain... they bombed the hell out of Germany, which was a very important element in winning the war.

---

With all due respect to you and your experience, relogged, most military historians now are agreed that the bombing of civilian populations in Germany -- which, incidentally, was increasingly indiscriminate as the war went on -- was no more effective in destroying civilian morale than it was in Britain.

As for the bombing of military targets, the German decision to fight a two-front war, and their successive loss of access to raw materials, were at least equally significant factors in the eventual defeat.

But even had strategic bombing been militarily or politically effective, my point stands.

The Allies did not just bomb and invade Germany, and then leave it to its own devices. They stayed there for years afterwards -- decades, in the case of the Soviets. In addition, though largely for strategic rather than humanitarian reasons, they were generous and far-seeing in helping to rebuild the country and (in the West) establish a workable democracy.

quote:

---

Throughout this whole thread, no one has said what will stop the next attack from bin Laden on the West. Not to mention all the other terrorist attacks that go on around the world. Throughout history one regime takes power by force from another. They go back and forth this way and once in a while a third regime enters the fray. Where is the one that abides all the human rights law? The West could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow and support none of the regimes as they fight for supremacy nor afterward. But we would still be the bad guys because we sit by and let it happen.

---

I agree.

And why would you find turtle-affinity ridiculous? Anybody here not in favour of turtles?

I personally am a great fan of turtles. I knew a four-footer for a while years ago in Calgary -- the family who owned him had lived somewhere in Asia-Pacific for a while and brought him back. He lived much of the time in the bathtub, but every day they took him out and let him pad about for a while. Really a charming beast, he was.

quote:

---

Well, Luftwaffe Air Marshal Herman Goerring said "he who controls the skies, wins the war." That adage is true. During most of WWII in Europe, the Germans had the upper hand in the air. Until the US entered the war in Europe, the tide turned in favour of the Allies.

---

Military leaders, Nazi or otherwise, typically have an eye to their historical reputations, and have always been fond of blustering pronunciamentos. They are scarcely the best judges of the truth of these statements.

If you insist that strategic bombing is strategically decisive, consider this paper, written -- please note -- by Maj. Angela Maria Lungu, US Army.

Maj. Lungu writes:

quote:

---

All five cases [that is, the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, and Kosovo] show that strategic bombing failed, in almost all instances, to attain their [sic] objectives and did not achieve a dramatic increase in the combat potential and military effectiveness, nor did it achieve a comparative advantage. In no case was a formerly dominant element of military power displaced or devalued by strategic bombing, and neither was a traditional system, mission, or organization marginalized. The other ground and naval services still performed key roles, and other missions of air services, such as reconnaissance, transport, interdiction, close air support, and tactical air power, were still performed and improved upon. For this reason, although a tremendous and valuable addition to war fighting capabilities, strategic bombing was not an RMA [that is, Revolution in Military Affairs].

---

I am not a military historian, but as I understand it, this encapsulates the current scholarly consensus.

As for Bosnia, Rwanda etc., I was angry not at US inaction, but at UN inaction. When officials first reported to their superiors that concentration camps had returned to Europe, they were not believed. And when General Dallaire begged his superiors -- in clipped, dignified military language -- for a relatively small number of additional troops who might have prevented the genocide, he was ignored.

quote:

---

Turtles, turtles, ah ah ah
Turtles, turtles, ya ya ya
Oooooooooh
I love turtles.

---

Ah-HA! I thought your picture looked familiar, skdadl! That was you shimmying around in those TV commercials! Hot, hot, hot!

[Edited to add: I would get a turtle or tortoise, but they make Maria uncomfortable. She says they always look as though they're gasping for breath].

The problem is that air power is only most optimal when combined with a strategy of using air strikes as forward reconaissance and elimination of threats while ground forces move at a steady pace (or even quite swiftly) to achieve "mop-up" and to fight conventional ground forces.

This military strategy was first pioneered, ironically, by the Nazis and later adopted by the British, US, and the Soviets.

(Until WW2, planes did not play a big role and neither did tanks. It was Guderian, if memory serves, who argued for, and got, the use of tanks in support and attack roles as well as the extensive use of air cover and dive-bombers)

The main reason is that there was an offical study of the bombing by the U.S. government, called the Strategic Bombing Survey, which came to that conclusion after a detailed study of objectives, targets, so on. (Sorry it seems not to be available on-line.)

And Rasmus, while the usual Reform party hacks try to twist what we say, a more subtle study of events has its place. For example, in George Bush's speech yesterday, there was a suggestion that the war now begun
will not end in Afganistan. "Today we focus on Afganistan, but the battle is broader."

Today, there is a flurry of "informed speculation" that Iraq is next. The Toronto Star has an article on this.

As I pointed out on another thread, Charles Krauthammer, an inside-the-loop columnist for the Washington Post, is predicting
that Syria, Iraq, and Iran will have to have their regimes removed for this war to be a success.

quote:

---

Bombing....WWII...

---

An ahistorical analysis of how this war against Afghanistan is being conducted will not yield fruitful results.

Incidentally, the USA is, de facto, providing air cover for the Northern Alliance. Apparently the NA is moving ground troops and thumping cities in the disputed region which is not definitely controlled by the Taliban or the NA.

quote:

---

Bombs and Blunders
Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com
October 8, 2001

The overt military phase of the War on Terrorism has begun. What follows are some observations based upon initial reports and what we already knew.

- While the United States has declared a "War On Terrorism," it has chosen for its first military strike to attack a regime that has not been directly linked to the Sep. 11 attacks and is merely accused of "harboring terrorists." The US admits itself that 59 other countries "harbor terrorists." Actually, the number is closer to 200.

Repugnant as the Taliban are, this is a classic bait and switch on the American public, promising to fight terrorism and instead bombing an already bombed-out country ruled by psychotic but, in this case, helpless thugs. It accomplishes very little that will either bring Sep. 11's perpetrators to justice or prevent future terrorism.

- This is not The War. This is a skirmish in a much longer war that has now officially begun. The Taliban rule one of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world; even if they are so inclined, they have no ability to defend themselves or the country in any meaningful way. Forcing them out of power demonstrates America's military might to the world, but terrorist camps can be set up anywhere someone can buy 100 acres.

- One of the reasons Bill Clinton's cruise missile strikes in 1998 may have actually emboldened bin Laden and other terrorists is that it convinced them that the US would never get its hands dirty by close-in fighting, preferring to launch missiles and drop bombs from safe distances -- a tactic they regarded as a sign of moral weakness. These are the only types of US/British military activity reported so far. It is, once again, exactly the response bin Laden's crew wanted in their ideal scenario of how to create World War III.

- It has been widely noted that targetting civilian populations for retribution -- particularly with an initial strike -- will, both by killing people and by creating martyrs, inspire future terrorism. It will badly damage, especially in the Islamic world, the US's moral advantage as a victim of attack. US and British warplanes began by dropping bombs Sunday in the following cities:

- Kabul, the capital, population 1.5 million
- Kandahar, population 226,000
- Jalalabad, population 60,000
- Kunduz, population 60,000
- Farah

- Electricity was cut off to Kabul in the first wave of bombing. US officials have said that they won't target civilian infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water supplies, or power plants. But civilian infrastructure has already been hit.

- Only two C-17 transport planes are dropping humanitarian aid to Afghanis, with only enough rations to feed about 37,000 people for a day. The UN estimates over a million Afghanis are on the brink of starvation, and another one million are at risk.

The food drop, thus far, seems to a propaganda exercise, not a serious attempt to win favor by helping to address a humanitarian crisis. That food crisis has been exascerbated by interrupted food supply lines and fleeing foreign aid workers in advance of the attacks. Meanwhile, the US pressured Pakistan to close its border with Afghanistan, trapping hundreds of thousands of refugees in Afghanistan without access to food, water, or health care.

- After nearly four weeks of work cobbling together a united world front, the "coalition" attacking the Taliban consists thus far of the US and Britain. The US has not received permission to use air bases in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Oman. British planes and US B-52s are using a British air base in Diego Garcia. Long-range B-2 bombers are flying out of a base in Missouri. US planes (Air Force F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F-17s) are flying from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Fifty cruise missiles (cost: $1 million each) were launched from submarines in the Gulf.

- US ground troops may already be in Afghanistan. When asked Sunday if ground troops were deployed there, Secretary Rumsfeld hesitated, said "Yes -- ", stopped himself, consulted with a member of the Joint Chiefs, then replied cryptically that if the US had deployed troops "it would be known by now." He then refused to answer further questions about deployment. The US had already deployed advance scouts into Afghanistan and advisors to help the opposition Northern Alliance.

- President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have announced support for the opposition Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the Northern Alliance has killed tens of thousands of civilians by bombing neighborhoods in Kabul, has killed thousands of prisoners of war, and has ethnically cleansed ethnic Pashtun villages in areas under Alliance control. Members of the Alliance are followers of a type of fundamentalist Islam that's only marginally less strict than the Taliban's. The Alliance includes factions accused of mass rape during the post-Soviet civil war. The UN reports that the Alliance is now the largest producer of opium in Afghanistan.

- Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar were not injured in Sunday's bombing. US officials have admitted that they will not be able to kill either one of them. In fact, the bombing campaign will only help the cause of anti-American fundamentalists. Already, thousands of Pakistani students are crossing the border to join the Taliban.

- Qatar TV released a taped speech by Osama bin Laden. Some western reporters have claimed that, in the tape, bin Laden admitted prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks. In fact, portions of the tape released on NPR and articles run by the Associated Press say that bin Laden praises the attacks, but takes no responsibility for planning them. even though he has been quick to take responsibility for other attacks against US targets abroad.

- The US has released no hard evidence of Osama bin Laden's connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. On Friday, the British government released a report that links bin Laden's organization to the bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, based largely on the testimony of one, widely discredited witness. But, it contained no new evidence linking him or Al Qaeda to the Sept. 11 attacks. When the US made its case for bin Laden's guilt to NATO, European diplomats were quoted as saying that the evidence contained "no smoking gun," was "circumstantial at best," and that much of it was already in the public domain.

- Far more Pakistani people have opposed US military action than Western media have generally reported. Since the Pakistani government issued a statement of support for US military action, demonstrations have erupted across Pakistan. On Tuesday, Oct. 2, more than 50,000 people marched in the Pakistan city of Quetta. Pakistani mullahs have issued a fatwa against US troops that enter Afghanistan and any Pakistanis who help them. Pakistan is a nuclear power and the possibility of a coup against Pakistan's military dictatorship is real and frightening.

For nearly a month, anti-war activists have been hoping against hope that by demonstrating restraint, the Bush Administration was showing that it understood that large-scale military attacks could not prevent terrorism. At this writing, Sunday evening, much is not known; it's always useful to remember as a war starts that governments, and their obedient media, almost always lie in wartime, as the Bush Administration has promised it will do. So we don't know the whole story; but we do probably know the most palatable part. And based on that, it's already clear that just as the need for better domestic security has fallen into the traps of racial profiling and gutted civil liberties, the need for an international response has fallen into the trap of killing people who have no relationship to the goal of stopping terrorism. George W. Bush's "War On Terrorism" needs a reversal of tactics, quickly, before the consequences become catastrophic.

---

And incidentally, it is being reported today that the US has warned the UN that the war on terrorism will most likely soon include military attacks on other countries besides Afghanistan.
attacks to extend beyond Afghanistan - article

I would have been surprised if they HADN'T bombed Affghanistan. I mean, they kind of have to, if not just for PR. And as long as they're taking out only Taliban and Al-Qaida military equiptment and material (weapons, fighters, damaging airports...) I'm okay with that. But when civilians are hurt, I draw the line. Does anyone know if civilians were hurt yet?

I didn't expect the second round, and the media so far has been mind-numbing. No REAL content, just Peter Mansbridge droning on about something or other, talking with the "experts" whose voices are equally mind-numbing! UUUURRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

But I'll have to tune in soon.

quote:

---

Does anyone know if civilians were hurt yet?

---

I would refer you to the article I posted just above, which lists populations in the cities bombed, and refugee numbers.

'lance - Maj. Lungu has some points (from what you quoted and I didn't read the article or paper) but the armed forces (Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines) have major egos when called to do a mission or objective. A rivalry so to speak. So Maj. Lungu of the US Army would write a paper like that. Whichever branch of the armed forces does the job, it means they'll probably get more funding for the latest weapons. So Lungu may have written that from an objective standpoint or from an angle to gain more funding for the Army.

DrC -

quote:

---

The problem is that air power is only most optimal when combined with a strategy of using air strikes as forward reconaissance and elimination of threats while ground forces move at a steady pace (or even quite swiftly) to achieve "mop-up" and to fight conventional ground forces.

---

Yep, I agree with that statement of yours. Can you believe it? We agreed on something.

quote:

---

This military strategy was first pioneered, ironically, by the Nazis and later adopted by the British, US, and the Soviets.

(Until WW2, planes did not play a big role and neither did tanks. It was Guderian, if memory serves, who argued for, and got, the use of tanks in support and attack roles as well as the extensive use of air cover and dive-bombers)

---

This is the closest I could come to an actual death count, which seems remarkably low. Hope it's true.

Death Count

Edited to say this isn't counting refugees, BTW.

2 whole breasts of chicken cut into 1-in cubes
1 medium onion sliced thick
1 tablespoon cognac or arak
1/2 teaspoon pepper
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ground turmeric
1 teaspoon salt

Kebabs of all types, sizes, and shapes are standard in Afghan cooking for both Jews & Muslims. They are easily assembled and probably most basic recipes of all cooking, stretching back to earliest, primitive times. I saw two workman barbecuing their lamb kebabs over a few twigs in an open field, resting skewers on a thick branch cut from a nearby tree, and turning them every now and then.They then wrapped a piece of Afghan bread around skewer and pulled off crisp brown meat.

1. Mix everything together & marinate at room temperature for a minimum of 1 hour or preferably in refrigerator overnight.
2. Put 4 or 5 cubes of chicken, without onion, on each metal skewer and broil over charcoal for 10 or 15 minutes.
3. Serve hot with Afghan bread, salad, and pickles.
NOTE: My Afghan mentor related that turmeric was much used in Afghanistan in many ways and had a great reputation for its health-giving properties. It is reputed to cleanse the blood, and a little turmeric in ones morning milk would a provide day of good health.

Recipe: "Sephardic Cooking" by Copeland Mark -- 600 Recipes Created in Exotic
Sephardic Kitchens from Morocco to India -- Copyright 1992 Published by Donald
I. Fine, Inc., New York, N.Y. D. Pileggi

in the place where I live (ham and pork)
Think about nutrition, wonder what's inside it now (oh boy)
in my luchbox at work (it's the best)
Really makes a darn good sandwhich any way you slice it at all

quote:

---

That's okay. Got a brother? (hee hee)

---

Two. But the youngest is married with two kids, and the middle one, separated these three years, is newly un-single (but not remarried).

quote:

---

I thought Lalance's turtle picture was everyone's cue to be as irrelevant as possible.

---

Does she think she's 'big' for doing so? Does she think she's 'big' for focusing on the superficial, rather than the messages of these people? Does she just like to prejudge people based on their appearance? Is she an objectivist?

Stop ing, please, Lalance. isn't that how tiger999 left?

Audra: 3 pages?! snip, snip...looks like it's time to close this thread...

There is substantial evidence that turtle nesting grounds are terrorist training camps. They cache bombs cleverly disguised as eggs. Turtles, especially sea turtles, travel the world without documentation. They can live for hundreds of years allowing them plenty of time to create networks of like minded insurgents such as dolphins and ... KILLER Whales, aka, Orcas.

An anti-WTO protestor dressed as a turtle is clearly defining his allegiances and should be hunted down and held accountable.
Nations that harbour turtles, in particular Mexico and Chile, should be warned to turn over all turtles and their associates or face the combined wrath of U.S. and British forces.

I'm suspicious of duck-billed platipii, myself. Consider! They are warm-blooded, yet lay eggs. Not only do they have the famous duck bill, their feet resemble those of lizards and their tails those of beavers.

Clearly, this all-things-to-all-creatures approach is an attempt to be neutral. And since we know that no one can be neutral in the coming struggle, they must therefore be on the side of the terrorists. QED.

In President Bush's speech to congress, he kept referring (I thought) to "Tara," as in "We shall not give in to Tara." I figured this referred either to some Mata Hari of al-Qaida, or was a "Gone With The Wind" reference ("...the only thing worth dyin' for!")