Supreme Court declares US Guantanamo tribunals illegal

[TAE]

I still find it amazing that the successful bombing of the WTC had such a profound affect on the US compared to the equally significant unsuccessful bombing in the 1990s.

 

[ZAMB]

I still find it amazing that the successful bombing of the WTC had such a profound affect on the US compared to the equally significant unsuccessful bombing in the 1990s.

Because the neocons [even before Bush was elected] had plans to take over the ME which called for a "new Pearl Harbour" to get it started.
And then somehow, 'coincidentally' it comes about with 9/11. Within hours of the WTC, there is documentation that Bush, Cheney and co were already insisting that it was somehow tied into Iraq in people's minds so that they could go to war with Saddam.

 

[mears]

This was not a war - 9/11 was a single act of terrorism by "19" young Saudi religious fanatics. America is used to domestic terrorism , think of Mcveigh, the unabomber etc. The only difference was that 9/11 gave Bushco. the chance to lie their way into a war that they'd been planning since before Bush took office.

If they wanted to retaliate, why did they not bomb Saudi Arabia, the home of the terrorists and Bin Laden?
Why, instead, did they spirit Bin Laden's family and other Saudis out of the country at a time when all planes were grounded? Why did they not think keeping his family in the US might have been a useful tactic in tracking him down? But then, they were members of the Carlyle group with Daddy Bush and co - can't mess with Daddy's friends, can you?

Why bomb Afghanistan? The Taliban offered more than once to hand Bin Laden over - all they asked was some proof that he'd been involved. But you never had any proof, had you? Don't you think that's why Bush now says that his capture is not a priority? Because him being free somehow gives you 'licence' to bomb every country in the ME [bar Saudi Arabia, of course, your great ally in the WOT?]

What about the question that Gore Vidal, among others, keeps asking? Why were US warplanes not scambled within 4 minutes of the hijacks being spotted, as demanded by law? Why did they wait until 3 of the 4 planes had already crashed? I remember seeing how one of the brave 9/11 widows is attempting to sue the govt. over this under the RICO laws.

Talking of conducting war outside the Geneva convention, let's look at Cambodia again, the country with the largest number of amputees in the world [though I suspect Iraq will finally catch up at the rate you're going] due to mines, weapons and training given to the Khmer Rouge by the good old USA - where there has been a genocide of millions that the US was complicit in. Or Palestine, where the US supports attacks on civilians and land grabs illegal under the geneva convention. There are tons of other examples, if you just would open your eyes.

You can't ignore international and even federal law when it suits you and then expect it to be applied in a partial way to people you don't like - but that's what the US have done ever since the convention was signed - they've thumbed their noses at it except when they want it applied to their enemies. That was why 9/11 happened - because of US hubris in their foreign policy - their willingness to prop up dictators and interfere in the affairs of other countries [to the detriment of the indigenous population of those countries] - just because they can, and there is profit to be made from it.

I guess 'you people' don't want to touch the causes of 9/11 though, do you?

Bali, London, Madrid, Indonesia, Turkey - were also single acts of terrorism

But its not war, a group of Muslims just get together once and a while and kill a bunch of innocents. Rather talk about Gore Vidal. There are no problems with radical Islamists, but there is Cambodia. Keep those eyes shut. Maybe the threat of Islamic terorism will fade from our dreams.

What about the French support of Iraq? Or the Chinese support of the most brutal dicatorship in the world, North Korea? You talk about US foreign policy as if its the only player who has made bad, or even immoral moves on the world stage. WHy do you single out the US.

Is Europe that angry its become so incosequential on the world stage. That no one listens to Europe about the Israeli - Palestinian conflict?

Sour grapes

 

[mears]

Because the neocons [even before Bush was elected] had plans to take over the ME which called for a "new Pearl Harbour" to get it started.
And then somehow, 'coincidentally' it comes about with 9/11. Within hours of the WTC, there is documentation that Bush, Cheney and co were already insisting that it was somehow tied into Iraq in people's minds so that they could go to war with Saddam.

Can you provide a link to this new pearl harbor.

Are you infering by "coincidentially" that the Bush administration was behind 9 11?

 

[ZAMB]

Can you provide a link to this new pearl harbor.

Are you infering by "coincidentially" that the Bush administration was behind 9 11?

There are over 2M links on Google - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...entury+pearl+harbour&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

There even seems to be one with the report itself - though I'm having probs with pdf at the moment and didn't open it. It's at
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here are a couple from the first page.

This is the most concise information site http://oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.

And an article about it by John Pilger which starts

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true. : John Pilger :12 Dec 2002

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

I don't think that even you can deny its existance given the amount of evidence - obviously I'm not going to post every link - but I have seen TV interviews with ex-White house bods as well about how 9/11 was exploited by the government to carry out this pre-existing plan.

 

[mears]

There are over 2M links on Google - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...entury+pearl+harbour&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

There even seems to be one with the report itself - though I'm having probs with pdf at the moment and didn't open it. It's at
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here are a couple from the first page.

This is the most concise information site http://oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm


This in no way validates their thinking. One must draw their own conclusions.

Osama Bin laden is on tape

And an article about it by John Pilger which starts


http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

I don't think that even you can deny its existance given the amount of evidence - obviously I'm not going to post every link - but I have seen TV interviews with ex-White house bods as well about how 9/11 was exploited by the government to carry out this pre-existing plan.

But you understand the internet is a freewheeling place where anyone can post anything. I could start a website devoted to proving American involvement in the 9-11 attacks. I can start a website concerning the death, and apparent cover up of John Kennedy's assasination. Maybe thousands of other have created similar sites aroung the world. Thousands out of tens of millions of users is a miniscule piece of the web, but we are there posting the pet theories.

This in no way validates their thinking. One must draw their own conclusions.

Osama Bin laden is on tape taking credit for 9-11. He has followed this up with similar pronouncements

You all so much want to talk about US foreign policy but you fail to mention the other half in the equation. You never mention that the US and the west are trying to stop terrorist atrocities that have hit countries like the US, Bali, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Jordan, Spain, England, Egypt. You refuse to acknowledge the presence of a competing force in this deadly game, militant Islamists.

Islamic extremeists who want to kill western and certain Muslim civilians are around. No matter whether you believe the US created them, or believe they are a product of a failed religion, or believe they are a product of failed Arab countries - whatever you believe, they do in fact exist.

And they have to be dealt with.

As Al Gore might say an inconvenient truth.

 

[ZAMB]

The FBI 'most wanted' poster for Bin Laden doesn't mention 9/11. Why? Because they admit they have NO evidence. This is why they didn't take the Taliban up on it's offer to hand him over immediately after 9/11 on the production of evidence.

A lot of doubt has been expressed about the content of that tape conveniently 'found' in Afghanistan. Even your own FBI don't consider it evidence.

The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI page states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

In the months leading up to the Septmber 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban "outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles." The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban's offer.

"On September 20, 2001," according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."

On September 23, 2001 the BBC reported that four of the hijack "suspects" - Waleed Al Shehri, Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and possibly Khalid Al Midhar - were alive, and that FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged "the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."

Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said: "I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States."

Skeptics dismiss the video tape "found in a house in Jalalabad", Afghanistan, which allegedly shows Bin Laden confessing to the September 11 attacks. In a December 20, 2001, broadcast by German TV channel Das Erste "two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation not only to be inaccurate, but manipulative."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

 

[mears]

The FBI 'most wanted' poster for Bin Laden doesn't mention 9/11. Why? Because they admit they have NO evidence. This is why they didn't take the Taliban up on it's offer to hand him over immediately after 9/11 on the production of evidence.

A lot of doubt has been expressed about the content of that tape conveniently 'found' in Afghanistan. Even your own FBI don't consider it evidence.



http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

Sorry, I thought you wanted to talk about the Geneva Convention, militant Islam and international relations.

I don't have time for conspiracy theorists dealing with 9-11. You are just a part of a small lunatic fringe. Hopefully you are still young.

Either way its beneath me to go any further with you.

 

[ZAMB]

Sorry, I thought you wanted to talk about the Geneva Convention, militant Islam and international relations.

I don't have time for conspiracy theorists dealing with 9-11. You are just a part of a small lunatic fringe. Hopefully you are still young.

Either way its beneath me to go any further with you.

Well, tell me why the FBI isn't charging Bin Laden with 9/11 - if they were sure of the authenticity of the tape, they would have proof, wouldn't they?
Yet they said themselves, this year, that they had NO proof.

In the only really authenticated interview he denies participation in 9/11.
http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

I just want to know the truth, not the "truth" as decided by the US government.
So don't be so patronising - anyone who doesn't question his government's statements is a fool.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Difference was, that was during a war. Last I looked, there was no war going on as of Sept 10, 2001.

Also, the kamikaze thing probably didn't conform to the Geneva convention either. I'm not aware of any US kamikaze, in B17s or otherwise.

IIRC the Japenese either resiled from, or never signed up to/ratified the conventions.

 

[TAE]

Bali, London, Madrid, Indonesia, Turkey - were also single acts of terrorism

Yes.

 

[mears]

Yes.

And its a problem yes, these acts of terrorism? Its something the international community must deal with, right?

 

[ymu]

And its a problem yes, these acts of terrorism? Its something the international community must deal with, right?

Yes. By finding a way to force the US and Israel to adhere to international law. All of these attacks were aimed at US allies in the WOT, and the occurrence of such attacks was predicted long before war was finally declared. It's kind of obvious really - terrorism arises from anger at injustice and the inability to address this injustice politically (whether or not you perceive the injustice to be real or imagined determines whether you refer to the "unlawful combatants" as terrorists or freedom fighters). The worst possible way to fight terror is to increase the sense of anger and injustice through arbitrary detentions and specious wars.

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point ZAMB was making about "the new Pearl Harbour". It's entirely irrelevant whether you believe that 9/11 was a happy coincidence for, or a conspiracy on the part of, PNAC. The point is that 9/11 has been used to cynically manipulate the US public into supporting the so-called War on Terror (and then the invasion of Iraq, by mendaciously associating the two), abandoning any notion of fiscal responsibility by approving massive military expenditure (with a few tax cuts for the ultra-rich on the way) and accepting such assaults on their civil liberties as the Patriot Act.

And there's a damn fine reason why you should want the US to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international humanitarian law. Noone, but noone, today refers to the French Resistance as terrorists - it is generally agreed that their actions were justified, despite undoubtedly being acts of terrorism (and widely denounced as such by many of their countrymen at the time). It's rare to hear Nelson Mandela referred to as a terrorist these days, although he undoubtedly was - he would likely have been released before the collapse of apartheid SA had he not refused to renounce violence. The worse the US behaves, the more "terrorist" attacks on their interests and on their allies will be perceived as justified.

 

[mears]

Yes. By finding a way to force the US and Israel to adhere to international law. All of these attacks were aimed at US allies in the WOT, and the occurrence of such attacks was predicted long before war was finally declared. It's kind of obvious really - terrorism arises from anger at injustice and the inability to address this injustice politically (whether or not you perceive the injustice to be real or imagined determines whether you refer to the "unlawful combatants" as terrorists or freedom fighters). The worst possible way to fight terror is to increase the sense of anger and injustice through arbitrary detentions and specious wars.

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point ZAMB was making about "the new Pearl Harbour". It's entirely irrelevant whether you believe that 9/11 was a happy coincidence for, or a conspiracy on the part of, PNAC. The point is that 9/11 has been used to cynically manipulate the US public into supporting the so-called War on Terror (and then the invasion of Iraq, by mendaciously associating the two), abandoning any notion of fiscal responsibility by approving massive military expenditure (with a few tax cuts for the ultra-rich on the way) and accepting such assaults on their civil liberties as the Patriot Act.

And there's a damn fine reason why you should want the US to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international humanitarian law. Noone, but noone, today refers to the French Resistance as terrorists - it is generally agreed that their actions were justified, despite undoubtedly being acts of terrorism (and widely denounced as such by many of their countrymen at the time). Iear Nelson Mandela referred to as a terrorist these days, although he undoubtedly was - he would likely have been released before the collapse of apartheid SA had he not refused to renounce violence. The worse the US behaves, the more "terrorist" attacks on their interests and on their allies will be perceived as justified.

All America all the time.

OK, you fall into the its America's fault Islamic extremeists are killing innocent civilians.

So how should states deal with radical Islamists? If the American way of dealing with these elements is incorrect. How do states stop the actions practiced by radical Muslims in places like Malaysia, Turkey and London? How do we stop the next Richard Reid? What about the next group of middle class Muslim kids that want to hit the London metro? What about the person in Iraq that slams his explosive laden car into a Shia mosque? Or African Americans who turn to a violent form of Islam in an American prison and conspire to blow up the sears tower.

One element that binds these people together: All practice a perverted form of the Muslim religion.

Because there is a lot of injustice all over the world. From South America to Cambodia to Africa. And like most Muslim countries, most of these people can't vent their frustrations at the ballot box.

But only Muslims are taking their frustrations out on skyscapers and civilians heading to work on trains.

Africans and South Americans are not targeting western civilians to prove their point.

Maybe you think they should follow the example of radical Islamists?

Or are you capable of talking about anything other than America?

 

[Genghis Cohen]

All America all the time.

Not once does in the quoted post does ymu mention America.

 

[ZAMB]

And there's a damn fine reason why you should want the US to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international humanitarian law. Noone, but noone, today refers to the French Resistance as terrorists - it is generally agreed that their actions were justified, despite undoubtedly being acts of terrorism (and widely denounced as such by many of their countrymen at the time). It's rare to hear Nelson Mandela referred to as a terrorist these days, although he undoubtedly was - he would likely have been released before the collapse of apartheid SA had he not refused to renounce violence. The worse the US behaves, the more "terrorist" attacks on their interests and on their allies will be perceived as justified.

Here in Northern Ireland, an American, George Mitchell, was sent by the US Govt. to chair the peace talks which led to the Good Friday Agreement - where he urged compromise on both sides, eventually getting people to agree to early release for "terrorists" on both sides, among other things. Members of these formerly terrorist organisations are now in the NI government.

I find it strange that America can persuade the people here to accept compromise, working together and prisoner release, but they are unwilling to support any position with Palestine and Israel apart from the Israeli position. Can they not see a parallel with NI in the Hamas election?
The same could be said about the current Iraq standoff, too.

Could it be because they hadn't given either side in NI billions in aid, weapons, missiles etc? Ours were very low tech terrorists, I guess, by US standards. We don't have any strategic importance or natural resources to plunder, either. Wonder why they bothered, really.

Gosh, maybe the Irish aren't the most stubborn people in the world after all. [barring abberations like Paisley, who is probably more of an american, anyway, with the whole Bob Jones university thing]

 

[ZAMB]

All America all the time.
OK, you fall into the its America's fault Islamic extremeists are killing innocent civilians.

What about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by US bombs? You know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but thats your excuse for everything. You know the US has squandered all the international good-will that came after the WTC, with its insatiable bloodlust and thirst for revenge/empire.

Because there is a lot of injustice all over the world. From South America to Cambodia to Africa. And like most Muslim countries, most of these people can't vent their frustrations at the ballot box.

In many cases this is because the US has deposed the democratic government - not something to be real proud about, IMO.

But only Muslims are taking their frustrations out on skyscapers and civilians heading to work on trains.

Not so. I bring you back yet again to the indiscriminate bombing of cities in Iraq, the use of illegal chemical weapons there etc.

Or are you capable of talking about anything other than America?

Are you capable of giving a rats ass about people who don't live in America?

 

[ymu]

All America all the time.

OK, you fall into the its America's fault Islamic extremeists are killing innocent civilians.

So how should states deal with radical Islamists? If the American way of dealing with these elements is incorrect. How do states stop the actions practiced by radical Muslims in places like Malaysia, Turkey and London? How do we stop the next Richard Reid? What about the next group of middle class Muslim kids that want to hit the London metro? What about the person in Iraq that slams his explosive laden car into a Shia mosque? Or African Americans who turn to a violent form of Islam in an American prison and conspire to blow up the sears tower.

One element that binds these people together: All practice a perverted form of the Muslim religion.

Because there is a lot of injustice all over the world. From South America to Cambodia to Africa. And like most Muslim countries, most of these people can't vent their frustrations at the ballot box.

But only Muslims are taking their frustrations out on skyscapers and civilians heading to work on trains.

Africans and South Americans are not targeting western civilians to prove their point.

Maybe you think they should follow the example of radical Islamists?

Or are you capable of talking about anything other than America?

Well, we're talking about Islamic terrorism - which has a rather intimate relationship with US foreign policy, and with Israel. Whilst the US was busy fostering Islamic opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan, Israel was busy channelling funds to Hamas, the Islamic opposition to the secular PLO. The Middle East is dominated by dictatorships in large part because the US has hindered any moves towards democracy, just as they have in South America. Saddam Hussein was imposed in a CIA-inspired coup and the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown in favour of the Shah, one of the most brutal of the lot. The consequences of these policies are what we have to deal with today.

I can, and do, make exactly the same points about Northern Ireland. The British got what they asked for - and considerably less than they deserved, IMO. I dread to think what would have happened if there was not so much popular support for the Republican cause in the US - whatever you think about the rights and wrongs and hypocrisies of the cash flowing from the US into IRA coffers, I'm pretty sure that if US electoral interests were on the British side in the NI conflict, things would be a whole lot worse than they are now.

There is indeed a lot of injustice in the world. It's why there were "terrorists" in occupied Europe and apartheid South Africa. Why there still are "terrorists" in Sri Lanka and Mexico and Northern Ireland. There will likely be some more "terrorists" coming from Africa shortly, once the IMF and the G8 have blocked every possible avenue for economic justice for that continent whilst continuing to prop up corrupt dictatorships which are easily bought off in the interests of the West. At some point, people can and do say "enough is enough", and if violence is the only option left, it is the option that will be taken by a significant minority.

Writing these things off as a product of Islam and Islam alone, with no external trigger or cause, is quite obviously nonsensical if you just stop to think about it for a second. People generally don't decide to dedicate their lives to violent struggle, unless they feel they have no other option. This is why policies such as internment in NI, ever more repressive apartheid policies in SA, and Guantanemo and Iraq in the WOT have enabled "terrorist" groups to grow rapidly in membership and ambition. Unless you think it's because brainwashing is infectious??

 

[xiannaix]

Do the gangsters in the US follow the Geneva convention? No.

Do you really think that AQ is synonymous with a bunch of gangsters?

There is a difference between threats to national security - those that drive airplanes into NYC and DC buildings in the name of Allah and guys that run numbers, girls and dope.

National security and crime are different issues with different levels and corcerns focused on by the state.

Criminal issues: policy focuses on catching those who have committed crimes and punishing them for it. To switch to a focus that included crime prevention (which is done but only after a criminal enterprise is stumbled into by police) would result in the police state that is commonly alleged. The police must wait for a crime to be committed before acting.

National security on the other hand isn't supposed to be reactionay it is intended to be preventative - one isnt supposed to wait for Pearl Harbod before one attempts to prevent it.

How does the U.S. police deal with them? Do they pick up random people from the street, declare them to be gangsters, and then deny them a fair trial because gangsters don't deserve fair trials ?

If AQ were criminal threats you'd have a great point.

Still, the US doesn't pick up random people. They sure as hell pick up the wrong people, pick up people falsely accused in a personal dispute between informant and informed upon etc etc - - wrong - yup random - nope

Still, just to avoid a detour - I agree with you on procedure for those in custody and that extraterritorial detention presents a lot of problems and the US should either completely distance themselves from those prisons or demand a degree of transparency that can offer reasonable safe guards for the detained.

What do you think Blix was doing, standing at the border shouting 'let me into the country' ?

what do you think Saddam was doing, saying, "Hey Blix - let me show you my new chemical induistry that's readily convertable but slides just under the wire of prohibited stuff. Oh, and over here - here's where I'm going to develop bio/cem and other nasty weapons..."

 

[ZAMB]

what do you think Saddam was doing, saying, "Hey Blix - let me show you my new chemical induistry that's readily convertable but slides just under the wire of prohibited stuff. Oh, and over here - here's where I'm going to develop bio/cem and other nasty weapons..."

You're forgetting the inconvenient facts - that the inspectors were in Iraq up till the time of the US invasion, they never found any WMD, and that Saddam never threatened the US. Plus, they had pretty much hammered the Iraqi people into the ground with years of sanctions.

Not that the US cared about the crimes of Saddam against his own people anyway - they had been complicit in them - supplying the weapons even. Saddam, after all, was their 'boy' - they had put him into power. The problem was that he got uppity, and wouldn't obey orders.

First sign of this was trying to reannex Kuwait, which had been a part of Iraq until the British split it off from the rest of the country to keep control of their oil reserves, and then, after they stopped him doing that, he had the audacity to try to put oil prices up. The US and UK don't like it when their former puppets come to life and start thinking for themselves.

 

[mears]

Well, we're talking about Islamic terrorism - which has a rather intimate relationship with US foreign policy, and with Israel. Whilst the US was busy fostering Islamic opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan, Israel was busy channelling funds to Hamas, the Islamic opposition to the secular PLO. The Middle East is dominated by dictatorships in large part because the US has hindered any moves towards democracy, just as they have in South America. Saddam Hussein was imposed in a CIA-inspired coup and the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown in favour of the Shah, one of the most brutal of the lot. The consequences of these policies are what we have to deal with today.

I can, and do, make exactly the same points about Northern Ireland. The British got what they asked for - and considerably less than they deserved, IMO. I dread to think what would have happened if there was not so much popular support for the Republican cause in the US - whatever you think about the rights and wrongs and hypocrisies of the cash flowing from the US into IRA coffers, I'm pretty sure that if US electoral interests were on the British side in the NI conflict, things would be a whole lot worse than they are now.

There is indeed a lot of injustice in the world. It's why there were "terrorists" in occupied Europe and apartheid South Africa. Why there still are "terrorists" in Sri Lanka and Mexico and Northern Ireland. There will likely be some more "terrorists" coming from Africa shortly, once the IMF and the G8 have blocked every possible avenue for economic justice for that continent whilst continuing to prop up corrupt dictatorships which are easily bought off in the interests of the West. At some point, people can and do say "enough is enough", and if violence is the only option left, it is the option that will be taken by a significant minority.

Writing these things off as a product of Islam and Islam alone, with no external trigger or cause, is quite obviously nonsensical if you just stop to think about it for a second. People generally don't decide to dedicate their lives to violent struggle, unless they feel they have no other option. This is why policies such as internment in NI, ever more repressive apartheid policies in SA, and Guantanemo and Iraq in the WOT have enabled "terrorist" groups to grow rapidly in membership and ambition. Unless you think it's because brainwashing is infectious??

But America actions have also saved Muslims in Bosnia. Who was going to help them, Europe? The US coordinated relief efforts in Somalia. There is no more talk of mass starvation in Afghanistan. Sunni fighters kill more Iraqis than Americans.

Many Muslim terrorists are middle class or upper middle class kids, like the ones in Britian. Muhammad Atta was quite educated, Osama Bin Laden made millions off the interest of his trust funds. They all had options, the were not poor uneducated kids and look at the route they took.

One thing that binded them together was the belief in a perverted form of the Muslim religion.

They are not innocent pawns.

So let me get this straight. Do you believe the struggle practiced by certain Muslims which has led to such events as Bali and Madrid are appropriate responses to their oppression? Are these types of actions something you believe other oppressed people around the world (like Africans) should emulate?

 

[TAE]

And its a problem yes, these acts of terrorism? Its something the international community must deal with, right?

Of course.

Do you really think that AQ is synonymous with a bunch of gangsters?

Indeed. They are criminals.

By the way, there were 30,242 GUN-RELATED DEATHS in the US during 2002 (including accidents and suicides).

There is a difference between threats to national security - those that drive airplanes into NYC and DC buildings in the name of Allah and guys that run numbers, girls and dope.

How is the relatively tiny AQ threatning the national security of the United States of America?

National security and crime are different issues with different levels and corcerns focused on by the state.

Not anymore.

Criminal issues: policy focuses on catching those who have committed crimes and punishing them for it. To switch to a focus that included crime prevention (which is done but only after a criminal enterprise is stumbled into by police) would result in the police state that is commonly alleged.

Isn't that exactly what is happening?

If AQ were criminal threats you'd have a great point.

Wasn't the "20th 9/11 hijacker" put on trial in a criminal court in the US?

Still, the US doesn't pick up random people. They sure as hell pick up the wrong people, pick up people falsely accused in a personal dispute between informant and informed upon etc etc - - wrong - yup random - nope

Fair enough. I should have phrased that better.

Still, just to avoid a detour - I agree with you on procedure for those in custody and that extraterritorial detention presents a lot of problems and the US should either completely distance themselves from those prisons or demand a degree of transparency that can offer reasonable safe guards for the detained.

Cool.

what do you think Saddam was doing, saying, "Hey Blix - let me show you my new chemical induistry that's readily convertable but slides just under the wire of prohibited stuff. Oh, and over here - here's where I'm going to develop bio/cem and other nasty weapons..."

As he did not have any WMD, your scenario seems very unlikely indeed. In any case the issue is not what Saddam was saying but what Blix was saying.

 

[ZAMB]

The US coordinated relief efforts in Somalia.

I don't have time to answer the rest of your post but, Somalia, well I guess it depends who you ask.

Oil elevates equatorial Guinea
Special to the NNPA from GIN

They are doing it again. It has been reported that the Bush administration is supporting Somali warlords in their quasi-civil war against alleged Islamist militias. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Bush administration has apparently decided to secretly support a self-proclaimed anti-terrorist coalition of Somali warlords. Thus, Somalia is plunged back into further military conflict at precisely the time when the interim government has been desperately trying to secure a lasting peace.

U.S. involvement in the Somali conflict is made even more problematic in light of the objections of the Somali interim government. The interim government has asked the Bush administration for support in stabilizing the situation there after nearly 15 years of on-again/off-again military conflict among clans (following the overthrow of the U.S. puppet Siad Barre). Instead the Bush administration has decided that covert intervention is the better course, such that Somalia is now experiencing some of the worst fighting it has seen in more than a decade.

It has been said that a mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and again and expecting different results. If that is the case, then there is chronic insanity afoot in Washington, D.C. In the 1980s, the U.S.A. got involved in the Afghanistan conflict after the then Soviet Union invaded the country. Paying no attention to who was involved in the fighting or the long-term consequences of involvement, the U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia recruited, trained and equipped what came to be known as the mujahideen (Islamic freedom fighters). Some of these same mujahideen later became the core of Al Qaeda, focusing their hatred on the U.S.A. when they saw the U.S.A. abandon Afghanistan. On another front, the U.S.A. supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction such that he could carry out his war against Iran in the 1980s, turning a blind eye when he actually used these weapons killing soldiers and civilians. The list can go on and on, but the pattern becomes clear. In any immediate situation U.S. foreign policy is driven by a narrow and short-sighted sense of what can and should be done. Further, the U.S. feels no reluctance at being unilateral in its actions, regardless of the consequences.

And ''consequences'' is what Somalia is finally all about. The Somali warlords have shown themselves to be completely unsavory. They have agreed, time and again, to various truces and settlements, only to reopen hostilities before the ink is dry on the agreement. What can the Bush administration anticipate coming out of such a situation?

The circumstances in Somalia are reminiscent of something else unfolding in Africa that I have addressed in the past. The U.S. is carrying out military assistance projects in the Sahel region (around the Sahara) for various countries to combat terrorism. Sounds like a good idea? Perhaps in the abstract, but not in reality because terrorism is not a major problem in Africa. Africa has a whole set of problems, but terrorism is not a major one. Yet the Bush administration in single-mindedly pursuing its war against terrorism has decided that Africa must be a front in that struggle. Thus, at a time when Africa needs to de-militarize, the Bush administration is helping a host of nations, with governments that are a real mixed bag, further militarize. Instead of studying the situation and determining how the U.S.A. can help, the Bush administration fits the facts to back up its already established policies.

And so, Somalia burns...

http://www.dallasweekly.com/worldview.htm

 

[muser]

you don't need evidence to ask it - like I said, having no basis means the question doesn't pass the giggle test. The issue isn't your freedom to ask but your lack of reasonableness in thinking it a worthwhile topic to address.



Something about appeasement alligators and Churchill comes to mind.

Here's my general take on the matter. The long list of attacks on American soil - 2 WTC attacks plus Beirut and the USS cole all happened prior to the US war on terror - - none have happened since. While one cannot accurately prove a negative it is easy to assert that there were plenty of nasty Islamofascists willing to kill Americans however possible long before the war on terror began. Returning to a status quo ante bellum for the US provides only examples of attacks on the US absent consequences for the attackers....

Does this include the thousands of American miltary personnel being killed in iraq and in afganistan?

 

[muser]

can the claim be uttered absent a chorus of giggles from either the claimant or his audience





for example - "is the US war of terror is a campaign of genocide?"



there is zero evidenec to create a reasonable basis for the question and as such the asker should blush and the listener giggle


also called the blush test

The war on terror is being waged almost exclusively on Islam. It would have a bit more creditability if china and russia were brought to book for their crimes against humanity. Is that not terror to? It is easier to fight a war with no conscious.

 

[Rentonite]

(fight a war with no concious)
THAT is EXACTLY the problem.
If we where to fight the war on the terrorists with no concience,
this would have been finnished long ago,
and with less casualties.
All the carrying on trying to only shoot the bad guys is not working.
We need to conquer them.
and keep them conquered
only then will we or they know peace.
when the war fighting begins there is nothing more important.
"Every form of human endevor pails to insignificance compared to war." (GSP)
We need to remember that.

How do you see this ending?

That the terrorists will just stop if we go home?
"We must grind those people in to mush and use it to grease the treds of our tanks." (GSP)
THAT will win the war.
See the Al Quedia arse holes cannot win, they can only fight, and kill, and die.
What sort of world would they make?

Iraq will be a interesting place in the future.
I hope what we have done there will help, Hell, it has helped.
lets just hope it doesnt "de evolve" back in to some sort of primitive tribal bull shhhaving cream.

 

[Dandred]

Christ, when do you ever stop taling shit?

(fight a war with no concious)
THAT is EXACTLY the problem.
If we where to fight the war on the terrorists with no concience,
this would have been finnished long ago,
and with less casualties.
All the carrying on trying to only shoot the bad guys is not working.
We need to conquer them.
and keep them conquered
only then will we or they know peace.
when the war fighting begins there is nothing more important.
"Every form of human endevor pails to insignificance compared to war." (GSP)
We need to remember that.

How do you see this ending?

That the terrorists will just stop if we go home?
"We must grind those people in to mush and use it to grease the treds of our tanks." (GSP)
THAT will win the war.
See the Al Quedia arse holes cannot win, they can only fight, and kill, and die.
What sort of world would they make?

Iraq will be a interesting place in the future.
I hope what we have done there will help, Hell, it has helped.
lets just hope it doesnt "de evolve" back in to some sort of primitive tribal bull shhhaving cream.

USA USA

 

[ymu]

But America actions have also saved Muslims in Bosnia. Who was going to help them, Europe? The US coordinated relief efforts in Somalia. There is no more talk of mass starvation in Afghanistan. Sunni fighters kill more Iraqis than Americans.

Many Muslim terrorists are middle class or upper middle class kids, like the ones in Britian. Muhammad Atta was quite educated, Osama Bin Laden made millions off the interest of his trust funds. They all had options, the were not poor uneducated kids and look at the route they took.

One thing that binded them together was the belief in a perverted form of the Muslim religion.

They are not innocent pawns.

So let me get this straight. Do you believe the struggle practiced by certain Muslims which has led to such events as Bali and Madrid are appropriate responses to their oppression? Are these types of actions something you believe other oppressed people around the world (like Africans) should emulate?

"Terrorists" often are well-educated middle-class types. Not your average violent thug. It's been speculated that this may be because their frustration is heightened by the lack of opportunity to use their education in a society which is being held back by corrupt dictatorships, or maybe simply better access to information about how their situation came about.

It's true to say that they frequently, but not always, justify their actions in terms of a perverted form of Islam, but it's intensely naive to think of this as a prime motivating factor. The British suicide bombers were not intensely religious types, and nor by many accounts was Mohammed Atta. People with a faith, even if not particularly devout, will often turn to their god(s) for strength - why else would the military take chaplains into battle? The use of Islam seems to me to be much more of a framework to justify action which has been motivated by purely secular circumstances.

I think 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Indonesia, Turkey and London were inevitable, and utterly predictable - indeed the US military had considered 9/11 type scenarios in planning exercises. It's not really got anything to do with whether they were justified responses. It's unrealistic to think that an oppressive military power can carry out atrocities on a regular basis whilst expecting every single one of the billions of oppressed people to act like perfect moral beings in response. So, for example, I think the sabotage attacks on Shell's oil interests in Nigeria are 100% fully justified. They are thieves and vandals operating with immunity from the law and people have every right to take matters into their own hands. Exactly the same applies to the US and its allies. If only they'd make their infrastructure easier to attack without risking innocent life ...

You also need to remember that the tactic of targeting civilians is intended to put pressure on electorates to push for change in government policy. This is exactly what Israel has declared that it is trying to do with the attacks on Gaza's infrastructure - pressure the population as a whole into making the militants hand over their captive. It's exactly what the US declared was the intention in bombing Afghanistan - to pressure the population into giving up bin Laden. It's a tactic that is used by the most powerful military machines commanded by governments who are signatories to the major international conventions governing warfare, which prohibit such action - but it's only wrong when "terrorists" do it?

 

[mears]

"Terrorists" often are well-educated middle-class types. Not your average violent thug. It's been speculated that this may be because their frustration is heightened by the lack of opportunity to use their education in a society which is being held back by corrupt dictatorships, or maybe simply better access to information about how their situation came about.

It's true to say that they frequently, but not always, justify their actions in terms of a perverted form of Islam, but it's intensely naive to think of this as a prime motivating factor. The British suicide bombers were not intensely religious types, and nor by many accounts was Mohammed Atta. People with a faith, even if not particularly devout, will often turn to their god(s) for strength - why else would the military take chaplains into battle? The use of Islam seems to me to be much more of a framework to justify action which has been motivated by purely secular circumstances.

I think 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Indonesia, Turkey and London were inevitable, and utterly predictable - indeed the US military had considered 9/11 type scenarios in planning exercises. It's not really got anything to do with whether they were justified responses. It's unrealistic to think that an oppressive military power can carry out atrocities on a regular basis whilst expecting every single one of the billions of oppressed people to act like perfect moral beings in response. So, for example, I think the sabotage attacks on Shell's oil interests in Nigeria are 100% fully justified. They are thieves and vandals operating with immunity from the law and people have every right to take matters into their own hands. Exactly the same applies to the US and its allies. If only they'd make their infrastructure easier to attack without risking innocent life ...

You also need to remember that the tactic of targeting civilians is intended to put pressure on electorates to push for change in government policy. This is exactly what Israel has declared that it is trying to do with the attacks on Gaza's infrastructure - pressure the population as a whole into making the militants hand over their captive. It's exactly what the US declared was the intention in bombing Afghanistan - to pressure the population into giving up bin Laden. It's a tactic that is used by the most powerful military machines commanded by governments who are signatories to the major international conventions governing warfare, which prohibit such action - but it's only wrong when "terrorists" do it?

You don't possess the courage of your convictions. You believe the attacks on Nigerian oil fields were "fully justified". Do you believe the attacks in Bali and London for instance were "fully justified" or just "inevitable"? Speak up, I can assure you I will give you a straight up answer to any straight up question you ask me.

So the United States gets no credit for stoping the slaughter of innocent Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, while European governments just sat there frozen. Or the relief efforts in Pakistan after the earth quake last year. Or the assistance, especially with military transport, provided to victims of the Tsunami. Or soldiers deployed by the clinton administration to stop starvation in Somalia. Maybe you just ignore the parts that don't fit your thesis?

I always wonder what those against the Afghanistan war would have done if they were president of the US after 9-11? Invite Osama to Camp David? Apologize for helping the cause against the Soviets. ( what a bunch of ungrateful pricks by the way, we help them and they attack us?) Immeditaely cave in to their demands and pull all westerners out of the Middle East?

Much easier to bitch from the sidelines than make decisions.

 

[ymu]

You don't possess the courage of your convictions. You believe the attacks on Nigerian oil fields were "fully justified". Do you believe the attacks in Bali and London for instance were "fully justified" or just "inevitable"? Speak up, I can assure you I will give you a straight up answer to any straight up question you ask me.

So the United States gets no credit for stoping the slaughter of innocent Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, while European governments just sat there frozen. Or the relief efforts in Pakistan after the earth quake last year. Or the assistance, especially with military transport, provided to victims of the Tsunami. Or soldiers deployed by the clinton administration to stop starvation in Somalia. Maybe you just ignore the parts that don't fit your thesis?

I always wonder what those against the Afghanistan war would have done if they were president of the US after 9-11? Invite Osama to Camp David? Apologize for helping the cause against the Soviets. ( what a bunch of ungrateful pricks by the way, we help them and they attack us?) Immeditaely cave in to their demands and pull all westerners out of the Middle East?

Much easier to bitch from the sidelines than make decisions.

I'd find it hard to argue that attacks on civilians are fully justified under any circumstances - I condemn my government and other governments for employing this tactic, so it would be hypocritical to argue that it's OK when used by non-state actors - just as it is utter hypocrisy to support the bombing of civilians by states but condemn it when done by "terrorists". What I would never presume to do is tell an oppressed group what they may and may not do in response to that oppression. FWIW, I can't bring myself to say that all the actions of the French Resistance were "fully justified" either, although I'd never condemn them. Do you?

I hope if I'd been President of the US on 9/11 I'd have already started to turn around foreign policy - if I'd been electable in the US, there's a good chance that foreign policy would already have been very different anyway. Had this unlikely circumstance come about, I'd have accepted the Taliban's offer to extradite Bin Laden, despite the lack of an extradition treaty with the US, if we could offer evidence that he was guilty - just as the British government refused to extradite Raissi, the Algerian pilot who was suspected of involvement in 9/11, to the US until evidence was produced. He turned out to be entirely innocent, but the British government still obediently went about changing extradition procedures so that innocent people can be handed over more quickly in future. Actually, I'd probably already have accepted the offers from the Taliban to hand him over prior to 9/11.

In order to provide better security for the US in the future, I'd have ceased all military aid to Israel and forced them into negotations to be based on fullfilling all outstanding UN resolutions, withdrawn the troops from Saudi Arabia and ended the murderous blockade of Iraq. Of course, if I'd really been President, I'd already have done these things - so there's a good chance that 9/11 would never have happened in the first place. Which is why I'd never be President, because I'd never get elected on a platform of telling the US people the truth about the damage that is inflicted on billions of others in order to keep a minority of Americans rich and lazy and voting for more of the same.

What I wouldn't have done under any circumstances was bomb a country back to the Middle Ages, put millions at risk of starvation, detain thousands in legal limbo without access to justice and demand intelligence to be manipulated in order to "justify" the invasion of a second country and tell my electorate that this was making them safer from terrorism when anyone with half a brain cell and the will to use it knew that it would make the threat far far worse. Had I been President, I'd already have made efforts to improve education and develop an independent media in the hope that the majority of my electorate would have been able to work that out for themselves anyway.