 sj |
||
|
||
BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:51 AM "And, for that matter, there is no really solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. He said he approved of it and encouraged more of the same" Don Firth. True enough. And on that basis the finger of suspicion could just as well point to "GUEST,.gargargoyle" on the basis of a post on another thread saying of September 11th: "For some of us...the feeling was exhilaration. The festering boil on the, pro-illegal alien, free-education, free-health services, free-business loans, PC-butt, of the liberal buy-a-vote politician had FINALLY burst." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 03 - 06:46 AM Was it Goering who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough...? No, the quote is attributed to various evil men, Stalin among them, and, of the Nazi leaders, to Goebbels. It probably originates, though in different form, from Spinoza, usually not considered an evil man. In fact, there is evidence that this works even better with implied lies. Just by the way, luckily for us it also works with truths. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:10 AM Just by the way, luckily for us it also works with truths. That's an interesting angle on it. Bears thinking about. People often tend to give up attempting to correct lies because it seems futile, but it isn't really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: TIA Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:12 AM It was Goebels who said "Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It". It was Bush who proved him right (well, maybe not the Whole World, but Americans). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:54 AM By all means, You go Don. Don Firth - 11 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM Reflections on "The War on Terrorism." Your first paragraph: True it would not take the entire resources to plan and execute attacks, such as were mounted on 11th September 2001. If the entire resources of a nation were put to that use, the attacks would have been far more extensive, the numbers killed greater, the extent of destruction greater and the effects of the aftermath more severely felt in humane, economic and political terms. Don contends that funding required to carry out such an attack as 9/11 need not be all that great. That flies in the face of every piece of evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself, with regard to time in preparation, numbers involved and extent of training thought necessary. His appreciation of what is required might work for a Hollywood movie script, but would not hold good for what was actually done and how it was done. Your second paragraph: Very early days the current administration, in the form of Colin Powell, is on record as stating, very clearly, exactly what you have said in your opening sentence. But they did have to check that very thoroughly, even after Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, they had to check whether or not Al-Qaeda received assistance from any foreign government. Osama bin Laden's involvement beyond mere approval is proven in the debriefing tape - remember the one in which bin Laden (qualified civil engineer) expresses delight at the extent of the damage caused, his surprise that the towers actually collapsed, something he thought would not have happened. Indicates his prior knowledge of what was to happen, with what and where the aircraft were to hit those buildings. Your third paragraph: "The claim was that there were Islamic terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan." Here you can only be referring to Bill Clinton's cruise missile strike, because subsequent to the attacks of 9/11, the US Government requested that the regime in power in Afghanistan expell Al-Qaeda and hand over its leaders to face trial in the United States of America. The Taliban refused and the US military was ordered to attack known Al-Qaeda targets and areas of operation within Afghanistan from the air. At the same time the US Government with the assistance of quite a large number of countries openly and extensively backed Northern Alliance forces already fighting the Taliban inside Afghanistan. It was those forces who overthrew the Taliban. When the attack began the effects on Al-Qaeda were; that they were denied what they regarded as a secure base for operations and training; some were killed; some were captured; stores of weapons, ammunition and explosives were destroyed. Yes, they were scattered and have become less effective because of that, and are becoming increasingly less effective because of the reaction of the international community, and measures put in place to diminish Al-Qaeda's operating capability - all of which is still on-going. Their immediate bolt hole was to the tribal areas of the North-West frontier of Pakistan. Due to political sensitivities this area used to be left very much to its own devices by the Pakistani Government - not so today. The Pakistani Army and police are more active in that region now than they have ever been, and the level of activity is growing. The Taliban are being pushed, the only place they can go is back into Afghanistan where they will have to face the emerging Afghan Army, ISAF and the US forces on the ground and in the air. Your description of conditions in Afghanistan are laughable, when put in the context that this situation is the result of actions taken by the current US administration. Afghanistan left in rubble for the second time in two decades - Afghanistan has been rubble since the Soviets occupied the country, it wasn't in much better shape even before that. Throughout its history, warlords have always run most of that country, the degree on peace dependent on how in tune the various warlords were with the ruler or central government - so nothing has changed for the last hundred or so years. Your fourth paragraph: Opening with - "Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq," No one in the current US Administration has EVER "claimed" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - If you chose to continue spreading this lie, all well and good, but it does not alter the fact that what you are saying is not true and will continue to be untrue no matter how many times you reiterate it, or how much those reading your posts, or listening to you, wish to believe it. Its a lie Don, be honest enough to admit it. The allegations relating to Saddams WMD, were based on the UNSCOM Status Report. That report detailed what the Iraqi's themselves said they had, but UNSCOM had not been able to trace and destroy. After 1998, there were no inspectors or monitoring facilities in Iraq it became a blind spot. Subsequent to 9/11, the situation in Iraq had to assessed and any potential threat removed. This was tried through the efforts of the United Nations, solely at the instigation of the US and UK Governments, and Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply with resolutions passed by the UNSC - HE chose not to, George W Bush and Tony Blair did not force him not to comply, it was entirely his decision. That decision was largely based on the fact that he had successfully fooled the UN for 12 years and he fully believed that he could do so again. Iraq's links to, and support for international terrorist groups (Not Al-Qaeda) operating in the middle-east is well documented. Saddam Hussein was unique in being the only head of state to applaud the attacks of 11th September 2001. On the strength of that, are you honestly trying to say that no threat existed and that no potential threat existed. If you are then I would dearly like you to prove that case beyond all possible doubt. Your fifth paragraph: Opening - "The attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act." It most definitely was not! It was an attack on western civilisation in its entirety, not solely directed against the United States of America. It was an attack by a terrorist organisation consisting of fundamentalist Islamic extremists, who freely admitted responsibility, in the mistaken belief that western civilisation would be powerless to respond - In selecting a target in the heart of one of America's major cities, they certainly got that wrong. The United States of America did not go to war with, "the country from which the criminals" came. America did not go to war with Afghanistan. As stated above and borne out by fact, America attacked Al-Qaeda targets within Afghanistan (which she had done before) and supported one side in an on-going internal conflict - it did not do so in isolation. It only adopted that latter course of action after requests for the extradition of those responsible were categorically refused by the rulers of Afghanistan. Your proposed recommended course of action was exactly what Osama bin Laden and his organisation were banking on, it would have been totally ineffective while he sat back in Afghanistan and planned the next attack. The US response did concentrate minds around the world - The "You are either with us, or against us " statement put exactly the right focus on the matter - Ask Richard Haas, Gerry Adams and the ex-CO of the PIRA in Derry, Martin McGuinness. Your sixth paragraph: America has exercised domination of the Middle East since the collapse of Soviet Russia, so to achieve what you state is their aim required no action whatsoever. If what you say is true, why did the US not take over Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil and gas - much cheaper alternative, much better return. But no they go for a country (Afghanistan) that does not export any of its resources and a country (Iraq) that even at the height of its production pre-1990 supplied only one-seventeenth of the worlds demands. That I find strange. Your seventh paragraph: There have always been terrorists and, unfortunately, there will always be terrorists, regardless of enlightened humanity. I would bet that the thousands of American citizens who weekly dropped money into the NORAID collection boxes thought themselves pretty enlightened human beings - September 11th 2001, showed them exactly what such contributions could achieve. An organisation has declared war on you, your country, your way of life. They are not open to discussion, not receptive to negotiation, they simply seek your destruction. Now, your government can respond in whatever way it deems fit, and call that action whatever it likes, it does not alter the fact that you are at war one iota. Your eight and concluding paragraph: In this you wave your PNAC banner, warning of the evils we can expect from Empire America. The PNAC think tank wrote its paper in 2000, according to Michael Meacher. The blueprint for global domination by the United States of America - Phooey The Pax Americana has been in existence since the end of the Second World War - and by and large the world has benefited from it. Your last sentence in this paragraph, 20 x 20 hindsight. Something akin to me giving you a sheet of paper with thousands of dots, then asking you to draw someone you don't know by joining up some of the dots on the page. I give you some information regarding the person but nothing specific. It would be reasonably impossible for you to accomplish that task. I then give you a picture of the person and the task becomes easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 08:48 AM "every piece of evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself" Which doesn't actually seem to have amounted to an enormous amount, if successful prosecution is used as an indication that compelling evidence has been amassed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 12 Sep 03 - 09:30 AM Which doesn't actually seem to have amounted to an enormous amount, if successful prosecution is used as an indication that compelling evidence has been amassed. Go back and read again what I wrote in the context of Don Firth's first paragraph Kevin. The evidence gathered may not secure convictions, but it does fill in parts of a jig-saw that certainly refutes Don's contention. The man acquitted knew Atta for how long Kevin? How long had Atta's fellow cell members been in Germany Kevin? How were they financed and to what degree Kevin? Where did they receive their training Kevin? Germany is certainly not the cheapest country to live in for three years. Would a visa application for the US from Atta, the student, resident three years in Germany be viewed equally with an application from Atta, the student, resident in Gaza for three years? Time in planning - at least three years Living expenses for 19, possibly more. Tuition fees for those posing as students, I don't believe that university education is free for foreign students in Germany - maybe Wolfgang could enlighten us. Establishment of bona-fides for the students in order that they would be accepted. Surveillance operations at US East coast airports and onboard domestic flights once the target flights had been identified. Travel to America, plus living and enrolement fees for their flight training. All of the above costs money and requires a great deal of organisation Kevin - That is not what Don was trying to put across in his post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:14 PM All those things put together wouldn't actually amount to all that much, even if it all had to be paid for. The kind of money one rich individual could put up. And there are quite a few of those around. The Sunday Times has no difficulty in drawing up an annual list of 1,000 people in Britain alone with more than £35 million to their name. In terms of what it would cost to carry out a conventional war, with jet fighters and tanks and so forth, it'd be small change. One Mirage jet fighter, for example, runs to $60 million. All the costs Teribus puts in there would only come to a fraction of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:54 PM On another thread about September 11th 2001 DougR made a post I wanted to respond to - but I felt that thread wasn't the right place to do it. So this is what I would have posted there. Doug indicates that he sees what happened in Iraq as genuinely a part of a war against the people who were responsible for September 11th, and as a way of fighting international terrorism. Maybe this might give him pause. It has now emerged - front page in most British papers - that shortly before the war the British Joint Intelligence Committee advised the British Prime Minister that in its view the war was likely to "would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists" and that the threat from Al Qaida "would be heightened by military action against Iraq." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:30 PM You're blowing smoke, Teribus. [Your comments on my post in italics, my responses to your comments in blue.] Your response to my first paragraph: You say, If the entire [emphasis mine] resources of a nation were put to that use. . . . I said nothing about the entire resources of a nation. Nor did I say that they didn't spend a lot of money on this operation or that they did not have an extensive organization. What I said was that the planning and the financial backing necessary to carry off such an attack did not require the resources of an entire nation or an organization any more extensive than the hijackers themselves. Hollywood scripts have nothing to do with it. And what "evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself" are you referring to? No solid connection to any particular nation has ever been established, only assumed or alleged. I stand by that. Second paragraph: I think Powell was right in the first place. And as far as bin Laden's delight that the towers collapsed, this does not indicate his prior knowledge of what was to happen. The towers had been attacked before, if you recall, and it's no surprise that this group of terrorists still had it on the books. It is not proof, however, that this was bin Laden's operation. If he's the megalomaniac he's made out to be, I think he would have crowed about how well his operation had worked. But he didn't. Third Paragraph: I was not even thinking of Clinton's cruise missile attack. You have an interesting dissertation on the military operations in Afghanistan, but none of it refutes anything I said. And I am aware that Afghanistan was no Eden and had been a battleground for several nations and local factions for some time, but when the US aided them in the war with the Soviet Union, it made lots of promises about helping them rebuild the country, then when the Soviets left, we dropped them like a pregnant girl friend. There was one helluva lot of resentment about that in Afghanistan and all over the Arab world. "Look how the Americans keep their promises!" Now, again we promise to rebuild Afghanistan after we went after al Quaeda, and once again we're sneaking out on the deal because we have other fish to fry in Iraq. I could give you a list as long as your arm of the promises that Bush and his administration has made to folks, both foreign and domestic, that he has never followed through on, and this is merely one on that list. Your description of conditions in Afghanistan are laughable. . . .I don't think the Afghanis find this very laughable. I don't find it laughable either. Why? Do you? Fourth paragraph: If you chose to continue spreading this lie, all well and good, but it does not alter the fact that what you are saying is not true and will continue to be untrue no matter how many times you reiterate it, or how much those reading your posts, or listening to you, wish to believe it. Its a lie Don, be honest enough to admit it. Calling me a liar doesn't make me one, no matter how much you may wish to buttress up your argument. Anybody who hasn't been living in a cave for the last couple of years can attest to the Bush administration's drumbeat of associating 9/11 with Saddam Hussein. See my post—12 Sep 03 - 04:43 AM—in response to Bev and Jerry's comment. I'm not going to re-argue the matter of Saddam's alleged nuclear capability and his stockpile of WMDs. Their existence or lack thereof and their strange failure to appear has been argued extensively in other threads, not to mention by a couple of Congressional committees who keep wanting answers and not getting them, and, of course, there are the scorch marks that appear on Tony Blair's behind administered by many of his constituents who also want answers to their questions, not just repeated assertions. And as far as my veracity is concerned, Teribus, watch your mouth. Or, in this case, your keyboard. [Back to normal fonts.] Teribus, disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling him a liar, however, is beyond the pale. You've gone through my post paragraph by paragraph and spent a great deal of time and effort lifting selected remarks of mine out of context, analyzing what you say I have said, occasionally misquoting me by a word or two here and there, and generally misconstruing, misinterpreting, and distorting what I have written. This does not make ME the liar. I stand by everything I wrote. I could continue, refuting your line-by-line attempt to refute me (I note from your previous posts that this is your style—misinterpret, set up a straw man, then knock it down, in the meantime, trying to bury whoever you disagree with in an avalanche of essentially irrelevant information, with the hoped-for side-effect of convincing people that you're more knowledgeable than you really are). But I have a life to live, so apart from what I have written in this post so far, I'm not going to waste time continuing with this. I, for one, have a busy day ahead, which includes a letter to my Congressional Representative, and I have an e-mail to get off the to Letters to the Editor departments of a couple of newspapers (not to mention a song I'm learning). I can't waste any more time arguing with you. People can read for themselves what I posted, then read your interpretations, and decide for themselves where the veracity is to be found. You object to my frequent references to the Project for the New American Century web site. Again, I invite people to read it for themselves and decide—for themselves—the relevance of my references. I can understand your dislike of this. Indeed, that's why I thought, on a couple of occasions, that they had pulled the site, because it so blatantly reveals their intentions, which are so obviously being carried out as we sit here writing to each other. As far as the last sentence in my eighth paragraph is concerned, I am not the only one who is wondering about the strange lack of interest in early intelligence reports about a possible attack on 9/11. And why, when the airliners obviously departed from their flight plans, fighter planes were not scrambled to go and investigate as regulations demand and had been done in all such departures from flight plan—until this one. Don't you wonder about this? If not, why not? Or would you just rather not think about it from fear that it might lead you to wonder a bit also? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:38 PM Teribus, there you go again, objecting to 20/20 hindsight. I'm sure you'd prefer us to put on blindfolds when looking backwards. Anyway, try this for a dollop of 20/20 foresight, which I've just put up as a link in the 'quagmire' thread: Tony Benn, House of Commons, 1998. After clicking the clickie, follow the "audio gallery" link and select extract #2. It's only very short, but plenty of 20/20 in there. What did you make of that little point of McGrath's (which I have also posted somewhere) about Tony Blair telling parliament that war was the only way to stop Iraq's WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists, when his own intellience agencies had told him that war would increase the risk? I don't manage to read your posts in detail, Teribus, but I realise what I'm missing when my eye lights on such gems of scholarship as Germany is certainly not the cheapest country to live in.... I mean that clinches it: the combined governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Saudi must have been in it up to their eyeballs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM Hey, you all gettin' poor ol' T confuzerated with them, ahhhh, facts. Now say yer sorry.... Bobert p.s. And, yeah, heck of a job, Don, Part 2! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM I posted this in the wrong thread, so here it is again: I would urge anyone who still believes that Bush & Co had nothing to do with and/or no foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks to peruse the following sites: www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/#911 www.globalresearch.ca//by-topic/sept11 The US-Pakistan-Bin Laden money connection and the unanswered questions about why there was no military response that morning are particularly troubling. We haven't been told nearly all there is to know. Cheers, Michael PS to Don: Experts are disputing that anyone with just a couple of hours on a flight simulator could have executed the maneuvers that were flown with those big airliners (270 degree turns, steep banks, etc.), and conclude that there must have been experienced military or commercial pilots at the helm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: LadyJean Date: 12 Sep 03 - 10:06 PM Osama bin Laden shouldn't be running around loose. He was behind a number of bombings before 9/11. He's a dangerous terrorist. He's also a slimeball who lives in comfort and safety, while others do his dirty work for him. But the current administration doesn't seem to know how to catch bin Laden. All they seem to know is how to drop bombs, which do more harm than good, and spend money. If "War On Terror Called Bogus" is even half true, Bush shouldn't be running around loose either. I didn't think he should be president in 1999. I'm sure of it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Greg F. Date: 12 Sep 03 - 11:17 PM Nor should Henry Kissinger be running around loose, vide the bombing of Cambodia. Plenty of slimeballs out there who belong behind bars. Osama & Dubya are just two of 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:59 AM Regarding the blowing of smoke Don: What you stated: Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks What I pointed out: No one in the current US Administration has EVER "claimed" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks Now which of those statements is true? Bev and Jerry's post asked you: We don't think Bush and Company ever actually accused Sadaam Hussein of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did he? To which you responded: Right, Bev and Jerry. To be fair to Bush, I don't recall hearing him ever actually saying outright that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That then begs the question - Why did you say so in the first place then - "Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," - should you continue to repeat than claim, you are stating something that you know, and have admitted to knowing, to be untrue. In my book that is telling a lie, it does not even fall into the realm of gross misrepresentation. On Afghanistan, during the Soviet ocupation, the US backed and aided the Mujahadeen (Sp?), one of whose groups were the Taliban, they did not solely back the Taliban. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan the previously united Mujahadeen fractured and reverted to their clan based groups, warlord fought warlord. The one group that did not fit that pattern were the Taliban, who consisted of Pashtun Afghani's and foreigners united by religious dogma. They continued to receive financial aid from sympathisers abroad, but that aid was not directed at any rebuilding programme within Afghanistan. That aid had sole purpose of establishing the Taliban as the defacto rulers of Afghanistan by force of arms. In that situation (internal conflict) who were the US Administration of the time to deal with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 13 Sep 03 - 11:41 AM Out of context and misinterpreted again, Teribus. E.g, you quote the first part of the first sentence of my paragraph to Bev and Jerry, breaking off at the comma, but you leave out the rest, which alters the meaning of the whole thing. Teribus, why don't you apply for a job as a Bush administration spin doctor? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Sep 03 - 11:49 AM Re the "War on Expertise" .. We here in Queensland Australia had a Premier (a peanut grower) who was a classic anti-intellectual. When he accepted the Honary Doctorate from the University of Queensland, I was there. Funny how the papers called it a riot! The TV pictures that showed the crowd swarming around him on his entrance to the great hall missed one thing - the protestors had walked away from the entrance on cue from the leaders, so the only people in the crowd were police, reporters, plain clothes police, and the infamous "Special Branch" - who were only not wearing a brownshirt as part of their uniform because Joh was eventually convinced that this might be misunderstood by those who had studied history! He was eventually persuaded by public opinion to retire (we do have elections!) after much Public Fuss and the resultant Fitzgerald Enquiry. But he was in power for over a decade. He now (2 decades later) is allegedly trying to sue the Qld State Government for defamation and damages because he was shamed into selling some of his Mining shares at a loss, in light of the profits they sunsequently made... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:14 PM Teribus: We also object to being quoted out of context. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 05:19 PM Does anybody think that a country like Iraq,filled with all kinds of religious lunatics can ever become "democratic"? So are we being kidded into thinking the reason USA and UK are there is "democratisation". Surely after our experiences in Afganistan,ect we dont really believe "democracy" can be imposed on these people. Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:19 PM "..a country like Iraq,filled with all kinds of religious lunatics" It strikes me there seem to be an awful lot of people in other countries who could reasonably be termed "religious lunatics". Including the most powerful country on the planet, which aspires, with some degree of success, to be "democratic". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:44 PM And there's a quote from William Blake that's seems to me to be very relevant to all this juggling of who said and did exactly what - "A truth thats told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent". ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:49 PM Mr Mcgrath..You cant be trying to equate our tame lunatics with the wild men of Iraq.How many Catholic suicide bombers do you know? The point I was making concerned the stupidity of trying to transplant Western style "democracy" to places like Iraq. Ake.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 07:09 PM Well I rather doubt if Timothy McVeigh really thought he was going to get away with it, even though he didn't stick around to get blown up. He was a sort of delayed action suicide bomber. And Paul Hill wasn't a bomber, but after killing the abortion doctor and his body guard, he stuck around and handed himself in, and didn't appeal against the death sentence. Again, the IRA Hunger Strikers weren't suicide bombers, but there was a lot of common ground in the mindset involved. If democracy can manage to work in the USA, with all its histiorcal baggage, and in a Europe, where a generation ago fanatics were running extermination camps, there's no reason it shouldn't work in somewhere like Iraq. "Western style" - which "Western style" would that be? Texas or Sweden or France or Italy or Israel? Democracy in Iraq would surely be as different from any of these as all of these are from each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM Och I cant agree with your examples..They all had axes to grind which had nothing to do with religion,especially the IRA men I suspect you would agree that not much change in our society comes about by "democratic" means....more by use of what ever power is available.(Use of the media is becoming a very popular way of exerting a bit of pressure..Political terrorism?) Best wishes Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:04 PM The point is that being willing to die in the course of carrying out some terrible action to further a cause you believe in is not restricted to any one type of culture or religion. It's very much part of "Western" culture, and has been for a long time. People don't need to be religious lunatics to be suicide bombers or similar (though if they did it seems clear there's no shortage of religious lunatics around in the USA - not just there, but they do seem to have greater political muscle there than anywhere else outside the Middle East, if the media are to be believed, which of course is always a very big "if"). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:17 PM I think that one of the problems with the United States government (not speaking specifically of the Bush administration, but most U.S. administrations to one degree or another since the end of World War II) trying to "democratize" or teach democracy to other countries, such as Iraq or any one else for that matter, is the U.S. government's failure to understand the true nature of democracy. Especially now, when true democracy is inimical to it's goals, both foreign and domestic. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines democracy as 1 a : government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power if vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionsA more thorough and extensive understanding of democracy would involve the study of various philosophical arguments going back as far as ancient Greece, if not before, and following the arguments through various philosophers since then. But all the understanding that most people have of democracy is that "we have free elections, we vote, and then everything is supposed to come out right." But simply because we can choose our leaders and representatives (theoretically, barring hanging chads and other hanky-panky) doesn't mean our leaders and representatives are necessarily going to act in our best interests or in the best interests of the country as a whole. All too often (sometimes, it seems, always) they act for the benefit of special interests. If more Americans had a less parochial view, they would see that there are other countries who do this (act in the best interests of their citizens and their country as a whole) far better than we do. Without going into a line-by-line analysis of the dictionary definition and comparing that with what actually goes on in this country (you can do that perfectly well for yourself), let me just say that democracy does not mean "making the the world safe for American-based multi-national corporations." A government which consists of a melding of governmental power with corporate interests is not a democracy, even if it does have free elections. There is another word for that kind of government, but it's a word people don't like to hear. Before we arrogate to ourselves the incredibly smug task of teaching the rest of the world true democracy, I think we need to clean up our own house first. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:57 PM Don ...I read all your posts with interest, and most of the time agree with what you say. Iv thought about the definition of democracy for a long time and am coming to the conclusion that real democracy is impossible to attain. The moment people attain power,whether elected or not ,they begin to manipulate others.This seems to apply to the whole political spectrum.Socialists dont appear to be any better than Conservatives in this respect.My conclusions have led me to give up on politics and politicians alltogether. For real democracy we require a creed with no hierarchy...Very difficult to achieve...Best wishes Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:08 PM Right on, Ake... selfishness is a very deep-rooted human trait. It's for the same reason that communism will never work - people want to be better than, not equal to, their fellow man. Good ideas, incompatible with human nature. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:00 PM I don't think most people worry much about being better than their fellow man - or better off than, which is what I think you mean, michaelr. We worry about having enough to get by for ourselves and the people dependent on us. Give me that and I'd sooner make music than try to get more. Getting more than you need is a way of insuring against getting less than you need. A real drag, even if sonetimes you feel bound to try to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM Trying to be better off than your neighbour is surely what motivates this "Great" economic system of ours |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:19 PM Or possibly, trying not to get pushed to the wall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:59 PM Well, heck, Don, what's wrong with our democracy, anyway? Huh? Hey, it's the best that money can buy, ain't it?... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:10 PM LadyJean, you cannot possibly know that Bin Laden lives in comfort and safetly. More probably you're pedling what you've been told and were gullible enough to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:39 PM Pure democracy (majority rule) is not really a good idea. The Greeks figured this out. An example of this is a lynch mob. Umpteen votes for, one vote against. The only chance a democracy has of being a successful form of govenment is if it's a constitutional democracy. There has to be a limit to what the majority can do to a minority (right down to the individual), the electorate has to be kept well informed (which requires freedom of the press and a press that takes it's responsibility seriously), and the electorate itself must take it's responsibility seriously. So far, I think we're getting a grade of D minus at best. Not good. So it remains to be seen if democracy will ever be successful. It's up to us, folks. At least, so far. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Gareth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:40 PM Hmmm ! For those of you who were able to read the Uk Sunday papers you may have noted that Micheal Meacher is now running around saying that his words were misinterpreted. Still I am confident that some "crusading journalist" will take the opportunity to advance his career condeming every one but the guilty, another step into/along the gutter. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:08 AM Don, I like your comments above on Democracy. But ancient Greek "Democracy" was so different from US Democracy! Most people did not have the right to vote, only the rich and powerful capitalistic landowners could vote and stand to be elected. They had to pay their own expenses, and maybe if war was declared, they could get some profit out of looting the invaded land. Whereas in US Democracy, most people don't vote, those who seem most likely to be elected are either rich and powerful, and/or have rich and powerful friends to pay their election expenses, and if war... oooh, sorry, I'll be quite now... :-) Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:29 AM maybe if war was declared, they could get some profit out of looting the invaded land. Go on, don't be shy! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: redhorse Date: 15 Sep 03 - 06:41 PM While Teribus maks some fair points, I can't let "It was an attack on western civilisation in its entirety, not solely directed against the United States of America." past. If 9/11 had one unambiguous aspect it was as an attack on the USA. The World Trade Centre was not the sole target, as supporters of the "attack on civilisation" position imply by neglect. Power is Political, Financial and Military. The 9/11 attacks (plural) were aimed at the White House (probably), the world Trade Centre and the Pentagon, symbols to all the world of American (not Western)power in the three areas. The target was unquestionably USA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:42 PM McGrath, point taken... but then, I don't think you and I and most of us folkies are typical. Unbridled greed seems to be the norm. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:20 PM I think we're a lot more typical than it might seem. Except, for other people it mightn't be music, but some other kind of enjoyable activity. But while we're doing that the ones with sharp teeth and pointy elbows and an obsession for power and possessions move on in and up, and we let them. And they even take over the organisations that people like us set up to stop that happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Mannie Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:26 PM There are a lot of good comments here and a lot of useful info. It will take a while to get through it all. Meanwhile, can I ask a naïve question ? I don't doubt the Iraq war was about oil and Western domination. But what the hell was that Afghanistan thing all about ? I am more and more convinced that 9-11 was allowed to happen, but why head straight for Afghanistan on that ridiculous manhunt ? Just to use and sell out arms ? To practise for Iraq ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:07 PM Mannie, it was to establish a safe and secure route for a natural gas pipeline from the oil and natural gas-rich Caspian region through Afghanistan to Dabhol, India. The pipeline was to be built by Unocal to supply a natural gas plant run by Enron in Dabhol. They had been dickering with the Taliban back in 1997, but someplace along the line, the Taliban squelched the deal. Not to be put off, when the opportunity presented itself (9/11), they got their errand-boy in the White House to go to Afghanistan, throw the Taliban out, and get the route for them. The fact that the Taliban was an oppressive regime and that there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan didn't really bother us much until the Taliban said "no" to Unocal and Enron. They just provided convenient excuses to cover the real reasons—like much of what the Bush administration has done so far. This gives a few clues as to the real reasons for going into Afghanistan. Links to other information once you get there. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:37 PM Foolestroupe said But ancient Greek "Democracy" was so different from US Democracy!But those were the basic premises of U.S. democracy in the beginning as well. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 03 - 04:42 PM True enough perhaps - is Gertrude's Prayer by Kipling applicable here? "THAT which is marred at birth Time shall not mend, Nor water out of bitter well make clean; A11 evil thing returneth at the end, Or elseway walketh in our blood unseen. Whereby the more is sorrow in certaine— Dayspring mishandled cometh not againe..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:11 PM That's Right Mark, and don't forget Slavery.... which the Greeks had too... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:27 AM Thanks for the link Don: Bush's Homeland Security Pipeline March 29, 2002 By Harry Neville From which we get the following "But what kind of homeland security do we have when a president can create an administration populated by former employees and investors in Enron, an energy-trading company that used numerous schemes to raise the cost of energy it sells to various California utilities. Among those schemes was the act of clogging up electrical lines to create rolling blackouts for a phony energy shortage." So former Enron employees should not be allowed to find other jobs within the energy sector? Investors in Enron, who lost money when that company crashed, and who had nothing to do with the running of that company should be marked down as unsuitable and unemployable for life? The world and it's uncle, have for years realised that fuel prices in America are too low when compared to consumption, and have been for decades. Get used to it, consume it at the rate at which you are doing now and the prices are going to go through the roof. "Bush could then use this alleged shortage to justify drilling for oil in regions previously regarded as unfeasible by the U.S. Government. Among those regions is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Caspian Sea near Afghanistan." The US government declares whether or not regions outwith the US are feasible? Don't think so. The involvement of international oil companies in the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea go back to the final days of Soviet Russia. "Bush gave us additional homeland security by having Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton--an oil drilling company--meet with Enron as part of the Energy Task Force." Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron." Is that the same Dick Cheney whose, " career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House. When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration. After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility. Mr. Cheney also served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991." Oh well then, that confirms it – this guy is totally unsuited to public office – hasn't got a clue – hell they could have plucked anybody off the street and found someone with ten times this guys experience and ability. Don't think so. Halliburton – oil drilling company – drilling is one tiny part of what is the largest oil service company in the world. Energy Task Force – created by Dick Cheney when? At the time of its creation were Enron in business? If they were then it would only seem logical that they would come into contact and be involved with the Energy Task Force. "Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron. Perhaps the reason is that the proposed Afghanistan oil pipeline was the topic of discussion. After all, recently released correspondence between Ken Lay and Bush reveals that Lay, former CEO of Enron, "confirmed a meeting with Bush and Uzbekistan's ambassador to the United States." This seems odd because Uzbekistan is a key territory for development of the Afghanistan oil pipeline." I believe that discussions relating to the proposed TAP predate the current US administration and Enron by quite a few years. As does that particular projects demise, but more on that later. "What should make us all feel insecure about our newfound homeland security is that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, bought H.C. Price Company (now called Bredero-Shaw http://www.bredero-shaw), a Texas-based oil company that supplies anticorrosion coatings for oil pipelines and is a joint partner of the Saudi Bin-Laden Group http://www.sbg.com.sa, a construction company that is owned by the Bin-Laden family and builds crude-oil pipelines." Halliburton's acquisition of Bredero-Shaw/Bredero-Price came about through the Halliburton merger/take-over with/of Dresser, one of Halliburtons main competitors as a major oil service company. It was not acquired specifically for their expertise in their particular field. It is totally logical, and reasonable business practice, that a company that coats pipelines has joint venture partnerships and frame contract agreements with companies that design and build pipelines. "Logic would indicate that the Bin-Laden Group has the heavy equipment in the region near Afghanistan that would facilitate the building of the pipeline through Afghanistan. And, Halliburton--Cheney's old oil-drilling company--can drill for the oil that is to be fed through the pipeline. Is that pipeline and a possible role in it by the Bin-Laden family the kind of security we seek?" Yes it is logical, it is equally logical that there are others who fall into this category who are better placed both geographically and logistically to support pipeline operations aimed at piping oil from Afghanistan. It is also logical that the shortest pipelines are laid to tie-in with existing infrastructure. That means the pipelines run to the north and to the west from Afghanistan – that is what is actually going to happen – the proposed TAP is not. Why is the TAP not going to go ahead? – Logic takes a hand in the reasons for this: 1. Success of the TAP relied on the gas being sold to India – India will not ever rely on energy sources routed through Pakistan, as the TAP would have to do. An alternative for India is a subsea pipeline from southern Iran, this pipeline has been under discussion since 1994, declarations of intent have been signed, by both governments – that effectively killed the proposed TAP. 2. In general the West pays more for energy, which makes them a better customer. Transport royalties for use of existing Russian pipelines were reduced which made the export of oil and gas from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc, more financially attractive to the governments of those countries – that effectively killed the proposed TAP. 3. Pipeline routes – north and west, not so many problems, existing infrastructure and a ready market – South through Afghanistan and through Pakistan, politically unstable (at the time of discussion) with a government only recognised by Pakistan. The pipeline would have to run through the Hindu-Kush, very mountainous very expensive, the product then has to be transported further afield to reach it's market, which would have to be won. The bin-Laden family are implicated with the activities of their son? Or is that just a case of "collective responsibility", or "guilt by association", being totally acceptable because it happens to suit the particular conspiracy theory being built? "Next in Bush's quest for homeland security comes Unocal, an oil company that builds oil and gas pipelines. Bush recently appointed a former advisor to UNOCAL as a U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. This might not raise a few eyebrows if it weren't for the fact that UNOCAL has long sought a pipeline that would stretch from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and would tap the enormous oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea region near Afghanistan." Now why on earth would you route a pipeline from the countries bordering the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan, when there are numerous export pipeline networks already in existence, that serve better paying customers at a fraction of the cost? "UNOCAL was so motivated to get this pipeline that it met with representatives of the Taliban in Texas in 1997. I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel secure." Does Afghanistan need pipelines? Yes of course it does, TAP was not, and never has been, the only option, and by the time the discussions referred to took place, TAP was becoming less and less likely to proceed. Unocal, by the by, does not build pipelines, it pays others to build them on their behalf. They then operate the pipelines. In the case of TAP, ownership of the sections of the pipeline running through the three countries was to be handed over to the governments of those countries after a set time limit. "So, if I were really cynical about homeland security, I'd say that the Saudi Bin-Laden Group would provide UNOCAL with the heavy equipment needed to build the Afghanistan pipeline." Possible, provided the logistics and costs were right. A Saudi pipeline construction company would certainly be more politically acceptable to the governments of at least two of those countries – in other words good business sense on the part of Unocal. They (Saudi Bin-Laden Group) would not, however, be the only contenders for this work that would satisfy such sensitivities. "I'd then take a great mental leap and say that Halliburton would do the drilling to feed the pipeline." The fields are already in existence, little or no drilling required. Would probably have got involved with reservoir technology and wellhead injection equipment to extend life of existing fields. "And I'd top off my cynicism by saying that Enron--an energy trading company--would bid up the price of the oil and natural gas to sell it at high cost to neighboring countries such as India, home of Enron's Dabhol natural gas power plant. Keep in mind that Unocal's pipelines can carry gas, and Enron badly needed the gas reserves from the Caspian Sea for a pipeline that would route natural gas to its Dabhol power plant in India. In "The Enron-Cheney-Taliban-Connection," an article that appeared on the Web site, AlterNet.org, writer Ron Callari says: "the Vice President's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India in February of last year." Callari says this proposal was meant to help Enron with its Dabhol power plant. The article linked to refers to an alternative proposal under consideration by the Indian Government to get gas from Qatar. That fell through, there is no mention of any negotiations between India and Iran, ongoing since 1994, with declarations of intent signed in 1998. Also take a look at the map in that link and find the shortest distance between Iran and Enron's Dabhol power plant – subsea pipeline from Bandar Abbas. "In a 1996 Telegraph article entitled "Warring nation holds key to oil riches of Central Asia," writer Christopher Lockwood says that UNOCAL had been negotiating with the Taliban for a natural gas pipeline that would stretch through Afghanistan and end in Pakistan. From there, it's only a short hop, skip and jump away to Enron's natural gas Dabhol power plant in India. What a surprise?" It would be one hell of a surprise to the electorate of India if their government went for an energy scheme that meant Pakistan had its hands very much on the supply of energy required by India. The proposal is a total anathema to the Indian government and electorate. "Of course, I like to feel secure. And, if I felt Bush were drafting energy legislation to help oil companies exploit Afghanistan, then I'd have to say he allowed 9/11 to happen. 9/11 essentially cleared the way for Halliburton, UNOCAL, Enron, and other oil and gas entities to make the Afghanistan pipeline possible. And, 9/11 enabled Bush to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan to clear away militant Taliban forces that are hostile to this pipeline project." Now discussions relating to TAP, and other pipelines in the region have been going on for at least 12 years – Bush is DRAFTING energy legislation – He's a bit bloody late in the day for that isn't he? By at least ten years - He's only been in office since 2000. The Taliban were overthrown by Northern Alliance forces, with the assistance of American air power and a few forward observers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:28 PM The Taliban were overthrown by Northern Alliance forces, with the assistance of American air power and a few forward observers Right, sure -- we just helped with the final push, they had it half done before we got involved --- NOT. The Northern Alliance would not have moved without US air power. Why cast it as though the role of the Bush administration was a trivial element? It was the critical, deciding element. It was predominantly air power because that was the safe way to do it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:34 PM Teribus, you sure love to go around Robin Hood's barn to miss a point. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 03 - 01:52 PM I case you don't have anything to do for the next few hours, Teribus, parse these:— Afghanistan. Tells a somewhat different story from what you tell. Time Magazine on Cheney. Granted, the writer obviously doesn't think much of Cheney, but the piece is loaded with facts. Don Firth |
