>> A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter said:
<br>Indeed, difficult part is to define who is a terrorist and who isn't. I say CIA is creating, helping, training and funding terrorists all over the world (You can't deny this for Bin Laden was a product of these CIA dealing as we all know). Do I now have the right to wage war on the whole USA ? Even the moral right to do this ? Of course not.
<br>
<br>Ed Points out: Absolutely false. bin Laden was trained to recruit Mujahideen, or holy fighters, in a jihad, or holy war against Soviet invaders of Afghanistan. There is no evidence he was trained by the CIA to foment terror, attack civilians, or blow up airlines. Your statement is heinous, Wouter. By the way Guerilla war has been the nature of war for thousands of years; only the Romans invented the tactic of standing Armies, lined up in battlefields. The Middle Eastern military scholars regard that as an interesting variation with an unproven success record. Don’t confuse guerilla war with terrorism. If East Germany understood Guerilla war, we would have freed it 45 years sooner for you.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>- The EU countries have put this condition forward right from the start.
<br>Ed:
<br> And that’s the disgusting part. See my other post, on the subject of interrupting a mugging only after negotiating with the victim.
<br>Wouter:
<br>Even more so, the calling of article 5 of the NATO treaty transformed the USA solo action into an action that is governed by an international body in this case NATO. And if you want justice than some sort of trial must be held somewhere = "international court of justice ?". The rest is not justice just vengence.
<br>
<br>(Mind you I'm not giving my opinion here, just stating normal procedures and facts)
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Does a Nato action abridge US’s rights? Hardly. Again I draw your attention to my other post, about a mugging. If the victim calls for aid, must he then refrain from a spirited defense while the onlookers quibble? Get real.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>> Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self->>defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>Okay, in that case you won't need the international coalition and you do it on your own right ?
<br>
<br>However, you've chosen to make it a joined effort and this mains that the world is not falling at your feet and does what ever teh USA demands of them. Coalition implies working together on an equak basis and does not imply a slave like attitude of the non USA countries. Otherwise you would need to call it enslavement or Cohersion in stead of Coalition.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Nope. Wrong again Wout. They poked the sleeping giant awake, and you get to choose; we’re kind enough not to throw our weight around too much here and let you quibble and such, and allow you to lend what aid you can, we’re just not comfortable allowing the weak sisters out there to go to bat for their friends on the other side, and define our mission. Sign up and be remembered as a good guy or whine and be remembered as a quisling; a Chamberlain, or just a vacuous fool. Choice is yours.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>One other thing , the USA is showing two stands :
<br>
<br>- Attack on the USA and therefor our decision to do what we want
<br>- Attack on the free world and freedom and humanity and what else and says it needs a coalition to fight this effectively.
<br>
<br>Okay guys which one is it that you are going to run with in the future. I'm sure many countries with mixed people would vry much like to know for the first stance is destabilizing them.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies >>in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Somebody once said :" we both have truth, is mine the same as yours ?"
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>This is a kind of obscure answer by ms Rice isn't, I'm sure there are as many "natural laws" as there are peoples or countries. Hardly a good basis for a civilized country like the USA to act up.
<br>See my other post about the mugging. Any two kids can tell you this, at least, in our country they can; the one who hits first is wrong, always. They hit us, we’re gonna fix their wagons real purty. The question you need to answer is, will you allow your world to contain people who behave this way or not? We’d do the same for you, as I note elsewhere in this thread, we’d do it faster and more comfortably in mind for you than for ourselves.
<br>
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our >>country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mytical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so. Only an occupying force can do that and these group are no where as powerfull to do this. No guys , actually, teh principles of freedom, democracy and moral are under attack from ourselfs when congresses and goverments are given unprecidented powers to tap phoneline indescriminately and pass a law that allow agencies to detain people indefinately without charge. (Both under vote in USA congres now) When we bomb a people to extintion because :"we need to do something" and are unable to bring the planner to proper justice". When USA marks every country that isn't fully supportive (what ever that means) as being aiding terrorists and threatening them with reprisals. Sounds likes something that a certain group did when they wanted to flush out resistance fighters of a village in WW2.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>We say they are attacking freedom because it is true. They attack freedom by forcing us to choose between being the freest society on the planet and being secure from more horror. But moreover, they attack freedom because they abhor it. In fundamentalist states there isn’t freedom to shave, literally to shave in the morning. And they fear the influence of just sharing a planet with a people who practice freedom as devoutly as they claim to practice their form or perversion of noble Islam. They fear their people learning what joy lies in freedom, what life-enriching power resides in free markets. They fear their people learning that repressive religion, not the “great Satan” has made misery in their lives and kept their countries mired in the stone age.
<br>Wouter:
<br>NO, I give the terrorists who planned the action one thing : There action has really shock up our societies to the extend that we are about to undermine our on principles and believes. That our stock markets crashed even though the economical damage inflicted by the attack itself was minute. That they are using our our system against ourself (speculation on airline put options) to finance the organisations and next actions. And that the really sad part is that most damage was inflicted by us on ourself in the period that followed the horrific attack, not be the attack itself. Lets not do more damage.
<br>
<br>Another example, UK (and others) have been subject to terrorisme for many years and none of those countries have been harmed in there freedom or democraties in any way. So come on USA, your deomcracy and freedom will survive this attack; that is unless you're so frightened that you abandon these principals yourself.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>We have a far more open and unrestrictive society than they. We wish to keep it that way, instead of ducking and covering up. So we’re going to do something about it, once and for all.
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been >>put on notice.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Me too. The message is, “Put up or pull out, choose already, and we’ll act accordingly. We’re serious about this and if you’re not, you just have to hunker down and wait till the dust clears, Wout - - and god help you if you won’t take responsibility for the actions of people living on your soil, for by failing to act, you leave us no way to respect your sovereignity, and insure our safety. Even though this has been true for decades, starting today, be advised we’re going to act. This may be the only warning you’ll get.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, >>morality and history stand fiercely at our side.
<br>Wouter
<br>Yeah, yeah. You need Pakistan as a staging area, you need Russian intelligence, you need Irans religious support, you need the Aghan Nothern Alliance's help, etc, etc, etc.
<br>And I'm beginning to have difficulty to distingious between : "Allah Akbar" and "God is on our side"
<br>
<br>ED:
<br>Evidently, you have trouble with distinguishing “God” from “morality”. He didn’t say “god is on our side” he said morality is. Morality does not flow from God, Wouter, but from man. I’m moral not for superstitious mumbo jumbo reasons, but because I like the way it affects my immediate surroundings, and the way those surroundings and people respond to it. And he’s right also, that the Pakistani’s and others have reasons to dislike bin Laden’s conduct, and so to aid us, but no moral high ground to dictate terms.
<br>Wouter:
<br>I think that the USA is in definate need of some help and guidence. (This is my opinion)
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>If this post represents the “guidance” you feel we need, Wouter, stick to boats. (This is my opinion)
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical >challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America >is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>Wouter:
<br>In that case I wish you all the luck in Afganistan for a Indian Maharadja once said quite a few years back. "May the gods shield me from the bite of the cobra and the wrath of the Afghans"
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>It’s simple Wouter. All we need over there is food. That and to resist the temptation to try to convert them to Christianity. Feed ‘em and respect their religion. We get an awfull lot of practice in this country, calling each other bigots and ethnocentrics for the most trivial of misstatements and misunderstandings of each other’s religions. Most of the foreign nationals I’ve employed have it in common that they find it ludicrous, the lengths we’ll go to, to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. As long as we can show the moderate Islamic world that a) people in Afghanistan are being helped, and b) those people aren’t being ‘stolen from the faithfull’ then we should be okay on the international front.
<br>But thanks for your words of encouragement, Wout.
<br>Wouter:
<br>Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we e eventually win more than we loose.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Your silly accusations of us training bin Laden in terrorism notwithstanding, you mean? If all that were available was help like yours, I’d just as soon go it alone, thanks.
<br>Ed Norris
<br><br><br>