Hey, we're Americans! If you want to become one, you can, come on over, take a simple test and we'll take you in too!
<br>
<br>I didn't imply that I don't "care" about other countries. I care, say, for Afghanistan; but I certainly don't take it on myself or my country that it is somehow our burden to "rebuild" that country when we're done rooting out the evil doers and the evil ones that would harbor them.
<br>
<br>Their poverty is of their own making. It comes from bad IDEAS. It comes from practicing a "religion" of extreme self-sacrifice. Notice that their leader, Omar, HAD a pool in his back yard. Dictators always preach "self-sacrifice" for their people, but absolutely never "sacrifice" themselves.
<br>
<br>It's been my experience in life that when someone in a totalitarian non-democratically elected government preaches "self-sacrifice" that it is "you" who should be sacrificing, while they are busy enjoying the fruits of their dictatorship.
<br>
<br>We can help Afghanistan improve upon their life temporarily by the giving of money and food, but to be released from their true long-term poverty, they will have to look to a different philosophy than Islamic Fundamentalism.
<br>
<br>The philosophy of that cult is anti-life itself, and has in fact reached it's highest fruition in that war ravaged poor country.
<br>
<br>I love this country because it embraces Capitalism, the only economic system where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and political freedom are possible.
<br>
<br>Here people are allowed to pursue their own rational self-interests, contracts are entered into with the mutual consent of all the parties involved, the promotion and continuation of LIFE is the standard...WHAT A COUNTRY!
<br>**********
<br>A Culture of Death
<br>
<br>By Robert Tracinski
<br>
<br>Sometimes the bad guys make my job easy.
<br>
<br>Normally, as a columnist, part of my job is to analyze the hidden meaning or unnamed consequences of bad ideas. In these cases, it is usually necessary to pierce through a veil of seemingly benevolent rhetoric and complex practical justifications, in order to show why a given policy is destructive.
<br>
<br>In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, I can retire early. Here is the truth directly from the source.
<br>
<br>Mohammed Hussein Mostassed, a Taliban official, sums up the essence of the current conflict: "The Americans are fighting so they can live and enjoy the material things in life. But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God." Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a spokesman for Osama bin Laden, echoes the same theme: "There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live."
<br>
<br>There you have it: Islamic fundamentalists worship death. But death, for them, is not just about killing and dying. They embrace a comprehensive morality of death, a culture which hates every sign of pleasure and worships everything associated with death: poverty, ignorance, dictatorship.
<br>
<br>Here, for example, is bin Laden's view of money: "money is like a passing shadow. We urge Muslims to spend their money on jihad and especially on the movements that have devoted themselves to the killing of Jews and the Crusaders." Wealth, for the fundamentalists, is not a means to the enjoyment of life; it is only valuable as a means of causing death.
<br>
<br>How about knowledge, education and the use of the mind? At the madrasahs, fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, "There is no instruction in math, science, geography, current events or history beyond the Muslim world. Visitors describe youngsters who . . . cannot do elementary arithmetic and who have no idea man has walked on the moon," according to U.S. News and World Report. Instead, these students spend years devoted to the rote memorization of the Koran in Arabic — a language they do not understand. Thinking may be necessary for success in life, but not for death.
<br>
<br>These death worshippers also know who pioneered their morality of death. Sheik Sami ul Haq, head of the Haqqania madrasah, the Pakistani school that produced most of the Taliban leadership, praises his political hero: "Adolf Hitler knew a lot about controlling the Jews." He goes on to declare that "we need a rebirth of Nazi Germany" and names present-day Afghanistan as the fulfillment of that goal.
<br>
<br>Now that we know who the enemy is and what he stands for, it is just as important to know what we stand for.
<br>
<br>It is clear that Americans stand for life. We are not merely wealthy; we dedicate our lives to the production of wealth, to advancing our careers and building cities and skyscrapers. We are not merely free; our government was founded on the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And we do not merely enjoy ourselves; we implicitly view enjoyment as the goal of life. In the phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the last item is clearly the purpose of the other two.
<br>
<br>This is why I wince every time I hear someone praise the "self-sacrifice" of our firefighters, policemen and soldiers. Self-sacrifice, the deliberate destruction of one's own life, is the essence of the enemy's morality, not ours. Our heroes risk their lives only in cases of temporary emergency, and because they know that risking their lives is the only way to protect themselves and their loved ones from disaster, from predatory criminals, or from blood-lusting barbarians. The goal of our heroes is not death, but life and the freedom to live it.
<br>
<br>It used to be said, after the fall of Communism, that we had reached the "end of history," that there were to be no more grand struggles between systems or ideals. The events of the past month — and the searing image of the enemy's suicidal killers crashing our airplanes into our skyscrapers — are a reminder that the grandest struggle of all, the alternative that has faced us all along, is still here. It is a battle between the morality of death and the morality of life.
<br>**********
<br>
<br>SC
<br>
<br><br><br>

It's called the "Powell Doctrine." It involves a massive amount of force...thousands times more than "necessary" to do the job...so that minimal casualties our taken on our side and that a win is assured.
<br>
<br>It IS a big hammer - we got it, we might as well use it for a good cause.
<br>
<br>And really, I don't think if that "fly" is still in Afghanistan that he'll survive. A small justice for the thousands killed in the WTC bombings, but a bigger justice for the thousands more that he is surely planning the death of now.
<br>
<br>SC
<br>
<br>Where were you at Shearwater?
<br>
<br><br><br>

Bush, bin Laden, and a Civil Engineer were walking along (nevermind why) in the desert when they came upon an old bottle. Well, somebody musta rubbed it 'cause out popped a Genie, (or DJinn, or Jeanie, depending on your cosmos-of-reference.)
<br>The Genie offered a wish to each, since he couldn't be sure who rubbed the lamp.
<br>Bush wished for an end to terrorism. The Genie replied,
<br>"Wait until all have wished; I expect your wish will be arranged for by your enemy.
<br>Bin Laden wished for a wall around Afghanistan, "so high and thick that no Western influence could penetrate it." The Genie said, "It is granted, for your wish has fulfilled your enemy's desire also."
<br>The Civil engineer said, "Tell me about this wall..."
<br>The Genie replied, "It is one mile high, 1000 feet thick, and surrounds Osama's portion of Afghanistan, and only his portion, since I could not interfere with the lives of millions of innnocent Afgani's. What is your wish?"
<br>"Fill it with water" said the engineer.<br><br>

I believe I did not express myself correctly.
<br>
<br>Basically, what I wanted to say is that any international treaty, regulation or agreement is ABOVE any local constitution / law / regulation. This Includes the US constitution. What triggered my (poorly written) response was your affirmation that since you are a citizen of the US you only have to obey the US constitution / law – and nothing else. The quoted text sounds arrogant, does not hold true and is also illegal. Unfortunately I replied to my own perception of arrogance, and that was not adequate.
<br>
<br>One example to make the (real) point easier to understand:
<br>
<br>The “rules of the road” are an international treaty signed by most (if not all) nations. The treaty supersedes any internal country rule. The local coast guard, congress or even the constitution can not go against this regulation/treaty – they can only add to it or specify its application. Besides, it is enforceable in any signatary country, independently of whatever the local constitution or law says.
<br>
<br>In case of conflicts, the treaties come first, the local constitution second, local federal law third, local states law third, coast guard regulations fourth, ISAF fifth, etc.
<br>
<br>That said, I want to ahare a very interesting meeting I had yesterday.
<br>
<br>The owner of the company that is constructing new house’s windows and doors is a German citizen who worked in the Mid-East and was kidnapped (for no reason) by the Iraqis for 3 months during the Iran-Iraq war. He was taken together with two other friends - one of them British – when driving to a nearby fishing spot.
<br>
<br>He told me that since England does not negotiate with terrorists, they decided that the Englishman was worthless and shot him dead in front of the others. He also said that this people don’t care about human life whatsoever and would have no problem to bring chemical weapons into a country even inoculating a pregnant women for the purpose, if necessary!
<br>
<br>His opinion is that it is useless to try to understand or fight this people conventionally. He says that he would use atom bombs and give it a final solution. When “final solutions” are defended with a German accent it gives me the shivers… In my opinion this is an emotional response that does not resist to rational analysis, but made me understand better the US feelings.
<br>
<br>Needless to say, that man gave up working in the Mid-East and also does not want to live in Europe or the US. He prefers an “emerging” country, with ample space for all people and much simpler problems – and that’s how he came here.
<br>
<br>I still think this war is an intelligence war and time and money wasted in bombs is useless. I understand the emotional and internal US political reasoning for the bombing, but it will not solve any problem and will probably cause more harm then benefits.
<br>
<br>Just my opinion
<br><br><br>Luiz

Sure, we have a real big hammer. And lots of resources. And like I said in an earlier post, with all our resources, we can't seem to stop this problem. Or even anticipate it.
<br>
<br>The reality is that we are dealing with a fanatic society, not individual fanatics. We liked to got our butts kicked in WWII by the Japanese Kamikazis (fanatics). Lucky for us, when we applied the big hammer, they didn't have the ability to respond, nor were they quite as fanatical, I think, as the Islamic guys are.
<br>
<br>We are now seeing that the Arab nations will stick together when it comes to it. (Surprise.) Collectively, that means they're a lot bigger than Japan.
<br>
<br>And don't forget that Pakistan has nukes and we damn well know it. But I'm more afraid of the nukes out there that we don't know about. And believe, there's a whole lot out there we don't know. If that wasn't so, there'd be a couple more skyscrapers in New York and a whole lot of folks wouldn't be grieving.
<br>
<br>But back to my original point. I just happen to believe that we are embarking on a course that will do nothing but win us less and less support (watch the news, you know that's happening right now). And I really don't give a damn for what the world thinks.
<br>
<br>My point is that I just do not believe these bombings are working nor are they going to work. All the shelling is doing is developing a culture of hatred amongst people who might have been impartial, or at least so oppressed by the government they would have revolted on their own. There's an opportunity for antiterrorism, huh? Don't for a moment believe the propaganda about how accurate the bombs are. In WWII they were saying the same thing, and my mother is eyewitness to the fact that it's just not true. They're better now, but the blasts are not confined, are they? Don't you people realise that these camps are next to residences? Hello?
<br>
<br>You have to get to the terrorists in the same way they operate on us. From the inside. Again, I say, learn from Israel, they're the best.... they've maintained in the face of horrendous odds... with far fewer resources than we have to bear on the situation.
<br>
<br>Be sneaky. It works for flies. The newest, most effective 'insecticides' are pheromones to trap them, and releases of sterile females, you get the analogy....
<br><br><br>

we have the same joke up here in canada, but it involves the french canadians.<br><br>

Dear Tami,
<br>You raise good, well thought out points. I, too, have, over the years, admired certain skills, attitudes and competencies displayed by the Israelis. Over the long haul, a “humint” (real live spies) effort seems essential.
<br>
<br>***However***
<br>
<br>While the Israelis have had some successes, I note that Hezbollah, PFLP, PLA and other terrorist organizations still exist, indeed, the PLA is now known as the Palestinian Authority, and verges on Statehood. Not to pick any fights here; there are valid international reasons why Israel couldn’t at any time in history, anyway, mount an overwhelming operation to eliminate any one or all of these groups.
<br>
<br>America, however, can, and should do so. Spying on them is only effective as a response, since you can't begin spying until there's something to spy upon. Aprehending the bad guys, and trying to be nice to the rest, then aprehending more bad guys as they seek attention... that seems more likely to eliminate ongoing, and hopelully deter future terrorism, provided we also keep our neighbors from harboring, aiding and abetting them. But yes, we'll spy on them, too.
<br>
<br>***
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, we can either make violent response, or turn the other cheek. "Turning the other cheek" seems ill-advised, at this moment for several reasons.
<br>First, the proverbial Moslem-in-the-street, who’s feelings matter to me more than anything, won’t interpret it that way, mostly because turning the other cheek was elevated to sanctity by the teachings collected in what is now known as the “New Testament.” While those teachings underlie Christianity, they do not have the same “resonance” in Moslem thought patterns. A more likely guiding metaphor for their thinking is from Hammurabi – “An Eye for An Eye” They will expect this thinking from us, and interpret our acts in light of this ''obvious" (to them) rule of behavior.
<br>
<br>Consider this, please. Osama says we deserved the horrible murders committed on 9/11. Moslems on the street believe this either strongly, weakly or not at all. Regardlesss of whether they believe we deserve it or not, most of them expect a strong, violent response. Non-response will not be seen in terms of ‘Christ-like’ understanding, for the above reasons. Non response will look an awfull lot like either weakness or admission of guilt.
<br>
<br>I’ve seen no evidence that problem resolution in the ordinary Islamic world involves the wronged party (Osama, in his own view) going up to the bad guys (us) and doing grievous bodily harm, whereupon, the bad guys are expected to say, "Oh, Gee. I didn’t know you felt strongly about this. Of course you’re right, I offended, even though I am capable of killing everyone you ever knew, I’ll just be going home now to lick my wounds and beg Allah for enlightenment, and forgiveness.” Whereupon the good guys say, “Okay, looks like you're not such bad guys after all... sorry about your liver, bud.”
<br>
<br>While I’m no expert in Islamic affairs, doesn’t it seem more reasonable that if a person with no cultural heritage of ‘turning the other cheek’ sees one man accuse another of offense, then strike him, and promise to go on striking him, while the other does nothing, that maybe this observer might conclude a lack of resources, will, intestinal fortitude, or worse, conclude that the smitten felt too guilty to respond, and so admitted his guilt?
<br>
<br>My limited reading of the history of the region suggests that these things are expected by all parties to drag on, reprisal upon reprisal, picking up and trading allies, until one side gets sick of the punishment and pays off his opponents or until one side literally exterminates the others, and all their allies.
<br>
<br>I believe, whether they believe Osama’s propaganda about us or not, most observers who know what has been done to the US expect a violent response, and would spit upon a non-response. The biggest problem, that observers might not believe Osama did this has now been alleviated by Osama’s top henchmen, who have promised more Airplanes will strike more buildings. Note, they did not promise to imitate the 9/11 hijackers, but to continue their offenses.
<br>
<br>Our opportunity to think (and act) "outside the box" in this lies in stopping short, way short, of "exterminating" Osama's team - - by only targeting the bad guys and their immediate protectors, instead of everybody they ever shook hands with, and by feeding the poor among them.
<br>
<br>****
<br>
<br>You made the following remark
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The reality is that we are dealing with a fanatic society, not individual fanatics. We liked to got our butts kicked in WWII by the Japanese Kamikazis (fanatics). Lucky for us, when we applied the big hammer, they didn't have the ability to respond, nor were they quite as fanatical, I think, as the Islamic guys are.
<br>We are now seeing that the Arab nations will stick together when it comes to it. (Surprise.) Collectively, that means they're a lot bigger than Japan.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>
<br>1. Some of them are on our side. (Soudi, Paki, Jordan, Oman, UAE, etc)
<br>3. We didn't come close to getting our A$$es kicked by the Japs. They surprised us, killed our pacific fleet, and we still came back and took the entire theatre back from them conventionally while fignting another war in Europe and Africa!
<br>2. We’re now much, much bigger than Japan ever was. We’re now much, much bigger than we were when we defeated Japan, with help from our Allies. We’re now even bigger than we-and-our-allies were then. I would hate this and am truely horrified even to think it, but one sad, sick end to this involves a huge number of dead poor people who should have never picked up a weapon to find solution to their poverty.
<br>
<br>I want Osama stopped before he invites more of those innocents to pick up weapons, ending their innocence and consequently their lives.
<br>
<br>You raise a very painful point, that citizens of Afghanistan are paying a price for their government’s allegiance to Osama. Our war on the bad guys is, horribly enough, hurting innocent Afghani’s.
<br>
<br>I am tortured by this. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t happen this way.
<br>
<br>I am only partly comfortable saying the following. Nothing suffices to explain killing, except that it may be defensible to say, it was the only way to stop even more killing.
<br>
<br>Here's my point:
<br>It is our duty to keep our government from acting badly to other countries and to their citizens, just because it is our duty, period. It’s the right thing to do. If we fail in this duty, we haven’t “earned” punishment, in a direct mechanical crime-and-punishment way. But, like many failures of duty, we do increase the likelyhood that others will hate us, and try to hurt us for this. I am NOT saying that others are justified in hurting us, only that they, being human, may be expected to want to more, when we allow our government to hurt them.
<br>
<br>Now turn it around. The Afgani’s have allowed their government to keep dangerous criminals around the country. Those criminals have hurt others. And the Afgx’s government has refused to make those criminals accountable, or to allow a true inquiry in the world court. Proof WAS offered regarding the Cole. They obfuscated. Proof WAS offered over our embassy’s. They equivocated. 5000 people are now dead, and more killings promised. We just can’t stand around whining for ‘justice’ while the Taliban alternately denies OBL’s involvement or claims not to have him.
<br>
<br>Yes, in a perfect world, we should go to the world court (again), but please note, the symmetry ends here because, unlike Osama, the US is not intentionally trying to kill Afgani’s for their government’s wrongdoings. Osama is, by his own proud statement, trying to punish US citizens for offenses committed, in Osama's judgement, by their government. The US is trying to get Osama, has asked the Afgani government numerous times for help, and as a last resort, threatened and then carried out War. While we have tried to make it as painless as possible for ordinary Afgani’s, it’s a WAR after all, and there’s a good reason we do this reluctantly, and the reason is that good people die in war. We didn’t go to war over two embassies; we didn’t go to war over the Cole, we let Iran keep our embassy staff hostage for months, I think partly or mostly because war is awfull.
<br>
<br>But this guy killed 5,000 people, and promised to kill more. And still we asked his protectors first, giving him time to dig in, because we’re the good guys.
<br>
<br>And, Tami, you’re absolutely right to be worried about Paki’s nukes. Someone in this thread says the US “Secured” them already. Here’s a contrarian report from today’s paper:
<br>
<br>“Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment's nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy adviser to the U.S. Department of Energy. This is from the Los Angeles Times.”
<br>
<br>"... Pakistan has resisted any outside attempts to help secure its nuclear materials. There is the risk that receiving assistance for its nuclear program from outside powers might further destabilize the current situation. Yet Pakistan has already made its strategic decision to throw in with the West against terrorism. “
<br>
<br>There’s more, here.
<br>
<br>See my post in the earlier thread quoting experts on how Osama’s real goal is likely to be the destabilization and overthrow of as many moderate Islamic countries as possible, Pakistan for the nukes, and Soudi for the oil on the top of Osama's wish list. And it's happening, now.
<br>
<br>Get that post here
<br>
<br>My opinion is get him at all costs, before he gets nukes.
<br>
<br>Ed Norris<br><br>

Upon rereading the text of his interview with CNN, he did not say that the US was helping him secure his atomic weapons program...my mistake. He did say:
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>AMANPOUR: There's talk of support within some of your own ranks in the army, some of your own intelligence services for the Taliban. You yourself, in your speech to the nation, spoke about the security of your strategic assets.
<br>
<br>Have you taken special precautions to protect your nuclear facilities? And would you and could you self-destruct them, destroy them, if you were afraid they would fall into the hands of the wrong people, fanatics?
<br>
<br>MUSHARRAF: No, I'm very, very sure that the command and control set-up that we have evolved for ourselves is very, very secure, is extremely secure, and there is no chance of these assets falling in the hands of extremists.
<br>
<br>The army is certainly is the most disciplined army in the world, and there is no chance of any extremism coming into the army. We have an excellent command system, we have excellent traditions. And I don't see this doomsday scenario ever appearing.
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>Of course, the best statment he made, and we'll have to wait and see if he carries through on this was:
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>AMANPOUR: Well, you sound very confident, Mr. President.
<br>
<br>Just one last question: Despite this crisis, are you committed to returning this country to full democracy next year?
<br>
<br>MUSHARRAF: Yes, I still remain committed because that is in our national interest. It's not for any other country of the world or any world opinion that I'm doing it. I'm doing it because it's in our national interest. And I will do it. The time schedule and the road map that I've given, I will still go forward on it.
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>The compete text of her excellent interview with him is at:
<br>
<br>http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/30/ret.musharraf.transcript/index.html
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>What I think must have happened is that the US gave Pakistan in private the same ultimatim they gave Afghanistan and he was smart enough to do a 180 degree turn and try to distance himself from the terrorists...very smart.
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>I can't really answer to this notion of "innocents" being killed in a war any more than I already have - I think the whole notion is baseless and the continual propogation by our government that we can somehow antesptically remove the Taliban from power and capture the Evil Doers without harm to "innocents" is rediculous and can only lead to another Vietnam-type situation.
<br>
<br>I think you have to give the military the objective, let them carry it out in the most efficient manner - and then afterwards if you want to privately step in with your bucks or back and rebuild that nation, luckily as a US citizen - nobody will stop you.
<br>
<br>**********
<br>While doing some research on this notion of "innocents" during wartime, I came across this prophetic article by Dr. Piekoff of the Ayn Rand Institute, written in 1998!
<br>
<br>http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html
<br>
<br>Although I don't agree with a few of the statements that Dr. Piekoff has made during this time, overall I find his comments right on the money.
<br>
<br>Peace,
<br>
<br>ScaredyCat<br><br>

Note that, in this article, the Cleric denounces the Taleban as being responsible for the bombing, while not endorsing the bombing itself.
<br>
<br>
<br>*****
<br> "Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade
<br>Center is no jihad," Qadri said, and "those who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks
<br>not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the
<br>lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk."
<br>
<br> "Now the Americans are killing Afghans ... they may go for other targets too. Who
<br>knows how many innocent Muslims will be killed because of those terrorists who attacked
<br>the World Trade Center?"
<br>
<br> While urging the United States to stop its airstrikes in Afghanistan, Qadri held
<br>the Taliban rulers responsible "for the death of hundreds of innocent Afghans."
<br>
<br> The Taliban, he said, should have handed over bin Laden and other suspected terrorists
<br>to the United Nations or any other neutral international organization before the airstrikes
<br>began. "They can still do it and save their country from further destruction," he
<br>said. "
<br>*****
<br>
<br>
<br>Article
<br><br><br>

Another news item about another group of Muslims, holy fighters in this case, who hold the Taliban responsible for this mess, all of it.
<br>
<br>Get the full article here.
<br>
<br>********
<br>
<br>"PESHAWAR, Pakistan (CNN) -- A meeting of exiled Afghan mujahideen commanders, tribal elders and religious leaders ended Thursday with a resolution condemning terrorism and blaming Afghanistan's Taliban leaders for the U.S. bombing of the central Asian nation. . . .
<br>
<br>". . .The group laid the fault for the subsequent U.S.-led bombing campaign on the ruling Taliban, calling on the Taliban to end the bombing by "handing over power to the people," pledging to support whomever the Afghan people choose as a leader, and calling for help to rebuild the country. "<br><br>

According to this article the Israeli's, after years of practicing the tactics for which you admire them, have this week adopted a more 'military' bearing, rolling tanks into six towns, a refugee camp etc.
<br>
<br>Note that I do not attempt to say that they are or are not justified in their specific efforts this week; merely that their choice of tactics implies that spying and infiltration haven't given complete satisfaction.
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>
<br>Ed Norris<br><br>