OT: Beslan school hostage tragedy (Russia, Putin)
Christopher Kreuzer
> Which reminds me, I am waiting for the terrorist-apologists in this
> newsgroup to try and excuse what happened in Russia yesterday. They
> made the attempt to do that with the WTC, so this one should be easy,
> as only 350 people (mostly children) were slaughtered.
Well, I don't want to get into that discussion. It was a terrible,
terrible thing that happened, and the look of terror on the faces of
those children was just heart-rending. The survivors will be severely
traumatised and may suffer horrendous psychological damage.
One thing I have noticed when reading about it, is some kind of
mutterings about a supra-political "Great Game". Looks like they have
those 'big picture' guys in Russia as well as the USA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3627060.stm
Russian news sources (in link above) saying:
"The situation in North Ossetia needs to be viewed in the context of the
growing battle for control of the Transcaucasus between Russia and the
Anglo-Saxon powers... The Anglo-Saxons need to squeeze Russia out of the
Transcaucasus, and to do that they need to destabilise the situation in
the North Caucasus and in Russia in general." (Mikhail Alexandrov in
Defence Ministry daily Krasnaya Zvezda)
Is he referring to the wider agenda of American neocons?
And here are excerpts from Putin's speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3627878.stm
Some of his comments seem to indicate that Russia will revert somewhat
towards the police state it was under Communism. Other comments seem to
indicate a 'wider threat' and outside help and are rather strange...
"We showed weakness, and the weak are trampled upon. Some want to cut
off a juicy morsel from us while others are helping them. [...] They are
helping because they believe that, as one of the world's major nuclear
powers, Russia is still posing a threat to someone, and therefore this
threat must be removed." (Vladimir Putin responding to hostage tragedy
in Beslan)
[Who is this 'they' that is helping 'them'?]
"In these conditions, we simply cannot, we must not live as carelessly
as we have done until now. We must create a more effective security
system, demand from our law-enforcement bodies actions which are
appropriate to the level and scale of the new threats that have
emerged." (Vladimir Putin responding to hostage tragedy in Beslan)
[Russia accelerating its slide back into authoritarianism? Despite
Putin's claim that this will be done in accordance with their
Constitution?]
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/4/2004 7:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Prs_c.785$T7.74...@news-text.cableinet.net>
>
>BaronjosefR <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Which reminds me, I am waiting for the terrorist-apologists in this
>> newsgroup to try and excuse what happened in Russia yesterday. They
>> made the attempt to do that with the WTC, so this one should be easy,
>> as only 350 people (mostly children) were slaughtered.
>
>Well, I don't want to get into that discussion. It was a terrible,
>terrible thing that happened, and the look of terror on the faces of
>those children was just heart-rending. The survivors will be severely
>traumatised and may suffer horrendous psychological damage.
>
>One thing I have noticed when reading about it, is some kind of
>mutterings about a supra-political "Great Game". Looks like they have
>those 'big picture' guys in Russia as well as the USA:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3627060.stm
>
>Russian news sources (in link above) saying:
>
>"The situation in North Ossetia needs to be viewed in the context of the
>growing battle for control of the Transcaucasus between Russia and the
>Anglo-Saxon powers... The Anglo-Saxons need to squeeze Russia out of the
>Transcaucasus, and to do that they need to destabilise the situation in
>the North Caucasus and in Russia in general." (Mikhail Alexandrov in
>Defence Ministry daily Krasnaya Zvezda)
>
Are you fucking stupid? The terrorists were muslims, and some of them were
Arabs. How do you equate Eurpoeans into that? Christ. I was joking about the
excuse-makers. I really didn't expect someone to take me up on it and try and
pin the whole tradgedy on the U.S.
Flame of the West
> Are you fucking stupid? The terrorists were muslims, and some of them were
> Arabs. How do you equate Eurpoeans into that? Christ. I was joking about the
> excuse-makers. I really didn't expect someone to take me up on it and try and
> pin the whole tradgedy on the U.S.
Christopher was just reporting what the Russians were
saying. I don't see any endorsement of it in his post.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Christopher Kreuzer
>> From: "Christopher Kreuzer" spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
<snip>
>> One thing I have noticed when reading about it, is some kind of
>> mutterings about a supra-political "Great Game". Looks like they have
>> those 'big picture' guys in Russia as well as the USA:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3627060.stm
>>
>> Russian news sources (in link above) saying:
>>
>> "The situation in North Ossetia needs to be viewed in the context of
>> the growing battle for control of the Transcaucasus between Russia
>> and the Anglo-Saxon powers... The Anglo-Saxons need to squeeze
>> Russia out of the Transcaucasus, and to do that they need to
>> destabilise the situation in the North Caucasus and in Russia in
>> general." (Mikhail Alexandrov in Defence Ministry daily Krasnaya
>> Zvezda)
<snip>
> The terrorists were muslims, and some of them
> were Arabs. How do you equate Eurpoeans into that? Christ. I was
> joking about the excuse-makers. I really didn't expect someone to
> take me up on it and try and pin the whole tradgedy on the U.S.
Well, it seems I unintentionally laid a bait and caught a (rather small)
fish. I was actually giving you the opportunity to comment on a quote
(not my opinion as FotW noted) that I find rather strange.
This Russian (as reported by BBC Monitoring who translate foreign
newspapers and other media reports) is writing in something called the
"Defence Ministry daily". Does the Russian Defence Ministry really
believe that the Anglo-Saxon powers are battling Russia for control of
the Transcaucasus, or is this guy a nut? At the very least he got
published.
For some reason, that quote gave me visions of a future (indirect)
conflict between the US and Russia. At the very least, the old timers in
Russia still seem to be harping back to the politics of the Cold War
(however mistaken they are over the reasons for Chechnya).
This Mikhail Alexandrov might (or might not be) be the same Mikhail
Alexandrov that works for the CIS Institute, a Moscow-based think tank
dealing with issues about the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States)
that resulted from the breakup of the Soviet Union.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/022.html
Anyway, the long-term effect of such a tragedy like this (combined with
all the other attacks in recent days) might be to drastically change
Russia's policies on foreign affairs and internal freedoms. Look at how
America changed after 9/11.
McREsq
This seems like a better point to join the thread.
>This Russian (as reported by BBC Monitoring who translate foreign
>newspapers and other media reports) is writing in something called the
>"Defence Ministry daily". Does the Russian Defence Ministry really
>believe that the Anglo-Saxon powers are battling Russia for control of
>the Transcaucasus, or is this guy a nut? At the very least he got
>published.
I wouldn't take anything very seriously that comes out in the next few days.
They'll be a lot of rage-venting.
>For some reason, that quote gave me visions of a future (indirect)
>conflict between the US and Russia. At the very least, the old timers in
>Russia still seem to be harping back to the politics of the Cold War
>(however mistaken they are over the reasons for Chechnya).
Those days are over. Actually, I think long term, a stable Russia could be a
very close ally of the US. I'm going out on a limb here, but over the next
generation, I thin NATO will essentially become a dead letter. Our alliance
with Britain will remain firm but I think it is the US's strategic interest to
develop a closer alliance with Eastern Europe and a stable Russia (note the
proviso "stable"). We can still be friends with the likes of France and
Germany, but quite frankly, they are so denuded of power and influence that
they really have little to offer us.
It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with the
Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon the
Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>Anyway, the long-term effect of such a tragedy like this (combined with
>all the other attacks in recent days) might be to drastically change
>Russia's policies on foreign affairs and internal freedoms.
What Russia needs to do is turn Chechnya in a smoking ruin. I don't think they
have the conventional military capability to do it, however.
I know this is going to shock some here, but with 20/20 hindsight, the US made
a huge miscalulation in aiding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. We aided them
for two reasons: 1) pure power politics and basically to stick it to them for
what they did to us in Vietnam; and 2) actual concern for the slaughter going
on there at the hands of the Red Army.
How little did we know that the Russians were doing the world a favor by
killing as many of these people as possible.
While it is true the Afghan war helped bring down the Soviet Union and the
Soviet bloc with it; it perhaps only speeded up the process by a decade. In
hindsight, the world would have been much better off with the Red Army
successfully depopulating much of Afghanistan.
A more stable Soviet Union in its waning days could have allowed Gorbachev and
his successors to glide the SU out of communism with much better results for
regional stability and the world economy. If, as Cher would say, I could turn
back time, we should have let the Soviets do what they had to do in Aghanistan
and Reagan should have made the deal with Gorby in Reykjavik.
> Look at how
>America changed after 9/11.
Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed. Indeed,
post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France and Germany, and
other western European nations with thought police laws.
Russ
Flame of the West
> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
> already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with the
> Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon the
> Middle-east to their own slaughter.
I'd love that, but we'd also have to defeat our
own Israeli lobby first. It's in their interest
(and that of their neocon and liberal puppets)
to keep us engaged there.
> Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed. Indeed,
> post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France and Germany, and
> other western European nations with thought police laws.
We are much freer in what we can say than, say,
Canada, where people have been charged with hate
speech for questioning the truth of the Holocaust
or asserting in public that homosexuality is a sin.
-- FotW
"If you must read newspapers and magazines at least
give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
-- C.S. Lewis
Prai Jei
message <ju-dnbMk84K...@comcast.com>:
> McREsq wrote:
>
>> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
>> already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with
>> the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon the
>> Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>
> I'd love that, but we'd also have to defeat our
> own Israeli lobby first. It's in their interest
> (and that of their neocon and liberal puppets)
> to keep us engaged there.
>
>> Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed.
>> Indeed, post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France and
>> Germany, and other western European nations with thought police laws.
>
> We are much freer in what we can say than, say,
> Canada, where people have been charged with hate
> speech for questioning the truth of the Holocaust
> or asserting in public that homosexuality is a sin.
Peut-être, si on avait dit ceci au Canada en français, il n'aurait pas été
haine-parole.
--
Paul Townsend
I put it down there, and when I went back to it, there it was GONE!
Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply
McREsq
>> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
>> already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with
>the
>> Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon the
>> Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>
>I'd love that, but we'd also have to defeat our
>own Israeli lobby first. It's in their interest
>(and that of their neocon and liberal puppets)
>to keep us engaged there.
I'm not entirely sure. Israel certainly has proven itself able to take care of
itself. Our disengagement would enable them to take the gloves off.
>> Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed.
>Indeed,
>> post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France and Germany,
>and
>> other western European nations with thought police laws.
>
>We are much freer in what we can say than, say,
>Canada, where people have been charged with hate
>speech for questioning the truth of the Holocaust
>or asserting in public that homosexuality is a sin.
Exactly.
Russ
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher wrote:
<snip>
>> For some reason, that quote gave me visions of a future (indirect)
>> conflict between the US and Russia. At the very least, the old
>> timers in Russia still seem to be harping back to the politics of
>> the Cold War (however mistaken they are over the reasons for
>> Chechnya).
>
> Those days are over. Actually, I think long term, a stable Russia
> could be a very close ally of the US. I'm going out on a limb here,
> but over the next generation, I think NATO will essentially become a
> dead letter. Our alliance with Britain will remain firm but I think
> it is the US's strategic interest to develop a closer alliance with
> Eastern Europe and a stable Russia (note the proviso "stable").
Where does China figure in that?
> We can still be friends with the likes of France and Germany, but
quite
> frankly, they are so denuded of power and influence that they really
> have little to offer us.
Dare I ask what power and influence the UK has? And what about the
influence of the European Union as a whole, which you have to remember
now includes parts of Eastern Europe?
> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east.
> We already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can
> work with the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we
> can abandon the Middle-east to their own slaughter.
That is why some Russians are suspicious about Western influences in
Chechnya, and react with scorn when the western media talk about freedom
fighters and rebels (instead of terrorists) - and express concerns about
how Russia is conducting its war in Chechnya. It is precisely the
pivotal location of the Transcaucasus region with regard to oil
resources and transport that has made Russia fight so hard over it. The
Black Sea would become the new Persian Gulf. The alternative is to build
that pipeline down to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean from Central
Asia. Just need to effect regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,
and Iran...
>> Anyway, the long-term effect of such a tragedy like this (combined
>> with all the other attacks in recent days) might be to drastically
>> change Russia's policies on foreign affairs and internal freedoms.
>
> What Russia needs to do is turn Chechnya in a smoking ruin. I don't
> think they have the conventional military capability to do it,
> however.
Well, it is said that up to a fifth of Chechnya's population has been
displaced by the war. That is rather shocking. And they did turn the
capital (Grozny) into a smoking ruin.
Oh, and I strongly disagree with your opinions on Chechnya and on
Afghanistan. They sound like genocide.
<snip>
> In hindsight, the world would have been much better off
> with the Red Army successfully depopulating much of Afghanistan.
<snip>
>> Look at how
>> America changed after 9/11.
>
> Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed.
> Indeed, post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France
> and Germany, and other western European nations with thought police
> laws.
Patriot Act. Nice name. What draconian powers does it give?
And what 'thought police' laws?
I'm also talking more about the attitude in the government towards
foreign affairs. Like the war in Iraq. I think history will judge and
conclude that the USA did change after 9/11.
Taemon
> We are much freer in what we can say than, say,
> Canada, where people have been charged with hate
> speech for questioning the truth of the Holocaust
> or asserting in public that homosexuality is a sin.
It is terrible that you need laws to prevent people from saying
such things. In the Netherlands we don't have such problems, of
course. But how do you react when people say such things in your
vicinity? I don't know if I would have the courage to speak up.
Depends on the circumstances, I guess.
T.
McREsq
>>> For some reason, that quote gave me visions of a future (indirect)
>>> conflict between the US and Russia. At the very least, the old
>>> timers in Russia still seem to be harping back to the politics of
>>> the Cold War (however mistaken they are over the reasons for
>>> Chechnya).
>>
>> Those days are over. Actually, I think long term, a stable Russia
>> could be a very close ally of the US. I'm going out on a limb here,
>> but over the next generation, I think NATO will essentially become a
>> dead letter. Our alliance with Britain will remain firm but I think
>> it is the US's strategic interest to develop a closer alliance with
>> Eastern Europe and a stable Russia (note the proviso "stable").
>
>Where does China figure in that?
More likely than not, China, not Islam, is our enemy of the future. The
Islamic world is generally nuts but technologically inept. China, on the other
hand, is starting to do a lot of things right.
>> We can still be friends with the likes of France and Germany, but
>quite
>> frankly, they are so denuded of power and influence that they really
>> have little to offer us.
>
>Dare I ask what power and influence the UK has?
I'm not saying they have more themselves. But they are a true ally and they
stick by us through think and thin.
Like I said, we can remain friends with the likes of Germany and France, but I
simply don't think they are close allies of ours anymore. And I think our
foreign policy should reflect that.
> And what about the
>influence of the European Union as a whole, which you have to remember
>now includes parts of Eastern Europe?
So far the EU has not shown itself to be anything more than a free trade zone.
So long as 'old European' leaders like Chirac try to tell the newcomers to
basically "shut up", the EU will never become anything more than that.
>> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east.
>> We already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can
>> work with the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we
>> can abandon the Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>
>That is why some Russians are suspicious about Western influences in
>Chechnya, and react with scorn when the western media talk about freedom
>fighters and rebels (instead of terrorists) -
Thats' the liberal Western media who uses those neutral terms to apply to
terrorist that attack us as well. The media are largely leftists.
If what you are saying is true, it is a failure of American diplomacy that
Russians think US opinion is in any way related to media opinion.
> and express concerns about
>how Russia is conducting its war in Chechnya.
Yes, that's the western media for you.
Shifting focus for a second here, we see the same thing in the Sudan where Arab
killers are committing genocide yet the western media and governments are
strangely afraid to call a spade a spade and do something about it. Why we're
pussy-footing around the Arabs is beyond me. There seems to be little of the
blood of Charles Martel left in France and Isabella in Spain. The genocide in
the Sudan is easily solved: every day a janjaweed village is destroyed by a
daisy cutter bomb until they stop. Problem solved.
> It is precisely the
>pivotal location of the Transcaucasus region with regard to oil
>resources and transport that has made Russia fight so hard over it. The
>Black Sea would become the new Persian Gulf. The alternative is to build
>that pipeline down to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean from Central
>Asia. Just need to effect regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,
>and Iran...
Even more reason for the Russians to do what needs to be done in Chechnya. The
problem is I don't think their military is capable.
>>> Anyway, the long-term effect of such a tragedy like this (combined
>>> with all the other attacks in recent days) might be to drastically
>>> change Russia's policies on foreign affairs and internal freedoms.
>>
>> What Russia needs to do is turn Chechnya in a smoking ruin. I don't
>> think they have the conventional military capability to do it,
>> however.
>
>Well, it is said that up to a fifth of Chechnya's population has been
>displaced by the war. That is rather shocking. And they did turn the
>capital (Grozny) into a smoking ruin.
>
>Oh, and I strongly disagree with your opinions on Chechnya and on
>Afghanistan. They sound like genocide.
Chechnya should receive the fate from the Russians that Germany received from
the Red Army. Neither is genocide.
><snip>
>
>> In hindsight, the world would have been much better off
>> with the Red Army successfully depopulating much of Afghanistan.
>
><snip>
>
>>> Look at how
>>> America changed after 9/11.
>>
>> Really? How did our freedoms change? My freedom's haven't changed.
>> Indeed, post Patriot Act, the US is still much freer than, say France
>> and Germany, and other western European nations with thought police
>> laws.
>
>Patriot Act. Nice name. What draconian powers does it give?
None that I know of.
>And what 'thought police' laws?
Like people in France being prosecuted for criticizing Islam.
>I'm also talking more about the attitude in the government towards
>foreign affairs. Like the war in Iraq. I think history will judge and
>conclude that the USA did change after 9/11.
Gee, ya think?
Russ
McREsq
>> We are much freer in what we can say than, say,
>> Canada, where people have been charged with hate
>> speech for questioning the truth of the Holocaust
>> or asserting in public that homosexuality is a sin.
>
>It is terrible that you need laws to prevent people from saying
>such things.
Well, then why does Canada, France, Germany et al need such laws?
> In the Netherlands we don't have such problems, of
>course.
Don't have what problems?
> But how do you react when people say such things in your
>vicinity?
Depending on that they say, either agree or disagree with them. What we don't
do in America is prosecute them.
> I don't know if I would have the courage to speak up.
>Depends on the circumstances, I guess.
We have what's called the marketplace of ideas. In the US, we don't prosecute
speech, we allow everyone to have freedom of speech. So if some neo-nazi
denies the Holocaust he is not prosecuted but rather drowned out by other
voices who may freely contradict him.
Russ
Raven
news:20040905113739...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
> already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with
> the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon
> the Middle-east to their own slaughter.
This I can agree with, that we need to rely less on Arab oil. As for
abandoning them to their own slaughter, there is a parallel to Afghanistan
before the Taliban were booted out, and to ex-Yugoslavia before they were
bombed into stopping *their* own slaughter. If we just abandon a region to
its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being shaken
so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from Afghanistan landed
on New York, DC and a field in Pennsylvania.
If the Middle-east can become stable, then apart from *them* becoming
happier, so will we: both richer (with new trading partners and markets,
just as a rebuilt Europe after WWII was in itself profitable both to the US
and to Europe) and safer (ditto).
I suppose both Bush and Chirac want a stable Middle-east. They differ in
chosen methods to produce this result, possibly in part because they differ
in *other* ambitions, and hindsight will probably show whose method was
best. But hindsight isn't in yet.
> What Russia needs to do is turn Chechnya in a smoking ruin. I don't think
> they have the conventional military capability to do it, however.
They have already turned Chechnya into a smoking ruin. Keeping in mind
that an explanation is not a justification, and that *nothing* can justify
what those demons did in Beslan, many of the Chechen terrorists act out of
hatred and revenge for wrongs done to them. The Black Widows are typically
women who have lost relatives and seen atrocities. You advocate massive use
of merciless strength, it seems. I should rather advocate *surgical* use of
merciless strength. Shamil Basayev, who took part in starting the current
Chechen war by invading Dagestan from Chechnya, and who appears to have
planned the Beslan abomination and many others, should be turned into a
smoking corpse. Not what is left of Grozny. This is a tried, and failed,
strategy.
But this obscenity may have ushered in a welcome change in the Muslim
world. One problem with them is that they seem to put the blame everywhere
else than upon themselves. Whatever they suffer is someone else's fault,
and they do nothing wrong. This is not true of all Muslims, but the trend
seems stronger among them than with most others.
But in today's newspaper I have seen references to Muslim commentators
going quite far in criticizing their own culture. One of four examples that
are mentioned and quoted is this:
The manager of the Saudi TV station Al Arabiya, Abdulrahman al-Rashed,
wrote in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat under the headline "The
painful truth: All terrorists in the world are Muslims." He wrote "Our
terrorist-sons are the end product of our corrupt culture." And "Most of
the perpetrators of suicide actions against buses, schools and residences
the last ten years have been Muslims... We must admit this scandalous
fact... The picture is humiliating, painful and merciless for us all."
> While it is true the Afghan war helped bring down the Soviet Union and the
> Soviet bloc with it; it perhaps only speeded up the process by a decade.
> In hindsight, the world would have been much better off with the Red
> Army successfully depopulating much of Afghanistan.
The Red Army *did* successfully depopulate much of Afghanistan. This is
one of the key factors that led to 9-11. Even if you don't care tuppence
about the Afghanis, it was in your disinterest that the Red Army invaded.
Jon Lennart Beck.
McREsq
>> It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
>> already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with
>> the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon
>> the Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>
> This I can agree with, that we need to rely less on Arab oil. As for
>abandoning them to their own slaughter, there is a parallel to Afghanistan
>before the Taliban were booted out,
No, that ignores the fact that the US created the mujaheddin in the first
place, a least the force they became. If we had never armed and supported
them, the Soviets would have annihilated all resistance.
> and to ex-Yugoslavia before they were
>bombed into stopping *their* own slaughter.
Actually the West did largely abandon Yugoslavia to its own slaughter. The
West only intervened towards the bitter end.
> If we just abandon a region to
>its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being shaken
>so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from Afghanistan landed
>on New York, DC and a field in Pennsylvania.
Only because we got involved in the first place. If you read my message I was
talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never* armed the
mujaheddin. The result would have been the virtual depopulation of Afghanistan
and none of the problems we have today. If we left the Red Army alone, the
World Trade Center would stil be standing.
> If the Middle-east can become stable, then apart from *them* becoming
>happier, so will we: both richer (with new trading partners and markets,
>just as a rebuilt Europe after WWII was in itself profitable both to the US
>and to Europe) and safer (ditto).
Yes, I used to think the same thing. Notwithstanding I'm a supporter of
President Bush, I totally disagree with his notion that we can bring democracy
to the Middle-east by what we're doing in Iraq.
> I suppose both Bush and Chirac want a stable Middle-east.
Well, most everyone wants that. What everyone differs in is means *and*
results.
> They differ in
>chosen methods to produce this result, possibly in part because they differ
>in *other* ambitions, and hindsight will probably show whose method was
>best. But hindsight isn't in yet.
What's France's track records of creating stable democracies?
While the US has had some failures, at least there have been some successes
mixed in.
>> What Russia needs to do is turn Chechnya in a smoking ruin. I don't think
>> they have the conventional military capability to do it, however.
>
> They have already turned Chechnya into a smoking ruin. Keeping in mind
>that an explanation is not a justification, and that *nothing* can justify
>what those demons did in Beslan, many of the Chechen terrorists act out of
>hatred and revenge for wrongs done to them. The Black Widows are typically
>women who have lost relatives and seen atrocities. You advocate massive use
>of merciless strength, it seems. I should rather advocate *surgical* use of
>merciless strength.
In a perfect world, yes. The US campaign in Afghanistan is an exmaple of the
surgical use of merciless strength. And we see some of that in Iraq (does
anyone doubt we could level Fallujah if we wanted). However the Russian army
is not capable of that. And, quite frankly, I highly doubt they are capable of
massive use of merciless strength either.
BTW, that was an excellent comparison you made.
> Shamil Basayev, who took part in starting the current
>Chechen war by invading Dagestan from Chechnya, and who appears to have
>planned the Beslan abomination and many others,
I read some articles that says he is a side player now. The Arab al qaeda have
moved in and are behind this.
> should be turned into a
>smoking corpse. Not what is left of Grozny. This is a tried, and failed,
>strategy.
Perhaps. The Russian Army is incapable if this today. But, as a comparison,
before the massive American support of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, the
Soviet 'smoking ruin' strategy was working quite well.
> But this obscenity may have ushered in a welcome change in the Muslim
>world.
I've given up on the muslim world. Or did you not notice the virtual silence
from the islamic world in the face of this barabarity. The islamic world
apparently thinks it's more worthy of complaint if French muslim girls can't
wear a veil than for hundreds of Russian children to be killed.
> One problem with them is that they seem to put the blame everywhere
>else than upon themselves. Whatever they suffer is someone else's fault,
>and they do nothing wrong. This is not true of all Muslims, but the trend
>seems stronger among them than with most others.
Yes, that's true. I happen to strongly disagree with Bush's idea that he can
somehow bring democracy to islam. He can do no such thing, nor can America do
any such thing, nor can the West do any such thing. This is a change that has
to come from within Islam itself. The problem facing the West is that we
simply cannot sit here waiting for Islam to join the modern world while they
slaughter innocents.
Does anyone really think it's an accidnet that the most successful governments
in the middle-east are authoritarian? Heck, a secret part of me would release
Saddam Hussein, put him back in charge of Iraq, and become his ally instead of
his enemy.
I cannot say with any amount of certainty, but the Chechens and their Arab
allies may have just made a huge miscalulation - along the lines of the one
made by the Japanese in Deecember 1941. The Russian cultural view of children
is probably one of the greatest throughout the world. The Chechens and the
Arab allies may have just awoken the long dormant Russian bear.
I don't think Putin has any choice in terms of domestic politics but to rain
hell on Chechnya.
> But in today's newspaper I have seen references to Muslim commentators
>going quite far in criticizing their own culture. One of four examples that
>are mentioned and quoted is this:
> The manager of the Saudi TV station Al Arabiya, Abdulrahman al-Rashed,
>wrote in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat under the headline "The
>painful truth: All terrorists in the world are Muslims." He wrote "Our
>terrorist-sons are the end product of our corrupt culture." And "Most of
>the perpetrators of suicide actions against buses, schools and residences
>the last ten years have been Muslims... We must admit this scandalous
>fact... The picture is humiliating, painful and merciless for us all."
Such introspection is the hope if Islam. I only hope such becomees the
majority view.
>> While it is true the Afghan war helped bring down the Soviet Union and the
>> Soviet bloc with it; it perhaps only speeded up the process by a decade.
>> In hindsight, the world would have been much better off with the Red
>> Army successfully depopulating much of Afghanistan.
>
> The Red Army *did* successfully depopulate much of Afghanistan. This is
>one of the key factors that led to 9-11. Even if you don't care tuppence
>about the Afghanis, it was in your disinterest that the Red Army invaded.
Yes, but once the invasion occurred and was a fail accompli, it was in our
disinterest to fund and arm the mujaheddin and cause the ultimate failure of
the invasion.
Russ
Flame of the West
>> The manager of the Saudi TV station Al Arabiya, Abdulrahman al-Rashed,
>>wrote in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat under the headline "The
>>painful truth: All terrorists in the world are Muslims." He wrote "Our
>>terrorist-sons are the end product of our corrupt culture." And "Most of
>>the perpetrators of suicide actions against buses, schools and residences
>>the last ten years have been Muslims... We must admit this scandalous
>>fact... The picture is humiliating, painful and merciless for us all."
>
>
> Such introspection is the hope if Islam. I only hope such becomees the
> majority view.
"Buses, schools and residences"? What about office
buildings filled with thousands of people from various
nations? This scumbag carefully omitted mentioning
9/11 in his litany of terrorism. He apparently has
no problem with killing Americans; indeed, he probably
danced in the street with his fellow barbarians when
American children were orphaned by his Saudi countrymen.
Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
the victims' families, from their oil. If we had a
President with balls (and we won't at least until
2008) that's exactly what we would have done.
-- FotW
Morgil
"Flame of the West" <jsol...@comcast.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3vydnZYDQaS...@comcast.com...
> Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
> with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
> sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
> the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
> the victims' families, from their oil. If we had a
> President with balls (and we won't at least until
> 2008) that's exactly what we would have done.
Or at least having a President who wasn't in bed
with the Sauds, it might help.
Morgil
McREsq
>McREsq wrote:
>
>>> The manager of the Saudi TV station Al Arabiya, Abdulrahman al-Rashed,
>>>wrote in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat under the headline "The
>>>painful truth: All terrorists in the world are Muslims." He wrote "Our
>>>terrorist-sons are the end product of our corrupt culture." And "Most of
>>>the perpetrators of suicide actions against buses, schools and residences
>>>the last ten years have been Muslims... We must admit this scandalous
>>>fact... The picture is humiliating, painful and merciless for us all."
>>
>>
>> Such introspection is the hope if Islam. I only hope such becomees the
>> majority view.
>
>"Buses, schools and residences"? What about office
>buildings filled with thousands of people from various
>nations? This scumbag carefully omitted mentioning
>9/11 in his litany of terrorism.
Well, I cannot read his mind, but even aside from that it was a very surprising
indictment of modern islam from a surprising source. It's a start.
And it's certainly better than fiends such as:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
> He apparently has
>no problem with killing Americans; indeed, he probably
>danced in the street with his fellow barbarians when
>American children were orphaned by his Saudi countrymen.
>
>Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
>with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
>sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
>the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
>the victims' families, from their oil.
If Carter didn't shit-can the neutron bomb, we could have.
If we had a
>President with balls (and we won't at least until
>2008) that's exactly what we would have done.
You're starting to sound like me.
I'm not a huge fan of President Bush, but at least he strikes some fear in the
hearts of muslims. Kerry doesn't strike fear in the hearts of anyone. I
disagree with Bush's notion we can impose democracy in the middle-east and I
very much disagree with the notion American servicemen should be the bringers
of freedom and democracy to every third-world shithole in the world.
Look, it can be argued in hindsight that the war in Iraq was a mistake but
don't forget, pretty much everyone agreed Iraq had WMD: the US, Britain,
Germany, France, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Something doesn't smell right here. Saddam managed to fool virtually *all* the
world's intelligence agencies? Why is Cheney refusing to back down? When
Kerry said recently that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have
voted for the use of force but just have run the war differently, I knew
something was up. Apart from his Senate Intelligence Committee briefings, as a
Presidential candidate he gets the same intel briefings as the President.
Something's a little fishy here.
Russ
McREsq
>> Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
>> with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
>> sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
>> the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
>> the victims' families, from their oil. If we had a
>> President with balls (and we won't at least until
>> 2008) that's exactly what we would have done.
>
>Or at least having a President who wasn't in bed
>with the Sauds, it might help.
Well, it's better than France, which has a President who was in bed with Saddam
Hussein.
Russ
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906104755...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> And it's certainly better than fiends such as:
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
""If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
PKB?
> >Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
> >with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
> >sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
> >the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
> >the victims' families, from their oil.
>
> If Carter didn't shit-can the neutron bomb, we could have.
Thank God for Carter.
> I'm not a huge fan of President Bush, but at least he strikes some fear in
the
> hearts of muslims.
Republican Fantasy-Land must be a fun place...
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906104902...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Actually you have been saying otherwise until now.
Anything to excuse Bush, as usual.
Morgil
McREsq
No, I think if you check my posting history you will see a lot of criticism of
our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Russ
McREsq
>> And it's certainly better than fiends such as:
>>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
>
>""If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
>justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>
>PKB?
Do you actually read these articles you cite, particularly the paragraph
preceding yuor quote:
"Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun,
said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of
action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule. "If an Iraqi Muslim
carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
So, do you agree with him or don't you?
<snip>
Russ
Hashemon Urtasman
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you actually read these articles you cite, particularly the paragraph
> preceding yuor quote:
>
> "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun,
> said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of
> action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule. "If an Iraqi Muslim
> carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
> justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>
> So, do you agree with him or don't you?
Why don't you ask if you agree with him or not.
Just because someone claiming to be Muslim has done terrorism in Russia,
you think it is ok to ... well what do you think it is possible to do
w.r.t. the Islamic "menace" (as you would put it?)
Even if they did a hundred school bombings, the amount of suffering the
Russians have caused Chechnya (250,000 civilians dead) is much more than
anything the Chechens have done to anybody in the world. When the dust
settles, it is Russia who is the villain the whole matter, plus the
Russians are going to make it get worse for the Chechens.
So what the f?
Hasan
Hashemon Urtasman
Sounds like somebody is worse than the Saudis, when it comes to causing
human suffering.
Hasan
>
> -- FotW
McREsq
>> Do you actually read these articles you cite, particularly the paragraph
>> preceding yuor quote:
>>
>> "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect
>al-Muhajiroun,
>> said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course
>of
>> action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule. "If an Iraqi
>Muslim
>> carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
>> justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>>
>> So, do you agree with him or don't you?
>
>Why don't you ask if you agree with him or not.
Huh? Ask myself if I agree with that guy?
>Just because someone claiming to be Muslim has done terrorism in Russia,
"Someone?" So you think this was just some isolated fellow? You don't think
this is part of a later Islamist movement?
>you think it is ok to ... well what do you think it is possible to do
>w.r.t. the Islamic "menace" (as you would put it?)
Ann Coulter's solution comes to mind. But as a practical matter, Islamists
need to be rooted out and destroyed with the same vigor as was done with the
Nazis and Imperial Japanese last century. Since so-called moderate Islam is
either unable or unwilling to remove this cancer from the world, it will have
to be done for them.
>Even if they did a hundred school bombings, the amount of suffering the
>Russians have caused Chechnya (250,000 civilians dead)
Nice try. Where do you get your figures from? An al qaeda madrasas?
> is much more than
>anything the Chechens have done to anybody in the world. When the dust
>settles, it is Russia who is the villain the whole matter, plus the
>Russians are going to make it get worse for the Chechens.
Hopefully. I don't think they have the ability though.
Russ
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906115613...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
>
> >> And it's certainly better than fiends such as:
> >>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xm
l
> >
> >""If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would
be
> >justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
> >
> >PKB?
>
> Do you actually read these articles you cite, particularly the paragraph
> preceding yuor quote:
I read the article and I've read your posts. They have much
in common. "Ann Coulter's solution comes to mind", etc.
> "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect
al-Muhajiroun,
> said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course
of
> action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule. "If an Iraqi
Muslim
> carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
> justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>
> So, do you agree with him or don't you?
Question is, do YOU agree with him in principle?
(*I* disagree with both of you.)
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906115131...@mb-m29.aol.com...
That's what I said. You have said that Saudis are worse
then Saddam, but then changed it to that being friendly
with Saddam is worse then being friendly with Saudis,
when attention focused on Bush.
Morgil
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/6/2004 12:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Ds0%c.170942$pTn.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
That's it. Just waht I expected from you: A justification of that type of
terrorism. Way to go, asshole.
McREsq
>> >> And it's certainly better than fiends such as:
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xm
>l
>> >
>> >""If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would
>be
>> >justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>> >
>> >PKB?
>>
>> Do you actually read these articles you cite, particularly the paragraph
>> preceding yuor quote:
>
>I read the article and I've read your posts. They have much
>in common. "Ann Coulter's solution comes to mind", etc.
Ann Coulter's solution is good in the abstract but it would not work because
forcible conversions don't work and would lead to greater violence. The
practical real world solution remains the one I advocate: excise Islamofascism
from the face of the earth. Since so-called moderate Islam is eitherincapable
or unwilling to doit, someone else has to.
>> "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect
>al-Muhajiroun,
>> said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course
>of
>> action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule. "If an Iraqi
>Muslim
>> carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be
>> justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."
>>
>> So, do you agree with him or don't you?
>
>Question is, do YOU agree with him in principle?
>(*I* disagree with both of you.)
You're not making sense. If you think you're making some sort of cute point,
you'd be better served by just making it.
Russ
McREsq
>> >> >> Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do
>> >> >> with 9/11), we should have turned this creep's little
>> >> >> sh**-kingdom into a smoking ruin and then paid for
>> >> >> the rebuilding of the towers, and compensation for
>> >> >> the victims' families, from their oil. If we had a
>> >> >> President with balls (and we won't at least until
>> >> >> 2008) that's exactly what we would have done.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or at least having a President who wasn't in bed
>> >> >with the Sauds, it might help.
>> >>
>> >> Well, it's better than France, which has a President who was in bed
>with
>> >Saddam
>> >> Hussein.
>> >
>> >Actually you have been saying otherwise until now.
>> >Anything to excuse Bush, as usual.
>>
>> No, I think if you check my posting history you will see a lot of
>criticism of
>> our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
>
>That's what I said. You have said that Saudis are worse then Saddam,
I did? I don't recall that. But now that I think of it, I probably agree with
that statement. The House of Saud bears a lot more responsiblity for global
terrorism than Saddam due to their support and globilization of wahabbiism.
Saudi Arabia is the primary reason islam has become a terrorist religion.
> but then changed it to that being friendly
>with Saddam is worse then being friendly with Saudis,
>when attention focused on Bush.
Saddam was providing a great service to the world: he was keeping the lunatics
populating his country under a tight leash. Bush 41 was right: it was better
off to leave him in place. Bush 41's mistake was leaving him isolated. It
would probably have been better to work out an accomodation with Saddam after
the first Gulf War rather than implement a decade of sanctions and isolation.
Russ
Raven
> Raven wrote:
> > This I can agree with, that we need to rely less on Arab oil. As for
> >abandoning them to their own slaughter, there is a parallel to
> >Afghanistan before the Taliban were booted out,
> No, that ignores the fact that the US created the mujaheddin in the first
> place, a least the force they became. If we had never armed and supported
> them, the Soviets would have annihilated all resistance.
Hardly. They had support from other parts of the world besides you.
Also they were able to arm themselves from their enemies, weapons bought by
corrupt officers or taken from slain soldiers. It may be that the US help,
particularly the Stinger missiles, enabled the Mujahedeen to actually win
the war, defined as forcing the Soviets to withdraw. Without this aid the
war might have continued much longer.
> > and to ex-Yugoslavia before they were
> >bombed into stopping *their* own slaughter.
> Actually the West did largely abandon Yugoslavia to its own slaughter.
> The West only intervened towards the bitter end.
And one of the motives was to stop a flood of refugees from the region
into our own rich countries. And the continuing misery in parts of the
region brings crime with it, such as women who are enslaved prostitutes.
Spillover.
> > If we just abandon a region to
> >its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being
> >shaken so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from
> >Afghanistan landed on New York, DC and a field in
> >Pennsylvania.
> Only because we got involved in the first place. If you read my message I
> was talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never*
> armed the mujaheddin. The result would have been the virtual
> depopulation of Afghanistan and none of the problems we have today.
> If we left the Red Army alone, the World Trade Center would stil be
> standing.
You are thinking of depopulating a country of several million
inhabitants. Killing them? This would have amounted to interestedly, or
otherwise, watching a genocide that would have made Hitler's murder of six
million Jews and half a million Gipsies small in comparison. Or displacing
them, letting the Red Army chase most of the population of Afghanistan into
Pakistan and Iran, or abducting them, like the Chechens during WWII, to
Siberia? Take the current international terrorism and multiply by ten. And
at that, if the Red Army had successfully murdered the majority of the
population of Afghanistan, the anger that this would have created among
other Muslims would have been many times their anger against us over the
Palestine conflict.
Anyway al Qaeda are not mad at the US for having supported the Afghani
Mujahedeen. They are mad at the US for being more successful (though less
ambitious) imperialists than they, or so it seems to me.
> > If the Middle-east can become stable, then apart from *them* becoming
> >happier, so will we: both richer (with new trading partners and markets,
> >just as a rebuilt Europe after WWII was in itself profitable both to the
> >US and to Europe) and safer (ditto).
> Yes, I used to think the same thing. Notwithstanding I'm a supporter of
> President Bush, I totally disagree with his notion that we can bring
> democracy to the Middle-east by what we're doing in Iraq.
Hindsight, which is usually 20/20, ain't in yet. Wait ten years and see
if there is a working democracy in Iraq, or it looks like Somalia. Me, I
haven't the foggiest what it will be. But it seems like the Bush
administration seriously underestimated the difficulties in winning the
peace after so convincingly winning the war, and they did some grave
miscalculations. Disbanding the Iraqi army and banning *all* Baath-party
members from office as apparently the main ones. Disbanding the army meant
a million trained soldiers turned into the streets without an income. And
in a totalitarian dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein the only way for
someone to attain public office or be a civil servant is to get a party
membership - even if they privately disagreed with the policies and methods
of the Party. So hey presto, nobody was left to run the country and the
services.
> > Shamil Basayev, who took part in starting the current
> >Chechen war by invading Dagestan from Chechnya, and who appears to have
> >planned the Beslan abomination and many others,
> I read some articles that says he is a side player now. The Arab al qaeda
> have moved in and are behind this.
If the reports from the Russian authorities aren't all vranyo, there were
not many Chechens among the Beslan ghouls. Arabs, Uzbeks and one local guy
were mentioned. Of course, it is in Putin's interest to disconnect the
Beslan tragedy from Chechnya in the public eye. If they were Chechens then
it highlights his failure to bring peace from Chechen guerrillas and
terrorists, and he ran for office on promises to bring peace and security.
> I cannot say with any amount of certainty, but the Chechens and their Arab
> allies may have just made a huge miscalulation - along the lines of the
> one made by the Japanese in Deecember 1941. The Russian cultural
> view of children is probably one of the greatest throughout the world.
> The Chechens and the Arab allies may have just awoken the long
> dormant Russian bear.
The majority of the Chechens are horrified at what happened in Beslan.
If for no other reason among their own sorrows then because they know full
well how their cause has been sold down the river by this.
> I don't think Putin has any choice in terms of domestic politics but to
> rain hell on Chechnya.
Well, he could start by paying his soldiers in Chechnya, to reduce their
need to plunder civilians for food or selling their own weapons and uniforms
to Chechen guerrillas for money.
> Such introspection is the hope if Islam. I only hope such becomees the
> majority view.
It certainly worked in Germany after WWII. Though perhaps *you* might
think it worked too well so that the Germans are too gun-shy nowadays. :-)
Jon Lennart Beck.
Raven
> "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect
> al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would
> be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered
> under British rule. "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like
> that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out
> acts of terrorism in Iraq."
> So, do you agree with him or don't you?
I certainly disagree with him. There is a vitally important difference
between becoming the enemy of the person who wronged you, and becoming his
rival in evil. The Chechen terrorists are an example of the latter.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Raven
news:3vydnZYDQaS...@comcast.com...
[I wrote]
> >> The manager of the Saudi TV station Al Arabiya, Abdulrahman al-Rashed,
> >>wrote in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat under the headline "The
> >>painful truth: All terrorists in the world are Muslims." He wrote "Our
> >>terrorist-sons are the end product of our corrupt culture." And "Most
> >>of the perpetrators of suicide actions against buses, schools and
> >>residences the last ten years have been Muslims... We must admit
> >>this scandalous fact... The picture is humiliating, painful and
> >>merciless for us all."
> "Buses, schools and residences"? What about office
> buildings filled with thousands of people from various
> nations? This scumbag carefully omitted mentioning
> 9/11 in his litany of terrorism. He apparently has
> no problem with killing Americans; indeed, he probably
> danced in the street with his fellow barbarians when
> American children were orphaned by his Saudi countrymen.
I did not quote everything that he wrote, because not everything was
reported in the nespaper I quoted from. So I don't know if he mentioned or
alluded to 9/11, or neglected mention of it altogether. You cannot say that
he "carefully omitted mentioning 9/11" without having read the entire
article.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Yuk Tang
news:Hr5%c.3634$xU2....@news.get2net.dk:
>> but to rain hell on Chechnya.
>
> Well, he could start by paying his soldiers in Chechnya, to
> reduce their
> need to plunder civilians for food or selling their own weapons
> and uniforms to Chechen guerrillas for money.
Sounds a bit like the Napoleonic armies, whose main evil was their
habit of systematically denuding the areas they passed through of food
and valuables, to an extent that made other armies seem altruistic. Is
Putin trying to hold together an empire on the cheap?
--
Cheers, ymt.
McREsq
>> > This I can agree with, that we need to rely less on Arab oil. As for
>> >abandoning them to their own slaughter, there is a parallel to
>> >Afghanistan before the Taliban were booted out,
>
>> No, that ignores the fact that the US created the mujaheddin in the first
>> place, a least the force they became. If we had never armed and supported
>> them, the Soviets would have annihilated all resistance.
>
> Hardly. They had support from other parts of the world besides you.
Meaningless support. The Afghans were armed with the proverbial bows and
arrows against firearms. Their main weapon was a springfied rifle. They were
being slaughtered left and right.
Such support as was getting into Afghanistan was not turning the tide. The
mjuaheddin had virtually no defense against the Hind. None of the traditional
AA artillery could penetrate its armor. And that doesn't even take into
account the jet fighters.
>Also they were able to arm themselves from their enemies, weapons bought by
>corrupt officers or taken from slain soldiers.
Meaningless in terms of numbers. So what if the Muj could caputre a few
AK-47's. They had no supply of ammo for the weapons.
It may be that the US help,
>particularly the Stinger missiles, enabled the Mujahedeen to actually win
>the war, defined as forcing the Soviets to withdraw. Without this aid the
>war might have continued much longer.
Without the significant upgrade in US support, the Soviets would have won.
>> > and to ex-Yugoslavia before they were
>> >bombed into stopping *their* own slaughter.
>
>> Actually the West did largely abandon Yugoslavia to its own slaughter.
>> The West only intervened towards the bitter end.
>
> And one of the motives was to stop a flood of refugees from the region
>into our own rich countries. And the continuing misery in parts of the
>region brings crime with it, such as women who are enslaved prostitutes.
>Spillover.
Right. Hey, as long as it's kept at arms length, who cares?
>> > If we just abandon a region to
>> >its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being
>> >shaken so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from
>> >Afghanistan landed on New York, DC and a field in
>> >Pennsylvania.
>
>> Only because we got involved in the first place. If you read my message I
>> was talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never*
>> armed the mujaheddin. The result would have been the virtual
>> depopulation of Afghanistan and none of the problems we have today.
>> If we left the Red Army alone, the World Trade Center would stil be
>> standing.
>
> You are thinking of depopulating a country of several million
>inhabitants. Killing them? This would have amounted to interestedly, or
>otherwise, watching a genocide that would have made Hitler's murder of six
>million Jews and half a million Gipsies small in comparison. Or displacing
>them, letting the Red Army chase most of the population of Afghanistan into
>Pakistan and Iran, or abducting them, like the Chechens during WWII, to
>Siberia? Take the current international terrorism and multiply by ten. And
>at that, if the Red Army had successfully murdered the majority of the
>population of Afghanistan, the anger that this would have created among
>other Muslims would have been many times their anger against us over the
>Palestine conflict.
I give up. No one really took the bait. I made this line of argument for a
reason. Time and time again, posters here have blamed the U.S. for supporting
and arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets - basically saying we created the
monster that brought down the Twin Towers. My rhetorical argument was intended
to point out the other option: the U.S. stands aside and allows the Afghans to
be slaughtered. If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would have
been a genocide on a massive scale.
My point was to reveal that those who criticized the U.S. support of the Muj as
being at best naive and at worst complicit in potential genocide. What choice
did we have morally? To stand back and do nothing while Hind helicopters mowed
down thousands of fleeing efugees at a clip?
As I've argued before, to blame the US for what what the Afghans did to
*themselves* afterwards would be like blaming the French if the American
colonies degenerated into internecine slaughter after our Revolutionary War.
> Anyway al Qaeda are not mad at the US for having supported the Afghani
>Mujahedeen. They are mad at the US for being more successful (though less
>ambitious) imperialists than they, or so it seems to me.
I've heard lots of theories why they are mad at us: support of Israel, troops
in Saudi Arabia, sanctions on Iraq, etc. The simple answer is this: the
Islamofascists want to create a singular greater Islamic theocracy from Spain
to Indonesia - the U.S. is the only serious impediment in their way. That is
why they hate us.
>> > If the Middle-east can become stable, then apart from *them* becoming
>> >happier, so will we: both richer (with new trading partners and markets,
>> >just as a rebuilt Europe after WWII was in itself profitable both to the
>> >US and to Europe) and safer (ditto).
>
>> Yes, I used to think the same thing. Notwithstanding I'm a supporter of
>> President Bush, I totally disagree with his notion that we can bring
>> democracy to the Middle-east by what we're doing in Iraq.
>
> Hindsight, which is usually 20/20, ain't in yet. Wait ten years and see
>if there is a working democracy in Iraq, or it looks like Somalia.
I'm not saying it won't succeed. It might. I'm saying it wasn't worth the lives
of all these young Americans.
Me, I
>haven't the foggiest what it will be. But it seems like the Bush
>administration seriously underestimated the difficulties in winning the
>peace after so convincingly winning the war, and they did some grave
>miscalculations.
Here's the short answer of what went wrong. Two things: 1) 4th Infantry
division and 2) we won too fast.
First, our optimum plan had the 4th infantry division attacking from Turkey in
the north. That didn't happen. Thus the U.S. attacked with only 2/3 of its
optimum combat strength all from the south - the 3rd Infantry division from the
southwest and the Marines from the southeast. Notwithstanding the loss of
fully one-third of our combat power, the US still had a decisive victory.
Second. We really didn't expect to win so fast. The plan was to bypass all
serious resistance and encircle Baghdad and basically do to Bagdad what the
Marines were doing to Fallujah before they were ordered to pull back. You're
right, the plan was inadequate. There was absolutely no planning for what
happened - a complete and utter collapse of organized resistance from field
units of the Iraqi Army. The famous scenes of U.S. Army tanks and APC's racing
into Baghdad was no more than a simple test to see if we could do it. It was
as much a surprise to as as it probably was to Saddam that we controlled
downtown Baghdad so quickly.
People and the press blame us for the looting that occurred, but as I point
out, we were utterly surprised to have taken Baghdad as easily as we did. Our
MP units who were trained to restore order were nowhere near Baghdad - no one
thought they would be needed anytime soon.
> Disbanding the Iraqi army
That's not quite correct. The major issue is that the Iraqi Army just
dissappeared. It's wrong to say the US disbanded the Iraqi Army. Rather the
Army simply went home.
<snip>
>> I cannot say with any amount of certainty, but the Chechens and their Arab
>> allies may have just made a huge miscalulation - along the lines of the
>> one made by the Japanese in Deecember 1941. The Russian cultural
>> view of children is probably one of the greatest throughout the world.
>> The Chechens and the Arab allies may have just awoken the long
>> dormant Russian bear.
>
> The majority of the Chechens are horrified at what happened in Beslan.
>If for no other reason among their own sorrows then because they know full
>well how their cause has been sold down the river by this.
>
>> I don't think Putin has any choice in terms of domestic politics but to
>> rain hell on Chechnya.
>
> Well, he could start by paying his soldiers in Chechnya, to reduce their
>need to plunder civilians for food or selling their own weapons and uniforms
>to Chechen guerrillas for money.
Which is why I say I do not think the Russian Army has a capability to do what
they want there.
>> Such introspection is the hope if Islam. I only hope such becomees the
>> majority view.
>
> It certainly worked in Germany after WWII. Though perhaps *you* might
>think it worked too well so that the Germans are too gun-shy nowadays. :-)
Not just Germany. Just like the blood of Numenor began to run thin in Gondor,
so the blood of Charles Martel and the Frankish Crusaders runs thin in France;
the blood of Queen Isabella and the Reconquista runs thin in Spain; etc. I
fear that modern Europe has become a modern day Byzantium, coutning the years
until its demise.
Russ
Hashemon Urtasman
>>
>>Why don't you ask if you agree with him or not.
>>
>>Just because someone claiming to be Muslim has done terrorism in Russia,
>>you think it is ok to ... well what do you think it is possible to do
>>w.r.t. the Islamic "menace" (as you would put it?)
>>
>>Even if they did a hundred school bombings, the amount of suffering the
>>Russians have caused Chechnya (250,000 civilians dead) is much more than
>>anything the Chechens have done to anybody in the world. When the dust
>>settles, it is Russia who is the villain the whole matter, plus the
>>Russians are going to make it get worse for the Chechens.
>>
>>So what the f?
>>
>>Hasan
>
>
> That's it. Just waht I expected from you: A justification of that type of
> terrorism. Way to go, asshole.
You think that's justification?
Rather, other people are using terrorism a justification for picking
fights with Muslim countries.
Nobody can seriously think that the Muslims could possibly be the worst
scourge known to mankind--not compared with WW2 and its 100 million dead
(more than 90% civilians) or the worlds 50,000 nukes in the cold war (as
compared to maybe 5), and a worldwide struggle for subverting
governments in all countries of the world (the cold war). Historical
amnesia can lead anyone to believe whatever they will, but this hatred
for Muslims has been there for a long time, and only the justifications
are new--not the motives.
Oh and BTW you are dead wrong about me supporting terrorism, I am
pointing out who the real villain is in this conflict--the Russians.
Hasan
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> If the reports from the Russian authorities aren't all vranyo,
Vranyo??
[From the context I think you mean lies or false]
<snip>
> The majority of the Chechens are horrified at what happened in
> Beslan. If for no other reason among their own sorrows then because
> they know full well how their cause has been sold down the river by
> this.
And also because there will be a backlash? Anyway, I don't understand
the local ethnic rivalries in the Transcaucasus, but the Beslan
(Ossetian) anger seems to be turning on their local neighbours, the
Ingush of Ingushetia. I also read that the traditional reaction to
something like this is, after the 40 day period of Russian Orthodox
mourning, for the fathers to take up their guns (much as they did during
the siege!) and to seek revenge...
Anyway, I wanted to interject some editorials from around the world that
I found interesting and that reflect my opinions. Actually, my opinions
were only reflected in the European ones...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3630770.stm
"The expression 'war on terror' is nonsensical. Terrorism cannot be
ended with war, something we are witnessing with stark clarity...
Neither Putin or Bush will win any battles with their behaviour. Neither
will we." Spain's El Mundo - commentary
"As he has done ever since his mistaken invasion of Chechnya, Putin is
dodging, speaking of nothing but repression, although this policy is an
obvious failure. [This is] a Putin who is suddenly Stalinist and
therefore worrisome. Europe made an error by sanctioning the charade of
the Chechen elections. It must now prevent a new cloak of silence from
falling on Beslan, as it did on the Dubrovka theatre siege." Belgium's
Le Soir - editorial
"It was not easy to resolve the horrifying terrorist siege in Beslan
(perhaps it was not possible at all). Unfortunately, it has come to
light once again that as soon as Russia's politicians, army, police and
secret services are faced with a more serious crisis, they start making
fatal mistakes and lying." Czech Republic's Mlada Fronta Dnes
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Not just Germany. Just like the blood of Numenor began to run thin
> in Gondor, so the blood of Charles Martel and the Frankish Crusaders
> runs thin in France; the blood of Queen Isabella and the Reconquista
> runs thin in Spain; etc. I fear that modern Europe has become a
> modern day Byzantium, counting the years until its demise.
ROTFL!
<wipes tears from eyes>
I dub thee 'Aragorn'. Please step in line for an appointment to come and
claim the throne and reunite the Two Kingdoms.
[Is he serious? Maybe Denethor would a better comparison...]
Christopher Kreuzer
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3630770.stm
>
> "As he has done ever since his mistaken invasion of Chechnya, Putin is
> dodging, speaking of nothing but repression, although this policy is
> an obvious failure. [This is] a Putin who is suddenly Stalinist and
> therefore worrisome. Europe made an error by sanctioning the charade
> of the Chechen elections. It must now prevent a new cloak of silence
> from falling on Beslan, as it did on the Dubrovka theatre siege."
> Belgium's Le Soir - editorial
Which got me thinking. If Stalin or Hitler were alive and in power
today, how different would they appear now to how they appeared in their
times, and would they be capable of doing now what they did in their
times? I ask because the greater fragmentation of the world and the
greater immediacy of the world's media would change things greatly.
Also, did they have organised non-state terrorism back then?
Which then leads on to the obvious question. Are there people in power
(or even those not in traditional roles of power) today who can
genuinely be compared in this way with Hitler and Stalin?
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/6/2004 7:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <o66%c.177983$pTn....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Yeah, we can see exactly how you feel. I mean really, those couple hundred kids
were really oppressing those muslims.
Hashemon Urtasman
> Raven wrote:
>
>
>>>It is in the interests the country to disengage from the Middle-east. We
>>>already get most of our oil from non-Arab sources and if we can work with
>>>the Russians to exploit their vast untapped reserves, we can abandon
>>>the Middle-east to their own slaughter.
>>
>> This I can agree with, that we need to rely less on Arab oil. As for
>>abandoning them to their own slaughter, there is a parallel to Afghanistan
>>before the Taliban were booted out,
>
>
> No, that ignores the fact that the US created the mujaheddin in the first
> place, a least the force they became. If we had never armed and supported
> them, the Soviets would have annihilated all resistance.
>
>
>>and to ex-Yugoslavia before they were
>>bombed into stopping *their* own slaughter.
>
>
> Actually the West did largely abandon Yugoslavia to its own slaughter. The
> West only intervened towards the bitter end.
>
>
>> If we just abandon a region to
>>its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being shaken
>>so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from Afghanistan landed
>>on New York, DC and a field in Pennsylvania.
>
>
> Only because we got involved in the first place. If you read my message I was
> talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never* armed the
The goal for the US in the mideast has always been partly to prevent
Russia from expanding down there--to get a warm water port--plus control
*both* the Caspian and Persian gulf.
Brzenzski after even 9/11 said it was worth defeating the Soviets in
Afghanistan to get them out of Eastern Europe, ...
I can't believe any American would every say what you did. Are you even
an American? Or are you some person? Why don't you tell us what your
nationality is, because I have a hard time believing you could posisbly
be an American.
> mujaheddin. The result would have been the virtual depopulation of Afghanistan
> and none of the problems we have today. If we left the Red Army alone, the
> World Trade Center would stil be standing.
>
>
Considering how much the US desired a Russian defeat, and how Zbig
I wrote an article about this, interpreting a Bible prophecy.
It's about the widely predicted Russian invasion of the Middle East
(Israel), which forms the cornerstone of the Bible prophecy crowd in the
Republican party. I think that the Israel referred to is not the state
of Israel (which is made up of mostly Jews), but the lost tribes who
were last known in the Bible to be living in Afghanistan.
Anyhow, if that is true, then the enormity of the evil of the deed is
shown by the next verses, which probably refer to (what seems to be
obvious) Russian plans to go next into Pakistan to get a warm water
port. (India was already a Russian ally, and the Iranians would have
been controlled by nationalistic communists if Khomeini hadn't been put
in power first. Oh Saddam, ... was a Stalinist too. Imagine: India to
Syria, all Soviet. Nothing kept this back militarily except for the CIA
proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan)
"Ezek 38:11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled
villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of
them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take
a spoil..."
"38:18And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come
against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, [that] my fury shall
come up in my face."
39:2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee,..."
Hasan
McREsq
<snip>
>>> If we just abandon a region to
>>>its own slaughter, there will be spillover, like a poison cup being shaken
>>>so that the venom sloshes over. Part of the poison from Afghanistan landed
>>>on New York, DC and a field in Pennsylvania.
>>
>>
>> Only because we got involved in the first place. If you read my message I
>was
>> talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never* armed the
>
>The goal for the US in the mideast has always been partly to prevent
>Russia from expanding down there--to get a warm water port--plus control
>*both* the Caspian and Persian gulf.
Right, but we're talking 20/20 hindsight. The Soviet conventional army sucked
(although we didn't know it at the time). All we had to do with give some
tribesmen some Stingers and they collapsed like a bad souffle.
There were 2 schools of thought in the CIA. One to arm the Muj to defeat the
Soviets. The other to arm them enough to blled them for a generation. The
former won the debate. I think the wrong side won.
>Brzenzski after even 9/11 said it was worth defeating the Soviets in
>Afghanistan to get them out of Eastern Europe, ...
Brzenzski? You mean the failed National Security Advisor for the failed
President, Jimmy Carter?
>I can't believe any American would every say what you did. Are you even
>an American? Or are you some person?
Yes, I can safely say: I am a person.
> Why don't you tell us what your
>nationality is, because I have a hard time believing you could posisbly
>be an American.
What do you think my nationality is?
>I wrote an article about this, interpreting a Bible prophecy.
Uh oh. I always get worried when people start talking about bible prophesy.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20021130100442
.23142.00000240%40mb-bg.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dafghanistan%2Bez
ekiel%2Bgog%2Bmagog%2Bhasan%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D200211
30100442.23142.00000240%2540
>mb-bg.aol.com%26rnum%3D1
I think you're a wingnut.
>It's about the widely predicted Russian invasion of the Middle East
>(Israel), which forms the cornerstone of the Bible prophecy crowd in the
>Republican party. I think that the Israel referred to is not the state
>of Israel (which is made up of mostly Jews), but the lost tribes who
>were last known in the Bible to be living in Afghanistan.
Hmmm.
<snip silliness>
Russ
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906190931...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> I give up. No one really took the bait. I made this line of argument for
a
> reason. Time and time again, posters here have blamed the U.S. for
supporting
> and arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets - basically saying we
created the
> monster that brought down the Twin Towers. My rhetorical argument was
intended
> to point out the other option: the U.S. stands aside and allows the
Afghans to
> be slaughtered. If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would
have
> been a genocide on a massive scale.
If USSR had been able to crush the opposition and pacify the
country by force, why would there be any kind of genocide??
The tragedy of Afghanistan has been the 25 years of constant
uninterrupted fighting., which not only brutalized the country,
but also brought in the Wahhabist fundamentalism. Even though
there's no way of telling what would have happened if US had
not intervered, it can be said that almost any other solution
would have been better.
Morgil
Flame of the West
>>Not just Germany. Just like the blood of Numenor began to run thin
>>in Gondor, so the blood of Charles Martel and the Frankish Crusaders
>>runs thin in France; the blood of Queen Isabella and the Reconquista
>>runs thin in Spain; etc. I fear that modern Europe has become a
>>modern day Byzantium, counting the years until its demise.
>
>
> ROTFL!
>
> <wipes tears from eyes>
I guess the tears in your eyes explain why you thought
Russ was comparing you to Númenor rather than Gondor.
The analogy is better than you seem to realize.
For one thing, Europeans (like late Third Age
Gondor) have become more interested in death
than in having children. You don't need an
American Aragorn to rule you, but you might need
some American men to go over there and sire some
children since the men of Europe seem incapable
of doing what must be done to keep the population
stable. After all, we are genetically stronger
than you due to all the mixing we've done.
(Perhaps you know that and that's the real reason
for all the immigration and Euro-integration.)
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
Laurie Forbes
"Flame of the West" <jsol...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8ZydndBrbtw...@comcast.com...
[snip]
| You don't need an
| American Aragorn to rule you, but you might need
| some American men to go over there and sire some
| children since the men of Europe seem incapable
| of doing what must be done to keep the population
| stable. After all, we are genetically stronger
| than you due to all the mixing we've done.
| (Perhaps you know that and that's the real reason
| for all the immigration and Euro-integration.)
Hmm.... there's only one thing missing.... can't quite put my finger on
it..... ummm..... ah, well... maybe it will come to me. (Heh.)
Tamim
snip
> Anyway al Qaeda are not mad at the US for having supported the Afghani
> Mujahedeen. They are mad at the US for being more successful (though less
> ambitious) imperialists than they, or so it seems to me.
Can't read their minds, but my guess is that a major reason is the
feeling of being deserted after the Afgan Soviet war. US, like most
other big powers is quite good at using "friendly" countries and people,
but forgetting them at once when their immediate usefullness is over.
There sure are exceptions, but that's the trend. And that get's people
pissed off.
Tamim
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906164104...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Ann Coulter's solution is good in the abstract but it would not work
because
> forcible conversions don't work and would lead to greater violence. The
> practical real world solution remains the one I advocate: excise
Islamofascism
> from the face of the earth. Since so-called moderate Islam is
eitherincapable
> or unwilling to doit, someone else has to.
Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
a chance. The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
known, and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
them from the Western governments.
> You're not making sense. If you think you're making some sort of cute
point,
> you'd be better served by just making it.
My point was that your opinnions are more close to his
opinnions then you perhaps realise. It wasn't that complicated.
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040906164959...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> >That's what I said. You have said that Saudis are worse then Saddam,
>
> I did? I don't recall that. But now that I think of it, I probably agree
with
> that statement. The House of Saud bears a lot more responsiblity for
global
> terrorism than Saddam due to their support and globilization of
wahabbiism.
> Saudi Arabia is the primary reason islam has become a terrorist religion.
Agreed completely. Sauds support Bush, BTW. <g>
> > but then changed it to that being friendly
> >with Saddam is worse then being friendly with Saudis,
> >when attention focused on Bush.
>
> Saddam was providing a great service to the world: he was keeping the
lunatics
> populating his country under a tight leash.
Majority of Iraqis are moderate Shias, not lunatics.
Bush 41 was right: it was better
> off to leave him in place. Bush 41's mistake was leaving him isolated.
It
> would probably have been better to work out an accomodation with Saddam
after
> the first Gulf War rather than implement a decade of sanctions and
isolation.
Ousting Saddam might have worked better in 1991. For one,
there wouldn't have been need for military bases in Saudi-Arabia
in that case.
Morgil
Yuk Tang
news:8R6%c.2004$hm6.20...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> Which got me thinking. If Stalin or Hitler were alive and in power
> today, how different would they appear now to how they appeared in
> their times, and would they be capable of doing now what they did
> in their times? I ask because the greater fragmentation of the
> world and the greater immediacy of the world's media would change
> things greatly. Also, did they have organised non-state terrorism
> back then?
As I understand it, the 'terrorism' tended to be more focused back
then. Organisations such as the Black Hand aimed for the
assassination of political figures (creating the pretext for WWI),
while the Communists and Fascists fought their miniwars against each
other on the streets of Europe.
It's arguable that the advent of airpower, and the removal of
overwhelming military force to the air where they cannot be touched,
created terrorism as it exists today. If the enemy cannot be
countered by conventional means, then unconventional means must be
found. And the practice of punishing those who give shelter to the
enemy can be found throughout history.
> Which then leads on to the obvious question. Are there people in
> power (or even those not in traditional roles of power) today who
> can genuinely be compared in this way with Hitler and Stalin?
The distinguishing mark of Hitler and Stalin was that 'civilised'
western infrastructures were used to inflict inhuman barbarities,
applying industrial efficiency to the matter of genocide. Having
learnt from WWII, those countries which have the capability of
following their example also have a press and population keeping any
such strayings in line. However bad we may want to paint anyone, no-
one around today is remotely comparable to those two.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Yuk Tang
news:chjbl1$69e$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
It's accepted by most people who know the details that Kabul had its
most pleasant period, as defined by western values, during the Soviet
occupation. Fundamentalism was kept down, secularism was prevalent,
women had access to education and rights taken for granted in the
west. Utterly different in the countryside where the mujahideen
still ruled, but then neither they nor the Red Army were known for
their mercy. But most accounts say that the current standard of
living in the cities doesn't approach that of the occupation period.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Yuk Tang
news:chjoml$cfc$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> viestissä:20040906164104...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>
>> Ann Coulter's solution is good in the abstract but it would not
>> work
>> because
>> forcible conversions don't work and would lead to greater
>> violence. The practical real world solution remains the one I
>> advocate: excise
>> Islamofascism
>> from the face of the earth. Since so-called moderate Islam is
>> eitherincapable
>> or unwilling to doit, someone else has to.
>
> Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
> a chance. The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
> known, and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
> them from the Western governments.
Heck, it's even been explicitly stated by OBL. Deal with Israel,
then the Saudi elite. An Israeli solution acceptable to the
Palestinians (a viable state or equal rights in an combined state)
would take care of the first, and a more equal society would take
care of the second. It doesn't even have to mean the end of US
influence in the region. Yet they refuse to even consider the
options.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Hashemon Urtasman
> Hasan wrote:
>
>>
>>>talking about if the US had *never* got involved, and *never* armed the
>>
>>The goal for the US in the mideast has always been partly to prevent
>>Russia from expanding down there--to get a warm water port--plus control
>>*both* the Caspian and Persian gulf.
>
>
> Right, but we're talking 20/20 hindsight. The Soviet conventional army sucked
> (although we didn't know it at the time). All we had to do with give some
> tribesmen some Stingers and they collapsed like a bad souffle.
>
> There were 2 schools of thought in the CIA. One to arm the Muj to defeat the
> Soviets. The other to arm them enough to blled them for a generation. The
> former won the debate. I think the wrong side won.
>
>
>>Brzenzski after even 9/11 said it was worth defeating the Soviets in
>>Afghanistan to get them out of Eastern Europe, ...
>
>
> Brzenzski? You mean the failed National Security Advisor for the failed
> President, Jimmy Carter?
>
Failed maybe, but his Afghan policy was successful. It led to the
breakup of the USSR (as some people think.)
Apparently the US aided the Mujahideen *before* the USSR invaded. This
interview below says that the US wanted to trap the USSR in Afghanistan,
and the USSR took the bait.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan
15-21, 1998, p. 76*
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs
["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid
the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention.
In this period you were the national security adviser to President
Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote
a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It
had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want
me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border,
I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to
the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to
carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought
about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme],
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or
the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in
regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at
Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the
leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is
there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,
Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism?
Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps
sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the
United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski
interview was not included in the shorter version.
The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the
indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"
Portions of the books can be read at:
McREsq
>> Right, but we're talking 20/20 hindsight. The Soviet conventional army
>sucked
>> (although we didn't know it at the time). All we had to do with give some
>> tribesmen some Stingers and they collapsed like a bad souffle.
>>
>> There were 2 schools of thought in the CIA. One to arm the Muj to defeat
>the
>> Soviets. The other to arm them enough to blled them for a generation. The
>> former won the debate. I think the wrong side won.
>>
>>
>>>Brzenzski after even 9/11 said it was worth defeating the Soviets in
>>>Afghanistan to get them out of Eastern Europe, ...
>>
>>
>> Brzenzski? You mean the failed National Security Advisor for the failed
>> President, Jimmy Carter?
>>
>
>Failed maybe, but his Afghan policy was successful. It led to the
>breakup of the USSR (as some people think.)
Afghanistan certainly hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. But I'd hardly
call the Carter/Brzezinski policy successful. The Muj were armed enough to
cause trouble for the pupper government nut were vastly overmatched by the Red
Army. The serious arming of the Muj didn't occur until the Reagan
administration and several years into the adminisation at that.. Prior to
that, all that was getting to the Muj were some antiquated rifles. They had
some success against the puppet government but were slaughtered by the Soviet
Army. The tide only turned some years later.
>Apparently the US aided the Mujahideen *before* the USSR invaded. This
>interview below says that the US wanted to trap the USSR in Afghanistan,
>and the USSR took the bait.
But you missing the point. The issue is the *quality* of that aid. The only
military aid that the Muj were getting from the Cater administration and the
early Reagan administration were antiquated rifles and some othe minor
weaponry.
And they couldnt get more in even if they wanted because the only way to get a
serious supply of arms to the Muj was to enlist the aid of Pakistan. Carter
had basically declared Pakistan a rogue state and thus there was no help there.
It was not until the Reagan adminstration rehabilited Zia's regime that any
serious armament was supplied to the Muj, becuase it was only then that
Pakistan allowed large scale US depot and shipments on it's territory.
That's not exactly a glowing endorsement. Brzezinski is claimed He and Carter
*caused* the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and are thus responsible for the
millions killed as a result. Carter and Brzezenski and Carter were using
Afghans as cannon fodder.
Russ
McREsq
>viestissä:20040906164104...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>
>> Ann Coulter's solution is good in the abstract but it would not work
>because
>> forcible conversions don't work and would lead to greater violence. The
>> practical real world solution remains the one I advocate: excise
>Islamofascism
>> from the face of the earth. Since so-called moderate Islam is
>eitherincapable
>> or unwilling to doit, someone else has to.
>
>Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
>a chance.
And what is your evidence of that? Besides as assertion, that is. I can point
to results: they haven't done anything about it.
> The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
>known,
Really? Fill us in.
>and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
>them from the Western governments.
There is killing them.
<snip>
Russ
McREsq
>>> Ann Coulter's solution is good in the abstract but it would not
>>> work
>>> because
>>> forcible conversions don't work and would lead to greater
>>> violence. The practical real world solution remains the one I
>>> advocate: excise
>>> Islamofascism
>>> from the face of the earth. Since so-called moderate Islam is
>>> eitherincapable
>>> or unwilling to doit, someone else has to.
>>
>> Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
>> a chance. The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
>> known, and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
>> them from the Western governments.
>
>Heck, it's even been explicitly stated by OBL.
LOL. Well, as long as OBL said it, it must be true.
> Deal with Israel,
>then the Saudi elite. An Israeli solution acceptable to the
>Palestinians (a viable state or equal rights in an combined state)
>would take care of the first, and a more equal society would take
>care of the second. It doesn't even have to mean the end of US
>influence in the region. Yet they refuse to even consider the
>options.
OK, let's assume for the same of argument that we do what you say: force Israel
back to pre-1967 borders (how you do not say) and get rid of the House of Saud
(replaced with what you do not say). But for the sake of argument, let's say
we do it.
Do you really think Al Qaeda will just be satisfied and go away? Are you that
naive? They will just keep killing and bombing for the next cause and the next
cause and the next cause. If you think otherwise you're foolish. If you think
these animals will ever be satsfied, you are naive.
Israel and the House of Saud are just small steps towards Al Qaeda's ultimate
goal. Their ultimate goal is a singular Islamist theocratic state stretching
from Spain to Indonesia. Yours is the path of appeasement
Russ
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/7/2004 9:25 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns955D92D2C9795...@130.133.1.4>
As the Palestinian Charter explicitly states that destruction of Israel is the
only acceptable solution for the Palestinians, I don't see that happening. As
well, Bin Asshole and like-minded fun-seekers have stated that infidels must be
destroyed wherever muslims dwell, which includes every nation on earth. It is
very naive to think that Bin Asshole is just a peaceful guy who just wants
others to be happy.
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907100353...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
> >a chance.
>
> And what is your evidence of that? Besides as assertion, that is. I can
point
> to results: they haven't done anything about it.
Of course they have and they are. They are remaining
moderate and trying to convince others to do the same.
> > The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
> >known,
>
> Really? Fill us in.
Look at Chechenya for example. Used to be a moderate,
very much anti-Wahabbist society, but now they have
people blowing up schoolkids and subway-trains.
> >and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
> >them from the Western governments.
>
> There is killing them.
Yup, that attitude is one major reason. Ever wondered why
the female Chechen-terrorists are called Black *Widows*??
Morgil
McREsq
>> I give up. No one really took the bait. I made this line of argument for
>a
>> reason. Time and time again, posters here have blamed the U.S. for
>supporting
>> and arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets - basically saying we
>created the
>> monster that brought down the Twin Towers. My rhetorical argument was
>intended
>> to point out the other option: the U.S. stands aside and allows the
>Afghans to
>> be slaughtered. If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would
>have
>> been a genocide on a massive scale.
>
>If USSR had been able to crush the opposition and pacify the
>country by force, why would there be any kind of genocide??
Ask them because one was going on. Why don't you educate yourself on what the
Soviet Army was doing in Afghanistan?
> As I've said before, we know now that the Soviet Army sucked and would have
been annihilated if it tried to attack NATO. But it was quite capable of
slaughtering Afghan tribesmen who were fighting them with WW1-era rifles.
>The tragedy of Afghanistan has been the 25 years of constant
>uninterrupted fighting., which not only brutalized the country,
>but also brought in the Wahhabist fundamentalism.
The tribal areas of Afghaistan and Pakistan had their own brand of
fundamentalism well before the Wahabbi 'Afghan-Arabs' showed up
Even though
>there's no way of telling what would have happened if US had
>not intervered, it can be said that almost any other solution
>would have been better.
Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that a slaughter was going on.
Russ
McREsq
Except they weren't abandoned. Afghanistan fell into civil war. For your
information, that's Afghans killing Afghans. That was their choice, not ours.
Russ
McREsq
>> >That's what I said. You have said that Saudis are worse then Saddam,
>>
>> I did? I don't recall that. But now that I think of it, I probably agree
>with
>> that statement. The House of Saud bears a lot more responsiblity for
>global
>> terrorism than Saddam due to their support and globilization of
>wahabbiism.
>> Saudi Arabia is the primary reason islam has become a terrorist religion.
>
>Agreed completely. Sauds support Bush, BTW. <g>
The Saudis certainly prefer Bush but they threw a lot of money at democrats
during the Clinton years as well.
Of course, I can just as easily point out that the French and North Koreans
support Kerry.
In short, both sides are favored by scum.
>> > but then changed it to that being friendly
>> >with Saddam is worse then being friendly with Saudis,
>> >when attention focused on Bush.
>>
>> Saddam was providing a great service to the world: he was keeping the
>lunatics
>> populating his country under a tight leash.
>
>Majority of Iraqis are moderate Shias, not lunatics.
The majority are Shias, yes. It's not so clear they are moderate.
> Bush 41 was right: it was better
>> off to leave him in place. Bush 41's mistake was leaving him isolated.
>It
>> would probably have been better to work out an accomodation with Saddam
>after
>> the first Gulf War rather than implement a decade of sanctions and
>isolation.
>
>Ousting Saddam might have worked better in 1991. For one,
>there wouldn't have been need for military bases in Saudi-Arabia
>in that case.
There also would not have been a need if we worked out an accomodation with
him. Saddam was ultimately practical. We could have sat him down and said:
'ok you learned your lesson. Keep your people on a tight leash and don't even
think of any forays outside your borders ever again.'
He would have taken the deal.
Russ
McREsq
>> >Moderate Islam *would* be capable if they were given
>> >a chance.
>>
>> And what is your evidence of that? Besides as assertion, that is. I can
>point
>> to results: they haven't done anything about it.
>
>Of course they have and they are. They are remaining
>moderate and trying to convince others to do the same.
Still no evidence. Do you have any *evidence* the so-called moderates are
succeeding in convincing the Islamists of anything?
>> > The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
>> >known,
>>
>> Really? Fill us in.
>
>Look at Chechenya for example. Used to be a moderate,
>very much anti-Wahabbist society,
Thanks to Stalin deporting the population. Once they had a few years on their
own look what happens:
> but now they have
>people blowing up schoolkids and subway-trains.
>> >and yet there's no sign of willingness to deal with
>> >them from the Western governments.
>>
>> There is killing them.
>
>Yup, that attitude is one major reason. Ever wondered why
>the female Chechen-terrorists are called Black *Widows*??
The Russians aren't very good at killing them. That's their problem: too many
get away.
Russ
Hashemon Urtasman
Well they were, but that's for the west to think about. Afghanistan
could expect nothing from the US (unless it was proven that they were
manipulated and *used* by the US, in which case the US has acted exactly
as Tamim described.)
So the people who grew up in the mess of post war Afghanistan were
totally hardened in their attitudes towards the rest of the world, and
that explains part of what made the Taliban what they were (they were
kids born in refugee camps and never knew teh war, but only the postwar
period.). Even today the warlords are friendly to the Americans, they
are both running the country together now.
Hasan
Taemon
> Hmm.... there's only one thing missing.... can't quite
> put my finger on it..... ummm..... ah, well... maybe it
> will come to me. (Heh.)
:-)
Well, keep it to yourself; it is already very crowded here. The
last thing we need is American men!
T.
the softrat
<moc.rr.eniam@1sebrofr> wrote:
>
>"Flame of the West" <jsol...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:8ZydndBrbtw...@comcast.com...
>
>| American Aragorn to rule you, but you might need
>| some American men to go over there and sire some
>| children since the men of Europe seem incapable
>| of doing what must be done to keep the population
>| stable. After all, we are genetically stronger
>| than you due to all the mixing we've done.
>| (Perhaps you know that and that's the real reason
>| for all the immigration and Euro-integration.)
>
>Hmm.... there's only one thing missing.... can't quite put my finger on
>it..... ummm..... ah, well... maybe it will come to me. (Heh.)
>
so I've been told.)
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Profanity: The linguistic crutch of inarticulate bastards
Jette Goldie
"Laurie Forbes" <moc.rr.eniam@1sebrofr> wrote in message
news:qCa%c.217770$bp1.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Would that be the falling sperm rates measured among
US men (just as in Western Europe) meaning that the
American *studs* are no more studly than the European
ones?
(must be something to do with the western diet and lifestyle)
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907115916...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would
> >have
> >> been a genocide on a massive scale.
> >
> >If USSR had been able to crush the opposition and pacify the
> >country by force, why would there be any kind of genocide??
>
> Ask them because one was going on. Why don't you educate yourself on what
the
> Soviet Army was doing in Afghanistan?
Large scale mass murders no doubt. Genocide? Don't think so.
> >The tragedy of Afghanistan has been the 25 years of constant
> >uninterrupted fighting., which not only brutalized the country,
> >but also brought in the Wahhabist fundamentalism.
>
> The tribal areas of Afghaistan and Pakistan had their own brand of
> fundamentalism well before the Wahabbi 'Afghan-Arabs' showed up
Some weird local customs here and there on the backwoods.
> Even though
> >there's no way of telling what would have happened if US had
> >not intervered, it can be said that almost any other solution
> >would have been better.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that a slaughter was going on.
I'm not at all sure that the Mujahaddin had much effect
in protecting civilians. Quite the opposite probably.
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907120931...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
>
> >Of course they have and they are. They are remaining
> >moderate and trying to convince others to do the same.
>
> Still no evidence. Do you have any *evidence* the so-called moderates are
> succeeding in convincing the Islamists of anything?
Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
evidence enough.
> >Look at Chechenya for example. Used to be a moderate,
> >very much anti-Wahabbist society,
>
> Thanks to Stalin deporting the population. Once they had a few years on
their
> own look what happens:
Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
violent principles.
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907120611...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> >Agreed completely. Sauds support Bush, BTW. <g>
>
> The Saudis certainly prefer Bush but they threw a lot of money at
democrats
> during the Clinton years as well.
>
> Of course, I can just as easily point out that the French and North
Koreans
> support Kerry.
>
> In short, both sides are favored by scum.
The French don't fly airplanes in buildings.
> >> Saddam was providing a great service to the world: he was keeping the
> >lunatics
> >> populating his country under a tight leash.
> >
> >Majority of Iraqis are moderate Shias, not lunatics.
>
> The majority are Shias, yes. It's not so clear they are moderate.
Yes it is.
Morgil
Taemon
> Would that be the falling sperm rates measured among
> US men (just as in Western Europe) meaning that the
> American *studs* are no more studly than the European
> ones?
>
> (must be something to do with the western diet and
> lifestyle)
Lessening infertility is a normal reaction to overpopulation.
We'll be fine, I think.
T.
McREsq
>> >Agreed completely. Sauds support Bush, BTW. <g>
>>
>> The Saudis certainly prefer Bush but they threw a lot of money at
>democrats
>> during the Clinton years as well.
>>
>> Of course, I can just as easily point out that the French and North
>Koreans
>> support Kerry.
>>
>> In short, both sides are favored by scum.
>
>The French don't fly airplanes in buildings.
No, they just appease those who do.
Funny I thought you were against tarring a whole society for the actions of a
few.
>> >> Saddam was providing a great service to the world: he was keeping the
>> >lunatics
>> >> populating his country under a tight leash.
>> >
>> >Majority of Iraqis are moderate Shias, not lunatics.
>>
>> The majority are Shias, yes. It's not so clear they are moderate.
>
>Yes it is.
The jury is still out. We'll see if the moderates take action against those
like al-Sadr. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath.
Russ
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/7/2004 2:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <chktru$cdn$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>
>
>
>"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
>viestissä:20040907120931...@mb-m07.aol.com...
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>> >Of course they have and they are. They are remaining
>> >moderate and trying to convince others to do the same.
>>
>> Still no evidence. Do you have any *evidence* the so-called moderates are
>> succeeding in convincing the Islamists of anything?
>
>Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
>evidence enough.
Yes. They only celebrate in the streets when the fundamentalists kill people.
They don't actually kill themselves.
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907143508...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> >The French don't fly airplanes in buildings.
>
> No, they just appease those who do.
Don't recall French appeasing Al-Qaeda.
> Funny I thought you were against tarring a whole society for the actions
of a
> few.
I'm just wondering why *you* support Bush, despite his
close alliance with Sauds.
> >> The majority are Shias, yes. It's not so clear they are moderate.
> >
> >Yes it is.
>
> The jury is still out. We'll see if the moderates take action against
those
> like al-Sadr. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath.
The last crisis ended quickly when the leading moderade
Shia cleric returned to take care of it.
Morgil
McREsq
>> >Of course they have and they are. They are remaining
>> >moderate and trying to convince others to do the same.
>>
>> Still no evidence. Do you have any *evidence* the so-called moderates are
>> succeeding in convincing the Islamists of anything?
>
>Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
>evidence enough.
Assertion is not evidence. How are you defining muslim fundamentalism? Most
muslim majority countries have their laws based on the sharia. That's
certainly a sign of fundamentalism.
Don't confuse the Westernized muslims you meet in Helsinki for the vast
majority living in their homelands.
>> >Look at Chechenya for example. Used to be a moderate,
>> >very much anti-Wahabbist society,
>>
>> Thanks to Stalin deporting the population. Once they had a few years on
>their
>> own look what happens:
>
>Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
>Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
>violent principles.
Have you ever read about Chechen history? The historic Sufi warlords of
Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist government.
Hardly non-violent.
Interesting article on the topic:
http://www.naqshbandi.net/haqqani/Islam/Shariah/muamalaat/jihad/roots_of_c
onflict.htm
Russ
McREsq
> If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would
>> >have
>> >> been a genocide on a massive scale.
>> >
>> >If USSR had been able to crush the opposition and pacify the
>> >country by force, why would there be any kind of genocide??
>>
>> Ask them because one was going on. Why don't you educate yourself on what
>the
>> Soviet Army was doing in Afghanistan?
>
>Large scale mass murders no doubt. Genocide? Don't think so.
The Red Army was making a pretty good go of it at some points such as the
Tajiks of the Panjshir Valley
>> >The tragedy of Afghanistan has been the 25 years of constant
>> >uninterrupted fighting., which not only brutalized the country,
>> >but also brought in the Wahhabist fundamentalism.
>>
>> The tribal areas of Afghaistan and Pakistan had their own brand of
>> fundamentalism well before the Wahabbi 'Afghan-Arabs' showed up
>
>Some weird local customs here and there on the backwoods.
Whatever. Nevertheless, the Wahabbis did not bring fundamentalism to
Afghanistan.
>> Even though
>> >there's no way of telling what would have happened if US had
>> >not intervered, it can be said that almost any other solution
>> >would have been better.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that a slaughter was going on.
>
>I'm not at all sure that the Mujahaddin had much effect
>in protecting civilians. Quite the opposite probably.
That was my point. The Muj had no ability to fight the Red Army and protect
their people until around 1985 when the CIA weapons program came online.
Russ
McREsq
>> >The French don't fly airplanes in buildings.
>>
>> No, they just appease those who do.
>
>Don't recall French appeasing Al-Qaeda.
>
>> Funny I thought you were against tarring a whole society for the actions
>of a
>> few.
>
>I'm just wondering why *you* support Bush, despite his
>close alliance with Sauds.
Because the alternative, Kerry, would be a disaster for U.S. security.
>> >> The majority are Shias, yes. It's not so clear they are moderate.
>> >
>> >Yes it is.
>>
>> The jury is still out. We'll see if the moderates take action against
>those
>> like al-Sadr. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath.
>
>The last crisis ended quickly when the leading moderade
>Shia cleric returned to take care of it.
The problem with these crisis-ending "solutions" is that they tend to be
short-lived. There have been about half a dozen deals with al-Sadr that keep
getting broken. No sooner is a deal reached in Najaf then his fighters are
creating trouble in Sadr City.
Russ
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907144447...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> >Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
> >evidence enough.
>
> Assertion is not evidence. How are you defining muslim fundamentalism?
Most
> muslim majority countries have their laws based on the sharia. That's
> certainly a sign of fundamentalism.
Most muslims live in countries that are either secular or moderate.
Fundamentalists are only a loud minority.
> >Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
> >Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
> >violent principles.
>
> Have you ever read about Chechen history? The historic Sufi warlords of
> Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist
government.
> Hardly non-violent.
Hey, it has never stopped the Christians either!
Morgil
McREsq
>"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
>viestissä:20040907144447...@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> Morgil wrote:
>
>> >Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
>> >evidence enough.
>>
>> Assertion is not evidence. How are you defining muslim fundamentalism?
>Most
>> muslim majority countries have their laws based on the sharia. That's
>> certainly a sign of fundamentalism.
>
>Most muslims live in countries that are either secular or moderate.
>Fundamentalists are only a loud minority.
How are you defining "muslim fundamentalist"?
>> >Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
>> >Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
>> >violent principles.
>>
>> Have you ever read about Chechen history? The historic Sufi warlords of
>> Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist
>government.
>> Hardly non-violent.
>
>Hey, it has never stopped the Christians either!
Nice misdirection, but what does that have to do with your incorrect assertion
that the Chechens are historically non-violent?
Russ
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907145044...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> >> >The tragedy of Afghanistan has been the 25 years of constant
> >> >uninterrupted fighting., which not only brutalized the country,
> >> >but also brought in the Wahhabist fundamentalism.
> >>
> >> The tribal areas of Afghaistan and Pakistan had their own brand of
> >> fundamentalism well before the Wahabbi 'Afghan-Arabs' showed up
> >
> >Some weird local customs here and there on the backwoods.
>
> Whatever. Nevertheless, the Wahabbis did not bring fundamentalism to
> Afghanistan.
They brought the Wahabbist Fundamentalism and made it mainstream.
> >I'm not at all sure that the Mujahaddin had much effect
> >in protecting civilians. Quite the opposite probably.
>
> That was my point. The Muj had no ability to fight the Red Army and
protect
> their people until around 1985 when the CIA weapons program came online.
Have you any numbers of major reduce in civilian casualties after 1985?
Morgil
Morgil
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20040907150917...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >
> >> >Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
> >> >Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
> >> >violent principles.
> >>
> >> Have you ever read about Chechen history? The historic Sufi warlords
of
> >> Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist
> >government.
> >> Hardly non-violent.
> >
> >Hey, it has never stopped the Christians either!
>
> Nice misdirection, but what does that have to do with your incorrect
assertion
> that the Chechens are historically non-violent?
I didn't say they were. Just the religion, generally speaking.
Morgil
Hashemon Urtasman
> BaronjosefR <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Which reminds me, I am waiting for the terrorist-apologists in this
>>newsgroup to try and excuse what happened in Russia yesterday. They
>>made the attempt to do that with the WTC, so this one should be easy,
>>as only 350 people (mostly children) were slaughtered.
>
>
> Well, I don't want to get into that discussion. It was a terrible,
> terrible thing that happened, and the look of terror on the faces of
> those children was just heart-rending. The survivors will be severely
> traumatised and may suffer horrendous psychological damage.
>
> One thing I have noticed when reading about it, is some kind of
> mutterings about a supra-political "Great Game". Looks like they have
> those 'big picture' guys in Russia as well as the USA:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3627060.stm
>
> Russian news sources (in link above) saying:
>
One thing is clear, the Russians are not giving much information about
the whole thing. The "black African" they say they found was really
just a charred body. So far nobody is giving any of the Arab bodies
they had. The only man they caught said that a man in a dark forest
whose only name they got was "Commander", told them that the president
of Chechnya ordered a hostage taking in Breslan.
Since the KGB has faked Chechen attacks before,
http://www.bigeye.com/021502.htm
one should take anything the Government says on this with a grain of
salt. Certainly, if anyone thinks Islam is behind this, then the least
possible thing they could do is to get a public trial and all the works,
to get things out in the open. OBviously people are "telling" us what
the hijackers motivations are--based on their own preconceptions of
Islam as an Arab terrorist (sic) religion.
Hasan
Hashemon Urtasman
Snippets from the article...
(quote)
In late 1999, I wrote that the apartment bombings were a pretext to
invade Chechnya and were likely a provocation staged by the Russian
security service, FSB(successor to KGB).
The Kremlin kept insisting `Islamic terrorists' did the bombings. A few
months later, a wildly popular Putin, whose approval ratings hit 80%,
was swept into the presidency of Russia on a wave of patriotic fervor,
jingoism, xenophobia, and anti-Muslim hysteria.
Then, in late 1999, after the four bombings, FSB agents were caught
red-handed planting a large bomb in the basement of an apartment
building in the city of Ryazan. Local police were called and arrested
the FSB agents - until they revealed their identity. ...
Now, a Russian historian and former KGB-FSB officer have written a book
in which they claim the FSB - not Chechen - planted the bombs to justify
a second Russian invasion of breakaway Chechnya. Recently, exiled
Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky, a bitter foe of Putin who has long
maintained close contacts with Chechen leaders, claims he will soon
reveal evidence the FSB was indeed behind the bombings.
Before 9/11, the US and EU had criticized Russia for massive human
rights violations in Chechnya. But once Washington need Russian support
for its invasion of Afghanistan - and the Russians cleverly told Bush
the Chechen were `linked to Osama bin Laden' - the White House abruptly
re-branded the Chechen national resistance - hitherto described as
`freedom fighters' - as `Islamic terrorists.'
Presidents Bush proclaimed a joint US-Russian `war against Islamic
terrorism' and sanctioned Russia's savage repression in the Caucasus.
The EU dutifully fell into line. The FSB whispered to CIA that
Afghanistan was filled with Chechen `terrorists' trained and financed by
bin Laden, though
(end quote)
Even today, journalists are not being given information, one journalist
was poisoned on her flight to Breslan, another was denied entry to the
country.
teh guardian reports on Sep 7,
"Russia's Novaya Gazeta newspaper has called for an official
investigation into the alleged poisoning of its journalist Anna
Politkovskaya, a high profile critic of the Kremlin's policy on
Chechnya, on a flight to Beslan last week."
This looks like someone trying to cover up something instead of
revealing the truth. It's a whole stage-managed scene for now, but if
journalists ask the tough questions then the truth will come out. Too
often people react to events without fully knowing what happenned.
Till then it's just emotional reaction to the tragedy we are basing our
views on.
Hasan
Hashemon Urtasman
>
>>>>Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist
>>>
>>>government.
>>>
>>>>Hardly non-violent.
>>>
>>>Hey, it has never stopped the Christians either!
>>
>>Nice misdirection, but what does that have to do with your incorrect
>
> assertion
>
>>that the Chechens are historically non-violent?
>
>
> I didn't say they were. Just the religion, generally speaking.
>
They were qualitatively different from the Wahabis, if that's what you
mean. That is true. War in self defence is the most basic recognized
human right, in any society.
Hasan
> Morgil
>
>
Flame of the West
>>>The reasons behind fundamentalism are well
>>>known,
>>
>>Really? Fill us in.
>
> Look at Chechenya for example. Used to be a moderate,
> very much anti-Wahabbist society, but now they have
> people blowing up schoolkids and subway-trains.
You didn't answer his question. What are the
well-known reasons behind fundamentalism?
-- FotW
"If you must read newspapers and magazines at least
give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
-- C.S. Lewis
Raven
news:Wv6%c.1993$X46.20...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Raven <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> > If the reports from the Russian authorities aren't all vranyo,
> Vranyo??
> [From the context I think you mean lies or false]
Sort of a miasma of lies, half-lies and half-truths spoken by the Russian
government to the Russian people, whom the government has not had a
tradition of viewing as someone with rights and to whom respect was due. A
verbal Potemkin movie set.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Raven
news:20040906190931...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> Raven wrote:
> Meaningless support. The Afghans were armed with the proverbial bows and
> arrows against firearms. Their main weapon was a springfied rifle. They
> were being slaughtered left and right.
> Such support as was getting into Afghanistan was not turning the tide.
> The mjuaheddin had virtually no defense against the Hind. None of
> the traditional AA artillery could penetrate its armor. And that
> doesn't even take into account the jet fighters.
They could not defend themselves from the Soviet air force, but in the
mountains they could hide from it. They could ambush Soviet convoys. They
could do much what the Chechens, a much less numerous nation, are currently
doing in Chechnya and nearby. It would have been ugly. They might well
have failed to win, but it is not certain that they would have lost. Keep
in mind that they had what the Chechens guerrillas do not really have: a
safe haven in a large, neighbouring country. The Soviets would have had to
invade Pakistan to put an end to that, or at least threatened an invasion
sufficiently strongly to cow the Pakistanis. This might have meant war
against China, and certainly your country, bristling with nukes, would not
have stood by and let the Soviets aquire an Indian Ocean naval base in
occupied Pakistan - even if the Afghanis had meant nothing to you.
> > And one of the motives was to stop a flood of refugees from the region
> >into our own rich countries. And the continuing misery in parts of the
> >region brings crime with it, such as women who are enslaved prostitutes.
> >Spillover.
> Right. Hey, as long as it's kept at arms length, who cares?
Are you being rhetorical again? Women from Czechia and Moldova kidnapped
or bamboozled into sneaking into western Europe and then forced to lie with
a bunch of men every day for the profit of eastern European mafia gangs mean
nothing?
> I give up. No one really took the bait. I made this line of argument for
> a reason. Time and time again, posters here have blamed the U.S.
> for supporting and arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets -
> basically saying we created the monster that brought down the
> Twin Towers. My rhetorical argument was intended to point out
> the other option: the U.S. stands aside and allows the Afghans to
> be slaughtered. If the U.S. had not armed the mujaheddin there would
> have been a genocide on a massive scale.
I should have known that reason. But you wrote these things in answer to
me, who have never harangued the USA for having supported the Mujahedeen in
Afghanistan.
> As I've argued before, to blame the US for what what the Afghans did to
> *themselves* afterwards would be like blaming the French if the American
> colonies degenerated into internecine slaughter after our Revolutionary
> War.
Well you *did* for a while, between 1861 and 1865 --- so *that's* why you
dislike the Froggies so much! :-)
> > Anyway al Qaeda are not mad at the US for having supported the Afghani
> >Mujahedeen. They are mad at the US for being more successful (though
> >less ambitious) imperialists than they, or so it seems to me.
> I've heard lots of theories why they are mad at us: support of Israel,
> troops in Saudi Arabia, sanctions on Iraq, etc. The simple answer is
> this: the Islamofascists want to create a singular greater Islamic
> theocracy from Spain to Indonesia - the U.S. is the only serious
> impediment in their way. That is why they hate us.
And because they envy the West, it seems. They believe themselves to be
superiour because they have the One True Faith (tm), but we are richer and
stronger than they, and have been since the Osman armies were foiled at Wien
more or less. Nothing hurts as much as superiority foiled. Look at how
hard racists may fight to maintain their supremacy superstitions, and other
examples are there to be examined.
> > Hindsight, which is usually 20/20, ain't in yet. Wait ten years and
> >see if there is a working democracy in Iraq, or it looks like Somalia.
> I'm not saying it won't succeed. It might. I'm saying it wasn't worth the
> lives of all these young Americans.
If Bush' plan does succeed, and democracy does spread in the Middle-east,
and if as a result another 9/11 is prevented, will you maintain that
opinion? Though it will be impossible to tell, of course.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Flame of the West
> It's accepted by most people who know the details that Kabul had its
> most pleasant period, as defined by western values, during the Soviet
> occupation. Fundamentalism was kept down, secularism was prevalent,
> women had access to education and rights taken for granted in the
> west.
If the Soviets were capable of making Kabul such a
delightful place, why couldn't they do the same
thing to Eastern Europe and the USSR itself? How
come those people didn't have "rights taken for
granted in the West"?
Christopher Kreuzer
http://www.naqshbandi.net/haqqani/Islam/Shariah/muamalaat/jihad/roots_of_conflict.htm
That was indeed interesting. Thanks.
Yuk Tang
>
>> It's accepted by most people who know the details that Kabul had
>> its most pleasant period, as defined by western values, during
>> the Soviet occupation. Fundamentalism was kept down, secularism
>> was prevalent, women had access to education and rights taken for
>> granted in the west.
>
> If the Soviets were capable of making Kabul such a
> delightful place, why couldn't they do the same
> thing to Eastern Europe and the USSR itself?
Because Communist countries have different values from those you're
talking about?
'Fundamentalism was kept down, secularism was prevalent'. Communist
states have tended to keep a lid on religion, especially anything
which might compete or interfere with their ideology.
'Women had access to education and rights taken for granted in the
west'. Communist governments have always made a point of educating
the masses, and equal rights was another cornerstone of the project:
'Comrade Kournikov, Comrade Kournikova, etc.'. Read about the Soviet
education system, or closer to home, look at the Cuban system.
> How
> come those people didn't have "rights taken for
> granted in the West"?
Education, egalitarianism and secularism were vigorously pursued in
all Communist countries, at the expense of individuality. They _did_
have rights, taken for granted in the West, as I described them.
--
Cheers, ymt.
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/7/2004 3:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <_co%c.255680$UTP....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Right, so the next time those assholes blow up a school and kill several
hundred children (many by shooting them in the back as the children ran away)
we should all be like Hasan and cheer them on and justify it.
Öjevind Lång
news:chl0m2$ehj$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> "McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> kirjoitti
> viestissä:20040907144447...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > Morgil wrote:
>
> > >Most Muslims are still not fundamentalists. That's
> > >evidence enough.
> >
> > Assertion is not evidence. How are you defining muslim fundamentalism?
> Most
> > muslim majority countries have their laws based on the sharia. That's
> > certainly a sign of fundamentalism.
>
> Most muslims live in countries that are either secular or moderate.
> Fundamentalists are only a loud minority.
>
> > >Nonsense. Most Chechens have been followers of Sufi
> > >Mysticism for hundreds of years, which advocates non-
> > >violent principles.
> >
> > Have you ever read about Chechen history? The historic Sufi warlords of
> > Chechnya are quite famous for their reisistance agaisnt the Tsarist
> government.
> > Hardly non-violent.
>
> Hey, it has never stopped the Christians either!
And anyway, what was wrong with the Chechens resisting colonialist
aggression from the Russian Tsars?
Öjevind
Flame of the West
> They were qualitatively different from the Wahabis, if that's what you
> mean. That is true. War in self defence is the most basic recognized
> human right, in any society.
Killing hundreds of innocent children is not "war", it's
criminal terrorism. Right?
Flame of the West
> Hmm.... there's only one thing missing.... can't quite put my finger on
> it..... ummm..... ah, well... maybe it will come to me. (Heh.)
You ain't one of them uppity wimmin, are ya?
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
Flame of the West
>>If the Soviets were capable of making Kabul such a
>>delightful place, why couldn't they do the same
>>thing to Eastern Europe and the USSR itself?
>
> Because Communist countries have different values from those you're
> talking about?
>
> 'Fundamentalism was kept down, secularism was prevalent'. Communist
> states have tended to keep a lid on religion, especially anything
> which might compete or interfere with their ideology.
>
> 'Women had access to education and rights taken for granted in the
> west'. Communist governments have always made a point of educating
> the masses, and equal rights was another cornerstone of the project:
> 'Comrade Kournikov, Comrade Kournikova, etc.'. Read about the Soviet
> education system, or closer to home, look at the Cuban system.
>
>> How
>>come those people didn't have "rights taken for
>>granted in the West"?
>
> Education, egalitarianism and secularism were vigorously pursued in
> all Communist countries, at the expense of individuality. They _did_
> have rights, taken for granted in the West, as I described them.
Excuse me, but you said:
>It's accepted by most people who know the details that Kabul had
>its most pleasant period, as defined by western values, during
>the Soviet occupation.
Not Communist values, mind you, *Western* values.
I grant you that the Soviet puppets had a better record on
educating women than the Teliban, but there's a lot more to
Western values than that. For example, individual freedom,
or "individuality" as you call it.
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
BaronjosefR
>Date: 9/7/2004 10:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <HNydnewWWch...@comcast.com>
>
>Hashemon Urtasman wrote:
>
>> They were qualitatively different from the Wahabis, if that's what you
>> mean. That is true. War in self defence is the most basic recognized
>> human right, in any society.
>
>Killing hundreds of innocent children is not "war", it's
>criminal terrorism. Right?
>
>
>-- FotW
You are responding to the same guy who used the same logic to justify the
actions of Hamas and Al Qaeda.I am glad that other people are seeing it now. I
must admit, he is being a much more blatant asshole than normal.
Flame of the West
>>"Buses, schools and residences"? What about office
>>buildings filled with thousands of people from various
>>nations? This scumbag carefully omitted mentioning
>>9/11 in his litany of terrorism. He apparently has
>>no problem with killing Americans; indeed, he probably
>>danced in the street with his fellow barbarians when
>>American children were orphaned by his Saudi countrymen.
>
> I did not quote everything that he wrote, because not everything was
> reported in the nespaper I quoted from. So I don't know if he mentioned or
> alluded to 9/11, or neglected mention of it altogether. You cannot say that
> he "carefully omitted mentioning 9/11" without having read the entire
> article.
Well, his article seems not to be on the Web, so we can
only guess at what he has said. Nevertheless, he did
carefully refrain at least in that list of terrorist
acts, which I find hard to explain as an accident.
The fact is, the Saudi people have done more to promote
terrorism than any other nation. They have exported
their poisonous Wahabi twisting of Islam, which has
almost singlehandedly created the Islamic terrorist
movement. They carried out 9/11 all by themselves.
Their media (including this clown's TV station no doubt)
spews the most noxious anti-Semitism seen since 1945.
Saddam was a piker compared to these guys. So Saudi
commentators get no slack as far as I am concerned.
They need to explicitly condemn 9/11 *every time* they
talk about terrorism, or I conclude they don't really
disapprove of it. Every Saudi citizen has an extra
burden to prove their good intentions because of their
hideous bloodthirsty history.
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
Hashemon Urtasman
(Funny I didn't see FOTWs message, so I'll hang my reply on this bozos
message.)
You still think I justify the actions of these groups? I won't even
dignify that with a response.
Hasan
the softrat
West <jsol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Laurie Forbes wrote:
>
>
>> Hmm.... there's only one thing missing.... can't quite put my finger on
>> it..... ummm..... ah, well... maybe it will come to me. (Heh.)
>
>You ain't one of them uppity wimmin, are ya?
>
Bite Your Tongue!
(Actually, bite anything!)
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
God? I'm no God! God has MERCY!
Jeffrey Johnson
>BaronjosefR wrote:
>>>From: Flame of the West jsol...@comcast.net
>>>Date: 9/7/2004 10:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <HNydnewWWch...@comcast.com>
>>>
>>>Hashemon Urtasman wrote:
>>>
>>>>They were qualitatively different from the Wahabis, if that's what
>>>>you mean. That is true. War in self defence is the most basic
>>>>recognized human right, in any society.
>>>
>>>Killing hundreds of innocent children is not "war", it's
>>>criminal terrorism. Right?
>>>
>> the actions of Hamas and Al Qaeda.I am glad that other people are
>> seeing it now. I must admit, he is being a much more blatant asshole
>> than normal.
>
>(Funny I didn't see FOTWs message, so I'll hang my reply on this bozos
>message.)
>
>You still think I justify the actions of these groups? I won't even
>dignify that with a response.
Yet, given another *pointed* opportunity to do so, you still fail to
condemn the actions of those who killed hundreds of innocent children.
Instead, you continue to evade making any statement regarding the actual
matter, preferring to question whether others are correct in terming your
non-responses "justifications".
Let me show you how to be clear about your position:
Regardless of the history of the conflict, I deplore and condemn the
actions of those men who took hostage a Russian school and murdered
hundreds of innocent children in the process. Deliberately targeting
innocent children, whether a war is on or not, is never acceptible.
The above statement should make it abundantly clear what my position on
the issue (not only regarding the recent events in Russia, but in general
as well) is. It is up to you, if you so choose, to be as clear in your
position. As yet, you have not been. Are you man enough to do so?
-Jeffrey Johnson
--
Replace the rent-a-car with 'avis' to reply
Taemon
> I grant you that the Soviet puppets had a better record on
> educating women than the Teliban, but there's a lot more
> to Western values than that. For example, individual
> freedom, or "individuality" as you call it.
I seem to remember you are a Christian fundamentalist. Surely you
are no proponent of individualism? Seriously? In matters of
sexuality, for instance?
T.
Yuk Tang
>>
>>> How
>>>come those people didn't have "rights taken for
>>>granted in the West"?
>>
>> Education, egalitarianism and secularism were vigorously pursued
>> in all Communist countries, at the expense of individuality.
>> They _did_ have rights, taken for granted in the West, as I
>> described them.
>
> Excuse me, but you said:
>
> >It's accepted by most people who know the details that Kabul had
> >its most pleasant period, as defined by western values, during
> >the Soviet occupation.
>
> Not Communist values, mind you, *Western* values.
Then compare Kabul during the occupation period with the current
state of affairs. Back then, individuality in the western
European/American style wasn't exactly encouraged, but it was safe to
move around, education and equal rights was available, and a secular
state (but freedom to worship privately) was rigorously imposed.
Nowadays, where's security? The education system? Equal rights?
The secular state? Are people freer to express their individuality
now than they were? Wouldn't you say that religious fundamentalism
is an even greater dampener on individuality than Communism, as
experienced in Afghanistan, without any of the earthly benefits?
> I grant you that the Soviet puppets had a better record on
> educating women than the Teliban, but there's a lot more to
> Western values than that. For example, individual freedom,
> or "individuality" as you call it.
Then you'll have to prove that people enjoy more individual freedoms
now, or at any time, than during the occupation period. Not in
theory either, but in practice.
--
Cheers, ymt.