The War In Afghanistan
Killer Koala
non-American point of view. If your interested have a look at:
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~jaba/
Killer Koala
GD
says...
>
>I found an interesting article on the war in Afghanistan from an
>non-American point of view.
It might have been written by a non-American, but it certainly
toes the American party line in all respects, right down to
the typical loud call to patriotism, and a complete avoidance
of the question behind why the attacks took place in the first
instance.
A few other comments:
1. The unwelcome popups are causing my browser problems,
and I recommend that other people not visit the site
for this reason.
2. The claim: "Australian targets including Melbourne’s
Rialto Tower, which was supposedly to be attacked in a
similar manner to that which felled the WTC." ...has been
found to be completely false, and appears instead to be
a story that some Indian police made up to gain self
importance.
3. A similar statement can be made about your the claim
that Lucas Heights was a terrorist target in the leadup
to the olympic games. From the ANSTO website,a year
after these claims were made:
What about the allegations that terrorists in New Zealand
were planning to attack the HIFAR reactor?
These allegations were first raised in the run-up to
the Olympics last year. Responsible security authorities
advised ANSTO and the press at the time that there was
no substance to the allegations. That advice has been
repeated in the press in recent days. It is disappointing
that, despite the facts, certain groups have pretended
that the year old, demonstrably false allegations, which
include false statements as to what was found by New
Zealand police, are true.
4. The claim that the september 11 attacks were
"against Western Democracy" and "our democratic
way of life threatens [their] radical view" is
totally without foundation, as you could see
yourself if you cared to:
a) examine the articles' list of attacks attributed
to Bin Laden:
United States of America personnel at Khobar Towers
United States of America WTC bombing in 1993
United States of America Embassy in Tanzania
United States of America Embassy in Kenya
United States of America USS Cole in Yemen
United States of America aircraft by Richard Reid
and...
b) read some interviews of Bin Laden to see exactly
what motivates him and what his goals are. They're
on the net, they're not hard to find, and might just
enlighten you as to the real (if somewhat misguided)
goals behind his attacks being those directly related
to USA foreign policy matters.
5. The article was written for sensationalism rather
than for a hard eye for facts. This is clear by the
use of language such as "these animals", "their disgusting
aims", "villans", "murderers", and "bastardised", and in
this light the attack against the "sensation
seeking" media is one pot calling the kettle black.
cheers...
user6
(GD) wrote:
>
>It might have been written by a non-American, but it certainly
>toes the American party line in all respects, right down to
>the typical loud call to patriotism, and a complete avoidance
>of the question behind why the attacks took place in the first
>instance.
>
/****** much material snipped ************/
>
>5. The article was written for sensationalism rather
> than for a hard eye for facts. This is clear by the
> use of language such as "these animals", "their disgusting
> aims", "villans", "murderers", and "bastardised", and in
> this light the attack against the "sensation
> seeking" media is one pot calling the kettle black.
>
>cheers...
>
Cheers indeed.
It's a pleasure to see that there are still people out there concerned
with the facts. As far as the "sensation seeking media" - our leaders
would not be able to drag us into every conflict on the planet if the
media were accurately reporting US government actions (crimes
actually).....past and present.
--
Our tax dollars have supported terror around the world.
Jeremy Olson
"GD" <al...@melb.somethingoranother.com> wrote in message
news:Dp0O8.21$3C3....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> In article <854fb9c6.02060...@posting.google.com>,
kille...@emaildownunder.com
> says...
> >
> >I found an interesting article on the war in Afghanistan from an
> >non-American point of view.
>
>
> It might have been written by a non-American, but it certainly
> toes the American party line in all respects, right down to
> the typical loud call to patriotism, and a complete avoidance
> of the question behind why the attacks took place in the first
> instance.
Bin Laden wants to attack us becuase he doesn't like US troops in Saudi
Arabia, and becuase we don't follow his twisted view of Islam. He simply
uses the situation in Iraq, and Israel as a recruiting tool, and it's quite
effective. Al Queda has attacked more than the US. They have
attacked targets in Tunisia, Pakistan, Kashmir, possibly Chechnya, they
attempted to assassinate the King of Jordan, and the President of Egypt.
I wouldn't be so quick to brush these threats off as false, unless you
have irrefutable evidence to prove it. The US has received threats (like
the threat of suicide Hijackers) and brushed them off as not credible only
to have them materialize.
> 4. The claim that the september 11 attacks were
> "against Western Democracy" and "our democratic
> way of life threatens [their] radical view" is
> totally without foundation, as you could see
> yourself if you cared to:
The not liking democracy part is purely western propaganda, and should
be expected. What is the US supposed to say, "they don't like us becuase
we let Israeli's oppress Palestinians?" Yeah, that will stir up public
support! The not liking democracy statement was expected, although I
think it's clear that if Bin Laden had his way every country would be run
under Islamic Gov't which are not democracies. Now, that said the
Radical view statement does have something behind it. If bin Laden
simply hated Americans for what they did, then why would he be attacking
tunisian synagouges, Indians living in Kashmir, helping the chechen rebels,
trying to kill the heads of state of two Muslim countries (Jordan, and
Egypt), attacking non-American targets in Pakistan, and so on, and so on.
Religion, and radical views are a big part of his motivation, but he isn't
going to come out and say that, he's too smart for that.
> a) examine the articles' list of attacks attributed
> to Bin Laden:
> United States of America personnel at Khobar Towers
> United States of America WTC bombing in 1993
> United States of America Embassy in Tanzania
> United States of America Embassy in Kenya
> United States of America USS Cole in Yemen
> United States of America aircraft by Richard Reid
> and...
So? He has planned, and carried out attacks against other nations as
well. Obviously he hates the US most, but this doesn't prove that his
motivations are purely political.
> b) read some interviews of Bin Laden to see exactly
> what motivates him and what his goals are. They're
> on the net, they're not hard to find, and might just
> enlighten you as to the real (if somewhat misguided)
> goals behind his attacks being those directly related
> to USA foreign policy matters.
He's blowing smoke. He is known to hate countries that do not have
an Islamic system of Gov't. He doesn't like Saddam Hussein and that is
well known. He even tried to kill two Muslim heads of state.
> 5. The article was written for sensationalism rather
> than for a hard eye for facts. This is clear by the
> use of language such as "these animals", "their disgusting
> aims", "villans", "murderers", and "bastardised", and in
> this light the attack against the "sensation
> seeking" media is one pot calling the kettle black.
Bin Laden does the same thing in his statements. The great Satan?
The Non-believers? The infidels? Jihad (which alone should point to
religious motivations, more than political since it means "holy war".)
Jeremy Olson