All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: Two Choices from Osama

topic by Mark 11/29/2001 (17:42)

reply top I've read that Osama bin Laden has repeatedly called for war against Americans everywhere. Since I'm an American I take his threat personally. Why has Osama called for war against Americans? I'm told it's because he doesn't like the US military presence in Arabia; He doesn't like US government's support of Israel; he doesn't like the United Nation imposed sanctions against his friend Saddam enforced by the US military; and he doesn't like US support of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Osama's war effort against the US has produced results: 6 dead in the first WTC bombing; 19 dead in the US military barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia; 12 dead Americans and 224 dead Africans in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 17 dead on the USS Cole in a Yemeni harbor. And then september 11th. And, according to Osama, more promised since. The frail voices I hear raised in protest against the US lead campaign against Osama and terrorism reject a simple truth: The USA is engaged in a war we did not seek or provoke. It's intellectually dishonest to blame US policy as the main or even proximate cause of Islamic suffering. There is no justification for the events of September 11th. We've heard from Osama since September 11th and he has offered those in my country (indeed, the world) two choices: We can crawl inside whatever limits Osama and the extremists would set for us and live there awaiting further instructions. Or we can choose to fight for our survival. The events of September 11th are sufficent justification, morally and legally, for war. I choose to fight.

reply by liz beech 11/29/2001 (21:07)

reply top off you go then Mark, and fight.

reply by DKGZ 11/29/2001 (22:01)

reply top Mark, your post speaks for a majority of Americans. Your point of view is refreshing to find on these boards. Glad you're on our side.

reply by John Calvin 11/29/2001 (23:14)

reply top Mark, I think you should try and get a better grasp of the extent of this 'Enduring Freedom',' Infinite Justice Program'. It's not just about Osama bin-Laden. The U.S. is discussing invading several other countries and has a very extensive list of targets. Actually, its amazing how non-chalantly, blithely and brazenly citizens support 'the war on terror', often without any real notion of what it potentially involves- the sacrifices that will inevitably have to be made, the cost and the tremendous political and diplomatic difficults that are bound to arrive. But, of course, that's been the case from the beginning- The President and Press encouraging the regressive desires, narcissistic grandiosity characteristic of the lust of the Jingo spectator. Task of dismantling Al-Qaeda not over: Wolfowitz's interview PARIS, Nov 28: The task of dismantling the al-Qaeda network consists of far more than merely eliminating its leader Osama bin Laden, deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz warned in European newspaper interviews Wednesday. 'The most important personality is Osama, but for reasons more symbolic than operational. If he went tomorrow there would still be a very dangerous network,' Wolfowitz told the influential French daily Le Monde. 'We are only at the beginning of penetrating the networks, neutralising certain leaders, collecting information on certain leaders outside (Afghanistan),' he was quoted as saying. 'Al-Qaeda does not only exist in Afghanistan .... It is an organisation which is present in 60 countries,' he said. 'We would still like to get him, but it wouldn't make much difference,' Wolfowitz reiterated in another interview with Britain's the Daily Telegraph.

reply by libre 11/29/2001 (24:24)

reply top john calvin,the free world has no choice but to wage this war on terrorism and if we have to take this war to other countries, so be it. However, I have never heard that we are going to invade countries as that is definitely not in the best interest of the U.S. There is no question that hostile regimes that harbor terrorists have to be dealt with, even though it's not with military force. And yes, there wil be an enormous cost and we may have our phones tapped but I have nothing to hide and I can deal with it if it means not cowering in fear under Islamic extremist rule. I don't know if you've heard, but many of these extremists have specifically said that they wish to take over the world with their religious fervor and take us all back to the Stone ages. And God knows those suicide jihad idiots will stop at nothing to do that.

reply by John Calvin 11/30/2001 (19:52)

reply top No choice? There you go against with that 'helpless, innocent victim'stuff again; subject to a fate more inexorable than the motions of the planet, no doubt. There's plenty of choices. You could try and MAKE PEACE with the terrorists, set up a dialogue between civilizations, address the difficultlies occasioned by the attacks of Sept 11 as a matter of International Law, adjudicate justice and equity in the United Nations. Fact is, this wouldn't be very exciting in terms of an immediate demonstration of the irresistable force and terror of American military power. Furthermore, it would require the invocations of ideals and principles ( such as may be discovered in the Federalist papers, the Constitution, Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation and Lincoln's Gettysburg Eulogy) of which you seem, quite frankly, completely unfamiliar, like any other dupe of the 'new patriotism', though I admire the courage you have to try and argue the point.

reply by Kathy Johnston 12/1/2001 (12:56)

reply top John Calvin: Make peace with the terrorists? What a hoot. Maybe you have forgotten some facts yourself, like the Clinton administrations concessions to Lybia where U.N. sanctions were dropped for the release of some of the Lockerbie bombing suspects for trial. Or the weak investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing because the U.S. didn't want to upset Iran because the U.S. was and still is trying to court their regime. Terrorists have no respect for the rule of law. Making concessions and peace with terrorists is a mockery to the atricities they have inflicted on the world. Terrorism is a form of war not a 'political phenomenon' as some on this message board may think. Terroists like bin Laden cannot wage this type of war alone, they need governemts to support them, shelter them, train them, provide them weapons, etc. and they will continue to do so unless they are shown they will suffer massively for doing so. And speaking of ideals and principles of past Americans, please don't forget that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, interfered with freedom of speech and the press and ordered political criminals be tried before military tribunals. Maybe he fits into your catagory of duped 'new patriots' too.

reply by John Calvin 12/1/2001 (14:30)

reply top 'Indians have no respect for the rule of law. Making concessions and peace with indians is a mockery to the atrocities they have inflicted on the world. The indian way of life is a form of war not a 'political phenomenon' as some in this provincial legislature might think. Indians like 'bluejacket' cannot wage this type of war alone, they need France, England and Spain to support them, shelter them, train them, provide them weapons, etc. and they will continue to do so unless they are shown they will suffer massively for doing so.'(1812...'In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Col Jackson down the mighty mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we fought the bloody British at the Battle of New Orleans...') You throw the word 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' around just as you please. Actually, I'm a little perplexed, maybe you clear this up: As I understand it the southern states left the Union, and those that remained made a formal declaration of war in a constitutional manner- or did they? Also wasn't it the case that miltary triubunals were softer and more merciful than civilian courts under Lincoln, that he never allowed an execution except for in cases of rape? Did Lincon act with Malice, calling rebels 'evil doers' and all that, or was that kind of talk confined to radicals in the Abolition Society? Of course the idea that the U.S. is bombing and invading Afghanistan under the rubric of legal precedents established in the Civil War is intriguing. In many ways it IS a kind of civil war!

reply by Barb 12/1/2001 (16:26)

reply top 'Make Peace with the Terrorists' you say, John? That is laughable. O.K. Go ahead. Why don't you go to Afghanistan and try to sit down over coffee and talk with the Taliban?

reply by liz beech 12/2/2001 (11:39)

reply top Doesn't the situation in Northern Ireland indicate that ultimately the only thing that works is dialogue? It's slow, it's [painful, it runs into all sorts of trouble because there are a small number of people who insist on violence and a small number of people can wreak havoc, but I just can't see that retaliatory havoc works, or has ever worked.

reply by John Calvin 12/2/2001 (20:04)

reply top When men wish to harm one another, would that they might also leave their very life in the wound, and balance at one and the same time another's loss with their own misfortune. They would not be so shameless to do harm, if they realized they were pouring out wrath at the expense of their own life. In the end, peace will be made. How long will it take? How many will have to be killed, maimed and ruined in the meantime. Will the American people endure 'Infinite Justice Crusade'? as long and as painfully as they endured Vietnam?