World Australia Europe Latin America Malaysia New Zealand United Kingdom United States Half Life Challenge-TV CPMA

?

Contribute .
#Challenge on ETG.
#Challenge on Quakenet.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Challenge:
Home
News Archive
Forums
CPMA
Maps
Smackdown2
People
Coverage
Features
Interviews
Links
Help Wanted

Powered by:
Powered by SPEAKEASY.net

Challenge Player Index
Challenge ProMode

Columns:

Hosted
3.A.C
Interfaced
QWF


Affiliates:
Cached
Methos
Killer Instincts

CPL Europe

Link to Challenge World
feel free to use this


The World Has Changed Forever ? $comment_count ?>
I've been doing some thinking since the disaster on Tuesday about just what the lasting impact of everything happening surrounding the terrorist attack. The full scope has still not set in for most people as I think most of us are still in some disbeilef. Of course, we know that two buildings which served as the financial center for a good part of the world no longer exist, and with them the offices and executives of companies from almost every civilized country, not just American. We know there was selfless and heroic bravery, personifed most by 300 fireman and policeman which rushed to the scene to evacuate people and were crushed in the collapsing buildings (think - how many cities even have 210 firemen?), but also in the bravery of the people on the 4th plane who learned of the fate of the first 3 from their cell phones, and decided on the spot they were going to fight back, knowing they were deciding their own death but saving thousands of others. The cowboys won that one. One thing is for sure, no one better even THINK of hijacking an American flight in the next 20 years or so, the only thing they will get out of it is a disfigured face and multiple broken bones, bomb or no bomb. And in the face of the tragedy, Americans from Hillary to Helms are standing side by side, united in grief and a desire for quick and sweeping action.

What hasn't sunk in yet is that what happened is truly momentous, not just for the USA but for the world. America has fought in some nasty wars in the last century. In WWII we had military troops fighting a naval war in 2 oceans, and ground wars in Asia, North Africa, Italy and France all at the same time, and then of course there was Pearl Harbor itself and Vietnam, Korea, and the trench warfare of WWI. Yet through all that the war that took the greatest toll on life was the Civil War in the early 1860's. To put the loss of life (which isn't yet known) from the terrorist attacks Tuesday morning into perspective, the single greatest loss of life due to violence that the USA has ever faced was the Battle of Antietam during Lee's first campaign north with a death toll for the first day of 26,000 people. The attack this past Tueday could equal or exceed that when the final body count is finally added up. In that sense, there shouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind, just as there isn't in any of our politician's voices, that this was most certainly an Act of War, and maybe the worst Act ever in our history. It only compounds the issue that the vast majority of the victims were civilians in peacetime.

But who to declare war on? Our President has said on "Terrorism," but terrorism isn't like any other foe anyone has faced. There is a terrorist Army, but it is spread all over the world, just under the surface as transplanted citizens sprinkled very thinly, but very wide, and probably in every western (and Middle East) country in the world, just preparing and waiting for their call. The concept is frightening, learning that the terrorists who planned the WTC Bombing 8 years ago, the terrorists who made the attack on Tuesday, and the ones who have been caught planning dozens of huge attacke in the US and all over the world in the meantime were for the most part described as quiet, ordinary citizens in their communities.

But they aren't ordinary. They are indoctrinated and brainwashed to beleive that if they kill themselves and take symbolic innocent lives with them, they are assured a place in their paradise if they answer the call. Some are trained in geurilla camps all over the Middle East and deployed to armed struggles from Chechnya, to Somalia, to China, and of course all over the Middle East. Much more dangerous than those are the ones that lie in wait. They seek to blend in to the social fabric, learning skills and gaining trust in preparation of answering a future call for martyrdom. To a man, they are people who are raised in a radically religious Islamic life which sees the world as a struggle between good and evil, and grow up learning that a real war between God and Satan (whose agents are the "Zionists") is happening right now.

This kind of thinking is not unique to Islam. On the contrary there are plenty of examples on any religion of fanatic cults of one or another, and although it seems that the US has more than its share of crazy Christian cults accumulating weapons for the Armegeddon happening next year (David Koresh and Waco come to mind) there are people like that in every country. Included are suicidal and psychopathic Marxists organizations, which although they claim to be athiests, are really more like a religious cult than they would like to think.

But there's a difference when it comes to Islam. Namely, there are Nations which claim to do things in the name of Islam, and whose entire legal structure is not built around law as the rest of the civilized world sees it, but built around their religious teachings. In their effort to promote Islam, and ensure that proper influences and behaviors are encouraged in their followers (and improper behaviors punished), they continually put out messages that their religion is superior, and that the most devout among them are close to God and speak in His name. And by the way, there is war between God and Satan happenign right now, and everyone who supports the state and its people are on the side of God, and everyone egainst is on the side of Satan. Even Marxist Russia never tried to inspire people to such lunacy. Since they are countries, even though they operate like cults they are accorded the same respect and rights as any other sovreign country, which is literally the ultimate protection something can have. That is what seprates them from the other fanatic groups.

If you have never been there, the Middle East Wire is a fascinating look into the materials which are distributed to the Arabic people by their governments. Despite the overwhelming evidence law enforcement has uncovered on 2 continents, there is a uniform denial that any one practicing Islam could do these deeds. And between bizarre theories that it was the Japanese Red Army or that "the operation can only be considered a full-scale war which indicates the beginning of an extensive move from inside the US against the bloodthirsty ruling system. " (my favorite) there is a uniform opinion that the US, the victims, bear the sole responsibilty for the tragedy. Realize these are not kooks, this is the official press of each country, in some cases the only press which is available to the people. Every country represented shares the opinion that the US brought this on themselves, and inside titles supposedly comdemning the attacks, there are thinly veiled warnings that this will happen again.

The scene the stories tell is really very scary when you look at the religious context they are all written in. Suicide bombers who blow themselves up at busstops and discos in Israel (2 a month for the past 2 years) are affectionately called "martyrs," and their is not a single word saying that such actions are deplorable, instead blame is assigned on the people killed and the people are told that in fact the bombers are now in heaven, just like a martyr should be. An attck that shows God you are striking at Satan justifies lies, deceit, maimin, and slaughter. And it justifies among leaders in a whole region that the Holocaust of WWII is irrelevant and does not deserved to be remembered in a UN condemnation on racism.

You may guess from my tone that maybe I am condemning all Muslims and declaring Islam an insincere religion. On the contrary, what I have learned in the last months about Islam leaves me very impressed. I have had the pleasure in that time to work with 2 Muslims. One, a web designer, is actually from Palestine, moved to the US about 5 years ago and still has most of his family living in the West Bank. The other which happens to be my Project Leader is from Iraq and escaped (his words) from there in the late 80's. Through them I have learned that Islam considers itself "the religion of Peace", and prides itself that there are Muslims all over the world, in every country, and the spread of the religion had ntohing to do with war. In fact, there are over 5 million Muslims in the US alone, and just like America, they are black, white, brown, red, and yellow. When you look at the facts no one could argue that Islam has done a great deal of good in alot of people's lives. I certainly don't think that every occupant of a rougue country is guilty of a crime either, but I certainly would argue their leaders and press are, and by controlling all the information anyone sees, it can be very difficult not to believe everything that is told to you. It's not like someone can pick up a Time magazine and think "oh, so that explains some things" - there simply is no other source of information allowed but what the government has produced.

I have also learned from them that there is a steady and vocal hate among Arabs against Israel. Israel as it exists (governed by Jews) is an illegitamate State formed out of thin air from some UN charter, and the Israelis proceeded to create their own version of the Holocaust killing and driving out men and women and children to make way for the Jews to take all their land and property. As such, anything and everything is permitted to attack back. And it just might be true that suicide bombers are in fact martyrs. At least they should never be talked about in a negative way.

I even developed some empathy for the Palestinians - for the past month or so, by sheer coincidece, I have been talking to a number of members of the Israeli gaming scene, which is quite a bit different than anywhere else. Among other things, virtually the entire scene is under 18, with no one older. Of course, the reason is that in Israel there is mandatory military service once you reach 18. Unlike some other countries with mandatory military service, in Israel it is taken quite a bit more seriously and there is virtually no free time for very long stretches. I also learned that there have been word of a few Lan Parties in Lebanon, but computer gaming is either outlawed or non existant everywhere else in the Middle East.In the words of one person I talked to "they do that stuff in reallife."

But my friendship with my work buddies made me think of something - what would Arabs think of Counter-Strike anyway? I would guess they would probably be pretty offended since all the terrorists are Arab models while the CTs are all controlled by Zionists.

Aside from that, my Arab friends shared the virulent anti-Israeli and pro-martyr opinion quite strongly - until Tuesday.

What they realized, and what became crystal clear Tuesday, is that pussyfooting and toeing the line with this kind of fanaticism, an "it's ok if it's for our side" attitude, has suddenly spawned into an incredibly evil monster. As is obvious in the Middle East Wire stories, there is a stuggle between making the same arguments they made Monday justifying smaller versions of this kind of violence, and of realizing that once this Beast is set loose, there may not be a way a way to get it back under control. A good example is Arafat, the leader of the in-limbo Palestinian State. He was gaining positive worldwide support for his positions, and the World looked the other waywhile he simultaneously insisted suicide bombings against civilians will only stop when all his demands are met, yet denying he has any control over them, and calling for peace talks in the US while he walks through the streets with a submachine gun over his shoulder. None of that double talk is going to fly now, especially when he claims the Palestinian people feel America's sorrow, while just outside his door they are celebrating in the streets. None of it carries any weight now - although the double talk works and is accepted amongst his peers in the Middle East, the rest of the world will no longer stand for it. You are either for peace, or you are against it.

And that is what this war is about. It is about realizing that the polical correctness towards extreme fanatics has no place in the civilized world. Some people have been playing with fire and have caused an inferno, and just like we arrest people for throwing out a lit cigarette into a national forest, the world has to stamp out terrorism whever it might pop up, and hold those accountable for advocating it. Pussyfooting with terrorists and treating with kid gloves scourges like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein can lead to this, and it can lead to much worse. Truly, the leaders of every country in the civilized world saw immediately that this could just as easily happen to the Eiffle Tower by French wackos, to Big Ben by English crazies, to the Kremlin by a Chenchnyan sympathizer, or to the Imperial City by some Chinese nostalgic for the Maoist past. This truly was an attack on the entire world's way of life. Either declare war on these extremists and agree as civilized people and demand that if bin Laden should camp out in Afghanistan or Sudan, that the respect for their sovereignty as a Nation, as was customary in the old world, will not hold quite the same weight any longer. To do anything less would create a world of fear and dread across every country. To deal with it the movement we take for granted would have to be ripped away, much more of our lives would have to be exposed to official scrutiny just to go on a vacation, and moving or getting a job would probably mean endless government paperwork and delayed "approval." The civilized world realizes that is not the vision we as human beings have for our future.

In that light, it really comes as no surprise that the President of Afghanistan's staunchest ally, Pakistan, made sure all the news cameras were on hand to hear him tell Colin Powell he is pledging his "unstinted support" for any effort to stamp out terrorism, and has closed the border with Afghanistan, stopped supplying fuel to the Taleban, and has opened Pakistani airspace and airfields to Any air attack which might need it at our request. Even he realizes as an ally of the Taleban that at any pont, the people they are protecting could decide that Pakistan was not living up to its potential and that thousands of Pakistani civilians must die. It could be at a whim, all that is needed is the word from God, spoken through a local prophet hiding in a cave, and the Pakistani Royal Palace could be rubble tommorrow. It's simple really. Allow the threat of thousands of civilians to die at any time, anywhere in the world, or not.

And so the world has pledged to end this once and for all, no matter how long it takes. Our leaders are building wide support for a fast and total solution once a guilty party is identified, and the American fighting machine is itching to be let loose, because they know they won't stop short of Baghdad if they enter Iraq again, and any other military mission they receive anywhere else won't be holding back to score political points. There is an acceptance that this will not be a short war either. If other threats to life in the 21st century should surface, I'm sure the world will stand just as firm against it. For the first time in history, NATO invoked Article 5 to say that the attack on America was an attack on 18 other countries also. The UN Security Council including Russia ans China have unanimously endorsed any action which might result from the wheels currently in motion. The world is putting alot of trust in America and setting aside politics to do it, and I have confidence we'll all be a stronger, safer, and closer world for it. If there is anything at all positive to come out of four jetairliners being hijacked and used as cruise missiles against cities, let that be it.


Comments
United States of Warfare
Comment #1 by on 08:16, Friday, 14 September 2001 195.149.139.95
First I have to apologize; I didn't read your whole essay, so perhaps I'm saying stuff you've already meantioned.

I don't like the way things are looking right now. I was deeply shocked by what happened Tuesday, and I haven't been able to think about anything else since then. But I don't like the way USA is reacting either. They are going to war -- against whom? Another poor middle-east country?

Let me put it this way. Just image that USA was a pure democratic country, where every decision was taken by the people. In such country, they would vote yes or no on the question "Should we declare war on the terrorists and the countries that harbor them?". My gut feeling is that the americans, if they were allowed to take such a decision, would vote "YES".

Now imagine that USA goes into war against some poor country that attempts to fight back the way Vietnam did, and manages to kill a few (compared to their own losses) americans. When those americans come back to the US in bodybags, the public opinion might shift and demonstration would perhaps start saying "stop the war" or something. But they voted on it, right?

What people seem to forget, especially if you live in such a powerful country as the US, is that war is WAR. People DIE in wars.

"But we need to fight back". Ask yourself the reason why this happened. Arabians aren't evil by nature, they are people just like everybody else. The problem is that they have grown up in a situation where oppression is a common thing, and that their (the countries in the middle-east) politics are ruled by the US since USA needs their oil.

Violence is rewarded with violence, but somebody has to be the one who can accept and stop the bloodshed. Let the most civilized country be the one.

// Jens Bergensten, Sweden


Comment #2 by on 11:43, Friday, 14 September 2001 203.164.2.197
Uh oh, when we start discussing 'politics and religion' instead of gaming it will make all of our Quake squabbles seem like the child's play they really are.

Jens, I think most americans have a pretty decent idea of what waging war means, more so than the average swede. America learnt the 'lessons' of vietnam, not sweden, and americans have fought recently, most notably the very large-scale desert storm but also mogadishu which was a lesson in nasty street fighting.

If you are offering as your explanation for 'why this happened' (meaning the recent terrorist attacks) the view that it was all because of US 'hegemonistic' policy in the middle east I think you are missing something important, which is the extreme form of Islam involved here.

These guys also hate america because they regard it as the 'great satan', because they regard western culture as an abhorrence, because of things just like Quake and pr0n, and the odd joint, and the freedom for chicks to show their mid-driff with a ring in their navel, and a gazillion *freedoms* that we take for granted.

When Bush speaks about 'an attack on freedom', that's what I take him to mean - an attack on the freedom of NIN to make music, of id Software to make DOOM, and of Steven Speilberg to make movies.

And it's not only that they hate america, jens, they hate your heathen ways too buddy, it's just that they see america as 'the head of the snake'. If you want to see the type of culture they would force on to you and me, given a chance, go live with the Taleban in Kabul for a while, as a woman.

The pacifism that you suggest the western world adopts ("somebody has to be the one who can accept and stop the bloodshed") is noble in a kind of a way (maybe the swedish way of neutrality I don't know) but against such extreme hate for the 'western way of life' it is unlikely to stop attacks such as we have just seen.

Today these people might be flying commercial jet airplanes into skyscrapers, tomorrow it may be backpack nukes and biological weapons.

I'm talking about the really extreme Islam of these 'terrorists', of course, and not the Islam of 'moderate Islam' (at least I hope this is true). Every time I see an Islamic leader state that these crimes are 'against Islam' I hope that the majority of muslims do not share this insane hatred for the secular west and it's 'freedoms'.

Given that most human beings would not fly commercial airliners packed with civilians into two of the world's biggest commercial buildings as a means of waging war, I think it is safe to say that this ideological hatred of americans, and thus of the 'west', and thus of you, is a very significant factor in the equation.

I can't think of any other political and military opponents of the US who would countenance such an evil act, who could live with their conscience. But the 'terrorists' do not see it as evil, because they are, from the perspective of the secular and rational society, quite barking mad.

How to battle an ideologicaly-motivated and relentlessly aggressive foe like this, I do not know. Merely bombing a poor country like Afghanistan will not be much of a solution. Extremist Islam will breed more suicide fighters from among the refugee camps.

So I think any response should be multi-pronged, including a strategy to address the open sore that is the Palestinian - Israeli conflict (addressing the real injustices there) and also some way to strengthen the hand of moderate Islam against the extremists.

Like you I hope not to see wave after wave of pointless B52 carpet bombing raids on Afghanistan, until the rubble can bounce no more and the world's biggest carpark is created.

But unlike you I do think these terrorist 'cells' need to be uprooted, because as we have just seen they are literally hell-bent on attacking innocent people in the most horrific ways imaginable.

From that perspective, it is more a matter of survival and self-defence than simply retaliation or punishment.


Comment #3 by on 12:07, Friday, 14 September 2001 195.149.139.95
I think you understood what I meant, but just to clarify:

I was also very shocked by this event. I actually felt very unsafe and worried a lot about what is to come. Sweden is very dependent on USA and their military power. As long as USA rules, Sweden is safe.

My point was that I hope that USA doesn't use this "opportunity" to attack any country in the middle-east. I want them to sieze the responsible, but an attack would only create more enemies. In my short life I have been able to see the connection between "a fighting USA" and "a popular president".


Comment #4 by on 12:30, Friday, 14 September 2001 64.192.146.9
Yeah this is long lol. Had no idea until I had finished.

I probably should have started with an outline, but here were my points:

This was an act of war, and it is an act which could happen anywhere at anytime, not just the US.

The people that did this are products of a system which is supported and encouraged by certain countries - since they are countries, they have always been given special considerations.

The world (and especially the US) has tried the pacifist route with religios extremists. This is what can result from the pacifist route, and every single civilized country enthusiastically agrees that we do not want to live with this threat.

The "change" is that it looks like the world refuses to live with this risk, which can literally happen at any moment. Today it is radical Islam, tommorrow it could be radical Swedes. If getting rid of that risk means tying a country's legitimate sovreignty to whther or not it calls for the destruction of "western civilization," then that is something even the UN suddenly realizes might actually be a very good thing.

Anyone who is sympathizing with the Middle East (which is quite pleased actually, and threatens it again - read that site I linked) and blames the victims for this really needs to think that if that is a sensible conclusion, why on Earth would NATO be taking the actions it is taking? I know Sweden is not in NATO, but Sweden certainly does expect NATO to come to its defense in a time of emergency, think for a moment why European leaders have reached a different conclusion than you are reaching. Assuming you have confidence in the judgement of those leaders of course, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear someone say it is out of fear of the US and the mighty weapons blah blah blah.


Comment #5 by on 12:48, Friday, 14 September 2001 195.149.139.95
Since you are arguing with me, I suppose you think the solution is to go bomb some country in the middle-east. Well, go ahead. Bomb them all. See if it helps.


Comment #6 by on 12:49, Friday, 14 September 2001 146.103.254.11
These cheering children and taxi drivers keep popping up over and over again. Did anyone think
about why people (again, moslty children) were apparently celebrating the attacks? Those
scenes were (presumably) shot minutes after the planes crashed. Perhaps they didn't realise
the full scale of things at the time? If these children saw anything, it would have been the
'spectacular' image of an explosion. Children, around the world, don't realise what actually
happened beyond a big firebal, and I'ld wager to say many youngsters in Europe and the USA
alike would think it was 'quite cool' - at first. Are you going to judge and destroy a people
based on its childrens and uneducated workers reactions?

Make no mistake, this was not an attack on freedom or democracy. It was an attack on the USA,
for whatever reason. That's not a justification for a heinous crime against humanity, but a
fact. Retaliations should not be justified as a defense of the free or civilised world
either. What does one understand to be civilised nations anyway? Nations subscribing to your
believes? I'm pretty sure Taleban think of themselves as decent citizens, however horrible
their behaviour may be or be to the outside world. They can easily be branded with the
fashionable term 'rogue nation', but has anyone besides CNN ever defined what that term is
supposed to mean anyway?

Blaming Islam fundamentalists is too easy at this moment. Sure, the people carrying out the
actual attacks probably believed they did something very good against someone very evil and would be rewarded for it by their God. But
for the people setting up the whole operation, it most definately fits into some sort of
overal plan. The plan or goal might be religious, but at this moment I seriously doubt that.
Personal revenge against a people, strengthening of local power (anywhere in the world,
including the USA) or long term financial gain are just as likely motives for anyone depraved
enough to set somthing like this up. Religious or other types of extremists are easy to
manipulate and if handled carefully can be used to the advantage of any cause. In that
respect, it is telling how you make a point of making all examples that could possibly happen
abroad the result of internal fractions and thus as a consequence of internal politics. That
was a thought that never occured to the American media; a terrorist prototype straight from Holywood was blamed even before the Pentagon was struck.

People seem really convinced that taking out one terrorist (and rather then not a whole
country with him) is going to 'solve' the problem. I'm sorry to say I believe you gravely
underestimate the threath. It may delay actions a bit, or even make currently planned ones
impossible (although unlikely since you admit terrorist movements aren't localised), but you
run the risk of infuriating millions of others by murdering their innocent 'brothers'. (This
is what I meant when I told you "I'm scared of the Americans reaction" hours after the
attacks; I am not terribly worried about your military power but rather by the consequences
wielding it unheedingly will have on the longer term.)
Terrorism wont go away with a few smart bombs and a cruise missile. Giving people in those
uncivilised countries something to live for and a perspective to look out to would go a much
longer way, and is probably cheaper too.

I can only hope Americans don't feel the need to isolate themselves from the rest of the
world because of this. Either by using military force without consideration of others opion,
by reducing spending on devellopement of less fortunate people and countries or by not caring
about anything happening in the outside world anymore at all. That would be, I believe, the
worst possible options; for everyone. Don't you're alone in your shock and terror, but also
don't delude yourselve that you can solve this on your own or even with your NATO allies.


Comment #7 by on 13:31, Friday, 14 September 2001 203.164.2.197
Jj, regarding your second paragraph, moral relativism (or ethical relativism if you like) states that since the Taleban may regard themselves as civilised, then who is to say they are not.

Moral relativism states that what is right and wrong is always relative to the moral principles being applied, to the person acting, and that there is therefore no objective set of moral principles which can be shown to be universal (as opposed to a subjective set of moral principles which can be shown to be relative).

To the moral relativist everything is subjective. What one person says is 'civilised' is just his/her relative point of view and no more.

"What does one understand to be civilised nations anyway? Nations subscribing to your
believes? I'm pretty sure Taleban think of themselves as decent citizens, however horrible
their behaviour may be or be to the outside world".

Armed with this view, it becomes meaningless or illogical to speak of 'uncivilised' behaviour. Anything goes, it's all OK because someone somewhere thinks this is the right thing to do. Whatever the Taleban do is 'civilised' because it is impossible for anything they do to actually be 'uncivilised'.

In my view, moral relativism is an abrogation of reason and responsibility.

The way out of it is to build by consensus a definition of what 'civilised' does and does not mean. Wasn't the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a project along those lines?


Comment #8 by on 13:32, Friday, 14 September 2001 216.76.7.1
Belgium is among those countries who has stated through NATO that the attack was an attack on Belgium too as far as they are concerned, Jj, so throw some blame and responsibilities for the attacks on your own country also if you refuse to take a closer look at the countries whose official press exalt terrorism. I would tend to go with the leaders of the free world who actually stand in agreement that the attack was, opposite from what you say, not just an attack on the US but on democracy and the free world itself. Khalie, you should realize that too - this isn't just the US who insists on doing something about this, but probably your own leaders too.

You may have noticed, if you read all the way through (I couldn't blame you if you didn't) that I clearly say there are plenty of decent people in those countries. Just like Nazi Germany though, which had plenty of decent people, those people feel morally obligated to support and defend their government. The blame lies with the leaders in charge of course, as I point out multiple times.

And damn I forgot to inclde my favorite quote through all this:

"God have mercy on the people that did this, because we won't." - Senator John McCain


Comment #9 by on 13:45, Friday, 14 September 2001 146.103.254.11
I agree that following that logic to the extreme is pointless. However, in this case, people seem to be using the behaviour of the Taleban inside their own country as a justification for their and the people they rule overs total eradication, whereas it might well be acceptable to live that way to those people (although I doubt that).

Exaclty how does one help the misguided citizens of a rogue nation by annihilating them? If you feel their governement doesn't adhere to Human Rights, and maybe you're even convinced none of the citizens care about them, does that give you the moral right to kill everyone inside?

I for one don't think every Afghani and Pakistani is a mindless religious killing machine, so I don't even need to answer those questions.


Comment #10 by on 14:00, Friday, 14 September 2001 146.103.254.11
I do realise my governement accepted the attacks as an act of war. That does not mean I can not think differently and disagree profoundly with the official stance. You do distinguish between the offical stance of Palestine governement (which you apparently consider worthless) and the reaction of very few Palestine people, but not between those of governements and people of countries that are your allies.

I did read through your whole essay. My whole point is to try not to jump to conclusions in this.
Catchy one liners might look good on TV, but sadly they usually also don't help any in understanding important issues.


Comment #11 by on 14:20, Friday, 14 September 2001 216.76.7.1
Of course I see there are differences of opinion and accept that. I was making a point that you like to point fingers across an ocean when actually you should be including your own elected leaders in you criticism. I would like to think that those leaders actually also agree that it is important to understand important issues, and probably take it even more seriously than you or I. And isn't it nice to be able to openly criticise your own government? Arab people do not have that same luxury.

Another point I made was that the Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders' words do not match their actions. Arafat personally, not someone else, threatens that suicide bombings will continue, and he personally calls them martyrs. He also personally appears on TV calling for Peace, yet appears in the next frame walking around with a gun over his shoulder, which is the real message he sends to his people. In his mind, and in the mind of the Arab press, they are all Zionists anyway, so lying of this sort is acceptable and even commendable. Although Arafat is trying feverishly to show his support for the US now, when you read the official printed in the Arab world and delivered to the Arab people, the message is quite different. I put some links up, so you can read for yourself and see I am not making this up.

Everyone agrees that no one should act until an overwhelming amount evidence is assembled and laid out for public scrutiny. But when it is time to act, it won't be pretty, and it won't be halfway.


A bit more perspective
Comment #12 by on 14:52, Friday, 14 September 2001 216.76.7.1
http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010914/ts/attack_afghan_dc_2.html

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's ruling Taliban warned on Friday of revenge ``by other means'' if the United States attacked their country in retaliation for the deadly terror attacks on Washington and New York.

The warning came as fundamentalist Taliban clerics in the capital used Friday prayers to urge the world's Muslims to unite against the U.S.

``Oh Muslims of the world, we should unite together if the United States attacks us,'' one cleric told the faithful at a Kabul mosque. The theme was repeated across the capital.

Washington says Osama bin Laden, who lives in Afghanistan as a ``guest'' of the Taliban, is a prime suspect in connection with Tuesday's deadly attacks. It has vowed to strike against those responsible as well as any country which harbours them.

Abdul Hai Mutamaen, the Taliban's chief spokesman, warned of revenge if the U.S. attacked. ``We will take revenge if America attacks through different means,'' he told reporters without elaborating.





Thank goodness these threats no longer have the effect they would have just a week ago. Refuse to live in fear.


I See
Comment #13 by on 14:57, Friday, 14 September 2001 193.128.12.42
What you're getting at. I also see that Osama bin Laden is the one the majority 'finger' as responsible. Osama bin Laden was a rebel utilised by the capitalist side in the cold war. The US and UK used bin Laden's connections and wealth to help eradicate the Russian threat in the middle east. This is why they, more than anyone, will know what he is capable of, as they trained him and in consequence his men to be what they are today.

The Taliban are extremists. Extremists with regards to religion. So much so it affects the entirity of their society. The Taliban admit to shielding bin Laden, and holding him on house arrest. The Pakistani government, more accurately, the ISI (Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence) are openly supportive of the Taliban, and are one of the few governments to recognize their right to rule. The US wishes the Pakistani government to allow it to fly into its airspace to access Afghanistan. Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. The Pakistani government, although publically behind the Bush/Blair bandwagon, is inherantly against it. For it supports the Taliban monetarily, and keeps it up-to-date with information.

I've got so much more to say, but alas I must go home (I'm at work you see).

Perhaps I will finish what I started later.

I made no point (that was to come) but I think the information is relevant to the previous arguments and ideas.

Peace.

Gatecrasher


Comment #14 by on 15:03, Friday, 14 September 2001 146.103.254.11
You just dont get it, do you. Deal with it the way you seem to prefer and you won't be without fear for ages to come. You are deluding yourself into believing you can make your country impervious to threats from the outside world. If anything was sadly proven this week, its the opposite. Dream on, but don't complain if it turns into a nightmare for you and the rest of the world alike.


Comment #15 by on 15:21, Friday, 14 September 2001 195.149.139.95
dethkultur, you don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. I DO want retribution, so does "my leaders". But not a war against an enemy with a large group of religious allies, and even less against a defenseless, poor country (though Afghanistan isn't defenseless, they have recieved a lot of weapons from the USA during the Russian occupation).

We all want justice, just don't let the american war-machine kill more innocent people.


interesting
Comment #16 by on 22:54, Friday, 14 September 2001 24.2.224.136
No one ever said we are gonna blow up any country, we are out to get the people responsible for the attacks and if Afghan.. and any other country stands in our way then they'll also be an enemy. JJ and Khaile, you would both feel different if it happened in your countries. We cannot let these people get away with what they've done. We are out to get the people responsible, we are not out to blow up a country. nice job on the "novel" dunc :)


Comment #17 by on 11:58, Saturday, 15 September 2001 203.164.2.197
http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/klare/index.html

similar arguments presented here, but in a way that helps to clarify the differences.


Comment #18 by on 07:37, Tuesday, 18 September 2001 64.24.215.71
"My whole point is to try not to jump to conclusions in this."

i am not really a supporter of usa(even though i live here/was born here) but under certain situations things change and you have to pull together for the good of the whole. you are jumping to conclusions too. i think both you and khaile are not taking this as seriously as us americans. you have to understand we didn't want this war nor did we start it, and all our peace talks did nothing. the bottomline is it's either them or us. if we sit by and argue killing innocent people is bad that means we are weak. you have to sacrifice for the good of the whole and the future. i'd give my life if it made a some magic cure for this war(would you?). what would it take to convince you guys this is war? some fanatic setting off a nuke in berlin, etc? now is the time to be strong(not hard mind you, hard cracks under strain). this is not the persian gulf or vietnam or even the korean war, to me this is wwiii.

now, that doesn't mean we are going to start flinging nukes around or even act hastily(it's been a week and still no military action). this is not a real war in the conventional sense, sure we might do some standard war actions but mostly it will probably be economic and using other means. we are going to be methodical and do what seems the best choice of action, if that means taking siege to certain countries, using assassinations, or making their people revolt against their own gov'ts then so be it.

if you don't have trust in your own leaders and the usa in this war then you can't trust anyone and i feel sad for you. i know in the long run, the usa which is the greatest nation in the history of the world and also the same people who won wwii and the cold war, will do the right thing. criticize when we actually make a big mistake or make suggestions! , don't add to problems we already have. don't jump to conclusions when you know relatively nothing and are sorely going on your personal bias and beliefs. too much is at stake for people within to be working against your own countries, and their allies.

heh.


Comment #19 by on 10:25, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 213.141.36.200
omg, Khaile,

Your's is the first opinnion I have read since the dramatic tuesday I absolutely agree with.

USA is heading to a war based only in vengeance, and vengeance is far away to be the same as justice. Of course I think the terrorists must be punished (and hardly), but indiscriminate punishing is not the fair way.


uhhh based only in vengeance?
Comment #20 by on 00:25, Saturday, 22 September 2001 12.25.61.26
#19 jal
"USA is heading to a war based only in vengeance, and vengeance is far away to be the same as justice."

ummm...no. actually at this point an attack would be much more a form of self-defense. Bin Laden is not done attacking, he will never be done attacking until the US is eliminated.

There are warnings of another attack happening in the Boston area, where i live, very very soon...like within 30 hours. Whether or not it will be successful is yet to be seen, but the point is threats are still out there.

What else do people want us to do? If we took bin laden in a supporter would step right up to take his place. Of course the US will try to avoid civilian casualities....but with someone like Bin Laden, negotiation or a peaceful solution is not an option.

Oh well...point being...war sucks, it's never fair




Add A Comment

Read our Disclaimer. Quake, Quake II, Quake ]|[ and the stylized "Q" are trademarks of id Software
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners
? 2000 -