Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 There is an anti-war march in London on Saturday 13 October. Meet at Hyde Park at midday, ending at Trafalgar Square. Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Well what is the answer then? Are we just supposed to sit back and be the targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't taken. - " Jo " <Heartwork Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:20 PM Re: anti-war march > There is an anti-war march in London on Saturday 13 October. Meet at Hyde > Park at midday, ending at Trafalgar Square. > > Jo > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Jane >Are we just supposed to sit back .. That's what ~we~ are doing - just sitting back and watching other innocent people being killed (including maybe our soldiers). They are just like you and me. They are not the terrorists. They are mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, babies and animals. Why would we want to kill them????? We could have accepted the Taleban's offer to try Bin Laden under Islamic law, or to hand him over under international extradition laws (i.e. providing evidence was forthcoming), or to hand him over for trial in a non-partisan court, or further diplomacy. After all - would it have been right for the UK to be bombed because we wouldn't turn over Pinochet? What will the end result of this bombing be. They say they are bombing strategic points - airfields, military installations etc. They have been bombing for four days. How many airfields and military installations does the poorest country in the world have? And if the bombs are missing these targets - what and who are they hitting? Two wrongs don't make a right. Jo The following is from Napalm Death:- Load the burden across my shoulders Pour the effluent on thick Placate, sedate, eradicate Am I worthy to carry the weight? Wage a war on my prone feelings Aneasthatized and numb Placate, sedate, eradicate Strangely calm when I should be enraged Placate, sedate Placate, sedate Eradicate Don't befriend the silver screen As long as others face firing lines Recline, relax, take it in your stride Be the voyeur Tamed by rabid entertainers Engrossed in real life hell Placate, sedate, eradicate Only observing - I'm exempt --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Hi Jane > Well what is the answer then? If somebody has a runny nose, chopping their head off does not cure them! Bombing Afghanistan is doing the equivalent. If we want to see an end to terrorism (and who doesn't?) then we need to attack the causes of terrorism, not a few individual terrorists along with anyone living in the same country. I note that we still haven't handed over the Egyptian terrorists that we are currently harbouring in the UK! > Are we just supposed to sit back and be the > targets for terrorists? Which terrorists? The ones who killed 7,000 in the USA, or the ones who killed 200,000 in Iraq and have just killed another couple of hundred in a small village? > Because that's what will happened if action isn't > taken. But the action that is being taken is only going to make things worse - you don't try to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it! BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 In a message dated 10/12/01 9:01:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jane.cuming writes: Well what is the answer then? Are we just supposed to sit back and be the targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't taken. and what sort of action would that be...really..i'm serious.... now, i have no love for the taliban....but, hmmm..i don't remember the afghanis flying planes into the wtc...do you??? there was saudi's and yemeni's and kuwaiti's tho...should we bomb them??? what happened was a terrible horrendous event... but, we can not continue down the road that started all this in the first place,,, there is something called the UN...world court... we should have justice...not some sort of cockeyed revenge....did the UN aid workers fly into the pentagon?? war is just a mess...... there are times when, you know, you have to stand up and all that...put whom are we standing up to??? the taliban, fundamentalist freaks that they are, offered bin laden up if they got prove...bush the 2nd said sod off and hand him over... lets stick them all in a pit and let em go at it...... it's not ok or anything remotely like that for what happened..it also isn't ok that the US and britain are bombing a country that has all the resources of Clan of the Cave Bear either..you know? this is all fucked..... what would i do? well, you didn't ask, but, i'll blather on anyways... 1. send food to afghanistan 2. convene the world court 3 , start an international tribunal against the taliban and bin laden (the us can't have an international court, we refused to sign that treaty) 4. solve the palestinian problem...just solve..the us is the largest economy in the world..we have enormous resources...work on this til it is done...help the isreali's and palestinians come to a just accord..then, you deflate a whole lot of tension 5 hold a summit on all affected nations in the area..and just fawkin listen for a change 6. remove the air bases from saudi arabia..they serve no purpose but to piss off folks going to mecca...would the catholics have lked it if italy allowed the soviets to build an airport next to the vatican?? 7. stop treating the world as if we know everything(this is from an american perspective)...lets try helping people, feeding people, instead of raping the world of resources and ramming "free market" capitalism down everyone's throat 8. 8 8 i forget what 8 was for but 9 9 9 for the lost cause and 10 10 10 10 for everything eveything everything everything... sorry..couldn't resist.... this is just a quick list off the top of my head...if i thunk about it fer abit, i probably could clean it up.... oh yeah..last point...#12...get away from dependence on fossil fuels...this clouds our judgement on the region tooo damn much cheers fraggle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 In a message dated 10/11/01 2:15:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Heartwork writes: They say they are bombing strategic points - airfields, military installations etc. They have been bombing for four days. How many airfields and military installations does the poorest country in the world have? And if the bombs are missing these targets - what and who are they hitting? afghanistan has 18 miles of railroad to destroy..that has to at least take a sortie by a 2 billion dollar B2 bomber in the news here,..they drum up the "pinpoint" accuracy of the weapons...hmm...pinpoint enough to hit un aid workers sitting in an office... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 > 1. send food to afghanistan Fortunately, international aid organisations are already doing that. > 2. convene the world court There is one? There are a handful of standing international courts ... and the Hague would be OK. > 3 , start an international tribunal against the taliban and bin laden > (the us can't have an international court, we refused to sign that > treaty) Although I'd be willing to use an international court to make it easier to get people to hand the terrorists over, the usual juristiction for trying someone for murder is the juristiction in which the the crimes were committed. In this case, New York and Washington. As Mrs Beaton would say, first catch your terrorist. Which is why the coalition is trying to destablise the regime which is hiding the terrorists. Personally, I would move more resources into ensuring the right targets are hit. When more neutral civilians are dying than coalition military personnel, my instincts are that something is wrong. > 4. solve the palestinian problem...just solve..the us is the largest > economy in the world..we have enormous resources...work on this > til it is done...help the isreali's and palestinians come to a just > accord..then, you deflate a whole lot of tension Not that easy. Although if you let all the Palestinians that wanted to to enter the US, it would defuse a lot of tension. Unemployed Palestinians in a crippled economy would much rather work in the US than throw stones at their oppressors. > 5 hold a summit on all affected nations in the area..and just fawkin > listen for a change They seem to be listening now anyway. Finally. > 6. remove the air bases from saudi arabia..they serve no purpose but > to piss off folks going to mecca...would the catholics have lked > it if italy allowed the soviets to build an airport next to the > vatican?? This is more like an airbase in Sicily. They're nowhere near Mecca! I assume there's some strategic point, particularly if Iraq tries something ... but you might be right. > 7. stop treating the world as if we know everything(this is from an > american perspective)...lets try helping people, feeding people, > instead of raping the world of resources and ramming " free market " > capitalism down everyone's throat World markets could do with being more free, instead of biased against the third world. IMHO. -- Ian McDonald http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 Hi Fraggle > #12...get away from dependence on fossil fuels...this clouds our judgement on the region tooo damn much And let's not forget who stands to gain the most financially from the current military action...... Dick Cheney - the man who, purely co-incidentally, is in a position to influence international policy! In case anyone's missed the connection, the important facts: 1. Turkmenistan, to the north east of Afghanistan, has some of the richest oilfields in the world. 2. CentGas want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Turkmenistan's oil to the west. 3. The Taliban won't let CentGas build their pipeline. 4. CentGas is part owned by Unocal. 5. The major shareholder in Unocal is Dick Cheney. Some cynical people (and I might be one of them), might suggest that there's a small conflict of interest issue involved here! BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 Hi Ian > > 1. send food to afghanistan > Fortunately, international aid organisations are already doing that. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough. There is enough wealth in the west to be able to end poverty throughout the world, but it suits our political leaders to make sure that this never happens. > > 2. convene the world court > There is one? There are a handful of standing international courts ... > and the Hague would be OK. Yes, there is one. I personally have some reservations about these courts as they are largely controlled by the most powerful countries - but they are the best we currently have. > > 3 , start an international tribunal against the taliban and bin laden > > (the us can't have an international court, we refused to sign that > treaty) > Although I'd be willing to use an international court to make it easier > to get people to hand the terrorists over, the usual juristiction for > trying someone for murder is the juristiction in which the the crimes > were committed. In this case, New York and Washington. Perhaps something similar to the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing would be suitable - tried under American law, but in a neutral country. Of course, there is a major problem for America with this scenario: in order to convict someone under American law, you need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - but, since all of the so-called " evidence " is considered a matter of national security, it could never be presented before a jury, and they could therefore never get a conviction. This can, of course, be solved quite easily once Bin Laden is on American soil - a quick assassination by " a disgruntled member of the public " a la Lee Harvey Oswald. If Afghanistan hand Bin Laden over to anyone other than America, they're scuppered. > As Mrs Beaton would say, first catch your terrorist. Which is why the > coalition is trying to destablise the regime which is hiding the > terrorists. Nope - the reason the coalition is trying to destabilise Taliban is exactly the same reason they always bomb middle eastern countries - that black stuff which, when refined, helps us to run our cars. > Personally, I would move more resources into ensuring the > right targets are hit. When more neutral civilians are dying than > coalition military personnel, my instincts are that something is wrong. You are assuming that there are any " right targets " to hit. Afghanistan, having faced a military invasion by the Soviet Union for over ten years, followed by another decade of civil war have nothing left to hit! > > 4. solve the palestinian problem...just solve..the us is the largest > economy in the world..we have enormous resources...work on this > > til it is done...help the isreali's and palestinians come to a just > accord..then, you deflate a whole lot of tension > Not that easy. It's not easy, but it sure wouldn't hurt to make a teeny little bit of an effort. As opposed to the current situation where Israel gains more US funding than any other country, and Palestine gets absolutely nothing! The recent " peace talks " have been a complete farce because there is no real concern from the Western powers for solving the issues - but they need to look as though they are doing something to keep their voters happy. > > 5 hold a summit on all affected nations in the area..and just fawkin > listen for a change > They seem to be listening now anyway. Finally. You think? BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 i heard about the oil under the central asian nations a couple years ago...and the " perplexions " the gas companies were going thru in trying to figure how to get it out... hmmm...awful lot of CIA guys in there nowadays...i'm sure they'll come up with a fine solution... if we went toward a more petroleum free diet here in the west, more solar, wind, and other renewables..maybe things like this wouldn't occur on such a regular basis.. oh look, we bombed iraq again..what was that for, just a wake up call to tell saddam that we hadn't forgot about him? grrrr fraggle " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Hi Fraggle > >> #12...get away from dependence on fossil fuels...this clouds our judgement on the region tooo damn much > >And let's not forget who stands to gain the most financially from the current military action...... Dick Cheney - the man who, purely co-incidentally, is in a position to influence international policy! In case anyone's missed the connection, the important facts: > >1. Turkmenistan, to the north east of Afghanistan, has some of the richest oilfields in the world. > >2. CentGas want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Turkmenistan's oil to the west. > >3. The Taliban won't let CentGas build their pipeline. > >4. CentGas is part owned by Unocal. > >5. The major shareholder in Unocal is Dick Cheney. > >Some cynical people (and I might be one of them), might suggest that there's a small conflict of interest issue involved here! > >BB >Peter > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Peter wrote: > > Hi Ian > > > > 1. send food to afghanistan > > Fortunately, international aid organisations are already doing that. > > Unfortunately, nowhere near enough. There is enough wealth in the west to be > able to end poverty throughout the world, but it suits our political leaders > to make sure that this never happens. I thought the current limiting factor was being able to get the convoys through. > > > 2. convene the world court > > There is one? There are a handful of standing international courts ... > > and the Hague would be OK. > > Yes, there is one. I personally have some reservations about these courts as > they are largely controlled by the most powerful countries - but they are > the best we currently have. Where is one - the Hague? > > > 3 , start an international tribunal against the taliban and bin laden > > > (the us can't have an international court, we refused to sign that > > treaty) > > Although I'd be willing to use an international court to make it easier > > to get people to hand the terrorists over, the usual juristiction for > > trying someone for murder is the juristiction in which the the crimes > > were committed. In this case, New York and Washington. > > Perhaps something similar to the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie > bombing would be suitable - tried under American law, but in a neutral > country. Of course, there is a major problem for America with this scenario: > in order to convict someone under American law, you need to prove guilt > beyond reasonable doubt - but, since all of the so-called " evidence " is > considered a matter of national security, it could never be presented before > a jury, and they could therefore never get a conviction. This can, of > course, be solved quite easily once Bin Laden is on American soil - a quick > assassination by " a disgruntled member of the public " a la Lee Harvey > Oswald. If Afghanistan hand Bin Laden over to anyone other than America, > they're scuppered. Hopefully, once the Al-Quaeda network is broken, that's done. ISTR commentators saying that the FBI can get bin Laden for the Embassy bombings, at least. > > As Mrs Beaton would say, first catch your terrorist. Which is why the > > coalition is trying to destablise the regime which is hiding the > > terrorists. > > Nope - the reason the coalition is trying to destabilise Taliban is exactly > the same reason they always bomb middle eastern countries - that black stuff > which, when refined, helps us to run our cars. The whole was is so they can build a pipeline through Afghanistan? I simply don't think that Afghanistan is that important. And the interest in Afghanistan does, oddly enough, correlate with atrocities against the USA more than oil price fluctuations. > > Personally, I would move more resources into ensuring the > > right targets are hit. When more neutral civilians are dying than > > coalition military personnel, my instincts are that something is wrong. > > You are assuming that there are any " right targets " to hit. Afghanistan, > having faced a military invasion by the Soviet Union for over ten years, > followed by another decade of civil war have nothing left to hit! Rubbish. The Taliban can't run their clumps of Afghanistan without some military infrastructure. Airfields and anti-aircraft guns are all obvious military targets. I'm not sure how much point there is in bombing something as easy to move as a training camp. > > > 4. solve the palestinian problem...just solve..the us is the largest > > economy in the world..we have enormous resources...work on this > > > til it is done...help the isreali's and palestinians come to a just > > accord..then, you deflate a whole lot of tension > > Not that easy. > > It's not easy, but it sure wouldn't hurt to make a teeny little bit of an > effort. As opposed to the current situation where Israel gains more US > funding than any other country, and Palestine gets absolutely nothing! The > recent " peace talks " have been a complete farce because there is no real > concern from the Western powers for solving the issues - but they need to > look as though they are doing something to keep their voters happy. I'm not sure your facts are right - I thought the US provided much of the funding for Palestinian refugee camps, for example - but I agree in principle. -- Ian McDonald http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 > 1. Turkmenistan, to the north east of Afghanistan, has some of the > richest oilfields in the world. > > 2. CentGas want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to transport > Turkmenistan's oil to the west. > > 3. The Taliban won't let CentGas build their pipeline. > > 4. CentGas is part owned by Unocal. How much? > 5. The major shareholder in Unocal is Dick Cheney. How much? > Some cynical people (and I might be one of them), might suggest that > there's a small conflict of interest issue involved here! Depends how much. But it sounds like one. > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Hi Ian > > > > 2. convene the world court > Where is one - the Hague? It isn't anywhere until it's convened! Then it is a place thought appropriate. > Hopefully, once the Al-Quaeda network is broken, that's done. You think it's a good think that somebody should be handed over to a country where they stand no chance of a fair trial? > ISTR > commentators saying that the FBI can get bin Laden for the Embassy > bombings, at least. I don't know enough about the embassy bombings to comment. All I know is that Bin Laden has " been connected " to these - but I can't help wondering if the (lack of) evidence is the same as in the recent situation! > > Nope - the reason the coalition is trying to destabilise Taliban is exactly > > the same reason they always bomb middle eastern countries - that black stuff > > which, when refined, helps us to run our cars. > The whole was is so they can build a pipeline through Afghanistan? Exactly. > I > simply don't think that Afghanistan is that important. It's the oil that is that important - Afghanistan is central to the cheap movement of oil from Turkmenistan to the west - it's absolutely vital. > And the interest > in Afghanistan does, oddly enough, correlate with atrocities against the > USA more than oil price fluctuations. On what evidence do you base this statement? I could provide more evidence implicating the American government in the atrocities than anyone has shown me for the Afghanistan government! > > You are assuming that there are any " right targets " to hit. Afghanistan, > > having faced a military invasion by the Soviet Union for over ten years, > > followed by another decade of civil war have nothing left to hit! > Rubbish. The Taliban can't run their clumps of Afghanistan without some > military infrastructure. LOL. You obviously don't know the military position of Afghanistan - they have been fighting against an army (the United Front) which has a similar lack of militray infrastructure. The advantage the Taliban have is their knowledge of the mountains - as Bin Laden has himself stated " Strategy is more important than Strength " . It is virtually impossible to take Afghanistan with a ground force unless you know those mountain areas - that's why the military might of the USSR failed for over ten years - just a handful of decently trained snipers who know the mountains can control Afghanistan without a problem. > > It's not easy, but it sure wouldn't hurt to make a teeny little bit of an > > effort. As opposed to the current situation where Israel gains more US > > funding than any other country, and Palestine gets absolutely nothing! The > > recent " peace talks " have been a complete farce because there is no real > > concern from the Western powers for solving the issues - but they need to > > look as though they are doing something to keep their voters happy. > I'm not sure your facts are right - I thought the US provided much of > the funding for Palestinian refugee camps, for example - but I agree in > principle. The fact that Israel gains more funding from the USA than any other state is most definitely correct - don't forget that one of the " big guns " in the founding of Israel (the Rothschild family) part own the IRS, which means they basically control America's financial system! There may be some small funding for Palestinian refugee camps, but it is most definitely negligible. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Hi Ian > How much? Does it matter? The fact that Dick Cheney stands to make a significant personal financial gain from the bombing of Afghanistan is sufficient to show that the motives for the bombing have little to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or any ethical basis. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got nothing to do with financial gain. Jane - " Peter " <Snowbow Sunday, October 14, 2001 12:56 PM Re: Re: anti-war march > Hi Ian > > > How much? > > Does it matter? The fact that Dick Cheney stands to make a significant > personal financial gain from the bombing of Afghanistan is sufficient to > show that the motives for the bombing have little to do with Bin Laden, Al > Qaeda or any ethical basis. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 I hadn't expected my posting about the anti-war march to cause a discussion!! Anyway, there were over 20,000 people at the London march. It was very mixed - races, religions, politics - London Animal Rights had a banner there as well, and there were people in push-chairs and people with zimmer-frames. The weather was kind to us. If 20,000 people made the effort to get out and demonstrate, how many other people feel the same but didn't/couldn't come out and march? Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Jane Don't take everything at face-value. There were military forces waiting out there two weeks before September 11, if I remember rightly. My motto seems to be, never believe what you are told by the establishment - dig a little. Jo > Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know > perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got > nothing to do with financial gain. > > Jane --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Who are we to know what was planned and what is planned for future. We are not world leaders, politicians or the like. We can only try to work things out. Nobody knows so it seems a futile discussion anyway. - " Jo " <Heartwork Sunday, October 14, 2001 4:29 PM Re: Re: anti-war march > Jane > > Don't take everything at face-value. There were military forces waiting out > there two weeks before September 11, if I remember rightly. > > My motto seems to be, never believe what you are told by the establishment - > dig a little. > > Jo > > > > Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know > > perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got > > nothing to do with financial gain. > > > > Jane > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Hi Jane > Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know > perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got > nothing to do with financial gain. I suggest you read the article I posted earlier today. As you will quite clearly see, this bombing, as with every other recent war concerning Britain and America has everything to do with financial gain, and nothing to do with terrorism or humanitarian reasons. Unless, of course, you believe the stuff the media spoonfeed us! BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 > Don't take everything at face-value. There were military forces waiting out > there two weeks before September 11, if I remember rightly. And Pakistan was being told as early as July that military action against Afghanistan was being planned for October! BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Hi Jane > Who are we to know what was planned and what is planned for future. We are > not world leaders, politicians or the like. We can only try to work things > out. Nobody knows so it seems a futile discussion anyway. OK, but it was you who said we should be bombing people! I still haven't heard the justification for killing more innocent people. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 No Peter, forgive me but I didn't say we should be bombing people. I merely enquired why an anti-war march was necessary. I said that the terrorists couldn't get away with what they did. I never said *I think they should go and bomb people*. If you can't quote me properly then don't even bother. Anyway, like I said earlier, this is simply a futile discussion. I clearly have very different views from you, vegan or not. - " Peter " <Snowbow Sunday, October 14, 2001 5:01 PM Re: Re: anti-war march > Hi Jane > > > Who are we to know what was planned and what is planned for future. We > are > > not world leaders, politicians or the like. We can only try to work > things > > out. Nobody knows so it seems a futile discussion anyway. > > OK, but it was you who said we should be bombing people! I still haven't > heard the justification for killing more innocent people. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Jane Nobody knows so it seems a futile discussion anyway. If that is the case, nobody would ever discuss anything. How do people get to know things? And why should world leaders and politicians be trusted when they make so many wrong decisions and cause so many problems? Is it easier to trust them than to find out what is going on??? Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Peter wrote: > > > Hopefully, once the Al-Quaeda network is broken, that's done. > > You think it's a good think that somebody should be handed over to a country > where they stand no chance of a fair trial? I think they would get a fair trial in the US. They might have to struggle for a Jury, but they would still have to present evidence. > > > Nope - the reason the coalition is trying to destabilise Taliban is > exactly > > > the same reason they always bomb middle eastern countries - that black > stuff > > > which, when refined, helps us to run our cars. > > The whole was is so they can build a pipeline through Afghanistan? > > Exactly. IMHO, it *must* be easier to build a pipeline through somewhere else than to get involved in Afghanistan. > > And the interest > > in Afghanistan does, oddly enough, correlate with atrocities against the > > USA more than oil price fluctuations. > > On what evidence do you base this statement? The fact that the increased interest in Afghanistan started a few days after the 11/9/1 atrocities. The big news in the month preceding was to do with atrocities in Afghanistan, not oil price issues? > I could provide more evidence > implicating the American government in the atrocities than anyone has shown > me for the Afghanistan government! Straw man. No-one is blaming President Rabbani (the internationally recognised Afghanistan government) for anything. No-one is blaming the Taliban for the atrocities directly. The core public evidence against the Al-Quaeda network is: 1. Who else had the motive and the opportunity? 2. Why else are they warning people off tall buildings and airplanes? 3. Bush & Blair have a lot to lose if they turn out to be making up the " secret evidence " > > > You are assuming that there are any " right targets " to hit. Afghanistan, > > > having faced a military invasion by the Soviet Union for over ten years, > > > followed by another decade of civil war have nothing left to hit! > > Rubbish. The Taliban can't run their clumps of Afghanistan without some > > military infrastructure. > > LOL. You obviously don't know the military position of Afghanistan - they > have been fighting against an army (the United Front) which has a similar > lack of militray infrastructure. So they didn't have any anti-aircraft guns before? > The advantage the Taliban have is their > knowledge of the mountains - as Bin Laden has himself stated " Strategy is > more important than Strength " . It is virtually impossible to take > Afghanistan with a ground force unless you know those mountain areas - > that's why the military might of the USSR failed for over ten years I agree with all this. > - just a > handful of decently trained snipers who know the mountains can control > Afghanistan without a problem. How many is a " handful " ? > > I'm not sure your facts are right - I thought the US provided much of > > the funding for Palestinian refugee camps, for example - but I agree in > > principle. > > The fact that Israel gains more funding from the USA than any other state is > most definitely correct - don't forget that one of the " big guns " in the > founding of Israel (the Rothschild family) part own the IRS, which means > they basically control America's financial system! I appreciate that power can sometimes work where it shouldn't. But the IRS is a government department. How does anyone control it? > There may be some small > funding for Palestinian refugee camps, but it is most definitely negligible. > > BB > Peter > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Peter wrote: > > Hi Ian > > > How much? > > Does it matter? The fact that Dick Cheney stands to make a significant > personal financial gain from the bombing of Afghanistan Do you mean from the imposition of a friendly regime, which isn't a direct consequence of the bombing, and that the friendly regime constructs a pipeline on favourable terms. I don't think that his financial gain from a pipeline would be significant has been demonstrated. > is sufficient to > show that the motives for the bombing have little to do with Bin Laden, Al > Qaeda or any ethical basis. No it isn't. It would show that he had a conflict of interests. That doesn't automatically mean that the public reason for bombing Afghanistan (War against Al-Quaeda) is wrong. > BB > Peter > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.