THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM IS A FRAUD

[Anonymous]

http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11392430&method=full
WAR ON TERROR: THE OTHER VICTIMS: The irresponsibility of this conflict is breathtaking. It is not about terrorism. As Blair and Bush stoop to the level of the criminal outrage in New York, British forces are little more than mercenaries for the hidden agenda of U.S. imperial ambitions

By John Pilger Former Mirror Chief Foreign Correspondent


THE war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan.
Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital, Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees....

[Cindy Glass]

Duh! The Taliban. Have they been sleeping through this whole thing. The Taliban is backing and authorizing bin Ladens activities. That classifies them as terrorists also. The Taliban is curently in power in Afghanistan. Therefore we are striking at Afghanistan.
As well as working on finding the onesies and twosies like bin Laden himself and gang.

[Andy Ceponis]

Bombs go BOOM! I like watching the bombing on tv, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside.

[Shama Khan]

Originally posted by Andy Ceponis:
Bombs go BOOM! I like watching the bombing on tv, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside.

Yeah I can see what you mean. Maybe after reading the following you can go have a beer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,582573,00.html
But Revenge is evil and evil is all around us. Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,582639,00.html
I wonder how long the warm feeling will last?

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Anonymous]

Bombs go BOOM! I like watching the bombing on tv, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside.
Remember, many were dancing in the streets when thousands perished in WTC.. They must have been feeling the same..
Now, are you one among them?

[Shama Khan]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Duh! The Taliban. Have they been sleeping through this whole thing. The Taliban is backing and authorizing bin Ladens activities. That classifies them as terrorists also. The Taliban is curently in power in Afghanistan. Therefore we are striking at Afghanistan.
As well as working on finding the onesies and twosies like bin Laden himself and gang.

Cindy,
Taliban are guilty of taking an extreme view of Islam and especially in their treatment of women. But when Afghani women are asked about their needs they have consistently requested an end to sanctions first. I can't imagine they wanted their men and kids to die for abuses against women.
In America, a woman is abused every 7 minutes. I don't think those women would want bombs to be dropped on U.S.
Usama Bin Ladin is guilty of not wanting U.S. forces in his birth country. The case against him in terms of being a terrorist has not been proven nor ever will be as Tony Blair has already stated that the evidence against him will not stand in the court of law.

The U.S. public is just content that someone is paying for the WTC tragedy.
Read the following 2 articles:
U.S. willing to blow up its own cities to be able to ... http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
U.S. had planned strikes before the WTC tragedy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,556281,00.html

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Cindy Glass]

Frankly Shama I see it quite differently. For 20-30 the US has been putzing around in the middle east doing "a little" assistance here and "a little" money there. But frankly we have been very subdued in our participation (compared to what we COULD have done - like now).
As a result thousands and thousands have died at the hands of terrorists and such.
I believe that if we had taken a firmer action earlier many of those people would still be alive.
If we back off now and it allows thousands and thousand MORE to die at the hands of terrorists - would I be content because "WE" didn't do it? "WE" don't have to feel guilty? NO - I would be sick that we didn't do the job right to begin with and save those lives.
Of course the death of innocent people saddens me, but asking me to approve of allowing a sickness like terrorism to continue to spread without attempting to sterilize it or remove it, is like asking me to APPROVE of the future deaths knowing that they are inevitable. I am sorry, but I believe that it is time for radical surgery. And the Taliban is part of the cancer.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
The case against him in terms of being a terrorist has not been proven nor ever will be as Tony Blair has already stated that the evidence against him will not stand in the court of law.

Blatantly, patently, unequivicably false. The statement was that there is enough evidence to hold up in a court of law. What many people can't seem to get through their skulls is that the US will not divulge what is most likely highly sensitive classified information to the rest of the world, destroying our ability to get similar info in the future, just because a few people feel that they have some god-given right to personally view such information.

[Shama Khan]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Blatantly, patently, unequivicably [b]false. The statement was that there is enough evidence to hold up in a court of law. [/B]

I know what I read and it was in a western media website.

[Cindy Glass]

Shama,
Tony Blair has said many times publicly that there IS enough evidence to comvict him in a court of law. Could you have been looking at a typo?

[Andy Ceponis]

Shama(and others like her who just keep on posting posting lies no matter what anyone else says) read or heard it wrong but will stil continue to post it as fact because it might help in her posts.

[Paul Stevens]

Shama read this Still believe everything you read?

[Jason Menard]

The problem is when people take statements out of context and then present them as fact. As those who quoted him should know, when Tony Blair stated that there wasn't enough evidence to convicy Osama in a court of law, he was specifically referring to a 20-page dossier detailing some evidence that the British were able to make public. In other words, if I may paraphrase, what he was saying was "there isn't enough evidence to convict Bin Laden contained in this 20-page dossier which I am showing everybody, but there is sensitive evidence not shown here which is enough to convict him." Well no kidding. The dossier wasn't assembled in order to go forward with court proceedings, it was assembled so that Mr. Blair could demonstrate some of the evidence that was available, but most certainly not all of it. Mr Blair very specifically stated that they evidence clearly indicating Bin Laden's guilt that would not be released to the public at the present time because of its sensitive nature. This evidence would of course, if presented to a court, be enough to convict Bin Laden.

If you are going to "quote" somebody, please at least get the context correct and don't only highlight the part which appears to make your point, when in fact it does just the opposite. Here are just a couple of quotes from various news sources with links, showing the full context. There are many many more, so if you need to, go ahead and do a lookup in your favorite search engine.

From the Guardian:
Though some Labour MPs privately admitted the dossier would not be enough to convict Bin Laden in a British court, most seemed prepared to accept that intelligence-based evidence omitted from the file might be crucial.
It was enough to persuade the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, who had been shown it on confidential privy council terms. "Guilty as charged," he told MPs.

From http://www.malaysiakini.com/Foreign/2001/10/2001100511.php3
The 20-page dossier was published Thursday after Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament he had "absolutely no doubt" of Osama's guilt.
He admitted there was not enough to convict the alleged terrorist leader in a court of law, but claimed there was "evidence of a very specific nature" on Osama's guilt that was too sensitive to release.

[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Tony Alicea]

"Usama Bin Ladin is guilty of not wanting U.S. forces in his birth country. "
Which is not his country anymore. Your hero was kicked out and his citizenship revoked.
But that doesn't matter because the government of Saudi Arabia does want American troops there and that's all that matters.
People like you are left wing anti American liberals and as such your so called opinions don't carry any weight around civilized people.
And if you are an American then you kow what you really are.

[Bartholemu Smith]

Hey Mr Taliban..Tally me Bannana...Day light come and we Bomb your home....

[Anonymous]

Can't you people tolerate anything good happening in the Muslim world? After a long time, a group of people called the Taliban have tried to unite the people of Afghanistan and are trying to live a dignified pure life. Their views on women may be extreme. But just imagine yourself in their place. Having seen or heard about the kind of degraded 'status' you have granted your women, its natural for them to have gone to the other extreme.
Good work Shama. Keep up.

[Ling Wu]

Originally posted by Mohammed Arif Attar:
After a long time, a group of people called the Taliban have tried to unite the people of Afghanistan and are trying to live a dignified pure life. Their views on women may be extreme. But just imagine yourself in their place. Having seen or heard about the kind of degraded 'status' you have granted your women, its natural for them to have gone to the other extreme.

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
Usama Bin Ladin is guilty of not wanting U.S. forces in his birth country. The case against him in terms of being a terrorist has not been proven nor ever will be as Tony Blair has already stated that the evidence against him will not stand in the court of law.

Under normal circumstances, I would love to hear difference of opinions from various angles. But singing praises to Taliban or Osama bin Laden right now is really making my stomach churn. Even if we haven't heard concrete evidence against bin Laden and his terrorist group (although it doesn't mean there isn't any), isn't it enough for you when you saw and heard him spewing poison on TV? Bet he'd love to hear American citizens coming to his defense.

[Bartholemu Smith]

Mohammed Arif Attar
Did you eat Paint Chips for breakfast?. The Taliban are EVIL!!! They kill their own people in soccer fields in front of hundreds of people. Are you going to say thats right? Give me a break man...

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

>But singing praises to Taliban or Osama bin Laden right now is really making my stomach churn
There are millions of people who think Osama is a great fella; and that he's doing an excellent job teaching the infidels a lesson. So why should hearing just a couple of supporting voices on this forum cause so much grief for you?

[Anonymous]

Faisal,
When you say "they kill their own people", you should understand that Capital punishment is practised almost everywhere. You might give McVeigh an electric chair, they shoot hardcore criminals in public. Don't you think its the same thing. Open your mind Faisal. See things in perspective.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mohammed Arif Attar:
Can't you people tolerate anything good happening in the Muslim world? After a long time, a group of people called the Taliban have tried to unite the people of Afghanistan and are trying to live a dignified pure life. Their views on women may be extreme. But just imagine yourself in their place. Having seen or heard about the kind of degraded 'status' you have granted your women, its natural for them to have gone to the other extreme.

Well, let's see. By all accounts, the people of Afghanistan weren't eatin' so good even before the bombing started. Their women can be beaten publicly for not wearing that Cousin It getup they're supposed to have on. Never mind that an educated woman is apparently a criminal under Taliban law. Under Taliban law, you apparently can be tried and executed within 24 hours.
There's just no way you call that "pure" or "dignified" or "natural" and hope for Western understanding. But it's not like that's anywhere near the point. Who cares what the Taliban wants to do to the people of Afghanistan? Up until September 11, we didn't care and we still don't; not really. But as long as the Taliban insist on putting their own people in the line of fire to save themselves, we'll be hearing about (and puzzling over) how you call that kind of living any kind of life at all.

[Bartholemu Smith]

Mohammed Arif Attar
Women are beaten for not covering their faces? Is that right or even moral? No..Maybe for uncivilized people it might be, but not for me. Girls can't go to school. That is a violation of their human rights. The Taliban dont care about their people. How can you say this is a good thing for the ismlaic world? We are in the year 2001 not 1801. I think you should open your eyes and realize this is nothing but a great religion being used for the talibans personal agenda. Where in the Quran does it say its ok to kill people or beat them if they show their face in public? Come on... That's just sick and anyone who even tries to justify that is as demented at those who commit these acts.
Please dont try and argue that this is normal, or the fact this is a pure way of living...It's just SICK!!!

[Randall Twede]

i cant take time to read all previous posts. I think bin laden was behind it if only because he was behind the previous attempt.

[Ling Wu]

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:
>But singing praises to Taliban or Osama bin Laden right now is really making my stomach churn
There are millions of people who think Osama is a great fella; and that he's doing an excellent job teaching the infidels a lesson. So why should hearing just a couple of supporting voices on this forum cause so much grief for you?

I can't tell if you are serious or joking. But what ticks me off is not the fact that millions outside U.S. singing his praises. But in this country, we have been trying very hard since Sept. 11 to educate American citizens not to mistreat our muslim fellow citizens simply because they are muslims, because they have done nothing to cause the terrorist attack on us. But for some of us on this forum who are obvious American citizens to even begin to make an effort to justify the actions of Osama bin Laden who advocates killing Americans indiscrimitively saying that he is only defending his country and beliefs, that is what makes my stomach churn.

[This message has been edited by Ling Wu (edited October 31, 2001).]

[Anonymous]

The time is fast approaching when all of you people who are spitting on the U.S. are going to have your Visas revoked, and then you'll be loaded back onto the boat headed back to that wonderful place you were so eager to leave. I for one will be very pleased. Trust me, you can see the writing on the walls, Dubyah is going to kick all you America haters out, and then you can enjoy life in these "beautiful" terrorist countries you are so eager to defend.
Enjoy!
BigMattie

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

Shama Khan has often been a poster-child for moderation and rational thinking among the Muslims here, compared to some of the radicals we've seen. So I am trying hard to understand what she is saying... is she really supporting Osama bin Laden? She just seems convinced that there's no real proof that Osama was the mastermind behind the attacks on America. If that can be interpreted as "support" for Osama, it can then be extrapolated as "support" for his ideology, which among other grand plans, includes harming America. So the point here is: does an American citizen have a right to support an ideology promoting harm to his/her own country?
I may have gone off on a tangent here; so perhaps Shama can explain this better.

[This message has been edited by Nanhesru Ningyake (edited October 31, 2001).]

[Tony Alicea]

OMAR KHAN:
You called me a Fascist so I deleted your post.

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

I think you deserve to be stripped of your Shrievalty - atleast in MD. I don't care how many people you've helped, or how well you know Java - if you abuse your power this way - your power MUST GO!

[Tony Alicea]

Omar, Nanhesru, please:
It doesn't work like that.
And I think you should voluntarily STOP posting to this forum. Only because it is not the best outlet for your anti American hatred.
There's a better place for your anti American hatred other than in this American Forum which is open graciously to the International Java community.
I suggest USENET newsgroups. Like soc.culture.usa.
We Americans are going through a crisis imposed from the outside through no fault of our own so,.. I'm sure you'll understand. PLEASE DO!
You *do* know this is an American site that is graciously shared with the international community for Java related things.
I don't think that anti American things are in the "menu" but what do I know.
I know that you have offended many silent people here and as such I am telling you.
I repeat, you can carry your hatred of the USA better in another forum.
Personal attacks are not allowed. Any problem with that??
I personally ask you (me, not JavaRanch) to go elsewhere with your anti American plight.
Is that too much to ask? IS IT!?
I didn't think it was. Thanks!

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

Ha. There's only one point here worth replying to. The rest is pure hogwash - clearly an insidious attempt to deflect attention away from yourself.
>Personal attacks are not allowed. Any problem with that??
If you have a problem with a post, be a man. Reply back strongly; ask the poster to rescind his post; or simply ignore it.
I know that you have offended many silent people/bartenders/sheriffs here and as such I am telling you. I may have put it across to you brusquely - but soon you will hear gentler voices urging restraint - that's when you will have to obey

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:

If you have a problem with a post, be a man. Reply back strongly; ask the poster to rescind his post; or simply ignore it.

Sorry but Tony was right when he said "Personal attacks are not allowed". We usually edit / delete any post which we consider a personal attack.

[Jim Yingst]

True. Of course, this argument would carry more weight if the principle were applied more consistently. In this case Tony just got done making a personal attack on someone else:

People like you are left wing anti American liberals and as such your so called opinions don't carry any weight around civilized people.
And if you are an American then you kow what you really are.

I would certainly like to see a decrease in personal attacks in this forum - but if we are going to cull them from threads, we need to set an example ourselves.
And by the way Tony, yes Shama is an American, despite your inability to accept this fact. May we infer that this qualifies her for even more offensive personal insults?

[Mapraputa Is]

"Personal attacks are not allowed" is true as a general rule. However, I never feel authorized to delete posts offensive to me personally - for the obvious reason I am not unbiased. Too easy to overreact etc. I feel free to express my disagreement or even to revenge a little, though
In this particular case, deleted posts did not have obvious direct offense to Tony. More, it was provoked by Tony's offensive post to Shama. For me, it's an act of Sheriff's power abuse.
But we all know what made Tony react as he does. Tony needs a place to fight. Whether we like it or not, this is his place to fight. I think, we should understand. Some of us may happen to be targets. I think we can survive it.

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

How often are you going to use that to justify his behavior, Map?
Perhaps a new rule for the ruling class can be introduced:
Thou shalt not edit/delete a post that thou considereth a personal attack upon thyself. Instead thy shalt confer amongst thy clique and an empowered member of the aforementioned clique shalt dealeth with the aforementioned offending post and/or poster, if such action is deemeth necessary.
How's that sound?

[Michael Ernest]

It's "thou shalt confer," not "thy shalt confer." And "above post mentioned herein" is correct; "aforementioned post" is a vulgarity even a game show host would be embarrassed to use. Jeez, where you'd go to school, anyway?
[This message has been edited by Michael Ernest (edited November 02, 2001).]

[Mapraputa Is]

NN, it was not justification, it was an attempt to understand. I hope I expressed pretty clear that I (Me, Myself) personally in no way approve what Tony did. (I cannot tell for the whole clique, so I uttered My Own Personal Opinion only). What else do you expect me to do? To prohibit Tony from doing what he is doing? I do not have such authority. To express my disgust in a sharper form? Will it help? Tony thinks he is doing right thing. We know that he suffers from Sep.11 attack more than anybody else here. He already feels being singled out by our clique. Let's turn against him and leave him alone with his pain?
Do not think that other moderators ignore this case. Tony explained his motives in "Moderators Only" forum and there is an ongoing discussion now, with different opinions, by the way. I hope finally we will post some kind of "official JavaRanch policy on Tony's case" . But it is a democracy - means that certain amount of talkin' has to be done

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

>It's "thou shalt confer," not "thy shalt confer."
Thanks for the correction I thought I had screwed up something.
>And "above post mentioned herein" is correct; "aforementioned post" is a vulgarity
By aforementioned post, I mean the post I just talked about when I said "Thou shalt not edit/delete a post...". Similarly, aforementioned clique refers to the clique I talk about in "confer amongst thy clique...". So my usage is not incorrect. Your suggested "above post mentioned herein" should rather be "the post mentioned herein", or simply "the post mentioned above". Right?
>Jeez, where you'd go to school, anyway?
All my schooling has been in Bangalore, India. Hope that explains my aberrant English, oh venerable literary scholar
Well, ok I understand Map. I think Tony is inherently a nice guy, just a little too impetuous, that's all.

[This message has been edited by Nanhesru Ningyake (edited November 02, 2001).]

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

Here's a question for the English gurus here. This usage has always bothered me:
The only ones I know are in Bangalore.
Is that correct? Can I say "only" and "ones"?

[This message has been edited by Nanhesru Ningyake (edited November 02, 2001).]

[Jim Yingst]

Heh. Michael beat me to it, but missed some. "Shalt dealeth" is wrong for two reasons - "shalt" is second person singular only, and "dealeth" would only work as the primary verb (third person, singular only I think). So "thou shalt deal" would be correct, or "he shall deal", or "he dealeth", but not "he shalt dealeth". Simlarly "is deemeth" doesn't work - the more boring "is deemed" is correct. Or you could go with "if such action be deemed necessary" or "if the clique deemeth such action necessary", which are more in the spirit of things. OTOH I see nothing wrong with "aforementioned post", save that "aforementioned" is completely unnecessary in this context. Since you just mentioned the post, a simple "the post" is qute sufficient - we can work out which one you meant. Perhaps our Learn�d Author will elaborate on what's wrong with "aforementioned post". Also the use of the / in "edit/delete" and "and/or" seems anachronistic for the style you're cultivating in the rest of the paragraph. Previously, I was going to castigate you for "Shrievalty", as it's antithetical to the "ranch" motif we have going here - but now that you've gone all medieval on us, there seems little point in that.
Anyway, the moral of all this is that as you can see, it's a pain in the butt to come up with a good set of rules that people won't nitpick to death, and thus we haven't really had a lot of incentive to do so.
Regarding the question on "only ones" - sure. "Only" can be applied to most any collective or plural noun, like "only people" or "only reasons". Sure, "only" derives from "one" and so it seems a bit odd to apply it to a plural, but it has a nice obvious meaning and doesn't bother anyone, so why not? You might just as well question whether it's acceptable to say "ones" at all.
[This message has been edited by Jim Yingst (edited November 03, 2001).]

[Mapraputa Is]

Jim. Thanks. I am improving my vocabulary with each and every your post. But shouldn't "entithetical" be "antithetical"?