http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html

<quotes>

CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their troops 
out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of "retaliation" 
against them for their alliance with the United States in the war.

The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.

The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic 
militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week 
directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's 
involvement in Afghanistan.

</quotes>

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their troops 
> out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of "retaliation" 
> against them for their alliance with the United States in the war.
> 
> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
> 
> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic 
> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week 
> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's 
> involvement in Afghanistan.
> 
> </quotes> 
> 
> 
I take it that you would think it wise to heed his advice ?

Seems like your opinions usually jibe, hence your moniker "Bin Hippy".

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>
> <quotes>
>
> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
> the war.
>
> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>
> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic 
> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week 
> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's 
> involvement in Afghanistan.
>
> </quotes>
>


It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.

One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of the 
recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack that any 
leader would be forced to respond to.  Now he complains about the innocents 
caught up in that response?  The time to worry about all that was while 11 
Sept was still just a nice day in late summer, 2001.

TWP

TWP wrote:
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
>> the war.
>>
>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>
>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic 
>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week 
>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's 
>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
> 
> 
> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
> 
> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of the 
> recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack that any 
> leader would be forced to respond to.  Now he complains about the innocents 
> caught up in that response?  The time to worry about all that was while 11 
> Sept was still just a nice day in late summer, 2001.
> 
> TWP

Ouch, can't wait to hear how hippy boy manages a reply to that one, 
without sounding too much like OBL himself.

IMO this recording is about a year old, made shortly after the 
Russia-Georgia conflict.

It is prefixed with a quotation in Arabic from the qur'aan,

"Say to those who disbelieve: if they desist, that which has passed will be 
forgiven them; but if they return [to their misdeeds], then the example of 
previous peoples has already passed before them. (8:38)"

and also suffixed with another,

"And if they incline towards peace, than incline too towards it, and put 
your trust in Allah. He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (8:61)"

In between those, the audio is supplied with English subtitles as follows.

[
All praise is due to Allah, who forbade injustice for himself and made it 
forbidden among humans. As for what comes after:

To the European peoples: peace be upon he who follows the guidance. You are 
aware that oppression topples those who commit it and injustice has 
unhealthy consequences for the unjust, and that one of the greatest forms of 
injustice is to kill people without right, yet this is exactly what your 
governments and soldiers are committing under the umbrella of the NATO 
alliance in Afghanistan.

They are killing women, children and elderly men whose only crime was that 
Bush became angry with them, although you know that they didn't perpetrate 
any aggression against Europe and had no connection to the events in 
America.

So on what basis are you violating what you talk about holding in high 
esteem, like justice and human rights? Would that you reflect in the matter 
and ask wise and reasonable people, because it won't be long until the dust 
of war clears in Afghanistan, at which point you won't fin a trace of any 
American, because they will have gone away far beyond the Atlantic, Allah 
permitting, and just us and you will remain, for the oppressed to retaliate 
from his oppressor.

There is a lesson for you in the situation of your sister Georgia. Its 
people were bombed and humiliated, so they asked for help from America to 
restore sovereignty over what had been seized from them, but the latter 
provided them with nothing but empty words; and after they insisted, 
American ships finally came, not to restore Ossetia and Abkhazia, but 
rather, to provide what they had no need for: a few tents and a little food 
and laundry detergent. So reflect on that deeply.

An intelligent man doesn't waste his money and sons for a gang of criminals 
in Washington, ans it is a shameful thing for a person to be in a coalition 
whose supreme commander has no regard for human life and intentionally bombs 
villagers from the air; and I am a witness to that. Than the Humvees come 
along, and when it becomes clear to them that those killed were children, 
American generosity gushes forth in all its abundance and they give the 
victims' relatives $100 for every child killed.

This is the painful fact; and is there to be found in Europe a ram for 100 
dollars? This is the value of the life of our innocent children in the eyes 
of Washington and it allies, so what do you expect our reaction to be? Were 
you to see what your American ally and his helpers did in northern 
Afghanistan, and how they packed thousands of Taliban into freight container 
like sardines and locked them inside until they died or were thrown into the 
river, you would understand the causes of the bloody events in Madrid and 
London.

Everything I mentioned has been documented, but when the United Nations 
began investigating the crimes committed in the north, the Bush 
administration applied pressure on it and the investigation was stopped. 
This is American justice.

To sum up, then: we are neither asking for trivial or invalid nor for 
something overstepping the bounds. On the contrary, justice demands that you 
lift your oppression and withdraw your troops, and reason demands that you 
don't hurt your neighbors. If today Europe is suffering the travails of the 
economic crisis, and the heart of Europe is no longer number one in world 
exports, and America is reeling from the hemorrhage caused by the economic 
war, the how do you think you fare after America pulls out - Allah 
permitting - for us to retaliate from the oppressor on behalf of the 
oppressed?

So the happy one is he who learns from others' mistakes, and an ounce of 
prevention is better than a pound of cure, and returning to the truth is 
better than persisting in error.

And peace be upon he who follows the guidance.
]

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:5Zcvm.17425$tG1.16257@newsfe22.iad...
> TWP wrote:
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>>
>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
>>> the war.
>>>
>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>
>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>> Islamic militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos 
>>> this week directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that 
>>> country's involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>
>> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of 
>> the recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack 
>> that any leader would be forced to respond to.  Now he complains about 
>> the innocents caught up in that response?  The time to worry about all 
>> that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice day in late summer, 2001.
>>
>> TWP
>
> Ouch, can't wait to hear how hippy boy manages a reply to that one, 
> without sounding too much like OBL himself.

OBL's speeches are a weapon in a war.  I don't think he believes in his 
heart that there are such things as innocents in that war.  Those in the WTC 
weren't innocent because they were [voting] citizens and supposedly were 
ultimately responsible for past US national policy.   I think it's not 
unfair to say that, well, in that case there are no innocents in Afghanistan 
either.  They didn't fight the Taliban, which led them to be able to take 
power.  They could have, but didn't.  They played their tiny part in 
deciding their country's course, just as those in the WTC did.   The Taliban 
then shielded and probably supported OBL while he committed acts of war 
against the US.  The innocents of Afghanistan have no more degrees of 
seperation with their government's deeds than the innocents of the US.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
>> the war.
>>
>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>
>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic 
>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week 
>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's 
>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>
>
> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>
> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of the 
> recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack that 
> any leader would be forced to respond to.

Assuming he did carry out the attack or was responsible for it. That's 
entirely moot however because out of all those who did claim responsibility 
for it, he's got that Albatros hung round his kneck now, regardless, and 
only has himself to blame.


> Now he complains about the innocents caught up in that response?  The time 
> to worry about all that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice day in 
> late summer, 2001.

True, but it can be seen not so much as a hypocritical statement on right or 
wrong, legitimacy or not of action, but a simple case of how he sees it will 
be; 'we' can either continue to engage in the slaughtering of innocents 
abroad and face the consequential slaughter of our own, or we can step back 
from that. It is a move which puts the choice on 'us', the ball in our 
court. We cannot control what has been, but we can decide how it will 
continue.

In many ways it complements the message coming out of Afghanistan from US 
and NATO military commanders; 'to resolve the war, we have to change focus 
and course, stop such innocent killing'. It's the appendix that the west is 
reluctant to add to its own assessments; what the consequences of ongoing 
killing of innocents will be for us, civilians far removed from the field of 
battle. The reality we all know but find best left unwritten.

We have the choice; we can either continue to act in a manner which leads to 
the killing of innocents abroad and face the consequences of retaliatory 
killing of civilians in return, enter into a possibly never-ending and 
forever escalating tit-for-tat bloodfest, or we can choose another way. 
There seems parallels there to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which seems 
locked into permanent tit-for-tat conflict with each side justifying the 
seemingly perpetual conflict with, 'well you started it, we're just 
retaliating'.

As civilians, without wanting to diminish the horror of it, we have been 
fortunate so far in only suffering few responses to our actions abroad, and 
in comparison to the numbers western forces have killed on foreign soil. OBL 
is simply reminding us that it could be far worse, and tells us it will be, 
if we choose it to be.

OBL is simply stating a widely held western - and probably universal - 
premise of, "You hit me, I'll hit you". No matter what opinions on him are, 
that's simply laying the facts on the table, that's the reality we have. It 
also seems to carry an implicit, 'leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone'. 
Whether true or not, it's hard to hold any moral highground when both sides 
are engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory action to the last event.

What OBL's threat also raises is the question of what our goals are, what we 
are ultimately seeking to achieve; is it the eradication of OBL and all 
supporters, a willingness to engage in civilian slaughter on all sides until 
that is achieved, or is there some other goal and means we can use to bring 
about what we actually want, or need ?

The threat from OBL could equally have come from anyone in the west who can 
assess what future scenarios will be, and many in the west have recognised 
and stated that as being so. The 'threat' is no more than another 
re-iteration of the situation we may find ourselves in.

Blair said we were prepared to pay the blood price for enagaging OBL & Co - 
and that presuamably included the possiblilty of seeing civilian slaughter 
on Britain's streets ( and OBL is saying that's what we'll get if we 
continue as we are doing ), and it's up to us to decide how to proceed. Are 
we prepared to pay that bloodprice or seek some other solution ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:OBpvm.98540$OO7.1167@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>>
>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
>>> the war.
>>>
>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>
>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>> Islamic militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos 
>>> this week directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that 
>>> country's involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>
>> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of 
>> the recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack 
>> that any leader would be forced to respond to.
>
> Assuming he did carry out the attack or was responsible for it. That's 
> entirely moot however because out of all those who did claim 
> responsibility for it, he's got that Albatros hung round his kneck now, 
> regardless, and only has himself to blame.

He was an early suspect after the attacks, was seen on video claiming 
responsibility, has been the inspiration for further attacks, and is the one 
setting out terms for peace.  If it wasn't him he could say so and we'd 
listen.  I'm sure most governments in the Western world would love to know 
who did it if it wasn't him.


>
>
>> Now he complains about the innocents caught up in that response?  The 
>> time to worry about all that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice day 
>> in late summer, 2001.
>
> True, but it can be seen not so much as a hypocritical statement on right 
> or wrong, legitimacy or not of action, but a simple case of how he sees it 
> will be; 'we' can either continue to engage in the slaughtering of 
> innocents abroad and face the consequential slaughter of our own, or we 
> can step back from that. It is a move which puts the choice on 'us', the 
> ball in our court. We cannot control what has been, but we can decide how 
> it will continue.

We can't do anything but respond.  If we step back and hope for peace to 
break out, for one we'd send a possibly catastrophic impression of victory 
to people like AQ which could see new conflicts start up all over the place 
with entirely new peace terms from AQ splinter groups, and for another we 
could well give breathing space for all kinds of bad things to be set up to 
call on against us later.

If you refuse to defend yourself in order to minimise casualties on your 
attacker's side don't be very surprised if you end up in your attacker's 
salt mines one day, having your labours overseen by the very people you were 
protecting!

OBL / AQ - whatever, started up the conflict in the region.  AQ began a war 
in a largely peaceful era completely at their option.  They're the root 
cause of most of the lost innocents in that region and ours over the last 
eight years.  For it then to be us that are portrayed as the vicous killers 
of innocents is sadly predictable, and worse, it's also sadly predictable 
that people on our side would believe it.


>
> In many ways it complements the message coming out of Afghanistan from US 
> and NATO military commanders; 'to resolve the war, we have to change focus 
> and course, stop such innocent killing'. It's the appendix that the west 
> is reluctant to add to its own assessments; what the consequences of 
> ongoing killing of innocents will be for us, civilians far removed from 
> the field of battle. The reality we all know but find best left unwritten.
>

I don't think the consequences will be any different.  There were no 
slaughtered innocents on 11 Sept and it didn't save the US.  If the war can 
be conducted without harming the innocent I'd be very surprised, but if they 
know a way of doing it and I were President I'd give them every support.


> We have the choice; we can either continue to act in a manner which leads 
> to the killing of innocents abroad and face the consequences of 
> retaliatory killing of civilians in return, enter into a possibly 
> never-ending and forever escalating tit-for-tat bloodfest, or we can 
> choose another way. There seems parallels there to the Israeli-Palestinian 
> conflict which seems locked into permanent tit-for-tat conflict with each 
> side justifying the seemingly perpetual conflict with, 'well you started 
> it, we're just retaliating'.
>

I think because AQ are a non-state entity that can't surrender and be 
occupied and monitored we have to go for continuing the war to their 
destruction or permanent containment.  We couldn't predict the consequences 
of not doing so.  If the pressure on AQ is slackened to promote some kind of 
peace deal we could have have AQ splinter groups everywhere, perhaps with 
different and even more militant interpretations of Islam and all of them 
would have a workable victory strategy to take with them - 'make sure you 
break enemies hearts with lots of innocent victims on your side'.


> As civilians, without wanting to diminish the horror of it, we have been 
> fortunate so far in only suffering few responses to our actions abroad, 
> and in comparison to the numbers western forces have killed on foreign 
> soil. OBL is simply reminding us that it could be far worse, and tells us 
> it will be, if we choose it to be.
>
> OBL is simply stating a widely held western - and probably universal - 
> premise of, "You hit me, I'll hit you".

He hit the US, the US hit him - or at least the people hiding him.  It's a 
pity he didn't feel the same way as you about the innocent victims of his 
actions.



No matter what opinions on him are,
> that's simply laying the facts on the table, that's the reality we have. 
> It also seems to carry an implicit, 'leave me alone, and I'll leave you 
> alone'. Whether true or not, it's hard to hold any moral highground when 
> both sides are engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory action to the last 
> event.
>
> What OBL's threat also raises is the question of what our goals are, what 
> we are ultimately seeking to achieve; is it the eradication of OBL and all 
> supporters, a willingness to engage in civilian slaughter on all sides 
> until that is achieved, or is there some other goal and means we can use 
> to bring about what we actually want, or need ?
>

I don't think we can go for less than that, and I've already said why.


> The threat from OBL could equally have come from anyone in the west who 
> can assess what future scenarios will be, and many in the west have 
> recognised and stated that as being so. The 'threat' is no more than 
> another re-iteration of the situation we may find ourselves in.
>
> Blair said we were prepared to pay the blood price for enagaging OBL & 
> Co - and that presuamably included the possiblilty of seeing civilian 
> slaughter on Britain's streets ( and OBL is saying that's what we'll get 
> if we continue as we are doing ), and it's up to us to decide how to 
> proceed. Are we prepared to pay that bloodprice or seek some other 
> solution ?
>

I can't see a scenario where it's going to be safe to surrender to or make a 
deal with AQ.  We know their methods, but we don't truly know their aims, 
and we don't know how cohesive they are if they begin to disagree with each 
other.  That doesn't mean it won't happen, especially with Obama at the helm 
now.  I'm sorry, I think he's probably a great guy to be your boss at work 
or even in some other leadership role, but I don't think he's 'the man of 
the moment' for these times.  I don't really see anyone who actually is 
though.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:OBpvm.98540$OO7.1167@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>
>>>> <quotes>
>>>>
>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in 
>>>> the war.
>>>>
>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have 
>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>
>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>>> Islamic militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos 
>>>> this week directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that 
>>>> country's involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> </quotes>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>
>>> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of 
>>> the recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack 
>>> that any leader would be forced to respond to.
>>
>> Assuming he did carry out the attack or was responsible for it. That's 
>> entirely moot however because out of all those who did claim 
>> responsibility for it, he's got that Albatros hung round his kneck now, 
>> regardless, and only has himself to blame.
>
> He was an early suspect after the attacks, was seen on video claiming 
> responsibility, has been the inspiration for further attacks, and is the 
> one setting out terms for peace.  If it wasn't him he could say so and 
> we'd listen.  I'm sure most governments in the Western world would love to 
> know who did it if it wasn't him.

I disagree. The west is happy for him to be the blame, the chief bogeyman, 
to have AQ which can be blamed for all threats an attacks arising from 
Muslims.


>>> Now he complains about the innocents caught up in that response?  The 
>>> time to worry about all that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice day 
>>> in late summer, 2001.
>>
>> True, but it can be seen not so much as a hypocritical statement on right 
>> or wrong, legitimacy or not of action, but a simple case of how he sees 
>> it will be; 'we' can either continue to engage in the slaughtering of 
>> innocents abroad and face the consequential slaughter of our own, or we 
>> can step back from that. It is a move which puts the choice on 'us', the 
>> ball in our court. We cannot control what has been, but we can decide how 
>> it will continue.
>
> We can't do anything but respond.  If we step back and hope for peace to 
> break out, for one we'd send a possibly catastrophic impression of victory 
> to people like AQ which could see new conflicts start up all over the 
> place with entirely new peace terms from AQ splinter groups, and for 
> another we could well give breathing space for all kinds of bad things to 
> be set up to call on against us later.

It's how we respond which is the core issue. We can do so in ways which are 
more likely to bring the conflict to an end or ways which will keep it 
ongoing and escalating in scale. We can respond in a way which retains the 
moral highground or we can respond in ways which loses us that.


> If you refuse to defend yourself in order to minimise casualties on your 
> attacker's side don't be very surprised if you end up in your attacker's 
> salt mines one day, having your labours overseen by the very people you 
> were protecting!

No one's saying don't defend yourself. But for eight years we've been 
'defending ourselves', and cannot see any end in sight and it looks like the 
conflict will escalate. It's time to look at how we defend ourseles.


> OBL / AQ - whatever, started up the conflict in the region.  AQ began a 
> war in a largely peaceful era completely at their option.  They're the 
> root cause of most of the lost innocents in that region and ours over the 
> last eight years.

Indeed the root cause, but current western tactics are also responsible.


>  For it then to be us that are portrayed as the vicous killers of 
> innocents is sadly predictable, and worse, it's also sadly predictable 
> that people on our side would believe it.

That belief is rooted in seeing what has happened. If they weren't pulling 
children out of the rubble of our bombs people would see things differently. 
If we didn't have USAF footage of entirely innocent wedding parties being 
slaughtered then people couldn't say that's what we do.


>> In many ways it complements the message coming out of Afghanistan from US 
>> and NATO military commanders; 'to resolve the war, we have to change 
>> focus and course, stop such innocent killing'. It's the appendix that the 
>> west is reluctant to add to its own assessments; what the consequences of 
>> ongoing killing of innocents will be for us, civilians far removed from 
>> the field of battle. The reality we all know but find best left 
>> unwritten.
>>
>
> I don't think the consequences will be any different.  There were no 
> slaughtered innocents on 11 Sept and it didn't save the US.  If the war 
> can be conducted without harming the innocent I'd be very surprised, but 
> if they know a way of doing it and I were President I'd give them every 
> support.

There will always be innocents killed in war; it's a question of how many, 
which tactics are likely to cause such deaths, which minimise them.


>> We have the choice; we can either continue to act in a manner which leads 
>> to the killing of innocents abroad and face the consequences of 
>> retaliatory killing of civilians in return, enter into a possibly 
>> never-ending and forever escalating tit-for-tat bloodfest, or we can 
>> choose another way. There seems parallels there to the 
>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict which seems locked into permanent 
>> tit-for-tat conflict with each side justifying the seemingly perpetual 
>> conflict with, 'well you started it, we're just retaliating'.
>>
>
> I think because AQ are a non-state entity that can't surrender and be 
> occupied and monitored we have to go for continuing the war to their 
> destruction or permanent containment.

It's ridiculous to suggest a non-state entity cannot surrender, or needs to 
be occupied and monitored when they surrender.

Surrender is the wrong thing we should be looking for. Primarily we want 
them to stop what they are doing. That's been achieved with many non-state 
players in the past without requiring their complete destruction.


> We couldn't predict the consequences of not doing so.  If the pressure on 
> AQ is slackened to promote some kind of peace deal we could have have AQ 
> splinter groups everywhere, perhaps with different and even more militant 
> interpretations of Islam and all of them would have a workable victory 
> strategy to take with them - 'make sure you break enemies hearts with lots 
> of innocent victims on your side'.

That could happen anyway, so you're not painting a picture any worse than we 
already have.


>> As civilians, without wanting to diminish the horror of it, we have been 
>> fortunate so far in only suffering few responses to our actions abroad, 
>> and in comparison to the numbers western forces have killed on foreign 
>> soil. OBL is simply reminding us that it could be far worse, and tells us 
>> it will be, if we choose it to be.
>>
>> OBL is simply stating a widely held western - and probably universal - 
>> premise of, "You hit me, I'll hit you".
>
> He hit the US, the US hit him - or at least the people hiding him.

And many innocent people who just happened to be in the country.


>  It's a pity he didn't feel the same way as you about the innocent victims 
> of his actions.

And us.


> No matter what opinions on him are,
>> that's simply laying the facts on the table, that's the reality we have. 
>> It also seems to carry an implicit, 'leave me alone, and I'll leave you 
>> alone'. Whether true or not, it's hard to hold any moral highground when 
>> both sides are engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory action to the last 
>> event.
>>
>> What OBL's threat also raises is the question of what our goals are, what 
>> we are ultimately seeking to achieve; is it the eradication of OBL and 
>> all supporters, a willingness to engage in civilian slaughter on all 
>> sides until that is achieved, or is there some other goal and means we 
>> can use to bring about what we actually want, or need ?
>>
>
> I don't think we can go for less than that, and I've already said why.
>
>
>> The threat from OBL could equally have come from anyone in the west who 
>> can assess what future scenarios will be, and many in the west have 
>> recognised and stated that as being so. The 'threat' is no more than 
>> another re-iteration of the situation we may find ourselves in.
>>
>> Blair said we were prepared to pay the blood price for enagaging OBL & 
>> Co - and that presuamably included the possiblilty of seeing civilian 
>> slaughter on Britain's streets ( and OBL is saying that's what we'll get 
>> if we continue as we are doing ), and it's up to us to decide how to 
>> proceed. Are we prepared to pay that bloodprice or seek some other 
>> solution ?
>>
>
> I can't see a scenario where it's going to be safe to surrender to or make 
> a deal with AQ.  We know their methods, but we don't truly know their 
> aims,

We've had at least eight years to figure that out, and they do keep telling 
us why.


> and we don't know how cohesive they are if they begin to disagree with 
> each other.  That doesn't mean it won't happen, especially with Obama at 
> the helm now.  I'm sorry, I think he's probably a great guy to be your 
> boss at work or even in some other leadership role, but I don't think he's 
> 'the man of the moment' for these times.  I don't really see anyone who 
> actually is though.

Sadly, I believe Obama stands shoulder square behind a strategy which 
accepts the loss of innocent lives, and our government goes along with that.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:15:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy  
 wrote:

> No one's saying don't defend yourself. But for eight years we've been
> 'defending ourselves', and cannot see any end in sight and it looks like  
> the
> conflict will escalate. It's time to look at how we defend ourseles.

The trouble is that if the only effective tool in the toolbox is a hammer,  
you will see every problem as a nail.

It's obvious that military force doesn't sort terrorism, and even the  
military guys are now saying so.

But the trouble is, that a country where people are primarily responsible  
for their own protection, and where the police are not held in very high  
esteem, the approach that treats terrorism as a criminal matter to be  
dealt with through effective international policing is dismissed at the  
outset.

Even worse, we have seen top US politicians like Bush and Cheney nearly  
scuppering efforts to catch terrorists through their wish to have scalps  
to show as part of their political campaigns.

Unless and until the US faces up to the need to put its weight behind an  
effective system of international policing, and an international system of  
bringing criminals to justice, there will be little progress and more  
lives needlessly lost.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:15:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy 
>  wrote:
>
>> No one's saying don't defend yourself. But for eight years we've been
>> 'defending ourselves', and cannot see any end in sight and it looks like 
>> the
>> conflict will escalate. It's time to look at how we defend ourseles.
>
> The trouble is that if the only effective tool in the toolbox is a hammer, 
> you will see every problem as a nail.
>
> It's obvious that military force doesn't sort terrorism, and even the 
> military guys are now saying so.
>
> But the trouble is, that a country where people are primarily responsible 
> for their own protection, and where the police are not held in very high 
> esteem, the approach that treats terrorism as a criminal matter to be 
> dealt with through effective international policing is dismissed at the 
> outset.
>
> Even worse, we have seen top US politicians like Bush and Cheney nearly 
> scuppering efforts to catch terrorists through their wish to have scalps 
> to show as part of their political campaigns.
>
> Unless and until the US faces up to the need to put its weight behind an 
> effective system of international policing, and an international system of 
> bringing criminals to justice, there will be little progress and more 
> lives needlessly lost.

Can't argue with any of that.

Unfortunately the US is dismissive of the UN, or any other body than itself, 
which could provide the solution. Plus, I believe, the goal still stretches 
beyond bringing anyone to justice for a particular crime, it remains 
continued hegemony as well documented by the Project for The New American 
Century and the NeoCons. Most third parties would not have the same agenda 
as the US has.

The big mistake has been focus on eradication of an enemy, "war", rather 
than resolving the situation which gave rise to enemy action. The trouble is 
that the west, US in particular, has not been, and is not, prepared to 
resolve the issue, tackle the cause. Ironically, the "war" is more 
interference in sovereign state's affairs which is what brought the whole 
thing about. It's very hard to bring peace at the end of a gun or force a 
nation into how someone else wants it to be by force and killing, and 
attempting such a thing can easily fall under the label of "terrorism", 
which makes our actions even more ironic.

In message <3p8vm.443841$Ta5.141141@newsfe15.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>  <quotes>
>>  CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>troops  out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>"retaliation"  against them for their alliance with the United States
>>in the war.
>>  The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that
>>have  killed civilians and warned that European countries would be
>>held  accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>  The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>Islamic  militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda
>>videos this week  directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks
>>over that country's  involvement in Afghanistan.
>>  </quotes>
>I take it that you would think it wise to heed his advice ?

Yes... Definitely. There are other ways of winning.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in
>> the war.
>>
>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>
>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on Islamic
>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week
>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>
>
>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.

No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:aaFvm.98777$OO7.94987@text.news.virginmedia.com...


>> He was an early suspect after the attacks, was seen on video claiming 
>> responsibility, has been the inspiration for further attacks, and is the 
>> one setting out terms for peace.  If it wasn't him he could say so and 
>> we'd listen.  I'm sure most governments in the Western world would love 
>> to know who did it if it wasn't him.
>
> I disagree. The west is happy for him to be the blame, the chief bogeyman, 
> to have AQ which can be blamed for all threats an attacks arising from 
> Muslims.
>

I disagree with your disagreement!  I can't see the guilty party being 
allowed to go free just because Bin Laden looks more the part.  You're 
demonising the West with a suggestion like that, and that claim doesn't 
really make sense anyway.  OBL wasn't accused artibrarily, and there is even 
video of him claiming responsibility.  In all the later videos and audio 
recordings he released he never denied it as far as I remember.  The only 
way I can see what you're saying making any sense is if he wants to be seen 
as chief bogeyman too.



>
>>>> Now he complains about the innocents caught up in that response?  The 
>>>> time to worry about all that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice 
>>>> day in late summer, 2001.
>>>
>>> True, but it can be seen not so much as a hypocritical statement on 
>>> right or wrong, legitimacy or not of action, but a simple case of how he 
>>> sees it will be; 'we' can either continue to engage in the slaughtering 
>>> of innocents abroad and face the consequential slaughter of our own, or 
>>> we can step back from that. It is a move which puts the choice on 'us', 
>>> the ball in our court. We cannot control what has been, but we can 
>>> decide how it will continue.
>>
>> We can't do anything but respond.  If we step back and hope for peace to 
>> break out, for one we'd send a possibly catastrophic impression of 
>> victory to people like AQ which could see new conflicts start up all over 
>> the place with entirely new peace terms from AQ splinter groups, and for 
>> another we could well give breathing space for all kinds of bad things to 
>> be set up to call on against us later.
>
> It's how we respond which is the core issue. We can do so in ways which 
> are more likely to bring the conflict to an end or ways which will keep it 
> ongoing and escalating in scale. We can respond in a way which retains the 
> moral highground or we can respond in ways which loses us that.
>
>


They don't care if we have the moral high ground!  None of what OBL is now 
haggling terms with had even happened pre-2001.  If all was forgiven now, 
we'd still be back to whatever grievances made the 11 Sept attack look like 
a good idea.  He's playing with us.  He's playing with the West's war 
fatigue and self-hate / 'liberal guilt'.   If you don't believe that at 
least consider it as a possibility.  At least consider the possibility that 
the person who ordered an attack on a civilian target occupied by 50,000 
people might not be an honourable man.  The demons of the world don't all 
live in the West.  OBL could have picked other targets.  He could have 
ordered 3 planes into the Pentagon and one into the White House.  I would 
see him as a different man today if he had done.  It would still have been 
an act of war, but it would have been against US government targets, not 
civilian ones.  The attacks on the WTC are what will cause OBL to be 
remembered in the West as a dishonourable butcher.

Well, I'm not going to be one of the people lining up to trust the man.  See 
his offer as you will.



>> If you refuse to defend yourself in order to minimise casualties on your 
>> attacker's side don't be very surprised if you end up in your attacker's 
>> salt mines one day, having your labours overseen by the very people you 
>> were protecting!
>
> No one's saying don't defend yourself. But for eight years we've been 
> 'defending ourselves', and cannot see any end in sight and it looks like 
> the conflict will escalate. It's time to look at how we defend ourseles.

We contain the problem as best we can and hope to keep them from our throats 
long enough to ride out the fashion for militant Islam.  There isn't going 
to be any safety in being nice.  We'll just be hated for something we did 20 
years ago instead.  By now we'll be dealing with a whole generation that has 
been taught to hate the West.  We need to do what we can to involve the 
region in the world and improve their standard of living, but we can't 
ignore the element of their society that are dedicated to harming us or who 
have already harmed us.  We have cities with very high population densities 
where one attacker or one small group of attackers could cause pretty 
horrible damage, and do so without even consulting OBL.  We can't just 
ignore them and hope for the best.




>
>
>> OBL / AQ - whatever, started up the conflict in the region.  AQ began a 
>> war in a largely peaceful era completely at their option.  They're the 
>> root cause of most of the lost innocents in that region and ours over the 
>> last eight years.
>
> Indeed the root cause, but current western tactics are also responsible.
>

There wouldn't be any Western tactics to condemn if it wasn't for AQ 
tactics.



>
>>  For it then to be us that are portrayed as the vicous killers of 
>> innocents is sadly predictable, and worse, it's also sadly predictable 
>> that people on our side would believe it.
>
> That belief is rooted in seeing what has happened. If they weren't pulling 
> children out of the rubble of our bombs people would see things 
> differently. If we didn't have USAF footage of entirely innocent wedding 
> parties being slaughtered then people couldn't say that's what we do.
>

You are describing accidents.  Accidents that shouldn't happen ideally, but 
are inevitable if we defend ourselves.  They are happening because targets 
are being selected from intelligence reports to avoid just having to bomb 
the whole area like in the old days.  When it goes right you don't notice or 
you don't hear about it.  When it goes wrong you see what you're describing.

Unless you're saying that we deliberately blow up children and wedding 
parties in full knowledge of what they are. simply because we're evil and 
hate the people of that region?

As bad as it may be when it goes wrong, it's probably as good as you can 
get, given present technology and the human element.  There's nothing in it 
for the West when children or innocent people are bombed.  Every one of them 
will have someone calling out for their blood to be avanged.

You didn't get to see the bodies of the children from the 11 Sept attacks, 
but children were lost in those too.





> There will always be innocents killed in war; it's a question of how many, 
> which tactics are likely to cause such deaths, which minimise them.
>
>

It wouldn't be enough.  We couldn't get the figure to zero.




>>> We have the choice; we can either continue to act in a manner which 
>>> leads to the killing of innocents abroad and face the consequences of 
>>> retaliatory killing of civilians in return, enter into a possibly 
>>> never-ending and forever escalating tit-for-tat bloodfest, or we can 
>>> choose another way. There seems parallels there to the 
>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict which seems locked into permanent 
>>> tit-for-tat conflict with each side justifying the seemingly perpetual 
>>> conflict with, 'well you started it, we're just retaliating'.
>>>
>>
>> I think because AQ are a non-state entity that can't surrender and be 
>> occupied and monitored we have to go for continuing the war to their 
>> destruction or permanent containment.
>
> It's ridiculous to suggest a non-state entity cannot surrender, or needs 
> to be occupied and monitored when they surrender.
>

No it isn't ridiculous.  What happened with the IRA when we were dealing 
with them?  They split into one side that wanted peace and one side that 
wanted war - and that was a local problem for us.  AQ is multi-national. 
How do you monitor someone in their homes who decide they're going to blow 
up a train with home-made explosives?  Triacetone Peroxide can be made by 
anyone who can get together the ingredients and is suicidal enough to try 
making it (if you don't make it right it will blow up if you even use bad 
language around it).  It isn't a weapons cache you can bury in concrete.


> Surrender is the wrong thing we should be looking for. Primarily we want 
> them to stop what they are doing. That's been achieved with many non-state 
> players in the past without requiring their complete destruction.
>
>

With non-state entities that still have a leadership structure.  AQ is a 
franchise operation.  If you couldn't deal with all of AQ at the same time 
you'd get splinter group attacks inspiring more splinter group attacks.   In 
some ways it's probably like fighting a religious faith rather than a 
military organisation.  How do you convince someone that their faith is 
false?  Especially if they've dedicated their lives to it, and maybe others 
who have died for it?




>> We couldn't predict the consequences of not doing so.  If the pressure on 
>> AQ is slackened to promote some kind of peace deal we could have have AQ 
>> splinter groups everywhere, perhaps with different and even more militant 
>> interpretations of Islam and all of them would have a workable victory 
>> strategy to take with them - 'make sure you break enemies hearts with 
>> lots of innocent victims on your side'.
>
> That could happen anyway, so you're not painting a picture any worse than 
> we already have.

Yes it could, but it would be a lot more likely to happen if we allowed AQ 
leadership figures to run around unmolested while they get thigns organised. 
To have peace you couldn't arrest or kill any of them.   I can't see that 
working out for us.




>> He hit the US, the US hit him - or at least the people hiding him.
>
> And many innocent people who just happened to be in the country.

The whole country wasn't bombed, and none of it needed to happen in the 
first place.  The innocents were deliberately put at risk by their own 
leadership.  How many innocent people were in New York?  How many in London 
or Madrid?

We've all been passengers in this train crash.


>
>
>>  It's a pity he didn't feel the same way as you about the innocent 
>> victims of his actions.
>
> And us.

We don't want any innocent people to die.  Even if our leadership thought 
Afghan lives to be completely worthless, they need the fuel of favourable 
public opinion to keep any war going.  Seeing children being dug out of 
rubble because of our side's bombing does not help us one bit.




>> I can't see a scenario where it's going to be safe to surrender to or 
>> make a deal with AQ.  We know their methods, but we don't truly know 
>> their aims,
>
> We've had at least eight years to figure that out, and they do keep 
> telling us why.

I've heard all kinds of reasons from lots of different places - that AQ want 
to form a Caliphate, that they want the West off Muslim land, that they hate 
US freedom, that it's in revenge for innocent dead....  and more.... is any 
of it true?  In the end it all seems to be a huge murderous grudge that 
pulled itself up by it's own bootstraps.



>
>
>> and we don't know how cohesive they are if they begin to disagree with 
>> each other.  That doesn't mean it won't happen, especially with Obama at 
>> the helm now.  I'm sorry, I think he's probably a great guy to be your 
>> boss at work or even in some other leadership role, but I don't think 
>> he's 'the man of the moment' for these times.  I don't really see anyone 
>> who actually is though.
>
> Sadly, I believe Obama stands shoulder square behind a strategy which 
> accepts the loss of innocent lives, and our government goes along with 
> that.
>

I don't.  I think he's an idealist that thinks we can get on if we all see 
each other as human and if only all those barriers could be broken down, and 
he's the man to do it, even if it means trampling a few friends in the 
process.  His leadership seems dangerously tilted towards the cult of 
personality.  He's dangerously close to being seen as being able to do no 
wrong, and that ignores the precipitate nature of some of his leadership 
decisions that are already starting to get him in trouble after just a few 
months in leadership.  I don't think the worse of him for having a vision, 
but I think he's tripping himself up in his haste to change the world.

I don't think he's the master tactician that AQ deserves.

I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have done?


TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:paedneZhOPF5XiLXnZ2dnUVZ8i-dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...


> With non-state entities that still have a leadership structure.  AQ is a 
> franchise operation.  If you couldn't deal with all of AQ at the same time 
> you'd get splinter group attacks inspiring more splinter group attacks. 
> In some ways it's probably like fighting a religious faith rather than a 
> military organisation.  How do you convince someone that their faith is 
> false?  Especially if they've dedicated their lives to it, and maybe 
> others who have died for it?


That last part should read "maybe know others who have died for it"

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:aaFvm.98777$OO7.94987@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>>> He was an early suspect after the attacks, was seen on video claiming 
>>> responsibility, has been the inspiration for further attacks, and is the 
>>> one setting out terms for peace.  If it wasn't him he could say so and 
>>> we'd listen.  I'm sure most governments in the Western world would love 
>>> to know who did it if it wasn't him.
>>
>> I disagree. The west is happy for him to be the blame, the chief 
>> bogeyman, to have AQ which can be blamed for all threats an attacks 
>> arising from Muslims.
>>
>
> I disagree with your disagreement!  I can't see the guilty party being 
> allowed to go free just because Bin Laden looks more the part.  You're 
> demonising the West with a suggestion like that, and that claim doesn't 
> really make sense anyway.  OBL wasn't accused artibrarily, and there is 
> even video of him claiming responsibility.  In all the later videos and 
> audio recordings he released he never denied it as far as I remember.  The 
> only way I can see what you're saying making any sense is if he wants to 
> be seen as chief bogeyman too.

I think you misunderstood me; the west doesn't want it to be anyone else 
because the strategy is built around OBL, as leader and inspiration of AQ, 
being 'the enemy'.


>>>>> Now he complains about the innocents caught up in that response?  The 
>>>>> time to worry about all that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice 
>>>>> day in late summer, 2001.
>>>>
>>>> True, but it can be seen not so much as a hypocritical statement on 
>>>> right or wrong, legitimacy or not of action, but a simple case of how 
>>>> he sees it will be; 'we' can either continue to engage in the 
>>>> slaughtering of innocents abroad and face the consequential slaughter 
>>>> of our own, or we can step back from that. It is a move which puts the 
>>>> choice on 'us', the ball in our court. We cannot control what has been, 
>>>> but we can decide how it will continue.
>>>
>>> We can't do anything but respond.  If we step back and hope for peace to 
>>> break out, for one we'd send a possibly catastrophic impression of 
>>> victory to people like AQ which could see new conflicts start up all 
>>> over the place with entirely new peace terms from AQ splinter groups, 
>>> and for another we could well give breathing space for all kinds of bad 
>>> things to be set up to call on against us later.
>>
>> It's how we respond which is the core issue. We can do so in ways which 
>> are more likely to bring the conflict to an end or ways which will keep 
>> it ongoing and escalating in scale. We can respond in a way which retains 
>> the moral highground or we can respond in ways which loses us that.
>>
>>
>
>
> They don't care if we have the moral high ground!

Maybe not; but do we ? Or do we have as little care about moral highground ? 
In which case, what makes us better than them ?


> None of what OBL is now haggling terms with had even happened pre-2001. 
> If all was forgiven now, we'd still be back to whatever grievances made 
> the 11 Sept attack look like a good idea.  He's playing with us.  He's 
> playing with the West's war fatigue and self-hate / 'liberal guilt'.   If 
> you don't believe that at least consider it as a possibility.  At least 
> consider the possibility that the person who ordered an attack on a 
> civilian target occupied by 50,000 people might not be an honourable man. 
> The demons of the world don't all live in the West.  OBL could have picked 
> other targets.  He could have ordered 3 planes into the Pentagon and one 
> into the White House.  I would see him as a different man today if he had 
> done.  It would still have been an act of war, but it would have been 
> against US government targets, not civilian ones.  The attacks on the WTC 
> are what will cause OBL to be remembered in the West as a dishonourable 
> butcher.
>
> Well, I'm not going to be one of the people lining up to trust the man. 
> See his offer as you will.

Not so much an 'offer' as a re-iteration of wgat will happen as has been a 
suggested scenario by many in the west.

>>> If you refuse to defend yourself in order to minimise casualties on your 
>>> attacker's side don't be very surprised if you end up in your attacker's 
>>> salt mines one day, having your labours overseen by the very people you 
>>> were protecting!
>>
>> No one's saying don't defend yourself. But for eight years we've been 
>> 'defending ourselves', and cannot see any end in sight and it looks like 
>> the conflict will escalate. It's time to look at how we defend ourseles.
>
> We contain the problem as best we can and hope to keep them from our 
> throats long enough to ride out the fashion for militant Islam.  There 
> isn't going to be any safety in being nice.  We'll just be hated for 
> something we did 20 years ago instead.  By now we'll be dealing with a 
> whole generation that has been taught to hate the West.  We need to do 
> what we can to involve the region in the world and improve their standard 
> of living, but we can't ignore the element of their society that are 
> dedicated to harming us or who have already harmed us.  We have cities 
> with very high population densities where one attacker or one small group 
> of attackers could cause pretty horrible damage, and do so without even 
> consulting OBL.  We can't just ignore them and hope for the best.

Okay; 'perpetual war it is, we kill their civilians, they kill ours, and 
everyone will be happy'. I think not.

Not only will we be dealing with those who do want to harm us, but those who 
didn't but we harmed. That's the nature of escalation.


>>> OBL / AQ - whatever, started up the conflict in the region.  AQ began a 
>>> war in a largely peaceful era completely at their option.  They're the 
>>> root cause of most of the lost innocents in that region and ours over 
>>> the last eight years.
>>
>> Indeed the root cause, but current western tactics are also responsible.
>>
>
> There wouldn't be any Western tactics to condemn if it wasn't for AQ 
> tactics.

That's simply ducking the issue, passing the buck.


>>>  For it then to be us that are portrayed as the vicous killers of 
>>> innocents is sadly predictable, and worse, it's also sadly predictable 
>>> that people on our side would believe it.
>>
>> That belief is rooted in seeing what has happened. If they weren't 
>> pulling children out of the rubble of our bombs people would see things 
>> differently. If we didn't have USAF footage of entirely innocent wedding 
>> parties being slaughtered then people couldn't say that's what we do.
>>
>
> You are describing accidents.

There seems to have been an incredibly large number of "accidents".


> Accidents that shouldn't happen ideally, but are inevitable if we defend 
> ourselves.  They are happening because targets are being selected from 
> intelligence reports to avoid just having to bomb the whole area like in 
> the old days.  When it goes right you don't notice or you don't hear about 
> it.  When it goes wrong you see what you're describing.

I guess it goes wrong quite a lot then.


> Unless you're saying that we deliberately blow up children and wedding 
> parties in full knowledge of what they are. simply because we're evil and 
> hate the people of that region?
>
> As bad as it may be when it goes wrong, it's probably as good as you can 
> get, given present technology and the human element.

Is it though ? Or is that simply an excuse to keep on doing what we do ?


> There's nothing in it for the West when children or innocent people are 
> bombed.  Every one of them will have someone calling out for their blood 
> to be avanged.

Exactly.


> You didn't get to see the bodies of the children from the 11 Sept attacks, 
> but children were lost in those too.
>
>
>
>
>
>> There will always be innocents killed in war; it's a question of how 
>> many, which tactics are likely to cause such deaths, which minimise them.
>>
>>
>
> It wouldn't be enough.  We couldn't get the figure to zero.

It would be better than we have now.


>>>> We have the choice; we can either continue to act in a manner which 
>>>> leads to the killing of innocents abroad and face the consequences of 
>>>> retaliatory killing of civilians in return, enter into a possibly 
>>>> never-ending and forever escalating tit-for-tat bloodfest, or we can 
>>>> choose another way. There seems parallels there to the 
>>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict which seems locked into permanent 
>>>> tit-for-tat conflict with each side justifying the seemingly perpetual 
>>>> conflict with, 'well you started it, we're just retaliating'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think because AQ are a non-state entity that can't surrender and be 
>>> occupied and monitored we have to go for continuing the war to their 
>>> destruction or permanent containment.
>>
>> It's ridiculous to suggest a non-state entity cannot surrender, or needs 
>> to be occupied and monitored when they surrender.
>>
>
> No it isn't ridiculous.  What happened with the IRA when we were dealing 
> with them?  They split into one side that wanted peace and one side that 
> wanted war - and that was a local problem for us.  AQ is multi-national. 
> How do you monitor someone in their homes who decide they're going to blow 
> up a train with home-made explosives?  Triacetone Peroxide can be made by 
> anyone who can get together the ingredients and is suicidal enough to try 
> making it (if you don't make it right it will blow up if you even use bad 
> language around it).  It isn't a weapons cache you can bury in concrete.
>
>
>> Surrender is the wrong thing we should be looking for. Primarily we want 
>> them to stop what they are doing. That's been achieved with many 
>> non-state players in the past without requiring their complete 
>> destruction.
>>
>>
>
> With non-state entities that still have a leadership structure.  AQ is a 
> franchise operation.  If you couldn't deal with all of AQ at the same time 
> you'd get splinter group attacks inspiring more splinter group attacks. 
> In some ways it's probably like fighting a religious faith rather than a 
> military organisation.  How do you convince someone that their faith is 
> false?  Especially if they've dedicated their lives to it, and maybe 
> others who have died for it?
>
>
>
>
>>> We couldn't predict the consequences of not doing so.  If the pressure 
>>> on AQ is slackened to promote some kind of peace deal we could have have 
>>> AQ splinter groups everywhere, perhaps with different and even more 
>>> militant interpretations of Islam and all of them would have a workable 
>>> victory strategy to take with them - 'make sure you break enemies hearts 
>>> with lots of innocent victims on your side'.
>>
>> That could happen anyway, so you're not painting a picture any worse than 
>> we already have.
>
> Yes it could, but it would be a lot more likely to happen if we allowed AQ 
> leadership figures to run around unmolested while they get thigns 
> organised. To have peace you couldn't arrest or kill any of them.   I 
> can't see that working out for us.

I'm sure all those in the fight are prepared to put their lives on the line 
( on both sides ), but we're talking about innocents here.


>>> He hit the US, the US hit him - or at least the people hiding him.
>>
>> And many innocent people who just happened to be in the country.
>
> The whole country wasn't bombed, and none of it needed to happen in the 
> first place.  The innocents were deliberately put at risk by their own 
> leadership.  How many innocent people were in New York?  How many in 
> London or Madrid?
>
> We've all been passengers in this train crash.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>  It's a pity he didn't feel the same way as you about the innocent 
>>> victims of his actions.
>>
>> And us.
>
> We don't want any innocent people to die.  Even if our leadership thought 
> Afghan lives to be completely worthless, they need the fuel of favourable 
> public opinion to keep any war going.  Seeing children being dug out of 
> rubble because of our side's bombing does not help us one bit.
>
>
>
>
>>> I can't see a scenario where it's going to be safe to surrender to or 
>>> make a deal with AQ.  We know their methods, but we don't truly know 
>>> their aims,
>>
>> We've had at least eight years to figure that out, and they do keep 
>> telling us why.
>
> I've heard all kinds of reasons from lots of different places - that AQ 
> want to form a Caliphate, that they want the West off Muslim land, that 
> they hate US freedom, that it's in revenge for innocent dead....  and 
> more.... is any of it true?  In the end it all seems to be a huge 
> murderous grudge that pulled itself up by it's own bootstraps.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> and we don't know how cohesive they are if they begin to disagree with 
>>> each other.  That doesn't mean it won't happen, especially with Obama at 
>>> the helm now.  I'm sorry, I think he's probably a great guy to be your 
>>> boss at work or even in some other leadership role, but I don't think 
>>> he's 'the man of the moment' for these times.  I don't really see anyone 
>>> who actually is though.
>>
>> Sadly, I believe Obama stands shoulder square behind a strategy which 
>> accepts the loss of innocent lives, and our government goes along with 
>> that.
>>
>
> I don't.  I think he's an idealist that thinks we can get on if we all see 
> each other as human and if only all those barriers could be broken down, 
> and he's the man to do it, even if it means trampling a few friends in the 
> process.  His leadership seems dangerously tilted towards the cult of 
> personality.  He's dangerously close to being seen as being able to do no 
> wrong, and that ignores the precipitate nature of some of his leadership 
> decisions that are already starting to get him in trouble after just a few 
> months in leadership.  I don't think the worse of him for having a vision, 
> but I think he's tripping himself up in his haste to change the world.
>
> I don't think he's the master tactician that AQ deserves.
>
> I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have done?
>
>
> TWP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"TWP"  wrote ...

> I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have done?

From his second inauguration speech it seems he believed the course of war 
was entirely in the hands of God; if He wills it to end then so be it, if He 
wills it to continue then so too be it. Presumably, guided to do the will of 
God, in ware he pursued the deaths of the enemy, it is said, 'vigorously'. 
He is said to have set precedent in intentionally attacking defenceless 
civilian targets.

Not so different to some views we hear from those 'batting for the other 
side' today it seems.

I don't know if you were intending to suggest Lincoln as a great man, a fine 
example of how things should be done, or as an example of something else. By 
modern judgement some would call him a 'war criminal', in today's language 
some might call him 'terrorist'.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:58:42 +0100, The Happy Hippy  
 wrote:

>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have done?
>
> From his second inauguration speech it seems he believed the course of  
> war
> was entirely in the hands of God; if He wills it to end then so be it,  
> if He
> wills it to continue then so too be it. Presumably, guided to do the  
> will of
> God, in ware he pursued the deaths of the enemy, it is said,  
> 'vigorously'.
> He is said to have set precedent in intentionally attacking defenceless
> civilian targets.
>
> Not so different to some views we hear from those 'batting for the other
> side' today it seems.
>
> I don't know if you were intending to suggest Lincoln as a great man, a  
> fine
> example of how things should be done, or as an example of something  
> else. By
> modern judgement some would call him a 'war criminal', in today's  
> language
> some might call him 'terrorist'.
>
>

We know exactly what Sherman did, following Lincoln's orders and with his  
full approval, during his March to the Sea in 1864-5, which has left an  
enduring legacy of bitterness in the Southern States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>>
>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in
>>> the war.
>>>
>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>
>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>> Islamic
>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week
>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>
>>
>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>
> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US


Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory 
strike?

Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in 
retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?  Don't you see 
any moral down side?  You must do...  When is it legitimate to 
_deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other 
innocent people?

What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?  What connection did 
OBL have with those original attacks?  What did he lose during those 
attacks?   It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness 
they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.   Are we obliged to 
accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's invoked, rather than just 
put attacks down to good honest hate?


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>
>>>> <quotes>
>>>>
>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in
>>>> the war.
>>>>
>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>
>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>>> Islamic
>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this 
>>>> week
>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> </quotes>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>
>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>
>
> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory 
> strike?
>
> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in 
> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?  Don't you see 
> any moral down side?  You must do...  When is it legitimate to 
> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other 
> innocent people?
>
> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?  What connection 
> did OBL have with those original attacks?  What did he lose during those 
> attacks?   It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness 
> they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.

> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's invoked, 
> rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?

Are they ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:GL5wm.99368$OO7.97584@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States 
>>>>> in
>>>>> the war.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>>>> Islamic
>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this 
>>>>> week
>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>
>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>
>>
>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory 
>> strike?
>>
>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in 
>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?  Don't you 
>> see any moral down side?  You must do...  When is it legitimate to 
>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other 
>> innocent people?
>>
>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?  What connection 
>> did OBL have with those original attacks?  What did he lose during those 
>> attacks?   It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of 
>> viciousness they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>
>> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's 
>> invoked, rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?
>
> Are they ?

Maybe.  I don't know.  I would like to know, but I really don't expect to. 
OBL isn't going to admit to a personal vendetta anyway, even if there is 
one.  If retalliation WAS due, it wasn't OBL's place to take that revenge 
anyway.   What gives him such rights to represent anyone's suffering? 
Especially in the form of revenge.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:GL5wm.99368$OO7.97584@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
>>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on 
>>>>>> Islamic
>>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this 
>>>>>> week
>>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>>
>>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory 
>>> strike?
>>>
>>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in 
>>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?  Don't you 
>>> see any moral down side?  You must do...  When is it legitimate to 
>>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other 
>>> innocent people?
>>>
>>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?  What connection 
>>> did OBL have with those original attacks?  What did he lose during those 
>>> attacks?   It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of 
>>> viciousness they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>>
>>> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's 
>>> invoked, rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>
>> Are they ?
>
> Maybe.  I don't know.  I would like to know, but I really don't expect to. 
> OBL isn't going to admit to a personal vendetta anyway, even if there is 
> one.  If retalliation WAS due, it wasn't OBL's place to take that revenge 
> anyway.   What gives him such rights to represent anyone's suffering? 
> Especially in the form of revenge.

I was thinking not so much of OBL but all those innocent people who have 
been killed by western military action. Are they obliged to accept the 
west's retalliation alibi everytime it's invoked ? Are they obliged to see 
'collateral damage' as acceptable, rather than put it down to good old 
fashioned murder ? Are they obliged to accept their own deaths at our hands 
as justified ?

You can't pass the buck to OBL for killing those who had nothing to do with 
OBL or his cause; our side are the ones who make the decisions which leads 
to killing those people.

If wannabe shoe bomber Reid had blown up his plane, would you see your own 
and family's death through American retaliation as acceptable ?

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>
>>>> <quotes>
>>>>
>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States in
>>>> the war.
>>>>
>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>
>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>>> Islamic
>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this week
>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> </quotes>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>
>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>
>
>Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>strike?

Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.

>Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?

No. But I can understand why he did it.
Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.

> Don't you see
>any moral down side?

Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
BTW morals are relative not absolute.

>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>_deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>innocent people?

Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
only weapon they have lest.

Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
OBL responded in kind.

Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
civilians or the ones who responded in kind?

>What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?

>What connection did
>OBL have with those original attacks?

Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/

>  What did he lose during those
>attacks?

Nothing.

>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.

Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
all over the world ad civilians end up dead.

What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.

> Are we obliged to
>accept the 'retalliation' alibi

It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
obvioulsy only read US propaganda.

>every time it's invoked, rather than just
>put attacks down to good honest hate?

There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very carefully
and coldly planed.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:GL5wm.99368$OO7.97584@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>>>>> Islamic
>>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this
>>>>>> week
>>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>>
>>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>> strike?
>>>
>>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?  Don't you
>>> see any moral down side?  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>>> innocent people?
>>>
>>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?  What connection
>>> did OBL have with those original attacks?  What did he lose during those
>>> attacks?   It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of
>>> viciousness they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>>
>>> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's
>>> invoked, rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>
>> Are they ?
>
>Maybe.  I don't know.  I would like to know, but I really don't expect to.
>OBL isn't going to admit to a personal vendetta anyway, even if there is
>one.  If retalliation WAS due, it wasn't OBL's place to take that revenge
>anyway.

Why not? Who else was going to do it?

> What gives him such rights to represent anyone's suffering?
>Especially in the form of revenge.

OK... So what is the USA's excuse for doing the same all over the world?

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:bD7wm.99395$OO7.61389@text.news.virginmedia.com...


>>>> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's 
>>>> invoked, rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>>
>>> Are they ?
>>
>> Maybe.  I don't know.  I would like to know, but I really don't expect 
>> to. OBL isn't going to admit to a personal vendetta anyway, even if there 
>> is one.  If retalliation WAS due, it wasn't OBL's place to take that 
>> revenge anyway.   What gives him such rights to represent anyone's 
>> suffering? Especially in the form of revenge.
>
> I was thinking not so much of OBL but all those innocent people who have 
> been killed by western military action. Are they obliged to accept the 
> west's retalliation alibi everytime it's invoked ? Are they obliged to see 
> 'collateral damage' as acceptable, rather than put it down to good old 
> fashioned murder ? Are they obliged to accept their own deaths at our 
> hands as justified ?
>

You didn't come close to answering any of my gripping questions, you just 
made the mabout the West then turned them back on me!  What does that prove? 
Murder isn't symmetrical.  If I try to kill you, do we both deserve to go to 
jail?

No, they aren't obliged to accept the West's alibis.  They can suspect 
ulterior motives if they believe such motives exist.  They can suspect 
racism or cultural hatred.  They can suspect anything they like.  What I've 
tended not to see on the news though is people from these countries saying 
"I can understand why this happened to us - we had it coming because of the 
actions of our government".

They aren't obliged to accept being killed, but if their state involves 
itself in an armed conflict it is going to be a risk.




> You can't pass the buck to OBL for killing those who had nothing to do 
> with OBL or his cause;

Really?  So OBL can do anything he wants without being an evil person, just 
as long as he shouts "you made me do it!" as he runs away?  If there is a 
vengeful God up there to judge him after his final day has passed I bet he 
thinks something entirely different on the subject.


our side are the ones who make the decisions which leads
> to killing those people.

Which people?   Who did we kill before 11 Sept?  When did we kill them and 
why?

You're offering one-dimensional answers where you offer an answer at all. 
You say "we made them do it", but you don't say what you believe we did to 
make them do it... and if you think the US state really did something 
specific to deserve it, why isn't there a problem with the fact that 
non-state targets were selected for attack in response?  Those planes could 
go anywhere.  They didn't need to hit two tower blocks filled with office 
workers - what was wrong with the White House?  Why not aim them all at the 
Pentagon?  Why not fly into an army base?  Those buildings were picked 
because OBL didn't want to retalliate, he wanted to commit an act so 
memorably horrific it would be guaranteed to start a war.  I think he wanted 
to set a torch to the West by setting Christian world against Muslim world. 
Now he's whining and pretending to weep for the innocent because the only 
part of the world his actions ended up setting ablaze was his own.

I see nothing warranted or laudable in his actions.  He only made people 
suffer, and to my mind he only wanted to make people suffer.  I'm sure he 
had his reasons, but I don't think they were anything to do with bringing 
goodness and justice to the world.  If you're looking for a Robin Hood of 
the East, I think you need to keep looking.  OBL is no hero, and he has no 
right to call anyone 'murderer'.



>
> If wannabe shoe bomber Reid had blown up his plane, would you see your own 
> and family's death through American retaliation as acceptable ?
>

No, because Reid had no ties to the UK state.  But, I won't dodge your 
question, let's say there were 10 shoe bombers, all trained and mentored in 
facilities that the UK had allowed to be set up.  The UK knew they was 
training to attack the US, let them do it, then after they'd set off their 
bombs and left thousands of US citizens dead the UK tried to prevent the US 
getting to those responsible for ordering the bombints.  I would definately 
expect there to be trouble and I would expect to be mixed up in the 
consequences.   It's not my war, but I can't really leave.  I'd just have to 
ride it out and hope we weren't one of the unlucky ones.

I couldn't be surprised if a war was what came of an act of war, could I?


TWP

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:41:20 +0100, Chris H  wrote:

> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States  
>>>>> in
>>>>> the war.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that  
>>>>> have
>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>>>> Islamic
>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos this  
>>>>> week
>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>
>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>
>>
>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>> strike?
>
> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.
>
>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?
>
> No. But I can understand why he did it.
> Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
> have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.
>
>> Don't you see
>> any moral down side?
>
> Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
> BTW morals are relative not absolute.
>
>>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>> innocent people?
>
> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
> only weapon they have lest.
>
> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
> OBL responded in kind.
>
> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?
>
>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?
>
>> What connection did
>> OBL have with those original attacks?
>
> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/
>
>>  What did he lose during those
>> attacks?
>
> Nothing.
>
>>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>> they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>
> Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
> support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
> all over the world ad civilians end up dead.
>
> What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
> blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.
>
>> Are we obliged to
>> accept the 'retalliation' alibi
>
> It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
> obvioulsy only read US propaganda.
>
>> every time it's invoked, rather than just
>> put attacks down to good honest hate?
>
> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very carefully
> and coldly planed.

And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear  
weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right whatever  
to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:bD7wm.99395$OO7.61389@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>>>>> Are we obliged to accept the 'retalliation' alibi every time it's 
>>>>> invoked, rather than just put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>>>
>>>> Are they ?
>>>
>>> Maybe.  I don't know.  I would like to know, but I really don't expect 
>>> to. OBL isn't going to admit to a personal vendetta anyway, even if 
>>> there is one.  If retalliation WAS due, it wasn't OBL's place to take 
>>> that revenge anyway.   What gives him such rights to represent anyone's 
>>> suffering? Especially in the form of revenge.
>>
>> I was thinking not so much of OBL but all those innocent people who have 
>> been killed by western military action. Are they obliged to accept the 
>> west's retalliation alibi everytime it's invoked ? Are they obliged to 
>> see 'collateral damage' as acceptable, rather than put it down to good 
>> old fashioned murder ? Are they obliged to accept their own deaths at our 
>> hands as justified ?
>>
>
> You didn't come close to answering any of my gripping questions, you just 
> made the mabout the West then turned them back on me!  What does that 
> prove? Murder isn't symmetrical.  If I try to kill you, do we both deserve 
> to go to jail?
>
> No, they aren't obliged to accept the West's alibis.  They can suspect 
> ulterior motives if they believe such motives exist.  They can suspect 
> racism or cultural hatred.  They can suspect anything they like.  What 
> I've tended not to see on the news though is people from these countries 
> saying "I can understand why this happened to us - we had it coming 
> because of the actions of our government".
>
> They aren't obliged to accept being killed, but if their state involves 
> itself in an armed conflict it is going to be a risk.
>
>
>
>
>> You can't pass the buck to OBL for killing those who had nothing to do 
>> with OBL or his cause;
>
> Really?  So OBL can do anything he wants without being an evil person, 
> just as long as he shouts "you made me do it!" as he runs away?  If there 
> is a vengeful God up there to judge him after his final day has passed I 
> bet he thinks something entirely different on the subject.
>
>
> our side are the ones who make the decisions which leads
>> to killing those people.
>
> Which people?   Who did we kill before 11 Sept?  When did we kill them and 
> why?
>
> You're offering one-dimensional answers where you offer an answer at all. 
> You say "we made them do it", but you don't say what you believe we did to 
> make them do it... and if you think the US state really did something 
> specific to deserve it, why isn't there a problem with the fact that 
> non-state targets were selected for attack in response?  Those planes 
> could go anywhere.  They didn't need to hit two tower blocks filled with 
> office workers - what was wrong with the White House?  Why not aim them 
> all at the Pentagon?  Why not fly into an army base?  Those buildings were 
> picked because OBL didn't want to retalliate, he wanted to commit an act 
> so memorably horrific it would be guaranteed to start a war.  I think he 
> wanted to set a torch to the West by setting Christian world against 
> Muslim world. Now he's whining and pretending to weep for the innocent 
> because the only part of the world his actions ended up setting ablaze was 
> his own.
>
> I see nothing warranted or laudable in his actions.  He only made people 
> suffer, and to my mind he only wanted to make people suffer.  I'm sure he 
> had his reasons, but I don't think they were anything to do with bringing 
> goodness and justice to the world.  If you're looking for a Robin Hood of 
> the East, I think you need to keep looking.  OBL is no hero, and he has no 
> right to call anyone 'murderer'.
>
>
>
>>
>> If wannabe shoe bomber Reid had blown up his plane, would you see your 
>> own and family's death through American retaliation as acceptable ?
>>
>
> No, because Reid had no ties to the UK state.  But, I won't dodge your 
> question, let's say there were 10 shoe bombers, all trained and mentored 
> in facilities that the UK had allowed to be set up.  The UK knew they was 
> training to attack the US, let them do it, then after they'd set off their 
> bombs and left thousands of US citizens dead the UK tried to prevent the 
> US getting to those responsible for ordering the bombints.  I would 
> definately expect there to be trouble and I would expect to be mixed up in 
> the consequences.   It's not my war, but I can't really leave.  I'd just 
> have to ride it out and hope we weren't one of the unlucky ones.
>
> I couldn't be surprised if a war was what came of an act of war, could I?

OBL had no ties to the Afghan state other than being in it, which is the 
same situation as Reid, which is why I'm finding it so hard to debate the 
issue. The goalposts seem to be jumping all over the place.

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:GtZXNvFwcOwKFAA1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...



>>
>>Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>strike?
>
> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.

Tell me the other two.


>
>>Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>>retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?
>
> No. But I can understand why he did it.
> Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
> have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.
>
>> Don't you see
>>any moral down side?
>
> Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
> BTW morals are relative not absolute.

It wasn't a serious question.  I believe that you do understand what I'm 
getting at, I'm just trying to outline the point.



>
>>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>>_deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>>innocent people?
>
> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
> only weapon they have lest.

I can understand the comparison, but that's a different situation to that 
between the West and OBL.  I think OBL is trying to draw us into a war that 
he can portray as an anti-Muslim crusade.  The Israelis and Palestinians in 
many ways are two cats who each think there is one cat too many.


>
> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
> OBL responded in kind.
>
> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?

OBL killed US civilians without their being any kind of suspected enemy.  He 
knew perfectly well he was going to kill non-combatants.  No false 
intelligence reports guided his hand.  He wasn't following any ghosts on the 
wire or any false chatter.  He had people hijack aircraft and fly them into 
civilian buildings.  Say I'm wrong if you like, but I think OBL is wrong in 
the case we're talking about.

The US can be careless - we've all seen it happen.  They've even shot some 
of our people in the past.  You kind of wondered to yourself sometimes if 
our people wouldn't have been safer in Iraqi uniforms! :-)   I suppose one 
of the problems for the US military is that they're kind of trying to steer 
the Titanic.  That's not an excuse, it's a possible reason as I see it for 
things going horribly wrong.



>
>>What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?

What have they been doing to OBL?  What gave him a _legitimate_ reason to 
start a war?  Lots and lots of people died in the wars he sparked off.  I'd 
like to know specific reasons why it was his place to light the blue touch 
paper.

Was OBL a pawn in someone else's plan as those who carried out the attacks 
were pawns in OBL's plan?  If a war against the US was coming, why was a 
left to OBL to start the ball rolling?  Why was it _specifically_ OBL's 
fight to get involved in?




>
>>What connection did
>>OBL have with those original attacks?
>
> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/


Is that a good enough reason to do what he did?  Who died and made him... 
the guy who gets to decide things like that?

Maybe Greenpeace should start boarding Japanese whaling ships and 
slaughtering the crew like dogs.  That'd put an end to whaling!



>
>>  What did he lose during those
>>attacks?
>
> Nothing.

So what business was it of his?  Is it OK for some rich US guy to launch 
their own personal war?   He can think of a reason for attacking later - 
just so history can record him as an idealist instead of a murdering 
psychopath.    I don't much like what the Chinese did in Tiananmen 
Square....  If I win the lottery would it be OK for me to buy a few cruise 
missiles and launch them at a building full of Chinese office workers? 
That'll help the dead of 1989 to rest easier.  I could launch them at 
government buildings, but who'd care when they saw their worthless hides 
being carried out, right?



>
>>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>>they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>
> Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
> support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
> all over the world ad civilians end up dead.

Those are dangerous places to live in anyway.  I think a large number of 
people in most of those places would have died with or without US 
involvement.  I would suspect that typically if the US has supported one bad 
guy it's been to fight what they believe to be a worse guy.  It hasn't 
always proved to be a good idea as it turns out but I can understand the 
temptation to help the "good" guy to win.

There's no doubt that the US and we before them have caused some trouble in 
the world while trying to shape it to our safety or advantage, but as a 
leader of either nation you'd have to be pretty stupid to allow people who 
were a threat to you to become powerful if you didn't have to.  In the end 
it's probably hard to pursue any policy on on the world stage that does't 
either harm someone by your action or someone else by your inaction.  You 
stand to be blamed by people like OBL for either.  I think all you can do is 
what you think is right for the people you lead.



>
> What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
> blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.
>
>> Are we obliged to
>>accept the 'retalliation' alibi
>
> It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
> obvioulsy only read US propaganda.

I keep my eyes open.  I look at who kills who and under what circumstances. 
I really don't care what someone's cause is if they pursue their victory by 
carefully avoiding taking on those who can fight back in order to make the 
helpless feel defenceless or in the hopes that a war will start that they 
can portray as a war of victimisation.

If you want to fight a war - unless you're a completely dishonourable 
coward - you pick on the guys carrying the guns.



>
>>every time it's invoked, rather than just
>>put attacks down to good honest hate?
>
> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very carefully
> and coldly planed.

So only the US feels hatred?

Now who's been listening to too much propaganda...



TWP

In message <op.u0zhwjctfergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
writes
>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:41:20 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their
>>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United
>>>>>>States   in
>>>>>> the war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>>>>> Islamic
>>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos
>>>>>>this   week
>>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that country's
>>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>>
>>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first strike)
>>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>> strike?
>>
>> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.
>>
>>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?
>>
>> No. But I can understand why he did it.
>> Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
>> have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.
>>
>>> Don't you see
>>> any moral down side?
>>
>> Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
>> BTW morals are relative not absolute.
>>
>>>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>>> innocent people?
>>
>> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
>> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
>> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
>> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
>> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
>> only weapon they have lest.
>>
>> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
>> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
>> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
>> OBL responded in kind.
>>
>> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
>> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?
>>
>>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
>> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
>> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?
>>
>>> What connection did
>>> OBL have with those original attacks?
>>
>> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/
>>
>>>  What did he lose during those
>>> attacks?
>>
>> Nothing.
>>
>>>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>>> they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>>
>> Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
>> support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
>> all over the world ad civilians end up dead.
>>
>> What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
>> blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.
>>
>>> Are we obliged to
>>> accept the 'retalliation' alibi
>>
>> It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
>> obvioulsy only read US propaganda.
>>
>>> every time it's invoked, rather than just
>>> put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>
>> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very carefully
>> and coldly planed.
>
>And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear
>weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right
>whatever  to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

That is a bit unfair. No one really understood what the weapons were or
what they were capable of at the time. Particularly the politicians. Did
anyone really understand the long term problems of radiation?



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:GtZXNvFwcOwKFAA1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>>strike?
>>
>> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.
>
>Tell me the other two.

The two US embassies in Africa

>>>Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>>>retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?
>>
>> No. But I can understand why he did it.
>> Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
>> have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.
>>
>>> Don't you see
>>>any moral down side?
>>
>> Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
>> BTW morals are relative not absolute.
>
>It wasn't a serious question.

It should have been

> I believe that you do understand what I'm
>getting at, I'm just trying to outline the point.
>>
>>>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>>>_deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>>>innocent people?
>>
>> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
>> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
>> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
>> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
>> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
>> only weapon they have lest.
>
>I can understand the comparison, but that's a different situation to that
>between the West and OBL.  I think OBL is trying to draw us into a war that
>he can portray as an anti-Muslim crusade.

No. Bush did that on his own.

> The Israelis and Palestinians in
>many ways are two cats who each think there is one cat too many.

Not at all.... the Israelis illegally invaded Palestine and have been
murdering civilians ever since. And also started bombing busses first.


>> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
>> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
>> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
>> OBL responded in kind.
>>
>> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
>> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?
>
>OBL killed US civilians without their being any kind of suspected enemy.  He
>knew perfectly well he was going to kill non-combatants.

Not at all the used the same definition of "enemy" the US has used....

> No false
>intelligence reports guided his hand.

Unlike the USA

> He wasn't following any ghosts on the
>wire or any false chatter.

Unlike the USA

> He had people hijack aircraft and fly them into
>civilian buildings.  Say I'm wrong if you like, but I think OBL is wrong in
>the case we're talking about.

OK... The Pentagon and the capitol are not civilian. Also by US rules
neither were the WTC... The US is figing the money trails, the suppliers
and the non-combatants who fund and organise OBL they also do specific
hits on civilian targets to get a few "suspected terrorists" and have
done for many years.

The only difference was OBL was more effective on a larger target. The
numbers of civilians  killed by OBL are still small when compared to
those killed by the US.

On the "blackhawk down" incident over 1500 civilians, many women and
children were killed by the US forces.

>The US can be careless -

No... Guided weapons and drones are precise not careless.

>we've all seen it happen.  They've even shot some
>of our people in the past.

They have killed many Brits, Canadians and... well just about anyone who
works with them

>  You kind of wondered to yourself sometimes if
>our people wouldn't have been safer in Iraqi uniforms! :-)

Very true. (And I have been there)


>  I suppose one
>of the problems for the US military is that they're kind of trying to steer
>the Titanic.  That's not an excuse, it's a possible reason as I see it for
>things going horribly wrong.

No they are just ill disciplined and have the wrong mindset with the
wrong training. The US military is a 20th century open- battlefield
military that is well out of it's depth in a police action.  BTW that is
not just my opinion but that of the British Military commanders.

In 2008 the US military issued new manuals for fighting insurgents... As
one British commander said all they have done is take the British
manuals and changed the covers....

The problem is it will take a long time to retrain the US military...
probably over a decade or more. Part of the problem is the average IQ
for the US military is below the minimum for the UK military. Added to
which the average age is lower for the US military. Most are just kids
with absolutely no idea of the real world outside the USA.

To make things worse they have lowered the standards over the last few
years as recruiting levels have dropped. If it was not for Bush screwing
the economy and so many out of work with the military being the only
option the US military was in serious danger of running out of manpower.


>>
>>>What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
>> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
>> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?
>
>What have they been doing to OBL?

Personally nothing. He is a saudi and his family are friends of the US
and the Bush family in particular.

> What gave him a _legitimate_ reason to
>start a war?

The US actions over the last 25 years supporting the Israeli genocide of
Palestinians the US support over 20 years for Saddam Hussain, The US
dirty war in Iran, the US in Africa (now largely replaced by the
Chinese) The US support of Israel illegal  actions in Lebanon.

To much of the world OBL is on a par with Mother Theresa.

The US on the other hand has broken as many international laws and and
done as much wrong as they claim OBL has. The USA lost the moral high
ground years ago.

> Lots and lots of people died in the wars he sparked off.

Not at all.. He did NOT spark them off! That is propaganda. He was
reacting to US actions.

> I'd
>like to know specific reasons why it was his place to light the blue touch
>paper.

Didto the US for all the very many actions outise the USA... The US is
NOT the worlds Policeman.

>Was OBL a pawn in someone else's plan as those who carried out the attacks
>were pawns in OBL's plan?

Not at all (unlike Bush who was clearly not in charge)

> If a war against the US was coming, why was a
>left to OBL to start the ball rolling?  Why was it _specifically_ OBL's
>fight to get involved in?

He had the vision and was a charismatic leader. He also had the
advantage of not being a country.


>>>What connection did
>>>OBL have with those original attacks?
>>
>> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/
>
>Is that a good enough reason to do what he did?  Who died and made him...
>the guy who gets to decide things like that?

Who made Bush and the USA the people to decide to bomb inocent civilians
around the world?

>>>  What did he lose during those
>>>attacks?
>>
>> Nothing.
>
>So what business was it of his?

Some one had to stop the US murdering civilians.

> Is it OK for some rich US guy to launch
>their own personal war?

They did. Israel, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.


>  He can think of a reason for attacking later -
>just so history can record him as an idealist instead of a murdering
>psychopath.

He is not a murdering psychopath.


>I don't much like what the Chinese did in Tiananmen
>Square....

Nether do I but the US has done much the same in Iraq and Afghanistan
and aided Israel to do the same.

>>>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>>>they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>>
>> Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
>> support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
>> all over the world ad civilians end up dead.
>
>Those are dangerous places to live in anyway.

They weren't

>There's no doubt that the US and we before them have caused some trouble in
>the world

"Some"? Most of the current problems.

> while trying to shape it to our safety or advantage,

Specifically to the advantage of a few in the USA.
>>
>> What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
>> blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.
>>
>>> Are we obliged to
>>>accept the 'retalliation' alibi
>>
>> It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
>> obvioulsy only read US propaganda.
>
>I keep my eyes open.  I look at who kills who and under what circumstances.
>I really don't care what someone's cause is

You should. It is usually the most important point

>If you want to fight a war - unless you're a completely dishonourable
>coward - you pick on the guys carrying the guns.

Which uis the complaint against the USA... In Iraq well over 100,000
civilians killed in the last few years. In Afghanistan there US is
killing large numbers of civilians.

>>>every time it's invoked, rather than just
>>>put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>
>> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very carefully
>> and coldly planed.
>
>So only the US feels hatred?
>Now who's been listening to too much propaganda...

No. It is the way the US reacts. Look at the fuss over Al-Mcgrahi. the
US wants vengeance and seems to be fuelled by a blind hate.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:27:46 +0100, Chris H  wrote:

> In message <op.u0zhwjctfergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
> writes
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:41:20 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>>
>>> In message , TWP
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>> "Chris H"  wrote in message
>>>> news:PJGV0QIxK5vKFALf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> In message , TWP
>>>>>  writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in  
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull  
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of
>>>>>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United
>>>>>>> States   in
>>>>>>> the war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held
>>>>>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>>>>>> Islamic
>>>>>>> militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos
>>>>>>> this   week
>>>>>>> directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that  
>>>>>>> country's
>>>>>>> involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>>>>>
>>>>> No... He always has which is why he did RETALIATION (not first  
>>>>> strike)
>>>>> against the US due to the large number of civilians killed by the US
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>>> strike?
>>>
>>> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.
>>>
>>>> Do you think it was legitimate for him to kill defenceless people 'in
>>>> retalliation' rather than select military or state targets?
>>>
>>> No. But I can understand why he did it.
>>> Then again I don't approve of the US military doing it either and they
>>> have killed far more civilians in the last 8 years.
>>>
>>>> Don't you see
>>>> any moral down side?
>>>
>>> Do you want a moral, political or strategy/tactics discussion?
>>> BTW morals are relative not absolute.
>>>
>>>>  You must do...  When is it legitimate to
>>>> _deliberately_ kill innocent people in response to the deaths of other
>>>> innocent people?
>>>
>>> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
>>> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian  
>>> civilians
>>> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
>>> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
>>> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
>>> only weapon they have lest.
>>>
>>> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
>>> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight  
>>> where
>>> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
>>> OBL responded in kind.
>>>
>>> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
>>> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?
>>>
>>>> What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
>>> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
>>> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?
>>>
>>>> What connection did
>>>> OBL have with those original attacks?
>>>
>>> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/
>>>
>>>>  What did he lose during those
>>>> attacks?
>>>
>>> Nothing.
>>>
>>>>  It strkes me that any monkey can conduct any act of viciousness
>>>> they like and pass it off as retalliation for something.
>>>
>>> Quite so! Just look at the US in Iraq and Afghanistan Somalia, the US
>>> support of the Israel, Saddam Hussain, the Shar, Yes the US has meddled
>>> all over the world ad civilians end up dead.
>>>
>>> What surprised me was when Saddam gassed 100,000+ Kurds the survivors
>>> blamed the USA! Though they did have some compelling reasons.
>>>
>>>> Are we obliged to
>>>> accept the 'retalliation' alibi
>>>
>>> It is a fact. Why do you think the two embassies were blown up?  You
>>> obvioulsy only read US propaganda.
>>>
>>>> every time it's invoked, rather than just
>>>> put attacks down to good honest hate?
>>>
>>> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait. This was very  
>>> carefully
>>> and coldly planed.
>>
>> And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear
>> weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right
>> whatever  to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
>
> That is a bit unfair. No one really understood what the weapons were or
> what they were capable of at the time. Particularly the politicians. Did
> anyone really understand the long term problems of radiation?
>

Quite so. And yet they still decided to drop these bombs on defenceless  
civilians all the same. The outcome can hardly be described as accidental,  
can it? It was a deliberate use of the weapons to which may at the time  
objected beforehand, including people like Eisenhower, IIRC.


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

In message <op.u00i9rmufergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
writes
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:27:46 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>>>
>>> And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear
>>> weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right
>>> whatever  to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
>>
>> That is a bit unfair. No one really understood what the weapons were or
>> what they were capable of at the time. Particularly the politicians. Did
>> anyone really understand the long term problems of radiation?
>>
>
>Quite so. And yet they still decided to drop these bombs on defenceless
>civilians all the same. The outcome can hardly be described as
>accidental,  can it? It was a deliberate use of the weapons to which
>may at the time  objected beforehand, including people like Eisenhower,
>IIRC.


Did Eisenhower object? Any idea why?


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:59:17 +0100, Chris H  wrote:

> In message <op.u00i9rmufergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
> writes
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:27:46 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear
>>>> weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right
>>>> whatever  to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
>>>
>>> That is a bit unfair. No one really understood what the weapons were or
>>> what they were capable of at the time. Particularly the politicians.  
>>> Did
>>> anyone really understand the long term problems of radiation?
>>>
>>
>> Quite so. And yet they still decided to drop these bombs on defenceless
>> civilians all the same. The outcome can hardly be described as
>> accidental,  can it? It was a deliberate use of the weapons to which
>> may at the time  objected beforehand, including people like Eisenhower,
>> IIRC.
>
>
> Did Eisenhower object? Any idea why?
>
>

Yes, and he was not the only one with misgivings.

See:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

In message <op.u00ta4pcfergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
writes
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:59:17 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>
>> In message <op.u00i9rmufergpa@debian>, Robin T Cox 
>> writes
>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:27:46 +0100, Chris H  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And, let's never forget, that no nation that could ever use nuclear
>>>>> weapons twice on a defenceless civilian population has any right
>>>>> whatever  to lecture others about using nuclear weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
>>>>
>>>> That is a bit unfair. No one really understood what the weapons were or
>>>> what they were capable of at the time. Particularly the
>>>>politicians.   Did
>>>> anyone really understand the long term problems of radiation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite so. And yet they still decided to drop these bombs on defenceless
>>> civilians all the same. The outcome can hardly be described as
>>> accidental,  can it? It was a deliberate use of the weapons to which
>>> may at the time  objected beforehand, including people like Eisenhower,
>>> IIRC.
>>
>>
>> Did Eisenhower object? Any idea why?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, and he was not the only one with misgivings.
>
>See:
>http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Thanks. Fascinating.

I don't think that many of the politicians or military understood what a
nuclear bomb really was other than a very powerful explosive.  Radiation
and its effects were only understood by a very few and they had all
spent the last 5 years in total secrecy.  Even before the war nuclear
physics was known to only a very few people.

Some only became public in the months after the bombs were dropped. Much
of it only years later.

I think the reason to drop the bomb was political to keep the Russians
in check.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:PYFFAIHC8bwKFASC@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>>news:GtZXNvFwcOwKFAA1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you agree with OBL's point of view that 11 Sept was a retalliatory
>>>>strike?
>>>
>>> Yes. Absolutely It was the third strike.
>>
>>Tell me the other two.
>
> The two US embassies in Africa
>

I misunderstood.  I thought you were describing previous US strikes, then 
the third in retalliation being 11 Sept.



>>> Good question!  Now we could argue many cases and counter cases. In the
>>> case of the Palestinians the way the IDF teats the Palestinian civilians
>>> there is no distinction and the Palestinians respond in kind. Cause and
>>> effect.  If the IDF and the Zionists did not start wholesale killing of
>>> civilians the Palestinians would not have responded in kind. It is the
>>> only weapon they have lest.
>>
>>I can understand the comparison, but that's a different situation to that
>>between the West and OBL.  I think OBL is trying to draw us into a war 
>>that
>>he can portray as an anti-Muslim crusade.
>
> No. Bush did that on his own.

Yes, I remember that careless talk.  He played right into OBL's hands with 
that one.



>
>> The Israelis and Palestinians in
>>many ways are two cats who each think there is one cat too many.
>
> Not at all.... the Israelis illegally invaded Palestine and have been
> murdering civilians ever since. And also started bombing busses first.
>


The Israelis were given the land they originally occupied pre-1967.  It 
wasn't taken from them by the Israelis.  The Israelis just live on it, and 
from their point of view they literally have a god-given right to do so.

I was describing the nature of the conflict, not its roots.  It seems like a 
fight that will only be allowed to end on the extinction of one side.



>
>>> Now in the same was when the US military killed many civilians  (or as
>>> Fox calls them "suspected terrorists" ) the US has started a fight where
>>> it has made the rules very clear that civilians are legitimate targets.
>>> OBL responded in kind.
>>>
>>> Now the question is who is more wrong? The ones who started killing
>>> civilians or the ones who responded in kind?
>>
>>OBL killed US civilians without their being any kind of suspected enemy. 
>>He
>>knew perfectly well he was going to kill non-combatants.
>
> Not at all the used the same definition of "enemy" the US has used....

Come on!  No they didn't... the US would be stoned by the international 
community if they fought a war by deliberatly killng civilians in order to 
break their enemy's will to fight, or to provoke them into a fight that they 
would lose.

You're portraying the US as deliberatly evil.  I think at worse they're 
sometimes careless in war and push with unfair weight for their national 
advantage in peace.  Is that evil?



>
>> No false
>>intelligence reports guided his hand.
>
> Unlike the USA

It's going to happen.  The alternative - unless you just give up and go 
home - is to bomb everything.



>
>> He wasn't following any ghosts on the
>>wire or any false chatter.
>
> Unlike the USA

It's going to happen.  The alternative - unless you just give up and go 
home - is to bomb everything.

>
>> He had people hijack aircraft and fly them into
>>civilian buildings.  Say I'm wrong if you like, but I think OBL is wrong 
>>in
>>the case we're talking about.
>
> OK... The Pentagon and the capitol are not civilian. Also by US rules
> neither were the WTC... The US is figing the money trails, the suppliers
> and the non-combatants who fund and organise OBL they also do specific
> hits on civilian targets to get a few "suspected terrorists" and have
> done for many years.

Do they purposely kill 2,000 civilians at once?

I don't think there's going to be any point where I can persuade you of the 
difference I see between a rich guy in the mountains arranging for 2,000 
office workers to be killed for his cause, and 2,000 civilians that get 
killed unintentionally (albiet as losses that can be anticipated) when that 
nation fights a war to make sure it doesn't happen again.  There are 
different levels of "deliberate".  Deliberately dropping a bomb onto a 
target in a broader war to protect your nation that may well kill civians is 
on a different order as targetting those civilians as a deliberate tactic of 
war in order to pursue some advantage for your cause.

You can see evil in either, it's true, but I see a greater evil in purposely 
killing civilians because their death is what serves you best.




>
> The only difference was OBL was more effective on a larger target. The
> numbers of civilians  killed by OBL are still small when compared to
> those killed by the US.

You are still comparing willful acts with non willful ones.  If I crashed 
with a car which then caught fire, killing a family of four, would I be as 
much of a murderer as someone who sneaks into the home of a family of four 
and kills them as they sleep?  They would all be innocent victims, after 
all.  If a surviving relative of the family I crashed with then went off to 
kill my family to get even, would he be no more of a murderer than I was?



>
> On the "blackhawk down" incident over 1500 civilians, many women and
> children were killed by the US forces.
>

Were they killed deliberately, in full knowledge of their status, to serve 
US state interests?




>>The US can be careless -
>
> No... Guided weapons and drones are precise not careless.
>

So too would be a drugs raid on the wrong home.  You can precisely target 
resources on the wrong target.  I bet its a very easy mistake to make in a 
war.


>>we've all seen it happen.  They've even shot some
>>of our people in the past.
>
> They have killed many Brits, Canadians and... well just about anyone who
> works with them
>
>>  You kind of wondered to yourself sometimes if
>>our people wouldn't have been safer in Iraqi uniforms! :-)
>
> Very true. (And I have been there)
>

.... and you got back too, so you must be doing something right!



>
>>  I suppose one
>>of the problems for the US military is that they're kind of trying to 
>>steer
>>the Titanic.  That's not an excuse, it's a possible reason as I see it for
>>things going horribly wrong.
>
> No they are just ill disciplined and have the wrong mindset with the
> wrong training. The US military is a 20th century open- battlefield
> military that is well out of it's depth in a police action.  BTW that is
> not just my opinion but that of the British Military commanders.
>

Well, I'm not an expert, and I've not really seen a careful examination of 
why these things go wrong.  You might well be right.  As a purely 
mathematical equation though, the larger a military  the more operations it 
will carry out compared to others, and since there will be various odds of 
things going wrong, the more chance of things going wrong.  If you keep 
fighting, they will keep going wrong.

You wouldn't have to be undisciplined, you would just have to run out of 
luck.




> In 2008 the US military issued new manuals for fighting insurgents... As
> one British commander said all they have done is take the British
> manuals and changed the covers....
>
> The problem is it will take a long time to retrain the US military...
> probably over a decade or more. Part of the problem is the average IQ
> for the US military is below the minimum for the UK military. Added to
> which the average age is lower for the US military. Most are just kids
> with absolutely no idea of the real world outside the USA.
>

What is the minimum IQ for the UK military?




> To make things worse they have lowered the standards over the last few
> years as recruiting levels have dropped. If it was not for Bush screwing
> the economy and so many out of work with the military being the only
> option the US military was in serious danger of running out of manpower.
>
>
>>>
>>>>What attack exactly was he retalliating against anyway?
>>> You can't be serious? DO you really mean you have absolutely  no idea
>>> what the US has been doing for the last quarter of a century?
>>
>>What have they been doing to OBL?
>
> Personally nothing. He is a saudi and his family are friends of the US
> and the Bush family in particular.
>

You mention Bush in that like he's part of the conspiracy!




>> What gave him a _legitimate_ reason to
>>start a war?
>
> The US actions over the last 25 years supporting the Israeli genocide of
> Palestinians the US support over 20 years for Saddam Hussain, The US
> dirty war in Iran, the US in Africa (now largely replaced by the
> Chinese) The US support of Israel illegal  actions in Lebanon.
>

None of those things were any more to do with him than they were to do with 
you or me.  They may have been things that aggrieved him, but he had no 
right to start his own little war going then do a runner while everyone else 
fought it around him.  You wouldn't have given Bush this sort of a get-out.



> To much of the world OBL is on a par with Mother Theresa.
>

Well, that says more about them than it does about the rest of us.



> The US on the other hand has broken as many international laws and and
> done as much wrong as they claim OBL has. The USA lost the moral high
> ground years ago.

You say OBL has committed crimes too, but I couldn't seem to get you to say 
OBL had lost the moral high ground.  Do you think OBL has the moral high 
ground?





>
>> Lots and lots of people died in the wars he sparked off.
>
> Not at all.. He did NOT spark them off! That is propaganda. He was
> reacting to US actions.

It was not his place to do that, he was a private individual.  I don't know 
why you seem to feel that anyone is justified in killing anyone they like if 
they have a good personal reason for it.   He did set off a war.  He started 
a war by demonstrated that Afghanistan had become a threat to the US and 
probably the Western world because it supported people like OBL, and OBL 
supported attacks like that on 11 Sept..  Beyond that point a war of 
self-defence was inevitable.



>
>> I'd
>>like to know specific reasons why it was his place to light the blue touch
>>paper.
>
> Didto the US for all the very many actions outise the USA... The US is
> NOT the worlds Policeman.

I didn't really get that answer.  If you're saying again that it was his 
place because the US had done bad things in the past, what kind of reason is 
that?  Whatever the US state has done it doesn't give OBL the right to act 
as judge, jury and executioner.



>
>>Was OBL a pawn in someone else's plan as those who carried out the attacks
>>were pawns in OBL's plan?
>
> Not at all (unlike Bush who was clearly not in charge)
>
>> If a war against the US was coming, why was a
>>left to OBL to start the ball rolling?  Why was it _specifically_ OBL's
>>fight to get involved in?
>
> He had the vision and was a charismatic leader.

What has that got to do with it?   That's no justification.  It might be a 
reason why he was able to attack, but it gives no justification for it.



He also had the
> advantage of not being a country.
>

He took shelter in a country though, didn't he, and that country got the 
shit kicked out of it in return.





>
>>>>What connection did
>>>>OBL have with those original attacks?
>>>
>>> Nothing. Other than it was  people he wanted to help/
>>
>>Is that a good enough reason to do what he did?  Who died and made him...
>>the guy who gets to decide things like that?
>
> Who made Bush and the USA the people to decide to bomb inocent civilians
> around the world?

Their people did.  Their people made Bush their protector if a hostile party 
should attack them..  International law allowed the USA to defend themselves 
against specific attacks.  OBL wasn't a nation, he wasn't trying to protect 
people he was responsible for against a specific attack, he was some guy 
with lots of money and a way with the Koran who just took it on himself to 
launch a crusade.


>
>>>>  What did he lose during those
>>>>attacks?
>>>
>>> Nothing.
>>
>>So what business was it of his?
>
> Some one had to stop the US murdering civilians.

.... so that's why it was OK for OBL to have aircraft flown into civilian 
office buldings?




>>  He can think of a reason for attacking later -
>>just so history can record him as an idealist instead of a murdering
>>psychopath.
>
> He is not a murdering psychopath.

No, OBL is just a murderer.  He doesn't have the defence of mental problems.




>>I keep my eyes open.  I look at who kills who and under what 
>>circumstances.
>>I really don't care what someone's cause is
>
> You should. It is usually the most important point

Well, when they start murdering civilians they just lose me.  If their cause 
has to be defended by murdering the innocent it's probably a cause the world 
can get by without.




> No. It is the way the US reacts. Look at the fuss over Al-Mcgrahi. the
> US wants vengeance and seems to be fuelled by a blind hate.
>

I don't doubt the US hates, I didn't say they didn't.   You suggested that 
only the US hates.  That's the part that seemed a bit iffy to me.

I can understand the US being upset about Megrahi.  The way the matter was 
dealt with seemed to have little sensitivity for the suffering of many US 
people.  I thought the "boycott Scotland" thing was a bit much though.  I 
think the Scottish people would have responded a lot better to an appeal to 
the Scottish people to hold their government responsible.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:PYFFAIHC8bwKFASC@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>The Israelis were given the land they originally occupied pre-1967.

Start at 1947

>>>OBL killed US civilians without their being any kind of suspected enemy.
>>>He
>>>knew perfectly well he was going to kill non-combatants.
>>
>> Not at all the used the same definition of "enemy" the US has used....
>
>Come on!  No they didn't... the US would be stoned by the international
>community if they fought a war by deliberatly killng civilians in order to
>break their enemy's will to fight, or to provoke them into a fight that they
>would lose.

They have been. By every international aid agency and the UK coroners.

>You're portraying the US as deliberatly evil.

No..... Just indifferent

> I think at worse they're
>sometimes careless in war and push with unfair weight for their national
>advantage in peace.  Is that evil?

Yes and no. In some cases it is simply careless and indifference. In
other cases it is arrogance and a zeal that they are the only ones who
are right which is effectively evil.

Saddam, Pol pot and Bush all though they were on a mission from God tro
save the world.  (I missed out the obvious one due to Godwin's Law :-)

>>> No false
>>>intelligence reports guided his hand.
>> Unlike the USA
>It's going to happen.  The alternative - unless you just give up and go
>home - is to bomb everything.

It seems to be what the US is doing,

>>> He had people hijack aircraft and fly them into
>>>civilian buildings.  Say I'm wrong if you like, but I think OBL is wrong
>>>in
>>>the case we're talking about.
>>
>> OK... The Pentagon and the capitol are not civilian. Also by US rules
>> neither were the WTC... The US is figing the money trails, the suppliers
>> and the non-combatants who fund and organise OBL they also do specific
>> hits on civilian targets to get a few "suspected terrorists" and have
>> done for many years.
>
>Do they purposely kill 2,000 civilians at once?
>
>I don't think there's going to be any point where I can persuade you of the
>difference I see between a rich guy in the mountains arranging for 2,000
>office workers to be killed for his cause, and 2,000 civilians that get
>killed unintentionally (albiet as losses that can be anticipated) when that
>nation fights a war to make sure it doesn't happen again.

It is not quite that simple.

>> On the "blackhawk down" incident over 1500 civilians, many women and
>> children were killed by the US forces.
>Were they killed deliberately, in full knowledge of their status, to serve
>US state interests?

No... They were just killed because if they weren't US Military  they
were the enemy or no status at all.

>>>The US can be careless -
>> No... Guided weapons and drones are precise not careless.
>So too would be a drugs raid on the wrong home.  You can precisely target
>resources on the wrong target.  I bet its a very easy mistake to make in a
>war.

It is not a war. That is the problem it is a Police action. It is NOT an
open battle field war. You are dealing with Criminals in a civilian
setting. Would you use the same tactics in New York?

>>>  You kind of wondered to yourself sometimes if
>>>our people wouldn't have been safer in Iraqi uniforms! :-)
>> Very true. (And I have been there)
>.... and you got back too, so you must be doing something right!

Being careful... even when the 2 jeep loads of lost US troops fired at
us.


>>>  I suppose one
>>>of the problems for the US military is that they're kind of trying to
>>>steer
>>>the Titanic.  That's not an excuse, it's a possible reason as I see it for
>>>things going horribly wrong.
>>
>> No they are just ill disciplined and have the wrong mindset with the
>> wrong training. The US military is a 20th century open- battlefield
>> military that is well out of it's depth in a police action.  BTW that is
>> not just my opinion but that of the British Military commanders.
>>
>
>Well, I'm not an expert, and I've not really seen a careful examination of
>why these things go wrong.  You might well be right.  As a purely
>mathematical equation though, the larger a military  the more operations it
>will carry out compared to others, and since there will be various odds of
>things going wrong, the more chance of things going wrong.  If you keep
>fighting, they will keep going wrong.
>
>You wouldn't have to be undisciplined, you would just have to run out of
>luck.

This is true. However statistically the US is far worse at friendly fire
than any other Nato or western military. Also the cases where it happens
have been determined as "unlawful killing" by the courts.  That is there
was no excuse and no "heat of battle"

In most cases it was US military wanting to shoot "something" and not
identifying their  targets because they were too eager to get a kill.

BTW in 90/91 the regiment I was attached to had more casualties to US
friendly fire than any other cause.

>What is the minimum IQ for the UK military?

It was 95 last time I looked.

>> Personally nothing. He is a saudi and his family are friends of the US
>> and the Bush family in particular.
>You mention Bush in that like he's part of the conspiracy!

I don't think GWB was bright enough to be in any conspiracy....

>>> What gave him a _legitimate_ reason to
>>>start a war?
>>
>> The US actions over the last 25 years supporting the Israeli genocide of
>> Palestinians the US support over 20 years for Saddam Hussain, The US
>> dirty war in Iran, the US in Africa (now largely replaced by the
>> Chinese) The US support of Israel illegal  actions in Lebanon.
>
>None of those things were any more to do with him than they were to do with
>you or me.

Not quite true... I was in the military for some of them...

> They may have been things that aggrieved him, but he had no
>right to start his own little war going then do a runner while everyone else
>fought it around him.  You wouldn't have given Bush this sort of a get-out.

Bush did invade... illegally and has done a runner. (OK not his fault as
he can't carry of a s president)

>> To much of the world OBL is on a par with Mother Theresa.
>
>Well, that says more about them than it does about the rest of us.

Not the "rest of us" you mean that says a lot about most of the world
compared to the Americans?

As most Americans seem to have no idea about the "rest of the world" it
is bigger than the USA... it is even bigger than Texas or Montana
(difficult to believe I know :-)


>> The US on the other hand has broken as many international laws and and
>> done as much wrong as they claim OBL has. The USA lost the moral high
>> ground years ago.
>
>You say OBL has committed crimes too, but I couldn't seem to get you to say
>OBL had lost the moral high ground.  Do you think OBL has the moral high
>ground?

The trouble is that OBL was the under dog and fighting back. And it was
the US reaction to that, breaking international law, bullying countries,
torture, killing civilians (all be it by ill discipline, fear, panic and
carelessness than intent) etc etc that means the US lost very quickly
any moral high ground it had.

OBL is still seen as a saint for actually fighting back against the US.
The US tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan simply proved his point that the
US was "evil".

That is the reality of how it works. You have to fight it from that
stand point. Asymmetric warfare is very complex. The military can not
win asymmetric warfare but that can loose it. The win can only come from
politics not tanks and guns.

>>> Lots and lots of people died in the wars he sparked off.
>> Not at all.. He did NOT spark them off! That is propaganda. He was
>> reacting to US actions.
>
>It was not his place to do that, he was a private individual.

As are all "freedom fighters"

>   He did set off a war.  He started
>a war by demonstrated that Afghanistan had become a threat to the US and
>probably the Western world because it supported people like OBL, and OBL
>supported attacks like that on 11 Sept..  Beyond that point a war of
>self-defence was inevitable.

THAT was the MAJOR mistake. OBL is NOT a country. Afghanistan was not
and is not a threat to anyone. Including the US.

The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.  The bombers of the two embassies were
not Afghans.

The problem with asymmetric warfare like this is there is no country
responsible and nowhere to invade.

The US only has a 20th century battle field military it had to invade
"somewhere" and that was it's major mistake.


BTW the Afghan Government offered to had OBL over to the US if th eUS
could show the standard level of evidence required for extradition (even
though there was no extradition agreement in place)


>>> I'd
>>>like to know specific reasons why it was his place to light the blue touch
>>>paper.
>>
>> Didto the US for all the very many actions outise the USA... The US is
>> NOT the worlds Policeman.
>
>I didn't really get that answer.  If you're saying again that it was his
>place because the US had done bad things in the past, what kind of reason is
>that?  Whatever the US state has done it doesn't give OBL the right to act
>as judge, jury and executioner.


Yes it does as the US was acting as judge, jury and executioner all over
the world and as a result many civilians were dead.  Also the US was
propping up several regimes that are killing civilians... Saddam, Israel
etc the US has directly and indirectly caused many of the problems in
the ME.

He has as much right to fight back as the US to has to meddle inthe
first place.

>He also had the
>> advantage of not being a country.
>
>He took shelter in a country though, didn't he, and that country got the
>shit kicked out of it in return.

The Afghans offered to give him up but the US invaded anyway. Illegally
at that.

>> Who made Bush and the USA the people to decide to bomb inocent civilians
>> around the world?
>
>Their people did.

If that is all it takes then OBL is completely justified.

> Their people made Bush their protector if a hostile party
>should attack them..  International law allowed the USA to defend themselves
>against specific attacks.

Yes but OBL was not a country.
BTW on your argument the UK has a far greater right to bomb the USA than
the US had to attack Afghanistan

> OBL wasn't a nation,
Yes the Us attacked two in retaliation.

> he wasn't trying to protect
>people he was responsible for against a specific attack, he was some guy
>with lots of money and a way with the Koran who just took it on himself to
>launch a crusade.

Just as Bush did.

>> Some one had to stop the US murdering civilians.
>
>.... so that's why it was OK for OBL to have aircraft flown into civilian
>office buldings?

Yes... As OBL did not have access to cruise missiles of the type the US
flew into Civilian buildings in Iraq.  If you start a dirty war that
tends to be what you get back.


>>>  He can think of a reason for attacking later -
>>>just so history can record him as an idealist instead of a murdering
>>>psychopath.
>> He is not a murdering psychopath.
>
>No, OBL is just a murderer.  He doesn't have the defence of mental problems.

Well one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Militarily 9/11 was a master stroke.

>>>I keep my eyes open.  I look at who kills who and under what
>>>circumstances.
>>>I really don't care what someone's cause is
>>
>> You should. It is usually the most important point
>
>Well, when they start murdering civilians they just lose me.

And the US military has murdered so many... (that is why OBL hit back)

> If their cause
>has to be defended by murdering the innocent it's probably a cause the world
>can get by without.

That is what most of the world says about the USA.


>> No. It is the way the US reacts. Look at the fuss over Al-Mcgrahi. the
>> US wants vengeance and seems to be fuelled by a blind hate.
>>
>
>I don't doubt the US hates, I didn't say they didn't.   You suggested that
>only the US hates.  That's the part that seemed a bit iffy to me.

They are very quick to go for vengeance rather than justice

>I can understand the US being upset about Megrahi.

Why?  It was determined in a review that the conviction was unsafe and
he was going for an appeal.

Much of the crucial evidence that convicted has been shown to the
unreliable, unsafe and wrong.  The problem is most of those items were
supplied by US intelligence.

He was only released if he first dropped his appeal.  If his appeal had
gone though it was widely expected that he would have been shown to have
been not guilty and that the US supplied evidence was false....

Then where would that have left the US?

> The way the matter was
>dealt with seemed to have little sensitivity for the suffering of many US
>people.

It seemed that the US people wanted vengeance and not justice.  As most
people this side of the pond (other than the politicians who are playing
a different game) said he was more than likely  not guilty but "fitted
up" by the Us

> I thought the "boycott Scotland" thing was a bit much though.

It is the OTT reaction we expect from the US

> I
>think the Scottish people would have responded a lot better to an appeal to
>the Scottish people to hold their government responsible.

The last thing the US government wanted was any sort of appeal. It would
have shown he was innocent and they framed him.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jesse  wrote in news:5Zcvm.17425$tG1.16257@newsfe22.iad:

> TWP wrote:
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:xA7vm.98268$OO7.54355@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555522,00.html
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>>
>>> CAIRO -  Osama bin Laden demanded that European countries pull their 
>>> troops out of Afganistan in a new audiotape Friday, warning of 
>>> "retaliation" against them for their alliance with the United States
>>> in the war.
>>>
>>> The Al Qaeda leader denounced NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan that have
>>> killed civilians and warned that European countries would be held 
>>> accountable alongside the Americans unless they pull out.
>>>
>>> The audiotape, just under five minutes long, was posted Friday on
>>> Islamic militant Web sites. It comes after a series of Al Qaeda videos
>>> this week directly addressing Germany, threatening attacks over that
>>> country's involvement in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> It seems odd to hear OBL decrying civilian casualties.
>> 
>> One way to look at all this would be that he actually initiated all of
>> the recent suffering in that region himself.  He carried out an attack
>> that any leader would be forced to respond to.  Now he complains about
>> the innocents caught up in that response?  The time to worry about all
>> that was while 11 Sept was still just a nice day in late summer, 2001.
>> 
>> TWP
> 
> Ouch, can't wait to hear how hippy boy manages a reply to that one, 
> without sounding too much like OBL himself.

Almost 2 weeks, still no reply.
So very easy to predict when bin hippy will clam up.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> Almost 2 weeks, still no reply.
> So very easy to predict when bin hippy will clam up.

Perhaps you need to adjust your usenet client settings or learn how to use 
that software ?

Or maybe you missed it while changing your usenet service provider ? You 
seem to be doing / having to do that a lot lately.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.current-events.terrorism/browse_thread/thread/476fdf6843f6a0df/1460c859f43d0d51?hl=en&q=the.happy.hippy+threatens+europe#1460c859f43d0d51