Operation Enduring Freedom

You know you are really onto something! Do you have any pictures of German civilians during WWII killed that you could add? We murdered thousands of German babies from 1942-45 as well, not to mention men and women throughout Europe and what a waste! There was no excuse for it, after all it was simply US and British fascist-capitalist domination replacing Hitler's version. The US government is then, like now, intentionally targeting babies because well, those little buggers just keep growing up into big people and we just can't have that!

As soon as the first innocent civilian gets hurt, no cause can be justified. When that first civilian in occupied France was killed in the pre-D-Day 'Terrorist' shellings by US warships, we should have just walked away, as the cause of preserving a country can NEVER be furthered by violence. The US should have just gone home after the first horrible innocent death because the French then, like the Afghans under the Taliban now (not to mention the US under the assault by the Al-Quaeda network) would have been much better off under eternal Nazi domination than under our bombs intentionally aimed at their children and innocent. It was such a simple choice for the US to make then, and like then, we now cannot seem to pull our heads out for long enough to see how misguided we are for thinking that protecting oneself with violence would ever work against Nazis or terrorists. Just keep in mind, the important thing to remember about the war against Nazism was the number of babies that we killed in our bombing runs on Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich. Looking beyond that is pointless.

America has a long history of Fascist Imperialism, predating this latest conflict and the atrocities commited by the Allies in their campaign to take over Europe during the second World War. What about the Civil War? How dare those evil Yanks tramp down south to kill innocent plantation owners and their babies! The liberation of millions of black slaves does NOT justify the slaughter of one innocent little white baby! All northerners should be tried in a court of law for the sins of their bloodthirsty ancestors against the poor defenseless plantation owners and slave-drivers, and their itty-bitty white babies!

Oh,I just realized! Does anyone out there have any information on how many Innocent Babies were killed during Amerikkka's Revolutionary War? The Founding Fathers probably killed scores of civilians and bystanders in the struggle for Freedom, Independence, and Capitali$m. They probably dumped Innocent Babies into Boston Harbor along with the tea! Freedom and Independence founded on the slaughter of civilians? NOT IN MY NAME!

For more than a decade now the US has used the Nazi analogy to justify its bombing and war campaigns. Hussein was or is Hitler re-encarnate (presumably having been one when the US supported him throughout the 80's, both before and after he used chemical gas on the Kurds, but that's history), Milosevic too was Hitler, Noriega was a fascist ta da ta da.
It's a clever propagandistic device because it leaves people with the impression that any method is acceptable in this "new" war, including, killing millions of civilians.
Given the numbers of people that have died via US financed and assisted terror globally in the past 50 years (Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Angola, Iran, Iraq....) similar logic could justify immense numbers of American civilian deaths.
The US is presently in the third week of bombing a country that is desperately poor, with millions of civilians on the verge of starvation, in the name of hunting down a gang of terrorists who allegedly are responsible for the horrific WTC and Pentagon bombings. As in Iraq -- where more than a million have died in the past decade due to the combined force of bombs, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, and sanctions -- it is the civilian population, and particularly the poor, that take the brunt of abuse. Bin Laden is more popular than ever in the Muslim world. Does this make people in the US more safe?
The SF Chronicle reported today on the impact of the bombings. It highlighted a child who took a bullet to the skull from one of the fragment bombs the US "accidentally" dropped near Kandahar. The boy is alive but without any adequate care. His father is quoted is as saying, "they aren't attacking the Taliban now. The Taliban are all hiding. They are not around. The Americans are attacking the common people." It should be noted that this is the same Taliban who the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia helped to create in the 80's, the same Taliban that the US welcomed as a stabilizing force, the same Taliban that Unocal wined and dined in Houston in 1997 and suggested paying 15 cents to for every 1000 cubic feet of oil and natural gas it pumped through Afghanistan.
Not that it concerns a true patriot like Diego, but Afghanistan is on the precipice of a humanitarian nightmare. The bombings have drastically curtailed international relief agencies' capacity to feed millions of people who are on edge of starving to death. Most distribution workers left when the bombings began. In the past week the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food relief, as well as OXFAM, and Christian Aid have called for the US and UK to stop the bombings so massive food shipments can resume before winter hits.
It's unfortunate that they don't understand that the US is engaged in fighting Hitler.

For more than a decade now the US has used the Nazi analogy to justify its bombing and war campaigns. Hussein was or is Hitler re-encarnate (presumably having been one when the US supported him throughout the 80's, both before and after he used chemical gas on the Kurds, but that's history), Milosevic too was Hitler, Noriega was a fascist ta da ta da.
It's a clever propagandistic device because it leaves people with the impression that any method is acceptable in this "new" war, including, killing millions of civilians.
Given the numbers of people that have died via US financed and assisted terror globally in the past 50 years (Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Angola, Iran, Iraq....) similar logic could justify immense numbers of American civilian deaths.
The US is presently in the third week of bombing a country that is desperately poor, with millions of civilians on the verge of starvation, in the name of hunting down a gang of terrorists who allegedly are responsible for the horrific WTC and Pentagon bombings. As in Iraq -- where more than a million have died in the past decade due to the combined force of bombs, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, and sanctions -- it is the civilian population, and particularly the poor, that take the brunt of abuse. Bin Laden is more popular than ever in the Muslim world. Does this make people in the US more safe?
The SF Chronicle reported today on the impact of the bombings. It highlighted a child who took a bullet to the skull from one of the fragment bombs the US "accidentally" dropped near Kandahar. The boy is alive but without any adequate care. His father is quoted is as saying, "they aren't attacking the Taliban now. The Taliban are all hiding. They are not around. The Americans are attacking the common people." It should be noted that this is the same Taliban who the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia helped to create in the 80's, the same Taliban that the US welcomed as a stabilizing force, the same Taliban that Unocal wined and dined in Houston in 1997 and suggested paying 15 cents to for every 1000 cubic feet of oil and natural gas it pumped through Afghanistan.
Not that it concerns a true patriot like Diego, but Afghanistan is on the precipice of a humanitarian nightmare. The bombings have drastically curtailed international relief agencies' capacity to feed millions of people who are on edge of starving to death. Most distribution workers left when the bombings began. In the past week the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food relief, as well as OXFAM, and Christian Aid have called for the US and UK to stop the bombings so massive food shipments can resume before winter hits.
It's unfortunate that they don't understand that the US is engaged in fighting Hitler.

For more than a decade now the US has used the Nazi analogy to justify its bombing and war campaigns. Hussein was or is Hitler re-encarnate (presumably having been one when the US supported him throughout the 80's, both before and after he used chemical gas on the Kurds, but that's history), Milosevic too was Hitler, Noriega was a fascist ta da ta da.
It's a clever propagandistic device because it leaves people with the impression that any method is acceptable in this "new" war, including, killing millions of civilians.
Given the numbers of people that have died via US financed and assisted terror globally in the past 50 years (Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Angola, Iran, Iraq....) similar logic could justify immense numbers of American civilian deaths.
The US is presently in the third week of bombing a country that is desperately poor, with millions of civilians on the verge of starvation, in the name of hunting down a gang of terrorists who allegedly are responsible for the horrific WTC and Pentagon bombings. As in Iraq -- where more than a million have died in the past decade due to the combined force of bombs, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, and sanctions -- it is the civilian population, and particularly the poor, that take the brunt of abuse. Bin Laden is more popular than ever in the Muslim world. Does this make people in the US more safe?
The SF Chronicle reported today on the impact of the bombings. It highlighted a child who took a bullet to the skull from one of the fragment bombs the US "accidentally" dropped near Kandahar. The boy is alive but without any adequate care. His father is quoted is as saying, "they aren't attacking the Taliban now. The Taliban are all hiding. They are not around. The Americans are attacking the common people." It should be noted that this is the same Taliban who the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia helped to create in the 80's, the same Taliban that the US welcomed as a stabilizing force, the same Taliban that Unocal wined and dined in Houston in 1997 and suggested paying 15 cents to for every 1000 cubic feet of oil and natural gas it pumped through Afghanistan.
Not that it concerns a true patriot like Diego, but Afghanistan is on the precipice of a humanitarian nightmare. The bombings have drastically curtailed international relief agencies' capacity to feed millions of people who are on edge of starving to death. Most distribution workers left when the bombings began. In the past week the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food relief, as well as OXFAM, and Christian Aid have called for the US and UK to stop the bombings so massive food shipments can resume before winter hits.
It's unfortunate that they don't understand that the US is engaged in fighting Hitler.

For every action...etc.
Adolf Hitler's actions were in retaliation for what the rest of the world had done to German in the Great One. And now Neo,Nazis are retaliating for what the rest of the world had done to Adolf Hitler. Big deal. Tyrants will always find wacky reasons to terrorize decent folks. They rise to power and infamy because they are irrational and against the norm. There is no ultimate answer and peace will never ultimately prevail. The only possible solution is for decent folks to stop being queasy, shoot tyrants in the head before they can cause too much havoc, and carry on being decent folks.

Who are the tyrants who need to be shot in the head?

Yes Aaron, if I were in your shoes I too would resort to diversion in effort to move the debate away questions which I seek to avoid and into a pointless discussion about the banality of the ‘Hitler Analogy.’ It is certainly much easier resorting to prevarication than facing the valid point illustrated by the analogy when you have no valid rebuttal.

So let me pose the question again and implore you to face it directly. Did the Allied cause of freeing France initially (and the rest of Europe eventually) from Nazi domination become unjust when the first French civilians were killed in the crossfire prior to the D-Day invasion? How about the hundreds killed during the actual invasion and subsequent allied advance into Germany?

From the height of your moral pedestal I’m sure it’s difficult to observe, much less admit to, but in order to attain anything worth having sacrifice is required. Nothing is free. Of course it’s horrible that children are dying in Afghanistan as a result of the US bombardment and I am truly appalled by it. But it’s not any more or less horrible than French civilians being killed in the crossfire during the opening of the second front in June 1944. And if you think the alternative in which the French people, much less the whole of Europe, would have been better off under Nazi-Vichy rule than suffering some casualties in the cause liberation I tell you that you are truly foolish. I implore any of you to make that argument to a Frenchman a Dutchman, Belgian or even a German for that matter. And I make the same argument here. The people of Afghanistan will be better off freed from Taliban rule and the US will be better off going after those who perpetuated this crime than resorting to the only feasible alternatives. These include turning our nation into a REAL police state or giving in to all their demands, leaving the Middle East and reneging on support for Israel, and thus demonstrating that terrorism works. ‘Just kill some of us and we’ll do whatever you want.’

Was the bombing of Dresden unjust and horrible considering the city was full of tens of thousands civilians fleeing the Eastern front and the fact that there were no targets of military value in the city when it was turned to ashes? Absolutely. Does it taint the cause of liberating Europe from Nazi rule? Not enough to invalidate the righteousness of that cause. Nor does the killing of civilians in Afghanistan negate the righteousness of protecting US civilian lives.

Yes war is horrible. A more obvious truism was never stated. But there’s no use repeating it to me as if I don’t understand that it is. Few, certainly myself included, are here to argue that war is great and justifiable under any and all circumstances. In fact I would argue that it would be preferable if there were a way to avoid organized violence altogether. However there simply is not. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world with choices that allow for perfect solutions, free of violence and mutual gratification. We are faced with a world in which opportunity costs force us to make imperfect choices in ambiguous situations.

So obviously what this comes down to is what one is willing to do to avoid violence and unintended deaths. What would you fight for (are you FOR anything?) knowing it would resort in unintended deaths? Would you let someone else take your life if faced with death or assorting to self-protective violence? (knowing that it could mean the extermination of all non-violent believers) Would you lay down your arms as a Frenchman in 1940 and become a collaborator with the Vichy regime in the name of ‘non-violence.’ Would you report the resistance members to the Nazis because the Resistance were perpetuators of violence? I look forward to your answer, Aaron.

PS: Nessie, since I know you will respond anyway, I look forward to your caustic reply as well.

"Shoot tryants in the head and carrying on being decent folks": I am not a pacifist, and, in a certain sense agree. However, Miloscz conveniently evades the question of the incipient humanitarian disaster wrought by the combined force of threats of bombs, US orders to seal the borders, and the on-going massive US bombardment. When we consider the role the US has played in financing, organizing, and engineering mass murder around the world, the question becomes: which tryants are you refering to Miloscz? Is it only the tyrants that US power deems worthy of annhilation (at whatever human expense)?
I contend that this "war" is a cruel and hugely destructive enterprise that will not make US citizens one iota more safe, and in all likelihood will make us considerably less so. Indeed, if we consider the strategic location of Afghanistan, I am inclined to think -- since I don't believe that the US ruling class are idiots, just malevolent bastards -- that this ostensible "war on terrorism" is more pretextual than anything. (In saying this I am in no way implying that the WTC was some sort of inside job, as Nessie seems to suggest in other threads; instead I think it is being used opportunistically.)

"I can not think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." -- Dick Cheney, 1998, then CEO of a major US oil service company.
"Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". -- from the US Energy Information Administration, early September, 2001
"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" -- Woodrow Wilson, 1919

Diego: didn't you see that I wasn't taking your bait in equating the fight against the Nazi's with the present "war"? As I stated in the previous post (which I was drafting while you were writing yours' to me)I am not a pacifist and certainly believe that the Nazi's needed to be fought. Further, I recognize that civilian deaths were inevitable. Since I am not as schooled on WW2 as I'd like to be I'm not going to weigh in on Dresden etc etc.

It is interesting to note that the only combatant force in World War 2 that fought for a radically different social conditions -- I am speaking of the anarcho-communists of Spain -- found themselves arrayed against the fascists, the stalinists, as well as the western capitalist democracies.

I wish you'd substantively respond to my arguements in the above posts against the present US/UK slaughter instead of invoking bullshit analogies to the fight against Hitler.

To the best of my knowledge, the anarchists fought in the Spanish Civil War, in 1936-1937. The anarchist revolution was crushed by a unlikely alliance of Communists, liberals, and fascists. The civil war was subsequently won by Franco's fascists. Spain remained neutral throughout WWII.

I understand your reservations about equating the Second World War with this ‘war’ and quite simply demonstrating the similarities was never my intention. The example is useful because it shows that because civilians are killed inadvertently in furthering a cause, a cause doesn’t become less just. WWII was simply the most obvious example of civilians being unintentionally killed in an otherwise unambiguously righteous cause. (yeah we know about Dresden, etc . . . Nessie, nazism remains infinitely more evil)

On this website (see above picture posting) and in countless other leftist circles, the focus is on the civilian deaths as if they by themselves demonstrate the nefarious motives of the US led ‘war.’ Nessie makes just that argument and many, if not most on the left agree and voice similar views. My previous posting was targeted at demonstrating just how wrong they are. This, of course, is what the individual who posted the picture at the top is attempting to (fallaciously) argue.

As for the current ‘slaughter’ I think I covered that as well. Civilian deaths don’t undermine the righteousness of protecting the US and getting rid of the immediate terrorists. However if you are writing about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan as a result of the war, keep in mind that Afghanistan was a disaster well before this latest ‘war.’ Point your finger at past policy if you will, but the current post-Sept 11 assaults, while exacerbating the situation, are really not to blame. Furthermore, the specter of a new government ,created and backed by Russia, the US, China, Pakistan, Iran and other strange bedfellows, while unusual certainly presents the people of Afghanistan with a future full of greater opportunities than those found under a inept and morbidly complacent Taliban-controlled government. Again, I don’t think there is any doubt that in the mid-term future things can only get better for them. Again, nothing is free.

As for your claims about “the same Taliban who the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia helped to create in the 80's,” the Taliban didn’t come into existence until the early 1990’s (1993 I believe) under Pakistan’s direction, and within Pakistan itself, with the US playing little if any role in their creation. The US pretty much left in 1989 along with the Soviets. And in regards to the oil pipeline from the Caspian, I have researched and read extensively on the subject of the Caspian pipeline and there is simply no evidence that anyone wishes to build the pipeline through Afghanistan. Russia, Iran and Turkey, Azherbajian/Georgia are all under consideration, but a quick glace at the map, not to mention an overview of the literature on the subject shows that few (if anyone) is actually considering such a move.

Now as for the Communist-Anarchists in Spain. Anon has the facts right. But why is it that in leftist circles it’s always the “one that got away’ or the ‘unrealized, nascent “socialist” states’ that could have demonstrated the ‘real’ and ‘true’ leftist political aspirations, if not stomped out by the forces of evil. It’s always Trotsky that had it right or Ho Chi Min was a good guy till the US made him evil or even better: Noam Chomksy, the ‘God of the Left’ supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge until it became obvious to all the rest of us what an evil bastard he was as Pot slaughtered a third of that nation’s population.

Nessie, having become inured to your obdurate prattle quite quickly, I now must confess I enjoy your soundbyte-ridden-style immensely! Accordingly, in response to my latest contribution, I expected from you nothing less than a hostile, angry pontification, chock full of banal one-liners, bazaar doomsday proclamations and militant threats. I got just that. The hit parade in case you forgot:

“Wise up or die. That is our only choice.”

“We are but expendable pawns.”

“Wise up, fer chrissake, before it’s too late.”

“Let’s get smart about it before it’s too late.”

“Cast down the corporate-government complex, share, cooperate, and live in peace”

“If Americans try, we will (be) slaughtered, and not just in Afghanistan. We will be slaughtered at home, by the millions.”

***And finally for my personal favorite . . . ***

“If you fuck with me, I’ll fuck you up. That’s a promise.”

Obviously angry, you mysteriously spent what appears to be considerable time attacking the minutia in my commentary rather than facing the larger issue (which the rest of us have been addressing): specifically the issue of unintentional civilian deaths and their ability to negate the righteousness of a cause. The fact is that there are countless examples of cases that justify limited numbers of civilian deaths. And WWII is obviously one of those cases.

This question remains open . . .

Strange thing is, you claim to be a nihilist yet you speak with the voice of a fanatic: a true believer who is devoted to the notion that violence for another’s cause is a sign of unfathomable evil, yet violence in the name of YOUR cause is conducted out of righteous vengeance. You spent your last few commentaries spewing vituperations about the agregious nature of American violence then promptly switched to informing me how “If you fuck with me, I’ll fuck you up. That’s a promise.” Ok Rambo.

But really, I have a serious question for you and I implore you to answer, because I dowubt I am the only one who seeks an explanation. What are you FOR? In the last posting I asked you that question and again I was merely delivered another prevarication and diatribe about “HOW you would fight.” I don’t care HOW you fight, as that is a pointless question and it’s not what I asked. WHAT do you stand FOR. You obviously stand AGAINST many things. And from a rhetorical perspective it’s always easier to attack someone else’s views than defend you own. So I implore you oh Nessie of infinite genius and omnipotent wisdom: What do you believe IN? Not AGAINST, but IN.

Second and concomitantly, in the spirit of Marx, Chomsky, Gramsci, and other leading luminaries of the left, you, like these guys fail ever to mention even a brief, simple description of what a BETTER government would consist of even in terms of the most basic political structures. And I don’t mean, “there would be real justice for all.” Or “we would live in peace.” Nor do I mean, “it wouldn’t be like this one.” In the name of all that is holy . . . be bold! If you want a bloody, disruptive, destructive revolution so badly and want the system to be shredded, don’t the rest of us sheep deserve to know what you plan on replacing it with? HOW do you plan of creating justice for all? Has there ever been a government in the history of the world that would support or point to as an example of a “good” government? I look forward to hearing back from you.

Diego

PS: Just one more comment . . .

You wrote . . . ”Had the so-called “free world” followed the lead of the Spanish anarchists, and stood up to fascism in 1936, Axis expansionism could have been nipped in the bud, WWII never would have happened, 50 million people would not have died needless deaths and your question would be about a mute point.”

First of all it’s MOOT point, but you probably knew that. Second, I again point to the strange phenomenon that in leftist circles it’s always the ‘one that got away’ or the ‘unrealized, benevolent, socialist or anarchist states’ that could have demonstrated ‘real’ and ‘true’ leftist political aspirations, if they hadn’t been prematurely stomped out by the forces of evil in their efflorescence? It’s always Trotsky that would have brought Russian people their justice or Ho Chi Min had it right till we turned him to evil or the Spanish Anarchists who would have brought to the world the gift of utopia. Why is it that every other socialist state that actually has made it, turned out to be a totalitarian monster state who murdered million of their own populations and anyone who disagreed with them?

Soviet socialism (1917 - 1990) approx. 23 million
Cambodian socialism (1969 - 1975) 3 to 4.5 million
German national socialism 9 to 9.5 million
African socialist and tribalist wars (1969 - 1999) 8 to 11 million
Cuban socialism (1962 - present) 2.5 million
South/Central American socialist dictatorships (1955 - present) 12.3 million
Chinese socialism (1949 - present) upwards of 23 million, numbers cannot be confirmed
North Korean socialism (1950 - present) more than 9.5 million

Osama and Saddam. The CIA should arrange a war between the two, since they hate each other anyway.

Your comparison of the Nazi regime under Hitler to the current government in Afghanistan is a joke. Let's set things straight:

1) Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2) Prior to that, Germany occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria.
3) In 1940, Germany invaded Holland, Belgium, Denmark and France.
4) Afghanistan has not attacked any other country.
5) SPECULATION about whom is responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks is just that: SPECULATION. Nothing has been proven.

These facts in hand, one can deduce that:

A) German aggression represented a REAL threat to world independence;
B) Afghanistan has posed NO THREAT to any other nation.

Is that clear enough?

Dear Mr. Slacker65,

Yes sir, it’s crystal clear. And thank you for your kindness and consideration in helping me decrypt the mysterious chronology of WWII. Since you weren’t ACTUALLY reading what I wrote, I’ll sum it up for you step by logical step again . . .

Since the posting of the picture above presents the argument that the deaths of the children in Afghanistan demonstrate the nefarious nature of US actions, this is what I focused on. I would hope you have the mental discipline to do so as well. (Side note: in the spirit of Nessie, there is no evidence that these children were killed by US bombs of course. They could have been killed at any time by anyone, so keep that in mind.)

The example of the US/French/British D-day is useful because it shows that while civilians are killed inadvertently in furthering a cause, a cause doesn’t become less just. Because French civilians were killed in the crossfire on D-Day it doesn’t make the cause of liberating France or defeating Nazism altogether any less just. Because civilians are killed inadvertently in the cause of killing bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts, ousting the Taliban in order to prevent these particular terrorists from carrying out more attacks (which they obviously plan on doing) is not made any less just.

WWII was simply the most obvious example of civilians being unintentionally killed in an otherwise unambiguously righteous cause, which is why I used it. I didn’t intend to equate bin laden and the Taliban with Nazis and never did, so if that’s what you got out of it, it’s a result of you making false assumptions based on your own misreading of my writing.

We can debate about the righteousness of the cause itself, and whether or not killing bin Laden and invading Afghanistan will actually help increase the US’s security. I argue it does. But this is another matter entirely. My focus here on this posting was whether or not the unintentional killing of civilians in an otherwise righteous cause can or can’t be justified. My answer of course is that it can be. What do you think?


PS: You should read my other postings before making more false assumptions about my argument.

Nits make lice.

Nessie, well in light of our rare agreement, let’s digress for a moment into our disagreements and perhaps you can illuminate some apparent confusion in your postings. And since you are convinced that you, are the only source you believe, to prove that I am not lying about your claims I have cited ONLY you.

First, if you question the veracity of the Taliban’s civilian casualty claims as much as you do the American claims of Osama bin Laden’s guilt, why do you find it necessary to focus so much on the dubious claims of civilian deaths as it were a statement of fact and castigate the US government as if you don’t believe as word? After all, your first argument (and our first discussion) centered around YOUR claim that the US and the Taliban are equally uningenuous and that all sources of information were equally unbelievable? Well, the Taliban are claiming that there are civilian deaths and the US is claiming bin Laden is guilty. I thought neither of them were to be believed? Why the change of heart?

“But even if you insist on such an unscientific approach as judging the message by the messenger, the US government is still no more credible than the Taliban.”

“I take no government’s word. There’s damn few individuals I believe, either.”

Second, if there is indeed zero evidence that bin Laden is behind the attacks, why are you so worried about the repercussions of going after him? You seem to think that there is a very likely possibility that he will launch MORE terrorist attacks as a result of our assault on Afghanistan. Yet if you believe so strongly that the US government is lying to us about his involvement then there is really little to worry about. If he isn’t responsible then chances are pretty good that he cannot mount future attacks. And the Afghan people certainly are in no position to mount an attack against the US. If it’s so unlikely that bin Laden is guilty why did you find it necessary to post the following?

“If Americans try (to free Afghanistan), we will slaughtered, and not just in Afghanistan. We will be slaughtered at home, by the millions. (by whom if not bin Laden, by the Afghan people? By the MILLIONS?)

“Consider the alternative: They kill even MORE (implying they have already killed - D) of us, and then we do what they want.”

“Besides, while their methods are deplorable, their (again: who? – D) grievances are just. The US government has behaved in a far more deplorable fashion, and not just in the Middle East."

PS: Thanks for the comment about owning a thesaurus! I couldn’t think of a nicer complement than having my vocabulary mistaken for a thesaurus! Cheers! - D

Hi there,

I've read the above postings and I'd like to weigh in.

Nessie, the leftist/anarchist argument that corporations control the media's message is as absurd as the right wing notion that liberals control the agenda of the press.

One of the problems with all of the ideological extremes is that they only listen to their own propaganda.

>I don’t believe either of them. I don’t disbelieve either of them. I don’t know what’s really happening.

Did IQs suddenly drop out since I left SF? I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a computer can't locate a sufficiently diverse selection of sources on the web and still can't "know what’s really happening."

Sure good to doubt, but be realistic. Countless open sources - non US, non corporate, non-mainstream journalists (for example, Ahmed Rashid) have been pointing for years at the likelihood of an al Qaida attack on the US using Afghanistan as a secure nexus. The same sources have placed the highjackers as either having fought in Afghanistan or having worked with groups who leadership did so.

Do you not believe that this is the case?

Echo