LeftExchange
Wasted Wor(l)ds? by
a bit abbreviated so as readers not having to consume too much time that would be better spent reading well-informed writers like Robert Fisk, John Pilgers, Noam Chomsky and/OR Edward Herman.
Blue: Me, Jerre. or: earlier comments.
"...who pray and wear turbans.” Ah to be so simple in our explanations!...."
Dear Steve, hope you´ll excuse me in this case, likewise when it came to your "Rumsford". My tendency for irony simply got the better of me.
-------------
...I honestly find the disbelief that bin laden was behind the attacks on the WTC incredibly naïve. Maybe you could tell me what we’re paying all those CIA types for. Hmmm.
I haven´t seen any proof that would convince any court. If you have any, share it with us or give it to FBI!
I don´t know what you pay those CIA types for. They have botched up very nicely for a long time. They didn´t seem to know much before the attacks as I recall. A certain "spy-cat", with antenna, batteries and microphone-implants has been reported about lately, but even for CIA that seems too stupid or sick. The cat is reported to have been killed by a passing taxi. I´m waiting with bated breath for further confirmation/denial.
I would say that "have links to", is "suspected to", is "believed to", "has been seen meeting with", "is probably connected to", "stayed in the same city as" is hardly the stuff that convinces others than the most naive. Based on factual information you should perhaps bomb Saudi Arabia as that is where 15 out of 19 of the hijackers came from.
I would be very surprised if some of your religious fanatic leaders don’t "have links to" some people who has bombed abortion clinics. If the bomb-throwers get caught, should those fanatic Christian leaders be killed because they are "behind it"?? Perhaps carpet bombed with very "friendly" bombs as they are Americans?
Came to think of it, now US is again "linking" itself to some really nasty friends in its hunt for its enemies. Kazakistan, Uzbekistan, "Northern Alliance" etc. I wonder what will come out of that??? Not now, but perhaps 2007 or so?? As you said "history repeats"! I expect a lot of arms sales to new dictators and lucrative contracts for oil companies. And some more people starting to hate. And die...
-----------------
....I also don’t agree with your dragging US foreign policy from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s or even the 70’s into play in this discussion. I don’t know how old you are but I do know that most of the people submitting and reading here weren’t born during most of what you’re citing.
I´m 59 on nov 28 and the people I´ve seen writing on this site seem, if you´ll excuse me, at least as aware as you or wanting to learn more of earlier US history. Remember ..."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I thought that it wouldn´t hurt to bring some of it up since therein lies the explanations for Sept 11th. If not I would expect Sweden, Luxemborg and Portugal to be as probable victims for terrorist strikes as US, and I don´t.
---------------------
'And', was used here to delineate the end of the list not as a means of adding them together. The statement as is, still stands incorrect.
I better refer this point to Prof Chomsky, the Institute for Misconception and / or Pentagon´s Doublethink Academy!! As for my faulty grammar I think you have to give me some leeway as English is my 2nd or 3rd language. I would maintain that mostly I manage to avoid putting a heavier burden on the semantic limitations of the English language that it can in all reasonableness be expected to bear.
------------------------
Again the simplicity. I guess you’ve forgotten about the most horrendous use of gas in the showers of the work camps in Germany during WW2.
Since you wrote: "..in open Warfare.." I just thought those gas chambers didn´t qualify. I can assure you that no one living in Germany is allowed to forget those ghastly times.
-------------------------
What if (and I’m sure this is true) bin laden says your people and country are the devil also and must be destroyed? Would it be ok for Sweden to defend itself?
With the stubbornness of a madman you keep saying "defend" when you really mean attack and hit back. We have obviously very different perceptions of "defending". Even if you turn all Afghanistan into a wasteland there still remains, according to your "experts", 63 countries left where terrorists harboring ill thought towards you have cells and US will have created more hate towards itself. Is that defense??? I said and will keep saying, also with the stubbornness of a madman: get the guilty ones and only those, otherwise you violate those values you say are worth fighting for. (Is this really so difficult to understand? I´m very surprised!)
---------------------------
Saudia an "... oil colony"
One mans viewpoint and very doubtful wouldn’t you say! Are the Saudis an American oil colony? I think they’d take offense at that.
...Just the words of a US diplomat... Not me! I wouldn´t say that!
-----------------------------
....."IF those terrorists, let’s be honest they are still suspected and not convicted, would be (in all probability) hiding someplace on Berkeley campus...? ...Double standards of morality or what?"
Simplicity. This is not a war against our own people. We would however go in and get them out, And yes there maybe American casualties. Wars do that sometimes. That is not double standards of anything. If they were or are hiding on American soil I would hope that we find them where ever they are and eliminate the need to worry about them. We are carpet bombing an opposing army. We are carpet bombing an army that has decided to protect a sworn and dangerous foe of all the people of the west. This IS his army. They are the ones with double standards of morality.
When "our own people" might be the 'collateral damage' we don´t bomb" is the message I get from you! You talk as if Afghanistan is populated by only Al Qaeda and Talibans. Estimated figures says that that those number around 50 - 80.000. The remaining 23.000.000, of which some 5 million has flown, are still around. Even with the sophistication of your weapons I´d say you have a very good chance of killing a lot of innocent passers-by.
And those underhanded cunning Talibans even refuse to come out in the open and shout "here we are" like decent Americans who wouldn´t stoop to such low fighting!!?? Excuse the sarcasm but the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld & Co IS stunning when he complains of the Talibans not being in plain sight. (they must still have those CIA manuals!)
The Talibans, on the other hand, are very consistent. They kill anyone within their reach who doesn´t conform!
---------------------
I let others deem who is "simplistic, naive, decieved, biased, etc, etc" (Bush would be a good candidate) but I´m fairly certain that one of us is prepared to take in new facts even if they contradict earlier beliefs and rethink standpoints based on information proven incorrect. I have a sneaking suspicion that it´s not you, but as has happened before I might be wrong.
Jerre
Jerre Skog
www.skog.de
November 9, 2001
Black: Steve.
