Pentagon bombed...

[Guest Argath]

As far as I know, bin Laden is not under house arrest. Some news agencies reported that he was, but the Taliban denied it. At least, that was the case last night.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Wilhuf, I think it is well within my moderating rights and responsibilities to disagree with others and evaluate their ideas in light of any discussions we have.

 

I don't find your reading of history to be any of those things, as I don't question the events themselves you listed, just how well some were applied to the argument(s) at hand and some conclusions presented as a result. If this is in fact what you meant:

 

I think it is fair to say that this is a topic of direct importance to many people, myself and I'm guessing yourself included. Discussions on this topic are being argued somewhat voraciously on all ends that I can see (including my own), but meanwhile it seems we have all been able to still agree to disagree.

 

I am rather pleased how people have been able to handle themselves on the forums with the expection of one or two individuals. I hope we can continue to walk the thin line of civilized discussion on a heated issue as we have so far. If your last post is ultimately a masked plea for a bit more restraint while posting, it wouldn't be asking too much to keep this more in mind for future posting. I wouldn't expect however for stances on issues to be any less steadfast or pronounced especially when they are of such global importance. So long as no one is flaming others and bigotry doesn't run amuck we should be good to go.

 

That being said, would you care to expound upon your statement that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could somehow be reduced if we use them in retaliation for these terrorist attacks?

[Darien]

I heard on the radio the Talbin say they will not give up ben ladin, and that they are prepared for bombing runs, and that if we consider invading,quote "we should remember what the afganies did to the russians". So i dont think they have him under house arrest.

[Guest Kurgan]

Interesting.

 

Btw, here's another interesting article by Time.com:

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174783,00.html

 

They mention the special ops solution as being likely, which I find encouraging.

 

Though it's not directly related, here's an interesting link (search for "your friend"):

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/otcgi/digilib/llscgi60.exe

 

The house arrest issue (like several other issues such as the State Department Bomb threat and the more than four hijackings) have been subject to rumors and updates.

 

Argath (and others) thanks for the update. It's too bad they haven't, as that would definately have been a gesture of cooperation, and a smart move on their part (the Taliban), if it had been true. : (

 

I agree with the sentiments there, Krayt Tion.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

I'd like to make another correction. In one of my posts on the last page I said that a group in Afgahnistan was trying to blame Palestine for the terrorist acts. That should have read Pakistan which is what the article read.

 

If anybody is wondering, most of the articles I've been reading have been linked off of www.fark.com since the events occured.

 

Kurgan

[wardz]

I think it more than likely the SAS are already there. No-one messes with the SAS bar none.

 

They are in most of these Arab countries at the moment anyway for recon.

 

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

According to some recent news reports, Taliban are not only refusing to hand Bin Laden over - they are now saying they will start a jihad (Holy War) if Afghanistan is attacked.

 

It should be noted that a large number of people in Pakistan support the Taliban. While the government of Pakistan is offering assistance - many, many people of Pakistan will not like that at all. I think I'm right in saying that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

 

The worst case scenario, in my mind, is that if Afghanistan is invaded to deal with Bin Laden, the government of Pakistan may be overthrown once more (remember it has recently happened) by Taliban sympathisers.

 

If they decide to use the nuclear capability of their country - anything could happen.

 

We are entering a very dangerous time.

[ed_silvergun]

Yeah, I agree, if the bombing option is decided upon, we need to keep a very close eye on Iraq and Pakistan, who are both nuclear powers (not to mention having chemical and biological weapons) and both of which have no love for the west. If we start putting Muslim civilians on the firing line, be it deliberately or accidentally, we risk uniting the Islamic world against the west.

 

In addition, as I said earlier, action which jeopardised civilian lives could damage irreperably the <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552410,00.html">already wavering</A> coalition of European powers.

 

This disaster has also tied up the west's attention such that other political and humanitarian disasters across the world are going relatively unnoticed. <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,551288,00.html">Foreign aid workers are pulling out of Afghanistan</A> due to the fear of US reprisals, leading to even worse suffering on the part of ordinary Afghans. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1545000/1545718.stm">has called off talks with Yasser Arafat and launched attacks against Palestinian targets</A>.

 

There's a real danger of violence in trouble-spots around the world getting out of hand while the world's attention is focused elsewhere. We shouldn't underestimate these problems in the coming weeks and months.

[GonkH8er]

Originally posted by StormHammer:

<STRONG>I think I'm right in saying that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

</STRONG>

 

isnt pakistan long time allies with china? longer than we've all been on good terms with them i believe, so perhaps this long time friendship may sway their siding should pakistan become enemies with the us. perhaps china will flex their long-hidden military muscle....

 

 

its all speculation though.... slim possibility

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: GonkH8er ]

[wardz]

Correct.

 

Pakistan is a nuclear power but only in its infancy. They cannot reach America as of yet and neither can Iraq (although Saddam is trying.)

 

Pakistan can only reach western Europe at the minute but they are developing it all the time.

 

So the UK and Europe will get the worst of it should IT happen

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

Yeah, wardz, you're right. We do have a few US bases in the UK, and they would be viable targets for a counter-attack.

[wardz]

I like the sig stormhammer very patriotic, u beat me to it.

oh, well, im gonna do it also.

 

I dont have a stars and stripes one tho. dammit

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

wardz...that's easily solved.

 

Just do a search for 'Flag animations' and it should come up with plenty of sites offering FREE downloads.

 

If you can't link to any, let me know, and you can link to mine.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

The Pakistan/Afghanistan issue is a bloody mess right now.

 

I did some reading in the Post this morning because ABC has some Questions for the Kids feature on now. Here is what I could gather, I will try to be succinct:

 

Afghanistan is currently housing Osama as a Muslim guest in their country. Afghanistan itself is controlled by the Taliban, a militant Islamic group born from a civil war. This civil war was a result of the US pulling out all aid and support to the region when the Soviets were expelled there by Islamic militants who were fighting with 3 billion dollars worth of weapons and equipment provided by the United States.

 

Enter Pakistan. The CIA smuggled weapons to the Islamic militants in Afghanistan in cooperation with Pakistan's security forces. When we pulled out we also left Pakistan to deal with a "growing influence of militant Islamic movements" born by our very dollar.

 

Now we are looking at a possible enemy that we more or less helped to create in Aghanistan.

 

We are also looking at a Pakistani government, headed by a General who siezed power several years ago, that is in a very tough position. On one hand by not cooperating with us he risks the economic future of his country and being at odds politically with potentialy much more of the world. On the other hand by taking action against Afghanistan or helping the US he risks the domestic upheaval of his countries' mostly Muslim population.

 

It should be mentioned now that an underlying tone throughout all of this appears to be an issue of the Islamic religion. I have absolutely no clue proportionally speaking as to how many Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan feel unified under their god to the point where they would go to war for their religion. It safe to say however that there are many in Pakistan that feel any attack on Afghanistan or bin Laden would be a direct attack on their religion.

 

If anyone would like to clarify any of the facts I offered up or protest my interpretations please do.

 

This is just the TIP of the iceberg though, there are a ridiculously large number of other factors to consider.

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[Moses]

Pakistan closed their borders to Afghanistan today as well as said they would allow US planes in their airspace and troops to be deployed there. Action is being taken guys, brace yourselves.

[Wilhuf]

We should be pointing fingers at the former Soviet Union, whose 1979 invasion and 10 year occupation of Afghanistan provoked US assistance to Mujhadeen resistance, as a catalyst for this sad history. Sure, the US armed the resistance, but the Soviet invasion engendered the entire thing to begin with.

 

If the US uses Pakistan as a staging area for attack on Afghanistan, then it's almost foregone that the US will have to help defend the existing Pakistani regime in some fashion. Pakistan is the home of the schools which trained Taliban members. There will be domstic resistance against Pakistani ruling General Musharraf.

 

I doubt the Taliban sympathizers will get hold of Pakistan's (only recently operational) nuclear weapons, which are probably locked down with greatest government security. Wardz, if Paksistan decided to attack Western Europe with nukes, how would they deliver the weapons? It's unlikely at least through conventional means, such as missiles or military aircraft. ... Although now we've seen how horribly unconventional attacks can be.

 

Washington has been giving out all kinds of signals that Osama Bin-Laden, and Afghanistan are the immediate target of retaliation, but that this may be a feint. Now, recall the Allies in WWII took measures to convince the Axis that allied landings would take place in Calais, while the actual landings were in Normandy. Could it be that the US is going to hit somewhere else? Say Iraq?

 

Probably not, but all of this signaling would be a spectacular rouse.

 

GonkH8er, yes we should watch China very closely. The Washington post has reported an avalanche of internet postings in China that express 'satisfaction' over the September 11 attacks. Although a followup report says the Chinese government has moved to censor these postings, and government officials have claimed that the majority of Chinese do condemn the attacks. ...Not that the majority voice of China has much say in what its government does...

 

Krayt, we want civilized debate and discussion here. We are agreed we will try to keep it at that level. Yes, I will try to formulate something reasonable on proliferation... in a future post.

 

Now if I have sounded like I am not level-headed or sane, just think about the Pentagon leadership at this moment. The only real direct impactI experienced last week was that I had to leave work early to pick up my wife, who evacuated her downtown Washington DC office. I couldn't phone my cousin, who was stranded in a subway downtown Manhattan during the attack, nor could I conveniently reach a friend of mine who works (safely) in midtown. And I had to leave early to drive my wife to the airport because of heightened security.

 

These are really just trivial inconveniences that many thousands of others have also experienced. But I'm still angry over what has happened, even though I'm really not directly affected.

 

Meanwhile, the Pentagon lost 125 dead, and another 189 missing and presumed dead. This will affect the DoD mindset, there is no way around it. We're all very angry about Tuesday, and most sane people want a level-headed and effective response from world leaders.

[wardz]

wilhulf,

 

its a hypothetical situation, I was just saying that should for whatever reason want to bomb us, they can only reach Europe and that the US isn't a viable target at the minute - its out of reach. in theory...

 

 

wardz

[Wilhuf]

Wardz I was just wondering how Pakistan would even be able to physically deliver weapons against Western Europe to begin with. Do they have the wherewithal to deliver munitions to that range?

 

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[ed_silvergun]

I think we can all agree, if there's one thing we need to learn from this week's events, it's that we should never underestimate these people (whoever they may be) again.

[wardz]

They have the capabilities to launch wepaons of a nuclear nature, such as the things Saddam Hussein tries to use.

 

We covered this in the Army section at school and going to Army bases and speaking to relatives who are in the Armed forces.

 

Believe me, they are not a nation you want to mess with, they have one of the largest armies in the world also after China and You. British trained aswell.

 

wardz

[Guest Krayt Tion]

If you want to use the logic that most responsibility lies with whoever started a sequence of events, we would eventually dig back to through the Cold War, both World Wars and end up at the very beginning of our known history. Fingerpointing seems to be an endless cycle when the timetable for a sequence of events grows as you try to truly originate blame. I was just making sure we recognized the actions of the United States in this conflict. Our actions do not of course exist in a vacuum and mentioning the Soviet invasion helps to point that out.

 

The consideration for Pakistan should be then not whodunnit on either side in the past, but rather the actions of our nation towards them in the past given the global context of the given historical situation.

 

On a side note, this would be the consideration only as far as history is concernced in the current decision making process of Pakistan; current and future global situations carry as much weight as anything and I'm not trying to imply that they don't.

 

This is gradually becoming a moot point. As we know by now Pakistan has agreed to support us by allowing operations from their territory should need to move in troops and planes there. However, their resolve on this issue has yet to pass its first real test in my eyes. Meanwhile domestic disapproval is surely mounting there and they have not had to deal with military lashback from Afghanistan yet. We have to see how strong their commitment remains.

 

"Pakistan is developing a medium range ballistic missle after exploding a nuclear device in 1998." -Washington Post

 

Regarding how far they've actually come and what that really means in terms of capabilities, I have no information. Unless someone here has that information, one should consider the possibility that Pakistan's development in that area isn't taking place from a 'we have it up and running or it doesn't work at all' standpoint. For example, they might not have achieved what is technically considered "medium range" but perhaps they are 35% or 75% of that launching distance. Pick a number, any number?

 

Fortunately, I would assume that the US or NATO is indeed privy to that information.

[Guest Kurgan]

Whoever it was that posted the nice flag graphic, I hope you don't mind if I used it on <a href="http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kurgan">my humble site</a>.

 

Kurgan

[StormHammer]

I agree with Krayt that we don't want to go down the road of pointing fingers. What is in the past cannot be undone. We can, however, try to learn from past mistakes as we look towards the future.

 

We need to look at the current state of the world, try to unravel all the threads, and decide what action (or inaction) we need to take in order to improve the overall situation.

 

I am also inclined to believe that no one truly wins in war. There may be victors - but there are no winners. We pay the price of victory in human suffering, and that is often a terrible cost to bear.

 

One thing remains certain in my mind - a war will not change the fundamental beliefs of those against whom it is waged. Bin-Laden seems to want to unite Muslims in a common cause to stamp out other belief systems in Islamic countries, no matter how it is done, or what the cost in human life.

 

It seems a fanatical undertaking, and perhaps it is. However, we should remember another time in our past when people wanted to take Christianity to every part of the world. Many other belief systems were crushed, and labelled paganism, devil-worship, barbarianism. At the time, I am sure many people of other beliefs saw this as fanatical.

 

We are in the midst of a clash between two cultures. The majority of people from those cultures have managed to find the middle ground, to co-exist with each other - but the extremists are intent on taking us down the road of ever-lasting war. Those extemists exist in both cultures - and we cannot fight one without the other.

 

We need to be extemely careful that we do not give the extremists on either side the ammunition they need to fuel the fires of hatred, for then we will never achieve a resolution.

[Guest Kurgan]

What you're talking about is cultural imperialism. It doesn't have to be violent, but it's the idea that a culture (your's) is the best and so you're actually doing people a favor by giving it to them, and in fact forcing it on them is a positive thing.

 

The way in which Bin Laden interprets Islam for example, is radically different from the way many thousands or millions of Muslims interpret it. Which is why he's having difficulty uniting all Muslims against the "enemy." Hopefully the world's Muslim's will continue to be too smart to be fooled into following this nutcase. ; p

 

It's true that Bin Laden is mounting his group(s) against (mostly Christian) America, but the thing to keep in mind is that along with our allies, we represent many many cultures than simply some monolithic capitalistic WASP culture (even America is hardly that anymore).

 

So he's getting more than he bargained for, along with the other terrorists. United we stand indeed...

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

It is my opinion that bin Laden and other militant Muslims involved in this global terrorism give Islam a bad name, to say the least. People need not be prejudiced against all practitioners of Islam because of bin Landen's extremist hackjob of it, used to fuel his evil deads.