Al Qaeda and what the problem really is.

[Éanna]

Just reading Bin Laden's latest statement on the BBC site (http://www.bbc.co.uk) and came across an interesting quote.



Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears greater blame.

This is the whole thing in a nutshell. Muslims are being portrayed worldwide as crazy fundamentalists who just wanna blow themselves up. The problem really is that they feel (justifiably IMO) that they are getting a raw deal, and are being treated as second class citizens. No doubting that Bin Laden's methods are wrong and that many other parts of his statement explicitly call for violence, but a comment like this surely points to the fact that the western world and the islamic world can live side by side in peace. If only looneys like Bush weren't running the place :rolleyes:

[brendy_éire]

Bin Laden claims to have masterminded a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent men, women and children, so I'd take his words with a pinch of salt. Was it Roosevelt who advocated 'speak softly...and carry a big stick'? Great advice.

Wouldn't agree with ye there. I can sympathise with Bin Laden and his situation, to an extent. I can see why he hates the US so much. Not that he's at all right to target civilians mind.

Just read the text of his statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628069.stm), and it seems entirely reasonable. He presents a very good argument and a fair offer to those who truly want peace and security.

[Éanna]

Didn't give any such offer to the workers at the Twin Towers, did he?

Would you trust the words of an active Unionist terrorist? What makes the words of a man who has killed on many times that scale more believeable or acceptable?
you've got to trust somebody sometime, no matter how difficult it is. where would the peace process in the 6 counties be if nobody had trusted anyone else? It is a leap of faith, and it might not always work- but the alternative is for things to stay the same or get worse

[brendy_éire]

What makes the words of a man who has killed on many times that scale more believeable or acceptable?

The US has killed Arabs on many times that scale again. As far as I see it, Bin Laden just wants to be left alone. Fair enough demand, don't ye think?

[brendy_éire]

With Bin Laden? Are you being serious? If you want an analogy with the peace process fair enough. But throughout that process the leaders of the more extreme elements did not remain hiding in caves offering ultimatums based on the execution of civilian hostages if demands were not met. And, of course, the army remained in place for a long long time...

Let's be realistic here. Ye can't expect Bin Laden to simply walk up to the US embassy in Kabul and ask to speak to the man in charge. He a little option but to use the methods he now does.

[brendy_éire]

A man who has dedicated his life, and a fortune built up by his family in the construction business, establishing training camps for terrorists, circling from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Saudi, Sudan, Somalia and many other countries inciting violence, a man who has been hunted for years by governments in Pakistan, Saudi and Iraq for terrorist activities? Popping up in just about every political hot spot and war in the Middle East? Doesn't seem like the actions of a man who wants to be left alone...

Look again at his offer. The crux of it is 'you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone'. Bin Laden is a product of US involvement in the Middle East. If they leave, Bin Laden will stop going after them.

[brendy_éire]

But he has spent much of his time and money fighting the USSR in Afghanistan, long before he started seeing the US as a target.

Bin Laden and his current campaign, even. He helped the Afghans fight the USSR for the same reasons he now fights the US.
If the US left the Middle East alone, Bin Laden would have achieved his objective, giving him nothing left to fight for.

[A face]

Muslims are being portrayed worldwide as crazy fundamentalists who just wanna blow themselves up. The problem really is that they feel (justifiably IMO) that they are getting a raw deal, and are being treated as second class citizens.


That is true ..... all the acts of violence from their side are all "tít" .... the "tat" was already done. The media here paint an incorrect picture of Muslims. To be honest ... while i dont like seeing people die on any side, i can totally see where they are coming from. If the Muslim world were asking to be left alone then i see no wrong with that.

[Beavis]

Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water?

Steering clear of whole political debate myself but just like to say how the above attitude annoys me in a slightly different respect.I was just thinking recently about the contrast in coverage between the Madrid Bombing or the Twin Towers attacks and the Rwanda genocide or the recent Iranian earthquake.Media coverage for the latter two was not nearly as substantial as the former,despite the fact that the human casualties involved far far outweighed those inflicted on the 'west'.We live in our little secure western society (ie Europe and N America) and look out at catastrophies in the other world and try to empathise with them but we do not really feel their enormity and significance.It's only when our comfort zone is breached do we become truley startled.We can picture the images of dead West Europeans or N Americans as normal people like us with feelings and families and lives.It disgusts me how we can take the other instances so lightly....

[liamon]

Not necessarily getting a bad deal......just Wubya is/a Problem.......
I find this attitude towards Bush a bit strange and yet, it's quite common. He came to power in 2001. Prior to that, was there no porblem with the US - Muslim interactions?
Then why were the sept 11th attacks planned during the time Clinton was president?
Why the attacks on US targets during the 90's?
Why have Arabs hated the US for decades?

Is that all Bush's fault?

Look, he's screwed up big time by invading Iraq and focussing on "fighting terror" rather than bulding peace. But this problem wasn't started by Bush. He hasn't helped, but he's not the central problem.

The big issue is Israel. That's where the hatred comes from. US support for the much hated Israeli state is what drives a lot of the hatred.

That, and the horror of Hawaiian shirts on US tourists.

[liamon]

...Bin Laden ..... He presents a very good argument and a fair offer to those who truly want peace and security.

Bin Ladens offer is not of “peace”. It’s a threat that if Europe won’t back down and abandon the US, then we’ll see more Madrid style bombings.

And the offer of peace is not extended to the US.
Do you think the world should turn it’s back and allow more Sept 11th style attacks against civilian targets in the US?

Bin Laden has to be hunted down and captured.

AS well as that, we need to see serious US-Arab-Israeli dialogue to try and sort out this mess.

[Éanna]

But he has spent much of his time and money fighting the USSR in Afghanistan, long before he started seeing the US as a target.
He wants imperialist powers out of Arab/Muslim countries, and I would have thought that any Irish person with any level of nationalist sympathy would understand exactly where he's coming from

[Éanna]

And the offer of peace is not extended to the US.
Do you think the world should turn it’s back and allow more Sept 11th style attacks against civilian targets in the US?
As long as the US continues killing civilians in Arab countries and as long as it supports Israel that will happen, regardless who thinks it right or wrong. And I don't see why Europe should stay involved- its America's mess.

[Éanna]

I find this attitude towards Bush a bit strange and yet, it's quite common. He came to power in 2001. Prior to that, was there no porblem with the US - Muslim interactions?
Then why were the sept 11th attacks planned during the time Clinton was president?
Why the attacks on US targets during the 90's?
Why have Arabs hated the US for decades?

Is that all Bush's fault?
its not all Bush's fault. Its the fault of every US governthat has supported Israel and its bid to exterminate the palestinians. There were plenty of problems before bush and there will be plenty of problems after. Clinton bombed iraq too, its just that nobody remembers cos he was too busy gettin jiggy with Lewinsky and managed to divert the attention away from it. I don't think Bush is THE problem, he's just symptomatic of it. The simple fact of the matter is that Arabs hate the US because it tries to tell them how to live their lives, and frankly i don't blame them one bit.

[Éanna]

With Bin Laden? Are you being serious? If you want an analogy with the peace process fair enough. But throughout that process the leaders of the more extreme elements did not remain hiding in caves offering ultimatums based on the execution of civilian hostages if demands were not met. And, of course, the army remained in place for a long long time...
Fair point. But you tell me this. If Bin Laden offered, in the morning, to suspend all attacks unconditionally and sit down and discuss things and try to resolve the problems, do you think Dubya would be willing to do that? Not a hope. Its like i already said. Bin Laden has the support because he's the only one standing up to the US. There are a lot of people who would favour dialogue to resolve the middle east situation but they know that talking and the US don't go together. Bullys only understand violence, and the US is a bully.

[pete]

Remember 3000 people of various nationalities died in the Twin Towers so this ain't just a US thing.

Sure the US hasn't the best record but have a look at the so called leaders of Muslim countries:
- Saudi Royalty were in chrage long before the US arrived, Gadafi in Lybia, Syrian leaders, Pakistan...etc...

I'm sure Bin Ladens family wealth has had a lot to do with the rich Saudi Royalty who selling oil to the yanks.

[A face]

What is quite possible is that he wants the US out so that he can be power broker in the Middle East and add to his vast fortune.

And that is the only reason .... it has nothing to do with him actually wanting the best for his people and region. It has nothing to do with him being patriotic and wanting peace for his country.

The whole middle east have been bullied and have not been allowed a peaceful means to an end.



to enable a godfather of crime take over. As has been pointed out in another thread, even countries that strongly objected to the war against Iraq have dismissed his 'offer' not to continue murdering if his demands are met with the contempt it deserves.

The West have labelled him with the Godfather of Crime, the doer of evil, the devils underpants kinda thing and it is in their interest ... it sells papers and it is good for the climate of war.

I know his offer is very simplistic .... yea or nah ..... but he is offering. If you want peace ... go for it ... if not .... dont.


Much like Bush ..... if you are in, you are with us .... if you are out .... you are against us.

* well ok .... seeing as you are all out, maybe you are not against us ... just kinda not involved to the degree i'd like * ....... Chief Wigam of the world police splurts out his "well what i meant to say was ...."

[A face]

What's 'his country'

Conor ... there is no one else. i know it is not his country .... but is Israel Bushs country .... yet look at the last meetings outcome. It is not some much a country .... it is Arab V US, just like the support for Osama ..... they hail from all over the place.


why do they want him for terrorism?

They dont, he is defending them .... "the best form of defence is attack" - Bush ... last week in a press conference.


Could I go on a killing spree tomorrow and say 'look at me, I'm doing all this for you, I am your hero'?

You're our hero no matter what you do Conor .... you are a living legend ... Hail Conor :D


It's handy that he has made millions in everything he has done while many Muslims starve and object to what he is doing. It's a perverse form of patriotism.

I know yeah .... he is very flush at the mo, the lastest sandles and cloaks, you can tell he is rolling in it. Parties every night of the week, the world is so unequally divided isn't it.

Conor .... I say dont believe everything you hear ..... i dont think he is in it for the money to be honest. And any monet there funds flying lessons for the boys.

[A face]

Wasn't there something where he and his cousin we're not speaking with the family anymore and couldn't return to his home land. He did have some property alright but he had to leave that all behind at the start of the 90's for some reason as thing were getting a little hot for him.

Maybe his biscuit tins are over flowing alright but i dont think he has any off shore acc's to be honest, unless he is using a different name, Osama Bin Murphy perhaps.

I'd have my doubts really ..... about money being the motive anyway .... he cant help how rich his family are, even if he were talking to them.

[liamon]

And I don't see why Europe should stay involved- its America's mess.
Sorry, I just happened to be under the impression that the English, Russians and French had been involved in the development of the region for hundreds of years.
Clearly, I was wrong........

[brendy_éire]

Sorry, I just happened to be under the impression that the English, Russians and French had been involved in the development of the region for hundreds of years.
Clearly, I was wrong........

Just as there were Arabs invading Europe over the past 1000 years. Aye, Europeans created a right oul mess over there, but the present problem has been created by the US.
The problems created by European colonial powers in the area have largely gone.

[brendy_éire]

Except for that whole Israel/Palestine thing...

Fair enough, but the also yanks had a part to play in the creation of Israel, and they are the ones now solely responsible for keeping the state of Israel going.

[brendy_éire]

I know the League of Nations and subsequently the UN mandated the British actions, but wouldn't blame the Yanks for sowing the seeds of the problems, even if they have contributed heavily to the troubles in more recent times.

I know the Brits had the mandate, but the US supported the creation of Israel. And they're the ones now holding the state together. Israel, in its current state, is not viable in the long term. Without US military aid the state would collapse. In that regard, I think it's fair to say that's now America's mess.

[liamon]

Most Western countries supported the creation of Israel. Can't blame the US for that.
As for the long term viability of the Israeli state, as long as thye've got nukes, they should be ok. Sad, but true.

This isn't America's mess, it's the mess created by Europe, USA and the middle east. To simply blame the US requires a very simplistic view of a complex problem.

Having said that, I think everyone recognises the contribution the US has made to this problem over many decades (blocking UN resoultions, etc.).

[pete]

...as long as thye've got nukes, they should be ok. Sad, but true...

Yeah when was the last time the US made any statements about Israels secret nuke programme? Suppose be hard for them to highlight it when they gave them their starter kit...

The US has virtually ensured that nay country on their hit list will attemopt to develop nukes to save themselves. US doesn't attack North Korea cos they got nukes & attacks Iraq which didn't have any...

:rolleyes:

[brendy_éire]

Having said that, I think everyone recognises the contribution the US has made to this problem over many decades (blocking UN resoultions, etc.).

I think America has to accept the majority of the blame for the current situation. If they weren't involved and it was left to Europe, a stable, peaceful Israel could have been created long ago.
The US constantly blocks the majority of attempts to pass resolutions condemning Israel in the UN Security Council.

[brendy_éire]

Here is a list of UN Resolutions which Israel is currently in violation of.

1955-1992:

* Resolution 106: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"

* Resolution 111: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"

* Resolution 127: ". . . 'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"

* Resolution 162: ". . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"

* Resolution 171: ". . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"

* Resolution 228: ". . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"

* Resolution 237: ". . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"

* Resolution 248: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"

* Resolution 250: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"

* Resolution 251: ". . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"

* Resolution 252: ". . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"

* Resolution 256: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""

* Resolution 259: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"

* Resolution 262: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"

* Resolution 265: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"

* Resolution 267: ". . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"

* Resolution 270: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"

* Resolution 271: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"

* Resolution 279: ". . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"

* Resolution 280: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"

* Resolution 285: ". . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"

* Resolution 298: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"

* Resolution 313: ". . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"

* Resolution 316: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"

* Resolution 317: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"

* Resolution 332: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"

* Resolution 337: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"

* Resolution 347: ". . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"

* Resolution 425: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

* Resolution 427: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'

* Resolution 444: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"

* Resolution 446: ". . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

* Resolution 450: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"

* Resolution 452: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"

* Resolution 465: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"

* Resolution 467: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"

* Resolution 468: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"

* Resolution 469: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"

* Resolution 471: ". . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

* Resolution 476: ". . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"

* Resolution 478: ". . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"

* Resolution 484: ". . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"

* Resolution 487: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"

* Resolution 497: ". . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith"

* Resolution 498: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"

* Resolution 501: ". . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"

* Resolution 509: ". . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"

* Resolution 515: ". . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"

* Resolution 517: ". . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

* Resolution 518: ". . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"

* Resolution 520: ". . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"

* Resolution 573: ". . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters

* Resolution 587: ". . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"

* Resolution 592: ". . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"

* Resolution 605: ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians

* Resolution 607: ". . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

* Resolution 608: ". . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"

* Resolution 636: ". . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians

* Resolution 641: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians

* Resolution 672: ". . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount

* Resolution 673: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations

* Resolution 681: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians

* Resolution 694: ". . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return

* Resolution 726: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians

* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

[brendy_éire]

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RESOLUTIONS VETOED BY THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER, 1972, TO MAY, 1990 TO PROTECT ISRAEL FROM COUNCIL CRITICISM:

* . . . condemned Israel's attack against Southern Lebanon and Syria..."

* . . . affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections. . . "

* . . . condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians. . . "

* . . . called for self-determination of Palestinian people. . . "

* . . deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognised as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations . . . "

* . . . affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people . . . "

* . . . endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people . . . "

* . . . demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights . . . "

* . . . condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations.

* . . . condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. . . "

* . . . urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon ... "

* . . . urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut. . . "

* . . . urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. . . "

* . . . condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. . . "

* . . . deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal. . . "

* . . . condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression. . . "

* . . . denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. . . "

* . . . condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. . . "

* . . . called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalise a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations. . . "

* . . . urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices. . . "

* . . . condemned Israel's . . incursion into Lebanon. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's . . . commando raids on Lebanon. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. . . "

* . . . deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. . . "

* . . . demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada . . . "

* . . . called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands. . .

* . . . resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. . .

*. . . confirmed that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expressed support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles. . .

*. . . called upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. . .

*. . . demanded that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories

* . . . called for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza

*. . . Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. . .

*. . . comdemned killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse. . .

*. . . demanded that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. . .

*. . . seeked to bar Israel from extending security fence. . .

*. . . condemned Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin. . .

--------------------------

The facts speak for themselves.

[brendy_éire]

I mean, if Israel was in violation of a 1000 resolutions, it doesn't mean that bin Laden is entitled to kill innocent civilians across the globe. Ireland has broken plenty of EU regulations and ECHR rulings in its time, including those relating to Human Rights, and yet I would not expect the murder of thousands of Irish people in terrorist attacks to be a legitimate response...

[this thread and the Israeli 'peace plan' one seem to mingle together a lot]

I'm angry enough looking at those resolutions. I can only imagine what it does to Arabs. It doesn't excuse what Bin Laden does, but it's entirely understandable why he does what he does.
It would be very naive of the US to think it can act like that and no suffer the consquences. The way I look at it, the US have to coming to them (again), and I will find it hard to have any sympathy when it happens.

[Éanna]

I mean, if Israel was in violation of a 1000 resolutions, it doesn't mean that bin Laden is entitled to kill innocent civilians across the globe.
it doesn't mean he's entitled to, no-one is. but it does explain why.

Was it not said that Bloody Sunday was the best recruitment campaign the Provisional IRA ever had? Would they have had such widespread support if that awful day hadn't happened? Now imagine that going on, on an even greater scale and imagine living where its happening and looking at the UN and all the so-called democratic countries of the world for protection only to be told that YOU are the terrorist. That is why Bin Laden exists

[Éanna]

Conor- read what I said will ya. I am not saying, and never have said, that any of this was acceptable. What I will continue to say is that I understand what drives people to do these deplorable things. The problem with US foreign policy is that they always ask "who" instead of "why". Israel the same. Look at this weekend and the week before last- they blow up the leader of Hamas. You tell me- does that achieve anything? All it does is create more support. If you blow one guy up, another guy comes in- whats the plan, keep going until you've killed every single palestinian? because if they keep this up, every single palestinian WILL support Hamas before long. And the US is making exactly the same mistakes, but on a much bigger scale, and THAT is why Bin Laden continues to get support.

[brendy_éire]

Yes, but was the Omagh Bombing acceptable or understandable then? I mean, it was a terrorist response to years of conflict which featured barbarity such as Bloody Sunday.

Just to correct ye there, Conor. The RUC made a ******** of dealing with the Omagh bomb. The intention of the RIRA was not kill all those people, but get some publicity. The RUC was told the bomb was 100m from the courthouse, and ended up moving everyone 100m from the courthouse. RIRA members, realising where people had been moved to, telephoned another warning telling them again that it was 100m from the courthouse. It was ignored. If the RIRA wanted to kill people, they'd wouldn't have choosen Omagh.

(BTW, not defending their actions, before ye start)

[brendy_éire]

I know you keep saying it's not acceptable but understandable. For me, it is neither acceptable nor understandable. I do not understand why someone would want to wipe out 3,000 innocent civilians on the other side of the world. Incidentally, why is Israel's 'blowing up' to be distinguished from bin Laden's 'blowing up'? Could your argument not work in exact reverse ie. that bin Laden's actions only creates more and more anti-Muslim hatred and that is why the Bush got such support?

I understand. Sometimes I feel like going out and blowing up a British Army base or one of their stupid armoured cars. Occupation creates hatred and resentment. Some people take this out in the form of violence. I totally understand why.

Bin Laden's action shouldn't create hatred, it should make people ask 'why'. Unfortunately, Americans seem to be taking their time about that.

[Éanna]

ICould your argument not work in exact reverse ie. that bin Laden's actions only creates more and more anti-Muslim hatred and that is why the Bush got such support?
Yes it could. But we were discussing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, hence I was talking about it in reference to them. I fail to see why you don't think its understandable. Its human nature in its most basic, primal form- if a guy goes and burns your house down, you'll want to go and do the same to him*. Thats what I mean by understandable.


*- obviously if it happened here we'd go to the law-enforcement agencies and have the guy prosecuted and punished, but seeing as the worlds equivalent of a law enforcement agency (the UN and international criminal court) are just ignored or blocked by the US and Israel anytime they criticise or attempt to do something, the only alternative is revenge.

[Éanna]

Yes, but again we must remind ourselves that the US was not in occupation of any country on September 11th 2001. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were (perverse) reactions to that event, and did not precede it.
They have bases in Saudi, and the Saudi royal family would not still be in power oppressing its people without American support- tantamount to occupation in my eyes anyway. Their support for Israel (economic, military and political) is just as good as occupation as well.


Then you completely understand the US reaction to 9/11?

Just checking that you apply the same principles to all sides and you're not just being anti-American and trying to rationalise that...
I've never once denied being anti-american. I abhor just about everything the USA stands for right now. I do understand that their reaction to 11/9 was to lash out, but if they are supposed to be the democratic country, shining example to the world of the way to live etc., they should have been able to exercise some restraint. I can even accept the fact that they went into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, but there was no reason for them to go into Iraq

[brendy_éire]

About time,Europeans across the board created their own campaign v.both extremes....& threw out all their Muslim fundamentalists & US.'Political'/military bases & interests.Wishful thinking ,I know but after the Cold War....I for one am sick of this'world' struggle being played out on the streets of Europe...not that I wish it on other hapless regions.

Extremely wishful thinking, davros. Unfortunately the domination of the world by the US will not change unless a new economic power emerges. Looking down the line, I think China and India could be such powers.
If Europe is to work as a counter-balance to the US, we need to integrate ourselves more fully. That is, move from the confederal system of the present EU, to a federal one.

The power of the US has come about because of its economic power. Whoever has the most money rules. That's the way the capitalist system works.

[Éanna]

The problem in a nutshell is that you have islamic fundamentalists on one side and christian/neo-con fundamentalists on the other. europe is caught in the middle and for some reason seems to think that siding with the christian/neo-con fundamentalists is a better option. I don't like the idea of siding with any fundamentalists. Fundementalism is dangerous and its at the root of all this death and destruction

[brendy_éire]

Appreciate the Economic connection.....Maybe Europe should Boycott all US consumer goods & dissuade its citizens' to travel there,as with the Arab world...though the Oil connection complicates matters.

We can't boycott US goods. The EU and the US have the largest trading relationship in the world. We depend on each other too much.
Besides, I think that would go down really bad politically.

Éanna, I don't think religion is the problem here, it's merely an excuse. I think it's basically an economic problem. The Middle East has oil. The US needs that oil, and it prepared to go to war to get it at a lower price. There's also the fact that those in power in the US are interested in making their friends some more power (Halliburton, Chevon, etc). A war for oil in the Middle East, fought with billions of dollars of weapons from their friends' corporations, is an easy way to make some money.
The US fundementalists couldn't give a damn about other nations and their religions. What's it to them? For the same token, Bin Laden wouldn't give a damn about the US if the US didn't invade an Arab country (or support Israel). If the US kept to itself, he'd be grand to let them do so.

[pete]

For anyone thats interested...An alternative US foreign policy...

George Soros Open Society Institute (http://www.soros.org/)

[Metrostars]

A lot of what is being discussed here regarding the US current policies are valid for the current time. But cast your mind back to September 10, 2001. That was a different world back then. Sure enough, the US supported governments like Israel and give billions of dollars to Egypt every year and has bases in Saudi Arabia. But does the fact of having bases in Saudi Arabia make Osama go click, "ok theres a reason to attack them"? I don't think so. USA has more bases in countries such as the UK, Germany, South Korea etc than they have in Saudi Arabia. Israel would collapse if they didnt have the support of the US, but noone else does support them. Israel are a close allie of the US and the jewish community in the US will always be such a factor that there will always have to be support. As for the Palestinians, they are like what the jews were for hundreds of years; a people without a country.

Heres another angle. The Arab countries are seriously lagging behind the Western and other Asian countries in terms of technology, education and development. This website ( http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&channelid=4&categoryid=31&title=Middle+East%3A+Lagging+behind&doc_id=6868 ) shows how there are only 18 computers per 1000 people in the arab countries compared to 78 globally and only 1.6% of people have internet access compared to 79% in the US. Also, only 368 patents have been issues all Arab countries between 1980 and 2000 compared to South Korea(16,300) and Israel (7,652). The oil boom of the 20th century in the middle east has masked many fundmental problems that people have there. Look at Israel, they have turned many barren parts of the country for agricultural use and are quite advanced technologically. Ture, they get a lot of support from the US, but it is the people there who made made it work. In the other Arab countries, I think that many have become so p-ssed off and desperate that they are willing to change anything and listen to someone who needs their help.

[brendy_éire]

But cast your mind back to September 10, 2001. That was a different world back then.

No it wasn't. It was exactly the same as the world is now. The only thing that has changed is that the US actually began to take notice of what it was doing in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they've gone about solving it the complete opposite way in which they should have.


Look at Israel, they have turned many barren parts of the country for agricultural use and are quite advanced technologically. Ture, they get a lot of support from the US, but it is the people there who made made it work.

The people can have all the good intentions in the world, but they won't get anywhere without money. It's called capitalism.

[liamon]

No it wasn't. It was exactly the same as the world is now. The only thing that has changed is that the US actually began to take notice of what it was doing in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they've gone about solving it the complete opposite way in which they should have.

The people can have all the good intentions in the world, but they won't get anywhere with money. It's called capitalism.

I don't think the Middle East has changed that much in the last 10 years. I was in Egypt on Sept 11th 2001 and the average Arab on the street hated the USA then and they still do now. Same reason - the Israeli situation.

As for money not getting you anywhere....have you not looked around Ireland in the last 10 years and seen what a bit of investment can do?

[Éanna]

Israel would collapse if they didnt have the support of the US, but noone else does support them.
And so it should. It is an illegal country, stolen from the rightfull occupants of that land. It has no right to exist.


Israel are a close allie of the US and the jewish community in the US will always be such a factor that there will always have to be support.
Thats the US's decision. Of course I'm sure Hitler argued that invading the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia and annexing Austria was because of the close ties between Germany and the people of those countries. Just because the US is Israel's only friend doesn't mean the US should give it free reign to do what it wants. Ths US is being used by Israel- its saying we've got a superpower behind us and we'll kill who we want. The US lets them, and now its reaping what it has sowed.


As for the Palestinians, they are like what the jews were for hundreds of years; a people without a country.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. And its about time the Jews made their minds up whether they are a religion or a political entity

[Éanna]

I don't think the Middle East has changed that much in the last 10 years. I was in Egypt on Sept 11th 2001 and the average Arab on the street hated the USA then and they still do now. Same reason - the Israeli situation.
Spot on. 11/9 would not have happened if the US had behaved in a moral and responsible way towards Arab countries and the Palestinian situation. It was only a matter of time before somebody reacted. American weapons are being used to kill palestinian kids, so it doesn't take a genius (but Bush still didn't cop it) to realise something was on the way.

[brendy_éire]

As for money not getting you anywhere....have you not looked around Ireland in the last 10 years and seen what a bit of investment can do?

Sorry, meant to say 'without' money. :o

[Metrostars]

And so it should. It is an illegal country, stolen from the rightfull occupants of that land. It has no right to exist.




Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like what some demented Austrian once said. As for Judaism, it is not just a religion. It is also a culture and a group of people and they do have a right to exist.

If you say that the land of Israel was stolen, you need to go back and look at history and who were the original inhabitants of the land. After the exile by the Romans, the Jews migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Palestine from Arab countries and from Europe when Britain ruled Palestine. Also, the Palestine country which Britain ruled was not just current day Israel but also much of Jordan.

The day after Israel declared independance, they were attacked by their Arab neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). After this war, Israel and the other countries came to a settlement with the help of the UN. Then in 1967 Israel preempted invasion plans by their neighbouring countries by attacking them. The 6-day War ended with Israel capturing Gaza, most of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Israel was attacked again in 1973 known as the Yom Kippur war. Eventually Israel gave back the Sinai peninsula to Egypt. Then with the Oslo agreement allowed parts of the West Bank and Gaza come under Palestinian control.


It was only a matter of time before somebody reacted.


In other words, the US had it coming, right?


American weapons are being used to kill palestinian kids

1. You are great at spinning facts
2. Do you think the PLO are frigging angels?

[brendy_éire]

In other words, the US had it coming, right?

Yep. And ye's have even more of it coming.


1. You are great at spinning facts
2. Do you think the PLO are frigging angels?

So you're defending the right of the Israeli Army to shoot Palestinian children then?

You also seem to be defending the right of Israeli action after its creation? True, most Arab countries weren't happy about the creation of the state of Israel, but Israel has done nothing to attempt to build up good relations between itself and its neighbours. Israel has done nothing but act agressively against its neighbours. (With the backing of US military aid, of course)

Read again the UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of. Read again the proposed UN resolutions vetoed by the US. Ask yourself, is that right?

[Metrostars]

Yep. And ye's have even more of it coming.



So you're defending the right of the Israeli Army to shoot Palestinian children then?

You also seem to be defending the right of Israeli action after its creation? True, most Arab countries weren't happy about the creation of the state of Israel, but Israel has done nothing to attempt to build up good relations between itself and its neighbours. Israel has done nothing but act agressively against its neighbours. (With the backing of US military aid, of course)


Go back and review history. Israel was being attacked by the arab countries in the early days of the state and in the wars in the 60s and 70s. What do you expect them to have done? While they have made many mistakes, it is totally incorrect to blame all the issues in the middle east on Israel and the US. Israel is there whether the other countries like it or not.
BTW, the IDF doesnt target palestinian children but doesnt do a great job in preventing colatteral damage when going after terrorist leaders.

[Éanna]

Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like what some demented Austrian once said. As for Judaism, it is not just a religion. It is also a culture and a group of people and they do have a right to exist.

they have a right to exist, they can even go found a country somewhere, but they had no right to just steal one from someone else.


Then in 1967 Israel preempted invasion plans by their neighbouring countries by attacking them.
Ah yes "pre-empted". that wonderful phrase the terrorist governments of the US and Israel like to use as a euphemism for "blowing them to pieces just in case they think of attacking us." Self-defence is a right of every country. Blowing people up because they don't like you is not.


The 6-day War ended with Israel capturing Gaza, most of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Israel was attacked again in 1973 known as the Yom Kippur war. Eventually Israel gave back the Sinai peninsula to Egypt. Then with the Oslo agreement allowed parts of the West Bank and Gaza come under Palestinian control.
I don't need a history lesson. I wouldn't have said what I did if I was ignorant of the facts.


In other words, the US had it coming, right?
I was trying to be nice about it, but in a nutshell- yes. You can only get away with ****ing half the world off for so long before somebody hits back, wong and all as they may be.


1. You are great at spinning facts
Not as good as Ari Fleischer, CBs, CNN and all the other Josef Goebbels wannabe's who happily trot out the White House official line. What I do is look at the facts, ananlyse and then make my mind up. What they do is lie and kill. I think there's a difference. And most Americans don't know what the facts are- they know what their leaders want them to know


2. Do you think the PLO are frigging angels?
No. They are indirectly (maybe even directly) responsible for the murder of many people, and there is no decent human being who would condone it. However, they are a lot closer to the moral high ground than Israel is.

[Éanna]

those indviduals did not. but Establishment America- its government, the CIA, its arms dealers and its multinationals did. It was just the poor ****ers who are stupid enough to keep voting for the same foreign policy (Clinton, Bush whoever- its all pretty much the same) over and over again who bore the brunt of it