1st International Air Show and Live Fire Demonstration/Kabul Int'l Airport
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Bush waiting for the Dead Sparrows to get out there to open the show? After they leave Dubai, they could nip in on there way to Pakistan!
I can't really believe they are going ahead with the tour in the current climate. But BAe systems have a seat on the board and we know what that means.
Can the diesel pods be replaced with Mausers?
I can't really believe they are going ahead with the tour in the current climate. But BAe systems have a seat on the board and we know what that means.
Can the diesel pods be replaced with Mausers?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question was posed about how supportive Saudi Aeabia would be (can't quite remember who or when, and I don't want to re-read everything). I would say that in spite of it being the spritual home of Islam it will, at least for as long as King Fahd is on the throne support the west. I say for as long as he is on the throne, because he is ill and his grip on power weakening. Since the late 60's Saudi has recognised it's tribal populous and it's dependance on oil for it's wealth. Ibn Saud had the foresight to realise that oil is an expendable commodity and fickle in price. He did 2 things to counter this. First, he started a cartel, OPEC, to control prices of oil at betweem $18-22 per barrel. When price dips below $18 a barrell, production of crude oil is cut, and vice versa. The second thing he did was institute the 5 year economic plan. Every 5 years a new plan is rolled out and concentrates on parts of the economy that need developing. The current 5 year plan is 18 months into it's cycle and is focussed on technology, Saudi Arabia having got it's first ISP in 1998. Secondary industries like services are also being developed, and the Offset run by Crown Prince Abdullah is still concentrated on aerospace and engineering. However, Saudi has a recognised problem, that of over-rich and over-idle youngsters who do not have to work at a professional level, let alone a menial one to have money. Many become playboys and wasters through their family wealth, and others become political agitators and some turn to terrorism. With the need for menial jobs to be done there is an ever-present demand for external labour markets, such as the Phillipines to take the roles of domestics, nannies, cleaners, cooks, and factory workers. The paradox is it is this reliance on infidel workers that has upset OBL so much. This influx of westerners, and the remaining UK/US forces on Saudi soil has led OBL, with all of that wealth and time on his hands, to distort the true meaning of Islam, as in his mind the holy cities of Mekah and Medinah have been defiled and are no longer pure. The less important holy city of Jerusalem has, in his mind, also been defiled by Israel and the Christians of the west, funded by the US Dollar. So intent is he on returning Saudi Arabia to the Islamic fundamentals of the middle ages through Sharia'h law, that he sees that there is no other way to win than to destroy America. In his mind, destroying America would remove the last stumbling block to returning the world to an Islamic world of the 10th Century. For as long as there is McDonalds, US TV, US Industry, US style democracy, US cars, US aircraft, US anything, the world will be soft and will not listen to (his) reason. If America, the Great Satan, is softening the minds of muslims, it must die. If people of free will do ot accept his brand of Islam, they too must die as corrupt infidels unable to see the truth (sic) for the poisoning of US brainwashing.
So why should we show restraint, mercy, and understanding? Because no matter how hard that is we must demonstrate to the Islamic world that we as westerners, and mainly Christians do not seek the destruction of Islam. We must show that we care for the Islamic world, we must win hearts and minds, we must show that we want to prevent death and aid life (very Islamic principles), and that we are both tolerant and just. This makes the job of OBL much harder in trying to spread his propeganda that the west is decadent and Satanic. We also have a moral duty and obligation to help those Afghans who are fleeing their home towns in fear of US reprisal. We must show, in the west, that they have nothign to fear but fear itself. We must show that the perpetrator of that fear is OBL, and we must not let him turn his people against us. If we fall into the trap of using the language of revenge we play straight into his hands. If we wage war on innocent civilians, we play into his hands.
Yes, Desp, I do think that we should try and understand our enemies. Remember, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer! The reason that the attacks against the US were so "successful" is simply because the CIA, and the FBI misunderstood the nature of the threat and the likliehood of attack. They misunderstood the militancy and fanatacism of the attackers. They misunderstood the culture, the language, the promise of eternal life, and the attraction that held over a life of penury to the 19 hijackers. They also misunderstood the importance of both folklore and fudalism in Arabic culture. With a folklore hero united against a common enemy, there is purpose to the Koranic principle of Jihad, which all muslims must face. By defining an enemy with whom to embark on Jihad, paradise was assured. Unfortunately, OBL misunderstands that Jihad, or Holy War, is a war against personal vice and the fight for virtue. Islam understand God to be universally merciful, and that he does not wish to see death and destruction in His name. I am sure that should God wish to destroy nations and worlds, he would do it in a stroke of His devine hand rather than have his devout followers kill in his name. I am sure that he is quite capable of destroying nations on his own without the aid of fallible man, if that is what He wants. In this way, we fail to understand our enemy at our peril.
I never for a moment said that our American cousins were stupid. They differ from us British as much as they do the very people who attacked them. The most common mis-understanding (on both sides of the Atlantic) is that the British and Americans share a culture. This could not be further from the truth! The Americans have more in common with the Israelis than the British in this respect, and this is where my worry came to be. The talk in the first week was of retribution, revenge, attack, of not being destroyed, resolve, of crusades, of wars against terrorism, all of which serve to paint a picture of an immediate reprisal come what may. Justice served the American way, cold, swift, and hard. This is all well and done when it is a nation that attacks nation. Had Afghanistan as a country attacked the US, it would be far easier to talk in these terms and act as the words are spoken. However, it is a network of terrorists that we are talking about, possibly state sponsored, but not a nation in their own right. The danger that was faced was simply the US and the UK having to act on the words they spoken without a foundation for doing so. If the US can't prove beyond doubt that OBL had been behind the acts, that the Taliban had colluded, and could not pinpoint OBL exactly, define it's objectives, and carry them out without the ever-pervasive mission-creep taking hold, then it would have been an act of in-justice. It would have been an act of terrorism in and of itself.
So where does that leave us today? The war on terrorism still hasn't begun in real terms. If it had, the loyalists and republicans in NI would be under house arrest. McGuinnes and Adams would have been kicked off the NI Assembly. Murderors, bombers, and quartermasters would be back inside the Maze with their assets frozen. But they aren't. I could take Blair more seriously if he could remove the splinter from his hand after he removed the plank from his eye. I would take the "war on terrorism" more seriously if it were even handed and no respector of ideologies, but it seems that in this war, some terrorists are more terrible than others. If this so called "war" is to have any effect in the ME, then it has to begin at home.
So why should we show restraint, mercy, and understanding? Because no matter how hard that is we must demonstrate to the Islamic world that we as westerners, and mainly Christians do not seek the destruction of Islam. We must show that we care for the Islamic world, we must win hearts and minds, we must show that we want to prevent death and aid life (very Islamic principles), and that we are both tolerant and just. This makes the job of OBL much harder in trying to spread his propeganda that the west is decadent and Satanic. We also have a moral duty and obligation to help those Afghans who are fleeing their home towns in fear of US reprisal. We must show, in the west, that they have nothign to fear but fear itself. We must show that the perpetrator of that fear is OBL, and we must not let him turn his people against us. If we fall into the trap of using the language of revenge we play straight into his hands. If we wage war on innocent civilians, we play into his hands.
Yes, Desp, I do think that we should try and understand our enemies. Remember, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer! The reason that the attacks against the US were so "successful" is simply because the CIA, and the FBI misunderstood the nature of the threat and the likliehood of attack. They misunderstood the militancy and fanatacism of the attackers. They misunderstood the culture, the language, the promise of eternal life, and the attraction that held over a life of penury to the 19 hijackers. They also misunderstood the importance of both folklore and fudalism in Arabic culture. With a folklore hero united against a common enemy, there is purpose to the Koranic principle of Jihad, which all muslims must face. By defining an enemy with whom to embark on Jihad, paradise was assured. Unfortunately, OBL misunderstands that Jihad, or Holy War, is a war against personal vice and the fight for virtue. Islam understand God to be universally merciful, and that he does not wish to see death and destruction in His name. I am sure that should God wish to destroy nations and worlds, he would do it in a stroke of His devine hand rather than have his devout followers kill in his name. I am sure that he is quite capable of destroying nations on his own without the aid of fallible man, if that is what He wants. In this way, we fail to understand our enemy at our peril.
I never for a moment said that our American cousins were stupid. They differ from us British as much as they do the very people who attacked them. The most common mis-understanding (on both sides of the Atlantic) is that the British and Americans share a culture. This could not be further from the truth! The Americans have more in common with the Israelis than the British in this respect, and this is where my worry came to be. The talk in the first week was of retribution, revenge, attack, of not being destroyed, resolve, of crusades, of wars against terrorism, all of which serve to paint a picture of an immediate reprisal come what may. Justice served the American way, cold, swift, and hard. This is all well and done when it is a nation that attacks nation. Had Afghanistan as a country attacked the US, it would be far easier to talk in these terms and act as the words are spoken. However, it is a network of terrorists that we are talking about, possibly state sponsored, but not a nation in their own right. The danger that was faced was simply the US and the UK having to act on the words they spoken without a foundation for doing so. If the US can't prove beyond doubt that OBL had been behind the acts, that the Taliban had colluded, and could not pinpoint OBL exactly, define it's objectives, and carry them out without the ever-pervasive mission-creep taking hold, then it would have been an act of in-justice. It would have been an act of terrorism in and of itself.
So where does that leave us today? The war on terrorism still hasn't begun in real terms. If it had, the loyalists and republicans in NI would be under house arrest. McGuinnes and Adams would have been kicked off the NI Assembly. Murderors, bombers, and quartermasters would be back inside the Maze with their assets frozen. But they aren't. I could take Blair more seriously if he could remove the splinter from his hand after he removed the plank from his eye. I would take the "war on terrorism" more seriously if it were even handed and no respector of ideologies, but it seems that in this war, some terrorists are more terrible than others. If this so called "war" is to have any effect in the ME, then it has to begin at home.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The language of conventional jurisprudence ("...judicial process, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, observing international law...") is totally irrelevant in the context of the events of 11 Sep. To draw analogies with the correct response to domestic burglary is particularly bizarre. The scale of the destruction and loss of life, and the means by which they were wrought, demand new thinking. The first requirement is to defend our civilisation against further similar attacks. We mightthus buy enough time to evolve a new international treaty governing terrorism, methods of identifying terrorists and eliminating them. The conventions that evolved on Piracy might serve as an example.
Public pronouncements by the Saudis saying that they won't allow their bases to be used for military action against Moslems and Arabs are a powerful illustration of why getting and keeping the Arab world on side is important.
Also noteworthy that the EU foreign ministers have sought to link Israel/Palestine with action against Bin L.
Time to get in line, Uncle Sam?
Also noteworthy that the EU foreign ministers have sought to link Israel/Palestine with action against Bin L.
Time to get in line, Uncle Sam?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flattus..why should the concepts of jurisprudence not apply to the events of the 11th September? Are we to become judge, jury, and executioner? Where is this evidence that the atrocity was down to OBL? I have heard Tony Blair talk of irrefutable evidence, yet very little has been offered. Why should we dispense with the concepts of jurisprudence just because it may be convenient. Again, why is international law irrelevant? (though i do agree that a comparison with domestic burglary is irrelevant)
I read from your post that we must defend our civilisation. Who is to say that we are civilised and the Arabs are not? What is it that we defend except a relative set of values, relative only to the world as we see it. The crux of my arguments so far has been that we have to acknowledge that Arab culture, though different from ours, is equally valid and that we run the risk of of starting what will be in effect another cold war drawn along east/west lines around an axis of the Gulf of Oman. The danger of such a treaty you mention is that it may well be a treaty aimed at the destruction of the Arab world for the sake of western civilisation.
I read from your post that we must defend our civilisation. Who is to say that we are civilised and the Arabs are not? What is it that we defend except a relative set of values, relative only to the world as we see it. The crux of my arguments so far has been that we have to acknowledge that Arab culture, though different from ours, is equally valid and that we run the risk of of starting what will be in effect another cold war drawn along east/west lines around an axis of the Gulf of Oman. The danger of such a treaty you mention is that it may well be a treaty aimed at the destruction of the Arab world for the sake of western civilisation.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbf,
agree with most of what you said again, although I am a little more hawkish in my attitude.
I am not sure why I have to accept their culture as valid though. 900 years ago, we were most definately the barbarians when we arrived in Arab lands, burned pillaged and looted in the name of christianity; I agree that the word crusade is most inappropriate for what may be about to happen. The arab culture was far more sophisticated and 'modern' for want of a better word.
Now however, I don't accept the way that women, for example, are treated within this culture. In many countries they are treated as 3rd class citizens (behind the pets and livestock). They are not treated as equals, or revered in the way that they were 900 yrs ago, they are treated very badly and religious expression is used as an excuse. I am sure that you have probably travelled extensively in the Middle-east and seen this first hand. You talked about the imported labour, much of that labour is imported from countries such as the Phillipines and Bangladesh and these people are treated quite literally as slaves.
So in answer to your point, and at risk of being accused of being a racist (which I most definately am not). I accept their art, their religion, their history, their poetry, their stories and the often very warm hospitality and all that is good about the 'culture', but I don't accept the indefensible, the cruelty and the disrepect to other human beings that is a way of life for some. I am certainly not saying that western culture doesn't have its problems, guns, drugs, 2 world wars, etc etc, but at least society as a rule acknowledges where those faults are and trie to fix them.
I genuinely believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, but as I said before, I don't believe that any God would want its people of any sex or creed treated in this way. I think we need to stop excusing peoples actions just because it is 'their culture'. I am not advocating going to war with a nation because of the way that it treats a section of its society (Kosovo anyone), but no I don't accept it, and I don't believe it to be valid.
Hope I haven't offended anyone, just my point of view.
agree with most of what you said again, although I am a little more hawkish in my attitude.
I am not sure why I have to accept their culture as valid though. 900 years ago, we were most definately the barbarians when we arrived in Arab lands, burned pillaged and looted in the name of christianity; I agree that the word crusade is most inappropriate for what may be about to happen. The arab culture was far more sophisticated and 'modern' for want of a better word.
Now however, I don't accept the way that women, for example, are treated within this culture. In many countries they are treated as 3rd class citizens (behind the pets and livestock). They are not treated as equals, or revered in the way that they were 900 yrs ago, they are treated very badly and religious expression is used as an excuse. I am sure that you have probably travelled extensively in the Middle-east and seen this first hand. You talked about the imported labour, much of that labour is imported from countries such as the Phillipines and Bangladesh and these people are treated quite literally as slaves.
So in answer to your point, and at risk of being accused of being a racist (which I most definately am not). I accept their art, their religion, their history, their poetry, their stories and the often very warm hospitality and all that is good about the 'culture', but I don't accept the indefensible, the cruelty and the disrepect to other human beings that is a way of life for some. I am certainly not saying that western culture doesn't have its problems, guns, drugs, 2 world wars, etc etc, but at least society as a rule acknowledges where those faults are and trie to fix them.
I genuinely believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, but as I said before, I don't believe that any God would want its people of any sex or creed treated in this way. I think we need to stop excusing peoples actions just because it is 'their culture'. I am not advocating going to war with a nation because of the way that it treats a section of its society (Kosovo anyone), but no I don't accept it, and I don't believe it to be valid.
Hope I haven't offended anyone, just my point of view.
Jacko
Keep your eye on the ball, avoid allowing the EU's agenda to water down the task at hand. I agree that the Palestinian issue needs to be discussed, however at an appropriate time. It is not a starter issue as applied to the events of 9/11 except as back ground noise.
To paraphrase you as I am too tired to track down your exact words, Leave the Israelis to their own devices,devoid of U.S.support and they will moderate. I disagree. A concern the western world, and I dare say the secular leadership of Pakistan is the de-stabilizing effect of Pakistans support of the U.S. Why should we be any less concerned about destabilizing another nuclear power? Its not hard to draw a picture of an isolated Israel, bunker mentality, armed with Jericho missiles. Most certainly a recipe for disaster. Dialogue vs missiles, you call it. Prior to replying, at least consider what the lay of the land would look like without the overt and discreet pressures the U.S. applies on Israel. Give me some notable and significant examples of alienation achieving the goal of bringing/returning a nation to the fold. For every one you name, I can name one or more that have slipped further away.
For my own edification, do you believe the PLO to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people?
Keep your eye on the ball, avoid allowing the EU's agenda to water down the task at hand. I agree that the Palestinian issue needs to be discussed, however at an appropriate time. It is not a starter issue as applied to the events of 9/11 except as back ground noise.
To paraphrase you as I am too tired to track down your exact words, Leave the Israelis to their own devices,devoid of U.S.support and they will moderate. I disagree. A concern the western world, and I dare say the secular leadership of Pakistan is the de-stabilizing effect of Pakistans support of the U.S. Why should we be any less concerned about destabilizing another nuclear power? Its not hard to draw a picture of an isolated Israel, bunker mentality, armed with Jericho missiles. Most certainly a recipe for disaster. Dialogue vs missiles, you call it. Prior to replying, at least consider what the lay of the land would look like without the overt and discreet pressures the U.S. applies on Israel. Give me some notable and significant examples of alienation achieving the goal of bringing/returning a nation to the fold. For every one you name, I can name one or more that have slipped further away.
For my own edification, do you believe the PLO to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people?
West Coast
Stunningly good final point.
Are the PLO the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? Perhaps not quite in a UK/US Democratic sense, but then outside Europe, which ruling parties/organisations are (some, yes, but many aren't - including some of our closest allies)?
I'd prefer to think of the PLO as being the Palestinian's legitimate representatives than Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other extremist organisation which still embraces terrorism.
I'd also argue that the PLO has no less of a democratic mandate than the present government of Israel, which has excluded vast swathes of its rightful electorate through ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinian issue is not back ground noise, and needs to be discussed now and sorted out quickly. This is an appropriate time. The plain fact is that this latest US 'crusade' against terrorism (which I regard as being entirely justifiable and 'good' so long as its properly targeted) is being endangered by lukewarm support from many sides - including many nations which should be the USA's natural allies - including EU nations, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (which had to be forced to co-operate on the threat of being regarded as an 'enemy' regime).
One of the main reasons for this lukewarm support lies in broad sympathy for the moderate Arab position - that Israeli excesses and cavalier attitude to UN resolutions is ignored by the USA, which thereby appears to be anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic.
Even in Britain, where Tony Blair has leapt to the USA's side, there is some concern over the danger of this adventure being perceived as 'Arab/Moslem-bashing'. It's not a case of 'watering down' the task at hand, it's a practical matter (the fight against terrorism will be more effective and more widely supported if this issue is addressed) and a moral one. Historically, US foreign policy has been quick to fight evil, and to support the rights of the oppressed. Only in the case of Israel has it been quite so blind to 'right' and 'wrong'. Forcing the Israelis to disengage from Palestinian territory (and areas which should be Palestinian, like East Jerusalem) is as much a case of fighting evil as is unseating the taliban.
I didn't advocate leaving Israel to stew, BTW, I advocated presenting an ultimatum. Reach a settlement or lose US aid and military aid. Which nations have 'returned to the fold' after being isolated or excluded? South Africa? Rhodesia? (And it took many years in those cases because their principal arms suppliers never really abided by international sanctions, and there were alternative sources. Moreover, Israel is only being asked to cede territory, and not to accept the destruction of its entire system of government. No-one is seriously suggesting that Israel should become a secular Arab state, and everyone accepts that Israeli apartheid will continue within its new borders.
PS: Interesting that the main target of the Israeli Army at the weekend was a Christian Palestinian village - most of us think of the Palestinians as being just another bunch of uppity A-rabs!
Interesting too that newspaper reports at the weekend suggest that senior Israeli politicians believe that Sharon and the Army may be deliberately undermining the proposed ceasefire, and don't want peace. The headline was about the Army chief advocating or accepting a plan to assassinate Arafat himself.
Stunningly good final point.
Are the PLO the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? Perhaps not quite in a UK/US Democratic sense, but then outside Europe, which ruling parties/organisations are (some, yes, but many aren't - including some of our closest allies)?
I'd prefer to think of the PLO as being the Palestinian's legitimate representatives than Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other extremist organisation which still embraces terrorism.
I'd also argue that the PLO has no less of a democratic mandate than the present government of Israel, which has excluded vast swathes of its rightful electorate through ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinian issue is not back ground noise, and needs to be discussed now and sorted out quickly. This is an appropriate time. The plain fact is that this latest US 'crusade' against terrorism (which I regard as being entirely justifiable and 'good' so long as its properly targeted) is being endangered by lukewarm support from many sides - including many nations which should be the USA's natural allies - including EU nations, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (which had to be forced to co-operate on the threat of being regarded as an 'enemy' regime).
One of the main reasons for this lukewarm support lies in broad sympathy for the moderate Arab position - that Israeli excesses and cavalier attitude to UN resolutions is ignored by the USA, which thereby appears to be anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic.
Even in Britain, where Tony Blair has leapt to the USA's side, there is some concern over the danger of this adventure being perceived as 'Arab/Moslem-bashing'. It's not a case of 'watering down' the task at hand, it's a practical matter (the fight against terrorism will be more effective and more widely supported if this issue is addressed) and a moral one. Historically, US foreign policy has been quick to fight evil, and to support the rights of the oppressed. Only in the case of Israel has it been quite so blind to 'right' and 'wrong'. Forcing the Israelis to disengage from Palestinian territory (and areas which should be Palestinian, like East Jerusalem) is as much a case of fighting evil as is unseating the taliban.
I didn't advocate leaving Israel to stew, BTW, I advocated presenting an ultimatum. Reach a settlement or lose US aid and military aid. Which nations have 'returned to the fold' after being isolated or excluded? South Africa? Rhodesia? (And it took many years in those cases because their principal arms suppliers never really abided by international sanctions, and there were alternative sources. Moreover, Israel is only being asked to cede territory, and not to accept the destruction of its entire system of government. No-one is seriously suggesting that Israel should become a secular Arab state, and everyone accepts that Israeli apartheid will continue within its new borders.
PS: Interesting that the main target of the Israeli Army at the weekend was a Christian Palestinian village - most of us think of the Palestinians as being just another bunch of uppity A-rabs!
Interesting too that newspaper reports at the weekend suggest that senior Israeli politicians believe that Sharon and the Army may be deliberately undermining the proposed ceasefire, and don't want peace. The headline was about the Army chief advocating or accepting a plan to assassinate Arafat himself.
Jacko
We agree on more than we disagree. I also would like the U.S. to tighten the screws on Israel, however not to the extent you would or with the latent threat of excommunication.
In your eyes the PLO has metamorphosed from the mother of all terrorist organizations to a political entity. While your answer waffled somewhat to this point, it struck me as a tacit acceptance. I guess we all have to hitch our wagons somewhere. You stand on a slippery slope, I am sure you know that though. Allowing myself to see from a left of center viewpoint (no offense meant) I imagine their stock is more legit via repudiation of terrorism. As a past acknowledged umbrella organization for terrorism as oppossed to the actual operator, the distance is increased, but the finger prints are still there. I must admit suprise that with a few keystrokes you give legitimacy to an organization that has so much European blood on it. Find the genesis of most European and middle eastern terrorist organizations prior to the late 80's and you will find the PLO's stamp of approval. If my understanding of its history is on, the IRA was one of the PLO's star pupils going back to the first tricontinental conference in Cuba in the early 1960's. To follow parallels in your arguement then then seinn fein, Gerry Adams specificallymight be considered the legitimate voice of the disenfranchised in NI, buts that an arguement for another day.
To tie the Palestinian issue as a rider to dialogue over the events of 9/11 as advocated by the EU is to imply that it was casaul to those events. Clearly it was not. Any attempt to do so will fail as it oversimplies Arab politics. All problems cannot be taken in their totality, but as singular issues, tabled for now.
The perception of Arab bashing concerns me also, but given the framework we operate within, I am at a loss to approach it much differently than the way the western world is doing it. The Talibans response by calling for a jihad reminds me of a defense lawyer playing the race card to muddy the waters. We agree, at least as viewed from an Arab standpoint on moderate Arab governments reasoning for their ambiguity on the show of support for the war on terrorism. They have more to lose in the long run the do the western world. One comment, however is that Arab governments have always left themselves wiggle room, no matter how just the cause.
Perhaps this is tough for a journo type, but view press reports with a critical eye, re: the plan to kill Yasser. There are many in the press here who theorize that the CIA killed JFK.
We agree on more than we disagree. I also would like the U.S. to tighten the screws on Israel, however not to the extent you would or with the latent threat of excommunication.
In your eyes the PLO has metamorphosed from the mother of all terrorist organizations to a political entity. While your answer waffled somewhat to this point, it struck me as a tacit acceptance. I guess we all have to hitch our wagons somewhere. You stand on a slippery slope, I am sure you know that though. Allowing myself to see from a left of center viewpoint (no offense meant) I imagine their stock is more legit via repudiation of terrorism. As a past acknowledged umbrella organization for terrorism as oppossed to the actual operator, the distance is increased, but the finger prints are still there. I must admit suprise that with a few keystrokes you give legitimacy to an organization that has so much European blood on it. Find the genesis of most European and middle eastern terrorist organizations prior to the late 80's and you will find the PLO's stamp of approval. If my understanding of its history is on, the IRA was one of the PLO's star pupils going back to the first tricontinental conference in Cuba in the early 1960's. To follow parallels in your arguement then then seinn fein, Gerry Adams specificallymight be considered the legitimate voice of the disenfranchised in NI, buts that an arguement for another day.
To tie the Palestinian issue as a rider to dialogue over the events of 9/11 as advocated by the EU is to imply that it was casaul to those events. Clearly it was not. Any attempt to do so will fail as it oversimplies Arab politics. All problems cannot be taken in their totality, but as singular issues, tabled for now.
The perception of Arab bashing concerns me also, but given the framework we operate within, I am at a loss to approach it much differently than the way the western world is doing it. The Talibans response by calling for a jihad reminds me of a defense lawyer playing the race card to muddy the waters. We agree, at least as viewed from an Arab standpoint on moderate Arab governments reasoning for their ambiguity on the show of support for the war on terrorism. They have more to lose in the long run the do the western world. One comment, however is that Arab governments have always left themselves wiggle room, no matter how just the cause.
Perhaps this is tough for a journo type, but view press reports with a critical eye, re: the plan to kill Yasser. There are many in the press here who theorize that the CIA killed JFK.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desp.. your opening comment intrigues me a little because you say that you are more hawkish than I am, but I cannot determine from your profile where you reside. This may be a slight amount of prejudice on my part, but I would expect the more hawkish to be American yet your spelling gives you away as British. I make no more of it than that. Each to their own, and you are as entitled to your perspective as am I. At least you recognise your hawkish approach.
I would disagree with your comment that the Arab world may have been more civilised 900 years ago, but less civilised now than the western world. If we look at the reasoning behind many of the Arabic practices you will see that they are grounded in reason. The practice of making women wear the chador has its origins in the men of the middle east being less restrained in their sexual practices than Mohammed deemed was good for them. In order to protect the women the practice of wearing the veil came about. Some historians argue that by covering the woman's face a man would find it harder to determine age. As age is a mark of respectibility, older women were treated much better than younger women. The same is true of te practice of men chaperoning women. This was to afford them some protection when travelling. Even the more fundamentalist aspect of not educating women comes from the role of the mother as the cornerstone of the family. It is not true to say that the more fundamentalist muslims deny women all education, rather they are educated to the extent they need to raise a family. Men in the middle east, I have noticed, are far more respectful of their wives than western men. I hear all to often disparaging comments made a bout wives, evemn in jest, which would never be made by Arabic men. While it may offend the sensibilities of more feminist women and liberal men that women do not have the access to universities and careers that they have here, it must be remembered that all things are relative. In a culture that promotes family values more than materialism and careerism, not all women want to work. In fact many moslem women would view a career as second place to raising a family.
As I said before, while it might be that we in the west find the treatment of women offensive we must ask ourselves "how do the women themselves feel?" They may or may not want our rightous indignations.
What must be remembered is that it is not the religion per se which does unspeakable things to women, rather the fallable interpretation of fallable man. I cannot see that any God who is hailed as merciful would want to demonstrate that mercy by having his creation destroy itself and wreak acts of mass murder on a fellow human in his name. As I have stated previously, if God, in His power, wanted to destroy whole nations he would surely do it, and do it without the aid of mankind.
So where does this leave us? If we can say that we believe that God did not wish to see the people in and around the WTC die for no reason, i am sure that He would not wish to see civilians die in Afghanistan. I am at least hopeful that as the days pass that any strikes will not be a knee-jerk reaction to the events of the 11/9. What does concern me still is the definition of any legitimate target. This along with the burden of proof that I would like to see still has not been met. As a voter I have the right to demand this evidence before any attacks have been carried out in my name.
I would disagree with your comment that the Arab world may have been more civilised 900 years ago, but less civilised now than the western world. If we look at the reasoning behind many of the Arabic practices you will see that they are grounded in reason. The practice of making women wear the chador has its origins in the men of the middle east being less restrained in their sexual practices than Mohammed deemed was good for them. In order to protect the women the practice of wearing the veil came about. Some historians argue that by covering the woman's face a man would find it harder to determine age. As age is a mark of respectibility, older women were treated much better than younger women. The same is true of te practice of men chaperoning women. This was to afford them some protection when travelling. Even the more fundamentalist aspect of not educating women comes from the role of the mother as the cornerstone of the family. It is not true to say that the more fundamentalist muslims deny women all education, rather they are educated to the extent they need to raise a family. Men in the middle east, I have noticed, are far more respectful of their wives than western men. I hear all to often disparaging comments made a bout wives, evemn in jest, which would never be made by Arabic men. While it may offend the sensibilities of more feminist women and liberal men that women do not have the access to universities and careers that they have here, it must be remembered that all things are relative. In a culture that promotes family values more than materialism and careerism, not all women want to work. In fact many moslem women would view a career as second place to raising a family.
As I said before, while it might be that we in the west find the treatment of women offensive we must ask ourselves "how do the women themselves feel?" They may or may not want our rightous indignations.
What must be remembered is that it is not the religion per se which does unspeakable things to women, rather the fallable interpretation of fallable man. I cannot see that any God who is hailed as merciful would want to demonstrate that mercy by having his creation destroy itself and wreak acts of mass murder on a fellow human in his name. As I have stated previously, if God, in His power, wanted to destroy whole nations he would surely do it, and do it without the aid of mankind.
So where does this leave us? If we can say that we believe that God did not wish to see the people in and around the WTC die for no reason, i am sure that He would not wish to see civilians die in Afghanistan. I am at least hopeful that as the days pass that any strikes will not be a knee-jerk reaction to the events of the 11/9. What does concern me still is the definition of any legitimate target. This along with the burden of proof that I would like to see still has not been met. As a voter I have the right to demand this evidence before any attacks have been carried out in my name.
West Coast,
No-one in their right mind would call me left-of-centre - or even terribly centre. I'm a small c conservative with some markedly right wing views, and a handful of left wing ones. Like most people, I suspect.
It's not just in my eyes that the PLO have 'metamorphised' into a more-or-less legitimate organisation. The US Govt. recognise them, as do the UN, as do the Israeli Government (more or less). Yes, they were terrorists (I don't accept any differentiation between terrorists and 'freedom fighters' if they target a single civilian).
But they are at least 'former terrorists' and they do want to negotiate with Israel, be accepted by the West, and (crucially) accept Israel's right to exist.
If we refuse to deal with 'ex-terrorists' (and Arafat was quite definitely one of them) where do we draw the line? Over here in the UK we have ex-terrorist MPs, and other ex-terrorists have become heads of state whether Menachim Begin (Stern Gang) or dear old cuddly old Saint Nelson Mandela, or Bob Mugabe.......
With specific reference to Northern Ireland, I personally wish that someone had 'topped' Adams and McGuiness long ago, but recognise that they do now have some democratic mandate. I would point out that their repudiation of terrorist violence has never been as satisfactory as that of the main PLO leaders, while I only wish that they were as willing to compromise as Arafat now seems to be.
It may be distasteful, but once these terrorists embrace politics (the ballot box rather than the Armalite) then we have to deal with them. Sometimes we must even deal with active terrorists (like the Northern Alliance gangs of the late Ahmed Shah Massoud) if they are fighting a greater evil, or if they have right on their side.
And in the case of Israel's continued intransigence and illegal occupation of lands seized by force of arms, there is clearly some right on the Palestinian's side.
With regard to cynicism over the Israeli army's desire to assassinate Arafat, the source is not just some 'hick' or hack journo - it's from an interview with Shimon Peres (in Yediot Ahronoth - a leading Israeli daily), in which he accuses the Army Deputy Chief of Staff (General Moshe Yaalon) of wanting to eliminate Arafat. A dove only by Israeli standards, Peres has inferred that the Govt is not committed to peace, and has deliberately provoked incidents in order to disrupt ceasefire and peace initiatives.
The Israeli leader of the opposition, Mr Yosser Sarid, has even hinted darkly that the 'especially large number of killed and wounded on the Palestinian side' has been the result of deliberate Govt policy.
So it's not that I'm being pro-PLO and anti Israeli - even the Israeli parliamentary opposition would find little to argue about with what I have to say about the moral and practical need for a solution and an accomodation. It's only the ultra-right wing and theocratic zionists who refuse to cede another inch of territory, and who blame Arafat for every problem.
I would re-stress that the Palestine issue is a pre-requisite to gaining Arab support for the legitimate need for a war against terrorism. This isn't about ambiguity or a mere 'show of support', it's the case that from an Arab perspective (and even to many European governments) the reaction so far has looked like an American-led war against a long-standing enemy and scapegoat (Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism). The US must act to correct this misapprehension, and the best way of doing so is by jettisoning the one really anti-Arab strand of its present foreign policy. Why should UN embargoes and resolutions be rigorously applied against Iraq, and ignored completely when they apply to Israel? Why was Milosovic a war-criminal and Sharon a hero? The USA would not accept Israel's behaviour and repression in any other nation. This is hypocrisy and undermines any claim that the USA has to being an ethical state, which is a tragic shame, because almost everywhere else in its foreign policies, the USA does provide a 'shining light' for the rest of the world to follow.
I wonder whether you (in the US) gain a balanced view of what's actually going on in the Middle East I'm not sure we do over here, where our media tends to be slightly pro-Israeli and slightly anti-Arab. While the Taliban have declared Jihad, were you aware, for example, that the leading Imam in Saudi Arabia has already criticised this and questioned its validity, and has issued a Fatwah specifically stating that the suicide bombers on 11 September were wrong, anti-Islamic, and stating that on no account should they be viewed as martyrs?
No-one in their right mind would call me left-of-centre - or even terribly centre. I'm a small c conservative with some markedly right wing views, and a handful of left wing ones. Like most people, I suspect.
It's not just in my eyes that the PLO have 'metamorphised' into a more-or-less legitimate organisation. The US Govt. recognise them, as do the UN, as do the Israeli Government (more or less). Yes, they were terrorists (I don't accept any differentiation between terrorists and 'freedom fighters' if they target a single civilian).
But they are at least 'former terrorists' and they do want to negotiate with Israel, be accepted by the West, and (crucially) accept Israel's right to exist.
If we refuse to deal with 'ex-terrorists' (and Arafat was quite definitely one of them) where do we draw the line? Over here in the UK we have ex-terrorist MPs, and other ex-terrorists have become heads of state whether Menachim Begin (Stern Gang) or dear old cuddly old Saint Nelson Mandela, or Bob Mugabe.......
With specific reference to Northern Ireland, I personally wish that someone had 'topped' Adams and McGuiness long ago, but recognise that they do now have some democratic mandate. I would point out that their repudiation of terrorist violence has never been as satisfactory as that of the main PLO leaders, while I only wish that they were as willing to compromise as Arafat now seems to be.
It may be distasteful, but once these terrorists embrace politics (the ballot box rather than the Armalite) then we have to deal with them. Sometimes we must even deal with active terrorists (like the Northern Alliance gangs of the late Ahmed Shah Massoud) if they are fighting a greater evil, or if they have right on their side.
And in the case of Israel's continued intransigence and illegal occupation of lands seized by force of arms, there is clearly some right on the Palestinian's side.
With regard to cynicism over the Israeli army's desire to assassinate Arafat, the source is not just some 'hick' or hack journo - it's from an interview with Shimon Peres (in Yediot Ahronoth - a leading Israeli daily), in which he accuses the Army Deputy Chief of Staff (General Moshe Yaalon) of wanting to eliminate Arafat. A dove only by Israeli standards, Peres has inferred that the Govt is not committed to peace, and has deliberately provoked incidents in order to disrupt ceasefire and peace initiatives.
The Israeli leader of the opposition, Mr Yosser Sarid, has even hinted darkly that the 'especially large number of killed and wounded on the Palestinian side' has been the result of deliberate Govt policy.
So it's not that I'm being pro-PLO and anti Israeli - even the Israeli parliamentary opposition would find little to argue about with what I have to say about the moral and practical need for a solution and an accomodation. It's only the ultra-right wing and theocratic zionists who refuse to cede another inch of territory, and who blame Arafat for every problem.
I would re-stress that the Palestine issue is a pre-requisite to gaining Arab support for the legitimate need for a war against terrorism. This isn't about ambiguity or a mere 'show of support', it's the case that from an Arab perspective (and even to many European governments) the reaction so far has looked like an American-led war against a long-standing enemy and scapegoat (Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism). The US must act to correct this misapprehension, and the best way of doing so is by jettisoning the one really anti-Arab strand of its present foreign policy. Why should UN embargoes and resolutions be rigorously applied against Iraq, and ignored completely when they apply to Israel? Why was Milosovic a war-criminal and Sharon a hero? The USA would not accept Israel's behaviour and repression in any other nation. This is hypocrisy and undermines any claim that the USA has to being an ethical state, which is a tragic shame, because almost everywhere else in its foreign policies, the USA does provide a 'shining light' for the rest of the world to follow.
I wonder whether you (in the US) gain a balanced view of what's actually going on in the Middle East I'm not sure we do over here, where our media tends to be slightly pro-Israeli and slightly anti-Arab. While the Taliban have declared Jihad, were you aware, for example, that the leading Imam in Saudi Arabia has already criticised this and questioned its validity, and has issued a Fatwah specifically stating that the suicide bombers on 11 September were wrong, anti-Islamic, and stating that on no account should they be viewed as martyrs?
