So what do you guys think about US bombing Afghanistan? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2001, 11:48 PM   #16
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:


- Arabs never had their own country. They were promised to get a state in WW 1 by the British, should they fight against the Turks. They fought bravely, yet didn't get anything. Further more, when British left, they didn't take care of things whatsoever.

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc. are all Arab nations.

CK

__________________

__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2001, 11:54 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Yes, TheU2! I forgot completely about this statement by U2girl! U2girl: SURELY you were referring to the Palestinians, and not the Arabs as a whole, no? There are at least TWENTY-ONE (21) nations that consider themselves "Arab" and that does not even include Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan (TheU2: www.Arab.net considers the "Arab nations" to include Iraq>westward).

U2girl - you meant to say Palestinians, right?

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 12:13 AM   #18
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Yes, TheU2! I forgot completely about this statement by U2girl! U2girl: SURELY you were referring to the Palestinians, and not the Arabs as a whole, no? There are at least TWENTY-ONE (21) nations that consider themselves "Arab" and that does not even include Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan (TheU2: www.Arab.net considers the "Arab nations" to include Iraq>westward).

U2girl - you meant to say Palestinians, right?

~U2Alabama
I don't think she meant Palestine. Her next arguement/point/non-stop dribble referenced Palestine/Israel conflict.

CK

__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 12:45 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:
- Arabs never had their own country. They were promised to get a state in WW 1 by the British, should they fight against the Turks. They fought bravely, yet didn't get anything. Further more, when British left, they didn't take care of things whatsoever.
See my other reply where I address you and Theu2; thanks!

Quote:
- Of course, there's the whole Israel/Palestinan question. The expert said that founding the state of Israel (and US supporting it) is the biggest wound to the Arabs.
TRUE: a huge gap which the post-WW2 establishment of the Jewish state of Israel left to fester into a large open wound is "what about Palestine?" Well, most of the lands that should have been set aside were instead split up among Egypt (Gaza Strip), Jordan (West Bank), and Syria (Golan Heights). They should have been made contiguous and established as a Palestinian state. During the Arab-Israeli War up until 1967, Israel took these lands back because they (Israel) didn't have immigration limits for Jewish settlers who wanted to return to the "Jewish homeland;" not a good neighbor if you ask me, and I agree Palestine should be established as a state geographically resmebling an assemblage of these areas.

Quote:
- There's a sacred ground in Saudi Arabia (can't remember the city's name now), where apparently Koran was written and Muhammed stayed a while. It is an incredible offense if a foreigner sets foot on that ground, and US troops have been there for years.(and Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian)
You are basically giving credence to one of the most religiously descriminatory practices that is allowed in the world today: the "holy state" of Saudi Arabia. The strict Wahabi brand of Islam prohibits religious freedom outside of Islam, therefore, a tree worshipper could not worship his or her trees there, just as I could be prosecuted for entering the nation with a Bible. And our military was invited there when Saddam Hussein was making aggressions toward Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Quote:
- US used to support Bin Laden, when he was fighting against the Soviets - because he was useful to them as a protection from communism.
We supported (training and supplies) the muhajideen, which faught alongside The Osama during the Afghan-Soviet Conflict. In fact, The Osama disdained the presence of the U.S. in this conflict and was never a true allie of the U.S. The muhajideen was comrised of forces which in the 1990s splintered off into several groups including Northern Alliance AND the Taliban. The Osama was basically a free-agen, a mercenary if you will, who had no home as he had been banished by the Saudis. So he took up residence amongst other thugs such as the theocratic factions in the muhajideen and the slave-holding thugs in Sudan.

Quote:
Not to justify terrorist actions, just to point out how complicated things are.
But back to the topic: is bombing the right way to deal with it?

Personally, i think it should have been done differently. For example, closing terrorist accounts in international banks or international diplomatic pressure would be/was a better solution.
I mean, sure, you can destroy terrorist camps but you won't destroy the whole terrorist network (because it's internationally spread) or bring down the Taliban regime (because it will take ground troops for a long-term control of the country, plus someone needs to put together a goverment people will be pleased with-that will probably take time).
Also, who says that when the Taliban regime is replaced, there will no longer be any terrorists?
Also, why not try using special forces and try to capture Bin Laden and the leading officers of Al Khaeda in a secret operation?

Bombing their infrastructure and intensive cave/bunker network is the most practical way to drive them out and force a surrender or, worst case, make a ground war more feasible. We are NOT targeting civilians and I do not think the civilian casualities are going to be as high as many of the anti-bombing interests are telling us. Also, remember that in a nation like Afghanistan where the official, internationally-recognized government is in exile elsewhere, the line between "civilian" and "military" is quite blurred, as the ruling regime pretty much forces whomever they can round up into some standing militia.

And we have been closing their accounts since shortly after 9/11.

They do not acknowledge/recognize "diplomatic pressure." Please remember that Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, and embassies are the structural symbol of "diplomacy."

No, we will not be able to destroy all of the terrorists, but this is a start.

And yes, special forces have been on the ground and more willbe going in soon.

But we can't just round them up and bring them to some prison; that is when their buddies hijack more planes and use their imprisoned goons as ransom for civilian airline passengers. Terrorism, if you will.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 12:48 AM   #20
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 02:33 AM
What Bama said.

CK
__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 03:17 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,897
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:
Not to justify terrorist actions, just to point out how complicated things are.
But back to the topic: is bombing the right way to deal with it?

As much as I hate the use of military force, I think this is the only option we have(unfortunately).

------------------
Schabow
__________________
mikal is online now  
Old 11-13-2001, 03:21 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth:
If people are poor and live in war-torn coutries, they are more susceptible to the doctrine of people like Bin Laden, Hitler and Bush ( ).
I know that the Afghanistani children are trained and all, but if i child sees bombs falling down on his hometown, and if that's the only impression he gets of America, it will probably increase his belief and affirm what he's been told about "dirty, evil America and the West".

ps: Hitler took advantage of the economic situation in Germany before WW 2 big time, people thought he'd get the country out of the economic crisis. He did-but at a horrible price. Also, he manipulated with the crowds, blaming the Jews for everything that was wrong.
People bought it because they were poor, and tired of it. I'm not saying that was the only reason, but it helped.


------------------
"It's about finding your way into the music." - Edge

"Something inside said this could be everything in your life." - Bono

"U2 as a band does things nobody one else can. I think that is a very powerful thing." - Larry

"Adam believed in the band before anyone did." - Bono



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-12-2001).]
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 03:33 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
But capitulating entirely to bin Laden's demands would be unreasonable.)

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-12-2001).]
What demands did he made?
As far as i know, he's always spitting rage and anger about fighting the "dirty" Western civilization.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 04:46 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Bombing their infrastructure and intensive cave/bunker network is the most practical way to drive them out and force a surrender or, worst case, make a ground war more feasible. We are NOT targeting civilians and I do not think the civilian casualities are going to be as high as many of the anti-bombing interests are telling us. Also, remember that in a nation like Afghanistan where the official, internationally-recognized government is in exile elsewhere, the line between "civilian" and "military" is quite blurred, as the ruling regime pretty much forces whomever they can round up into some standing militia.

And we have been closing their accounts since shortly after 9/11.

They do not acknowledge/recognize "diplomatic pressure." Please remember that Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, and embassies are the structural symbol of "diplomacy."

No, we will not be able to destroy all of the terrorists, but this is a start.

And yes, special forces have been on the ground and more willbe going in soon.

But we can't just round them up and bring them to some prison; that is when their buddies hijack more planes and use their imprisoned goons as ransom for civilian airline passengers. Terrorism, if you will.

~U2Alabama
Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.

I doubt that the Taliban will surrender due to bombing. From what i understand, for those people dying for their cause is a honorable, noble death (so killing him is not really a punishment). And i seriously doubt they will be caught alive if they can prevent it.

Besides, they probably have caves or underground hideouts so bombs are not likely to drive them out.

I know that the civil victims are not intentional, but there's a diffence between the regime (Taliban) and the opressed civilians.

There are special forces on the ground? I remember reading about it-for reconaissance purposes or an actual manhunt on Bin Laden and the leaders of Al Khaeda?

Isn't prison where any possible POWs will be sent to (especially the leaders)?
So they can go to court and face the consequences?
(let's not forget US uses death penalty)

Don't you think the terrorists would try to strike back either way-sending the leaders to court or shooting them right there in Afghanistan? Or try to free the captured ones?
(with the new tighter security on airports, i think that would be hard for them to do)



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-13-2001).]
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 07:19 AM   #25
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:
Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.


If that guy was mistaken, I really don't think he was an "expert on Middle East affairs."

CK
__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 11-13-2001, 08:02 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:
Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.
Then, as TheU2 said, he is hardly an expert if he published such an error.

Quote:
I doubt that the Taliban will surrender due to bombing. From what i understand, for those people dying for their cause is a honorable, noble death (so killing him is not really a punishment). And i seriously doubt they will be caught alive if they can prevent it.
I doubt they will either; that would be a "best-case" scenario, while a ground war, which is more likely, is the worst-case. But I do not see killing him as merely a punishment but also as an elimination of him - and I KNOW that doesn't eliminate terrorism as a whole, but it eliminates one son-of-a-bitch that this world does not need.

Quote:
Besides, they probably have caves or underground hideouts so bombs are not likely to drive them out.
That is the reason for the type of bombs that have been dropped in the past two weeks: they have the ability to penetrate these caves and underground hideouts, and if not drive them out, to kill them.

Quote:
I know that the civil victims are not intentional, but there's a diffence between the regime (Taliban) and the opressed civilians.
Agreed.

Quote:
There are special forces on the ground? I remember reading about it-for reconaissance purposes or an actual manhunt on Bin Laden and the leaders of Al Khaeda?
Yes; we have been hearing about it after-the-fact; there may even be more to it than recon missions, and there definitely will be more to it now in order to curb any autonomous surge on the part of the Northern Alliance.

Quote:
Isn't prison where any possible POWs will be sent to (especially the leaders)? So they can go to court and face the consequences? (let's not forget US uses death penalty)

Don't you think the terrorists would try to strike back either way-sending the leaders to court or shooting them right there in Afghanistan? Or try to free the captured ones? (with the new tighter security on airports, i think that would be hard for them to do)
I think this would all best be settled on the battlefield. Somehow, I don't think that Miranda Rights, due process and the right to a speedy trial are that important to The Osama.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-14-2001, 07:22 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
I think this would all best be settled on the battlefield. Somehow, I don't think that Miranda Rights, due process and the right to a speedy trial are that important to The Osama.

~U2Alabama
Maybe, but who's to say Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? I mean, after the reports of bombing and ground troops coming in, isn't it more likely he escaped?

Those things you mentioned may not be important to him, but they are important to the coalition.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, right? And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (including the worst of criminals)

ps: True, killing a terrorist ("eye for an eye" logic is never good) is definitely a way of eliminating him. But so is putting him away in prison for life.
Some people believe they should torture them to death. That is inhumane, plus scums like that are not worthy of any kind of trouble of dealing with them. Just put him away for good.


------------------
"It's about finding your way into the music." - Edge

"Something inside said this could be everything in your life." - Bono

"U2 as a band does things nobody one else can. I think that is a very powerful thing." - Larry

"Adam believed in the band before anyone did." - Bono

[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-14-2001).]
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-15-2001, 12:02 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl:
Maybe, but who's to say Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? I mean, after the reports of bombing and ground troops coming in, isn't it more likely he escaped?
I don't know if he is. Nonetheless, I am hppy that the Taliban is falling like they should. I do not know that he has escaped, but if he has, we need to persist and find him.

Quote:

Those things you mentioned may not be important to him, but they are important to the coalition.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, right? And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (including the worst of criminals)
If he surrenders himself without incident, he will get a trial. If his thugs try to resist as we (or whomever) are about to aprehend him, it pretty much eliminates the chances of him living to see a courtroom.

Quote:
ps: True, killing a terrorist ("eye for an eye" logic is never good) is definitely a way of eliminating him. But so is putting him away in prison for life.
Some people believe they should torture them to death. That is inhumane, plus scums like that are not worthy of any kind of trouble of dealing with them. Just put him away for good.
Unfortunately, the problem that this poses is him being used as some type of ransom or bargaining tool for future terrorist acts. We learned this in the 1970s and 1980s.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-15-2001, 12:22 AM   #29
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 02:33 AM
What Bama said.

CK
__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 11-15-2001, 07:44 PM   #30
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:33 PM
I think it's worked nicely.
__________________

__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com