bin Laden strikes again!

"Charlie C." wrote in message
...

That sounds good, but you assume that the anger directed towards the U.S.
can be changed or is even legitimate. One of the things they hate us for
is
our support for Israel. That's not going to change. Bush is the first
U.S.
president to advocate a Palestinian state and it hasn't stemmed their
hatred. As a matter of fact, the last thing some of those terrorists want
is a Palestinian state - they will only be satisfied with the complete
destruction of Israel. Since we're not going to let that happen they are
always going to be angry with us.

Plus the fact that those megalomaniacs get their power by focusing their
people's hatred towards the U.S. and Israel and they are always going to
foster that hatred (regardless of what happens) to stay in power. The
worst
thing that could happen in their eyes is for the U.S. to act the way they
want us to as it would threaten their power base. And if we did, they'd
make up reasons to hate us.

You also assume that people get involved simply because of ideology.
Sometimes they volunteer to ensure their families are supported with money
from Saddam Hussein. Look at the violence that is committed around the
world related to sporting events (football/soccer being the number one
example). People can get riled up to hate for the stupidest things. If
people can murder over sports, it doesn't take much to convince some poor
kid with nothing to do or live for that he now belongs to a cause. BTW, I
believe that a goal of the U.S. in Iraq is to help bring a stable and
middle-class economy to the Iraq (which was never going to happen under
Saddam). A full belly makes one quite pacifistic.

It's way more complex then to say that the U.S. has simply made some bad
foreign policy judgments in the past. Be nice to the Arabs and they will
like us. There are WAY too many agendas working for it to be that simple.
Plus, being nice to some people is going to make others mad at you. You
can't please all the people all the time. You can't worry too much about
what people think of you. If you did, you'd be that kid in school that no
one really knew much about or did anything with. No one would hate you,
but
no one would like you as well and you wouldn't accomplish anything.

Good and consistent argument! However, I do believe that things are more
complicated than that. Several governments in the region only cling to power
due to US support - most notably Saudi Arabia which has over the years paid
back the US military protection by "exporting" their particular radical form
of Islam to the rest of the Muslim world so as to "immunize" it against
Communism. Creating quite a bit of all the trouble that we have now. The
Saudi influence is evident in South East Asia. Before the Saudi mission
there, women usually did not cover their hair. In a country such as Malaysia
you will even see small girls covered up. That's a new phenomenon in that
region!

The massive military presents in the gulf region is allegedly there to
protect the flow of oil. However, that reason is to me plain and absolutely
nonsense! No matter who will be in power in the different states there -
they will sell oil as surely as the warlords in Afghanistan (with or without
Western support) will sell opium. The oil will flow from the region with or
without military protection. If any government got to power in the region
insisting that the taps be turned off - they will be out before evening.

But if it is not the oil that is being protected - what or who is then? I
believe that the main interest is the Western oil business in the region
that need to have their investments and profit flows protected from less
friendly - or less corrupted - governments. Remember the Iran story?

I believe that this is the main reason for the haltered against the West and
the US in particular in the region. Most of the governments there are
corrupt to their bones. Where can people in the region have a platform to
protest and try change the situation in their country? Communism is dead.
Liberal democracy has been deeply compromised by the Western powers. There
is only religion left. The Mosques being one of the few gathering spots that
the governments in the region cannot fully control.

It is here we have the reason for the seemingly paradox situation that
people in the region so much hate the US and at the same time want to be
like the US. There is actually no contradiction here. The US plays a crucial
role by protecting their corrupt governments so that the people in the
region cannot strive to achieve what they want. If the West and the US
stayed out of the region - and that is the third possibility - the situation
might well improve.

Nik.

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


I believe that this is the main reason for the haltered against the West and
the US in particular in the region. Most of the governments there are
corrupt to their bones. Where can people in the region have a platform to
protest and try change the situation in their country? Communism is dead.
Liberal democracy has been deeply compromised by the Western powers. There
is only religion left. The Mosques being one of the few gathering spots that
the governments in the region cannot fully control.

It is here we have the reason for the seemingly paradox situation that
people in the region so much hate the US and at the same time want to be
like the US. There is actually no contradiction here. The US plays a crucial
role by protecting their corrupt governments so that the people in the
region cannot strive to achieve what they want. If the West and the US
stayed out of the region - and that is the third possibility - the situation
might well improve.

Nik.

The fundamentalists among them dont like the west for the same reason
the Battle of Tours was fought, to convert non Muslims to Muslims.

jay
Sun, Nov 23, 2003


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

JF Mezei trolled:

Message-ID:
From: nobody
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Subject: bin Laden strikes again!
References:

. net
m

m
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 14
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:48:27 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.46.34
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1069407938 64.230.46.34 (Fri, 21 Nov 2003
04:45:38 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:45:38 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

mrtravel wrote:
Who did the survey?
Who was surveyed?
Where was it published?
Did they actually survey people from all nations?
What did they mean by "73 percent of the world nations"?

Don't recall who did it, but saw results shown on BBC. Many countries
around
the world were surveyed. Don't recall how many exactly. And as I recall, it
was more like "73% of people surveyed" as opposed to "73% of nations".

Bush Jr is despised around the world. I know that americans are sheltered
from
that reality by their media and government. But if you are outside the USA,
there is no surprise to that statistic.

JF Mezei trolled:

Message-ID:
From: nobody
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Subject: bin Laden strikes again!
References:

. net
m
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 10
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:54:20 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.46.34
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1069404694 64.230.46.34 (Fri, 21 Nov 2003
03:51:34 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:51:34 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

mrtravel wrote:
When your country's president is regarded and named as the MOST DANGEROUS
MAN IN THE WORLD by 73% of the world's nations . . . then we have a problem
that demands our immediate attention.

Really... Where did you get this statistic?

This survey was well publicized outside of the USA. USA media chose not to
discuss this. I think the actual survey put Bush as more dangerous to world
peace than Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

JF Mezei trolled (extensively):

Message-ID:
From: nobody
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Subject: bin Laden strikes again!
References:

. net

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 138
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:06:09 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.46.34
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1069452241 64.230.46.34 (Fri, 21 Nov 2003
17:04:01 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:01 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

"Charlie C." wrote:
I've got news for you. They don't hate Bush, they hate the U.S. and what it
stands for.

They don't hate the USA for what the USA pretends it is standing for
(democracy, freedom of speech, liberty), they hate the USA because the USA
puts its own self interests before those things it pretends to be standing
up for.

The USA doesn't accept that a people can choose to live differently than in
the USA, and the USA wants to impose its own values onto others.

Look at Bush Jr, scrambling for Iraq now. France had asked for rapid
transfer
of power to Iraqi authorities for self government and self determination
(with
help of UN during the time it takes for that new government to become
formalised). Bush laughed at the idea. But now, he has realised that France
was right, but won't admit to it. The problem is that the USA want to
impose
their constitition on Iraq, telling them that they could change it later
on.

Who the **** is the USA to impose its own style of constitution onto
another
country it was supposedly trying to free and give it the freedom to choose
?

When Afghanistan was freed from the Taliban, it was very quickly handed
over
to the interim government who very quickly re-instituted the constitution
that
was in effect prior to Taliban rule as a starting point.

What were the true intentions of the USA with regards to Iraq ? They change
each week. WMD ? Hussein ? Democracy ? Forcing a US constitution on them ?
One
thing is certain, the fact that they bombed the parliament buildings,
ditched
their currency and refuse to honour the country's constitution is a clear
indication that their intentions were not what they had announced they
would
be doing.

They bomb us because we represent the thing that will cause the
terrorists and their ilk to lose power and they hate us because we make a
great "enemy" to rally around.

What drives someone to vote against a current president ?

What drives someone to take a day off work to attend a protest ?

What drives someone to spend much time to organise those protests ?

What drives someone to get involved in the opposition party to help bring
down
the government they so oppose ?

What drives someone to feel that none of the above have worked and the only
solution is to take more radical measures ?

What drives someone to think that the only way to change things is to do a
suicide bombing ?

The level of dedication depends on the level of anger against "something".

terrorists REACT to how they are being treated. Change how they are being
treated, and you suddently reduce the level of anger.

The USA, under Bush Jr (and others), has done everything possible to raise
the
level of anger. Clinton probably got Ossama quite irritated when he sent a
cruise missile his way. Ossama knew that he had to stop using sat phones
from
then on making life more difficult for him. When Ossama lost support from
USA
after he pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he probably got miffed
enough
to bomb the Cole, embassies etc. But when the USA started to more actively
seek him out, he brought down the WTC.

Remember that the "world" hated Bush Jr before 9-11 because of his knee
jerk
reactions of pulling out of treaties. 9-11 brought in instant goodwill from
around the world, even Lybia. But once Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney were given
the reigns and brought out the wra rethoric/machine against Iraq, then all
that goodwill evaporated because the USA was no longer in a war against
terrorism, it was in a war against the UN. (that is what it was really all
about when you think about it).

Now consider that if Bush's actions after Afghanistan caused staunch allies
such as France and Germany to go against Bush Jr, consider how much anger
it
would have generated in the middle east ? Raise the level and anger and you
instantly get more and more people volunteering to do something mroe
dramatic.

When Bush starts to play outside his own backyard and against the UN, then
the
rest of the world has a right to comment, and I would say, the rest of the
world has a DUTY to stop a rogue government that miuses its power and has
total disregard for UN and international law.


Our support for Israel doesn't help either
but that's not a Bush thing; all American presidents have supported Israel
(and the next one will as well).

Yes, but how hypocritical for Bush/Rumsfeld to say that if France or
Germany
or Russia used their veto at the security council, it would be a dangerous
precedent that would unravel the UN, yet, the USA consistently uses its
veto
to block any resolution criticising Israel even in the face of a clear
break
of the USA's own peace plan.

How the hell is one suppose to have respect for the USA foreign policy ?

Clinton pretty much did nothing to fight terrorism and we were bombed; Bush
is fighting terrorism on several fronts and they still come at us.

Bush is not fighting terrorism. He is keeping terrorism on the agenda for
political purposes. He is fighting the UN to show that the USA is more
powerfull and is still the leader of the free world, and the invasion of
Iraq
against the UN and the rest of the world is just one manifestation of the
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney manifesto from their newamericancentury.org
policy website.

Terrorism is the RESULT of a problem. You remove the terrorist problem by
removing the problem which causes terrorists to take actions. Have the
bombs
stopped exploding in London because of all the cameras ? Nop. They stopped
because Britain started serious peace negotiations with northern ireland
which
resulted in the IRA getting less and less motivated to bomb the hell out of
london, and eventually IRA declaring what is essentially a truce.


The USa has a big image problem in the middle east. The invasion of Iraq
and
blind vetoing of any resolution against Israel makes the USA's image even
worse, which fuels terrorists.

If the middle eastern governments are so bad, how come the terrorists don't
bomb their own government ?

They bomb the USA because the USA is meddling in their own country's
affairs
and trying to tell their country how it should change.

Iran will be the success story of the middle east. It will be because it
will
have moved closer to democracy naturally, by itself. Why ? Because the USA
gave up on Iran and hasn't tried to tell them what to do in a long time.

And Rumsfeld is probably very disapointed that Iran agreed to the *UN*
Nuclear
inspection programme because it means the USA has lost the card it was
hoping
to play to justify the invasion of iran.


Did anyone notice how Bush was smiling yesterday at a news conference where
they discussed the bombs in Istambul ? Seems to me that he was quite happy
because any bomb gives him added support back home and added justification
for
his supposed war on terrorism.

Problem is that Bush's actions against terrorists only fuel more
terrorists.
If that isn't stopped soon, terrorism will spread even more.

JF Mezei trolled (where does he find the time!?):

Message-ID:
From: nobody
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.travel.air
Subject: bin Laden strikes again!
References:

. net



Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 33
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:30:02 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.46.34
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1069486068 64.230.46.34 (Sat, 22 Nov 2003
02:27:48 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:27:48 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

mrtravel wrote:
after he pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he probably got miffed
enough
to bomb the Cole, embassies etc. But when the USA started to more actively
seek him out, he brought down the WTC.

Are you suggesting we should have ignored him after the earlier actions?

Not ignore him. When Clinton sent the cruise missile his way, he probably
had
underestimated Ossama's ability to gather intelligence and move quickly
enough. It is like a bear. If you're going to shoot the bear, you only have
one shot and you must aim at his brain. If you miss, the bear will get
*mighty* angry at you.

The best way to get rid of Ossama isn't to kill him off, but rather starve
him
of volunteer suicide bombers etc.

By reducing the level of anger the middle east has towards the USA, you
reduce
the number of young men ready to get involved into Ossama's plans.

Ossama is like a weed. Once it has taken root, just chopping it off doesn't
garantee it won't regrow. You must really starve it of food. If the USA had
succeeded in killing Ossama in Afghanistan, some new terrorist group, or
even
AlQaeda would have regrown with perhaps even more determination.

Now, after 9-11, dealing with the Taliban was probably necessary. (Had the
Taliban been smart, they would have fully cooperated with the world and
just
have been "incompetant" at finding Ossama. The UN would have had a much
harder
time justifying an outright invasion of Afghanistan and ousting of Taliban
had
the Taliban cooperated.)

What the world did in Afghanistanstirred up a big hornets' nest. What is
needed post Afghanistan is healing to reduce anger towards USA, but Bush
went
the other way and sought to stirr up another hornets nest.

"Nik" wrote in
:

SNIP

The massive military presents in the gulf region is allegedly there to
protect the flow of oil. However, that reason is to me plain and
absolutely nonsense! No matter who will be in power in the different
states there - they will sell oil as surely as the warlords in
Afghanistan (with or without Western support) will sell opium. The oil
will flow from the region with or without military protection. If any
government got to power in the region insisting that the taps be turned
off - they will be out before evening.

But if it is not the oil that is being protected - what or who is then?
I believe that the main interest is the Western oil business in the
region that need to have their investments and profit flows protected
from less friendly - or less corrupted - governments. Remember the Iran
story?

SNIP

I'm not so sure that just anyone in charge would sell us oil (i.e. the
Taliban)...at least not at a reasonable price and cheap oil is very
important to the Western (and much of the Eastern) world's economies. Right
now there is a political structure in place that guarantees stable oil
prices. You may not like the fact that oil is important but it is. And you
can't blame GWB for it, either. Should we wean ourselves off of foreign
oil? Absolutely but I don't think it would be that easy. (Personally I
think the biggest failing of the Clinton administration was not attempting
to move the U.S. to some alternative form of energy. They had the strong
economy to suffer the transitional bumps, plus they [i.e. Gore] championed
the green ideology.)

But this brings up another point. It would be great to leave our oil-based
energy dependency. But, it would probably have some negative economical
consequences in the short term. The economy is such a weapon in politics
that it prevents presidents from making good long-term decisions that might
temporarily affect the economy. It's probably why Clinton didn't do
anything to wean us off oil - it would have temporarily hurt the economy and
been disastrous for his legacy. I feel that giving presidents praise or
blame over the economy is a bad thing for this country. People act as if
the economy can be managed like a sports team - it can't. If it could it
would always be good as there is no viable political reason to have a bad
economy. The only thing government can do to affect it is to put more money
into circulation by lowering taxes, spending more and lowering interest
rates. After that you just have to hope for the best. It's way to complex
(kind of like the weather). Economic fears make presidents do things that
are unwise in the long term or prevent them from doing things that are wise
in the long term.

Plonk, again...

"Bill Jowett" wrote in message
...

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...

The fundamentalists among them dont like the west for the same reason
the Battle of Tours was fought, to convert non Muslims to Muslims.

jay
Sun, Nov 23, 2003


The term "fundamentalist" is extremely unhelpful as it somehow manage to
group together a number of non-related phenomena - both within religions and
across religions. What has been published about some of the 9-11
participants in the period after the incident seems strongly to indicate
that they were not very rigid as far as orthodox Muslim living is concerned.
Sure, there seems also to be people who are living according to rather
strict interpretations of the tradition. But it doesn't seem to be all. If
you have some documentation on your statement - I would very much like to
see it.

Nik.

What, other than the name, makes you think it was Mezei?
Considering that _you_ are the one posting from the anonymous remailer.
--
Alan Erskine
alanterskine(at)hotmail.com

Iraq, America's new Vietnam

"Bill Jowett" wrote in message
...