This remarkable e-mail has been making the rounds – you’ve probably already seen it – launched, apparently, by the college roommate of a man named Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I am obviously no expert in any of this, but to me it seemed well worth reading.

Thu, 13 Sep 2001

Dear Friends, Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished.

But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.

Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time

So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.

And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?

I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion. -- Tamim Ansary

I would like to credit Andy Tobias as my source for the above. While almost my polar opposite politically, Andy is a truly gifted, caring and wonderfully generous person for whom I have great regard.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), September 18, 2001

Answers

Gary,

Very interesting and thought provoking reading. Thanks for sharing it.

-- Murray in ME (lkdmfarm@megalink.net), September 18, 2001.

What if our ground troops went in -- armed and ready -- but rebuilding roads and homes, putting in water supplies, setting up schools and medical facilities, and in general helping the general populace until they actually uncovered the Taliban and bin Laden's people? It would take a while but Iran and Pakistan would probably be thankful to get rid of the millions of refugees camped on their soil, as they would be able to do if the refugees were able to go home and start living their normal lives again.

This may be dreadfully naive, I know that even a lot of the refugees wouldn't welcome our presence in their land, even if we were helping them. And we'd still take a lot of losses.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 18, 2001.

most americans cant comprehendthe situation in many forgen countries where the goverments control only the citys and the countryside belongs to many oposition groops. as for afgahnastan many peoples have tried to conquer it and failed kipling even wrote a poem about the british experience in retreating from kabul ....when you are wounded on afghans fine plain....and the women come out to cut up those who remain.... just roll to your gun....and blow out your brain....and go to your gauwd .....a full man . one forgener remarked to me that we are so lucky that we do not have religious fanatics like the taliban , i said we do they just are not in control here.

-- george darby (windwillow@fuse.net), September 18, 2001.

Kathleen, very good idea. I also don't think the answer is to wage a war against Afghanistan. I think we are opening a can of worms. Nor can we just turn the other cheek. Things are getting complicated! I like your idea and would show that Americans aren't the grubbing war mongerals that the rest of the world precieves us to be.

Another thought might be to offer $5 million to the guy who brings us Bin Laden -- alive or dead! In a country full of poverty, can you imagine what $5 million would mean? I'm sure someone would bring him in!!

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Karen, the 5 million dollar bounty has already been on his head for 3 years, with no effect or takers.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), September 18, 2001.

I was watching General Schartzkopf (sp?), being interviewed the other day and he was mad as ****. He said, here we went into Iraq, and took great pains to bomb only the military targets and to try and stay away from civilians, and then those bastards (his words) intentionally bomb a building of ours that was full of just civilians.... We're not dealing with normal people here. I hope we're really ready for what's coming.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 18, 2001.

Well, i believe that trying to avoid civilians is a very commendable thing but if you blew my family all to hell, I'd be real upset if it was intentional or a slip up and I couldn't care less about your motivation.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Karen, picture this in your mind. Your an islamic. Somehow you capture bin laden and received that 5 million dollar reward. Do you actually think that you are going to get to spend any of it! First of all if you live in Afganistan what are you going to buy? There ain't nothing to buy! Second, you will have to stay on the run and hide because Osama followers are going to be after you. That is why they haven't tried to capture him yet.

-- r.h. in okla. (rhays@sstelco.com), September 18, 2001.

I want to hear opinions on the reconstruction idea as raised by Kathleen please..

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), September 18, 2001.

Hello Folks, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS! Shoot, a couple of "good ole boys" with shotguns and a case a beer could probably take Osama Bin Laden out. Sincerely, Ernest

-- http://communities.msn.com/livingoffthelandintheozarks (espresso42@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001.

i think kathleen's suggestion for reconstruction of afghanistan is the absolutely best solution i have heard yet, frankly! another article a friend sent suggested even with a ground war we would't be able to find our way around there and win...we would have to be led by afghanis (sp?). we are woefully ignorant of the history of the area(at least i have been).

as far as the "religious fanatics" go, think about the ones we have. David Kuresh (sp?) at Waco? The psycho anti-abortionists who think killing abortionists is condonable in the name of Christianity and God? These folks give Christianity a bad name. Heck, often there are tv evangelists that i think give Christianity a bad name! That doesn't mean all Christians are evil. Point being, all Muslims aren't either. It is the same view. The Teliban and Ben Ladin (I have no idea how to spell half of this) are extreme fringe elements I think, but Muslim religious law seems to forbid turning against a Muslim even if they are WRONG and you don't agree with what he is doing (from what I am beginning to understand.)

-- marcee king (thathope@mwt.net), September 18, 2001.

Reconstruct Afghanistan? A country harbours known terrorists and you go in and rebuild their country? Terrorists and Afghanistan are certainly related, but still two different problems. What is to happen if the Taliban hands over Bin Laden? Does the American government just let Afghanistan be?

-- Dawg (BigDawg@not.com), September 18, 2001.

We tried the reconstruction/rebuild win the locals over in Vietnam for a few years, you see where that got us. There is just too much opposition there to go in as a "branch of peace" operation. The taliban would never allow it and would destroy as soon as we rebuild.

I personally would enlist a group of Israeli hit men to train an elite group of Americans and Russian commadoes to go in and get Bin Laden and his crew via the northren border. Israel knows how to handle these folks and Russia also has experience with the terrain and people. By entering via the northern border, Pakistan is bypassed; this keeps their taliban locals' beef against there government quiet. But I'm afraid this may be a little to risky to individual lives. America likes to just blanket the area indiscriminately from 40,000 feet with heavy bombers so no one gets hurt or sneaks in with Stealth bombers and cruise missles. I believe this is what is meant by "having the stomach" to do what must be done. America likes to fight a sanitized war where American fatalities are kept low...got to go in with ground troops...it is the only way.

-- jackM (jlrclr@earthlink.net), September 19, 2001.

While killing Bin Ladin would certainly be cathartic, it would also be of absolutely no real help. He dies, and (if not 100) at least a great many others fight each other and the world to take his place, probably using the west as a bombing range to see who can out-jihad the others and gather all the faithful to their flag.

The fact is, even if Bin Ladin is behind this attack, financially or just as a figurehead (and I'll grant you that for the sake of argument), this was quite likely the result of a coalition of groups with many different heads at lower levels, with massive amounts of funding (possibly financially backed by Iraq), and with no compunction against continuing the fight indefinately, Bin Ladin or no Bin Ladin.

If we go in and kill him and his immediate surrounding supporters, we have, in all reality, just cut off the big and visible head, while the body (which lives on and on) goes underground. For a recently applicable analogy, consider the Napster disaster. Yeah, they tamed the big guy, but now there are literally thousands of blackmarket shareware programs for doing the same thing out there, some with server-based programs (easy to kill) and some that are purely user to user - immortal from the cyber standpoint. The gov. will never be able to go after even a handful of them. They won Napster, but lost the battle.

Same situation here, but immeasurably higher stakes. A better solution needs to be found immediately, before we play the sorcerer's apprentice with these terrorists.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), September 19, 2001.

JackM, I think you are probably right, hence my hesitation about even suggesting reconstruction. It would have to be accompanied by getting rid of the Taliban and getting their opposition into power.

I also agree with the statements about it being somewhat futile to get rid of Osama bin Laden, as other groups would just take over where he left off. However, it would, I think, serve some purpose to get rid of as many terrorists as we can find, and be constantly on the watch for any that come out of hiding. Seems like it would at least slow them down and make their jobs a little more difficult.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 19, 2001.

Reconstruction of Afghanistan.

There has been a degree of reconstruction under the Taleban. The power is back on in Kabul after a break of a few years, road reconstruction continues including the highway to Jalalabad, a countrywide communications system has been installed for the support of civil aviation. Until last week the flight information centre at Kabul was providing communications facilities and safe overflight facilities to about 140 international airliners each day. Parts of the telephone system have been restored.

The Taleban are not a popular government whereas in South Vietnam the incumbent government was very unpopular.

You will never see a Taleban minister being driven in anything more ostentatious than a small Toyota pick up.

So here are the choices:

1: Blow the place up again, kill a few tens of thousands (innocents or not) then leave the rubble until the same, but bigger, problems arise again.

2: Destroy the country again (not forgetting the teen-age war widows and their starving infants) then reconstruct either forcing the Taleban out of power or inducing them to change.

3: Save a lot of money and US lives by just reconstructing on condition that the Taleban introduce acceptable reforms.

Remember that OBL first came to prominence not at a terrorist or even freedom fighter but as an investor and reconstructor in war ravaged countries like Yemen.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), September 19, 2001.

This is an article from the Salon.com website. Lots of good political dialog there. I have a separate shorter post on CS re: this. This is the first article I've read by Tamim Ansary.

-- Anne (HealthyTouch101@wildmail.com), September 19, 2001.

I think the idea of reconstructing Afghanistan shows a frightful degree of ignorance of human nature.

-- Rick#7 (rick7@postmark.net), September 19, 2001.

Rick7, I think your comments show a remarkable ignorance of Afghanistan.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), September 19, 2001.

I think that this Newsweek article says it best...."The United States can arm and threaten and perhaps even retaliate here and there. But only Muslims can shed Islamist extremism through self-policing. If the Quran is to be believed, Allah Himself requires as much".

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 19, 2001.

When you're wounded and left, On Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out, To cut up your remains, Just roll on your rifle, And blow out your brains, And go to your Gawd, Like a soldier."

Rudyard Kipling

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), September 19, 2001.

One thing no one has taken iinto consideration here is that Afghanistan is made up of many tribal groups, not all who agree with each other. Possibly a bit more assistance to the groups controlling the northern part of the country, along with appeals and aid to those elsewhere of a more western bent would bring the Taliban down quicker than air strikes or ground troops. The flaw to this is that any US involvement in the region is seen as bad by some groups, especially those opposing the "represive" regimes we support. The Taliban and other extremists in this region will not be swayed by our logic. We have found on this board that religion doesn't lend itself to logical discussion. At a certain point you believe what you believe and they believe different than us. No amount of discourse will change this. There is no right or wrong, there is only your right or wrong. by this token, we should do whatever we can to make it difficult for terrorists to get funding and logistical support from anyone, be they a government or an individual. Anyone supporting terrorism is no better than the terrorist themselves (probably worse because, at this point they are unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice) and should be removed from a place where they can exercise influence. if it takes killing some, so be it.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.

When you threaten our shores, so cruely and mean, and our People rise up, the likes you've never seen, just hide in your caves, and shiver and squirm, we're coming to get you, but it'll be on our terms.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 19, 2001.

john, please try, even though I understand it is hard to do when there is so much outright ignorance, to be positive if you could. Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans have very little awareness that England has sustained death of civilians in this horror equal to if not greater than they have experienced since WWII. Human beings from 50 different countries lost their lives in this act of mass murder. We can only hope that some degree of reason will prevail and we will not outrage our allies and the Muslem people throughout the world by the mass killing of innocent people in our rush to retaliation.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.

There must be a right action to be taken. The reconstruction idea seems to be the closest thing I've heard so far. Most people everywhere are really just regular folks, trying to feed their families. No matter where they live, it can't be right to hurt them like some *%&#s hurt us. And worse. They don't have the resources to rebuild the nothing they already have. Obviously we have to take steps to protect ourselves. But it does not have to mean war and my heart is sick thinking of what this might turn into. This is a time to be praying not just for America, but for the whole world.

-- witness (sickatheart@home.org), September 19, 2001.

Diane, I believe most Americans realize how many English citizens were also killed, it has been well broadcast. So as you see, we are not so ignorant.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 19, 2001.

"Tens of thousands", "Mass killings" of innocent civilians. I have been thinking of these statements, that America is perceived to be going over to Afghanistan to slaughter innocent civilians. Do you know how many civilians were killed in the Gulf War? 2300. Not even half of what were killed in a few hours in New York City. I do not believe we are a Nation that intentionally tries to kill innocent civilians of other countries. And for a little history...

1983 truck bombing US Embassy and Marine Corps in Lebanon

1984 bombing in Beirut

1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847

1993 bombing WTC, NY, NY

1998 bombing US Embassy, East Africa

2000 bombing USS Cole

2001 bombing WTC, NY, NY

Now, wonder what the casualties are?

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 20, 2001.

Annie..........don't believe I said that an one particular person was ignorant. The continuation of a system of hate and retaliation has never brought peace. The notion that bombing a nation to create hell as suggested by Rick was not created in a vaccum and confined to one person. THAT mentality comes out of ignorance IMHO and will create a bigger group of terrorists who would justify further terrorist actions as we have witnessed.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

Yikes, it makes me shudder to read what some of you are saying. Already you are starting to hedge and make up excuses as to why it would be wrong to retaliate. WAKE UP!! Islamic radicals don't respond to being nice. They hate western civilization and consider it an honor and reward to die killing us. Think about it. Most of the 19 terrorists lived among us for 2 years. They more or less became Americans. Do you think any of them had regrets? NOT! You can not deal with uncivilized ignorance with warm-fuzzies. Come on people> Don't start waffling already. They just murdered your own innocent men, women and children intentionally. You are already starting to worry about accidently deaths of civilians in a war??

They perceive us just as some of you are acting. No stomach, no guts! They know some like you will protest as soon as innocent civilians of theirs are killed and injured by accident! You want to protest the killing of innocents? Protest against them for killing your own countryman. Aren't they worth as much effort? Don't let this become another Vietnam war. PLEASE, don't let our serviceman down like you did in Vietnam, please. Stand by them. Support the government; that is who they work for. As one who experienced the awful events of Vietnam, I plead with you to not repeat history and allow kids to die for nothing; see this one through. War isn't pleasant; it is hell. But these guys are terrorists, they have no remorse. Only hate. Read the posted letter again. The terrorist see you as an alley against the US government. Now isn't the time to start getting jelly spined. Stand up and support what must be done.

My God people, wake up. The world isn't the idealistic-intellectual place you have it fixed in your brain as being.

Try reasoning with a grizzly bear sometime by offering a hand of grain...God have mercy on us if their are many more of you "civilized intellectuals" who are already getting scquimish. This action will never see its finish. And terrorism will continue like it has in the past.

-- JackM (jlrclr@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001.

I like the idea of rebuilding and helping the common folk overthrow the Taliban. That's assuming they would get behind such an effort. Certainly they must have some underground groups which are against the current leadership.

I agree wholeheartedly with Diane, that all out war will not help anyone in the long run. This was a horrible tragedy, but it's time to really think and not react solely on emotion.

-- Denise (hammj@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

Interesting that the only places I've heard talk of all out war and killing of civilians is on web sights and talk radio. Our government has bee very restained in their rhetoric, addressing threats only to those responsible and to those who support these actions. By this, I think they mean the governments of these countries and those who support them. Attacks, when and if they come, will likely be directed at military and govt. targets and training bases used by the terrorists. None of the groups fall under the category of innocents. If removing them removes the power base of the govt. and allows a new, more pro-peace govt. to take over, then good has been done. The opposition in Afghanistan holds 20-25% of the territory and has pledged up to 30,000 armed fighters and intelligence support to our cause of getting the Taliban to dissapear or moderate. Do any of you think we don't already have personnel on the ground talking to them?

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

Jack, IMO we let our solders down in Vietnam long before people started questioning the war. People who asked questions BEFORE we committed so many troops to a civil war which was none of our business were labeled as traitors. Then when we lost it was the people of peace who were blamed. That retoric will NEVER wash with me. THIS IS THE TIME to ask the questions, and talk among ourselves. NOT after we have thousands of our young people coming home in body bags. Do I feel disloyal to the people who have died. NO, I just do not believe for one minute that justice has to mean war. We are talking about global survival here and hatred only begets more hatred. Some of this retoric is hateful and I will ALWAYS stand against that. No place have I heard anyone waffle about wanting JUSTICE. The people how did this are mass murderers and have committed a crime against all humanity.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

Diane. You are either too young to remember Vietnam or too idealistic to accept the historical truth of events. Either way, I was there, I was treated like a murderer for being drafted and sent off to fight and perhaps die for a cause my government, right or wrong, felt worthy. The protesting was non-existent before 1964...and it wasn't heard until after the tet of 1968 when folks here saw a chance that maybe the US couldn't win that war. Of course, many protesters just were afraid to be drafted and sent over their. I too protested the war in 1966 and 1967, I was a long haired hippie kid who didn't want to die. A worthy cause? Survival always is.

Even tho I protested against the war, but when I was there, I did the best I could because the guy next to me depended on me for survival. I was his support, he was mine. But those here who continued to protest didn't understand that by doing that, they underminded anything we did there...I didn't realize that until I was over there. It is not very reasurring to a scared kid to know people who are supposed to be supporting you hate you for doing what your country has asked you to do. I'm not sure now that the war in Vietnam wasn't our responsibility: they were our alley; they asked for our help; and now, many of the Vietnamese that we were fighting for live here in the US because they can never return home. They believe in democracy and their country is communistic. Double standard being, why didn't you have any of your gushy feelings for the thousands and thousands of Vietnamese who were murdered by the Communists? Weren't their lives worth us fighting for? Tell that to a Vietnamese-American the next time you see one...tell them you didn't want our country to help them...make it personal.

Folks need to get off their high-horse and just give some irrational support. Just pretend for a year or two that you are supportive of the government that gives you the freedom to disagree. If not for the sake of the country, for the sake of the guys who are going to be tossed into this whether they want to or not. Right now, you are waaaay the minority, just like with Vietnam, but in a year of two, when we get tired of this war and death, you and your ilk will again be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. And our military "kids" will again be "hung out to dry." I'm not in favor of war, but I don't make the decisions; I will always support the military guys, because I know first hand what is to be not only abandoned, but to take on the wrath of those protesting the government. I whince to think of what this country will be when the depression/wwii people and their irrational patriotism are dead and gone. Like it or not, that is what makes a country great, patriotism. I better quit before I start getting disgusted with myself. just support the kids in the service and the president.

-- JackM (jlrclr@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001.

Jack, I am sorry for your pain. There was an element that did bad things to our solders. My very close friend was killed on my birthday in 1966 in Vietnam. I had family members that served. There were people in 1963 who were against our involvement in that war. One of them was our president who was assassinated. I really think you probably will not take a look at our history as a nation in the destabilization of governments we don't like, so I am wasting my breath and setting myself up for further redicule. Actually, I don't think that I am in the minority at all...........just one of the stupid ones who still believes we should be able to speak our hearts before it is too late. God bless you and God bless the world.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

Diane, don't stop speaking out! It's because of your speaking out that I decided to try to speak out also. There are many of us that feel the way we do. But they won't let themselves be known for fear of ridicule. We can't stop trying to point the way to a more peaceful way to proceed in this matter.

-- Denise (hammj@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

I don't see Diane and Jack as far apart as they seem to feel they are. I agree with Diane, that bombing Afghanistan is only going to make another generation of "America is the Devil" children, our children will then be dealing with. I also totally understand Jack's statement, and we will blinding go to war, we will support our troops, until the body count starts up on the evening news, then we will cry foul. American's simply don't have the stomach for this! We forget much to easy. You only have to watch the television to see this, all of this affected those in New York much more than us here in Texas. Life is going on as usual here, while raw emotion is still eviedent in any interview you see of those nearer to it. Yes, I think we will all forget way to soon. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

Denise, I was just listening to the news and statements from the Secretary of Defense etc. I believe that our voices have been heard and the world is also saying the same thing. I am now chosing to pray unceasingly for my leaders, my solders, which by the way Jack I happen to have a son who is somewhere that none of us know where. HE and I are in agreement about speaking out NOW rather than later and I do not intend to undermine my President or my son as this WAR unfolds. I personally would prefer NOT TO PRETEND but to be able to fully support my President and my solders. When the commander in chief starts calling for "wanted dead or alive" I just get terribly squimish. Perhaps I am truly wrong and the only way to fight terrorism is to talk like a terrorist. And yes Vicki........when the bodies start coming home to Dover the country will start wondering. I have seen it already here in Michigan.........people complaining already about the inconvience etc. Blessings to all and get those homesteads strong!!!!

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

Thank you Jack!!!!

I'm glad we have one supporter.

Hugs,

Pauline, wife of a soldier.

-- Pauline (tworoosters_farm@altavista.com), September 22, 2001.

Ladies, the bodies are ALREADY home. Over 6,000 of them. Maybe when 60,000 or 600,000 Americans are killed in their homeland you will start to understand. Sometimes a cancer has to be eradicated before it spreads to far.

-- Joe (CactusJoe001@AOL.com), September 22, 2001.

If we kill Osama Bin Laden, he becomes a martyr and he wins.
We go in a bomb the place like crazy, we face opposition here and from the rest of the world, we kill a lot of people who happen to be in the way, they weather it and in their eyes they still win.
If we just let it go, we suffer an extreme loss of face and can expect more attacks- they win again.

What might work, IMHO is if we can find some way to undermine Bin Laden and cause him to suffer a loss of face in the eyes of his supporters. Bombing Iraq didn't seem to affect Saadam very much. We are dealing with a different thought process than the one we use. Humiliation and a sense of betrayal by their leader could be far more effective than simply going in and killing everyone in sight.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), September 22, 2001.

Joe, I think your analogy of a cancer is a good one, and believe me I understand better than you think I do. Do you really think it has not gone "to far". 60 countries, that we know of. Add it up.

I used to be a chemo nurse in a inpatient oncology unit. Everyone has been trying to find a cure for cancer since I was a child (more years ago than I like to admit) Haven't done it. I keep wondering if they really looked for the CAUSE and stopped poisoning and killing the patient with all the CURES what would happen to all that money used for the cures.

We will never cure hatred with more hatred and trying to use weapons to kill the cancer of hatred is about as sensible as fighting a fire with gasoline. Everywhere I look I see more and more hatred and trying to kill it IMHO with war will just kill the patient eventually.

On one of the forums they are sure we are headed for a one world government and that is what this is all about. I say we already have a one world government and have for a long time. It would have us hate each other for any number of reasons and sells us all weapons to kill each other. It pushes a culture of greed and consumerism and would have the whole world be just the same. It always has to have an enemy to fight because without that enemy it could not push its product.

I have never been or considered myself to be a radical anything. BUT TODAY I AM. All my life I have heard my country declare one enemy after another and building bigger and bigger killing machines. Training and arming the most radical elements all over the world to kill the big enemy at all costs. Now those radical enemies hate us and everything about western civilization.

I would imagine your numbers are WAY LOW Joe............when they finally count the losses maybe EVERYONE WILL GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 22, 2001.

Did anyone else see the special tonight on CNN, "behind the vail"? I don't think that the USA will have to worry about killing innocent civilians, the Taliban has been doing it for years, so much so, that, along the borders, Afghanistan has some of the worlds largest refugee camps and has for years. And if you're a woman watching this show, it will sicken you, on how they treat the women in this country. I could hardly believe what I was watching. It was secretly filmed by a British woman journalist, whose father was originally from Afghanistan. If it is rebroadcast, please don't miss it. To say the least, a real eye opener.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 23, 2001.

I don't think that the USA will have to worry about killing innocent civilians, the Taliban has been doing it for years, so much so, that, along the borders, Afghanistan has some of the worlds largest refugee camps and has for years.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense to me. The Taliban has been killing innocents for years, so it doesn't matter if we do too? I imagine the people in the refugee camps are still trying to stay alive and prefer to stay alive. Really, what did you MEAN by that sentence?

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), September 23, 2001.

Joy, the way some were talking on this forum, was that the USA were the bad guys and would be going over to randomly bomb civilians of a peaceful country. We could never to more harm to the country, than the Taliban are doing now. You're probably thinking, yea sure. But belive me, after watching that show last night, I literally could not believe how oppressed the people of this country are, especially women, and the fear they live in day to day, because of the Government they now have. If anything, I have alot more sympathy and respect for the average citizens and I honestly pray that no civilians be harmed. Sigh....it's hard to write it down on this darn computer, I wish you could have seen the show.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 23, 2001.

Its difficult for me to believe that people seem so ignorant of what's been going on in Afghanistan for the past several years. It's great that you are finding out now, but where the heck have people been? Doesn't anyone pay attention to world affairs? I realize our media does a lot of filtering so we have to make extra effort to seek out the real deal, but I am still amazed!

My teenage daughters have been railing and writing about what the Taliban has been doing to women for about four years! Spreading the word in their "zines" and rallying young women to write letters, say prayers and light candles for these unbelievably oppressed people, particularly the women and girls.

Like Joy, I don't understand the reference to the refugees either. The fact that these terrified people are hiding and trying to flee from these zealots who have taken over their country puts them once again in harms way from the possibility of being blown away by OUR war efforts where they are attempting to find sanctuary.

We shouldnt worry about them?? I beg to differ! We should worry plenty, and we should be helping them, and should probably have been doing so long before this crisis hit OUR shores.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), September 23, 2001.

I meant the statement in a sarcastic tone in response to the people that think the USA is the only ones who could be threatening to the Afghan people. And there have been quite a few of these statements. I have seen many posts about the USA bombing innocent civilians, but not one before I posted about the show I saw last night, on how really bad the people were treated by their OWN government. The author at the start of this thread, states "They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban". Just how do you both propose the USA do that? Do you think the Taliban will go down peacefully? Or will we have to go to war with them and innocent people be killed accidentally? And I MEAN accidentally, because we don't intentionally kill civilians, as their government does. And I believe that the people are right NOW better off in the camps by the border where we know where they are and they'll be safer and hopefully out of the way of bombs. So,what then do we do? A little note...I do not generally watch the news on tv and I will admit I knew little about the Afghan people. Does that make me an idiot? So be it.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 23, 2001.

"because we don't intentionally kill civilians". This is an interesting statement. In desert storm, you will recall the use of "human shields" to protect targetted sites. I have no idea how this is relevant to the current discussion, but it does make you think.

-- Dawg (Dawg@not.com), September 23, 2001.

Annie, nobody thinks you're an idiot.........even if you were an avid network TV watcher, you probably would know very little about the Taliban. Our major media paid very little attention to it; one had to read the alternative press to find out this info in any detail. After all, we have no oil interests there, no markets for our goods. Just a bunch of helpless women being butchered. You have lots of company in your shock about this stuff, and are to be applauded for sharing it with the forum.

Blessings,

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), September 23, 2001.

US Foreign Interventions and Invasions since Vietnam

Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Continued actions condemned by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.

Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.

Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.

Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.

Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.

Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.

El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human rights violations.

Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war, mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions condemned by the United Nations World Court.

Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.

Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.

Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.

Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO from territory.

Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United Nations.

Iraq 1987-88 - US supports and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq in war against Iran.

Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290 civilians. Claims it was an "accident".

Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it "collateral damage".

Philippines 1989 - US supports corrupt govt of Ferdinand Marcos against citizen uprising.

Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+ Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA asset. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of American States.

Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns Kuwaiti Monarchy accused of human right abuses to throne.

Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000 Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result.

Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first freely elected governments.

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.

Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and para-military so far.

Bosnia 1993 - US naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to remove elected President Aristide, then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President after he agrees to US conditions of rule.

Sudan 1998 - US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.

Afghanistan 1998 - US missiles kill 28 civilians

Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists.

-- none (nohatemail@please.com), September 24, 2001.

Dawg, I didn't know about the human shields. Did we use humans as shields, or did the Iraq government? I am asking a simple question, nothing else intended. Earthmama, thanks. I am really trying to get a grip on all that is going on, and sometimes it is overwhelming, to say the least. Hence, my mischoice of words to cause this misunderstanding. This morning on CNN, I saw the lady who did the documentary I was writing about, being interviewed. When asked what the US should do, she said we should be very careful as to not harm civilians, THEN she said we should STAY in Afghanistan after the Taliban are overthrown, to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again and not abandon the country as the Russians did!!! So, that theory brings us to what "none" posted. I just hope and pray that this administration, does what is best for all.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 24, 2001.

Iraq used civilians as human shields, including hiding their military operation underneath hospitals (civilian). They also used children as front-line cannon fodder.

As for that list above of US "misdeeds", while I don't think we ought to be playing global cop, perhaps the person who posted the list would also like to post the reasons behind each one of those actions.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 24, 2001.

Just got back to this thread. Thanks for the explanation, Annie. I understand better now what you meant, although I'm not sure I agree. I, too, have known about the Taliban's war on Afghan women for a number of years. I've gotten, at least 3 times, an email petition to sign that will supposedly be sent to the Taliban to protest their treatment of women. Not that I think they would pay any attention to such an email.

This whole thing gives me a headache, on top of the heart ache. Kathleen, probably the person who posted that whole list copied it from somewhere. It sure does provide food for thought. If you know the "reasons" behind all or any of those "actions", why don't you post them?

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), September 24, 2001.

Joy, absolutely no hard feelings here. I love a good, honest discussion from all sides, as long as it stays civil. Although it's really hard on this computer to accurately put down ones' thoughts in words! (Didn't realize just how hard)! Besides, discussing is the only way to learn, even when we might have disagreements. Thanks for your posts.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 24, 2001.

Yes, Iraq used human shields. Is this an indication of their value for human life? An act of desperation? Does it raise the question: How do you fight an enemy who has a completely different set of values?

There is a huge difference between civilian casualties and civilian targets.

-- Dawg (Dawg@not.com), September 24, 2001.

No, I don't know the reasons for the list of actions above, that's why I asked. Does anybody know? One thing I am sure of, there had to've been some reason given. Whether it was valid or not is another thing. But to just post a list of "America did this" and America did that" without giving the reasons for the actions? Seems to me to be a deliberate effort to denigrate and make out that we aren't any better than the terrorists we are facing. Which I suppose is exactly what they are thinking, but if we start thinking it, then we might just as well surrender, let them come in, and take over. Do you want the same kinds of human rights abuses here on our soil? Do you want your daughters treated the way they are treating their own girls?

The United States isn't perfect, I have serious doubts about the motivations of some of the key players in much of what's gone on in the world for lo, these many years, and that includes our own government. But what is the alternative?

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 24, 2001.

Earthmama, what you say is so true. There are so many US citizens that knew little or nothing about the plight of Afghan women and children until the recent terrorist events. I heard about the problem in Afghanistan in the late 90's when I lived in London and this problem was well televised on British TV. My heart has always gone out to the oppressed women and children in that country.

-- amy (acook@in4web.com), September 24, 2001.

Here's some ideas on 'why' our government does the things it does:

US. .. It's Money, Not Morals

Who Are The Real Terrorists?

Common Sense Almanac

And Canada is perhaps not blameless either?

Canada The Peacemaker

Peace,

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), September 24, 2001.

While I have not had time to go through "none's" list, I am old enough to remeber certain things and so I have a few questions. On the list was Cuba and us having economic sanctions against them. So, are we to lift them and Castro stay in power? It seems the human rights organizations prefer this. Then, will the US be critized for supporting a dictatorship, as "none" suggested we do in other countries? Same with Serbia,Iraq, Lybia etc...What is to be done with the dictators? Leave them in office and let the chips fall? I think Cuban-Americans would tell you differently. Is it the suggestion of Human Rights Organizations, for us to be pacifists? Are we to be isolationists? I'm really interested in what their theory is on how to deal with corrupt governments. If we send money for humanitarian relief, the dictators get it. Africa. If we turn our backs, we're condemned for not caring. If we get involved militarily, we're war mongers. Get the drift? Whatever we do, someone is not happy. President Mubarik (sp?) of Egypt was asked the other day if they will be behind the US, in the fight against the terrorist. He said that yes, they would, and if the Human Rights organization who critize Egypt in the way they handle terrorists, would be only half as concerned about the 6000 or more killed in NYC, we might be able to do something about it.

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 25, 2001.

Not trying to fight with you, Annie, but the US gov't. HAS supported dictators, even helped put them in place. The difference was that those dictators were thought to be likely to serve American interests -- so they were 'good' dictators. Castro doesn't so he is a 'bad' dictator. I say we shouldn't be supporting ANY dictators!

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), September 25, 2001.

Joy, I agree with you, I don't think we should support any dictators. No fight, I promise. :) My question was, then what do we do about the dictators? Ignore them and hope for the best?

-- Annie (mistletoe@kconline.com), September 25, 2001.