What is everyone thinking about the news today?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : A Village Commons : One Thread

After all is said and done. How do you feel? What are your thoughts tonight?

-- It's OK to be an INDIVIDUAL as long as your JUST like everyone else! (healthwizard@surfbest.net), October 07, 2001


I was hugely disappointed that two of our nation's four major broadcast networks chose to show NFL football rather than cover news where lives of US military were at risk in armed conflict overseas. I sincerely hope they are raked over the coals for this.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), October 08, 2001.

Gary, Yes its a shame, we should have 3 networks showing football. The is nothing we can do by watching the news to change the outcome of the bombing. The news networks covering the story were dealing in heresay and conjecture, little facts about what was happening.

If you have news give it to us. Interviewing someone who once knew a freiend who saw benLadin is not news.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), October 08, 2001.

I was hugely disappointed that our country has decided to sink to the level of the terrorists. I believe that the attacks should have been treated as a criminal investigation, not an excuse for war. I bet that ole Dubyah is so excited that he got to bomb someone just like his daddy did. The Northern Alliance are just as bad as the Taliban, just wait, in a few years they'll turn around and bite us. Apparently our government didn't learn their lesson with Iraq.

I'd rather watch football. ;-)

-- Sherri C (CeltiaSkye@aol.com), October 08, 2001.

Listen to NPR, Gary in IN, forget network TV. TV is junk food news. They sensationalize whatever they get their hands on and go for the emotional juglar and who needs that? I never learn anything from watching it. Keep your radio tuned and the TV off!

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 08, 2001.

I found it odd that we invaded, even though the Taliban agreed to put bin Ladin on trial. Seems to me negotiation was moving forward. I about choked when I found out the Brits were in on this, too - all those subs and Harriers and nothing to do with them since the Falklands ... Certain branches of the British government seem to have difficulty dealing with the fact that the sun HAS, in fact, set on the British Empire.

Why do we need two more networks rehashing and regurgitating the non-news? There was already too much of that going on. Ever heard of a "news bulletin"? Those things that used to come on during regular programming for a couple of minutes if there was actually anything new to say about something? They'd say it and sign off. Nowadays, seems the less they have to say, the longer they take to say it. Sheesh!

I'd rather watch football, too. And I don't like football.

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), October 09, 2001.

So the Taliban agreed to put bin Laden on trial. For what? If he committed crimes in their country should he not have already been arrested and a trial date set? If the crimes were committed here do we not have the right to ask for, even demand,extradition? All governments we have shown the evidence to are in favor of bin Laden being dealt with. Much of this has bee shared with the Taliban through Pakistan. What further evidence are they waiting on? I agree that the Northern Alliance is not much better than the powers in place now, but I have heard nothing about placing them in power. I have heard talk from our govt. about supporting those in Afghanistan who would work towards peace and economic development. Sounds like the right way to go.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.

I hadn't heard that the Taliban had said they were going to try OBL. Is this true? As far as us demanding them to send him here, I can only say that, before one state can extradite someone from another state, the state where the accused is located has to have a trial to decide if there is enough evidence to extradite him.

Is it so different that the Afghans would want to do the same?

If someone accused, say, Pat Robertson, of terrorism in their country, do you think the US would send him to that country without holding an extradition trial? I don't think so!

HAVE we decided to show the Taliban evidence of OBL's involvement in the events of Sept 11? Last I heard, our govt had refused to do so, citing "matters of national security" or "privacy" or some such.

Can anyone shed some light on this, please?


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 09, 2001.

Sojourner, I'm glad that I'm not the only one bothered by the whole British angle. It seems like every time Bush makes a speech lately, Tony Blair is there in the audience cheering him on. I wonder what sort of deal they've made. I can just imagine Tony saying "So George, you said that your country was going to root out terrorism worldwide, right? Well, I've got this little problem called the IRA that I want you to give me some help with..."

-- Sherri C (CeltiaSkye@aol.com), October 09, 2001.

Joe, One of the last communications from the Taliban before the bombing began was an offer to try him in Afghanistan. We have shown the govt. of Pakistan much of the evidence which points to bin Laden's involvement. Pakistani diplomats have been in contact with the Taliban. How much has actually been shared, I do not know, but we have shared enough with other govts., including those in the Mid- east, to convince them of bin Laden's involvement. Extradition from one jurisdiction to another does not require a trial in the truest sense of that word. What is usually involved is a hearing in front of the local magistrate to determine whether enough evidence exists to hold a trial in the jurisdiction where the crimes are alleged to have occurred. The rules of evidence and burden of proof are far less stringent in this type of proceeding than at an actual trial. If the Taliban wishes to hold this type of hearing, let them produce bin Laden and we can send our prosecutors there to present the evidence. This is far different than trying him in their country, under their rules for crimes he committed here. If another country were to produce credible evidence that Pat Robertson had committed, or conspired to commit, crimes in their territory, I would gladly turn him over to be tried by the proper authorities in that country.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.

Yes, the Taliban had agreed to put him on trial. Further negotiations concerning the exact details of how this was to be done may very well - probably were, in fact - in order. That's what negotiations are about, working out a final agreement. You don't "negotiate" for a few days or a couple of weeks and then unilaterally reject further negotiations because the people you are negotiating with didn't agree to your terms IMMEDIATELY, RIGHT NOW, DO WHAT WE SAY OR WE'LL COME IN THERE AND BLOW YOU ALL TO KINGDOM COME!

That's not negotiation. I believe our government used negotiations as a smoke screen, a shell game to keep the Taliban occupied while we cut a deal with the Brits to help us invade foreign ground. I don't believe our government ever negotiated in good faith. If they had, they would still be negotiating instead of blowing things to smithereens.

It very well may have come to this, or something like this, anyway. But, having started negotiations, our government should have carried through with them until we had either reached agreement, or an actual breakdown in negotiations - NOT caused by us unilaterally rejecting a good faith offer - occurred. Negotiations had NOT reached that point.

We did not negotiate in good faith. Far better that we had never negotiated at all and just invaded (and that wouldn't have been a good thing either), than to fake it and invade anyway.

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), October 09, 2001.

Yes, but do you think that, assuming there would have been a trial, that it would have been fair? They sure don't inspire me that justice is blind there. And besides, they have religious courts, not secular. And with a religious court you can have any decision you want as long as "God" says it's ok. And guess who gets to say what decision "God" made? The Taliban. Right from God's lips to their ear.

As far as the British joining up with us, you DO realize, don't you, that they lost a couple of hundred citizens in NYC? It was the biggest terrorist attack they've ever experienced as well.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 09, 2001.

Well, this all just shows that there are no simple solutions. Which also seems to make sojourner's statement right on. We shouldn't have rushed in so fast.

I share Jennifer's concern about how fair a trial (or hearing, or whatever you want to call it) would be. I guess at some point two countries have to decide whether to have extradition rights, as many countries presently do, and some others don't.

Perhaps the "best" solution would be to have the World Court try OBL, in absentia if necessary, then act on whatever decision came out of this body. That way, at least, the US wouldn't be seen as (and wouldn't BE), the big bad aggressor.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 09, 2001.

Hey, folks, I think I just had a good idea. The world court is now called the International Court of Justice, and both the US and Afghanistan have agreed to abide by its decisions (US in 1945, Afghanistan in 1946)

Here's some very interesting reading on the history, functions, etc of this court. It's too long to post here, with several links. Here's the court's home page:


Why not have Afghanistan and the US lay out their case before the court, have them decide, then abide by the court's decision. The judges on the court come from many, many countries, and each country in a dispute is allowed to have a judge from their country sit on the panel, in the even they aren't already represented by one.

If we can't work it out, at least we have the "blessings of the court" before we go bombing everything in sight.

We can drop bombs while screaming "The Court's On Our Side"


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 09, 2001.

Firstly, no matter how many foreign nationals or foreign born citizens may have died in the World Trade Center, this was NOT a terrorist attack on any country other than the United States. Britain was NOT the target, by any stretch of the imagination. Saying this was the most devastating terrorist attack experienced by BRITAIN is totally facetious. They did not experience it. A couple of hundred people? Come on. More people than that die when one plane crashes. Is it terrible? Yes, but the British people as a whole "experienced" this no more than WE "experienced" the Blitz.

Secondly, who says the trial had to take place in Afghanistan, or that the court would be a religious one, or that, if it were, it would support bin Laden's agenda? Most Moslem leaders do not, in fact, support what he did. Pat Robertson does NOT speak for all Christians, and neither do a handful of Moslem extremists speak for all Moslems.

And finally, just what makes you think bin Ladin would get a fair trial in this country? Justice is no more blind here. In point of fact, he could NOT get a fair trial here, either.

If we had been negotiating in good faith - when I say "we" I mean our government - details such as where such a court would be convened, and who would serve as judge/jury/etc. - would have been worked out IN NEGOTIATION. Not at the end of blazing guns.

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), October 09, 2001.

"Firstly, no matter how many foreign nationals or foreign born citizens may have died in the World Trade Center, this was NOT a terrorist attack on any country other than the United States. Britain was NOT the target, by any stretch of the imagination. Saying this was the most devastating terrorist attack experienced by BRITAIN is totally facetious. They did not experience it. A couple of hundred people? Come on. More people than that die when one plane crashes. Is it terrible? Yes, but the British people as a whole "experienced" this no more than WE "experienced" the Blitz."

It was a terrorist attack, and British citizens died in it, so I'd say that they experienced it. They weren't the target? SO WHAT?! And when a couple of hundred people die in a plane crash, it's an accident. When people die this way, it's murder. The difference between the two is a very large gulf. And as far as the Blitz, we did get into that war. Why shouldn't Britain want to help out with this? Do you think those thousands of relatives in Britain that the people who were killed are related to care where the attack came from? You're arguing semantics, not reality.

"Secondly, who says the trial had to take place in Afghanistan, or that the court would be a religious one, or that, if it were, it would support bin Laden's agenda? Most Moslem leaders do not, in fact, support what he did. Pat Robertson does NOT speak for all Christians, and neither do a handful of Moslem extremists speak for all Moslems."

But in Afghanistan, the only courts are religious ones, and they are run by extremist people. Of COURSE this handful is not like other Moslems. Never said they were. Their religion has nothing to do with it except what they can twist it to do for them. And do you imagine people with that bent of mind are going to say, "oh, yes, good idea to hand Bin Laden over to another court."? I don't think so. At most they would be glad if he went to another country on his own, but they wouldn't hand him over.

"And finally, just what makes you think bin Ladin would get a fair trial in this country? Justice is no more blind here. In point of fact, he could NOT get a fair trial here, either."

Did I say he would? I think it would be hard for him to get a fair trial anywhere.

"If we had been negotiating in good faith - when I say "we" I mean our government - details such as where such a court would be convened, and who would serve as judge/jury/etc. - would have been worked out IN NEGOTIATION. Not at the end of blazing guns."

Well, here's where we really differ. The purpose of what is going on with the US military now is not about justice. It's about making sure that it doesn't happen again. Period. So negotiation doesn't mean a whole lot when the terrorists simply have to go. And I don't believe the Taliban have control over Bin Laden, anyway. So who are you negotiating with? To what purpose?

This same terrorist outfit has been at work for a long time. They bombed our embassies in Africa, they attacked the USS Cole, now they are attacking us in our home. So I don't see much reason at this point for any kind of negotiation. It's gone way beyond that. Six thousand people beyond that. What do you want to do, negotiate until these terrorists can smuggle a tactical nuclear weapon into a major US city in a suitcase?

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 10, 2001.

You made some good points, Jennifer. But let's carry them out to their logical conclusion: what I'm picturing is that the US, with or without the help of our current allies, starts parallel actions against every other country who is expected of "harboring" terrorists. (I'll ignore all the potential US states who could be seen as harboring them)

What's going to happen when we bomb all these other countries back to the stone age? Don't you think this will totally polarize all these countries against the US?

As far as smuggling a nuclear weapon into the US. This is one of many reasons I have participated in nuclear power protests over the last 24 years (Trojan nuclear power plant, summer of 1977). There are huge quantities of weapons grade plutonium "missing" from all the nuclear power plants around the country. Where did it go? No one in the NRC seems to know. It is assumed that it kind of wandered off, possibly was sold to whom? A plutonium aficianado? No, more likely a terrorist organization.

I have long assumed that there were already nuclear weapons stashed in various locations around the US, just waiting for some country or group to use as a lever to get the US to do whatever they want us to do.

Do we want to experience a nuclear explosion in even one city, in order to come to our senses. I hope not.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 10, 2001.

Gosh guys you sure are tense. JOJ I think you may be my age if so Think 2nd year chemistry. Who needs nuclear? Simple things can cause destruction and death. Am I the only one who remembers the case studies of the 1950's? Wish I still had copies of them and the literature on the bomb shelters of that era.

We live with-in 10 miles of one of the largest lithium mines in the USA. Guess what lithium is used to make? We have maps printed in the early 70's showing the mine as a probable target for terrorist and/or nuclear attack. (Boy I feel warm and secure)

Oh Yes My comment on several post above. YES the USA was attacked, NOT Britan. As far as us combining with anyone else during our attacks that's a military call. Not Mine.

This WAR will end at some point. However, I fear it will never be truly Over.

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Just some interesting reading from the Brits. This seems to be more than Bush has told the Americans. Blair Produces Bin Laden Evidence

At the bottom you can download a pdf file that contains the whole document, and I hope you do read the whole thing.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 10, 2001.

JOJ, you are saying that talking is the way to get out of this. I agree fully with you that that's the preferable way of handling any dispute. But where do you find any common ground to negotiate? He's diametrically opposed to us. You can negotiate until you are blue in the face and if there is nothing to compromise on, what have you gained? I'm not a hawk by any means, never have been, but talk is not going to sway Bin Laden. Court rulings won't sway him because god has told him what to do and what's a court ruling next to god's words? He wants a holy war against America. Pretty hard to back down from that in negotiations, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't. So I repeat, where do you negotiate? And if not, what other choices are we left with?

As far as bombing other countries, I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I'd think one country like this is enough on our plates. As well as the fact that other countries would not go along with that kind of behaviour on our part.

Jeez, I'm feeling put upon here. On CS forum I had some nitwit gun lover jump all over me last week for even MENTIONING that I'm in favour of gun control, and now here I'm being jumped on for saying at some point push comes to shove. Sheesh . . . :)

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 11, 2001.

Jennifer, in your earlier posting you objected to trying bin Laden in Afghanistan because it wouldn't be "fair". Then you say he couldn't get a "fair" trial ANYWHERE. Hmm. I'm guessing you just plain object to even considering a trial.

Then you talk about the uselessness of "negotiating until you're blue in the face". I don't think we got anywhere near the "blue" stage.

As far as "negotiating with bin Ladin" (I forget who said that) we weren't negotiating with bin Ladin at all. The negotiators were his former buds in the Taliban. Sorry, but going in and bombing the hell out of a country that's already been bombed by three different governments, including the Taliban, who are virtually invaders anyway, is NOT going to make other terrorists stop and think twice before they ram the next airplane into a skyscraper. They're like cockroaches. You might get some of them, but by and large they'll just scatter and regroup later. They're already spread out all over the globe, some of them right here in the US. It's not a question of bombing one country. You will not come close to getting them all even in that one country.

On the other hand, the possibility of being handed over by your own compatriots because you went too far even for them would tend to go a looooong way towards making the next batch of terrorists think twice.

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), October 11, 2001.

Personally I think it was the other way around. Bush has been consistant in his refusal to "negotiate" and the attempted smoke screen was on the part of the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned the Taliban is as trustworthy as Saddam and just as barbaric.

I had a job once that required me to deal often with arabic and muslim people and I dealt with ALOT of them. They are tough negotiators and will lie, cheat, and steal to gain any kind of advantage, at least the ones I dealt with. One can only hope they are not representative of the whole.

-- john (natlivent@pcpros.net), October 11, 2001.

John, sorry to hear you had such problems dealing our muslim friends. Our company dealt with a much bigger company once and all went well until it was time for them to pay for our work. It took us two years to get our money and they only by paid after we got a firm grip on their testicles. So that was our experience of dealing with Americans. But on the muslim scene I have been to A'stan three times and was never cheated there once.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), October 11, 2001.

Sojourner, if I sound confused, I have very confused feelings on the subject and I'm not the best with words.

But I sure have no problem with putting Bin Laden on trial. Where did you get the idea that I wouldn't want a trial? I just said it's going to be hard for him to get a fair trial anywhere, probably impossible. That doesn't mean you don't put him on trial, it means you make sure he goes on trial in a place you (generic you) can live with the answer the court is going to hand out. In my book, that means he isn't tried in an Afghan court. You say he won't get a fair trial in the US. Well, OK, where do you want him tried, then? Not fair in the US, not fair in Afghanistan, they threw him out of Saudi Arabia where he was born, so you can scratch them. I don't think there are really too many countries who'd even want to try him due to the flack that's going to come from a trial. All of which doesn't mean I don't want him on trial, just that it's going to be really difficult to pull off.

As far as negotiating, the Taliban is not former friends of Bin Laden. They are good friends right now. And also, as I recall the formal postition of the US gov is not to negotiate with terrorists, anyway. The US gov just said hand him over, didn't negotiate in the normal sense of the word. Is negotiation good? Normally I'd say yes. In this case,as I said before, I think it's gone too far. I think we and they are poles apart in their positions and nothing could come of it. As far as compatriots thinking someone has 'gone too far', well, they train these people to martyr themselves. Martyr in a way that the Western mind can't even begin to comprehend. Can you imagine how you can get someone to kill themselves and to take innocents along with them? I can't. Can you imagine that kind of person then thinking, 'maybe we've gone too far?'. I can't. Bin Laden said he was "delighted" when the twin towers fell. That's not even, "gee, it's too bad but it had to be done." That I could understand. But DELIGHTED? And that's the kind of mind set we're dealing with. And before you say no negotiations with Bin Laden, I'll tell you I think he and the Taliban are woven right together at this point and that negotiating with the Taliban is essentially the same thing as negotiating with Bin Laden.

We obviously hold differing opinions and but I hope we both agree that there wouldn't be easy answers to this in any case.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 11, 2001.

The more I read from you folks, the more I realize that there is a lot that I don't know. Even more than I thought!

Jennifer, I'm going to read the pdf shortly, and may make some comments on that document. Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of saving as many lives as possible. I'm not into capitulating to OBL, regardless of his involvement in WTC. I'm just pretty darn sure that bombing Afghanistan, and possibly many other countries (the reason I say this latter, Jennifer, is because GWB has stated that he is not stopping at OBL, nor the Taleban. Depending on which of his speeches you listen to, he is planning to "rid the world of evil", rid the world of evil people", or "rid the world of evil acts". He also has made it very clear that there are "evil people" (terrorists), in many other countries besides Afghanistan. Thus, my assumption that he is capable of carrying out a similar assault on other countries who "harbor and support" terrorists.

I have yet to hear any cogent argument that such military actions (in Afghanistan OR other countries) will stop terrorism, or evil, or evil people from continuing an assault against the US.

OBL states openly that further attacks on Afghanistan will result in further terrorist actions against the US. I don't doubt this is true. So what have we gained?

How seriously have we of the US examined how strongly our foreign policy correlates with the OBL type terroist rhetoric and action? Not very seriously, as far as I can tell.

Just for starters, we bombed an aspirin factory, claiming it was a chemical weapons factory. Threre is little doubt about this. What did our "diplomats" say about this? Did they say, "so sorry" or something sounding more concerned? Did they offer, at the very least, a formal apology and damages to the people killed and/or economically devastated by this action? I never heard about it, if they did.

I'm not trying to portray our government as a bunch of evil men, although I do believe we have plenty to feel remorseful about. I want the govt to examine our foreign relations actions and attitudes, and be open minded enough to realize that there are many, many other countries where America is hated, whether for cause or not, and try to heal the angst and hatred that exists.

I realize that it's a hard call about whom to try, whom to attack, etc, what with the weird relationships between all the parties in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Musselman countries. I, of all people, don't have all the answers. I personally concede that I have put a tiny amount of time researching the situation, and I had a poor grip on the culture of most of these countries even before the WTC business. I would just like for those whose job it is to address conflicts of this sort to ADDRESS this conflict with compassion and thoughtfulness, rather than just "bombing the hell out of 'em".

Onward to Jennifer's pdf.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 11, 2001.

Jennifer, I'm reading your pdf re the guilt of OBL.

First, these papers confirm what I have been hearing for a couple or three weeks. The Taleban gets much of its funding from selling drugs. Although this is off the subject of whether there is substantial evidence of the guilt or innocence of OBL, it does bring to mind the issue of decriminalizing drugs. Take the profit out of drug dealing, and you take a huge bit out of the terrorists' cash flow.

I read half, m/l, the UN Security Council Resolution 1267. Thanks SO much for pointing this document out, Jennifer. I find it very, very pertinent to this discussion. This statement by the UN is exactly the type of act that I have been suggesting here in regards to the WTC bombing. Having the UN's "seal of approval", I still believe, puts the US on much higher moral ground if and when attacks are done against the Taleban, or any other organization

In Paragraph 4 b. of this UN document, it states that all States (UN members, I assume) "(b) Freeze funds and other financial resources, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban, or by any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban, as designated by the Committee established by paragraph 6 below, and ensure that neither they nor any other funds or financial resources so designated are made available, by their nationals or by any persons within their territory, to or for the benefit of the Taliban or any undertaking owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Taliban, except as may be authorized by the Committee on a case-by-case basis on the grounds of humanitarian need;"

WHY DO Y'ALL THINK THE US WAITED FOR TWO YEARS (!) to freeze these funds? I'm sure there must be a reasonable explanation, but I don't see it.

In paragraph 15, the United Nations Security Council "Expresses its readiness to consider the imposition of further measures, in accordance with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations, with the aim of achieving the full implementation of this resolution";

Too bad the UN didn't "impose further measures" before the situation escalated to the extent that it has.

My recommendation, though, is still to put our case before the UN, if not the Court of International Justice then before the Security Council. Get the UN to draw up similar orders, but more quickly this time, and inform the Taleban that the "States of the World" are going to come after OBL, rather than just the USA.

I also believe that, for the US to unilaterally attack Afghanistan, with all the suffering and death this action imposes on innocent Afghan citizen, puts us into a similar moral position that Bin Laden has put himself and the Taleban into. Both sides have made the decision that they, and only they, are "in the right", and acted on this decision by attacks involviing innocents. Bin Laden thinks we are "evil" George W has stated that the terrorists are "evil" I think we are all acting as though we are "evil" when we take the course of action that kills innocent people without exhausting all other avenues first.

I would, I suspect, have to amend my views if the terrorist attacks were to pick up in scope or frequency. That's one reason it's frustrating that the UN Security Council Resolution 1267 was not acted upon more forcefully, and in a more timely manner.

This article by Tony Blair states that :

"Al Qaida functions both on its own and through a network of other terrorist organisations. These include Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other north African Islamic extremist terrorist groups, and a number of other jihadi groups in other countries including the Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and India. Al Qaida also maintains cells and personnel in a number of other countries to facilitate its activities."

If we follow GWB's statements, are we going to bomb all these countries? What possible results will that have other to further alienate the US all over the world, particularly if we attack without the expressed approval of the UN (the nearest equivalent to a consensus of world States)

I am also dubious about the "intelligence" cited by this article; it states all sorts of information about numbers of camps, types of buildings and equipment, etc. Yet, the US, using this type of "intelligence" bombed innocent people in Sudan--the factory they bombed allegedly produced 1/2 the medicine available to the people of Sudan. Has our "intelligence" agencies suddenly overhauled it's fact finding machinery?

Unfortunately, I cannot read the rest of the document by Tony Blair right now. Dinner must be prepared. I'll get back to this tomorrow.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 11, 2001.

Well, I managed to read the rest of the Blair report. I must say that I found the report, as a whole, rather unconvincing.

I'm not suggesting that OBL was NOT behind the attacks, because it certainly SEEMS likely. But Blair's report is filled with suppositions and data which are not backed up in any way.

I also am aware that the first casualty in any war is the truth. Are these statements being made by Blair the truth? I don't know, and won't know without more supporting data.

The one fact he mentioned which I was able to confirm was the UN Security Council Resolution. This is verifiable.

And while I agree with the conclusions the UN made, I do wish they would look at the REASONS OBL has taken the stance he has taken, even though I don't (obviously) agree with his actions.

And I still believe we are proceeding in a way that will cause MORE suffering and death here in the US, rather than less. (Not to mention the death and suffering of innocents in other countries)


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 12, 2001.

I am sure you are quite right JOJ. Just snuffing out this batch of terrorists will do nothing to remove the reasons why they have arisen in the first place, quite the contrary probably as monstering A'stan will encourage many more recruits to the cause.

On the subject of news and reporting I was amused to hear that the airports and TV transmitter were among the main targets in Kabul. Even I know the TV transmitter has been in ruins for many years and the airport at Kabul is littered with maybe 50 derelict aircraft. I hope good amunition is not being wasted on junk!

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), October 13, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ