RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Thoughts on the Bin Laden tape(40 posts)

Thoughts on the Bin Laden tapeMe Dot Org
Dec 13, 2001 10:29 AM
I've only seen it once. Yes, he implicates himself in the planning of 9/11.

What to me is more interesting is that we are given a look him in a "social" situation (althought the meeting is obviously somewhat formal).

I guess the most chilling thing about the tape is that all of their actions pertaining to 9/11 are seen as doing the work of Allah. Bin Laden says that there has been an increase in interest about Islam since 9/11, and that is a good thing for the faith. The conversations are liberally peppered with "Allah be praised" or "by the will of Allah".

When you see the will of God for justification of violence against innocents, what is the nature of the God you worship?
No surprises in it, though.cory
Dec 13, 2001 10:50 AM
What I wonder about is why we're supposed to be surprised that bin Laden is happy the attacks succeeded. We've already determined (or at least decreed) that he was behind them, and we've killed certainly tens of thousands of Afghans in response. But now it's supposed to be news that, hey, he's GLAD his plan worked? Hard to see any difference between his happiness over his success and, say, Gen. Franks or Sec. Rumsfeld gloating over the success of OUR attacks. It's all dead folks.
Lots of differencesJon
Dec 13, 2001 2:31 PM
The difference is that we're going after combatants and trying to avoid civilian casualties. The
terrorist purposely targets non-combatants for the psychological effects. The other big
difference is that our government is defending its population from further attacks, while
Muslim extremists would like to completely destroy Western secular societies. There
are worlds of difference between the two approaches and the two world-views.
Well, it's nice to think so...cory
Dec 13, 2001 4:52 PM
Don't misunderstand--I'm a Vietnam vet, and I support the American view and the military response. But if you think Afghan civilians aren't being killed, probably by the thousands, you're almost certainly wrong. How do you "aim" a 15,000-pound bomb that levels everything for nearly half a mile, like the daisy cutter? I'm sure that's one reason casualty figures haven't been released--as long as we don't know, or can pretend we don't know, it's easier to feel righteous. Same thing happened in Iraq, remember--the military and the government talked soothingly of "minimal collateral damage," we all cheered because only the bad guys were dying--but when it was over, we'd killed at least 200,000 people. It may be unavoidable, at least if you put American interests ahead of the rest of the world's, but it's sure nothing to cheer about.
aggressorsDog
Dec 13, 2001 5:21 PM
I think the difference is "who was the aggressor?" When a nation/state (here, arguably Afghanistan/Taliban) attacks another, they place at risk their civilian population.

When Germany invaded the rest of Europe, it endangered its civilian population. Same with Japan. No country defending itself can be expected to fight a war without killing its opponent's civilians when incidental to making war. If any country felt bound not to kill civilians, it would be impossible to fight effectively. The opponent, knowing this, would place its military personnel and assets right among its civilians, and therefore make them immune from attack. That is the sickest and most cowardly form of governing, in my book. Sort of like a father shielding himself with his own child.

I think a moral and responsible government in times of war should take great care to minimize civilian casualties. The balance of that care vs. effective defense and retaliation is not easy, either strategically or morally. Should Truman have A-bombed Japanese cities? Maybe not, but it ended the war nearly immediately, saving thousands of American lives. It must have been a terribly agonizing decision.

The reality of the world as it is today is that there are very bad people living in it. Sometimes those bad people get control of governments and weapons. Sometimes the moral decision is as simple of "either us or them?"

I don't think anyone is cheering that Afghan civilians are dying. I think some are cheering (out of relief) when the Taliban die - for then we can sleep a little better at night. Any time a cold blooded killer, or a group of them, can be defeated, that is a good thing.

The Taliban/Afghan government (to the extent the Taliban run the place, which is diminishing daily since the initial attack), could have COMPLETELY avoided its own civilian casualties by turning over the terrorist leaders. They refused. They are responsible for the consequences. There is no other way to view it, that I can tell.

Dog
IntentJon
Dec 13, 2001 6:47 PM
Cory,

No one is denying the reality of civilian casualties. My point, if you'll reread it, is about intent.
Unintended and unavoidable civilian casualties are far different from a moral perspective than
the intentional murder of thousands of civilians in order to intimidate and demoralize an
enemy. There is also a difference, in case you hadn't noticed, between self-defense
and aggression.
What should we do then?peloton
Dec 13, 2001 8:39 PM
It's horrible that Afgans are dying over there. I am sure no one feels good about that. What do we do though with someone like Bin Laden who has a government who won't turn him over? Ask him and his group to please leave us alone? If anyone who complains about our military effort can come up with another suggestion that will end the threat of further terrorism blantantly aimed at innocent civilians I will vote for it. Until then though, I'm all for our government doing what it has to to protect us and the rest of the world against this kind of lunacy.
Well said - nmErik W
Dec 13, 2001 10:04 PM
WrongJason H
Dec 14, 2001 7:32 AM
The U.S. military targets civilians as part of its strategic aims today just as it did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and across Korea and Vietnam, where millions died.
A look at recent U.S. wars against Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Sudan is just as convincing that civilian targets are openly admitted military goals. Tactics aimed at destroying civilian infastructure always leads to civilian deaths, sometimes long after the fighting ends. Protraying the U.S. military as NOT targeting civilians is propaganda fed to a hopefully naive public.
Just one examplezzz
Dec 14, 2001 10:13 AM
On Feb 13, 1991 in Baghdad two bombs hit an Amariyah civilian bomb shelter resulting in the deaths of over 1500 women and children. The first bomb opened a hole in the shelters roof. The second bomb, much bigger and more powerful, traveled through that hole and blasted its way through two floors to the bottom floor of the shelter, where it exploded. The first bomb hit at 4:30 a.m. It did not kill everyone. Neighborhood residents heard screams as people tried to get out of the shelter. They screamed for four minutes. Then the second bomb hit, killing everyone. The screaming ceased.
This bomb shelter was targeted because the U.S. knew it was used by the wives and children of Iraq military and government officials.
Just one exampleJon
Dec 14, 2001 10:33 AM
I had not heard this one. What was your information source,and who concluded that this
building was targeted because it was known to shelter women and children? This is not
argumentative; just new information to me.
Just one examplezzz
Dec 14, 2001 11:26 AM
The shelter was in a suburb of Baghdad where many families from people in the government lived. The neighborhood was under intense surveillance by U.S. planes and satellites and ground observation. There was no way for the Pentagon not to have known who was using the shelter.
There are numerous accounts of this strike. In the 1992 book "The Fire This Time", written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Mr. Clark has three U.S. military officials confirming the Pentagon knew the usual occupants of the shelter and that the bomb shelter was hit because the Pentagon wanted to intensify the pressure on Iraq military and government officials. Confirmation was also gotten by a reporter for the French Press Agency and a reporter for the German daily newspaper, the Frankfurter Rundschau. The Rundschau ran a number of stories about it.
Three U.S. Military OfficialsMe Dot Org
Dec 14, 2001 11:48 AM
Which three U.S. Military Officals would these be?

What confirmation was "gotten"?
read the book it may help you understandzzz
Dec 14, 2001 12:52 PM
the way the Pentagon is thinking about this and it will give you a large list of references.
Consider the source...Me Dot Org
Dec 14, 2001 1:13 PM
Salon.com, hardly known as a bastion of the right, has a article about Ramsey Clark which you might find interesting. Mr. Clark is a few peas short of a casserole. He once wrote a letter to U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson a year after Bill Richardson had been secretary of energy.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/
Consider the source...zzz
Dec 14, 2001 1:36 PM
Do a search on Ian Williams' articles in Salon and you'll find him being very negative about anyone on the left or right who dares to speak about the U.S. role in the Serbian aggression. Mr. Clark is no more a wacko than George Shultz (remember the deluge of criticisms when he talked of legalizing certain drugs). Mr. Clark is a anti-war activist though and I would suppose that means wacko to some. Leaving Mr. Clark aside, if you must, look up Dana Priests articles and those in the Rundscau. If you have an open mind and want to find information about how militaries conduct themselves it's out there. I would caution anyone taking a purely patriotic/nationalistic view that there are dangers to the truth there.
Ramsey ClarkMe Dot Org
Dec 14, 2001 4:15 PM
i Mr. Clark is no more a wacko than George Shultz (remember i the deluge of criticisms when he talked of legalizing
i certain drugs).

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Hey, I voted for Al Gore, I was opposed to the War in Vietnam, and in general I vote Democratic. In any case, let George be George.

i Do a search on Ian Williams' articles in Salon and you'll i find him being very negative about anyone on the left or i right who dares to speak about the U.S. role in the
i Serbian aggression.

Do a search on Ian Williams' articles and you will find him critical of Jesse Helms, George W. Bush and Arianna Huffington. He is certainly not only critical of people on the left. He is critical of people who "dare to speak about the U.S. role in the Serbian Agression". He is The Nation's correspondent for the United Nations, so I guess he is a bit of an internationalist. The man has the nerve to get upset about genocide.

From an article on the International Action Center's Website (founded by Ramsey Clark):

"We say that the Bush administration knows that if the attack came from the Middle East, it is because of the history of the U.S. military committing horrible, massive war crimes against innocent civilians all over the region, either directly or indirectly through the Israeli government."

So...whoever did this, for whatever reason, was justified?

By the way, if you doubt the connection between the World Worker's Party and the Internation Action Center, go to their respective websites and compare the addresses for their offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Must be pretty cramped in there if they are separate organizations.

What is so wierd to me is how the World Worker's Party can make the statement: "But you can't just patch up this racist, sexist society", and yet somehow can justify its silence about what is probably the most sexist government in the world: The Taliban.

i Mr. Clark is a anti-war activist though and I would
i suppose that means wacko to some.

What Mr. Williams is trying to point out is that while Ramsey Clark has stood up in Iraq and decried what he considered to be American and British human rights abuses, he has never stood up in the United States and decried Iraqi (Saddam Hussein and Bathist Party) human rights abuses. I would think that if you were anti-war and concerned about human rights, a government that uses chemical weapons against their own citizens (as Iraq did against the Kurds) might be worthy of a comment or two.

i If you have an open mind and want to find information
i about how militaries conduct themselves it's out there. I i would caution anyone taking a purely
i patriotic/nationalistic view that there are dangers to
i the truth there.

I have no doubt that there have been and will be atrocities committed by military personnel in times of war. Shakespeare said "The law is an ass" and I have no doubt that war is several steps lower on the evolutionary ladder.

People and Governments are capable of doing horrible things in times of war. But again, I would point out that the Gulf War was fought by a generation of military leaders that had been actually combatants in Vietnam. They saw how not to run a war.

As I said before, my view that the U.S. did not bomb the Amariyah shelter to inflict psychological pain upon the Iraqi leadership is not based upon a "patriotic/nationalist" viewpoint. I think it's simple pragmatism: The hurt inflicted upon the Iraqi leadership was not worth the propaganda black eye.
Ramsey Clarkzzz
Dec 14, 2001 6:40 PM
The most important lesson the military learned from the Vietnam war was that the press had to be controlled, monitored, manipulated and demonized when negative reporting occurs. During the Iraqi and Somalia and Serbian actions most of the information given to reporters about targeting civilians and its use came from the French and German officials. The one bad part about coalitions is that strategies are not always kept secret. That's one of the reasons that the German daily newspaper, the Frankfurter Rundschau, was able to write such in-depth stories on things like Amariyah. That control and demonizing is also why those in the U.S. get so little information from their press about things like this. The strategy of targeting civilians is just one of many strategies used by all factions in a war. There is little honor in way we wage our wars today..
The Shultz/Ramsey connection is when someone says something out of character and something that irritates their normal supporters they are often characterized as wacko. Mr. Ramsey has sources throughout a wide range of working non-political government officials, including the Pentagon.
Frankfurter RundschauMe Dot Org
Dec 15, 2001 12:04 AM
Unfortunately, the English edition of the paper is pretty spotty ( http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ ). Doing a Google search for FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU AMARIYA got two English language hits, with the exact same article at both sites. One site was the Worker's World, the other was (suprise!) Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. The paper is mentioned as a source in an article about a bombing incident from the war in Serbia, but the paper is not quoted as a source on the Amariyah section of the article.

i The Shultz/Ramsey connection is when someone says
i something out of character and something that irritates
i their normal supporters they are often characterized as
i wacko. Mr. Ramsey has sources throughout a wide range of i working non-political government officials, including the i Pentagon.

Personally, I like it when Liberals OR Conservatives say something "out of character". To me it shows they are capable of thinking outside of ideological precepts. Too often people reduce their own ability to think for themselves by just blindly assuming an ideological stance.

Given what I just said, I suppose I should be happy that Clark represented Lyndon LaRouche in 1989, but I've never quite bought Lyndon's theories about colonizing Mars. Now there's an original thinker!

i Mr. Ramsey has sources throughout a wide range of working i non-political government officials, including the
i Pentagon.

Given the fact that Mr. Ramsey last served in Government in 1969 (as Attorney General, not in the Pentagon) and the fact that he has consistently lambasted the U.S. Military for over 20 years, I doubt very much if Mr. Clark is chummy with a lot of people over at the Pentagon. The Pentagon was attacked on September 11th. Immediately below the banner atop Mr. Clark's home page for the International Action Committee is the headline:

THE IAC NEEDS YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE WAR

...I don't think Mr. Clark is referring to the war against the Pentagon.
Frankfurter Rundschauzzz
Dec 15, 2001 9:41 AM
Lesen sie Deutsch nicht?
You don't quite have the skill of a Pentagon Press Relations Officer. A quick search gave me references to the Globalvision News Network.Radio Free Europe. Le Monde, Financial Times, The Christian Science Monitor, New York Times..all using the respected work of Rundschau reporters. I can see your intent on trying to link as much "negative" as possible to Mr. Ramsey.warranted or not. Sorry I don't play that game..I'll leave this thread to your games now.La verdad debera' obtener duramente.
Tadeln sie sie nichtGerhard
Dec 15, 2001 11:02 AM
Sie wissen genug nue nicht
Lachen Sie... Ihr Rechtzzz
Dec 15, 2001 9:33 PM
Er ist nur naiv.
Frankfurter RundschauMe Dot Org
Dec 16, 2001 10:13 AM
My search was not for Frankerfurter Rundschau, but FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU AMARIYAH. I was trying to find articles from the paper which mention the bombing of Amariyah. I'm not trying to suggest that the paper is not a legitimate source of information.

i Mr. Clark has three U.S. military officials confirming
i nthe Pentagon knew the usual occupants of the shelter and i that the bomb shelter was hit because the Pentagon wanted i to intensify the pressure on Iraq military and government i officials.

and also...

i Mr. Ramsey has sources throughout a wide range of working i non-political government officials, including the
i Pentagon.

My point is that Mr. Clark has consistently verbally attacked the U.S. Military while rarely (if ever) criticizing the wars and human rights abuses of its enemies.

So you must understand that it appears highly unlikely that Mr. Clark would have "sources...within the Pentagon". Such a statement is, without corraboration, counterintuitive.

i I can see your intent on trying to link as
i much "negative" as possible to Mr. Ramsey...warranted or
i not... Sorry I don't play that game

Perhaps if you would define what is "warranted" it would be helpful. But you haven't said that anything I said about Mr. Clark wasn't true.
Clarkjanet
Dec 16, 2001 12:53 PM
I think it is important to be as informed as possible on matters like Human Rights abuses around our earth. Including those committed by the U.S.
In his 1998 book, Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq Live, Ramsey Clark properly examines the roles and responsibilities of ALL the despots and dictators in the Middle East in human rights abuses and death tolls. The other thing he does properly is show what the U.S. policies have produced in that region, especially the sanctions on Iraq.
If more of us would use zzz's refusal to play the propaganda game we would be better informed and less naïve.
It always amuses me when people quickly believe the worst about someone speaking out against U.S. policies. Especially when they have just a limited knowledge about what that person has written. Why didn't Met Dog Org mention "Challenge to Genodcie"? He just didn't know about it, his internet search was aimed at getting information just to make a certain disinformation point or maybe he was just satisfied to find the first bit of information that he could use to discredit Clark. To have done a few internet searches and because of those make connections to organizations or people is a foolish way to become informed. I did a search on Ramsey Clark and got an interview with him by The Sun. He talks about why he took on the LaRouche case. I also found a number of sites that talked about it in a sinister way because of certain agendas of the sites developer. Maybe Met Dog Org should have read the interview and presented Clarks own words. But then that wouldn't have had the same "punch" as his "mars" comment.
The U.S. government has done a good job of making its citizens timid in their search for the truth about Human Rights abuses. Just mention the idea that the U.S. may have committed war crimes, as Ramsey Clark is now doing, and the propaganda starts in high gear.
only the defeated are charged with war crimesnm
Dec 16, 2001 1:26 PM
The victors are always blind to their own crimes.
ClarkMe Dot Org
Dec 16, 2001 3:12 PM
This whole thread was started when zzz made the declaration that 1500 people died at Amariyah.

When asked where he got the number, zzz replied "The 1500 number came from the reports in the Rundscau. They had two reporters on site doing the research while recovery was taking place. That number is now recognized as the clearest number that can be reached."

But Mr. Clark, who zzz considers a reliable source, has an article on his site from January of this year stating the death toll is 408, even though his own book says 1500.

When, even within Mr. Clark's own website, he can't decide whether or not 1500 or 408 casualties occured, I'm not sure how accurate a source he is.

Mr. Clark has also defended Radovan Karadzic, who unlike Lyndon LaRouche, has not advocated the colonization of Mars. If you were concerned about human rights, would you consider Radovan Karadzic as a client?

When zzz says "Mr. Ramsey has sources throughout a wide range of working non-political government officials, including the Pentagon.", I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Clark has a lot of people in the Pentagon who are willing to talk with him.

I was protesting the Vietnam War at the same time Mr. Clark was Attorney General. Is the United States capable of war crimes? Yes. Do I believe that because Ramsey Clark says so that it is true? No.
If you don't like the messagerealTI
Dec 14, 2001 8:07 PM
throw sh$t at the messenger. Lordy lord the internet is so fun to find any kind of dirt you want to. Good information takes more than a quick search. This subject is full of all manner of dangers. Trust issues..Patriotic issues..Rhetoric fly's all over the place. My take is that war is not the nice neat package that the U.S. government wants us to believe. Do we target civilians? The military mind can justify anything. Vietnam soured me on the moral courage of government. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.
Just one exampleMe Dot Org
Dec 14, 2001 11:40 AM
i This bomb shelter was targeted because the U.S. knew it
i was used by the wives and children of Iraq military and
i government officials.

I remember the incident. What I remember was that the United States had intelligence that Iraqi leadership was using the bunker. Obviously and tragically, this was not the case.

i two bombs hit an Amariyah civilian bomb shelter resulting i in the deaths of over 1500 women and children

Can you tell me where you get the number of 1500 women and children? Tarik Aziz initially put the number at 400. Eventually the Iraqi Government told the United Nations Human Rights Commission that 204 men, women and children had died.

Ultimately it is very difficult to "prove" with empirical evidence, what was the motivation of the American planners who decided to bomb the bunker, since the public will never have access to the raw intelligence data that the military had. Many outside the U.S. military say that the purpose was to kill civilians, while the U.S. military says that they had acted on intelligence that indicated the bunker was being used by Iraqi Leadership.

Residents of the area insisted that the shelter had "recently" been open to Iraqi civilians. Was the U.S. acting on old intelligence, or was the purpose to kill Iraqi civilians?

Schwarzkopf, Powell, and Horner were all Vietnam veterans who had learned the lessons of fighting an unpopular war. Press access in the war was significantly limited compared to Vietnam. It was clear that the U.S. military had learned the lesson of presenting their campaign in the most positive light possible.

Given that sensitivity to public opinion, do you honestly think that the planners would take out a bunker filled with women and children merely to inflict psychological pain on the Iraqi leadership? Do you think that the military would think that it would be worth the propaganda hit they would take for the incident?

I'm not talking about painting the U.S. military in glowing terms. I'm talking about what is expedient, what is practical. I simply believe that the major U.S. military planners were savvy enough (as I said before, all had served in Vietnam) to understand that bombing a civilian bunker would not be worth the propaganda fallout.
Just one examplezzz
Dec 14, 2001 12:39 PM
The 1500 number came from the reports in the Rundscau. They had two reporters on site doing the research while recovery was taking place. That number is now recognized as the clearest number that can be reached.
The Pentagon has used these strategies many times recently. During the Kosovo war, debates within the Pentagon on the conduct of war were reported on most succinctly by Dana Priest of the Washington Post. In one story she had Pentagon officials admitting that assaults on Serb civilian industrial infrastructure were aimed at demoralizing the Yugoslav population and leadership. That the bombing on the morning of April 23, 1999 of a Belgrade television station, killing 16 people, camera technicians, makeup people, sound technicians and copyeditors, was because the station was owned by Milosevic's daughter.
1500 Casualties? Not according to Ramsey Clark's SiteMe Dot Org
Dec 16, 2001 11:07 AM
i The 1500 number came from the reports in the Rundscau.
i They had two reporters on site doing the research while
i recovery was taking place. That number is now recognized i as the clearest number that can be reached.

If you go to Ramsey Clark's International Action Center's Site, you find an article dated February 2001, by Paul O'Hanlon. In it he states that the number killed was 408 (close to Tarik Azziz's original assesment), NOT 1500.

http://www.iacenter.org/iraqchallenge/feature_article.htm
1500 Casualties? Not according to Ramsey Clark's SiteMe Dot Org
Dec 16, 2001 1:46 PM
i The 1500 number came from the reports in the Rundscau.
i They had two reporters on site doing the research while
i recovery was taking place. That number is now recognized i as the clearest number that can be reached.

If you go to Ramsey Clark's International Action Center's Site, you find an article dated February 2001, by Paul O'Hanlon. In it he states that the number killed was 408 (close to Tarik Azziz's original assesment), NOT 1500.

http://www.iacenter.org/iraqchallenge/feature_article.htm
Allan LittleJason H
Dec 14, 2001 4:54 PM
Allan Little covering the war for the BBC was at the scene and counted 311 bodies before he couldn't take the sight of so many children's bodies fused together by the searing heat of the blast anymore and left. He said he had counted less than a third of the dead.
The allies, initially, said it was an Iraqi military command bunker and gave the number of dead at 14. When confronted by reporters who had been at the scene and talked to people in the neighborhood the Military started a campaign that criticized reporters for reporting from 'enemy territory' and putting out reports that these reporters were being used as instruments of propaganda by the Iraqis.
Well stated (NM)ACE-
Dec 16, 2001 12:43 AM
nm
collateral damage..guido
Dec 14, 2001 2:14 PM
I'm a Vietnam vet, too. We lost about 50,000. They lost over 2,000,000, plus 2,000,000 Pol Pot killed after we deposed Sihanouk in Cambodia. But they won the war.
re: a tad suspect....pisser
Dec 14, 2001 12:27 PM
Seeing how the technology to fabricate such a tape is redily available. And that the tape was filmed, editied and intreted by the CIA/ dept. of defense. One can easily be persuaded to believe something is real from stereotypical beliefs, media imagery and political rethoric. But also notice that the analyse of the tapes authenticity hasnt gone beyond this criteria listed above. Has anyone analyzed the cultural or religous customs of social gatherings such as that depicted in the tape?, If the dialect of speech fits the region? If the dress fits the indivual status of each person involved in the discussion?, If the dress fits the climate at that time when the tape was made?

The way i see it: if your popularity is wanning, the funding of your war against evil is running out, your progress and premise for such as war is being questioned..then its time to boost public support..again..so you can justify the billions being spent to fight what now has become an vendetta and witchhunt. And you know with 72% of the US public (NBC News poll 12/14/01) saying that Laden should be killed if found ..its working. opon his capture im thinking more like the nurenburg trials of the 50's so he can be made an example of to the rest of world tired of isreal and the support of the isreal military.
re: a tad suspect....Me Dot Org
Dec 14, 2001 12:53 PM
i The way i see it: if your popularity is wanning, the
i funding of your war against evil is running out, your
i progress and premise for such as war is being
i questioned..then its time to boost public
i support..again..so you can justify the billions being
i spent to fight what now has become an vendetta and
i witchhunt

What evidence do you have that American support for the war is waning? I havensn't seen a significant drop-off in poll numbers. Protests in Pakistan have dropped off considerably since the beginning of the war.

As far as U.S. support for the war, I don't see the tape as being necessary. America lost thousands on 9/11. The polls show that most people are very satisfied with the conduct of the war.

I'd be the first one to say that I don't know about the cultural and social customs and idioms that are contained in the tape. (One of the frustrations of watching the tape is that a translation only tells you words, not inflections, which are very hard to read). I'm sure the tape will be examined for this during the coming weeks and months.

If you believe the tape is fake, how confident are you that experts in video and audio would be unable to make a strong case that it is a forgery? How confident are you that the U.S. would be willing to take that risk?
Then I ask again. What do we do?peloton
Dec 14, 2001 12:56 PM
What should we be doing then? Should we let Bin Laden go because the tape might be a fake? Maybe we should just ask him nicely to not kill our people again. The embassies, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, a flight in PA, and the pentagon. Where will this guy stop? He readily admits that he will target ALL westerners. He also praised Allah in his first public tape shortly after the 9/11 incidents for the damage inflicted. Maybe countless interviews of his intentions and the first tape were fakes too. This is not a nice person we are talking about, and the Taliban who would support him are no better if they condone this sort of glorified holy war BS. Letting this slide would be on the same terms of watching someone hit your mother or significant other and just watching with no action to intervene. Some situations call for shitty solutions.

So I ask again. What do we do with an individual and a group like this? I'm really looking for a better answer, and no one is coming up with it.
answerDog
Dec 14, 2001 3:31 PM
"What do we do with an individual and a group like this?"

What we are doing. Eliminate them.

This ain't pretty, it ain't nice, it may not even be moral, according to some. But, it's us or them. They chose that path, not us.

Dog
ya, and the Trade Towers still standDog
Dec 14, 2001 3:40 PM
The ultimate conspiracy. Bush wanted to boost popularity and raise money for his defense industry buddies. He convinced all the news agencies that 2 planes ran into the World Trade Center towers and kill thousands of people. He fooled many New Yorkers into believing it by hiring Steven Spielberg to do special effects, broadcast throughout the nation. Wow, he had me going.

Or, if you believe it really happened, Bush is so Machiavellian that he actually had CIA agents hijack the planes and run into the towers and the Pentagon. Throwing that Pentagon thing in there diverted attention from him, as it was so close to home. NO, WAIT! Bush was out of town when it happened! How convenient!
Wacko!Jon
Dec 14, 2001 4:18 PM
If anyone wants to take their paranoia to completely wacko extremes, why not join the
brainwashed masses in the Middleast and insist that the whole 9/11 thing was a
Mossad plot to incite hatred against all Arabs and Muslims? Come on folks. People
in our governments are no more nor less reasonable than the rest of us. It really appears
to me, as an "outsider", that the U.S. government has made an effort to be reasonably
truthful, even to the point of understating facts, in managing information relative to this
war....and I'm not a Republican, was not a Vietnam vet, and don't even LIKE Rush Limbaugh!
And as Peloton has asked twice, what would y'all do about this whole mess? Hold
hands and sing koom-bay-ah?