Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:20:27 +0100
From:      Paul Robinson <paul@akita.co.uk>
To:        jason <kib@mediaone.net>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: Helping victims of terror
Message-ID:  <20010923122027.A270@jake.akitanet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <015e01c143c8$c93505a0$89941bd8@speakeasy.net>; from kib@mediaone.net on Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 08:43:28PM -0400
References:  <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAGEDNCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> <xzp66abb7pz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BAD1FAE.2F3D40F5@mindspring.com> <20010923011557.B60374@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <015e01c143c8$c93505a0$89941bd8@speakeasy.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 23, jason <kib@mediaone.net> wrote:

> Why would we support Bin Laden when he has hated the US for some many years?
> We did support Suddam at one point only because or Iran.  I can't recall any
> one time where the US had any interest in training or helping Bin Laden's
> group.
> Name one.

I knew CNN was bad, but I didn't think they would have missed out that
helpful detail. I want you to go and type 'Bin Laden American backing' into
a search engine. Google would be good. I'll summarise here.

A lot of this info is from the BBC, but I would strongly recommend you all
to take a look at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CH0109C.html

Laden got 'started' when the Soviets were trying to take Afghanistan (one of
the reasons that Russia is supporting current US action is probably that
they are looking forward to seeing the Afghans who kept them out for 10 year
get their butts kicked). Not suprisingly, the US were keen to support any
action against the Soviet action - to the point that by 1987 they were
shipping 65,000 tons of weapons a year. Bin Laden setup his training camps
under the collective title of al-Qaeda (Arabic for "the base") and was
responsible for no small part of the Afghan jihad. The Afghan jihad against
the Soviets was backed with American dollars and fully supported by the
governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

It was the fact that Saudi and the US refused to admit that it was Bin Laden
who succeeded when the Soviets withdrew, he became disillusioned. As a
result, he focused his attentions on the US and her Middle East allies
(Saudi, for example). He had his bank accounts frozen and citizenship
stripped for anti-Government activities in Saudi and after reconciliation
failed, and that's where this hatred all started. As he became more distant,
he became more militant and hated the US more and more...

So, the reason he hates the US is because they pretended he didn't exist
after he had done the dirty work for them. Please don't see this as me
supporting him - his actions are ridiculous, and he does need punishing. I
just want people to know that the US government's hands are not entirely
clean in this matter.

> The IRA as far as I know didn't knowck over any US buildings.  Although UK
> has to deal with that sort of thing the same way we deal with out own
> internal terrorist.  I think we all remember Okalahoma City.

The UK goverment or public did not financially support the bombing at
Oklahoma City. The US public have supported the actions of the IRA, and US
senators have publically given support, as well as Clinton permitting a visa
for Jerry Adams who came to the US on a fund-raiser for what was effectively
the IRA, even though the UK pleaded that this should not be allowed.

We're quite able to deal with internal terrorism. My point was that the US
public is prepared to support that action. We *could* say that the US has to
deal with the current problem on their own and they are over-reacting, but
we don't. You really need to open up your world view a little bit.
 
> He is not doing it for the approval rating as much as he is doing it because
> the vast majority of Americans will demand it.  His approval rating will go
> up by doing what the citizens think he should do in this situation.  So
> basically he is doing what he was elected to do.

1. He wasn't elected
2. President's shouldn't do what is popular - they should so what is right
3. The 'vast majority' of Americans believe what they do because the US
media is sufficiently slanted to make them believe what is required.

By your own posting, you implicitly admit that you don't know anything about
Osama bin Laden, you don't really understand how the Taliban got where they
are, you don't understand terrorism or how it's funded and you probably only
know what you've been told by CNN. What on earth makes you think you, and
the rest of the US, is in a position therefore, to decide as to what action
should be taken? You only have half the facts!
 
> Some terrorists have announced attacks before but most wait until after.  It
> depends on the demands of the terrorists and the target of the attack.  The
> US has attacked without warning and with warning.  Compare Iraq bombing
> (before ground war) and the bombing of Libya.  The presence of forewarning
> has nothing to do with it being a terrorist attack or a retaliation.

You'd best tell your President that then, as he seems to differ in his
opinion on that...

--
PR

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010923122027.A270>