Anyone else noticed these similarities....?

[Silver Cheetah]

Saw this about the similarities between a certain terrorist organisation and a well known Western government....


Terrorists: Leader is spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family.

Western government: Leader is spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family.


Terrorists: Leader has declared holy war (Jihad) against his enemies, believes any nation not with him is against him, and god is on his side.

Western government: Leader has declared holy war (Crusade) against his enemies, believes any nation not with him is against him, and god is on his side.


Terrorists: Operate through clandestine organisation (Al-qaida) with agents in many countries, uses bombing, assassination, and other terrorist tactics.

Western government: Operate through clandestine organisation (CIA) with agents in many countries, uses bombing, assassination and other governmental tactics.


Terrorists: Leader was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election.

Western government..... you get the picture.......

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Neb]

Never noticed that before, interesting...... However, let me mark a dissimilarity:

Bin Laden: Uses fanatical kamikaze tactics to kill 5000 civilians on PURPOSE.

Western Government: Dosen't, attempts to hit military installations and ACCIDENTIALLY hits civilians.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
Never noticed that before, interesting...... However, let me mark a dissimilarity:

Bin Laden: Uses fanatical kamikaze tactics to kill 5000 civilians on PURPOSE.

Western Government: Dosen't, attempts to hit military installations and ACCIDENTIALLY hits civilians.

---

Excellent point Neb!

Might help if they stopped with the cluster bombs.... given they spray the area of 12 football fields with bomblets, 20% of which don't explode. Oh well, at least Afghanistan gets some more high quality, tip top condition landmines absolutely free of charge. Not to mention they add a nice bit of colour to the landscape.... They also double up as nice toys for tots, - although unfortunately they don't last long. The tots, that is....

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Excellent point Neb!

Might help if they stopped with the cluster bombs.... given they spray the area of 12 football fields with bomblets, 20% of which don't explode. Oh well, at least Afghanistan gets to get some more fabulous landmines absolutely free of charge. They also double up as nice toys for tots, - although they don't last long. The tots, that is....

---

I see your point clearly miss metallic feline, I would prefer it if they just sent in some elite land troops instead of turning the country into one huge crater, after all, they don't need to devastate the country, just take out Bin Laden or capture him, though the latter is unlikely, and get rid of the Taliban leaders, though supporting the Northern Alliance might be enough to do this.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


I see your point clearly miss metallic feline, I would prefer it if they just sent in some elite land troops instead of turning the country into one huge crater, after all, they don't need to devastate the country, just take out Bin Laden or capture him, though the latter is unlikely, and get rid of the Taliban leaders, though supporting the Northern Alliance might be enough to do this.

---

Northern Alliance not really an option unfortunately - bunch of bastards - pretty near as bad as the Taliban. Terrible human rights record. You don't want *them* in power, oh no. The US finds itself in rather a tricky position with the Northern Alliance, who will be expecting big rewards for doing what they wanted to do anyway, but with some US support.

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Northern Alliance not really an option unfortunately - bunch of bastards - pretty near as bad as the Taliban. Terrible human rights record. You don't want *them* in power, oh no. The US finds itself in rather a tricky position with the Northern Alliance, who will be expecting big rewards for doing what they wanted to do anyway, but with some US support.

---

Yes, that's going to be a problem, I can see that, what would YOU suggest that the US should do? I can't really see any options.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


Yes, that's going to be a problem, I can see that, what would YOU suggest that the US should do? I can't really see any options.

---

I love the way you ask that question, Nebling. Eek. Well, I've suggested a number of things in my posts over the past couple months... chief amongst them being that nations get together globally to seek peaceful solutions to terrorism. That includes Arab regimes. Most of them don't like terrorism any better than we do, the ones that condone/fund it being in a minority.

People keep saying such an international effort could never work. No, not whilst the US keeps walking off from things! If this is treated like all the other treaties/agreements/conventions that the US have walked off from over the past few months alone, no, it damn well WONT work, you're right.

Global effort is the only way to go. There is a lot of injustice and hatred in the world. We all need to take responsibility - and no one nation is ever going to be able to 'make it better'. It is not America's job to 'make the world safe' - it is the job of all of us.

I would favour America and Britain getting together with as many of the world's nations as is humanly possible and working out how to approach this thing from all sides. The money to be spent should not only come out of American pockets, but out of the pockets of all who have money to give.

The world is frightened now. Nightmare scenarios are opening up in front of our eyes - for many people, they cannot escape even in their dreams. The potential for escalation of the conflict, possibly resulting in world war, is huge. There is a plus side, however, finally we have some *real* strong motivation for nations to get together and act globally.

It's the perfect time for America to drop the isolationist stance, and truly stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the rest of us, not only on terrorism, but on social and ecological issues also (social issues having a bearing on terrorism, of course...)

If America in the meantime feels that immediate action should be taken, (which it does and has) then I have argued from the start that using intelligence and special forces would have been far better to find and catch/kill the terrorists. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible, because it turns out the US doesn't have the requisite human intel to make a success of this type of operation. Also, there would be high risks for the personnel involved. Hence the liking for massive air bombing, - which they see as a far better and less risky way (from their point of view) to achieve their ends. Unfortunately, it's the Afghani civilians who end up paying the price.

I'm not quite sure what the US's ends are, really and truly. The chances of catching Osama are slim, as I've already said time and again, the man not being a complete idiot, and unlikely to sit around to be dismembered. Dilly dilly come and be killed. I think not. I've also explained why, due to the way al-quaida is set up, bombing aghanistan into rubble is just not going to break their power, realistically. America also says their actions in Afghanistan will act as a deterrent. Huh.

Making people mad as hell does not usually work as a deterrent. It just makes them want to retaliate that much more, never mind if they risk their lives. As an example, consider someone who makes an inflammatory post. They get flamed in return, right? sometimes big time. The person who makes the same point in a calm and considered way (take Ron_B as an example) will receive calm and considered replies, made with respect.

Every action causes a reaction. And the reaction will be in line with the original action. Violence provokes violence provokes violence provokes violence. Unless the individual or nation on the receiving end of violence happens to have enough enlightened self interest to reject the knee jerk reaction to violence and look for creative solutions that will benefit all parties.

If we want eliminate terrorism and freedom fighting (difference in terminology down to perspective), there is only one foolproof option. Kill off the human race. We have to face it - there will always be people who don't like the way things are and who will try to change things. However, if we begin the process of widening the channels of communications between the peoples of the world, and learn the meaning of empathy, then we can hope to keep such action to the minimum.

When there are no eyes to see your plight, nor ears to hear, the temptation is to make known your rage and despair through inflicting terror and shock. This can become a habit, eventually being justified by the ones doing the inflicting as the only way to get results. (This is where we are now - and no, I do not hold this view or agree with it. However, it is easy enough for me to sit here in my comfortable warm room with a full belly and say that.) Would it not be much better for the West to truly enter into dialogue, and get results that way instead? Far cheaper too, in terms of lives and money spent.

Realistically speaking, this means nothing less than a complete rethink of the way we live with each other on this planet. I would see it being a slow process, with nations kicking and screaming all the way. But the way we are currently living, the gap between the rich and the very poor widens daily, inhumane regimes are allowed to flourish, and we continue to far far more as a race on arms than we do on feeding the poor and hungry. These are wonderful conditions to breed terrorists and terrorism.

We have created a stupid, evil and upside down world in which billions go hungry whilst others die of diseases caused by all kinds of overindulgence. This is an obscene situation, and one which will continue whilst we continue to see each other in terms of difference, rather than as global citizens, who all deserve to be treated decently and with the same degree of compassion and respect.

Like creates like. If we want to see love in the world, and peace, and happiness, then selling billions of pounds worth of arms to the very people who we just do not want rising up and giving us a hard time with them is definitely not the clever way to go.

It's time for humans to get smart Neb. And if that isn't the 2 or 3 simple bullet point answer you wanted, then I'm sorry! But we live in an immensely complex society, and ALL the causes behind the evolution and growth of terrorism need to be analysed (they have been, by various individuals and academics, but we need such analyses to be brought together in a way that makes them usable, by a global body that has the power to take action.)

What you resist, persists. Anger begets anger begets anger. That old thing in the old testament, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It's always seemed stupid to me - if you take it to its logical conclusion, an eye for an eye, ok, so terrorists bombed us, we bomb them, but then, you need the eye for an eye again, so they will bomb us back (or nuke us) then again, the revenge must be taken, so we do the same back, and then they come back again, and so forth, until one or the other is destroyed.

When the conflict widens to encompass the globe, (as both Bush and Osama seem to want it to - anyone who is not with us is against us is the creed of both of them) then you have a very scarey scenario. If Bush and Osama succeed in polarising the world, then this conflict will continue until either the West or the East is vanquished, or both sides decide they have had enough.

Getting round a table and talking may not be the easy option, or the fast option, - but given the potential for escalation in the current conflict, I predict that if the worst comes to pass, many will wish to hell we had taken that road. Even with the bombing going on, it is not too late. When it will be too late for sure is if Bush listens to the madmen in Washington who want to widen the bombing to include Iraq, and possibly one or two other Arab states. That would be utter and complete disaster. IMO.

PS. One suggestion I have, given that the US *has* gone into war mode - , and bearing in mind we need to work with the current situation, rather than what we'd like it to be.....

whilst the fighting goes on, we could be doing our damnest to build a true coalition right across the board, with the goal of wiping out terrorism and the conditions in which it flourishes - this as the first move towards that international body I spoke of earlier.)

Eventually, maybe the fighting could stop. The way things are at present, I don't see how the US can withdraw without accomplishing their aims (without the whole Arab world laughing their socks off that is) without a huge loss of face. It is highly possible they may not accomplish their aims. So, here we are staring Vietnam in the face all over again, only with the potential to blow up in our faces on a much larger scale.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Neb]

Wow, that was a LONG post, and one that really highlights all points of the conflict, I really don't have an answer to it right now, I will have to think about one, and when I do think of one I doubt it will be as long and wise as your post, though I will strive to come as close as I can.

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind."

I see what you're saying and I can understand it, the US shouldn't kill 5000 civilians to avenge the WTC attack, the ideal thing to do would be to kill 1 terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, the root of the problem, he's their "charismatic" leader, Al-Qaida might be many little independent cells of terrorists, but they're sure going to find it harder to cooperate and recruit new people with their leader gone, the problem with this entire conflict is that there is no solution which isn't a small victory for Bin Laden, if he gets shot he becomes a martyr for those who wish to see America fall, if he dosen't get shot he continues his terrorism, if he gets captured he becomes a martyr, what can be done? Nothing, except for one thing, fighting with peaceful means, America aiding muslim countries would for example show those muslims who support Bin Laden that America does not wish to see the death of all muslims, dropping ONLY food and not bombs on Afghanistan is one of the things that could be done, ack, this didn't really turn out as a good post, did it? Sorry, it's midnight here in Denmark so it's hard for me to write anything logical and sensible, I'll try to write something better tomorrow.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
Wow, that was a LONG post, and one that really highlights all points of the conflict, I really don't have an answer to it right now, I will have to think about one, and when I do think of one I doubt it will be as long and wise as your post, though I will strive to come as close as I can.

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind."

I see what you're saying and I can understand it, the US shouldn't kill 5000 civilians to avenge the WTC attack, the ideal thing to do would be to kill 1 terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, the root of the problem, he's their "charismatic" leader, Al-Qaida might be many little independent cells of terrorists, but they're sure going to find it harder to cooperate and recruit new people with their leader gone, the problem with this entire conflict is that there is no solution which isn't a small victory for Bin Laden, if he gets shot he becomes a martyr for those who wish to see America fall, if he dosen't get shot he continues his terrorism, if he gets captured he becomes a martyr, what can be done? Nothing, except for one thing, fighting with peaceful means, America aiding muslim countries would for example show those muslims who support Bin Laden that America does not wish to see the death of all muslims, dropping ONLY food and not bombs on Afghanistan is one of the things that could be done, ack, this didn't really turn out as a good post, did it? Sorry, it's midnight here in Denmark so it's hard for me to write anything logical and sensible, I'll try to write something better tomorrow.

---

Hey Nebling, thanks for your nice reply - just one small point - rather than *dropping* anything, I would suggest conventional aid in convoys. Evidence and past experience all suggest that air dropping food is the worst way possible to get it to people, apart from not getting it to them at all. We may be forced into mass dropping, as the weather is worstening fast now in Afghanistan, and the aid convoys have been extremely hampered both by the bombing and the Taliban. Hundreds of thousands of people are hungry, many are starving and it is certain that many are going to die. Parts of Afghanistan are already cut off by road, in the highest regions. Air dropping is now the only solution for them, flawed though it is.

When you finally get to your bed, sweet dreams from Cheetah!! xxx's

[Fljotsdale]

First post very funny/not funny at the same time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for dealing with Taliban and terrorists, imo we should try to get the Islamic nations to deal with it themselves, but offer support and backup. That way, the West won't be stepping on their toes YET AGAIN as we are doing now.