Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:


Actually they ran because the US said they would kill them..
Wouldn't you run too if the entire US army was after you?
And the people that were caught, in Kandahar and other places, were not that important people..
The really important people have run, yes..or more likely, do exactly what they have always done, just in another place
And they have done this so good, that you haven't even been able to find them yet

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Sir ReGiN ]

---

The entire US Army? Are you kidding? LOL

The reason the military effort in Afghanistan succeeded was because only a small international force was used, and the majority of the fighting was left to the Afghans. Ask the former Soviets if any size foreign force will send anyone running from Afghanistan.

The War on Terrorism is about ending the terrorist's ability to act on a global scale. Al-Queta had that ability, but the actions in Afghanistan have not only given the Afghans freedom and allowed internation aid to get through to starving innocents(aid which had it's distribution hampered prior to September 11th by the Taliban and Al-Queta), but have also eliminated the terrorist's ability to act indiscriminately from Afghanistan. Should they have been allowed to continue? Without military action, we would still be negotiating.

Pay them to like us? Feed them? It's too simplistic to say give more food, give more money, give more "this", more "that", more "the other thing". Have you ever heard of "throwing money at a problem"? If you aren't familiar with this phrase, it means you can't solve all your problems by spending money. Money can't buy love, it can't buy happiness, and it can't end hatred.

Keep in mind, the innocents are being fed (in larger numbers today than ever), they are being supplied, they are being supported, and the UN has vowed to rebuild their nation. Don't insult the innocent Afghans by including them with terrorists.

Let those who would intentionally kill the innocent find their own food.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
...re: Leadership...
Private donors certainly will be there... but without the infrastructure they won't get too far. They need mechanisms to move capital and people between countries.

Back to the origonal point, which was not about money but leadership effectivness... Take away their figurehead and they lose their ability to focus power. Put the fear of death into the rich Muslems (those with a lot to lose) who would be able to take bin ladens place and they will not have the orgainization necessary to project their power internationally. There may be tens of thousands of Muslims ready to take up arms but there aren't many rich ones willing to stick their necks out farther than a briefcase under the table.

..re: Irony and hidden allusions...
Irony is fine... but your couching that irony in generalizations intended to draw into question the US campaign in Afghanastan. As others pointed out the US campaign was not generic... we didn't bomb "Afghanastan", we bombed selected targets within Afghanastan. Your insistance on the broad term is obviously intended to draw the reader to conclude we were broadly attacking the country. A position that is not reinforced by any facts. In fact, as I said before collateral damage to "Afghanastan" was very minimal given the scope of the campaign. It might be nit-picking but you're repeatedly using the broadest reference possible in what is apparently an attempt to insinuate that we were indeed including Afghani civillians in the scope of our operations? Or that what we did was out of line perhaps? Of course when you only insinuate you don't have to defend right? [img]smile.gif[/img] .

...re: the US not knowing about BL until after the 11'th...
I think most Americans were aware of Bin Laden before the 11th. But in reality it doesn't matter what we know/knew. In Bin Ladens public dealings before the 11th. there was NO public statement of support for the Palestinians...ever. His agenda before the 11th. was publicly based on the expulsion of US personnel from Saudi soil. His brand of Islam is based on exclusion, and infedels aren't welcome in the club.

...re: points of view...
Obviously there's multiple points of view to this, one point of view believes humans should be free to choose their path in life, the other believes humans should be controlled (in the name of God of course). When you distill the issue it comes down to that IMO. Frankly to wrap it in religous context is a standard behavior of the intolerant through history. The reason for this is that people with blind faith are obscenely easy to manipulate and control. The other historical lesson is that when religions have political power you get "religous" men who are in reality thinly veiled power brokers.

...re: western civilization -
Indeed we are a part of Western Civilization... but there again if you look at the wording of your posts it's painfully obvious that you're attempting to direct some sort of culpability towards the US... like WE alone are the cause and target of all that this man opposes. Of course my response was a less confrontational way of saying that your wrong, that we're all in this together, and you would be an eventual target to the extreemists "righteous" rage. Any country that doesn't follow his brand of extreem Islam WILL be subject to his agression at some point. His attacking of Moderate Islamic states should be ample evidence of these intentions.

...re: running...
Yes they ran... AFTER they thumped their chests for weeks about how they would all martyr themselves for Islam. Just like always, they talk the talk, but are unable to walk the walk (they did get a lot of subordinates to die en-mass for the glory of Islam, something to be proud of no doubt).

I think the idea that their operations will continue as normal is not supportable either, they're all hiding out in caves, unable to leave for fear, unable to communicate easilty with the outside world for fear, unable to adequately command their organization because any interaction with the outside world will draw attention.

They're holed up, and when they're holed up their not going to get much done. When they try to emerge we'll be waiting.

No cell phones, no radio communications, no satellite communications, no computers, no mobility. They may have some cash but they run the serious risk of losing it if they try to transfer it. They're prisoners who don't know they're in prison. That's what we really wanted to happen (end the international threat they posed). Any country they run to will be worried, that's also what we want. They can't trust their own people because many will surely turn him over for a shot at 25 mil.

We can afford to sit back and wait for a head to pop out of a hole.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

---

I just quoted this for those who skip to the last page of a post (I do it too often ) and might have missed it.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
It can be viewed from two angles..
His cause is the righteous, and people have finally realized this..
Or you're right..
Depends on where you're from and what kind of perosn you are really

---

You stated earlier in the post that Osama was a religious fanatic, and I'll absolutely agree.

His cause is not righteous because it violates all the mandates of Islam. Muslim leaders have cried out, since the beginning of this War on Terrorism (whether they are from the US, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Europe, etc.), that Osama is not acting for Allah by intentionally killing innocents. Osama has told his followers to focus their attacks on the innocent.

In America, the Ku Klux Klan claims Christianity as their justification. Now, this can be viewed from two angles. I guess it depends on "what kind of person you really are" as to which side you see .

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Link]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



You stated earlier in the post that Osama was a religious fanatic, and I'll absolutely agree.

His cause is not righteous because it violates all the mandates of Islam. Muslim leaders have cried out, since the beginning of this War on Terrorism (whether they are from the US, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Europe, etc.), that Osama is not acting for Allah by intentionally killing innocents. Osama has told his followers to focus their attacks on the innocent.

In America, the Ku Klux Klan claims Christianity as their justification. Now, this can be viewed from two angles. I guess it depends on "what kind of person you really are" as to which side you see .

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

---

True, and well said, Ronn. Indeed Osama bin Laden, says he's acting like this because he believes it is correctly according to the Islamic belief. But other Islamic countries have already stated that it is indeed on the contrairy; Osama bin Laden does not act according to the Islam.
This is the major fact that the people in this world must understand. I'm not saying that it is part of some sort diabolical plan of Osama bin Laden and his Al Quaida terrorist network, but it could as well be part of it! People must understand that this person is capable of anything, especially after these attacks.
I therefore approve of the fact that the Allied forces have attacked Afghanistan to:

• Save the people in Afghanistan of the terrible regime of the Taliban.
  Search and 'arrest' Osama bin Laden.

But things have gone wrong in the bombing in Afghanistan, and America was telling us that they were using 'very precise bombs, laser targetted, with the help of satellites, etc.' but still things go wrong. Still innocent people die, because of bombs, which aren't even meant for them.
And yes, Afghanistan was ruined, even before the bombing, but is that an argument to wave away anything that goes wrong? It is not! If I kill a person, do you really believe saying: "Ah well, he was limp anyway" will save me from being sentenced to lifelong imprisonment, or even death penalty? It will not! And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Errors occur, but using these arguments to wave them away is just plain wrong.

[Barry the Sprout]

I personally think this is one of those threads that belongs in the "Threads we hope we'll never see at IW". Bush and Blair nominated for the peace prize? Thats a good one.

Quite aside from the war on Afghanistan has anyone pointed out Blair's track record on peace? He is at present supporting arms fairs in both India and Pakistan... Nobel Peace Prize is not the award I would give him. "Worlds most two faced liar" would probably be closer to my own view of the man. And then there were his actions in Kosovo, where we had technologically advanced non lethal weapons and passed them over in favour of simple bombs. We ran a terror campaign there via the RAF. And we want to give this man half of the Nobel Peace Prize?

It is not Bush that really irks me. Blair is the really dangerous slimeball of the two. It frankly dusgusts me that people would consider him receiving this award.

[norompanlasolas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I personally think this is one of those threads that belongs in the "Threads we hope we'll never see at IW". Bush and Blair nominated for the peace prize? Thats a good one.

Quite aside from the war on Afghanistan has anyone pointed out Blair's track record on peace? He is at present supporting arms fairs in both India and Pakistan... Nobel Peace Prize is not the award I would give him. "Worlds most two faced liar" would probably be closer to my own view of the man. And then there were his actions in Kosovo, where we had technologically advanced non lethal weapons and passed them over in favour of simple bombs. We ran a terror campaign there via the RAF. And we want to give this man half of the Nobel Peace Prize?

It is not Bush that really irks me. Blair is the really dangerous slimeball of the two. It frankly dusgusts me that people would consider him receiving this award.

---

barry, relax... i mean, look at who proposed them. as i posted earlier in the thread this nesvik guy and the proposers all belong to the neonazi party of norway. so, in all fairness, its probably something nor bush nor blair would want to know anything about.

its ironic, though, that the neonazis are proposing these 2 for the nobel peace prize. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


barry, relax... i mean, look at who proposed them. as i posted earlier in the thread this nesvik guy and the proposers all belong to the neonazi party of norway. so, in all fairness, its probably something nor bush nor blair would want to know anything about.

its ironic, though, that the neonazis are proposing these 2 for the nobel peace prize. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

---

I know Norom... but these things can snowball. It won't be too long before people start coming out of the woodwork saying "Hey, thats a good idea! They started a war, thats good for peace!". Call me a pessimist but I don't think this is the last we will hear on the issue.

[Argus]

Hmmm, I thought that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in winter? Didn't Annan and the UN just win one a few months ago? Also, I thought that the nominations came from the Nobel Committee, not from Norwegian parliamentary figures...

Can someone please give me a reference or link where I can read about this nomination? I searched my normal news sites and came up empty.

[KHaN]

Interesting posts. I can clearly see who is pro-Bush/Blair vs. anti-Bush/Blair. The bottom line here (and there always is one); who is making a profit from the current war/conflict and is it reasonable to assume that a way of thinking can be erradicated by military means?

As far as the nobel-peace prize goes...wasn't it founded by the guy that invented TNT? If so then B&B are tailor made for the award!

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KHaN:
As far as the nobel-peace prize goes...wasn't it founded by the guy that invented TNT? If so then B&B are tailor made for the award!

---

Alfred Nobel, as naive as it may sound, always hoped TNT could be used for peaceful ends. That is why he set up the Trust and the prize - to show what is really a great acheivement. Peace, not war.