> Here's what I've been able to gather on Bin Laden. If I'm inaccurate on any
> points, please feel free to correct them.
Thanks for your very analytic lowdown on Mr. bin Laden. It was
refreshing to read some facts instead of the rumours and disinformation
that are spreading over the internet, in conjunction with emotional
outbursts of people crying for retaliation.
> income in the $20,00 range, but for the most part, the middle-eastern man on
> the street has a huge bone to pick with the wealthy, titled classes leading
> these countries.)
My father, who is a professor of development studies in the University
of Helsinki, pointed out when we were having a conversation about these
horrible events, that whoever the attacker is/are (assuming they are
Muslim fundamentalists), their aim seems to be to overthrow all the
pro-American leaders of the Islamic countries. And it seems that G.W.
Bush and the other American leaders are just falling into that trap.
If the U.S. attacks Afghanistan, causing mass destruction and heavy
civilian casualties, in conjunction with Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia and
other Islamic countries, isn't it quite obvious that the leaders of
these countries will seem as traitors to their own citizens, even more
so if the U.S. has no solid evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the
terrorist attack (as still is the situation)? I am not saying the people
of these countries would support the terrorism: it is only a very small
minority that thinks the bombing of WTC and Pentagon was justified. But
I think very few citizens of the Muslim world (and a very big portion of
the world outside U.S. anyway) will think attacking Afghanistan and
quite possibly causing even more destruction to innocent civilians than
the original terrorist attacks did, to eradicate a small group of
fanatics supported by their oppressive, self-appointed GOVERNMENT, not
by the majority of people, would be just either.
If this attack (and possible other attacks on the Muslim world) happen,
it is just bound to create unrest and a shift to more fundamentalist
view of Islam. (A living proof: The Muslim people (who form the majority
of people in the country) of Bosnia-Hertzegovina of former Yugoslavia
were consider very moderate before the war. During the war there was a
considerable shift to more radical views of Islam.) It is quite possible
that such unrest will at least generate more support for the radical
Islamists, even terrorists, and in the worst-case scenario, several
Western-minded goverments may go under to be replaced by strict Muslim
leaders.
I am not saying, that the "folks" (quoting president Bush) who
committed this heinous act shouldn't be captured and punished according
to LAW. What I am saying is, that if U.S. decides to punish the people
of Afghanistan (or some other country for that matter) for something
they haven't done or even condoned, it will quite possibly cause more
damage to American interests than what good it might bring. And in my
ethics it is wrong. Killing thousands of Afghanis won't bring back those
thousands of Americans (and people of other nationalities) killed in
NYC, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I would gladly see the U.S. special troops making a swift, precise
strike on those INDIVIDUALS who really are behind all this, and bring as
many as possible alive to fair trial, where they could also defend
themselves. And if they are found guilty, to be sentenced to whatever
punishment the U.S. law would require (death, I suppose). What I would
not like to see is what seems to be happening: U.S. will punish "eye for
an eye" the countries of origin of those terrorists who carried out the
bombings, and in my view, sink to the same level than the terrorists.
Also, civil rights will be suspended "temporarily", but never restored
again. How can you defend democracy and freedom by killing them?
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
> 1) Osama (or Usama) is not an Afghan, but a Saudi. He is the 20th and
> youngest son of a Saudi construction magnate. Had he gone another route, he
> might have turned out to be an international playboy like D. Al Fayed (of
> Princess Diana fame...)
I read an interview of a Finnish construction worker (incidentally, he
is a detonation expert) who worked under bin Laden in the 70s. He said
bin Laden was one of the most considerate men he has ever known and was
in disbelief when his name popped up in conjunction to terrorism in
early 1990s. How people change.. =(
> 2) Instead, when the Red Army tried to invade Afghanistan, Osama moved there
> [..]
> 4) Osama was aided in his efforts against the Afghan rebels by the CIA.
Although the Afghanistan war is often seen as the fight of oppressed
Afghanis against the conquering Soviets, to my understanding the war was
more of a civil war, where the goverment called in for help from the
Soviet Union and the rebels (such as Taliban and bin Laden) for the
U.S., where the CIA connection comes in. The result was horrendous, as
we can see.
U.S. also funded and armed Saddam back in the days of the Iraq-Iran
war. It's sad to see "your own dogs bite", but perhaps these horrible
things make American policymakers think twice before funding and arming
someone just because they share a common enemy. U.S. has probably had
mostly good intentions in fighting, e.g. the so-called Communists during
the Cold War, but often the regimes the Americans have supported against
the Soviets, have been even more oppressive. Think of the Contras in
Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama.. All these were once
American allies. And no, they didn't turn evil later on. The U.S.
goverment knew what these people were, but they thought it was better to
have a right-wing dictatorship than a "Communist" dictatorship.
(Sorry if I sound bitter here. It just seems to me that most Americans
really don't realize what damage the U.S. foreign policy has done to the
world after WW2. I'm not saying that the time of the Cold War was one of
easy choices, but still, ends don't justify means.)
> Afghanistan is probably among the most miserable place on the planet to
> live, especially for women. To "bomb them back to the middle ages" is
> misplaced, as they are already there. There are no roads, no infrastructure,
> and precious little food. Women are not allowed in school, and men are only
> taught to read the Koran... no other subjects.
Personally, I think it would be wonderful if the Aghanis were freed of
their oppressive fundamentalist goverment that is without parallel in
the modern world. Sadly though, the cause of the Afghani women (an most
of the men, anyway) has not been an issue for the U.S. goverment until
now, even though Afghanistan is also the number one source of heroin in
the world today. Truly liberating Afghanistan would be a Humanitarian
act indeed, but I think now the sentiment is more like "let's kill them
all - if they didn't do it, they at least silently approved so they all
deserve to go".
> It is also a mountainous country which would make it very difficult, if not
> impossible, to conduct an effective air-campaign against the The Base. (And
Yep. As any Russian who fought in the Afghanistan war can tell you, it
is pure hell for the attacker.
If the Americans were to launch a large-scale ground attack on
Afghanistan, I'm afraid "a new Vietnam" would be an understatement.
> It is also probably not an exaggeration to say if the US and Israel were
> both gone, there would be no peace between the Islamic extremist groups
> themselves.
Quite so. For example, the hostility between Iran and Afghanistan is
not just because the Taliban is even much more extreme than Iran's
religious leaders (although this is true also), but because they (to my
knowledge) support different variations of Islam (kinda like Protestants
contra Catholics).
Still, I think the U.S. and Israel aren't actually helping in brining
stability to the Muslim world, though.
> It must be noted that it is probably fair to say that most Moslems in the
> Middle East do not agree with the radicalized interpretation of Islam or the
> Koran practiced by Bin Laden or the Taliban. Yet these radicals are often
> used by the various leaders of the Arab states, i.e. Syria, Libya, and,
> according to the Isrealis, even by Arafat and the Palestinian Authroity.
Yep. And, many of the issues that are around here, are really
political. Religion is an excellent disguise to fool uneducated people:
if it's God's word, then how can it be wrong? Fatwas and such are given
out by people, not by deities. Whether these people truly channel the
wish of the deity they say, is a matter of faith (both in the god and
the person).
> Also, consider that even "moderate" Arab states like Saudi Arabia often have
> abysmal human rights records and women are generally viewed as second or
> third class citizens.
Personally, I wouldn't consider Saudi-Arabia moderate! They are U.S.
allies, true, but that doesn't make them moderate. I'd say e.g. Egypt,
Turkey or Marocco are moderate Islamic countries. (These countries, too,
have their human rights problems, like the Kurds in Turkey etc., which
hasn't got anything to do with religion - actually radical Muslims are
persecuted by the Turkish goverment.)
> Let me conclude by saying that the war is not between Islam and
> Christianity, or Islam and Judaism. The war is fundamentally between 2
> irreconcilable forms of governement, theocracy and democracy.
You're right about the war not being between religions. However, I
wouldn't say this war is between Democracy and Theocracy either. I
think, the war is between U.S. (although one can argue that other
Western countries are on the line of fire, too) and a small faction of
Islamic fundamentalists.
There are other forms of Theocracy, too. I think the idea of Christian
Theocracy is widely supported by some people in America..
> My rather bleak view is that it will not be enough to eradicate the current
> generation of dangerous, deadly theocratic zealots. As long as the Arab
> states resist democratic reform, the conditions that will produce further
> generations of Osama Bin Ladens will still obtain.
I don't think it is just that Arab states resist democratic reform
(athough that is true in some cases). The current world order emphazises
economy over civil society and thus profits over democracy. Sad but
true, the U.S. goverment, at least from my viewpoint, is not interested
in democracy in the third world if it is a threat to American business
interests. The said might be true of other Western goverments, too.
Whenever democracy is not conficting with business, it's OK. But if
business is running smoothly with an oppressive regime, why risk going
through a turbulent transition of governance?
I my seem anti-American to some of you, who understandably wave the
flag high right now. I wish to assure you, I have nothing against the
American people and I most certainly don't approve mass destruction of
human life! Still, although the scale of this tragedy is
uncomprehensible, I wish to remind you that worse things do happen
elsewhere, and the American media does not go berzerk. Anyone remember
the 1999 earthquake in Turkey that killed 40,000 people? I think the
media coverage here in Finland was a small fraction of what is flooding
in right now. Are American people more valuable than Turkish people? In
Rwanda, 800,000-1,600,000 people (mostly undarmed civilians) were killed
in bloody skrimshes in 1994-95. I didn't notice the European Union to
call in a Europe-wide day of mouring for that..
The media seems just to be throwing gasoline to the flames. "War",
"revenge", "retaliation"! "The most tragic day in American history" -
how about the battle of Antiteam in Civil War, killing more than 23,000
men in one day (September 17, 1862)?
Anti-terrorist legistlation is tightening up and crushing civil rights.
In 1998, total of 30,708 people were killed by guns in the U.S. Why
aren't you tightening up your gun legistlation?
Oh well. Many of you are right in pointing your finger at us who accuse
the U.S. at this time of mourning. I completetly agree, IT WAS NOT THE
VICTIMS' FAULT WHAT HAPPENED! And nothing, simply nothing justifies what
has happened. I just hope that something can be learned of this horrible
act of terror.
Keep strong over there. But remember, killing more innocent people
won't do nothing but more harm.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 13:45:49 CEST