Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (6747)	9/17/2001 11:43:53 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I think our freedoms and our lifestyle are things that are envied very much abroad. JLA

To: jttmab who wrote (6747)	9/17/2001 4:15:44 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

"It doesn't take much prompting to get Sami-ul-Haq to explain what he sees as the rational basis for the anti-American hatred that fuels the Islamic extremists. When he hears the first question on the terrorist attacks, he immediately begins a long speech about the Jews who, he says, are pushing the American government into an anti-Muslim war. "Jews and Christians are fighting against Muslims, but it is the Jews who have the most antagonistic policy toward Muslims," he says. "The Jews have so much control over the United States, and their people are in so many positions, that they have a stranglehold over America and Europe too. The U.S. election was an example of how the Jews can manipulate everything in the United States. If anyone goes against them, they create a conspiracy to stop it." American leaders have proclaimed that the terrorist attacks are the beginning of the first war of the 21st century. But from Sami-ul-Haq's perspective, the war has been raging for a long time, and it was the United States that launched the war against the Muslim world. This, he says, is the source of the venom and hatred that motivates many of his followers. "We are already in a state of war. Without declaring war, the Americans are undermining our sovereignty. You can see Afghan refugees in Pakistan who are suffering from American policies. The American policy is to establish its superiority all over the world and make itself the only superpower. They want to seize all economic, political and military control. If they declare war on us, so what? Pakistan is already so dependent on them that we have to ask the World Bank for permission when we set the price of potatos." The war, he makes clear, is a global one. He recites a long list of Muslim grievances around the world: Iraqi and Afghan children dying of hunger because of U.S.-led sanctions; Palestinians dying in air strikes by U.S.-backed Israeli forces; American troops stationed on the sacred Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia. Even non-Muslim countries such as China and Japan are growing resentful of the U.S. military presence on their soil and in their airspace, he says. "They are all the victims and targets of U.S. economic policy. The Americans want to impose a new world order. Muslims are the only power opposing that. Muslims cannot accept any world domination. Islam is growing everywhere, it has become very strong in Europe and it is spreading very fast in the United States. That's why the Americans are doing everything possible to stop it. But whenever anyone opposes the United States, they are called terrorists." As he speaks, he adjusts his grey-and-white turban and gestures with his spectacles, sometimes interrupting the interview to speak into a red plastic 1970s-style telephone. He sticks to the official Taliban line: The terrorism attacks had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, all terrorism should be condemned and the United States should investigate properly and find clear proof of who is guilty before it takes any action. He even hints that American terrorists may have been responsible, since the hijackers could not have flown over the Pentagon "unless they had an insider with them." Like many in this region, he notes that Osama bin Laden himself was supported by the United States when he was fighting against the Soviet army in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "Osama was a hero to them. America was very happy with him, because he spent millions of dollars on the war against the Soviets. But then the Americans took control of everything in Saudi Arabia -- its resources and oil -- and stationed their military there. It was almost the same as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden fought the Soviets and now, in the same way, he is fighting the Americans." Bin Laden, he says, is moving around between caves and mud houses in Afghanistan, with his movements watched and restricted by the Taliban. "He doesn't have the capacity to do this. He doesn't even have telephones. But America needs an evil figure. They want to keep him alive, to use the myth of him to keep control of Saudi Arabia and other countries. They are blaming Muslims to justify an attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan." Sami-ul-Haq is not just a religious leader. He also heads a pro-Taliban faction of a radical Islamic party, the Jamiat-Ulema-Islami. He is a former Pakistani senator. And he is president of the Afghanistan Defence Council, a coalition that includes secular groups as well as religious organizations. (He has called a meeting of the coalition for Monday to discuss how to respond if the United States launches military strikes on Afghanistan.) "Afghanistan is a heap of rubble and mud houses," he says. "There is nothing there, only hunger. The Taliban are facing deep troubles. Why would they attack America? If the United States bombs Afghanistan, the people there cannot lose any more than they already have. It is the Americans who will lose. Anti-American feeling will rise so high that it won't be safe for Americans to be here." globeandmail. See:http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=16359077 Jtmab, the above is an excerpt from a story in Toronto's Globe and Mail. The man was interviewed by the Globe and Mail. Sami-ul-Haq is a FRIEND and MENTOR of bin Laden - Mephisto

To: jttmab who wrote (6747)	9/17/2001 4:49:15 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

US support of the Shah of Iran. Bin Laden turned against the US only when King Fahd of Saudia Arabia invited the US to help defend the oil-producing countries against an invasion by Irag. Bin Laden believes that when the US went into Saudia Arabia they intruded on Holy Land, land that is sacred to the Muslims, so sacred that only Muslims can walk on this ground. The US intrusion was an act of sacrilege. He feels we walked on consecrated ground. The only comparison that comes to mind is if the US invited a host country to help protect this nation and allowed them to put up their tents in or around Arlington National Cemetery. Americans would be outraged, just like bin Laden felt when American troops walked on the sacred ground of the Muslims in Saudia Arabia.. I'll pull up the article from the NyTimes about this matter.- Mephisto ............................****************************................................ Bin Laden: Child of Privilege Who Champions Holy War "Mr. bin Laden turned violently anti- American in 1990 after King Fahd invited the United States and its allies to station forces in Saudi Arabia to help defend the oil-producing kingdom against an invasion by Iraq. The presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad and the home of the two holiest Muslim shrines, enraged Mr. bin Laden and other Arab militants. Over time, they increasingly came to blame the United States for Muslim woes, among them oppression of Palestinians by Israel." For complete New York Times Story* see: Message 16359056

To: jttmab who wrote (6747)	9/17/2001 11:01:17 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Look, we don't have to be responsible for the ignorance and hatred of everybody on earth. They don't need to hate us; they choose to do it. Message #6747 from jttmab at Sep 17, 2001 11:32 AM Why do they hate us so badly? It's beyond comprehension. Is it? Two choices. Choice A:

To: jttmab who wrote (6747)	9/21/2001 1:26:19 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Choice A: US support of the Shah of Iran. OK. Encouraging the Iraq/Iran war as a means of balancing power within the region. Encouraging? They needed encouragement? They seemed quite eager to get at each others throats. Support of the Israelis vis a vis the Palestinians. OK. Of course, the US is supporting the only country that is even remotely democratic in the region. Seems to me we ought to support other democracies. And I'd say this is the real reason. The rest is smoke and misdirection. US involvement in Afghanistan; we helped train them in the noble battle of overcoming the evil empire. I thought they wanted to be rid of the atheistic Soviets. No? Economic sanctions in Iraq, starving children of Iraq, etc. Iraq DID invade Kuwait. After their defeat in the Gulf War, Iraq agreed to abide by the terms of certain UN resolutions. And then did not do so. The sanctions were the consequence. Seems fair to me.