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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (30303)	5/21/2002 9:40:25 PM
From: art slott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Substitute Israel for America and Arafat for Bin Laden . Bin Laden has learned much from the Godfather of terror. >>Bin Laden produced a piece of high political theater he hoped would reach the audience that concerned him the most: the umma, or universal Islamic community. The script was obvious: America, cast as the villain, was supposed to use its military might like a cartoon character trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. The media would see to it that any use of force against the civilian population of Afghanistan was broadcast around the world, and the umma would find it shocking how Americans nonchalantly caused Muslims to suffer and die. The ensuing outrage <<

To: FaultLine who wrote (30303)	5/21/2002 10:03:20 PM
From: art slott	Respond to of 281500

Fascinating. >>On September 11, the attackers undoubtedly imagined themselves to be retracing the Prophet's steps. As they boarded the planes with the intention of destroying the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, they recited battle prayers that contained the line "All of their equipment, and gates, and technology will not prevent [you from achieving your aim], nor harm [you] except by God's will." The hijackers' imaginations certainly needed nothing more <<

To: FaultLine who wrote (30303)	8/29/2002 8:39:24 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Delete

To: FaultLine who wrote (30303)	9/26/2002 10:10:32 AM
From: Joe Copia	Respond to of 281500

I am simply posting this article from Africa. My views are different: (COMTEX) B: About Time for 'Regime Change' in Washington? B: About Time for 'Regime Change' in Washington? Kampala, Sep 26, 2002 (The Monitor/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) -- It started as a joke and simple argument with newsroom colleagues, Daniel and Robert. We were debating whether American president George W. Bush and his most willing poodle, British prime minister Tony Blair were justified to keep shifting goalposts on Iraq. After Iraq finally granted UN weapons inspectors "unfettered access", Bush and Blair predictably moved the goalposts. The Americans insist on "regime change" (removing Saddam Hussein). They also demand a tougher, new UN resolution under which they may unilaterally attack and "disarm" Iraq. The Americans were expected to table the draft new resolution on Iraq by late yesterday. Blair had earlier presented a kicupuli (unconvincing) "dossier" detailing Iraq's assumed capacity to launch biological weapons in 45 days. The Americans insist they can't let rogue states such as Saddam's Iraq develop weapons of "mass destruction". Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, yesterday suggested Saddam would still be ousted even if Iraq complied with UN resolutions on weapons inspection. Americans now say disarmament of Iraq is the main priority, and that the best way to disarm Iraq is through a "regime change" in Baghdad. Which is interesting since the initial demand was simply that Iraq complies with all UN resolutions and lets weapons inspectors back in. Other things would follow, of course - based on the inspection report. My friend Daniel argued that he could see where the Americans were coming from. Guys like Saddam, Daniel reasoned, were simply too dangerous and unpredictable to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction. Robert disagreed. He argued that Americans had no right to decide who should and who shouldn't have such weapons. He also reminded us that, after all, it is the Americans who always nurture and arm some of the world's deadliest rogues - Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc. Robert was particularly angry about America's hypocrisy and double standards. He repeated the old argument: If Americans were really concerned about compliance with UN resolutions, why have they done nothing about Israel's blatant defiance of UN resolutions? Haven't the Americans instead bolstered the Israelis militarily and financially? He asked. It is open secret why Americans relate to Israel the way they do. What many find so annoying, however, is their posturing and double standards. Americans have been arguing that Saddam wanted to control the entire Middle East. But what do the Americans themselves want? Not only do Americans want to control the Middle East and its oil resources, they also want to control (and in many aspects already do) the whole world! So what is the difference between the ambitions of Saddam and those of Bush? None really. Except that Bush holds the trigger to the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction! We all know Americans may one day use those weapons to further Washington's interests anywhere in the world. Surely, Americans did not stockpile such weapons to make beef burgers! In any case, as another colleague argues, it is only Americans who have demonstrated that they wouldn't hesitate to use weapons. Remember the atomic bombs that virtually wiped out every living thing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about Vietnam - where the Americans had no qualms about using napalm? An American president even boasted about his plans to "bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age"! And what crime had the Vietnamese committed? Being communists! So if anyone were not to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, it is the Americans themselves - because there is proof that in their selfish pursuit of wealth (oil, land, etc.) and dominance, they wouldn't hesitate to decimate an entire population if it were seen to stand in their way. Humans have such short memories, though. Otherwise the world would still remember what "Americans" did to the indigenous people of that fair land. They mowed down most of the Red Indians, and launched silent "biological warfare" to decimate the rest in the most inhumane way. The "god-fearing" Americans decimated entire communities of Red Indians that had survived the initial massacres by, among other things, distributing blankets deliberately impregnated with the smallpox germ! So what am I saying? That I agree with Nelson Mandela who believes it is America - and not Iraq (or Saddam Hussein) - that is the greatest threat to world peace. I also agree with British minister Clare Short -- that Iraqis who will die in the event of another American attack on Iraq are as valuable as the 3,000 people who died during last year's September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. In short, American leaders should learn to value other people's lives the way they value their own citizens. The day they do that, their foreign policies shall be better informed as to show respect and tolerance to other peoples and cultures. Otherwise, according to Robert, it may not be long before the rest of the world comes together to demand a "regime change" in Washington, D.C. And where would that leave Bush -- a president whose legitimacy would always have remained questionable had he not been politically boosted by the tragic events of September 11 that galvanised American opinion against the new common enemy? by Ogen Kevin Aliro Copyright The Monitor. Distributed by All Africa Global Media(AllAfrica.com) -0- KEYWORD: Uganda