Google| Subject | Re: Clobberin' Time... |
| From | James W. King |
| Date | 09/15/2001 19:16 (09/15/2001 19:16) |
| Message-ID | <20010915131640.07448.00000283@mb-fl.aol.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc |
| Follows | Celaeno |
Celaeno">Jack_Shappa@hotmail.com</A>): "They support these cowards, now they need to pay. Let's pray Bush has at least the balls of his dad (hopefully more). Give 'em a couple days to evacuate the cities of our choice, then waste 'em. Make terrorism very expensive for the nations that support it."
Cryofax (<A HREF="mailto:Jack_Shappa@hotmail.com
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "And let's kill the families of murders... show them we won't put up with that sort of thing either."
Cryofax: "So basically you're saying any other country should be allowed to sponsor activity that leads to civilian casualities, but we should never retaliate against them because we might hurt their 'innocent' civilians? At least we'd have the decency to let them evacuate a city before we annihilate it."
">celaeno@shavenwookie.nospam.com</A>): "Hiroshima. Nagasaki. And you don't know that a government has knowingly sponsored this."Rakelle (<A HREF="mailto:celaeno@shavenwookie.nospam.com
Drew Stile (johnny_ballbuster@hotmail.com): "Please don't compare Hiroshima to this. That was war, this was not."
Rakelle: "True. I'd prefer to think maybe the US would have the decency tonot blow up a city at all in this case."
Rakelle: "To expand upon that... To me, the ONLY thing that makes what happened on Tuesday NOT an act of war, is that it was not arranged by a government."
You mean, it's NOT damning enough that the Taliban government of Afghanistan has been sheltering, coddling and accommodating Osama bin Laden, the actual mastermind and prime suspect behind the bombings of not only the World Trade Center and the Pentagon but also the bombings which killed 24 U.S. servicemen in the Saudi Arabian cities of Riyadh and Khobar in 1995 and 1996; the February 26, 1993 bombing of World Trade Center which killed six people and injured more than 1,000; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people and wounded 4,000; and the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen where 17 U.S. servicemen were killed????
And given all the sheltering and accommodation that the Afghan Taliban government has arranged and afforded Osama bin Laden, how can you say with a straight face that it wasn't proactively complicitous, if not collaborative, in helping him foment his terrorist activities?
Since they didn't condemn his terrorist activities that he's suspected of financing, planning and coordinating, then by their silence and indeed complicity, they've condoned them.
And what about this most recent bit of saber-rattling by the Taliban government?
Excerpt from the Sept. 15, 2001 Reuters news story by David Fox entitled:
AFGHAN TALIBAN THREATEN JIHAD IN FACE OF U.S. ATTACKS
ISLAMABAD, Sept 15 (Reuters) -- Afghanistan's ruling Taliban warned its neighbors on Saturday of "extraordinary danger" if they helped the United States take revenge for the devastating terror attacks on Washington and New York.
Their leader called for a Jihad (Muslim holy war) against anyone cooperating with the United States, while the foreign ministry and the movement's ambassador to Pakistan said Afghanistan would send fighters to extract revenge.
"If a neighboring country or the regional countries -- particularly Islamic countries -- gave a positive response to American demands for military bases, it would spark off extraordinary danger," Ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef told a news conference.
"It is not impossible that we would attack such [a] country under compulsion and the mujahideen would have to enter the territory of such a country," he added.
The Taliban also on Saturday told the few remaining foreigners in Afghanistan to leave "for their own security."
Most already have, although eight foreign aid workers charged with spreading Christianity remain in Taliban custody in Kabul.
Earlier, the Taliban's leader Mullah Muhammad Omar threatened a jihad against any country which attacked Afghanistan.
"Each Muslim should be ready for a jihad against this and be ready for his religion if there is a need for him to sacrifice himself for Islam and his belief, and make a sacrifice for the symbol of belief in Islam," he said on Voice of Shariat radio monitored by the BBC.
The Taliban is considered a pariah movement by the United States because it shelters Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden, implicated by Washington in Tuesday's terror attacks that killed thousands.
The United States has threatened to retaliate against those responsible for the attacks and any country which shelters them.
It launched cruise missile raids on bin Laden's Afghanistan bases in 1998 after he was blamed for the deadly bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
____________________________________
On the other hand, Rakelle, at least you and the Afghan Taliban spokeman do seem to hold opposing views on one issue: Individual Terrorist- Versus Government-Instigated Bombing.
"Hiroshima. Nagasaki [are examples of cities that weren't extended the decency to let their civilians evacuate the cities before they were annihilated by another country]. And you don't know that a government has knowingly sponsored this [terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon]."
-- Rakelle (<A HREF="mailto:celaeno@shavenwookie.nospam.com ">celaeno@shavenwookie.nospam.com</A>)
"What happened in the United States was not a job of ordinary people. It could have been the work of governments. Osama bin Laden cannot do this work, neither us. We are not supporting terrorism. Osama does not have the capability. We condemn this. This could have been the act of either internal enemies of the United States or its major rivals. Osama cannot do this work"
-- Taliban spokesman Abdul Hai Mutmaen from the southern city of Kandahar to Reuters in its Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001 news story entitled "Afghan Taliban Government Rules Out Osama bin Laden as Suspect in Attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon"
James King: "In that vein, if the US government should -- God forbid -- arrange to have some city bombed to bits because the terrorists live there, that WILL be an act of war."
How reprehensible that excuse away those countries who knowingly, collaboratively and/or complicitly shelter, accommodate and coddle terrorists!
In time of war, the death of innocents is the the risk any wayward country knowingly accepts and willfully takes when it defies international law and the Geneva Convention and/or when the greater majority of citizens of that wayward country follow the lead of its terrorist-coddling government and/or are unwilling to risk their own lives in sufficient numbers to oppose or overthrow that terrorist-coddling government.
Rakelle: "I mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki because despite the very different circumstances, they had many civilian casualties who never had anything to do with the war effort and who had had no warning."
Do I understand you correctly that you're alleging without any qualification whatsoever that many of the Japanese civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing whatsoever to do with the Imperial Japanese war effort in World War II, not even in the manufacture and production of food, products, munitions and supplies necessary for the continuation of the war effort?
Rakelle: "In other words: I have no reason to believe the U.S., IF it was decided to go blow up a city to get even, would ask civilians to kindly depart the affected buildings before the bombs hit... and I pray that it won't come to that."
And pray tell, why would any opponent in his right mind give such warnings during wartime anyway?
Rakelle: "Hopefully, everyone but the hapless JWK will be able to understand what I'm trying to say here :) "
While you haven't exactly retracted your prior statement which smacks of denigrading the integrity of the U.S.'s decision to use the atomic bomb in World War II and implicatively equating it with acts of terrorism, at least you seem to be trying in a curiously round-about manner to divert attention away from it by superfluous elaboration which is still at its heart consistent with your earlier repugnant statement.
-- James King
09/11/2001-
-
-
-
