Archived from The Crowe's Perch, the message board for Russell Crowe, an unofficial site.
AMERICAN RED CROSS: 1 800 HELP NOW
The Crowe' s Perch Archives
    > Russell's Revellers: get your fan fuel here:)
        > The "terrorist problem"
  

Page 1 2 3 4

Author Comment
shabby doll
Frequently Perched
(9/12/01 9:12:56 pm)
The "terrorist problem"
Couldn't possibly agree more, IzzyLizzy. So many Americans are completely unaware of just what the motivation for an attack like this could be. I have heard so many people express outrage at the pictures of the Palestinians in the refugee camps celebrating. They have no concept of why these people would be happy about what's occurred and see their reactions as barbaric.
Quote:
"The people here are gloating over the American grief," said Emad Salameh, a 29-year-old taxi driver in Gaza. "Apache helicopters, tanks and all kinds of destructive weapons have been killing Palestinian infants and women...Palestinians have been crying and suffering, and now it is time for Americans to cry and suffer."
That was from my local paper today. To my frustration and despair, the news continues to be Amero-centric. Don't misinterpret what I mean here. I'm only asking for more explanation than is being supplied. For the love of pete, by all means tell us everything about what's happening with the rescue efforts, etc. But fill in the blanks on the story too.

Chili 
Perch Pro
(9/12/01 9:25:20 pm)
width=85
Shabby Doll... a serious question:
Quote:
Apache helicopters, tanks and all kinds of destructive weapons have been killing Palestinian infants and women...
What is this person referring to? To Israeli-owned Apache helicopters, and tanks sold to the Israelis by the US? He can't mean that he thinks we kill Palestinians directly; except for the Gulf War, we've had no direct involvement in the Middle East since Lebanon in the early 1980's - 20 years ago. Or am I forgetting something humungous? (well, this is likely)... And, by "Palestinians" does he mean anyone not of the nation of Israel? Because Sadam's Iraqi's aren't "Palestinian". I'm confused - am I being dense? Or is he under a terrible misconception? Or... was something lost in the translation? Do they seriously think that Israel = the US?

Oh boy... this is a whole different can of worms. Let me close it back up.

babzee 
Perch Pro
(9/12/01 9:26:34 pm)
Re: The "terrorist problem"
From the NY Times

Quote:
September 13, 2001

THE AFGHANS
Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing
By BARRY BEARAK

ABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 12 — If there are Americans clamoring to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, they ought to know that this nation does not have so far to go. This is a post-apocalyptic place of felled cities, parched land and downtrodden people.

The fragility of this country was part of the message the Taliban government conveyed in a plea for restraint issued late tonight.
It said in part, "We appeal to the United States not to put Afghanistan into more misery because our people have suffered so much."

Whatever Afghanistan's current cataclysm, its next one seems to require little time to overtake it. Wars fought by sundry protagonists have gone on now for 22 consecutive years, a remorseless drought for 4. Since 1996, most of the nation has been ruled by Taliban mullahs whose vision of the world's purest Islamic state has at least as much to do with controlling social behavior as vouchsafing social welfare.

The accused terrorist Osama bin Laden has found a home here, angering much of the world. In 1998, America fired a volley of more than 70 cruise missiles at guerrilla training camps reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire. Now, there seems to be the prospect of another barrage, with Afghan hospitality to the same man as the cause.

As fear of an American attack mounted, the Taliban's senior spokesman in Kandahar, Abdul Hai Mutmain, called the few foreign reporters here to issue the statement, which in part defended Mr. bin Laden:

"These days, Osama bin Laden's name has become very popular and to an extent it has become a symbol. These days, even to the common people, Osama bin Laden's name is associated with all controversial acts. Osama bin Laden does not have such capabilities. We still hope sanity prevails in the United States. We are confident that if a fair investigation is carried out by American authorities, the Taliban will not be found guilty of involvement in such cowardly acts."

The statement also said, "Killing our leaders will not help our people any. There is no factory in Afghanistan that is worth the price of a single missile fired at us. It will simply increase the mistrust between the people in the region and the United States."

Whatever else there is to say about this entreaty, one part that is indisputably true is that this land-locked, ruggedly beautiful nation is in absolute misery.

Here in Kabul, the capital, roaming clusters of widows beg in the streets, their palms seemingly frozen in a supplicant pose. Withered men pull overloaded carts, their labor less costly than the price of a donkey.

Children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines. The national life expectancy, according to the central statistics office, has fallen to 42 for males and 40 for females.

The prolonged drought has sent nearly a million Afghans — about 5 percent of the population — on a desperate flight from hunger. Some have gone to other Afghan cities, others across the border. More than one million are "at risk of starvation," according to the United Nations.

Famine is the catastrophe Afghans are used to hearing about. Few yet know of the threat of an American reprisal. The Taliban long ago banned television, and the lack of electricity keeps most people from listening to radio.

The nation's 100 or so foreign aid workers suffer no such telecommunications handicaps, however, and today many of them began to flee their adopted home, fearing either the havoc of American bombs or the wrath of subsequent Afghan outrage.

Around noon, a special United Nations flight evacuated the first of the expatriates. The remaining foreigners are expected to leave on Thursday, as will three, and perhaps all four, of the American parents here to observe the trial of their children, among eight foreign aid workers accused by the Taliban of preaching Christianity.

As foreigners left, the Taliban took unusual precautions: they began searching every vehicle entering government compounds. Visitors were carefully frisked.

But however much the Taliban hierarchy was beginning to fret, streets and bazaars were a picture of normality. Word has spread slowly about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. And even when everyday Afghans heard the news, there were no accompanying video images to sear the horror into their memories. Personal conversations only carried the dull stimuli of abstract words: hijacked planes and collapsed buildings.

Khair Khana, a man selling fertilizer in a market, knew just a bit about the attack. He thought a plane had crashed into the White House. And he considered the perpetrators, whoever they are, to be "enemies of God," though he also felt "Americans should look into their hearts and minds about why someone would kill themselves and others" in such a way.

He had not thought much about an American retaliation against Afghanistan. When he did consider it, standing in a ramshackle collection of stalls, he shrugged and said: "Americans are powerful and can do anything they like without us stopping them."

Nearby, a tailor, Abdul Malik, saw God's justice in America's pain because, as he understands it, the United States has armed the Afghan resistance to fight against the Taliban. "So they at least now know how it feels in their own country," he said.

As for Mr. bin Laden, the tailor considered judgment of him to be God's affair. "If Osama is Islam's enemy, he should be gotten rid of," he said. "But if he is a good Muslim and wants Islam to prosper — and if America wants him dead — then we hope he destroys America."

The common people of Afghanistan are often circumspect with their opinions. As one man said today: "Nobody here talks wholeheartedly any more; it can be dangerous."

The Taliban are credited with improving safety. They disarmed the population, they put an end to banditry. But the security has come at a steep price.

Women have been forced into head-to-toe gowns known as burqasand evicted from schools and the workplace. Men are obligated to wear long beards or face jail. Banned are musical instruments, chessboards, playing cards, nail polish and neckties. Cheers at soccer matches are restricted to "Allah-u-akbar,"or God is great. Freedom of speech has bowed to religious totalitarianism.

Various Taliban police forces patrol the streets. Today, in a derelict building that is used as a precinct office, one 25-year-old constable sat on the floor beneath a single dangling light bulb. His name was Muhammad Anwar. He had heard something about the attack in America but he had no idea how many were killed or what cities were involved. Indeed, it seemed unlikely that he had ever heard of New York.

"Attacks like these are not a good thing because Muslims live all over the world and Muslims may have been killed," Mr. Anwar said hesitantly. By his reckoning, Americans were enemies of Afghanistan, as were Jews and Christians. He thought about this a bit more and retracted it partially. "There must have been all kinds of people in the building, not just bad Jews but good Jews, not just bad Christians but good ones."

He remembered something he had learned in his madrassa, or religious school. "It is un-Islamic to kill innocent people," he said.

And here is a link to a site belonging to a photo journalist -- it includes heart-wrenching scenes of Afghanistan and seemingly up-to-date news.www.ciriello.com/46massudblast.html

Strength and Honor

Edited by: babzee  at: 9/12/01 9:38:39 pm
Chili 
Perch Pro
(9/12/01 9:41:36 pm)
width=85
Wow... Babzee, thank you
...the saddest element of this article: why bin Laden, protected and defended by the Taliban, did not spend his 200 billion dollars rebuilding the country instead of spending it to kill thousands of people who are innocent of any crimes against him or the Afghani people, thereby bringing down the wrath of the world's one superpower on their heads yet again. Boggles the mind.

I wonder if they would accept a deal: we'll help rebuild your country if you turn him over. And we'll freeze his assets and use them to do it. Bloodless.

babzee 
Perch Pro
(9/12/01 9:49:25 pm)
Re: Wow... Babzee, thank you
Excellent questions, Chili.

According to a site I found about him, he's established businesses in a couple of different countries to finance his terrorism. It does boggle the mind to try to understand why he couldn't use the money to benefit the desperately needy country that is harboring him.

Here is a link to a PBS site about bin Laden, dating from the US Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998. There are many excellent articles here.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/

Strength and Honor

Edited by: babzee  at: 9/12/01 9:59:14 pm
babzee 
Perch Pro
(9/12/01 10:45:50 pm)
Probably too much information
But this is an excellent article, entitled "Hard Target: Why We Can't Defeat Terrorist With Bombs and Bombast" by Raymond Close.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/close.html

Here's a sample:
Quote:
Most of us accept the premise that terrorism is a phenomenon that can be defeated only by better ideas, by persuasion and, most importantly, by amelioration of the conditions that inspire it. Terrorism's best asset, in the final analysis, is the fire in the bellies of its young men, and that fire cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles. If intelligent Americans can accept that premise as a reasonable basis for dealing with this nemesis, why is it so difficult for our leaders to speak and act accordingly?
Quote:
The worst nightmare of our strategic military and security planners is that a small and weak enemy could hold us hostage by possessing a weapon of monstrous power, yet so insignificant in size and appearance that we cannot see it, cannot locate it, and therefore cannot attack and destroy it.


Strength and Honor

Edited by: babzee  at: 9/13/01 12:02:50 pm
Jackie12
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 7:11:19 am)

The Terrorist Problem
Excellent thread and discussion girls! What I can't get my head round is that Bin Laden condemns American capitalism yet he is a multi-millionaire with various business interests aimed at mutiplying his fortune. He seems to live in the midst of deprivation, misery and the deepest poverty yet has done nothing to alleviate this suffering - and I wonder if the Taliban would be so willing to offer him sanctuary if he was a penniless nobody - I think not. I remember going to see Paco Pena, the classical Spanish guitarist quite a long time ago and he told us that a lot of the traditional music he played had its roots in history - a legacy from the Moors who invaded Spain in the 12th century - "wielding the flaming sword of Islam". There were Holy Crusades from Britain and other parts of Europe to the middle east and the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th centuries aimed at removing the "infidel". Doesn't seem a lot has changed in the intervening period, does it?

babzee 
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 1:40:10 pm)
Re: The "terrorist problem"
Because knowledge is power -- I'm bumping this.

Strength and Honor

lurker 0317
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 2:02:25 pm)
Re: The "terrorist problem"
*bump*


Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Andre Gide

Judy SF
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 2:22:14 pm)
Community Supporter
yes
Quote:
According to a site I found about him, he's established businesses in a couple of different countries to finance his terrorism. It does boggle the mind to try to understand why he couldn't use the money to benefit the desperately needy country that is harboring him.


I've been thinking the same thing for years. He's been financing a war, and he expects not to reap what he sows, and the governments that harbor him and protect him and support him expect not to either? And they call US naive?

I DO understand the reasons behind this kind of terrorism and war, even though I am sometimes assumed to be ignorant of such things simply because I'm an American.

Of course it is POSSIBLE as petshark points out the obvious, to end world hunger, though I am not sure that would end religious fanaticism... and I am reminded of something Jesus reportedly said to the effect that "the poor will always be with you."

Well, so will the rich then, right? And so will the murderous, and so will religious fanatics. We have them in this country as well, and they are usually quite well-fed. They usually confine themselves to shooting at abortion doctors and bombing clinics and killing a few gays whenever they can and such - I guess maybe our domestic religious fanatics are afraid to travel outside the country to kill people.

I am not a pacifist, and I doubt that any of you really are either. I've never supported attacking anyone first, but I do support defending ourselves and our allies from attack, no matter what the "reasons" are in the minds of those doing the killing.

There's no excuse for their actions, period, no matter how "disenfranchised" they are, or whatever else causes them to become religious fanatics on suicide missions.

Yes, yes, yes, of course we should all do whatever we can to share the wealth around the world... but that doesn't mean not defending ourselves from attack. The two things are not mutually exclusive by any means.

Judy



Jackie12
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 3:46:05 pm)

The Terrorist Problem
Judy ITA with everything you have said. I don't want war in any shape or form but maybe if there hadn't been so much appeasement in the years leading up to World War 2 it wouldn't have been as bad for nearly as long. There will always been extremists and fanatics, some more than others but this has gone well beyond the pale. I was just watching the rescue operation on CNN and SKY news - those guys deserve medals, I admire them so much.

buckwheat2
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 4:00:56 pm)
Re: The Terrorist Problem
as always, clearthinking Chili......

Quote:
why bin Laden, protected and defended by the Taliban, did not spend his 200 billion dollars rebuilding the country instead of spending it to kill thousands of people who are innocent of any crimes against him or the Afghani people, thereby bringing down the wrath of the world's one superpower on their heads yet again.


I wish I had said that.

B

"I think he has a sensuous enough soul that the darkness calls to him,"-Moonrose, 9/1/01

petshark 
Board Monitor
(9/13/01 4:48:36 pm)
The word "appeasement" always raises hackles
It always brings to mind the pre WWII days, but in that case we were appeasing the wrong folks. Handing your money over to a mugger doesn't help solve crime. But making sure that the mugger-to-be gets food and schooling might. I say "appease" the terrorist's angry supporters only because I am assuming they have some reason to be angry. We can't take back actions that have contributed to their situation but we can begin to apologize. And I emphasize that I do not mean we should forgive the terrorists themselves. They are the madmen and they need to be treated as such. As for "why didn't bin Laden help solve hunger and suffering in his new home instead of waging war", well, I am guessing he is one of the worst madmen, along the lines of Hitler and Stalin: he just doesn't track like the rest of us. So no, he doesn't make any sense, a thorough nut.

Edited by: petshark  at: 9/13/01 4:55:52 pm
shaballs 
Perch Pro
(9/13/01 5:25:01 pm)
Re: The word "appeasement" always raises hackles
*Bump*

petshark 
Board Monitor
(9/13/01 11:47:22 pm)
ibid
*b*

petshark 
Board Monitor
(9/14/01 9:22:32 am)
Speaking of fanatics
I found this so disturbing that I didn't want to start a new thread with it. But something folks should nkow about:
God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says

By John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer

WASHINGTON (Post) -- Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because heir actions have turned God's anger against America.

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

People for the American Way transcribed the broadcast and denounced the comments as running directly counter to President Bush's call for national unity. Ralph G. Neas, the liberal group's president, called the remarks "absolutely inappropriate and irresponsible."

Robertson and others on the religious right gave critical backing to Bush last year when he was battling for the GOP presidential nomination. A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views."

Falwell was unrepentant, saying in an interview that he was "making a theological statement, not a legal statement."

"I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist," he said. But he said America's "secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good."

Robertson was not available for comment, a spokeswoman said. But she released a statement echoing the remarks he made on his show. An ACLU spokeswoman said the group "will not dignify the Falwell-Robertson remarks with a comment."


akaNikki
Perch Pro
(9/14/01 9:32:04 am)
Re: Speaking of fanatics
See KitKat's thread - she posted this and several have already started replying.

easyblue
Registered User
(9/14/01 9:53:28 am)

RE: The "terrorist problem"
I think we need to find ways to outsmart the terrorist. War may give us a temporary fix and make is feel vindicated, but, it won't make them go away.

This CIA and FBI try hard, I'm sure, to fight terrorist daily. They need to find new ways, "think out of the box", more funding, and more intelligence agents.

G E
Frequently Perched
(9/14/01 10:22:11 am)
My first bump ever...
and well worth the wait!

*BUMP!!!!*

G E
Frequently Perched
(9/14/01 10:37:38 am)

Chili, I'll open the can of worms just a tiny bit...
<<Do they seriously think that Israel = the US?>>

Yes. If we're backing them and giving support, there's no differentiation. We're contributing to their problem.

Page 1 2 3 4