15001. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:01:52 AM
They're saying there was no indication it was more than an accident, but I don't know how they could know anything yet.
15002. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:02:20 AM
How can they determine so soon that it is an accident. It just happened, right?
15003. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:04:26 AM
Headed to Santo Domingo? So, a transcontinental flight, plenty of fuel in the plane?
15004. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:07:36 AM
They got the flight number--567, I think. They said 246 passengers and 9 crew were on the plane.
15005. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:08:35 AM
It crashed almost an hour ago, btw, at 9:15, they said.
15006. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 10:11:30 AM
Jesus, I'm glad it was Webfeet who posted the news. She lives in Queens.
15007. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:11:44 AM
"Frankly, Andonly's fixation with blonde people worries me."
Everybody has to worry about something.
The period during which all my boyfriends looked like Nazi ubermenschen worried my parents. I never did manage to marry a Jew. (Fortunately for all concerned, the folks were placated by the fact that my mate possesses an advanced degree in a respectable but semi-arcane field of study, and although half German, is not blond...)
15008. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:21:06 AM
BBC reports two crash sites--one where one of the plane's engine's crashed, and another where the actual plane crashed.
Witnesses report an explosion in one engine, then the plane taking a nosedive.
15009. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:21:35 AM
When my sister finaly arrives, I am going to tie her to a chair. No more Turkish vacations until the security situation improves dramatically.
15010. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:21:38 AM
engine's=engines
15011. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:27:30 AM
AC,
Queens is very large, webbie lives quite far from the Rockaways. The area the plance crashed is rather unpopulated and open, by the way. It's on the outskirts of the airport. In a way it's fortunate the plane hit where it did, there are many places where the damage could have been much more severe.
How many planes is this down from JFK in the past two years, by the way? 4? 5? It's way too many.
15012. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:29:58 AM
I didn't say anything about it at the time, but Mose was going to Spain and France this spring, and since most of her friends have canceled she doesn't want to go now, either. I'm not pushing otherwise. I'm not afraid to fly anymore than I already was, but I certainly wouldn't push her to, although she doesn't seem to be nervous about it at all, just disappointed that so many people are canceling.
15013. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:30:29 AM
(CBS) Nov. 12, 2001
A plane crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood.
The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports. Thick black smoke can be seen in the neighborhood of Beach Street and 129th street. Reports say there are a number of buildings on fire in the neighborhood.
The FAA said the plane was flying New York to Santo Domingo. The FAA said the plane was American Airlines flight 587, and it was an Airbus A-300, twin-engine plane.
Mayor Giuliani was headed to the scene.
All three of New York City's airports were closed.
There's LaGuardia, JFK, and--what? Are they counting Newark as one of "NYC's airports"?
15014. Jenerator - 11/12/2001 10:31:18 AM
Andonly, when you say Nazi ubermenschen, do you mean bad haircuts and closely cropped mustaches, too?;-)
I heard that the plane hit a gas station and several buildings are on fire.
15015. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:31:22 AM
How many planes is this down from JFK in the past two years, by the way? 4? 5? It's way too many.
My lands. I wonder why?
15016. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:33:13 AM
yeah, alistair, marj is right.nowhere near it. but theres always next time. laguardia is just a few miles away.
french correspondent has just been informing aix of the news.
15017. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:34:39 AM
"Andonly, when you say Nazi ubermenschen, do you mean bad haircuts and closely cropped mustaches, too?;-)"
I'm not fond of facial hair. Or chest hair, for that matter.
15018. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:35:39 AM
I seriously feel like it's almost obscene to enjoy myself lately.
Everytime I give back a little and say 'oh, well, might as well go on with life--who knows when it will end?'--I read another devastating obit (well, they're all devastating) and now--this.
15019. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:36:29 AM
But back to important matters--does anyone know whether Newark has been shut down? I suspect if I try to call the phones will be jammed.
15020. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:37:09 AM
What's astonishes me is that fully 40 minutes and more after the crash only then did we know for sure the flight, the destination, and the aircraft, despite the networks working phones and contacts to get information. First reports that the plane was a 767-300 inbound were wrong; only that the plane was American is later proven to be true.
15021. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:37:16 AM
One was that EgyptAir plane that some suggest the pilot downed by himself. Another is that PanAm(?) flight off LI that there is no answer for but some suggest was downed by a missile.
It is not too early to start speculation about terrorist attacks, I think.
So, let's consider the following. It's highly unlikely that it took place like the previous ones. Rockaway is almost underneath the take-off area, there would have been a minute or two after takeoff to crash maximum. So, if it is a terrorist attack it was a bomb or some sabotage that took place immediately after take-off. Or a missile from the ground.
So, I'd say there is a strong chance that it is not a terrorist attack. Or, if it is, there could now be the possibility that ground staff or airport personnel are in on the scheme.
15022. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:39:17 AM
Loar,
I'm with you, the information infrastructure is appalling.
--
Andonly,
Newark is shut. I'd bet it's going to be shut through the day. All bridges and tunnels are again shut in and out of NY. They'll most likely reopen in a bit, I'm guessing.
15023. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:39:48 AM
Newark is shut down. So are bridges and tunnels and JFK and Lagaurdia.
15024. RustlerPike - 11/12/2001 10:39:55 AM
Planes should be outlawed.
15025. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:40:18 AM
echo
15026. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:40:49 AM
"So, I'd say there is a strong chance that it is not a terrorist attack. Or, if it is, there could now be the possibility that ground staff or airport personnel are in on the scheme."
If it was terrorism, surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US, the better to cause damage and instill fear.
15027. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:41:31 AM
The only one who cannot be persuaded by the evidence that EgyptAir 990 was downed by any other than the "cruise" co-pilot Gameel al-Batouti is the Egyptian government.
15028. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:42:55 AM
Thanks for the info, folks. Maybe my sister will be able to log on in Paris and we'll try to make make other arrangements.
15029. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:45:26 AM
Specialist an CBS says it fits the profile of 'catastrophic engine failure'.
15030. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:45:28 AM
Yasir Arafat expressed his "deepest appreciation" on Sunday for President Bush's public endorsement of Palestine as a state.
NyT
15031. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:46:20 AM
Well, Loar, I haven't read that famous Atlantic Monthly article, but i'm willing to believe it.
--
What is surprising and disappointing about the news coverage available right now, is that we're again reduced to panic over a long-shot of smoke rising from the ground. The details that come out are contradictory, and there is no authoritative official word. One hopes (a) that this shit ceases happening and (b) that the homeland security guys get their act together so that withing 20 minutes of something like this happening in the future there is a calm, informed, person in front of all the cameras telling us what is happening and all that we need to know.
15032. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:46:49 AM
goes onto say...Likely to be a 'terribly tragic accident'--consistent with eyewitness accounts of debris and engine falling.
15033. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:47:43 AM
Yes, if it were terrorism "surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US", except that the plane was going to Santo Domingo and so its flight path would not bring it over the continental US at low altitude except immediately after take-off, and despite man's (and terrorists) best intentions - shit happens - as the PanAm flight failed to explode over the Atlantic but inconveniently scattered evidence over Lockerbie because of a flight delay.
I don't know if this plane was downed by accident or intent and no one can now say for sure.
15034. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:49:06 AM
Speculation will prove worse than lack of immediate facts in this matter.
15035. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:50:04 AM
JABAL OS SARAJ, Afghanistan -- Anti-Taliban forces plowed across much of central and northern Afghanistan on Sunday, pushing south and west in a powerful offensive that opposition leaders claimed gave them control of more than half the country
Long Live Baba Jan!
15036. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:50:38 AM
Loar, re Message # 15027, there's an article in the Atlantic about that (sorry I have no link). A former pilot assesses the black box info and concludes there's simply no way that crash was anything but a suicide mission.
15037. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 10:51:40 AM
Engine exploded? If it wasn't a bomb, then it's bad news for Airbus Industrie.
I'm booked to fly into JFK next month. On ...
(just checked) an Airbus.
15038. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:51:46 AM
We have liberated almost the whole of northern Afghanistan," said Haji Mohammed Mukhaqiq, one of the three Northern Alliance commanders.
and long may you live my brick-dust comrade!
15039. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:51:47 AM
Now theyre talking about the plane's 'ingestion of birds' as a possible cause...its apparently a real problem.
15040. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:53:25 AM
Yes and grace a dieu for that last Alistair!
Boeing's in deep doo since losing the Joint Strike K.
15041. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:54:00 AM
Yes, Andonly, I read The Atlantic Monthly of November 2001, pp.41-52, had referenced it before in this column, and my Message # 15027 was based on that article entitled "The Crash of EgyptAir 990" by William Langewiesche.
15042. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:54:48 AM
Abdullah^2 (NA FM) said, warning that the Taliban forces "have no escape"
15043. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:57:01 AM
Langweische saves his most damning evidence for the last paragraph. And it almost leaves you speechless.
15044. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:57:39 AM
"all my boyfriends looked like Nazi ubermenschen"
HOT!
Some girls have ALL the luck!
Well unlucky in love, unlucky in life..[sigh]
15045. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:59:13 AM
and I know its off topic but saw Private Ryan last nite..first time....
With memories of that SUPERLATIVE scene of SS Das Reich's attach on the 101 AB....Ando's now put me in heat
15046. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:00:11 AM
"Yes, if it were terrorism "surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US", except that the plane was going to Santo Domingo and so its flight path would not bring it over the continental US at low altitude except immediately after take-off"
Sigh. Yes, that's obvious, but only means that if this is an act of terrorism, it involves a degree of technological precision not previously demonstrated by al Qaeda. Which would be bad news if we're looking at terrorism, yet at the moment suggests an accident. Rather the way the Egypt Air flight and the Long Island crash appeared to be accidents, and can never be determined with certainty to be otherwise.
I agree with Banks--it would help to have prompt and straightforward Homeland Defense spokesmen. A simple "We don't know yet what has happened, but here are the relevant details" ought not to be left solely to the electronic media.
15047. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:01:52 AM
"Now theyre talking about the plane's 'ingestion of birds' as a possible cause...its apparently a real problem."
Boeing used to test its aircraft by hurling frozen chicken into jet engines in wind tunnels.
15048. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 11:02:11 AM
alistair, if you do go ahead with your plans, let us know. for now, our plans to visit aix before the holidays are postponed.
15049. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:02:52 AM
"We've all shaved our beards," one resident said. "It will be nice to kiss each other on the cheek again..
Mind still in gutter
15050. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:05:03 AM
"Public bathhouses, shut by the Taliban as spiritually corrupt, reopened over the weekend with prices jacked up 12 times--from 15 cents a sauna before the Taliban took control to about $2 on Sunday."
We don't even have those in SF anymore :(
15051. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:09:58 AM
CNN has eyewitnesses saying that an engine was on fire after takeoff (accompanying shots of engine lying four blocks from crash site) and that debris was flying off the plane before crash.
So, it's either a bomb (possibly a passenger with a small quantity of explosives strapped to his/her body, enough to blow a hole in the plane), or an accident involving a faulty engine.
15052. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:11:21 AM
Ahmed Massoud was killed by a person with explosives strapped around his body, apparently. So, famously, was Rajiv Gandhi.
15053. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:11:35 AM
Or sabotage.
15054. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:13:22 AM
Well, yes, sabotage. I suppose the engine could have been "fixed' in a way that did not involve a bomb.
15055. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:17:35 AM
It was TWA, not Pan Am, and it was six years ago.
There have been three or four unexplained crashes on the East Coast over the last ten years; another writer in the Atlantic had a very interesting theory about it involving EMP and the military, but she ruined her credibility by trying to crunch the EgyptAir flight in. The Egypt Air flight was 90% proven suicide before the black box.
15056. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:18:51 AM
Arggh! before the voice recorder, I meant. In other words, the black box alone strongly suggested suicide. Too early in the morning for me.
15057. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:25:51 AM
I reasonably counter Andonly's wayward speculation that if this were a terrorist attack "the objective would have been to make sure the plane explodes over the continental US" with an alternative and I get a sigh and the discouraging Message # 15046 as retort, confirming my opinion that any correspondence with Andonly just isn't worth the discouraging results; it's just jaw, jaw, jaw.
To Everyone Else: I don't know if this plane going down is calculated or not. Do any of you?
No, I didn't think so.
15058. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:30:25 AM
The Rush to Loya Jirga - FAQ's - Diplomatic Editor, Times of London
15059. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:32:16 AM
Who could know, Loar? It is only a measure of where we are today that the first thought in my head after hearing the news of the crash was "thank God it was only in the Rockaways."
--
Meanwhile, Herat has been taken over by the NA. They're definitely on the road to Kabul.
15060. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:32:37 AM
I don't know if this plane is an attack or not, either. The thing that makes me nervous is that plane crashes into residences are extremely rare; plane crashes in general aren't all that common.
So in the current environment, a "natural cause" plane crash of this nature seems almost more unlikely than one due to terrorist attack.
15061. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:36:18 AM
Yes, CalGal, but what remains beyond the pitifully few details available is speculation, and not informed speculation either as no film or qualified eyewitness reports (that is, technically qualified eyewitness who could knowledgably interpret what they've seen) have arisen. Again, speculation will prove worse than immediate facts.
15062. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:39:12 AM
Ah well, I've got work to do. I remain gainfully employed.
15063. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:40:01 AM
Is King Zahid Shah still an integral part of a future government?
"Mr Karzai is certainly working on the assumption that the former ruler is the one leader who can unite the country. Although he might not have any long term constitutional role he could convene the Loya jirga, or grand council, that would encompass all the country's leaders."
15064. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:41:24 AM
Looks guys this belongs in the dog bite thread...this isn't terrorism or we would have heard something from the Royal Minister of Homeland Defence....
Or would we?
15065. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:48:43 AM
"FOR the fourth time in as many minutes we dropped to the bottom of the narrow trench, curling up like foetuses and giggling like madmen as the growing screech above us signalled yet another incoming Taleban shell.
The noise petered out and the half-dozen Northern Alliance troops huddled in the trench fell silent, then sighed as the shell thudded harmlessly into the riverbank a few hundred feet in front of us.
Muhammad Ghawm and his comrades leapt out of the trench and stood astride the stony escarpment from which they had been watching the most ferocious aerial bombardment and artillery exchange they had seen in years of war.
“Perozi!” Abdul screamed in Persian — Victory! — and a childlike smile of delight spread across his face. As Alliance forces swarmed over the hills and through the ravines of northern Afghanistan yesterday, galvanised by the fall of Mazar-i Sharif the day before, a savage battle was under way to wrench the Taleban from their strongholds in two mountain ranges west of the city..."
Why does our media coverage suck so?
Times in the Trenches
15066. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:51:59 AM
Two ageing T54 tanks trundled slowly up the side of the escarpment to join in the bombardment and fired round after round into the Taleban positions.
One of their commanders, Abdul Dian, yelled above the din: “These aren’t Afghans I’m killing, they’re all Chechens and Pakistanis.” In Russian, he added: “I’m having a wonderful afternoon.”
15067. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:52:28 AM
Scott,
I agree; I was just saying that a terrorist attack is not an unreasonable assumption, considering the alternatives.
THE FALL OF EGYPTAIR 990
The title is misleading; this is actually a theory about the cause of the TWA, SwissAir, and EgyptAir crashes. I think she makes a good case for TWA and SwissAir; her contortions to make EgyptAir fit are laughable.
15068. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:58:36 AM
Dieu et mon droit!
I have seen nothing even close to this quality in the US Big Three...not to mention this close to the battle...
One man had lost his right foot and all his fingers. Another had a gaping wound in his right hip. The corpse lay on a wooden table in the corner, covered in a heavy blanket. One of his friends, a boy of no more than 17, entered quietly and stood at his side. After a few seconds the boy slipped his hand under the blanket and held the dead man’s hand. Then he quickly raised his other hand and wiped his eyes, hoping that I had not seen his tears.
15069. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:59:31 AM
Flock o seagulls Cal
15070. jexster - 11/12/2001 12:09:04 PM
Ari Fliescher, the King's Minister of Information has issued a Royal Pronouncement...
"It was an accident America...all loyal subjects must get back to normal...work and shop til you drop"
15071. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:20:09 PM
There are fighter jets overhead right now, it's all making me rather jumpy. As is this snipped from a UK paper:
The Pentagon has confirmed that it had been aware of a problem with the flight and had an F-15 fighter plane in the area, but it could not reach the plane before it crashed.
15072. judithathome - 11/12/2001 12:24:12 PM
Banks, I guess this means Ari is lying. He's standing there right now urging people to travel and get on with thier lives....
15073. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 12:25:18 PM
Oh, where did you snip that from Marj?
15074. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 12:26:00 PM
... and what on earth could an F15 have done? Shoot it down?
15075. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:30:49 PM
I got if from the Guardian, and of course it may be premature or wrong.
People like Fleischer should be completely ignored. His concern is the financial markets (the Dow crashed over 100 points on the news) and his boss's flighty poll numbers.
15076. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:32:43 PM
"go about your business" is not a brave, or even worthy, leadership message at this moment. Yes, no one wants panic including those very near the crash site. You do want something a bit more reassuring than clearly risible claims and assurances.
15077. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:34:36 PM
Yes, I think the airlines now officially have a dire problem on their hands. No one will want to fly, I certainly don't.
15078. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:40:48 PM
I predicted a few days ago that it would be hard to control the NA from advancing willy-nilly if the situation was to their liking. It appears now that they are on the verge of entering Kabul, even as Bush declared that he was with Musharraf in desiring that they do not take the capital. You cannot ruly control a force like the NA, even if you're their own commander. If things go the way they have the last few days, they could already be infiltrating the Taliban lines, and Kabul could be in their hands through the winter. That would be bad news for everyone save the jubilant NA fighters.
15079. janjon - 11/12/2001 12:45:08 PM
I've flown six times now since 9/11, including twice last week.
The security at the airports, especially before check in, is appalling. Lots of unattended luggage around with no one paying the slightest attention. Granted, explosions at those areas of the airports would "only" kill or maim, say, a few hundred people. But the psychological impact would be immense.
I assume that the various xray machines are doing their jobs and that those looking at what they reveal know what to look for and so on, but I don't have any real confidence in that. And, standards certainly vary from airport to airport. LaQuardia actually was the "best" in terms of giving one a feeling that it indeed would have been hard for someone to get to the gate with "bad stuff" in tow.
However, when looking out at the planes on the tarmac, and seeing not one bit of visible evidence that anyone was even looking at the area (no doubt not true), it didn't add to one's comfort level.
Long and short -Life is a crapshoot. Don't take unnecessary risks but go on with it.
Meanwhile, midtown was quite a snarl shortly after the plane crash. But very very civil. People know that snarls go with the turf these days.
15080. Andonly - 11/12/2001 12:49:19 PM
""go about your business" is not a brave, or even worthy, leadership message at this moment. Yes, no one wants panic including those very near the crash site. You do want something a bit more reassuring than clearly risible claims and assurances."
The end of the world is surely nigh, no other reason I could posibly agree with Banks twice in one morning.
We could use Tony Blair as head of Homeland Defense just now. It would be good, too, if Ari Fleischer would develop some unphotogenic skin disease or something, the quicker to be rid of him.
Loar: It's good to know there's still one patriotic Murcan out there who is man enough to get about his bidnis as usual in between urging internet ghosts not to jump to conclusions.
15081. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:51:22 PM
I was interested in the lack of security at Newark when I flew to Europe last month. It was stepped up from before, but still totally cursory compared to the checks at virtually any European airport, or in India.
15082. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:57:09 PM
Over the weekend, I had the chance to see several interviews with various world leaders. Again and again, I was struck by how impoverished this country is in terms of talking heads articulating its point of view. You have the slimy spindoctoring of Fleischer, and then the frankly less-than-believable Rumsfeld, and then the infantile playing-at-cowboy Bush. Whatever happened to Cheney? He should be talking, he's at least believable and grown-up.
Powell was the exception. Grave, informed, no-bullshit. I saw him being interviewed about the Saudi FM's recent comments about the ME and how US policy was "enough to turn a sane man crazy" and Powell was excellent. This is the guy who should be speaking for the US, at home and abroad, on Al-Jazeera and on CNN.
Not sixgun and ten-gallon Bush, with his "he's an evil man and soon he's going to have evil weapons" cartoonishness.
15083. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:01:12 PM
Khatami, with whom two long interviews were broadcast (CNN, Charlie Rose), was excellent. That is a guy the US should be doing business with, much more than it has been anyway. I think it most probably is making overtures behind the scenes.
15084. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 1:05:20 PM
Urkel Message # 14989:
This is nifty of physiology. Translated, it states that no matter how insupportable your position, to criticize it is to hurt your feelings, and thus justify your temper tantrums....I shall refrain from further hurting your feelings.
Sigh. It was a JOKE, retard. Bush famously let that phrase crawl out of his mouth during one of the "debates" with Gore, like a wounded 3rd-grader. I thought you'd recognize it.
Never mind. Just continue on with your banal references to my "temper tantrums" and such, as if I'm a recalcitrant, emotionally volatile 7-year-old. I think you miss your Acehole, don't you?
Rask Message # 14991:
This criticism has been bandied around for decades, but I don't think these critics have ever successfully refuted the argument that there wasn't a hell of a lot the US could have done to prevent the Iron Curtain from closing short of outright war. The USSR got to almost all of the Iron Curtain territory first. We might have been able to alter the boundaries a little (mostly around Czechoslovakia and east Germany, as I recall), but I think there was some value in agreeing to boundaries before allied and Soviet troops actually met face to face.
That's basically my thought on it, too, which is what I pointed out to Davis.
15085. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 1:06:51 PM
Urkel Message # 14992:
The analysis also makes meaningless any workable definition of terrorism. Our inability or unwillingness to challenge the Soviets, our institution of slavery, our Colombia Plan, all are acts of terror. Thus, how can we possible not be chastened by the just retribution that was September 11th?
I assume this load of horseshit is aimed at me, and I can only tell you to read more carefully. I have already pointed out that I do NOT think that allowing for Soviet hegemony post-WW2 was terrorism. Nor dropping the bomb on Japan. I have not even mentioned slavery, nor Israel/Palestine, nor the heartbreak of psoriasis.
What I have said is that our recent -- and current, in Colombia -- funneling of money and training to right-wing authoritarian governments and paramilitary groups does seem to fall under our nebulous definitions of "terrorism", or as Bush repeatedly says, "eeevil".
I have stated time and again that I could be (and probably am) very wrong. Maybe terrorism is what we say it is, when we say it is, because winners write the rules. Maybe terrorism, by definition, cannot be committed by guys who wear uniforms or suits, because the conferrence of legitimacy automatically immunizes killers who went through the proper bureaucratic channels. I don't know for sure. Neither, it would seem, does anyone else.
I didn't think I'd have to hammer out every detail for you, because I do think you're smarter than the average bear. But I'm beginning to wonder if I need to slap you sober....
15086. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 1:11:16 PM
There are no previous A300 crashes which were anything like this one. The five which have crashed were all during landing phase, with dodgy automatism a likely contributor in several cases.
No fuel or engine problems.
I have no intention at this point of cancelling my NY trip. I feel it's my duty to support the US economy. Webfeet, how about taking me to Brooks Brothers or somewhere like that, and telling me what to buy?
On the other hand, I might be out of luck if the airline goes bust before then. Sabena crashed the other day, after the majestic Swissair bellyflop.
15087. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:21:33 PM
Connor,
My entirely baseless speculation at this point is that it was a suicide bomber, who detonated explosives secreted on his body. The limited (and unreliable) eyewitness accounts imply that there was a small explosion, then that debris was seen coming out of the plane, then that an engine or wing fell off. Reading all of this reminds me that Loar is right that speculation will be worse than the facts, but hey I'm speculating.
---
NYC is great during the holidays. Is this is family trip? I'll e-mail you later today.
15088. Andonly - 11/12/2001 1:22:07 PM
One of the engines was near overhaul status (in terms of flying hours). The plane had just been serviced; supposedly, recently serviced aircraft are most vulnerable, for whenever a mechanic messes with things, something right can be made wrong accidentally.
So far, the Authorities believe this was an accident, not terrorism. The lead investigative agency is to be the NTSB.
15089. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:27:54 PM
Calgal, it was Elaine Scarry who first wrote the piece appearing in the NYR of Books stating that electromagnetic interference caused by military activity in the waters off of long island was a possible cause for the downing of TWA flight 800 and Swissair.
She somehow got access to military logs which indicated activity on the dates of both crashes and at approximately same times (july 1996 and sept 1998). The real minutaie of this piece escapes me, but the general thrust was that both planes lost contact with air traffic controllers at approximately 7:15 pm for over fifteen minutes--at a time when the military was conducting tests with a submarine with hyper-sophisticated technology that Scarry believes caused interference with the transmissions of both flights. Flight 800 went down almost immediately after losing contact and Swissair came down 2 hours into the flight, a difference Scarry attributes to the ages of the planes. The Swissair plane was newer and by that logic, could withstand this scrambling effect a little longer.
Flight 800 has never been solved. Funding for an investigation into Swissair apparently never materialized. Part of Scarrys motive for writing the piece was to call attention to this with the hope that interest in it would be renewed. I dont know if this has come about.
15090. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2001 1:31:38 PM
I just heard on BBC the interesting factoid that on modern aircraft, the engines' attachment to the wing includes fuse pins, the purpose of which is to allow the engine to tear away without causing damage to the wing if subjected to unacceptable torque.
15091. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:34:40 PM
I would love to be your personal shopper and accompany you to brooks. I notice frenchman are into lavendar, at least the ministers are judging by the dashing attire of one of the members of the Concorde entourage which were photographed disembarking at JFK. As soon as I saw the lavendar pashmina, I thought 'so sexy, so french.' Perhaps we can do the same for you?
If you would like a place to rest your weary head, your welcome here. We have a happy little place --and you are invited to sleep in belle meres bed. I assume Lawerence et les filles are not coming?
15092. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:35:35 PM
Isnt it strangely cute that Loar and Banks agree on something?
15093. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:37:28 PM
Perhaps AC would like to purchase a handbag. All the "so sexy, so french" men seem to like them, perhaps Coach does one in trendy lavender.
15094. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:38:18 PM
Webbie,
Loar and I agree on almost everything. I find Loar to be a gentleman of great discernment.
15095. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:40:37 PM
You have to be really secure in your masculinity to wear lavendar. But I dont know if even Deardieu could pull off a Coach lavendar bagette bag. Or was that last year's? You know, I live in Queens so Im not quite up on these things anymore.
15096. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:42:00 PM
Oui, oui. Moi, aussi. But this time I think youre both wrong. And I usually agree with you on most things.
15097. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:43:27 PM
I don't recall quite completely, but I seem to remember AC toting a very chic little purse last time I saw him. It set off his shiny stiletto heels very nicely and so very useful!
15098. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:48:10 PM
Im going to dovetail into something totally inappropriate for this thread--but we saw a wildly entertaining western style burlesque with Bardot and Jeanne Moreau co-starring as road show strippers fighting a revolutionary war against corrupt spaniards.
It was called 'Viva Maria' and it was so bad it was good.
15099. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:51:19 PM
Aha, webbie. So you are having a little fun after all. I was worried by your earlier post.
I must run. In the meanwhile, please accept my heartiest condolences to the entire great borough of Queens. Our hearts are with you today.
15100. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 2:15:40 PM
Viva Maria! I love that film! By Louis Malle, of all people.
(end of digression)
15101. CalGal - 11/12/2001 2:22:37 PM
Web,
I think the reasoning for both TWA and Swissair is excellent; I have seen no further comment on it since then. I wish she hadn't skewed her case by trying to make EgyptAir fit in. (I linked the article in later, did you see?).
I have always been skeptical of the NATSB's explanation for the TWA crash; I never wanted to believe in the missile, but it seemed at least as likely as their feeble effort. So 747s could explode at any time during the past 30 years (based on airline fuel usage procedures), and the airlines must change these procedures right away--but it never happened before and hasn't happened since? I don't think so.
15102. jexster - 11/12/2001 2:29:58 PM
Hi! slippy hitherao!
Water, get it! Panee lao!
"CHARIKA, Afghanistan, Nov. 12 – Afghanistan's opposition fighters today rolled over Taliban frontline positions and moved to within four miles of Kabul, meeting little resistance as they launched their long-awaited offensive toward the capital.
Continuing a remarkable string of victories that began with the capture of the key crossroads city of Mazar-e Sharif on Friday, Northern Alliance troops today also captured the key western city of Herat in a battle that began Sunday and was aided by local residents who rose up against the Taliban, according to an alliance spokesman.
In the advance toward Kabul, rebel forces advanced from two directions today, pushing their own front line forward about 3 miles from the Bagram airbase, and also moving across the Shomali Plains to Shaker Darah along the main highway to Kabul. Along that second front, which is the closest to Kabul, the opposition captured two Taliban-held mountainside villages, Estargich and Raesht, that had been the target of punishing American air strikes in recent days."
WPost
15103. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 2:57:23 PM
Cart
"Sigh. It was a JOKE, retard. Bush famously let that phrase crawl out of his mouth during one of the "debates" with Gore, like a wounded 3rd-grader. I thought you'd recognize it."
I missed the joke, which is entirely my fault. Following up "Dewey Cheatem and Howe" with more sophisticated humor, however, is unfair, and I protest.
"as if I'm a recalcitrant, emotionally volatile 7-year-old. I think you miss your Acehole, don't you?"
I do miss him.
"I assume this load of horseshit is aimed at me, and I can only tell you to read more carefully. I have already pointed out that I do NOT think that allowing for Soviet hegemony post-WW2 was terrorism. Nor dropping the bomb on Japan. I have not even mentioned slavery, nor Israel/Palestine, nor the heartbreak of psoriasis."
Not everything, Eric, is about you.
"What I have said is that our recent -- and current, in Colombia -- funneling of money and training to right-wing authoritarian governments and paramilitary groups does seem to fall under our nebulous definitions of 'terrorism', or as Bush repeatedly says, 'eeevil'."
Having read the State Department defense and Amnesty International's criticism of Plan Colombia, your assertion, even in its qualified form, is immature and emotional.
"I didn't think I'd have to hammer out every detail for you, because I do think you're smarter than the average bear. But I'm beginning to wonder if I need to slap you sober...."
One or two facts dropped in the rants and yukkified prose couldn't hurt.
15104. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:01:59 PM
yukkified prose.
written by one who is intimately familiar with same.
15105. stostosto - 11/12/2001 3:11:12 PM
The plane that crashed in Queens was first reported to have been a Boeing 767 that was coming in to JFK. It turned out to be an Airbus 300 who was taking off from JFK. Why the misreporting? If they didn't know, then why not simply report they didn't know what kind of plane and which direction it was headed in? Is that common when such is reported?
15106. Cellar Door - 11/12/2001 3:21:31 PM
Factual errors are increasingly common in the News.
15107. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:28:02 PM
I was in transit when this plane crashed. Upon reaching my small office, I had brief (like one or two sentences) chats with four people before turning on the news. Each version of what had happened was different (including one when I was told that two planes somehow were involved and that a plane engine had fallen in Central Park). The common thread was conjecture as to whether terrorist acts were involved.
I haven't gone back to these four people and asked where they had first heard the news (and probably won't. Make that definitely won't, since my querry would be rather transparent.)
A natural consequence of living on the edge (as reflected by Marj's comments early on about how he sizes up what could be going wrong with planes in our New York sky).
15108. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:34:19 PM
sto:
The media are more concerned with getting it first than with getting it right.
15109. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:36:25 PM
I dunno about all the sneering. I regularly check the news online and so long as they say "reports" or make it clear that it's preliminary, I figure that's fine.
15110. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:40:57 PM
Pelle,
About the engines--I believe that's so. Wasn't the big United crash in Chicago (1979, I think) because of that pin breaking when it wasn't supposed to?
The one time the tearaway isn't safe, of course, is takeoff. It's funny, because I can't remember the engine ever coming off when it was safe.
15111. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:44:42 PM
My understanding is that it is virtually impossible for even three or four engine jet planes to survive a disaster upon or shortly after takeoff when the disaster centers on one of the engines going kaput in a dramatic way, because kaput involves the destruction of essential hydrolic lines.
15112. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:47:01 PM
I don't know that the hydraulic lines are the issue; I'd always been told it was just balance. I'll see if I can find out which.
15113. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:47:37 PM
Wow, they are showing ground zero film on CNN of right after the crash...it was brutal.
15114. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:49:51 PM
All aircrashes are brutal, even where there are survivors. Has there been any mention of ground casualties?
Janjon, I just did a search on "tearaway" and "takeoff" and came up with a NATSB report of a plane whose engine did tearaway during takeoff, and survived. Here
It's not what I was looking for, I just thought it was ironic.
15115. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:54:46 PM
Here is a story from the on-line version of the Times that talks about all the horrors that can ensue when an engine goes berserk on takeoff: It is Best Just To Tune Out When Taking Off, I've Decided
15116. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:56:35 PM
Yeah, takeoff makes me crazy. BTW, the Chicago crash I was referring to was American, not United.
15117. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:58:35 PM
I can't get the link in 15114 to open.
15118. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:59:27 PM
The Chicago crash still holds the record for lives lost in a plane crash on US soil, actually--even after this recent one. I'm not counting WTC for obvious reasons.
15119. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:59:47 PM
Take-offs don't bother me at all but landings do...
15120. CalGal - 11/12/2001 4:01:27 PM
Really? It opened for me. Here's the link:
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/CHI/89A046.htm
15121. janjon - 11/12/2001 4:10:47 PM
As someone above (webfeet?) has alluded to, there is considerable irony in the fact that this plane fell into the section of Queens known as Far Rockaway. Far Rockaway is a very isolated beach area, which is mostly single home and very suburban in feel. It is insular, too, in that it is an area where generation after generation of (mostly) Irish-American families pass down their homes. It is an area where many fire and policemen live. It lost a significant number of men on 9/11.
Apparently at least 60 people on the ground were killed. I will be surprised if there won't be at least one or two immediate family connections to 9/11. Adding to the sad irony.
15122. judithathome - 11/12/2001 4:12:13 PM
The homes in that area looked really nice in the video shot by one of the residents near the crash site.
15123. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 4:19:36 PM
It's a low-to-medium income area, by NYC area standards.
Janjon, that's 6 people on the ground presumed dead, not 60.
15124. pseudoerasmus - 11/12/2001 4:25:13 PM
Hamid Karzai gave an interview to the BBC Pashto service yesterday, saying that the Northern Alliance victories were making his job in southern Afghanistan easier. Which is of course contrary to what I've been saying. I hope he's right and I'm wrong.
15125. janjon - 11/12/2001 4:26:35 PM
6? Thank heavens.
15126. pseudoerasmus - 11/12/2001 4:30:19 PM
Also, it emerged at the weekend that Rahim Wardak -- a Soviet-trained Afghan government army general who defected to the mujahiddin in 1980 -- slipped into Kandahar in mid October and attempted a coup d'etat against the Taliban in the name of Zahir Shah. He managed to escape, consult with the king, and is apparently now back somewhere in Afghanistan attempting a mission like Karzai's.
15127. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 7:20:06 PM
Urkel Message # 15103:
Not everything, Eric, is about you.
I was actually 50/50 on whether your Message # 14992 was a veiled swipe at my argument in particular. Maybe I made the wrong call, which would downgrade your post to a generic asinine swipe. You lumped several grossly disparate events/policies together and lobbed the lot of them, indiscriminately pasting presumably anonymous squawkers with the sarcastic tag of "just retribution". As if you'd recently encountered some asshole on the street spouting that 9/11 was payback for slavery or something. Okely-dokely.
And all without even having to offer a sliver of your own definition of what "terrorism" specifically is and is not? Just say that suits, uniforms, and a functioning institutionalized bureaucracy collectively absolve any proxy brutality and be done with it. Really, your effete circumlocutions make me want to watch Frasier or something, and I can't have that shit.
15128. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 7:20:22 PM
Having read the State Department defense and Amnesty International's criticism of Plan Colombia, your assertion, even in its qualified form, is immature and emotional.
Ah. I was waiting for it, the solemn pronouncement of my "immaturity and emotionalism", as if you were patiently lecturing a hysterical broad. This from a guy who has, in the past, asserted that The Corner is a rational argument against legalizing drugs; and that a political candidate who professed his atheism/agnosticism would not get your vote, because he couldn't possibly be as "good" or "moral" as a person of faith. Also, Algore is eeevil because he pimped his dead sister.
Alrighty then. Leaving aside such sterling examples of intellectual probity and sober objectivity, suppose you explain exactly where you think I'm being "immature" and "emotional" in my analysis of the repulsive Plan Colombia. No yukkified prose this time, Chief. Be a man. Spell it out.
15129. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 7:35:01 PM
I'm glad your wait was not long.
Did you read the links?
If not, read them (I offered one from a friendly source - the State Department -and a critic - Amnesty International), and
1) Demonstrate that they support your claim of Plan Colombia as terrorism, or
2) Demonstrate that Plan Colombia is United States terrorism against Colombia by other source.
You are the petitioner. As a wise man once said, "No yukkified prose this time, Chief. Be a man. Spell it out."
15130. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:38:12 PM
What in the hell are you talkin about Pyle!
15131. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 7:40:24 PM
Sir, the private said "no sir," sir!
15132. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:40:54 PM
15133. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:41:46 PM
Carry on Private
15134. joezan - 11/12/2001 7:44:15 PM
Listened to NPR all day long, and the reports from the ground were all (judging from posts made here) much more useful and cogent than what TV was offering.
Two different eyewitnesses independently reported that living right in the JFK flightpath and thus very used to the sounds and patterns of the planes, this plane caught their attention because of a strange rumbling noise it was making - "almost throbbing", one guy said - while it was still all in one piece.
Sounds like engine problems to me.
15135. joezan - 11/12/2001 7:46:35 PM
...also, both of these eyewitnesses reported the plane was flying very low, before it started losing parts.
15136. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:53:03 PM
We are the target of enemies who boast they want to kill-kill all Americans, kill all Jews, and kill all Christians," President Bush said Thursday. When did members of al-Qaida boast that they wanted to kill all Americans, Jews, and Christians?
Let's take these one at a time. If you parse Hamid Mir's recent interview with Osama Bin Laden, it's pretty clear that Bin Laden wants to kill all Americans.**
**I bet OBL's got an exception for the Bader-Meinhoff Memorial Cell of the Radical Green Socialist Workers' Peoples' Party - Chico, and its commander, Eric "The Red" Cartman.
Slate
15137. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:56:15 PM
It was a flock of seagulls I tell ya now back to the killin people!
Tryin to keep this thread on topic is impossible. Who moderates this mess anyway?
15138. joezan - 11/12/2001 8:00:45 PM
jex:
Just tryin' to to put an end to the speculation, Commander Cody.
15139. joezan - 11/12/2001 8:07:20 PM
Wait - just one more!
Also, the pilot dumped the fuel in Jamaica Bay.
15140. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:07:35 PM
Damn it Joe....the Talibees have just abandoned Kabul...people are shaving their beards, kissing each other on the cheeks and burnin their bazurkas...
So what's up with this Thread?
Where are the rabid Motiers of 9/11? All frothing, foaming, blood and death....where are they now?
Its only you and me left so we shall celebrate...
A toast....Death to Taliban! Long Live Loya Jirga! May the Northern Alliance rule for a thousand years!
15141. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:13:03 PM
And I almost forgot 
God Save the Queen!
15142. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:13:18 PM
..or at least for the winter.
Salut!
15143. LadyChaos - 11/12/2001 9:17:02 PM
Khatami, with whom two long interviews were broadcast (CNN, Charlie Rose), was excellent. That is a guy the US should be doing business with, much more than it has been anyway.
Why? By having absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian government for over 20 years, we have (unwittingly) helped foster the most pro-American generation of any Muslim country in the world.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It seems that, at this juncture, the best thing to do wrt Iran would be to wait until democracy has fully gained the upper hand over the mullahs before we start getting chummy with their government.
15144. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:22:33 PM
CBS ran an interview with an NA tankist. He proudly boasted of running over 27 Talibee prisoners with his old ratty T-54.
Bad ass.
I hope Spielberg doesn't try to do this as a war movie....
15145. LadyChaos - 11/12/2001 9:24:44 PM
Speaking of which, I saw a trailer last night for the latest BruckenScott production: Blackhawk Down.
It looked awful. But I digress....
15146. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:25:14 PM
jex:
If I remember correctly, the frothing and foaming was in reaction to the pantywaists who were whining and wringing their hands about how bloody and demoralizing to the US this, uh...war was going to be.
Now, I'm not saying that fortunes cannot turn, and jubilant men and women cannot put the music back in storage, grow their beards back and put their burqas back on.
But with the Talis abandoning even Kabul, and 15,000 of their number already having joined the opposition - all with not one allied casualty, the pantywaists have joined their Tali counterparts and deserted the thread.
15147. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:25:23 PM
Yea Khatami rocks! I read his NyT interview...gave me an attack of At-Least_He-Ain't-A-Moron Syndrome on Saturday.
His line about "self-mulitated moslems" was OOH SOOOO much better than that Howdy Doody Doo-doo about rootin out Evil from the face of the earth.
I'll take Mullah Khatami over Mullah Moron anytime
15148. Andonly - 11/12/2001 9:35:17 PM
"Also, it emerged at the weekend that Rahim Wardak -- a Soviet-trained Afghan government army general who defected to the mujahiddin in 1980 -- slipped into Kandahar in mid October and attempted a coup d'etat against the Taliban in the name of Zahir Shah. He managed to escape, consult with the king, and is apparently now back somewhere in Afghanistan attempting a mission like Karzai's."
Wow. But who is backing him, if anyone? Our spooks or Russian spooks or both?
15149. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:59:01 PM
I found myself liking Khatami, too. Of course, three years ago I posted in the Fray that he was certainly the most rational leader in the Muslim world, and admired his balls for standing up to the mullahs, the ayatullahs, and all the other 'lahs.
But I agree with LC here - leave well enough alone.
15150. concerned - 11/12/2001 11:34:31 PM
Message # 14982
Snowowl -
You miss my point. The US is essentially a nation of immigrants and patriotism in the US does not therefore equate with demonstrably dangerous European nationalism, not to mention that of most other nations. Furthermore, if you read what I posted, I specifically did not say that it was better to be patriotic in the US than any other country, now did I? So, please have the courtesy to acknowledge what I posted in truth.
Thank you.
15151. concerned - 11/12/2001 11:36:10 PM
I see PM also misses the crux of my argument regarding American patriotism.
15152. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:05:21 AM
I thought King Moron told the NA to stop short of Kabul...
KABUL (Reuters) - Fighters of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance entered Kabul early on Tuesday to the sound of small-arms fire as dazed residents emerged from their homes to see Taliban bodies on the streets and looters plundering government offices.
``We have taken Kabul,'' shouted one jubilant opposition fighter as he stood with a group of fellow fighters on a street in the city center.
Their vehicles were plastered with photographs of their legendary leader, Ahmad Shah Masood, who was assassinated in a suicide attack just two days before the September 11 hijacked airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
A few bodies of Taliban fighters lay in the streets and sporadic small-arms fire clattered in pockets of the Afghan capital as the opposition Northern Alliance entered.
``Down with the Taliban!'' and ``Welcome the Northern Alliance!'' shouted a few Kabul residents as they realized that the Taliban had pulled out of virtually the entire city in an exodus under cover of night.
Many others appeared dazed and confused, nervous about what to expect if the Northern Alliance had indeed captured the capital.
Small-arms fire erupted in some parts of the city, apparently coming from Taliban who had not managed to leave or had chosen to make a last stand.
Several bodies of Taliban fighters, distinguished by their mandatory black turbans, lay sprawled on streets.
Commander Baba Jex sez...King Moron...who he?
15153. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:07:53 AM
No Joe...CalGal..Francine....Concerned..AceyGirl...Pinched Dick all of em...talkin about golf and Columbian Drug Wars...
They ranted, they raved, foamed at the mouth...
But its the cold heart that kills not the foamy mouth.
You and I are the only real men on this thread.
15154. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:08:39 AM
First in War, First in Peace FIrst in the Pants of...
OH HI THERE THOMAS D!
15155. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:16:56 AM
MONDAY NOVEMBER 12 2001
Leading article
After Mazar
America must soon clarify what it wants from its Afghan allies
OOOPS...Looks like Commander Dotsum done Klarified our King!
15156. concerned - 11/13/2001 1:08:35 AM
Wassup, jex?
I would like to see the Bush Administration give the UN an ultimatum:
Either send peacekeepers (non US) to Afghanistan under UN auspices, or the US will pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo and will not pay any remaining UN dues.
I'd say that'd be a win-win situation for the US.
15157. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:22:43 AM
Reuters and other organizations are reporting that the NA has taken Kandahar Airport. Sounds like the Taliban may be about rolled up just in time for the start of Ramadan.
15158. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:31:05 AM
Apparently, Herat and Kabul have already been Tali-banned.
15159. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:35:07 AM
From AP: "Guard: Taliban take Aid Workers"
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov 13, 2001 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- The sprawling detention center where eight foreign aid workers were being held was abandoned Tuesday. A guard said the eight foreigners, accused of preaching Christianity, had been whisked away by departing Taliban.
"With my own eyes, I saw them leave," guard Ajmal Mir said. Mir told The Associated Press that the Taliban loaded the four Germans, two Americans and two Australians into a black four-wheel drive vehicle at midnight and drove off.
"They said they were going to Kandahar," Mir said, referring to the Taliban headquarters, about 240 miles south of the Afghan capital.
Columns of Taliban troops headed south from Kabul throughout the night after the opposition northern alliance broke through their defenses and rushed to the edge of the city.
Just two weeks ago, American Dayna Curry celebrated her 30th birthday in jail in Kabul. She was arrested along with the other American, Heather Mercer, 24, on Aug. 3. The others were arrested two days later. They and 16 Afghan staffers were all charged with preaching Christianity in this strict Muslim country.
"This is a real mess," said John Mercer, Heather's father, reached by telephone in neighboring Pakistan. He was at the Taliban embassy in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad trying to find a Taliban official to speak to.
The aid workers were in good condition when they left, the guard said. He was uncertain which Taliban took the aid workers, whether they were from a government ministry or whether they were acting on their own.
15160. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:16:13 AM
Francis Message # 15129:
Fair enough. Rather than a cut-and-paste marathon from selected sources, or worse yet, another windy jeremiad from yours truly, I will try to make this as brief as I can.
First off, I want to make sure a few things are understood, so you don't waste your time making erroneous inferences:
15161. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:19:03 AM
So. Plan Colombia. I had read both your links, in addition to a great deal of other material (most of it State Dept.) over a year ago, when Clinton was moving to eliminate the human rights requirement from the document.
The AI link obviously damns the entire thing from top to toe. It is not explicit in mention of terrorism, but does mention the killing of civilians by right-wing paramilitary groups, under the tacit knowledge and acceptance of the Colombian military, and in turn, the government.
It's what one expects from Amnesty International, after all, so I won't dwell on any of it in detail, but I submit that they don't really have a vested interest in making shit up, or even exaggerating.
Your State Dept. link mentions Colombian President Pastrana as cracking down on rogue army officers. In "cracking down", he forced a general or two into retirement, and removed several dozen officers for "collaborating" with paramilitary groups in murdering Colombian civilians. I could not find any punishment harsher than "investigation". It's safe to say there is some gov't complicity in these civilian killings, another of which happened just Saturday, incidentally -- 12 villagers in the town of El Choco.
This State Dept. page has quite a few relevant links:
Plan Colombia Outline
Near the bottom of this page is a link to the State Dept.'s 1999 Human Rights Report. It's exhaustive, and exhausting to read. There's far too much stuff to even need to cut-and-paste; I wouldn't know where to begin. And it accounts a thoroughly corrupt military, and complicit government. It shows that we know exactly what sorts of people we deal with.
15162. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:20:24 AM
Considering that Plan Colombia was initiated less than a year after the State Dept. released this report, it takes an incredible leap of faith to consort with the Colombian military. But that's exactly what we're doing, sending Special Forces ops in for "counterinsurgency training". There is a human rights requirement outlined in the description of the project, but again, Clinton went out of his way to negate that in the summer of 2000. So much for trying to reform a thug nation.
So. You have cells of trained militia slaughtering civilians for political purposes, with the knowledge and tacit acceptance of the regular military and the government. You have regular army officers, many of whom trained with/by American Special Forces ops, caught collaborating with the killers, and getting no real punishment. You have an American President knowingly and willingly waiving a human rights requirement for aid, less than a year after his own State Department produced an exhaustive report detailing the Colombian military as one of the worst, maybe the worst, violators of human rights on the entire planet.
The connections are all there, and they're all well documented by the US Government. At the very least, it looks like guilt by association, which is basically why we're justifiably getting rid of the Taliban. So my question to you, Francis, is how all that does not comprise at least a complicit knowledge and acceptance of terrorist tactics?
This is not a ticky-tack finesse question -- if we are operating on principles in this war on terrorism, it would greatly seem that we are simultaneously flouting those principles.
And it can't be restated too often -- it's not as if Plan Colombia is the only choice we have, or even the best choice. We have other options, if we have the political and practical will.
15163. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:26:26 AM
Jexster Message # 15136:
Fuck you. Go back to your pretty pictures, numbnuts. As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
15164. Khabees Khargosh - 11/13/2001 6:41:21 AM
Looks like Taliban are moving to the battle fields of their choice........the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, where they dont't just have to wait for the bombs to drop on them.
Cities don't have any importance per se. And it will be hell of a lot more difficult to track and attack scattered groups of people in the mountains probably looking to fight a guerilla war.
15165. Khabees Khargosh - 11/13/2001 6:43:03 AM
errrr....... guerrilla
15166. joezan - 11/13/2001 6:51:22 AM
I do think that most of the military elements of the current conflict have been handled very well thus far, with the expectation that we make a genuine effort to help the Afghans rebuild their nation.
Rebuild it to whose specs?
15167. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2001 7:00:26 AM
To US specs as per ANSI document XP3598d: Faraway, essentially harmless democracy, US-friendly when called upon to be so (AKA Australia). The Taliban can be cast in the role of aborigines with dedicated reserves in which to practice whatever they practice.
15168. joezan - 11/13/2001 7:37:15 AM
Northern Alliance Forces enter Kabul.
Well, it seems Kabul is now under the control of the opposition forces, its citizens obviously jubilant to see the Taliban gone - except for "the Shari Naw area, where hardline Arab supporters of the Taliban were believed to be hiding...".
My question for anyone who knows is, what happened to all the resistance the NA were supposed to have met here - not from the Talis, who have obviously headed for the hills -but from the citizens, who are reportedly fiercely pro-Taliban?
Was this support mostly instigated by the "hardline Arab supporters of the Taliban" mentioned above?
15169. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:12:58 AM
"My question for anyone who knows is, what happened to all the resistance the NA were supposed to have met here....from the citizens, who are reportedly fiercely pro-Taliban?"
Kabulis fiercely pro-Taliban? Who ever said that?
The NA has been expected to meet resistance in the south and the east.
15170. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:41:22 AM
15171. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:06:29 AM
That was a fine prediction, pseuder.
It was clear from the start that Bush's statements (made at the side of Musharraf) were unlikely and hopeful. It's hard to control a ragtag fighting force once it is on the move, and once resistance is sparse or neutralized. So, now the NA has Kabul despite Pakistani pleas that this not take place, and Bush's wishfulness.
You could deduce from this, also, that Musharraf has been essentially left out to dry by the "global coalition." The other partners, India and Russia particularly, openly back the NA and have secured promises that they will have a say as to the future Afghan government. It is entirely possible that they are now being catered to at the expense of Pak wishes.
This is not foolish per se. The Pakistanis have been widely accused of playing a double game, and even of covertly supplying the Taliban and of denying the US access to vital intelligence. The fact that Musharraf has taken his various pleas public implies that he is not getting a good-enough hearing in private.
But he will have a domestic backlash from the events of the last couple of days. He will be accused, with some justification, of having a lot less power and say-so in the the global coalition and with the US than he has advertised. And he will be accused of selling Pakistan short, of getting far too little in return for his rather unequivocal backing of US strategic objectives. He has a billion dollars to go back with to Pakistan, and a promise of more (including another billion pledged by various international parties including the Japanese and the ADB) but precious little in terms of the nitty gritty in Afghanistan.
15172. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:12:11 AM
I do give the US credit, today. Its approach may have been flawed, and there may be a certain hamfistedness to its policies, but it has managed to accomplish quite a significant change with a bludgeon in one hand and blank cheques in the other. There is enough promise of an unending gravy train, it appears, to persuade a significant portion of the hard-core Taliban's allies that it would be better to simply switch sides. This may well work in the south, esepcially as CIA-sponsored Pashtun former-mujahedeen are wandering about dispersing bundles of crisp greenbacks with the promise of more on the way.
The question remains about post-Taliban leadership, and interference from the neighboring countries. But today we have the clear indication of a largescale shift in the political and military scenario. The first part of the campaign worked. Simple as that, and if the NA can be persuaded (a fairly big if) to restrain itself in its re-occupation of Kabul, the poilitical impetus switches to the US and its allies.
15173. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:18:40 AM
Fisk, in his latest, effectively outlines the conundrum and dangers represented by a US-backed NA, if it does run rampant as per its established form.
he Northern Alliance's sudden victories in Afghanistan may be good news for the West but the bad news is not far behind. The Uzbek, Tadjik and Hazara gunmen who make up this rag-tag army have a bloody reputation for torturing and executing prisoners which – if resumed in the coming days – will plunge America and Britain into a moral abyss.
Chilling stories of more than 100 pro-Taliban Pakistani fighters shot dead after their surrender in Mazar-i-Sharif – and of Alliance gunmen "roaming the streets'' of the abandoned city – will not come as a surprise to those who are aware of the atrocities committed by America's new allies during the 1992-96 fighting in Kabul.
For the Americans – and for the minuscule British component of the West's military forces inside Afghanistan – the behaviour of the Northern Alliance presents a grave problem. As our "foot-soldiers" are in Afghanistan, we cannot disclaim responsibility for human rights abuses by the Alliance's gunmen; yet neither the Americans nor the British appear to have tried to control the army they are now helping. Indeed, it seems they may not even be able to prevent the Alliance from entering Kabul.
That last sentence, of course, has come true.
15174. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:26:38 AM
There are several stories circulating this morning, some of which are contradictory. All have rather large implications for this conflict. There is that report of nearly a hundred Pakistanis massacred after they surrendered in Mazar. Then, there is a somewhat less credible report declaring that the Taliban have retaken that city.
There is a claim by the NA that Mullah Omar has taken refuge in Pakistan. The NA hates Pakistan with a passion, so this may be discounted but not ignored.
There is also the statement by Hekmatyar (from Iran) that he is negotiating with the Taliban to form a coalition government. The Iranians do not want the King back at any cost, and they have major say-so with the NA. It appears that they are trying to supplant/subvert the US as key backers of the NA (and they have an inside track to do so). The next govt of Afghanistan, as far as they are concerned, will not be decided by the Americans but by the NA and specifically the part of the NA most loyal to Iran.
There is also this, which appears to further sideline the King. It may be an indication of what is in the NA strategy, and why the US's best wishes will go unrealized as facts are created on the ground despite its pleas and orders.
A top aide to the former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah has accused the Northern Alliance of violating a prior agreement with the exiled monarch by entering the Afghan capital this morning. The aide, Abdul Sattar Sirat, said Zahir Shah was concerned about the safety of the capital's residents and that his entourage was surprised by the unexpected capture of the city by the Northern Alliance soldiers. "This was something new and beyond our expectations. It was agreed before that Kabul be demilitarised," he said. "We do not know the reason why they entered Kabul, but we are concerned about the safety of the people's lives and property."
15176. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:35:13 AM
Whether deliberate or not, the US should apologize for the following, as damge control.
The Kabul office of the Arab satellite channel Al–Jazeera, which the United States has criticized for its coverage of the Afghan campaign, was destroyed early on Tuesday by a US missile, the channel's managing director said.
No one was in the office when it was hit before dawn. The 10 staffers, including reporter Tasir Alouni, operating out of the office were believed safe, but their whereabouts were not known, said managing director Mohammed Jassim al–Ali.
"All our equipment has been destroyed, but we believe that all our crew are safe," al–Ali told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Qatar, the channel's headquarters. He estimated the loss at dlrs 800,000.
This Alouni fellow is a bit of a hero in the Arabic-speaking world, he's become the eyes and ears of the Muslim world on Al-Jazeera, repeatedly and emotionally commenting on civilian losses and suffering.
15177. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 9:35:28 AM
Banks's repeat 15175 was deleted
15178. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:35:40 AM
Toys.
15179. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:37:21 AM
It should be noted that contrary to Urkel's trumpetings, the German chancellor is having a great deal of trouble mustering political support for his troops commitment to the US-led coalition. He's even threatened to resign if he's not backed.
15180. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:42:00 AM
Thanks, ducks. You run an impressively tight ship here. 
Kabulis bust out their radios, music is no longer illegal.
15181. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:44:36 AM
BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson and a BBC team were greeted by jubilant scenes as they entered Kabul ahead of Northern Alliance troops. Travelling by foot, bicycle and taxi, Simpson described the scenes he and his BBC colleagues found:
"People are going absolutely crazy.
"It is quite difficult sometimes to get through the crowds. They want to touch us, push us.
You could sense the air of relief and gratitude and freedom
"They are chanting 'Death to Pakistan, death to the Taleban' and I'm afraid I think they probably mean it.
"I would not want to be a Taleban soldier on the streets at this moment.
"I've heard some shooting. Some of it was joyful shooting in the air, some of it was to kill people or execute them perhaps.
"I haven't heard any incoming fire which might have come from the Taleban themselves.
But arriving at the Intercontinental Hotel in the centre of the city, journalists spotted a group of seven Arab Taleban -trying to escape.
"Frankly there can only be one result.
"We have already seen Arab bodies in the streets and their lives must be shortened.
"They are not going to surrender and they are not going to be shown mercy if they are caught.
"It shows there are going to be groups like this and they are going to be hunted down "
15182. Jenerator - 11/13/2001 9:47:35 AM
Concerned, 15183. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:49:14 AM The LAT says they were moved. Sorry Jen. 15184. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:50:41 AM Looks like the NA doesn't pay any more attention to Bush than Americans do, except that we're glad that he doesn't have anthrax and they don't care..... 15185. Jenerator - 11/13/2001 9:53:06 AM I believe that they were moved it's when they were moved that I question. My biggst fear is that the Taliban will place them in a dangerous place so that we will bomb them, then they could wipe their hands of responsibility and cry out against more injustices of the US. 15187. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:53:59 AM 15188. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 9:55:25 AM Jex's repeat 15186 was deleted as well 15189. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:57:47 AM Sorry... 15190. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 9:57:58 AM Marj 15191. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:58:30 AM The NA forces inside Kabul are exclusively Tajik Jamiat forces. I wonder what may happen when Uzbek Junbish and Hazara Wahdat forces want a piece of Kabul. 15192. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:59:18 AM Sorry Duck..Eric the Red admonished me to post purty pictures.. 15193. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:01:17 AM Naaaa....they want bargainning chips... 15194. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 10:01:23 AM Jex: pics are fine as long as they are related to the thread topic, otherwise, they'll be moved. 15195. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 10:01:38 AM pseudo 15196. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:04:32 AM Actually, I want all the Arabs killed by Afghans. 15197. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:06:14 AM Let's see..I am Abdullah-Squared...Foreign Minister of the NA, now of Liberated Afghanistan...my people have done all the fightin and dyin. 15198. JRoth - 11/13/2001 10:08:26 AM Now for Act II. But there are many loose ends. This guy Dostum is a nut-recently wanted us and Russians to outfit him with a nobile command post like an American division commander uses. A real megalomaniac and probably an alcoholic. His entourage has some scary types. Ismail Khan is playing a clever game. Many see him as the best counterweight to Dostum, but he has refused to take a larger role saying he wants to consolidate situation in the West. Perhaps he's doing the Caesar routine; "thrice offered..." 15199. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:11:51 AM Probably an alcoholic? Dostum is an alcoholic. This is widely known. Maybe American intelligence should read the press sometimes. 15200. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:12:42 AM Yea that Commander Dotsum is a real piece of work from what I have been reading.....apparently NA troops are following his fine example of running over POWs with tanks. 15201. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:14:28 AM Well Duck day late and a dollar short you are....more like a couple of weeks late..but better late than never! 15202. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:18:25 AM "Say..'Pervez'..that's a Mexican name ain't it? Why I knew a Pervez family down roun San Antone. You related? Ya know, I speak purty good Mexican. I layke you Pervez...Why you can come over and fuck my sister" 15203. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:18:30 AM "Say..'Pervez'..that's a Mexican name ain't it? Why I knew a Pervez family down roun San Antone. You related? Ya know, I speak purty good Mexican. I layke you Pervez...Why you can come over and fuck my sister" 15204. JRoth - 11/13/2001 10:20:42 AM PE, 15205. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 10:23:11 AM Cart 15206. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:25:36 AM BTW, hats off to the Brits- these guys are pretty good 15207. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:30:43 AM 15208. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:35:13 AM Message # 15204 15209. concerned - 11/13/2001 10:50:33 AM The latest talk is of a joint Turkish/Pakistani peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, although the contributions of other countries, such as India, would be welcome, IMO. The Turks would undoubtedly be useful in counteracting the more erratic Middle East elements in any transitional Afghani govt., plus they have Islamic 'street cred'. 15210. Wombat - 11/13/2001 10:53:07 AM If NA forces limit themselves to killing Arabs and Pakistanis, they will not lose support in the cities they have taken. It might also discourage additional recruits. 15211. Wombat - 11/13/2001 10:57:48 AM Concerned: 15212. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:01:08 AM Everyone talks about Turkey as an ideal neutral but Muslim country but that is not at all the case. Turkey has been a major partisan in the Afghan civil war, siding with and nuturing Dostum's Uzbek Junbish militia. I don't think the Turks are a good idea. 15213. Wombat - 11/13/2001 11:01:40 AM It should also be clear that we have been doing far more bombing and terrorizing of Taliban fighters than any accidental attacks on civilians, and that if critics were intellectually honest with themselves, they would realize that. 15214. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:03:12 AM No country which has had a hand in the Afghan civil war should participate in any peace-keeping force in Afghanistan. Not Turkey, not Iran, not India, none of the Central Asian countries, certainly not Pakistan, and certainly none of the Arab countries. That leaves Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Albania and some African countries as the only disinterested Muslim countries.... 15215. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:06:53 AM First of all, putting the NA and the Paki troops into the same arena is ridiculous. 15216. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:10:22 AM "It's a fact, and it is a big part of all these defections you've seen to the NA." 15217. Wombat - 11/13/2001 11:15:19 AM Michael Ignatieff has a good piece in Salon. 15218. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:15:31 AM Well, the dollars-for-support campaign hasn't shown any concrete results among the Pashtun yet. But that is surely what Karzai is attempting, along with assorted others we have not heard about. 15220. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:16:10 AM (the US) has paid up all of its UN arrears,.. 15221. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:18:32 AM In the short term, it looks as though the US will reach its objectives quite impressively. It is the medium and long term that is so worrying, but it has to be admitted that the short term scenario has improved dramatically from, say, ten days ago when it looked like the Taliban and NA both showed no signs of moving and the TV screens showed only civilian suffering not the genuine civilian jubilation that the BBC (among others) has been broadcasting. 15222. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:19:43 AM It doesn't correlate. Over the weekend Powell said, unequivocally, that the US has settled its entire arrears to the UN and will not fall behind in payments again. 15223. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 11:22:33 AM i'm going to stop posting when i delete a repeat post. if you see a missing number without an explanation, 15219 for example, assume it was a repeat. 15224. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:24:26 AM There is a real fear, by the way, that what we are seeing is the first signs of a move to consolidate the Taliban into the rulers of a Pakhtoonistan. This would destabilize Pakistan quite thoroughly. I think the likelihood of such a state has gone up, now, from less than 1% to maybe closer to 25%. In other words, it is a genuine possibility that you'll see the Pathans rally together despite the international border separating their populace. 15225. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:30:04 AM Re. 15223 - 15226. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:37:27 AM Re. 15224 - 15227. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:47:42 AM You need only spend an afternoon walking through the Storytellers' Bazaar here in Peshawar, a few miles from the Afghan border, to understand that America needs to do its business in Afghanistan — eliminate Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors — as quickly as possible and get out of here. This is not a neighborhood where we should linger. This is not Mr. Rogers's neighborhood. 15228. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:49:47 AM The above should have been italicized, it's from today's NYTImes column by Friedman. 15229. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 11:54:35 AM Looks like the Taliban can't run away fast enough. Kandahar will soon fall to a southern rebellion if the NA doesn't get there first. Kabul accepted the NA in as liberators, not occupiers, as I knew it would. The previous chaos was the only reason The Taliban got into power to start with, not that Afghanistan supported their ideology of death. The only reason the Taliban was able to stay in power was massive support from Pakistan and because they had largely disarmed or driven off most of their potential opponents, not because they were particularly beloved. 15230. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:55:48 AM Pseuder, 15231. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:57:28 AM Also from the Guardian: 15232. alistairconnor - 11/13/2001 11:59:41 AM Well, that's a pretty impressive outcome for the first stage... an amazingly quick rout. I'm as surprised and delighted as anyone. 15233. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:01:09 PM And this, an Afghan makes a plea. 15234. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:03:10 PM Message # 15230 15235. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 12:06:03 PM The Pashtun have no great love of bin Laden or the Taliban. The Talioban is largely a foreign product, not a native one. They will happily follow an alternative Pashtun leader who doesn't lead them down the road of perpetual war. 15236. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:10:58 PM re 15234: 15237. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 12:14:22 PM There is a rebellion kicking up in Kandahar. It may all be over except the wrangling very soon. We need that Loya Jurga real quick. 15238. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:17:05 PM More on the defections. 15239. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:19:18 PM The Christian Science Monitor article in Marjoribanks's 15240. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:21:47 PM Kahlil Amid reports that there is chaos in the streets of Kandahar and Jalalabad; that his anti-talibists have been activetly engaged in covert operations in the south for the past 15 days; that there are massive defections among Talibees in response to a call to return to Pashtun tribal authority, and that Loyal Loya Jirgists are now in Kandahar. 15241. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:22:12 PM Mass executions reported in Northern Afgh. 15242. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:23:32 PM The NA is killin Khasmiri's and Chechens big time... 15243. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:25:05 PM Who the hell is Kahlil Amid? 15244. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:26:38 PM That would be Karzai, not Kalil... 15245. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:27:11 PM Hunood and Yahood same same 15246. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:28:28 PM And what is a Khasmiri? 15247. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:33:49 PM Well, things are happening so fast now that I'm not sure what to think. I wish Hamid Karzai was saying something different from what he's been saying for the past month. 15248. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:40:27 PM Hamid Karzai! 15249. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:40:48 PM He thinks the Taliban is kaput. 15250. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:41:57 PM And what is a Khasmiri? 15251. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:43:26 PM Welcome to Peshawar. Oh, and did I mention? This is Pakistan — these guys are on our side. Fat chance. This whole region of northwest Pakistan is really just an extension of Afghanistan, dominated by the same ethnic Pashtuns that make up the Taliban 15252. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:45:04 PM I must say I find Jexster's Gunga-Dinning of me rather funny. 15253. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:50:51 PM CNN is now running a report on Jen's fren 15254. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:51:15 PM BBC reports that there are unconfirmed accounts of "rebellion" in Kandahar itself. 15255. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:02:46 PM The aforementioned General Shah Namaz Tanai is also a former communist government army general. He defected only in 1990, when he attempted a coup d'etat against the communist government of Najibullah. He then joined Hekmatyar's mujahiddin, but after Hekmatyar's defeat, he joined the Taliban. The Taliban purged him from the ranks in 1998. 15256. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:07:03 PM Marjoribanks, at the weekend I read this book which I recommend: 15257. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:10:35 PM (but, as I said, it's badly written & organised.) 15258. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:10:59 PM Gen Shepherd, CNN: 15259. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:15:44 PM For a view contra, The Daily T.... 15260. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:17:39 PM They threw my man Kamal Hyder out of Khandahar for safety reasons this afternoon. 15261. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:19:19 PM He sees a split among the more moderate and more extreme elements of the Talibees and thus some some hope for the Loya Jirgist delegation now there trying to wrench Pashtuns away...or some of them....the rest headed for Paradise I guess. 15262. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:21:18 PM Kamal basically thinks that Pashtun domination must end or it will be hell to pay for Afgh 15263. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 1:24:40 PM I don't feel a great deal of hostility towards letting Afghanistan become two states if they will put an end to this incessant bloodshed. I don't think it will be neccessary though. They were quite prosperous and the closest thing to a liberal democracy in that part of the world prior to the coup asgainst the King. I hope it can be so again. 15264. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:28:28 PM I don't know where AuNaturel gets some of his odd yet confidentlty expressed ideas. Afghanistan between 1964 and 1973 had had a spell of constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature, but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world". It's even more ridiculous to say that it was prosperous. Prosperous compared to now, of course, but it was still one of the poorest countries in the world. 15265. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:31:19 PM Hedayat Arsala, the former World Bank economist and Zahir Shah's chief emissary (and, as it also happens, Abdul Haq's first cousin), has announced that he plans to meet with NA leaders in Kabul. 15266. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:32:44 PM Message # 15263: "I don't feel a great deal of hostility towards letting Afghanistan become two states..." 15267. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:34:27 PM "QUETTA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Thousands of tribal fighters are advancing on the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan after taking the nearby airport, witnesses said. 15268. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:35:31 PM If the above is true, and not just rumour, then the Taliban are more or less finished in the south. They will however persist in the hills, along with al-Qaidah. 15269. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:56:48 PM Exiled Pashtuns Preparing Return - Times of London 15270. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:58:19 PM A Visitor's Guide to Kandahar - Home of the Sacred Cloak of the Prophet 15271. Cellar Door - 11/13/2001 2:06:54 PM 15272. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:15:46 PM "but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world"." 15273. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:17:02 PM And as PE says, propserous is relative. Relative to where they have been in the last 20 years they were indeed properous. 15274. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:18:16 PM "Every group except the Hazaras is opposed to a partition of Afghanistan." 15275. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 2:29:36 PM Message # 15272 15276. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:40:21 PM PE: 15277. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 2:41:08 PM Saw an interesting online poll that i thought i'd ask here: 15278. CalGal - 11/13/2001 3:01:02 PM I think Pakistan gets a higher grade than Saudi Arabia. 15279. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 3:02:55 PM well, not if they've been leaking to the Taliban, imo. 15280. CalGal - 11/13/2001 3:04:01 PM Whoops. Forgot to grade. 15281. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:18:46 PM Message # 15276 15282. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:25:51 PM He's in the Hindu-Kush foothills and he gonna die a martyr's death...Maj Gen Shepherd (CNN-Ret) 15283. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:25:55 PM Surely Pakistan would rate highest: The President of Pakistan has endangered the longevity of his own administration, he purged some of the highest ranking military officers for criticism of the US and implied support for the Taliban, he faced far more numerous and violent demonstrations against support of the US than any other country and quelled those demonstrations despite an opposition press and clergy; Pakistan most likely shared intelligence with the US, a delegation comprised in some measure of ISI members twice visited with the Taliban and Afghan mullahs to deliver the US ultimatum and persuade (unsuccessfully) the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, and the Pakistan government not only allowed overflights but actually allowed US troops and aircraft on its soil. What have I forgot? 15284. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:27:15 PM What grade would you give the following countries with regard to the amount of help they have offered the U.S. in the war against terrorism? 15285. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:28:36 PM Of course Kashmir is part of South Asia: east of the Hindu Kush and south of the Himalayas. 15286. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:28:53 PM "Britain: A 15287. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:29:42 PM We haven't seen the pork that Putin of the Pure Soul has delivered to his buddy Mullah Moron....only hints...wait til cargo & fighter planes start flyin out of the old SAsian republics... 15288. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:31:22 PM Israel would get a C were it not for this idea that I have in my head, probably a fantasm, that the Mossadh is giving us intel... 15289. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:31:37 PM Message # 15285 15290. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:31:47 PM would = would not 15291. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:33:43 PM Kashmir...they make sweaters right? 15292. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:35:16 PM "TORKHAM, Pakistan (Reuters) - Anti-Taliban fighters reached the Afghan border post at the Torkham crossing to Pakistan at the western end of the fabled Khyber Pass on Tuesday evening, a Reuters cameraman said. 15293. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:39:25 PM CNN has an Afghan expert from one of the War Colleges on... 15294. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:41:57 PM Actually, south of the Hindu Kush doesn't work as a good geographical demarcation, because southern Afghanistan is a geographical continuum of the Iranian Plateau. 15295. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:47:48 PM The NA has asked the King to return to Kabul... 15296. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:49:23 PM I wish my buddy Fr. Bowersox hadn't passed earlier this year...I wish I knew what in the hell he and the Asia Foundation were doing in that shithole 15297. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:52:53 PM Arriving in Srinigar from Kabul by plane, then going by bus up to Gulmarg, I didn't conceive I was in the Himalayas because I was still below the treeline. Mountains, yes, but not in the very midst of that new mountain chain being pushed up by the collision of India with Asia. But coming down from Srinigar by bus to Jemmu I could appreciate how high I'd been. 15298. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:53:44 PM Actually, it was an Air India flight from Kabul to Delhi, then by another, smaller Air India plane to Srinigar. 15299. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:56:57 PM It's called buzkashi (or similar romanization) and the sport is a goat's carcass. I regret I never saw it while in Afghanistan; it seems it wasn't the season while I was there. 15300. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:02:12 PM Buzkashi is played all year around in northern Pakistan. 15301. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:13:52 PM A constitutional monarchy for Afghanistan eventually with Zahir Shah appointing his successor, perhaps? 15302. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:17:00 PM Are the Taliban fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad? I haven't seen reports on that. 15303. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:24:00 PM MSNBC is reporting that the Taliban is fleeing Kandahar. The NA at least says they expect to take Jalalabad in the next day or so. 15304. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:24:37 PM Then there are the uprisings being reported in both cities. 15305. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:27:41 PM The NA enter Jalalabad? That should be interesting -- and quite revealing of what is to come in Afghanistan. 15306. janjon - 11/13/2001 4:29:03 PM any predictions about their reception, pseudo? 15307. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:29:25 PM From Reuters: 15308. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:31:55 PM Thanks for the book reference, Pseuder. 15309. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:34:52 PM What's so revelatory about the NA taking Jalalabad? 15310. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:34:57 PM "How can tens of thousands of Taliban + foreign supporters flee into the mountains to wage guerrilla war?" 15311. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:35:02 PM Pseudo: "Are the Taliban fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad? I haven't seen reports on that." 15312. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 4:35:35 PM Yes, the vale of Kashmir, but beyond the treeline, well above Gulmarg and hard on the border with Pakistan I could look out to see hundreds of square miles below me. 15313. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:37:32 PM I've now seen a report that one of the causes of the sudden Taliban collapse may be that bin Laden and his little retinue has scampered down Pakistan way. 15314. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:38:43 PM "What's so revelatory about the NA taking Jalalabad?" 15315. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:39:25 PM I suppose the NA will weigh the value of the open pipeline of aid seriously, and allow a shura to take place in Kabul very soon. But winter is on its way, not to mention Ramzan. I think it is going to be difficult to dislodge them from territory now taken, in this dramatic sweep through much of Afghanistan, and it is going to be plain impossible to force them to desist from simply killing the remnants of foreign forces that they come across, including Pakistanis. 15316. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:39:45 PM Marj: I don't expect the core of the Taliban or of al-Qaeda to just give up without a fight, and as many of them are experienced guerrilla fighters, their planned course of action should be obvious. 15317. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:42:14 PM Pakistan has been thoroughly fucked in the way this campaign has turned out (as I posted earlier today), in that a group that hates it has taken most of Afghanistan's territory. Now, if those reports mentioned about Omar etc having decamped to Pakistani territory are true, the country is doubly fucked. However, Musharraf has a way of turning these situations to his advantage if not his country's. Perhaps that could happen here. 15318. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:44:47 PM No, Rask, the Arabs have to fight, as I posted above. But how effectively they can do this in a countryside which is itching to turn them in (for bucks) and without clear lines of supply and retreat, is another question. 15319. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:45:21 PM Marj: the report about Osama fleeing to Pakistan was an uncited claim by concerned. If ever the veracity of a rumor was to be doubted, this is it. 15320. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:48:41 PM It will be much more complicated to capture/kill bin Laden in the FATA. For one thing, he'll have much more local support than he would in the Afghan South. 15321. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:50:51 PM The good news for Pakistan may be that extreme Islamism is being discredited by the Taliban collapse, and that might quiet fundamentalist unrest within its borders, once bin Laden & co. are appropriately dealt with. 15322. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:51:05 PM If bin Ladin escapes to FATA in Pakistan, he will have many sympathisers but also as many people who would jump at the chance to collect a million+ dollar reward. One adjective one could apply to the tribes in FATA is: opportunistic. 15323. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:51:43 PM "The good news for Pakistan may be that extreme Islamism is being discredited by the Taliban collapse, and that might quiet fundamentalist unrest within its borders, once bin Laden & co. are appropriately dealt with." 15324. janjon - 11/13/2001 4:53:40 PM it makes much more sense that bin Laden, Omar et al have gone to Pakistan. 15325. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:57:28 PM Message # 15324: Only for a fool. 15326. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:59:27 PM The only real question that remains, if what appears to be happening is happening, is whether the US will now pump in Special-Ops and ground troops to rout out Al-Qaeda from the hills. It appears unlikely that the NA will stray very far from the cities, and even the ethnic Pashtuns now reportedly on its side aren't likely to want to tramp around the mountains during winter. It might be the job that finally calls for US troops, who will have a massive technological and psychological advantage when the winter starts in properly. 15327. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:02:19 PM "even the ethnic Pashtuns now reportedly on its side aren't likely to want to tramp around the mountains during winter." 15328. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:03:22 PM Only for a fool? 15324 wasn't addressed to you. And, it was conjecture, not stating that he had done so. 15329. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:03:29 PM I somehow feel it unlikely that bin Laden will now try to decamp for Pakistan. he may have gone already, that is possible. But the atmosphere now has soured, he carries with him the taint of defeat. Omar, yes. 15330. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:04:16 PM During the 1980s Soviet war, many of the tribes of FATA in Pakistan made their territories off-limits to Afghan mujahiddin. Abdul Haq and his band of mujahiddin were were once caught between a Soviet force and one of the FATA territories, but he was still not allowed inside. 15331. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:05:35 PM Marj: I don't know that much about Pakistan, but I know something about guerrilla warfare. 15332. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:05:53 PM (And the Afridis are nominally Pakistanis!) 15333. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:09:06 PM Pseuder, 15334. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:10:44 PM "Could you link to the reports you've read about this??? That is the one piece of information I'm looking for." 15335. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:12:21 PM Message # 15333 15336. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:14:01 PM All of this points to one essential fact about the tribals in Afghanistan and Pakistan that one tends to overlook, to the detriment of coherent analysis. They have a very astute sense of what is a winning hand, and they have a very astute sense of the value of money. They've all been smugglers and drug dealers for centuries. Have you ever dealt with a drug dealer? They're more money savvy than most Wall Streeters. The money, in this case, has put a nail in the coffin of the Taliban. Fuck ideology, dollars talk a lot more seriously. 15337. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:14:48 PM Rask, 15338. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:16:40 PM And you are right about Osama's flight not being a wild rumor. Dawn has a blurb about on their web site, citing an NA official in Tajikistan. But they also have a blurb that the Taliban claims to have retaken Mazar, so take it for what its worth. 15339. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:18:55 PM Oh, it is Omar, not Osama, who is rumored to have fled. My bad. 15340. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:23:52 PM All the Indian papers cite that same NA spokesman, who remains the one source for the story that Omar has gone to Pakistan. 15341. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:26:23 PM Well, one must wait for another source. The Times of India also reported the fall of Mazar -- four weeks before it happened. 15342. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:26:31 PM The local populace in places like Kabul certainly seem to think they've seen the last of the Taliban. One can always stop flying kites or listening to music, but it takes a long time to re-grow a beard. 15343. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:28:19 PM Hahahahahaha. And you say that the Indian papers aren't prescient or believable. 15344. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:30:01 PM I assume that the Taliban won't allow a sharp-looking goatee, or the Miami Vice "unshaven look"? It has to be the length of beard you accidentally piss on during the course of the day? 15345. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:30:05 PM Seems as if things are accelerating, if anything. 15346. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:30:16 PM I hear that all of the savvy short sellers on Wall Street have subscriptions to a number of Indian papers. 15347. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:31:16 PM Seems as if things are accelerating, if anything. 15348. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:34:56 PM In this context, it appears the Taliban is answering the old Tareyton cigarette commercial question: 'Would you rather fight than switch?' by switching;) 15349. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:36:03 PM In retrospect, it is a great pity that the US bombed the al-Jazeera offices yesterday. Now is the time that that channel should be broadcasting, unrestricted, from Afghanistan. The pictures are sure to be the kind that will amaze and shock the Arab world. 15350. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:36:37 PM I certainly hope Zahir Shah comes through this time, unlike in 1989 or 1993 when he was last called upon to be of some use to Afghanistan. 15351. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:40:25 PM The deck is actually loaded against Zahir Shah, it appears, despite his newfound alliance with the West. 15352. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:42:24 PM Zahir Shah has never once left Italy since 1973, except for visits to France. 15353. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:46:10 PM "there is a real resentment about him among the Pathans who fled to Pakistan over the years." 15354. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:48:06 PM Any party that the US (and the rest of the West, and Pakistan) now wants to be in on the next Afghan government will have to be shoehorned in. The NA will naturally hold some veto powers, and those countries who have been using it as a proxy (India, Iran, Russia) will have a great deal of say. 15355. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:49:56 PM Pseuder, 15356. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:52:12 PM Iran may have overplayed its hand with the backing of Hekmatyar, who appears to have done not much other than issue statements from Tehran. Pseuder, is part of the NA loyal to him above others? 15357. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:54:44 PM Hekmatyar has no following whatever inside the Northern Alliance. That's why he's been babbling about joining the Taliban (despite the Taliban death warrant on him....) 15358. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:55:48 PM Why would a man who is in his 80s and who has lived in Italy since 1973 want to come back to Afghanistan. His powers are bound to be fettered, and the prestige level doesn't seem to be terribly high. (let alone the survivability factor). 15359. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:56:07 PM Pseudo:"I also think that if the NA does decide to behave -- and it appears increasingly that is now the case" 15360. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:57:02 PM "It's good to be the king". 15361. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:58:57 PM More likely that the King is surrounded by opportunists who want a piece of the power and money pie that Afghanistan now represents. Look at the fellow on news reports, he doesn't look like he wants to leave his apartment, let alone the comforts of the West. 15362. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:02:45 PM ""We were not used to the burqa, so we were always tripping," she said. 15363. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:02:54 PM Message # 15358 15364. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:05:31 PM If Jalalabad and Kandahar fall to some kind of anti-Taliban force in the next few days, and the Northern Alliance really does forego any attempts to seize power unilaterally, then I will retract my criticisms of the strategy to date, apologise to Americans in this forum, and thank the USA. 15365. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:06:33 PM the wrongs I had in mind were broad in concept, such as in having been forced from the throne. 15366. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:08:59 PM God bless America, say it right now, Pseuder. 15367. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:11:00 PM By the way, my personal recommendation is that those two young fellows from the Taliban embassy in Karachi be included in the post-Taliban government. Nice, wistful, young men they were. I felt bad for the younger fellow from the first, surely there is a US-funded sop that can be found for him. 15368. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:11:56 PM remember - it won't be deemed complete until bin Ladin is, um, hunted down and brought to justice. 15369. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:14:39 PM Complete in the sense that the Taliban has had control of the territory of Afghanistan wrested from its hands, in a shockingly brief period of time after the NA started to advance and pick up defectors. 15370. concerned - 11/13/2001 6:15:39 PM I'd tend to guess that, at the rate events are occurring in Afghanistan, if the military exercise can soon be brought to a successful conclusion, the 'loya jirga' may have a better chance of creating a stable Afghani government. 15371. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:16:48 PM Terrorist attacks, I suppose are still a possibility. But the US has few or no personnel on the ground, so has nothing to lose if a rearguard action takes place of any kind. 15372. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:17:05 PM Message # 15367 15373. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:20:36 PM Really? He looked so very subcon. And why have you sic-ed my reference to Karachi? It wasn't Islamabad, I thought. The older guy was Zaeef, wasn't he? What was the younger fellow's name? 15374. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:33:22 PM Al Jazeera identified Taliban ambassador Mullah Zaeef as Abdul Aziz Musa al-Jamal, an Egyptian and a member of the Islamic Jihad who disappeared after Sadat's assassination. 15375. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:34:00 PM errata 15376. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:36:54 PM Interesting. The younger fellow isn't Zaeef, he may well be Pakistani. 15377. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:41:23 PM I don't know which one you consider to look older or younger, but Mullah Zaeef is the 34-year old and the one who speaks English is the Egyptian. Zaeef is definitely a Pashtun from southern Afghanistan. It is obvious from looks & accent. (When asked what he thought about the Durrand line, he said "Pashtunistan" rather than "Pakhtunistan", a sure sign that he's from southern Afghanistan. 15378. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:47:48 PM I meant the interpreter, hadn't seen your errata. 15379. joezan - 11/13/2001 7:07:27 PM pseudo - Message # 15169: 15380. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:28:16 PM http://jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2001-daily/14-11-2001/main/main8.htm 15381. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:31:47 PM Ugh. If they retreat to the Pakistani side of the tribal lands, that makes the task of defeating them more difficult and ugly and more complicated for pakistan. 15382. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:34:35 PM More from the above URL: 15383. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:42:38 PM This is all very premature, Pseuder. But I do hope you managed to extract your relatives from Peshawar. It seems oddly possible that the next step may be a pincer between Pak troops and the NA (and, finally, Western ground troops) to shake out the Pathan lands in the FATA and even the NWFP. 15384. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:48:10 PM Jexster is better suited to coupling with a Gurkha. 15385. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:51:03 PM Well, look at it in simple terms. Let's assume that the Jang report is 100% accurate. That means that the key part of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (and, prseumably, bin Laden) is now in Pakistan. 15386. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:54:15 PM Of course the Pak army is going to go after the Taliban and the Arabs IF they have in fact fled to FATA. The Pak air force has bombed FATA at least four times since 1947. There are precedents. 15387. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 7:54:57 PM the Taliban have broadly hinted about their strategy to launch hit and run operations against the fixed and mobile targets. 15388. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 8:11:06 PM It appears that it is a defeat plain and simple, and an outright retreat, Loar. What's a hopeful ISI guy going to say other than "they're regrouping for guerrilla operations." He can't bring himself to say "they're fleeing to the last available quasi-haven" which is closer to the truth. 15389. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:33:21 PM "Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon..." 15390. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:40:51 PM "I will recant my impression, solidified in the wake of the ambush of Abdul Haq, that every second Afghan is an ethnic zealot no better than Nazi-sympathizing Germans." 15391. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:45:01 PM I hope I haven't mixed my point up among the cows--what I mean is that an ethnically representative coalition is yet to be established, human rights protections are yet to be guaranteed in Mazar, Kabul, and further NA conquests, aid must still be delivered throughout the coming winter, the Taliban's demise must be assured without sparking more unrest in Pakistan, the Arabs have to be found and dealt with, etc., etc. 15392. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:45:54 PM "It was an idiotic impression anyway." 15393. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 8:55:18 PM I just wonder how long it will take for something to be put together to fill the vacuum, even if it's only intendended to be briefly transitional. I know they're working on it, but no one expected the Taliban to just pack up and leave Kabul. Everyone, including the UN, is talking about the need for urgency, but it seems like everything is moving in slow motion. It's been mentioned that US and British forces may have to move in in the interim, but there seems to be nothing but the shaky hope that the NA will, as PE put it, behave, at this point. 15394. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:58:02 PM Here is a useful map of the Northern Alliance operations. It's indicated that the Northern Alliance has taken control of the Afghan border post at Torkham Gate, the western end of the Khyber Pass. I cannot believe that is true, because it if it were true it would be all over the wires and Pak papers. 15395. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:01:34 PM I've taken note of what you've said about Jalalabad in particular. Does anyone know the situation with Kandahar at the moment? I've heard and read conflicting reports during the evening. 15396. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:02:35 PM Why are there no al Jazeera reporters in Kandahar and Jalalabad??? 15397. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:05:14 PM Amateurs talk strategy, professionals like JRoth & Commander Baba Jex talk logistics and intel.... 15398. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:05:30 PM I heard today that the al Jazeera center in Afghanistan had been destroyed. Maybe they can't get any news out of the country now. 15399. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:08:15 PM Something else of interest that the US keeps saying--I heard Rice say it yesterday and someone from the Defense Dept, iirc, today--that they have the knowledge that bin Laden is currently on the move. It may very well just be for effect, but I wonder what they know, if anything. 15400. joezan - 11/13/2001 9:53:53 PM Anyone see the video of the BBC guy sitting in a broadcast booth (in Kabul?), head in hand, looking as if he's about to nod off? 15401. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:55:25 PM BBC's Haroun Rashid, on the radio, just now: "We did not see any evidence of rebel activity at the Kandahar airport". 15402. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:55:55 PM /bold 15403. joezan - 11/13/2001 9:57:42 PM Sorry 15404. Andonly - 11/13/2001 10:02:45 PM AP report: 15405. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 10:13:42 PM I read somewhere that if it's caught at stage I it's generally treatable, but no one knows what it is at that stage unless they're looking for it. 15406. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:16:24 AM NYT article on southern tribes massing against the Taliban . 15407. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:18:40 AM I have been awake for 30 hours now glued to the news on radio, television and internet. I can't remember the last time I have felt so compelled to stay awake. 15408. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:21:19 AM I think the only reliable part of that NYT piece is the evacuation of Lowgar province by the Taliban. 15409. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:22:11 AM An NA spokesman (lawyerly-looking guy named Amin something) was on MSNBC around 11pm saying that southern forces had taken over the airport outside Kandahar. 15410. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:24:07 AM How would the NA spokesman know that, anyway? Did he ring Hamid Karzai or something by satellite phone? 15411. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 2:26:40 AM What surprises me is the speed of operations. The distance from Mazar-i-Sharif to Kandahar via Kabul looks like 1000 km or so and one assumes that the roads are bad. 15412. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:29:11 AM Well, activity in Kandahar, if there is any, is not being directed from Kabul. It would most likely be staged from Herat (from which there is a farirly good road to Kandahar), or by Pashtun tribal forces which crossed the border from Pakistan according Reuters. 15413. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:33:28 AM The commander mentioned in Marjoribanks's Message # 15236 was interviewed by French television yesterday. Haji Zaman Ghamsherik, a relatively minor commander still sitting on his arse in Peshawar, got nearly 5 minutes of air time. This is only because the French, having lost their beloved francophone Afghan Che Guevara Ahmed Shah Masud, has found yet another French speaker in Haji Zaman. This is the first time I've heard a Pashtun speak French. 15414. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:35:38 AM Actually, when pressed - "Are you saying that the airport has been taken over?" - the Amin guy kind of shifted in his seat a bit and said "the Taliban no longer control it." 15415. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 2:50:14 AM pe: 15416. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:54:20 AM The Washington Post has an article about the rumblings in Kandahar, with more details than the NYT article linked to by Zan. The WP artifcle also contains various anti-Taliban Pashtun commanders supposedly operating in Kandahar. 15417. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 3:18:13 AM So it would seem that your prediction of a de facto partition may come true. Alternatively there may be fighting in the south between the NA and the Pashtuns which would be tragic for Afghanistan and an unwelcome distraction for the US. 15418. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:19:48 AM Radio France International just interviewed what must have been half a dozen prominent ex-mujahiddin commanders in Pakistan. They predict the fall of Kandahar in 24 hours. 15419. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:21:00 AM http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/11/14/FFX2530ZZTC.html 15420. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:28:08 AM Message # 15417: Well, I had predicted a de facto partition between an NA-controlled north and a Taliban-held south. That no longer appears likely at all. But there may still be problems between the NA and the Pashtun mujahiddin. Still, as I've said before, most of the Pashtun commanders who seem to be operating in eastern & southern Afghanistan have a history of cooperating with members of the NA. 15421. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 3:38:40 AM Yes, I should have said "Pashtun-held south". 15422. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:04:12 AM It does now look like the Taliban have lost four eastern provinces (Laghman, Logar, Kunar and Nangrahar) to the Pashtun mujahiddin group of Yunis Khalis, with which the late Abdul Haq and the aforementioned brother of his Abdul Qadir are associated. 15423. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:24:04 AM The man who "taught" most of the Taliban leaders, Maulana Sami ul Haq, who runs the "Harvard" of madrasas in the NWFP: 15424. jexster - 11/14/2001 5:58:44 AM Those he flunked.... 15425. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:03:52 AM CNN confirms evacuation of Jalabad. Talis crossing border into Pakistan raising exactly Marj's "fanciful" scenario...what I find hard to believe is anything that is remotely analytical from PE...as for the uselessly encyclopedic...hat's off Pierre! 15426. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:12:11 AM CNN also reports from Pakistan that its sources in Kandahar dispute US claims that the city is about to fall...further they maintain that the airport is solidly in TaliHands....and that the Talibees are CONCENTRATING forces in the City....hehehe...bombs away! 15427. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:17:26 AM 15428. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:25 AM PE: "Radio France International just interviewed what must have been half a dozen prominent ex-mujahiddin commanders in Pakistan. They predict the fall of Kandahar in 24 hours." 15429. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:15:28 AM News is still unaccountably patchy from the South of Afghanistan, with claims and counterclaims flying back and forth. Interestingly, the Taliban appears to no longer be able to speak for itself, claims on its behalf are being made by Pakistanis hundreds of miles away from the action. 15430. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:16:02 AM Also - 15431. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:22:23 AM I'm curious to know whether PE still thinks American bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns, or whether that tide has turned. 15432. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:29:10 AM I might venture an answer. The bombing has apparently either broken the back of the Taliban military forces, or caused it/them to entirely rethink their strategy, including the holding of cities. 15433. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:35:11 AM The US is a long way from being out of the woods in terms of civilian sentiment towards it. Yes, it has facilitated a stunning victory, or a series of stunning victories. 15434. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:39:36 AM It is useful to note that, despite the unfettered public and media jubilation in the Allied countries, Blair yesterday was treating the NA advances (into Kabul and beyond) as a slap in the face, a personal embarrasment. And also to remember that just the day before, Bush was glad-handing Musharraf and confidently declaring that the NA would basically halt outside Kabul until a suitable political plan could accompany it into the capital. 15435. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 9:43:53 AM Message # 15425 15436. Francis Urquhart - 11/14/2001 9:46:51 AM Mullah Omar, from CNN: 15437. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:47:16 AM Younis Qanooni, the newly appointed head of the opposition military commission for Kabul, told AFP the Taliban had lost Nangarhar, Kunar and Laghman provinces in the east along with Ghazni in the south and Farah in west. 15438. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 9:47:32 AM Message # 15431: Yes, I still think bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns. What was unexpected and surprising was the complete & sudden collapse of the Taliban. Which is of course what has brought the anti-Taliban Pashtun forces out. They didn't actively overthrow the Taliban. 15439. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:51:21 AM Taliban deputy ambassador Sohail Shaheen said on Wednesday that the militia was regrouping after a tactical withdrawal from major cities and was forming a new plan. 15440. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:02:36 AM Neither in Mazar nor in Kabul have there been any reports of ethnically motivated reprisals against civilians. All in all, the last 48 hours have seen little but good news. 15441. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:03:06 AM Southern Agfh in Chaos - ToL 15442. arheles - 11/14/2001 10:03:33 AM The Times is reporting that Al-Jazeera is reporting the fall of Kandahar. 15443. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:04:36 AM any fighter who deserts their duty "is like a slaughtered chicken which falls and dies 15444. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:05:18 AM Bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among the Pashtun who are or favour the Taliban, and for those who are against the Taliban obviously favour the deliverance of bombing, just like any one else regardless of their tribal or clan affinities. I mean, what kind of question and reply is all this? 15445. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:08:14 AM "...and for those who are against the Taliban obviously favour the deliverance of bombing..." 15446. Francis Urquhart - 11/14/2001 10:08:17 AM of course, all this success has devastated my unification/Afghanistan as training ground plan for the spring. I can no longer dole out these cities to our partners. 15447. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:09:08 AM "Afghan sources in Pakistan said that the airport in Kandahar was held by forces loyal to Arif Khan, a member of a southern Pashtun tribe. 15448. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:09:49 AM Those Taliban stuck in Kunduz, are indeed done for. 15449. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:10:28 AM Two things which detract from the good news: 15450. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:10:36 AM I've got not doubt that Pashtun (yes, even our very own Pseudoerasmus) who want the fall of the Taliban would cry - like the tribes of the Northern Alliance - "Allah is great!" when the bombs rip up the opposing forward edge of the battle area. 15451. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:10:51 AM THE collapse of Taliban resistance in northern Afghanistan and the fall of Kabul may stand as one of the most remarkable reversals of military fortune since Kitchener's victory at Omdurman in the Sudan in 1898. Then, another Islamic fundamentalist army, led by the Khalifa, a charismatic religious figure, was swept away on the battlefield and the capital recaptured. 15452. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:11:28 AM Okay, why is it completely false? 15453. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:13:12 AM Message # 15450 15454. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:13:46 AM Take up the White Man's burden-- 15455. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:14:27 AM Well, I must qualify my statement. Yes, I read in the Chicago Tribune of several days ago that a representative of a woman's group in Afghanistan lecturing at some university said she wanted the bombing stopped. Again, she wanted the bombing stopped. This of course was several days before bombing broke the Taliban's hold over most of the country. 15456. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:14:42 AM PE why are the Jamiats bad? 15457. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:16:13 AM I didn't say the Jamiat is bad. But if they don't relinquish military control of Kabul when the time comes, then that could be troublesome. 15458. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:17:10 AM I can only infer from your "Pashtun voices" that even if most Pashtun do not support the Taliban (and the degree of that support or lack thereof will become evident in the next few days) they still support their fellow Pashtuns and so want the bombing stopped? I find that fucking hard to believe. 15459. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:17:12 AM Masour Iiaz Today Show...the good news is the NA is in control, the bad news is the NA is in control 15460. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:18:16 AM Why? Just because they are one tribe and many must share???? No baby jirga? 15461. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:19:09 AM For Jen if she's around...a Frankfurt newspaper is reporting from German govt sources, the release of the 8 15462. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:21:02 AM It is going to be very hard to persuade people like Rabbani that they have to take a back seat to anyone, perhaps especially the King, despite the fact that their own troops occupy territory. 15463. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:22:27 AM Loar likes to argue in a vacuum of facts and, then when confronted with them, to bullshit them away. Every single anti-Taliban Pashtun commander has condemned the bombing. Afghan refugees streaming into Pakistan have decried the bombing. Al Jazeera had daily reported on the outrage the bombing caused in the streets. Abdul Haq reported on the outrage the bombing induced amongst eastern villagers. 15464. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:24:56 AM "Afghan mountain warriors, particularly the Pathans of the south, traditionally found advantage in fighting regular forces by presenting a poor target to organised fire power. Their organisation was the loose lashkar(!!!), which moved fleet-footed across country, avoiding roads, and their chosen method of fighting was that of the gasht(!), a raiding sweep. In the last few weeks, the Taliban seems to have made the mistake of constructing entrenched lines, which are clearly visible from the air and present attractive targets for precision bombing, even from 15,000 ft. The Taliban has also encumbered itself with tanks and four-wheel drive vehicles, which add little to its fighting capacity but signal its units' location to American aircraft" 15465. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:27:32 AM Message # 15464: Despite being Pashtun, the Taliban have little experience of traditional Pashtun lashkar-style warfare. After all, their entire military experience since 1994 has been of the conventional kind. 15466. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:30:47 AM Yes, it should be noted that the Taliban are not guerrillas, nor the hardened mujahedeen who faced down the Soviets. They're relative neophytes, who swept up most of Afghanistan thanks to Pakistani military support and the goodwill of a good section of the populace. 15467. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:30:48 AM Obviously, if they could foresee that the bombing campaign would be so effective in causing the Taliban to disintegrate, then they might not have opposed the bombing. 15468. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:33:51 AM Loar, 15469. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:41:15 AM Yes, I admit that the bombing "seemed that is was doing nought (sic) to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increase civilian suffering" was the simplistic picture and one that you yourself parroted here. 15470. Andonly - 11/14/2001 10:41:50 AM "Yes, I still think bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns." 15471. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:50:05 AM Loar, 15472. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:50:30 AM Oh I see, never mind. 15473. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:53:58 AM Message # 15469 15474. Andonly - 11/14/2001 10:57:03 AM Banks: "The fact is that every Afghan source, save the NA spokesmen, condemned the bombing when it seemed that it was doing nought to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increased civilian suffering." 15475. janjon - 11/14/2001 10:57:47 AM I would not want to be a sheep trying to graze in the hills of southern Afghanistan. 15476. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:58:52 AM Message # 15470 15477. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:00:49 AM errata Message # 15476 15478. stostosto - 11/14/2001 11:06:03 AM You gotta hand it to the USAirforce: It's apparently a lot more effective militarily than many of us (and many experts) have been fretting. 15479. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:13:07 AM One of the fears I expressed thousands of posts ago was re-fragmentation of Afghanistan, to the status quo ante of 1996. 15480. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:15:46 AM "We don't know yet the end result of that occupation." 15481. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:15:48 AM No, Pseudoerasmus, I didn't predict the immediate rout of the Taliban from most of the areas they held. In fact, I said again and again (but not to the metronome of insistence prevalent here) that I was not privy to US intelligence, nor to the Taliban's order of battle, nor to the results of those airstrikes and so I did not speculate on the military situation other than to remark that special forces were probably in the field to act as reconnaisance and forward observers for airstrikes. Do you want to go back and find those very words of mine? I did offer the speculation the Osama bin Laden had at the most months, perhaps weeks to live, and explained why. We will see what we will see. 15482. stostosto - 11/14/2001 11:17:56 AM Have no fear, Denmark is preparing to send 800 troops. 15483. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:18:21 AM I also remarked that the US would doubtlessly be obliged to create safe areas along the borders and within the country to stage the shipment and distribution of UN sponsored aid relief, for which I was thoroughly ridiculed as being a fantasy. 15484. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:19:25 AM Rather, the notion was ridiculed as fantastical. 15485. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:22:56 AM I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed. 15486. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:34:34 AM But, I do admit, my thoughts and opinions are pretty much beggared by the wealth of facts on Afghan ethnicities, personalities, and Pashtun sensibilities paraded around here like battle penants. 15487. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:37:26 AM Corrigendum: pennants 15488. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:42:15 AM That is correct Scott...now to the board...write 1000 times, I will not misple. 15489. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:43:32 AM Panic in the Streets of Kandahar... 15490. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:45:46 AM Great news Sto! But I would feel more comfortable with a Dutch contingent if its all the same to you and a few Norwegians. 15491. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:47:42 AM I wanna marry Mathew Chance. 15492. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:54:07 AM Message # 15480 15493. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 11:54:15 AM Informative article from the Post. Good link, jexster. 15494. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:58:30 AM "I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII" 15495. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:00:19 PM 15496. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:07:03 PM "Most of the bombing took place in Pashtun areas." 15497. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:08:31 PM 15498. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:09:24 PM Sorry to disappoint, Andonly, but neither do I believe it is to be the labour of a generation; that was and remains your opinion, not mine. 15499. janjon - 11/14/2001 12:10:25 PM Before the Taliban assumed control of Kandahar in 1994, the city was divided into six zones, each controlled by a rival warlord. There were 18 checkpoints between the Pakistani border and the city limits at which armed men would extract bribes from travelers. 15500. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:12:43 PM Because you're Message # 15497 assumes 15501. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:13:35 PM Christ! I intended "your" and not "you're". I've been making that mistake a lot lately. 15502. jexster - 11/14/2001 12:14:59 PM "We need a broad-based government that will represent the will of all of Afghanistan's people, not just something that has been backed for the last two weeks by the U.S.A." 15503. jexster - 11/14/2001 12:16:30 PM We need the UN Security Jirga to get off its loya ass....just as Morton Halperin suggested on 9/12... 15504. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:20:37 PM 15505. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:24:37 PM I predicted all of this. 15506. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:26:05 PM 15507. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:26:07 PM Message # 15496 & Message # 15500 15508. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:26:59 PM Message # 15507 (continued). Most Pashtuns did not support the Taliban but your (a) through (c) ignore what I've already written. 15509. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:29:50 PM I donno. 15510. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:37:45 PM Message # 15507 15511. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:39:50 PM Someone called the US press "poodles". That's a bit strong but the American press does seem more compliant with US government policy than in a long time. Here's NYT article on on the press during this war. 15512. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:41:49 PM Message # 15501 15513. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:43:00 PM By the way, it's possible to read Al Jazeera on the web in English. 15514. Wombat - 11/14/2001 12:59:38 PM As I am sure PE will tell you, the only information on the the war and air campaign that many Afghans got was through their own eyes, and what Taliban told them was happening. This would obviously affect their opinions on the bombing. 15515. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:20:14 PM (1) I was spectacularly wrong about how effective the US bombing campaign would be. I believed that the Taliban could not be routed by bombing alone, that the Northern Alliance would have to actively vie for the cities against the Taliban, and that the Taliban would dig in their heels. I did air in this thread the possibility that the Taliban might withdraw unilaterally from Kabul and Mazar to their southern redoubts, but I never ever imagined they would abandon Kandahar and Jalalabad as readily as they had quit Kabul and Mazar. Very few people believed differently than I did. 15516. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:20:25 PM Pseudoerasmus, n.b. 15517. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:21:29 PM errata: CHASTISED, not chastasised, which is the terminal condition of bovarian cancer when the patient is returned to a virginal state. 15518. CalGal - 11/14/2001 1:22:56 PM All this and Ramadan, too! 15519. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:27:30 PM Message # 15517: 15520. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:29:31 PM errata: CHASTISED, not chastasised, which is the terminal condition of bovarian cancer when the patient is returned to a virginal state. 15521. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:30:56 PM Message # 15517: 15522. janjon - 11/14/2001 1:31:32 PM bovarian? 15523. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:34:07 PM Yes, yes, yes. In time we will discover the exact consequences of the bombing, how many non-combatants were killed, how many and what type of areas destroyed or damaged, and the results to the civilian population. Now, we just don't know, because as I have said again and again public opinion formed by a few and narrow reporters may prove to be very much at odds with the reality. 250,000 refugees exited because of bombing? Or fear of bombing? Not for reason that transportation was disrupted, that aid relief was stopped? 15524. Raskolnikov - 11/14/2001 1:38:27 PM Pseudo:"The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell." 15525. sakonige - 11/14/2001 1:39:51 PM Message # 15515 15526. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:42:06 PM Message # 15523 15527. sakonige - 11/14/2001 1:43:13 PM 15528. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:44:07 PM I give up. 15529. stostosto - 11/14/2001 1:44:29 PM Great news Sto! But I would feel more comfortable with a Dutch contingent if its all the same to you and a few Norwegians. 15530. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:49:28 PM Reports about Kandahar may be premature: 15531. Al D - 11/14/2001 1:53:45 PM pseudoerasmus 15532. Al D - 11/14/2001 1:58:58 PM Several weeks ago we had dinner with one of our liberal friends, who assured us from what they were reading that bin Ladin was much loved in Afganistan. In fact women were enamored with him and did not object to the strictures put on them. They spoke about bin Laden's soft brown eyes and soft way of speaking. 15533. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:09:34 PM Message # 15531 15534. sakonige - 11/14/2001 2:09:43 PM What I did not want to see is thousands of Americans killed. It seems that objective will be met. 15535. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:16:41 PM "Sorry to disappoint, Andonly, but neither do I believe it is to be the labour of a generation; that was and remains your opinion, not mine." 15536. Al D - 11/14/2001 2:19:13 PM I hope you're not implying I am such a person. 15537. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:19:18 PM "I predicted all of this. I was just posting the opposite to test myself. I wanted to see if I could post the opposite of what I really thought without blinking." 15538. Cellar Door - 11/14/2001 2:40:53 PM 15539. judithathome - 11/14/2001 2:49:08 PM Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal? 15540. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:52:09 PM Raskolnikov: 15541. judithathome - 11/14/2001 2:52:56 PM When my liberal friends gave me their opinions I said when we make bin Ladin and his men crispy critters the Afgans will be waving American flags. Perhaps that is hyperbole, but not by much. Same thing would happen in Iraq, I do believe. 15542. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:56:33 PM More information on the second Pashtun force heading toward Kandahar. 15543. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:00:42 PM As I said here or somewhere else, I think Kaplan's views on Afghanistan are pretty sharp, but those on Pakistan are his usually formulaic Cassandra-type conflation of Yugoslavia and sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, does he ever say anything different about Senegal, Pakistan, Georgia or Egypt? 15544. alistairconnor - 11/14/2001 3:03:12 PM Message # 15506 Russ, isn't it time to wipe some of the snot off your webcam? Gives everything a fuzzy green tinge. 15545. thoughtful - 11/14/2001 3:42:10 PM Some clarity from experts please in pronunciation: 15546. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:59:05 PM The name of the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan is pronounced p'shTOON but p'khTOON in Pakistan. The better known word Pathan an Anglo-Indian term. 15547. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:09:34 PM 'In our name'?!? What slanted Idiocy are you spouting now, Fisk? 15548. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:10:16 PM Fisk goes on to drivel: 15549. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 4:23:34 PM Musharraf's woes. 15552. thoughtful - 11/14/2001 4:37:49 PM Thanks PseuE, I always learn so much from you. Is Usama U like Utah or ooh like oops? 15553. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:48:58 PM Andonly, Andonly, Old Anny, my prescription for international terrorism is quite separate from the military action in Afghanistan. Since September 12-13 I've advanced both the bureaucratic protocol as a means to eradicate international terrorism and immediate military action - unilaterally by the US if needed but I doubted it would come to that - against Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban cadre, which doesn't seem so farfetched compared to your squallings about this all being the beginnings of World War III. 15554. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:53:17 PM And, so that no one misunderstands (as if anyone is reading this), I do not think the fall of the major cities the end of the action. Again, to my mind the mission is to destroy Osama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and facilities in Afghanistan, and the Taliban cadre, which I have maintained since 12-13 September. 15555. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:53:46 PM Recently an Arab reporter asked Musharraf whether he had brought up Palestine with Bush. In fact Musharraf had been asked three or four times by Arab reporters in various locales about whether he had tirelessly championed the cause of Palestine. 15556. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:55:25 PM To Sakinage: 15557. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:55:35 PM "Muslim brotherhood" is a fraud perpetrated by Arabs to hoodwink non-Arab Muslims into supporting the causes that matter primarily to Arabs and, if needed, into being taken down with the Arabs. Just look at the irony of this current war. Most of the terrorists were Arabs, none was Afghan, and as far as I know no Afghan has ever been implicated in a terrorist attack outside Pakistan & Afghanistan. 15558. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:56:14 PM ...Sakonige.. 15559. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:57:50 PM Message # 15554 is so goddamned obvious it bears repeating only to avoid silly interpretations such as later issues forth from Andonly. 15560. sakonige - 11/14/2001 5:02:02 PM concerned - 15561. labwabbit - 11/14/2001 5:09:15 PM I just attacked and terrorized a crane mosquito...and on US soil to boot. 15562. labwabbit - 11/14/2001 5:19:58 PM Scott, 15563. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:21:28 PM Re. 15560 - 15564. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:30:17 PM Re. 15515 - 15565. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 5:42:08 PM Labwabbit, trumpets and flourishes to you, but 15566. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 5:53:46 PM Additionally, Fisk forgot to include his brilliantly superior alternate choice for alliance partner. The Pashtuns? Absolutely not. They're only starting to revolt now because of the well known Afghan propensity for ditching losers. 15567. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:54:53 PM The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell. 15568. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:57:57 PM Re. 15566 - 15569. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 6:06:01 PM Message # 15566: Who? 15570. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 6:07:53 PM Throw in Message # 207 for good measure. More than that tires me. 15571. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 6:13:50 PM Message # 15567 15572. Property of Jesus - 11/14/2001 6:32:00 PM ABC is reporting that the six kidnapped Christian teachers (including two Americans, one a friend of Jenerator) have been released in Afghan. 15573. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 6:33:01 PM The situation in Afghanistan's South, including Kandahar, is so totally in flux that no report can be considered entirely credible until the press itself can get to that city. Al Jazeera, I'm guessing, will be first since it moved its offices there after the US bombed its Kabul base. But all the others were chased out or left as the Taliban fled, and that is pretty much all that we can know conclusively. 15574. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 6:51:11 PM Excellent columns in the Times today by Dowd and by Krugman. 15575. Absensia - 11/14/2001 6:58:12 PM CNN just reporting the 8 aid workers, were released by the Taliban and taken out of Afghanistan by US forces. 15576. judithathome - 11/14/2001 7:13:37 PM The local channel just reported that, too...they were doing a story on the church the two girls attend in Waco at the time, coincidently. 15577. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:14:10 PM Yes, it's true. I just got off the phone with a relative and they're free!!! 15578. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:15:04 PM I bet the folks at Antioch are on their knees. What a blessing. I am so thrilled, and tomorrow I am Waco bound. 15579. Absensia - 11/14/2001 7:15:27 PM I'm very happy for them, and happy for you too, Jen. I know you have been worried. 15580. judithathome - 11/14/2001 7:17:42 PM Jen, Gloria Campos was doing a story on the Antioch church...they had a room set up for prayer 24/7. 15581. concerned - 11/14/2001 7:19:07 PM Re. 15571 - 15582. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:21:36 PM Yes, Jimmy Seebert had the congregation pray for them 24 hours a day, everyday. My good friend Tina (who is also close with Dayna) prayed during the wee hours of the night, every night. They stood in the gap and prayed diligently. 15583. concerned - 11/14/2001 7:24:43 PM Re. 15577 - 15584. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:26:15 PM I cannot wait to watch them reunited with their familes. 15585. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:27:40 PM Judith, 15586. arkymalarky - 11/14/2001 7:35:18 PM I'm happy for all of you, Jen. Considering the instablility of the current situation, the outcome could have been very bad. I'm glad things turned out for them the way they have. 15587. Property of Jesus - 11/14/2001 7:38:24 PM Time to email drudgereport, Jenerator. 15588. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:40:52 PM I didn't contact them my friend. I only contacted Fox. 15589. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 8:08:17 PM I heard the news on CNN a little while ago and thought of you immediately, Jen. I'm happy for you and your friend. What a relief this must be for all of her friends and family. 15590. Cellar Door - 11/14/2001 8:14:41 PM It's pretty amazing, Jen. I thought for sure they were all goners. 15591. ronski - 11/14/2001 8:19:01 PM I heard one of the relatives tearfully thank all the people who prayed for their release. I don't know if it helped that we did, but I am happy about the outcome. 15592. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:24:17 PM I've never told y'all this before, but it was Dayna who led me to the Lord. I met her my first week at Baylor and she came up to me saying that she felt the Holy Spirit lead her to me. Dayna is incredibly intelligent and she was such a great Christian example. I have not done her any service by my example; she is leagues above me when it comes to understanding scriptures and demonstrating Christian love and virtue. 15593. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:25:43 PM ronski, 15594. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:30:33 PM Something else that has been exciting, is seeing all of my friends at Antioch on television. 15595. Andonly - 11/14/2001 8:33:26 PM Has anyone else heard it reported anywhere that 100 Taliban students were killed after the takeover of Mazar? I heard something about this but had the impression that the dead had been Taliban fighters holed up in a school. But it turns out they were "young", according to FT reports, which also say the UN has confirmed they were massacred. 15596. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 8:40:35 PM I fear that in the Northern Alliance we're chasing the devil we know with the devil we don't. 15597. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 8:46:36 PM Andonly 15598. CalGal - 11/14/2001 8:50:25 PM If they are murderers who let women walk about without fear of death, then it puts them above the folks who they drove out. 15599. CalGal - 11/14/2001 8:50:43 PM Thanks, Snow. 15600. ronski - 11/14/2001 8:51:44 PM Jen, 15601. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:02:09 PM 15602. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:03:24 PM That's dumb Sakonige. We have bombed the tar out of Afghanistan and we rescued the workers. 15603. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:05:57 PM 15604. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:06 PM From an FT editorial by John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari: 15605. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:25 PM What's actually interesting is that the piece goes on to say Iran might be open to moderate Talibani being included in the next government. So "the liberal Hayat-e-Nou newspaper" has advocated, anyway. Put this together with that suspicious Telegraph report of a meeting between Iranian and Taliban officials last week--keeping in mind Iran has long been an NA supporter and, as far as I knew, staunchly anti-Taliban--and reports of recent US-Iranian handshaking, and something curious may be emerging; I'm just not sure what. 15606. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 9:20:29 PM I saw a Nat. Geo. that featured an afghani tribal warlord who grew up in Detroit and is now fighting for the Northern Alliance. If the dynamics of that guy's tribe are common, then I don't hold out much hope for a coalition government. It seems like the lifestyle is based on different forms of fighting and fueding. If there's not an external enemy to fight with, then they fight amongst themselves. Maybe it's just that the culture is so alien to me, but all things considered the NA don't look much better than the Taliban as far as the prospects for peace and stability are concerned. 15607. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:23:20 PM Jenerator, 15608. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:24:12 PM 15609. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:26:38 PM (Prayer Joke) 15610. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:28:38 PM (Oh, actually that was Ronski's thing about it not hoiting.) 15611. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:35:17 PM Andonly, 15612. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:36:16 PM sakonige, 15613. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:36:22 PM Congratulations Jen! 15614. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:37:26 PM This is severely off-topic, but did anyone here know that former Intel head Andy Grove used to be "Andrejs Grof" (don't trust my spelling), a Hungarian Jew who lived through both Nazi and Soviet occupation, and whose father just barely survived internment under Stalin? 15615. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:38:39 PM Rp, 15616. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 9:40:30 PM Whoever gained their release, I'm glad that they're out of harm's way. I suspect that they'll have quite a bit to get over, having been held in awful conditions under tremendous stress and uncertainty. 15617. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:41:55 PM Jenerator: 15618. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:42:44 PM Another one: 15619. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:43:19 PM Ha! Good one, Ando. 15620. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:43:40 PM Jen: 15621. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:44:03 PM What's interesting, is that my greatest fear (that I mentioned in here several times) was that they - the aid workers- would be placed in a building that would be bombed by the US so that the Taliban could wipe their hands of responsibility and blame more injustices and atrocities on the US, and the president believed the same thing. He said this in the NYTimes: 15622. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:46:02 PM Ando: 15623. Al D - 11/14/2001 9:48:43 PM G.W also gave credit to the Red Cross. Of course as all on the Mote know, he is an idiot. Thank God he didn't prattle "I felt their pain." 15624. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:51:20 PM Thanks AlD. 15625. Al D - 11/14/2001 9:52:02 PM Judith 15626. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:56:17 PM "Aren't the Taliban, by definition, charter, and deed anti-moderate?" 15627. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:01:41 PM I have no idea why whatever Iran might be doing with respect to Afghanistan should undermine my views about the myth of Muslim brotherhood. After all, Iran and Afghanistan have ties which go well beyond a common religion. 15628. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:04:22 PM 15629. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:05:37 PM Message # 15596: I fear that in the Northern Alliance we're chasing the devil we know with the devil we don't. 15630. CalGal - 11/14/2001 10:05:58 PM And, 15631. joezan - 11/14/2001 10:09:07 PM It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. 15632. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:10:00 PM The problem with the Northern Alliance is not what they represent. For most of the NA groups are not extremists, from the religious point of view, and most of them actually have a record of effective, competent, even enlightened administrations in the 1992-96. The only exception is Kabul, where the NA factions fought over territory and destroyed the city. 15633. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:12:22 PM Message # 15631 15634. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:15:18 PM Jen: 15635. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:16:07 PM If they do, be sure to wear a 'www.themote.com' T-shirt. 15636. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:17:16 PM sakonige, 15637. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:18:01 PM Rp, 15638. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:18:04 PM Whoops - I was out of line there, sorry. 15639. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:19:34 PM Rp, 15640. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:20:39 PM Jen, 15641. CalGal - 11/14/2001 10:21:27 PM And, 15642. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:35:19 PM THOUSANDS more British troops are about to be sent to Afghanistan, Tony Blair announced yesterday. 15643. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:35:56 PM congrats Jen! 15644. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:38:29 PM 15645. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:42:06 PM She was probably deeply saddened when she heard about it and scared that she would be killed. Dayna is the peaceful type and so she'd want the terrorists to be stopped by the Lord. 15646. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:48:25 PM ck your e-mail Jen...speakin of... 15647. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:49:07 PM (AP- Washington) 15648. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:53:23 PM Right back to ya Jex. 15649. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:55:15 PM Now this is no joke.. 15650. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:55:51 PM Pseuder, 15651. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:56:17 PM 15652. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:57:32 PM 15653. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:00:25 PM I knew that Marj. 15654. sakonige - 11/14/2001 11:01:44 PM How about you, what are your feelings about the aid workers being released? 15655. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:08:57 PM From the Dallas Morning News: 15656. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:10:09 PM Sakonige, 15657. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:10:46 PM It demonstrates a sense of decency and a respect for human life in the Taliban. 15658. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:12:42 PM SnowOwl, 15659. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:19:30 PM Andonly: "It could be that Iran is playing things righteously for a change, with the welfare of Afghans considered a priority along with Iran's own interests. That, if true, could become a hopeful thing, and would undermine PE's observation that "Muslim brotherhood" is a crock. 15660. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:19:49 PM Whatever interests Iran shares with Afghnanistan, they probably can't be realized over the long haul without someone building an ideological bridge of some sort. It looks like it could be pan-Islamist. Iran has been touting its grave concern for Muslim safety against US bombing since shortly after 9-11, has always insisted only the UN should go into Afghanistan, has in fact taken a seemingly principled, coherent stance on western intervention against Muslims. 15661. sakonige - 11/14/2001 11:21:12 PM 15662. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:22:23 PM All-Negative, All the Time 15663. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:25:49 PM "Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right." 15664. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:28:10 PM Very funny, Cal. If we could just make PE Fabled Newscaster Sakonige would be perfect as Desperate. 15665. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:28:18 PM Very funny, Cal. If we could just make PE Fabled Newscaster Sakonige would be perfect as Desperate. 15666. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:32:14 PM Oh, I know he was there for the Nazis. As for life in Hungary after the Soviets came, either way he wasn't there very long--not to minimize it, of course. But he left about the same time the Soviets entered Budapest. 15667. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:35:08 PM Snow, 15668. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:37:52 PM HERE, said my friend Rudi, as he prepared one of his patent lamb kebab sandwiches. What happened in Afghanistan, eh? One minute the Taliban were in charge, and then phwoom. 15669. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:38:18 PM toys 15670. Absensia - 11/14/2001 11:38:29 PM Hahaha, wonderful article. 15671. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:41:24 PM ROFLMAO Cal...was that Marj sportin the mullet look? 15672. joezan - 11/14/2001 11:47:20 PM Good article, jex. 15673. Al D - 11/14/2001 11:47:46 PM Ronski certainly is the voice of reason on the Mote. But what the Mote really needs is the return of Bobba Fett. 15674. joezan - 11/14/2001 11:49:53 PM Here, here, Big Al. 15675. concerned - 11/14/2001 11:53:09 PM 15628. sakonige - 11/15/01 3:04:22 AM 15676. concerned - 11/14/2001 11:58:36 PM Well the Russian line is that "moderate Taliban" is a contradiction in terms. 15677. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:02:06 AM 15636. Jenerator - 11/15/01 3:17:16 AM 15678. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:05:31 AM I am also pleased that the Taliban effectively extinguished the bombing campaign by suddenly abandoning the cities. 15679. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:16:26 AM From Khaval's forum: 15680. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:21:19 AM I saw this moronic post over at the Rant . 15681. Al D - 11/15/2001 12:24:01 AM Jenerator 15682. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:24:32 AM Noam Chomsky's wisdom from Yahoo India News: 15683. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:24:44 AM CalGal, 15684. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:25:45 AM AlD, 15685. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:26:33 AM Jen, 15686. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:28:19 AM Ack! I hate this Linux interface. Wiped out a sentence and posted inadvertently all in one faulty click. 15687. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:29:50 AM Girls getting 'hardons' because of their 'prostelitizing activities'? 15688. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:30:32 AM Girls getting 'hardons' because of their 'prostelitizing activities'? 15689. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:30:36 AM Ca;gal, 15690. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:35:45 AM Al D - 15691. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:37:00 AM And you blame the US? 15692. Andonly - 11/15/2001 12:39:07 AM CalGal "Actually, he fled right before Stalin showed up. Don't know about his dad. Went to CCNY and was Employee #1 at Intel. ... Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right." 15693. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:40:37 AM 15694. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:42:12 AM UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues. 15695. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:42:30 AM "Chomsky finally comes out of the crypto-socialist-anarchist closet." 15696. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:43:07 AM From MSNBC 15697. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:43:30 AM Message # 12660 & Message # 12661 15698. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:45:31 AM You're free to move to a differnt country 15699. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 12:46:09 AM Why is everyone talking as if the war is over? We are no nowhere near to being out of Afghanistan. 15700. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:46:30 AM Message # 15650: I think Bernard Lewis went senile circa 1990, because since then he's been writing the same book and article over and over again. The themes in that article have been repeated ad nauseam in most of his books written since The Muslim Discovery of Europe, one of the best books on Islamic history I've ever read. 15701. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:49:19 AM Sakonige doesn't want to move to another country because when she starts talking trash over there, as she will, she'll be invited to an obligatory stay in a closed cell at government expense. 15702. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:54:11 AM 15703. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:55:39 AM Which part? 15704. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:57:04 AM 15705. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:00:49 AM "Millions, old man. Up to 7 million Afghans dead of exhaustion, exposure and starvation by UN estimates. 5 million by conservative estimates less than a month ago. UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues." 15706. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:01:44 AM Message # 15659 15707. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:02:50 AM At least one poster (PE) and several links here have stated that taking the cities in Afghanistan is a fairly easy task, militarily. 15708. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:03:44 AM Andonly, 15709. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:05:01 AM Things have improved considerably for starving Afghans, Sad Sack. Try not to sink into too deep a depression over it. 15710. sakonige - 11/15/2001 1:10:41 AM Message # 15709 15711. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:15:10 AM "So what? Many Muslim countries use pan-Islamist rhetoric without meaning it. Iran is especially keen on the rhetoric because as Shiites they are estranged from the rest of the Muslim world. But Iranian external policy usually follows a pro-Shiite line or national self-interest." 15712. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:17:47 AM Bush just cannot stop making an ass of himself, can he? I saw him on television saying that he "looked Putin in the eye" and he'd only but the deal down on "a piece of paper" as a formality. Just how juvenile is this guy? 15713. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:23:46 AM "There is no evidence of any Iranian-Taliban rapprochement, other than some meeting reported in the Daily Telegraph." 15714. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:30:37 AM And if the U.S. gets lucky, and the Taliban falls, the political process moves forward, and we nab bin Laden and his senior lieutenants, what next? 15715. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:34:11 AM Hey, buck up, marg - 15716. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:34:31 AM We have no allies there and we have practiced such a timid diplomacy in the wake of 9-11, that no one in the region is afraid of the U.S. 15717. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:36:18 AM Wrong. Iraq and Syria, to name two putative terrorism sponsoring states, may well have good reason to be concerned about which actions the US will take in the not too distant future. 15718. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:37:12 AM PM - 15719. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:41:53 AM By the way, ITN's evening news from Wednesday had interviews in the street with Jalalabadis who were cursing the USA for the bombing campaign. I've no idea whether their opinion is representative or not. But it is apropos to what I was arguing with Andonly and Loar about earlier. 15720. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:41:56 AM The U.S. has no diplomatic support to go against Saddam. None. Zero. I don't even think the British would join us there. And I'm not even sure where "there" is since only Kuwait would probably allow us to launch an attack against Iraq from their soil, and even that is not a certainty. 15721. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:42:00 AM Re. 15717 - 15722. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:44:25 AM "In case you weren't paying attention, The Arab states made a big show of saying they could grudgingly accept U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, but they would not allow an attack against a fellow Arab nation. " 15723. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:45:21 AM PM jumps in and whines that 'everybody' is 'assuming' that the war in Afghanistan is 'won'. 15724. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:45:26 AM Buy more oil from the former Soviet Union. 15725. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:46:29 AM Promote investment in energy projects in Siberia, which have somewhat stalled. US and Canadian companies were prospecting in Sakhalin, but that has slowed down. Subsidise such investments. And fuck Saudi Arabia. 15726. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:46:48 AM Concerned, 15727. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:51:11 AM Why would there be any necessary assumption that actions against terrorist groups in any given country would result in an overthrow of its government, anyway? 15728. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:54:33 AM 15727 is effectively an answer to 15726, although a xpost. 15729. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:54:46 AM "I cannot believe after all this time you can't figure out what it is. What is the major commonality between Iran and Afghanistan other than religion? Afghanistan (plus Tajikistan, "Kurdistan" and western Pakistan) are what Iranologists call l'Iran extérieur. Iran and Afghanistan are respectively Shiite and Sunni manifestations of the same Iranic civilisation." 15730. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:59:11 AM PE -- 15731. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:00:16 AM Yes, those Arab fuckheads. Bomb Saudi Arabia. 15732. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:01:04 AM Concerned -- 15733. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:02:07 AM PM - 15734. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:04:17 AM "By the way, ITN's evening news from Wednesday had interviews in the street with Jalalabadis who were cursing the USA for the bombing campaign." 15735. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:05:16 AM Concerned -- 15736. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:09:38 AM Re. 15730 - 15737. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:11:15 AM "And have we found the source of the Anthrax attacks? As I told Andonly, I thought this was just a dry run. Whoever sent the stuff is probably working on a new, more effective way to disperse it. And if he isn't, someone with ill intentions towards the U.S. is." 15738. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:13:47 AM "only Kuwait would probably allow us to launch an attack against Iraq from their soil, and even that is not a certainty." 15739. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:15:46 AM Concerned -- 15740. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:16:04 AM "Buy more oil from the former Soviet Union. Promote investment in energy projects in Siberia, which have somewhat stalled. US and Canadian companies were prospecting in Sakhalin, but that has slowed down. Subsidise such investments. And fuck Saudi Arabia." 15741. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:17:39 AM What is it going to take for you to criticize George Bush?! 15742. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:17:49 AM It may have escaped notice, but Iraq lobbed a couple of mortars into Kuwait yesterday or the day before. Very little mention in the press. 15743. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:19:29 AM Here's the article on the deployment: 15744. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:20:02 AM Bell said he could not confirm reports that the battalion to brigade-sized force, which is anywhere from 1,200 to 5,000 soldiers, was deploying to Kuwait, nor that the deploying units were part of the 1st Cavalry Division. 15745. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:22:58 AM Pincher, I assume you mistakenly addressed me in Message # 15730? 15746. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:26:02 AM Concerned -- 15747. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:27:29 AM PE -- 15748. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:28:26 AM Re. 15739 - 15749. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:30:25 AM Re. 15746 - 15750. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:34:03 AM Concerned -- 15751. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:35:29 AM Yes, my apologies. I was going to write you a post and decided it would be more enjoyable to insult Concerned, instead. 15752. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:35:39 AM Don't expect me to take this post of yours seriously. 15753. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:37:57 AM Concerned -- 15754. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:40:06 AM PM - 15755. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:42:30 AM Pincher, 15756. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:46:42 AM Concerned -- 15757. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:50:36 AM By the way, am I alone in thinking our bombing al Jazeera was a bad move? The US does all sorts of things for good or ill that get demonized and harped on indefinitely in the Arab press. But bombing the Arab free press, propagandistic though it surely is, is sort of like begging for about five hundred years worth of shitty publicity. 15758. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:54:31 AM RD - 15759. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:55:57 AM Andonly -- 15760. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:56:03 AM That question hanging in midair, 15761. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:04:49 AM Re. 15756 - 15762. Al D - 11/15/2001 3:10:45 AM Come home Bobba Fett. We need some civility here. 15763. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:14:17 AM Just recently, many relevant posts about Afghanistan, including the first accurate prediction of US actions. 15764. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:34:40 AM Re. 15763 - 15765. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:35:47 AM Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not only to you,... 15766. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:54:27 AM It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring. 15767. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:54:49 AM Furthermore, I said TR set Taft up and then screwed him over, and now you object because I also said, in effect, that Taft would have been preferable to Wilson in 1912. Just goofy. 15768. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:13:24 AM Re. 15766 McKinley 15769. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:15:20 AM Now, I'd like to see PM justify the value of his posting as I have mine and prove to us how impeccable his political credentials are. 15770. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:18:49 AM It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring. 15771. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 4:21:30 AM Something about the American spirit in Message # 2184 in thread 113. And a question. 15772. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:22:17 AM You know what they say about hindsight being 20/20. 15773. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 4:22:39 AM A meltdown over Taft and McKinley! Great! 15774. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:25:06 AM Now, I've backed up most of what I've been challenged on by PM in detail. But, do people really want to read this rehash? I doubt it. That's the real reason I think PM should tone his little bulldog act back. Simple consideration for other Motiers. 15775. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:27:47 AM Think I'll step up my political posting some. Then PM can get into some ankle chewing about recent news. 15776. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:28:51 AM Notice that PM seems to be fine with anything jexster has to post. KM the 1st, whatever. 15777. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:38:27 AM Starting to kick in PM's skull about US plans for Iraq 15778. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:44:46 AM To those interested, please note that I already posted in another thread that sufficient diplomatic and economic pressure might well be enough to cause Syria to cease supporting terrorism. 15779. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:45:53 AM Concerned -- 15780. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:47:58 AM Well, actually, if you read back, it stands out as being the first statement of that level of accuracy in this forum, period. If you disagree, provide cites, or else retract. 15781. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:50:47 AM Concerned -- 15782. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:51:23 AM Correction: 15783. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:51:46 AM test 15784. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:57:15 AM Now, I've backed up most of what I've been challenged on by PM in detail. 15785. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:00:13 AM Btw, Clowntoon administration bungling (enforcement laxness interspersed with one or two cruise missile attacks) was largely responsible for the cessation of the Iraq UN arms inspections. Hardly a 'victory' in the 'war' against terrorism. 15786. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:00:17 AM Concerned -- 15787. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:01:52 AM Go ahead and look for it. 15788. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:03:20 AM I'm making you look really pathetic, PinchskullMoron 15789. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:06:13 AM I don't know what WorldNetDaily, but I've met Bill Gertz and read one of his books, and he's another clueless partisan -- especially when it involves China. 15790. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:06:52 AM Indeed, rather than comparing you to Sakonige.. 15791. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:07:54 AM Zippy - 15792. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:09:14 AM How come I'm pro abortion & pro affirmative action, Zippy? 15793. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:14:10 AM Well, I'm gone for now. Fabricate anything you are able to, Zippy. If there's at least a grain of truth to any of it, I may respond, if I even bother to read your disgusting drivel, but I think you're about cashed out, so don't hold your breath. 15794. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:18:49 AM Constipated 15795. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:20:48 AM Correction: more than 200 Marines died in the Lebanon bombing, still more Americans than died in the two African embassy bombings. And what did Reagan do: he turned tail and ran out of Lebanon by declaring victory in Grenada. 15796. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:22:04 AM Message # 15788 15797. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:27:29 AM Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes. 15798. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 5:32:47 AM Why did you remind him? He'll bring them up next time he's off on one of his rants. 15799. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:33:41 AM Hahaha! 15800. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 6:37:39 AM 15801. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:42:18 AM I know Bill Gertz rather well, and he's partisan, true. But he's not clueless...far, far from it. 15802. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:45:19 AM He also uses sources in an "irresponsible" way. 15803. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:48:22 AM He even has refers to sources in the back of his book that are blank pages, except for where it reads: "At the request of the Central Intelligence Agency, the publisher has withdrawn a classified document that was to appear on this page." 15804. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 6:56:50 AM 15805. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 7:06:19 AM Adrianne -- 15806. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 7:13:36 AM PM 15807. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 7:40:12 AM Scott Loar seems to think the entire war on terrorism is over, ridiculing the notion that the war on terrorism will even last a generation, even though the idea has been put forward by the nations's leaders. 15808. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 7:46:46 AM Where has anyone said that the war on terrorism has ended? Both PincherMartin and now Adrianne claim so, but where has anyone said or implied it is done? 15809. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 8:00:52 AM PincherMartin, begin at Message # 193 and read through about Message # 259. In that light now go back to your comment about my opinion. 15810. joezan - 11/15/2001 8:02:03 AM I happened to catch a couple of minutes of an interview (on Nightline?) with a former Talibani who had joined up with the NA along with the rest of his unit, as the NA was about to roll through Mazar. Anyone else see this? The guy was like a cartoon character - powerfully built, completely bald except for his big bushy beard, with a tiny, ornate skullcap, wearing a beautifully embroidered silk vest over his massive torso. On one hand, all he had were a ring finger and thumb (the rest having obviously been chopped/blown off). And a patch covering one eye. 15811. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 8:14:46 AM Well, the German aid workers sure don't look undernourished. 15812. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 8:16:18 AM JoeZ: OK, OK already. So you guys did the right thing and you did it well and you beat the Tallies. No need to get all proud and shit. 15813. Wombat - 11/15/2001 8:38:56 AM What an entertaining exchange, PM and Concerned. Guess who I agree with? 15814. stostosto - 11/15/2001 8:58:31 AM Yes, it was an amusing exchange. 15815. bubbaette - 11/15/2001 9:00:47 AM Our own Barry Lyndon. 15816. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 9:32:05 AM 15817. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 9:32:40 AM Re: Message # 15758, concerned. 15818. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 9:32:57 AM Rp, 15819. glendajean - 11/15/2001 9:45:47 AM Jen -- they literally only had a prayer to escape. And they did. 15820. glendajean - 11/15/2001 9:46:48 AM Here's the link: 15822. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:50:25 AM I posted yesterday...hahaha 15823. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:52:31 AM Rp.... 15824. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:56:53 AM WASHINGTON -- President Bush's executive order authorizing special military tribunals to try suspected terrorists was sharply criticized Wednesday by legal experts who said it flies in the face of world opinion, international law and American standards of justice. 15825. bubbaette - 11/15/2001 9:57:53 AM Don't forget about his war on peace demonstrators in his hometown. Surely that counts as part of the war effort. 15826. Andonly - 11/15/2001 9:58:55 AM All the "I was right" shit is a bit of a bore. 15827. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 9:59:44 AM Well, lucky for my status as Most Likely to Become a Hebrew Prophet, I didn't have a clear prediction of what would happen, though I did warn that fighting the ObL bunch in the hills would become a shitty war with many losses. I could turn out to be wrong on that. Could be that'll turn out to be pretty doable too. Certainly looks easier now than it did a week ago. 15828. Andonly - 11/15/2001 9:59:45 AM Message: 16 15829. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:00:45 AM 2. Battlefield Intelligence: The Soviet Army relied 15830. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 10:01:29 AM Jex: 15831. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:01:52 AM 3. Night Capability: The Soviets had little means to 15832. glendajean - 11/15/2001 10:02:09 AM Andonly -- couldn't you link back to something that you had already posted? 15833. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 10:02:19 AM Okay, I really must get going, but here's some information that you may or may not hear from the networks in the future. 15834. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:02:45 AM 4. Weapon range: The Soviet Army was traditionally 15835. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:04:33 AM 6. Enemy morale: The Soviet Army fought a highly 15836. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:04:59 AM Like any conflict, this one will come down to a test 15837. jexster - 11/15/2001 10:09:11 AM "Pakistani border officials and intelligence sources said that Taliban defectors from the Kandahar region, many with their distinctive black turbans, have increased markedly in number. Several hundred Pakistanis who had entered Afghanistan in recent weeks to bolster the Taliban crossed back into Pakistan late Tuesday night, the officials said. " 15838. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:11:01 AM 15839. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:12:43 AM Excerpt from FT briefing above: 15840. jexster - 11/15/2001 10:15:54 AM Message # 15830 15841. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:21:29 AM "couldn't you link back to something that you had already posted?" 15842. glendajean - 11/15/2001 10:25:43 AM I assume that we are deciphering like mad any documents found about the terrorists network. I am hopeful that that the information uncovered will aid in rounding up cells in other parts of the world. 15843. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 10:37:22 AM Evocative article on Kandahar, by Fisk. Blurbs from the Pak International News: 15845. stostosto - 11/15/2001 10:52:12 AM The closest I have been to making predictions: 15846. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:54:44 AM I think the 9-11 death toll is down to 4,500 or so now. 15847. stostosto - 11/15/2001 10:59:05 AM Oct. 10th: 6,000 15848. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 11:03:48 AM Marj: 15849. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:03:52 AM "And don't believe all they hyperbole about 'the day that changed the world' and all such media babble." 15850. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:05:23 AM The Ottoman Umpire 15851. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:09:52 AM 15814. stostosto - 11/15/01 1:58:31 PM 15852. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 11:11:40 AM Slightly dated, but perceptive - Rashid's latest. 15853. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 11:12:06 AM You know, it's way not over. Just because there hasn't been a revolution in Pakistan and the Tallies have been driven into the hills doesn't mean it's over. 15854. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:13:53 AM For instance, would you agree with PM that the last administration was every bit as good as the Reagan administration, in controlling terrorism against US targets, or would you accept the five examples I provided of terrorist acts, of which two were on US soil during the Clowntoon administration versus only one during the Reagan years? 15855. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:18:42 AM I also fail to see what is 'impressive' about another Motier deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting posts I made from years ago, and in also crudely misrepresenting my political viewpoints in the face of my repeated remonstrances, unless one is willing to abet bullying and dishonest behavior based on mere personal preferences. 15856. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:19:34 AM I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis, and that'll be the end of him. 15857. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:22:28 AM It also seems dishonest (to me) to ignore the fact that a number of Motiers discussed the possible scenarios regarding US use of nuclear arms in the days after the initial WTC/Pentagon mass murder. But honesty may not be important in those who are inclined to bully, as I'm well aware. 15858. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:26:18 AM I don't really expect stostosto to seriously respond to the content of my post 15851, btw, because of the fact that he probably knew he could do no more with such an inaccurate statement as he made than attempt to provoke. 15859. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:32:45 AM connie, 15860. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:43:18 AM Re. 15859 - 15861. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 11:46:13 AM again, people, if you want to discuss past administrations and various reactions to past terrorism not related to 9/11, please take it to Politics. 15862. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:48:22 AM I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis, and that'll be the end of him. 15863. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 11:48:59 AM moving on, United Airlines Putting Stun Guns in Cockpits 15864. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:49:35 AM I also offered the link to Salon(!) from the time of the Clowntoon cruise missile retaliations for the 1998 terrorist incidents which gave a chillingly prescient account of the probable results of Clowntoon's totally inappropriate and worse than ineffective response. 15865. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:50:47 AM Re. 15861 - 15866. ronski - 11/15/2001 11:57:24 AM Omar to Gilgit? 15867. stostosto - 11/15/2001 12:03:24 PM concertina 15868. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 12:15:04 PM I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet. 15869. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:20:05 PM Re. 15867 - 15870. janjon - 11/15/2001 12:33:03 PM people - take note, careful note, of the import of these new military tribunals the Administration has just authorized/established. 15871. ronski - 11/15/2001 12:42:01 PM I keep thinking I should feel really, really uncomfortable with the military tribunals plan, but I don't. I think the comparison with the execution of five Nazi spies during WW2 is an appropriate one. But I'm glad Safire, who describes himself as a libertarian conservative, has spoken out. 15872. ronski - 11/15/2001 12:43:56 PM (He also calls himself a contrarian.) And I liked his book on Job, which I think is now out of print. I lent it to a Presbyterian minister friend of mine and never got it back. But I refuse to hold a grudge against Calvinists. 15873. Andonly - 11/15/2001 12:44:13 PM Janjon: "people - take note, careful note, of the import of these new military tribunals the Administration has just authorized/established." 15874. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 12:44:33 PM I have to agree with Sto on this. 15875. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 12:46:35 PM "I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis." 15876. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 1:06:37 PM The special tribunal bugs the hell out of me too. I don't like it. That's the kind of crap I expect out of the UN, not a liberal democracy. 15877. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:36:02 PM Better not to bring Bin Laden to court at all. Better to have the US explain his death at the hands of Afghans or in battle, than to justify his execution or incarceration after what will be portrayed as a "kangaroo" court, whether it is a military tribunal or federal court. 15878. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:41:47 PM I would not want to be a civilian in Kunduz, right now. The situation is worrisome for any number of reasons, besides the fact that the media is watching it all from just across a bridge not too far away. If the NA take over and massacre thousands, in this small bastion of the Pashtuns, it will be remembered forever, kind of a Pashtun Alamo. 15879. ronski - 11/15/2001 1:42:29 PM Shot while trying to escape always works well. But bin Laden is not the issue, since he will probably kill himself before being found or handed over. The problem is all the other guys that will be caught in the next four years. 15880. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:44:07 PM And what the fuck is up with that report at the end of the article that the US allowed two Pak planes to land in Kunduz and take away Pak and Taliban officials? What game is being played? 15881. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:44:12 PM But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves. 15882. Cellar Door - 11/15/2001 1:45:00 PM The ACLU weighs in 15883. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 1:49:19 PM It's no wonder that Pakistan is so nervous. Documents in Kabul will show that most of their secret police are actually Taliban. 15884. ronski - 11/15/2001 1:49:33 PM marj, 15885. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:50:16 PM The worst part of a trial is that--in the absence of other than circumstantial evidence--he might be acquitted. 15886. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:50:23 PM Hazara forces of Hisb-i-Wahdat are heading for Kabul, armed with much more than they need to "help police the city" which is their claim. 15887. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:51:56 PM Or for Pushtun Talibans to turn on their "foreign" comrades. 15888. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:51:57 PM Cellar--no, I think their concerns are warranted. I just don't see anything wrong with declaring terrorists a military issue. It's not like our military courts are of the kangaroo variety. 15889. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:58:18 PM Wombat, 15890. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:01:34 PM Never mind, found it. 15891. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 2:02:48 PM Marj 15892. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:05:07 PM Thanks snowowl. It is not a pleasant picture. 15893. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:07:20 PM The acts of the Hazaras, and God knows how many more, are inevitable -considering the history of Afghanistan and in such a time of flux which equates to both opportunity and fear of being opportunized. These are not factions/tribes/etc. who are going to trust one another easily if at all. 15894. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 2:17:21 PM Rush! is pumping up Andrew Sullivan's web site today. 15895. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:17:24 PM ISLAMABAD, Nov 15: An army spokesman today termed as "total rubbish, hogwash" a news item carried by CNN and AFP in which they had quoted a general of the Northern Alliance claiming that two Pakistani aircraft had gone to Kunduz to evacuate Pakistani military personnel. The spokesman categorically said that there was absolutely no truth in the news report. "There are no Pakistani personnel, whether military of non- military in Afghanistan," he emphatically said, adding: "hence, the question of airlifting of Pakistani personnel simply does not arise." In Islamabad, the diplomatic sources termed the allegation as astonishing and fabricated, stating that while US planes were carrying out air strikes, how is it possible that any transport aircraft could fly and land in Afghanistan. 15896. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:19:12 PM That indeed was quite a harrowing escape for the eight detainees. Here's an excerpt from a story on-line in the Washington Post: 15897. Cellar Door - 11/15/2001 2:21:07 PM Ashcroft's physical resemblance to a kangaroo hasn't been noted as much as it should. 15898. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:22:06 PM A local commander who was among town citizens who rose up against the Taliban then found shelter for the eight at the local offices of an aid organization. With the International Committee of the Red Cross acting as an intermediary, messages were dispatched to the U.S., German and Australian embassies in Islamabad. Because of the difficulty in relaying messages and answers, it took nearly 24 hours to organize the rescue efforts by U.S. special forces based in Pakistan, according to the aid workers and diplomats. 15899. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:22:20 PM U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin accompanied the two American women's parents to the airport in Islamabad to greet them. 15900. sakonige - 11/15/2001 2:23:57 PM 15868. LadyChaos - 11/15/01 9:15:04 AM 15901. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 2:24:57 PM i wondered about that myself, actually 15902. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:29:42 PM Message # 15893 15903. Wombat - 11/15/2001 2:31:47 PM It merits the same sort of attention that your ravings do. Very little. 15904. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:33:25 PM well, I meant recent. But didn't say it. So, point well taken. 15905. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:35:18 PM Thank you for posting that JanJon. I just got back from Waco, what an emotional visit. 15906. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:36:19 PM I'll post more of what I know in the Religion thread. 15907. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:37:35 PM yeah, well, it was quite an escape. And, we all are glad they are safe. 15908. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:40:28 PM lady c - 15909. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:42:54 PM JanJon, 15910. glendajean - 11/15/2001 2:45:40 PM I had said prayers for them. I think once our government asked them to leave, and they refused, they were on their own, so to speak. Their presence couldn't paralyze our actions to respond to the terrorists. But I am glad that they got out alive. Regardless of one's belief, it is indeed a fortunate thing for these people. 15911. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:46:00 PM because drivel was a kinder word than what I was really thinking. 15912. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 2:46:05 PM Attempts to help by endangering others are ill-conceived at best, if not plain stupid. They're alive, which is good, but nobody will know the fate of those they endangered by their activities. I hope they've learnt their lesson. 15913. glendajean - 11/15/2001 2:54:37 PM The endangerment would have been in our risking troops to save them or to have postphoned actions because of their imprisonment. We didn't. 15914. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:54:52 PM The more I read about Iran's recent diplomacy, the more it becomes self-evident that it has been motivated by a suspicion of the sudden and very visible presence of the USA in Central Asia. And if and when there is a US-friendly government in Kabul, then the various Central Asian pipeline deals now on hold may very well go through Afghanistan and Pakistan and built by US companies. This is something Iran has fighting for the last 10 years. 15915. Wombat - 11/15/2001 3:02:23 PM The only advantage to running a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan (to Karachi?) would be that it avoids the Persian Gulf. But mountains, deserts, unrest, lack of unified control? Don't see it. Don't see it in Iran either, until there is more of a rapprochement. 15916. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 3:04:57 PM That's not what I'm talking about, glendajean. The missionaries endangered the lives of those they worked with, and those they proselytised, to say nothing of putting at risk those whose only aim was to genuinely distribute aid. 15917. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:09:59 PM Wombat, you should tell that to Unocal and Bridas, two oil companies which conducted several years' worth of fierce, competing negotiations with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance to build a pipeline through Afghanistan in 1995-97. 15918. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:10:31 PM I meant to delete the last paragraph. 15919. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:11:07 PM I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet. 15920. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:12:09 PM Anyway, I was only talking about Iran's perceptions, not the feasibility of a pipeline. 15921. glendajean - 11/15/2001 3:12:20 PM From all reports, it sounds like they were doing good deeds. I didn't read of any other non-religious aid workers being arrested with charges of religious proselytizing. 15922. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:12:33 PM Besides, I was wasting my time trying to get PM to stop throwing his tantrum. My bad. 15923. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:24:05 PM SnowOwl, 15924. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:24:33 PM It appears that the group of Ghilzai Pashtun commanders now calling themselves the Eastern Alliance, does not have complete control over the eastern provinces as was claimed yesterday. A tribal chieftain from Kunar province, Malik Zarim, is still having to convince various Taliban to defect to the Eastern Alliance or leave the area. 15925. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:26:21 PM A tribal chieftain from Kunar province, Malik Zarim, is still having to convince various Taliban to defect to the Eastern Alliance or leave the area. 15926. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 3:34:32 PM Yes, Jenerator. I get it. Do you? It was a Christian organisation working in an area where proselytising endangers the recipient. People are killed on the mere suspicion that they might be listening to Christian propaganda. 15927. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 3:36:02 PM "We burned everything we had – clothes, everything – to make a big fire," 15928. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:40:50 PM That doesn't matter I suppose. They're only Muslims after all. 15929. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:43:39 PM The cell all 8 of them were being held in. 15930. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:50:30 PM One of the best stories I've read on the aid workers, their ordeal, and their rescue. 15931. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 3:51:23 PM "Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?" 15932. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:57:03 PM Dayna is in the blue outfit. 15933. CalGal - 11/15/2001 4:00:54 PM It was a Christian organisation working in an area where proselytising endangers the recipient. 15934. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:02:23 PM If God says that you are to go and preach, should you go only when it's comfortable? 15935. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:03:13 PM They're heroes in the Christian-missions field, that's for sure! 15936. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:05:51 PM If God says that you are to go and preach, should you go only when it's comfortable? 15937. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:09:00 PM Jeans of Arc in the making. 15938. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:10:48 PM But they did refrain in most ways. I know of whom they had dialogue with and how loooooong it took just to get to that point. They didn't just plop down on street corners and shout turn or burn, learn how to follow Jesus. 15939. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:11:14 PM Can't quite call it a 'trial by (gun-)fire', however. 15940. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:12:57 PM In real life, this is when I cross the street when the light turns, leaving the street corner preacher to spread his righteousness to the wind. 15941. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:13:04 PM Jen - 15942. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:15:20 PM The UN passed a resolution last night which can be used to put multinational troops on the ground to keep the peace. 15943. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:15:34 PM Janjon, 15944. PelleNilsson - 11/15/2001 4:22:42 PM When these girls were caught the line was that they were not missionaries at all and were not prozelytising but simply Christians who wanted to help the poor in Afghanistan. 15945. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:26:14 PM yes. Surely it isn't just I who recall the dance on water being done about how these girls were just aid workers, not proselytizers, nosirree. 15946. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 4:27:21 PM Well, nobody ever accused Christians of being truthful, Pelle. 15947. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:27:23 PM Hey, Pelle - 15948. glendajean - 11/15/2001 4:28:06 PM Utterly disgusting? 15949. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:28:15 PM no, not truthful. just righteous. 15950. glendajean - 11/15/2001 4:32:43 PM Blowing up Buddhist statues from antiquity was utterly disgusting. 15951. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:33:10 PM Think of it. In just a few short years, there'll be a vibrant, growing Christian community in 15952. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:37:38 PM Pelle, 15953. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:40:15 PM GJ: 15954. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 4:40:35 PM ok, people, let's stay on topic. if you want to discuss the 'missionaries' do so in another thread. Jen has pretty much indicated that the Religion thread is a good place for it and i agree. 15955. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:40:50 PM Note to Zippy: 15956. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:41:15 PM Jen, no one is faulting these girls for their humanitarian works. 15957. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:41:28 PM oh, jenerator - have another lollypop and tell yourself what a good girl you are. 15958. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:42:45 PM rd - there is a connection to this thread to much of what has been said about the girls. 15959. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 4:44:05 PM Somehow I find the notion of missionaries burning their clothes to get a helicopter's attention to be quite appealing. 15960. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 4:45:23 PM janjon: i know and i agree. however, they are out of immediate harm's way, so, i think it can be separated from this thread. 15961. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:48:54 PM Oh God...Duck is back with a vengeance.... 15962. Andonly - 11/15/2001 4:49:12 PM "The more I read about Iran's recent diplomacy, the more it becomes self-evident that it has been motivated by a suspicion of the sudden and very visible presence of the USA in Central Asia. And if and when there is a US-friendly government in Kabul, then the various Central Asian pipeline deals now on hold may very well go through Afghanistan and Pakistan and built by US companies. This is something Iran has fighting for the last 10 years." 15963. Andonly - 11/15/2001 4:49:27 PM The countries around the Caspian certainly are sitting on a fair amount of oil they currently can't export, and Russia as well is eager to transport oil in every direction. I would assume we're ready to buy. As of this morning, Saudi was demanding non-OPEC entities, esp. Russia, cut production to certain levels in order to spike demand and drive the price of oil back up; otherwise the Saudis said they would not cut their own production as planned. The price of oil fell again. 15964. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:50:16 PM Awonderful thing happened this week in Afghanistan. So why does everyone in the Bush administration--everyone, that is, except officials at the Pentagon--sound so glum? Because with the fall of Kabul, the United States achieved an impressive military victory and suffered an impressive diplomatic defeat. Having urged soldiers of the Northern Alliance to fight the ground war it would not, the United States then stipulated that they not enter the capital. Unsurprisingly, they did. 15965. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:50:25 PM typical. 15966. PelleNilsson - 11/15/2001 4:53:24 PM glenda 15967. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:54:10 PM "What you're seeing now is the same [State Department] hand-wringing that held up the bombing [of northern Taliban positions]," complained one senior administration official on the day Kabul fell. "The arguments never change." 15968. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 4:58:00 PM 15959 was posted before I saw 15954 15969. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:58:39 PM Andonly - 15970. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:05:13 PM Sadly the apoligists for the left are reduced to snatching scraps of defeat out of an overwhelming victory. 15971. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:06:33 PM Hey Jex - 15972. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:07:33 PM This from Jexster's link to (Lawrence) Kaplan is the most hopeful thing I think I've read today: 15973. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:09:18 PM Mullah Omar will unleash the TaliPlan for complete destruction of the US... 15974. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:10:06 PM Just like Poopy! 15975. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:11:39 PM Lessons of Vietnam, lessons of Poppy 15976. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:12:22 PM aunaturel - 15977. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:16:41 PM "Could you imagine all of what you describe happening *this soon*, if at all, if the US had been saddled with the admininstration of flunky-loser?" 15978. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:21:48 PM Me too TD...now move along with your lawful life! 15979. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:24:37 PM I don't think Saudi Arabia is unstable at all. I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader, but unfortunately my hopes are just hopes. The Saudi government is a powerful one, and its army is not about to abandon the royal family as the Shah's army had abandoned him. (Remember, that is the only reason the fundies were able to take control of the country. The army refused to shoot at the fundie crowds.) 15980. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:28:55 PM (I presume this is what you mean because I don't know what your phrase "all of what you describe" refers to.) 15981. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:29:03 PM Here's another more pressing what-if question: What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government? (I'm placing no bets either way on that happening precipitously, BTW.) 15982. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:30:02 PM "dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader" 15983. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:33:31 PM That's remarkable. I had thought Saudi Arabi unstable by reason of popular dissatisfaction with the biases of the monarchy (business and politics favouring princely connections) and corruption, yes? Yet you say the Army will not abandon the government: why? is it so thoroughly loyal or bought over that it remains aloof to popular problems and sentiments? And if the Army does not stand against the monarchy there is no chance of revolution? 15984. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:34:41 PM My comments were directed to Pseudoerasmus, but all replies are welcome. 15985. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:36:00 PM Message # 15981 15986. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:37:10 PM I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader 15987. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:37:50 PM Saudi Arabia has fault-lines which could be exploited. It is not unstable in the common-or-garden sense of being unstable, no internal or external threat is likely to topple the elite group of a few hundred sheikhs who dominate the country's politics and economy. 15988. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:39:27 PM "Assessing the likelihood of a small thing turning out to matter" 15989. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:40:10 PM The army in Saudi Arabia is quite thoroughly linked to the ruling elite, and any popular uprising of any kind would be squashed in a bloody manner. Look at the officer corps, it's one sheikh after another. No, the army is there to protect the ruling clique from the people more than anything else. 15990. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:41:48 PM Well, I know next to nothing about Saudi Arabia other than the general shape on a map. 15991. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:42:23 PM "I'll credit a Gore administration with a likely outcome there in which the US could ultimately publicly claim some sort of 'victory' over terrorism, if not the removal of the Taliban." 15992. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:42:43 PM The irony is that Saudi Arabia could not possibly have a more Islamist government, rules ad it is by the world's greatest proponents of Wahhabism. The only difference is that these are people who use Wahhabism as an export and as a means of civilian control, while rather openly living outrageously lavish Western lifestyles, nd , crucially, while being in bed with the Western powers and compliant in their foreign policy. 15993. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:45:18 PM Don't worry Jen, your Big Erl 'n Gas bois in the WH - King Moron & Prince Regent Cheney, along with the Prince of Wales, will protect the Saudi Royals.... 15994. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:45:50 PM marj's summary is somewhat at variance with what I've read about SA exporting its most febrile 'royal' Islamists to other countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan to help maintain the position of its ruling elite, but I'll defer to his apparent knowledge of the matter. 15995. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:46:21 PM Well marj welcome to the world of Ottoman politics 15996. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:47:37 PM If you want to hear what Mullah Omar sounds like, then you can hear him here, in an interview given by him to the BBC Pashto service. 15997. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:49:19 PM Re. 15991 - 15998. ButterfieldSwire - 11/15/2001 5:52:01 PM The best point made by Fouad Ajami in the Foreign Affairs piece that marjoribanks linked to was that none of the Arab states faced any medium term threat of internal instability. Through a combination of repression and propaganda, they have eliminated Islamic organizations and re-directed popular anger toward the US. This is why they were so reluctant to help the US against Al-Quaeda. A-Q which attacks the West and not them is a pressure valve for them, not a threat. 15999. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:52:03 PM I think the disaffection of the Saudi populace is overdone. The populace is more conservative than the semi-westernised rulers, but the latter bend over backward to appease the fundamentalism of the populace through a purer form of fundamentalist governance than exists anywhere outside Taliban-controlled areas (and Sudan, with its Turani strain of fundamentalist Islam). While Saudi Arabia faces serious economic problems in the future, the populace still doesn't have any serious grievances. After all, it's still a very rich country despite its enormous fiscal embarassments. 16000. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:52:25 PM ! 16001. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:52:28 PM 16k 16002. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:52:42 PM damn! 16003. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:53:23 PM I thought that Mullah Omar WAS retarded? 16004. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:53:56 PM A small victory in this dark and dank thread. 16005. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:55:51 PM Pseuder, 16006. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:58:23 PM Message # 16005: No, it is Mullah Omar himself speaking. He says so. 16007. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:00:19 PM My understanding is that the intermediary held the walkie-talkie emitting Omar's voice to the telephone. 16008. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:04:25 PM Well, Wakil and Saqib are mentally retarded. I wouldn't be surprised if Omar is too. 16009. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:05:11 PM I think that Kaplan article above is most interesting for what it doesn't say. 16010. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:07:19 PM I would like to see Jeff Rubin, Christian Amanpour, and Matthew Chance have a three way on Blitzer's "war room" show 16011. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:07:41 PM Ajami is partly right. In the New Yorker article this week by Bernard Lewis, the author does a good job of exploring some of the causes for the Muslim world's alienation from the West. 16012. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:09:24 PM Our obsequious stance toward the Saudis seems to be based on the assumption that somebody "worse" might take their place, and that this somebody would refuse to sell us oil and would jack the world oil price up to $100 per barrel. I personally find this to be a ridiculous assumption. 16013. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:10:35 PM "Ajami is partly right." 16014. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:10:50 PM Certainly, you can count the democratic-type movements in the ME muslim countries pretty much on the fingers of one hand, and in every case you can see that the US has stood on the side of the anti-democrats. The only real exception is Turkey. 16015. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:11:20 PM There is no interest in promoting, or even standing out of the way of, true popular rebellion. This is how the abandonment of Iraq is seen in the Muslim world. 16016. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:12:55 PM Pani, 16017. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:13:46 PM "Why shouldn't we be able to just tell the Saudis to go to hell?" 16018. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:14:28 PM "I had been under the impression that it already had an Islamist government." 16019. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:14:52 PM jexster, 16020. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:16:29 PM Lady Chaos, 16021. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:18:44 PM Yup Ronsk..and I only use Halliburton metaphorically...the Big 5 oil companies control over 60% of world oil production and most of the refining and distribution...Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobil...all of em are so in bed with the Sauds...that's how we "solved" the energy crisis of the 70's and those bedfellows do not want ANYTHING to mess up their tryst 16022. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:19:02 PM "I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader..." 16023. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:19:15 PM Sheesh I think I am channelling Pat Buchanan...better git to class.. 16024. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:19:39 PM Every educated Middle Easterner you talk to about the US, democracy, and the attitude towards the US in the region eventually brings up Mossadegh. And it is true that the US quite early showed its hand towards the region. Many of you will be familiar with these details. 16025. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:20:53 PM It's not like all Sauds are alike. Abdullah is far more sympathetic to radical Islamists than Sultan is. The Saud family is roughly split between the "Sudairi Seven" and the more radical, anti-American faction headed up by Abdullah. 16026. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:21:01 PM Banks: "However, there are some divides within that group, and there are apparently several quite senior members of that ruling oligarchy whose sympathies lie towards the bin Laden austerity/anti-West line." 16027. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:21:46 PM Message # 16018 16028. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:21:56 PM PE (or anyone else knowledgable in economics) 16029. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:22:05 PM I used to think the Halliburton talk was conspiracy fodder, but peel away all the nonsense and there's still an element of self-interest there that I don't like at all. 16030. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:23:15 PM marj, 16031. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:23:32 PM There is also the Carlyle Group, which employs Bush senior and which until recently had as investors....the Bin Laden family. 16032. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:24:31 PM Message # 16024 16033. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:25:41 PM Marjori, 16034. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:26:36 PM If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. 16035. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:26:38 PM No, they would sell us oil. Or they'd sell it to Europe or Japan, which would be fine, too. But might they start building the Islamic Bomb that bin Laden dreams of? 16036. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:26:53 PM I don't know if another Saudi regime would or would not sell oil to anyone. It is safe to assume however, that someone not of the ibn Saud family would not raise or drop oil production entirely to the dictates of the USA, and would not be so unconcerned about the opinions of the rest of the OPEC. What the US has achieved with S. Arabia is remarkable, it has a guranteed cartel-buster, a permanent free rider. 16037. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:27:39 PM LC, 16038. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:28:29 PM ronski, 16039. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:28:30 PM "It is a safe assumption that anyone who potentially could replace the Sauds would be less compliant than they have been with US demands/requirements." 16040. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:30:52 PM Pseuder, 16041. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:32:54 PM I don't think Arabs are inherently nuts, but I think Islamic fundamentalists may be. 16042. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:33:47 PM What the US has achieved with S. Arabia is remarkable, it has a guranteed cartel-buster, a permanent free rider. 16043. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:35:15 PM I find it fantastically implausible that any new regime in Saudi Arabia, no matter how fundamentalist, would stop selling oil. The whole country depends on daily flows of oil revenue. Without oil revenue, it would be able to import nothing, and the country imports almost everything except oil, natural gas, and dates. Sincures on which most of the citizen population depends, could not be funded. Saudi Arabia. The government would not be able to pay the millions of foreign guest wokers who clean the streets, man the factories, run the electrical generation plants, and other real labour on which the Saudis themselves depend. 16044. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:36:26 PM Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest oil producer, and also maintains massive reserves. In the past, and even now in the wake of 9/11, the Saudis have been first among oil producers to accede to US demands that the producers keep prices within a certain band. In this current scenario, for instance, Saudi Arabia has made it clear that if the rest of OPEC disagrees with the US demands, it will unilaterally release enough oil from its reserves to make sure the prices remain slightly above $20. 16045. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:38:21 PM Actually, 16043 and 16044 make me feel better. 16046. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:43:22 PM marj, 16047. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:43:53 PM Lady Chaos, 16048. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:44:54 PM Message # 16040 16049. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:45:19 PM OPEC does not function as a working cartel anymore. It's a kind of toothless club now, despite the efforts of Hugo Chavez. 16050. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:49:16 PM Pseuder, 16051. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:49:25 PM In the 1950s and 1960s, the Third World was full of "non-aligned" but aligned socialist-populist-nationalist demogogue-poltroons who dragged their countries to disaster -- such as Nyerere, Nasser, Soekarno, Nkrumah and other such fools. Mossadeq just never got the chance to join the club. 16052. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:53:45 PM "If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. It is already as Islamist as it can get." 16053. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:55:52 PM Furthermore, I suggest you read this section and the one previous which outline how the Brits and the US were already busy at work to get rid of Mossadegh before he called for and rigged a national referendum to dissolve the Majlis. This move backfired tactically since it only gave the CIA and its allies (and now apologists for its actions) fuel to use against the hapless, over-emotional Mossadegh. 16054. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:59:11 PM Message # 16050: "I am loath to set you off on another lengthy (disgusting) apologia for CIA interference, a la your excoriation of Allende and defense of Pinochet." 16055. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 7:00:34 PM If you wish to continue, Pseuder, I will look for posts in the International thread. I am now off for a while, a biriyani and chicken curry await me in an uncooked state. This wrong needs to be righted. 16056. Andonly - 11/15/2001 7:00:59 PM "Based on what I have ready, lately, OPEC sees Russia as the wild card on cutting production, not the Saudis." 16057. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 7:01:54 PM I don't understand what further strictures could be imposed on Saudi society, no matter what you mean by "Islamist". 16058. concerned - 11/15/2001 7:06:24 PM I just read jexster's link to the very good Kaplan article. It does seem to amount to a hit at Powell (via GWB, who is supportive of the Pentagon, himself). 16059. Andonly - 11/15/2001 7:06:36 PM Whatever. 16060. CalGal - 11/15/2001 7:15:59 PM I don't understand what further strictures could be imposed on Saudi society, no matter what you mean by "Islamist". 16061. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:50:34 PM OPEC is always constrained by outside production where demand is at all soft. Thus the argument for conservation over production but that's for the Politics Thread (aren't I good Ducky?) 16062. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:51:31 PM They're=Their....blame Loar 16063. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:53:08 PM Yea TD...I am always fascinated by bureaucratic political warfare regardless of which party is in power.... 16064. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:07:16 PM Bernard Lewis: The Islam scholar U.S. politicians listen to 16065. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:10:15 PM "His major themes on the subject are these: For a thousand years Islam dominated the West in culture, science, and military prowess. But since 1683 and the failed Turkish siege of Vienna, Islam has been in retreat—dominated and bettered by the West by every possible measure. Because the Islamic world has an acute sense of history and America does not (Lewis is fond of pointing out that our phrase "That's history" means something is to be forgotten), this reversal has fed centuries of acrimony. America is the target because it has inherited the mantle of European imperialism and because it produces a culture of temptation and seduction. Rage is also fed by our policy of cosseting oppressive governments in the region who serve our ends. We are also the victim of an existential dilemma—Islam's failures to succeed at modernity. Because Islam says it is God's will that Islam triumph, how can the infidels be on top?" 16066. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:11:49 PM And b4 detective third rate PincherMartin,Mote Literati Polizia, jumps my ass....I have never read any book by Lewis 16067. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:17:04 PM Tie The Bastards to Cmdr. Dotsum's Tank Treads! 16068. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:27:09 PM Scott Loar -- 16069. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:39:36 PM Scott Loar -- 16070. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:39:58 PM Are you even familiar with how I said the war on terrorism could be addressed? Have you even read my prescriptions on how to fight terrorism? No, just ridiculing what you think is my position based on a single post. 16071. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:42:26 PM I am out for the weekend, but I do hope to hear how Scott Loar thinks bin Laden is an anomaly. 16072. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 8:57:14 PM Bin Laden has demonstrated himself, already, to be an anomaly in one cricial way - he has taken the jihad to America. The rest of the global jihadis and Arab Afghans et al are far more concerned with more parochial fights (Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and installation of more suitable leaders in virtually every Muslim country). 16073. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 9:00:41 PM It is also clear, Pincher, that the US is not going to be waging war for or against any other nations. Now, it is a diplomatic, covert battle. 16074. ButterfieldSwire - 11/15/2001 9:54:44 PM Bin Laden is obviously not unique. He's not even Al-Quaeda whose leadership seems to be a pan-Arab Rogues Gallery of criminal masterminds. Afghanistan may have been unique in that it offered all of these terrorists a safe home to gather together to plan their attacks. But the Blind Cleric/Ramzi Yusef cabal shows that this is likely to continue, even if these groups have to flee Afghanistan. When Marjoribanks says that most of these fundamentalist terrorists would prefer to attack their own governments, he misses Ajami's key point. Ajami says that they have already been defeated in Egypt, Saudi, and elsewhere and are directed at us because they see us as an easier target. 16075. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:18:37 PM "Bin Laden has demonstrated himself, already, to be an anomaly in one cricial way - he has taken the jihad to America. The rest of the global jihadis and Arab Afghans et al are far more concerned with more parochial fights..." 16076. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:20:55 PM It seems I have been crossposting with people all afternoon. 16077. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:22:28 PM Message # 16068: I don't think a military strategy the whole prescription. Look to my Message # 3217, Message # 3226, Message # 3227, and Message # 3232 then you tell me how many years, 1, 5, 10, 20, 29.5? As for my jumping on people and my confidence... admit it, you don't like my style just as others here (count me in) don't much like your style. What of it? 16078. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:34:08 PM Terrorism will never go away, and the war will never end as long as there are alienated, extremist individuals or groups, whatever their stripe. There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of them in most countries of the world. And their inclination to inflict damage persists while their ability to do so increases--whether they be Islamists or American anti-abortion crazies, survivalists or racial separatist wackos. 16079. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:36:14 PM I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead. 16080. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:38:17 PM And no, I had not linked to those posts before. Surely not to you. 16081. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:40:41 PM More difficult perhaps but it's doubtful they will ever be eliminated by increased security, either in the U.S. or against American institutions, private and public around the world. 16082. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:43:13 PM Adding weight to my suggestion in Message # 15963 that Russia is angling to capture US oil reliance away from Saudi Arabia was a report on NPR this evening, which I heard about second-hand. 16083. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:51:19 PM Makes sense. Follow the oil tracks! The answer to OPEC has always been find more oil elsewhere. The Saudis came to understand that and could be relied on to keep the spigot open. 16084. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:53:20 PM I just realiized that before Pseuderasmus leaps up with a counterclaim that refutes nothing I've said, I should hasten to place in bold letters the caveat that THE US WILL NOT SHIFT ITS OIL DEPENDENCY AWAY FROM THE PERSIAN GULF FOR MANY YEARS, AND WHEN AT LAST IT DOES THERE WILL HAVE BEEN SEVERAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SHIFT THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. 16085. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:54:19 PM ...or in caps, as the case may be 16086. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:00:48 PM Those who think increased security can make us safe remember Israel whose vaunted security hasn't come close to stopping Palestinian terrorists on the ground, although I guess El Al has been successful in doing so. But at what cost and inconvenience. The real answer is somehow to get them to stop wanting to be terrorists. They won't be frightened away by increased security. 16087. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:01:19 PM [should] remember Israel 16088. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:08:34 PM Or apartheid South Africa or Norway under German occupation during World War II where the most severe repression and "security" measures didn't stop attacks by the resistance on the regime in power. 16089. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:29:55 PM Russia Journal 16090. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 11:38:39 PM Andonly, that Russia would try to get the west to reduce its dependence on the Persian Gulf is hardly surprising. So I don't disagree with you at all on that. 16091. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:48:12 PM "My eyes glaze over only when you go into extended speculative flights of fancy about issues for which you obviously have no intuitive grasp..." 16092. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:14:42 AM Well, I wasn't just talking about future events. 16093. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:18:27 AM Turns out it was Khatami's fault after all that the streets around my house were blockaded last week. 16094. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:20:24 AM To illustrate the anomaly of Al-Qaeda here is a review of the 29 groups designated by the US Secretary of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: 16095. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:20:28 AM To illustrate the anomaly of Al-Qaeda here is a review of the 29 groups designated by the US Secretary of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: 16096. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:21:34 AM Japanese Red Army – “6 hard-core members”, the leader was recently arrested in Japan after 30 years on the lam 16097. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:24:36 AM Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – military wing of the Colombian Communist Party intending to establish Marxist government in Colombia, established 1964 16098. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:25:45 AM Terrorist groups in such places as the Philippines and Indonesia given as examples by PincherMartin are local groups having local concerns and acting, in the main, locally. For example, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front continues to attend peace talks with Philippine President Arroyo and, says Shariff Julabbi, a member of the MILF negotiating panel, getting involved in the Afghanistan issue will only “complicate the matter” of negotiations. As further example, I find no evidence beyond rhetoric that Uighur separatists in Xinjiang province or extremists in Aceh, Muslims all, are active beyond their local concerns. Only Al-Qaeda aspires to an international theology of terror (prose too purple to stomach?). 16099. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:26:22 AM The last sentence from this LATimes article 16100. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:30:51 AM Many of these groups target local US interests but that is expected because "great power is invariably invidious" and they see it allied with the cause of their disaffection - look at the groups in Egypt, Peru but especially Greece. But I don't see these groups directly threatening the US beyond their local concern. 16101. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:35:29 AM I thought this map conveyed the ethnic complexity of Afghanistan tidily and without too much detail: 16102. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:35:57 AM disregard the last post. 16103. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:40:08 AM Can any of these groups organize a terrorist attack against the US resulting in the massive casualties PincherMartin expects. Conceivably, yes. But to what end? Will it further their purpose? I don't see how that's possible if their purpose is the overthrow of the Peruvian government or the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Algieria or the liberation of Palestine or the destruction of the Jewish state. Only Al-Qaeda's purpose is answered, at least to my mind, but the confession will doubtlessly invite a raft of ridicule along the lines of "how naive" from PincherMartin. 16104. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:43:29 AM In passing through Japanese Customs I've noted for years the faces of some Japan Red Army members are still posted in the immigration officer's booths. 16105. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:46:38 AM "Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur." 16106. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:51:43 AM The map is nifty, though. 16107. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:14:03 AM "Can any of these groups organize a terrorist attack against the US resulting in the massive casualties PincherMartin expects. Conceivably, yes. But to what end? Will it further their purpose? I don't see how that's possible if their purpose is the overthrow of the Peruvian government or the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Algieria or the liberation of Palestine or the destruction of the Jewish state." 16108. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:29:18 AM Iranians are annoyed that their team failed to qualify for the World Cup: 16109. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:35:34 AM 16110. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:38:48 AM such supercilious, revolting presumption 16111. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:41:08 AM I wonder, are pro-western Iranian soccer fans and advocates of political reform more pan-Iranian or moderate-Muslim? 16112. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 1:45:03 AM Iranians are sick of Afghan refugees. 16113. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:58:54 AM "SPEARHEAD units of British paratroops, commandos and special forces arrived at Bagram airfield north of Kabul last night to secure the area ahead of the deployment of 4,000 more British troops who are now on standby. 16114. Andonly - 11/16/2001 2:04:48 AM "Pan-Iranianism is an esoteric ideology found primarily among the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia." 16115. jexster - 11/16/2001 2:06:22 AM "what would he say?" 16116. Andonly - 11/16/2001 2:07:25 AM "Iranians are sick of Afghan refugees." 16117. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 2:13:36 AM And he says he made it in order to make Iranians more sympathetic to the plight of Afghans. 16118. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 2:16:22 AM "They apparently are violently opposed to Muslim extremism now, more than before. Everything Khatami and his representatives have done on the international scene since 9-11, while in no way unmotivated by politics and other affairs of state, has been couched in Islamic terms and has served in effect to model enlightened Islam for Iran and the rest of the world." 16119. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:05:55 AM Scott Loar -- 16120. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:19:59 AM Pincher: I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead. 16121. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:21:46 AM Scott Loar -- 16122. OhioSTOPAS - 11/16/2001 6:25:19 AM A couple of happy sights this week: Residents of Kabul celebrating, and the eight aid workers rescued. 16123. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:28:08 AM Wonkers -- 16124. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:29:47 AM Correction: 16125. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:48:49 AM Scott Loar -- 16126. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:49:48 AM Repost coming up 16127. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:51:46 AM Scott Loar --
Thanks for posting the article about Dayna and Heather. Again, the reports are contradictory. Supposedly, they had been moved earlier, and as for the girls being in "good health", they're covered head to toe in veils! no one can even see what kind of health they're in, and I have it on good authority that the Taliban are starving them.
There's an excerpt from Peter Bergen's upcoming book
The United States had urged the alliance not to take the capital, 
"It should be noted that contrary to Urkel's trumpetings, the German chancellor is having a great deal of trouble mustering political support for his troops commitment to the US-led coalition. He's even threatened to resign if he's not backed."
Could there be a stronger show of support than when a European leader is prepared to give up his office if the nation's legislative body does not back him in lending aid to the United States?
Well, yes. A hearty backing by the legislative body. But just as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Japan act with constraints, so to the European democracies, and at a time when you were bemoaning the entire campaign as a fiasco fast losing international support, I merely pointed out that Britain, Turkey, Japan, Italy, Germany, and the former Soviert republics were promising or delivering on military assistance.
I applaud your "The first part of the campaign worked. Simple as that . . ."
By the way, the BBC has some footage of Arab Taliban being hounded by NA soldiers. One Arab look absolutely terrified. 
I guess I just got carried away.
Like that's some big consolation I know.
"By the way, the BBC has some footage of Arab Taliban being hounded by NA soldiers. One Arab look absolutely terrified."
Then let's get those U.N. peacekeepers in their pronto. We wouldn't want any of the Taliban to suffer the indignity of absolute terror.
While ole Pervez & King George are havin tea in the Ovary Orifice (("Say Pervie, I didn't even know your name a year ago, UR a swell guy!) Pervez's Paki trash have crossed the border to fight with the routed Talibees....
What do you think I Abdullah^2 am gonna do when asked to stop?
Its going to be impossible to restrain the NA...what they will do, they will do...
Some speculation that the 'cave phase' may be easier since we can now bribe disaffected Taliban to reveal intell about likely OBL hideouts- maybe even locate him themselves.
What's your take on Ismail Khan? He's got some supporters claiming he is the best bet to:
1.) Work with other ethnic groups (evidently Herat was relatively cosmopolitan/)
2.) Is a civic improvement kind of guy who could use aid grants to start cleaning up this mess and get the infrastructure fixed.
BTW, hats off to the Brits- these guys are pretty good. Some French moron wandered through and wanted to assemble staff for a lecture on the intellectual distinctions of Taliban thought. Typical.
"So my question to you, Francis, is how all that does not comprise at least a complicit knowledge and acceptance of terrorist tactics? This is not a ticky-tack finesse question -- if we are operating on principles in this war on terrorism, it would greatly seem that we are simultaneously flouting those principles."
We are terrorizing civilians in Afghanistan. We are bombing and killing them in the aims of a greater good, for us and almost assuredly for them. But they are innocents nonetheless. As such, a simplistic view of maintaining our "principles" would require that we stop.
Your view of principles is pure, but placed in practice, how could we adhere to our principles and terrorize German civilians during the waning days of World War II?
Obviously, you are not that strident. If so, there is no need to continue the discussion.
So, that leaves whether Plan Colombia is a terrorist act against Colombian civilians or whether the unfortunate and often difficult rigors of foreign policy initiatives, especially with developing nations, produces some unintended and unpleasant consequences.
As you brough Plan Colombia up in the context of September 11th, I'm curious as to your answer.
I am glad someone else around here appreciates the Brits as much as I do...
But then again, proved again...the axiom great minds ever think alike...
JRoth/Commander Baba Jex Uber Alles! 
Who Dares, Wins
What's your take on Ismail Khan?"
Ismail Khan, along with Hamid Karzai (still operating somewhere in southern Afghanistan) and the late Abdul Haq, are the most progressive of the former mujahiddin. Ismail Khan is certainly the most progressive leader of the Northern Alliance.
"2.) Is a civic improvement kind of guy who could use aid grants to start cleaning up this mess and get the infrastructure fixed."
As I've told you before, most of the mujahiddin warlords outside Kabul had been the "civic improvement" kind of guys. Even Dostum was a responsible and efficient administrator of Mazar between 1992 and 1997. But unlike Dostum, Ismail Khan didn't skin his opponents alive.
Working toward reconstruction and "civic improvement" is not really the problem Most non-Taliban groups are interested in those things within their own regions. The question is whether fragmentation along regional lines will could be stable in the long term.
"Work with other ethnic groups (evidently Herat was relatively cosmopolitan/)"
All cities in Afghanistan are ethnically mixed.
If the Taliban believe that they will gain a significant advantage by 'circling their wagons' in SE Afghanistan, they are likely to receive some very unpleasant surprises, courtesy of US air superiority and access to ground installations in Afghanistan.
Marg's repeated references to some prospective 'US gravy train' for Afghanis is, I assume, primarily an attempt at humor.
I trust that fleeing Taliban forces are being hammered from the air as they head south. Very few should arrive in Kandahar, and those that do should be panic-stricken and demoralized.
If you think that the Indian military will be welcome in Afghanistan, you should think again.
It is now possible to declare a bombing halt for Ramadan, and devote the time to rushing food and other assistance to Kabul and other NA held cities. It will also give Pushtu leaders a chance to hop on the bandwagon, and allow people to vote with their feet and head north for food and safety.
Secondly, my reference to a US-funded gravy train in the region is not in the least bit humorous. It's a fact, and it is a big part of all these defections you've seen to the NA. A gravy train is expected, it has been promised, it's already being spooned out.
Concerned should note that the US has promised Pakistan a billion, has promised UNHCR another 500 million, has paid up all of its UN arrears, and has apparently (unreliable Pak reports) earmarked further hundreds of millions to buy Pashtun support in the Afghan south. All this before the rebuilding of Afghanistan, which will cost a great deal more than the money I've mentioned so far.
Which ones? 1200 troops defected from the Taliban to the NA in Bamiyan at the weekend, but none of them was Pashtun.
The policy may well work in the short term. The Taliban is clearly on the retreat, the writing for anyone who supports them is on the wall, and there cannot be that significant Pashtun support for the Taliban ideology. I admit that tribal loyalties run deep, but if the choice is live rich or die miserably, and this is seen to be a clear choice, I suggest that many Pashtuns will see their future framed in greenbacks and not in terms of martyrdom.
I read a news item yesterday in which the UN claims the US still owes the UN a billion dollars. How would you correlate that with your statement?
Thanks.
I have some doubts about that, simply from the fact that the Taliban has now been revealed to all as little more than Koran-thumping weaklings with a particularly atavistic cruel streak. Who in their right mind would want to continue to emulate that?
What makes me say that? I don't know, maybe it was the street vendor who asked me exactly what color Osama bin Laden T-shirt I wanted — the yellow one with his picture on it or the white one simply extolling him as the hero of the Muslim nation and vowing "Jihad Is Our Mission." (He was doing a brisk business among the locals.) Or maybe it was the wall poster announcing: Call this phone number if you want to join the "Jihad against America." Or maybe it was all the Urdu wall graffiti reading "Honor Is in Jihad" and "The Alliance Between the Hunood [Indians] and Yahood [Jews] Is Unacceptable." Or maybe it was the cold stares and steely eyes that greeted the obvious foreigner. Those eyes did not say "American Express accepted here." They said "Get lost."
Welcome to Peshawar. Oh, and did I mention? This is Pakistan — these guys are on our side. Fat chance. This whole region of northwest Pakistan is really just an extension of Afghanistan, dominated by the same ethnic Pashtuns that make up the Taliban. This is bin Laden land. This is not a region where America is going to sink any friendly roots. In part it's because the Pashtuns here all, understandably, side with their brothers in Afghanistan; in part it's because they were jilted once before by the Americans — after the U.S. just dropped Pakistan like a used hanky once the Soviets left Afghanistan. But most important, it's because of the education system here.
We could stop bombing entirely and it might slow the entire collapse by a couple of weeks. Or it might not. Our first priority has to be getting a functional government in place. If we can keep the UN from bolixing up the situation, so much the better.
1200 troops defected from the Taliban to the NA in Bamiyan at the weekend, but none of them was Pashtun.
The reports I've been reading talk about far more widescale defection than that, like the one reported here.
Hundreds of pro-Taliban Pakistani fighters appear to have been systematically massacred in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif after being callously abandoned by retreating Taliban fighters, sources suggested last night.
The Taliban soldiers fled from Mazar four days ago but failed to inform a contingent of up to 1,200 Pakistani jihadis that they were leaving. Opposition troops trapped the Pakistanis in a school on the outskirts of the city and then shot up to 200 of them, a commander confirmed yesterday.
"We gave them warnings to surrender," Mohammed Muhahiq, a spokesman for the opposition Shia militia, the Hizb-i-Wahdat, said. "They asked us to send representatives over several times, but unfortunately they shot them. Finally we gave the order to attack them. Some 200 of them [Pakistanis] have been killed."
It was not clear last night whether the Pakistani volunteers, many of whom had only just arrived in Afghanistan, were killed in battle or executed after surrendering. The Pakistanis, trapped in Sultan Reza school, continued to resist for at least 48 hours after Mazar fell, sources suggested.
"There are unconfirmed reports of incidents of violence and summary executions," Stephanie Bunker, the UN's spokeswoman in Islamabad, said last night.
Excerpts:
As an Afghan, I could understand the rationale for US intervention, provided it was principled and motivated by goodwill towards the Afghans. But we were naive to invest hopes in the judgment of Bush and Blair. After a month's bombing of an already devastated country, the folly of the strategy makes me speechless.
...
Military intervention should have been part of a political strategy to develop a broad-based governance. Before the bombing started, there were indications of a political process and a hope that a national leadership would emerge, perhaps under the auspices of the former king, Zahir Shah. Political elements were on the ascendant within the largely military alliance. There were opportunities that could have helped create a political process - former commanders assembling in Peshawar, moderate members of the Taliban, and the possibility of an anti-Taliban revolt by the people of Paktia and Khost in south-eastern Afghanistan.
However, ill-advised military strikes overtook the political process. The king receded; the alliance politicians retired behind their military commanders; no more anti-Taliban assemblies were organised; and there was no more threat of popular revolt. The military strategy of the coalition forces robbed Afghans of a rare opportunity to forge an enduring solution. Afghans have often been treated like this.
Yes, but those defections took place amongst locals from Parwan province, which is not a Pashtun province. What's worrisome is that despite the collapsing Taliban formations there has been no confirmed case of Pashtun defections.
Not yet. But there are reports like this one of Pashtuns ready to join in an anti-Taliban drive. It all depends on whether the coalition can be seen to have the upper hand in the South militarily. If that happens, perhaps through bombing or a few special ops hits, the picture may change rapidly.
Some pictures of defectors from the Taliban: 
By contrast, I mentioned yesterday (Message # 15126) that General Rahim Wardak is currently somewhere in Afghanistan. Well, according to Radio Pakistan, he is operating right now in Wardak province; and another Pashtun general, Shah Nawaz Tani, is also confirmed to be operating in Paktia province. Both Paktia and Wardak provinces are core Pashtun areas.
To the tank treads!
Harum, Varum, Kahn, Kalil, Karzai...all sound the same to me.
--
Pseuder, the Arab Afghans have no choice but to fight. But the Pathans who have till now backed the Taliban do have a choice. Do you think they'll turn on the Arabs (and Pakis) given a chance? In other words, shocking as it sounds, do you think there's a fighting chance now that the main shooting could be over by Ramzan, with the hardcore hanging on only in the mountains?
Yes that's him...just heard him by phone on CNN.
A typo....panee lao!
And its not a good day to be a Taliban...not good idea to hang around Peshawar much longer I should think.
My #315246 may be coming true as we speak.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0745312748.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Griffin's book on the Taliban is much less well written and organised than Ahmed Rashid's book, but it's also less superficial. Griffin's chapter on the civil war of 1992-96 is the best account I've ever read, and his analysis of the involvement of ex-communists with Taliban ranks makes for a more complicated picture of the origns of the Taliban than Ahmed Rashid's somewhat simplified story.
"This is not a 'strategic retreat' by any means. With the lightening changes of the past few days, the uprisings in the south, this is a rout. They will try to hide in their caves but they will die."
"Afghanistan 'could be split in two'
(Filed: 13/11/2001)
A DEFENCE analyst has warned Afghanistan could be split in two over the fight for Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home.
Neil Partrick, head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said the Northern Alliance would face a more difficult fight once the Taliban had withdrawn to their strongholds in the south, particularly Kandahar.
Mr Partrick said the ease with which Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul fell would not be repeated as the cities were traditionally unsympathetic to the Taliban and might have been allowed to fall for tactical reasons.
"I think there is a degree of surprise over the speed with which the Northern Alliance have moved into Kabul and there is a question mark there about the extent to which they can hold it as a unified force - not that I think the Taliban can resume control," he said."
He reports massive security crackdown by Talibees, searching vehicles for foreigners and spies.
Kamal (talks like Elmer Fudd) says its terror time on the streets of beautiful downtown Khandahar
Every group except the Hazaras is opposed to a partition of Afghanistan.
Travellers from the area arriving in the Pakistani border town of Chaman said they had seen 4,000 to 5,000 fighters capture the airport, some 30 km (20 miles south of Kandahar, earlier on Tuesday. They said they could threaten the city in the evening or on Wednesday morning.
The fighters were seen on the march at Shorandab mountains, some 28 km (18 miles) from the city, the travellers told Reuters. "
Who in that part of the world was closer?
How is this realted to my not feeling hostility to it?
"but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world"."
Who in that part of the world was closer?
India.
No offense taken. (Unless you think I should. Then I'll be happy to oblige.) I should have narrowed the statement to "Islamic nations in that part of the world". Who else let their women vote?
India still isn't really "that part of the world" quite like the old Soviet Republics, Iran, Pakistan and etc. Geographically somewhat, but not in a lot of other ways I think you'd agree. Maybe it is just my prejudice, but to me India is part of south Asia and Afghanistan is in central Asia.
I'm not sure what part of the world Kashmir belongs in. Perhaps the next war wil settle it?
On Saturday, in a U.N. General Assembly meeting, President Bush both thanked our allies for their support and urged them to do more to help the United States in its war against terrorism: “The time for sympathy has now passed; the time for action has now arrived.”
What grade would you give the following countries with regard to the amount of help they have offered the U.S. in the war against terrorism?
Great Britain - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Israel - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Pakistan - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Russia -A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Saudi Arabia - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
my answers: Britian - A, Israel - A, Pakistan - C, Russia - B, SA - C
Britain: A
Israel: A, considering the stress
Pakistan: B, on a curve
Russia: B
SA: D-
"I should have narrowed the statement to "Islamic nations in that part of the world". Who else let their women vote?"
Pakistan.
In 1973, when Zahir Shah was overthrown, Pakistan also had an elected government. (To be overthrown in 1977.)
"but to me India is part of south Asia and Afghanistan is in central Asia."
Afghanistan is neither. It is best described as Indo-Iranian. (Central Asia, I would describe as Turko-Iranian.)
"I'm not sure what part of the world Kashmir belongs in."
Definitely South Asia.
Now I ask anyone, which country has done more and yet faced greater difficulties and oppostion?
Great Britain - A (curve buster!)
Israel - C
Pakistan - B
Russia - A
Saudi Arabia - D
Israel: A, considering the stress
Pakistan: B, on a curve
Russia: B
SA: D-
What has Israel done?
The grade would improve if they shipped fat boi Sharon out
Of course Kashmir is part of South Asia: east of the Hindu Kush and south of the Himalayas.
Actually, Kashmir is somewhat in the midst of the Himalayas.
What should be the southeastern frontier of Central Asia?
Geographically, the Hindu Kush. Linguistically, the Indus. Culturally and politically, the Oxus.
However, officials at the border post said the Taliban were still manning the border post.
However, a Reuters cameraman said that at about 6.30 p.m. (1300 GMT), Taliban fighters on the Afghan side of the border moved aside as fighters of the opposition approached.
Fighters opposed to the Taliban swept into Kabul on Tuesday and said they were heading east toward Pakistan to take the city of Jalalabad, which lies about halfway between Kabul and the Pakistan border."
The above reports a different movement from the one described in Message # 15267. That was a border crossing by anti-Taliban Pashtun forces at Chaman, in Pakistani Baluchistan near Quetta. This latest is a crossing from the border near Peshawar, in the north.
"I am afraid that we have an ally in the NA like the Contras or the Vietnamese River pirates"
Its Loya Jirga time...bathhouses will rock; beards shaved; men kissing on the cheek (+++???) and they'll be those games with the horsies and the severed calves' heads.
Loar, Srinagar is in the vale, an area of (relative) lowlands which make a gaping hole in the western Himalayas.
If the Taliban is indeed fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad, is Pakistan going to be the 'lucky' recipient? Perhaps Musharraf is readying his troops to take a few thousand prisoners?
DUBAI, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The Northern Alliance interior minister was quoted by Iranian television as saying alliance forces expected to take the southern city of Jalalabad later on Tuesday or early on Wednesday following their capture of Kabul.
"Our forces are moving toward Jalalabad and we expect to clear things up by tonight or early tomorrow morning," an Iran television correspondent quoted the minister, Yunis Qanuni, as saying.
"We have put Vardak province south of Kabul behind us."
Qanuni, the most senior Alliance official at present in Kabul, told the television in an interview earlier his movement wanted to set up a council to prepare for a transitional Afghan government following a lightening series of victories over the Taliban in recent days.
As opposed to a darkening series of losses, I suppose.
--
How can tens of thousands of Taliban + foreign supporters flee into the mountains to wage guerrilla war? I don't think it's possible. The core Taliban must be losing support dramatically even among its elite troops, if there is such a thing, and they and the remaining foreigners must simply be running, shit scared. This really could all be over, save some mopping-up, by Ramadan.
Wow. If so, what a devastatingly effective and swift campaign, so much for those vaunted and battle-hardened warriors. I'm thinking that all such in the taliban number (save the Arabs) have simply upped and left the Omar faction for where the dollars proliferate.
Now that whole bit I posted about earlier, about the NA (and Iran and Russia and India) making facts on the ground contrary to wishful US thinking comes into play.
Afghans did just that in the 1980s. (Admittedly with support in the countryside, and a base in Pakistan.) But it's not going to be tens of thousands. I expect a few thousands.
MSNBC has frequently been ahead of the game in reporting news from Afghanistan: link.
It should be terribly revealing. Jalalabad is a city as thoroughly Pashtun as Kandahar. (Kandahar is the seat of Durrani Pashtuns; Jalalabad is the seat of Ghilzai Pashtuns.) It is also within breathing distance of Pakistan; Jalalabad is in fact the entrepot between Kabul and the Khyber Pass.
An NA entry into Jalalabad will should be revealing about:
(1) how Pashtuns will receive the NA;
(2) whether a local Pashtun insurrection will actually emerge to help the NA
(3) how Pakistan will react to the NA being so close to the Pak border
Jalalabad is a harbinger of Afghanistan's short-term future.
This will no doubt lead, down the road, to reprisals and all kinds of unnecessary side-effects, but that's what you get with the NA. One wonders how long exactly Rabbani and some of the other top leaders will be able to contain their own Islamist extremism, but they will presumably manage to do so at least as long as the aid keeps flowing.
However, guerrilla warfare is very difficult when the local populace doesn't support you. My hunch is that the extent to which the remainder of the war will be a "mop up" depends on how well the coalition and the NA do in winning over the Afghans in the south.
I hope Pakistan mobilizes whatever troops it can along its border. Unfortunately that's something of a fools game in the FATA since said troops could well come under fire from both sides, and it's impossible to close it in any case.
But I hope he has left Afghanistan. Pakistan is already allied with us in this matter, unlike southern Afghanistan. It should be much easier to catch him or kill him in Pakistan.
I am definitely not jumping to believe Concerned's rumor, however the story that emerged this morning (from an NA source) that Omar has decamped is quite plausible. Remember that the Taliban came from Pakistan in the first place. No one has done anything to the madrassas (yet) they're still there.
However, if he merely transits the FATA and hides in the Northern Areas, he might escape capture or death through the winter but will be captured by the Pak army in the spring.
Hahahaha!
I didn't say that UbL has gone to Pakistan. I was merely commenting on others who said so.
But it is not at all implausible for Usama bin Ladin to go to Pakistan. He has millions of supporters there and thousands of cadres of the religious parties with a vast network of shelters for terrorists.
Could you link to the reports you've read about this??? That is the one piece of information I'm looking for.
As you then said in 15325, there are many reasons for him to have done so, therefore, making it sensible for him to have done so. Especially since it is quite likely that the mountains and hills of southern Afghanistan are going to endure a lot of bombing, while Pakistan will not.
There is a giant question mark about what will happen now in Pakistan, with a cloud of smaller question marks. Events on the ground may well dictate what the leadership does, at this point I'm not sure anyone has a plan or a sense of what will happen, including Musharraf.
The Afridis, the tribe that control that Khyber Pass, were even paid by the communist government in Kabul to shoot at Afghan mujahiddin.
In Afghanistan the Taliban/al-Qaeda has no established central government to coordinate an attack on them, the possibility of ethnic or regional civil war, and experience with guerrilla fighting in the terrain.
In Pakistan all of those factors are considerably reduced, but you *might* get more support from the locals. I am skeptical of that claim, but even if it is true I very much doubt that it outweighs the advantages of Afghanistan.
If the Taliban and al-Qaeda are indeed on the run, my level of optimism has skyrocketed.
I don't have a link. The BBC (TV, in England) reported an hour or two ago that thousands of Pashtuns loosely allied to the NA are marching on Kandahar, which itself is seeing an exodus. A related group has reportedly seized the Kandahar airport without facing much resistance. My young and excitable sister-in-law e-mailed me with this info.
The bit about them tramping around the mountains is conjecture.
I have only seen it mentioned in secondary sources. The Economist, for instance, says that Kandahar is being beset by "hostile tribes", which I assume means Pashtuns.
"The BBC (TV, in England) reported an hour or two ago that thousands of Pashtuns loosely allied to the NA are marching on Kandahar, which itself is seeing an exodus. A related group has reportedly seized the Kandahar airport without facing much resistance."
I have been listening to the BBC live on streaming audio all day, as well as Pakistan Radio. I have heard no such reports.
I have heard unconfirmed reports about the Kandahar airport, but nothing about who did it.
The only things I have heard are those two Reuters reports, posted here, about border crossings by anti-Taliban Pashtun groups from Pakistan.
We are not disagreeing, are we?
Pseuder, here's the Times of India, on that airport, and on the fall of Jalalabad.
There appears to be no more organized resistance to the NA. Forget about stopping them, by remote control, outside Kabul. They're sweeping into every city in all of Afghanistan!
Now, let's play: 'Where is Osama-Waldo>'
Now, let's play: 'Where is Osama-Waldo?'
Iran doesn't want him, the other key coalition partners (india, Russia) are ambivalent, the NA contains his sworn enemies and there is a real resentment about him among the Pathans who fled to Pakistan over the years. Apparently he has never visited them, or done a single thing for them, in all those years of exile.
Actually, every single Pashtun leader in Pakistan supports the return of Zahir Shah, not to reestablish the monarchy, but to provide a temporary national figurehead and to preside over the loya jirga.
I also think that if the NA does decide to behave -- and it appears increasingly that is now the case -- and if a loya jirga is indeed convened, Iran, Russia and Pakistan will actually lose influence.
All in all, the US appears to have won a resounding military victory, but the political questions still remain and now are writ large because they're no longer "if" questions, since the NA is essentially in charge.
All in all, a highly satisfactory war from the Iran, Russia, and India standpoint. Everything gained, at very little or no cost.
That is a giant if. Certainly there will be no lya jirga before the winter. Give the NA six months as de facto rulers of Afghanistan and their apparent compliance with Western rhetoric may change.
is this a case of wanting to right wrongs?
What leads you to this observation? Has their behavior to date in Mazar and Kabul exceeded Pashtun expectations?
This is a quote, which I find to be very poignant, in an on-line story in the Times from a 28 year old woman in Kabul (who was forced to leave her job when the Taliban took over, of course, leaving her with four children to feed but with no income.)
"Why would a man who is in his 80s and who has lived in Italy since 1973 want to come back to Afghanistan. His powers are bound to be fettered, and the prestige level doesn't seem to be terribly high. (let alone the survivability factor)."
Unity, continuity, and symbolism. Many Afghans now look upon 1973 as the Year After Which All Hell Broke Loose, and look upon Zahir Shah's reign with glowing nostalgia.
"is this a case of wanting to right wrongs?"
What wrongs did you have in mind?
Message # 15359
"What leads you to this observation? Has their behavior to date in Mazar and Kabul exceeded Pashtun expectations?"
Well, I am just hoping mightily at this stage. There have been killings of Arabs and Pakistanis -- which is okay -- but no ethnic-cleansing type reprisals, at least not so far.
it would be wonderful if he indeed has hopes of helping to bring real unity to his country.
Now, this country must stay engaged, and wait out what happens in Pakistan and keep that aid pipeline completely open into Afghanistan.
It has been, if all today's indications are correct, an astonishingly complete and swift rout of the Taliban.
leaving that aside, are you now dismissing or discounting heavily the prospects of continued Taliban war efforts in the south, or in terrorist attacks in Kabul etc.?
But what do I know?
I wonder about the Taliban who supposedly retreated to Kunduz. They must be shitting mighty bricks right now.
"....my personal recommendation is that those two young fellows from the Taliban embassy in Karachi [sic] be included in the post-Taliban government."
The young fellow interpreting for the ambassador is not an Afghan, but an Egyptian.
And no, those news conferences were given in Islamabad not Karachi.
identified Taliban ambassador Mullah Zaeef's interpreter as......
Where can these guys, Zaeef and his cohorts, run to? I doubt the mountains. They aren't mujahedeen or trained Arab Afghans. They'll most likely be hunted down and executed in the coming weeks, by NA symapthizers, anti-taliban Pashtuns, or perhaps by Special Ops guys from the West.
It was reported in the news (can't remember where) that the NA would meet fierce resistance in Kabul should they attempt to enter. I got the impression this speculation was based on the belief that the Taliban had stacked the city with those friendly to them since taking it over.
BTW - on NPR today they interviewed by sat-phone the first American reporter to enter Kabul. He reported that the Talis were so geeked on getting the hell out of Dodge yesterday, they apparently forgot to spread the word to a few dozen of their comrades. As soon as these poor bastards showed their faces in the streets, the Kabulis beat their heads in with sticks and left them piled in ditches.
"Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon revealing to their Pakistani tribal hosts that they had been ordered by Mulla Omar to abandon major cities and to prepare themselves for guerrilla operations on the other side of the Afghan borders."
The question I asked in Message # 12091 becomes more apropos.
the irony, of course, is that Pakistan considered a Talibanized Afghanistan strategically useful as a hinterland in case of war with India. Now, the Taliban may (I consider these accounts highly preliminary) turn around and use Pakistan itself as a strategic hinterland!
"....intelligence reports poured in about a secret Taliban decision to use Pashtun dominated tribal areas of Pakistan as staging posts for a prolonged guerrilla battle in Afghanistan, senior Pakistani military and civilian officials said.
Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon revealing to their Pakistani tribal hosts that they had been ordered by Mulla Omar to abandon major cities and to prepare themselves for guerrilla operations on the other side of the Afghan borders.
....
Pakistani officials maintained that string of Northern Alliance's victories inside Afghanistan on Tuesday were only possible because of Taliban's decision to change their tactics from "line defence to mobile defence".
"In guerrilla warfare there is no permanent holding of ground. The Soviet army always maintained a reasonable control over all big cities in Afghanistan, yet it could not win the war," according to a retired ISI official with about a decade of involvement in Afghan affairs. ISI's Afghan veterans believe that by allowing the enemy troops to rapidly capture major Afghan cities, the Taliban have broadly hinted about their strategy to launch hit and run operations against the fixed and mobile targets.
"There will be enough targets for Taliban guerrillas once the coalition launches logistical operation to maintain forces all over Afghanistan," a former ISI official hoped."
Come to think of it, everyone should now turn to the Sikhs! The last time such an action was successful it required dought Sardar's under Ranjit Singh. jexster perhaps should start posting inchoate paeans to that martial race, which has unaccountably slipped under his radar screen until now.
Marzipranks, your scenario of a pincer movement between the NA and the Pak army is hyper-fanciful.
What's the US going to do? What is the choice given to Musharraf? Will the NA be content to allow these forces to launch attacks across the border?
But I don't think it will come to that. Tribal posses within FATA will hunt them down if they really do show up within one of the tribal agencies.
"Hit and run" operations? They infiltrate, come together, hit, then disperse and run? Infiltrate through a hostile popululation, group together without detection, hit, then disperse and run while air forces pound hell out of them and air mobile troops land for blocking operations? Guerilla warfare by its nature is engagement by small units against small units; guerillas cannot engage large units for they tend to get mauled; and guerilla operations cannot be sustained without the support of the local populace (or, the local populace must be terrified into submission to the guerillas). Moreover, I don't see the US intending to occupy Afghanistan.
However, it was reported on the news tonight that the Taliban embassy in Pakistan has been evacuated. Video footage showed Talib representatives jumping into vehicles, not answering any questions, just fleeing.
If southern Afghanistan now sees the light of day and turns on the Taliban, as seems (or I should say, feels) likely, then I will recant my impression, solidified in the wake of the ambush of Abdul Haq, that every second Afghan is an ethnic zealot no better than Nazi-sympathizing Germans.
However, I do think that despite the obvious overwhelming efficacy of air power in the last three major conflicts the US has waged (during every single one of which the insufficiency of bombing has been harped on ad nauseam by each war's critics) it's too early to declare a glorious American victory. Even if we effectively castrate Qaeda, in order to win we must still help establish stability in Afghanistan. Everyone here knows how many cows have yet to be corralled to get that to happen. But what none of us knows is how all the cowboys are going to parcel out the herd at the end of the day. I.e., Afghanistan's meddlesome neighbors aren't going away, and they all have the same objectives they had last week.
It was an idiotic impression anyway.
Well, you helped create it.
Another indication on the map not elsewhere reported, as far as I know, is the supposed capture of Nemroz province by non-NA anti-Taliban Pashtun forces. Nemroz is a Pashtun-populated province in the southwest of the country.
The places to watch in the next 24 hours are Jalalabad and Konduz. Konduz is one of the several Pashtun enclaves in the north, a result of Amir Abdurrahman's forced settlements of rebellious Pashtun tribes in the late 19th century.
With the collapse of Taliban rule in northern Afghanistan, U.S. forces acquire critical land routes and airfields to resupply the rebels, deliver humanitarian aid and launch intensified air and ground attacks on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Control of the north also might offer important intelligence leads in the search for bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.WPost
A legend in my own mind.....
The camera was apparently left to run, catching dead time until something happens and the guy can start broadcasting again.
All of a sudden: BOOM!!!! - a bomb falls on the next room, and the wall, control panel - everything is just coming at the guy in pieces as he flies off his seat and ducks out.
Was that the Al-Jazeera facility?
Also Tuesday, the last of six people to survive inhalation anthrax came home after 25 days in a suburban Washington hospital. Leroy Richmond, a postal worker at the city's contaminated central facility, said he was grateful to doctors who began treating him for anthrax even before it was confirmed. ``Timing was crucial,'' he said.
Four others have died from the disease, including two area postal workers remembered Tuesday at a Postal Service memorial.
No new cases of anthrax infection have been reported for more than two weeks, though traces of the bacteria have continued to turn up.
That's now 6 cases survived, 4 dead. Not bad for a disease previously estimated to have a 90% mortality rate.
Man, "Somewhere" has sure been a great source of information for me. I've read and heard so many factoids from so many places they all run together.
United States intelligence agencies reported
tonight that members of southern tribes
opposed to the Taliban were massing near
the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. In the
strategic eastern city of Jalalabad, residents
reported that the Taliban had announced
they were pulling out and turning the city
over to its previous civilian administration
I heard on French television (Antenne Deux) that Nemroz province (southwest) was taken, which squares with what the Daily Telegraph says, but there is no indication of who or what took it. Was it anti-Taliban Pashtun rebels or was it Ismail Khan's NA forces? There is just no indication. The taking of Nemroz is not even confirmed.
Radio Pakistan is reporting heavy combat In the eastern provinces with massive US aerial bombardments of Taliban positions in Jalalabad and Khost. There is no talk of any defections, however. It looks like the Taliban are resisting the NA instead of running. Not a good sign.
BBC's Haroun Rashid, who was just in Kandahar before evacuating, say that although the Taliban have largely disappeared from the city, there is no sign of any activity at the Kandahar airport (contrary to reports that it was taken by rebels) nor any sign of insurrection.
I've noticed that many press outlets are reporting rumours and/or claims made by NA spokesmen. That's understandable since the situation is so confused and things are developing so rapidly.
Even Al-Jazeera has made no claims with respect to Jalalabad and Kandahar other than to report NA claims.
He didn't say where he got his info from, but if there's any truth to what he says, maybe the Talis have simply abandoned the airport?
What are you feeling about all this, though? Happy, worried, both?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24752-2001Nov13.html
"Taliban fighters stole out of Jalalabad without firing a shot today after receiving a warning from warlord Abdul Qadir to leave or face attacks by his anti-Taliban forces, journalists in the city reported.
Qadir's men were in control of the city by afternoon, the journalists added, though it was not clear whether they were Taliban deserters or the lightly armed fighters that he was gathering last week from his exile in the nearby Pakistani city of Peshawar."
(Abdul Qadir is an older brother of the late Abdul Haq. Shouldn't journalists mention things like that?)
If Kandahar falls, the US should declare victory in the war against the Taliban, focus on a political settlement, on clandestine operations in order to locate bin Laden and on helping out with the relief efforts. 
Satinder Bindra reports capture of Mullah Omar's hometown...and Mathew Chance (YUM!) is reporting that NA is setting up hdq in Taloqan 
The NA rep (Amin Haroun, is it?) was on Charlie Rose last night. Rose asked if and when the NA might progress to Kandahar. The rep said NA would take Kandahar within 6 to 12 hours. Rose nearly fell off his chair.
Anyway, this much is clear:
In the south and east of the country, the situation appeared chaotic as local Pashtun tribal leaders appeared to be challenging the Taliban in the ethnic Pashtun heartlands.
Followers of a local, independent powerbroker, Yunus Khalis, took control of the Afghan border station at Torkham, a major crossing point into Pakistan.
Afghan sources in Pakistan, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the airport in the Taliban's southern stronghold of Kandahar was held by about 200 fighters loyal to Arif Khan, a member of a southern Pashtun tribe.
A Taliban official along the Pakistani border at Chaman, Mullah Najibullah, said Taliban fighters were firing on the airport on Wednesday from hilltop positions.
The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press reported that tribal elders took control on Wednesday of the town of Gardez, in Paktia province about 60 miles south of Kabul.
US warplanes kept up pressure on the Taliban with more air raids outside the capital on Wednesday. American aircraft bombed the airport and military installations around the city of Jalalabad at least six times overnight and early in the morning, the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press reported.
Citing an unidentified Taliban official, the agency also said warplanes attacked a military base in Khost, six miles from the Pakistan border.
Mohammed Alam Ezdediar, who headed a Northern Alliance radio station before Kabul fell, assumed control of the newly renamed Radio Afghanistan and resumed airing music, which the Taliban had banned as frivolous.
He hired three women as news readers...
ISLAMABAD, Nov 14: An anti-Taliban revolt said to be gathering pace in southern Afghanistan today has boosted the prospects of the United States hunting down Osama bin Laden. "The chances of him being betrayed, sold out or whatever are extremely high," Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid told Reuters from Lahore. The U.S.-led alliance has put a $5 million price on the head of Osama bin Laden. (Reuters)
The Pathans (in Afghanistan and out) are opportunistic. They, like most other people, don't want to die for ideologues, they'd rather live and have some power, control and money. All of these three are being offered up right now, particularly the first two since there is a power vacuum. The Taliban has basically disappeared as a political force, now every commander with a few dozen men and some arms will want a share of the pie.
It will not necessarily be easy to get these guys all to agree to power-sharing, especially if the NA demands a large share. But for now, it's essentially land/power grab and of course the Pathans want their share (plus they hate the NA).
But all of this could sour in two days, if the NA (and now these anti-Taliban Pathans) revert to form and indulge themselves in the usual orgy of looting, rape and plunder, compounded with reprisal massacres. Then, the US will be blamed, esepecially since the Taliban, whatever its faults and excesses, did maintain to the end a kind of law and order in its territory.
All those fine and grandiose plans are tattered now, and the NA has swept up a mindboggling amount of territory in two days, and a good part of Afghanistan has deteriorated into, at best, a violent free-for-all. The enemy has retreated, and been shredded, but in its place is a series of large question marks, nothing better.
"CNN confirms evacuation of Jalabad. Talis crossing border into Pakistan raising exactly Marj's "fanciful" scenario..."
Jexster, what I called fanciful was the idea of a pincer movement between the Northern Alliance and the Pakistani army against the Taliban. I didn't say it was fanciful for the Taliban to cross into Pakistan. See Message # 15384.
I know you're insane from the terminal stages of syphilis, but you should try to keep things straight.
"I order you to completely obey your commanders," he said, adding that any fighter who deserts their duty "is like a slaughtered chicken which falls and dies".
"You should regroup yourselves, resist and fight."
"According to the written reports I have received, the Muslim people of the eastern zone in general, and also Ghazni and Farah, have been liberated."
He said "local people" were in control of the provinces following the fall of the capital, Kabul, to the opposition early today.
"In all these provinces there is no clash," Shaheen told Reuters television in an interview. "It was a strategic and tactical withdrawal from all these provinces. "About Kabul, we wanted to save the lives of the civilians of Kabul," he said, referring to the fall of the capital to the opposition Northern Alliance on Tuesday.
"For the protection of their lives we withdrew from Kabul," he said. "There is a new regrouping and, of course, there will be a new programme... worked out," he said.
Pseuder, I think this is the fellow I was referring to yesterday.
Our brave allies ----errr proxies---control 80% of country.
bwak...bwak...bwak...bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaK!
That happens to be completely false.
Get the U.N in with the new government. Keep our mobile force ability in the continued effort against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Occupy -from the air.
"
(1) Burhanuddin Rabbani, the nominal head of the Northern Alliance and the actual head of its Tajik Jamiat faction, has announced he will be returning to Kabul.
(2) Jamiat forces are the ones exclusively controlling Kabul. They appear to be creating defensive positions all around the city.
Keegan
The statement of yours I quoted. Pashtun voices have been almost unanimously against the bombing, so your statement is factually false.
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
The Taliban was not only religiously oppressive. It also neglected to use the political forms to which Afghans are accustomed, particularly the village gathering, or jirga, a meeting of tribal elders at which village affairs are decided....
This is not to say that it won't happen, in fact NA spokesmen go on endlessly about their good intentions. But in practice, I wonder whether it is possible to force troops to retreat from positions they feel they've earned, without serious recompense or even severe threats.
These are just facts.
Obviously, if they could foresee that the bombing campaign would be so effective in causing the Taliban to disintegrate, then they might not have opposed the bombing.
The question is and that which remains, do they oppose the bombing? Present tense.
Pseudoerasmus is credible when reporting the opinions and news he's gleaned from others; when confined to his own speculations he's not credible.
Today the bombing is seemingly restricted to attacks on retreating Taliban formations. The US hasn't even bombed Kunduz yet, where several thousand Taliban (and foreigners) have holed up.
The fact is that every Afghan source, save the NA spokesmen, condemned the bombing when it seemed that it was doing nought to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increased civilian suffering. Even the anti-Taliban pashtuns like Haq, and the NA commanders interviewed by the likes of Satinder Bindra on CNN, spoke out against the bombing.
Well, bombing the Taliban is what allowed Pashtuns to revolt. Moreover, American special ops forces apparently had been in southern Afghanistan for weeks. I find it impossible to believe Pashtuns are unaware of the US contribution to the Taliban's flight. If your claims about their anti-American sentiment are true, then Pashtuns are singularly irrational, or as ethnically pychotic as Nazis.
"What was unexpected and surprising was the complete & sudden collapse of the Taliban. Which is of course what has brought the anti-Taliban Pashtun forces out. They didn't actively overthrow the Taliban."
The Taliban didn't just fold for the hell of it.
I agree with Banks that everyone's an opportunist and much remains to be seen. But I'm hoping (as I have hoped for about 1000 posts now) that the prospect of participating in the loya jirga in the United Arab Emirates this or next week, and ultimately, in representative governance, will keep all factions on their best behavior until that political process solidifies.
Your comments in 15469 are 100% accurate.
But why is my usage of the word "nought" awarded a (sic)? I object strenuously.
You talk as though you forecast this sudden collapse of the Taliban, with your fact-free but "credible" speculations. Those, including me, who criticised the bombing on the rationale that it alone could not largely defeat the Taliban (while only alienating internal popular opinion), were wrong, utterly wrong. But you didn't forsee it either.
That hasn't been the case for at least a week, more like two!
"Even the anti-Taliban pashtuns like Haq, and the NA commanders interviewed by the likes of Satinder Bindra on CNN, spoke out against the bombing."
Well, if perceptions at the time were that the US was supporting the NA against Pashtuns (rather than Taliban or Qaeda), then that's understandable. But things have changed. Moreover, we've had men on the ground working to undermine the Talibs, and the CIA has been staunchly behind Karzai, and everyone (does PE believe it's everyone BUT the Pashtuns?) seems quite aware of the fact that the US is not fully supportive of the NA's incursion into Kabul, which proves a bit of an embarrassment.
I think some of this purported Pashtun anti-Americanism is merely Taliban-influenced propaganda.
"Well, bombing the Taliban is what allowed Pashtuns to revolt....I find it impossible to believe Pashtuns are unaware of the US contribution to the Taliban's flight...The Taliban didn't just fold for the hell of it."
I am certain they are now quite unaware of the US contribution.
"If your claims about their anti-American sentiment are true, then Pashtuns are singularly irrational..."
To some extent, but not entirely. US strategy has essentially delievered Kabul to the NA, which is one of the things Pashtun groups in Pakistan feared. We don't know yet the end result of that occupation.
..."..or as ethnically pychotic as Nazis."
You just won't quit that silly analogy. I guess it's that "predisposition" I talked about earlier but you feverishly deny.
quite AWARE of the US contribution.
But Afghanistan today looks eerily like the status quo ante of 1994, when the Taliban emerged for the first time.
Eastern Provinces are controlled by Yunis Khalis group, whose members once made up the Jalalabad Shura that ruled the same provinces in 1994.
Jamiat rules Kabul, as in 1994.
Kandahar is thus far in chaos, as in 1994.
The western provinces are in the hands of Ismail Khan, as in 1994.
The northern seven provinces are in the hands of the Uzbek Junbish, as in 1994.
The centre of the country is held by the Hazara Hisb-i-Wahdat, as in 1994.
The Northeast remains in the hands of Jamiat, as it always has been.
I'm not saying that things will unfold as in 1994, but the picture does look like a déjà vu.
So I've said, and along with everyone else I'm thoroughly worried about it. Loya jirga in UAE must be the big carrot, the sooner it happens the better.
"You just won't quit that silly analogy."
It's worth the rise it gets out of you.
"I guess it's that "predisposition" I talked about earlier but you feverishly deny."
You mean your predisposition to believe a priori that all Jews consider Muslims subhuman, unless those Jews happen to be Chomskyesque Israel haters? Or your predisposition to believe all Pashtuns are so concerned for their ethnic brethren being bombed by Americans, and at the same time so illiterate, that they couldn't possibly ally with Americans against Pashtun oppressors, and that even now they have no idea what's happening?
Once again, you sell these people short.
(I recognize the general practice here that any misspelling moots the substance of a comment.)
"Or your predisposition to believe all Pashtuns are so concerned for their ethnic brethren being bombed by Americans, and at the same time so illiterate, that they couldn't possibly ally with Americans against Pashtun oppressors....Once again, you sell these people short."
You over-simplify my "predisposition".
Most of the bombing campaign took place in Pashtun areas. It was entirely reasonable for them to fear the bombing more than the Taliban. As I have said many times in explanation of my view, the Taliban treated the Pashtun population somewhat better than non-Pashtun populations. Life in Kandahar and Jalalabad was better than in Herat or Mazar, not just because of differences in Taliban rule, but because the drought is largely a northern phenomenon.
Therefore, that Pashtuns might rally around their ethnic brethren was the most likely & reasonably foreseeable outcome -- if the Taliban had not just collapsed from the US bombing campaign, had instead resisted the Northern Alliance and had not created a vacuum in the east and south which anti-Taliban Pashtun groups have now filled without much of a fight at all.
The present outcome is entirely and completely the result of the unexpected efficacy of the US bombing campaign -- virtually nothing to do with what little the Pashtun groups have done against the Taliban.
I don't sell them short at all. That you think so, only indicates your insular sense of unreality.
I originally thought it was, but now I agree with Loar that it is the work of a generation.
Also, it strikes me that whatever sort of peacekeeping force is ultimately assembled in Afghanistan, the process by which it is assembled might well be employed to put together a similar force for the Palestinian territories, to guarantee regional security at the de facto (or de jure) emergence of a Palestinan state. Which could be coming soon.
I'd venture the same sort of hope about a resolution over Kashmir, but I just don't know enough about that situation, except that the US itself may be better placed to unilaterally help keep a lid on Pak extremism than we are to keep a lid on Pal extremism.
Message # 15492
I have to say, I'm flabbergasted that you are being forced to explain this to apparently intelligent people.
There's a wide latitude of interpretation as perhaps 90% or more of the country was held by Taliban forces before the bombing began and the US to my knowledge wasn't bombing the 10% held by the Northern Alliance. But, what were the targets of the bombing? Military targets, and collateral damage (okay, death of civilians, noncombatants, by bombing) will probably prove small, very small. I had read -reported here perhaps - that as a consequence of the bombing in time the Taliban lost strict control over the movement of people and foodstuffs. But, again, how could the bombing of Taliban targets and the forward edge of the battle areas confronting the Northern Alliance cause the Pashtun to fear the bombing more than the Taliban?
What we were learning about the effects of the bombing came from refugees and the Pak press; we knew almost nothing about the effects within Afghanistan other than some films and reports showing some bomb damage and a few corpses.
Why is it harder to believe that Pastuns oppose the bombing of Taliban strongholds in Pashtun homelands, than it is that an American who does not support the Bush administration opposes the bombing of Washington DC? Or that an American anti-Zionist Jew opposes the bombing of Tel Aviv?
This excerpt from the article from the Post linked by Jex above sort of says it all in a mini way in terms of demonstrating the types of complexities that will be faced in trying to come up with a way of both stabilizing and governing Afghanistan into the future.
The key, at least to winning the hearts if not the minds of the general populace, has got to be providing them with stability (and all that hopefully then flows from that).
a) most Pashtun support the Taliban;
b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban;
c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban.
PantyWaist Powell's gotta move 
I was just posting the opposite to test myself. I wanted to see if I could post the opposite of what I really thought without blinking.
The frontlines in Mazar and Kabul were of course the main targets of the bombing campaign in the latter weeks, but towns like Jalalabad, Kandahar and Khost were regularly bombed also. Most of the al-Qaidah training camps were also in the Pashtun areas, particularly in the east.
I'm not sure why it makes any difference that civilian casualties were relatively light. The fact that there were accidental civilian casualties at all, and the fact that Taliban rule in Pashtun areas was lighter than in non-Pashtun areas (*) were enough to induce the resentment against the bombing campaign in Pashtun areas.
(*) Rural Pashtun areas saw very light Taliban administration, and was in fact left to the tribes.
"What we were learning about the effects of the bombing came from refugees and the Pak press; we knew almost nothing about the effects within Afghanistan other than some films and reports showing some bomb damage and a few corpses."
Nonsense. First of all, 250 000 fresh refugees in Pakistan are not nothing. Second, press reports went beyond the Pak press. You had Al Jazeera regularly reporting, as well as CNN's continued presence in Kandahar with a Muslim correspondent. And then you had reports of Abdul Haq's meetings with outraged village elders in Nangarhar.
"a) most Pashtun support the Taliban; b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban; c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban."
Most Pashtuns did not support the Taliban,
So now everything is OK? Look for Osama in the hills for a winter or two, get him in the end, objectives accomplished, go home?
Naaah. Way too easy.
Something is bound to happen. Isn't it?
"b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban..."
Again, this ignores the fact that life in Pashtun areas under the Taliban were better than in non-Pashtun areas. For example, games and sport were not outlawed in Kandahar as they were in Herat and Kabul; and girls' education could not be banned in eastern Afghanistan, where the tribes simply refused such Taliban edicts.
"...c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban."
Well, perhaps the correlation was difficult to make when bombs were falling near you. You keep talking about frontline Taliban targets but there were Taliban tagets in the middle of cities as well as al-Qaidah targets all over the Pashtun areas.
a) most Pashtun support the Taliban;
b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban;
c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban.
From what I have read them say for themselves, most Pashtun define the Taliban far more narrowly than do Westerners. The majority of Pashtuns seem to despise the Afghan Arabs and blame them for the Taliban's exesses. But the majority of the Taliban are Pashtuns. If they do want to overthrow the Taliban, Pashtuns, like other human beings, don't want their cities bombed and their kinsmen killed. Why is that hard to understand?
Of course bombing is worse than life under the Taliban. Why do you think increasing numbers of refugees are fleeing Taliban controlled areas that are being bombed? I'm sure the overthrow of the Taliban is welcomed. It would have been more so if the frantic efforts to form an Afghan government to replace them had taken place before the bombing rather than after.
That Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban!
As if Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with misery they are experiencing. As if the victims are happy to have been bombed.
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/
Click on English.
(2) But I have not been wrong about whether Pashtuns would rally around the Taliban. That prediction never got tested, because the US bombing campaign was so effective that the Taliban have disintegrated and there is now nothing to rally around. There is only a vacuum in the Pashtun areas which the Pashtun exile groups from Pakistan are now rushing to fill, apparently, since they fear losing influence in the post-Taliban political dispensation.
The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell.
It absolutely testifies to the efficacy of the US bombing campaign that the sudden collapse of the Taliban has simply made moot the risk of Pashtun backlash. I am properly chastasised for my quasi-slanderous doubts about the competence of the US military.
My Message # 15500 recounted the assumptions on which Sakonige could probably base her earlier remark, which assumptions I do not agree with. Message # 15500 is not a recitation of what I believe or understand.
Wombat, I don't need you or Pseudoerasmus to tell me by Message # 15514 the information was probably far removed from the facts. That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point.
"That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point."
But "popular impressions", at least inside Afghanistan, is the salient point here.
Also, it's not just "reporting from Pakistan". I've already named other sources from which one could gauge opinion inside Afghanistan.
"That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point."
But "popular impressions", at least inside Afghanistan, is the salient point here.
Also, it's not just "reporting from Pakistan". I've already named other sources from which one could gauge opinion inside Afghanistan.
pseudo - I think it is time for you to get a bit of sleep.
pleasant dreams, too.
Partly because many of us refused to make predictions about the efficacy of US bombing.
Is the bombing campaign the only factor in the sudden collapse of the Taliban? Why did bombing suddenly achieve such an unexpected threshold effect?
"In time we will discover the exact consequences of the bombing, how many non-combatants were killed, how many and what type of areas destroyed or damaged, and the results to the civilian population. Now, we just don't know, because as I have said again and again public opinion formed by a few and narrow reporters may prove to be very much at odds with the reality."
Of what relevance are these remarks? The exact toll of the bombing is not the point. The point was whether it alienated the Pashtun population, as per Andonly's broaching of the topic. Everything we have heard so far -- refugee reports, al Jazeera reports, reports from Kandahar by CNN's Kamal Hyder, and Abdul Haq's reports on the outrage expressed at village meetings in Nangarhar -- point to that alienation.
"250,000 refugees exited because of bombing? Or fear of bombing?"
I believe 250 000 is the number since before the bombing started but when it became clear the USA would commence a war.
I wonder if al Queda and the Taliban have split up.
Dutch? Like the ones that "secured" Srebrenica?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/gen.war.against.terror/index.html
"The sources in Washington said there was street fighting in Kandahar and the Taliban still control some neighborhoods, but that Taliban fighters were fleeing in droves.
Sources contacted by CNN in Kandahar, however, reported the city and the airport appeared still to be in the hands of the Taliban. They said no gunfire could be heard in the city....
Backing for the Taliban apparently was still strong in the city. Al-Jazeera broadcast videophone pictures of black-turbaned Taliban supporters in the streets of Kandahar, vowing to fight to keep the city from falling.
Kandahar's mayor told Al-Jazeera that the Taliban troops are deployed around the city and in the surrounding mountains."
You point out that life under the Taliban was better in some areas than others. Are you saying that they enjoyed Taliban rule? Do you think the responsibility for setting up a viable government in Afganisstan should be borne my Afgans or others, and if so who?
What I did not want to see is thousands of Americans killed. It seems that objective will be met.
Of course, I had heard all this before; how wonderful it must be in the U.S.S.R and how wonderful life was in Cuba. Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal?
"You point out that life under the Taliban was better in some areas than others. Are you saying that they enjoyed Taliban rule?"
No, and no one could reasonably infer that from what I said. I am saying that Pashtuns in Afghanistan weighed Taliban rule versus the bombing and probably thought the latter was the greater threat. This squares with the historical tendency of quarrelling Pashtun tribes to unite in the face of a foreign attack. I am just glad the Taliban collapsed before that became truly manifest, as it might have become a in longer campaign.
"Do you think the responsibility for setting up a viable government in Afganisstan should be borne my Afgans..."
By Afghans of course.
Message # 15532
"Several weeks ago we had dinner with one of our liberal friends, who assured us from what they were reading that bin Ladin was much loved in Afganistan."
Well, that is nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you can leave most of the hunting down of the Arabs to Afghan forces, though US & UK special forces would direct operations. I'm almost certain every single Arab who does not escape to Pakistan, will be killed in cold blood.
"Of course, I had heard all this before; how wonderful it must be in the U.S.S.R and how wonderful life was in Cuba. Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal?"
I hope you're not implying I am such a person.
Do you think the threat of terrorist strikes on the US over the next two years has been significantly reduced by what is happening in Afghanistan? I think it's too early to tell.
You're right; I misread you, but it remains my opinion.
Absolutely not!
sakonige
Yes. Will there be further attacks? Probably. That will give us a chance to liberate another country.
When my liberal friends gave me their opinions I said when we make bin Ladin and his men crispy critters the Afgans will be waving American flags. Perhaps that is hyperbole, but not by much. Same thing would happen in Iraq, I do believe.
HAHAHAHAHA!
(But you've revealed yourself to have been blinking spastically all along.)
Where do you get the idea that just because these "liberals" quoted what they'd heard of some Afghans feelings about Bin Laden that they think these women "enjoy" being under a repressive regime? I've heard conservatives spout this "oh Bib Laden is worshiped by the women because of his dreamy eyes" bull but I certainly didn't leap to the conclusion that the conservations thus assumed the Afghans welcomed oppression.
"Pseudo:"The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell."
Partly because many of us refused to make predictions about the efficacy of US bombing."
Indeed. If I recall correctly, you counseled to wait and see, as did I; Pincher was rather more sanguine about a military success from the outset, and by at least last week, or as soon as he had abandoned speaking of his Panglossian Bureaucratic Solution, I believe Loar also had outlined the possibility of military manouvers knocking down the Taliban. It seemed to me that any substantial hit to the Taliban should have prompted significant Pashtun defections ahead of a loya jirga, since the one Afghan group that will not be welcomed in future governance, by any force but Pakistan, is the Taliban.
Robert Kaplan, whose interview from Afghanistan Pincher linked here, figured we'd be done with the Taliban fairly soon (although not this soon), that a show of brute force was necessary and yet politically very risky (Kaplan was an admirer of Haq), and that the long-term US entanglement and stabilizing project will not be in Afghanistan so much as in Pakistan.
And this speaks directly to the idea that people will bend to any thing they must...they will suffer through whatever they have to in order to survive. It's not that they like being oppressed; it's that they have to make the best of what they're dealt.
Pashtun....said like pash-ton or pash-tune?
Osama...noting it's sometimes spelled Usama...is that oh -sama? ooh-sama? or you-sama?
and pardoning my ignorance, people from afghanistan are afghans, though people from pakistan are pakistanis...is paki considered a derogatory term?
thanks.
The first name of the terrorist is closer to Usama than Osama. Osama is the preferred spelling/pronunciation in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
Afghan is the word for the nationality in Pashto but Afghani is the word in Dari (Afghan Persian). Afghani is also the name of the currency, as well as the traditional name given by Pashtuns to their language.
Paki is considered a racial slur in the UK, but nowhere else, including Pakistan.
In case there is any doubt, by approaching the end game in throwing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, not only is the US close to achieving one of its prime objectives in that country, but is also making good on any perceived obligation to correct US inattention to Afghanistan after helping the muhajideen throw the Soviets out in the '80's.
Fisk really goes too far in claiming that the NA:
...promised – didn't it? – not to enter the Afghan capital. It was supposed to capture, at most, Mazar-i-Sharif and perhaps Herat, to demonstrate the weakness of the Taliban, to show the West that its war aims – the destruction of the Taliban and thus of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida movement – were inevitable.
Except for the partial validity of the first item he lists, Fisk is fabricating. The fact of the matter is that the Taliban deserted Kabul, leaving a power vacuum there, so the NA probably did the best thing in occupying that city, which is not to justify any other actions it may take there, to the mouth breathers here. For the rest of it, Fisk is letting his anti-US slip show. Well, he can go fuck himself. The US appears unlikely to sustain any significant casualties in Afghanistan, and anybody but a drooling Leftist or US hater will applaud that.
What on earth is going on? And what, for that matter, has happened to Mr bin Laden? Are we driving him into the mountains – always supposing he is not already there – or are we pushing him into the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan? For without a city, the Taliban themselves will melt back into their birthplace, the madrassa schools along the Pakistan border which created the puritan, obscurantist spirit which has inspired the rulers of Afghanistan these past five years.
This moron writes as if he expects the US to guarantee the Taliban an Afghanistan base of operations, a ridiculous and completely unworkable idea. Then he goes on to spout:
Why, I wonder, do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies? For decades, we accepted the received wisdom that the "B" specials were a vital security arm of the Northern Ireland authorities on the grounds that they "knew the territory" – just as, I fear, we rely upon the Northern Alliance because it "knows the land".
It's strange that a Left Liberal like Fisk is tearing his hair out about this, because it's his side of the political aisle which is on record as cozying up to the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots. Additionally, Fisk forgot to include his brilliantly superior alternate choice for alliance partner. The Pashtuns? Absolutely not. They're only starting to revolt now because of the well known Afghan propensity for ditching losers.
And, in any case, the US is giving the people in Afghanistan a rare opportunity to start over, to form a representative government which minimizes the unjustness and suffering which that country has suffered through the last 25 years. It's more the responsibility of the world community from here on out, including the UN and moderate surrounding countries to help guide Afghanistan to a stable nationhood than it is of the United States.
As a Pakistani newspaper, The News, put it in an editorial yesterday: "Thousands of armed, desperate fighters, who have always seen Pakistan as their ultimate destination, will have to be stopped and confronted ... Pakistan's security agencies, and even the army, will have to be prepared to fight the returning Taliban and this could turn into a messy situation if casualties mount."
By proving his sincerity to Western leaders this way, General Musharraf would incur appalling domestic risks. One reason Pakistan ended up sponsoring the Taliban was to keep its own fundamentalists busy on foreign soil, to minimise the trouble they cause at home. Now they are all streaming back. The extremists have never got a grip on the loyalties of the mass of Pakistanis, but many organs of the state, including the intelligence and nuclear establishments, have long been infested with their sympathisers.
If Afghanistan's war is heading towards a close, General Musharraf's woes are only just beginning.
I never argued for US ground troops, and cautioned against using so 12-13 September. Yes, I can understand this was overlooked as you and others jawed about stagings from China, etc.
Had Arafat and other Arab leaders ever brought up the plight of Afghanistan (before the current bombing campaign)? I have certainly never heard Arafat or Mubarak or the shortie Hashemite in Jordan ever say a thing about Afghanistan. This is despite the fact that Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran are infinitely more wretched than anything in Gaza and the West Bank, which are Versailles in comparison; and the condition of Afghans inside Afghanistan in the last 10 years worse than anything ever seen in Palestine.
I hope Usama bin Ladin and every other Arab in Afghanistan is torn limb from limb by a wild-eyed Afghan mob, and Afghans are very good at being wild-eyed.
What about your prediction that the US Postal Service is about to go out of business?
Muwahahaha!
Yet the biggest victims of this "Muslim brotherhood" fraud, and the primary believers in it among non-Arab Muslims, are the Pakistanis. But then Pakis have had to invent an identity and thus the amplification of the Muslim connexion was the obvious tool.
The Turks and the Iranians were the first to recognise the phoniness of "Muslim brotherhood". Iranians have always shown a studied dislike of the Arabs, whom they refer to as "lizard" (marmulak), a contempt which did not abate with the Islamic revolution.
In 1973, there were two Muslim countries which maintained diplomatic relations with Israel -- Iran and Turkey. Iran ended its relations with Israel only in 1980.
It is said that the Shah of Iran had convinced his buddy the Shah of Afghanistan (the one currently in the limelight, Zahir Shah to recognise the state of Israel, but he was overthrown in 1973 before he could do so. I don't know if this is true but I've read and heard this several times.
I think I've still got six or more weeks on that prediction. Want to bet there will be no further terrorist attacks on the US?
The look in its eyes told me I had been successful in my attempt.
Belated Vet's Day honors to you.
Not that everyday doesn't bestow such honors.
See you at WC, I hope.
Sakonige -
Of course, I expect there will be attempts at terrorist attacks on the US, just as there have been for decades. Business as usual, if you will. The vast majority of them, if not every last one will be aborted by US intelligence, perhaps slightly more successfully than before.
What I have been surprised by in the last week is the apparent ability of the 'ragtag' NA to take & 'hold' territory, even abetted by the targeted US air strikes, although it's a bit early to definitively say this. I was really thinking that US special forces and the British SAS would be seeing significant combat before this much progress was made.
1) What's the crane mosquito (who knows, I might have'm and don't know'em)and I take it he's an alien to these parts?
2) I don't go to World Crossings, sorry. I can't bring myself to go back there (just a teeny eccentricity of mine you could say).
Not that this is something you knew anything about before, say, 12 November. In fact, I am aware of only just one person who has used the "Afghans can be bought" and "Afghans will ditch the loser" argument in the last two months.
I was a bit dismayed a couple weeks back when I learned that a General Franks who (I read) was responsible for selecting bombing targets and was allowing less than a tenth of the number of strikes per diem that the US was making in Kosovo, never mind Iraq. Not only was he strategizing like an incrementalist (& we know how successful that was in Vietnam), he was attempting to 'send a message' to the Taliban (who didn't even know that a B52 is a bomber) by relying almost entirely on surgical strikes on fuel depots, etc (not that doing so doesn't have value). In another forum, I posted that I wished the US would step it up 'about five times', as I recall.
Well, lo and behold, right after that (I'm not suggesting causality, mind you), the US dramatically intensified the bombing of Taliban front lines, including the use of carpet bombing and 'daisy cutters' along with better coordination with the NA and utilization of ground based 'spotters'.
Also, the Taliban undoubtedly have an overblown reputation for ability to wage any but guerrilla type operations, didn't have really large numbers of troops, the enthusiastic backing of many Afghanis (from what I gather) or much in the way of committed reserve personnel and weren't being substantially aided by any but raw volunteers.
Well, no offense, but I remember you reacting to a a post of mine well before 11/12 about there being two types of Afghanis which dealt directly with this sort of characteristic.
Andonly (and any one else so inclined): Read Message # 193, especially Message # 200, glance at Message # 200 and Message # 210, but most especially read Message # 220. I wrote these on 12 September.
From the very start I wanted this entire discourse open to review so people could see their asses hanging out.
"Also, the Taliban undoubtedly have an overblown reputation for ability to wage any but guerrilla type operations..."
I do not know of any time when the Taliban have ever engaged in guerrilla operations. The entire military history of the Taliban has been of the conventional kind, albeit based on Toyota pickup trucks and SUVs.
Prayers work.
However, there are signs that the NA is taking far far more territory than ever planned or envisaged by the Western Allies, and it remains to be seen what it does in that territory over the next few days, and how strongly it will use it as a bargaining chip in whatever coming meeting is held to determine the future political leadership in Afghanistan.
We may get a sign of things to come fairly early, if Rabbani does or does not enter Kabul. The NA has categorically denied that there are US personnel in Kabul, it alone holds sway. As this article points out, how Rabbani behaves in the next couple of days could be a key to deducing the likely NA stance in coming weeks.
Bush just cannot stop making an ass of himself, can he? I saw him on television saying that he "looked Putin in the eye" and he'd only but the deal down on "a piece of paper" as a formality. Just how juvenile is this guy? Putin has got to be congratulating himself right now.
The Krugman stuff is just staggering, I sincerely hope everyone here has been reading his pieces.
With Bush at Crawford presently, I see a big media event coming....
Praise God!
Be careful on your way to Waco! And I'm happy for you, too.
Thanks for the correction. As you know, much of what I post regarding Afghanistan is rife with speculation.
I had my church pray for them (approx. 3,500) every Thursday and Sunday as a whole.
Great news! I really feared for their well being, particularly after hearing of all the acts of cruelty directed against other Afghanis the Taliban were responsible for.
Incidentally, some editorial I read presumed that the Taliban, along with confiscating weapons, maintained control, (in light of their relatively small numbers and largely foreign extraction) of (particularly non-Pashtun) Afghanis by effectively instituting a reign of terror.
Perhaps someone more qualified than I could comment on this.
Let's all stay tuned to the news channels...
I am planning on going to Waco when the girls return, too. No doubt they will have an incredible story and testimony to present to the world.
Seriously.
As David Bowie sings: "We can be heroes."
She and I are the same height and the same age. People always mistook us for sisters, even though she has auburn hair and I'm blonde. Anyway, I always felt privileged to know her, she always had such a tenderness about her and she was and is so caring for ALL people. When I was in school and broke, she and Tina would feed me. She is such an incredible person, and I am sure that the Afghan people she worked with knew what a gem they had.
I have met Heather before and know that she is a very sweet and bright girl, and she's very dedicated to serving God.
I am so pleased that they are free.
Cellar,
I had to keep those thoughts out of mind, but I did have them.
Thanks Bubba and Arky, I appreciate you thinking about them!
Is it time to party OR WHAT!!;-)
Ask and you shall receive. Prayers always help. Always.
Gary, Tina, Julia, Tim, Karen, and many others (all of whom you've seen on the various news programs) are just as devout as Dayna and Heather and are all called as missionaries, too.
Honestly, I have not represented Christ to the Mote, I have failed miserably. These people, and the people like them are the stars and are what it's about.
When you all hear Dayna and Heather speak in the near future, remember, they are the real deal. They are the believers who remember to speak the truth in love and who lead by example, Godly-lives.
This is how the Melbourne Age reports it.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/11/14/FFXVGQKJYTC.html
It sounds as though a lot of them were very young imports from Pakistan.
If tales of McCaffrey are true, we did some of our own massacre-ing (sp?) in the Gulf War.
I know they do. They always help.
(Or, at the very least, as it goes in the old Jewish joke, they can't hurt.)
I'm very happy for you.
Wait a minute. Some of you were demanding that the US nuke Afghanistan a few weeks ago. You giggled and agreed every time one of the resident AceHoles suggested it. Obliterating Afghanistan would have killed the Christians along with everyone else. Isn't it hypocritical to be so overjoyed now that they didn't get bombed after all?
Hypocrite. You are right about what you've written here making Christians look bad, though.
...Moscow, one of the chief backers of the Northern alliance, yesterday forcefully restated its position that the Taliban must be excluded from a new Afghan government. Russian diplomats have suggested that Afghanistan must be de-Talibanised much as Germany was de-Nazified.
[Eh, what a bunch a' anti-Muslim Russian Zionists.]
One might think it had something to do with a putative Iranian aversion to an Afghan monarchy, or a monarchy under Zahir Shah. But what I've read says Shah is waffling anyway, and nearly dead of old age.
Or, one might chalk it up to Khatami finding sources of political power he hasn't previously had. It could be that Iran is playing things righteously for a change, with the welfare of Afghans considered a priority along with Iran's own interests. That, if true, could become a hopeful thing, and would undermine PE's observation that "Muslim brotherhood" is a crock.
If the invention of umma becomes real in an international sense, then perhaps it could signal that moderation born of compromise could prevail in Islamist circles. At least compromise would be given a shot of political credibility among Muslims in the Arab world, who I believe know perfectly well that there is at the moment no modern pan-Islamism. Possibly, an Afghan government partly midwifed by Iran could give the notion of Islam as a means of pursuing justice a shot of needed credibility in the West.
Mazel tov.
(I'm posting the following joke as a slightly dark example of your assertion of the Jewish position that prayer 'can't hurt'...) 
A journalist assigned to the Jerusalem bureau has an apartment overlooking the Western Wall. Every day when she looks out she sees an old bearded Jewish man praying vigorously. Certain he would be a good interview subject, the journalist goes down to the Wall, and introduces herself to the old man.
She asks, "You come every day to the Wall. Sir, how long have you done that and what are you praying for?"
The old man replies, "I have come here to pray every day for 25 years. In the morning I pray for world peace and for the brotherhood of man. I go home have a cup of tea, and I come back and pray for the eradication of illness and disease from the earth. And very, very important, I pray for peace and understanding between the Israelis and Palestinians."
The journalist is impressed. "How does it make you feel to come here every day for 25 years and pray for these wonderful things?" she asks.
The old man replies, calmly, "Like I'm talking to a wall."
I'm saving that one!;-)
Don't judge Christians by me, and I won't judge Indians by you.
So were they freed by special forces?
On another, related subject:
From the NYT's 'Portraits of Grief'.
Having never heard the man speak, I had no idea he wasn't a Murcan-born WASP.
The President said that it was a rescue operation conducted by Special Forces. I have seen other reports saying that the Red Cross was involved, and that the Taliban had released the workers because of imminent capture.
Wonderful news - Praise God indeed!
Really - who thought they'd be home for Christmas?
Or Thanksgiving, for that matter?
I can't wait to hear their stories.
Sad.
Someone mentioned talk of moderate Talibi playing a part in the new Afhan gov't.
Aren't the Taliban, by definition, charter, and deed anti-moderate?
Cool.
The president said he had been worried that the Taliban might put the aid workers in a house that might be bombed accidentally, and said the U.S. military had been working on plans for a secret rescue if needed.
Time did a nice bio on Grove a couple of years ago in a piece on the movers and shakers in the high-tech world. If I remember correctly, he was dirt poor as a child.
Jenerator
Sometimes you lose your cool, and that just proves the "old nature" which rears its ugly head. But I do believe you are a loving Christian, and mostly because sakonige hates you so much.
There's a picture of another buddy of mine Jabar on the cover of The Dallas Morning News. Everyone is rejoicing, and President Sloan of Baylor has issued a statement as well.
From your remarks about my posts about my liberal friends, I think you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you just think you have to get on my case because I am the most conservative poster and lover of my dear and wonderful President.
But I even enjoy a scolding from you, so it's O.K.
Today is a 10 in Kauai. We all went up, 6 of us, for lunch at Hanalei Bay Resort. A real da kine day.
Well the Russian line is that "moderate Taliban" is a contradiction in terms. But let's see what happens. Before all this is over, NA factions may be looking no less immoderate.
Some observers have argued that Khatami is a Pan-Iranist. Last year Khatami made a controversial statement that "Iranian identity is basically Zoroastrian". Such a statement, quite reminiscent of pre-revolutionary Iranian nationalist ideology, would support this pan-Iranist interpretation of Khatami.
Al D,
It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. It makes sense of impressions that didn't quite make sense in the past.
But the Northern Alliance is quite well known. In fact, most of the groups that make up the Northern Alliance are very well known, if only because each of them ruled portions of Afghanistan as autonomous entities in the 1992-96 period. Every single one of them is better than the Taliban in every single way that I can think of.
Actually, he fled right before Stalin showed up. Don't know about his dad. Went to CCNY and was Employee #1 at Intel.
I know I'll be sorry for having encouraged you - or maybe I'm just in the mood for a good yuk, Sak - but would you mind explaining what the hell you're babbling about?
The problem with the NA is that it is not fully representative of Afghanistan and there is no guarantee that in its cocky state it will relinquish power voluntarily to an interim unity administration.
No thanks.
Why haven't they interviewed you on any of the shows?
No need for a bra either.
What are you talking about? You're the one who said the disgusting things about the victims of 9-11, in the Inferno. You're the one who has said many times how it is difficult or impossible for you to feel any sympathy for the people affected by anthrax.
If anyone is cold in here, my dear, it is you.
I was interviewed by two agencies.
hey, we're all in a great mood! Except for psycho.
Exactly.
Phew.
Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right.
Hailing a “decisive” victory over the Taleban, the Prime Minister said that up to 4,000 Royal Marines, paratroops, engineers and logistics and military personnel had been put on 48-hour standby.
He wants British troops to play a leading role in a “stabilising force” which is being prepared to keep the peace in Afghanistan.
The force could be used to protect humanitarian aid convoys, repair runways and provide security for foreign officials, including a team of British diplomats who will arrive in Kabul at the weekend to reopen the embassy and press the Northern Alliance
Blair puts 4,000 troops on standby 
Jenerator, be sure to ask your friend if she wanted the US to bomb Afghanistan when she heard about the WTC catastrophe.
How about you, what are your feelings about the aid workers being released? Also, Sakonige, you should brush up on your Old Testament. You'd gain a different perspective if your familiarized yourself with King David.
NBC News is reporting that Osama bin Laden has been captured by U.S.Special Forces. In a covert operation last night, 4,500 American crop duster airplanes sprayed the entire country of Afghanistan with Viagra, and the little prick popped right up.
The discovery of detailed bomb-making instructions in an abandoned safe house, along with studies into nuclear devices, confirms the West’s worst fears
Times of London
There is a very good long article by Bernard Lewis in this week's New Yorker, 'The Revolt of Islam'. In it, Lewis explores the roots of Islam's conflicts with the West, interestingly details some contemporary themes, and even speculates about where the current conflict could lead the world.
Anyway, I have been thinking about this take you have expressed (I've heard others express it) about Muslim brotherhood being a sham. I do not dispute many of the facts that you have cited here (and in Khaval's forum) but I do think that the argument you make, to contradict what I originally outlined, is not completely convincing.
Anyway, the Lewis article has bits in it relevant to the discussion, and some that is contradictory to your assertion. Muslim brotherhood may be a sham at its core (I don't buy that it is) but it is a sham which has been taken as simple fact both historically and in the present day. Lewis outlines, for instance, all kinds of historical details which point to a Muslim national consciousness that did not accept or acknowledge in even a basic way geographical origin or ethnicity.
But until the modern period, when European concepts and categories became dominant, Islamic commentators almost always referred to their opponents not in territorial or ethnic terms but simply as infidels (kafir). They never referred to their own side as Arabs or Turkish; they identified themselves as Muslims.
There is much else interesting in the article, some of it in this vein. Perhaps you can read it and we can pursue the discussion started a few days ago, in another thread of course.
Dayna on the left and Heather on the right.
I think it's a good thing. It demonstrates a sense of decency and a respect for human life in the Taliban. A lot of militias would have killed their prisoners under those wartime conditions. I am also pleased that the Taliban effectively extinguished the bombing campaign by suddenly abandoning the cities. Now humanitarian aid can be brought in and millions of Afghan people may be saved from starvation this winter.
Dr. Curry said he'll probably hug his daughter the first chance he gets when he sees her.
"I just want to hold her," he said.
And as for any more missionary work in the near future: "Well, we just want her home for a while first, but knowing my girl, it may be hard to keep her here long."
Do you think that the Taliban are decent people and that they have respect for human life? Do you not think that out of fear they released the aid workers?
They haven't shown too much decency or respect for human life up until now. What do you think brought about the change?
I wonder about the fate of the Afghan citizens also arrested with the missionaries. I bet they weren't released.
I've heard different reports. I heard initially that the Afghans vehemently denied any Christian particpation and so they were released, and I also heard that they were arrested and that no one knew of what happened to them.
...Possibly, an Afghan government partly midwifed by Iran could give the notion of Islam as a means of pursuing justice a shot of needed credibility in the West."
PE: "I have no idea why whatever Iran might be doing with respect to Afghanistan should undermine my views about the myth of Muslim brotherhood. After all, Iran and Afghanistan have ties which go well beyond a common religion."
Political objectives don't rule out religious objectives. Politics doesn't necessarily invalidate the striving for religious unity, but rather could provide a pretext for it. (Or vice versa, of course.)
Has Iran not been funding and arming Shiites in Afghanistan for years at the expense of Sunnis? Yes, I know the claim that Sunni and Shiite Islam are more analagous to conservative and orthodox Judaism than to protestant and orthodox Xtianity, but the depth of the factional split is one of those things that supports your contention that there is no true pan-Islamism. But an Iranian-Taliban rapprochement could be billed as the development of a degree of Islamic unity that didn't previously exist. And if people believed it, perception could make the basis of further action; the dream could be made (slightly more) real.
(cont.)
At first I considered this the usual grotesque yes-butting and manouevering designed purely to protect Iran against any expansion of US objectives that might jeopardize its own sponsorship of terrorists. But more recently I've gotten the impression there's something a bit sincere about it all, on some level anyway. I wonder whether there's public pressure or impetus building inside Iran to do right by Afghanistan in proper Islamic fashion, perhaps a result of an idealistic reponse to the refugee problem.
But I emphasize this is all impressionistic and will not be readily parsed binarily.
"Some observers have argued that Khatami is a Pan-Iranist. Last year Khatami made a controversial statement that "Iranian identity is basically Zoroastrian". Such a statement, quite reminiscent of pre-revolutionary Iranian nationalist ideology, would support this pan-Iranist interpretation of Khatami."
I'm not sure what your point is here. You're suggesting Khatami sees a nationalist connection between Afghanistan and Iran that transcends Islam?
Do you not think that out of fear they released the aid workers?
Fear of what? Being attacked by the US if they didn't?
Did anyone read this Michael Kelly piece? Very funny.
Banks is, of course, the European Analyst. PE is, naturally, Impartial Scholar. I can't figure if Pincher or Loar is Fabled Newscaster.
Well, I heard the man himself, on the radio today, describing life in Hungary under the Nazis, life in Hungary after the Soviet "liberation," and life in Hungary under the reign of Stalin. So I'll figure Andy Grove is right about whether Andy Grove was in Hungary under Stalin.
Ha! That's true.
Meant to mention that I think Ronski is the Perfectly Modulated Voice of Reason.
And so say all the anti-war brigade, who are left with the TV zappers dangling from their nerveless fingers. What happened to the fabled martial instinct of these bearded desperadoes? One minute we were told that they would lay down their lives for Allah, fight the infidel bombers to the last drop of blood - and then it's Operation Scarper. And it's not just the Taliban who are left stunned and devastated by the advance of the Northern Alliance. The entire corps of Fleet Street's armchair generals has been routed.
There is the distinguished Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, London. This very Monday he was prophesying to Independent readers, from the vantage point of his London study, a long, tough fight for Kabul. I will say nothing of the reversals experienced by men such as General Jenkins of The Times, whose consistent and trenchant opinion it has been that aerial bombardments just do not work. Across London there are scenes of panic and flight as the armchair generals throw aside their laptops, abandon their cosy studies and make for the pubs in a bid to come to terms with the destruction of their analysis. The brigade of wobblers, commanded by The Spectator's Matthew Parris, is in headlong retreat; the Daily Mirror's John Pilger has gone into hiding.
A dreadful realisation has descended on the hacks that Tony Blair has done it again
BTW - Nightline reports al-Qaeda rats are calling Washington, offering to turn over Ossama for a reward.
Al D,
It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. It makes sense of impressions that didn't quite make sense in the past.
You mean you just realized that Christians are human, not demi-angels, Sakonige?
Why is it that I get the distinct impression that Sakonige's idea of a 'good' Christian is one that is being fed to lions in a pagan colosseum?
Yer always good fer a couple yuks, Sak. Or a couple suks & yak, I fergit.
Sorta like a "moderate Nazi". Makes sense to me.
sakonige,
What are you talking about? You're the one who said the disgusting things about the victims of 9-11, in the Inferno. You're the one who has said many times how it is difficult or impossible for you to feel any sympathy for the people affected by anthrax.
Sakonige is projecting. She posts something really reprehensible and then pretends somebody she doesn't like did it.
Come to think of it, that's probably the case.
You're completely wrong (nothing new). The US is still bombing the fuck out of your decent, caring Taliban, you know, the ones who killed thousands of their fellow Afghanis in reprisals in retribution and as part of their terror campaign.
Sakonige - Nov 14, 2001 8:35 pm (#72 of 75)
I'm disgusted by Americans' slobbering over innocent Christians who might have become collateral damage in the bombing campaign they supported knowing it could kill millions of Afghans.
I would trade the Christians' lives for some of the innocent Afghan children that were killed without hesitation.
I must say before I begin that I don't have much sympathy one way or the other for the missionaries. Pious chicks with a hardon for Christ.
But this post drove me bugfuck.
Those girls were illicitly distributing Christian bibles in a Muslim country. I would be just as derogatory of their prostelitizing activities if they occurred in any other Muslim country, even absent the horribly oppresive activities of the Taliban.
They were cultural pushers, ignorant of the richness of the Islamic faith. Heck-bent on the rightenss of their faith. Ugly Americans, ugly christians.
Having been raised a Catholic, I feel like I have at least half an understanding of Jesus's teaching, and they sure as heck don't include pushing your beliefs on others. At least not in my book.
I am glad for their families that they are safe. But I hope like hell we don't make too big a deal of it, because it plays too much into the crusades analogy, and that way lies madness.
As my muslim friends would say, we are all people of the book. I think the born again movement could use a few lessons in that.
I should send it to Kumbaya Watch, or Idiot Watch.
Nothing like a little hyperbole now is there. MIllions indeed! What sakonige and a few others should be upset about is that all of these deaths were caused by bin Laden's attack on America, just as the death of Germans in WWII were caused by the Nazis. sakonige is consumed with hatred. It is a pity she cannot accept America. What she needs, Jenerator is your love and your prayers. One never should underestimate the power of prayer
Arguing that the war on Afghanistan constituted a greater terrorist act than the September 11 attacks on the United States, the renowned scholar, Prof. Noam Chomsky, today denounced state terrorism in all its forms.
Earlier, Prof. Chomsky, speaking at the Asian College of Journalism, made out a case for people's participation in the political process and described all States as terrorist States.
Asked if he thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a unipolar world had increased American hegemony, he said the collapse of the Soviet Union was in effect a removal of a barrier to the emergence of socialism. However, the existence of two super powers left some manoeuvering room for the rest of the world and the non-aligned movement, as the victims of one super power, were supported by the other.
Chomsky finally comes out of the crypto-socialist-anarchist closet.
Girls don't get hard-ons. Also, you're using "pious" as a derogatory description, and you don't know them. It's an inaccurate observation.
Whoever that person is, they're supremely blind. Ask them about the Great Commission, assuming s/he knows what that is.
I agree completely.
I am indeed using pious as a derogatory description. I don't use it any other way.
My point was only that I am not clasping and wailing with glee, and while I would have though it sad if they'd been bombed, that's as far as it would go. But this post was moronic.
"only that I am not clasping my hands and weeping with glee and gratitude at their rescue,"
Looks like there's more going underneath those burkhas than I suspected.
Looks like there's more going on underneath those burkhas than I suspected.
I don't suspect you weep with glee over anything, unfortunately. Ask that person about the Great Commission.
Millions, old man. Up to 7 million Afghans dead of exhaustion, exposure and starvation by UN estimates. 5 million by conservative estimates less than a month ago. UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues.
Andonly: "Well, I heard the man himself, on the radio today, describing life in Hungary under the Nazis, life in Hungary after the Soviet "liberation," and life in Hungary under the reign of Stalin. So I'll figure Andy Grove is right about whether Andy Grove was in Hungary under Stalin."
CalGal: "Oh, I know he was there for the Nazis. As for life in Hungary after the Soviets came, either way he wasn't there very long--not to minimize it, of course. But he left about the same time the Soviets entered Budapest."
CalGal. You have confused the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 with the advent of Stalinism in Hungary.
Hungary was liberated from the Nazis by the Soviets in 1945. The Stalinist transformation of Hungary took place between 1949 and 1953, during which period the state was under the control of Moscow via a Hungarian puppet by the name of Rakosi.
In 1953, Stalin died. Russian tanks didn't come rolling into Budapest until the end of 1956. Grove left Hungary in 1956 or '57.
Because 1956 comes after 1953, Andrejs Grof did not leave before the advent of Stalinism in Hungary.
You bet. For many things.
Either that's bullshit, UNICEF is composed of idiots or both.
Hey, guess what? Now that the NA is controlling 80-90% of Afghanistan, the Taliban can't confiscate humanitarian aid and assault aid workers any more.
He came out of that closet back in 1960.
According to an International Committee of the Red Cross official in Islamabad, a local military commander in the Afghan province of Ghazni contacted a Red Cross official in Afghanistan on Tuesday night to say he had rescued the eight detained aid workers from the Taliban. The commander asked the Red Cross to facilitate the transfer of the aid workers to safety. A U.S. official told NBC News the CIA also had been working on the ground to help free the workers.
Sakonige,
You're free to move to a differnt country and I fail to see how innocent Christians are bargaining chips for Afghan children.
So are you, cowgirl.
(Scott Loar seems to think the entire war on terrorism is over, ridiculing the notion that the war on terrorism will even last a generation, even though the idea has been put forward by the nations's leaders.)
sakonige does want to move to another country. I want to live in Mexico for a while.
All of it, of course.
Untrue. Supply lines are open, assistance is flowing from all around, Taliban are no longer intercepting shipments or looting warehouses, ordinary Afghans are carting wagonfuls of grain and flour through Mazar, where it was prohibited by the Talibs to move large quantities of food before the NA takeover. Some of the aid agency estimates on which you apparently rely for your polemic were admitted to be over the top at least two weeks ago, and in any case the situation has radically changed since 48 hours ago. Forget last month.
From the FT:
Even if the territorial gains do not indicate the imminent achievement of the US objective to destroy Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, they make the logistics of supplying and maintaining the military campaign far easier. They will also allow the entry of large-scale humanitarian assistance into the country, dealing with famine and reducing refugee problems in neighboring countries.
Things have improved considerably for starving Afghans, Sad Sack. Try not to sink into too deep a depression over it.
There is no evidence of any Iranian-Taliban rapprochement, other than some meeting reported in the Daily Telegraph. Any rapprochement could be explained by purely political considerations, anyway.
"Yes, I know the claim that Sunni and Shiite Islam are more analagous to conservative and orthodox Judaism than to protestant and orthodox Xtianity..."
I think the analogy is preposterous either way.
"Iran has been touting its grave concern for Muslim safety against US bombing since shortly after 9-11, has always insisted only the UN should go into Afghanistan, has in fact taken a seemingly principled, coherent stance on western intervention against Muslims."
So what? Many Muslim countries use pan-Islamist rhetoric without meaning it. Iran is especially keen on the rhetoric because as Shiites they are estranged from the rest of the Muslim world. But Iranian external policy usually follows a pro-Shiite line or national self-interest.
"You're suggesting Khatami sees a nationalist connection between Afghanistan and Iran that transcends Islam?"
I cannot believe after all this time you can't figure out what it is. What is the major commonality between Iran and Afghanistan other than religion? Afghanistan (plus Tajikistan, "Kurdistan" and western Pakistan) are what Iranologists call l'Iran extérieur. Iran and Afghanistan are respectively Shiite and Sunni manifestations of the same Iranic civilisation. To simplify grotesquely to make a point, Iran is to Afghanistan as Germany is to Austria or Switzerland.
So now that most of the cities have begun to fall, why is it that everyone starts quacking like it is the end of the war?
Here are some huge problems that remain.
1) Hunting down bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership We may never do it. It's possible he is already outside of the country even now. But until we know for sure he has left, we will have to continue searching for him. And that will take some time. That search can only really begin in earnest after...
2) ...the political situation in Afghanistan is stabilized. The U.S. cannot allow political chaos in Afghanistan to continue. It hampers our search for bin Laden and, in the future, it will allow terrorists to continue using the area as a base. But the diplomacy to push the different Afghan groups together seems to be a timely process.
I certainly hope we continue to get more good news, but without some luck the U.S. military will be in Afghanistan for some time.
Yes, you are quite right. I was thinking of the tanks rolling in. Sorry about that.
She's a sad, sick woman.
Well, excuse me. I feel fine.
No kidding. You have this odd habit of excising a portion of of one of my posts, reiterating things I've already alluded to or stated outright in the rest of the post as though I'd contested them in some way, or else throwing in bits of data everyone knows, as though they disproved whatever you think I've argued.
Hey, buck up, marg -
GWB is riding a 87% popularity rating with Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWW!
And the fact that a liberal paper in Iran is calling openly for Taliban representatives in a future Afghan government. These things scarcely constitute "evidence" of the sort that tells your whether ex-Soviet satellites will allow US flyovers, or whether a US bombing campaign could possibly cause Pashtuns to abandon the Taliban. They're simply indicators of something uncertain, just as I qualified my speculations in the first place.
"Any rapprochement could be explained by purely political considerations, anyway."
No doubt. But explaining something purely in one set of terms or another doesn't necessarily produce the truth or help one anticipate changes underway.
I want the war on terrorism to target Iraq, but the U.S. is completely unprepared to go forward with a war in the Middle East. We have no allies there and we have practiced such a timid diplomacy in the wake of 9-11, that no one in the region is afraid of the U.S. In addition, huge problems remain in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- places that seem to be terrorist manufacturers.
And have we found the source of the Anthrax attacks? As I told Andonly, I thought this was just a dry run. Whoever sent the stuff is probably working on a new, more effective way to disperse it. And if he isn't, someone with ill intentions towards the U.S. is.
The whole point of the war on terrorists was not just to root out Al Qaeda or to win a war in Afghanistan. It was the recognition that the U.S. was now vulnerable to a different type of mass violence and that a mindset to use that mass violence has proliferated.
A couple of cities fall in Afghanistan and Pelle the conqueror is saying the U.S. should stop bombing and negotiate a political situation. Scott Loar declares Al Qaeda an anomaly and the war on terrorism a short-term project. Amazing.
GWB is riding a 87% popularity rating with Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWW!
At least one poster here is reassuringly consistent.
No matter the temperature or the weather --rain, sleet or snow -- Concerned's nose will be found snugly buried up the ass of the most powerful Republican in the country.
Wrong. Iraq and Syria, to name two putative terrorism sponsoring states, may well have good reason to be concerned about which actions the US will take in the not too distant future.
Here's the bet, Moron: Saddam and Assad will still both be in power at the end of George's first-term. Do you want to take me up on that?
What crawled up your twat and died, you sap?
In case you weren't paying attention, The Arab states made a big show of saying they could grudgingly accept U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, but they would not allow an attack against a fellow Arab nation. Saudi, whose bases we would need should we attack Baghdad, was one of the noisiest proponents of this "no attacks on fellow Arabs" line.
Such a 'wager' is not germane to my point, you sniveling little clotpole ponce.
Now, go fuck yourself far away from here. I don't want to be bothered with your puling drivel and obvious inferiority complex.
Kick your ass every time, motherfucker.
Yes, those Arab fuckheads. Bomb Saudi Arabia.
When he is rightly ignored, he attacks me.
What a loser.
PM -
What crawled up your twat and died, you sap?
Your mindless partisanship.
Now answer the questions: Does the U.S. move against Iraq and Syria (who Tony Blair just visited to enlist Assad's support in the war against the Taliban)? And if the U.S. doesn't, will you finally move your nose out of George's ass just a hair? Or are you going to blame it all on the Democrats?
I was ribbing marg w/GWB's popularity rating. Would a 'true blue' Republican 'sycophant' refer to GWB's 'smirk'? Of course not.
Not that small minds could be expected to realize the significance of a detail such as that.
Hysteria is unnecessary; that is in fact what I thought you were getting at (although I wouldn't have known to include Western Pak). If Khatami does in fact holds such views, I understand your point.
But mine remains: Islam appears to be the ideological bridge Iran is using to seem to unite Afghanistan's interests with its own; on some level, maybe even the popular level, that effort may be sincere. And again, if it is read as sincere in the Arab world generally, then the notion of pan-Islamism may gain a bit of a new lease. Instead of pan-Islamic goals being represented by Osama bin Laden and oher extremists, the example of Iran (if in the end it actually sets this speculative constructive example!) will be looked to for solace against yet another humiliating western defeat. Muslims will say that while the US bombed Afghanistan, Iran set a Muslim example, was fair and just and compromised toward stabilizing fellow Muslims' homeland.
Now, go fuck yourself far away from here. I don't want to be bothered with your puling drivel and obvious inferiority complex.
Yes, Concerned, I obviously feel inferior to you. Don't we all.
Your whacked-out mentality -- like Sakonige's -- is so emblematic of the worst aspects of America. In your case, it manifests itself as an obsessive partisanship that enables you to downgrade T.R. as a U.S. president because ... gasp ... he ran against a Republican.
I use to defend people like you because I honestly felt you were no danger to the country, but when you can still snuffle on in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9-11 with your true-blue Republicanism -- blaming terrorism on Clinton -- you demonstrate the kind of mindset that should make every American uneasy. The kind of person who reads Republican platforms as if they had biblical significance.
Hahaha!
I was ribbing marg w/GWB's popularity rating. Would a 'true blue' Republican 'sycophant' refer to GWB's 'smirk'? Of course not.
Not that small minds could be expected to realize the significance of a detail such as that.
Yes, you're so subtle.
Btw, keep your vomitous 'political equivalence' dog's breakfast to yourself. You simply stink the joint up when you try to force it on others in this forum.
Yes, I saw that clip and thought of you. (A rather animated interviewee said "America bad..." and when asked why, shouted, "the kill!" or something indicating a slightly more complex thought.)
But was he just any Jalalabadi or was he a suddenly-former Talib?
Btw, keep your vomitous 'political equivalence' dog's breakfast to yourself. You simply stink the joint up when you try to force it on others in this forum.
Can't take it, buddy? Can't answer the simple questions that would pin you down in possibly marking down a Republican President in the near future?
You have stank up the joint most nights you've chosen to go on-line, dickhead. Answer the God Damn questions! What is it going to take for you to criticize George Bush?!
Didn't I already ask you to take your ignorant bullshit elsewhere?
You can't even defend your own assertions. And, as a polemicist, you are both effete and shallow.
I'm a political centrist, btw, so your political barometer is clearly worthless.
So, why don't you just go lick the WH Rapist's boots? He clearly needs the moral support.
For whatever it's worth, Clarence Paige, on the Newshour yesterday, said the FBI view is shaping up to be that the anthrax letters were sent by one person (perhaps not affiliated with Qaeda). I didn't hear the rest of his remarks, so I don't know if he expanded on that.
I'm still more worried about pathogens which are not anthrax, and nukes. I also don't think the terrorist threat is going away, even if al Qaeda does. We've been shown to be vulnerable.
It may have escaped notice, but Iraq lobbed a couple of mortars into Kuwait yesterday or the day before. Very little mention in the press.
Didn't I already ask you to take your ignorant bullshit elsewhere?
Your wants are of no consequence to me.
You can't even defend your own assertions. And, as a polemicist, you are both effete and shallow.
What assertions are you talking about? As usual, you are vague enough to defy contradiction.
I'm a political centrist, btw, so your political barometer is clearly worthless. So, why don't you just go lick the WH Rapist's boots? He clearly needs the moral support.
These two sentences sit uneasily together.
My conservative credentials are well-established. I voted Bush I, Dole, Bush II in the last three presidential elections. I dislike Clinton, but unlike you I can maintain some objectivity about the man. You, on other hand, are clearly jammed in way too tight to George's ass to see anything.
Up the ass without a kiss first.
I already have. I've criticized the slow start to the air assault in Afghanistan. I've criticized certain aspects of GWB's presidential campaign. On several occasions, I've mentioned certain policy decisions that I would have hoped that the Bush administration would make.
Bush has been in office only ten months, yet you, PM, are literally frothing because I haven't taken him to task as much as a certain impeached rapist who could have had bin Laden apprehended but couldn't be bothered even after the first WTC and US embassy attacks.
You're really quite the idiot, PM.
I saw it. Even the U.N. verified the event. There are some U.S. forces on the way to Kuwait now, but they are defensive.
"The Army will be deploying some elements of Third Corps out of Fort Hood to the Central Command area of operations," said Lt. Gen. B.B. Bell, commanding general of III Corps and Fort Hood. "I'm not at liberty right now to share the specificity of those orders, the timing of those orders, and the size or the designation of those units."
The United States Central Command, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., and commanded by Gen. Tommy Franks, is one of nine unified commands within the American military. The CENTCOM's area of operations that Bell spoke of includes Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and 22 other countries stretching from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia.
continued ...
Indications out of Fort Hood, including secure areas for long-term storage of private vehicles and soldiers arriving carrying their duffel bags into 1st Cav motor pools, suggest that the units will be from that division.
Additionally, in his speech at the Residential Communities Initiative dedication Monday, Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said, "Even as we speak, members of 1st Cav are preparing for deployment in further service to our country."
Edwards said that the 1st Cav, like all of III Corps, is always ready to do their duty and serve their country.
"We never take joy in seeing our soldiers leave their loved ones, but I know they will do their job professionally and we will be proud of them and we are certainly deeply grateful for their service to our country in this time of need," Edwards said.
Although Bell would not comment on when the troops would deploy, security at West Fort Hood, where Robert Gray Army Airfield is located, was tightened Monday morning. The heightened security came even as the Bush administration announced that President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin would fly into Texas State Technical College's airfield in Waco rather than to Gray.
Also, Bell would not comment on why 1st Cav units might be deploying despite the 4th Infantry Division's having taken over the Army's Division Ready Brigade mission Nov. 1. The DRB is the Army's on-call heavy force for urgent deployments.
"We have a range of contingency plans that affect all of our units," Bell said. "I wouldn't comment on the representative's depiction of what units will or will not deploy out of Fort Hood at this time.
I already have. I've criticized the slow start to the air assault in Afghanistan. I've criticized certain aspects of GWB's presidential campaign. On several occasions, I've mentioned certain policy decisions that I would have hoped that the Bush administration would make.
Hahaha! Yes, I would like to see these criticisms of the Bush administration. Probably low-key suggestions quickly followed by a steamy mess of insults against how Clinton's policies are forcing Bush's hand.
Bush has been in office only ten months, yet you, PM, are literally frothing because I haven't taken him to task as much as a certain impeached rapist who could have had bin Laden apprehended but couldn't be bothered even after the first WTC and US embassy attacks.
Yes, I've heard it from you before, Concerned. Terrorism is Clinton's fault. Let's forgot Reagan's misadventure in Lebanon and his gift of a birthday cake to the Ayatollah. Clinton is the real precedent for soft-pedaling in the face of terrorism.
Yes, my apologies. I was going to write you a post and decided it would be more enjoyable to insult Concerned, instead.
PM, you moron--
I've clearly stated, on several occasions over the last few years, that I deliberately took on a polemical style emulating that which Liberals typically used in criticizing Conservatives. Because that style was 'speaking their language', and because it was entertaining to get their reactions.
But you are the first person I've ever run across describing himself as having conservative sympathies who has ever got his panties in a major wad over this.
So, you've already marked yourself as an insufferable, narrow minded, overbearing cretin. Interested in adding to that?
PM -
Don't expect me to take this post of yours seriously.
What crap.
I've clearly stated, on several occasions over the last few years, that I deliberately took on a polemical style emulating that which Liberals typically used in criticizing Conservatives. Because that style was 'speaking their language', and because it was entertaining to get their reactions.
So your lack of meaningful ideas over the last several years is just a stylistic tic?
But you are the first person I've ever run across describing himself as having conservative sympathies who has ever got his panties in a major wad over this.
I think most people just ignore you. I know I do. I don't remember ever engaging you in dialogue before.
Maybe I should lodge a complaint to Mote management against PM for harassment, particularly since he's violating his responsibilities as a thread host.
What crap.
That post was completely serious. Clinton's record against terrorism is every bit as good as Reagan's.
Care to take the bait?
Maybe I should lodge a complaint to Mote management against PM for harassment, particularly since he's violating his responsibilities as a thread host.
Not my thread.
And I've clearly defined my responsibilities over there in such a way as to allow for this kind of interaction anyway.
But lodge away. I'm sure you have a lot of pull here.
I've posted more original ideas in this forum, earlier than the great majority of Motiers (Fraysters).
I believe I *will* lodge a complaint against you because of your unwarranted harassment, repeated ad hominem attacks, smears and lies regarding me. That is not acceptable forum conduct, particularly for a thread host.
Thanks for the military update. I guess we're sending between 1,200 and 5,000 troops to Kuwait in order not to have to send more. I'd be as surprised as you if the US went into Iraq for purposes of tossing Saddam.
As for Syria... what a goddamned bind. We effectively can't do crap to Syria, and Syria has no incentive that I know of to curtail its sponsorship of terrorists.
On the up side, that will probably help compel the US to again attempt to mediate some sort of de-escalation at least between Israel and the Pals. Powell is expected to deliver the new US position on all that quite soon (Monday, I think, in Kentucky of all places). Sharon visits with Bush next week.
I've posted more original ideas in this forum, earlier than the great majority of Motiers (Fraysters).
Care to list a couple?
I believe I *will* lodge a complaint against you because of your unwarranted harassment, repeated ad hominem attacks, smears and lies regarding me. That is not acceptable forum conduct, particularly for a thread host.
Lodge away.
But prove I've lied about you while you also whine about my behavior. I have called you a dickhead, a mindless partisan, and someone who has his head buried up Bush's ass. All of which is demonstrably true to anyone who has ever read your posts.
Would you consider removing or deleting all of Pincher Martin's posts to me and my responses to these posts today? His have no value and mine suffer from being dragged partly down to his level.
Sorry for the mess.
As for Syria... what a goddamned bind. We effectively can't do crap to Syria, and Syria has no incentive that I know of to curtail its sponsorship of terrorists.
I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I don't think there will any major changes. Look at the great effort it took diplomatically just to attack the Taliban.
On the up side, that will probably help compel the US to again attempt to mediate some sort of de-escalation at least between Israel and the Pals.
For myself, this is not an up-side. I don't see that the Pals are ready for peace, and the price they are asking for is too high. What has changed since before the war on terrorism anyway? There may be an interregnum of peace (as there was in the early nineties), but I think a lot more blood will probably be spilled before the Pals say they are willing to compromise on issues important to them.
retiring now I'm off to bed
to braid the knots out of my hair
and bomb my pillow with my head.
Off the top of my head:
I described a Multi Staged NMD system three/four years ago in the Fray.
Effective ways to improve national energy policy, etc.
Numerous technical posts on deep sub micron electronics, climatology, physics, biology, medical research, error correction algorithms (I have developed) and dozens of others.
Describing specific relationships between family structure and social dysfunction.
Discussion of many social policies with mostly original ideas.
Just recently, many relevant posts about Afghanistan, including the first accurate prediction of US actions.
Let me say that virtually all your assertions that I read 'Republican Platforms', 'had my head up anybody's or any Party's ass' are egregiously wrong and uninformed. You appear completely ignorant of my concerns about improving accuracy American media and the accountability of US government. You've grossly distorted and wrongly stated my posts regarding TR. You seem to have no capability whatsoever to catch nuances in my humor.
I shouldn't even be defending myself to such as you, but I still have a slight hope that you will think better of you abysmally boorish behavior.
Where was this?
You've grossly distorted and wrongly stated my posts regarding TR.
Nonsense, that was exactly how you put it. You referred only to T.R.'s actions after his presidency, specifically his founding of the Bull Moose Party. That was it. You may have referred to something abut T.R. at another time, but in that dialogue with me that was then only thing to which you referred.
By the way, what specific selfish actions in T.R.'s presidency did you mention at the time to downgrade his presidency?
You seem to have no capability whatsoever to catch nuances in my humor.
You seem to have no capability to project any nuance.
It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring.
Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not to you, you'd best not pretend that my worldview on the subject was limited to whatever I posted to you about...that is, if you value your pretensions to honesty.
By the way, what specific selfish actions in T.R.'s presidency...
Don't recall that I discussed that, though I may well have, two or three years ago now......? I had some criticism to offer of the media drumbeating in the Spanish American War and TR's taking advantage of it. Furthermore, I said TR set Taft up and then screwed him over, and now you object because I also said, in effect, that Taft would have been preferable to Wilson in 1912. Just goofy.
Well, that makes you and Stostosto that don't appreciate my humor. That's Fine. Many people do. It seems over the top to attack me about it though, for Chrissakes. I'm not wishing anybody dead such as CD and other Lefties have done.
This is not an accurate prediction; it's just a statement of the obvious. I suppose next to Ace's prediction that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, it stands out.
Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not to you, you'd best not pretend that my worldview on the subject was limited to whatever I posted to you about...that is, if you value your pretensions to honesty.
The discussion was about the relative merits of the U.S. presidents when they were in office. You posted two short comments on T.R., one of which was a response to a question I asked. It was a direct question and you gave a direct answer that I have characterized accurately. I'm not responsible for keeping up with the various postings of a drunken moron.
I had some criticism to offer of the media drumbeating in the Spanish American War and TR's taking advantage of it.
The discussion was on conduct during the presidency. We were rating U.S. Presidents! We were not rating Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, moron. You do have a clear idea of when the Spanish-American took place and who was President at the time, don't you? It has as little to do with T.R.'s presidency as Bush's running of the Texas Rangers has to do with his.
continued ...
T.R. supported Taft as his successor. He then turned on him for somewhat spurious reasons, but of course that has nothing to do with the kind of President T.R. was since it all happened after T.R. left the White House.
Re. 15767 Thanks for agreeing. I haven't ever criticized TR's actions as 'selfish' during his presidency itself. As a matter of fact, I recall recounting his actions in this forum or the Fray after he was shot during a speech he made.
Guess, to some people, I actually have to dredge moldy oldies like this up to 'defend' myself. Why, me, God?
Fair's fair.
This is not an accurate prediction; it's just a statement of the obvious. I suppose next to Ace's prediction that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, it stands out.
Well, actually, if you read back, it stands out as being the first statement of that level of accuracy in this forum, period. If you disagree, provide cites, or else retract.
'Look, it happened. Therefore, it was necessarily obvious as soon as al Qaeda was known to be involved'
Not at all. I was also, I believe, the first and perhaps only person here to provide links to an article from a Russian news source which mentioned that the Taliban had appointed bin Laden their military chief a scant week before 9/11.
Btw, I don't recall PM ever having done as much.
There goes PM's pretensions of 'balance'.
I love this. Who's got the goods? The person who incoherently splutters that it's virtually inconceivable to seriously think the US might consider overthrowing Iraq's government, or the person who comes back two hours later with a link which describes a plan to do precisely that?
Thanks for agreeing. I haven't ever criticized TR's actions as 'selfish' during his presidency itself. As a matter of fact, I recall recounting his actions in this forum or the Fray after he was shot during a speech he made.
Then why the hell would you downgrade his presidency for his actions before or after his presidency? Do you downgrade Bush for being an alcoholic until he was forty? Do you downgrade Reagan for being a bad father towards his children? No, but you downgrade T.R. for being selfish. And why? Because his selfish actions undermined William Taft, a sitting Republican president.
Guess, to some people, I actually have to dredge moldy oldies like this up to 'defend' myself. Why, me, God?
No particular reason, except that it happened to be the clearest example I could remember of partisanship affecting your thinking.
And you've now shown you were wrong. When have we ever graded the U.S. Presidents here, as far back as T.R., for what they did before or after their tenure? We've done that for modern ex-Presidents like Nixon and Clinton, but not in a general sense for all Presidents.
Provide a cite. I'm not going to look for one post of substance by you: thinking about it just exhausts me.
Not at all. I was also, I believe, the first and perhaps only person here to provide links to an article from a Russian news source which mentioned that the Taliban had appointed bin Laden their military chief a scant week before 9/11.
Btw, I don't recall PM ever having done as much.
Your recall is pretty good. One good reason for that would be I wasn't here sometime after 9-11.
And so far you seem to be the only one who notices your own prescience.
Your recall is pretty good. One good reason for that would be I wasn't here until sometime after 9-11.
You've provided many vague rebuttals and made some egregious lies. It's not enough to say, "Oh, yeah, I provided the first "such-and-such" way back in the front of the thread. Go ahead and look for it.
But, do people really want to read this rehash? I doubt it. That's the real reason I think PM should tone his little bulldog act back. Simple consideration for other Motiers.
You're all heart for your fellow Motiers. For many years now, you've posted post after post, tract after tract, link after link, of egregious partisan postings here well into the night, night after night. Many of us have had to wade through this crap the next morning.
Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I, US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes.
Here's an article from Salon, no less that says PM is full of shit regarding the effectiveness of Clowntoon's 'policy' against terrorism. Read it and weep, moron.
Notice that PM seems to be fine with anything jexster has to post. KM the 1st, whatever.
There goes PM's pretensions of 'balance'.
More of your subtle humor, Concerned? Jexter can't stand me. Ask Jexter how well we get along?
Indeed, rather than comparing you to Sakonige, it's probably more accurate to describe as a conservative Jexter.
Not at this time. I'll just let you be all the fool you can be, and then blow you out of the water.
But if it is true, then I'll take back my criticism of the Bush administration. My criticism of you, however, stands.
Well, I'll just say that I have proven you've made a number of assertions which are utter bullshit & if this 'debate' were a fight, I'd be holding your heart in my hand right now.
I think your credibility is about gone. I've got it now.
How do you square that with your swipes against me?
Good news is If you stick strictly to subject matter of the thread, & leave out your (repeated boring) ad hominems starting tomorrow, I'll respond accordingly, if I do at all.
Message # 15785
Btw, Clowntoon administration bungling (enforcement laxness interspersed with one or two cruise missile attacks) was largely responsible for the cessation of the Iraq UN arms inspections. Hardly a 'victory' in the 'war' against terrorism.
Since I never claimed Clinton achieved a "victory" against terrorism, your point is irrelevant. I claimed Clinton was no less aggressive against terrorism than was Reagan.
Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes.
WTC-1 can no more be blamed on Clinton than WTC-2 can be blamed on Bush. It happened in February of 1993, Idiot, about a month and a half after Clinton began his first term. If you want to blame it on anyone than you have to blame it on the first Bush.
The embassy bombings in Africa triggered a stronger response from Clinton than the Lebanon bombing that killed more more than four hundred Marines triggered from Reagan.
And Clinton didn't give any terrorist supporter a birthday cake.
Waco is your standard right-wing shit --Janet Reno as bin Laden.
I like the big fonts, Concerned. Just like Jexter makes.
The only thing I'm surprised that Concerned leaves out of this litany is little Elian and Randy Weaver. That brute Janet Reno, constantly terrorizing good Americans
PM
I know Bill Gertz rather well, and he's partisan, true. But he's not clueless...far, far from it.
He is clueless about China. He also uses sources in an unresponsible way.
Have you read The China Threat?
I even agree with his main thesis, which is that China is a threat to the U.S.
Yes, I've read The China Threat.
BTW, I've just scanned the last 100 or so posts, and I completely agree with you. This isn't even close to being over, and I'm surprised that people think it is.
We're used to discounting the public statements of our policy-makers - and for good reason. But, for once, I believe, the US Govt. is telling the truth - they've stated from the beginning that this will be a long project, and it won't end in Afghanistan.
I'm surprised, but it doesn't seem to be business as usual. So far, anyway. We'll see how long the resolve lasts when public sentiment (evidenced here and elsewhere) turns heavily to "whew! that's done. Pass the donuts, Millie."
I'm off to bed.
Yes, I've read The China Threat.
Tell me what you thought of it.
I thought it was paranoid, and preaching to a choir of already convinced ex-Cold Warriors.
I also thought it was interesting, and not entirely wrong.
For anything more detailed, I'd have to take it to email, sorry.
I will carefully explain to PincherMartin who is easily amazed.
No, I don't believe the war on terrorism will even last a generation (25-30 years). That the notion was put forward by our nation's leaders obviously impresses you not as hyperbole but as fair assessment advanced by authority.
Scott Loar declares Al Qaeda an anomaly and the war on terrorism a short-term project. Amazing.
More aid coming to PincherMartin. I said in Message # 15485: I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed.
Now, is my opinion of the war on terrorism the "short-term project" you ascribe to me? Well, certainly less than the 25-30 years you buy into, but tell me where I've said the war on terrorism is a short-term project? Are you even familiar with how I said the war on terrorism could be addressed? Have you even read my prescriptions on how to fight terrorism? No, just ridiculing what you think is my position based on a single post.
Anyway, the way he described the situation (he spoke very good English, btw), the Taliban were most definitely routed - "rolled over", in his words - by the NA. However, he claimed the NA (remember - he is now one of them) really did not need to do much in order to accomplish this, because the US bombing had so thoroughly demoralized the Talis - he openly praised the ferocity and wondered at the incredible precision of the strikes - "Everything that was metal, they targeted and hit - even a little can..."
In retrospect, it appears that allowing the NA to do all the ground work was exactly the right thing to do. Can anyone imagine the Taliban militia joining up with American/Brit forces? Or the people of Mazar, Kabul, etc. running out to give the US a hero's welcome as we rolled through? 
No, seriously -congratulations. Good job.
I am not about to root through the last 15,000+ posts, but I must modestly claim that from the beginning those posters whose insights most closely matched what has ended up happening were me, ScottLoar, JRoth and perhaps a few others. This while Concerned was discussing the benefits of a low-yield nuke (and comparing himself positively to Ace because of it) and the role that sexual repression plays in fostering Islamic fanaticism.
I am deeply impressed with PM's sheer energy. But I must say I am positively awed at concerned's infinite capability for delusional self-aggrandisement.
RD -
Would you consider removing or deleting all of Pincher Martin's posts to me and my responses to these posts today? His have no value and mine suffer from being dragged partly down to his level.
Sorry for the mess.
i'm not about to get into the 'value' of posts. but, i will say that i'd appreciate the he-said-he-said could move to another thread. Politics or Inferno could use some posts.
thanks in advance.
Did you see Dayna and Heather? What a blessing. Both girls are thinner than normal, but looked so happy.
I'm out the door!
Here's a major reason we had to attack the Taliban sooner rather than later.
(From today's Times -- of London):
OSAMA BIN LADEN’S al-Qaeda network held detailed plans for nuclear devices and other terrorist bombs in one of its Kabul headquarters.
The Times discovered the partly burnt documents in a hastily abandoned safe house in the Karta Parwan quarter of the city. Written in Arabic, German, Urdu and English, the notes give detailed designs for missiles, bombs and nuclear weapons. There are descriptions of how the detonation of TNT compresses plutonium into a critical mass, sparking a chain reaction, and ultimately a thermonuclear reaction.
Bin Laden's nuclear secrets found .
And Russia, although no longer a superpower, is still a major player.
"This may be a new world we're in, but Russia still matters more than any other country," said Michael Mandelbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. "In the 21st century, we may be concerned more with rogue-state mosquito-bite issues, but Russia's connected to all of them. They border on the most dangerous parts of the world. They are the world's largest repository of dangerous material. On the issues we care about, all roads lead to Moscow."
Clash of Civilizations - LAT
Let's have a cyber-reality check shall we?
JoeZ did NOTHING to defeat anyone
Sieg Heil! - LAT
The following, from one Randy Mott, was posted to the weepily left Blue Ear Forum on October 12, shortly after which I posted it here. Pelle launched one of his stupid tirades about its length, but his stated objection was just his usual cover against the fact that he didn't like the content. To forestall any further carping, let me reiterate that I know of no available link to Mott's remarks.
I re-post them now because they were and remain more prescient than many here claim to be.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy Mott
Subject: The Ground Campaign in Afghanistan
SIX REASONS WHY THE ALLIED CAMPAIGN WILL SUCEED IN
AFGHANISTAN: WHY WE ARE BETTER THAN THE SOVIET ARMY
OF THE 1980S
The Taliban "ambassador" to Pakistan promised
that a real fight would emerge once the Allies came
into Afghanistan with ground forces. His rag-tag
"army" of men with AK-47s and pick-up truck-mounted
machine guns will face the most modern, highly trained
and well-equipped forces in the history of war.
Only an irrational myth growing out of the Soviet
invasion offers any hope to the Taliban. All the
tangible evidence as well as the intangible factors
make his promise look like an empty vessel.
1. Limited Objective: The Soviet Army sought to
subdue the population and occupy the country. The
US-UK and their allies seek: first, to cripple the Al
Qaeda network, an objective that is also tied to
destroying their communications, financing, training
facilities, and cohesion; second, to topple the
Taliban, an unpopular regime that showed signs of its
demise prior to any Allied action. The announced US
objective is eliminating the terrorists and the
government that harbors them. Another shaky or even
despotic government may inevitably emerge, but it will
not be supporting terrorism against the West.
upon very limited means to isolate the enemy and to
identify enemy strong-points. The Mujahadeen were able
to use terrain and their "light" loads to fight a
guerilla war against an enemy ill-equipped to deal
with their tactics. Much like the United States in
Vietnam, the Soviets lost the will to keep fighting an
illusive enemy more than they lost any major
engagements. Today, the Allies have near real-time
satellite data, pilotless drones, ground surveillance
radar, and other devices (some of which have been
developed since the Gulf War) to locate enemy troops.
Tactically, the Taliban forces will have no element of
surprise and no ability to mount major operations
undetected.
JoeZ has defeated the Forces of Evil singlehandedly, and he was dressed as a cow when he did it, too. I have pictures.
operate at night. Most units had limited night vision
equipment, mainly antiquated infrared. Today, only the
personal bodyguard of Ben Laden (50-100 men) will
have modern night-vision devices. This means that the
Allies can operate 24 hours a day, including times
when the Taliban forces will be effectively blind.
Even during daylight, the use of smoke ammunitions can
blind the enemy, when US thermal devices allow for
excellent target acquisition.
From the Times, this quote from the head Taliban:
Mullah Omar said: "You, the BBC, and American public radios have created a sense of concern but the current situation of Afghanistan is related to a big cause - that is the destruction of America. The plan is going ahead and God willing it is being implemented, but it is a huge task that is beyond the comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us this will happen within a short period of time - keep in mind this prediction."
The Taliban were going to have the girls (Dayna and Heather) write letters to home for money. The Taliban were going to ransom them for a price!!
They're off to Switzerland next and then will come home, hopefully by Thanksgiving!
trained to close to 500 meters or less after artillery
preparation. Their artillery was notoriously slow to
"adjust" to new target coordinates and while sometimes
"massed" was normally not effective due to poor
coordination with maneuver elements. US ground forces,
especially special operations troops, use laser
designators and tight coordination of support fires to
provide a "stand-off" capability that can
substantially destroy enemy cohesion before ever
getting close. Soviet heliopter gunships had to expose
themselves to ground fire while firing imprecise,
unguided rockets. US helicopters can "fire" defilade
with laser designators that direct precision guided
munitions. Most Taliban troops will never see what
hits them.
5. Mobility: The Soviet forces chiefly relied upon the
road system. Their Spetnatz units used very effective
air assault techniques later in the war, but were
limited to daylight operations and were hence
vulnerable to Stingers and antiquated ZPU-23mm
antiaircraft fire. All Allied forces in this campaign
will be air assault troops, and all of these will be
able to operate in complete darkness. Unlike Soviet
forces, where only strike elements were air mobile, US
forces can mount operations with substantial air
mobility in follow-on forces and combat support.
motivated and determined enemy. Casualties inflicted
on the Mujahadeen seemed to have little impact. Today,
after 20 years of civil war and divided factions, the
Taliban has been compelled to use forced conscription
(literally at gunpoint) and has also already
experienced significant desertions. The only Taliban
forces with similar morale to the earlier war will be
Ben Laden’s Arab unit, about 3,000 strong. Their
training and tactics, as well as equipment, will be
wholly inadequate to deal with a mobile, all-weather
force equipped with superior weapons and almost
unbelievable fire support.
The only issue will be finding Ben Laden himself. If
he elects to simply hide out in a cave, this may take
months. This option would by definition mean that the
government would change and he would be limited to
what is left of his own Al Qaeda infrastructure.
Eventually he would turn up by either an informant
the country is famous for purchased loyalties) or by
attempted movement or communication. If he elects to
not hide out and attempts any operations through any
communications or couriers, the chances of finding him
go up dramatically. In either event, Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan will be isolated, immobilized or
destroyed. At the same time, their foreign cells are
being located and apprehended piece by piece. Most of
the campaign will depend on intelligence and law
enforcement coordination, which is finally happening
after the mass murders.
of will power. The number of Islamic extremists truly
willing to die may, unfortunately, be tested. The
United States will not waver in this fight. Another
terrorist mass murder may occur; if it does, nothing
on the face of the earth will stop the United States
from hunting down and punishing those responsible. All
that America has lacked to date was the will to wage
the war, a fact that brutally changed on September
11th.
Randy Mott
Let's go git the bastards!
The terrorist network established by Osama bin Laden is regrouping in order to strike again, despite the recent setbacks for the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to Dieter Kaundinya, the head of the counter-terrorism section of the BND, the German international intelligence agency.
He said both the Taliban and al-Qaeda "have prepared themselves for this turn of events and are preparing for a guerrilla war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I would warn against sentiments that we have won rapid successes in recent days," he said.
Mr Kaundinya said that al-Qaeda might resort to new terrorist strategies, including a "cyber-war". He said they might "interfere with international information systems" in the future, although he did not elaborate. Mr Rolince said the FBI believed it was "fair to assume" that Islamic terrorists "are trying to acquire chemical and biological weapons". He said there was no clear evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the recent anthrax attacks in the US, adding that the evidence "tends to indicate" that a lone, US-based criminal was behind the attacks.
Ever consider moving to the Catskills?
Yes, Glendajean, you're right, I could, but that would necessitate me first finding where the hell I had posted them; this site has no search by date function I'm aware of.
Moreover, on accessing such a link a reader would still have to wade through a string of Mote posts inserted into ongoing dialog, and then navigate back to today's discussion.
It hardly seems an improvement over just reposting the man's comments.
And I do pray to God that there is not a nuclear device "in play," as the Mullah's comments to the BBC suggest (or some other other mass destruction terror).
Taliban retake key Afghan province
(Updated at 1430 PST)
KABUL: Taliban fighters have retaken control of the central Afghan province of Uruzgan, native state of the supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, an Afghan tribal leader said on Thursday.
Pakistan moves troops, tanks to Afghan border
(Updated at 1600 PST)
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Thursday moved its troops and tanks to Afghan border facing Kandahar, a news agency reports.
Some al-Qaeda, Taliban leaders killed in air strikes: Pentagon
(Updated at 1925 PST)
WASHINGTON: Some leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- but not Osama bin Laden or Mullah Mohmmad Omar -- were believed killed in US air strikes on two buildings, one in Kabul and the other in Kandahar, in the past two days, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said Thursday.
UNHCR to reopen offices in Afghanistan
(Updated at 1500 PST)
QUETTA: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said Thursday it would reopen its offices in Afghanistan and deploy extra emergency staff.
7791. stostosto - 10/1/01 8:00:46 PM (also #7793)
"I don't advocate, nor expect any 'clash of civilisations' -- and I expect the campaign to end when the US has Bin Laden, dead or alive. Furthermore, I expect terror from Al Quaeda to end when it's been effectively decapitated. "
"Mark my words. And don't believe all they hyperbole about 'the day that changed the world' and all such media babble.
6,000 people are dead, Manhattan lost a landmark, Bin Laden and the Taliban are toast.
Back to our regular scheduled programme."
At least the penultimate paragraph seems to be coming to pass.
We'll see about the rest.
Nov. 15th: 4,500
At that rate it will be down to zero in three months time.
Will you ever link an article by Fisk and just call it 'mediocre'? Or even 'downright shitty'?
Do believe it. Just don't believe the vaporous spin the media put on it.
It's true that my own worries over WWIII and Israel driving the Pals into Jordan were wrong, essentially too pat. But everything has changed. There will be enormous political, economic, and military repercussions from 9-11 forward. There already have been.
An interesting article which discusses secular Turkey's relationship with Islam and modernity. There really appears to be a schizoid element associated, at least within Turkey, with combining conventional Islamic religious observances and a modern lifestyle.
Yes, it was an amusing exchange.
I am deeply impressed with PM's sheer energy. But I must say I am positively awed at concerned's infinite capability for delusional self-aggrandisement.
Care to provide any examples related to the facts under discussion? Or are you just venting your spleen?
Remember, when it was still 8/11, nobody thought anything drastic was about to happen. Nobody thought 'it' was 'over', but only because nobody even knew 'it' was about to happen. Islamic terror is not over, Islamic fundamentalism is not over, and you can never tell when it's going to erupt or where. You could kill ObL, or (worse) capture him and try him and execute him, and then the shitfest will begin (with a fresh messianic martyr to fuel the flames).
I really doubt this is over at all. But who knows? Maybe everything will be nice and peaceful again.
Actually, that would be genius on ObL's part. To allow himself to be captured and tried.
If you do accept these examples, it would then seem clear that PM is the one who is remiss on the facts (that I provided) and that he is 'delusional', as you prefer to put it.
As for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, that will not be over, but it didn't start with bin Laden either.
The "war on terror" will surely be more intense and encompassing than before, but I don't think it will be overt war anymore. Iraq will not be attacked, for instance.
It will be a matter of dealing seriously with a security threat that everybody has been made painfully aware of. Not of bombing and invading.
of course I agree with PM that Clinton was as tough, or weak, as Reagan who withdrew from Lebanon after the Beirut bombing. What a message to send the terrorists.
Apart from that, the number of terror acts is completely unrelated to who holds the presidential office.
And Waco (one of your examples) really is the usual right-wing shit, as PM says.
Why didn't you include the Oklahoma bombing, btw? That surely must have been the single worst terror act during Clinton.
What was posed to me by PM was who was more 'effective' in combatting terrorism, and given that criterion, Reagan clearly wins, considering his effective actions against Moammar Ghaddafi who subsequently stopped sponsoring state terrorism. And, yes a ratio of five to one significant terrorist incidents during a president's adminsitration is admissable when compared to the fact that PM has offered nothing whatsoever to back up his blind assertion.
Regarding Waco, my bad. I meant to post 'OKC', but it was fucking 3AM and I was still trying to answer a blizzard of particularly inane questions from the particularly obtuse PM.
Including any hopes for martyrdom, I meant to add.
He'll be Abdullah Özalan'ed.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - United Airlines, a unit of UAL Corp., said on Thursday it will become the first major U.S. airline to put Taser weapons, or stun guns, in every cockpit in its fleet following the Sept. 11 attacks so pilots can fight off hijackers.
...
United, the No. 2 U.S. airline, said the installation should start shortly. It is buying the guns from Taser International, based on Scottsdale, Arizona.
...
``United and its pilots believe Tasers are an important addition to enhanced cockpit security,'' said Andrew Studdert, United's chief operating officer. ``Tasers will incapacitate an attacker without endangering the airplane.''
Air traffic has remained far below normal levels since Sept. 11 and caused huge financial losses for the airline industry. United alone lost a record $1.16 billion in the third quarter.
The installations are subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) for an appropriate fleet-wide test program, United said.
an interesting move, i think. but, i don't see it helping their business any.
All Cruise Missile Clowntoon accomplished by doing so was to impress his credulous sycophants with his 'toughness' while actually setting US efforts against terrorism back, as 9/11 demonstrated.
Fine with me. Make sure PM gets your message also. I was doing no more than responding to his demands for 'answers' in this thread.
Nukes to Gilgit?
Egyptian Show Trial Ends
You did notice that the Salon piece appeared to favour no military response at all to bin Laden rather than a tougher one?
And I forget: Did the Republicans rally to the President and urge him to go after bin Laden with all means at his disposal? Or were they busy with more important stuff at the time?
Also: Did Bush strongly focus on getting ObL before 9-11? It was recently reported that he had the chance to grab him in the spring, but decided not to.
1st: The 'toughness' of the response is not the issue. It is whether is was effective in meeting its purported goals. And, on that basis, the Clowntoon cruise missile assaults failed abysmally.
2nd: Analysts and politicos of all political stripes were skeptical of the administrations actions re bin Laden in 1998, and rightfully so.
3rd: If you recall, it was in the news that there was great concern in the early days of the Bush Administration, which is still in the process of appointing many mid level officials even as of 11/01, that the US military be restructured so as to be able to counteract the actions of rogue nations and terrorist groups.
To require Republican administration officials to develop prescient psychic powers seems a bit much, to me. That said, I admit there was a huge US intelligence failure regarding the terrorist planning for the WTC/Pentagon mass murder, which was being planned since at least 1995 when a certain rapist was president.
if comparable judicial systems (which this is in substance) were in place anywhere else - even if limited for use only for non-nationals accused of terrorism -they would be seen as evidence of being as anti-American in concept and protection of civil liberties against the force of government as is possible to be.
I understand, and fully accept, that the realities we now face force us to rethink our judicial rules and procedures as to be applied to alleged terrorists. We would not, for sure, want to have to compromise our intelligence methods by divulging same. We may very well want to introduce limited means of use of hearsay. But - do we really want to limit rights to counsel as severely as these new tribunals would? Do we really want to have all of the checks and balances in the hands of the executive branch? Are these measures necessary even under our current circumstances.
One would like to think that these measures really haven't been thought out.
At any rate, here's a good friend of the Administration's take on it all:
Safire Starts Out His Article With: "-- Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts."
(I sure have failed to return a lot of books in my day.)
I do find this very disturbing; and thanks for the Safire link.
IMHO, the Al Queda folks are off balance. They had hoped to turn Afghanistan into a Vietnam-like quagmire. It didn't happen for two reason:
They didn't have a superpower backing them.
They didn't have popular support locally.
Because of that the collapse took days instead of months or years.
The first part was obvious. A minority of zealots scattered across the mideast do not constitute a superpower, or a major power or even a significant power.
The worst mistake however was thinking that the locals would support them upon being attacked. The widespread celebrations throughout Kabul when the Taliban troops retreated was evidence enough of their error.
The prospects of a protracted guerrila campaign are not good. Fish need an ocean to swim in. The Taliban's ocean has shrunk to a small pond.
I think a meat hook would be historically appropriate.
I understand why he wants it. The trial would inevitably involve secret evidence. This evidence would reveal our sources. In turn, we would lose our current sources on intel (dead or in hiding) and demonstrate to future sources that we could not be trusted. A tribunal consisting entirely of people with high level security clearances solves the problem.
I understand it. But I oppose it. Better not to have a trial until we have enough "white world" evidence to do the job.
But what is the choice? I don't know.
If this is really why Bush instigated the tribunal, then I disagree with it. I am in favor of trying terrorists in military courts, however.
Watch for Sully to call them the Fifth Column.
(If CalGal doesn't beat him to the punch.)
Perhaps the evacuees were Taliban moderates, you know, people who -- as one cartoonist put it -- support flying planes into buildings only fifty stories tall.
Marj:
Pakistan's cooperation has led to a number of trade-offs. Anyway, it would be tacky to shoot down an ally's aircraft. Without leaders, it may be easier for Taliban forces in Kunduz to surrender.
read the article. The Taliban apparently want to surrender, but they also don't want the Arabs executed by the NA - as the NA have said they're going to do. Kunduz is going to the scene of some immense bloodletting, pity the civilians.
--
Pseuder,
Uh-oh. What's your source?
Fucking Rabbani has already entered Kabul. Right now things are not going the Allies way except for the ongoing military rout of the Taliban.
The news about the Hazara forces was reported by the BBC last night.
Thursday, 15 November, 2001, 08:11 GMT
Hazaras march on Kabul
The Hazara people have a strong sense of community
By the BBC's World Affairs correspondent David Loyn and William Reeve in Kabul
A thousand-strong force from the Hazara region in the centre of Afghanistan is heading towards the Northern Alliance-controlled capital, Kabul.
Ethnic Hazaras comprise 20% of Afghanistan's population
The Hazaras, who form about 20% of the population, say they want to protect the Hazara community of the city and will only enter Kabul in co-operation with the Northern Alliance.
But they are equipped with weapons such as rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, which are far more than they need for a light security role.
The UN passed a resolution last night which can be used to put multinational troops on the ground to keep the peace. I hope the UK and US do so pronto.
This is indeed a true test for our diplomatic/political/military skills.
Life is good.
The story about Rabbani being in Kabul has also been denied by members of his group.
"Georg Taubmann, who headed the Kabul office of the German-based Shelter International Now, provided dramatic details of an escape he called "horrifying." While many details of the past two days remain murky, this is the story as he told it.
On Monday night, as the Taliban began fleeing Kabul, soldiers forced the eight detainees from their Kabul jail cells, loaded them in cars and joined the convoy of tanks, pick-ups and other vehicles streaming southward toward Kandahar.
When the convoy reached the neighboring province of Wardak, soldiers led the eight out of the car and locked them in a large steel container. "It was terribly cold," Taubmann said. "They wanted to lock the container and leave us in there until the morning. We had no blankets. We were freezing the whole night through."
The next morning they pushed on and were deposited in a prison in the southeastern city of Ghazni. Taubmann described it as the worst of the five prisons in which the group had been housed during the past 3½ months.
Shortly after arriving the walls rattled as U.S. aircraft dropped bombs nearby. The detainees then heard heaving gunfire and loud shouting outside the prison.
Some time later they heard the doors of the prison cells clanging open. When their cell door burst open, a soldier stood in the doorway gripping a gun. The detainees believed he was a Taliban soldier who might kill them. Instead the soldier stared at them wide-eyed, apparently stunned to find foreigners in the prison. He then shouted, "Azad! Azad!" Free! Free!
Meanwhile, in Ghazni, some local villagers expressed opposition to freeing the aid workers, believing they could be ransomed to their governments for large sums of money, rescuers apparently told the aid workers.
On Wednesday night, with the city under a curfew and with some villagers agitating to hold on to the detainees, the eight were led to a field where U.S. special forces helicopters were supposed to pick them up.
The aid workers said, however, that the helicopters could not locate them.
With the helicopters thumping the in distance, angry villagers who allegedly wanted to hold the workers for ransom running toward them, and fearful that hostile Taliban troops were still in the area, the increasingly desperate aid workers began building a fire, first burning the women's headscarves, then sweaters and jackets.
"We burned everything we had – clothes, everything – to make a big fire," said Taubmann.
Special forces teams led the eight into helicopters and flew them to Pakistan, according to diplomats here.
"It was a very emotional and joyous reunion this morning at the airport," said Chamberlin.
The two American women spent the day at the ambassador's residence with Mercer's parents and Curry's mother.
"They've been hugging their parents," said Chamberlin. "They've been taking a hot bath. They've been eating their favorite meals. They've been to a beauty parlor and had their hair done and they've been sharing a totally wonderful joyous day."
The aid workers were arrested, along with 16 Afghans, on Aug. 3 and charged by the Taliban's Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice with teaching Christianity to Afghans in Kabul – a particularly serious offense under the militia's strict Islamic rule.Taliban officials said they had found Christian books, tapes and videos in Pashto and Dari, two Afghan languages, in homes visited by the Shelter Now workers.
"We walked into the city and the people came out of the houses and they hugged us and they greeted us," said Taubmann. "They were all clapping. They didn't know there were foreigners in the prison."
"It was like a big celebration for all those people," he said.
I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet.
Why didn't anyone here express any outrage against this post? Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?
"The acts of the Hazaras, and God knows how many more, are inevitable - considering the history of Afghanistan..."
You have all these people who had hitherto never had any thought about the "history of Afghanistan" suddenly pontificating about it as though they know some history.
Afghanistan between 1901 and 1989 saw NO tribal or ethnic violence whatsoever. So the "history of Afghanistan" you should be considering is that of the 1990s.
hope you got some sleep.
I heard that the aid workers were wisked into a home of a local before being airlifted by Special Forces. I mentioned the money aspect this morning.
doesn't mitigate from the fact that they should never have been there to begin with.
and as for the power of prayer - well, not my bag so I won't comment on that drivel any further.
speaking for myself, I guess I didn't see that post as being too far removed from the black and white strident stuff you've (uncharacteristically) been posting here. And, I for one just didn't feel like getting into an Acean discussion with you about it.
Why use the word "drivel"? Why be derogatory when it's completely unnecessary? As to their call to help the Afghan people, it's only your opinion that they had no business there, obviously, many others feel differently.
it is absurd but entirely predictable that this whole episode will end up being portrayed as being evidence of God's goodness and, no doubt, that enduring what they did somehow was God's will for making them even more resolute to go forth and spread his Word.
They claim their faith led them to stay. They provided services. Given that our government basically begged them to leave, and they refushed, then I think the government did the right thing by ignoring publicly their presence.
They were on their own. They survived. Good news.
It's good news that they're out, but I wouldn't have been shedding any tears if it had turned out differently.
By the way, you can go from Turkmenistan to Baluchistan in Pakistan without encountering a single mountain.
As for unrest and lack of control, that's what a new government is there for.
After all, several US companies as well as an Argentinian one were negotiating in 1995 and 1996 with the Taliban and other warlords to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Why didn't anyone here express any outrage against this post? Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?
LC is one of 'them', so it's 'cool', doncha know. I'm definitely not 'comfortable' with it, for one, but I read plenty of outrageous stuff here that I let pass.
I am a bit more tolerant of this religious activity than I would of somebody who on the basis of getting 70 virgins in paradise blows up buildings and kills lots of people.
They were acting out their faith, and evidently took the risk knowing they could get arrested. They survived. It's a good thing. There's nothing one could say or do to convince these women that should act differently.
It's a low-grade risk to others, this putting their lives on the line of something that they believed in strongly.
It was a CHRISTIAN organization. All were missionaries. Get it yet? Everyone there knew the risks and were willing to stay and provide aid and dialogue if and when possible.
That's an interesting statement, to me. Just how autonomous are these Talibs you mentioned?
The risks to your missionaries don't worry me at all. If they want to put their own lives in danger that's fine. What you fail to get is that they put other lives in danger. That doesn't matter I suppose. They're only Muslims after all.
Wow! They were rescued au naturel!
...but not if they're already converted. Right, Snowowl?
Because I don't take it seriously? Because it is so far out of line with your usual posts that it seemed it must be a failed attempt at humor?
If someone else had posted it, I would likely have ignored it as I would any attempt to flame.
And of course if the author of a line like that really believed what they wrote, nothing I could say would change their mind. So what would be the point in responding? To give them the platform to debate on?
The recipients could also turn over the Christian to the Taliban. Their choice. If they chose instead to listen in return for food, also their choice.
Of course, they could have not gone over there at all and then the Afghans would have been completely safe! The only thing endangering their lives were those silly Christian chicks.
I've been told they went over there having committed to refrain from proselytising and then broke that commitment. If true, that's the only immoral action I think they took.
They certainly aren't heroes; I generally agree with GJ's take.
No, but you shouldn't say you're going and planning to refrain from doing what you darned well know you're going to do anyhow. Is it noble to lie about it like that?
what bilge. especially the presumptiveness about it all.
They are admirable self-sacrificing people. However, they, like almost everybody else, probably had trouble really understanding how dangerous the Taliwhacks could be.
The UN is moving in the direction which I have advocated since the start of the US campaign in Afghanistan.
Good.
You're doing the preacher a favor.
Concerned,
I think that they knew, but they didn't expect any of this to happen. Dayna has lived in that region of the world before. Kind of like smokers who know they can get cancer, but don't think that they will.
Now that they have escaped they are missionary heroes. How utterly disgusting.
just lil'ol innocents.
Next thing you know, there'll be hundreds of them in Afghanistan.
Muwahahaha!
They whispered about their faith to someone who wanted to talk to them about it? They also handed out of food and/or other services.
What's so disgusting about that? Or at least utterly disgusting?
And in the context of the current war, how pale in comparison to what is truly utterly disgusting -- bio-chemical factories that were brought over to Afghanistan that were paid for by a Saudi charity. Attempts (perhaps successful?) to construct nuclear devices.
Afghanistan. All thanks to these brave humanitarian aid workers who are doing God's work.
You're a sad person. As are you SnowOwl and JanJon. Your contempt for anything Christian is nothing new, but that you criticize these young ladies for aiding the poor and working as missionaries in one of the most impoverished places in the world, is very disturbing.
But then again, I doubt that any of you would ever do anything to help out your fellow man that would require real work, real commitment and real faith.
I think they did a little more than just discuss the testament with folks...they were arrested with video tapes and teaching materials. So they were breaking the law in that country. You visit a foreign country and you don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey. If foreigners break the laws of the USA, they are arrested.
any more posts on this and they'll be moved, thanks
My previous post is ironic. I-R-O-N-I-C
Look it up. You might learn something, if you're lucky.
I am glad that these girls are free, and that getting them out appears not to have caused any deaths. To now call them heroes is indeed disgusting.
I am very glad they got out. I think they are admirable people. There is a shortage of people who are willing to risk their own well being for their beliefs and a surfeit of those willing to sacrifice others. As far as "deception" goes, Christianity's early history is one of hiding in shadows from governmental oppression. They were but following in an ancient Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Nothing immoral about lying to a government that wants to destroy you merely for your beliefs.
Being "admirable" does not mean I'd want them knocking on my door to minister to me. There last time a pair of Jehova's Witness missionaries rang my doorbell and dragged me out of my shower they were terribly embarassed.
Well, I guess after last week I shouldn't complain Herr OberDuckenFuehrer!
I agree Iran must be concerend about pipeline possibilities, especially since the Saudis are unstable & have become tainted by association w/ObL, and a fresh dialog about oil and energy dependence has erupted in the US. (Which, frankly, thrills me, if only it won't deteriorate.) But it's going to be a while before Afghanistan stabilizes, agreements can be made, and pipelines can be built. Iran might as well intervene on its own behalf later as now, and anyway, the more it can be seen as a just and Islamically righteous force against the heartless US war machine, the better for it. And again, maybe playing the role will mean it behaves with some real moderation and probity.
The Russians are reacting in a dilatory way at best; really it sort of looks like they're not going to meet Saudi demands. Meanwhile Putin is having nachos at Bush's ranch and discussing weapons reduction--I can't help wondering whether the Shrubbery honeymoon just now with the Man With the Transparent Soul does portend oil development and purchase agreements designed to ease us out of dependence on the Sauds.
NA Won't KowTow to King Moron (L. Kaplan)
Check Religion.
Well I guess not...this IS, after all, the Kingdom of Bush! How many different arguments have been advanced in favor of tax cuts, of ANWR of massive subsidies to US extraction industries?
Could you imagine all of what you describe happening *this soon*, if at all, if the US had been saddled with the admininstration of flunky-loser?
Nobody sane thought the NA was a US puppet. We asked them (half heartedly) not to invest Kabul until a government could be formed. The main reason was fear of the chaos that brought the Talibananas to power to start with. The chaos didn't take place, so no harm no foul.
We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
GWB is riding an 87% popularity rating with a Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWWW!
The corollary to this argument--that rapid Northern Alliance gains would prompt wide-scale ethnic conflict--boasts a curious history as well. For years Pakistani leaders have promoted real and imagined Pashtun grievances, seeking to wield Pashtun nationalism as a club against the Northern Alliance while at the same time deflecting it away from their own territory. But Powell's concern that the Northern Alliance not advance too far because Afghanistan's factions "are of different tribal loyalties"--echoing as it does his contention that the war in Bosnia had "deep ethnic and religious roots that go back a thousand years"--is misplaced. Afghanistan's divisions largely derive from political differences and, to a lesser extent, religious ones. As Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin has observed, inter-Afghan conflict "is almost entirely about power and security. While the groups are ethnically distinct, none of them has an ethnic ideology, and inter-ethnic hostility remains quite low in Afghanistan." Indeed, the ethnic structure of Afghanistan's 20-year-long war has shifted as routinely as its battle lines. And, as the rejoicing in the streets of largely Pashtun Kabul suggests, it's already shifting once more.
Personally I'd settle for Texas...
Better start the evacuation of la familia from Tom Delay's hometown
YEEEEHAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW
I'm sincerely hoping the NA, as well as Afghanis in general, are now deadly sick and tired of their generation's worth of military foreign interference and of their own internecine blood feuds and now want nothing more than to form an efficient representative govt. so they can get on with their lawful lives.
Concerned, I have two ways of viewing what-if questions. On the one hand, large events direct the outcome of other large events; it's possible that along with any competent US military action the NA would have routed the Taliban (I presume this is what you mean because I don't know what your phrase "all of what you describe" refers to.)
On the other hand, small things make big differences unexpectedly; there's simply no way to know what "would have" happened under a different US admin (or even what would have happened had our existing president taken his morning shit two hours later one day last week).
It may not even be possible to determine whether who is president is a big thing or a small thing.
I meant to refer to your speculation regarding the content of the GWB-Putin talks, perhaps more than the actions in Afghanistan.
I'll credit a Gore administration with a likely outcome there in which the US could ultimately publicly claim some sort of 'victory' over terrorism, if not the removal of the Taliban.
Aside to WIMC: See, I posted 'Gore', not 'Bore'. All better, now?
The standard reasoning goes that it doesn't matter who controls Arabian oil, they'll still sell it to us. I think this is pure large-event reasoning, which isn't at all bad in iself, but ignores small but real possibilities that could result in a completely different outcome (at least temporarily).
Assessing the likelihood of a small thing turning out to matter entails taking account not only of any single "small thing" one happens to notice, but also of similar or supporting "small things" that could snowball events in a particular direction.
And then we could all be wrong anyway.
I concur, with the proviso I get to take the princesses for my own harem.
"Here's another more pressing what-if question: What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government?"
I had been under the impression that it already had an Islamist government.
Message # 15982
"I concur, with the proviso I get to take the princesses for my own harem."
Gulf Arab women are exceedingly ugly. On the other hand, Ghida Fakry of al Jazeera is simply delicious. I believe she is a Palestinian.
Osama Bin Laden said the same thing to Peter Bergen in Holy War, Inc.
However, there are some divides within that group, and there are apparently several quite senior members of that ruling oligarchy whose sympathies lie towards the bin Laden austerity/anti-West line.
In that part of the world, it is rarely popular uprisings that those in power fear - it is members of their won families, their cousins, rival families. It is not for nothing that each sheikh maintains a private army of Gurkhas or the like, carefully chosen to be non-Arab.
The truoble for the ibn-Sauds is that they're deeply unpopular in their Kingdom, including among a good section of the elite. They're highly vulnerable to a simple offing. That is, if a cousin or a grandson or even a member of another clan managed to kill the top two or three people in the current Saudi hierarchy, no one would blink an eye to see them go. The army, society, everyone would be quite happy to see the end of this current top tier of leadership, and would in fact welcome a change.
Can you say "Chaos Theory"? The assesment rapidly approaches impossibility as the amount of uncertainty increases.
I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion, or how you would arrive at a different one.
Is this all about proving your centrist credentials to PM? If it is, maybe you should take it up with him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ondemand/rams/tac01462572001.ram
Mullah Omar is the voice that sounds vaguely muffled and retarded.
Andonly -
I wasn't attempting to prove my 'centrist credentials' - just giving my personal estimate of what might have been likely to occur under a Gore administration.
For instance, I'd wager that a Gore administration would have taken up the Taliban on their first offer to 'negotiate' the handover of bin Laden in exchange for proof.
Hahahaha!
Saudi royal family is a westernised elite that happens to practise a rigid fundamentalism in its governance because it rules a fundamentalist population which can only be appeased through fundamentalist practise.
The BBc interview is with an intermediary (the latest one anway) who relayed the questions to Omar via walkie-talkie and conveyed the answers to London via satellite phone.
Kaplan of late has been a Pentagon shill. In the past few days, careful media watchers such as myself and my man, TD, have observed a slurry of leaks aimed squarely at the Panty Waist of Foggy Bottom. Though most are quite a bit subtler than Kaplan's the message is clear:
PantyWaist you may have thought you whupped up on Batman Rummy and Boy Wonder Wolfowitz but now youse gittin yours you wuss
To his credit, Lewis gives credence to one claim you often hear from even the most progessive Arabs. They feel that the US allows the rulers of the ME more latitude towards the suppression of their own people than it would countenace anywhere else - all in the interest of preserving the oil flow. In effect, Middle Eastern lives are worth nothing in comparison to the mineral reserves or the lives of people elsewhere.
Lewis outlines also an often-cited example - that of the Western allies behavior towards Iraq immediately after the Kuwait invasion was repelled. The West called for rebellion against Saddam and got it, buit then withdrew to watch the fairly broadbased popular revolt be brutally repressed. Why? Because it and its Arab allies could countenance a coup, where Saddam would be replaced with a more compliant dictator, but could not countenance a popular rebellion which could spill over and upset the applecart across the region. There is no interest in promoting, or even standing out of the way of, true popular rebellion. This is how the abandonment of Iraq is seen in the Muslim world.
Anybody? Why shouldn't we be able to just tell the Saudis to go to hell?
Fouad is ALWAYS right! Got it Marj!
Ajami is ALLAH!
This is an excellent reason for why Iraq should be next in line, the opinions of Arab governments be damned.
I do not agree with your condemnation of all Arabs upstream which I found bizarre, but I do agree with your prescription for Saudi Arabia (I think; I'm still struggling with this). 
I suppose I must submit to the wonders of carpal tunnel syndrome in order to recapitulate the existing circumstances for everyone who already knows them and spell out exactly how a new and imaginary government would differ, so as not to run afoul of your impressions.
The Saudi government is formally and nominally Islamic in that the Sauds are Muslims, but they are not exactly observant of Wahhabi strictures and they're thoroughly corrupt, a state of affairs that is kept balanced by parceling out power and money to religious institutions whose leaders would otherwise attempt insurrection or at least cause strife. The rulers of the country are not formally the clerics; their power depends on the royals' largesse, and the royals' stability depends in turn on placating them.
So when I ask, "What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government?", what I mean is, "What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by a bunch of clerics who could claim to have religious legitimacy and not the lesser right to rule by virtue of being Muslims as opposed to secular infidels."
Was my shorthand really not obvious enough?
Yes, I fear that is one of the reasons. And I don't think it is a good one.
It is a safe assumption that anyone who potentially could replace the Sauds would be less compliant than they have been with US demands/requirements. No one from that country is likely to bend over backwards (or forwards, if you get my drift) for the US as much as the Sauds have.
And yes, the uninterrupted flow of oil from Saudi Arabia has repeatedly been given the very highest priority in US foreign policy. I'd much rather a few billion be spent on weaning this country away from its insane energy policies, but look who has been elected as President and VP and be unsurprised.
Man, I indulged in that fervent desire for about four weeks before beginning to wonder whether I should be careful of what I ask for, in case I get it. But it's looking less like the Saudis are in any danger of falling these days--I'm not sure whether that's a realistic impression or one born of a lack of press about them recently.
On the other hand, Abdullah is probably better for the Saudi future than the far more corrupt Sudairi's are, since he actually has a plan for the Saudi economy.
This I've read as well.
"The Saudi government is formally and nominally Islamic in that the Sauds are Muslims, but they are not exactly observant of Wahhabi strictures and they're thoroughly corrupt, a state of affairs that is kept balanced by parceling out power and money to religious institutions whose leaders would otherwise attempt insurrection or at least cause strife. The rulers of the country are not formally the clerics; their power depends on the royals' largesse, and the royals' stability depends in turn on placating them."
If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. It is already as Islamist as it can get. The major difference is that the government would be hostile to the west.
what would be the realistic outcome if our oil imports from Saudi Arabia were cut in half or stopped?
I see no problem with valuing our economic interests is SA's oil by having good relations with the Royal family.
Perhaps the Saudis have been more "pliant," but does anybody really think that another regime would refuse to sell us oil?
How can that NYT thing on Iran be taken seriously when it gets an extremely elementary fact wrong?
It says Mossadeq was an elected prime minister!
What nonsense. The man was APPOINTED by the Shah himself.
I only knew of the Arbusto/Harken Energy tie to the Bushes.
In general, I agree. But for all the restrictions that ex-pat women endure while living there, it could get a whole lot worse if clerics came into power. So yes, I think the country could still become more Islamist and less "tolerant" than it is now.
Unless ex-pat women have to wear burqas now? Things may have changed more than I know.
And would we not have to then do what Israel did to Iraq twenty years ago or so under similar circumstances?
Just asking.
in effect the US controls the price of oil thanks to the compliant ibn Sauds. Why do you think the US is going to any length to keep the ibn Sauds in power? Because it likes Fahd's family?
What if it's a jihadi? What is the price is quadrupled?
Think about the impact on our economy if the price of oil raised significantly or if imports were decreased significantly. We would go into a depression.
What makes you think that a bunch of Arabs would automatically turn to building the "Islamic Bomb"?
You don't think that Arabs are inherently nuts, do you?
Explain? I thought the demands and requirements the Saudis faced wrt oil were basically economic in nature, i.e., not American per se.
What are you talking about? Mossadegh was appointed PM by the Iranian parliament in 1951 in the same votes that nationalized the oil industry.
But we have that now in Russia. Haven't you been reading the news, the last few days? Russia is determined to take market share from OPEC, and it's driving OPEC bonkers.
What if it's a jihadi? What is (sic) the price is quadrupled?
To worry about this, you would have to assume that an extremist government would be immune to economic incentives.
Think about the impact on our economy if the price of oil raised significantly or if imports were decreased significantly. We would go into a depression.
Aw, then all you Texas rednecks would be forced to give up your SUVs. Unpatriotic inbreds....
No, if there were a revolution in Saudia, there would be a massive disruption of supplies, an enormous spike in prices, and a big recession in the west, but oil flows would return to normal within the year.
That's what happened in 1979, with the Iranian revolution.
No other state would do this, in many ways it goes against the interests of an oil producer. But S. Arabia does so, as part of its complex system of quid pro quos with the US. In return, the US says shit about the Saudi roots and links to the 9/11 attacks and makes sure that it repeatedly vocally thanks the Saudis for its cooperation, plus doubtless other goodies we don't get to see.
Based on what I have ready, lately, OPEC sees Russia as the wild card on cutting production, not the Saudis. If the Saudis were so adamantly compliant with U.S. demands, OPEC would cease to exist.
Russian oil ain't going anywhere for a good long time, neither is the Caspian stuff. It'll be at least 10 years before the Saudis, for example, become less essential to US energy interests, more so because the present administration will do its darndest to make sure that alternative sources of energy and conservation are not pursued in anything resembling a farsighted or reasonable manner.
"What are you talking about? Mossadegh was appointed PM by the Iranian parliament in 1951 in the same votes that nationalized the oil industry."
Please. Don't talk through your sphincter. Mossadeq was the head of the parliamentary plurality in the majlis (parliament). The majlis had NO power to appoint a prime minister. It could only "advise" the king to appoint its preference. That is what the Shah did in March 1951. In fact Mossadeq resigned once in 1952 and was reappointed by the Shah a few weeks later. So the man was appointed not once but twice.
The piece of shit Mossadeq, once prime minister, demanded that the he be invested with emergency powers and that the Majlis (parliament) be dissolved.
Those who look upon Mossadeq as a kind of champion of democratic nationalism are idiots. Mossadeq was just another populist demagogue, like Nasser.
I am loath to set you off on another lengthy (disgusting) apologia for CIA interference, a la your excoriation of Allende and defense of Pinochet.
I submit that the NYTimes feature I linked is worth reading, and that Middle Easterners often point to the interference of the CIA in that instance as indication of where US policy lies, despite its contradictory rhetoric.
That is it.
Well I haven't spoken of SA becoming "more Islamist" under clerics, but simply of its having a replacement Islamic government, which under clerics it surely would. But you raise an interesting question. Do you think if Osama bin Laden or his clone were to take over Saudi Arabia, the country would become no "more Islamist" than it is now? (I guess the question is how you personally define such a notion as "more" or "less" Islamist.)
But beyond the hairsplitting, yes, of course the relevant issue would be hostility to the west. But if anti-US clerics took over SA that hostility would be justified in the name of extreme Islam, which does not currently control Saudi policy to the extent that it could cut off western oil access (even if it wanted to).
I'll admit I have no idea as to the likelihood of a clerical government taking hold in SA, but it seems slightly more within the realm of plausible speculation than a takeover of Arabia by Saddam Hussein.
This meeting was to be followed by a series of additional ones, some between Roosevelt and the shah and some between Rashidian and the shah, in which relentless pressure was exerted in frustrating attempts to overcome an entrenched attitude of vacillation and indecision," the history states.
Dr. Mossadegh had by now figured out that there was a plot against him. He moved to consolidate power by calling for a national referendum to dissolve Parliament.
The results of the Aug. 4 referendum were clearly rigged in his favor; The New York Times reported the same day that the prime minister had won 99.9 percent of the vote. This only helped the plotters, providing "an issue on which Mossadegh could be relentlessly attacked" by the agency-backed opposition press.
Well, Iran 1953 is very unlike Chile 1973. In Chile, CIA intervention was basically incidental to the overthrow of Allende. It would have happened anyway without any external intervention. By contrast, the 1953 coup in Iran would not have happened if it were not for the CIA and Mi6.
One other important difference between Chile 1973 and Iran 1953 is this.
In Chile, a legally created government (whose behaviour in office was nonetheless thoroughly illegal and unconstitutional), was overthrown.
What happened in 1953 in Iran was not the usurpation of some constitutional government, but the restoration of the legitimate authority against a usurper with not even a shred of democratic or constitutional mandate.
That's certainly been my impression as well. The Saudis and OPEC are constrained as much by non-OPEC producers as the US. And lately, the Russians are not at all interested in dropping production.
I'm also off to make some semblance of dinner.
I mentioned ex-pats--they aren't Saudi society, obviously, but it is certainly possible to become more strict.
Women have options in both education and employment that could be even more severely curtailed.
Men, too, have rights that could be taken away. They have all sorts of rights in regards to their children--particularly their daughters and wives--that could be removed, and not by giving women more freedom. A woman can't drive without her father or husband's permission, but she can leave the country, work, and be educated. All options that could easily become as forbidden as driving, despite what Daddy or hubby says.
Anyway, yes for now Mexico Russia and Norway and Britain hold the cards and they're refusal to cut production has broken the oligopoly power of OPEC just as the North Slope did in the 1980's
This Powell v. Rummy-Wolfie-CondoGirl war is sure to continue until DethroneMent 04
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Northern Alliance opposition forces on Thursday apparently captured some senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan (news - web sites), a senior U.S. official said.
``We have heard that the Northern Alliance may have come into possession of some Taliban leadership earlier today,'' the official told Reuters, adding that the group did not include senior Taliban leader Mullah Omar or Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), head of the anti-Western al Qaeda network.
No, I don't believe the war on terrorism will even last a generation (25-30 years). That the notion was put forward by our nation's leaders obviously impresses you not as hyperbole but as fair assessment advanced by authority.
Really. Then how long do you think the war against terrorism will take? Keep in mind the list of twenty-five terrorist organizations the State department has listed as practicing international terrorism, which shows the battles will be primarily fought against Islamic fundamentalists.
Also keep in mind that Islamic fundamentalists exist from Algeria to the Philippines, from Turkey to Sudan, from Indonesia to Palestine, and that some of the highest centers of its growth exist in states that are our putative allies (Egypt and Saudi Arabia).
Do you expect Islamic fundamentalism that practices international terrorism to end in ...
a) less than a year?
b) less than five years?
c) less than ten years?
d) less than twenty years?
*******
You have announced yourself here unfit to judge the quality of the military strategy, since you say you are not aware of the exact nature of our military plans. You have also jumped on people for speculated about this or that, saying they don't have enough information. Yet, paradoxically, you now claim I am relying on the authority of government officials (the ones you say are practising hyperbole when they say that this could be a war of Cold War-like length) and confidently claim this war is the work of less than a generation. What sort of expertise do you bring to the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism that makes you so confident in your claim?
I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed.
Loar's Addendum to the above post:
Now, is my opinion of the war on terrorism the "short-term project" you ascribe to me? Well, certainly less than the 25-30 years you buy into, but tell me where I've said the war on terrorism is a short-term project?
Yes. How long do you expect this series of battles against Islamic fundamentalism to take? When someone says this is not the work of a generation, I expect you didn't mean just one year short of a generation's span, but considerably shorter -- perhaps ten years. I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead.
In one important sense we have already been at battle with Islamic fundamentalism since 1979. I expect it will still be a force in some areas (and international terrorism an integral part of its force) when I am as old as you. I think the continuing advances in many types of terror weapons will facilitate these groups who want to do to the U.S. what bin Laden did to it on 9-11: take out mass civilian casualties.
continued...
Yes, I saw your group of posts (you've linked to them before). It's easy to look good when you're arguing with Ace of Spades. You had a couple of prescient comments surrounded by a lot of obvious stuff. I mean how presicent is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means?
Bin Laden, for reasons best known to him (the reasons cited are not highly persuasive, even to other jihadis) has taken the battle to the US, to US soil and to US civilians. It will probably be his downfall.
I have said this before - if he had not made this tactical error, the global jihadis would have been left to create massive problems in Afghanistan and beyond, countries like Pakistan would have burned, countries like India and Russia and Egypt would have been plagued, and the US would have stayed out of it until its own interests got affected down the road. Bin Laden, from the jihadi point of view, made a huge error in overplaying his hand at this point.
I'd say there is a very tiny possibility that the US will target Iraq, but that appears more unlikely every day, and I fully believe the reports that the US has promised not to do so to a variety of partners.
If there is more large-scale military activity, it will take place in Pakistan. But even then, it's more likely to be the kind of theatre that Afghanistan has been to this point, with the Pak army itself as proxy.
Bin Laden is not an anomaly. He was preceded on American soil by Ramzi Yousef and Sheikh Abdul Rahman, and his closest ssociate, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may ultimately be more important than bin Laden, from our perspective.
German intelligence claimed yesterday that tens of thousands of terrorists loosely organized around bin Laden have been trained to carry out al-Qaeda operations worldwide. These men are not in any sense anomalous.
Yes, disagreement very much rankles you.
I mean how presicent is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means? is not a summary but a gross caricature of my remarks, again, your ridicule.
Al Qaeda is anomalous in its worldwide scope and its ability to project terror on a massive scale, which capabilites targeted arguably one of the loosest security structures in the world - the US public. And as a consequence of those attacks security has tightened, making future attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups more difficult.
According to it, not only do Russian producers see in the present uncertainties an opportunity to develop their markets, so does Putin find an opportunity to forge stronger US ties by ensuring the production of oil is not reduced per Saudi demands. (Moscow ultimately controls Russian pipeline flow and, I believe, pricing.) The Saudis have threatened a price war, but the Russians figure SA is ill-equipped to lose the revenue, oil being more or less the entire Saudi economy. Russia is not so hampered.
Wonder whether other non-OPEC countries will follow suit, or fall in line behind the Sauds.
VIENNA - OPEC oil exporters, angered by their non-OPEC rivals, on Wednesday faced a tough slog to shore up oil prices with more output cuts.
Mounting frustration in OPEC with a lack of cooperation from non-aligned producers, particularly Russia, raised late doubts about the group's intentions for a proposed reduction of up to 1.5 million barrels a day, six percent.
Kuwaiti Oil Minister Adel al-Subaih said any OPEC reduction should be conditional on a proportional cut by Russia.
"I would not support the cut," he said, shortly before ministers gathered for an 0900 GMT meeting. Delegates raised the possibility of postponing the implementation date for new lower limits pending more talks with Russia or even deferring any agreement.
"OPEC may well not cut, not even a barrel, if Russia does not cut a proportionate amount," a senior OPEC official told Reuters. Oil prices subsided, London Brent indicating a 40-cent drop for opening trade at about $20.40 a barrel.
Strenuous efforts aimed at drumming up support from big non-OPEC suppliers that also include Norway and Mexico have failed to make much headway with only Moscow so far promising a cut, a token 30,000 bpd.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, before a scheduled gathering of ministers at 0900 GMT, said the focus now was on Russia.
"They have the biggest capability. They are the key to price stability," Naimi told reporters. Moscow's offer was "disappointing," he said. The world's second biggest exporter, Russia has lifted crude sales sharply in recent months to more than three million barrels a day.
My eyes glaze over only when you go into extended speculative flights of fancy about issues for which you obviously have no intuitive grasp of what's plausible and implausible, based on some flimsy trifles you picked up here and there.
The predictive capacity of my "intuitive grasp" is probably not much worse than the predictive capacity of your encyclopedic catalogs of facts.
On another note, things are looking more and more like 1994.
US-Iran relations warming.
Abu Nidal – split from PLO in 1974, has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980’s, primary targets are rival PLO members; numbers a few hundred
Abu Sayyaf – Muslim terrorist group in the Basilan and Sulu islands of the Philippines, they publicly aspire to political autonomy but practice kidnapping for ransom
Armed Islamic Group – intends to overthrow the secular Algerian government and replace it with an Islamic state
Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) – responsible for the sarin gas attack 20 March 1995 in Tokyo, now required by law to regularly report its membership, residences, and other holdings. (Before 1994 this group released anthrax in the Tokyo subway system but the attacks failed in part because the form of bacteria was that used for vaccinations and so did not pose threat of disease.)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty – terrorism to gain Basque autonomy
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya – based in southern Egypt, attacks Egyptian government officials, Coptic Christians, and other opponents of Islamic extremism; has threatened but never attacked US citizens or facilities.
HAMAS – targets the state and citizens of Israel
Harakat ul-Mujahidin – Pakistani militant group which intent is to wrest Kashmir from India; they have killed 5 Western tourists
Hizballah – Responsible for the bombing of the US Marine barracks in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in September 1984; known terrorist activities outside Lebanon were the bombing of the 1994 Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires and the Iraeli embassy in Argentina in 1992.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – terrorist group opposed to secular government in Uzbekistan
Abu Nidal – split from PLO in 1974, has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980’s, primary targets are rival PLO members; numbers a few hundred
Abu Sayyaf – Muslim terrorist group in the Basilan and Sulu islands of the Philippines, they publicly aspire to political autonomy but practice kidnapping for ransom
Armed Islamic Group – intends to overthrow the secular Algerian government and replace it with an Islamic state
Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) – responsible for the sarin gas attack 20 March 1995 in Tokyo, now required by law to regularly report its membership, residences, and other holdings. (Before 1994 this group released anthrax in the Tokyo subway system but the attacks failed in part because the form of bacteria was that used for vaccinations and so did not pose threat of disease.)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty – terrorism to gain Basque autonomy
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya – based in southern Egypt, attacks Egyptian government officials, Coptic Christians, and other opponents of Islamic extremism; has threatened but never attacked US citizens or facilities.
HAMAS – targets the state and citizens of Israel
Harakat ul-Mujahidin – Pakistani militant group which intent is to wrest Kashmir from India; they have killed 5 Western tourists
Hizballah – Responsible for the bombing of the US Marine barracks in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in September 1984; known terrorist activities outside Lebanon were the bombing of the 1994 Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires and the Iraeli embassy in Argentina in 1992.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – terrorist group opposed to secular government in Uzbekistan
Al-Jihad – Egyptian Islamic extremists has not attacked within Egypt since 1993 and never attacked foreigners. Attempt to attack the US Embassy in Albania was thwarted in 1998
Kach and Kahane Chai – Jewish extremists opposing a secular Jewish state
Kurdistan Workers’ Party – aspires to create a Kurdish autonomous area in Turkey
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – terrorism to support Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka
Mujuhedin-e Khalq Organization – Iranian dissident group, anti-Western and anti-Iranian government now based in Iraq (of course, where else?)
National Liberation Army – Marxist insurgents attempting the overthrow of the Colombian government, kidnaps foreign employees among hundreds of others, most based in rural Colombia
The Palestine Islamic Jihad – aims to create a Palestinian state and destroy Israel, the group has not attacked US citizens or interests
Palestine Liberation Front – killed Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro 1985, no activity since then
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – opposes negotiations with Israel, has conducted terrorist attacks against Israeli and Palestinan moderates
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command – based in Lebanon, active in the 1970’s, 1980’s, opposes the PLO.
Al-Qaida – the extent of its activities make it unique, responsible for terrorist attacks against the US worldwide and not linked to any regional interest or conflict save ridding Muslim areas of non-Muslims.
Revolutionary Organization 17 November – an anti-Greek government, anti-US, anti-NATO, anti-Turkey organization intending Greece withdraw from NATO and the European Union, have assassinated US and Greek officials in Greece
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party – Marxist terrorist group based in Turkey targeting US personnel and facilities in Turkey as well as Turkish government officials
Revolutionary People’s Struggle – extreme leftist group committed to the expulsion of all US military forces from Greece
Sendero Luminoso – Communist terrorist organization intending to destroy existing Peruvian institutions and replace them with a “communist peasant revolutionary regime”; based in rural Peru
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement – intends to rid Peru of all capitalist influences and establish a Marxist regime; this group occupied the Japanese Ambassador’s residence in December, 1996, holding 72 hostages for more than four months.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one are localized. The exception is Al-Qaeda, and the anomaly is Al-Qaeda is worldwide and has targeted the US independently of local concerns.
is interesting; I don't remember hearing about it previously.
"On relations with the United States, Khatami said the two countries might be at "the beginning of a new and positive process if the Bush administration follows with practical steps." He specifically urged the United States to rethink its opposition to letting a proposed Central Asia oil pipeline run through Iran.
Although he expressed pessimism about an imminent breakthrough, he said he hoped to see "practical change in the behavior of the United States toward Iran, so that this mistrust can go away."
In his U.N. address, Khatami--whose country is on the State Department's list of seven state sponsors of terrorism--said that since Sept. 11, nations around the world "walk hand in hand" with America.
On Monday, the Iranian leader added that there are "no barriers" now to cultural or economic ties with the United States.
"It's only the United States that is preventing these exchanges, especially economic ties," he said. Iran had signed a deal with Conoco to develop offshore oil and gas fields, but Washington forced them to scuttle the project.
Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur.
I thought this map conveyed the ethnic complexity of Afghanistan tidily and without too much detail: ![](http://mmdia.tf1.fr/mmdia/100/101/98/94598-50.GIF")
Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur.
I don't recall the exchange at all. Either it has slipped my mind, or Pseudoerasmus had that conversation with someone else.
Terror often is not aimed at achieving a larger aim but rather a small one, such as calling international attention to US support of a regime terrorists oppose. I'm not sure Pincher has argued there will be indefinitely continuing massive-scale attacks against Americans, but rather that terrorism against the US will be ongoing for a generation.
I agree with him. International terrorism is not a new phenomenon; attacks on US soil are not new phenomena; all that is new as of 9-11 is the scale of US attacks. Surely you recognize that this can diminish and terror can persist.
As for how ongoing attacks on the US might further terrorist aims, bear in mind that Black September's assassination of Israeli Olympians in Munich was unprecedented in its time, and has not yet led to the liberation of Palestine. But it surely accomplished interim objectives and acquired for the PLO a voice at the UN. There's no reason to believe other terrorist groups (but certainly not all of those you mention) could not find objectives that attacking the US would satisfy.
Doesn't the US support the current government in Peru? Is Plan Colombia not a thorn in someone's side? Is Egypt a bastion of US-loving freedom, and do we not support its repressive secular regime with a great deal of economic aid? (In fact, I thought I had heard Ayman Zawahiri was connected to Egypt's Ikhwan; perhaps it was another member of al Qaeda.)
Verbal confrontations turned violent starting Oct. 21, after Iran lost 3-1 to Bahrain. Riot police bundled protesters into vans, and security forces fired tear gas to repel youths hurling stones, home-made explosives, and stun grenades, ripping through downtown Tehran. The authorities set up special courts to try more than a thousand detainees arrested following the torching of dozens of banks, police cars, and bus stops.
Analysts trace a shift in Iran since Sept. 11, as Iranians urge their leaders to ride a groundswell of sympathy for the victims and re-establish relations with the United States after 22 years of pariahdom. In a counterpoint to anti-US demonstrations by Muslims elsewhere in Asia and the Arab world, the soccer revelers chanted "We love America."
"In crisis, equations change. Iran and America can bring their positions closer," said Ibrahim Bisalami, a member of parliament close to President Mohammad Khatami and spokesman of the special parliamentary commission to review Iran's post-Sept. 11 policy. Shiite Iran and the US share a loathing of the Taliban's Sunni fanaticism, and have both backed the Northern Alliance.
But hope has turned to frustration, as Ayatollah Khamenei publicly reprimanded Mr. Khatami and his fellow reformers earlier this month for countenancing any restructuring of the anti-American pillar of Iran's revolution.
...
Parliamentarians, including Mr. Bisalami, daring to broach the prospect of a US rapprochement faced censure by decree of the judiciary, the bastion of Khamenei's power.
...
"Iran has its own Taliban," says Mohammed Sadiq al Hussein, advisor to the arch-reformist former culture minister, Ataollah Mohajerani. "They think everything is forbidden. In Islam everything is allowed."
You have announced yourself here unfit to judge the quality of the military strategy, since you say you are not aware of the exact nature of our military plans
I thought/hoped/prayed that we had rid ourselves of such overweening arrogance by giving it its own thread.
If you asked an ordinary pro-reform young Iranian on the Tehran street whether he's more animated about the economic impact of having--what is it, 4 million?--Afghan refugees on Iranian soil, or about the simple plight of those refugees fleeing Taliban repression and Taliban-facilitated starvation, what would he say?
Pan-Iranianism is an esoteric ideology found primarily among the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia.
Between 150 and 200 troops landed in two transport aircraft. They are believed to include the 24-strong Pathfinder Platoon, a specialist reconnaissance unit; members of the Special Boat Service; troops from the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment; Royal Marines and Royal Engineer units. "
First British troops land outside Kabul
Now in Injia's sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin' of 'Er Majesty the Queen,
Yes, so one would have imagined. So what difference can it make whether Khatami endorses it? The man's power base is the people. They are Muslims. They apparently are violently opposed to Muslim extremism now, more than before. Everything Khatami and his representatives have done on the international scene since 9-11, while in no way unmotivated by politics and other affairs of state, has been couched in Islamic terms and has served in effect to model enlightened Islam for Iran and the rest of the world. I don't see this as entirely opportunistic--if nothing else, Khatami is behaving, as much as can be expected, as a representative of popular will--and I do see it as a good thing (despite my objections to what Iran wishes the US would do wrt Afghanistan).
I don't see how you can dismiss my speculations as fanciful while proposing that Iran's greater motivations are tied up in such arcana as pan-Iranism.
I want rock and roll
put another dime in my jukebox Ando????
Wasn't the guy who made that film, "Kandahar," an Iranian?
"I don't see how you can dismiss my speculations as fanciful while proposing that Iran's greater motivations are tied up in such arcana as pan-Iranism."
I have no idea what you were talking about.
(1) What I dismissed was your strange ideas about an Iran-Taliban rapprochement.
(2) I did not say that Iran's "greater motivations" are pan-Iranist. I merely noted that Khatami may be a pan-Iranist and this could plausibly influence his foreign policy to some extent.
Yes. So what?
Message # 16068: I don't think a military strategy the whole prescription. Look to my Message # 3217, Message # 3226, Message # 3227, and Message # 3232 then you tell me how many years, 1, 5, 10, 20, 29.5?
Is this a game?
You propose this war will not last a generation. You put forward the idea of an international protocol on terrorism. And now you expect me to guess how long it will take to enact your proposal?
Did you not understand my question to you? How long do you think this war on terror will last?
By the way, do you have any idea how long some international protocols can take to enact, especially when some states do not want them to be enacted?
As for my jumping on people and my confidence... admit it, you don't like my style just as others here (count me in) don't much like your style. What of it?
I like your style, Scott Loar. You're something right out of the early nineteenth century, a living fossil.
And I'm sure most people here would agree with me that you and I are far more alike in experience and manner than we are different. So I would just explain your dislike of my style as a form of self-loathing.
Scott: Yes, disagreement very much rankles you.
I love disagreement, Loar, especially when my opposing debater is obviously wrong.
I mean how prescient is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means? is not a summary but a gross caricature of my remarks, again, your ridicule.
Not at all. I gave you credit for some prescient remarks, but most of your comments are just statements of the obvious in your attempt to counter Ace of Spades -- a person, I admit, who needs the obvious stated to him.
Al Qaeda is anomalous in its worldwide scope and its ability to project terror on a massive scale, which capabilites targeted arguably one of the loosest security structures in the world - the US public. And as a consequence of those attacks security has tightened, making future attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups more difficult.
Al Qaeda is merely the widest-ranging terrorist group. There are numerous terrorist groups which have international scope, with the proven ability to hit targets in more than one or two continents. There are also groups which have shown a desire and a nascent ability to make biological and chemical weapons. Aum Shinryko was a group with offices in Tokyo, New York and Moscow and with assets over a billion dollars when it was brought down. It had trained scientists and doctors among its fifty-thousand membership, amd actually sent a team of doctors to Africa to harvest the Ebola virus.
Message # 16080
And no, I had not linked to those posts before. Surely not to you.
If I see something posted in the Mote, I consider it mine, whether you give me the okay to look at it or not.
No comment, just enjoying the good news.
More difficult perhaps but it's doubtful they will ever be eliminated by increased security, either in the U.S. or against American institutions, private and public around the world.
No, terrorism will never be eliminated. But surely the type of terrorism isn't the loner with a gun or other small groups, but the kind of terrorists with funds and the will to make mass casualty attacks.
One of the most intelligent and deadliest terrorists ever, Ramzi Yousef, was asked after his capture why he never attacked Israel. Too hard to get away it, he said.
But surely the type of terrorism [we are most worried about] isn't the loner with a gun or small groups, but the kind of terrorists with funds and the will to make mass casualty attacks.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one [Al Qaeda] are localized.
Localized? That is nearly a dishonest characterization, unless you consider "local" to be a 3000-square mile radius of the group's birthplace. Look at the first group on your list, the Abu Nidal:
Has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries....Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.
Yes, the group has financial problems now, but what of it? A change in fortunes, a more motivated leadership, and that could quickly disappear. The desire and the experience are already there.
And your point also omits that until 9-10, Al Qaeda was also a "local" terrorist group, hitting targets exclusively in the Middle East and East Africa.
The exception is Al-Qaeda, and the anomaly is Al-Qaeda is worldwide and has targeted the US independently of local concerns.
See my point above. Until 9-11, Al Qaeda was every bit the local organization as all the other groups you list.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one [Al Qaeda] are localized.
Localized? That is nearly a dishonest characterization, unless you consider "local" to be
