Shame the letter doesn't mention the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe etc.
those well know areas of sweetness and light.
Perhaps the Balkans could be referenced too as NATO still has troops there after a decade and a half.
Chetnia also has some issues.
The world can be a nasty place were situations have to be dealt with on a case by case basis with the best information to hand and best intentions in heart.
Non action only allows people like Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe to flourish.
If you don't like what the current Government is doing re foreign affairs, use the vote that this country has given you as a citizen, unlike so many other countries, to vote them out.

Kellie RTranter asks, "Open letter to Stephen Smith: All Australians deserve to know the true picture in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Well Kellie, how much time have you got.

Let's see Mahomet started a religion, sort of cross between Judism, Christianity & local religions around Medina.
Then he set about making War on everybody who refused to join his religion.
Then he was murdered.
Then his two uncle's fought over who was going to be the leader.
They have been fighting one another ever since.
Then they set about making war & conquering & converting by force the rest of the world.
They were, early on, a very enlightened people, but then the religious leaders upsurped power from the rulers. They became Theocracies & those countries under the rule of Mullars have remained in the 11th century ever since.
Since they control the majority of the worlds Oil, they hold the West to ransom. They want & insist that the West accept & convert to their religion & accept them as the world rulers. Nothing has changed from the very first steps of Mahomet.

Sorry, I couldn't maker any briefer than that.

It would be good to find out how many civilians have been killed in Iraq. The likely outcome is that 90% plus of deaths were due to the hatred that one tribe has for the other. No doubt Kelly would be happy for one of the hotbed's of terrorism to be left to Saddam Hussein. It is sickening to see so many self righteous commentators trying to make political points when so many Americans have lost their lives liberating many (albeit ungrateful) people.

Iraq is a creation of the West (UK), and like all colonial greed they keep making a mess of it!

www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iraq

Kellie Tranter

War: Not in your name but in the name of Mohammad, founder of Islam.

9/11 was the first shot at the non-Muslim world, USA representing liberal democracies. The Mumbai massacre was the second attack against non-Muslims, the target was not aimed at Indians but intentional in character and non-Muslims,

"The breakdown of the foreigners was as follows: four Americans, two Australians, three Germans, two Israeli-Americans, two Israelis, two Canadians, two French, two Italians, one British-Cypriot, one Dutch, one Japanese, one Jordanian, one Malaysian, one Mauritian, one Mexican, one Singaporean and one Thai" (wikipedia)

The war in Iraq is questionable but the Muslims are taking advantage of the situation to murder Christians now that secular leader Saddam Hussien is gone.

"Christians On the Run in Iraq"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,587345,00.html

In every country of the West the Islamists have already infiltrated the town, cities and suburbs. The Islamic religious schools and mosques are their training ground. Each Friday mosques blurt out hate speeches of non-Muslims, and their life-style are constantly denigrated. The sedition of subverting the rule-of-law in liberal democracies by the shariah law has already been launched by Muslims.

As a qualified Adult Age qualified historian, I agree with you so much, Kellie.

But a study of history shows it has usually always been the same with Western Payback as even the CIA has admitted, often multipled by ten or more.

Certainly we must discount the eternal horror of the Nazis and their death camps filled with tortured Jewish bodies over the above, even though we cannot deny that that it was a Western race which gave support.

Thus we become involved in that intriguing question once again about us modern Westerners offering to share the blame
for our global troubles.

But - No Way, No Way, say most of our OLO's, a couple of comments even suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount should not be included in our Christian beliefs, because there is that terrible portion in it suggesting that we should try and learn to love our enemies.

Yet isn't trying to offer our enemies not so much a gift of freedom, but also the type of understanding including maybe just a little compassion

I would of thought that any women would be pleased for their fellow sisters to receive at least a glimmer of hope from the oppression of Islam. But no many are more interested in their misguided dogmas than the welfare of those most oppressed. Kelly is unlikely to get a say in Afghanistan. Recently we read of girls wanting to go to school having acid thrown over their faces. According to Kelly its not our problem. Maybe we should hold up a banner about climate change instead.

'This month in Afghanistan, men on motorcycles threw acid on a group of girls who dared to attend school. One of the girls, a 17-year-old named Shamsia, told reporters from her hospital bed: “I will go to my school even if they kill me. My message for the enemies is that if they do this 100 times, I am still going to continue my studies.”

from
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

>>CLAIM..no transitional's...systematic,gaps/..fossil record.

Response:...direct_lineages are_not required!;<<{LOL}>>they could not be verified even if found.<<[LOL}>>What a transitional[fossil]is[in keeping with what the theory of evolution,predicts;is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism<<lol;this redefition of the question is a evolution constant#

>>.....We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years..we do find several'fine'gradations of fossils between species and genera,<<

YET FAIL TO NAME THEM[no link provided{IE the ONLY proof is within the genus[like wolf/dog][micro-evolution[WITHIN THE SPECIES;[not evolution INTO new genus]

>>..many other sequences between higher taxa..very well filled out<<but again not named[how very'scientific'.

>>the following are fossil transitions between species and genera/:'Human ancestry...many fossils of human,ancestors,'<<

[NONE OF THEM REVEALED[,not even a link]>>'and the differences between species are so gradual..not always clear where to draw the lines between them.'<<{LOL}but note the other[7]'proofs'

>>The horns of titanotheres[progressively larger sizes,from nothing to prominence]<<are babies born with horns?[is THIS'nothing'AMBIOGENESIS?]

>>A gradual transitional-fossil sequence<<[UNAMED}>>..Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species<<[you would think that a word like moerpho-species would ring bells[or at least deserve a link?/to be NAMED?]

>>The fossi..transitions between species of Phacops
..Planktonic forminifera...punctuated gradualism.>>

no kidding fossils preserve delicate plankton but not'delicate'animals[LOL}['punctuated gradulism[=]evolutional LAW?[but the'proof'goes on>>Fossils of[mollusc]species/Cenozoic marine ostracodes/The Eocene primate genus Cantius/callops of the genus Chesapecten[gradual change in one"ear"of their hinge over about 13 million years.The ribs also change/Gryphaea(coiled oysters)become larger and broader but thinner and flatter..<<BUT REMAIN OYSTERS

>>The following are fossil transitionals between families,orders,and classes:3rd link[Transitions between fish and tetrapods]GOES to
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html#

>>ClaimCC212;..no transitional fossils between fish/tetrapods[Response:There are several[?}<<

several?[good transitional fossils]:the rest are bad?[the PROOF?]

>>Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils..A fossil shows eight bony fingers..offering'evidence'that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods.<<

BUT THEN DISAPPEARED till apes RE-EVOLVED IT?[what they devolved after they'evolved;[onto land?]but back to your'PROOF'

>>A,Devonian/humerus#[JOKE HA-HA?}..could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk/Acanthostega,a Devonian fossil,..a fish./Ichthyostega,..'probably'amphibious.../Tulerpeton,.Its shoulders..>>where is the shoulderblade evolving[NEEDED to bear the weight limbs MUST support?]yet,another'link'
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm
no_proof[on my[10th]link]

[your lying to your own_kids]

opps [SORRY about previous post [i was using any form to meet the 350 word limit, accidentially posted a response to a topic asking people to EXPLAIN evolution]

i wont put up the link[this was a mistake]

sorry [but its a real battle out there] with people with closed minds[strangly much like the cl;osed [madeup minds that make these wars]

again appoligies for posting in the wrong placxe
i will try to post [at the right site] as my hour must be up now

anyhow im for no war in my name too
im not fighting the other battle [only exposing [rebutting the facts[but im not a diplo-mat] but do know when i done wrong; so 'apollo-guise' yet again

back to the war[but not in my name]
cheers

my goodness "one under god" If brains were electricty you wouldn't light a LED. I bet you are really good looking too.

How pathetic, unimaginative, and narrow minded is this political analysis about the war in Iraq and war in general. Attorney Tranter is using “accounting” methods, since she lacks imagination, and indeed, “creative accounting” as she is increasing the number of civilian casualties in Iraq by four to one to make her case of ‘War: not in my name’. She is blind to the fact that the attack on 9/11 was a dress rehearsal of what the Islamist fanatics had in store for Western civilization.

With the leaps and bounds of technology and the ever becoming easy way for one to obtain the knowledge to this technology, the terrorists have a great potential in the near future to acquire weapons of mass destruction and indeed nuclear ones that they would use relentlessly against civilians in the West whose casualties would dwarf even her creative accounting figures of civilian casualties in Iraq.

In her typical mechanistic thinking as a trained lawyer, she cannot see that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were and are PREVENTIVE wars whose goal is to abort the coupling of rogue Islamist states with the holy warriors of Islam that would threaten the foundations of all modern civilized life.

I would suggest to her that she sticks to her vocation as an attorney and not delve in the intricate matters of war and peace in which it’s obvious she is completely incompetent and effete.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

It's a pity this girl is such a good typist. If she weren't so good, just may be her brain would be able to keep up with her fingers.

Perhaps then she msy be able to produce something reasonable well thought out.

KELLIE TRANTOR...lawyer and 5TH COLUMIST FOR INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM ?

Her article and true political agenda was exposed in this early statement of hers:

"What, according to your best intelligence, is the current actual or estimated death toll of civilians killed in Iraq?"

Her deliberate and seditious portrayal of events in Iraq show that her loyalties to Australia are questionable.

REASON. It's very simple. She simple mentions 'civilians killed' with the obvious inference that they were killed by Allied forces.

PROBLEM. By far, in my opinion, most deaths in Iraq have been caused not by allied forces but by SECTARIAN VIOLENCE and death squads, including Al Qaeda. Many child deaths can be directly connected to:
-Misuse of available funds by those in charge (Including Sadaam prior to his removal)
-Problems with treating sick kids due to sectarian violence.

MISINFORMATION. Most of what Kelly Turncoat reports is just well structured misinformation of a standard shown in my previous paragraphs.

OBJECTIVES. That someone would deliberately and maliciously misrepresent the realities (and progress) of Iraq and Afghanistan, and not even try to undersand the tribal/religious realities there and how they might effect us.... shows that her objectives are not 'TRUTH' but.. 'half truth' and propaganda with political motives.

INTERNATIONAL SHAME.
The article and its' author are sad representations of Australia, and bring us into international shame and make us a laughing stock where people might think we are so gullible as to actually digest and accept such flagrant distortions of fact as presented by her.

Without wading into the issues too much, I agree that some answers are needed. Lies were told to justify this war. These lies do need airing and the perpetrators shamed. Bush and his war machine is obvious, but the fake intelligence created and the "we can't reveal the sources, but it is very convincing" line sold by Howard need to be revealed for what they were: Very, very bad leadership, if not outright corruption. (Nepotism was OK with him, so Big lies were probably OK too.)
Non-aligned estimates of the death civilian death toll range from 300,000 to meerely tens of thousands. Why so different to the "official" estimates? Obviously less bias, but also they use real statistical methods instead of ones designed to underestimate.
To those who still bang on about how evil Saddam was...Please read your history! The US supported him, armed him and lead him to his destruction with lies and broken promises. He was a tool to be abused and discarded (As was Bush...)
I am more concerned that our own politicians were willing to throw away any morals (honesty, caring for fellow humans), simply by dehumanising a group, using religious bigotry and drumming up fear and loathing.
Runner: Christians have burned their share of witches and have messed with a lot of kiddies in their time. Bush used God to justify mass murder, just as phoney religious have done through history. Getting folks like you onside is sooo easy as you have all your buttons hardcoded and primed to hate "the others". All religious fundamentalism is evil, not any one flavour.
Read your prophet again: *Universal* love is the lesson.

PolyCarp.
When you bomb a modern city to smithereens, people start dying for indirect reasons: Lack of clean water, lack of refrigeration, lack of drugs. New mothers cannot have safe births, sick children cannot be treated.
The US had a responsibility to minimise civilian deaths, not just the blown to bits deaths but all the predictable downstream impacts also. The sheer size of the humanitarian issues created by "Shock and Awe", coupled with the ever changing rationalisations (all lies) and the final admission that it *was* all about oil should lead even the loony Right to conclude that history needs clarification.
(Of course most of them have moved onto rewriting the history of the financial meltdown. Takes a lot of imagination to blame the Left after a decade of neo-libralism!)
You don't seem to have realised yet that almost all the "information" released by US authorities is tactical: ie. propoganda. ie. Bulls%^t.
It is not unreasonable to want the known discrepencies clarified. It is you who by accepting war propoganda and fighting transparency that is letting your country down.

Polycarp wrote, "By far, in my opinion, most deaths in Iraq have been caused not by allied forces but by SECTARIAN VIOLENCE and death squads, including Al Qaeda."

I attempted to start a discussion on precisely this issue but Graham Young refused my request.

In September 2005 members of the British SAS, dressed as Shiites in a booby trapped car were arrested by local police headed towards a religious festival. They were taken into the police station for questioning.

However, the local British army commander demanded that the police hand back the SAS men and attacked the police headquarters when they refused to do so.

A crowd tried to defend the police station but the British Forces broke through and released the SAS men before questioning could be concluded.

See also "British SAS Terror Operation in Basra: Photographic Evidence" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050923&articleId=989
"Iraq probe into soldier incident" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm
"Basra Bizarre: SAS Commandos Arrested and Sprung" at http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3331&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

From this it seems likely that much of the sectarian bloodshed that Polycarp would have us believe was committed by Iraqis, was, in fact, committed either by the occupying forces or local patsies acting on their behalf.

---

For information about that other mother of all 'false flag' terrorist attacks, namely that of 11 September 2001, see discussion of "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#51675 http://911oz.com http://911blogger.com http://911truth.org http://ae911truth.org

Just some of the many credible well0credetnialled people who dispute the official US government version of th 9/11 attacks are listed at http://www.911truthgroups.org/911Truth101/Step2ProminentSupporters/tabid/633/Default.aspx

As I said on the forums concerning the Mumabai attacks, one at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8293#129787, a number of people believe there is evidence that this was also a 'false flag' attack (see http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/12/double-cover-5-lining-up-suspects.html).

So, at least much of the stated rationale for the "War on Terror" appears to be fraudulent.

Hi Kellie,
good on ya, happy to see that there are Aussies speaking out on this crime and questioning it. We are living in a country, where lies are widely accepted, we have learned to look away, when things go wrong, but easily point our fingers at others, especially other countries, but never question ourselves.
Australia has tremendously suffered in its reputation worldwide, thanks to the war head John Howard and our ongoing aggressive foreign policies in the post WW2 period. We are regarded as the deputy sheriff of the US, and that is what we are.
We believe that our legal system is the best in the world, as we are the best anyway. I always wondered why no Australian court has taken John Howard on for taking us again in an unjustified war, based on lies. I also wonder, why no Australian soldier returned from Iraq, questioning his "job". But that would put further strain on the correct handling of our Anzac Day, and that would be regarded as unpatriotic.
So if our legal system is unwilling or unable to do justice in this respect, I would happily put my name on a list, asking for the extradiction of John Howard to the World Court in The Hague, once they have decided to start dealing in this matter (if they ever will).
Again, my respect for speaking out the truth, as shameful as it is for us Australians. I also want to state: No war in my name!
yours Michael Fritz, WA

It seems Dagget’s taste for conspiracy knows no bounds. The Mumbai attacks were false flag, so was 9/11. Maybe the Iraq invasion was actually carried out by four camel herders and a three legged goat.

He say >> “In September 2005 members of the British SAS, dressed as Shiites in a booby trapped car were arrested by local police headed towards a religious festival. They were taken into the police station for questioning.”

I see. They were going to the Shite festival to commit a suicide bombing? A false flag operation? You’re suggesting that the Shiite – Sunni civil war was actually nothing of the sort?

This is the most incredible nonsense. When will you grow up Dagget?

Many of the police in Basra during the height of the war were KNOWN to be allegiant to Moqtadr Al Sadr. They were KNOWN to have carried out attacks on Allied serviceman. It’s hardly surprising that the British didn’t want their people being held at the police station.

And from this PALTRY evidence, Dagget then makes the sweeping claim that >>” From this it seems likely that much of the sectarian bloodshed that Polycarp would have us believe was committed by Iraqis, was, in fact, committed either by the occupying forces or local patsies acting on their behalf.”

WHAT!! !! You really are LOOPY.

Then he goes onto say >> “So, at least much of the stated rationale for the "War on Terror" appears to be fraudulent.”

I see, there are no Islamist groups running around killing people. It’s all part of a GIANT conspiracy by the west to drive down stock prices and economically cripple ourselves.

There is SIMPLY no TALL tale Dagget will not give credence to. What A joke.

An utter loads of BS!

Who the hell does kellie tranter think she is? She obviously knows nothing about the war on terror! You know kellie if u had lived in afghanistan before the invasion, you would not allowed to have a profession or an education. You would be stoned to death to speaking to a man other than your husband. You would not be allowed to show any part of your body in public. And every citizen, regardless of gender, was the subject to the most barbaric and cruel punishments imaginable.
So how dare people condemn the overthrow of the afghani government. The cheering afghanis in the street didn't seem to mind, neither did the iraqis when they tore down the statue of saddam hussein and dragged it through the street.
If america wanted to kill civilians, it would. It has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands, DIRECTLY. It also wouldn't spend hundreds of billions in aid to rebuild iraq and afghanistan. the US military could have cut and run and installed a puppet government to handle things and iraq would be ignored by the media like all the other war torn countries. Countries like the democratic republic of the congo, which was involved in a bitter war starting the same year the US invaded iraq and completely ignored by the media, where 4 million civilians were murdered.

Liberal. Before you criticise the female situation in Afganistan, take a look in your own backyard.

Here in Australia we have fundamentalist christian religous groups, that control the lives of their females and their children.

The devastation of a sovereign country that was no threat to Australia and the loss of many thousands of lives,in an illegal invasion, would indicate you have strange morals and prinicples when it comes to human life.

To quote the author. Not in my name!

Kipp,

You say >> “Here in Australia we have fundamentalist christian religous groups, that control the lives of their females and their children.”

You must be joking. There is simply no comparison between Australia and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is either ignorant of the facts or is appallingly short sighted.

The Taliban instituted Sharia Law. Thus the appalling treatment of women was in accordance with the law of the land. Anyone who is a victim of far right Christianity in this country can seek redress under the law, as opposed to being punished under it, as in Afghanistan.

Secondly, the war in Afghanistan was not illegal. That’s a simple fact. Indeed the UN has been involved from the very beginning, although not in charge.

Islamo-Facists have shown they are a danger to civilised people everywhere through their attacks in Bali, New York, London, Madrid, Beslan, Mumbai etc. Furthermore, the perpetrators of 9/11 trained in Afghanistan and were based there under the protection of the Taliban. The Taliban were given the option of handing over Bin Laden and his terrorist mates, they refused to do so.

The overthrow of the Taliban was met with significant appreciation in Afghanistan. Unfortunately the lack of political will in the west has seen the Taliban regain some of the ground they lost in 2001/2. Hopefully, with the successful conclusion of the Iraq war, Afghanistan will receive the troops and attention it needs

A war, or better any war, cannot be won. Never could, never will.
There is only suffering, for all who are involved. We had no right to again help to invade another foreign country, but did it for f..king no reason at all, only based on a lie. And we will continue to do so, unfortunately. We are relying too much on the US. Our values and mindset are almost like theirs, this makes us all guilty.
A war can not be won. Good on you, Kellie.
No war in my name,
cheers

Paul L. Take the Exclusive Bretheren sect for example, the followers must not mix with the populace of Australia.
The women must have their heads covered, their children are not allowed to view television, media etc, or participate in any activity outside the "EB" environment, and they must be educated in a closed environment and never have a university education
Australian taxpayers are obligated and have to contribute too a closed sect,and you talk about religous control and sharia law.

Anything that divides people is evil! And its on your doorstep !!

M2CATTER..... you say no war can be won.

I tend to agree. But the objective of war might be noble. "Rid the world of a tyrant like Hitler or Sadaam". Now, we both know that had Hitler not been stopped.. we would be speaking German today. The same goes for the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna.. then the Germans (and us) would be speaking Arabic.

Unfortunately, there are those ideologies which regard OUR form of government 'tyranical/infidel/satanic' and thus feel it would be 'noble' to rid us of our elected leaders and replace them with their lacky's

A little saying I've developed...don't know if it's original..but I've never heard it before I thought of it.

"All Peace is the result of war. Every war sows the seeds of the next one"

This is because human beings are not the reasonable, well intended beings we are often told they are (usually by humanists)..no..they/we are people driven by:

Self preservation
Self propogation
Self Gratification

Most human motivation can be reduced to one or more or a combination of these basic drives. The 'self' can mean the physical or the spiritual or both.

Because of this... there is seldom a war which results in just 'neutral peace' and the lack of punishment or disadvantaging of one group or another.

If, for example, a country is re-shaped along very strong ideological lines (Marxism, National Socialism, Islam (Taliban)) and then that nation is defeated by a group of allies... it is highly unlikely that they will ever view the victors in any other way than with utter contempt. Hence..they will be seeking ways to return things to their preferred model. (e.g. Afghanistan today)

This leads to the inescapable conclusion..that war is in fact neccessary, and unavoidable at times and that it always will be, to keep such human filth at bay from the rest of us who don't wish to have such animals running our show.

Paul wrote, "The Taliban were given the option of handing over Bin Laden and his terrorist mates, they refused to do so."

This is a lie.

From the complete 9/11 Timeline:

September 16, 2001: Taliban Said to Agree to All US Demands in a Secret Meeting

A secret meeting takes place between Taliban and US government representatives in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat serves as a middleman. US officials deny the meeting takes place, but later in the month Mohabbat explains that the US demands the Taliban hand over bin Laden, extradite foreign members of al-Qaeda who are wanted in their home countries, and shut down bin Laden?s bases and camps. Mohabbat claims that the Taliban agrees to meet all the demands. However, some days later he is told the US position has changed and the Taliban must surrender or be killed. Later in the month, the Taliban again agrees to hand over bin Laden unconditionally, but the US replies that ?the train had moved.? [CBS NEWS, 9/25/2001; COUNTERPUNCH, 11/1/2004 (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html)] (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601talibanagree#a091601talibanagree)

Paul wrote, "... the war in Afghanistan was not illegal."

Rubbish!

"On September 11, 2001, prior to the NATO meeting (which authorised the invasion on the basis of 'evidence' never made public), the UN Security Council adopted hastily-written resolution 1368 (2001) ... (which) called on 'all states to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.'

(tobcontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"... a 'white paper' for the UN was promised by then Secretary of State Colin Powell proving Osama bin Laden's and al Qaeda's guilt for 9/11. Such a white paper, if proved valid, would enable all member states at the UN to proceed with the urgent priority of tracking down the 9/11 perpetrators, since the resolution is binding on all members. But there's a problem blocking this much-expanded 'war on terrorism'. The promised white paper has never been produced." (Barrie Zwicker, "Towers of Deception - the Media cover-up of 9/11" (2006) p111)

Such issues are also discussed on the "9/11 Truth" forum (now unfortunately massively bloated to 511 posts largely as a result of obfuscation, personal attacks and other assorted diversionary ploys by truth deniers) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#53049.

Lately, Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white appear to have faltered, so if anyone else would like to help Paul out, please feel free to join in.

---

In point of fact, I found the previous Taliban regime to have been repellent. Its treatment of women and the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#Dynamiting_and_destruction.2C_March_2001) in March 2001 sickened me. (On the other hand that act of wanton vandalism seems hardly worse than the US occupation authorities having seemingly intentionally allowed the destruction of Iraqi museums and archives in 2003 in the immediate wake of the invasion). As a result, I welcomed the Taliban's overthrow and supported the war in Afghanistan for many years afterwards (whilst opposing the invasion of Iraq).

In hindsight, I can seen that the illegal invasion only made an appalling situation (in any case largely brought about by previous US meddling) even worse.

Kellie, I thought your article was good. I am surprised at the tenor of the comments. I thought there was widespread opposition to the war in Australian society, but if the comments are anything to go by, it looks like there's not.

Just one point. Isn't it a double standard to criticise government's acts of armed aggression against the people of Iraq, and then to endorse calls from the same govenrment to spend millions of dollars taken from the people of Australia? Are these donations to be voluntary? If not, how do you propose we get the money? Send armed men around and beat people into submission? Filch it from their bank accounts and threaten them with prison if they try to do something about it?

Surely the consistent and ethical stance is to condemn the aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to condemn the violation of people's right to life and liberty by means by which it is financed? Why the double standard?

Also you say that the war in Iraq is illegal. Would it be in any better position if it was legal?

Dagget

Says >> “Lately, Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white appear to have faltered ....”

Rolling on the floor laughing my ASS off.

“ ...The rest of us”?

You imagine that you {who believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation, that the Mumbai massacre was a false flag operation, that capitalism is a global conspiracy organised in a small room somewhere in Switzerland and numerous other CRAZY things} share beliefs with the ordinary people who post to OLO.
You are a NUTNAG of the highest order. There is no "rest of us" thank god.

“ ... Paul's sterling efforts to convince the rest of us that black is white”?

Coming from someone who is SO gullible that they accept without scepticism EVERYTHING ever posted on a Green Weekly, Alternet or other LOONY left websites, I find that SO SUPREMELY ironic I can barely contain my astonishment.

YOU believe that the official version of EVERYTHING is a LIE. YOUR WHOLE WORLD is about trying to convince others as gullible as yourself that BLACK IS WHITE.

I said >> "The Taliban were given the option of handing over Bin Laden and his terrorist mates, they refused to do so."

you say >> “This is a lie” and give us a link about a SECRET meeting. The good and even handed folk at Counterpunch ask us to accept as FACT the uncorroborated testimony of a paid informant and intermediary of the Taliban. There’s no possible way this guy would lie is there. Doh!!

In any case, the Taliban never did hand over Bin Laden, although there was plenty of time to do so.

It’s this kind of stupidity that really marks you out Dagget. You’d believe the North Koreans if they told the AlterNet that they’d got rid of their nukes years ago, and were now being persecuted by the rest of the world for fun/profit/or the joyful exetrmination of socialism.

So

>>”Afghanistan rebuffed an American demand relayed today by Pakistan that the Taliban government immediately and unconditionally surrender Osama bin Laden”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E6D7143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

tbc

CONT,

>> “despite the us ultimatum, the taliban rulers refused on friday to hand over alleged terrorist mastermind osama bin laden and said us attempts to apprehend him by force could plunge the whole region into crisis” http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1270907889.cms

The Taliban militia has issued an ultimatum to the United States stating that evidence against suspected Saudi terrorist, Osama bin Laden, must be submitted by November 20 or bin Laden would be cleared of any crimes.
http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2309

You really have to go through all sorts of contortions to pretend that the Taliban were ever going to hand over Bin Laden. Even if they sat down with Pakistani and US officials it is FAR more likely they were using the cover of negotiation to buy time for their escapes. Which is what in fact happened.

As for the legality of the conflict. Show me who, besides loony left groups, has actually declared the war illegal. The UN? The International Criminal Court, War Crimes tribunal in the Hague? The lack or otherwise, of a White Paper does not make the war illegal, moron.

Dagget says >> “Such issues are also discussed on the "9/11 Truth" forum”

Well actually no their not. I see you are now spruiking for an audience since clearly no one is interested in listening to your drivel by choice. You keep being all you can be Dagget

Hi Polycarp,
Interesting thesis. You write that “all peace is the result of war”.
Peace lies within, and once the stupid war maschinery comes to an end, peace will emerge. So will oil.
Try to tell this an Iraqi, whose family was blown up thanks to our help as well, that peace will soon come. Whether it matters to him, I don’t know. As his family was killed, his life was destroyed as well.
Whether we would speak German today or not, doesn’t really matter, as we are unable to change the course of past history. There might have been a chance for WW2 to be avoided, but the world missed it as it missed the chance to settle peacefully the differences with Iraq. There is always a chance to avoid a war, as long as politicians won’t give up on it. Saddam was a bastard, no denying. But so is George W. Bush and to some degree J.Howard. Iraq was invaded based on a lie, with no weapons of mass destruction, so this war was so wrong and has cost almost one million lifes. We as Australians are co- responsible for that. Period!
My grandmother happened to live in Germany and went through 2 world wars, even last year when she died she had tears in her eyes, when remembering those dreadful times. Australia was very lucky in that way, that it only suffered minor scratches on its own soil. It would pay off for every politician in power to talk to people who went through such a disaster, to better rethink their upcoming actions.
A war is only producing loosers, all the way. And also those ones with a medal, who believed to be on the winners side, will tell you the ugly side of the truth. The scars on their brain will stay with them forever…

Thank you Kellie. Anti-war and human rights campaigners wish there were more people like you, eager to do the research, write and denounce injustice, and unjust and inhuman policies.

Here is a quote from Arundhati Roy's The monster in India's mirror:
"There is a fierce, unforgiving fault line that runs through the contemporary discourse on terrorism. On one side (let's call it Side A) are those who see terrorism, especially "Islamist" terrorism, as a hateful, insane scourge...has nothing to do with the world around it, nothing to do with history, geography or economics. Therefore, Side A says, to try to place it in a political context, or even to try to understand it, amounts to justifying it and is a crime in itself.

"Side B believes that, though nothing can ever excuse or justify it, terrorism exists in a particular time, place and political context, and to refuse to see that will only aggravate the problem and put more and more people in harm's way. Which is a crime in itself."

Now, I encourage 'posters' here to read it:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL16Df02.html

Does War serve a purpose? Is it part of GODs design for Humans? The same Questions applys to Disease.

I remember in the dim distant past that there was a Computer Game which involved keeping a balance between Deer & Wolves. Too many Deer they ate all the grass & starved & the Wolves ate them all then they starved to death. Result total destruction. Too many Wolves, etc, etc,.

War, Pestilience, Natural disasters all have their place in keeping the Human population in check. Should the West interfere with GODs plan?

Marlene,

Thank you for posting that link. It is claimed that many more people read this 'zine than comment on it.

I hope that this is true - that there are more moderate, compassionate and thinking people out there who disassociate themselves from the squabbling of the bandar-log we present here.

Unfortunately the value of the comments we publicise here these days serves the purpose of allowing us to view our society through a glass darkly.

As a poster I, of course, include myself in the collective pronoun "we".

While, therefore, the link you provided may not necessarily be seen to have been of value on these pages, rest assurred that those who strive to help educate and illuminate continue to provide tools for gaining understanding and tolerance.

Diocletian says:

"I thought there was widespread opposition to the war in Australian society, but if the comments are anything to go by, it looks like there's not."

I don't feel that is a valid conclusion to draw from the comments thus far D...... no.. most of us recognize that in the face of a Kim Ill Sung.. a Kim Jong Ill... an Adolph Hilter.. a Sultan Sulaiman of the Ottoman Empire... that war is an absolute neccessity when the CHOICE is.. "servitude or victory"

<As the Ottomans advanced, those inside Vienna prepared to resist, their determination stiffened by news of the massacre of the Buda garrison in early September>

Do you see it? "MASSACRE" as your 'eyes' in the field tell you what other powers are doing at the borders... your mind must become rather focused...the grim reality arises in your consciousness and you face the awful truth.. "We must stand...fight..and many die...if we are to be free"

It isn't about glory for goodness sake..it's about pure survival.
There is great glory in a successful defensive war.. let me repeat that..GREAT "glory"...becuase it was a just cause.
There is NO glory whatsoever in a victorious land grab or territorial extention.

So..to defend Australia.. even if it means removing scum like the Taliban in Afghanistan...is a glorious effort.. as long as it remains that.. defensive.. removing those who would train people to undermine and blow us up.
I see zero glory in them NOT removing (by force) the poppy crops.
So..there is a down side to everything.
Knowing history.. I'd be saddened but not surprised if the CIA were getting considerable revenue for dark ops from the drug trade coming from those poppy field.

Paul seems quite upset that someone on this forum had the effrontery to challenge the principle justification of the "war on terror" given early in this discussion, namely the 'false flag' terrorist attack of 11 September 2001.

---

In regard to Kabir Mohabbat who passed on to the West offer by the Taliban to hand across Osama bin Laden, Paul does what he is best at, that is, come up with any excuse to smear those who provide testimony that doesn't conform to his world view.

Clearly Paul has not been paying proper attention to the 9/11 Truth forum, because I showed there (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#50161) that in July 2001, Osama bin Laden, a supposedly wanted terrorist, met with the CIA station chief in Dubai in July 2001 (see article "The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html)

Also bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan on 10 and 11 September were known to the Americans (from "Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama" at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml
"Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama by Michel Chossudovsky" at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html).

Clearly they never wanted to capture bin Laden and Kabir Mohabbat was telling the truth about the Taliban's offer to hand him across whatever stance they took in public.

In any case, Paul, why was it so outrageous for the Taliban to have publicly asked the US to produce evidence of Osama bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks, particularly when, even today, he is not wanted by the FBI for that crime (as I have already pointed out to you)? (See FBI wanted poster http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and try to find 9/11 listed amongst the crimes he is to be charged with.)

---

BTW Paul, hadn't you noticed? I said in my last post that I found the Taliban to be abhorrent, but that is beside the point of this argument.

Dagget,

You say >> “Paul seems quite upset that someone … had the effrontery to challenge the principle justification of the "war on terror".

You just can’t help making things up. Please show me where on this thread 1) you challeneged the principal justification for the war on terror and 2) Where I got upset about it. You are clearly still spruiking for an audience for your 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dagget says >> “Kabir Mohabbat who passed on to the West offer by the Taliban …”

Uncorroborated testimony from a paid informant/flunky is not generally considered to be reliable. In fact if we turn your quote around people should be know that if a three legged talking cow gave you the story you were looking for you would accept it without hesitation. Everyone except Kabir Mohabbat is lying because it neatly fits your predisposed condition of “conspiri-itis”. Conspiti-it is a disease rabid leftists catch when they spend TOO much time on the “ALTERNET”

You say >> “I showed there that in July 2001, Osama bin Laden … met with the CIA station chief in Dubai in July 2001… “

Sorry what? You showed? By quoting an obscure conspiracy website you have comprehensively showed this to be true? REALLY? You need to come back down to planet earth where the real people live. You haven’t showed anything. At best you have “accused’ or “postulated” but you have definitely not proved anything

You go on to quote the genius Michel Chossudovsky who’s evidence is >> “he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials”

Riveting stuff, convincing too. NOT!! !!.

But even if all this was true, it was before 9/11. So how is it relevant?

His status as public enemy number one kind of changed dramatically on 911, after killing thousands of US citizens on US soil.

Its typical conspiracy theorist nonsense. First they come up with the theory, then they go around looking for evidence which fits.

Paul, you forgot to mention the many thousands of the Iraqi civilians, who died when the US bombs came down on them.
There again, whats human numbers killed, when it comes to ideology thinking!

Kellie
You sure have brought out in force the readers of the old testament.
There are even a few new testament readers in the comments list.

Christmas 1914 had the generals and arms manufacturers worried as the Scots, French and German soldiers in one section of the front line stopped fighting and enjoyed Christmas together. I like to think that they discoverd they had a lot in common and all wanted to be home with their friends and families instead of trying to kill people that they had never met. The human race almost reached the stage when we could say that the only ones who would fight wars would be the guys with the shiney boots and those who profit from war.
It took a few weeks after the 1914 Christmas for the generals to get the war back into gear, there were some executions of soldiers on both sides and others were transferred to different parts of the front.

Paul, I'm with you mate. These friends-of-terrorists will never accept the truth, and when backed into a corner will play the conspiracy theory card.

But for anyone who questions the invasion, claims that republicans are the ones who started this war, thinks the war is about oil try this: www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info
but of course it probably won't make a difference.

How entertaining to see a reprise of daggett's and and Paul.L's epic "Moonbat vs Wingnut" battle.

However, like most sequels, the original was better.

I wonder if Christopher also felt 'entertained' on 11 September 2001 as he watched 2,974 die on his TV screen?

Did he feel 'entertained' as the US and Australian Governments used September 11 as an excuse to strip the civil liberties of their citizens and launch aggressive and bloody wars against Afghanistan and Iran?

Did he also feel 'entertained' as he watched thousands of of Afghans and Iraqis die or become maimed from the comfort of his living room?

Aaah Daggy.... "when half truths fail... try the EMOTION card".....

Ummmm but Iran?...err no we didn't invade that place.

"Aggressive" + "Afghanistan" errr "no" if you recall the actual FACTS (as opposed to your lefty wingnut blog based BS) Afghanistan was in a state of CIVIL WAR, where the Islamist Taliban were raping and pillaging their way through the last vestiges of Northern Alliance territory.

Western Allies then SUPPORTED the Northern Alliance at their request.

Just look...LOOK at the demography you dill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Ethnic_groups

The north is mainly Tajik and the south mainly Pashtun. We have a right to pick and choose those we support in our own interests. (both security and economic)

Related to our security interests.. the Taliban and Al Qaeda ran training camps for suicide bombers and terrorists who were having us in their sights. That legitimizes our action there. IRRESPECTIVE of any previous dabbling in regional politics there.

Ultimately.."our security" matters most. There is no giant Marx in the sky who answers your utopian prayers..sorrrrrry.
-Marx is dead
-'Utopia' will only be found in Christ.
-Earthly Geo-politics in the meantime is an ugly business, and will go on.

A-GAIN....I ask.. Even if all you said about 'false flag' stuff is 100% correct.. WHO or WHAT do you SUGGEST to take the place of our present system? and why would it be better?

I can't wait.

If you answer.. make sure you use HEADING so I can pick it out from the rest of your rubbish :)

Paul wrote, "...By quoting an obscure conspiracy website you have comprehensively showed this to be true? REALLY? You need to come back down to planet earth where the real people live. ..."

If Paul had looked at the article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html, he would have seen that Michel Chossudovsky only wrote a brief introduction. The majority of that page consists of a republished article by Alexandra Richard from le Figaro.

This story is also confirmed on Paul Thompson's "Complete 9/11 Timeline" at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070401dubai#a070401dubai

There all the sources for the story are included. They include as well are:

Alexandra Richard, "The CIA met bin Laden in Dubai in July," Le Figaro (Paris), 31-Oct-01.';
Agence France-Presse, "Bin Laden underwent treatment in July at Dubai American Hospital: reports" 1-Nov-01;
Adam Sage, "Ailing bin Laden 'Treated Secretly for Kidney Disease'," London Times, 1-Nov-01;
Anthony Sampson, "CIA Agent Alleged to Have Met Bin Laden in July: French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital," Guardian, 1/Nov/01;
Richard Labeviere,"Bin Laden and the CIA: Details of the Meeting," Radio France International, 1-Nov-01;
Elizabeth Bryant, "Radio Reports New CIA-Bin Laden Details," United Press International, 1-Nov-01;
Osama bin Laden, "Interview with Osama bin Laden by Dawn Newspaper," interview by Hamid Mir, Reuters, 10-Nov-01;
Reuters, "CIA Rejects Claim It Sought Osama Deal Before 9/11," 14-Nov-03;
Alexandrine Bouilhet, "War on Terrorism: Since 1979, the American intelligence community maintained close relations with the multimillionaire of Saudi origin afflicted by a kidney problem. An interview with the director of the 'Eastern Journals.'," translated by Bill Fairchild, Le Figaro (Paris), 1-Nov-01;

Given that the US had been given numerous prior warnings of the September 11 attack, some very specific, given that Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan on 11 September was known to the US and given that he was already wanted by the FBI for other acts of terrorism against US citizens (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) I would suggest that the evidence that the US government did not want to arrest Osama bin Laden after September 11 is conclusive and that Kabir Mohabbat had told the truth.

CJ,the mouthpiece of Political Correctness

How refreshing to see that some things don't change. Still not contributing to threads that don't involve your right to view child pornography?

Dagget will be very pleased to hear you refer to our discussion as he is frantic to have an audience for his drivel.

For my own part, please continue to bait me. I enjoy an infantile game every now and then and I'm better at it than you are

Instead of acknowledging the evidence that on 12 July 2001 the CIA met wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden in Dubai, Paul has chosen to engage in a dialogue with OLO's resident village idiot.

---

I think OLO users would do well to heed the words of film maker Aaron Russo, who died in August 2007 (as I wrote earlier at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#50194).

"(Nicholas Rockefeller) told me, 11 months before 9/11 ever happened, that there was going to be an event - he never told me what the event was going to be, but there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan, to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we were going to invade Iraq, you know to take over the oil fields to establish a base in the Middle East and make it all part of the New World Order, and we go after Chavez in Venezuela, and, sure enough, later then, 9/11 happened and I remember how he was telling me how we would see soldiers looking in caves for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all these places and there was going to be this war on terror of which there was no real enemy, and the whole thing was a giant hoax, you know, but it's a way for the government to take over the American people." (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LZjKKUEHTKk)

The evidence confirming what Aaron Russo said can be easily found on the complete 9/11 Timeline at http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project, all sourced on mainstream media outlets, and many other places.

No doubt, Paul will continue to pretend not to have seen the evidence so that he can continue to promote the Big Lie of September 11.

Dagget,

From the history commons “Bin Laden, America’s most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards.”

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. It’s not an uncommon failing, most truthers suffer from it.

The History Commons article is a secondary source. What they are doing is reprinting and commenting upon the original accusations/evidence. They are NOT a primary source independent of the first source and therefore cannot confirm anything. They are merely repeating the original evidence. Please let me know if this needs to be explained to you.

You were so thorough in your copy and paste exercise that you included links to the article in which the CIA, Bin Laden and the Hospital all deny this event took place.

But as I’ve already said above, even if the CIA did meet with Bin Laden in July, he wasn’t public enemy number one until after the dust settled on 9/11.

Regarding this hypothetical meeting, you don’t know what they talked about, neither do I, so to draw the conclusion that they didn’t want to arrest Bin Laden because they wanted him as a patsy for 9/11 is Conspiri-itis.

By the way, just for clarifications sake. Was Osama bin Laden actually involved in 9/11? Because it seems to me you’ve been having a bob each way on that one.

Finally, were the cruise missiles Clinton directed at Bin Laden and his training camps, friendly hellos or were they imaginary as well? http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

dagget says >> " ... acknowledging the evidence that on 12 July 2001 the CIA met wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden ... "

The evidence? Chuddovsky's possibly, possible evidence? Is that the evidence you are referring to?

Village Idiot? Which one are you referring to? Assuming you aren't including yourself.

Paul first claimed that my only source is "an obscure conspiracy website". When I showed this not to be the case, as he should have been able to see for himself, he tried to dismiss the evidence claiming they were not 'primary sources'.

I don't know what he would accept as a "primary source", unless he means CIA agent Larry Mitchell or Osama bin Laden who have unsurprisingly denied that the meeting took place.

Clearly, respected journalists working for a number of mainstream newspapers including Le Figaro (Paris), the London Times, the Guardian, Radio France International, United Press International have obtained the information from sources they judged reliable well before these parts of the jigsaw puzzle could have been assembled into the broader picture.

Furthermore, what motive would all these journalists have to risk their credibility back in 2001 in the way Paul has implied?

Paul wrote, "You were so thorough ... that you included links to the article in which the CIA, Bin Laden and the Hospital all deny this event took place."

That's because, unlike you, I don't try to ignore seeming evidence that doesn't conform to my understanding of events. Only months ago, I was still trying to make up my mind on this question.

---

Of the three attempts by Bill Clinton to have Osama bin Laden killed including the one cited at http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/, Barrie Zwicker had the following to say (when writing of disgraced former New York Times journalist Judith Miller who, as an 'embedded' reporter lied about WMD's having been found in Iraq in 2003):

"She continues, 'Each time Mr. Clinton approved the strike.' And each time the operation failed. Although she does not report this, on one occasion cruise missiles hit the cave where was supposed to be, but he had just left. Either he led a charmed existence all those years or he was being tipped off and protected by forces beyond Clinton's control that wanted bin Laden alive as a n arch villain, an asset who could be milked as the poster boy for militant Islam." ("Towers of Deception", p161)

I note that Paul seems to have lost his voice on this forum.

Perhaps he has understood that if he attempted to put down all of Osama bin Laden's remarkable escapes, both in Clinton's time and in Bush's time, to luck on bin Laden's part, then it would stretch his own credibility well beyond breaking point.

---

Paul wrote, "I see you are now spruiking for an audience ..."

On that forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=74#53689), Paul has declared himself the winner and made the claim that I have made a total fool of myself more times than I can remember, yet it seems to be Paul, rather than I, who is embarrassed by that forum.

If defenders of the "war on terror" choose to use the terrorist atrocity of September 11 to justify that war as, for example, Phillip Tang did early in this forum, then I believe that those who reject the official US Government explanation of those attacks have every right to put that case.

---

Paul wrote, "Many of the police in Basra during the height of the war were KNOWN to be allegiant to Moqtadr Al Sadr. They were KNOWN to have carried out attacks on Allied serviceman. It’s hardly surprising that the British didn't want their people being held at the police station."

That's a new and novel explanation for a military attack upon people who were supposed to be allies of the British, Paul. Could you cite your sources?

Why do you think the British couldn't have come to some arrangement with the Basra police that would allowed the SAS men to be questioned in order to find out what they were doing? Why doesn't the behaviour of the British Commander in Basra seem extremely suspicious to you?

Let's not forget Paul, you have repeatedly used the alleged greater propensity of Iraqis to kill each other as a blanket excuse to avoid discussion of the acknowledged crimes of the occupiers such as Abu Ghraib, so I think we are entitled to have any evidence to the contrary properly considered.