ChrisPer

We associate "altruism" with something good. A doctor who joins Doctors without Borders is being altruistic.

But during World War 2 most sooldiers in the German Wehrmacht fought bravely. In many cases they behaved altruistically in the sense that they risked, and sometimes gave, their lives to save their comrades.

Even members of the Waffen SS showed altruism in that sense.

But their cause was rotten.

So it is with suicide bombers

@Yabby...nitpick...the Jonestown mass "suicide" that you referred to, was more of a mass murder, than mass suicide. The poison they all consumed was forced upon the majority of the "followers". Forensic scientists were able to establish this fact, though admittedly, this information wasn't released until long after the event. I just happen to remember watching a documentary about it. I work in mental health, so these sorts of events are of interest to me.

@Loudmouth, I apologise for two things...the aggressive tone of my post, and the use of the word "idiots". I got out of the wrong side of bed yesterday, and vented my spleen inappropriately. Again, sorry.

Formalities dispensed with, I am interested to know if you believe we are involved in a "just" war, or not. If so, why, or if not, why? From your post, I got the impression that you are a New Yorker, is that correct? And if so, then I need to make a third apology for my gross insensitivity.

If you are interested, I'd like to discuss/debate our differing perspectives and observations, and I promise to try to maintain a measured tone.

Cheers.

Hi MC,

I'm from Adelaide. I presume you mean Afghanistan ? I guess this is why so much turns on who did what on 9/11:

* Story A: 19 al Qaida fanatics trained to fly large planes, then boarded and took over four planes, three of which they flew into iconic US buildings, one crashing in Pennsylvania. Al Qaida being harboured by the Taliban, the Khilafa-oriented regime in Afghanistan, the US could have done nothing and risked further attacks; instead the US launched an invasion to defeat al Qaida and the Taliban and remove further threats. There is an element of Greek tragedy about this story.

* Story B: for obscure reasons, the US government (or some agency within it)(or the Jews)(or the Swedes) wired up three large buildings with (?) thousands of tonnes of high explosives, and either tricked somebody to fly planes into the twin towers, or fabricated a hologram, or otherwise doctored videos, to give the impression that planes had flown into the buildings: they actually blew them up. They (whoever they were) procured a missile and fired it into the Pentagon, killing senior staff. They then pinned the blame for all of this on a non-existent organisation (which actually does good work feeding the poor) based in peaceful Afghanistan and used all of this as a pretext to invade.

So is the war in Afghanistan a just war ? IF Story A is accurate, there is some inevitability about the whole process. IF the Taliban allowed al Qaida to prepare and launch their attacks, then under international law, the US had the right to invade Afghanistan to remove any future threat.

[TBC]

[cont]

Of course, once they had done that, other processes were set in train, the partial liberation of women, the introduction of US-style democratic institutions, girls' schools, etc. But once they had got that going, in fact the more it got going, the more vicious Taliban retribution is bound to be if they ever take power again: if the US pulled out, the massacre of women would rival Rwanda, if only to terrorise other women to get back into the home and stay there: 'The only place for a woman is either in the house or in the grave'.

So, like it or not, as long as al Qaida attacks continue anywhere in the world, and as long as a returned Taliban is likely to harbour al Qaida and other entities again, the US has to stay in Afghanistan. As a socialist, I'm not happy about any of this, but prefer it to the neo-medieval alternative:

Imagine if the Yanks pulled out of that part of the world: most of the countries in the region are very unstable, including China's western colonies, its New Frontier area (Xinjiang). How long before the Taliban would seek to extend the Caliphate to Kyrgyzistan, to Uzbekistan, of course Pakistan ? To Iran, Russia ?

I'd predict that if the Yanks pull out, the Chinese would have to take their place, for their own security, perhaps with Russian and Iranian assistance.

As a side-issue, yes, they all want access to Afghan resources, oil, rare earths, iron ore, etc. But the main issue is still going to be the defeat of the Taliban and the denial of the country to al Qaida. Just or not, it's going to be a long and messy war.

Joe

G’day Loudmouth, “I'm from Adelaide. I presume you mean Afghanistan ? I guess this is why so much turns on who did what on 9/11”

(I’m in Sydney)

Well, it starts in Afghanistan, travels to Iraq, and now has a returning focus upon Afghanistan. For me, the two are inseparable.

A conspiracy is only like-minded people working towards a common goal, while keeping that agenda secret. And we all conspire…have you never been to a surprise birthday party or worked with like-minded people against un-like-minded people in a workplace situation…such as a union meeting? It’s not people with blueprints in dark rooms as some like to envision. And to think that like-minded people do not have discussions in the corridors of power is just ridiculous. Power is a club, not a free-for all.

Your scenario (A) was what was basically given on the news, except you neglected to mention that those 19 terrorists were described as Saudi’s. Taliban wasn’t mentioned immediately, for no-one had actually put their hand up to claim responsibility. War was declared before the word “Taliban” was mentioned.

Scenario (B) presumes too much fiction and rather grotesque manipulation of events, rather than the subtle manipulation of key-players from which events unfold. The whole point of political manipulation is to be subtle, not just to make the sale, but to sell enough to ensure those that detect the subtleties and aren’t sold, are out-numbered by the sold. (That’s why we love democracy, and strangely, why tyrants eliminate the intelligentsia). There’s an art to political manoeuvring, that’s why so few people are good at it…how do you think they got a peanut like GWB into the White House? It took 3 years before he had a press conference, for heaven’s sake, because he was so inarticulate! They didn’t want him talking without cue-cards! And if you ever saw him talking off-the-cuff, you would surely understand why.

TBC…

So I’m not about to make wild accusations as to what parties were possibly involved in a “conspiracy”. But what I can point out are some inconsistencies and some people that had obvious pecuniary interests and are key-players, that there’s a far more complicated and bigger picture with a longer history than meets the eye, as well as there being some contradictions of logic, that makes the story told appear conspiratorial…admittedly, especially the way I tell it.

The trouble is, this will be lengthy, so how about I start with Bush Jr. and Snr, the Industrial Military Complex and the corridors of power, and we’ll work from there.

If you agree with the adage, that “real power stands behind the throne”, then you gotta ask yourself what power would want a peanut like GWB sitting on the throne? And one must conclude, only a power that wants to control the throne. Who might that be? Well, by sheer coincidence, his team was the same team his father, ex-President, ex-Vice president to Reagan, and ex-Director of the CIA, George Bush Snr had of Cheney and Rumsfeld, with Colin Powell giving them political credibility with the US Army, and the general public for his impeccable reputation (if you remember, he resigned after giving the speech about WMD’s at the UN, for when he discovered it to be BS, he felt his reputation had been used and tarnished by the Bush administration).You might even remember that during the first 4-6 months of GWB’s presidency, dad went wherever GWB went, introducing GWB to his friends and associates.

The US wasn’t following any agenda other than dad and his cohort’s agenda, and GWB was the idiot son to speak the BS. And dad has long ties with the Industrial Military Complex through his personal interests in oil, he’s a Texan, and his involvement with the CIA, the Reagan administration and “Irangate”, as well as setting Saddam up in power and giving him WMD’s to drop on Iran after they held 38 US embassy officials hostage for about 100 days back in the 80’s.

TBC…