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.