Roland, an eye for an eye?

drew1 · 10-14-2001, 08:24 AM

This war isn't about an eye for an eye. It is about beating those who slaughter civilians as a way of achieving their goals.

You seem to be comparing Hitler to our US leaders. Try comparing him to Bin Laden. Who tries to wipe out Isreal? Who uses the differing of religion to go against others. Who blames other people for what is wrong in their world? Who takes control of a country & brainwashes a people?

We want to get Bin Laden & those like him so the futre for our children won't have him.

Like in your country there are differing opions on everything over here in the USA. You'll find that many of the sources of your posts were from the US, looking at ourselves. I think this is one of the strenghts of our counry, keeping us from getting some maniac leader. I don't agree with a lot of these people, though.

For yourself, what would Bin Laden do if you were in his area & you wrote something controversial that he or the Talliban didn't like?

I'll ask you though, in your attitude against Hitler, don't degrade the brave German soldiers who fought to protect & defend their country.

drew1

Roland Kunz · 10-22-2001, 12:01 AM

Hello

Sorry about the delay but I have problems on these discussions on the "edge" or very thin line. Thats why I refused to answer the other threads as my tounge is to limitet to find the correct tone.
I had several concepts and meltet it togehter so it repeats some things or has some gaps and jumps.

The previous concept just would had went on with posting some material and URL´s to other sites. And I found out that most here are not able to follow up and can´t divertysfy or seem lost to read and understand different sources as it isn´t tradtion to be aside the mainstream.
I´m also not sure if anyone is really reading it. The thing startet as a counterwight to several posts on the 911 board showing a very unsymetrical point of view and I used some drastic and provoking ways to start a discussion with the "opposing" view.

Those mails should be a other insight from a other view but I don´t have the absolute perspective. A different perspective by standing aside looking into the same direction. This is like looking with two eyes to make flatland to a stereoscopic effect and see in third dimension. This will help on orientation but we still can not look behind shemes. This could be done by Birdseye when we rise the level from our standing points.
Now if you step on my shoulder you will see farer and if I step on yours i will have the same benefit but still we both look alone and have to discuss the view to see the shades.
A other way would be if we could discuss our sight with someone from the other end.
Maybe the other end is the enemy but talking and discussing is the human way to handle such things.

Just follow that thread and http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/Forum26/HTML/000124.html think about if this is the way america should handle politic ?

I fear exact that pictures is implantet into many foreign countrys and I´m scared this "funny" movie is spread worldwide.
But maybe it is just spread propaganda from terrorists to blame america ?
The internet is just a other battlefield.

This war isn't about an eye for an eye. It is about beating those who slaughter civilians as a way of achieving their goals.

Yes I see it the same way but I have problems to see a difference in the way to achive the goals. Isn´t the way the goal ?
Isn´t life the thing beetween start and end and only the footprints are the way to be messured in history ?
Germans history is manifestet as kick ass nation for the next generations becourse one leader definatet a ( realisticaly impossible ) goal and left his footprints in the face from millions ?

Just a simple question how high is the body count rate for a american compared to a other nation ? Would be 1:1 fair ? Or do we count the value by there income tax ?

And then look back in the history and start counting untill the roots to the first crusades or down to moses ?

What will you do if the indian nations start counting up ? What would you do if they follow the Israel idear to have a own nation and use brute force to get back there god given homeland. Don´t you thank god every morning that the indians are a higher society and forgive old storys and are happy with the "leftovers" from a "grand nation" ? I´m sure the indians can´t follow the "american way" as it tears there soul between the values from there society.

You seem to be comparing Hitler to our US leaders. Try comparing him to Bin Laden.

Hitler was the puppet from industrial leaders who got money to fight the socialdemocratical partys. He was once votet by the people and after they realized that he isn´t a good guy, Hitler ( on the secound election he lost nearly his power ) used a Reichstagsbrand to get impowered by Emergency laws and to fight back the intruders. He just focused all the bad things happend onto the foreign enemys plus opposing party working for them, and declared they have no rights and have to get imprissioned. He startet a police state and controled the newspapers.
As most socialists and democratic leaders where jews ( or asimilatet jews ) and the basicall idears where definatet by jews ( Marx, Engels ) he tried to fight the "terrorismen" buy contoling them. The money he draftet from the jewish was used to heat up the german industrie witch gave bread and work to the normal man.
He also cleaned up all the mess to make a tidy clean country and everything had right and order. Germans believed that Hitler was the right choice and he did all to support that. He "correctet" all the stuff who hurtet the german nation and unitet it to his "old glory".
The only way to bring bread to people was to built export goods and mostly wheapons. Germany was one from the most successfull wheapon manufactorers and exportet worldwide. They even had a "wheapon testground" in spain showing the effective way from tactics and machines.
The industrial taxes where low and the nation pieacefull and workers where productive so foreign companys investet big money and also helped Hitler
to stay on top of it all.
In fact Hitler was the dream from a trully capitalizesed on organized society. The prisioners had to work for there income and to pay back there burden to the society. If they couldn´t work anymore they where "written off" by the bookkeppers. In the begining this was very simple as those people had to work until they died by themself. ( You know; "work gives freedom" )
Later to much people where inprisioned and needed more food then they had value ( or use by the industrie ) and so the not working people had been stoped to get feeded.
It was very "human" from hitler to use gas to save them the pain to starve to death.
There was a long discussion about gasing people as it cost to much and then the industrie offered a "special" price deduction as a sign of "goodwill".

The other issue was that the industie needed to control the sources and the prices to higher the profits and on the other side needed a new marked and the best would be a controled marked where the price is as well under industrial control.

So the war was just that what Hitler said: new Land and now sources for a growing industrial nation.
He allready sold the wins and the new land and sources to the industry who loaned the money and there sources to achive the new markeds. The loos on lifes and other values was calculatet and Hitler did a very clever politics untill he deceided not to share his profits anymore. This was the point when the industrie realized that he was out of control and some where writing off the investment as the major investment was the war and the maximum destruction from "hard" values. Doesn´t matter on witch side on both was profit possible and some companys even worked for both sides.
Hitler showed to much aspects that he can´t be controled and he also showed that he maybe will not share profits if he was the final winner.
So the industrie was interesstet to get rid of him and used there "power" on different levels to secure as much profits as possible.

Now if I compare Bush and Bin Laden to Hitler then both show aspects from him.

Should I make a list or how about going trough the threats and search the net for further input ?

The problem with power is that it has to be controled and to much powerwithout a real control is always a hitlersque situation.
The problem is that power seeking people normally are not the friendliest people and had to be clever and rude to make there way and they only seem to live for the power and the control behind that. This selection is given by mother nature to select the "strongest" leader and the problem is that we still stay in animal behaviour structures as those people have there own world witch isn´t direct the real world.

And the similaritys to the Bush situation is just that the congress gave him all the power to handle the situation and he handles it in a "powerfull" way. Yes he had enough people around him knowing how politics work and Bush tries to avoid blowing to much but he must play with the torch and make much noise and fire to defend territorial aspects.
If not he would have looked like a weak leader. But politic isn´t war the war is the end from all politics and the declaration from war was just to say we stop making politics and we go to hit someone or something to feel better and after war we can talk about some things maybe, if we like to, if not we just don´t listen or declare war again.

The strange thing is that history always have similaritys and my sight from hitler is different to yours. This gap is hard to explain. Hitler is a part from my history and I had to grow up with it and worked trough the "inside" story.
The american view is different and some aspects where just ignored as it would hurt the own roots. You know the indexfinger showing up has 3 other finger pointing yourself or you make a index fist like shooting someone.

I will never can say that I´m proud to be a german with that history on the shoulder.
My grandfathers devoloped a overkilling nationalismen. ( Even if one far grandfather root was killed in Dachau for political reasons I can´t step out from the burden )

But I can say I´m proud to be a human being.

Americans seem to have no problem to be proud about there country.

One detail to show the similaritys:

Hitler said: God bless germany
Bush says: God bless america
I say: god bless the world

(Yet I´m follower from the more mother nature view Einsteins, see other thread ).

Who tries to wipe out Isreal?

Many to blame, how about Mr Sharon with his all or nothing policy or maybe better said absolute nationalismen. It is time to look close at Mr Sharon to understand why he isn´t acceptet by the arabic nations and there will never be piece with him and why he has fear to undersign the last UN treatys.
And he also did all to undermine the ( always weak )power from Araffat to splitter the palestinean.
It is very strange that natinalismn allways tends to kill people and if the nation seems to be in "danger" they vigilante there own leaders to correct the politics.
With Rabin on power we would have a complete other situation today and maybe with a other american leader too. It is pure speculation but from the european view Bush was to wrong answer to the wrong question and this is why some europeans are so much focused on the strange things happend in the staates and the election toped it all off. if this would happend in a third word staate the americans would have said the nation is undemocratic and uses stone age technology to cheat.

Who uses the differing of religion to go against others.

As far I see it: all have there "religion".
Religon is value of life and mother nature.
Read the answer from Cheiftain Seattle to understand that some people don´t have the same values and therefore a other religion maybe sharing the same god.

And from my point of view the american nation don´t share the same values like the indian nation or the german nation.
But we are on the same side and from the Bin Laden view are just a other shade of gray.

Who blames other people for what is wrong in their world?

???????????? I can´t understand the question as it implements that someone has a higher level to blame others.

The simple answer is that the world has to find a comon sense and rules to live togehter.
We have only one world. Maybe there are some ilands who think they are the world ?
Now there are several ilands thinking they are the world and this is maybe the major problem.

Who takes control of a country & brainwashes a people?

Power takes control, brute force and brain washing is done by simple reducing humans into animals who have no choice between get killed or kill others. Best brainwash is bombing and other terror. This seem to affect human being the most, doesn´t matter where or what and it makes it very easy to see the enemy to "return" the received goods.

We want to get Bin Laden & those like him so the futre for our children won't have him.

Yes I can support it but I fear the chosen way will water the bad roots and rise new fruits. If we have paradise on earth no one can promise heaven.

If you look at bin laden you will see that we startet to make him a timebomb in the russian flesh and helped him generate massive funds and all intelligence needed.
Maybe we where promissing things we never should, as the prize will "cost" us to much. Bin Laden doesn´t care money except for a tool so the prize must been very interessting in other power.

Yet "we" where gambeling as the chance for him to survive was not very high. Untill now he always keept knocking doors onto the the people who betrayed him. He had been patient as he had a deal with the Reagan/Bush ( or was it Olli North ? ) administartion ( pun sorry ) and Clinton wasn´t the "underwriter" in the unofficial pact. Clinton even tried to get "rid" of him but the money spend on antiterrorismen was soaked up by the congress and there lobby plus CIA and the army ( Yet they didn´t do anything usefull they even didn´t seem to read the basic things like van Crefeld ). Clinton also tried to calm down worldwide terrorismen and tried to tread the terrorismen equal to all religions.

And the Kosovo "war" was also to fight bin Laden ( & Co ) as it would have enlarged bin ladens plattform in europe and maybe burst the Turkey nation witch is a major influence in arabic world and a shield for Israel.

If you look at the Clinton "wars" you always will find that "we" helped islamic poeple against cristian ( serbs ) or other nationalists to avoid furter homeless islamic people and have a reputation not to act balanced by nation or religion.

[b)Like in your country there are differing opions on everything over here in the USA. You'll find that many of the sources of your posts were from the US, looking at ourselves. I think this is one of the strenghts of our counry, keeping us from getting some maniac leader. I don't agree with a lot of these people, though.[/b]

We are in a new world with free information and the way to make a own opinion by using the bandwide between the oposing informations. Call it information elite.
Yet only modern countrys have unlimitet acces.
China is controling and most third world countrys have no way to free informations or any information and this is why we have a free choice. But limited too from the Bandwide from the information.
If we would have free information we should have known how killed Kennedy, what destroyed the Maden of Sea over Lockerbie ( and why did the CIA covered terrorists in that trail and why did the german juristification followed that ), who piad Bin Laden and what funds have the CIA by supporting drug barons worldwide ( Yes the Taliban are major drugproducers )and how they use it without any control.

My posts where mostly in english as I searched english tounge informations to enlarge your bandwide. Wouldn´t had made sense to post arabic, hebrew or in german.

If I look into my german history then I see similaritys again. Hitler controlled the puplic information after several years and what wasn´t mentioned in german newspapers didn´t existet. There wasn´t much coverage about "bad news" or sights from foreign countrys. If you would have told a german in 1938 that Hitler will kill the inprisioned like animals or even worser ( have no word for it ) most germans wouldn´t have beleived it and where thinking about foreign lies.

Maybe this is areason why german people are more interesstet in politics and our leaders have a hard time and it is very hard to have the germans stand in a row behind a desicion.

They are many more like me thinking to much about useless stuff who can´t be changed normaly. But if to much goes into a wrong way the germans will raise and see answers.
We don´t except our leaders are superhumans without any mistakes and get suspicious if we have a superhuman with no misstakes and showing the way without discussing it and our newspapers are very hard on subjects and hard facts and both sides from every coin are shown yet they dig out real dirt and are a major power in politics. This is what we have learned from history.

For yourself, what would Bin Laden do if you were in his area & you wrote something controversial that he or the Talliban didn't like?

I´m sure I got my punishment or get steped to a other world. When the taliban won the "war" they cleaned the "nation" by killing all people who could be able to think farer then there nose, but Stalin did the same.
Hitler did it a special way.

Every gouverment trys to control the puplic and to look the best way on the elections.
Yet politic allways support friendlier or moderate views.

But it is hypotetical as those people there have no informations and not very much choice.
And also we have free spech and can think what we want but there is a other way of censorship.

I postet just some things that where so unknown (?) to the US puplic so you never heard about it and are surprised. Yet all this stuff is very well known to german puplic and startet a lots of discussion and people are aware of the problem and can make there choice on a other level. But the fact is we are all followers from a industrial world and try to make the best out of it.
( just compare germany and america and you will find we have a other way )
Maybe it is better to crash into something without knowing it as you are not the Pilot and can do nothing. It is much harder to know the consequences and do your choice even knowing it will be your own end.
This is the right stuff that definates a "hero", to be silly enough to do something for a society without having a personal benefit. All those men lost there life on the Pitsburgh flight crash or the rescue men in the WTC are heros becourse they evaluatet there own life about values from there society. There value was not to earn much money or have a easy life.

Yet the shoe also fits to the terrorists who died for there values. Dosen´t seem to be easy life and many money too.

In one thread I was asking what is the value to have over your own life. What will you die for, just think about it and be prepared if you have to decide.

I can say if I had been on the lever to give my life to rescue the WTC I would have done it too. Yet I´m also sure I would have done it to rescue the city of Kabul. Don´t ask me why this thought is just so deep in my brain but I´m also scared about the other thoughts if I would have not tried to rescue Kabul if I would have the chance after the recent pictures maybe I would have tried to hit something that will destroy a symbol without to much loos on people. The taliban control station ? But those thoughts are a mirror to the WTC terrorists. I hope you see the point that we all have a very strange potential and finaly it is on us as single person to decide.

So heroismen is a personal thing and the personality is made by the society and there values. The personality is founded in small children and there way to grow up.

If you look at your society you will find many childreen growing up in a not very usefull way to your own society. Those childreen will become "terrorists".
The american society has other values then the german society. I can reflect my own society and know al those bad spots to work on it yet most germans in my generation share the same values and we are trying to form it in a "comfortable" way. No, germany isn´t the best society but the roots from freedom and piece starts in our own mind and our own society and there values.

Like said before i don´t like to talk about splinters in my friends eyes ( again if we call us friends we share the same eye level and history doesn´t matter as we look into a future and the way to it ) without facing my own problems but if you never have a mirror you will never see your own face.

It is much better to talk with your friends about problems then with your enemy. If you never talk about problems you life a very isolatet life........ or are god ?
Does god have problems ? Or he just isn´t talking about it ?

I'll ask you though, in your attitude against Hitler, don't degrade the brave German soldiers who fought to protect & defend their country.

In fact i give a damn on the brave german soliders as they had been a tool to aggression and didn´t protect there country.

While 2WW some 90 000 soliders where inprisoned not following orders.
Most of them had been to "human".
10% where killed by the judgment and the others wher send to the "special forces" where you got shot from both sides.
Some from those survived and till today they are not turned to heros and don´t get a pension from the army. Strange isn´t it.

And even stranger you will see the same happend to american veterans.

Bert Brecht said: Soldiers are Killers and this is also my headline. We don´t need soldiers we need policemen.

And we need a independed jury based on comon sense who is also able to control the police.

We don´t need Judge Dreeds or Robo cob´s.
Yet Paul Verhofen hit the nail on the political situation with his fiction. Just watch that movie and try to see the european view on the american society. ( This will safe me writing more stuff )

Grüsse,
Roland

Sportsman · 10-22-2001, 06:19 AM

"Afghanistan's Islamic Taleban regime, ignoring world outcry, may have already started to demolish two ancient statues of Buddha, opposition leaders said Friday."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/02/afghan.statues.03/index.html

"The Taleban have shown off their destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by escorting foreign journalists to the ruins."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/15/taleban.buddha/index.html

"When Afghanistan's ultra-conservative Taliban banned television in 1998, the drought-ridden nation's people might have sought solace in a game of cards or chess, or even the strum of a guitar.
No longer.
On Thursday the Taliban placed bans on the import of 30 products including playing cards, computer discs, movies, satellite TV dishes, musical instruments, cassettes and chessboards, after declaring them un-Islamic."
http://www3.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/19/afghan.ban/index.html

"KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The ruling Taleban leadership in Afghanistan announced plans on Tuesday to force Hindus to wear identity labels on their clothing to differentiate them from Muslims."
http://www8.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/05/22/afghanistan.hindu.02/index.html

remind anyone of Nazi Germany?

------------------
Daryl Planter 91C2
Targa

Jack Olsen · 10-23-2001, 01:19 AM

American Porsche owners are, by and large, a politically conservative group. I enjoy sharing information about the 911 with just about everyone on this bulletin board, but I find the political views of many of the same guys to be wildly out of step with my own.

I'm always impressesed with the depth of Roland's knowledge about Porsches, and I'm equally impressed with his political views. In my opinion, his voice is a breath of fresh air on this board.

------------------
Jack Olsen
My Rennlist page • My Pelican Gallery page • My Porsche Owners Gallery page

Roland Kunz · 10-23-2001, 10:18 PM

Hello

Thanks for the voice of fresh air, but it seem some got a cold from it.

I´m not sure about the political orientation from Porsche owners but most from them have a own head and can decide things without following the mainstream. ( no they are not a elite, elites get driven )

Porsche is also a symbol to a other way to use technical things very oponent to other modern industrial products Porsches and Mercedes where ( soory its past now ) made to be usable as long as possible and not to use to much resources.
Just the oppesite from a typical throw away car. Dr.Porsche was a follower of a effective but still fun providing way to transport people. Just a car that does transportation and has the spirit to be more the just a way to move the body from A to B.

If I work on should I just mail links or hang out the full text passage or the interessting cutouts ?
Some links did not exist anymore ( or I can´t find them in the rush ) and i have only the backup on my computer or sometimes will find it cached on proxys.

I also have the problem to filter some things as I´m not to much into US internal politics. In fact I have problems to identify democrats and repuplicans orientated statements as they are very close from my sight. ( I´m used to contrasting bandwide )

Right now there are to much paths to follow but i try to give some insights on the taliban background and also try to manage the nazi history.

Is anyone interesstet on geman sights on actuall german politic and on a more europen sight to the israel problem ? The last subjects needs much more work and commention as this is very complicatet to outsiders ( Just as I´m outsider to US home politics ). Is there anyone able to show the american politics on that ? How do americans deal with the "uprising" europeans. Did you realize the the european unitet marked will be more powerfull then the US and we have the keys to russia and middle east ( thanks to Bush politic before the 9.11th ) if France and UK will pull onb the same string.

Now lets go on with some informations:
------------------------------------------

@Daryl Planter 91C2

Keep on diging trough the last 10 years for more similaritys.
The taliban burned all books except the koran ( the last islamic raid burned books was the library from Alexandria ) and killed most teachers and man & women who tried to fight for humanity. The taliban are not afgahni and ocupied the country to start a holy islamic land. Also check what they did to humanity supporting people, I think they are still under hostage. ( Also try to find similaritys in the Nazi history )

The story with the labeling was to "protect" the non islamic people.
( the nazis branded jews, gays,and gypsis to protect the germans from them )

Before they used there bazookas to destroy the non islamic religion symbols ( the nazis had the Reichskristallnacht ) the european countrys offered several things including big money to remove the buddas there ( most foreign countrys refused to have jewisch refuges coming into there land, only rich and famous had a goos chance ).
The taliban where just pockering and wantet that we accredidate there staate.
( Hitler allready had what he wantet but still no war )

But the strange thing is when they killed thousends people "noone" was looking while the destroying from the buddas was recognized worldwide plus the major external supporters from the taliban turned away. ( Hitler didn´t had much pressure with his politics on jews he got even support from several staates and Hitler invitet Mr. Ford as his idol )

Even the ayatolas and islamic people in Saudi Arabia or in Iran couldn´t find a backup for that in the koran.

But right now we support the North Afganhis who are the same crooks like the taliban and also washed there hands in blood. ( back then Stalin was more feared then Hitler )

This civil war was unequal as the years ago the taliban got "western" support to stabilze the staate untill the taliban showed that they are out of any control.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/10/22102001075700.asp

Afghanistan: RAWA's Lonely Struggle For Women's Rights
By Kathleen Knox

The U.S.-led bombing campaign in Afghanistan may end up pushing the ruling Taliban from power. Their stern beliefs have made life particularly harsh for the country's women. RFE/RL correspondent Kathleen Knox speaks to one woman whose organization has been trying to improve their lot and would like to be part of a post-Taliban government.

Prague, 22 October 2001 (RFE/RL) -- In November 1999, a spectator in the crowd at Kabul's sports stadium aimed a smuggled video camera through the eye-slit in her burqa, the head-to-toe covering required for all Afghan women.

What she recorded was the first public execution of a woman by the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic militia who had taken over most of Afghanistan three years earlier.

The tape shows the accused -- who was said to have killed her husband -- cowering before the Taliban soldier who then shoots her in the back of the head. It was later screened on British television and parts of it posted on the website of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). It's just one example of the way RAWA has been trying -- for nearly 25 years -- to draw the world's attention to the plight of women in Afghanistan.

Founded in 1977 in Kabul, the association is now based in neighboring Pakistan, where it runs clinics and schools for the many Afghan refugees living in camps there. Focused on supporting the anti-Soviet resistance during the 10-year occupation, RAWA now concentrates on social programs and fighting for women's and human rights in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

RFE/RL spoke to RAWA member Mariam Rawi on the phone from Pakistan. That's not her real name -- RAWA's members, like the secret camerawoman, have to work undercover for fear of reprisal from Islamic hard-liners.

Rawi describes how the Soviets' occupation of her country in 1979 led her to flee to Pakistan. It's there that she later met RAWA's founder, known only as Meena, who was killed in 1987.

"In the first years of Russian troops, when the fighting in the resistance war began, I lost my father in the fighting with the Russians. Since my mother was a widow and I hadn't any brother -- we were four sisters -- we had to leave Afghanistan to the refugee camps in Pakistan. After two years, the first school of RAWA was established near to our refugee camp. I graduated from this school. It wasn't a usual school. Besides the other subjects, we had classes in political awareness. [When] I saw the martyred leader of RAWA, Meena, and I saw the other members of RAWA who were working very hard and serving the people, the women, in the refugee camps, I decided to be like them and serve my people."

Rawi says the plight of many women in her home country worsened after Soviet troops withdrew and former resistance groups took power in 1992.

Since the Taliban took control in 1996, she says it's gotten even worse: "We can say that in every field women are more needy. Today they are deprived of education, or jobs, [they can't] get outside the house alone without being accompanied by a man. They are selling their children in the streets because they are not able to feed them. Many women turn to prostitution and they are begging in the streets. In different areas of Afghanistan there are different things the women need. In the refugee camps in Pakistan, for example [there] aren't any women doctors in the hospitals and they aren't allowed to have jobs. They need, of course, some health care facilities that they cannot reach."

Under Taliban rule, education for girls is prohibited and women are banned from working -- a particularly harsh restriction on the many widows who lost their husbands in the decades of internecine war.

Life in the small portion of the country still controlled by the opposition Northern Alliance is less restricted. Girls can attend school and women can work. Last week, Northern Alliance Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah said that women should be included in any future administration.

Though it's too early to say if this will happen, talks on a successor government to the Taliban are under way, spearheaded by the former Afghan king, Mohammad Zahir Shah. Rawi says her organization supports the king's efforts and wants to be represented in the future government, but hasn't yet been approached.

In any case, she says RAWA will not have anything to do with the Northern Alliance, whose time in power was marked by lawlessness and -- according to human rights groups -- attacks on civilians.

"Unfortunately, we didn't receive such an offer [to take part in talks]. Basically we think it's because of our political standpoint against any brand of fundamentalist groups, against the Pakistan government. [And] we believe that both the Northern Alliance and Taliban are fundamentalist, they are criminal, they are depending on foreign countries and they are against women, against freedom and democracy in Afghanistan. That's why we are not ready to have any kind of compromise with any kind of fundamentalist groups or to be part of such a government that includes fundamentalist groups. That's why we did not receive an offer."

Rawi's standpoint on other women's groups that may get involved in the talks shows how difficult it will be for all the various interests to agree on a transitional government.

"If these women's groups are in any kind of compromise with fundamentalists we are against them and we will be against them. But if they are not in any kind of relationship or compromise with this or that fundamentalist group then we will try together to establish the part of women in the future government of Afghanistan."

Just some ( maybe unknown ? ) links about taliban and bin Laden.

http://www.feminist.org/news/pr/pr052898.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&c=1&s=hiro http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/cgi-bin/newscountry.pl?country=Saudi%20Arabia&country2=Saudi
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+HwwBmejf269wwwweMqwwwwwwwmFqnN0bInFqnDni5oFqnN0bI zFqrBwcoxwDczmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+XwwBmea8vy_wwwweixwwwwwwwmFqnN0bInFqnDni5oFqnN0bI zFqrBwcoxwDczmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0498/9804047.html
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp365.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/thetaliban.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/saudi
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/christian-persecution-watch.html
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/09/28092001115725.asp
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/binladen13.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/saudi
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/10/19102001094433.asp

More news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1571000/1571148.stm

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-101601scheer.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

Robert Scheer:
They're Rich, They're Spoiled, They're Supporting Terrorists

Who do we bomb next? Saudi Arabia? The Saudis would be a logical target if President Bush were serious about his stated goal of punishing nations that support terrorism.

The evidence is overwhelming that it is the incredibly rich Saudis, far more than the desperately poor Afghans, who are responsible for the emergence of a militant and violent variant of Islam that has infected much of the Muslim world.

It is wealthy Saudi businessmen, with the complicity of the Saudi government, who have financed the religious schools and moujahedeen training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan from which the latest wave of terrorism has erupted.

Yes, the very same Saudi Arabia that we protected from Iraq in the Gulf War.

It is an important caution to recognize that one decade's triumph easily turns into the next decade's disaster. If George Bush, **** Cheney and Colin Powell had not managed to save the Saudi royal family from the wrath of Saddam Hussein, it is not likely that Osama bin Laden or his cohorts would have been able to mount their attacks against the United States. Certainly not with the resources of Hussein, who Bin Laden has condemned as a betrayer of Islam.

It is convenient for the Saudi government to now distance itself from Bin Laden, but the record is clear that, as the New York Times editorialized, "with Riyadh's acquiescence, money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped create and sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization." When one peruses the list of directors of businesses and foundations cited by the U.S. government that allegedly supported Al Qaeda, it reads like a who's who of Saudi society.

Perhaps that's why the Bush administration rejects the Taliban's demand for proof that Bin Laden is behind the recent terror, a normal response to an extradition request. Have we refused to supply that evidence or to issue the white paper of proof promised by Colin Powell because what we have learned about the international financing of Al Qaeda is too embarrassing to the Saudis?

What we do know is that at least more than half of the hijackers were Saudi citizens; that their alleged leader Bin Laden is a member of one of Saudi Arabia's richest families; that money from the Saudi elite sustained a terrorist network; and that the Saudi government has refused to cooperate fully with the U.S. in investigating these links or seizing terrorist assets.

Nor do we have clean hands. The terror trees that sprouted in the barren desert and rocky outcroppings of Afghanistan were a foreign implant created and nourished by the United States and Saudi Arabia as byproducts of the Cold War. Religion was our weapon in the Cold War, and the militant Wahhabi brand of Islam, the predominant sect in Saudi Arabia, became our most trustworthy sword.

If Bin Laden is brought to trial, what will our answer be when he credits the U.S. with first inspiring him to fight the communist heathens to protect the free world? What if his lawyers expose the financial network that entwined Saudi money with our own to train the fearsome religious fanatics who now haunt our imagination and profoundly threaten our daily lives?

Bin Laden may be yet another Hitler—we seem to find one every 10 years, as we did with Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, in order to cope with a world that is ever more incomprehensible—but his death will not prove the key to ending terrorism.

The problem is that the darkest impulse inexplicably lurks in the most prosperous corners of the world economy. Hate toward the U.S. resides in the hearts of men with whom we presume to share common values because we trade in common markets.

The great unsolved mystery of the terror attacks of the past decades, whether sponsored by oil-rich Libya or the elite of Saudi Arabia, is why men of wealth are not content to simply be rich and instead turn crazy.

For generations, the Saudi elite, led by the royal family, has indulged a sick compromise between obscene opulence and puritanical religion that has proved deeply unsatisfying for many—even among its most privileged citizens. Theirs is an absurd stance in which the rich elite of the oil sheikdoms, often engaging in the worst decadence of Western society, retain their sense of virtue by encouraging the poor masses of the Islamic world to die in a fruitless battles against modernization.

For that reason it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be bombing the impoverished masses of Afghanistan, who have suffered for so many years from Saudi manipulation, while letting off scot-free the oil sheiks who created this mess.

See also:

http://www.consider.net/forum_new.php3?Action=Display&newDisplayURN=200110220007

With friends like the Saudis . . .

Britain and the US have made a very bad bargain in the Middle East, writes Lindsey Hilsum

The Americans were right when they said this would not be a television war. Not because special forces operate by stealth, nor because the Taliban allow only a few chosen journalists inside their territory, but because the real conflict is happening a thousand miles west of Afghanistan in a country that matters far more to America and Britain: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In official statements, the Americans thank their Saudi friends for "intelligence co-operation" and for allegedly arresting terrorist suspects. But reality is gradually dawning - the roots of terrorism reach deep beneath the sands of Arabia. Only now are the Americans and British counting the cost of their long-standing policy to prop up the House of Saud. The bargain struck in the 1940s was simple: Saudi Arabia provided us with oil, and we promised to protect the kingdom against potentially belligerent neighbours, Iran and Iraq.

Defence contracts clinched the deal. Last year alone, Saudi Arabia imported more than US$7bn of weapons, mainly from American and British companies. But all the while, the Saudi regime has been exporting not only Wahhabism - its particularly restrictive brand of Islam - but also the tensions and contradictions of its repressive political system.

From a suburban house in Cricklewood, north-west London, Saad al-Fagih runs a one-man opposition to the Saudi royal family. The internet keeps him in constant contact with clerics and students back home, who - like the Saudi Osama Bin Laden - date their anger with the House of Saud from the Gulf war, when the infidel American troops were allowed on the same soil as the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

"There was a hot debate within the violent opposition circles between those who wanted to direct violence against the regime, and those who wished to bypass the client and attack the master," al-Fagih says. "The latter saw that by attacking the puppeteer, the puppets would cease to function. It seems they won the debate."

The Saudi royal family saw this outcome as a reprieve. It meant that dissatisfaction with their profligacy and corruption could be channelled towards the infidel Americans, while they would use the time to claw back their legitimacy under the banner of Islam. They developed an ambivalent policy. When five US servicemen were killed in a bomb attack in Riyadh in 1995, the Saudis co-operated with the FBI on the initial investigation, but then, before the Americans could conduct interrogations, executed four men who confessed. The suspicion is that they did not want the Americans to hear how widespread was opposition to the US presence, and to conclude that the regime was potentially unstable. They also turned a blind eye to fund-raising for charities that were fronts for Bin Laden and allowed clerics to preach virulent anti-Americanism.

Today, when the US demands that all nations declare themselves "for us or against us", the Saudi royal family faces an impossible dilemma. Overt support for the Americans will widen the gap between the palace and the street. Most of the hijackers on 11 September were Saudis, and when the World Trade Center fell, Saudi youths sent each other text messages saying: "Congratulations!" But without American protection, the House of Saud is vulnerable to attack from inside and out.

Only now are the American and British governments picking through the archives to see how closely involved the Saudi government was in establishing the Tali-ban. When the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the west believed capitalism had overcome communism, but the Saudis, who had bankrolled the mujahedin fighters whom the CIA trained, saw it as a triumph for Islam.

The Americans pulled out of Afghanistan, but Saudi Arabia stayed. They exported thousands of Korans to the former Soviet states of central Asia, and began to fund Islamist groups that destabilised the emerging post-communist regimes. They poured money into the madrasas in Pakistan, where Afghan boys learnt the tenets of Wahhabism. And faced with a chaotic, divided mujahedin government in Kabul, as well as the threat of renewed Iranian and Russian influence in the region, they joined Pakistan to create the Taliban.

The Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid tells how, in 1994 and 1995, the Taliban entertained Saudi princes on bustard hunts. "The Arab hunting parties flew in to Kandahar on huge transport planes bringing dozens of luxury Jeeps, many of which they left behind along with donations for their Taliban hosts," he writes.

The Taliban used the money to buy weapons and, in 1996, stormed into Kabul in Jeeps. Without Saudi backing, the Taliban would never have ruled Afghanistan.

This is the regime that Britain and the US have sustained as their essential ally in the Middle East, to keep oil flowing and business booming. But it is turning out to be a bad bargain all round. In one internet chatroom, a Saudi man complains about the "special glue" that sticks the Saudi princes to their thrones. An influential mullah is reported in effect to have declared the royal family "infidels".

The Americans cannot trust the Saudis to support US policy on terrorism, nor to provide stability in the Gulf. "The American relationship with the Saudis will never be the same again," says one Arab diplomat.

Until 11 September, the US was clear who were its enemies in the Middle East - Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria. Maybe now it would do better to fear its friends.

Lindsey Hilsum is diplomatic correspondent for Channel 4 News

------------------------------------

"Of course the people don't want war.
Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in every country."

- Hermann Goering,
Nazi Reichsmarschall

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3111.php

-----------------------------------

Occupied Jerusalem:
3 October, 2001 (IAP)

-- According to Israel radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael, [Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us."

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."

(c) IAP News

Grüsse

drew1 · 10-28-2001, 01:49 AM

Jack, Roland says that fresh air might have given folks a cold but some might think mine is a breeze from the barn.

Roland don't be apologizing for not giving a quick answer. I can tell that you put a lot of thought & effort into your writing.

Well, we both want a better world for the future. Bin Laden & the Al Quada declared war on the USA and stuck killing thousands. If the USA doesn't respond, they still won't quit. We have to get them.

I agree that the power and backing that Bush has may offer the same temptations as those of Hitler. I don't like the new bill just passed taking away our many of our rights, turning us toward a police state. The goal of the USA is not to take over other nations but to get the terrorists. I'm sure President Bush would rather that the Talliban turned over Bin Laden & the high ranking Al Quada and run the rest out, instead of having to attack in them.

WE know who is trying to wipe out Isreal. Not being a history scholar, my knowledge on the creation of the modern Isreal is limited. I do know the country of Palestine was given to Isreal. I can understand that the Palestinians want a country. Other nations have attacked Israel because of this. Have any of these nations offered the Palesinians a place. Who has? Israel. And yet they are still attacked by Palestinian terrorists. I know of no modern time that Israel has attacked anyone without provocation.

Muslim terrorists use their religion as an excuse to kill infidels including women & children. Doesn't the Talliban have women in prison for trying to spread Christianity? Followers of religions think that their religion is the right one & others are "infidels". Since the IRA & Irish Protestents are coming to peace, the Muslim terrorists are the ones killing others in the name of religion. I imagine that other religions ask that God bless the world. Ask the Muslims in Bosnia & Crotia if The USA went after them?

Who blames others for what is wrong in their world? I'm saying it's these terrorists. What is wrong? The USA answered Arabias request for military help to stand off a possible invasion & retake Kuait so had troops on Arabian soil. The country of Israel exists. Well we know Abraham sent Hagar & Ishmael off, & that Rebecca helped Jacob trick Esau, but Israel should not exist? The declining of moral values in America is spreading. Yes and us Americans don't like it either. But we're not blowing up other countries because of it. I'm blaming others too I guess for Sept 11, but they attacked my country.

Brainwashing? Who speaks of being a martyr & going to heaven having 5 wives and slaves of all the infidels you kill? It is interesting that Bin Laden is graciously hiding and letting others have the opertunity to be martyrs.

We want to get Bin Lden. The USA helped the Mousadeem (probably spelled wrong) Bin laden joined as a support troop. The help was to resist the Soviets as in a bunch of places in the world. Our troops in the Balkans came at the request of NATO of which we are a member and at no ideas for US gain. That warmonger Clinton (Somalia - turned a UN food distribution into deciding who should run the country) was a draft dodger when it was his turn in the service. He makes me sick. He would have been like Stalin to us if he had the chance.

The CIA has been in some imoral & shady things, I think they get the blame for some of these drug things they didn't do though. I'm hoping they are not given fre rein now.

I appreciate the searching you do but were not some of these groups & conferences you post from made up with the downgrading of the USA & its allies in mind? Still I read them, if you are going to improve you have to see your faults. The supposed qoute from Sharom that you posted? I am interested in the source. Several years ago I read (forgot where) that the USA supports Israel because 70% of the money passes through Jewish controlled banks in NYC. Also, I'm Interested in van Crefeld. Who is he.

My computers starting to say stuff like illegal operation so I'm trying to finish up.
I would rather have soldiers than police. We are about to have the KGB over here. The government spying on everybody to stop terrorism. Many police are brave & do there job, but there are too many smart asses because they can get away with it. Thats why some become police. I was a soldier, like many in my family. I have ancestors on both sides of the American Revolution. None was a career soldier but became one when our country needed us.

Thanks for your reply

drew1

edit: saw you had IAP News as source for Sharon quote sorry for not paying attention.

[This message has been edited by drew1 (edited 10-28-2001).]