Wheres the tape?

Hobbes

I guess Bush wanted a calico cat?

gandalf

Naw the CIA's digital lab hasn't met the deadline.



Gandalf.

bonkey

Call me a cynic, but I see no value in this tape whatsoever.

I mean, bin Laden was "proven" guilty before the existence of this tape was known by the US or anyone, so it didnt prove their case. I dont think anyone actually doubts bin Laden's guilt - but people like me have been saying that belief in guilt is not enough.

If this tape is what the US uses to "prove" his guilt, then fair enough, he's guilty. However, it also could be used to "prove" that the US invaded a foreign nation in the absence of proof.

On a seperate note, what happened to the "oh, we cant show you stuf ffrom him cause it could contain seekr1t messages". Hello? I seriously doubt that this current tape was made un beknownst to bin Laden. If he was aware of it, then where is the surity that there is no hidden content here?

Oh - yeah - now I remember. Experts are going over the tape to make sure that there is no hidden code phrase or anything. Uh-huih. Sure. So explain why they couldnt have done this with the last one as well? Besides which, it is a basic fact of cryptology that hidden messages can be just that. Hidden - impossible to find unless you know the code words, or have a large base of data to compare to events to spot trends.

Personally, I couldnt care whether this tape ever gets released or not. Releasing it only shows the level of disinformation and propaganda which has been put forward by the good ol' US of A to date.

jc

Typedef

Being "Translated"

Apparently the tape itself is over 96 hours in length and is in some obscure arabic language called the truth.
The Americans have to
1. Watch all 96 hours of this tape and
2. Translate it from this wierd arabic language.

Someone (i think it was me) started a rumour that the Americans were full of **** and that the tape was beng consored because of coded messages like (end Israeli occupation and colonization) and other such non-thought "truth" messages.

Red Moose

Well having just watched what they shpwed of it on CNN and Sky News, and that I can't believe the entire workforce of said companies are in some ultra-secret masons society, and of course assuming the translation is fair, the tape seems and looks real anyway (coming from a Wag the Dod perspective).

It seems in all of the tapes that are around of Bin Laden, the interviews with the people who really did do interviews (like the guy from that UK Muslim newspaper who was on Sky News around a half hour ago) with Bin Laden, that they are sort of like his sycophants documenting how great he is and what a general all-round super guy he has been to lead the oppressed Muslims against the evil west (and of course anyone else who disagrees with him, aka Saudi Arabia exiling him long before Sept. 11th) (aka Hitler - 1st it's foreign nations, then jews, then, eh....hitler youth reporting on their parents.....).

The guy who is saying Allah is Great after every goddamn sentence is ridiculous, and reminds me of the Cult of Solar Temple, Branch Davidians and Scientologists - they seem to be in some adoring delirium just like any other cult.

If anything it'll be more evidence to get countries that are sitting on the fence to join forces.

Basically from what I saw, Bin Laden says that he calculated the amount of deaths in advance, but only expected the upper floors to collapse (3 or 4 floors) but was really pleased when they came down (and here again was another "Allah be praised"). A load of spiel about how Allah will forgive them, etc., and how it's all going to be good in heaven when they can get drunk and beat up the 70 virgins they are expecting in the afterlife.

All I'll say is that Ron Hubbard did a better job of conning people. Apparently some of the hijackers didn't even know they were actually going to kill themselves.

for the comment above regarding US propaganda, would you grow up. There is no massive conspiracy - in case you didn't do history, people left Europe to start again in the US, to have a big ass constitution guaranteeing freedom, etc., and unless you truly believe that all 270 million over there are out to destroy Islam with some secret intent, taker a step back. They are just like you or me or anyone living in the mostly free west. You can have thousands of people working in a news corporation, they can't all be in on a big secret, they can't all be the conspiracy......

How can it be disinformation?

The US has been confident all along that it's been Bin Laden, and the Whitehouse spokesman in the Live broadcast on Sky said that Bush saw the tape on the 29th of November - and of course everyone said why did it take so long, but he could have easily said if it was for propaganda that they just got it yesterday. Surely by saying they've had it for weeks could only make things worse for them, but no, they actually came straight out and told the truth.

They're not out to get you, get over it. You are not that special.

Hobbes

Apparently the tape itself is over 96 hours in length

Wow a 96 hour long video tape. I wonder where they got that from? From what I heard it's just over hour long. Prehaps your thinking of a 96 minutes?

2. Translate it from this wierd arabic language.

From what I gather quite a few Islamic people have said that the tape has been mistranslated. Instead of "We" it should be "they" also some of the context is added by the US. Plus you have really crappy audio.

Probably points to he knew about it but doesn't prove he masterminded it. But I have to see the tape and some other sources first.

Also another thing I have heard is that the tape in question does nothing except have to guys pat each other on the back, which seems to question why they were being videoed to begin with.

If they want to show evidence, how about they show the evidence they claim to have at the time of the attacks?

Also the tape is a moot point considering he is already been marked KOS.

dahamsta

Bin Laden describes Sept. 11 'joy'

Bin Laden tape: Key quotes

Full transcript of the tape

Honestly, I know I'm showing my true colours an' all, but I think this whole thing is complete and utter poo. I think the U.S. didn't release the tape up until now because it didn't exist, and it took a while to patch it together without the help of the major Hollywood studios. My own dear ma, who is by no means a radical, thinks the exact same. It's donkey droppings.

adam

mike65

Dahamsta,

In the nicest pssible way, I think you're an idiot, I won't
comment on your mum!

The Us gov. did'nt need to release that tape and it looks and feels
authentic to me, but hey what do I know...?

Mike.

dahamsta

Thanks Mike. Has the ISO accepted your "feel" as a standard for acceptance?

adam

Sand

Ive got to honestly ask...If Bin Laden merely knew about it but didnt mastermind it, wouldnt he be guilty of conspiracy at the very least?

Even if he was innocently watching TV with the rest of us on September 11th, saying along with the rest of us "Holy Crap!!!-some poor git is really going to get it now-Doh!" he has attacked US interests and called for attacks on US interests. He is a self declared enemy of the US along with his terrorist organisation and his allies in Afghanistan, the Taliban. He certainly represents a threat to the US and to be honest is anyone surprised that the US is treating him as such? Just because Bill Clinton pursued a fruitless policy of slight admonishments( the odd bombing sorties against some factory in Sudan) does not mean that Bush has to, or that it is the correct policy.

Whether or not the tape proves Bin Laden did it or not is irrelevant imo. The US government is convinced he did it, the vast majority of americans are convinced he did it and Ive yet to see any proof he didnt do it (Call that guilty until proven innocent if you want but remember your dealing with a self declared terrorist and enemy of the US).

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta


My own dear ma, who is by no means a radical, thinks the exact same. It's donkey droppings.

adam

Well then, if a world affairs expert analyst such as your "dear ma" thinks its bunk, that just about settles it, I suppose!

Von

Originally posted by Red Moose
for the comment above regarding US propaganda, would you grow up. There is no massive conspiracy - in case you didn't do history, people left Europe to start again in the US, to have a big ass constitution guaranteeing freedom, etc., and unless you truly believe that all 270 million over there are out to destroy Islam with some secret intent, taker a step back. They are just like you or me or anyone living in the mostly free west. You can have thousands of people working in a news corporation, they can't all be in on a big secret, they can't all be the conspiracy......

Ehhh, you believe everything you're told then do you? As long as someone official looking enough is saying it? The telly can't possibly lie can it? Fancy that. Anyone who has *done* history or knows anything about how mass media works knows that people can be coerced into believing this or that. Patriot missiles worked perfectly against scuds. The guildford 4 were guilty. The taliban are evil while the NA are good. Where's the mention that everyone in the states is in on a big conspiracy? Why the gibberish?

"It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms."
John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

I presume you haven't bothered to read the link I supplied.

Go back to bed.

dahamsta

Well then, if a world affairs expert analyst such as your "dear ma" thinks its bunk, that just about settles it, I suppose!

Precisely Gargoyle. I'm delighted to see you've finally come around.

adam

adnans

Originally posted by Red Moose
The guy who is saying Allah is Great after every goddamn sentence is ridiculous, and reminds me of the Cult of Solar Temple, Branch Davidians and Scientologists - they seem to be in some adoring delirium just like any other cult.

emmm, any muslim that speaks of Allah says the same phrase, "Allah be praised" (Allah-u-ekber) after mentioning His name. its not ridicilous at all and i would ask you not mistake the muslim afterlife with drunken beating up of young virgins.

enough of that now. yeah it does seem like the guy planned it if the translations are correct. one strange thing though is...

from the transcript:
But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

then how come the hijackers apparantly left suicide letters which were uncovered by the FBI in the car at the airport when they didnt know of the plan before they boarded the plane.

there's also talk of messed up translations where "they" is mistaken for "we" or we can just call bin laden very stupid for making the worst home video ever.

adnans

Red Moose

Originally posted by adnans


emmm, any muslim that speaks of Allah says the same phrase, "Allah be praised" (Allah-u-ekber) after mentioning His name. its not ridicilous at all and i would ask you not mistake the muslim afterlife with drunken beating up of young virgins.

Well OK I was exaggerating a bit (but hey so is everyone else!), but that's roughly what they are promised in the Q'ran (or Koran, can't remember the Q spelling properly). Maybe not the beating up part I know, my bad. It just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Read it if you don't believe me - they are promised something like 70 virgins of paradise for being true believers.

Regarding the "Allah be praised" bit, I wasn't saying it in reference to Islam, but rather the way they (well basically that one guy sitting against the back wall who takes off his turban during the interview) seems to be in a very manic style, with his utter awe of Bin Laden very obvious. It's just like any of the videos of cult leaders, etc., that I've seen over the years (like the examples I listed).

Sure, people here go to mass and say "Praise be to the lord" and stuff, but it's not like "and we didn't know the towers would totally collapse"....."allah be praised!", etc., .

then how come the hijackers apparantly left suicide letters which were uncovered by the FBI in the car at the airport when they didnt know of the plan before they boarded the plane.

Yes that is very strange and I don't think I've heard it mentioned before. Surely the pilots knew in advance? They were training to specifically fly large commercial aircraft very precisely in that place in Florida? I thought that it seemed like they got a bunch of new recruits, didn't tell them anything, but the pilots would have to know in advance that they were planning something big. Very interesting though, and I remember the skepticism around the time when they found the suicide notes that people thought they were planted, etc., .

Typedef

Come on lads, history is written by the victors, the US is using this tape as a rationalisation of the campaign that they are carrying out plain and simple, stoke up the flames for support for their two-pin war.

Fact is today the US showed just the kind of unilateralist foreign policy that has made organisations who are prepared to kill thousands of non-combatants (I don't mean the guys who dropped the Nukes on Japan) by junking the 1972 ABM. Vladimir Putin declared this move a mistake. WTF is bush doing provoking an arms race in this fashion? The reality is that Bush and his cronies are taking care of number 1. Drilling for oil in national parks, junking Kyoto, junking the ABM (for all of their flunkies in the arms industry to have jobs), effectively stopping reunification of North and South Korea, the Republicans would much rather have a "rouge" state to use as an excuse to build arms in North Korea then peace and tranquility for the two Koreas after all, all those red-necks who voted Bush and flunkies in the arms industry need to be kept in jobs right?

Look at Iraq, does anyone actually believe that oops the US just plain messed up and failed to take out Saddam Hussein for the last 10 years with the President responsible for this "accident" an oil magnate and Iraq being an oil-rich country?

Seriously these people aren't worth the lies their policies are based on so it follows, at which point exactly did the USA arbitrarily gain the right to act as the world's policemen but, not have to live up to the laws it imposes? No, no, no says the USA Saddam Hussein can't invade and annex Kuwait, but Israel can(and has) invade and annex swathes of Palestine.

It's ok, apparently for the USA to give 5 billion a year to Israel to continue the occupation and colonization of Palestine, but the Intifada is wrong.
It's ok for the US to interfere with the internal workings of other states, having the CIA rig elections etc, because the US actually has quasi-implicative evidence for Bin Laden, therefore any arguments founded on logic that proport Bin Laden's case become void, and seeing as how some of those arguments are the US/(or CIA) meddelling in the ME or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan(only to abandon it after Soviets left) or the afore mentioned abandoning of Iraq (or the millions of people who have died under US sanctions in Iraq) everyone can go back to believing the arabs hate the US because it is "free" not because of the US' twisted foreign policy.

Hey how come it was so easy for the US to topple the Taliban, but rather than topple Saddam Hussein the US would rather "smoke em out" with sanctions? The same sanctions that have caused the deaths of millions of ordinary Iraqis? Oh wait I forgot, this is how the US protects life, liberty, freedom & the American way.

Che Lives!

Gargoyle

Typedef, I realize you've never answered a question so I'll just state this rhetorically.

Have you ever, just once, posted anything on topic?

Gargoyle

Yes, yes, I know Doubleplusgood, whatever that means.

Von

He was laughing. That makes him guilty of evilness.

Hobbes

CNN was interviewing an Arab professor shortly after it showed the tape. The professor said that Bin Laden's voice was so inaudible that the tape is not conclusive. CNN then stopped speaking to him and he was cut off!

LOL, typical of CNN.

I'm waiting until Sky show Bin Ladins funniest home videos, with such scenes as "Osama goes water skiing" to "Osama getting hit in the groin by a baseball".

bonkey

Originally posted by adnans
from the transcript:
But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.
then how come the hijackers apparantly left suicide letters which were uncovered by the FBI in the car at the airport when they didnt know of the plan before they boarded the plane.

This had me wondering as well, but for a different reason.

If you are going to send 4 people onto a plane, and their mission is to die, you need to be bloody sure that one of them isnt going to go "what - we're gonna kill ourselves? Stuff that...".

I'm actually pretty serious here. Suicide missions are fine under two conditions. Either the "volunteer" knows and accepts their mission from the start, or they dont know theyre going to die until the 'splosion. Bin Laden apparently says that they didnt find out "until they were boarding the plane".

This is such a huge operational risk its ridiculous to credit it. I mean - what if one, just one of the terrorists paniced when he found out he was off to meet Allah. It could have prevented the whole operation from succeeding. Thats one hell of a risk.

Maybe I credit bin Laden with too much intelligence. Maybe these guys are that fanatical. I just find it odd.

jc

Canaboid

My understanding on that point is that they knew they were going on a "martyr mission", they just didn't know the details until the last minute.

ReefBreak

"The same sanctions that have caused the deaths of millions of ordinary Iraqis"

When are you lot ever going to get into your heads that the deaths are caused by Saddam's corruption in the Food for Oil program? But that's for another thread.

Look, it's pretty clear, Bin Laden masterminded the worst terrorist atrocity in history, he's admitted so on tape, and STILL the anti-american chattering classes are making excuses. After the most effective military campaign in history and now this tape, it's nice to see them eating humble-pie (even if they don't say as much).

Che Lives?

gandalf

Originally posted by ReefBreak
After the most effective military campaign in history and now this tape, it's nice to see them eating humble-pie (even if they don't say as much).

Che Lives?

"Most effective military campaignin history" roflol I haven't had such a good laugh in years. Is this the same campaign that bombed a Red Cross depot and a hospital, killed prisioners with their hands tied behind their backs etc etc.

Please keep posts like that coming, I need something to cheer me up these days

Gandalf.

JustHalf

Oh my god! The tape is a fake! A load of people who can't speak Arabic are saying that the translation is innacurate, and I hate the US, so it must be false!

Please excuse my sarcasm. I find the immediate claims that the tape is a fake disheartening - thanks for letting down my faith in humanity, guys! For the claims that the translation is innacurrate from people who cannot speak the language, I say this: in law, if an witness recognised as an expert in the field of inquiry speaks in court, and no other expert witness contradicts them, then this evidence MUST BE ACCEPTED AS FACT. Neither the judge or jury can deny it's validity.

Translations have been made by the US military, and compared to translations made by two civilians, and no inconsistencies were found in the two translations. Now, you have several experts testifying that this translation is accurate (those that wrote and verified the transcript).

I see many lay people now rise up and claim it is a fake, and that the translation is false, and these people have not been certified as experts. I beg of all reasonable people to ignore their cries, at least until they have a reliable expert confirm them - which I doubt will happen.

ReefBreak

Gandalf...

Name ONE large-scale miltary campaign that caused as little loss of civilian life as this one? Name ONE large scale campaign that was won as quickly and as effectively as this one? The Taliban were routed in 3 months.

What did you expect from the war? Zero civilian casualties? War is war. In this case they were kept to a minimum.

And as for the prisoners, well one of the few rules in war is that surrender is never used as a basis for attack. You only ever surrender once. It's called reality.

Hobbes

The Taliban were routed in 3 months.

War implies that the other side was able to fight back. High altitude bombing of the enemy and then sending other forces to mop up what remains are left is hardly what I would call a war.

Plus the taliban didn't actually declare war. Come to think of it neither did the US.

Zero civilian casualties?

It should of been a goal to reach for. Bombing civilians is OK by you then? Or prehaps dropping food in packets that look the same as the bombs your dropping ok by you?

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Name ONE large-scale miltary campaign that caused as little loss of civilian life as this one? Name ONE large scale campaign that was won as quickly and as effectively as this one? The Taliban were routed in 3 months.

Listening to CNN last night, an analyst said that the Taliban were not "routed". There have been an estimated 5000 captured/surrendered/changed sides, and 5000-10000 killed, leavin an estimated force of 30,000 to 35,000 Taliban soldiers "unaccounted for".

The US has deposed the Taliban leadership, but has not gotten rid fo the Taliban threat. However, when an interim government was being discussed, the Afgahn parties said that they did not want a continued foreign presence, and that they just wanted the framework to begin.

So - exactly how is this a rout? About 60% of the Taliban forces which were known to be in Afghanistan before the shooting started are still armed and at large. Thats a sizeable force by anyone's estimations, and it is entirely probable that they could become the "rebels" that the NA were up until a few months ago, holding part of the nation.

This is a solution? This is peace? This is success? OK, sure.

What did you expect from the war? Zero civilian casualties? War is war. In this case they were kept to a minimum.

Rubbish - they were not kept to a minimum. The US sent planes in, using so-called "precision guided" munitions, backing up the forces on the ground. Almost all of the civilian casualties to date have been as a result on these "precision" systems. Rumsfeld was asked in the Pentagon briefing yesterday about the new Missile Defence System, and his reply included a comment along the lines that "nothing is perfect. If you have systems which are as much as 85% reliable, as some of our precision guided systems used in the current conflict are, then....".

So let me get this straight. Up to 85% of the precision bombs dropped in the conflict are accurate. Or, At least 15% of the bombs dropped are not accurate. Interestingly, it is these precision systems which have killed civilians. Not men on the ground. For simplicity, I have assumed that no non-precision sysyem would have been dropped on urban areas, despite reports early in the conflict about villages having been destroyed with cluster-bomb attacks.

To me, this hints at a very simple fact. Bomb-dropping is inherently safer then having equipment on the ground. Precision bombs cost less innocent lives then non-precision bombs. However, Men On The Ground cost less civilian lives than precision bombs - unfortunately they cost more military lives. I cant see a division of tanks accidentally blowing up a UN depot, or a hospital, or an entire village.

Precision-guided systems are what the US see as a happy balance of keeping "collateral damage" (I really hate that term) reaonably low, while minimising the cost of soldiers.

Forgive me for saying that this, to me, effectively means that the US is saying "innocent lives are the cost of more of our soldiers coming back alive, and are therefore less important". This is not a reality of war, it is callous disregard for the life of non-combatants.

The US forces in Afghanistan were not conscripted. They choose to join a career which is potentially deadly. The Northern Alliance fighters also chose to bear arms. While I applaud the bravery of these men and women, I condemn the decisions made which decide that keeping these people alive is more important than keeping civilians alive - civilians caught in a conflict not of their choosing - civilians who did not choose to join an army and beear arms - civilians, who unlike the soldiers, do not wish to be involved in a conflict. They should be the lives cherished, moreso than the soldiers. But no - military efficiency has superceded the human cost.

Interestingly, this is also one of the reasons that the war has been so cheap. Another one has been the primitive array of forces arrayed against the US, and a third has been the fact that the US had very few assets on the ground throughout the entire conflict - they relied on locals to do most of the hard work of actually standing in the line of fire.

As a related issue, I would again point out that Bush maintains that the US did not start this war. Who did? The terrorists on 9-11? If that is the case, then those who died in the 9-11 atrocities were simply "collateral damage" as well. Remember - you guys are arguing that "innocent people die in war - its reality".

You cannot dehumanise the deaths of one group of innocent people as "collateral damage" or "to be expected" and still maintain outrage at the deaths of another group of innocents. At least, not if you have any shred of impartiality.

and STILL the anti-american chattering classes are making excuses

Here we go again. If you cant argue your point intelligently, hey - just brand the opposition as anti-American because they dare to offer criticism. Yes - intelligent taactics. It really shows how impartially you view the situation.

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey

As a related issue, I would again point out that Bush maintains that the US did not start this war. Who did? The terrorists on 9-11? If that is the case, then those who died in the 9-11 atrocities were simply "collateral damage" as well. Remember - you guys are arguing that "innocent people die in war - its reality".

jc

Bonkey, I think its important to make a distinction between those who targeted civilians specifically - indeed chose their targets so as to maximize civilian casualties - and an inaccurate airstrike when the target was actually military.

Its somewhat like accidentally hitting someone with your car while driving versus walking into a crowded building with a machine gun and firing on everyone.

gandalf

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Gandalf...

Name ONE large-scale miltary campaign that caused as little loss of civilian life as this one? Name ONE large scale campaign that was won as quickly and as effectively as this one? The Taliban were routed in 3 months.

What did you expect from the war? Zero civilian casualties? War is war. In this case they were kept to a minimum.

And as for the prisoners, well one of the few rules in war is that surrender is never used as a basis for attack. You only ever surrender once. It's called reality.

Reefbreak as you have all the answers How many civilians have been killed in this campaign?

Gandalf

(Reefbreak where are you located, this is just a curiousity question ?)

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Bonkey, I think its important to make a distinction between those who targeted civilians specifically - indeed chose their targets so as to maximize civilian casualties - and an inaccurate airstrike when the target was actually military.

Fair point. There is a difference - in our eyes. I mean - in principle I mostly agree with you.

I think (personal opinion) that the targets were the buildings themselves - the WTC and the Pentagon are two of the largest "emblems" of the US, embodying trade and military respectively - the two "great evils" of western capitalsim. They are also big enough to be reaonably easy to hit as targets.

So, I would be more inclined to say that the terrorists chose the buildings for their symbolism, and didnt care about the human lives lost. Perhaps there was also a degree of maximising human costs in there, but I dont know. At the very least, they knew they struck at the symbolism, that people would die, and that those deaths were either a bonus or inconsequential.

In either case, you're still right - it is not the same as "misguided bombs".

However, I also seem to remember a discussion some time back which was saying that the US (somewhere - cant remember) laid waste to some government buildings which had a creche nearby, and their atttitude was that they couldnt allow the callous use of civilians being kept near a legitimate target keep them from doing their job. Similarly, any civilian working in the building was a legitimate target due to their connection to the target. In other words - you work for the enemy, in the enemies building, then you are a legit target.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the comparison, but you can equally argue the same lines about 9-11. The WTC (perhaps) and the Pentagon (definitely) are legit targets, and those civilians working inside them are legitimate targets through association.

At the end of the day, I would agree that the US military has a lesser degree of illegitimacy (as opposed to a greater degree of legitimacy, if you catch my drift) with its civilian casualties. However, I cannot, do not, and will not accept the argument of "its war, civilians die, cope". This argument only ever seems to be used for the "other side's" casualties, which I think is grossly unfair.

At the end of the day, I do not think that everything possible was done to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, for the reasons I have stated above.

Taking your "when the target was actually military" point...you would be better saying "when the target was believed to have been military" or "when the target was decided to have been military". Hospitals, UN buildings, and villages cannot easily be confused for military targets, unless your intel is seriously dodgy. After one mishap, everything should have been done to ensure that intel was double-checked, that co-ordinates entered into the computers were double-checked, and that the error did not reoccur. This patently did not happen. I think military expediency, and a wish/need to wrap things up before winter meant that the military shrugged their shoulders, said "oopsie, sh1t happens, get the spin-doctors to cover our asses and let us get on with it".

As one last example of what I see as this callousness....take a look at what happened when 3 American soldiers and some NA soldiers got killed by "friendly-fire" - a precision guided bomb which didnt go where it should. There was news coverage of these casualties for over a day, including coverage of the funeral ceremony held for one of the NA guys. These people were lauded as heroes, brave men, and their deaths were tragic. We were given their names, their histories, and told how wonderful they were. On the other hand, civilian casualties often get no further than "unconfirmed reports" and after that we effectively get a press statement saying "Its tragic, but these things happen in war".

These guys got more coverage than any soldier who died in action during the conflict. Why? Because they were accidental deaths - people killed by accident by their own side.

The media, and the government officials in charge care about their soldiers, and want to be seen to do so. Fair enough - those people deserve respect.

However, they only pay lip-service to the civilian deaths. Why? Why are these people not given the same degree of coverage? They were good guys, killed accidentally by the good guys. Worse, they were victims killed accidentally by the good guys.

So why do they not get the same acknowledgement? Simple - because giving their deaths anything more than lipservice could result in an undermining of the military's efficiency, which is not desirable nor acceptable.

In short, civilian lives are secondary to the military objectives. Given this, we cannot say that these deaths are unavoidable - they were unavboidable given the limits that the military chose to operate within. That, unfortunately, is a completely different kettle of fish, an kettle I want no part of.

jc

ReefBreak

Reefbreak as you have all the answers How many civilians have been killed in this campaign?

Gandalf

(Reefbreak where are you located, this is just a curiousity question ?)

With a wild sweeping guess, I would estimate that it's less than what the Taliban reported and more than what the US have reported. I would also guess that it's far less than the number of civilian deaths caused by the various militant extremist islamic groups. Don't forget the events in Luxor in '97 or Algiers in the same year, and of course Sep 11.

And I fully agree with Gargoyle - these attacks were directly targeted at innocent civilians.

As for my location: see my profile. Out of curiousity, why are you curious?

gandalf

Thank you Reefbreak well that totally destroys your comment

Name ONE large-scale miltary campaign that caused as little loss of civilian life as this one?

If you do not have accurate figures for casulties you cannot make a statement like that.

We are all aware that the 11/9 attacks were directed at civilians and they were wrong & evil. But does that validate a civilian death in Afghanistan because of a stray bomb or bad intelligence.

As for where you were located I just was wondering if you were a US poster or not.

Gandalf.

Typedef

Originally posted by ReefBreak
"The same sanctions that have caused the deaths of millions of ordinary Iraqis"

When are you lot ever going to get into your heads that the deaths are caused by Saddam's corruption in the Food for Oil program? But that's for another thread.

No, no, no, fact is the Food for Oil program is a smoke screen that is used to rationalize continued sanctions against Iraq, these sanctions are nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, these sanctions exist to protect Us oil interests plain and simple. The argument follows, George Bush Senior derives most of his money from Oil, Iraq is an oil rich country, with less Iraqi oil and the US "protecting" Kuwaiti oil (on a policy largely espoused by oil magnates like Bush inc) on the world market, US oil and US oil interests become more relevant and powerful, it may be synical to suggest that the coincidence of George Bush Senior shoring up his own personal economic interests co-incides with the "Food for Oil" program is a crock of ****, but I feel vindicated in making such an allusion now.

Look, it's pretty clear, Bin Laden masterminded the worst terrorist atrocity in history

So... while the Nazi's got a trial in Nuremberg, Bin Laden will have summary execution? George Bush wouldn't even negotiate for Bin Laden, instead he used the threat of force to advance his political goals.

Dictionary.com : Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon.

Therefore Bush is a terrorist too.
Also I take issue with being branded as anti-American seeing as how I worked as a Tech Support rep for Gateway Computers which was founded in hicksville USA somewhere alright?
I am against Nepotism in governance, flagrant disregard of international treaties (ABM,Kyoto,GermWafare) and the select application of UN resolutions ie(sanctions for Iraq implemented, sanctions against Israel vetoed), and all of these things are US sponsored actions but that does not make me anti-US, I'm anti-US government policy, there's a difference ok?
Oh and when I get home from work, for the guy who doesn't know what doubleplusgood means I will maybe post a link that will give you a document with some pointers.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
The argument follows, George Bush Senior derives most of his money from Oil, Iraq is an oil rich country, with less Iraqi oil and the US "protecting" Kuwaiti oil (on a policy largely espoused by oil magnates like Bush inc) on the world market, US oil and US oil interests become more relevant and powerful

Wasnt it the Clinton administration who initiated the Oil for Food program? If not, then they definitely perpetuated it. Blaming Bush because his family has ties to oil seems a bit shortsighted if the entire thing was also supported by the president who came after the Gulf and before Bush jnr.

Also, as a net importer of oil, it is not in the US interests to limit the oil supply in the world - it drives prices up which is bad for their economy.

I would object to the oil for food program, but for different reasons.

So... while the Nazi's got a trial in Nuremberg, Bin Laden will have summary execution? George Bush wouldn't even negotiate for Bin Laden, instead he used the threat of force to advance his political goals.

Yeah - I found it very interesting that a month ago, there were reports of less extreme Taliban leaders wanting to cut a deal, and Bush's response was "you had your chance, we will not now, nor ever negotiate with you. The time for talking is past". Two days ago, the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Tora Bora were reported to have been offered a deal - hand over your leaders and you can go free.

Wont negotiate, but here's a deal.....yeah right.

Dictionary.com : Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon.

Therefore Bush is a terrorist too.

We are all capable of reading dictionary.com Besides, there is a significant difference to "use force as a political weapon" and "use terror as a political weapon". Perhaps Bush shoul dbe termed a "forcist"then (but no, the Force is not strong in this one).

Also I take issue with being branded as anti-American seeing as how I worked as a Tech Support rep for Gateway Computers ok?
I am against Nepotism in governance, flagrant disregard of international treaties (ABM,Kyoto,GermWafare) and the selection application of UN resolutions ie(sanctions for Iraq implemented, sanctions against Israel vetoed), and all of these things are US sponsored actions but that does not make me anti-US, I'm anti-US government policy, there's a difference ok?

Well said. This is the most rational response I've heard to the anti-american claims which proliferate these discussions. Wish I had thought of it

jc

joev

Originally posted by Gargoyle


JustHalf, you just have to realize why. Its about saving face. Some people could never admit the tape was legitimate because if they did, *GASP*, they'd have to admit the US was actually right about something.

Regardless of the legitimacy or (more likely) illegitimacy of the tape. The US was still not right.

The US has this mistaken idea that proving Bin Laden 'guilty' will somehow exonerate then from the crimes of:

A. Ignoring international extradition law.
B. Engaging in ethnic cleansing of Talibar.
C. Unjustified invasion of a foreign nation. (proof *after* the punishment has been exacted is not Justice - It's only serves to sooth the conscience of the Lynch mob.)
D. Seeking assasination without trial of a citizen of the world. (This goes against the UN Charter on Human Rights)

You may seek to justify US actions all you want, that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong actions, for the wrong motives.

joev.

bonkey

Originally posted by joev
A. Ignoring international extradition law.
B. Engaging in ethnic cleansing of Talibar.
C. Unjustified invasion of a foreign nation. (proof *after* the punishment has been exacted is not Justice - It's only serves to sooth the conscience of the Lynch mob.)
D. Seeking assasination without trial of a citizen of the world. (This goes against the UN Charter on Human Rights)

On point A, the US would argue that there was no official government to seek extradition from, and that the US did not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan anyway. I'd agree with your take, but this one really is a 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

Point B you'd never carry off. 5000 deaths in an armed conflict will never be seen as ethnic cleansing. The Taliban were also allowed to surrender which would futher back the case against this.

On points C and D though, I reckon you're spot on.

jc

joev

Originally posted by bonkey
Besides, there is a significant difference to "use force as a political weapon" and "use terror as a political weapon". Perhaps Bush shoul dbe termed a "forcist"then?

Um, surely the application of force (or the threat of it) was designed to induce terror (and therefore cause accession to Bushs commandments)

You're arguing the semantics of dictionary definitions rather than the reality of the situation. The US attempted to terrorise the Taliban into complying with their demands with the threat of force (their political weapon).

I think Typedef comparison stands.

joev.

ReefBreak

Regardless of the legitimacy or (more likely) illegitimacy of the tape.

More likely to be illegitimate? And where did you come up with this reasoning? The sound was poor but not THAT poor. It's not difficult to isolate and maximise the relevant freqency bands on a poor vocal recording (from experience). Plus, even if the translation was wrong, it won't be long before the correct version surfaces on the web.

A. Ignoring international extradition law.

Do you seriously believe the Taliban give a damn about Internatianal extradition law?

C. Unjustified invasion of a foreign nation. (proof *after* the punishment has been exacted is not Justice - It's only serves to sooth the conscience of the Lynch mob.)

Unjustified? Over 3000 innocent civilians were murdered on Sep 11. You may have forgotten that small detail. And anyway, nobody has ever suggested that the US invaded Afghanistan - they went in to dismantle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that harboured it. They're doing that.

D. Seeking assasination without trial of a citizen of the world. (This goes against the UN Charter on Human Rights)

I do agree: he should be put on trial, not assasinated. That may still still happen, but I seriously doubt it.


It's always the same: plenty of protest, but little in the way of realistic alternatives that would prevent another Sep 11.

bonkey

Originally posted by joev
You're arguing the semantics of dictionary definitions rather than the reality of the situation. The US attempted to terrorise the Taliban into complying with their demands with the threat of force (their political weapon).

And you call me a pedant?

Sheesh

The US tried to force the Taliban into complying to their demands through use of force. I disagree with this for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day, force was used directly against a military organisation to achieve a specific political/ military goal.

This is use of force to political ends.

The Al Qaeda network used force to induce terror, in order for that terror to further their political aims.

This is use of terror to political ends.

Yes its semantics. Yes you're free to differ in your opinion. However, by your logic, every offensive (as opposed to defensive) military operation in history can be classified as terrorist in nature also - which to me is patently ridiculous.

The person/people releasing Anthrax in the US is using terror to further their agenda.

When inducing terror is the aim for an action, that action is terrorist in nature. The use of force against a militant group / military is not about inducing terror.

Like I said, I think Bush and the US are wrong in their current path of actions, I just dont think that branding them as terrorists in this case is particularly fair or accurate.

jc

p.s. I'm off now - have a good weekend all. A pub has a beer with my name on it....

joev

Originally posted by bonkey


On point A, the US would argue that there was no official government to seek extradition from, and that the US did not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan anyway. I'd agree with your take, but this one really is a 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

The Fact that the US provided $108 Million to the Taliban government in April this year means that they legitimised it. They clearly recognised it as the governing and administrative mechanism in Afghanistan... and also when they made their initial demands to the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan.

Their propaganda machine would like to re-write history, but some of it is a little too recent for us to have forgotten

Point B you'd never carry off. 5000 deaths in an armed conflict will never be seen as ethnic cleansing. The Taliban were also allowed to surrender which would futher back the case
against this.

I wasn't aware that there was a numeric lower number for the 'cleansing' phrase to be brought into play. Specifically targeting a subsection of the population because of ethiticty and religious beliefs would be qualification enough for me.

As for the Surrender, I think you raised the point elsewhere (perhaps further up this thread) that the US refused to negotiate with the Taliban.

Negotiating a surrender after the enemy is defeated and you have killed enough of them to satisfy your political imperatives (to be a powerful 'kick ass' leader) and your nations lust for revenge, not to mention supporting an Ally who's first act upon capturing a city was to summarily execute 600 ot their opponents (all Talibar) does nothing to lessen your complicity in this cleansing.

joev.

joev

Originally posted by ReefBreak
It's always the same: plenty of protest, but little in the way of realistic alternatives that would prevent another Sep 11.

Take all the Money your country has spent on it's revenge mission and instead spend it on modifying all Commercial Aircraft so that the crew cabin is sealed from the rest of the aircraft (let the Pilots enter from a trapdoor underneath the plane for example.)

There you go a realistic alternative to Sept 11!

A terrible thing happen that day. The true horror of it though is that the US government uses this tragedy as Justification for causing even more Horror and Tragedy.

Some world we live in....

joev

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak

Do you seriously believe the Taliban give a damn about Internatianal extradition law?

I trhought they were being punished because of their lack of respect for international law such as harbouring terrorists and ignoring human rights isues.

You now say that because they do it, its OK for the good guys to do it as well? The US is supposed to be upholding those rules - thats what the good guys are supposed to do.

It's always the same: plenty of protest, but little in the way of realistic alternatives that would prevent another Sep 11.

Its always the same. Plenty of support, and a blind belief that the current actions will somehow precent another Sep 11.

Originally posted by joev
The Fact that the US provided $108 Million to the Taliban government in April this year means that they legitimised it.

What - anyone the US gives money to is a legitimate government? Including those danged freedom fighters and rebels theyve funded over the years? Come on...you know better than that.

As to the request of handing over bin Laden - they dealt with the people who claimed to have him. They didnt follow erxtradition because that would reuire acknowledging the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan as opposed to a "rogue government" classification.

I wasn't aware that there was a numeric lower number for the 'cleansing' phrase to be brought into play. Specifically targeting a subsection of the population because of ethiticty and religious beliefs would be qualification enough for me.

I wasnt aware that killing a single person because of their ethnicity would classify as ethnic cleansing. The US did not try to wipe out the Taliban. As Ive pointed out before, they have an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 casualties, 5,000 captured, and 30,000 at large - who will be left alone according to the US, once the interim government comes in. If ethnic cleansing were the sisue here, then there would have been no surrender - all those captured would have been executed.

Ethnic cleansing is about wiping out an ethinc group because of their ethnicity. Ths US have not tried to do this. The US sought to depose the Taliban from power because of their funding of terrorists - not because of their religious or social struictures.

I *would* say that there will probably be an attempt at ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan by the new ruling government after the allies leave, but thats because I have no faith in them. I hope I'm wrong.

jc

And now I'm definitely pubwards bound. Honest.

Meh

Originally posted by joev
I wasn't aware that there was a numeric lower number for the 'cleansing' phrase to be brought into play. Specifically targeting a subsection of the population because of ethiticty and religious beliefs would be qualification enough for me.

I was under the impression that ethnic cleansing, by definition, was targetted at entire civilian populations on the basis of their ethnic origin. "Taliban" is not an ethnicity, nor a religion. It's a political organization.

Meh

Originally posted by joev
Take all the Money your country has spent on it's revenge mission and instead spend it on modifying all Commercial Aircraft so that the crew cabin is sealed from the rest of the aircraft (let the Pilots enter from a trapdoor underneath the plane for example.)

And of course, the terrorists are so stupid that they would never be able to think of a different way to attack the US.

[Meh read the rules and do not post personal insults or else your posts will be edited and/or deleted]

ReefBreak

Its always the same. Plenty of support, and a blind belief that the current actions will somehow prevent another Sep 11.

That may be so, but I'm still waiting on a better alternative to the current war on terror. And that's why I support it, because it's the best method from very few tough options.

Oh I know. How about we pound Al-Qaeda with a tough, hard-hitting, leaflet campaign? Followed by some protest songs? Finish them off with petition hand-over? (R.D.)

No, I didn't think so.

Sand

Originally posted by ReefBreak


Oh I know. How about we pound Al-Qaeda with a tough, hard-hitting, leaflet campaign? Followed by some protest songs? Finish them off with petition hand-over? (R.D.)

No, I didn't think so.

Why not? This has been the highly effective tactics of left wing students who are against anything with the USA on it (Think about it- Somone up there criticsed the US for supplying the Taliban with $108million in April, thus supporting it- and now the US is getting criticised for routing the Taliban). At my university there has been highly effective public meetings, debates and much chopping down of trees to provide the paper for pointless childish rhetoric. And i still believe the US actions in Afghanistan have been a model for modern warfare....oh wait i see what you mean:(

Sharkey

Originally posted by dahamsta

Honestly, I know I'm showing my true colours an' all, but I think this whole thing is complete and utter poo. I think the U.S. didn't release the tape up until now because it didn't exist, and it took a while to patch it together without the help of the major Hollywood studios. ...

And your evidence for these assertions are ... what?

Tell me -- do you think the US used actors or did everything digitally?

Aspro

Originally posted by Bonkey
p.s. I'm off now - have a good weekend all. A pub has a beer with my name on it....

A pint of Bonkey please my good man........uggggggghhhhhhhh:D

dahamsta

And your evidence for these assertions are ... what?

I don't have any.

Tell me -- do you think the US used actors or did everything digitally?

I don't know.

Your post is a blatant troll, because you know I don't have the answers. Read my post again, this time noting the word "think" in my post. I'm expressing an opinion, which I believe is still permitted under my Constitution.

I, personally, do not trust, and have never trusted, the current U.S. President or his Government. As a direct result of that, I, personally, at this time, do not believe the tape is genuine, therefore, I, personally, at this time, do not accept it as evidence.

I accept that my opinion is ostensibly useless, since it is unlikely to ever have any affect whatsoever, but that does not and will not preclude me from expressing it. Just like I will not prevent you from expressing yours if you wish to.

Maybe you should express your opinion. I don't see your opinion on the authenticity of the tape in this thread. Do you have any doubts about the authenticity of this tape? Do you accept it as evidence? If so, do you have particular reasons for accepting it, or are you simply prepared to take the U.S. Government's word for it?

adam

adnans

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=105578

adnans