|
|||||||||
Posted October 24, 2001
'Doing Something'
It is going to be very interesting to see what the federal government has planned after the destruction of the Taliban. First of all, the attack on Afghanistan is largely a publicity move; designed to satisfy the thirst of the American public, as well as proclaiming that we are, in fact, "doing something." Secondly, it's doubtful (at least in my mind) that bin Laden and his chief henchmen are even in Afghanistan.
However, if the Washington elite actually intended to destroy bin Laden's networks, they would attack the money sources. That would require going after "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, among others. It's highly possible the strikes are primarily designed to scatter the aggressive groups so stabilization of the country is possible. This would enable the U.S. access to Caspian oil, which I fear has been a goal long before the 9/11 attacks. Large corporations have already been wheeling and dealing in the region, and plans to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea had to be postponed, for obvious reasons of likely sabotage in the Afghan territory.
Remember, although it is likely bin Laden was the instigator and plotter of our second "Day of Infamy," we are still waiting to see the evidence proving his guilt. Could US attacks on Afghanistan have energy-related ulterior motives, much like the interventions in other Moslem countries? We shall see.
Turbans
Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 22, "Noonan's Madness":
"Please don't tell her that it is the Sikhs -- closer to Indians (from India) and not in the least bit Arabic -- who wear turbans, and that these guys were very probably not Afghans, or Arabs...."
...Turbans are not unique to the Sikhs, and are worn by Afghans, and at times, Arabs.
The War Machine
Your
appeal for money said that we can
give money to you or the War Machine.
How do I make a contribution to
the War Machine?
~ Don W.
Eric Garris replies:
Don't worry, you are contributing every time you earn or spend money.
Better Off Without the CIA
There
is certainly truth in today's piece
(from Indian Times?) in which
the hatred of America is associated
with its foreign policy and with
its completely amoral secret service
activities.
I
think it would be a good idea for
Antiwar.com to target the CIA (especially,
not exclusively) in this respect.
And this for two reasons.
First
because it failed disgracefully
to perform its job in terms of its
failure to prevent the September
massacres. Second because it has
embodied the evil principle of the
end justifying the means in a most
disgusting way.
Surely
American taxpayers would be better
off without the CIA, and not only
they, but the United States itself
and the world as a whole would be
better off too.
Antiwar.com is America at its best!
Dead-On Accurate
Thanks for ... [Justin Raimondo's] columns. They have been illuminating. The one on Coulter ["Ku Klux Coulter," October 5] was dead-on accurate. Keep up the good work.
Left-Wing Wankers
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 15, "The Peaceniks":]
I
agree with your diagnosis of the
left-wing wankers you wrote about
in your most recent column. I had
to tangle with these geniuses when
I was in Portland, Oregon in 1999
during the war with Serbia. Everything
is just as you said. Perhaps you
were even being too generous. On
one particular Saturday, there were
actually two rallies going on simultaneously:
one at Pioneer Courthouse Square,
and one on the Portland State University
campus. The reason being is that
the leftist rally, sponsored by
the ISO, and the Freedom Socialist
Party (which is worse -- a Trotskyist
party for gay and lesbian activists,
and much much
shriller than the ISO) refused to
associate with the non-leftists
and (gasp) Libertarians at the PSU
rally. Also, one of my friends had
been in communication with Michael
Chossudofsky and arranged for him
to speak. The leftist coalition
shot this idea down because he was
simply not Socialist enough. These
people are deeply paranoid and see
fascists and Nazis everywhere they
look. In the government, the police,
high school children, in Pat Buchannan,
etc.
However, having said that, I have to take issue with a couple of the statements in your ... column, especially the one subtitled "against moral equivalence." You say that the crimes of the US government cannot be equated with those of Bin Laden. Why can't they? As an American, I'm naturally far more shaken when the attack is against us than when it is against the citizens of some village I've never heard of. But by any impartial scale, how are they different? I can name instances where our government has killed more civilians intentionally than the 6000 we lost. I know you can too, because you (Justin) told me about half of them. The other half I learned about from links on Antiwar.com.
As an avid reader of your columns (to my knowledge, I have read every article you ever wrote,) it seems to me that you are being less critical and more trusting of the "powers that be" this time 'round. During the Serbia war if the president or some other government official stated that civilians were not being targeted intentionally, you would have dismissed it with a wave of your hand and a chuckle -- and rightly so, because all the evidence in Serbia indicated otherwise. But this time Bush says they are trying not to target civilians, and you believe him? Why? Shall I point you to the links on your own webpage that seem to indicate this may not be so?
No Regard for Human Life
The hijack terrorists were very clever and cunning in how they carried out their attack. They didn't leave us with many visuals to rally around. Everyone in those building were incinerated to ash more or less. I thought it quite provocative to display the badly mangled corpses of the little children in Afghanistan today. You think they do much better for their own people? I think they kill each other with wild abandon. They show absolutely no regard for human life from what I've seen.
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Whether or not Afghans show "regard for human life" doesn't alter the U.S. military's responsibility to distinguish between combatants and civilians. You seem to be more offended by pictures of mangled corpses than by the mangling.