A war between the US and her allies vs. the Arab nations?

[Yshania]

@C E - the Taliban have stated that if there is enough evidence they will push Bin Laden forward.

I believe, from what I have read, that he is currently under house arrest - I do not know for sure, though, or by whom...

[CM]

He is under house arrest by the Taliban.
And the Taliban have said they would hand him over to Saudi by Feb 20 but there are some conditions.
I don't know what.
BBC, many pakistani newspapers and RAIN from South Africa have covered this.
I am a poli sci student so i can get various articles if anybody wants it.

Also there were around 200 Pakistanis in the buildings and guessing roughly around 1000 muslims.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>@C E - the Taliban have stated that if there is enough evidence they will push Bin Laden forward.

I believe, from what I have read, that he is currently under house arrest - I do not know for sure, though, or by whom...</STRONG>

Yes, I also heard the their statement - I think the Taliban's wants to aviod an attack at all costs. They have pleaded to the US not to attack Afghanistan.

I wonder how much this house arrest means...there were unconfirmed rumours they had cut off his communications with the outer world.

[Stoner Cold]

i would join you in breathing space, but, its like 10 pages long! i dont wanna read all of that! thatd be like trying to keep a banana whole inside a blender!

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>He is under house arrest by the Taliban.
And the Taliban have said they would hand him over to Saudi by Feb 20 but there are some conditions.
I don't know what.
BBC, many pakistani newspapers and RAIN from South Africa have covered this.
I am a poli sci student so i can get various articles if anybody wants it.

Also there were around 200 Pakistanis in the buildings and guessing roughly around 1000 muslims.</STRONG>

Interesting, thanks for the info, Fas

If you have any good links, please post them

Do you dare to speculate about the future yourself?

@Stoner Cold: You don't need to read all the 10 pages to join the Breathing thread - just jump in

[Yshania]

@Stoner - just drop in on the latest chat

[ThorinOakensfield]

I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.

[scully1]

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.</STRONG>

Not necessarliy true. I also think the solution should be a just and peaceful one. However, there is such a thing as defending ourselves. The terrorists were defending nothing; it was a flat-out unprovoked attack. Secondly, if we went to war, we would do our level best to destroy only military/government targets with minimum loss of civilian life. The terrorists, on the other hand, intended to cause as much loss of civilian life as possible. They slammed into a major city, in a heavily populated civilian area. Thirdly, there was no warning of these attacks; whereas in war at least you've been notified that war has been declared and you know the enemy is coming after you.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>I hope there is no war, and if there is, the US is proving they are no better than the terrorists.</STRONG>

Hello Thorin! How are you doing?

Wars can be fought at many levels, Thorin. If the US would run ahead of themselves and strew bomb mats and send 100s of missiles at a country full of citizens at innocent as them in the WTC, that's certainly no better than a terrorist act.

But wars can be fought with financial, diplomatic and political means too, not only weapons. And if military means are necessary, I also think there's a difference between warfare according to the UN Geneva-convention, and terrorist attacks that intentionally strikes innocent citizens.

But in general, I'm really a pacifist - I'm against all war, but I realise it's a utopia to believe the human race can live without it

I sincerely hope the US and NATO are going to demonstrate to the world what the difference is between terrorist organisations and democratic states.

[nael]

remember the only reason, the US is linign up allies now, is not for military power. no one can really contribute enough to make a difference. what is simportant is gettign the world to stand behind us while we make our attacks. it will all seem a bit hypocritical at first, since some civilians will be hurt. but there is a difference between a military target with a few civillian casualties and outright attacking civilians. but with the nations of the world already agreeing to stand by us when we attack, they cannot condem us afterwards.
we need them for moral support, not military support.
the only country that would allign against us, is iraq, and we already know we can spank him 1,000 times by sundown.
why do you think we left him in power? putting aside the fact that we outlawed assassinating a country's leaders, we kept him there because he is an EASY target. if he were removed, who is to say that soemone with half a brain might step up.
in US military exercises, the intelligence officers playing Saddam, beat the US armed forces with the known capabilities of saddam at the time of the gulf war.

[VoodooDali]

If we go to war, a lot of innocent civilians will die. A lot of them died in the Gulf War, though we never saw that since the military totally controlled the media in that war. In the 19th century, war was about troops lining up and shooting each other. In the 21st century, war is about the death of civilians. Look at every war going on in the world right now--the main victims are civilians. We will do whatever we have to do, but I think we Americans should stop kidding ourselves that we can have a war with a clean conscience. We should have learned that from Viet Nam.

I do not believe the Taliban will give up Bin Laden. They are as fanatical as the people who destroyed our WTC. They get a ton of financial support for their regime from him. They've already been embargoed to death and they don't care. We have to work on the countries that "claim" to be our "friends"--Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Algeria. They have to make a choice--whether they want to continue to lend their support to these fanatics, or to try to rid themselves of them. The Middle East has been in deep trouble for a long time--the rise of fanaticism in Egypt for example has been so severe in recent years, that even my Lebanese friends are afraid to go there. Sadat, who is seen as a great friend and hero in the USA, is seen as a sell-out in Egypt. Algeria is in the midst of a civil war, and when I was in Morocco last year, I heard horror stories of massacres going on right across their borders. Libya fell to these guys a long time ago, and has effectively begun to control the Sudan, who they have been at war with for over a decade. It's not all just about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe that a lot of this is the fallout for ****ed up policies during the cold war. We treated Pakistan as a favored nation because they were anti-Soviet. We gave them money and weapons. Now they are a nuclear power and constantly threatening India. India has been begging us to do something about Pakistan. We haven't. Now they are helping the Taliban. We gave the Taliban money and weapons because they were anti-Soviet, and now they are in power and look at the grief they've caused. We gave Saddam Hussein money and weapons because he was anti-Iranian. We gave Iran money and weapons through the Iran-Contra scandal, to fund another ****ed up war in Central America. I believe our government secretly liked Khomeini, because unlike the Shah, he was anti-Soviet. Iran was one of the biggest military powers in the world under the Shah, but since we funded both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, they are hardly the powers they once were. It is not surprising to me that a lot of people over there hate us, what is surprising to me is the fact that we continue to support regimes that are in no way democratic, who have not acted as our friends, and esp. when we have no more cold war and no reason to play favorites.

[Shadow Sandrock]

You know you are so right... Israel will not be defeated. Ever. At least according to Revelation anyway! ^_^;;

Though Israel did lose some wars back in Biblical days, they were only because of lack of obedience to Jehovah, thus it was sin/capture/repentance/freedom/judge rule for them. But it wasn't promised in the Bible that "Thou wilt not lose battleth if thou ceaseth to obeyeth meeth" in the Bible. Meaning, it wasn't promised that God will whoop all butts of Arabs back in Bible days, but he would if they obeyed Him. But now it is promised that they will get their temple back, and their land will even get to be the site of New Jerusalem!

[nael]

@shadow - well, for starters...these "Arabs" follwo the same God as Jews do.
and does ruthless attacks on innocent civilians sound like they are following God's will. and no, i am not talkign about the attacks her ein the US, but rather the slaughter Israel has been commiting against their neighbors. Israel has violated more UN treaties than any other country in the world. and need i remind you that it was through a viscious war that they stle lands from all their neighbors.
there is absolutely nothign righteous abotu israel.

[CM]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Interesting, thanks for the info, Fas

If you have any good links, please post them

Do you dare to speculate about the future yourself?

@Stoner Cold: You don't need to read all the 10 pages to join the Breathing thread - just jump in </STRONG>

Ok BBC does not archive, meaning they reuse their links everyday.
However i do have the RAIN article, which i get via e-mail.

The article:


Taliban agrees to hand over Laden to Saudi Arabia

ISLAMABAD, Feb 20: Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia has told Pakistan that it is willing to hand over Saudi dissident and terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to his native country to face trial, a leading Pakistani daily reported on Monday.

The offer to send bin Laden to Saudi Arabia was made by Taliban's supreme leader Mulla Mohemmad Omar to Pakistan's Interior Minister Moinuddeen Haider during the latter's recent visit to Kabul, 'The Dawn' quoting authoritative sources said.

Omar offered to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia even without Haider raising the issue, the newspaper said.

"We never raised the Osama issue. It was raised by no less a person than Mulla Omar during the talks," it quoted a high level Pakistan official.

The paper quoted the official as saying that Omar told Haider that if Saudi Arabia was not willing to accept Osama because of political repercussions in the country, Kabul was ready to shift him to another Musilm Country. He however did not name any particular country, the official said.

The Saudi Government has already stripped bin Laden of his citizenship for his terrorist activities at home and abroad. Since then he has stayed put in Afghanistan under Taliban patronage.

Source: Research And Information Network (RAIN)

=================

[C Elegans]

@Fas: Thanks for posting the article. If you have the time, I appreciate your posting of other material than the standard Europe/US news.