One more thing... I do'nt think we are agreeing about who the enemy truly is. I said in my original post that the enemy is extremist thinking itself. That is what I said you cannot defeat with military weapons.
The terrorists practically took out an ad in USA Today, and the administration *LITERALLY* did nothing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks -- or even stop them once they started. That's not prevention. The word for that is much scarier. After Sept. 11, 2001, we should have brought the terrorists to justice using international police forces with a coalition of allied support. The idiots who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombings are now rotting in prison. That's what criminals do in civilized society -- they go to prison. Instead, we attacked, invaded, occupied and overthrew a government that had little to do with any of Sept. 11. Then we did it again. Most of the Sept. 11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and were funded by Saudi Arabians, but we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.
from the recent 9/11 commission report, released earlier this week: "Al-Qaida...used Pakistan and Afghanistan as a regional base and training centre supporting Islamic insurgencies in Tajikistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya" "The Taliban's ability to provide bin Laden a haven in the face of international pressure and UN sanctions was significantly facilitated by Pakistani support. Pakistan benefitted from the Taliban-al-Qaeda relationship, as bin Laden's camps trained and equipped fighters for Pak-sponsored terrorist activities in Kashmir, India" "Pakistan did not break with the Taliban until after 9/11, although it was well aware that it was harbouring bin Laden" the report also said there were strong indications that elements of the Pakistani government "frequently turned a blind eye" to the transit of al-Qaida terrorists through its territory after 9/11 President George Bush, Wednesday June 17, 2004: ""I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally of the US for the purposes of the act and the Arms Export Control Act" isnt there something wrong with this?
Do all prisoners go to Abu Ghraib? If not, what kind do? I'm asking; I don't know. If the worst of the worst were sent to Abu Ghraib, I suspect the number of innocent people there would be significantly lower. Just a thought.
TraJ, if you read the article from the New Yorker, you will see that not only the worst of the worst were sent to Abu Ghraib; in fact, many seemed to have been picked up relatively randomly from the streets. (Remember also that quickly after the news of the abuse came out, many people were released - if they had been the worst of the worst only, would they have been released so quickly?)
+ Another terrible tragedy. Are there currently any other people (military or civilian) missing in the Middle East?
Another leading Muslim organization in NA (ISNA) released this yesterday: http://www.isna.net/news/miniheadlines.asp?dismode=article&artid=340 Muslim Americans Condemn Killing of Paul Johnson by ISNA News PLAINFIELD, IN -- The murder of American engineer Paul Johnson is a depraved act, which is outside the purview of Islamic practice and teachings. Mr. Johnson was not a warrior but engaged by a contractor for the Saudi Arabian government. We share the grief of the Johnson family, who have suffered so much. Like so many other expatriates and Americans, Mr. Johnson was striving to support his family, working in partnership with Saudi authorities who valued his skill and his contribution to building their country. He came to appreciate Saudi Arabia, its people, and the religion of Islam. Those who kidnapped, and murdered Mr. Johnson in this most gruesome manner, have borne upon themselves the unforgivable crime of murdering an innocent person, which in Islam is akin to killing the whole of humanity. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) joins Muslim Americans in condemning this act of senseless violence and repudiates all those who believe such murderous behavior benefits the faith of Islam or the Muslim people or their cause. We call for the swift apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators. Those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. “This murder is a criminal action of those who act outside the teachings of both the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him”, said Sayyid M. Syeed, Secretary General of ISNA. ISNA thanks all those who have made the distinction between Islam and such acts of terrorism, and for reporting the outrage of the American Muslim community in response to this terrible event. We pray that sanity may prevail. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is an umbrella organization for the estimated 6-8 million Muslims embracing over 300 community organizations in North America, and professional organizations such as the Islamic Medical Association of North America (IMANA), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS). ISNA offers a variety of services to meet the religious, educational, cultural, and financial needs of Muslim communities across North America. In order to communicate with its membership and to reach out to the American mainstream, ISNA publishes the Islamic Horizons, a news and information magazine.
I must confess I haven't read much of this thread other than page one. Too disgusting. I normally try to stay out of these frays. It is a shame another innocent American citizen has been murdered and I feel for his family. Anyone who is not appalled by the "inhumanity to man" that we as people of the world inflict upon one another, for whatever reason, should be ashamed of themselves. Some in this thread are either not Americans or are grossly uninformed about how American public opinion can shape and change (or be shaped and changed). Posting the picture of the (South Vietnamese) officer executing a prisoner is a good example of the misunderstanding. It is the very revelation of these sorts of atrocities that changed public opinion against the Vietnam war. The same can be said of the Abu Ghraid photos. Most Americans were repulsed by these photos and our reaction, as a nation, is to condemn the action and change it for the better. When these atrocities are brought to light (eventually) in our open society, public opinion, the will of the American people, see to it that corrections are made. It doesn't mean that it may not happen again, but to condemn "America" for the actions of individual's is ridiculous. What we don't understand, is why the gruesome images of the inhumanity inflicted upon innocent American citizens do not elicit the same widespread repugnance and condemnation in the part of the world where this is occuring.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040620133609990001 Site Claims Police Helped in Abduction By SALAH NASRAWI, AP RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (June 20) - Al-Qaida militants disguised in police uniforms and cars provided by sympathizers in the Saudi security forces set up a fake checkpoint to snare the American engineer they later beheaded, according to an account of the operation posted on an Islamic extremist Web site Sunday. The account of Paul M. Johnson Jr's abduction highlighted fears that some diplomats and Westerners in the kingom have expressed, that militants have infiltrated Saudi security forces, a possibility Saudi officials have denied. In a separate article on the Web site, the leader of the al-Qaida cell behind the abduction justified the targeting of Johnson, pointing to his work on Apache attack helicopters for Lockheed Martin. Johnson "works for military aviation and he belongs to the American army, which kills, tortures and harms Muslims everywhere, which supports enemies (of Islam) in Palestine, Philippines, Kashmir," wrote Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, who was killed by Saudi security forces in a gunbattle Friday night, hours after Johnson's slaying. The articles in Sawt al-Jihad, or Voice of the Holy War, a semimonthly Internet periodical posted by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, came as police continued their search for Johnson's body and the militants involved in his death. Police in armored vehicles and a helicopter sealed off three neighborhoods of the Saudi capital Sunday, searching any cars that tried to leave the areas. The article said militants wearing police uniforms and using police cars set up a fake checkpoint June 12 on al-Khadma Road, leading to the airport, near Imam Mohammed bin Saud University. "A number of the cooperators who are sincere to their religion in the security apparatus donated those clothes and the police cars. We ask God to reward them and that they use their energy to serve Islam and the mujahedeen," the article read. When Johnson's car approached the checkpoint, the militants stopped his car, detained him, anesthetized him and carried him to another car, the article said. Earlier Saudi newspaper reports had also said Johnson was drugged during the kidnapping. The article said they then blew up Johnson's car. Security officials said last week that Johnson's car was found near Imam University. Saudi press reports said the car was booby-trapped and later caught fire. On the same day as Johnson's abduction, militants shot and killed another American, Kenneth Scroggs of Laconia, N.H., in his garage in Riyadh. Earlier that week, militants in the capital also shot and killed Irish cameraman Simon Cumbers, who was filming for the British Broadcasting Corp. when he was shot, and another American, Robert Jacobs of Murphysboro, Ill. After the kidnapping, his captors said they would kill Johnson on Friday unless Saudi Arabia released jailed al-Qaida militants - a demand the Saudi government refused. Sunday's al-Qaida article said the militants decided to behead Johnson when Adel al-Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah in Washington, declared that Saudi Arabia would not negotiate with the kidnappers. "The stupid Saudi government took the initiative and announced by the Americanized tongue Adel Al-Jubeir that it will not submit to the conditions of the mujahedeen," the statement read. The group said it beheaded Johnson, 49, when its deadline expired Friday. Al-Moqrin's final article, written after Johnson's kidnapping, described the American as "an infidel, a warrior of the military." Al-Moqrin replied to critics urging the release of Johnson, saying: "Do those people want to see this infidel carry on the killing of the children and the raping of the women in Baghdad and Kabul?" "We can't preserve the dignity of Muslims but through these means," he wrote. Al-Moqrin, believed to be the top al-Qaida figure in Saudi Arabia, was killed along with three other militants in a Riyadh gunbattle Friday night, hours after photos of Johnson's body and severed head were posted on a Web site. The others killed were identified as Faisal Abdul-Rahman al-Dikheel, Turki bin Fuheid al-Muteiry and Ibrahim bin Abdullah al-Dreiham. Al-Dikheel was believed to be the No. 2 al-Qaida militant in Saudi Arabia. One security officer was killed and two were wounded in the gunbattle, the official Saudi news agency reported. The Interior Ministry said 12 suspected militants also were arrested in a sweep of the capital. The ministry said authorities also confiscated forged identity papers, $38,000 in Saudi and American currency, three rocket-propelled grenade launchers, hand grenades, automatic rifles and other weapons. 06-20-04 14:36 EDT
You don't think the government of Afganistan (The Taliban) had anything to do with 9/11? Anyway, back on topic... Does anyone else find it odd that these abductors were found and killed (apparently) only hours after they murdered Johnson? It's almost as if the Saudi government waited until after the murder to find and kill (not capture) them. Maybe they didn't want them to talk. Talk about the role the Saudi government played in the abduction.... The article above seems to support that theory.
The Taliban was a relatively small player in the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, most of the funding came from there, and that's where the plan was hatched. But we attack Afghanistan? Doesn't make sense. It seems that our government is going out of their way to avoid implicating Saudi Arabia in anything. I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm sure it involves lotsa long-dead dinosaurs.
Yes, I found it odd, just as the conflicting stories - first, the story was that they became aware of the abductors when they were disposing of the corpse, now they say the corpse has not been found - something does not make sense.
Let me lay out this logic for you. The Taliban willingly allowed Al Queda to operate training camps and reside in its country. Al Queda launched the attacks on the World Trade Center. Therefore, the Taliban was more than a "relatively small player" in the September 11th attacks. What part of this do you not understand? Put down the Al Franken books for a minute and get a grip on reality.
Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Their money came from Saudi Arabia, their support came from Saudi Arabia and their planning took place in Saudi Arabia. But we attack Afghanistan? But, OK, I'll play along. Let's say that we *were* right to attack, invade, overthrow and occupy Afghanistan because The Taliban gave aid to al Queda. Fine, if that's the reason you need to overthrow a government, OK. President Bush gave The Taliban $43 million four months before the Sept. 11 attacks you say The Taliban facilitated. Does that mean President Bush is culpable in the attacks? Did this money make the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks possible? Before you answer, however, please remember that I'll dismiss it and tell you to put down your Ann Coulter books. It's easier than debating like civilized human beings.
It is common knowledge that many terrorists were trained in camps in Afghanistan and that the man who most probably is behind the attacks on the Twin Towers, Osama Bin Laden, received support by the Taliban government and was allowed to stay there. Can you please provide a link to substantiate the statement that Bush gave the Taliban $ 43 m four months before the Sept. 11 attacks?
Take this FWIW but the lead in on CBS news today said there were questions about whether Saudi Security was involved in the execution. I didn't watch the story, sorry.
I don't doubt that The Taliban played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. They did. But the country's role was nothing compared to the role Saudi Arabia played. Al Queda had a few clubhouses in Afghanistan, but everything else -- money, support, training -- came from Saudi Arabia. Here's the link about the $43 million: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
Al Qaeda militants say they were helped by Saudi forces Sunday, June 20, 2004 Posted: 3:09 PM EDT (1909 GMT) RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- Al Qaeda militants who kidnapped and killed American engineer Paul Johnson said Sunday on an Islamist Web site that sympathetic Saudi security forces aided their kidnapping operation with police uniforms and vehicles. Johnson, an employee of Lockheed Martin, was kidnapped June 12. After a 72-hour deadline passed without the release of all al Qaeda prisoners and the departure of all Westerners from the kingdom, photographs of Johnson's head and body were posted on the Web site. Hours later on Friday, Saudi security forces killed cell leader Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin and three others and captured 12 other suspected members of the cell. In a lengthy narrative about the kidnapping that was posted Sunday on the site, the kidnappers said they stopped Johnson's car at a fake checkpoint, transferred him to another car and took him to another location. But Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir told CNN it was "in the realm of fiction" that Saudi security personnel cooperated with the militants. "It's very easy to obtain police uniforms, military uniforms," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "You go to a surplus store, and you get all you want." The kingdom's interior ministry, the home of its internal security forces, "is on the forefront of the war against terror," al-Jubeir said. "The notion that our security services are infiltrated by the terrorists really doesn't hold," he said. "If that were the case, they would not be going after soft targets. They would be going after government installations." Also Sunday, the Web site announced that Saleh al-Oufi, a former prison guard who is No. 5 on Saudi Arabia's list of most-wanted terrorists, would replace al-Muqrin as cell leader. That announcement came less than 24 hours after the Web site denied Saudi reports that al-Muqrin was dead. The al Qaeda cell and Saudi officials identified the other three militants killed as Faisal al-Dakhil -- No. 11 on Saudi Arabia's list -- Turki al-Muteiri and Ibrahim al-Durayhim. A Saudi security officer was killed and two were wounded in the operations, al-Jubeir said. Al-Jubeir said incidents like Johnson's killing would not weaken Saudi Arabia's commitment to "go after" terrorist elements. "They believe that if foreigners leave Saudi Arabia, and in particular Americans and other westerners, that our economy will be crippled and our government will be weakened," he said. "It is a difficult time, but it is a manageable time. We believe that we still have control over safety in Saudi Arabia." "We will be very vigilant in trying to ensure the safety of everybody in the kingdom," he said. "And we will be merciless when we go after the terrorists who try to wreak havoc on our society." Critics have accused Saudi Arabia's monarchy of giving financial support to terrorists, but a report issued last week by the U.S. independent commission on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found no evidence of such support, a finding that al-Jubeir said "vindicated" his country. Two members of the commission said Sunday that Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan, had passively supported the activities of terrorists within their borders by failing to act against them, but added that that no longer appeared to be the case. "That era is over," said former Navy Secretary John Lehman. "They now recognize the threats, and I think they are cooperating with us." (Full story) Lehman and fellow commission member Richard Ben-Veniste each noted, however, that some Islamic schools -- madrassas -- still pose a problem. "The history of providing support for the madrassas -- in which children are taught to hate those who do not share their common beliefs and that it is acceptable to attack, in violent forms rather than in discourses, differences in philosophies, culture and religion -- has been a principle source of worldwide unrest and support of elements hostile to Western ideas and civilization," Ben-Veniste. "We are hopeful that now that the Saudis in particular have seen the results of these years of support of this kind of a movement, that they will now move to change what has been in place for so long." I would want to get the hell out of there.
Thanks, from the link you have provided: U.N. to distribute aid While U.S. officials cited the drought as the major factor for the deepening humanitarian crisis, the members of the delegation said that Afghanistan's ruling Taliban's regime and the security problems it presents, hinders access and contributed to the situation. The U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions against the Taliban in an effort to pressure the militia to hand over Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, who is accused of bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa. Humanitarian aid is allowed. Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row. So how does that make Bush give that money to the Taliban?
It was a rhetorical question. I was trying to make a point -- "aid" is very much relative. Afghanistan aided al Queda, and we aided Afghanistan. Does that mean we funded the Sept. 11 attacks? It's possible that we did (though not very likely), but Saudi Arabia's role is unquestionable -- virtually everything about Sept. 11, 2001 originated in Saudi Arabia. Their terrorist "aid" was substationally greater than Afghanistan's, but we overthrow Afghanistan and maintain close ties to Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense.
