From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 23 9:20:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail12.speakeasy.net (mail12.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.212]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5575337B42B for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 38821 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2001 16:20:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mgm) ([216.27.148.137]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 23 Sep 2001 16:20:25 -0000 Message-ID: <037201c1444b$b6299920$89941bd8@speakeasy.net> Reply-To: "jason" From: "jason" To: "Paul Robinson" Cc: "Terry Lambert" , "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" , "Stephen Hurd" , "Technical Information" , "FreeBSD Chat" References: <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> <3BAD1FAE.2F3D40F5@mindspring.com> <20010923011557.B60374@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <015e01c143c8$c93505a0$89941bd8@speakeasy.net> <20010923122027.A270@jake.akitanet.co.uk> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:20:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Just an small observation Paul, did you know that ever message you send appears twice in the FreeBSD mailing list? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Robinson" To: "jason" Cc: "Terry Lambert" ; "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" ; "Stephen Hurd" ; "Technical Information" ; "FreeBSD Chat" Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 7:20 AM Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror > On Sep 23, jason wrote: > > > Why would we support Bin Laden when he has hated the US for some many years? > > We did support Suddam at one point only because or Iran. I can't recall any > > one time where the US had any interest in training or helping Bin Laden's > > group. > > Name one. > > I knew CNN was bad, but I didn't think they would have missed out that > helpful detail. I want you to go and type 'Bin Laden American backing' into > a search engine. Google would be good. I'll summarise here. > > A lot of this info is from the BBC, but I would strongly recommend you all > to take a look at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CH0109C.html > > Laden got 'started' when the Soviets were trying to take Afghanistan (one of > the reasons that Russia is supporting current US action is probably that > they are looking forward to seeing the Afghans who kept them out for 10 year > get their butts kicked). Not suprisingly, the US were keen to support any > action against the Soviet action - to the point that by 1987 they were > shipping 65,000 tons of weapons a year. Bin Laden setup his training camps > under the collective title of al-Qaeda (Arabic for "the base") and was > responsible for no small part of the Afghan jihad. The Afghan jihad against > the Soviets was backed with American dollars and fully supported by the > governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. > > It was the fact that Saudi and the US refused to admit that it was Bin Laden > who succeeded when the Soviets withdrew, he became disillusioned. As a > result, he focused his attentions on the US and her Middle East allies > (Saudi, for example). He had his bank accounts frozen and citizenship > stripped for anti-Government activities in Saudi and after reconciliation > failed, and that's where this hatred all started. As he became more distant, > he became more militant and hated the US more and more... > > So, the reason he hates the US is because they pretended he didn't exist > after he had done the dirty work for them. Please don't see this as me > supporting him - his actions are ridiculous, and he does need punishing. I > just want people to know that the US government's hands are not entirely > clean in this matter. > > > The IRA as far as I know didn't knowck over any US buildings. Although UK > > has to deal with that sort of thing the same way we deal with out own > > internal terrorist. I think we all remember Okalahoma City. > > The UK goverment or public did not financially support the bombing at > Oklahoma City. The US public have supported the actions of the IRA, and US > senators have publically given support, as well as Clinton permitting a visa > for Jerry Adams who came to the US on a fund-raiser for what was effectively > the IRA, even though the UK pleaded that this should not be allowed. > > We're quite able to deal with internal terrorism. My point was that the US > public is prepared to support that action. We *could* say that the US has to > deal with the current problem on their own and they are over-reacting, but > we don't. You really need to open up your world view a little bit. > > > He is not doing it for the approval rating as much as he is doing it because > > the vast majority of Americans will demand it. His approval rating will go > > up by doing what the citizens think he should do in this situation. So > > basically he is doing what he was elected to do. > > 1. He wasn't elected > 2. President's shouldn't do what is popular - they should so what is right > 3. The 'vast majority' of Americans believe what they do because the US > media is sufficiently slanted to make them believe what is required. > > By your own posting, you implicitly admit that you don't know anything about > Osama bin Laden, you don't really understand how the Taliban got where they > are, you don't understand terrorism or how it's funded and you probably only > know what you've been told by CNN. What on earth makes you think you, and > the rest of the US, is in a position therefore, to decide as to what action > should be taken? You only have half the facts! > > > Some terrorists have announced attacks before but most wait until after. It > > depends on the demands of the terrorists and the target of the attack. The > > US has attacked without warning and with warning. Compare Iraq bombing > > (before ground war) and the bombing of Libya. The presence of forewarning > > has nothing to do with it being a terrorist attack or a retaliation. > > You'd best tell your President that then, as he seems to differ in his > opinion on that... > > -- > PR To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message