Some time ago I responded to a post by a happy resident of Oz who was somewhat delighted that UBL had attacked the WTC and felt that the USA was to blame. My retort was the standard answer I give to the 'hate America crowd' and I concluded by saying that when (not if) Australia was on the receiving end of UBL, that there might be a different opinion.

Sadly, we have arrived at that point. The Bali bombings and UBL's purported statement (from last November) that Australia's East Timor policy made it an enemy of Islam means that the happy land of Oz is now a part of the infidel world. Oz has responded by placing Jemaah Islamiah on the terrorist list.

I am curious: Now that Oz is on the receiving end of UBL's wrath, how do you folks view him now?

Nox

Like i always have nox, Bin Ladens a threat to human rights therefore i disagree with him and his followers.

Peace Renegade,

Better watch it Mr. Nox, some of those Aussies get a little testy when you remind them that they ran their mouths and now their foot is in it.

I doubt it'll make a difference, since the same number of Americans praise Osama as Aussies. If someone has a specific mindset, it'll take them losing a close reletive to change it.

I wish I didn't (because others would have to die) but, I agree.

Nox

the aussie's who blamed america for the wtc attack, blame australia following america for the bali bombing.

This topic is absolutely pointless. Sky is right, the bali bombing's would make absolutely no difference.

If you're gonna carefulyl distribute blame for aesthetic purposes, how about this. Blame the WESTERN WORLD for the bombings of the WTC and Bali. Western Culture does not worship Alah. That includes the United States and Australia.

Alot of people I know blame the attacks on our policies in Israel, but these specific attacks have more to do with our being infidels then anything else.

You could say it's our fault for training AQ durring the ocld war and sucking up the the Saudis, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Australia, so any Australian blaming Australia has absolutely no logic.

UBL and his goons hate all who are not Muslim. Those dumb-ass Aussies can run their mouth all they want, but they are just as much a target as anyone else.

Assuming Bin laden et al have been behind all the terror attacks, it is all part of the new Jihad, initiated and organised by the Islamist International. An organisation set up to re-establish the Caliphat (bring back the middle ages, as in Afghanistan), and make it world-wide this time.

They have used (and abused) Israel and Israel�s opression of the Palestines as well as USA�s support to Israel, and later also USA�s presence in the Middle East, to make the people hate USA and all that it stands for. Not because USA is that different from the rest of the Western/Christian world, but because USA has become the symbol of it, for them as well as for many Europeans and others.

The Islamist International�s leaders probably dislike Sweden and Denmark even more than they dislike USA, because of our infamous "sexual freedom" (a myth, I might ad). But they couldn�t use Sweden and Denmark as symbols, as most people in the Middle East and the other countries they recruit from, don�t even know that Sweden and Denmark exists.

The Islamist International and its forerunners have worked on this since right after WW 2, and they got a real boost when Israel was established. They would probably have arrived at the point of action towards the western world, at approximately this time in history, even if the Soviet Union had stayed out of Afghanistan, or if USA had supported Bin Laden for a while longer.

FoxLeonard

I would support a return to the middle ages under any guise and for any cause. In the Middle Ages, there are no satelites and laser-guided death to stop you from breaking away and living with your people differently.

But our middle ages, and that of the muslims wishes are very different.

Also, off note, is there any chance that the americans would refer to the middle ages as the dark ages?

I dunno, I guess...

My point about the Middle Ages is that it cant possibly belong to one idea or group, because the technology is too limited for any one group or idea to impose itself on everyone. If they could plunge the world into medieval times, I would go with them.

Heh, I like the idea of things being simpler but I think that the Middle Age's are too far, and I think you would agree after a week of living like it. Chamber pots, weekly-monthly baths, and (gasp) no fast food! I would go crazy...

By the way, I ain't no pussy about this shit. I like to rough it, but it would make a shitty way of life to live all medieval.

Unfortunately, they only thing that wouldn't properly revert to the Middle Ages would be combat.

I think of the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages. At least most of them. Weren't the Dark Ages the first 500 years of the Middle Ages?

Anyway, in the Middle Ages many people lived in crowded cities, in their own filth.

I'm not Australian, but I do feel a need to play Devil's Advocate here. Please view it entirely as an attempt at intellectual honesty, rather than an actual endorsement of UBL.

I think something we need to consider in our foreign policy is that our actions do have certain consequences. When we put twenty thousand heavily-armed U.S. troops on soil that many muslims view as holy, and use those troops to prop up a degenerate, universally hated monarchy, it's gonna piss people off. Does that mean that Usama was justified in killing 3000 people on 9/11, or the people in Bali, or any of the victims of his terrorist acts? Of course not. But every time we put American troops on Muslim soil, and every time we bomb an Arab nation, we send hundreds of angry young men into Usama's waiting arms.

I'm not saying that the terrorists have a point, or that they're "freedom fighters" who deserve our respect. I'm just saying that we need to make sure that our strategic goals are worth the inevitable human cost.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that the terrorists have a point

---

They do have a point. As do we have a point in stopping them.

quote:

---

I'm just saying that we need to make sure that our strategic goals are worth the inevitable human cost.

---

I'm sure if you asked President Bush he would say "As many as it takes."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
When we put twenty thousand heavily-armed U.S. troops on soil that many muslims view as holy, and use those troops to prop up a degenerate, universally hated monarchy, it's gonna piss people off.

---

At one point in time, I was one of your so called "twenty thousand". I do not now, nor did I then feel that my presence was to 'prop up' any regime. I will conceed that the end result of my presence (and all the others) did indeed a 'prop up'. I think that many times the inadvertant consequences of political actions wind up being in the minds of many, the initial intended action/s. Complicating this is the fact that people outright lie. And in one particular religion, lying about 'the
infidel' is not wrong. This allows such a two-faced situation that it defies description and multiple 'justifications' for subsequent actions in the name of retaliation.

Nox

The US Army did not intend for the results of their actions with Afganistan. The intention was probably a provisional democracy, but I can safely say that our government would have settled for any kind of theocratic dictatorship as long as they were loyal to us.

That doesn't mean a prop-up was intended, but I can't say we took great efforts to avoid things turning out the way they did.

Why is it that those who critizise USA�s military and political actions, often assume that USA is acting in some kind of political vacuum?

FoxLeonard

I want to thank Nox for what he did to serve his country. Thank you sir. This is meant with the fullest amount of respect I can muster.

Nox, Armed&Angry and Uncl!

During USA�s preparations for the Gulf War, the Imam of the Big Mosque in Mekka told USA that it is in accordance with the Quran for Moslems to use the help of non-Moslems for a holy cause.

The holy cause was in the case of the Gulf war, to protect the Mosque in Mekka and the holy land it stands on, from Saddam, who�s ultimate goal was to invade Saudi Arabia, topple the royal family and take control of the holy land and the Mosque. Had he succeeded it would have meant that the single most important place on earth for the Moslems, would have been controlled by a fraction of Islam. A fraction that most likely would have let other fractions, like the Islamist International, use it for their own (propagandistic) purposes.

Because of all this, it was also in total accordance with the Quran to allow the presence of non-Islamic troops on holy land. The Imam of the Mosque also showed several historical examples of the same.
He later made an official statement about this. By then supported by many leading Islamic theologians, who had held a special meeting to find out if the Imam�s interpretation of the Quran, and of history, was correct.

It could of course be said that USA would have stationed their troops in Saudi even if the Imam had said no. With no other strategical options they propably would have done so.

But the single most important and respected Imam wouldn�t have supported something he was convinced was against the Quran. He would rather have forced the Saudis to put him in house-arrest, under loud protests. And if not then, he would later have joined the Islamist propaganda against USA. He hasn�t, nor have any of the theologians who supported him.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by YouAreNotYourKhakis:
I want to thank Nox for what he did to serve his country. Thank you sir. This is meant with the fullest amount of respect I can muster.

---

You're welcome ... That is from "all of us".

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Why is it that those who critizise USA�s military and political actions, often assume that USA is acting in some kind of political vacuum?

FoxLeonard

---

Who said that? I'm fully and totally aware that there are geostrategic factors that exist independent of America and her armed forces. I'm afraid I don't see where this criticism is directed. Perhaps you could elaborate.

And as for the idea that the Quran allows non-Muslims to assist with a "holy cause," you're absolutely right. And it's true, the Big Imam did indeed sanction America's presence in Saudi Arabia. Assuming that the whole Gulf tussle was any of our business, we had every right to be there, at least as far as Sharia law is concerned.

But here's the problem - there is a huge difference between what religious leaders and holy texts say, and what overzealous believers with Kalashnikovs actually do. Of course there's nothing wrong, according to the Quran, with us defending a muslim nation. But it wasn't the Quran that flew planes into the towers. No matter what we do - bring food to Somalia, guard Saudi Arabia from her enemies, whatever. A small group of fanatics will always see it as the evil Christian-Zionist Crusader Conspiracy defiling muslim soil with their shiny jackboots. When we send our military into any muslim nation, it's like putting a great big "Kick Me" sign on our backs.

So before we go in, guns blazing and flags waving, we need to be sure that our objectives are really worth the lives that will be lost - both in the intervention, and in the blowback.

And while I'm typing, I'd just like to mention that any claims by the American government of "defending Saudi Arabia" should be taken with a grain of salt. American satellite photos showed quite clearly that, once Kuwait was occupied and the Sheikh had fled, Saddam pulled back the vast majority of his best troops and realigned them on the Iranian border. If you're planning to invade your neighbor, withdrawing your finest soldiers and equipment is a funny way of going about it.

More likely, Saddam was moving to discourage any Iranian attempt to move against Iraq. The whole reason Saddam seized Kuwait was because he figured nobody would miss her. The Kuwaiti royal family had spent the past several years pissing of her fellow Gulf States by spiking prices and siphoning off of neighboring oil deposits (including Iraqi ones). Such a relatively minor oil source, and such an irritating one at that, would no doubt be allowed to expire quietly at Iraqi hands. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has about a quarter of the world's oil, and had stayed on relatively good terms with the West. The idea that nobody would come to Arabia's aid is ludicrous. So, rather than appear to be threatening her, Saddam pulled back his Republican Guard and pointed them at the Iranians.

If that sounds a bit naive, it should be noted that the American diplomatic corps did nothing to discourage this view. Ambassador April Glaspie, in particular, made it totally clear that the U.S. "has no position whatsoever on Arab-Arab conflicts." That sounds like carte blanche to me, and apparently Saddam agreed.