This post is a bit long. Sorry but I have waited awhile for emotions to die down and to see what actions would be taken. Since things have settles a little and our course finally has some sort of direction to it I have to say something. I think I may have over quoted the paper as well but that never hurt anyone. I have numbered the points I want to make. I have attempted, but feel I may have failed, to report what the newspaper said without any of my own biases. If there are any questions or something you think I have represented biased in the way I present this then please say so. Also, if you think I have taken something out of context with ... then ask me to type it out. A link to an online source, if it exists, that has these articles in it would be much appreciated. I suspect that it would not be free though. On what the evidence consists of: U.S.A. is finally releasing evidence to our allies that is supposed to prove Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda's connection to the WTC incident. The evidence is only being released to USA's backers in the conflict. Very little information is available through a few diplomats. The evidence is not only classified, but the countries that are not vocal about the information are not being released. 1) First of all, the evidence does not seem that conclusive, at least the evidence that we are told about. Where do these so called confessions come from? Just because you are associated with the people who do a horrible act does not mean you are a party to it. What is that evidence anyway? And then we have evidence of Bin Laden setting up businesses and using them and other sources to get weapons. A terrorist procuring weapons! How unheard of is that? Every terrorist, gorilla faction, and freedom fighter faction is going to have that. Even the small local ones that are fighting their government have to get weapons from somewhere. Are we going to risk so much for them as well or is this a double standard. They did not even use weapons in the WTC bombing. Don't get me wrong, I support our countries actions. We need to remove such a dangerous terrorist faction and set an example for the rest of the terrorists that those actions will not be tolerated in any way. I just hope we are not blindly using our patriotism and lashing out at the first person that comes to mind. Bin Laden deserved to be executed before the WTC incident for other crimes but those crimes in of them self are not worth the many lives that will fall, innocent and guilty on both sides. This war needs to be carefully fought and the targets need to be real targets that are active in such tragedies as the WTC. 2A) There is also this classified thing I am quite upset about. That kind of evidence NEEDS to come out and also be scrutinized by more than just politicians. The fact that they are classified tells me there is something wrong with the evidence. We need to be sure that we are targeting the correct person. Even beyond that is the need for an educated public. People need to know everything that is going on and why. Here is a story, skip it if you are getting tired of my long post Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a Baptist church near my work and they had a gathering of at least 2,000 people, most of which were not told of the event. They simply seen it and stopped to support America. I was beyond impressed. It gave me a sense of pride to see so many people gathered for no other reason than they are Americans. Taking that time out of their lives to rally with others. However, I very quickly learned to despise those that had started the gathering. They were coming and going in the gas station where a friend of mine works and visiting. The Baptists belonging to the church that came in were explaining how it states clearly in the Koran that Christianity AND the United States need to be destroyed and all those that are followers or citizens needed to be killed. It does not state that but later I found the priest had been preaching that. It made me sick to see someone that is supposedly following a book of kindness have such hatred for someone else because of what their priest had told them. The enemy they seek is an enemy of the world, not Islam. It is terrorism and those fanatics that are hell-bent on death. This may not directly pertain to this set of evidence but it says something about those that are not informed. What people do not know hurts them more than what they do. Note: I know this is not the general view of the Baptists. It is just this one church that I happen to experience this at. Back to the point I was before the sidetrack. To censor the public's knowledge on such an event is wrong. If they are to classify it I at least want a good reason for it. I can't help thinking that it is a political ploy because there is so much support for this war. Something that would create some sort of controversy. Bush does not want his support to weaken or his newfound popularity to dwindle. He also has more power over Congress as they are expected to unite behind our Commander In Chief. The same exact thing is happening in Britain. That was also in the paper under an article titled "Prime Minister Braces Britain for Terror War" 2A) Cont He took advantage of the fact that this tragedy has forced Congress and the Labor Party to come together and back the leaders. I cannot say that this is a negative thing. Leaders must always be thinking about domestic problems even in times of grate conflict. They were put there to push that agenda but it is different when censorship is involved. This is not a military secret. It is evidence that belongs to the people if they are to support this war. The only item I can see that is a possible military threat is evidence that points to his location. Even specific names of organizations that he has dealt with would help as it would force them to cut the relations off with Ben Laden. That in itself could massively weaken his position. The evidence has been handed over to NATO, Pakistan and Russia. Other countries have received the package but their names have not been released. 2B) Cont This relates to the second point as well. However, I can understand how an undecided country that may end up in the fray would not want it to be known. Especially if the tensions are high between them and Afghanistan. Also if they had requested the data but for it to be secretly revealed to them. However, I seriously doubt that is the case. It also becomes a moot point if the information was not classified anyway. Some takes on it and how it will be used: Russia in not completely convinced of the evidence, saying it is not conclusive of Bin Laden's role in the terrorist act.. U.S.A. is convinced of his guilt. He goes on to state that they do not need more information on Bin Laden but their internal agencies have yet to discover what Bin Laden's role is. Pakistan has lead on that the evidence will be used in an attempt to split moderate factions off of the Taliban rather than it convince Pakistani government of Bin Laden's guilt. They seem to be backing the U.S.A. no matter what the evidence. Reporters asked the diplomat about Pakistan's stance and whether they needed to be convinced of Bin Laden's involvement. 3) The Russians have stated that they do not have enough evidence to conclude what Bin Laden's role is in the bombings, do we? I cannot support an action that is taken out of rage and revenge. It must be calculated and the target must be the correct one. I will be looking for other country's opinions of the data and their future comments. Though Russia has little reason to lie about the evidence, other countries will. The fact that we are taking the stance that there are no questions at all and the opinions of other governments don't matter. Hopefully it is a bluff because if this war is fought without the support of the world then we are asking not only for more tragedies in the war but a huge portion of our influence and power will be lost. Whether or not the people of America want to admit it, they require the rest of the world and its blessings to survive. The protesters in Pakistan are there for a reason. I would bet that the protests, while still going on, would have less weight if we were more open as far as what we have and were not so arrogant to the rest of the world. The latter is already done but that does not mean we have to be so damn secretive. This ties into another article "Split: Bid to Weaken Taliban." The following is from that article. This follows bribing gorillas, Taliban's who are not for these actions and the manipulation of governments. The U.S.A. is also offering support, money and possible governmental positions to defecting pieces of the Taliban. There are disagreements with the traditional government leaders and the clergy. Traditional leaders who support the Taliban for convenience rather than ideals and the and those groups who are more moderate in their views will be the main focus for the efforts. The U.S. aims to weaken or remove Taliban influence before they enter into a war. Pakistan is also aiding in these efforts. 3A) This also worries me and makes me believe that we will loose support if it is attempted. Giving money and support to those that have the same agenda is normal and to be expected. There is nothing wrong with supporting and recruiting allies. Even though it is not a definite, handing out government positions to those that helped you take care of a single man are not OK. America is based in large part on 'for the people, by the people' and we live by that for the most part. Setting up a government by selecting your friends instead of allowing the people to choose themselves goes against our principals. I agree that Afghanistan needs help re-establishing themselves but that is not the way to go about it. If the people create a government that they like it may alleviate many of the militaristic problems they have, at least in time. And I am not saying that it has to be a democracy, just a government they set up. I know we are going to push for a democratic system and we may end up forcing it on them. I hope that it does not come to that. I would much rather we go in, accomplish are objectives and let the people take it from there. A democracy you set up yourself means a lot more as well and has more backing from the people. The CIA has already authorized giving money and support to those that defect. However, governmental positions seem to be a little less sure. U.S.A. is working with Mohammed Zahir, the former king, and the Northern Alliance, or United Front, in working towards establishing a set government after the Taliban is removed but before it actually happens. The former King is 86 years old and the article is unclear as to what his role is in the negotiations. A 120 member Supreme Counsel has been established and is supposed to meet in Rome within a month. However, it will not be cut and dry due to relations within the country and peoples view of U.S.A. My comment, not in paper: I would take this to mean that the former king is either not well liked and supported by Afghanistan people at large or that he wants more influence on the final decision of leaders. Another problem is the relatively low sign of strife within the Taliban. While it is there and the U.S.A is attempting to capitalize on it, the cracks in Taliban rule are not that large. It may be difficult to get any significant amount of support within Taliban ranks. There are defiantly people within the Taliban that disagree with the Taliban's rule and other that are against the harbor of Bin Laden and the Taliban but whether they are willing to fight for it against their own people is different. 3B) The congress is a good Idea but I also worry about representation in such a congress. While the leaders of the Taliban and those that are supporting them should not be represented, many of the people should be. A good portion of which do not have a choice about their circumstances. It may be a good idea to get a plan going but hold the execution until after the Taliban has toppled. As far as using Afghani people to fight the Taliban, I hate to admit I like the Idea. We are achieving our goal and there's but we are also using them to fight our war. This is one of the reasons the United States is not well liked. We also need to be careful of who we are backing. We may just allow a faction that is as bad as the Taliban into power. Then we will have to go back later, fix our problem and deal with ten times the resentment while doing it. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we put the Taliban into power in the first place. I believe we supported, funded, and armed them for the war they had against Russia. That is a perfect example of one of those mistakes. We supported a monster we did not know to get rid of the one we did. We all know the outcome of that. Back on the first article. The rest is from "U.S. Gives Key Allies Evidence on Bin Laden" The Taliban ambassador has said they want to have negotiations and also whish to hear the evidence against Bin Laden. U.S.A. responded with this: Even though the U.S. has declined to offer the evidence Bush has no plans to negotiate. He has also declined to offer any type of time frame to his actions. Bush has repeated his demands for the turnover of Bin Laden and the destruction of any terrorist camps or face the consequences. He also stated "There are no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on our own time." There has been no comments as to when the strike will take place but the article pointed out "...The flurry of activity [Sharing of evidence and dispatching Rumsfeld to consult with allies] seemed to point to an imminent strike, though administration officials refused to discuss timing. 4) This may well be the reason the evidence we have gathered against Bin Laden is classified. It still makes no sense to me. It is a ludicrous action to deny the Taliban evidence against Bin Laden. What is there to gain? A war! If we could peaceably remove Bin Laden from Afghanistan then I see no reason we shouldn't do so. We will create our own war if we continue to be so snobbish. I am not saying that the demands we have made should be compromised, we should delay our plans or work with them as far as the proof. We should give them the proof and continue on. If that is truly what they want, his proven guilt along with that of those terrorist camps we wish destroyed, then they shall do it provided there is good evidence. I personally do not believe it will work but where is the harm in it? Why are we going to fight a war if we could avoid it. War may be a must to solve some disputes but it should NEVER be used until all avenues are exhausted. I do not care if it will require that we watch the Taliban and we have to make sure no terrorists are being harbored. If the conflict arises then we will fight it when we must. We scoff at them for a request of the truth. Somehow I see that attitude demeans what it means for me to be an American. How can I stand with pride in my country if we are warmongering. This also brings me to another point. How good of a job is Bush doing? I believe he is handling it fairly well. The censorship and the stubborn attitude toward diplomacy we are taking scares me but the fact that we refuse to budge is good. We cannot budge on Bin Laden's fate or that of the terrorist camps he is associated with. The fact that we are taking our time before attacking is another good thing. We have to wait for the emotions to settle so that rational thought can overcome our rage and need for blood. I hear people screaming 'lets go kick their @#$' without understanding there will be more death or even who we are after. The pride and support people are giving this country and each other is great but at this point, more so a few weeks ago, it is misguided. I liked the speech Bush gave condemning racist actions to fellow Americans. It may have been a publicity stunt but one that we really needed. I also believe this will turn out to be a real war instead of a politically fought on such as Vietnam. Unless Bush stops listening to his advisors and does not start to use the war as a political advancement too much then we will be able to win this. What does worry me, again, is the small amount of stock we are putting in the rest of the world. As quoted earlier we are saying " 'We are not going out and arguing with people,' a senior State Department official said. "We were attacked and we have the right to attack back....(.... in article) But we did promise to share information and that is what we are doing." and "Administration officials rejected the call for negotiations, repeating that its demand that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden is non-negotiable. And Boucher at the suggestion that the United States would share classified information with the Taliban." and reject diplomacy and even our backers instead of saying we take what you say seriously and will attempt to show you our evidence, that we are still looking for it and understand what the problem is between the two views. Why can't we say we will work with the Taliban and give them the requested info. If they still refuse, at least we tried instead of acting without thinking. References: Miller, Marjorie. "Prime Minister Braces Britain for Terror War" Los Angeles Times 3 September 2001: 5A McManus, Doyle, and John Daniszewski. "U.S. Seeks Sign of Split in Taliban" Los Angeles Times 3 September 2001: 1A, 5A Kempster, Norman, and John Daniszewski. "U.S. Gives Key Allies Evidence on Bin Laden" Los Angeles Times 3 September 2001: 1A, 5A Noted at end of "U.S. Gives Key Allies Evidence on Bin Laden": Kempster reported from Washington and Daniszewski from Islamabad. Times staff writers Paul Richter and Robin Wright in, Washington and Maure Reynolds in Moscow contributed to this report.
