The Shoe Bomber - Judge's Comments

[Slim]

You know...When I read about all the things you've put there in your comments I realize that there are actually people out there who blame the west for all of the problems in the world and want our race to fail.

I think that the sad part of that is that you, and the people who put all of that in your head, have no actual first hand knowledge of the subjects you're discussing...You just trot out the silly things that someone else, maybe a university prof or coffee house friend, have vehemently declared in a self important wrath of indignation.

The truth is that what ever the west has or hasn't done, doesn't give the right to blow up buildings or people to anyone.

Now from my time in the service I know, as in "have first hand knowledge of" know for a fact, that at least half of what you have written there is nonesense. You and yours have convinced yourselves that we are somehow responsible to the rest of the world for the many "crimes of humanity" that have been committed around the world. You really believe that the U.S. and its allies go around screwing other countries for oil and whatnot.

"like dumping billions of dollars in weapons in Afghanistan then supporting the talibans rise to power before walking away from the whole mess. Until 9/11 gave them a good reason to appoint a new government and build a pipline through Afghanistan"
They didn't seem to mind when the Russians were killing them by the thousands, did they...?

"-the arms embargo which prevented the Muslims from arming themselves in the Balkans."
I suppose it makes no difference that everyone else was under it as well?

"invading Somalia to keep oil production going for Shell"
No oil has come from Somalia for a very long time...Way before the country broke into civil war.

"giving Saddam the nod to invade Kuwait then beating the shit out of his army when the press made it look wrong. Oh and until a new line was drawn in the sand by the Brits and Yanks, Kuwait was part of Iraq."
-That is pure fabrication and a load of BS...Sorry.

-"giving Saddam a chemical weapons program so he could gas the Kurds and Iranians and thus secure two of his borders"
The CIA had officers with the Kurds( public info-CIA Officer Robert Baer as a matter of fact) when they were gassed by Iraq...and before...and after. Somehow I doubt the U.S. would want its own soldiers to go through something like that.

"And my last point did you know that George W Bush's(Busch) grand father was convicted and imprisoned for trading with the enemy (Nazis) during WW2. Thanks for the help guys keep it coming."

This last statement, oddly enough, is probably somewhat true...but not limited to the Bush family alone. Just before the second world war the United States and Germany were very close economically...there were a great many ties that were probably not broken as thoroughly as they should have been. My question is what does it have to with the rest of it?

I think you're heart's in the right place but this blind hatred is yours as well...unless you see things from both sides.

Think about where your info comes from...

Then think for yourself!

Slim

P.S You may wish to fill out your profile a bit more so we all know who we're speaking to...

 

[karpovage]

CA members, sorry for not chiming in earlier but I've been out of town for four days. Scott1nsh, I was a volunteer firefighter just across the pond in Rochester, NY at the time of 9/11 and share your intensity for the feelings I felt that day in regards to our brothers/sisters who went into to perform their heroic duties. i've read the replies to the judges comments and basically am in the same boat with the majority here so no sense in rehashing comments aimed at Caesar. At this time I cannot move on or simply wipe away what happened or forget about it. I'm still trying to understand the intense hatred that the extreme elements in the Islamic religion has against my country. From what I've read the reason for the attack on 9/11 goes back to the war that Al Queda declared on the U.S. in 1998. And the reason for the declaration of war was that the United States had infidel foreign troops on Saudi Arabian holy soil. - there because we led the world, ie UN, in defense of another Muslim nation from being invaded by another aggressive Muslim nation. So, go figure. Now, quite obviously this declaration is a religious war in the eyes of the Isamofascists. The attack on 9-11 was a tactic in this war just as kidnappings and beheadings are a tactic but I want to dig down deeper as to the root causes and it really comes down to governance in my opinion. Governance based on electing your leaders, ie forms of democracy or governance based on tyranny, force, suppression, no free will to think for yourself - especially in regards to the deity that you might choose to worship. Western countries allow you to find things out for yourself as far as you, the indiviudal, chooses to take it. The U.S. was born on freedom of religion - choosing your own God. Tyranny, facism, religious rule does not allow that freedom of thought and expression. Al Queda doctrine says you either choose Allah or you choose death as an infidel. So, that's where I am at this point.

 

[Kirkhill]

Call me wrong if you will, but the VASTmajority of world leaders, even when you exclude the middle-east, do not support the US-led action in the middle-east, and the main reason is lack of diplomatic efforts prior to action.

OK, I'll call you wrong.

The VAST majority of world leaders agreed that Saddam was a problem and believed he had weapons of mass destruction, an active aquisition and development programme, a demonstrated inclination to use them and a hate on for not just the US in general but the Bush family in particular.  That included all those countries that supplied him the gear as well as the United Nations.

The only thing being debated was had he stopped the programmes and got rid of the weapons.  He declined to offer proof.

The VAST majority of world leaders agreed that "Something Should Be Done".  They agreed that some 12 to 14 times.  They just couldn't agree on what.

The VAST majority of world leaders were engaged in diplomatic negotiations as to WHAT should be done.

The negotiations had gone on for some 12 years while Iraqi's died as a result of sanctions supported by the VAST majority of world leaders.


At the end of the day the American's decided that given 9/11 "Something MUST be done".  At least 40 to 50 of the world's leaders agreed with them and aquiesced.  Only a very small number were willing, or able, to come forward with troops in the open to assist the main effort.  But the VAST majority of the OECD and the EU (including those new members who "missed an opportunity to shut up" in the memorable diplomatic language of "Hizzonor Chirac" supported the effort.  France, Germany, Belgium and Canada were decidedly in the MINORITY).

Of the rest of the world's leaders?  A substantial number include democrats such as Gaddafi and Mugabe and the rulers of Burma.  All potential targets of the same type of action - hardly likely now or ever to buy into the notion of the Chretien doctrine of "A responsibility to protect" - which by the way, in its execution is indistinguishable from Bush's pre-emptive action.  Target country gets invaded by well meaning outsiders bent on stabilizing the world so that their citizens will live safe and prosperous lives.

Many other leaders, such as India's, could not reasonably be expected to take a position on an Islamic invasion.  They have got 1200 years of history of confrontations with Islam (Those confrontations allowed the British to dominate the country for 200 years - another story).  Since 1947 and up until today they have been dealing with religious violence that has seen hundreds of thousands killed in riots, border wars and just plain old bigotted thuggery.  Couple that with a shooting war with a nuclear armed Islamic opponent which housed the people taking credit for 9/11 - no way it was going to get involved.  Many other countries with Islam-Berber, Islam-Black, Islam-Hindu, Islam-Chinese, Islam-Phillipino  conflicts were in much the same boat.  Those countries - the best thing they could do was just keep the lid on their domestic situation and maintain order.

So the VAST majority of world leaders ends up subdivided into 4 categories - A large minority that supported the effort publicly - A large minority that saw itself as potential targets for follow-on actions (hardly judges lacking in self-interest) - A large minority that find themselves on the cusp already and battling militant Islam (a 1200 year battle in some places) - and finally a small minority that out of cowardice or economic self-interest CHOSE not to act. 

Guess which group Canada falls into?

 

[Gunnerlove]

"...You just trot out the silly things that someone else, maybe a university prof or coffee house friend, have vehemently declared in a self important wrath of indignation."

I like that statement.

If you are saying that no one deserves to live in a state of fear, then I agree with you totally.

In my opinion I have made a mistake in that last post by saying "invading Somalia to keep oil production going for Shell"
That was wrong. Somalia has never been a big producer of oil although reserves have been discovered, and Shell had folded their tent at the beginning of the civil war. Conoco was there however and heavily involved in the extraction of natural gas. To be fair to the US if they had manged to stabilize Somalia it would have been a great humanitarian victory. In the land of politics though conflicts of interest (using the Cononco compound as the US embassy) must be avoided lest someone like me pick them up and run away with the wrong impression.

The rest I will leave on the table. I suggest that anyone who thinks I am a bit of a crack pot look into the points I have brought up and decide for themselves.

Oh and I will stop using the term Yanks in my posts.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Slim, regarding US-German cooperation.  Ford had branch plants in Germany for another example.  But this is nothing new.  On the very day of the invasion of Russia, trains were leaving the Soviet Union bound for Germany laden with raw materials and ores.  They were active trading partners, and in fact were allies up to the morning of 22 June 1941. 

The US doesn't have an unusual history of switching sides and making new alliances - all nations do it.

 

[Slim]

The US doesn't have an unusual history of switching sides and making new alliances - all nations do it.

Yeah...I know Mike.

Thats what I was trying to get across to the others. In fact Joe Kennedy was greatly apposed to going into the war on the side of the allies and and campaigned vigorously against it.

Pearl Harbour seems to be the lynch pin that swayed public opinion to the side of the allies.

As a matter of fact the American population was so against going to war for England that Wild Bill Donovan had to set up the OSS without the knowledge of Congress, and it was some time before the rest of the government was informed.

http://www.campxhistoricalsociety.ca/history.htm

This link gives some of the history of the OSS and how it came into being despite the feelings in the US at the time. If anyone has further questions PM me and I'll see what I can do to find more info on the subject.

Slim