They demanded that we "prove" his guilt to them first. Trying to prove that a terrorist committed a crime in the US to the Taliban would be about as easy as getting Harcourt to admit that the USA is not as evil as the Great Leap Forward was.

Technically, by international law, the Taliban had a point. A lynch mob is at the door demanding the handover of a suspect. They had reasonable belief that the suspect would not be treated fairly or in accordance with the law by the lynch mob, so they suggested a 3rd party venue. The lynch mob chose to just barge on in.

Please define lynch mob. Is it the U.S.? And who is it that the lynch mob was demanding to be handed over by the Taliban?

I suggest you read the previous dozen or so posts.

Now that I have read the previous dozen posts (my apologies - often I don't have the time to read everything) I understand that you believe that the U.S. violated international law by seeking to apprehend a self-proclaimed murderer from the terrorists who were providing him protection. It appears from his history BL is determined to continue attacking the U.S., however you liken the U.S. in this case to being a lynch mob.

Specifically which international law(s) were violated, and what would be your recommendation as to how to stop BL from continuing to attack U.S. property, soldiers and civilians?

In recent years, the Arabs have taken the Palestinian issue as their anti-American rallying point, but it really had nothing to do with the original anti-Americanism of the Arabs in 1956.

Thanks for another enlightening post chuckd.

I understand that you believe that the U.S. violated international law by seeking to apprehend a self-proclaimed murderer from the terrorists who were providing him protection.

What more "evidence" is needed?

It is true & like I said it is just my opinion but...........

Lets look at this idiotic Health Care Bill as a clear example.

I am not saying any of you are crazy enough to have pushed for it but you could have as voters....

Yet you do not need to eat it like we here will. You will be Exempt

( well at least if you stay out of the US 330 days a year AFAIK )

Which is in line with my definition of an expat

How about this......As expat voters you can no longer be exempt from ANYTHING US policy wise.......

Would that sit all right?

Your main point does have some rational logic behind it, and I can certainly understand your feelings.  I just disagree with them.

And if I, as an expat, was not exempt from anything US policy-wise, I could live with that.

(And to further throw myself in your doghouse, I might have voted for the health care bill.  I have for years thought that we needed something.  Even with it's faults, I think Canada's system is far superior than ours. I will admit ignorance, though on this one.  I was unlucky enough to be wounded in combat, but that ended up making me lucky enough to have full VA coverage, so maybe it was a case of I've got mine.  So while I was aware of the votes and such and what was going on, I never really looked closely enough at the specifics.)

Khun bonobo, thank you for your service Sir.

Nah, just came home hoping to read Chuck his thesis on why he thinks it were the communists that are to blame for this anti Americanism and there is not a thing.

Well, here it is, Alex. You guys can now have a good laugh. If you disagree, though, please try and come up with another scenario. Don't simply argue for the sake of argument.

In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai while Britain and France seized the Suez Canal, which the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdul Nasser had nationalized. The Eisenhower administration intervened against Israel and on the side of Egypt. Under U.S. pressure, the British, French and Israelis were forced to withdraw.

In spite of this intervention, Nasser entered into a series of major agreements with the Soviet Union. Egypt effectively became a Soviet ally, the recipient of massive Soviet aid and a center of anti-American rhetoric. Whatever his reasons, and they had to do with U.S. unwillingness to give Egypt massive aid, Egypt's anti-American attitude had nothing to do with the Israelis.

Two major political events took place in 1963: political coups in Syria and Iraq that brought the Baathist Party to power in both countries. Both regimes were pro-Soviet and anti-American, but neither could have been responding to U.S. support for Israel because there was very little at that time.

In 1964, Washington gave Cairo the first significant U.S. military aid in the form of Hawk missiles, but it gave those to other Arab countries, too, in response to the coups in Iraq and Syria. The United States feared the Soviets would base fighters in those two countries, so it began installing anti-air systems to try to block potential Soviet airstrikes on Saudi Arabia.

In 1967, France, who was the biggest arms supplier to Israel at that time, broke with Israel over the Arab-Israeli conflict and the United States began significant aid to Israel. In 1974, after the Syrian and Egyptian attack on Israel, the U.S. began massive assistance.

The point is that the United States was not actively involved in supporting Israel prior to 1967, yet anti-Americanism in the Arab world was rife. The Arabs might have blamed the United States for Israel, but there was little basis for this claim. U.S. aid commenced on a relatively small scale in 1967 and surged in 1974 after the Syrian/Egyptian attack in 1973.

In summary, anti-Americanism in the Middle East began in 1956 with Egypt, a Russian ally in armament and trade. It then grew even louder in 1963 with the coups in both Syria and Iraq, again leaving Russian allied dictatorships in place. All strident in their anti-Americanism and fervent in their support for Russia, who was their paymaster.

In recent years, the Arabs have taken the Palestinian issue as their anti-American rallying point, but it really had nothing to do with the original anti-Americanism of the Arabs in 1956.

Thanks chuck. A very informative article, that I wouldn't laugh at, nor would I disagree with without knowing anything to the contrary. Actully, I'm sure everything you posted is correct.....but as to that being the origin of anti-American sentiments...I'm not sure.

I do have an inkling of a notion of an idea of a suspicion that there is more to it than that.....perhaps America's involvement in Iranian oil, prior to the Suez conflict? I think America was in Persia/Iran, perhaps as far back as the 1920's or earlier, and I think the original oil deals were vastly imbalanced to America's benefit.....

But I'd have to research that....I wouldn't want to be called a liar for "misremembering" old news.

Certainly in recent years Palestine is a rallying point....and why not? There are huge humanitarian inequities placed upon the Palestinians with US sponsorship of Israel.

But as for the origin of anti-Americanism....it may be the McCarthy era reds-under-the-bed scenario.... Somehow I think it goes further than that.

Bonobo please show proof and please include the first two videos where you can clearly see the difference between the two Bin Ladens.

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

A suspect means not proven .

Do you know this sentence have been added just recently?

First up on the google:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_...ea/ml_bin_laden

And if there was anything fishy about the videos, don't you think that someone in his camp would have objected?

Bonobo I will try to recover some of the files I have on a HD that was in my desktop but fails to read after I went to Panthip Plaza buying something that I can use to hook up that HD to my labtop.

But I can tell you that from memory I had collected all of those video clips from BL saying he was not involved and documents that show the attacks were planned way before 9/11.

I will do my best to recover them and add them in our discussion.

The main objective of the NATO troops now seems to be killing or capturing senior Taleban leaders and weakening their structures so they would be forced to sit on the table to negotiate reconciliation.

The problem is that some of those leaders are willing to negotiate but are either captured or killed. The people that replace them feel that negotiating does not work as they see their leaders are captured or killed.

The Afghanistan issue is a very complicated one which I will try to explain in the coming days.

Nah, just came home hoping to read Chuck his thesis on why he thinks it were the communists that are to blame for this anti Americanism and there is not a thing.

Well, here it is, Alex. You guys can now have a good laugh. If you disagree, though, please try and come up with another scenario. Don't simply argue for the sake of argument.

In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai while Britain and France seized the Suez Canal, which the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdul Nasser had nationalized. The Eisenhower administration intervened against Israel and on the side of Egypt. Under U.S. pressure, the British, French and Israelis were forced to withdraw.

In spite of this intervention, Nasser entered into a series of major agreements with the Soviet Union. Egypt effectively became a Soviet ally, the recipient of massive Soviet aid and a center of anti-American rhetoric. Whatever his reasons, and they had to do with U.S. unwillingness to give Egypt massive aid, Egypt’s anti-American attitude had nothing to do with the Israelis.

Two major political events took place in 1963: political coups in Syria and Iraq that brought the Baathist Party to power in both countries. Both regimes were pro-Soviet and anti-American, but neither could have been responding to U.S. support for Israel because there was very little at that time.

In 1964, Washington gave Cairo the first significant U.S. military aid in the form of Hawk missiles, but it gave those to other Arab countries, too, in response to the coups in Iraq and Syria. The United States feared the Soviets would base fighters in those two countries, so it began installing anti-air systems to try to block potential Soviet airstrikes on Saudi Arabia.

In 1967, France, who was the biggest arms supplier to Israel at that time, broke with Israel over the Arab-Israeli conflict and the United States began significant aid to Israel. In 1974, after the Syrian and Egyptian attack on Israel, the U.S. began massive assistance.

The point is that the United States was not actively involved in supporting Israel prior to 1967, yet anti-Americanism in the Arab world was rife. The Arabs might have blamed the United States for Israel, but there was little basis for this claim. U.S. aid commenced on a relatively small scale in 1967 and surged in 1974 after the Syrian/Egyptian attack in 1973.

In summary, anti-Americanism in the Middle East began in 1956 with Egypt, a Russian ally in armament and trade. It then grew even louder in 1963 with the coups in both Syria and Iraq, again leaving Russian allied dictatorships in place. All strident in their anti-Americanism and fervent in their support for Russia, who was their paymaster.

In recent years, the Arabs have taken the Palestinian issue as their anti-American rallying point, but it really had nothing to do with the original anti-Americanism of the Arabs in 1956.

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

.....Now that I have read the previous dozen posts (my apologies - often I don't have the time to read everything) I understand that you believe that the U.S. violated international law by seeking to apprehend a self-proclaimed murderer from the terrorists who were providing him protection. It appears from his history BL is determined to continue attacking the U.S., however you liken the U.S. in this case to being a lynch mob.

Specifically which international law(s) were violated, and what would be your recommendation as to how to stop BL from continuing to attack U.S. property, soldiers and civilians?

Were the Taleban terrorists? I don't think there was any violation of international law in "seeking" to apprehend the "suspect" initially when the US asked Afghanistan to hand him over. A little bit of spin there VL. Tut tut. Nevermind....

Don't get me wrong...I do not champion BL. I suggested that the technicality that the Taleban used was valid.

To me it is the same as if a lynch mob came to my door demanding I hand over some guy, perhaps a distant cousin. Using diplomatic speak, of course I will want the mob to jump thru the legal hoops first. I have little doubt as to the Talebans motives, nonetheless, due procees needs to be followed if allegations of breaching the law are to be avoided by "the mob".

Did Rodney King deserve his beating? I don't know, and perhaps he did. Nonetheless, his attackers were guilty of a crime because they did not follow the proper procedure.

I liken the US to a lynch mob (at the time) because, as an outside observer, I saw the hysteria that had been aroused in the US. Do you recall the hysteria? Even Sikhs, because they wore turbans, were being attacked by revenge-hungry red-necks. Innocent mosques were being vandalised etc.

How to stop BL?...perhaps make the first move or three towards being non-beligerant, stop being the antagonist. I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum....so it all comes down to a history that I suspect predates 1948. Chuck has posted some good info.... but incomplete, I suspect.There are grudges that go back a long way.

Lastly it goes without saying..I'm sure that you know I would be against Iraq spending same as you but feel the same for the other...Afghanistan.

Why wouldn't I? Is the billions spent per month the cost of security/safety? From that??? You do not really believe that do you?

Actually, yes I do.  If you read what bin Laden had said about the US prior and immediately after 9/11, then you would see that he called us weak-willed and unwilling to pay the price to enforce our will.  He pointed to Somalia as proof.  Knock down a  few helicopters, and we will go home with our tail between our legs.  (My biggest beef with Clinton was just that--in some ways, I think that decision was the catalyst which led to 9/11.)

By standing up to them, we showed we are not just a paper lion.  Remember, while I think Iraq was a mistake, it was right after that that Kaddafi gave up his role as instigator and made his peace with the US.

And once we took action, and that ended up with a broken Afghanistan, we had and have the moral obligation to put it back together again.  I hope we can leave sooner rather than later, though.

I was in Iraq when the Golden Mosque was bombed.  I saw firsthand the anarchy which resulted, the killings and torture.  So while I thought our entry in the country was a mistake, there was no doubt in my mind that we had to stay at that point.  Without us playing the police role, millions, yes millions, would have died.

Bonobo please show proof and please include the first two videos where you can clearly see the difference between the two Bin Ladens.

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

A suspect means not proven .

Do you know this sentence have been added just recently?

First up on the google:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_...ea/ml_bin_laden

And if there was anything fishy about the videos, don't you think that someone in his camp would have objected?

Bonobo I will try to recover some of the files I have on a HD that was in my desktop but fails to read after I went to Panthip Plaza buying something that I can use to hook up that HD to my labtop.

But I can tell you that from memory I had collected all of those video clips from BL saying he was not involved and documents that show the attacks were planned way before 9/11.

I will do my best to recover them and add them in our discussion.

The main objective of the NATO troops now seems to be killing or capturing senior Taleban leaders and weakening their structures so they would be forced to sit on the table to negotiate reconciliation.

The problem is that some of those leaders are willing to negotiate but are either captured or killed. The people that replace them feel that negotiating does not work as they see their leaders are captured or killed.

The Afghanistan issue is a very complicated one which I will try to explain in the coming days.

Bin Laden did publicly deny involvement directly after the attacks.  He has since admitted to them.  As far as him denying involvement, he killed thousands of people.  Do you think he is somehow above lying?

I spoke with one of his brothers before public scrutiny put too much pressure on him and he left his doctoral program in the US and went back home.  He was very positive the Osama was the mastermind of the attack.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

There are plenty of anti-Semites that criticize Israel's actions because they want to destroy the country and its people. There are also plenty of "useful idiots" that buy their rhetoric because it benefits them financially or because they could care less about Jews or because it is a fashionable position amongst the liberal left. Of course, our OTB liberals are just too clever to fall for any of that.

Actually, yes I do.  If you read what bin Laden had said about the US prior and immediately after 9/11, then you would see that he called us weak-willed and unwilling to pay the price to enforce our will.  He pointed to Somalia as proof.  Knock down a  few helicopters, and we will go home with our tail between our legs.  (My biggest beef with Clinton was just that--in some ways, I think that decision was the catalyst which led to 9/11.)

By standing up to them, we showed we are not just a paper lion.  Remember, while I think Iraq was a mistake, it was right after that that Kaddafi gave up his role as instigator and made his peace with the US.

And once we took action, and that ended up with a broken Afghanistan, we had and have the moral obligation to put it back together again.  I hope we can leave sooner rather than later, though.

Yes noted but as we show them this way we are not a paper lion perhaps he laughs as we shoot ourselves in the foot bankrupting our country.

If it is all about standing up to what a person Said....

Then really shouldn't we do something far more drastic for what folks like Kim Jong said? I mean he has nukes already right?

Kadafi....Hear his recent speech at the UN?

Ah yes then we also have the *moral* obligation to rebuild what we destroy in Afghanistan? The mothers there who weep will be glad to hear that same as the mothers here who weep for the same reason.

The whole thing is so lame I cannot believe it for the most part. Preemptive War.... What a term......

As for Somalia............Perhaps he was right as we do not go there do we...Why is that? Nothing to protect/help with? Or nothing to be gained?

But for those who have fled genocide, repatriation often sounds like a terrible option. So it was for the Somali Bantus. Many, many Somali Bantus died because they repatriated under the assumption that UN and U.S. peacekeeping would bring security. Instead, the opposite happened. The U.S.-UN intervention in Somalia in 1993-4 did not successfully establish peace, security, or a functioning government. Rather, Somali Bantu refugees claim the U.S.-UN intervention heightened insecurity in the valley as militants were pushed out of areas secured by the intervention.

http://hornofafrica.ssrc.org/Besteman/index1.html

In the end our stupidity over this is killing us as in the US country faster than them. We follow an age old recipe that has killed greater nations.

Then really shouldn't we do something far more drastic for what folks like Kim Jong said? I mean he has nukes already right?

You have to use common sense. You try to stop rogue nations before they develop nuclear bombs, not after. They might just use one.

Then really shouldn't we do something far more drastic for what folks like Kim Jong said? I mean he has nukes already right?

You have to use common sense. You try to stop rogue nations before they develop nuclear bombs, not after. They might just use one.

Well that is very common sense indeed ..... because it makes all of them race towards that safe equal footing.

If in fact.... what your saying is loons with Nukes are left alone ....since as you say they might just use one.

Well it makes sense for everyone to try to get one then. Yet it seems as if only one owner of such weaponry has ever used it in anger/retaliation & is also the same one who chases down those who do not as yet own them.....

Lastly it would probably behoove these keepers of the peace if they themselves did not in fact originally arm these rogue nations.

( back when they were....errrm... useful..)

Would make the later policing of them that much easier eh?

Oh......Let me add the usual disclaimer : Of course I would rather no nuts have any nukes....Of course these days it is extra hard to tell who the nuts are without a program....

If in fact.... what your saying is loons with Nukes are left alone ....since as you say they might just use one.

There is really not a lot of sensible alternatives, but it seems harder for some folks to recognize nutjobs

than others.

I do have an inkling of a notion of an idea of a suspicion that there is more to it than that.....perhaps America's involvement in Iranian oil, prior to the Suez conflict? I think America was in Persia/Iran, perhaps as far back as the 1920's or earlier, and I think the original oil deals were vastly imbalanced to America's benefit.....

But I'd have to research that....I wouldn't want to be called a liar for "misremembering" old news.

The British controlled Iranian oil, not the Americans.

__________________________________________________________

In 1951 with majority support in Iran’s parliament, Mosaddegh had nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), so Iran could profit equitably from the sale of its oil, which was controlled of the British, who gave the Iranian government only 16 percent of Iran's oil profits.[4][5] Since 1913, the British had exclusively controlled Iranian oil through the AIOC,[6][5] and it was the British government 's single largest overseas investment.[7] Despite Mosaddegh’s popular support, Britain accused Mosaddegh of violating the 1913 Qajar era agreement that had given Britain control of Iranian oil through the AIOC. Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[8]

__________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Looks like you "misremembered" yet again.

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

There is more:

Anti-Americanism is diagnosed as a pathological condition of old lineage which feeds on a witch's brew of hypocrisy, resentment, illiberalism, and a deep-rooted aversion to change.

_________________________________________________________

.....and the link:

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/politics/antiam.html

I do have an inkling of a notion of an idea of a suspicion that there is more to it than that.....perhaps America's involvement in Iranian oil, prior to the Suez conflict? I think America was in Persia/Iran, perhaps as far back as the 1920's or earlier, and I think the original oil deals were vastly imbalanced to America's benefit.....

But I'd have to research that....I wouldn't want to be called a liar for "misremembering" old news.

The British controlled Iranian oil, not the Americans.

__________________________________________________________

In 1951 with majority support in Iran's parliament, Mosaddegh had nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), so Iran could profit equitably from the sale of its oil, which was controlled of the British, who gave the Iranian government only 16 percent of Iran's oil profits.[4][5] Since 1913, the British had exclusively controlled Iranian oil through the AIOC,[6][5] and it was the British government 's single largest overseas investment.[7] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain accused Mosaddegh of violating the 1913 Qajar era agreement that had given Britain control of Iranian oil through the AIOC. Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[8]

__________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Looks like you "misremembered" yet again.

"....an inkling of a notion of an idea of a suspicion....". Did that not say to you that I admit that I don't know?..... I wasn't even born in the '50's, and by the end of the 60's I was only a child. No need for your sarcasm...unless you want to continue with the sniping, old man liar?

Are you saying that American interests were not in Iran around that time? Not that it matters because we are talking about the root of anti-Americanism and you have suggested that it was commies and Egypt in the '50's.

Do you not think that the American involvement with the creation of the Jewish state in Israel, prior to what you have stated, had anything to do with it? Your theory about Egypt most likely exacerbated it, sure.

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

I don't like Gauloises, and I doubt anybody would call me effete. But it's interesting to note that you choose a quote that implies that pro-Americans are not the intellectuals of today's society.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

What does that say about the right? Rednecks, perhaps?

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

I don't like Gauloises, and I doubt anybody would call me effete. But it's interesting to note that you choose a quote that implies that pro-Americans are not the intellectuals of today's society.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

What does that say about the right? Rednecks, perhaps?

Is Harcourt stalking anybody else, or is it just me?

An interesting observation, however. He's been a member since 23 June 2009 and has made 2684 posts, an average of 9.62 per day, most of them as supercilious as the one he just made.

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

I don't like Gauloises, and I doubt anybody would call me effete. But it's interesting to note that you choose a quote that implies that pro-Americans are not the intellectuals of today's society.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

What does that say about the right? Rednecks, perhaps?

'Self-proclaimed' intellectuals would be more accurate.

.....Now that I have read the previous dozen posts (my apologies - often I don't have the time to read everything) I understand that you believe that the U.S. violated international law by seeking to apprehend a self-proclaimed murderer from the terrorists who were providing him protection. It appears from his history BL is determined to continue attacking the U.S., however you liken the U.S. in this case to being a lynch mob.

Specifically which international law(s) were violated, and what would be your recommendation as to how to stop BL from continuing to attack U.S. property, soldiers and civilians?

Were the Taleban terrorists? I don't think there was any violation of international law in "seeking" to apprehend the "suspect" initially when the US asked Afghanistan to hand him over. A little bit of spin there VL. Tut tut. Nevermind....

Don't get me wrong...I do not champion BL. I suggested that the technicality that the Taleban used was valid.

To me it is the same as if a lynch mob came to my door demanding I hand over some guy, perhaps a distant cousin. Using diplomatic speak, of course I will want the mob to jump thru the legal hoops first. I have little doubt as to the Talebans motives, nonetheless, due procees needs to be followed if allegations of breaching the law are to be avoided by "the mob".

Did Rodney King deserve his beating? I don't know, and perhaps he did. Nonetheless, his attackers were guilty of a crime because they did not follow the proper procedure.

I liken the US to a lynch mob (at the time) because, as an outside observer, I saw the hysteria that had been aroused in the US. Do you recall the hysteria? Even Sikhs, because they wore turbans, were being attacked by revenge-hungry red-necks. Innocent mosques were being vandalised etc.

How to stop BL?...perhaps make the first move or three towards being non-beligerant, stop being the antagonist. I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum....so it all comes down to a history that I suspect predates 1948. Chuck has posted some good info.... but incomplete, I suspect.There are grudges that go back a long way.

Bl was retaliating "tit for tat"? What civilian buildings did the U.S. fly planes into that were located in the country where BL resides?

I have read your post and have to do some research in order to come up with a decent reply.

But I need to ask you what do you mean with Anti Americanism or anti American rhetoric.

It sounds a bit like like anti Semite or anti Jews when you question foreign policy and actions of Israel.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

I don't like Gauloises, and I doubt anybody would call me effete. But it's interesting to note that you choose a quote that implies that pro-Americans are not the intellectuals of today's society.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

What does that say about the right? Rednecks, perhaps?

'Self-proclaimed' intellectuals would be more accurate.

Would it? Tell that to chuck's anti-Obama, pro American historian. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

.....Now that I have read the previous dozen posts (my apologies - often I don't have the time to read everything) I understand that you believe that the U.S. violated international law by seeking to apprehend a self-proclaimed murderer from the terrorists who were providing him protection. It appears from his history BL is determined to continue attacking the U.S., however you liken the U.S. in this case to being a lynch mob.

Specifically which international law(s) were violated, and what would be your recommendation as to how to stop BL from continuing to attack U.S. property, soldiers and civilians?

Were the Taleban terrorists? I don't think there was any violation of international law in "seeking" to apprehend the "suspect" initially when the US asked Afghanistan to hand him over. A little bit of spin there VL. Tut tut. Nevermind....

Don't get me wrong...I do not champion BL. I suggested that the technicality that the Taleban used was valid.

To me it is the same as if a lynch mob came to my door demanding I hand over some guy, perhaps a distant cousin. Using diplomatic speak, of course I will want the mob to jump thru the legal hoops first. I have little doubt as to the Talebans motives, nonetheless, due procees needs to be followed if allegations of breaching the law are to be avoided by "the mob".

Did Rodney King deserve his beating? I don't know, and perhaps he did. Nonetheless, his attackers were guilty of a crime because they did not follow the proper procedure.

I liken the US to a lynch mob (at the time) because, as an outside observer, I saw the hysteria that had been aroused in the US. Do you recall the hysteria? Even Sikhs, because they wore turbans, were being attacked by revenge-hungry red-necks. Innocent mosques were being vandalised etc.

How to stop BL?...perhaps make the first move or three towards being non-beligerant, stop being the antagonist. I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum....so it all comes down to a history that I suspect predates 1948. Chuck has posted some good info.... but incomplete, I suspect.There are grudges that go back a long way.

Bl was retaliating "tit for tat"? What civilian buildings did the U.S. fly planes into that were located in the country where BL resides?

"tit for tat" is an expression that infers retaliation. It does not neccessarily imply the exact same action. That is why it's not "tit for tit" or "tat for tat".

Are you going to join the spelling, usage and semantics brigade too? For heaven's sake, all you right-wingers try to make your point by futile attempts at semantics while disregarding the inconvenient points.

Talk about the non-intellectual right!

Then really shouldn't we do something far more drastic for what folks like Kim Jong said? I mean he has nukes already right?

Every country can't be treated identically. Unlike Iran, North Korea has several powerful neighbors who can and are trying to help with the nuclear issue. NK shares a border with China, Russia and South Korea and are very close to Japan. All four are major military and/or economic players on the world stage, not just regiobnally. That's why they are in on the negotiations. Iran's geographical situation is almost a polar opposite. Their most powerful neighbor is Turkey.

Then you have Iran vowing to destroy another country, Israel, one they have already been attacking for decades (thru Hezbollah). NK makes a lot of noise in SK's direction but for almost 60 years there have been only minor incidents. Saddam used to make a lot of noise after getting kicked out of Kuwait. He was more or less contained until 9/11 changed how we viewed the threat. If something happens to change the way we view the threat from NK, ol' Kim's days will be numbered.

Come on, Alex. You are not that dense. However, in order to make your life easier for you, I have provided your answer.

_________________________________________________________

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today," avers the historian, who, leaving Osama off the hook, proceeds to aim his fire at effete gaggles of Gauloises-puffing café intellectuals. What gives?

I don't like Gauloises, and I doubt anybody would call me effete. But it's interesting to note that you choose a quote that implies that pro-Americans are not the intellectuals of today's society.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

What does that say about the right? Rednecks, perhaps?

'Self-proclaimed' intellectuals would be more accurate.

Would it? Tell that to chuck's anti-Obama, pro American historian. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

Sometimes I will make a link that doesn't necessarily support my own personal beliefs if it might be germane to a discussion. I do that in the hopes of finding out who might read the link and who might not. It appears Harcourt is one that does not read a link but, perhaps to increase his post count, reacts and makes yet another inane post proving the lack of thought that goes into those same posts.

He says..."Tell that to chuck's anti-Obama, pro American historian."

This is laughable considering some of the content of my "anti-Obama, pro American" historian's remarks in the link. Such as:

1. "In the spring of 2003, Bush's America, too, felt the cleansing urge and heeded the avenging call. Echoing Mann while kindly sparing us the intestinal metaphor, Andrew Sullivan called the Iraq war "a moral necessity" [15]: 13,000 civilians killed, a Saddam-lite puppet regime, and a fresh resupply of hatred against the United States. Isn't moral clarity beautiful when actions are divorced from their consequences?"

2. "Then came Korea, a nervous draw, followed by Vietnam, a bitter defeat. TIME Magazine captured the navel-gazing torpor with its characterization of the My Lai massacre as an "American" tragedy [16]. (Does that make the Holocaust a "German" tragedy?) America had invaded Vietnam, killed well over two million of its citizens, and then fled. While staring into an abyss of disillusion, many in the Third World began to wonder: Was the colossus the new apostle of freedom or merely the heir to the throne of Western imperialism?"

These are hardly "Anti-Obama, pro American" remarks and are words that Harcourt could have used, if he had taken the time to check out my link. These are hardly words that support my beliefs as well.

Harcourt also might have found out it was printed in SEPTEMBER 2004, pre-dating Obama by a full five years.

Harcourt should change his signature to this..."Open mouth, Insert foot." It would be much more appropriate.

Harcourt should change his signature to this..."Open mouth, Insert foot." It would be much more appropriate.

That's already been taken by the forum's resident Klingon.

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,

From here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html

Talking about foot in mouth?

How do you call it when you kill someone that is proven not to be a threat, murder perhaps?

By the way some say the wheel of history will turn on the 5th of April, more news on that when it breaks.

.

Ties in with something UG once said about "the intellectual left".

Actually, it was “something like” the pseudo-intellectual left - which is the exact opposite. Aren't you the one who keeps questioning other poster's honesty?

Here for Bonobo some details on how media is manipulated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1