A thoughtfull letter

[Huitzilopochtli]

I received this e-mail two weeks ago, I would like to share it with you and here your opinions,, with nothing more.

peace..


A sobering essay forwarded by a UC Berkeley professor:
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim
>Ansary. Tamim is an Afghani-American writer. He is
>also one of the most brilliant people I know in this
>life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I
>listen. Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole
>mess we are in.
>-Gary T.
>
>Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:
>
>I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing
>Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO
>Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing
>innocent people, people who had nothing to do with
>this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept
>collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes
>later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we
>"have the belly to do what must be done."
>
>And I thought about the issues being raised especially
>hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though
>I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of
>what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who
>will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
>
>I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin
>Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people
>were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree
>that something must be done about those monsters.
>
>But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan.
>They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The
>Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took
>over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
>criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think
>Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And
>when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the
>Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that
>the Afghan people had nothing to do with this
>atrocity. They were the first victims of the
>perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come
>in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats
>nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
>
>Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow
>the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved,
>exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years
>ago, the United Nations estimated that there are
>500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country
>with no economy, no food. There are millions of
>widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows
>alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land
>mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets.
>These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people
>have not overthrown the Taliban.
>
>We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan
>back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done.
>The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans
>suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses?
>Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done.
>Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their
>infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health
>care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
>
>New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs.
> Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In
>today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they
>have the means to move around. They'd slip away and
>hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled
>orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even
>have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping
>bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the
>criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it
>would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by
>raping once again the people they've been raping all
>this time
>
>So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me
>now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way
>to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops.
>When people speak of "having the belly to do what
>needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having
>the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly
>to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent
>people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's
>actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just
>because some Americans would die fighting their way
>through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much
>bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
>Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would
>they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan
>would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just
>stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with
>a world war between Islam and the West.
>
>And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's
>exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read
>his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He
>really believes Islam would beat the west. It might
>seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the
>world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion
>soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those
>lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
>lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of
>view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would
>win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last
>for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
>ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does.
>Anyone else?
>
>Tamim Ansary



In Ticamati ye ontlaneltoca
toyiollo, tocnhiuan!

We know they are true
The hearts of our friends!

Tecayehuatzin

 

[joespaniel]

An emotional letter.

I will point out that no Afghan civilians have been targeted. The Taliban, yes, its troops and their facilities too.

Food and medicine is being dropped on the suffering, but not bombs.

The idiots on TV calling for random destruction are just that. Idiots. It realy pisses me off to hear talk about nuclear weapons. That is totaly mindless.

I hope the military action is over quickly, so these people can sort out their future. Even without the Coalition there, they have a huge uphill battle in stabilizing their country.

 

[jedi rat]

I agree in many ways with mr Ansary…
BUT
There are many significant differences between Nazis, Hitler, Jews and Taliban, Labi, Afghanis.
Sent troops without bombing first??? – well … is it better if NATO soldiers die instead of Afghani civilians – no answer!!!
Is bombing efficient? – better then nothing - for now.
Is West responsible for Afghanis situation? – who are we to judge?

I believe that there is no better plan for now to kill Labin and his “gang” then what USA is doing – bombing. When taliban is weaker (hope it will be) then we can send troops, but now…
Of course this whole military campaign will not solve the problem, so what next?

 

[starlifter]

We will likely not do any major action in Afganistan until next Spring, if necessary. America is providing relief supplies, at great risk to our aircrews, to Afghan people. American civilian relief agancies have been providing relief for years. None of this can start a non-existant economy... the true evil is Afghan gov't. When is the last time you saw a nation wage peace simultaneously with war?

Peace=dead terrorists.

BTW, Let's get that bastard Arafat and his twin in the UK, Adams. Al Queda, Shining Path, Shen Fein, PLO, Hammas, Islamic Jihad, etc.... wipe 'em all out and hunt them down like rabid dogs if they won't surrender. Let's put a bounty out... $1,000 an ear (severed). Only $500 if the ears are attached to the head, but a $500 bonus if they have Tyson's bite marks on them, ....

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I saw refrence to this letter on that site that refutes the urban myths, so if I remember right there was some doubt as to the authenticity of the author. scopes.com, I believe.

I will concur with what others have said about the campaign not being an exercise in carpet bombing, which would obviously upset some, as they would prefer the US to inflict massive casualties so their protests could have some semblence of substance to them (no one here, but aimed at the 'loony left' protestors everywhere, in general.)

But one comment of starlifters knocked me from my chair.
Get Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein? You've said some fairly correct things in your time, starlifter, but I can't agree, understand or condone that. Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party and has been round for many, many years (since b4 1916), and is represented in Irish, Northern Irish and Westminster Parliaments. There has been an official repudiation of violence for some years now, with only the ****ing traitor idiots of the so called Real IRA breaking the truce. You are talking about murdering acknowledged international politicians who have renounced the gun, and endorsed the ballot (Adams is a Westminster MP, correct me if I'm wrong)

There are others factions, groups and parties out there who are also part of the problem. I don't see you specifically calling for the doglike death of the UVF, or Ian Paisley, or John Hume. Both of the latter have had some links, convoluted, with paramilitaries/terrorists.

Why stop in Ireland though? Go for everyone who ever had links with terrorism.
Get that darn Mandela chap for his ADMITTED link to the ANC terrorist wing The Spear of the Nation. Get Vladimir Putin because he was part of the KGB which consorted with terrorists at various points. Get those who backed or condoned the Pinochet regime, and the Junta in Argentina...

You have no argument with al-Qaeda, or many of the other groups you listed. Even if you had said PIRA, then that would be somewhat justified.
But the Troubles are not easily understood, let alone resolved, especially with what you were proposing. That type of thing would definitely throw the situation back to the dark days of the early 1970s and open warfare.

Anyway, the British government released all prisoners, Taig and Proddy, on an amnesty with the Good Friday accords. We may not all agree with that, and I personally don't for what it is worth, but for peace to occur, compromises must be made. Look now at the 'change' in US policy over the Palestine issue.
Get madmen like Bin Laden, 4 sure, and groups that use violence and have no reason. But do not spark open warfare where peace processes are tentatively working (this is all rhetorical, as I reckon I'd be right in saying that starlifter isn't in the inner circles of international policy. Yet. )

There is not a workable, realistic blanket solution to all the worlds problems. It requires a lot of work, and the dirty word compromise, and this is working in the Northern Irish situation, which is a world away from the Middle East and Afghanistan.

I do hope there was a strong sense of black humour in your reply, because otherwise, we will have to bomb Evander Holyfield

(and b4 you try and refute me by bringing up the links between the PIRA and Libya, PLO and various other groups; I know this, but it were in the past, things have changed, and this was not a matter for Sinn Fein anyway. Attacking peacemakers ain't the way to encourage peace, IMO, which incidentaly is what this entire post is)

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Sometimes Starlifter makes sense.. other times he comes across like some rabid radio talk show host. I am surprised with all that is going on, that he even has time to post here. I enjoy his posts tho.. unless he insists on examining "every tree in the forest" ( yawn !! ) .

Personally, I think that we should kick every damned Orangeman out of Ireland ( j/k ).

Dog

 

[dreadhead7]

See, that was my point in the other post about the differences between freedom fighters and terrorists. It's a gray area because freedom fighters sometimes employ terrorist methods to achieve their aims, especially when they are severely oppressed, and their governments won't listen to reason. Like Sinn Fein, who has since renounced violence, and like the ANC, who at first, didn't want to go the violent way, but did. And, you have to admit that Nelson Mandela has been doing lots for peace these days. He and de Klerk didn't win that Nobel Peace prize for nothing.

See, thats the problem. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. I'm not condoning violence by any stretch of the imagination, but, I feel that the freedom fighter's biggest problem is oppressive and totalitarian governments. Naturally, they won't listen to, or negotiate with the freedom fighters, so in desperation, the freedom fighters turn to violence, and in doing so, sometimes crosses the line from freedom fighter to terrorist.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I'll have to concur but I don't think, by any stretch of imagination, that Osama is a freedom fighter. And he's not striking against an oppressive totalitarian govt; he is terrorizing the democratic world, beginning with the USA.

 

[Master of Ceremonies]

The very fact that this supposedly came out of Berkeley was the first clue.

Oh the poor Afghanis!

Yes, I agree that Oasma and other terrorists like him need to be hunted and killed. I also agree that the majority of Afghanis are, like us, innocent of the real work of destruction going on behind the scenes and that we need to make sure we limit civilian casualties as much as possible.

But that's where it stops. The Afghanis are not in general victims of Western oppression. In fact, perhaps the best thing that could happen to the general populace of Afghanistan is for the western world to blow the place up because we have a history of cleaning up our messes when we're done - e.g. Japan.

If the poor helpless Afghanis are really so repulsed by Bin Laden and his thugs, then let the Afghanis lead our troops and our missiles to the "real" targets. They know where the troops are, they know what's going on.

If you don't believe me, I ask you - Do you know where any of the mob-realted businesses are in your community? Do you know who's connected to whom? Chances are you know something, or at least you've heard rumors. The Afghan people could get rid of the lot of these guys in a hurry with the backing of US Marines.

Yes, we've known all along that having the "stomach" for this meant our willingness to lose a few native sons - not to obliterate a foreign enemy.

This is the work of bleeding-heart liberals and propagandists. Let's not forget what we know happened on September 11!!!! [punch]

 

[Dogberry_Old]

I am a liberal whose heart does not bleed very much, yet I have no problem reading the comments of others, with whom I may or may not disagree, without stooping to name-calling in the cause of some godforsaken battle in America's culture wars. I do like to think that I can exercise some "christian" compassion occasionally, albeit not being a very devout CHristian.

I really have no use for ossified thinking, irregardless of which quarter it comes from. The facts of 911 are clear enough, we resist, or the America & much of the West that we know will perish. It's bad luck that the Afgani people have a mass murderer living among them, it is worse that their putative government protects him.

Dog

 

[Monte Pyton]

"Tempus monstrabit" is an old latin proverb -- "only time will tell"

i do not think that the US and the rest of the world reacting so quickly, still carrying heavy emotions, is at all the best way to act.
i just imagine high school kids, reading a textbook a hundred years from now, how the US only added to the conflict

 

[dreadhead7]

Oh, believe me, I don't for a minute think of Osama as a freedom fighter. He is most definately a terrorist! But I do think that the UN, or somebody needs to come up with some kind of a legal definition of just what is a terrorist, and what would be considered an act of terrorism. I think that most of us are pretty definate about what that means, but from what I hear, this has always been a problem for the folks at the UN. No one can seem to agree on this suject.

Btw, congrats to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the UN. They are this year's recipients of the Nobel Peace prize!

 

[starlifter]

But one comment of starlifters knocked me from my chair.
Get Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein? You've said some fairly correct things in your time, starlifter, but I can't agree, understand or condone that. Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party and has been round for many, many years (since b4 1916), and is represented in Irish, Northern Irish and Westminster Parliaments. There has been an official repudiation of violence for some years now, with only the ****ing traitor idiots of the so called Real IRA breaking the truce.

Well, if I've misjudged the peace-loving organization of Sinn Fein, then I stand corrected. To my knowledge, they are nothing but thugs and killers.... one and all, because they kill and bomb and support those that do.

It made me sick when Bill Clinton acknowledged the "ends justify the means" of "former" terrorists like Adams and Arafat. There is no satute of limitations on killing, and to prop up such organizations and their leaders in the blind pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize smacks of hypocrisy.

But the Troubles are not easily understood, let alone resolved, especially with what you were proposing. That type of thing would definitely throw the situation back to the dark days of the early 1970s and open warfare.

I am referring also to the 1980's and even the 1990's. I've seen interviews with some of their bombers residing in Englands jails. PBS (here in America) has several excellent documentaries on the bombing methods, too.

But if Sinn Fein has never been involved with, supported, or harbored terrorists, then perhaps someone with more information in this area can give an objective account. It is possible they got a bad rap somehow... I have no first-hand experience with "The Troubles".

If Adams never has in any way participated, condoned, or supported killings and bombings and other terrorism, then he's off the hook... but if he was in any way involved (and he indeed was, by objective accounts), then simply 'renouncing' violence and recasting it as a "struggle" or some such nonsense does not relieve him of accountability. He needs to face the same sword of justice, or bullet of the military, that any other thug killer does.

But I will tell you this... if it were solely up to me, I'd have all the living terrorists hunted down, no matter how they happen to be "acting" right now. One cannot kill, then scurry and hide under the skirt of freedom and compassion.

You don't go blowing up kids and civilians and then change tactics and say "I want peace and could only get it by killing children, but I don't kill children right now *wink* *wink*". There is no excuse for bombers or killers (on any side) in N. Ireland. Period. Again, hunt the killers (terrorists) down, along with the entire infrastructure that supported, funded, housed, harbored, and aided them]

Ditto to the PLO, Hammas, and all the others, of any age or nationality.

The time has come to put an end to it.

by Dogberry:

other times he comes across like some rabid radio talk show host.

I never listen to radio talk shows, of any sort, liberal or conservative. But I can imagine they say, I suppose.

About hunting down killers and terrorists... that is my opinion, and since "civilized" methods have not worked, I am not willing to sit idly by and turn the other cheek while future children are marked for death and killed. I'm more than willing to take the bayonette and split every terrorist myself, if that metaphorically possible. Battles should be fought with words in the stuffy chambers of the UN, not on the streets of the free world.

Peace=dead terrorists.
Dead terrorists=Peace.
Dead terrorists in pieces.
Peace.

 

[Vrylakas]

Afghanistan has been a virtual permanent state of war for more than two centuries, most of the time with itself. Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, Afghani tribes warred with each other over control of the land, only occasionally interrupted by intervention from outside powers - Persia, India, Britain, Russia - with one of the few exceptional periods of peace being Zahir Shah's reign as king from the late 1940s til he was overthrown in 1973. Then the old cycles started again with 3 coups between 1973 and 1979 before the Soviets invaded. (BTW, this myth that's been circulating around the Western media about the invincible Afghanis is a load o' crap; they've been conquered and beaten several times throughout their history.)

When the Soviets invaded the Afghani tribes (Pashtun, Tadjiks, Uzbeks, etc.) united against them, especially when the United States organized and armed their resistance. When the Soviets withdrew, the U.S. just abandoned Afghanistan to its victorious mujahadeen, who then fell into the usual Afghan habit of civil war. The Taleban were organized in this civil war and eventually imposed their rule (and peace) throughout most of the country, but they also attempted to impose their radical rural brand of Islam on the country and their neighbors. They've fought several border wars with the shiite Iranians, supported Islamic insurgents in China, India and former Soviet Central Asia, even in friendly neighboring Pakistan. What makes Washington's job of putting a coalition together so easy is these fools have made many, many enemies. Their time has come.

The United States must now, in its own and just about everyone else's interest, overthrow the Taleban and root out the terrorists who've since taken up residence in Afghanistan with their blessing. The U.S. must be sure afterwards to support (diplomatically, politically, economically, etc.) whatever goverment that follows in Kabul, above all encouraging stability in Afghanistan and helping to rebuild.

The people of Afghanistan must now withstand yet another war, but if done right this could be the last one there for a long time...



And BTW: a terrorist = terrorist, no matter how you slice 'em or dice 'em. Bin Laden may be utilizing (hijacking?) some legitimate political beefs some Islamic societies have with Western/American policy, but he's using these grievances to commit mass murder. As someone said recently, there may be some real gripes some Moslems have with the West, but enough to justify committing mass murder? For whatever political beliefs a terrorist hides behind, they are still murderers. This means the IRA, UDL, ETA, etc.

 

[Monte Pyton]

another old proverb is the bible's story about a man named 'Job'

---> i think this story is a wonderful example of how even with all the experience and understanding of an entire lifetime, we do not come close to the limits of comprehension of humanity...these problems arise when people play god, like the terrorists and their horrible massacres, or the US trying to rid the world of its evil

(i would also like to know how does it [the US] explain its vengeful actions? are the 5,000 lb bombs they are now dropping on afghan cities and forts any more civilized than the planes that crashed into the towers? what gives the US the right to enact such a weapon? ... on anybody? ... as if they are now fighting a 'holy war'!)

 

[joespaniel]

Whatever.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

By the definition given, we should be bayonneting Mandela, Suharto, Putin and thousands of other world figures and people who have done a lot of good and advanced peace since renouncing the gun.
Maybe even includes George Bush Snr, as during his tenure as CIA director in 1976-77, as can it be conclusively proved that any facet of the organisation for which he was accountable did not have any dealings with less than savoury individuals in this period?

"If ADAMS never has in any way participated, condoned, or supported killings and bombings and other terrorism, then he's off the hook... but if he was IN ANY WAY INVOLVED (my capitals for emphasis) (and he indeed was, by objective accounts), then simply 'renouncing' violence and recasting it as a "struggle" or some such nonsense does not relieve him of accountability. He needs to face the same sword of justice, or bullet of the military, that any other thug killer does."

Just sub the name of whoever you want in for Adams, and you will find that very few in Northern Ireland or half a thousand other areas could stand up to the test.

Sure there is no statute of limitations on killings. So let us pursue the House of Windsor for whatever some of their Saxe-Coburg-Gothe ancestors did several hundred years ago. lets dig up that notorious terrorist Eammon DeValera, and for that matter George Washington (well, he was involved in killing in a rebellion/revolution...). Let all Americans, Australians and Europeans be bought to justice for the crimes commited against the indigenous or other peoples across the globe, which they were IN ANY WAY involved in. (in any way is an open term, so it can include just being descended from them)

In fact, get the Homo Sapiens for the appalling genocide against the Neanderthal.

Get St Paul for his persecution of the early Christians, before he underwent a Damascus road conversion. I'm sure they'd let you into heaven with a bayonet to butcher a saint...because he did do wrong and terror, despite what he did later.

Admittedly, this is taking things to a truly ridiculous extent, but no more than the incredibly open ended terms used in the original polemic.
There is no established or agreed definition of terrorism, or of "in any way".

My reference to the 1970s and open warfare was meant to be read exactly like that. Armoured cars on streets, dozens of bombs going off in an hour, huge runnign street battles, massacres on both sides, internment camps, Bloody Sunday- This was the stuff of open warfare. The 80s and 90s were still bad compared to normality, but paled in comparison to the early bloodshed. All accounts concur on this. And this is what things would return to if we simply killed everyone involved.

Simplistic solutions rarely work in the long term, if at all.
Watching a few documentaries and interviews does not an expert make, and if you are looking for convoluted situations, then Ireland is right up there with the most of them all.

(As a qualification of terms, Sinn Fein have never done any bombings or killings; that was the role of the IRA. Semantics, but that is what is being employed)

The old chestnut of "an eye for an eye and the world would be blind" is not the best for this situation, but it does have relevance.

The best here is one of my own crafting:
"The problem with seeing the world in black and white is you stand a very high chance of getting killed running a red light"
The Irish Question is a complicated issue, and an emotive one. There are no easy solutions, but there is peace there at the moment, and enormous progress has been made. What it does not need is outdated ignorance, even though it will never come to reality.

But this is all a diversion from the original topic, the false letter. the address is, I believe,
www.snopes2.com and the reference should be in rumours of war section.

 

[starlifter]

The Irish Question is a complicated issue, and an emotive one. There are no easy solutions,

I agree with that, Simon. And I have no special connection or understanding with the Irish Question. All I can provide is common sense... if one is a killer, one should be punished as a killer. It really is that simple. Anything less would be saying to the kilers of today and tomorrow "Kill now, renounce later, walk away free" ... and in some cases, also: "... become a leader, Shake hands with Clinton."

Nay, I say verily unto you... a terrorist that kills is a killer. Such killers cannot pervert the law and wrap themselves in some sort of altruistic flag and say it was acceptable.

There is a difference, of course, in the extreme and illogial comparisions you made of people like GHW Bush and terrorists like Arafat. One such difference is a nation that kills is accountable, and if other nations don't like it, they can ante up and fight. N. Ireland was not a national conflict. The killers sought to hide and evade justice, and were not accountable representatives of a government. GHW Bush was not throwing molotov cocktails, stoning troops, setting bombs, etc. and targeting children.

There is a mighty big difference in targeting civilians, and civilians killed in collateral damage. We in the US Military take additional casualties and deaths in an effort to minimize killling, even of enemy troops. Moreover, the US Government is accountable for its acts, good and bad, in peace and in war.

Some of the points and examples you provided were so absurd as to not warrant a response, but I think you knew that based on your onw clarifying comments. It is exactly the BS doubletalk such as you advanced that prevents resolution of violence. It is stupid to argue that it is a crime for a person to murder their wife, yet allow a terrorist to kill your wife.... and this is exactly the arguement that must be made in some form for anyone to let the killers of the 1970's, 80's, or whenever, off the hook.

Hypotheitically, if a button were magically pushed that resulted in the instant deaths of all Sinn Fein (and any other killers from any side of t"The Troubles"), life would go on. Ireland would not fall apart. The killers need to be arrested, tried, and executed for their crimes. But that is up to England, I suppose.

Ditto for the PLO, and all other terrorists worldwide. In war, and resistance aganst terrorists is a war, the normal criminal justice system is not usually applicable. A simple hail of bullets against all terrorists, foriegn and domestic, will suffice. Once the majority of terrorists are eradicated in the war, the rest can be dealt with in the criminal system during peace and tranquility. If peace is lost again, the violators will be destroyed with extreme prejudice, with any neessary means. There can be no shield... no place or nation of refuge... and no attenuation of intensity with time.

The dead and orphaned children deserve no less.

 

[Graeme the mad]

On the Irish question: sinn fein are just as murderous thugs and criminals as Al-qaedia, tough I have a personal connection to the IRA attack I believe I am justified in saying it is appaling that IRA murderers (and that IS what they are) are being let free from jail while Al-Qaedia is being bombed of the Earth.
This proves to be that while Bush and Blair may believe it is a war against all terrorism its not: just against the terrorism they can combat relatively easily

 

[stormerne]

I really am fed up of this selfish manipulative "jealous" deity (I'll call him Yahweh, but God and Allah will do just nicely too) playing one set of his believers off against another set. Where does it leave the rest of us, the polytheists, the agnostics, the aetheists, the humanists etc.? We all end up suffering because of his Machiavellianism.

Yes I'm well aware that one (or more) of my own deities has a reputation for stirring up strife. But on this scale, and involving people he couldn't care less about? I don't think so.

Why am I ranting like this? I don't know. It will have no effect whatsoever, not on Yahweh nor on the good folks reading this. It'll only offend some who don't see the bigger picture. But sometimes you've just got to say what you believe to be true. Bastard.

[Takes deep breath]

OK I'm better now.