The Logic Off Topic list

> Ok, I want to show you how 'stupid' my comment was.
> First of all you tell a country, Afghanistan, to hand over a person, bin
Laden, > unconditionally. Then, you threaten them to attack them, if they
don't hand over that person. You, the government of the USA, go around some
countries, first stating that if you are not the ally you'll be the enemy of
the USA. You show some leaders of the western world something, noone knows
but those people in higher places, telling the world you can't show all
because of security reasons. I can buy this.

Yoonchi, if you buy this... (see below)

> Then you start a build up of the person bin Laden, as being the evil of
all evil in the public eye. All of a suden the goal shifts from trying to
combat terrorism to trying to overthrow the Taliban. What happened here?

...then why don't you know what happened?  First, your statement that the
goal shifts from terrorism to the Taliban makes it sound like this is a
leap.  You JUST GOT DONE SAYING that you "buy this", and you bought in part
that those who are not on our side are against us.  This would seemingly
include the Taliban, who has refused to assist.  And moreover they aren't a
bystanding country.  They house bin Laden WILLINGLY.  So guess what happens
by simple logic?

> Have you seen the evidence? Since when do you believe what these leaders
tell you? The only glimpse I've seen of the declaration was of an article on
the french Le Monde site, stating that bin Laden is a terrorist in the
bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the article can be found at
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--229567-,00.html. It's in french.
And it's not proof, just a declaration.

Bin Laden has said that the WTC strike was the work of God and HE DECLARED
WAR ON THE US a LONG time ago.  EVERYONE knows and he as much as admits via
teasing he runs a terrorist network.  You just got done above saying that
you "buy" that we are fighting terrorism.  Again, what more proof would be
needed?  Who cares if he even is directly responsible?

> So all these nations, out of fear, decide to go the way America wants it.

Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha, yes the world does what we want so
often out of fear!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha.

>Remember the discussion you had with Hendrik Jan? How we don't want to go
down like lemmings? That is exactly what is happening. And the focus has
gone from combatting terrorism to attacking the Taliban regime. Not that I'm
in favor of that ruthless Taliban regime, but the focus has shifted. What's
next?

Again, I just reiterate this is not in the slightest a shift.  At least not
to those of us who had a clue what going after bin Laden meant.

>Attacking Syria, because they shelter terrorists? Hey, that Syria regime is
no fav of the US either so why not use a pretext to attack it too.

We might have to.  Not just as a "pretext" but because in fact they do house
terrorists.  They have some chances - they just have to not house them or at
least invite us to help stop them.

> What next then, Saudi Arabia? I bet you'll have a big war on your hands
there if you attack them.
> So, I don't see why Bush couldn't get some diplomacy going there to get
that terrorist network annihalated. Or maybe it's purposely done to shift
the focus.

The diplomacy is at work, are you really naive enough to think that if
everyone just agrees that terrorism will go away just via that?  Look at the
UK and Ireland - there is STILL terrorism going on.  In that area it's down
to brute force now against those terrorists left standing.  At least there
the terrorists have finally gotten marginalized to a point where they really
are a pathetic leftover organization and much more powerless.

>So the real financers of terrorism are not revealed.

Perhaps - no question we should continue to pursue.  However, it seems even
our allies like Germany, who are hardly our slaves, are finding evidence
linking the recent attacks to bin Laden.

> Result of the attacks: millions of refugees, a country devasted more than
it already was, animocity towards Islamic countries with ground to breed
extremists. And maybe the nationalist feelings of a nation satisfied,
because 'we had to do something against these attrocities commited on
September 11'

No question we have to be careful.  No question that we have to follow up on
our promises of aid.

> How 'stupid' was that?

Only if we fall down in the future.  It's not yet "stupid".  I share a fear
that we may indeed turn stupid.

> Yoonchi.