> I would argue that most of those actions can be done in a manner which
> does not kill innocent people. Like, shoot the people in the death
> squads instead of carpet bombing the surrounding villages as the US is
> doing in afghanistan.
>
First of all, the US is not carpet bombing Afghanistan -- certainly not in the manner of Vietnam. If it were the casualty rates would go through the roof, much to the delight of the Softies who could then really exploit the dead for their pacifist agenda.
Secondly, you're living in a dream world if you think that overthrowing Pol Pot or fighting Spanish fascists in villages didn't or wouldn't result in civilian dead. War kills -- Just Wars as well. Unless you are a pacifist (perhaps you are), there's really no way to avoid this sad fact.
> > What was/is al-Qaeda "retaliating" against?
>
> They claim to be retaliating against America's assault on what Bin Laden
> calls the Muslim Nation - US backing of Israeli Imperialism, the war on
> Iraq, backing of corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
> Notice how similar Osama's rhetoric about "self defense" and
> "retaliation" is to your own (and even more so Bush's).
I'm simply reacting to a filthy gang of fascist murderers who openly want to kill me and mine -- and you too, friend, despite your best efforts to stay above the strife.
> Al-Qaeda has about as much concern for the poor & dispossed as the
> Empire does - none. This war is gang warfare between rival exploiters -
> they're both despicable. Each side uses the other side's atrocities to
> justify it's own atrocities. Instead of supporting one side's
> atrocities it seems more sensible to me to condemn both sides.
> Unfortunetly the people who die in this war aren't the capitalist scum
> who start it but ordinary people.
The capitalists started this war? If most of the Middle East was an anarcho-socialist utopia, al-Qaeda would still attack, for its bottom line, as you acknowledge, is not helping the poor and dispossessed but imprisoning them under Sharia Law.
> You can't be opposed to it's endless wars while simultanious supporting
> those wars on a case by case basis. You don't need to back Bush's war
> to recognize that Al-Qaeda is a threat (though probably not as great a
> threat as Bush & co).
Yes, that is a contradiction, and I openly admit it. This is first use of American arms that I've backed in my lifetime. I do so not out of martial glee but because I believe it is necessary. In fact, I was against the war when it first started, but have since, obviously, changed my mind. So much so, in fact, that I'm contemptuous of Bush and Co. for diverting attention away from this struggle in favor of his mad scheme for Iraq. To be expected of that circle. Bush's speech at the UN contained nothing about al-Qaeda, and it appears that the Boy Prince could care less about those fascist dirtbags, apart from using 9/11 as a photo op.
To much of the world al-Qaeda is a very real threat. Last week in the Financial Times, German intelligence officials spoke of the sleeper cells in their country and their efforts to eradicate them. They also said that thanks to the now-global effort to contain these bastards, al-Qaeda and its off-shoots have been limited in their ability to strike. This doesn't mean that they can't or won't strike, but that they've been somewhat curtailed.
Which brings me to --
> There's no evidence that invading Afghanistan has done anything to stop
> Al-Qaeda. As even the CIA says, tt may have made things worse by
> dispersing their forces.
Really? You mean it would have been better to allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to continue running Afghanistan? To have allowed those pro-al-Qaeda elements in the Pakistani military to seize control of a nuclear state? If the CIA truly thinks that dispersing al-Qaeda is worse than the above, then we're in real trouble.
> > And millions were kept from starving.
>
> Millions who were only endangered in the first place because of the war.
No -- from a three-year drought and Taliban negligence. The "silent genocide" that Chomsky held over his awe-struck legion of fans most likely would have occurred had the Taliban been left in power. But then, there would have been no protests condemning that, right?
> Al-Qaeda's demands - removal of US troops from the Persian
> Gulf, an end to US backing of Israel & middle eastern dictatorships -
> are not unreasonable. I see no reason why peace negotiations couldn't
> be conducted.
Man, this is truly sad. Hey, the Nazis only wanted they Sudetenland back -- they were screwed by the Versailles Treaty after all . . .
Negotiating the end of the above is admirable and necessary, and should be done with those interested in negotiation. Al-Qaeda isn't. It's all or nothing with them. They must be wiped out.
DP