28-01-2003 19:20									#1
	Thank you Norway Increase Your PM Length

Norwegian F-16s bomb terrorists in Afghanistan

	28-01-2003 19:24									#2
	Tired of ads?

Terrorists?

	28-01-2003 19:31									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Its just because Norway needs the oil.

or something like that

	28-01-2003 19:32									#4
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Terrorists?

Yup - "80 rebels allied with renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

Hekmatyar, the buthcer of Kabul, is now openly allied with Taliban and Al - Qaeeda. Thats enough to make him a terr in my book. In addition, IIUC, his forces have beeen tied not just to attacks on coalition forces, but to attacks on civilian and NGO targets in Kabul and elsewhere in Afghan.

	28-01-2003 19:33									#5
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Its just because Norway needs the oil.

	28-01-2003 20:24									#6
	Remove this text

From the article.
"Despite its occupation by Nazi Germany from 1940-1945, many Norwegian aircraft flew from Allied bases outside of the Nordic country. "

Spin.Spin.Spin.
Wouldn't a reference to the many more Norwegians who fought for Germany in the SS be more appropriate?

	28-01-2003 20:44									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well the ground troops needed some assistance so the F16s helped them out. But I don't know why Norway's there in the first place. It's rather controversial.

	28-01-2003 20:46									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Three cheers for Norway.

	28-01-2003 20:47									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf It's rather controversial.

How so?

	28-01-2003 20:50									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: From the article. "Despite its occupation by Nazi Germany from 1940-1945, many Norwegian aircraft flew from Allied bases outside of the Nordic country. " Spin.Spin.Spin. Wouldn't a reference to the many more Norwegians who fought for Germany in the SS be more appropriate?

If you're saying that the number of Norwegians who joined the SS (quislings) is higher than the number of Norwegian fighter pilots on the Allied side, you're probably right. If you're saying that most Norwegians were nazis then you're terribly wrong (and ignorant)

Or were you just trying to say that bombing Taliban or whatever is as evil as the SS?

	28-01-2003 20:56									#11
	Support Apolyton

Dino, just the anti-war people whining. But there are many of them

	28-01-2003 21:04									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Dino, just the anti-war people whining. But there are many of them

Yeah...most of the world.

	28-01-2003 21:09									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Yeah...most of the world.

I wasn't aware most of the world was whining about the actions in Afghanistan.

	28-01-2003 22:03									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf If you're saying that the number of Norwegians who joined the SS (quislings) is higher than the number of Norwegian fighter pilots on the Allied side, you're probably right. If you're saying that most Norwegians were nazis then you're terribly wrong (and ignorant) Or were you just trying to say that bombing Taliban or whatever is as evil as the SS?

I would never say, nor have I ever said that the majority of the Norwegian people were Nazis.
Considering that your Prime Minister Bondevik (I think that is his name) said that Norway should join the EU and that The EU should act as counterbalance to US ambitions, it strike me as odd that Norway would in fact help 'maintain' martial law in a country where it is clearly impossible to maintain any order other than that installed by the Taliban Government of yore. Whose only guilt was that they demanded the US follow international law and provide them with evidence of bin Ladens de jure guilt. I concede that he was probably de facto guilty.
Whether bombing 'whatever' is 'evil' I don't know but I do know that extra-judicial killings was a practice carried out by members of the SS.
I hope the Norwegian government sets down a commision to provide the questions to the following.
1. What is the political objective of the war?
2. How long are troops going to be stationed in Afghanistan?

	28-01-2003 22:06									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If you are going to bomb someone or do some very violent things in the name of national security, then now is the time to do it!!!

Way to go Norway!

Everyone can get a way with a lot right now, as long as the US keeps raising a stink no one really notice.

Right France?

	28-01-2003 22:24									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You're welcome lord of the mark.

Last edited by Lars-E on 30-01-2003 at 17:51

	28-01-2003 22:32									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc I. Whose only guilt was that they demanded the US follow international law and provide them with evidence of bin Ladens de jure guilt.

Rather uninformed are you? That was just the last one on a long list. Masivve human rights violations. Warcrimes. Ethnic cleasing including massacres against most non Pashtun ethnic groups and non Mulism religions, many years of support and alliance with international terroists. Cultural cleansing against non musim art and artifacts. Its a WORLD SHAME they were not done in long before. Ask Harza, Tajiks, Kazacks, Persians, Hindus, Christians, etc what guilt the Taliban had acrued. If the Sept 11 attack had never occured, a war against them would have yet been great justice.

	29-01-2003 00:45									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Rather uninformed are you? That was just the last one on a long list. Masivve human rights violations. Warcrimes. Ethnic cleasing including massacres against most non Pashtun ethnic groups and non Mulism religions, many years of support and alliance with international terroists. Cultural cleansing against non musim art and artifacts. Its a WORLD SHAME they were not done in long before. Ask Harza, Tajiks, Kazacks, Persians, Hindus, Christians, etc what guilt the Taliban had acrued. If the Sept 11 attack had never occured, a war against them would have yet been great justice.

My understanding of law is that if a person is accused and condemned of a particular crime the question of guilt is then to be based on that crime alone and not on possible other crimes that person might have committed in the past, although that might have some influence on the measuring out of the inflicted punishment, once the the actual crime the defendant is accused of has been established.

	29-01-2003 00:49									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc My understanding of law is that if a person is accused and condemned of a particular crime the question of guilt is then to be based on that crime alone and not on possible other crimes that person might have committed in the past, although that might have some influence on the measuring out of the inflicted punishment, once the the actual crime the defendant is accused of has been established.

International relations is not a court of law. It was clear to the US and to virtually all the rest of the world that the Talibans long standing support for al qaeeda implicated them in 9/11 to the extent that they could be considered an aggressor and a supporter of terror. Most expected the US to strike much sooner than we did.

	29-01-2003 00:50									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

And what that that have to do with international policy and war, which is not based in criminal justice procedure, but in international law. In case you have not noticed, wars and trials are two different very things.

	29-01-2003 01:08									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola And what that that have to do with international policy and war, which is not based in criminal justice procedure, but in international law. In case you have not noticed, wars and trials are two different very things.

Wars and trials are completely different. In fact war is the absence of law - except the Genava convention *cough*.

My point which hitherto have not been refuted here, was that the regime in Washington had no casus belli against the Taliban within the legal system of international law. The case for war was based on the issues of 'smoking them out of their caves' and 'get them on the run'.

This policy was a faulty one and it has not worked.

9-11 should have been solved as criminal case and not as an excuse for regime change in a distant country.

I'm not against the 'war on terror', what I am against is using this 'war' as an easy excuse of ridding oneself of unreliable former allies. It smells too much of corporate tactics for my taste.

	29-01-2003 01:14									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Another "theory" I see.

Anyway, it's nice to see some of the Nato forces get their feet wet.

	29-01-2003 01:16									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

an act of aggression and terrorism was commited against the United States by a group based on Afgan soil. Teh Taliban govt did not cooperate in investigating or apprehending them. The evidence (which was later confirmed by admission) was overwhelming. Given the threat of another attack, of similar or greater scope, the US idd not have to offer proof beyond a reasonabl doubt to justify extradition.

Oh and th Taliban was NEVER a US ally, though the Pakistani ISI which supported the Taliban had been allied to the US in supporting other Muslim fundies in the 80's

	29-01-2003 01:30									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark International relations is not a court of law. It was clear to the US and to virtually all the rest of the world that the Talibans long standing support for al qaeeda implicated them in 9/11 to the extent that they could be considered an aggressor and a supporter of terror. Most expected the US to strike much sooner than we did.

In fact it was Al-Qaida which provided bodyguards to the Taliban head honchos. So in what sense did the Taliban support Al-Qaida? They provided them with a country to establish training bases. Where the Taliban given compelling evidence that it was in fact bin laden who was behind 9-11?

Bin Laden admitted his guilt, after it was thrust upon him. Did he do so because he thaught it a matter of political expediency or otherwise?

What about the Pakistani intelligence service connection. Could they not have apprehended him had there really been an effort made by them. Why were the forces of Interpol and various intelligence services not employed in setting up a long term strategy of containing and trapping of bin Laden and various henchmen not implemented. Why the sudden rush to send in the marines? They to my knowledge don't have much experience in capturing criminals - killing is their game.

We elect politicians and train civil servants to keep a level head in times of crisis - and we are sure that they keep their eye on the ball.

Now we find that none of the initial objectives on the 'war on terror' have been reached. The focus has instead shifted to Baghdad. And when will there be compelling evidence, besides that both Saddam and bin Laden think the Americans to be conspirational, that there is in fact a connection between these former allies of the regime in Washington?

And what is the correct spelling of 'Al- you know what'

	29-01-2003 01:38									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark an act of aggression and terrorism was commited against the United States by a group based on Afgan soil. Teh Taliban govt did not cooperate in investigating or apprehending them. The evidence (which was later confirmed by admission) was overwhelming. Given the threat of another attack, of similar or greater scope, the US idd not have to offer proof beyond a reasonabl doubt to justify extradition. Oh and th Taliban was NEVER a US ally, though the Pakistani ISI which supported the Taliban had been allied to the US in supporting other Muslim fundies in the 80's

The infamous 19 suicide bombers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They planned it in Germany. Trained in America. The foreegin nations coorporated. In fact in Europe there are daily arrests of possible terrorists. Name me one positive outcome of invading Afghanistan and I will be a truly enlightened person.

	29-01-2003 02:00									#26
	Support Apolyton

Uh, let's see...

Women being educated?

Potential for more democratic government?

The erosion of a state religion?

	29-01-2003 02:05									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Brizey Uh, let's see... Women being educated? Potential for more democratic government? The erosion of a state religion?

As the Canadian prime minister said: "It's going to be a long, long difficult war."

	29-01-2003 02:15									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc The infamous 19 suicide bombers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They planned it in Germany. Trained in America. The foreegin nations coorporated. In fact in Europe there are daily arrests of possible terrorists. Name me one positive outcome of invading Afghanistan and I will be a truly enlightened person.

Flight training was in america - basic training, tradecraft, etc was all in afganistan. Strategic planning was in afganistan. Financing flowed through Afghanistan. Al qaeeda was based in afghanistan.

	29-01-2003 03:48									#29
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Flight training was in america - basic training, tradecraft, etc was all in afganistan. Strategic planning was in afganistan. Financing flowed through Afghanistan. Al qaeeda was based in afghanistan.

Have you never seen Star Wars. The rebels move their bases once the Empire get's close. It's the leaders Vader wants to capture.

Capturing the planet Hoth did not a benevolent Vader make.

My bet is that the President harbours extremely bad feelings towards some of his advisors right now.

On the other hand you have to say that Americans have guts. Hitler made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that the Americans did not have a 'stomach for a good fight'. Yet, this prediction has been systematically falsified. On the other hand the peace movement in the United States is very strong. A continuation of war for an unpredictable time is therefore a possibilty which might weaken either side on the debate, either because of televison coverage or because there is no consequence.

However war, or no war, and in my opinion before the War, the fundamental issue of rebuilding trust between the Arabs and the Americans has to be looked into. If there was an attempt to build trust between with the Arabs, Palestinians and Egyptians (all traditional allies, and yes the Palestinans are allies of the US, and Bush have granted them statehood) before a possible attack on Iraq, I would entertain some hope concerning a peaceful outcome. In fact I think much of this Anti-American/Anti-European hoopla debate of late is in fact a cover for not being willing to admit that there currently is no constructive debate with the Muslim nations.

On that thought I wonder if anyone know when the US began ambassadorial negotiations (by proxy), direct state (meaning secretary of state or president) negotiations with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War?

This once again leads to
1. Ancient history
2. 1948 and the creation of Israel
3. The rise of Arab nationalism with Nasser the leading figure.
4. The rise in oil prices and the discovery of Arab power in 1973 .
5. The Gulf war and the discovery of American power.
6. 9-11 'a nihilistic triumph' that 'changed the world forever'. I think once the grief is over most historians will regard this as a socalled 'wildcard' in the progress of history. However the US is perhaps understandably put on a what resembles a war footing. Democracy+War=Fascism
7. The present where the truth is still hard to grasp and is being debated. But where until now no evidence has been shown which links Saddam to Al-Qauda. If an intelligence chief is capable of grasping the connection surely he must in confidence of his informers tell the people. Why else would the democratically minded informers tell the Administration if they knew the state would not pass on information to its citizens. simple, because in the end it is presumbaly not the citizenry that decides whether to go to war the state can withhold such evidence. Whether it is a good thing that it is the citizens that decide whether to go to war can of course be debated. Presumbaly the argument could be put forth that the socalled mob will rise and demand compenstation for lost income and demand recompensation in an altogether unwholesome way.
Speaking on behalf of my own country I would like to see that since the giving away of sovereignty requires a public mandate the taking of another country's sovereignty also requires a public mandate. And by mandate I mean a cast of a vote. Then the discussion in the media would be frank and on the level.

	29-01-2003 03:54									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Whose only guilt was that they demanded the US follow international law and provide them with evidence of bin Ladens de jure guilt.

Why does this idiocy keep poping up? I saw this same statement before the US push into Afghanistan.