Angry Letters to the One Member of Congress Who Voted Against the War on Terror
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Lee's story is how little credit she or her constituents receive for what they got right. Even though a majority now considers the war most understood the AUMF to authorize to be a mistake; even though it has been used to justify military interventions that no one conceived of on September 14, 2001; even though there's no proof that any war-making of the last 13 years has have made us safer; even though many more Americans have died in wars of choice than have been killed in terrorist attacks; even though Lee and many of her constituents were amenable to capturing or killing the 9/11 perpetrators, not pacifists intent on ruling out any use of force; despite all of that, Representative Lee is still thought of as a fringe peacenik representing naive East Bay hippies who could never be trusted to guide U.S. foreign policy. And the people who utterly failed to anticipate the trajectory of the War on Terrorism? Even those who later voted for a war in Iraq that turned out to be among the most catastrophic in U.S. history are considered sober, trustworthy experts. [more inside]
posted by the man of twists and turns
on Sep 23, 2014 -
The young men and women enlisting in the armed forces now were in pre-school on 9/11. "As a nation we have internalized our longest military conflict; it has suffused the social, political, and cultural body. The war is not something the nation is doing; it's simply something that is." Vox
on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, from Jessica Lynch to Bowe Bergdahl. [more inside]
posted by roomthreeseventeen
on Jun 8, 2014 -
is an open letter written by Noman Benotman, a former commander in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and a former associate of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In al Qaeda strategy meetings in Kandahar in 2000, Benotman warned the al-Qaeda leadership of ‘total failure' to realise their aims and called on bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to abandon violence. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, he distanced himself from al-Qaeda and later resigned from his own jihadist organisation. He has more recently been instrumental in negotiations with Libya's government to free former LIFG leaders, and in persuading these leaders to formally renounce terrorism. He also recently joined the London-based Quilliam Foundation as a Senior Analyst.
posted by bardophile
on Sep 13, 2010 -
That afternoon, American signals operators picked up bin Laden speaking to his followers. Fury kept a careful log of these communications in his notebook, which he would type up at the end of every day and pass up his chain of command. “The time is now,” bin Laden said. “Arm your women and children against the infidel!” Following several hours of high-intensity bombing, the Al Qaeda leader spoke again. Fury paraphrases: “Our prayers have not been answered. Times are dire. We didn’t receive support from the apostate nations who call themselves our Muslim brothers.” Bin Laden apologized to his men for having involved them in the fight and gave them permission to surrender.
posted by jason's_planet
on Jan 29, 2010 -
Mike Hawash pleads guilty
to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban and will testify against his friends that attempted to travel to Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. After the previous MeFi threads about Mike here
, this ought to be quite a suprise for some. No update yet on the Free Mike Hawash
posted by schlyer
on Aug 6, 2003 -
Bin Laden Unmasked?
Robert Fisk [ducks]
reviews a '215 page treasure trove' written by an Al Jazeera journalist and published in Beirut. It contains a 'wealth of information' about the elusive billionaire and his followers. He communicates over the Internet - no surprise there - but the book gives some clues as to the site used: al-Nidaa
, 'The Calling'. Can you find it? The words of Mullah Omar are apparently distributed on site called the 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan', wild goose chase?
posted by grahamwell
on Oct 23, 2002 -
An excellent piece of media analysis
by Michael Wolff in New York Magazine looking at the current summer-movie-plot version of Al Qaeda being artfully constructed by the NY Times ...
Then, perhaps most disconcertingly, the overall narrative itself is patently a dumbed-down rehash. It's Cold War stuff. There is the ubiquitous and yet unknown and unknowable enemy. There's the international jihad, which, with only minor adjustments, replaces the international communist conspiracy. There's the sudden purported hegemony of the Muslim world -- a new Soviet-bloc-style ideological monolith. There is the otherworldly dedication of operatives bent on overthrowing the West. There are the cells. There is the myth of superhuman discipline. There is now, even, the developing Kremlinology of the next tier of men who replace Osama. And at the center of the story, of course, is the bomb. Whether in massive retaliatory form or as a dirty-bomb package, it serves the same effect.
(link cribbed from Altercation
posted by mantid
on Jul 1, 2002 -
"Peaceful Tomorrows" launches tomorrow (Feb 14th).
"Peaceful Tomorrows continues the work of family members who took part in the Walk for Healing and Peace from the Pentagon to the World Trade Center (winter 2001) as well as those who met with Afghan families affected by the subsequent bombing campaign (January 2002).
Our goal is to facilitate dialogues on alternatives to war that utilize all of America's collective wisdom, skills and talents. "
Good luck Peaceful Tomorrows!
posted by crasspastor
on Feb 13, 2002 -
From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President
: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."
Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff
on Oct 25, 2001 -
Chomsky on MSNBC
talks about recent events! That would be news all by itself. I know that a lot of people on the right disagree with him, but who can argue with what he says here? Also from left field an incisive Q&A about Afghanistan history
and the current situation by Tariq Ali.
posted by talos
on Oct 8, 2001 -
On the O'Reilly Factor, Phil Donahue leads a compelling
argument for why bombing Afghanistan may NOT be the best course of action. It's obvious how the conservative O'Reilly feels about this and although the transcript hardly does the interview justice, Bill O'Reilly finally gets out-interrupted and is verbally handled by his own guest. (more)
posted by edwardko
on Sep 26, 2001 -
'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..
' declares this
(otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney
Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished
', a further 800 are missing
following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario
' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons
to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino
on Sep 20, 2001 -
Well, here we go.
Macau authorities have arrested five Pakistanis of (officially) overstaying their visas. They also may be (again, speaking officially here) robbery suspects. But about halfway down the page, we find this little three-liner:
''According to preliminary investigations, the documents seized [in the arrest] appear to contain instructions to attack American targets in the SAR and Macau in the case of an American attack on Afghanistan,'' the [government] source said.
posted by Bixby23
on Sep 17, 2001 -
Pakistan faces strategic decision
Pakistan has assumed a lot of importance once again, ironicaly, when the US of A needs its help. The geographic nature of the country along with love hate relationship with Bin Laden, and Taleban, also past very close ties
between Pakistan Intelligence ISI
and CIA has suddenly brought Pakistan to the verge of another very important decision.
How much should Pakistan help USA ? Is the US of A trustable after what happened when they left it alienated when their mission of breaking up of the Soviet Union was achieved ? What is to make sure that USA will not use it and dispose of, just like it has done before ? Should Pakistan allow its air and land resources to be used for a possible attack on Afghanistan ?
These are decisons - for a keen observer of Pak-US ties - that can change how historians will write about a Fundamentalist America's reply to an attack on its fundamentals.
posted by adnanbwp
on Sep 12, 2001 -