Hi Karamba!
                        Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I acknowledge and respect your right to disagree with what I wrote. I'll try to respond to the issues you raised in your post. You wrote:

"Let' s begin with your take on the events of September 11. You took issue with Bush declaring war before proffering what you term credible evidence establishing culpability and not taking up the Taliban's offer to hand over Osama and his Al Qeada network to a third country for trial. Even if you quibble with the extent and quality of the evidence the U. S was willing to put in the public domain, don't you think the Taliban had a responsibility to hand over Bin Laden to any willing third country unconditionally since he was being accused of masterminding the murder of thousands of people whose government has a responsibility to protect them? Infact the Taliban was given time to do just that. "

Do you know how many people are accused of crimes in and outside their countries yet are given safe haven in the US and the West? Do you know how many people have engaged in acts that are defined as terrorism, sabotage, murder etc. and which have resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians in their native countries yet are given safe haven in the US just because the US wants to topple those countries' governments? Doesn't the US have the moral responsibility to hand these people over or does moral responsibility apply only to third world countries? 
    The US demanded that bin Laden be handed over period. It stated that this demand was not negotiable and was not open to discussion. The Taliban asked for proof that bin Laden was actually responsible and if the US had proof that he was responsible they would hand him over. The US could not provide evidence to that effect and just hung on to its ultimatum. 
    Should the Taliban hand over bin Laden just because he was accused of masterminding the terrorist acts? Aren't many Cuban exiles living in the US wanted for masterminding activities inimical to the interests and stability of Cuba and which are considered treason according to Cuban law? How many of them have, with and without the collusion of the CIA, tried on many occasions to murder Fidel Castro? Haven't some of them been tried and convicted in absentia? Did the US hand them over to Cuba? No. Why? Because of the concern that they would not receive a fair trial in Cuba. Do you think bin Laden would receive a fair trial in the US? It was because of the same concern that those accused of the Lockerbie bombing would not have a fair trial that prompted the setting up of the special Scottish court in the Netherlands. Couldn't the same approach have been tried? Why should third world countries be viewed as having a responsibility to behave in certain ways in international affairs yet the West is not equally held accountable under the same circumstances?
    Does the US have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan? What would happen if Yaya Jammeh were to demand that some of the Gambians living in the US be handed over because they are suspected of involvement in activities that have resulted in deaths of civilians and are classed as terrorism and treasonable offences under the laws of The Gambia? Would the US hand over Iraqi and Libyan dissidents just because Iraq and Libya demand that they be handed over? To top this, when they are asked to provide proof of guilt and they fall short of evidence that can be accepted in a court of law. Would the US comply? I venture to say NO. Why then should third world countries just comply because the US demands it?

You also wrote:

"The Taliban were an evil regime that respected only their agenda and in the process inflicted monumental hardship on it's own people. "

I totally agree with you. That is why I gave examples of their violations of human rights in my previous piece. The Taliban engaged in so many violations of the rights of Afghan citizens and inflicted so much terror on ordinary Afghans that life became a daily nightmare for so many. I am not a supporter of the Taliban because I cannot support the systematic and institutionalised terrorising of millions. I cannot support a government that knowingly and systematically engages in the violation of the civil liberties of its citizenry. That said, I cannot also support the actions of a government or state that acts as the policeman of the world selfishly creating and implementing economic, security and other policies that result in misery for millions across the globe . The US is to a large extent responsible for creating the devil that the Taliban metamorphosed into. When it was in the interests of the US to fight the Soviets, it pumped over 6 billion Dollars worth of cash and material to strengthen the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets. Some members of the mujaheddin were received as guests of honour by Reagan in the Oval Office. When the Soviets were defeated and the economy and infrastructure of Afghanistan lay in ruins, the country was no longer interesting to the US and the rest of the world. Everybody just turned their backs when interneccine battles between different warlords broke out resulting in misery for millions of Afghans. When the Taliban gained the upper hand and started instituting draconian and fundamentalist measures that resulted in misery for so many Afghans, the world could not be bothered. Didn't the US have a moral responsibility as the power that helped catapult the Taliban to power to ensure that the murder and violation of the rights of millions was stopped? Was anyone interested in reminding the US of this responsibility?

You also wrote:

"In a similar vein it is true that thousands of people get killed the world over in all kinds of circumstances some of which the U. S could be more helpful in preventing. But it is quite a stretch to equate their lack of intervention in the numerous places in the world with hypocrisy simply because they have acted swiftly after they were attacked in their own country."

I am not only talking about situations the US could be more helpful in preventing. I am talking about situations which are either created or maintained militarily, financially, materially or morally by the US or its puppets or allies. As the world's only super power, the US defines and maintains more than any other nation on earth the current world order in both political and economic terms. The US has under the Cold War supported and maintained tyrannical and brutal regimes that have murdered and plundered their nations all in the name of democracy. The examples are plenty. In the Middle East, the US currently supports and maintains despotic governments that keep plundering the oil wealth of their nations whilst their citizens live in poverty. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of a country that pumps millions of barrels of oil a day yet runs a deficit in the billions of Dollars. Whilst the royal family lives in extreme opulence, the ordinary citizens live in abject poverty. To top this, the regime is very repressive. The US sponsored and maitained Saddam Hussein to the tune of millions of Dollars during the Iran-Iraq war and switched allegiance when it suited it. The US waged a war against Panama, flew into the country and kidnapped its president whom it had supported and maintained when he was doing the US' bidding and dirty work. Another example of the arrogance, selfishness and contradictions apparent in US foreign policy is with regard to Israel. Israel can do whatever it wants and violate international law or refuse to implement any of the resolutions of the UN and the US supports it and even vetoes toothless declarations assigning wrong to Israel. Yet it holds countries like Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq etc. to the letter when it concerns UN resolutions and garners military coalitions against them. See the contradictions and hypocrisy? Even whilst doing this, the US refuses to pay its dues to the UN, hinders its work and is stalling in the creation of an international war crimes court because it fears that Americans can be tried for war crimes in their various international escapades in this court.
    
You also wrote:

"You also dueled on the predicament of the poor Iraqis who continue to die in their thousands from sanction induced problems...  I would however put most of the blame squarely on President Saddam Husseine who has been more of a terrorist to his people than a responsible leader. ..."

The US helped Saddam Hussein with arms and cash to the tune of millions even though it was aware of the fact that Saddam was a dictator who was brutalising, violating and pillaging his country. It needed Saddam then to act as a buffer against Islamic fundamentalism coming out of Iran. When it no longer had any use for Iraq, the US then made the human rights abuses it had ignored when Saddam was useful to it an issue. See the contradictions? The unjustifiable sanctions the US is holding in place against Iraq which result in the deaths of millions of Iraqis is all done among other things for the sake of economics and hegemony. The US knows fully well that American companies would not stand the slightest chance of gaining contracts and drilling, construction and other rights if the sanctions are lifted with Saddam still in power. That is one of the reasons why it is keeping in place the sanctions that spell doom for millions of Iraqis until Saddam is removed and a more favourable government put in place. So you see, the US cannot escape blame even here.

You further wrote:

"But this time around, America is right in going after Al qeada and the Taliban who cavort and shelter them. It is a legitimate right of every state to defend it itself when attacked. "

What this attack on Afghanistan has done is set a dangerous precedent in world politics. A precedent where those who wield power can attack or invade less powerful countries all in the name of self-defence. There were many other ways that could have been pursued that would have yielded results. What happens when poor countries are violated? Now that it has been established that the US wrongfully bombed Sudan, what can Sudan do? Can it attack the US? You see the imbalance in this policy? What happens if Senegal says that Yaya Jammeh is supporting the Casamance rebels and uses the Afghanistan precedent as a pretext to invade Gambia? See?

You finally wrote:

" I think your attempt to latch on a series of grievances against the U. S has the unfortunate effect of seeming to rationalize an act you ordinarily would abhore.While the grievances you outline may in their own rites have merit, using them as whip is something I find disagreeable."

I would never rationalise or condone the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians. I am neither a supporter of bin Laden nor of the Taliban. Just as I would condemn the murder of innocent Americans perpeterated by whoever, so would I condemn the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians in other countries perpetetrated by the US either through direct military action or through unjust sanctions and other actions. As I wrote earlier, I acknowledge and respect your right not to agree with what I wrote. Thanks and have a good evening.
                                                                                                                                Buharry.

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>