The Next Big Terrorist Attack: What Will It Mean for the Anti-War Movement?

[Azael]

Considering how 9/11 brought the nation together in a surge of patriotism can we expect the same thing to happen next time?

The War on Iraq has polarized our society in a way that was unknown before September 11th. The anti-war movement often points to this war, through its promotion of widespread anti-Americanism, as a major source of new terrorism. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable connection to draw though its relevance is hard to prove directly; obviously the terrorist threat was bad enough before all of this. W sold this war to the US and it's allies using the same rhetoric that brought about his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, no quarter for nations that pursue WMDs and support and harbor terrorists. Supporters of the Iraq war (whether right or wrong) often see it as a proactive move against sources of terror.

I'm not really interested in the relative strengths of either argument, they are contentious enough and in any event I think the anti-war people have the highground (if only on the spreading radical anti-Americanism and therefore terror point). What I wonder about here is how such views will play in the sort of situation we saw in the weeks preceding 9/11. Will both sides be so busy pointing the finger at each other for encouraging terror that neither can be reconciled? Obviously emotions will run high, will the backlash against those who are percieved to be anti-American reflect that? Or will the backlash be against Bush and his blundering diplomacy be enough to shake his support? Personally I find the second possibility rather unlikely, attacks on native soil tend to rally the populace around their leaders regardless of whether the support is deserved. And yet if we don't see more paralysing polarization will the threat of more ill-advised moves by the Bush administration become a reality?

[astorian]

If another major terrorist attack takes place, many in the peace movement will probably feel VINDICATED. They're liable to say, "The attack on Iraq only increased the anger of the Arab world, and made an attack like this more likely."

I'm not saying I buy that reasoning (I definitely don't), but that's what peaceniks are likely to argue.

[asterion]

I agree with astorian. A good number on both sides will try to spin it as "See? See?" The anti-war will spin it like astorian said, while the pro-war will spin it like "Sure it was bad, but what if they has used WMD supplied by a government like Saddam's?" This, of course, assumes a non-NBC attack.

[scotandrsn]

None of us knew how we would feel about September 11th before it happened. It was an event that was absolutely unthinkable (by anyone other than those who committed the act) until it happened. The next terrorist attack that is successful will catch us equally off guard. A lot will depend on who it comes from.

Bush and those who support his current apalling actions have forgotten in the short space of a year and a half that September 11th was not brought about by the leaders of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction. It was carried out by 20 angry men with a plan.

A least 2 million people in dozens of countries around the globe have been made angry enough by the actions of the president to leave their homes and march in the streets. This is 100,000 times as many as it took to kill over 2000 Americans in one day on their own soil. How many of these people might be angry enough to attack the US now is impossible to say. What nation they may come from is equally hard to say (at least before all the war talk the list of possible nations was down to a realtively manageable few). How we see ourselves and each other in the wake of that is anyone's guess.

[El_Kabong]

Yes, if another major terrorist attack occurs, we'll probably see another wave of 'patriotism' (if pasting US flag decals on cars is a meaningful definition of patriotism). It's not clear to me how the anti-war movement might be blamed for the terrorist act, however; so far, anti-war protests have done nothing at all to inhibit the administration's pursuit of its perceived enemies.

Of course, wouldn't this also mean that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq, that it would make us safer from terrorism, was false?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This is an interesting quesiton. On the one hand, part of why I oppose this war is that I do believe it'll make recruiting far easier for ObL and his horrific buddies. On the other hand, there's no way that, if I'm right, it's going to help the anti-war movement: if I'm right and we're attacked by terrorists enraged by Bush's cynical cavalier bullying attitude to the rest of the world, it's almost certain to heighten, not curtail, our military activities. It's a dangerous positive feedback loop.

Daniel

[AZCowboy]

Azeal, the word I find key in your OP is "polarization" - the "you are either with us, or against us" sort of mentality. The war in Iraq has created a polarization among the US population that didn't exist immediately after 9-11.

And I agree with astorian, many on the anti-war side will claim the next terrorist attack as "proof" that we are less safe from terrorism than we were before the war on Iraq. And I agree with asterion (man, that's confusing!).

Since we've been on and off of Orange alert recently, and had plenty of terrorist warnings, I wonder what will happen if there aren't any terrorist attacks in the near future. I'm sure Bush will take credit (perhaps deservedly so, perhaps not). But what will the anti-war folks say?

[AZCowboy]

Azael, sorry for misspelling your username.

[Sofa King]

Like a Willem de Kooning painting, the abstraction of blood and fleshtones will serve as a mirror into the mind, and each individual will see what they wish to see.

[BobT]

Yeah, what Sofa King said, except I'm not nearly as eloquent.

[Terrifel]

My guess is that another large-scale terrorist attack during the Bush administration would mean that the anti-war movement would suddenly have another U.S. invasion to protest. My money would be on Iran, simply because they're probably an easier target. Word is that North Korea actually has nukes already, so they probably wouldn't be the first choice. I could be wrong; I've never seriously considered invading either country.

Of course, if the attack can actually be linked to a specific nation, the U.S. might invade that nation instead; it's hard to say. Otherwise, the invasion will probably be targeted at one of the two nations above, depending on the nature of the attack; if the terrorists are identified as Mideastern, then Iran definitely.

[Milum]

Yeah, what Sofa King said, except I'm not nearly as eloquent.

But then again BobT, eloquence is a poor subsitute for substance.
When rational men can only see what they want to see, then we as freemen are doomed. The ability to discern objective truth is fundamental to the spread of democracy. Sadly, many among us today temporize the differences between good and evil as a way of avoiding our responsibilities toward our legacy of liberty.

...mmm, forget what I said above. What I meant to say was that the anti-war protesters are sissies and are afraid of tyrants.

[Terrifel]

Crap! Cut my post short, why don't I? Preview, not post! Doofus.

Anyhoo, either way, there will probably be absolutely no change in either the pro- or anti-war camps, with each side becoming more and more entrenched. The anti-war movement would probably grow somewhat with each successive invasion, fueled by the increasing casualties and by growing awareness that America no longer has the sympathy or support of the rest of the world. I suspect that there would also be less of a reflexive "rallying" around Bush, as his political opponents would use new attacks on America against him--at some point, it's going to become implausible to blame everything on Clinton. Before long, a new administration will likely have been elected, and they may try to mend some fences at that point.

[rjung]

Originally posted by scotandrsn
Bush and those who support his current apalling actions have forgotten in the short space of a year and a half that September 11th was not brought about by the leaders of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction. It was carried out by 20 angry men with a plan.
I think they know; they're just hoping we don't.

Originally posted by Milum
What I meant to say was that the anti-war protesters are sissies and are afraid of tyrants.
:rolleyes:

[AZCowboy]

Milum wrote:
What I meant to say was that the anti-war protesters are sissies and are afraid of tyrants.
And I meant to say that the pro-war folks have trouble discerning suspicion (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172079) versus confirmed fact (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3177205#post3177205). When challenged (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3177816#post3177816) with the facts (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3180783#post3180783), they refuse to acknowledge them.

[Airblairxxx]

Originally posted by Milum

...mmm, forget what I said above. What I meant to say was that the anti-war protesters are sissies and are afraid of tyrants.

From here, (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tyrant) the definition of "tyrant":

1. An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty.


George Bush for President!

[Giraffe]

I think the reaction after a future terror attack will be very similar to the reaction after September 11th: blind rage, searching for a target. People who oppose this war out of concerns of future terrorist attacks will be ridiculed if they even mention the fact. After 9/11, anyone who dared to suggest that our past foreign policy had even the faintest correlation with the anti-Americanism that led to the attack faced nothing but outrage and hostility. People want to focus on punishing those directly responsible for hurting us, not discussing how to keep nutballs from hating us in the first place.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Since it is my opinion that the anti-war people are not basing their protestations on the facts anyway, a terrorist attack isnt going to sway them one tiny bit, unless they personally become the victims. Then theyll either turn into rabid hate mongering pro-war-kill-em-all advocates or quietly go to a corner and disappear. Which wont really matter because another diehard peacenik will take up the challenge and take his place.

[Beagle]

I don't get it. How many fatwas or jihads have to be declared against the United States before we realize that terrorism is in our forseeable future?

Were the attacks on the WTC (the first), the Cole, the Saudi barracks, the two embassies, etc., Clinton's fault? There has been terror against US targets for decades. Terrorism has been somewhat limited within the United States for a while. If it resumes, it means that someone slipped through more than anything else.

[errata]

Another terrorist attack won't change anyone's minds, but it will make them shout LOUDER.

The right will grip power that much more strongly and the left will become increasingly revolutionary. Who knows, maybe it will eventually lead to a rise in domestic terrorism. Then in an internal feedback loop, a growing police state starts to clamp down on the populace, and even the far right joins in the fray as their gun rights get challenged. Soon the US is enveloped in utter chaos and lawlessness. MWAHAHAHA! My evil plans will come to fruition, then I will unveil the doomsday device and all will bow to my might.

ahem, I mean , give peace a chance dude.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Since it is my opinion that the anti-war people are not basing their protestations on the facts anyway

Upon what basis did you draw this conclusion?

[rjung]

Because the anti-war folks aren't automatically accepting whatever nonsense George W. Bush gives out?

[athelas]

All terrorists are people. Therefore, all people are terrorists. Yeah. That's it.

[AHunter3]

What scotandrsn said.

[rsa]

We may know the answer very soon. CNN just reported that two groups of Iraqi intelligence agents have been arrested in two different countries with conventional explosives. The targets were said to be American interests. Sources in the State department also said that Iraqi agents may be in as many as ten countries.

I didn't hear anything about Iraqi agents in the U.S. itself.

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by scotandrsn
Bush and those who support his current apalling actions have forgotten in the short space of a year and a half that September 11th was not brought about by the leaders of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction. It was carried out by 20 angry men with a plan.

Actually this is not quite right. Yes 19, not 20 individuals got on those planes and flew them into buildings. But they had a whole lot of help. They had plenty of monetary and logistical support from other individuals all over the globe. And, as documented in Afghanistan, the explicit support of at least one government.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Upon what basis did you draw this conclusion?

Lets see here:

A) Peace at all cost. yah thats a good one. We want peace no matter how many people threaten us and abuse us and terrorize us and blow up our ships and so on and so on. Yeah, real reasonable there.

B) This was is immoral, unjust and illegal Allowing a regime that shoots any of their human shields from escaping is a real noble cause.

C) No Blood for Oil This has been the slogan for 13 years now since the last gulf war. Hasnt happened, never will. Iragi oil belongs to the people of Iraq and its going to stay that way.

What bothers me about these protestors is that the war is barely a week old. Yet they protest as if it was already years old. There are no atrocities being commited by the coalition. As a matter of fact and document, all of the atrocities and violation of convention are being performed by the Iraqi regime. Human lives are lost but no one speaks about the iraqi human spirit and how these people are so afraid of Saddam they cannot even flee for their lives.

An honorable leader would call for a ceasefire for civilians to get out of the way. A true leader would not hide in schools, hospitals, mosques and historical sites. A compassionate human being would not try to confuse the enemy by dressing as their civilian population. The fact that we hold our fire and would rather let an enemy escape than risk firing upon an innocent clearly tells you which side God or Allah is on. These peace demonstrations are what Saddam is counting on to drain the American will to fight. These protests helps Saddam survive to be even more popular, more powerful even more deadly than he is now.

If these diehard peaceniks do not see that, then it is my opinion that the anti-war people are not basing their protestations on the facts.

[Azael]

Bonus Question: Saddam told the world that if the coalition attacked then he would "take the fight to them wherever there is land, sea or air." Obviously he hasn't really done this yet, and so far at least this seems to be more bluster from the doomed dictator. What happens however if the "next big terrorist attack" is found to be perpetrated by Iraqi forces? Another question in the same vein might be - what happens if solid evidence is found of connections between those Iraqi forces and al qaeda? Before you dismiss the second question out of hand in a hail of "but no conclusive connections have been shown" just admit that they obviously have some common cause.

Can the anti-war movement survive this or will it just become stronger?

[Spiff]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Lets see here:

A) Peace at all cost. yah thats a good one. We want peace no matter how many people threaten us and abuse us and terrorize us and blow up our ships and so on and so on. Yeah, real reasonable there. Not so fast, dude.

A majority of people in the peace movement, myself included, have said over and over again that sometimes military force is required. We wish it to be a last resort, but we are not so unrealistic to think that it is never justified.

I had several reasons for participating in the two peace marches I attended. One of those reasons was to protest Bush's intense desire to use war as a first (or arguably second) resort.

And in response to the OP, I think the war in Iraq will not make the U.S. any safer. It has already significantly deepened hostility toward the U.S. in the arab world, which will make another big terrorist attack on U.S. soil all the more likely ... and sooner rather than later.

And afterwards, both sides will say "I told you so" -- and I don't know which side will ultimately become the majority public opinion. But I do know that there will be a serious portion of the populace who will say ... "Hey, we whupped Saddam's ass ... so why didn't that prevent [major U.S. city] from [major terror act]?

[Eclectic Skeptic]

If there is another terrorist attack in the US, hopefully, our government will get smart and realize we have to stop trying to be an empire. Terrorism is a logical response to empire. If we stop fucking with other people's countries, they will leave us alone. That should be pretty obvious. I am sick of all this "they hate us because of our freedom" crap.

[Kimstu]

ES: If there is another terrorist attack in the US, hopefully, our government will get smart and realize we have to stop trying to be an empire. Terrorism is a logical response to empire. If we stop fucking with other people's countries, they will leave us alone.

Partly true. When other people perceive us as brutal imperialist invaders, that does increase fear and hatred towards the US and, consequently, increases support for anti-US terrorism. Therefore, if we act so as to convince most reasonable people that we're not actually out to get them, that will naturally make us safer by reducing the number of our enemies. However, I think we're kidding ourselves if we imagine that we won't continue to have some enemies no matter what we do, simply because there are always some evil nutjobs who want to kill people.

IMHO, whatever happens with future terrorist attacks, the anti-war movement will continue to remain a very important part of the struggle against terrorism, for two main reasons:

1) it helps keep Americans focused on the need to treat other peoples justly, even when we're feeling angry and frightened about terrorism and looking for an accessible enemy to whack;

2) it helps other people remember---even when they're afraid we might whack them---that most Americans do care about treating other peoples justly, so they will be less likely to provide support to evil nutjobs who want to kill people.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Spiff
Not so fast, dude.

A majority of people in the peace movement, myself included, have said over and over again that sometimes military force is required. We wish it to be a last resort, but we are not so unrealistic to think that it is never justified.
I cannot comment as to the "majority" thinking that war can be justifiable. However, my impression comes from newsmedia samplings. Most say war must never be fought. I too, find this unrealistic. I wouldve sided with the anti-war crowd had they adapted this basic philosophy instead of Peace at all cost mentality.



I had several reasons for participating in the two peace marches I attended. One of those reasons was to protest Bush's intense desire to use war as a first (or arguably second) resort.
This I will defer to. I do know know the facts as to the exact reason for an immediate strike on Iraq. The President seemed to be informed as to why this was a good Idea. They havent disclosed as to why but I will take their word for it. Let the man do his job. I will hold him accountable after the war. Waging war is not an action that is best made by a committee or democracy. It takes a leader to do that. For good or bad this war has started. We have to see it thru because if we dont, the consequences of prematurely withdrawing is even more devastating than starting.



And in response to the OP, I think the war in Iraq will not make the U.S. any safer. It has already significantly deepened hostility toward the U.S. in the arab world, which will make another big terrorist attack on U.S. soil all the more likely ... and sooner rather than later.
I agree that this war has heightened hostilities in the arab world. So has the first Gulf war and the Afghanistan war. I believe everyone thinks those were justified. I just happen to think this one is also. We'll have to wait and see which is right. The heightened arab hostilities died down and the extremists found some other odd excuse to perpetrate their evil. It doesnt really matter what the US does, extremists are not rational or predictable when it comes to terrorist justifications.


And afterwards, both sides will say "I told you so" -- and I don't know which side will ultimately become the majority public opinion. But I do know that there will be a serious portion of the populace who will say ... "Hey, we whupped Saddam's ass ... so why didn't that prevent [major U.S. city] from [major terror act]?
Any person who thinks this will stop terrorism forever was probably from the same genetic pool as the people who believed in the war to end all wars. Its about as false as this war lasting only a few days. This war will last weeks not months or years. only when this war is over can we accurately guess the hostilities of the arab world. Only then can we assess the real consequences of this regime's oppression. Only then can we analyse the threat that was Saddam.

[Airblairxxx]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)

I agree that this war has heightened hostilities in the arab world. So has the first Gulf war and the Afghanistan war. I believe everyone thinks those were justified. I just happen to think this one is also.

It really doesn't matter what you think; Muslims are enraged by this war, exponentially more so than by the previous incidents. And that's what is going to bite us in the ass.


We'll have to wait and see which is right. The heightened arab hostilities died down and the extremists found some other odd excuse to perpetrate their evil. It doesnt really matter what the US does, extremists are not rational or predictable when it comes to terrorist justifications.

True enough. The question is how many extremists are there; the answer is "A lot, and growing more every day since Dubya started this thing".

Any person who thinks this will stop terrorism forever was probably from the same genetic pool as the people who believed in the war to end all wars. Its about as false as this war lasting only a few days. This war will last weeks not months or years.

Do you think this war will even slow down terrorism? If so, see my last paragraph. If not, why the hell are we there?

only when this war is over can we accurately guess the hostilities of the arab world. Only then can we assess the real consequences of this regime's oppression. Only then can we analyse the threat that was Saddam.

Most people can make pretty good guesses right now.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
I do know know the facts as to the exact reason for an immediate strike on Iraq. The President seemed to be informed as to why this was a good Idea. They havent disclosed as to why but I will take their word for it. Let the man do his job. I will hold him accountable after the war. Waging war is not an action that is best made by a committee or democracy. It takes a leader to do that.Waging war is best done under the direction of a leader, as the Founders were aware when they gave the President the role of commander in chief of the nation's armed forces. (Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 1.)

But the decision on whether to wage war, in a democracy, belongs with the representatives of the people, not with the chief executive, as the Founders also made clear, by empowering Congress to declare war, and to raise and support armies. (Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 10 and 11.)

Taking Bush's word that an immediate strike on Iraq was needed, rather than demanding to know the reasons, is an abdication of responsibility on our part and the part of our Congressional representatives.

[Spiff]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Taking Bush's word that an immediate strike on Iraq was needed, rather than demanding to know the reasons, is an abdication of responsibility on our part and the part of our Congressional representatives. Very well put, RTF.

[Azael]

Taking Bush's word that an immediate strike on Iraq was needed, rather than demanding to know the reasons, is an abdication of responsibility on our part and the part of our Congressional representatives.


Well put perhaps but ignorant of the vote in Congress that gave Bush the right to go to war with Iraq over the disarmament issue. Irrelevant even.

[Azael]

Actually, let me apologize RTF, I think I read that wrong. If you think that there was "an abdication of responsibility on the part of our Congressional representatives" then you could be right. Of course you could be wrong as well as you are not privy to the level of information available to those representatives at the time. In any event I think that whole fiasco showed the true colors of the democratic party.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Airblairxxx

Do you think this war will even slow down terrorism? If so, see my last paragraph. If not, why the hell are we there? [/B]

We are there to stabilize the region. With Saddam in charge of a nation with that much oil, the potential for crisis to extend past the middle east is too great to ignore. Saddam must be excised. Syria is showing its true colors also as is Iran. With Iraq under democratic control, its ability sponsor terrorism is significantly reduced. An added bonus would be to get the gratitude of the Shiite clans in Iraq but history shows the fleeting nature of such gratitude. At the most we can stabilize iraq for about a decade or so.

Terrorism justify their actions in a way that mystifies western govts. In this present case, its damned if we do but more damned if we dont.

[MSU 1978]

This has been a very interesting thread with well made points on all sides. My two cents:

* Terrorist attacks against Americans have little if anything to do with Iraq or either of the Gulf Wars. The anti-war faction cannot use a future attack to demonstrate the futility of war, nor can the pro-war faction use it to justify the war.

* We have not seen the end of terrorism in the US. Certainly, the ongoing war with al-Qaeda has reduced their ability to wage attacks, but these are determined people that will find a way to wreck havoc every now and then.

* We have seen a remarkable reversal in world opinion. Post 9/11, there was never a higher degree of sympathy for America. Now, we have millions all over the globe protesting the war. Such a reversal doesn't happen without cause, and that cause is the current administration.


To address some particular posters:
X~Slayer:
a) Peace at all costs: not really. I was for Gulf War I, for the Afghan War, but against this one. I believe there are just wars and that this one does not meet the criteria

b) This war is unjust, etc. The issue isn't that Saddam is evil, there is no question about that. There is a difference between the existence of an evil regime and our obligation to take action. The Russians, Poles, East Germans, Czechs, etc. all overthrew evil regimes. When the Iraqis, Chinese, and Cubans do the same we should rejoice. But that doesn't mean that armed conflict is necessary nor is it for outsiders to decide.

c) No blood for oil- we never said it was blood for oil.

"we are there to stabilize the region" We are doing anything but that. Look at the evidence:
* The Turks have betrayed us and could move against the Kurds
* The Iranians and Syrians are providing aid to Iraq
* The Moslem street has never been so enraged, this poses a real threat to "moderate" states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If these regimes fall, watch out.


RTFirefly:
Absolutely right- in our society the president needs to present compelling evidence that the war is needed and just- this case simply has not been made. We the people, through our representatives, ultimately have the power to wage war or not and we cannot wash our hands of this responsibility. You made the point very eloquently.


Clearly, this is Bush's war as it is the result of his diplomatic bumbling. You don't refer to sovereign nations as "the axis of evil". It is such comments that led North Koreans to rattle their sabres and now the South Koreans believe Bush to be a bigger threat to their security than Pyongyang. It is his "you're for us or against us" mentality that led to diplomatic paralysis, and his unwillingness to travel to other nations and meet their leaders that failed his coalition before it started. Responsibile leaders wage war only as a last resort, but in Bush's case it was evident that war was the first and only option considered.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally posted by errata
Another terrorist attack won't change anyone's minds, but it will make them shout LOUDER.

The right will grip power that much more strongly and the left will become increasingly revolutionary. Who knows, maybe it will eventually lead to a rise in domestic terrorism. Then in an internal feedback loop, a growing police state starts to clamp down on the populace, and even the far right joins in the fray as their gun rights get challenged. Soon the US is enveloped in utter chaos and lawlessness. MWAHAHAHA! My evil plans will come to fruition, then I will unveil the doomsday device and all will bow to my might.

ahem, I mean , give peace a chance dude.

What do you meanyour doomsday device?

Mine is a genuine Farnsworth Armageddon Special---Chrome Plated! And don't you forget it!


He was able to give up one, & still be feared.

[RandySpears]

Re OP:

Israel / Palestine is an enlightening and depressing example.

Much of the current "War on terrorism", f. e. the use of preemptive strikes, is blueprinted off the pattern established by many Israeli administrations. In recent years, starting with Netanyahu's confrontational attitude towards the palestinians and continuing under Sharon similar politics polarisation of the Israeli society has increased.

The suicide bombings, that many observers say in no small part related to this polarisation, has in retrospect justified the policies of said administrations in the eyes of the Israli public and made it politically viable to continue down that road.

So i'd say another terrorist attack on the US would mean support for another preemptive / retaliation strike, which in turn would recruit more arab "martyrs" and so on...

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by MSU 1978
X~Slayer:
a"we are there to stabilize the region" We are doing anything but that. Look at the evidence:
* The Turks have betrayed us and could move against the Kurds
* The Iranians and Syrians are providing aid to Iraq
* The Moslem street has never been so enraged, this poses a real threat to "moderate" states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If these regimes fall, watch out.



Well of course extremists will protest and demonstrate and make noise to put their point across. Altho they may be a minority, they are the only ones that act upon their hatred (which makes them dangerous) and their sentiment is shared by a lot of moderates in principle. which is why I posted this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173402

there is a great need to present our case to the Muslim peoples of this world. There is a strong anti-war sentiment but as WoMD are found, as more and more Iraqi regime atrocities are verified and documented, as more cities are freed from the regimes grip of terror, the moderates will gain a louder voice and they will be pro-american and anti-Saddam. When that happens, that region stands a good chance of quieting down.

[scotandrsn]

Originally posted by bayonet1976
Actually this is not quite right. Yes 19, not 20 individuals got on those planes and flew them into buildings. But they had a whole lot of help. They had plenty of monetary and logistical support from other individuals all over the globe. And, as documented in Afghanistan, the explicit support of at least one government.

I agree with your qualification of my statement. My point is, none of the parties involved required weapons of mass destruction to achieve the end result. So WMD is not a good enough reason to go to war now.

Some oppose the war because they oppose all war. Not me. I was in favor of the Afghan War because the goverment there enabled the efforts of the terrorists, and leaving them in power would continue to endanger our country. The fact that they were oppressing the Afghani people, whom we had shamefully neglected after the Soviet withdrawal simply lent further creedence to combat there, but was not the main reason.

My question about this war has always been "Can we afford to divert the resources now, especially when there is no direct current threat?" The current unraveling of the situation in Afghanistan makes it clear the answer is no.

Smart anti-war people will vocalize this fact in the face of another terrorist attack.

[Azael]

I agree with your qualification of my statement. My point is, none of the parties involved required weapons of mass destruction to achieve the end result. So WMD is not a good enough reason to go to war now.


That is perhaps a slightly misleading conclusion. Just because a relatively small number of people were able to turn airplanes into WMDs doesn't make traditional WMDs any less dangerous. In fact the case could be made that those attacks have highlighted our vulnerability to the point where ignoring rogue nations with WMDs can only be done at our extreme peril.

[AZCowboy]

I don't follow.

From those facts, which statement is an appropriate conclusion:

In fact the case could be made that those attacks have highlighted our vulnerability to the point where ignoring rogue nations with WMDs can only be done at our extreme peril.

In fact the case could be made that those attacks have highlighted our vulnerability to the point where ignoring rogue nations with or without WMDs can only be done at our extreme peril.

[Azael]

AZCowboy, are you attempting to make the case that there is no reason to believe Iraq may have WMDs?

Look I'm not trying to build a case that a war on Iraq was necessarily the most useful thing that Bush could have done. Rather I am taking exception to the reasoning that holds that due to September 11th WMDs are not a major source of potential danger to Americans.

[AZCowboy]

No. I thought my question was straightforward.

I thought scotandrsn stated it sufficiently when he said, "none of the parties involved required weapons of mass destruction to achieve the end result. So WMD is not a good enough reason to go to war now."

You suggested the conclusion was misleading. I thought his conclusion was logical. I thought your conclusion was misleading.

I will close with the note that more people have died from terrorism with conventional means than from terrorism with WoMD. Focusing on WoMD will be at our own peril.