Favor unilateral retaliation? How long have you been a Bin Laden supporter, anyway?

[Weirddave]

I just thought I would point something out to all those people clamoring from an indiscriminate attack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, hell, the whole Middle East in some cases. I'll leave out the folly AND hypocrisy of calling for an attack on innocents as an appropriate response to the attack on innocents. I won't ask for a coherent explanation of what it will solve, other than bathing our sorrow in blood and turning it into our shame. Rather, I would ask one simple question: How long have you been a supporter of Osama Bin Laden, anyway?

In formulating an appropriate response to this atrocity, indeed, to any attack, one must consider what the enemy is trying to accomplish, and formulate a response not only to defeat him, but to deny him those goals. If the U.S. had responded to Pearl Harbor by immediately sending the fleet to Tokyo, it would have been crushed by superior Japanese forces. The correct response then was to marshal our forces, outmaneuver the enemy, contain his advances, and THEN roll him back to Japan. In this case, we do have the ability to launch a devastating attack, but to what end? Consider things from Bin Laden's POV. What was he trying to accomplish? To make us hate him? We already hate him. To hurt us? He did hurt us, grievously, but we're just as strong today as we were Monday. To shatter the U.S. along racial and ethnic lines? Possibly, to people from that part of the world, from a group of homogenous cultures, I'm sure it is very hard to understand why the various elements of our polyglot culture aren't at each other's throats already. None of these fit. The man is certainly not a religious fanatic, seeking only his own entrance to Paradise, if that was the case he would have been on the lead plane himself. He has twisted the words of Islam to build himself a base of power that certainly includes people of that stripe, but he's not one of them. He's also demonstrated again and again a frightening ability to plan and co-ordinate large scale operations along with a con man's talent for getting others to shield him from direct recrimination. So ask yourself, what does he hope to accomplish here.

The answer lies, I think, in a long term plan of stunning audacity that is overall equally stunning in it's simplicity. I would be willing to bet that he was counting on a massive, indiscriminate American retaliation. He would then be able to defend his atrocities with ours, point to the West attacking Islam as a whole, and issue a justified call for Jihad against the West. Bin Laden is an ex-patriated Saudi. He hates the Saudi Royal Family. He could ride this tide of Islamic fervor straight into Riyadh, disposing the Royal family, discrediting moderate Islamic factions, and install himself as the de-facto head of the Arab world in totality. Is this a scenario that you want to see played out? I think the U.S. response has been exactly right up to this point. By making it clear that we are only going after Bin Laden and those who harbor him, we have removed from him the moral high ground ( from a Middle Eastern point of view ). Without that, all he can do is run, hide, and wait for the 101 Airborne to come knocking on his door. It is likely that he may try to launch other attacks at innocent targets in the U.S. and abroad as he becomes more and more desperate. We must not allow our anguish and rage over these attacks to push into blindly reacting, thus helping Bin Laden achieve what he wants.

(spelling error corrected - Jill)



[Edited by JillGat on 09-15-2001 at 07:14 PM]

[Nicklz]

Interesting point, but if I'm not mistaken his religious organization is an extreme left wing version. And the other half of the religion oposses suicide bombings and killing of innocent and about half the things he is doing.
Given I'm not an expert on Mid-eastern religions though.

As for countries that where involved in the attacking of the U.S., if their country is controlled by a religious group, and the people of the country support that religion aren't they just as guilty? Let me repeat: aren't they just as guilty? If they were in command instead of being just a civilian, might they have made the same/similar choices? They do have they same religious beliefs. They may not have know what exactly the where supporting them to do, but they were still supporting a terrorist organization. It's a difficult situation to approach. I believe that I herd 95% of Afganistan is of the religious beliefs of Bin Ladens organization, so there for those people support their government and it's actions.
So I'd have no problem turning my back while the military does whatever is needed to cure this problem.

[Zyada]

I'll make a point I tried to make in another post.

90% of the Afghani people have about as much influence in the Taliban government as the slaves did in pre-Civil War America.

If we bombed Afghanistan into a parking lot, we would not teach them a lesson. Did Bin Laden teach us a lesson? No, he united us in a way that we probably haven't been united since WW2. Don't believe that they are going to react the way that you want them to. They are going to react just the way you are. Except that 90% of the people over there only know what their government tells them, rather than having the free press that we have. You don't think that Afghanistan press has already dismissed this as over-reaction or the U.S. using them as a scapegoat for our internal problems?

I agree with Weirddave: the deliberate bombing of civilian targets is exactly what Bin Laden wants us to do. Let's not get side-tracked by that. Hunt him down like the flea on a pig that he is and squash the life out of him and his organization.

[ShibbOleth]

First, Weirddave thanks for your post. I have in other threads made similar points. I think you are 100% correct in that bin Laden is looking for a US response that will turn other Muslims into militants in defense of the faith.

Originally posted by Nicklz
Interesting point, but if I'm not mistaken his religious organization is an extreme left wing version. And the other half of the religion oposses suicide bombings and killing of innocent and about half the things he is doing.
Given I'm not an expert on Mid-eastern religions though.

As for countries that where involved in the attacking of the U.S., if their country is controlled by a religious group, and the people of the country support that religion aren't they just as guilty? Let me repeat: aren't they just as guilty?

Nicklz, I think you are mistaken. Osama bin Laden comes from a rich family of Saudi merchants of Yemeni descent. They are in the construction and other businesses. He was kicked out of Saudi for dissent, and some believe he would like to topple the government to replace it with more of a theocracy, probably led by him. More than the "other half" of Muslims decry suicide and terrorism. Most Muslims decry these things. It is against their religion. Even the Taliban, at least publicly, decries them. But they also follow another tenet of Islam, which is to provide shelter to those who request it. I suspect that we have requested extradition, but we have not tried Bin Laden in an Islamic court. The extreme fundamental stance of the Taliban does not recognize the legal jurisdiction of non-Islamic courts, so in their view we are currently requesting extradition of someone who has not stood a fair trial. Flaky? Sure, but that's their perogative at this point. We should perhaps consider having Bin Laden tried in absentia in Saudi, where he would likely be convicted, then request extradition to Saudi, where he would be publicly executed for his crimes.

Your second point chills me. Most people in the US are Christian, of some flavor. But there are many different varieties. Imagine if an extreme right wing Christian coalition somehow came to power in the US. Then they harbored someone whom Pakistan considered a criminal, but we did not recognize the legitimacy of their claim. Perhaps their "crime" was to incite a Christian revolution in Pakistan. They sentenced him to death, but the Christian government chose not to deliver him to the Pakistanis. They then decide, since we are all anyway Christians here, that it is their right to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. This is pretty much what you have just stated. That all Christians, and the people who live near them, should die because a few kooky Christians got control.

[kinoons]

I agree that there should not be complete and total retaliation toward the Middle East in general -- the vast majority of those who live there were not involved, and honestly do believe that what happened is a terrible thing.

What is wrong with turning every terrorist camp we know of into a smoking hole in the ground? How about turning every terrorist camp we learn of in the future into a smoking hole in the ground? We don't have to wait for those terrorists to do something to actually kill an American, do we?

[psychogumby]

This is probably one of the most interesting (if not sensible) posts I have read since the WTC bombing occurred.

It is true that bombing a country that is harbouring the alledged perpetrator(s) of this atrocity may be counter productive - indeed, it could be used as propaganda by some of the more anti-American regiemes of the world. Case in point: How did Iraq report this particular event? They certainly were not sympathetic.

I think it is wonderfully positive how the vast majority of the world's citizens, regardless of religion or country of origin, have banded together to offer its support to the USA during one of its' darkest hours. When Colonel Gaddafi (Qadahfi? Khaddafi? not sure how it is spelled) of Libya offers to aid the US, you know that a lump of poop the size of a small Carribean island paradise has hit the fan in a family-sized way.

Indeed, even Afghanistan are publically (at least) denouncing this act. Whilst we may be of different cultures or religions, we should not let this cloud our judgement.

Whilst the publicity of small pockets of Muslims dancing in the streets over this news made me angry, it also made me sad. These people obviously don't know any better. If they did, they would realise that the reaction they gave was inappropriate and downright stupid. But again, these people don't KNOW this.

Whilst I don't fully comprehend some of the cultral differences between Muslims from the Middle East (as opposed to the millions of Muslims living in Asia, Africa etc), i'm not going to stop eating tabouli and hummus just because the Lebanese dude at the local kebab shop has a different name with which to address God by.

I would like to think that we could use this event as the catalyst for helping the people of the world to show more tolerance to each others differences, but then again I might just be dreaming.

I know this sounds weird, but i'm looking forward to the next time I see that episode of The Simpsons where Homer goes to New York City. I guess that just sums up how Australians work - we come to terms with tragedy by spending a couple of days feeling sorrow, then we try laughing at it. Then again, what do you expect from a country where the nicest thing one man can say to another is to call him an 'old bastard'?

If we all can keep this momentum of mutual sympathy and co-operation up, as well as keeping our spirits as strong and perky as possible, maybe ... just MAYBE ... those who are responsible for this atrocity will realise that any further attempts to upset us will be in vain.

Oh yeah, and I hope they hunt down the individual(s) responsible, insert starving rats into their colon and sew their sphincter shut. Revenge and payback can also help to heal, too.

[Spavined Gelding]

Weirddave’s point is well taken. I’m one of those who has said that this country has an affirmative duty to go out and pound the countries who have provided haven and support for the criminals who have committed this obscenity, if for no other reason to deprive the terrorists of their support base. I have tried to draw a parallel between bin Laden (assuming that this was bin Laden’s handiwork) and Afghanistan and the Anti-Castro guerrillas and the US. It is my argument that the most effective way to neutralize terror groups is to deprive them of their safe haven.

Clearly military action against an Islamic State will anger and alienate Muslims. But we already have some surprising indications that some Islamic States fear bin Laden more than they hate the specter of US military action against, for instance, Afghanistan. A fair number of Muslims hate the US already for its support of Israel and for having troops in the Middle East as well as for being a secular democracy. That is not going to change, bombing or no bombing.

The simple fact is that this country has been attacked by a foreign power. That attack has just killed more than 5000 people in New York and Washington. Once we have a pretty good idea of who is responsible for this the US has a duty to its own people to make sure that the perpetrators of this horror are punished and that no government will ever again support such terrorist organizations.

Wierddave is absolutely correct in saying that we need to be sure of just who we ought to be going after. To maintain that this country ought to gird up its loins and mightily smite everything between the Mediterranean and the Khyber Pass is just madness. He is equally wrong if he is suggesting that we ought to sit on our hands and hope for the best. If the US follows a do-nothing approach, it has failed in its first duty to itself and to its people and is not entitled to claim to be a nation.

[starfish]

The pizza delivery guy favors military retaliation. He said he came to the US from Lebanon to be safe from terrorism. If it's not safe here, there's nowhere for him to go.

Personally I don't like the idea of trading US civilian casualties for foreign civilian casualties.

[Weirddave]

In no way, shape or form am I suggesting we do nothing. That would be madness of an almost suicidal nature. We must strike back, strike hard and strike repeatedly until every trace of these madmen and the governments who support them are eradicated from this Earth. We must do this in an intellegent, focused manner. Dropping bombs on, say Tawraghondi simply because it is withing the borders of Afghanistan is not the approach to take. Attacking Kabul to obliterate the Taliban or Kandahar because it is likely bin Laden is there is. Collaterateral dammage is unfortunate, but inevitable. If we are ever seen as causing punitave dammage-then we lose the war, even if we win. We will just be creating the next bin Laden, giving the new Taliban a rallying cry. I also think that we should strike ALL terrorist camps within the borders of countries that refuse to root this evil out themselves. This type of warfare (terrorism) has no place in the 21st century.

[Gorgon Heap]

I am of the mind that we take a militaristic, yet, sly apraoch that does no harm to our world-wide appeal as a free country. Civilians are not -- and have never been -- will never be a target for this nation -- that would be entirely beyond what we are.

Striking against military targets and then targeting terroristic individuals is the way to go.

I would hat to knoe that we were hityng targets in populated areas that would end up in civilian casualties.

Target specific military targets and obliterate their military and allow them to make up their own minds ... wiat ... I'm drunk, biy I thin I still make some semse.

[Spavined Gelding]

Wierddave, I’m not sure that you and I have any big disagreement. If anything we may differ or whether the US should strike Afghanistan even though bin Laden has gone to ground and his training camps are empty. My inclination is to strike Kabul as a punishment for supporting bin Laden and as an object lesson to the other States in the region.

[Dixie Son]

Weirddave,

a tampon the size of the Empire State Building could fit in a pussy as big as you.

[Weirddave]

Hey, dixie dick, you wanna troll, take it to the pit.

[Phlosphr]

AHH YES DIXIE SON! We now know that there are still American idiots. And people in this great nation that want to stomp on other peoples views.

Sorry Dix! but the People of the United States of America need to Unite with each other. Not supress anything. And comments like yours are not welcome on this board. And are completely un-called for. We are fighting ignorance man!! (or woman...don't know)NOt harboring it.

Support your American brothers. You may need them one day. Come on!!! if your mad, good, take it out on ignorance, not on your fellow Americans.

Weirddave. I support you. And so do the many!!

[JillGat]

Originally posted by Dixie Son
Weirddave,

a tampon the size of the Empire State Building could fit in a pussy as big as you.

This is inappropriate for "Great Debates" and I would suggest that it's even a bit too much for the Pit. Watch it, DS.
Jill

[hawk]

Originally posted by Zyada
Hunt [bin Laden] down like the flea on a pig that he is and squash the life out of him and his organization.

I think that this is a very good point - the war that we are about to be involved in is not the classic war, where the enemy is a defined nation with defined boundaries. In this war, the enemy could be anywhere, could be anyone. The fact is that about 20 enemies are capable of killin thousands, besides themselves. After all, it happened. We need to fight back accordingly. An assault on Afghanistan would be counter-productive. Personally, I feel that the Taliban should be overthrown, but even then, why kill a myriad of innocents to acheive that goal? Surely, there is a better way.

One of the most restricting rules to this is an executive order that prevents the assassination of any foreign leader. I hope that Bush issues another order than invalidates it. I fear that assassination is the only way we can acheive the goals of the death of bin Laden and the overthrow of the Taliban. Unfortunately, the leaders of both are reclusive and secretive, making it hard to find them. While I can see that it might be needed to invade Afghanistan, that won't be happening for a while. We simply don't have enough troops. The Soviet Union never successfully took the country over, after all.

The best course of action at this time is a small strike team that could get into Afghanistan, find bin Laden, and kill him. We need to, after that, fight a general war on terrorism. We need to let the world know that terrorism will not be tolerated anywhere.

[Weirddave]

One of the most restricting rules to this is an executive order that prevents the assassination of any foreign leader.

This rule does not apply in times of war. By stating that an "act of war" has been committed, Bush covered this.

[hawk]

Originally posted by Weirddave
This rule does not apply in times of war. By stating that an "act of war" has been committed, Bush covered this.

However, like I said, this is not an ordinary war. Who is the enemy? The enemy is not a defined nation, it is an idea: the idea that you make a point by death and desruction. To go to actual war with the Taliban would be a bad idea right now, as we would be forced to kill numerous innocents. I fail to see why sending in a few trained assassins to kill the leaders of the Taliban would be less effective.

[Weirddave]

What I'm saying is that legally, the aforementioned executive order has no validity in this case. Assasins could be used, if that's a course of action the govt. deems apropriate. I don't think assasins alone is nearly enough here.

[ExTank]

Dixie Son: Son, you're an embarassment to Southerners everywhere. If'n I was your father, I'd be sendin' you out the the willow tree for a switch, and you'd be rest assured to know that you'd be heading for bed early with an empty stomach and a sore behind, to help you contemplate the folly of your spiteful words towards a fellow American.

You, sir, are a cur; you write spiteful words about a man you know nothing about, hiding behind a nom-de-guerre that falsely identifies you as a Son of The South.

In spite of our little fracas last century, our Northern Bretheren and Sisters have been grievously wounded; we will not do them justice by blindly seeking to harm others.

A true Son of The South will gird hisself for the coming conflict, and remember the martial gallantry of other Southern Gentlemen, such as Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Pickett.

We should remember the honorable and gallant example that they set, though their cause be misguided, that we may be strong for our Northern kin in this, their hour of need.

Instead you show yourself to be a base coward; an unimaginitive pundit slinging rancor and dishonor upon a man, a fellow American, that you do not even know. Had I face to slap, sir, your cheek would be red and I would be awaiting your presence on the field of honor, that you may defend yourself as a man.

Let me inform you: Dave, as his username implies, is wierd. At least his sense of humor is. But a truer and bluer American you will be hard pressed to locate. He is an honest and honorable man, loyal to his friends, kind to animals, and ever thoughtful of the sacrifice and service of his fellow Americans in uniform.

Nor is he a blind patriot either; he is an intelligent and educated man, especially in the History of War, and a keen observer of the politics that surround organized conflict.

Now, sir, you have two options before you:

if you are the Son of The South you proclaim to be, you will tender a sincere and humble apology to not only Weirddave, not just the Straight Dope Message Board, but also to all Southerners everywhere, whom you have shamed with your slanderous and divisive invective.

-or-

you should withdraw yourself forthwith and forever from this board, hiding your face in shame, and renounce your self-proclaimed legacy, as you have proven yourself unworthy of that title.

I humbly (but not too patiently) await your reply.

[hawk]

Originally posted by Weirddave
I don't think assasins alone is nearly enough here.

I disagree - the events of the past week have shown the devestation that 20 people can cause... surely that many can kill a few people.

[galen]

The fact that so many people seem to think that wiping out Osama bin Laden is going to put an end to this problem is the best evidence of the profound lack of understanding of the underlying political situation in the Middle East.

The situation is complex and multifaceted and involves the totality of US involvement in the region in the postwar period. It boils down to the fact that public opinion in the region is overwhelmingly negative vis a vis US policy in the region. This extends not only to US policy vis a vis Palestine, but to the repressive political forces which the US has supported in individual states in the region.

It is a mistake to believe that the people of the region are unsophisticated people. They live there and deal daily with the consequence of US policy in the region. They are increasingly angry and the moderate leadership in some of these states is increasingly isolated and discredited as a large section of public opinion has concluded that it is powerless or unwilling to resist what is seen as US meddling in the affairs of the region to the detriment of the people who live there.

Increasingly, the third or fourth generation of this region reject the calls for moderation of their elders as treason and are increasingly drawn to the call of the fundamentalists for a holy war against the US. It is an extremely dangerous situation, and has been so for some time. It is a hard mouthful for Americans to swallow but eventually they will have to confront this fundamental reality.

Grave and unpredictable consequence could result from any massive US military operation in the region. So-called moderate government could fall to be replace by Islamic fundamentalist regimes. It's very difficult to imagine what the US could do to prevent this once the momentum develops. In the case of Pakistan, there is the very real possibility of a Taliban-type regime coming to power and having access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Bottom line. We'd better know what the possible consequence of military action can be.

[Zenster]

I'll stick my already well-exposed neck out in order to suggest that any ground action in Afghanistan is pretty much out of the question (as the Soviets learned). So, let's tally up the alternatives, no ocean front property sorta rules out the navy, that leaves? Bingo... an air strike! And the prefered method of air engagement is by using? Bombs!

Terrorists are well known for secreting themselves in large civilian populations in order to deter aerial attacks upon themselves. How do you counter that? Special forces are a real long shot and are more needed for mopping up any further attempts by terrorists. Why send in a specialist when there is a blanket solution? As much as I detest being indiscriminate in time of war, the ultimately indiscriminate acts of bin Laden's organization murdered thousands of our people. The Taleban has acknowledeged the presence of bin Laden within their country and made no effort to expel him. Ergo, they are acting in concert before or after the fact. They must be deposed and replaced with an interim multinational government until democracy can take root.

Our track record in the world at large is good enough where a slight degree of overkill will not get us any less well thought of than we are already. I would venture to say that the majority of Muslims who are nearly if not equally as horrified as any of us are would be little shocked by near obliteration of the entire Afghani nation in reprisal. The Taleban have left a permanent blood stain on the hem of Islam's robe. No member of Islam will be very surprised by whatever we end up doing. We are speaking of a culture that cuts off hands for stealing. Mass murder on such a scale is an unspeakable offense and merits extreme retaliation.

The few extremist groups that espouse violence, such as HAMAS and its like are generally condemned in mainstream Muslim religion. So, again, I do not see where our image will suffer much more than it already has and I do see where (as I argue in my own thread) there is immense benefit in making an example of the Afghani people for the enlightenment of all other terrorist nations. You may scoff at the term "enlightenment", but if we are able to adequately convey our message the very first time we are forced to voice it, then we may never have to repeat ourselves again.

To be half-hearted or tepid in our response in any way will almost ensure that we will have to take a series of actions in Afghanistan instead of just one. Reprisal on a scale that begets immediate compliance would be far more honorable than a dragged out campaign. Anyone who has read Scylla's thread in this same forum knows that I do not in any way advocate the use of nuclear weapons in this situation. I do believe that a major retaliation is in order, but escalating to nuclear attack will almost assure nuclear reprisal. However, while we continue to prosecute terrorism it should never be taken off the table as an option.

Besides, we already have the technology to create nuclear scale non-atomic blasts with fuel-air bombs. A few demonstration hits in remote areas might persuade the Mullahs to abdicate. If not, then the application of one to Kabul should inflict sufficient harm to their own enforcement infrastructure where a well armed internal rebellion could have a chance of succeeding.

To semi-quote Scylla, "The Taleban, and not us, have put the Afghani people at risk as surely as if they thrust them in front of a hurtling truck."

This is the simple fact of the matter. If we shrink in our duty to make a punishing blow of stunning proportions against the Taleban, we will be shortchanging ourselves in every ensuing attempt to excise this cancer on humanity for once and all. There is no simple solution. We are forced to consider and implement what was once unthinkable to avert the undreamed of at the hands of suicidal madmen. These maggots are Kamikaze on a stunning scale and only a stunning retribution will give them pause.

To worry about the condemnation of morally compromised people is only to bother ourselves at a moment when we need to be concentrating on the task at hand. It will merely throw off our aim when it must be most steady. Do not forget that any one of us now alive could be instead burned and buried in the rubble. This was an attack upon every single American and nothing less than an outright declaration of war.

War is what we have on our hands. If you do not have the stomach for it then leave it to those that do. It is a nasty, dirty business on the best of days and pure Hell on the rest. What is soon to come will not be pretty and it will require the killing of many thousands to finally exterminate those who would not flinch from the chance to kill millions. Think very carefully of how limited you want this (what can only be called radical) surgery to be. This malignant polyp is so virulent that it must be removed entirely the very first time. Any recurrence is the least desirable outcome and it needs to be addressed foremost.

Believe me, I wish all this were all otherwise, I truly do. I just happen to know that it is not.

[Weirddave]

Grave and unpredictable consequence could result from any massive US military operation in the region. So-called moderate government could fall to be replace by Islamic fundamentalist regimes. It's very difficult to imagine what the US could do to prevent this once the momentum develops. In the case of Pakistan, there is the very real possibility of a Taliban-type regime coming to power and having access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

We're in the same ballpark here, but I'm out in right field while you're standing in the dugout. Or I'm in the bullpen while you're selling hot dogs in the stands. Whatever. My point is that an armed response is absolutely required-we will not deter terrorism any other way than to root out the perpetrators and kill them. I contend that we must do so with an eye towards keeping the moderate Islamic factions on our side. They are there now, but to ignore that and bomb indescriminately would put them against us, and sew the seeds for more attacks, this time from people who were on our side originally. Wouldn't it be better to use this fundamental groundswell of support from around the globe to specifically kill terrorist groups who can not be reasoned with, while at the same time strengthening moderate Islamic groups who will treat with us as equals by eliminating the radicals who keep them from gaining the upper hand?


Zenster,

You're making a few big mistakes and assumptions here.

I'll stick my already well-exposed neck out in order to suggest that any ground action in Afghanistan is pretty much out of the question (as the Soviets learned).

The Soviets sought to occupy Afghanistan. Agreed that that would be impossible. Fortunately, we need to do nothing of the kind.

Terrorists are well known for secreting themselves in large civilian populations in order to deter aerial attacks upon themselves. How do you counter that? Special forces are a real long shot and are more needed for mopping up any further attempts by terrorists.

You don't- at least not how you mean. You target the terrorist while realizing collateral dammage will occur. Youdo everything in your power to limit the dammage to innocent civilians.

They must be deposed and replaced with an interim multinational government until democracy can take root.

No, they ( the Taliban ) must be annialated, and a moderate government be allowed to take their place. Speaking of a "multinational government" is the providence of fools. People always demand to govern themselves. We must make the moderate alternative the attractive one.

Our track record in the world at large is good enough where a slight degree of overkill will not get us any less well thought of than we are already

If you truly believe this, my friend, you are sadly deluded. Our "track record" with these people is, from their POV, very bad indeed.

I would venture to say that the majority of Muslims who are nearly if not equally as horrified as any of us are would be little shocked by near obliteration of the entire Afghani nation in reprisal. The Taleban have left a permanent blood stain on the hem of Islam's robe. No member of Islam will be very surprised by whatever we end up doing. We are speaking of a culture that cuts off hands for stealing. Mass murder on such a scale is an unspeakable offense and merits extreme retaliation.

You would be wrong. You're equating what a society does to an individual lawbreaker with how that society would react to an attack on it's whole. That's very dangerous.

I do see where (as I argue in my own thread) there is immense benefit in making an example of the Afghani people for the enlightenment of all other terrorist nations.

Oh? and where do the Afghani peope have a say in what the Taliban does. You're flailing around looking for justification.

To be half-hearted or tepid in our response in any way will almost ensure that we will have to take a series of actions in Afghanistan instead of just one

Agreed. We need to do it right from the get go. That's the point of my thread.

Besides, we already have the technology to create nuclear scale non-atomic blasts with fuel-air bombs

FAE bombs only produce near nuclear results when used in a confined area. The desert of Afghanistan dosen't meet the criteria. Sorry, try again.

A few demonstration hits in remote areas might persuade the Mullahs to abdicate. If not, then the application of one to Kabul should inflict sufficient harm to their own enforcement infrastructure where a well armed internal rebellion could have a chance of succeeding.

You're dreaming of a bloodless solution. It's a fantasy. If you look at the second part of the statement, however, it's what I have been advocating.

What is soon to come will not be pretty and it will require the killing of many thousands to finally exterminate those who would not flinch from the chance to kill millions.

Agreed- but with a HUGE coda. The task at hand WILL require that we kill thousands of terrorists. Civilian casualties are inevitable. As long as we are going after terrorists, we are in the right. When we seek to bomb everyone, we not only lose world opinion, we sell our American soul for the fleeting pleasure of temporary vengance. To do that would make us a pariah among nations, and rightfully so.

Finally, Zen ole buddy, ole kid, ole sock. Don't lecture me on the necessity of war. I know it better than you. Only difference between us is that I am arguing for effective war, and you are arguing for war in general, prolly because you're hurt. We all hurt, man. Don't let it override your intelect.

[Monty]

Regardless of the President's terminology at the moment, the United States is not, technically, at war until the Congress declares it so.

Nifty little thing, that there Constitution.

[Feynn]

Zenster -

"Why send in a specialist when there is a blanket solution?"

"I'll stick my already well-exposed neck out in order to suggest that any ground action in Afghanistan is pretty
much out of the question (as the Soviets learned). So, let's tally up the alternatives, no ocean front property sorta rules out the navy, that leaves? Bingo... an air strike! And the prefered method of air engagement is by using? Bombs! "

I have already debated you on this point in your thread and received no response.

I believe pissing into the wind is the correct term for this situation so all I will say is that Dave has it right.

[Weirddave]

Originally posted by Monty
Regardless of the President's terminology at the moment, the United States is not, technically, at war until the Congress declares it so.

Nifty little thing, that there Constitution.

True. But the discussion was about an executive order, and what it actually means. We're not talking the Constitution, we're arguing legalities. Under our legal system now, assisination would be legal. Thank you for playing Monty, Don Pardo will now tell you about the Rice-a-Roni you have won.

[mswas]

Originally posted by kinoons
I agree that there should not be complete and total retaliation toward the Middle East in general -- the vast majority of those who live there were not involved, and honestly do believe that what happened is a terrible thing.

What is wrong with turning every terrorist camp we know of into a smoking hole in the ground? How about turning every terrorist camp we learn of in the future into a smoking hole in the ground? We don't have to wait for those terrorists to do something to actually kill an American, do we?

Because that sets too dangerous of a precedent. As my father pointed out, and Barak pointed out, Israel uses terrorism to combat terrorism. So Israel would be a terrorist state. If we take the holier than thou approach and start attacking terrorism, we are more or less using terrorism to fight terrorism, in other words trying to make people too afraid to be terrorists. The line blurs into a tyrannical US deciding what is ok, and what isn't and each new administration has a different idea on what terrorism is. The line is just too sticky. Combatting terrorism is combatting war. Don't forget that the US was started by terrorists. According to the British methods of fighting war, our guerilla style tactics, were terrorism.

The best way to fight terrorism is a swift and complete response when it is perpetrated against us, or our direct allies. (which incidentally we never have with Israel OR England.) And then, to condemn war completely, and fight war by not going to war. War IS terrorism, just because we make up rules to make ourselves feel better about it doesn't make it less terrorism.

Erek

[mswas]

Originally posted by ExTank
Dixie Son: Son, you're an embarassment to Southerners everywhere. If'n I was your father, I'd be sendin' you out the the willow tree for a switch, and you'd be rest assured to know that you'd be heading for bed early with an empty stomach and a sore behind, to help you contemplate the folly of your spiteful words towards a fellow American.

Man, southerners are sometimes so charming that you just can't avoid liking what they have to say.

I'm not a southerner so I don't know about any kind of code of honor inherent in being one, but I do agree with what you have said.

Erek

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

ExTank said:

You, sir, are a cur

Just because somebody else is tossing around insults doesn't mean you have to as well. Your point would have been made just fine without it, AND you wouldn't have been getting a warning from me.

------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[casdave]

I think that those involved in just about any part of this and of other outrages need to be taken out, I don't think hauling them off for trial - no matter how fair - will do any good at all since it will always be seen in a certain way by the Islamic world and will cause immense security problems.

I do think that for those who think they have nothing to lose and everything to gain through terrorism need those values replacing, they need to have hope, the prospect of material improvement and control over their lives rather than have a cleric do it for them.

Education is one thing needed but when your country has suffered years of drought and war as Afghanistan has or when you see your mortal enemies steamrollering your community in Palestine, in the radical Muslim's eye view.

They should be clothed, fed, educated and trained, given real control in their lives, their lives should be closer to ours in a material sense, and in the democratic sense.

Revolution and violence grow well in the barren ground of poverty and deprivation, we need to water it with hope and money.

That sounds like a bribe, maybe it is but it worked in the Marshall plan, without it who know what would have happened to Greece, Turkey, Italy, Japan.

[rob_s]

Originally posted by kinoons

What is wrong with turning every terrorist camp we know of into a smoking hole in the ground? How about turning every terrorist camp we learn of in the future into a smoking hole in the ground? We don't have to wait for those terrorists to do something to actually kill an American, do we?

Following that kind of logic the US govt would be obliged to launch strikes against all the 'backwoods / survivalist' militia training camps on US soil - arguably these would fit the description of "terrorist camps" which have potential to harm US citizens (especially in the light of the Oklahoma bombing).

Indeed, given the warlike pronouncements many of these groups have come out with against a variety of different nations and religions one could perhaps argue that eg. Arab or communist states have as much right to apply the principle advocated above themselves and launch attacks on the US.

As a Brit am I to assume that I shall soon see US troops parachuting into Ireland to wipe out IRA training centres?

I am in no way a fan of the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line, but this kind of reaction perhaps serves to underline the view of many throughout this world that the US is attempting to impose its moral opinions on everyone else. The USA training Israeli troops are equipping soldiers in the fight for freedom and justice; the Afghans supporting 'islamic' militants are promoting terrorism. Depending on your viewpoint the opposite rings true as well.

Let's clear the world of terrorist scum - but perhaps we might be better starting with our own (and by 'our' I mean those in "The West") affairs...

[Doug Bowe]

The United States will retaliate against the terrorism of the WTC and Pentagon.

1. An NPR commentator said that right now the US probably occupies the highest moral ground in it's history. No matter what retaliation is done will garner criticism from somebody somewhere. This is a given.

2. The retaliation will involve the loss of US life. This is probably stating the obvious but let's make sure we're all on the same page. 18 terrorists accepted the rules of kamikaze to accomplish their act.

3. The retaliation should be swift and decisive. The last thing the US needs do is enter another Vietnam.

4. To be effective the retaliation absolutely must (a) strike fear in the heart of every terrorist in the world and (b) every nation that would harbor such terrorists.

Those seem to be the ground rules.

[drpepper]

I am on the edge of my seat with this thread, because there is a distinct indication of well reasoned and thoughtful reactions regarding the US's future course of action. Maybe someone should bring it to the attention of the state department when it's run its course.

That said, there are several ideas mentioned above that interest me. While I agree with the assessment that the US doesn't need another Vietnam out of this situation, I also think that swift and decisive action is not the best course.

Another thread brought up the old chestnut that revenge is a dish best served cold; while I think all would agree that prevention and extermination of terrorist elements (rather than revenge) should drive our thinking, the strategy should be the same: retaliation needs to be measured and delivered with maximum damage to the roots of the problem. However, I truly believe there are many ways in addition to military action that we can strike a blow.

The problem of not having the capabilities to take out the enemy with "surgical precision" (obviously the most ideal scenario) is troubling to me. I definitely think a show of force is warranted (I have no idea of exactly what it should be, but I agree it must be done); I would also advocate some creative thinking about how to make the Afghani regime shrivel and die by other methods which would complement any military action. What I would like to see happen is this: along with multi-nation trade embargos, sanctions (or other means of ruining its economy), encourage massive emigration from the country, particularly the lifeblood of its infrastructure. Make it attractive for Afghani scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, hell, even lower level Islamic priests, and the like, to come to the West. Apparently some 10,000 (last I heard) had crossed the border in fear of a war starting there. If that number turned into 1 million, that's 4% of its population. I'll bet the Taliban would think twice if it saw its subjects draining away. Then who could point the finger at an imperialist West?

[Dragon Ash]

Maybe this has already been mentioned - but I haven't seen it, so I will mention it here. Retribution, revenge, or whatever you want to call it, - should be just one key purpose behind any military strike.

I believe another - perhaps _the_ - key purpose should be to send a clear message that the US will stand by, and defend, with our own sweat and blood, our allies and friends in democracy and freedom, when under attack.

In Japan, particularly older people who remember WWII and are, rightly, perhaps, proud of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution that bans the use of military force and revokes Japan's right to a standing army. Many of these people have told me that the US should refrain from 'any violence'.

I don't think they understand the message this would send. Forget the message this sends to terrorists (attack us with impunity!). What would this say to our allies? If we aren't going to retaliate or defend US blood, we sure as hell aren't going to help or defend Japanese blood. Or Korea. Or Taiwan. Or the UK, or any other country in Europe. Despite the opposition to US troops being stationed in foreign countries (Okinawa troops haven't done themselves any favor; pretty hard to spin docter the rape of 12yr girls), people realize the presence of the US is preferable to a vacuum - which is what would happen if the US pulls back into a shell.

The Economist puts it very well: 'Thanks to America, and only thanks to America, the world has enjoyed the past decades an age of hitherto unimagined freedom and opportunity. Those who would defect it from its past must not, and surely will not, succeed.

[ExTank]

DavidB: as always sir, you are correct.

My apologies to the board's administrators and moderators, as well as my fellow board members.

And to Dixie Son as well; my commentary was no more warranted than yours was.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by ExTank
DavidB: as always sir, you are correct.

My apologies to the board's administrators and moderators, as well as my fellow board members.

And to Dixie Son as well; my commentary was no more warranted than yours was.

Wow.
The world trade center is gone.
The U.S. is running scared from small organizations because collectively we don't have the stomach for war, even when morality demands it.
ExTank has gotten a moderator warning for inappropriate language.
I haven't.

NOTHING is right about this. It's all backwards. What is the world coming to?!

[rjung]

Originally posted by David B
ExTank said:

Just because somebody else is tossing around insults doesn't mean you have to as well.

Not that I'm worthy enough to question a moderator, but is "cur" considered that nasty an insult? I can think of a dozen other words ExTank could have used which would've been much more offensive; singling him out for "cur" seems kinda trivial to me (but again, I didn't go to Moderator School, so what do I know?).

In any event, ExTank deserves points for style.

[ExTank]

Joe: I hear you, brother. The feelings of a need to "strike back" quickly and decisively can be overwhelming. Myself and others like thinksnow and Bluesman feel it especially strongly.

But please don't let the perceived need of not only your fellow countrymen but also your national leadership as well for a rational, measured response lead to feelings of dispair; to feelings that we are sitting idly by and simply "taking this".

Rest assured that the Green Machine (the Army) takes a while to get moving, but once going, and in concert with our other branches, is an unholy terror that can and will punish the perpetrators, and give any supposed imitators serious pause to consider such future actions.

rjung: style points notwithstanding, nor the relative mildness of my carefully selected perjorative, my comments were inappropriate to this forum.

DavidB, as a moderator, was just doing his moderator thing. It wasn't personal, and I didn't take it that way.

Regardless, Dixie Son seems to have departed the Straight Dope; whether as a consequence of my words or for another reason, I'm not sure which, and don't particularly care.

[Spavined Gelding]

My TIME Magazine came to day with some horrific photos of the raid on the WTC, including one of people jumping that is enough to raise the bile in your throat. There is an editorial on the last page by Lance Morrow that comes awfully close to my view of the matter. You might read it.

[Monty]

Originally posted by Weirddave

True.

Oh, so you actually are aware of the very words of said document? Glad we don't have to cover that Civics lesson.

But the discussion was about an executive order, and what it actually means.

Um, 'twas you who posted

This rule does not apply in times of war. By stating that an "act of war" has been committed, Bush covered this.

Bush hasn't covered anything yet. The rule applies until it's invalidated (as in "Congress declares War") or revoked. Just sitting in the Oval Office and saying "This is War" doesn't pass the Constitutionality test.

We're not talking the Constitution,

Since it's the Constitution which deteremines by whom a state of war is declared for the United States of America, there is absolutely no way (short of being ignorant of the document in question, which you have proven yourself not to be) to discuss war for this country without also discussing the Constitution.

we're arguing legalities.

Exactly. And the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Under our legal system now, assisination would be legal.

No. See above. Unless and until the Executive Order in question has been invalidated by Congress or revoked by the President, assassination is unlawful.

Thank you for playing Monty, Don Pardo will now tell you about the Rice-a-Roni you have won.

How much did I win? Love the stuff & think that's a mighty dandy first prize!

[jshore]

Don't know if this has already been posted in any of the millions of threads on the subject, but here is an article written by a writer of Afghani descent that speaks to the point of the OP:

http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/16/index.html