I find the OP to be begging the answer – we’re told to assume that a terrorist attack is committed by Islamic terrorists (continuing the centuries-long demonization of Islam…), then we’re supposed to guess who did it and why? Geez, might as well make this a BBQ Pit rant while we’re at it.
Though, playing by the hypothetical, if recent history is any example, the Administration’s national security advisor – heck, maybe even Condi Rice herself – will be telling us “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take a stadium full of people blow it up.”
Of course, he (or she) would be lying through their teeth (again), but the Legion of Faithful Bush Apologists™ will be standing by, ready to lap up the newest bushit at a moment’s notice.
So you examine those indirect relationships and figure out whether you should do anything about it or not.
I disagree. As far as I’m concerned if one part of any organization attacks then we can respond in kind to any other part of that organization. It doesn’t matter if that organization is a country or a loose collection of cells. Really, I don’t see why we can’t go after terrorist cells before they attack in addition to going after them after they attack. For me it isn’t an either or proposition.
I’m willing to accept that psychopaths might kill us despite our best efforts to stop us. On the other hand I’m also willing to accept that the associates of the dead killers might ultimately be innocent. If we do target an entire country in order to prevent such actions in the future, I would still call that a response.
I will not accept us lying down while the bad guys stomp on our heads. Any idea what that might do the morale of the country?
I’m pretty much in agreement with **SentientMeat ** here. We are 100% helpless against terrorism. If I go out and blow up a building and myself, what the hell are you going to do about it? Kill me? These guys have learned how to even up the playing field, much like we did against the British. Taking pot shots from trees was much easier than standing toe to toe with a more powerful enemy. Terrorism will never be stopped militarily, policy is the only option. We need to ask ourselves why these attacks occur and then try to negotiate with the enemy. Remember, these things do not randomly happen. There is a very specific reason and that reason needs to be identifed and confronted. Getting pissed off and saying “who dares attack us, we will crush everyone!”, will only dig a deeper hole. The war on terror is no different than the war on drugs. When people are allowed to move freely in our society, the smuggling of drugs, bombs or people are inevitable. I consider the war on terror and the war on drugs to be going equally well, i.e. a dismal failure.
At some point, ‘collective punishment’ can come into play. Not that modern Western nations are likely to ever do so, but there is always something that can be done.
I don’t necessarily have to limit my attacks to you. I can go after your leadership, your training bases, your allies, and even erode your economic base.
That’s a romantic notion but that’s not how we beat the British.
I agree that military force will never stop all terrorism. The fact is, military force is but one part of our foreign policy.
If they weren’t interested in negotiation before they started bombing embassies, hijacking planes, and sending out suicide bombers what makes you think they’re interested in any negotiation?
I don’t see this as being the same as the war on drugs. However I do agree that these things will happen in a free society. I just don’t accept that we’re completely defenseless.
My leadership? What if I have none? My training base(s)? Is my landlord somehow responsible for the planning being done in my apartment? My allies? So friends who had no idea what a psycho I am are now responsible for my actions? My economic base? Not real important to me seeing as I’m dead. In some cases these steps may be taken, but in all likelihood, pursuing this course of action is rather futile.
I see it a little differently. I think we’re the ones that aren’t too interested in diplomacy or negotiation. Don’t know about you, but in grade school I never saw the bully wanting to negotiate with the nerds. Seemed to be the other way around.
Would you care to explain why you don’t see the war on drugs and the war on terror as a good analogy? Simply stating so is not a real strong debating tool.
Also, when I say we are completely defenseless, I mean militarily. I still have yet to hear someone tell me how you can effectively drop a bomb on a terrorist.
You’re making this all about the individual terrorist who did the bombings. It is not all about that individual. What if they do have a leadership of some sort? What if they do have training bases? I don’t care if it’s important to you it might be important to others who are trying to do the same thing.
So Bin Laden attempted to negotiate with the United States before bombing our embassies and attempting to bomb the WTC in the early 90’s?
Not really, that’s a whole 'nother thread.
I’m saying the military is but one of the tools we can use against terrorism. You also have a pretty narrow view of how the military can be used to fight terrorism. Their abilities extend a bit farther then just dropping bombs.
Although you may have had an indirect association with a terrorist that had once borrowed 35 cents from you to make a phone call to coordinate a bomb detonation while you were thinking he was calling a repair truck, I would say that this doesn’t constitute a reasonable association in terms of a military or legal response.
If a terrorist is associated with a government that used its intelligence agency to acquire bluebrints for a stadium that would be packed, arranged for false documents to allow the terrorists to slip through border security, and bought explosives for the terrorists to hide in their backpacks, I would say that this hypothetical government DOES have a reasonable association with the terrorists in terms of a military response.
Once such a connection or association can be confirmed, I think using the military as a weapon against that government is a valid response. I think that crushing the Taliban was appropriate, and in your hypothetical situation, if there WAS no government connection similar to the one I described, then I would not support any retaliation against a foreign government at all. It’s really that simple.
I’m suggesting it’s not that simple. As in the example I gave Grey of Binladen shooting down a Chinese airliner with a missile bearing a note saying “Dear Osama, please use this against our enemies. Love, America”, first appearances might be deceptive (and, indeed, one government might cleverly frame another one: the equivalent of Jerry dressing up as Tom and placing a firecracker in the big dumb dog’s kennel, like so.) Even then, those government members might well be acting independently of their bosses, and almost certainly independently of the will of the people who will bear the brunt of the military action.
The bully’s blind tantrum: I can’t beat up the person who beat me up, so I’ll beat up whoever I can. So what if it does “improve his morale”?
The only response I can think of to this would belong in the Pit. However, I don’t typically start treads about other Dopers in the Pit so I’m just going to walk away from this thread. Good day.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, MG: I am not calling you a bully, nor necessarily even the current US administration bullies. I am asking you to consider whether the US would be a bully if it acted militarily against those who were only associated with my hypothetical terrorists.
:rolleyes:
If America was currently funding AQ, and AQ began (or had been) threatening China and then a Chinese airliner dropped out of the sky due to a stinger then yes, American would need to take some responsibility. But, and I guess I’m not making this clear, only following a period of investigation. If it was simply lashing out immediately following an attack then yes very bully like. If it’s after an assessment of the evidence then no.
SM, you’re using the guise of a hypothetical situation to effectively exonerate many of the people involved with committing terrorist acts.
You say “what if?” What if the terrorist was acting alone. What if the terrorists involved were trying to frame a particular government to draw the wrath of the US? What if they were acting against the will of the government that funded their acts?
In all of those cases, I would say that a military response against any country would not be justified.
But iff you can ask all of these what ifs, then let me ask one too. “What if it can be proven that a terrorist act was funded and executed with the blessing and direct financial support and cooperation of a foreign government?” Would an attack against that government by the US then be justified?
If your answer to that question is no, then the thread can’t go any further. You’ve made your point. Throwing troops around the world at people who piss you off isn’t smart, and definitely does not fit inside the moral frame that democracies claim to have, and I agree. To take it infinitely further by saying that no military action is justified, ever, is just silly.
Umm, I’m a bit confused here.I thought the bully is the one who attacks innocent kids. The nerds were the quiet ones wearing glasses and reading. On Sept 11, the bullies were the ones who attacked in airplanes. Three thousand innocent nerds were wearing glasses and reading in their offices. We retaliated AFTER the bullies attacked us, not the other way around.
The Israelis have been very effective at dropping bombs on terrorists. It takes very good intelligence. Two years ago suicide bombers were attacking Israeli civilians in busses and shopping malls once a week. When the Israelis fought back by dropping bombs–( helicopter missile attacks targeted on specific individuals) the attacks dropped by 80 per cent.
The OP is discussing terrorists as lone-wolf psychopaths. This is only true for a few cases, like the Unabomber in his mountain shack. But Islamic-based terrorists are usually backed up by an organization of some sort, which is a legitimate military target.
Or McVeigh. Or the DC snipers. There’s probably hundred, even thousands of tiny terrorist groups all around the world; most of them probably grow undetected in the countries they are founded in - including the US. And we need to keep that in mind before we start connecting the dots.
The point SM is trying to make, so far as I can tell, is that:
another attack is inevitable,
any jackass can pull off the attack, so
let’s think this over - and not, say, start a war over it - before we commit to a drastic action.
“Well, of course not!” some may say. “We would never start a war as a response to terrorism unless it was justified.”
Are you kidding chappachula? You think we got attacked because we were not running roughshot over the rest of the world? These attacks did not occur because a bunch of arabs were bored and decided to kill themselves. We bullied them and many others BEFORE 9/11. Trying to make the terrorists into the bully is as nearsighted as it gets. You act like we were minding our own business and then out of nowhere 19 nutcases showed up. Not quite like that my friend.
I am deeply concerned by responses I am seeing here suggesting that targeting an entire nation with military force could ever be the right option. Not only does it look like cracking peanuts open with a sledgehammer but it also has the unpalatable tendency to kill and maim innocent people.
I cannot fathom how killing innocent people is an acceptable response to the killing of innocent people.
Well, I happen to prefer that the evidence be submitted to an International Criminal Court such that those government members themselves be tried and imprisoned rather than the innocent populace facing the consequences of military action, but yes, if the “proof” is beyond all reasonable doubt, action against that government would be justified. My point was that in cases like this, there always seems to be some very reasonable doubt.
I submit the Bali and Madrid bombs as the closest parallel to my hypothetical: these were tiny, tiny groups with no organisation. For Spain to target Morrocco or Australia to target Indonesia militarily would have been a non sequitur: a bully’s desire to hit out at who he could, not who he should.
Can you really call the Iraq war a response to 9/11 at all?