O:
I’m still waiting to see if you are going to back up your assertions concerning Bin Laden. You know, the ones I challenged you on?
I’m working on that. There’s another GD thread which discusses the subject here, without cites, but as I indicated in that thread there is a link to a Toronto Star article on bin Laden and his work with the CIA somewhere here on the boards. I’m having a devil of a time finding it but will post it here once I do.
Fair enough. I patiently await your answer.
**
That’s intelligent. I suppose women shouldn’t venture outside unless they’re willing to be raped.
Maybe people shouldn’t go to work if they don’t want to be bombed.
Sometimes I think that you don’t think at all before you post.
A key part of many of your arguments seems to be looking at prior causes. It’s a fallacy. People are responsible for what they do. Period.
I could do that. It’s much more constructive to allow it to continue, patiently point out the inherent foolishness in some of those arguments, and allow those people to cut their own throats.
The other thing is that this was a fairly interesting discussion on the appropriate rebuttal of force the US should use before it got hijacked into the root causes of political class struggle bullshit.
No, maybe people shouldn’t whine when their threads evolve because of disagreements other posters have with their OP. Simple as that.
Looking at prior causes doesn’t exculpate the perpetrators. Hell, Guinastasia understands that. What’s so difficult about it?
Oh.
What’s all the talk about “ending nations that harbor terrorists”, then?
Stopping a mass murderer in and of itself is not irrational, no. But using a method that perpetuates violence and sows the seeds for future mass murderers is.
Thanks for stating the obvious- blindly lashing out is not 'turning the other cheek". I asked: "… what’s the solution to the problem at hand? WWOD? (What Would Olentzero DO?) ". To which you responded: “No retaliation of any kind. Let’s clean up the mess, grieve, heal ourselves and move on”.
Mossadegh answered this one rather well.
It ain’t about changing myself, baby. It’s about changing the world. Sure, I could cut up my credit cards (if I had any), or grow my own food (if I didn’t have to hold down a full-time job to help support two other individuals), or stop driving or using mass transportation (if I didn’t have to commute to work five days a week). But that wouldn’t address the real root of the problems, would it?
Olentzero, if I may, a couple of quick questions for you:
-
Do you consider the coordinated crashing of hijacked airliners into the WTC an act of war?
-
Do you consider the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon, our nation’s military headquarters, an act of war? (Perhaps you make a distinction.)
-
Do you agree that we now have a very large, imminent, and ongoing threat to our national security?
-
What, in your opinion, is the first and foremost role of the United States government? Of the United States Armed Forces?
-
If you agree with 3, do you think our government’s top priority should be eliminating or mitigating the national security threat it now faces as much as possible, as soon as possible?
I’m not talking about some, “Let’s find out how people there feel,” or, “Let’s review our economic policy in the region,” though I agree those factors will deserve some scrutiny and/or review at some point.
I’m talking about, we have thousands dead. We could have thousands more dead in an hour. Or London could.
What, in your opinion, do we do about that - now?
(Just for fun, see if you are even capable of answering all the questions without some backhanded jab at the U.S. Nah; you don’t have to do that. That would just be for my amusement, to see if you could.)
‘Facts’, by the very nature of the conflict, are pretty difficult to come by about anything concerning the 1979-89 Afghani Jihad
However, nn interesting article by Mary Anne Weaver in The New Yorker
Extracts:
"That Pan-Islamic effort,* whose fighters were funded, armed, and trained by the C.I.A., *eventually brought some twenty-five thousand Islamic militants, from more than fifty countries, to combat the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The United States, intentionally or not, had launched Pan-Islam’s first jihad, or holy war, in eight centuries."
and
*The C.I.A. station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989 was Milt Bearden, an avuncular, barrel-chested man with an easy smile. He arrived with the first shipments of Stinger missiles that Washington dispatched to the combatants, and he spent a good deal of time in the mountains with the resistance groups.
Not long ago, I asked Bearden, who is now retired, if he had known bin Laden during the war years.“No,” he replied. "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did, but did I say that this tall, slim, ascetic Saudi was instrumental? No, I did not. There were a lot of bin Ladens who came to do jihad, and they unburdened us a lot.
These guys were bringing in up to twenty to twenty-five million dollars a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It’s an extra two hundred to three hundred million dollars a year. And this is what bin Laden did. He spent most of the war as a fund-raiser, in Peshawar. He was not a valiant warrior on the battlefield."*
FWIW, I do believe Bin Ladin’s experiences of the CIA during that period considerably radicalised him against the US, CIA ‘assistance’ notwithstanding.
London Calling:
The assertion to be proven isn’t whether he supplied some training to Bin Laden and others, but whether we had trained him to be a terrorist.
Olentzero seems to be of the opinion that we supplied him with the abilities to become a successful terrorist, and are thus somehow paying the price for not being able to see in the future.
This is false on two counts:
-
I don’t think it can bre intelligently argued that we should have expected Bin Laden to turn on us after we helped him.
-
We did not train him to be a terrorist. We taught him to fight soldiers using guerrilla tactics. Those are very different tactics than those used by terrorists, and particularly there is little about what occured in the WTC attack.
I guess it’s fairly accurate to say we’ll never know anything for sure about how Bin Ladin’s mind-set developed, not least because he comes from such a very different starting point compared with any of us here. Sure we can get a grip on his later ideology, particularly in relation to Islamic Nationalism, but again, we can’t begin to fathom with any degree of certainty, how his experiences and intellect married with that ideology to form the man / ‘terrorist’ that we see now.
However, taking your points individually.
-
- The US ‘helped’ the Mujihadin because it suited the US (“up yours, USSR”) – the airlift of weaponry was no act of charity (not that you’re claiming it was). Also, it seems he didn’t “turn on” the US after the 79-89 War. Islamic Nationalism was anti-American before that (it was the reason for the Nationalist movement). Thus, the alliance between the CIA and the Mujihadin was no more than a marriage of convenience and both sides knew that. As such, there was always the possibility that once that conflict was resolved, the Nationalists would turn their attention against the US as the original target. The active ‘terrorism’ has evolved over time from that initial, essentially rhetorical, anti-American sentiment.
- – IMHO, the fact, or otherwise, of whether the US actually trained him to be, specifically, a terrorist is not the important question. This is an intelligent, educated, self-determining individual who makes his own decisions. The US facilitated the circumstances that caused him to take the road on which he now finds himself and did so in two key ways:
a) - There would likely have not been a serious conflict in 79-89 without US involvement – Bin Ladin would not have built his reputation, gained the radical experience of US Foreign Policy in practice and not have built the network of links that he now has.
b) - He certainly talks a lot about US responsibility for a range of ‘atrocities’ including the massacres in the Beirut camps, Bosnia and the impact of the No-Fly Zone on Iraqi children. In, perhaps a curious sense, I do believe he is an honest man and have little doubt that this current Jihad against ‘America’ is based on that which he claims it is based.
In addition, he also speaks of US involvement in the region, whether US military in Saudi, the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, a “Zionist plot”, etc, et al. as being the context – his Jihad, IMHO, is better characterised as being against US Foreign Policy (both revenge for its effects and in order to change it now)
So, put all that in the pot: Initial Islamic Nationalism, his experiences during 79-89 War, his views of the impact of US policies on ‘his’ Muslim people and you have someone who Henry Kissinger described last week as** “created” by US Foreign Policy** – I have a weak spot for Kissinger, BTW.
I guess that doesn’t constitute physically “training him to be a terrorist” but I do believe, as does Kissinger, that the US supplied the tools and the motivation and Bin Ladin built his own agenda with those tools. Whether that agenda was predictable remains, I guess, a moot point.
As for seeing into the future – Kissinger said last week that the US needs to change its short-term attitude to resolving mid-East issues because it creates people like Bin Ladin.
Cites supplied on request 
Sorry, the contents of the above are directed towards Scylla
Okay… let’s have at it.
No. A despicable act of terrorism, yes, but not an act of war. We know who was behind Pearl Harbor, and we knew that Japan had some serious imperial ambitions in the Pacific that conflicted with the US’ own ambitions. But who did this? Why? We only have suspects, and not even a clear motive. (“Fundamentalists hate the US” doesn’t count in my book.) It’s not an act of war.
See #1.
What, national security wasn’t threatened in 1993 or 1995? If there is one, it’s certainly not imminent. It’s been simmering under the surface for years.
Same as any other national government. Representing a dominant class and its interests, which generally lie in generating profits for itself.
Security is important; there are ways and means of ensuring the population of the United States is safe and secure without giving up any of our civil rights. Retaliation is not one of them. Right off I guess airport security ought to be tightened, but extreme care needs to be taken there - given the heightened feelings running around, it would be too easy to harass Arabs who wish to travel by air.
I still think Mossadegh’s proposals are good.
How’d I do? Is His Majesty sufficiently amused?
First of all, nice thread Scylla, you always hit the points right-on.
Anyway, my lazyness, and my lack of time, are preventing me from reading this entire thread, so please forgive me if I repeat anything other people have said.
I think that what America did in 1944 was justified, and the right thing to do. I am glad that we nuked the hell outta Japan. It is a real shame that the solution to the problem we face today will not come as easily.
We, as Americans, are not nearly as unified as we were. Yes, this recent tragedy has brought us together, much more so than anything else in the past 20 years. And it is a wonderful sight to see flags on 1 of 3 cars, and to hear democrats and republicans come together on issues. Here’s where we hit the rock, though. Yes, the majority of people, wether politicians or civilians, do want some sort of retailiation. Yes, most of these people want to blow Bin Laden (assuming it was him) out of the water. Yes, I have heard (already) multiple views on this. In typical historical events, liberals tend to be more regressive, while the conservatives are more aggressive. I hear people walking around my school saying, “We have no right to bomb them, that is not right.” This infuriates me, but I am afraid that I can see this sort of statement happening in conversations more and more in the future. People are going to cool down, and this event will be burried in the depths of history, and while some measures will be taken, people will start to believe that we shouldn’t (destroy Afgan.) and that we would be wrong to.
The thing about 1944, Americans had pride for their country, much more so than today, despite the recent tragedy. When 2400 Americans were killed, without warning, that steamed us up, and we went over there (3 years later) and showed em who’s boss.
Say Bush decides a nuclear strike is in order, and it is to be carried out. We send some nukes over there, and Afgan is reduced to ruble, and decay, similar to the situation on Southern Manhattan. What is to prevent them, or other countries retaliating by firing nukes back at us? You think that NYC was bad? Wait until something like 2, maybe 3 nuclear warheads land on LA, or Chicago. Maybe a case of Anthrax in the mix. We really cannot take the chance of firing a nuke at Bin Laden.
IMHO, an airstrike needs to take place. We have got to drop bombs on any visible evidence of Bin Laden. Then, after we can get in there, have a full fledged invasion, and send troops, tanks, the works, in there after the bastard who did this. Simply taking out bin Laden will not be enough. He is not afraid of us, and he is prepared to die. If he were to die today, he has dozens of people reasdy to take over where he has left off. He has so many followers ready to take charge of the entire situation, we have to eliminate them as well. This can never ever happen again if we want to retain our status as #1 nation in the world…
I cede to London_Calling on the point of bin Laden and his connections with the CIA. I got stuck trying to find this one damn link I saw here, since I was planning on using that as my starting point.
My understanding was that the CIA did in fact train him, but unless and until I find something that argues the point solidly enough I’m leaving it as London said it. I may have been wrong on the point about training, but London’s post still demonstrates pretty clearly that the US’ foreign policy of direct involvement in other countries’ affaires set in place the framework in which bin Laden became what he is.
Thanks for your honesty, Olentzero. But it is about changing yourself. How can you, in good conscience, continue to criticize U.S. policy, yet take advantage of what it brings you? You can give as many excuses as you want, but the bottom line is, your life (as well as the lives of your dependents), benefit from the very same things you fight.
The collapse of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Rights- they all started because someone cared enough to change. As cliched as it may be, change has to start from within. I don’t agree with you at all in this current situation, but if you truly believe in something, let your actions prove it.
Advances in the human standard of living occur independently of the existence of countries. It wasn’t like we jumped straight from the Paleolithic into the World of Tomorrow at the moment when fifty-six men put their signatures to a sheet of parchment in 1776. Being a revolutionary doesn’t mean being an ascetic.
But they didn’t change their lifestyles, except to the extent that they became social activists. Blacks didn’t stop wearing cotton because the cotton industry had gotten its start on the backs of their ancestors.
Anyway - this particular discussion is straying too far afield from the subject of debate. Let’s keep it a little closer to home, and at some later point we can start another thread on this, right?
I’d say.
Which suggests or proves exactly what? If a butterfly’s cough sets into motion the chain of events that leads to a tornado and kills 50 people, is that butterfly somehow repsonsible?
Why do you arbirtarily stop your chain of responsibility at US involvement?
By your logic I could just take it back another step, and say that had the Middle East simply been more stable, and had not certain countries and groups requested our help then this wouldn’t have happened either. So, isn’t it really their fault?
Clearly the U.S. at one time had ties with and helped Bin Laden before he became a terrorist. We all know this. It’s widely publicized.
What conclusion are you seeking to draw from this fact?
The point that it is US policy of direct intervention in other countries’ affairs that laid the foundation for the mess we find ourselves in now. Further intervention in the form of retaliation - whether it be solely against bin Laden, against the Taliban, against Afghanistan, or against the whole Middle East - is going to make the situation worse and escalate the acts of terrorism.
That is my point, sir. The US bombs, and it is going to bring more destruction down on its own citizens’ heads. Retaliation continues the vicious cycle and I believe it needs to stop here and now while we have the chance.
Thanks for your answers to my questions, Olentzero. Now I can better understand where you are coming from.
We disagree at the absolute foundational level of what Sept. 11 means (surprise, surprise).
This isn’t an act of war because our foe isn’t blatant? Because it isn’t a group in a uniform in a state with well-defined borders?
I disagree. I would say war is defined by the level of scale, coordination and ability to inflict damage and threaten national security.
Even just through following the media since Tuesday, it’s becoming increasingly clear that those behind this were elements from “the usual suspects” - bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, and perhaps others. And that it also has links to previous acts such as the bombings of the WTC, our embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole.
And it can be safely assumed that the government knows more than it is letting the media know.
Why did they do it? To disrupt. To cause fear. To create insecurity and chaos. To damage our economy, and cause radical alterations to or restrictions of the freedoms we hold dear.
Do we really need to wait for the conclusion of some months-long inquiry to understand at least that? Their motivations are the same as they’ve always been.
This is interesting to me. An attack is made on our national military headquarters - something that would very specifically be a war aim - and you still see this as something other than an act of war.
It’s certainly not imminent? By this you mean, we need not worry about something similarly horrible occurring today or sometime this week, in the U.S. or some other Western nation? Upon what do you base this assertion?
I base the opposite assertion on the events of Sept. 11. Whatever they’ve been capable of doing but haven’t done in the past; they’ve shown their capability to do it now. I haven’t seen one person in the know who says this was isolated and is now over.
The primary interest of any government and any country is self-preservation. Perhaps, as you state, to have the ability to continue to generate profits, but it’s national security first and foremost, nonetheless.
Why isn’t retaliation one of them, pray tell? Why isn’t obliterating the network responsible for this priority one?
You’re not offering any solution at all; only a list of things from the onset that we must not do. I think our government is more “ends-oriented” right now than that. For obvious reasons; at least to me.
You did good. I’m so proud.