A nuclear solution to WTC bombing?

Great Debates
281

We can blame Britain, too. After all, after WW2 Israel was still a British protectorate and not a country in its own right. Jews were relocated there after the war as “compensation” from being driven out of yet another place in thier long, convoluted history. That’s how the Palestinians got shoved out: a period of political oppression and overt racism. Palestinians were treated, in some ways, similarly to the treatment of the Jews in WW2. Only they had to carry ID. They were put into work camps. They were pushed out of politics.

But before we get into that too far, better yet, blame Hitler for starting the war in the first place and using Jews as scapegoats.

No wait, it goes back further than that…

Scylla has said it best. It isn’t that the US wasn’t a factor in this; very few of us doubt that. It is that we are responsible for it. A great many of us do doubt that, will continue to reject it, and you can cite all the history you want to try and support your claim. In the end, history is a continuous chain of events, and no one is factually responsible for how history plays out.

We may hold Hitler responsible for his treatment of the Jews. But an we hold him responsible for World War 2? Perhaps we can, perhaps we can… but then, the German people of the time were strong in the faith of their country, and the propaganda of the time watered the seeds of violence. But they were already there after a crumbled economy and poor living conditions; they were already there after WWI.

So how far back do we need to go to find the true cause of this strife? How about the Crusades and their backlash. To biblical times with Egyptian pharhos (sp-- to lazy to look it up)? Or further still, to the Babylonians and Assyrians? To Sumeria? Prehistory? I am not being facetious here. We can trace a very plausible line of cause and effect throughout time, and everyone everywhere is implicated by either inaction or action, depending on who we ask. Some say America shouldn’t have gotten involved, some say America shouldn’t have taken sides, some say we took the wrong side, some say America just sucks anyway and we should scrap it as the den of iniquity it is. Which side are you on? Are you prepared to have the future judge you for your mistakes which are in many ways beyond your control?

London, can we blame chess for effective strategic warfare? Why is that too much of a stretch, if not?

Olen, can we blame Communism for Lenin and Stalin? Why is this different?

Blame is easy to place; funny thing is, remove the blamemakers and history seems to put its own there anyway. Kill bin Landen, and there’s another to take his place. Remove a Lenin, and there’s a Stalin ready to go.

There are, offhand, quite a few peaceful solutions I can think of for this affair. But they all require free speech, free press, a lack of dictatorships, and American involvement in the building of infrastructure for these countries. In other words, they too require American presence.

Each side has made it clear they are not leaving. One side offers demands (the US) for peaceful coexistence, the other demands we leave. We’re not leaving. So what then?

So: war and strife. Typical world history, actually. I’m suprised so many here are suprised.

282

**

Wha does “laying the foundation” mean? Are you positing causation or responsibility? Please be precise.

I guess that is our psychic prediction for the day.

It’s a shame that direct observation proves it to be utterly false.

Bin Laden was responsible for the WTC bombing in '93. We did nothing. Lots of people died this past Tuesday, because of inaction.

Retaliation may in fact possibly carry unforseen consequences. Inaction on the other hand has been proven to carry the gravest consequences of all.

283

So are we still at war with Iraq, then?

Sounds much like what we’ve been doing at various times in the Middle East. How is continuing this tradition going to stop the problem of terrorism?

Calling this an act of war merely justifies the United States’ approach of going in and bombing the hell out of whatever target they’ve chosen.

Of course not. But 1993 at the least should have given the US some warning that other attacks were at least possible.

Countries arise because of class society, and self-preservation of countries (which compete with each other politically, militarilty, and economically) means preserving a class system. That competition breeds conflict, and that conflict can erupt in a number of ways.

Because it’s fairly obvious the network is far too extensive to take out that quickly. The US takes out the cells in Afghanistan, there are cells in Pakistan and Iran to contend with; after that are the cells in Palestine and Libya and wherever else. Including those on our own soil. They’ll have time to answer US retaliation once the cells in Afghanistan are dealt with, on the off chance it’s done successfully.

The overall solution is not a one-stop shopping kind of deal. It’s going to be a long process of re-examining the US role in the Middle East and working out what needs to be done to stop producing terrorism in the first place. Retaliation will force us into a defensive footing and not allow us the luxury of time to implement a real solution.

Yeah, bite me.

284

I would like to propose a multi-pronged approach to the situation in Afghanistan:

  1. Work with the fact that the countries bordering Afghanistan have closed their borders, and are not letting anyone cross over. Then, don’t let anything in, not people, not supplies, nothing, etc., for a few weeks. When the food supply gets dangerously low, move in and make drops of foods for the Afghani populace, making sure they know the U.S. is delivering.

  2. The American military should invade Afghanistan and move to a defensible line that can be defended and that will further isolate the Taliban. Territory should be advanced on slowly and tenaciously protected. The people that are on these lands should be unarmed and given plenty to eat, and the medical care they need.

  3. I believe that Voice of America should be broadcast all over occupied and unoccupied areas of Afghanistan as well as all over the Middle East 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Taliban’s propaganda should be discredited at all times.

  4. The american military should occupy as much of Afghanistan as is practical, setting up a new infrastructure, new government, new services and education to show the people that the Taliban is a poor substitute for free will and self determination. Humanitarian organizations should be encouraged to set up permanent shop here. When the population that was kept under the thumb of the Taliban starts enjoying their new status, they should be able to discourage other fanatics from taking them over.

  5. As for the unoccupied area of Afghanistan where the Taliban are penned up, leave them there and squeeze them mercilessly. I’m willing to bet (less than a dollar) that when they’re reduced to eating their camels, the least fanatical of them will surrender and play fair. I could care less about the fate of the hardliners. Let them die in their caves.

I’m sure that there are many holes in my speech, but my main point is that there must be a many pronged approach to combatting terrorism. You must give people a better alternative to what they’re living in already. The world will see that we’re not just slaughtering people wholesale; we’re offering mercy to those who are innocent, and isolating those who can’t be trusted. I do realize that many innocent civilians will die, and I regret that. I don’t believe that we can “forgive and forget”. We’ve done that too many times in years past and terrorists take advantage of our inaction. Thanks for your patience.

285

History is a product of human society, except for the most basic material events. Everything leading up to this very moment in human existence has been the result of ideas and attitudes and the decisions and actions taken based on them. People are responsible for their decisions and actions, and the motor of history lies there, not outside us.

There was also a large Social-Democratic movement, and a Communist Party. Had they made the decision to actively fight the fascists instead of kowtowing to Stalin’s policy and doing little more than nothing, history would have been quite different. I blame Hitler for the Holocaust, just as I blame Stalin and the German socialists for their failure to prevent the rise of Hitler.

The end of World War II and the two superpowers’ scramble to claim Middle East influence.

As long as I realize the mistakes I have made and strive to correct them, then yes.

I don’t blame anyone or anything for Lenin. The thread I started for myself and Guinastasia explains what I attribute to the rise of Stalin. I think you’ve been in there, no?

That’s not the complete picture. Kill bin Laden without changing the fundamental circumstances that gave rise to him, and there’s another to take his place. As for Lenin and Stalin, each came to power under very different circumstances. Stalin could not have come to power under the circumstances Lenin did, and Lenin certainly would not have made any attempt to seize power under the circumstances where Stalin took the lead.

I believe quite the opposite - free speech, free press, and a lack of dictatorships would be better served by removing the American presence from the Middle East.

We brace ourselves for more of the same. The US can make the decision to pull out of the Middle East, and it bears the responsibility for either doing or not doing so.

286

medster, fantastic. I have said similar things in similar threads.

So, now that Afghanistan is out of the way, what do we do about the rest of the terrorists? And once we start the resurgence of imperialism in the Middle East, what makes you think the governments in their own power are going to like us anymore when they see our method of handling this?

Pakistan is threatened. Iran and Iraq are threatened. Is even egypt threatened?

Thisn will involve, essentially, one country (the us) taking over something the size of itself.

287

I’m going with responsibility. US intervention in the Middle East was a conscious decision designed to attain a goal beneficial to a minority of the US and a minority of the local populations at the expense of the rest of both.

Here I would agree, but not for the same reasons. The US did nothing to change its policy towards the Middle East after 1993, and the same conflicts remain. Yes, the US did prosecute a handful of terrorists in the 1993 bombing, and it has conducted efforts to “get” bin Laden since 1998, but it has done nothing to address the situation, which it consciously created, that gave rise to antipathy and hatred towards the United States.

288

First off, it astounds me how many of you have your heads in the sand about this whole issue and the world in general. Now I cannot really hold that against some because I am privy(due to close friendships with Delta operatives) to certain events that have transpired in recent history and as such have a differing opinion about “current events” than do most people. Secondly, it seems to me that only a few posters on here understand what needs to be done and what kind of mess this really is. Sam Stone,erislover and Milosarrian definately have the right idea. We are fighting for the survival of the free world. This goes much deeper than most of you can imagine. If we do not stand up and show that we will not be bullied into fear then our way of life and the way of the free world will die. There is no way around innocent people being killed in this mess, unfortunately that is the cost of war. It really is us vs. “them”. If we fail at stopping these madmen, it will be the end of the human race as we know it, you can bet on it. Nukes should not be used…yet. It is an option down the line if this gets much worse(which it may). I heard Genral Swarzkophf say that our leaders are very aware of the past fight the Afghans gave Russia and they dont plan to repeat that- there will be no pounding it out on the ground, I would think more likely that it will be air strikes follwed by Spec Ops assasinations of key leaders and training camps. If we dont follow up and finish the rest of these terrorists then we as a nation are in for a decade filled with horror and unspeakable acts of violence. I for one want to have kids someday and I dont want them to have to wear combat armor to school…so…we need to be the nation we once were and stand up and defend ourselves.

289

Olentzero:

You said the U.S. “Consciously created” the situation that led to the WTC bombing.

I take back what I said in the other threads.

That is the all time stupidest, most asinine, and mindlessly ignorant thing I’ve ever read on these boards.

Congratulations. You win the prize.

290

If you say so; I find such a constructionist view of history to assume that all facts are available to decision makers at least most of the time, which is pretty much as false as it gets.

I would suggest that ignorance is fundamental in political decisions involving foriegn policy; as such, a 100% informed opinion is unlikely. Especially so before the “information age.”

Without an informed opinion, however, decisions must still be made. The Law of Unintended Consequences? Welcome to human history.

291

Thank you, sir! Only too glad to have earned your long-overdue reciprocal contempt.

292

Here is where you are fundamentally wrong. The people of the United States believe otherwise:

This is what America believes. This is what we were founded on. This is what we WILL defend.

I believe this is one of the reasons maniacs like Bin Laden hate us so much–they don’t believe in any of these things, not Justice, not Tranquility, not Welfare, nor Liberty.

Please keep your socialist claptrap to yourself, for you are no better than he.

293

Let’s make something perfectly clear, though I thought it would have been so the last time I said it.

My “contempt” is for your arguments and your stance alone. I really have no idea what you’re like in person, and therefore I have no opinion on you, personally. I react in accordance with the tripe you post. That’s all.

You’re welcome to your personal contempt, but don’t presume I reciprocate it.

294

Osama Bin Laden has no interest in hurting the U.S. without something to gain from it. I think he did it because he thinks that he can polarize the arab nations against us if we attack him.

How do you propose we could have thousands more dead in an hour? By most accounts this attack took months to prepare involving over 50 people committing suicide. Not to mention the terrorists had suprise on their side and any current hijackers would not be able to take knives or box cutters on board and any hijacking would probably be stopped by a few people because they know that they are going to suicide.

295

I don’t believe the cumulative affect of US Foreign Policy on OBL or Islamic Nationalism can quite be described in those terms, although I’m sure the CIA would currently find comfort in the analogy.

Also, I have to assume you find no merit in Kissinger’s POV (that US policy created Bin Ladin) as OBL is plainly more relevant than your butterfly – I hope that’s more indicative of the current (and understandable) emotional mood within the US rather than a trend towards a rejection of serious analysis.

296

London:

No. I haven’t argued that the US has done nothing to create anti-US sentiment abroad.

Consciously setting the chain of events that led to the WTC attack is another matter though.

297

I will not. And for someone who claims to be fighting ignorance on these boards, you ought to know much better than to equate someone who merely disagrees with your point of view with a mass murderer such as Osama bin Laden.

298

Um, what makes you think they haven’t already planned other, different types of attacks, that are just on the eve of eruption? If they started planning the WTC attack 2 years ago, they could have easily started planning other attacks 2 years ago …

There are also many other ways to kill lots of people, or cause lots of destruction, without airplanes, so increased airport security may be moot with respect to the next attack.

Arjuna34

299

Olentzero:

I don’t even know what that means. But to answer your question, yeah; to a limited extent, we are. Perhaps not so limited in a few days.

Ever hear of the No-Fly Zone? Ever notice what we do whenever Saddam gets aggressive to the point where we perceive it as more of a threat than we are willing to tolerate? Our jets attack. Our jets blow his shit up. He recoils. The threat is abated.

If it’s found he was affiliated in the support of this other, much deadlier threat that has come home to roost here, we’ll do more than blow up one building with one or two fighter jets, I can assure you.

You show me anything we’ve done in the Middle East ever that was offensive and equated to crashing four jumbo airliners with civilian passengers and/or deliberately destroying thousands of civilians in a purely civilian target, and you win the Gold Star.

You’re being ridiculous.

Your response in no way explains why an attack on our military headquarters would not be considered a war aim; ergo an act of war.

And your answer implies that we would want to go in and bomb the hell out of some target other than those responsible for or affiliated with what happened here. What leads you to believe that, other than your knee-jerk, anti-American government views?

So, what are we supposed to do again? React? Not react? Oh, that’s right. Capitulate to the foreign policy aims of the terrorists that attack us. That’s your solution.

So, explain to me why this goverment responding in an overwhelming way to what was done to its people, buildings, etc., would be an immoral or improper act? If it is targeted at the network determined to be responsible by loads of clear evidence, and governments that support those people?

**
Says who? Maybe they can’t be taken out, but they can be scattered, have their leadership cut off, have their flow of money and other aid disrupted, etc., until they can betaken out.

And even if you are right, what are you saying? “It’s not going to be quick or easy. So forget about it.”

**
What has led you to believe we are going to do this one country or one terrorist cell at a time? What happened Sept. 11 was unprecedented. I think the response is going to be, too.

**
That’s where the FBI and the CIA come in, and local law enforcement, and security in airports, sporting events, etc. Whatever faults I have with them, wondering what they were doing leading up to Sept. 11, they seem to be making a lot of progress in a lot of places now.

**
I am coming around to the opinion of others such as Jodi. Changing our policies is precisely what we should not do.

You don’t get what you want from America by killing thousands of our citizens in an act of cowardice. You get dead. Your cause gets damned.

No message other than that will be effective. Capitulation leads to more slaughters of our people in an effort to get further capitulations.

**
Why? So you can then go through a period of self-loathing to determine why you are responsible for my bite?

Sterra:

I agree. If you examine this, the terrorists didn’t seem too particularly interested in covering their tracks (A how-to-fly-a-commercial-jet manual in Arabic in a parked car at the Boston airport? That’s like something out of a bad screenplay.).

I think they wanted it to be determined who was behind this. Because they wanted a big response from the U.S. and its allies. Because they want a jihad.

Why do you presume the next attack will be done exactly the same way? Why do you presume that there are not also other terrorists, who have also been training and preparing for months for The Second Volley?

300

[Moderator Hat ON]

Take it down a bit; there are some borderline comments being made here on both sides. However, Olentzero, your “bite me” remark was unambigiously inappropriate for Great Debates.

[Moderator Hat OFF]