I’m in total agreement. What are your suggestions to change the “Rules of War”?
Jabe:
A terrorist uses civilians as a shield. The reason they can operate is because they don’t respect the life of noncombatants but they expect others to.
What we’ve just seen proven to us, is that the math doesn’t work, and we can no longer disdain to let our hands get wet with the blood of innocent people.
Bin Laden and his people are able to operate, because we don’t want to invade a country or kill civilians. They count on it. We are stronger economically and militarily. They can’t face us, so they hide behind civilians and count on our forbearance to protect them.
Bin Laden was behind the '93 bombing of the WTC. He hid behind innocent people and behind borders or countries. We were unwilling to hurt those people and unwilling to break those borders. He counted on this, and he has continued to operate.
Last Tuesday we paid the price of that forbearance, and many many civilians are dead.
The way I see it, the innocent Afghanis Bin Laden is hiding behind have not been put in harm’s way by us.
Those innocent people that died Tuesday were put in harm’s way by us.
The responsibility of the US Government and its armed forces is forced and foremost to defend the the people of the U.S. That they must do.
The Afghan government’s responsibility is to protect it’s citizens. By harboring Bin Laden they have put those citizens in harm’s way, not us. They have failed, and they will be responsible for the deaths, not us.
Though our military may be the instrument of those innocent deaths, the Afghani government is as responsible for those civilians as if they had pushed them in front of a hurtling truck.
Your perspective is skewed here. A government is not responsible for killing civilians when it goes after a terrorist. It is saving lives and protecting its citizens
The government that harbors, helps, or allows a terrorist to operate within their borders is the one doing the killing of innocents.
That’s the way it really is.
Scylla: I agree with your last post. It is sick how little the Taliban cares about the citizens of Afghanstan. Maybe I am arguing a mute point, but I was so sickened by the loss of innocent life on tuesday, I cant bear to see any more. Arab or American. I know I’m an idealist and not very realistic. But I can still hope and pray that no civilians are killed.
I hope there are no hard feelings between anyone inthis thread.
hope for peace in the future,
JB
None whatsoever, jabe.
Great post, Scylla.
Whoa there. The fact that the Taliban is putting civilians in harms way will not absolve the United States government of responsibility if any of those civilians are killed by U.S. armed forces. The Taliban will certainly share responsibilty if that happens, but that’s it.
If the U.S. drops atomic bombs on Afghanistan, then any deaths that result (terrorists or civilians) will be partly the responsibility of the United States. Such an action may or may not be justified, but let’s not pretend that the blood will just wash off our hands. Justification does not equal absolution.
Eris, I can comprehend just fine. And if you re-read my post, you will see that my second sentence describes what you are suggesting (the use of nuclear weapons) as being escalated to a point where fallout would indeed be a concern for other countries.
I implore you (and everyone else here) to just step outside the current situation and look to the future a bit.
If we were to use a nuclear weapon of any size, its reasons and justifications will only be apparent to those who don’t have to deal with its residual effects.
ANYONE who has to deal with its effects will surely be a little less sympathetic towards whatever the reason for its use was regardless of the validity of such reasons.
My point with my previous post was that although some action is quite obviously required, more than just war is required. Our conventional weapons and International treaties (to which, whether we like them or not, we are bound) do not apply to terrorits. In short, they don’t give a damn about the Geneva convention.
So conventional warfare of any size will be fruitless.
And the use of ANY sized nuclear weapon will show those who currently on the fence about “love America/hate America” will fall to the wrong side.
As my friend put it, we will be creating the next generation of martyrs. It was Bin Laden this time. But next time it’ll be Ben Loden. And then it’ll be his toothless cousin from Omaha, Pant Loaden.
If on Tuesday there were crowds dancing in the streets of Palestine, then I can assure you that there were other similar feeling in other areas of the world (there just weren’t any CNN reporters there to film it).
So to fully erradicate terrorism, it takes more than bombs, planes and nukes. It takes “human intelligance” of another kind than our president is suggesting. Isreal is living proof that no matter how many of these scumbags you kill, another one shows up at your door step with TNT strapped to his ass.
It requires the systematic approach of finding the ones that exist (hey, if Barbara Walters can find him, so can the US military) and killing them.
And as a side note eris, if you condone the use of nuclear weapons, then you are not a hippie.
Whoaaaa! Hang on a minute. I’m not sure if you were referring to me or not, but I want to make myself abundantly clear here.
** This maggot and other like him are in no way honorable. **
What I was referring to was the residue left over from the cold war. America is hardly the only nation that is faced with this. The Soviet Union is also plagued with this, however, their problems may not manifest themselves in the same way.
The cold war (again, not the US, not its government, not any previous foreign policy blunders, perceived or otherwise) are the sole cause of the tragedy the world faced on Tuesday.
It’s one of MANY residual effects.
Bin Ladin is a piece of shit. So is Saddam. So was Timothy McVeigh. But unfortuantely, at one point they were necessary to accomplish a task. Before, they were a “tool” but a good kind. Now they are simply a tool. And they are residual effects of a time that no longer exists. They are monsters which were tools of a military machine. They are like the leaking nuclear submarines of the former Soviet Union. They are a threat to humanity, not just the Western world. If you don’t believe me, ask Europe and Isreal how long terrorism has been a part of their lives.
Oceans, I apologize to you and anyone else, to whom I came across with the message that “America is getting what it deserves.”
No one deserves this. NO ONE. And yes, I will continue to enjoy all the incredible things that America has afforded me (although I’m not much of a fan of Doritos).
There is one thing you pointed out in your post that America does afford its citizens that many Middle East countries don’t afford their citizens. The reasonable exchange of dialogue and thought.
And that may encompass some discussions which, if taken the wrong way, may come across as un-American. I swear to you, it’s not inteded as such.
But lets put all the brilliance which exists on this board (and elsewhere in America and the rest of the world) to finding the residue of the cold war and wiping it out. Killing Afghanis or anyone else (other than terrorists) won’t do anything to stop the next Bin Laden.
Arguing over “how big of a bomb Afghanistan deserves” is a waste of brainpower.
Scylla, would you mind posting this over in my GD "Afghanistan; ‘Our people have suffered so much…’ thread? I would really be grateful. For some reason, none of the advocates of war in this thread are lending a hand over in mine.
I suspect you sneaked into my Western Civ I class this morning-my professor said the exact same thing. WHY are they like this? We need to know our enemy.
It was metaphorical.
Well, maybe I shouldn’t speak so soon …
Ok, people, there are two issues here. One is the governments that knowingly harbor or turn a blind eye to the harboring of terrorists.
The second is the terrorists themselves.
The threat of nuclear strike is a real fear to governments. Fear of death does not work for terrorists, but it does instill a fear in those who desire to live to fight another day. This is why nukes are a real motivator.
I believe we will never see another nuclear device used to take human life, but that is precisely because those who have them know that there are times to use them, and because those who we would use them on are aware of it.
And they want to live.
Secondly, a clean nuke is essentially a destructive weapon. It has a specific scale and a specific applicability. Guns are like flyswatters, missles are like Raid, bombs are like-- well-- bug bombs, and nukes are renovation. It isn’t a matter of absolute hatred of these weapons, they are simply bigger. Don’t tell me I’m not a hippy because I advocate the use of nukes. I don’t know that nukes are necessary. I believe my first post to this thread explicitely stated that we should make it clear we haven’t ruled nukes out, not that we should use them.
Weapons are simply tools of war. If you accept war but don’t accept the tools you lack conviction. If you accept some tools but not others you lack completion. If you accept war and accept the tools then nukes are just big bombs.
Every weapon has its uses. Some weapons’ uses are so extreme that they aren’t even thinkable (neutron bombs, for example, none of which are known to exist after existing ones were dismantled). Other weapons are so “mundane” (as far as warfare goes) that they are commonplace: guns and grenades, for example here. It is a continuum of tools to accomplish a continuum of tasks: nothing more.
In dealing with a government, nuclear weapons are a real solid threat, period. In dealing with terrorists, no place to hide is a real solid threat. With no government to sanction themfrom fear of nukes there are fewer places to hide.
And that is why I still condone nuclear threat: do not rule nukes out.
Supposedly, one of the hardest decisions Churchill had to make during WW II came when someone handed him the latest intelligence and he saw that the Germans were planning to bomb a city in England that was relatively unprotected. If he moved forces into the city and evacuated all the civilians from the city, then the Germans would know that the Allies had cracked the German codes. This would mean that millions more would die and the war would go on longer. Churchill decided that they would do as little as possible to alert the inhabitants of the coming attack. He realized that however large the death toll in the city was, it would pale in comparison the numbers that would die if the Germans knew the Allies had cracked the Enigma codes.
That is the horror of war. Knowing that you must embark upon a course which will lead to the deaths of members of your family and friends.
Bin Laden is in power now, because the people who follow him fear him more than they do the US. If the US strikes hard and decisively, they will fear us more than they do the man who steps in to fill Bin Laden’s shoes. Then, perhaps they will realize that they might get something if they come to the table and negotiate, but if they make war against us, all they’ll find is death.
Scylla’s right, the nuclear option must remain on the table. To do otherwise will allow the enemy to think that he has a way out. If we back down here, we might back down somewhere else.
I don’t think too many other nation’s will protest if the US does decide to lob a nuke in Bin Laden’s house. They know that if these lunatics aren’t stopped, they’ll be next. If someone can wipe two buildings off the face of the Earth and kill thousands in an instant, in the strongest nation on Earth, what can they do in a weaker nation?
And this is “off-topic” but it bears thinking about as well. Until now, hijackers have been content to steal a plane, land it somewhere, negotiate, and then the hostages go free. That’s not going to happen any more. The next time a plane gets hijacked, the hostages are going to think of the planes which were crashed into the World Trade Center. They are not going to calmly wait to see if the hijackers to land the plane somewhere and negotiate. They’re going to do their best to stop the hijackers because they’ll know that if they don’t, there’s a good chance that they’ll be killed. Once that starts happening, you’ll see an end to hijackings.
Here is where I allow myself to lose my cool for one minute and one minute only.
You back the fuck off and you fucking listen to me and listen good, erislover. Nowhere in ANY of the threads to which I have contributed have I said that I sympathize with, support, defend or in any way view as positive the people behind these horrific acts. Terrorists are scum, and reactionary scum at that. I detest their actions with every fiber of my being.
Are we CLEAR?
That having been said, understanding why they do what they do is important. We need to study and understand their motives for committing these atrocities in detail in order to find out what the appropriate response should be.
smoothing hair, straightening shirt
You’re putting the cart before the horse. Terrorism in the Arab world is a response to imperialist (first European, then American) encroachment and meddling in their national affairs, not a cause of it.
Both the big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Mobil, and the rulers of the countries they get the oil from. But those rulers are there because they are the ones that guarantee a steady export of oil to the companies so they can get their profits. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party was put into power in a coup engineered by the CIA because his predecessor, Mossadegh, nationalized Iraq’s oil fields - a move which threatened the oil companies’ profits. It didn’t matter what sort of politics the bastard had as long as he kept the fields privatized and the oil flowing. He only became a nuisance some 30 years after his party took power because he began biting the hand that fed him through the invasion of Kuwait. I won’t get off the subject by bringing up April Glaspie’s statements to him in 1990, but they are rather illustrative.
OK, on second thought I will. On 25 Jul 1990, the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein on the subject of US-Iraqi relations. She said:
(Transcript of the interview here.)
“WE HAVE NO OPINION.” In other words, “Go ahead and do what you feel you need to do; we won’t stop you.” Diplomacy allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Iraq. Why? I don’t know. It’s hard to tell whether Glaspie said that in honesty or duplicity. But the US gave Saddam the green light.
Not necessarily. I do think, however, that if the United States did stop playing marionette in the Middle East, peace would be more likely.
We all apparently have oil now, no? The thing is, the pursuit of oil profits, US intervention in Middle East affairs, and terrorism from Arab extremists are all interconnected. The fat cat oil barons do keep the common man down, and their doing so creates the seedbed for terrorism.
And Yugoslavia still tore itself up in the 1990s, and there are still neo-Nazis terrorizing immigrants. Real, lasting peace has a social basis, not just an economic or political one.
Peace, in my opinion, can only come with real equality and universal plentitude. Anything else is inherently unstable.
Those same governments enjoy, or started out with, the direct support of the US government. As long as the companies investing in those countries are guaranteed profits, the US government couldn’t care less what those countries’ governments do.
Yeah, nothin’ says “We want peace” by swaggering on in there like the schoolyard bully.
It’s not America’s fault. Any other country, were it at the top of the pile, would be acting the same way. It’s the nature of the beast, and people like you and I bear no responsibility for it.
Not to mention that we’ve had our hand up the ass of Latin America for over 100 years.
Nothing to add, here, just wanted to voice my support to Olentzero about his last post.
(And by the way my surprise to read erislover’s posts, after he expressed his opposition to the use of force in another thread about a libertarian society)
It seems that even wondering about the terrorists motives sounds like a treason or is considered as advocating terrorism by some people in the US. Quite upsetting.
Ok, you’re right. So its clear, then, by your reasoning, that meddling in the Middle East is what brought them about, and everyone should just leave.
No more terrorists then?
Not really. I have zero desire to understand what causes a person to fly a plane of civilians into the side of a heavily populated building of civilians.
Any attempt to understand something like that only gives credence to it. No way, man. I won’t do that.
Then apparently everything I said in that post went right over your head (if you’re talking about the anarchist thread, which I think you are).
[sup]BOLDING MINE[/SUP]
I trust you mean either Iran or Kuwait. I do not mean to nitpick so much as wish for you to clarify what other nation you intended to mention.
Again, Scylla, with your permission, I would like to cross-post the other, above quoted submission of yours in my Afghanistan: "Oh &#@ we screwed the pooch"*, thread (now relocated to this very same forum to save time).
How many people here honestly believe that Bin Laden is only motivated by U.S. meddling? Can I point out that the U.S. meddled on his behalf in the Afghanistan war, and he gratefully accepted their help?
Bin Laden, and others like him, are motivated by several things. First, they HATE Israel, and the U.S. supports Israel. That alone is enough for them to do what they are doing. Are you suggesting that we should abandon Israel? Or that Israel is somehow at fault? If not, then there’s nothing we can do about this. The U.S. is a friend of Israel, and always will be, and Israel needs U.S. support for its very survival. So the U.S. will never abandon Israel, and that means that no matter how much good it does in the world, or how little meddling it does, it will be hated by Islamic radicals.
Second, America is the embodiment of everything that radical Muslims hate. So is the rest of the free world, but America comes under the gun simply because it is the biggest and projects the most power in the world.
I suggest you actually read about Bin Ladin and the Taliban, and see what they are all about. They will NEVER be anything but enemies of the free world. We could give them billions of dollars in aid, and withdraw our militaries completely from the Middle East, and they will still hate us.
We let our women walk around free, doing as they please. We allow people to write blasphemies, and we may them millions of dollars for it. We make movies full of sex and anti-religious messages. We are hundreds of millions of people doing what we want, whether what we want follows the teaching of the Koran or not. To them, that makes us infidels. We’re the great unwashed hordes, and they are the keepers of truth and the desires of God. That’s the way they see it. They see freedom and a pluralistic society as a cancer on the earth, and an affront to God.
And what makes them hate us for it is that we are unapologetic. In fact, we bask in our freedoms. And we are powerful, and the world is moving in our direction. That make us dangerous in the eyes of the Bin Ladens of the world. He also hates Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Middle-East countries that are friendly to the U.S. We are the infidels, but the Saudis and Egyptians are traitors. They have been seduced by money and material goods, and have strayed away from the teachings of the Koran. That makes them the enemy as well.
People like Bin Laden are consumed by righteous hatred. He is the hand of God, striking the infidels down for their desecrations.
I agree with Olentzero when he says that you must know your enemy. Von Clausewitz was right. Olentzero just doesn’t know them very well.
Zenster:
Feel free to cross post anything of mine you feel is worthy and helpful. My apologies for not helping in that other thread.
No. It helps you to KNOW your enemy. It helps you to KNOW what you are dealing with, and HOW to deal with the problem. Do you understand? You have to know how they think.
Know what motivates them-and what they are afraid of.