Afghanistan: 'Our People Have Suffered So Much...'

Great Debates
121

I agree with both you and zenster, but we have to face the fact that out intelligence in the Middle East is NOT good. These are exceptionally tight-knit, paranoid groups, often assembled exclusively from a handful of families. No intelligence agency - not CIA, MI6, Mossad - has ever penetrated them (that we know of). Basically, we have the satellites and wiretaps, and that’s it.

And those aren’t enough to make our response nearly as accurately as anyone would like. Unfortunately, we should, and will, deliver that response anyway.

122

Ah, the self-blame school of diplomacy. Which is total horseshit at a time like this.

One article on Bin Laden is at http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/01-09-13/Assessment.asp, please note the part at the end: “Bin Laden and his followers are alarming because they don’t want anything from us. They don’t want our sympathy. They want no material thing we can offer them. They don’t want to participate in the community of nations. (They don’t really believe in the nation-state.) They are motivated by religion, not politics. They answer to no one but their god, so they certainly won’t answer to us.”

We basically offend their religion by our very existence, and they won’t stop until western culture is wiped off the face of the earth.

For an article on how this radical fundamentalism is a perversion of Islam, read http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-091401khaled.story

123

In this Salon.com article, an Afghan-American makes a clear distinguishing between “bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age” and “sending troops to Afghanistan to fight a war.”

The author is in favor of the latter, and points out that we’re way, way too late to accomplish the former.

124

Zenster - I have a problem with this statement:

“I would even add that had an IRA group perpetrated such an atrocity here, I would do exactly what I first recommended. I would have the town of their origin evacuated and then bombed flat as a reminder that having terrorists in your midst is just not the smartest thing that you can do.”

What you propose here is punishing the masses for the actions of a small group of people. You assume that the citizens who live in this town would be fully aware that a terrorist cell exists.

So you don’t kill any innocents. All you’re going to do is wipe out their homes, businesses, schools, churches and pretty well everything they own because a terrorist group decided to stage their activities from their city and really piss them off. You’ll be looking over your shoulder for Irish assassins for the rest of your days and they, unlike Arabs, blend into our society really well.

This would akin to using a baseball bat to kill a fly, you’ll cause a lot of damage but it is unlikely you’ll kill the fly.

Apply this logic to Afghanistan and the fly will escape too. Lots of innocent little bugs are going to get smashed in the process as they seek to defend their homes.

Eradicating bin Laden is going to require a great deal more precision than a baseball bat is going to provide. He is a fly that has been trained by the CIA, he has 300 million dollars in assets and access to even more. He is not going to sit still so that someone can squash him.

125

Would people minds change if they learn that Osama bin Laden is currently working for the Taliban government the similar way that he was working for the CIA?

126

None of the identified terrorists were Afghani.

Most were Saudi Arabian.

Shall we carpet bomb Riyadh?

There seems a strong possibility that this act resulted from the joint efforts of a number of terrorist organization, in several countries, including Egypt, Syria, Israel (Palestinian areas) UAE, and Iraq. Shall we bomb them all as well? No? Why not?

I don’t think it is as much of a stretch to hold the Saudis responsible for this atrocity as it is for the Afghanis. Hell, at least the Saudis have all heard about it.

You say over and over that you are not advocating genocide, and then talk of leveling cities, and decimating populations as if that were somehow the moral high ground. Military action against military targets will inevitably produce some civilian casualties. I don’t fail to understand that. Bombing cities, as retaliation for acts of people who are probably not in those cities is genocide, however much you deny it.

Military strikes at facilities know to be used by terrorists, without warning, repeatedly, over many years, using our best intelligence, and restraint could help. It won’t end terrorism, but it can help keep countries aware of the fact that we know, and do not accept their actions. Other means will be necessary to limit terrorism in the long run.

We need to make terrorism extraordinarily expensive. Seizure, by direct, open, and covert means of assets of everyone even remotely connected with terrorist groups. Economic attacks on businesses that support, or are owned by known terrorists, including stock manipulation, deliberate fraud, false contracts, and legal seizures. It isn’t the shepherds and tinkers in the hills of Afghanistan that support terrorism, it’s the oil billionaires, and mine owners, and exporters, and shippers in the Arab world who support it.

You don’t have to kill a city full of people to stop Osama bin Ladin, and stopping him alone is only one head of the hydra. You have to make sure that the rich know that we will never forget what has been done, and we will use NSA, CIA, bribery, espionage, and every sleazy economic trick ever used to make sure that in a decade or so, it will be the shepherds and tinkers who support terrorism, because that’s all the billionaires will have left.

Osama bin Ladin’s family is still filthy rich. I am sure that some of them if not all, can help us. Let’s offer not to impoverish them for life, if they help us capture their own. If not, let’s make sure that the Saudi Government knows that we intend to ruin the family, in every possible way. Let’s do the same with every wealthy individual who does not actively assist in hunting down terrorists.

Let’s not forget to include the ones in non Arab, and even NATO countries. The bulk of Irish terrorism is paid for in the USA. How committed are we to ending terrorism? I don’t want to start carpet bombing Irish neighborhoods, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the rug pulled out from under the thug supporting elements in our own country either.

But the second biggest thing wrong with the mass casualty punishment method is that it won’t accomplish anything but rolling over to the next round. The rage of the survivors in Afghanistan will provide suicide troops for Bin Ladin, (safely moved to another country) for another generation. Pakistan will find it’s own fundamentalist population being accorded far greater respect by the centrists, because they denounced us, as murderers, and we proved them right. The fact that your view of matters is different won’t affect Pakistani politics. Nor will it affect Azerbijan, nor Egypt, nor Chechnya, nor Kenya, nor any other part of the world where the attack on civilians will be seen as proof that we are the enemy of Islam. We are certainly justified in attacking our enemies. But the result of that is that anyone we attack will be an enemy.

Tris

“Sic transit gloria mundi. And Tuesday’s usually worse.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein ~

127

It has taken a little while, but I think I have finally discovered the root of what bothers me so much about the OP.

If we declare war on terrorism, we declare war on our own terrorists. If an American had done these acts (still a possibility, but much less now, it seems), would the OP be the same? Respond to force with force? Do we bomb the towns that harbored Timothy McVeigh (only with fair warning, as Zenster suggests)? Do we bomb the U.S. Army that trained him?

The problem with the rationale underlying the OP is that it inherently contemplates an “other,” not us. Why is it that when it’s us versus them, we can destroy them, but when it’s us versus us, we have compassion?

I see no difference between bombing Timothy McVeigh’s home town and bombing Afghanistan. No – I take that back. I think bombing Afghanistan is worse – because if Timothy’s father knew what would happen, he could give up his son and lose only his son. If the people of Afghanistan give up bin Laden, they risk their sons, their daughters, their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their pets, their homes, their everything. (If bin Laden is even THERE anymore.)

The only difference is that they are the other. They aren’t “harboring” him, they’re under him, crushed and wounded.

I am of South Korean origin. My mother called me and said that for one terrible moment she thought the North Koreans were responsible. Bombing North Korea would destroy South Korea. It would destroy my ancestral home, the halves of our families that we have not seen for fifty years.

Where, pray tell, would you suggest that oppressed people locked behind barbed wire and armed guards go? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR WARNING FOR THESE PEOPLE. How comfortable we have been. And how little we truly understand oppression.

You keep saying you’re not racist Zenster, and you say that you’re being attacked unfairly. But whether you meant to or not, you implied an “other,” and that is what pains me so terribly much. Once you draw such lines in the sand, I find myself on the other side. This isn’t country vs. country, this is country vs. certain persons.

I’m tired of crying, but grateful that I haven’t had to do it every day of my life. I’m grateful that I’ve lived a life where I know that it doesn’t have to be like this. I’m grateful that I’ve lived a life where I know that the future can be great. I’m grateful that I haven’t lived a life where the very idea of peace is an impossibility.

You would probably be a hero in Afghanistan had you been born there, having made them a democracy by now, all by your little self. How extraordinary you are.

Yes, I’m taking this personally. Sorry.

Annie

128

Semantics? Possibly, but what else am I supposed to think when I read statements like this (these are all your quotes from this thread):

If we were to do as you, and others, propose the only name that will be cursed by every Afghani person (well, providing there are any left alive) will be America.

129

Before we level Afghanistan into the Stone Age, oughten we catch up on work we haven’t yet completed:

  1. nuke Buffalo;
  2. exterminate the Army Rangers;
  3. carpet bomb all the facilities selling fuel oil and fertilizer in Oklahoma;
  4. round up and execute all employees of Ryder truck rental.

They all aided and abetted, trained, or gave shelter & comfort to Tim McVeigh. And unlike the Afghans, they were not under the hell of a brutal, psychotic theocracy in the midst of an internal rebellion.

And who gives a shit whether or not the Americans who know and love those that we kill doing this might become angry and rebel against our government. 'cause if they do, they are just fanatics.

130

I only said that because you talked about bombing a terrorist’s city of origin. bin Laden has no “home base”. He moves around constantly, so going around bombing cities won’t serve any purpose in eradicating bin Laden and his ilk.

You think the Afghani people aren’t already aware of the consequences of Taliban rule? They have suffered for years under their current “government”. You’re not going to prove to them anything they don’t already know. It’ll just be one more group that kills them with impunity.

The Afghani people aren’t responisble for this. Have you heard the news reports? So far not one Afghani national found among the hijackers.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on this point. bin Laden, terrorists like him, and those that support them, like the Taliban, need to stopped. I agree that this is War… and in war innocent lives are lost. But it should never be on purpose.

131

Since when is the hell of a brutal, psychotic theocracy an excuse? My understanding is that these people have the freedom to leave the country at their own will. In fact many of them currently are fleeing to Pakistan in fear of U.S. retribution. But a good many of them also feel that what happened to us is what we deserved. It is their belief.

When’s the last time you excused an abortion clinic bomber and his sympathizers because of his psychotic theological positions?

I doubt if you asked the folks at Ryder whether or not they supported Tim McViegh’s actions that they would say “yes”!

132

I see.
And you’ve asked all the people in Afghanistan whether they support bin Laden, and they’ve all said “yes”?
And those rockets that have been exploding around Kabul, those are loyal Afghan citizens proclaiming their support for the Taliban regime?

133

Oh yes, and since the Reagan administration gave substantial arms and training to the Mujahadeen (precursors to the Taliban, and with whom bin Laden learned to fight), let’s have Army commandos waste Reagan, Ollie North, Cap Weinberger, Al Haig, George Schultz, George HW Bush…

134

Kuwait is enemy of Iraq
Iraq is enemy of Iran
Iran is enemy of Taliban

Let’s get the Iranian military to go into war with Talibans. Simultaneously, let’s get the Iraqis to bomb the hell out of the Ayatollahs. In the same time, give the Kuwaitees whatever they need to finish off Saddam Hussein and his followers. After all those governments and their thug armies have been eliminated by each other, we’ll move in to pick up the terrorists. If they resist, we execute them on the spot. If they surrender, we bring them back to the U.S. and put them on trial.

Brilliant. Minimal American casualties. No blood of women or children on our hands. Mission accomplished.

Before we leave those countries, we can leave behind a book of democratic constitution, separating mosque and state, just in case their people are inclined to adapt it for their countries.

135

Zenster, this puppy didn’t make it GD soon enough, and I’ve been bogged down in Scylla’s thread to go much further than the pit and GQ.

You are saying it very clearly, and I thinkthe fear of knee-jerking here is causing knee-jerking.

He is not advocating wholesale slaughter. He is, like I am, advocating strong reprisal for these actions with a concern to unnecessary casualties. But the goal is to wipe these bastards out, and the poor huddled masses are unknowingly going to be shield for these people. I am sorry for that. Truly, I am. These people are being ruled by regimes who lie to them, who distribute half-truhs and lies and close freedom of speech and press, who take for granted, often, that people are born unequal. For all I know they have no idea what it would be like to live under the Bill of Rights-- if they could even read it in their own national language. I am sorry for that. But if we take out five thousand, then thousand innocents in protracted warfare over several nations in an effort to shut these oppressive regimes down and largely rid the world of terrorism, the number of lives saved and the potential for peace it may bring with the evaporation of militants is fucking priceless.

The militant states that exist were militant before we ever got there. It isn’t like America showed up and everyone went to war for Eris’s sake… She threw her Apple of Discord in that area a long time ago (check your bible if you have one for one perspective). Being a world leader, we are responsible for inaction as well as action, and we had no choice but to attempt to help out in some ways. And, being a nation who-- like all nations all over the world-- are not gifted with infinite resources, we would act in our own best interests in as much as world opinion would allow us to. This is the rational and accepted behavior of every government throughout recorded history, and shall be for history to come. It is fucking disgusting to me to have a nation be spit on because it acted in its interests. It is against common sense-- it… well, it disgusts me, let me leave it at that.

The Middle East has always been a violent area, and no one could step foot over there and not take sides.

But whatever… so many are so eager to blame America for indirectly causing this that I can’t dissuade them. I’m so totally tired of trying to demonstrate that one cannot compromise ethics without abandoning them, and one cannot enter a warzone without guns, and one cannot simply make world leaders hold hands. I’m tired of demonstrating that we are good guys to many people as well. I’m tired, frankly, of trying to justify twenty year old foriegn policy in terms of posters’ 20/20 hindsight. Its a fucking losing battle when you see enemies everywhere, people, and we have enough already without everyone here turning into dissidents at a time when we finally have a chance to end a huge portion of political strife, if not random acts of hugely destructive violence.

Instead I am offering my full moral support to Zenster in this, and will try and keep up with this thread too as it goes.

136

erislover: Hear hear.

137

As are those of us who’ve been working against the “kill 'em all, God’ll know his own” mentality and the “this is a war for our survival and they only respect force” approach.

If we ignore international law, if we take unilateral military actions inflicting indiscriminate “collateral” damage, if we fail to apply the codes of conduct and fairness we like to think that we “stand” for, then we will have compromised our national ethics to the point that we’ve lost them.

Those of us who are arguing against the type of unrestrained military approach advocated by Zenster (and Zell Miller, and Bob Barr, and other increasingly rabid politicians) are doing so because we don’t want to see America destroyed from within by abandonment of our principles.

True. We must marshall our forces and have them at the ready. And we cannot hold hands with world leaders while we’re shooting around them.

Consider: To a man who only has a hammer, the whole fucking world looks like a nail. Fortunately, we have more than our hammers. Right now, we have the extended hands of many formally antagonistic countries; countries with whom decades of diplomatic effort have been to little avail. Do we grasp those hands, or shoot them?

And I’m tired of explaining that good guys aren’t good 'cause they’re the heroes of some story; they’re good because they do good things and act in a good way. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

erislover, you, and Zenster, and quite a few other good people of the SDMB community are listening only to the anger and fear inside you now. We all have those emotions this week, in abundance.

Listen more deeply, I beg you. You know this: America is the greatest country not because of our military and economic power; those merely help keep us great. We are great because of the principles of freedom, fairness and due process of law afforded by our system of government, a system which not only governs our domestic policies, but which should also inform and enoble our foreign policies as well, if we are to be recognized by the others as the good guys.

138

You suggest a demonstration that will create more terrorists. One that would increase the support for terrorists. Your way of stopping terrorism is like throwing a molitov cocktail onto a burning building.

Personally I don’t care about morals. I do care about saving lives. Zensters actions might be moral and they might not, but they are foolish.

139

Erislover: NO - What you said is NOT what Zenster said. What you are saying is that civilian casualties may be an inevitable part of any military action. I understand and regretfully accept this. Let me reiterate my point - I am not opposed to military action.

What Zenster said ( in part ) is that we should bomb Afghan cities as a punitive measure to intimidate and set an example for Afghan people. He has advocated directly targetting civilian centers for no other reason than to prove that we can. This is completely different from your point. And I will continue to argue that it is completely unacceptable

  • Tamerlane
140

I’m delurking because this has blown my mind.

Yes, we, with all of our freedom and luxuries and technology, need to teach the Afghanis, with their poverty, their civil war and their land mines, the meaning of suffering. Right.

I don’t think I’ve read a more ignorant thing in the past few days, with the exception of the Falwell-Robertson prophesy of doom.