Someone proposed to me today the idea that the attacks were designed to push us into a harsh reaction, which would then justify an outrageous response on the part of “them”, whoever that them ultimately turns out to be.
Think about it… supposedly unknown whackjobs commit suicide and decide to take Lower Manhattan with them, we go after a whole country in retaliation…that country then, seemingly justifiably, blows us to kingdom come as “self-defense”.
So perhaps we will be, in our plan to rid the planet of all terrorists everywhere (per Powell, who I think has a really rosy view of what we are able to accomplish) playing irght into the hands of the baddies.
There certainly is a great deal of nasty talk going back and forth…
Uh, I think we’ve already an outrageous action from them.
**
Well I’d like to know how they’d blow us to kingdom come. Do you have some sort of information that the rest of us are unaware of?
**
Honestly I don’t believe they think we’re capable of doing anything major. Not because we don’t have the technology or the physical ability but because we might not have the resolve. Any drastic actions are going to take a number of years and will result in the deaths of our military personel.
I’m with Marc. If the terrorists didn’t need a justification for destroying the World Trade Center and crashing into the Pentagon, I don’t see why they need a justification for setting off an atomic bomb or using bio-weapons on us.
I agree, though, that eliminating all terrorism worldwide is unrealistic. We may be able to bring it under control, but not eliminate it.
The terrorists may be hoping to stir up trouble between U.S. and countries not presently our enemies. As seems to be happening in Afghanistan already. Clearly the Taliban doesn’t want to fight us, but equally clearly it is either unwilling or unable to give up bin Laden. So if we end up pinning this on bin Laden, some kind of fight between America and the Taliban will certainly ensue.
If bin Laden is in fact behind this, then he’s presented us with a dilemma; go after him and risk war with a Taliban government that doesn’t want to fight us, or let him stay there and continue his campaign of attacks against us. I vote for the former.
Suspects in Tuesday’s attack, especially one Osama bin Laden, has been quoted as saying that the US is a “paper tiger” and can be easily defeated if it is demoralized. Such was the case with the U.S. in Somalia.
The U.S. public has a great aversion to bloodshed, if it is Americans who are dying.
While the kind of thing suggested in the OP does, in fact, happen in countries like Israel (on both sides), I don’t think this is the case here. In Israle, there is a serious PR fight: We do something to provoke a reaction from you, we throw some children in the front line, you kill them, we show the media, the world gets mad at you.
Here, that isn’t the case. By killing SO MANY people at once, they made sure the court of public opinion is staunchly against them.
Unfortunately, BobT is probably correct. As soon as our sons and daughters begin coming home in body bags, our desire for revenge, or justice, will quickly evaporate.
If our leadership continues to pursue a militant course of action as public support evaporates…well, remember the protests of Vietnam?
I’m touched by Stoid’s thought that justification is a key. Winning is key. Winners choose whatever justification comes to hand.
Charles Colson, former special counsel to President Nixon, had a sign over his desk that said:
Saddam Hussein is respected in the middle east, because his country is strong and we withdrew. Neighboring countries cannot afford to care whether his leadership is justified, even if they wanted to. If he or Bin Laden defeats the US, few will care about their moral correctness. If we defeat them, few will care about ours. (although I think the US is morally correct in this battle 100 times over.)