Well, that wpould mean that while I hope that cool heads prevail and the nuclear option is not exercised, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
And, less than 12 hours after this all started, it seems Kabul is under attack. Probably with conventional weapons.
Shooting missiles at Kabul.
Quick? Yes.
Smart? As yet unknown.
Impetuous? Likely.
If they have info that bin Laden was shacked up in the penthouse suite of the Kabul Hilton, then acting quick was maybe a good idea, just so you can say we got him. But if it’s just an emotional response, then I fear our leadership is acting unwisely.
Not to be alarmist here, but one thing has been very conspicious in its absence today: Any discussion of biological terrorism. Personally, I am very worried that the next reports we’re going to get out of New York and Washington is that people are mysteriously falling ill. If so, then the FAA grounding all flights around the country did us a big favor.
Today looks like the ‘big one’, the attack that a major terrorist group has been planning for for a long, long time. There may be more to this than we’ve seen yet, whether it’s biological, chemical, or other delayed actions. If whatever group that did this had access to biological weapons, they probably used them today. We just won’t know about it for a day, a week, or a month.
That’s also why we can’t afford to wait out the terrorists while they take pot-shots at us. Today is a reminder that terrorists are capable of unleashing horrendous amounts of destruction. The death toll today could possible climb into the proportions of the total number of U.S. deaths in the Vietnam war. How can you let people stay free when they are capable of and willing to unleash such destruction? Do we want to wait until a plane full of anthrax toxin crashes in downtown LA? Do you know how many people would die if a terrorst group simply flew around over the major cities dumping plutonium dust?
I think this is a wake-up call. The free world is under a threat every bit as dangerous as a rogue nuclear power would be. You simply can’t act passively.
I did hear mention on one of the news channels that someone (maybe some official, maybe just a pundit) was glad that there were no chemical agents detected (at that time). If the attack is indeed ended, we can breathe a sigh of relief. If it is indeed over. Gulp.
Damn, Sam. That’s truly scary.
I haven’t said much in this debate because I’m kind of on the fence in the hawk/dove dichotomy. Tank made some excellent point, but then again…
Anyway, the reason I’m chiming in here is in response both to the folks who say the perpetrators of this attrocity must have been supported by a nation/state (although I think they were, and I think it was Afghanistan), and to the statements by the Taliban that they are poor and could not have pulled this off.
Bullshit.
This operation probably didn’t cost much at all. A few teams of fanatics, some personal weapons probably, and that’s about it. Of course, they had a lot of training, and it took a fair amount of coordination, but money? Probably not a lot. They stole the weapons they used (the airplanes) from thier victims.
The BBC has a reporter in Kabul, and she said the Afghans seem to think it’s just another attack by the anti-Taliban forces in the north and that Taliban jets went shooting off to the north. So it looks like the DoD’s insistance that it wasn’t us is valid. Phew!
One point that hasn’t been talked about much yet …
We are a NATO nation. This means this attack can also be considered an attack on Great Britain, Germany, France, et al.
(Funny; we always thought about that in terms of what wars WE would end up having to fight, after SOMEBODY ELSE was attacked …)
The repercussions of this will be massive, and not unilaterally American. (At least they damn well better not be …)
That we will determine who did this is a certainty. That they will pay with their lives is, too.
So apparently the attacks on Kabul are not American. Which further brings home the difficulty of punishing these people, should it be necessary. Sending a bunch of bombs over there will not have the same impact as it might if done to a more stable nation.
Panzerman: I didn’t renounce or abdicate my Oath of Enlistment when I took off my uniform.
I’m sure I can still ride The Beasts with the best of them. If they want me, I’ll go.
For those who think that I counsel no action: :snort!:
You don’t know me very well. It’s easy to thump your chest and demand blood when it isn’t yours on the line.
I counsel deliberate, measured action. Against the target(s) that are identified by National Means as the perpetrators of this attack. Be they anything from a cabal of extremists to a secret coalition of Arab states determined to bring down “The Great Satan”.
I heard a report early on in the day that the CDC was sending teams to the various crash sites.
(There are several other quotes along this line, but in the interest of saving space, I’ll just list this one).
What I’d like to know is why people seem to want to hold Afghanistan responsible for the actions of bin Laden and the Taliban? Even if it’s proven that those two are responsible, that doesn’t make everyone in Afghanistan responsible. This is a country that provides the greatest number of refugees for a very good reason. It’s a totalitarian state. The people of Afghanistan aren’t giving tacit approval of terrorist actions through their silence - any course of action other than silence results in death.
By all means, find out who is responsible, and hit them with everything possible, but judging other countries by America’s standards (same level of democracy, personal freedom etc…) will not solve any problems.
Does anyone remember the Milosevic debacle - he was highly unpopular, until NATO intervened. The opposition parties in his country themselves stated to western press that the attack by NATO was disastrous because it resulted in uniting the country behind him.
If we refuse to learn from our past mistakes, how the hell is the human race supposed to go forward?
Assuming that Osama bin Laden is behind this attack (and that’s still only an assumption, albeit a plausible one) - it’s doubtful that what passes for the Afghan government could hand him over even if they wanted to. The man has his own army, and more money and resources than Afghanistan.
However, even the Taliban must realise that his presence in their country makes them an obvious target for reprisals. So, if he is responsible, the US (and the rest of the world - believe me, we are with you on the need to stop these terrorists) would be in an excellent position to demand the Taliban’s cooperation in tracking him down. With that cooperation, however half-hearted, it would be possible to find him and bring him in.
A cold-blooded thought occurs to me. The death toll in New York is still not known, but it’s going to be horrific. And New York is well known for its mix of ethnicities and religions - how many of yesterday’s victims were Muslims themselves? Even if the terrorists regard non-Muslim civilians as legitimate targets, they can hardly justify the murder of their own co-religionists.
So… bring bin Laden in, but, before taking him back to the US for trial - have him tried for the murder of Muslim victims. Openly, in Afghanistan, in a Taliban court, under Shari’a law. After which, I suspect, a trial in the US would be superfluous. And it would be very difficult for Islamic fundamentalists to claim him as a martyr if they themselves had ordered his execution.
Folks:
A very good and usually well informed source for updates and analysis is http://www.stratfor.com. It is filtered information, but it is as close a regular person can get to information from the intelligence community.
Wrong, my friend. I was pointing out that the 1997 attack on bin Laden’s camp was very likely necessary and appropriate, and NOT the political grandstanding that Clinton was accused of. That post was a condemnation of hypocrisy, not an example of it. If you’ll read again, you’ll see that I am condemning political grandstanding, such as that which went on by Clinton’s intractable opponents during the blowjob hearings.
Your continuing to dismiss any possibility otherwise speaks volumes about your motivations, as well as being “grotesque”.
Wrong once again, my friend. NMD, as proposed by Bush, is locking the upstairs windows to keep out burglars while leaving the front door wide open.
Where did you get the idea that “the entirety is military spending is useless” under any form of reasoning? It should be clear that the most resources need to be targeted to the most credible and serious threats. Terrorist attacks by small organizations are as credible and serious a threat as there is, while nukes fired by “rogue nations” cannot be considered any more than a fantasy. So where should most of the resources go?
Good to know. But what worries me most about this, re Canada, is its possible role in harboring terrorist cells in the first place. Colin Nickerson had an eye-opening feature in the 4/7/01 issue of the Boston Globe (fee-archived for $2.95 at http://www.boston.com, and the first paragraphs are free if you do an archive search) about how easy it is to enter Canada and set up housekeeping, even with some government refugee subsidies, for people with, shall we say, no interest in making a new home there. Apparently the Montreal suburb of Anjou had several known terrorist cells as of then, and Nickerson went on about how little cooperation US law enforcement was able to get from the RCMP and QPP, and the various ministries, about investigating their activities.
From Montreal, the US border is about an hour’s drive, and Boston is the closest major city. If the murderers started in Canada before coming down here to board AA11 and UA175, then you’re damned right Canadian cooperation will be needed now - and perhaps about damned time, too.
First of all, I apologize to the SDMB in general for making personal attacks in GD. Secondly, I want to explain that I was very drunk when I posted this and similar comments in the Pit, so I obviously was incapable of getting any kind of pertinent thought across. I started drinking twin shots with a buddy around 10:30AMish CST and didn’t stop until passing out sometime in the evening.
For the record, I never said anything about race in any of my posts on the subject. My comment was not directed at any race whatsoever. Everyone looks the same when they stagger out of a crumbling building covered in blood, dirt, dust and tears.
Instead, my comment was aimed directly at those that harbor terrorists and celebrate the death, pain, and horror that were inflicted upon my fellow Americans. These people make it possible for terrorists to exist and provide a supportive pool for new terrorists to be recruited from. I don’t fucking care what nationality or race they are.
I admit that “nits make lice” is an ambiguous statement, but I am saddened that any of you would assume a racial bias.
Well, it wasn’t directed at me specifically, but I accept the apology. Please allow me to apologize for my emotion-driven response, and to address your explanation above.
About nits: Young Palestinians don’t make terrorists; unchanged ideologies do. Yes, we must punish the monsters who planned and supported yesterday’s attacks. Let’s not perpetuate the hatred as we do so.
The ideologies which lead to street celebrations of American misfortune cannot be changed through violent retribution. While we don’t consider the reasons for such hatred of us to be valid, we must accept that those reasons exist. The people who were dancing in the street are not representatives of governments; they were, in general, young people who believe that we are not good people, that the US is oppressive. The only way to change that belief is through actions which are consistent with our ideals of freedom, democracy and rule of law.
Update re the Canada safe-haven possibility: WCVB-TV in Boston reports “sources” say 2 of the hijackers flew into Boston from Portland, Maine after taking a ferry there from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
I’ve been there and ridden the MS Scotia Prince myself. The only reason to have done that, unless perhaps to get in a day’s gambling in international waters after a good lobster dinner and some duty-free shopping, would be to avoid airport-style immigration screening procedures.
That bin Laden was and still is a threat to the US does not prove that Clinton was motivated by anything other than the desire to distract attention. Personally, while I did find the timing a little suspect, I’m willing to give the Commander in Chief wide latitude to use his discretion in such matters without second-guessing him.
However, the argument for Clinton using the attacks as a way to dodge unfavorable publicity did not depend on the target being a worthless one.
Fine, but you are bolstering your arguments with flawed logic. The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks are irrelevant to Clinton’s motivations and vice-versa. There are probably several other spots to attack the grandstanding of the Republicans in Congress, but it seems that the one you are trying to defeat is the straw man of “Osama bin Laden was a dangerous enemy of the US, so the attack against him must have been valid.” In short, that implies a causality that does not exist.
I’m not disagreeing with this, I’m just saying that the events of Tuesday do not disprove its effectiveness. It is not designed to protect all eventualities, so the fact that it doesn’t protect against all eventualities is nothing surprising. It would, in theory, protect against nuclear missiles, which would be a far worse thing than the sort of attack that occurred yesterday.
Yes, it does show our vulnerability to attacks that could still get through the shield, but those who support the shield were not under the illusion that it would make us invulnerable to any attack.
Your argument was that the shield is useless because it could not stop attacks of this sort. All our other military spending did not stop this attack either.
Yesterday’s events do not make nuclear attack any less likely. While I do agree with you that the shield is probably a waste of resources, nothing that happened yesterday changes anything with respect to its usefulness.
I don’t want to argue with you on the usefulness of SDI, merely on the effect of the World Trade Center attackon the arguments for it. As I see it, the wisddom of SDI is neither proven nor disproven by what happened.