Favor unilateral retaliation? How long have you been a Bin Laden supporter, anyway?

Great Debates
1

I just thought I would point something out to all those people clamoring from an indiscriminate attack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, hell, the whole Middle East in some cases. I’ll leave out the folly AND hypocrisy of calling for an attack on innocents as an appropriate response to the attack on innocents. I won’t ask for a coherent explanation of what it will solve, other than bathing our sorrow in blood and turning it into our shame. Rather, I would ask one simple question: How long have you been a supporter of Osama Bin Laden, anyway?

In formulating an appropriate response to this atrocity, indeed, to any attack, one must consider what the enemy is trying to accomplish, and formulate a response not only to defeat him, but to deny him those goals. If the U.S. had responded to Pearl Harbor by immediately sending the fleet to Tokyo, it would have been crushed by superior Japanese forces. The correct response then was to marshal our forces, outmaneuver the enemy, contain his advances, and THEN roll him back to Japan. In this case, we do have the ability to launch a devastating attack, but to what end? Consider things from Bin Laden’s POV. What was he trying to accomplish? To make us hate him? We already hate him. To hurt us? He did hurt us, grievously, but we’re just as strong today as we were Monday. To shatter the U.S. along racial and ethnic lines? Possibly, to people from that part of the world, from a group of homogenous cultures, I’m sure it is very hard to understand why the various elements of our polyglot culture aren’t at each other’s throats already. None of these fit. The man is certainly not a religious fanatic, seeking only his own entrance to Paradise, if that was the case he would have been on the lead plane himself. He has twisted the words of Islam to build himself a base of power that certainly includes people of that stripe, but he’s not one of them. He’s also demonstrated again and again a frightening ability to plan and co-ordinate large scale operations along with a con man’s talent for getting others to shield him from direct recrimination. So ask yourself, what does he hope to accomplish here.

The answer lies, I think, in a long term plan of stunning audacity that is overall equally stunning in it’s simplicity. I would be willing to bet that he was counting on a massive, indiscriminate American retaliation. He would then be able to defend his atrocities with ours, point to the West attacking Islam as a whole, and issue a justified call for Jihad against the West. Bin Laden is an ex-patriated Saudi. He hates the Saudi Royal Family. He could ride this tide of Islamic fervor straight into Riyadh, disposing the Royal family, discrediting moderate Islamic factions, and install himself as the de-facto head of the Arab world in totality. Is this a scenario that you want to see played out? I think the U.S. response has been exactly right up to this point. By making it clear that we are only going after Bin Laden and those who harbor him, we have removed from him the moral high ground ( from a Middle Eastern point of view ). Without that, all he can do is run, hide, and wait for the 101 Airborne to come knocking on his door. It is likely that he may try to launch other attacks at innocent targets in the U.S. and abroad as he becomes more and more desperate. We must not allow our anguish and rage over these attacks to push into blindly reacting, thus helping Bin Laden achieve what he wants.

(spelling error corrected - Jill)

[Edited by JillGat on 09-15-2001 at 07:14 PM]

2

Interesting point, but if I’m not mistaken his religious organization is an extreme left wing version. And the other half of the religion oposses suicide bombings and killing of innocent and about half the things he is doing.
Given I’m not an expert on Mid-eastern religions though.

As for countries that where involved in the attacking of the U.S., if their country is controlled by a religious group, and the people of the country support that religion aren’t they just as guilty? Let me repeat: aren’t they just as guilty? If they were in command instead of being just a civilian, might they have made the same/similar choices? They do have they same religious beliefs. They may not have know what exactly the where supporting them to do, but they were still supporting a terrorist organization. It’s a difficult situation to approach. I believe that I herd 95% of Afganistan is of the religious beliefs of Bin Ladens organization, so there for those people support their government and it’s actions.
So I’d have no problem turning my back while the military does whatever is needed to cure this problem.

3

I’ll make a point I tried to make in another post.

90% of the Afghani people have about as much influence in the Taliban government as the slaves did in pre-Civil War America.

If we bombed Afghanistan into a parking lot, we would not teach them a lesson. Did Bin Laden teach us a lesson? No, he united us in a way that we probably haven’t been united since WW2. Don’t believe that they are going to react the way that you want them to. They are going to react just the way you are. Except that 90% of the people over there only know what their government tells them, rather than having the free press that we have. You don’t think that Afghanistan press has already dismissed this as over-reaction or the U.S. using them as a scapegoat for our internal problems?

I agree with Weirddave: the deliberate bombing of civilian targets is exactly what Bin Laden wants us to do. Let’s not get side-tracked by that. Hunt him down like the flea on a pig that he is and squash the life out of him and his organization.

4

First, Weirddave thanks for your post. I have in other threads made similar points. I think you are 100% correct in that bin Laden is looking for a US response that will turn other Muslims into militants in defense of the faith.

Nicklz, I think you are mistaken. Osama bin Laden comes from a rich family of Saudi merchants of Yemeni descent. They are in the construction and other businesses. He was kicked out of Saudi for dissent, and some believe he would like to topple the government to replace it with more of a theocracy, probably led by him. More than the “other half” of Muslims decry suicide and terrorism. Most Muslims decry these things. It is against their religion. Even the Taliban, at least publicly, decries them. But they also follow another tenet of Islam, which is to provide shelter to those who request it. I suspect that we have requested extradition, but we have not tried Bin Laden in an Islamic court. The extreme fundamental stance of the Taliban does not recognize the legal jurisdiction of non-Islamic courts, so in their view we are currently requesting extradition of someone who has not stood a fair trial. Flaky? Sure, but that’s their perogative at this point. We should perhaps consider having Bin Laden tried in absentia in Saudi, where he would likely be convicted, then request extradition to Saudi, where he would be publicly executed for his crimes.

Your second point chills me. Most people in the US are Christian, of some flavor. But there are many different varieties. Imagine if an extreme right wing Christian coalition somehow came to power in the US. Then they harbored someone whom Pakistan considered a criminal, but we did not recognize the legitimacy of their claim. Perhaps their “crime” was to incite a Christian revolution in Pakistan. They sentenced him to death, but the Christian government chose not to deliver him to the Pakistanis. They then decide, since we are all anyway Christians here, that it is their right to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. This is pretty much what you have just stated. That all Christians, and the people who live near them, should die because a few kooky Christians got control.

5

I agree that there should not be complete and total retaliation toward the Middle East in general – the vast majority of those who live there were not involved, and honestly do believe that what happened is a terrible thing.

What is wrong with turning every terrorist camp we know of into a smoking hole in the ground? How about turning every terrorist camp we learn of in the future into a smoking hole in the ground? We don’t have to wait for those terrorists to do something to actually kill an American, do we?

6

This is probably one of the most interesting (if not sensible) posts I have read since the WTC bombing occurred.

It is true that bombing a country that is harbouring the alledged perpetrator(s) of this atrocity may be counter productive - indeed, it could be used as propaganda by some of the more anti-American regiemes of the world. Case in point: How did Iraq report this particular event? They certainly were not sympathetic.

I think it is wonderfully positive how the vast majority of the world’s citizens, regardless of religion or country of origin, have banded together to offer its support to the USA during one of its’ darkest hours. When Colonel Gaddafi (Qadahfi? Khaddafi? not sure how it is spelled) of Libya offers to aid the US, you know that a lump of poop the size of a small Carribean island paradise has hit the fan in a family-sized way.

Indeed, even Afghanistan are publically (at least) denouncing this act. Whilst we may be of different cultures or religions, we should not let this cloud our judgement.

Whilst the publicity of small pockets of Muslims dancing in the streets over this news made me angry, it also made me sad. These people obviously don’t know any better. If they did, they would realise that the reaction they gave was inappropriate and downright stupid. But again, these people don’t KNOW this.

Whilst I don’t fully comprehend some of the cultral differences between Muslims from the Middle East (as opposed to the millions of Muslims living in Asia, Africa etc), i’m not going to stop eating tabouli and hummus just because the Lebanese dude at the local kebab shop has a different name with which to address God by.

I would like to think that we could use this event as the catalyst for helping the people of the world to show more tolerance to each others differences, but then again I might just be dreaming.

I know this sounds weird, but i’m looking forward to the next time I see that episode of The Simpsons where Homer goes to New York City. I guess that just sums up how Australians work - we come to terms with tragedy by spending a couple of days feeling sorrow, then we try laughing at it. Then again, what do you expect from a country where the nicest thing one man can say to another is to call him an ‘old bastard’? :smiley:

If we all can keep this momentum of mutual sympathy and co-operation up, as well as keeping our spirits as strong and perky as possible, maybe … just MAYBE … those who are responsible for this atrocity will realise that any further attempts to upset us will be in vain.

Oh yeah, and I hope they hunt down the individual(s) responsible, insert starving rats into their colon and sew their sphincter shut. Revenge and payback can also help to heal, too.

7

Weirddave’s point is well taken. I’m one of those who has said that this country has an affirmative duty to go out and pound the countries who have provided haven and support for the criminals who have committed this obscenity, if for no other reason to deprive the terrorists of their support base. I have tried to draw a parallel between bin Laden (assuming that this was bin Laden’s handiwork) and Afghanistan and the Anti-Castro guerrillas and the US. It is my argument that the most effective way to neutralize terror groups is to deprive them of their safe haven.

Clearly military action against an Islamic State will anger and alienate Muslims. But we already have some surprising indications that some Islamic States fear bin Laden more than they hate the specter of US military action against, for instance, Afghanistan. A fair number of Muslims hate the US already for its support of Israel and for having troops in the Middle East as well as for being a secular democracy. That is not going to change, bombing or no bombing.

The simple fact is that this country has been attacked by a foreign power. That attack has just killed more than 5000 people in New York and Washington. Once we have a pretty good idea of who is responsible for this the US has a duty to its own people to make sure that the perpetrators of this horror are punished and that no government will ever again support such terrorist organizations.

Wierddave is absolutely correct in saying that we need to be sure of just who we ought to be going after. To maintain that this country ought to gird up its loins and mightily smite everything between the Mediterranean and the Khyber Pass is just madness. He is equally wrong if he is suggesting that we ought to sit on our hands and hope for the best. If the US follows a do-nothing approach, it has failed in its first duty to itself and to its people and is not entitled to claim to be a nation.

8

The pizza delivery guy favors military retaliation. He said he came to the US from Lebanon to be safe from terrorism. If it’s not safe here, there’s nowhere for him to go.

Personally I don’t like the idea of trading US civilian casualties for foreign civilian casualties.

9

In no way, shape or form am I suggesting we do nothing. That would be madness of an almost suicidal nature. We must strike back, strike hard and strike repeatedly until every trace of these madmen and the governments who support them are eradicated from this Earth. We must do this in an intellegent, focused manner. Dropping bombs on, say Tawraghondi simply because it is withing the borders of Afghanistan is not the approach to take. Attacking Kabul to obliterate the Taliban or Kandahar because it is likely bin Laden is there is. Collaterateral dammage is unfortunate, but inevitable. If we are ever seen as causing punitave dammage-then we lose the war, even if we win. We will just be creating the next bin Laden, giving the new Taliban a rallying cry. I also think that we should strike ALL terrorist camps within the borders of countries that refuse to root this evil out themselves. This type of warfare (terrorism) has no place in the 21st century.

10

I am of the mind that we take a militaristic, yet, sly apraoch that does no harm to our world-wide appeal as a free country. Civilians are not – and have never been – will never be a target for this nation – that would be entirely beyond what we are.

Striking against military targets and then targeting terroristic individuals is the way to go.

I would hat to knoe that we were hityng targets in populated areas that would end up in civilian casualties.

Target specific military targets and obliterate their military and allow them to make up their own minds … wiat … I’m drunk, biy I thin I still make some semse.

11

Wierddave, I’m not sure that you and I have any big disagreement. If anything we may differ or whether the US should strike Afghanistan even though bin Laden has gone to ground and his training camps are empty. My inclination is to strike Kabul as a punishment for supporting bin Laden and as an object lesson to the other States in the region.

12

Weirddave,

a tampon the size of the Empire State Building could fit in a pussy as big as you.

13

Hey, dixie dick, you wanna troll, take it to the pit.

14

AHH YES DIXIE SON! We now know that there are still American idiots. And people in this great nation that want to stomp on other peoples views.

Sorry Dix! but the People of the United States of America need to Unite with each other. Not supress anything. And comments like yours are not welcome on this board. And are completely un-called for. We are fighting ignorance man!! (or woman…don’t know)NOt harboring it.

Support your American brothers. You may need them one day. Come on!!! if your mad, good, take it out on ignorance, not on your fellow Americans.

Weirddave. I support you. And so do the many!!

15

This is inappropriate for “Great Debates” and I would suggest that it’s even a bit too much for the Pit. Watch it, DS.
Jill

16

I think that this is a very good point - the war that we are about to be involved in is not the classic war, where the enemy is a defined nation with defined boundaries. In this war, the enemy could be anywhere, could be anyone. The fact is that about 20 enemies are capable of killin thousands, besides themselves. After all, it happened. We need to fight back accordingly. An assault on Afghanistan would be counter-productive. Personally, I feel that the Taliban should be overthrown, but even then, why kill a myriad of innocents to acheive that goal? Surely, there is a better way.

One of the most restricting rules to this is an executive order that prevents the assassination of any foreign leader. I hope that Bush issues another order than invalidates it. I fear that assassination is the only way we can acheive the goals of the death of bin Laden and the overthrow of the Taliban. Unfortunately, the leaders of both are reclusive and secretive, making it hard to find them. While I can see that it might be needed to invade Afghanistan, that won’t be happening for a while. We simply don’t have enough troops. The Soviet Union never successfully took the country over, after all.

The best course of action at this time is a small strike team that could get into Afghanistan, find bin Laden, and kill him. We need to, after that, fight a general war on terrorism. We need to let the world know that terrorism will not be tolerated anywhere.

17

This rule does not apply in times of war. By stating that an “act of war” has been committed, Bush covered this.

18

However, like I said, this is not an ordinary war. Who is the enemy? The enemy is not a defined nation, it is an idea: the idea that you make a point by death and desruction. To go to actual war with the Taliban would be a bad idea right now, as we would be forced to kill numerous innocents. I fail to see why sending in a few trained assassins to kill the leaders of the Taliban would be less effective.

19

What I’m saying is that legally, the aforementioned executive order has no validity in this case. Assasins could be used, if that’s a course of action the govt. deems apropriate. I don’t think assasins alone is nearly enough here.

20

Dixie Son: Son, you’re an embarassment to Southerners everywhere. If’n I was your father, I’d be sendin’ you out the the willow tree for a switch, and you’d be rest assured to know that you’d be heading for bed early with an empty stomach and a sore behind, to help you contemplate the folly of your spiteful words towards a fellow American.

You, sir, are a cur; you write spiteful words about a man you know nothing about, hiding behind a nom-de-guerre that falsely identifies you as a Son of The South.

In spite of our little fracas last century, our Northern Bretheren and Sisters have been grievously wounded; we will not do them justice by blindly seeking to harm others.

A true Son of The South will gird hisself for the coming conflict, and remember the martial gallantry of other Southern Gentlemen, such as Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Pickett.

We should remember the honorable and gallant example that they set, though their cause be misguided, that we may be strong for our Northern kin in this, their hour of need.

Instead you show yourself to be a base coward; an unimaginitive pundit slinging rancor and dishonor upon a man, a fellow American, that you do not even know. Had I face to slap, sir, your cheek would be red and I would be awaiting your presence on the field of honor, that you may defend yourself as a man.

Let me inform you: Dave, as his username implies, is wierd. At least his sense of humor is. But a truer and bluer American you will be hard pressed to locate. He is an honest and honorable man, loyal to his friends, kind to animals, and ever thoughtful of the sacrifice and service of his fellow Americans in uniform.

Nor is he a blind patriot either; he is an intelligent and educated man, especially in the History of War, and a keen observer of the politics that surround organized conflict.

Now, sir, you have two options before you:

if you are the Son of The South you proclaim to be, you will tender a sincere and humble apology to not only Weirddave, not just the Straight Dope Message Board, but also to all Southerners everywhere, whom you have shamed with your slanderous and divisive invective.

-or-

you should withdraw yourself forthwith and forever from this board, hiding your face in shame, and renounce your self-proclaimed legacy, as you have proven yourself unworthy of that title.

I humbly (but not too patiently) await your reply.