# New CIA analyst book says Bin Laden is telling truth & the US is the rhetorical BSer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940 "2004-06-24T03:39:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/41 "2004-06-25T20:17:11Z")
> [@Anon](#): > > … We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims…. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > In fact, Mr. Blindfolded Living in a Vacuum, the US under your current Great Leader made it very clear that the word “diplomacy” does not exist for them. They even never heard of its existence. I think that here he is referring to diplomacy as opposed to making actual changes in US policy. As I read it, he’s saying that there must fundamental changes in US policy to address these issues. He says that ‘public diplomacy or words’ won’t make a significant impact. > [@Anon](#): > > We won’t talk them out of their anger, we won’t convince them we’re an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won’t convince that we’re not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > Really… To be able to bring it on as if the US does not support these regimes, does not support Israel in complete disregard of the Palestinian issue… Makes me speechless. Actually here, I think that he’s making the point I expressed above: talk won’t be effective- there have to be substantive changes in US actions re our foreign policy. > [@Anon](#): > > It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel. It’s certainly viewed as an action which is meant to assist the Israeli state. It is in every way predictably, if you will, a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does." > [@Aldebaran](#): > > What a wisdom. What a great analysis. I fall backwards in front of this enormous self-esteem that makes him think he offers an impressive new look at the situation. While this may be obvious to you, as far as it is useful info, it bears repeating over here. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > Innocent question: Is this person follower of a particular religious sect? Possibly, who knows? I’ve not taken the time, (yet), to figure out who he is exactly. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/42 "2004-06-27T16:48:15Z")
> [@Aldebaran](#): > > “It’s the only option. It’s not a good option; it’s the only option. And I’m not saying we attack people who aren’t attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive.” > > Yes, really we do need some more of the CIA terrorist actions. > > Quote: > Mitchell: “Even if it means civilian casualties?” > Anonymous: "That’s the way war is. I’ve never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. > > Oh great. Thank you Mr. Potential Murderer for considering my life absolutely worthless. > > Quote: > My experience working against bin Laden was there was multiple occasions when we did not take advantage of an opportunity to solve the problem because we were afraid of killing a civilian, we were afraid of hitting a mosque with shrapnel, we were afraid of disrupting sales of arms overseas. Very seldom in my career have I ever heard anyone ask what happens if we don’t do this. > > How touching. He plays the Innocent Benevolent Good USA Card. Is there such a vast ignorance in the USA about the crimes committed by the USA?s very own terrorist organisation named CIA? What do you want the United States to do \*\* Aldebaran\*\*? Al Qaeda attacked us and killed over 3,000 people should we have done nothing in retaliation. How many innocent people dying is acceptable in destroying Al Qaeda 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? where do you draw the line? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/43 "2004-06-27T17:06:32Z")
Nothing in “retaliation”. That is for schoolyard bullies. It is the rationale of the thug. It is precisely that craving for vengeance that has led us so far astray. Just after 9/11 we had the sympathy and cooperation of the entire world. People who don’t even like us very much stood in candlelight vigils. And GeeDubya pissed it all away being a tough guy. When you only have a hammer, you try to approach all problems as nails. Having the mightiest military force in human history, we look for someone to bomb, someone to invade, some way to apply this massive power. It is not only useless, it is counterproductive, it creates more enemies than it kills. And, of course, the innocent, the blithely ignored “collateral damage”. The answer, as in all such criminal enterprises, lies elsewhere. It lies in cunning and skullduggery, in having willing eyes and ears in the housing projects of Hamburg, in the backstreets of Tashkent. It will require patience and a nearly limitless tolerance for frustration, there will be no glory in it, no victories to trumpet from the Rose Garden. It is the only sensible option. Would that it were otherwise, that we could see a jet lifting off from an aircraft carrier to bomb the enemy, and it would be effective. But it isn’t now, nor will it ever be. It make us feel better, it makes other people dead, and it accomplishes nothing beyond that. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/44 "2004-06-27T17:13:46Z")
There was a recent thread on the whole “are the Muslims responsible for the terrorists” The thread almost brought up a good point, the same one **Elucidator** brings up - the way to fight terrorism is to get the Average Mohammed to be sympathetic to you and to report suspicious people to the authorities, to work with other nation’s governements to follow up on these leads and hunt down the terrorists (easy to do, you just let the other gov’ts proclaim glory for capturing them like Pakistan does now). This also slows the terrorists recruitment drives - not only are there less people willing to join, they have to be more careful about people reporting them! We had that, for one short, brilliant second. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/45 "2004-06-27T17:14:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Al Qaeda attacked us and killed over 3,000 people So we attack Iraq. If that makes sense to you, then GW, Rummy, Wolfie and the like are just your type of leader. Read and reread **Elucidator’s** post. And there are others in this thread of like import. In my view the invasion of Iraq was a fool’s errand, conceived and carried out on the instructions of a president with the emotional development of a 17 year olf. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/46 "2004-06-27T18:31:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nothing in “retaliation”. That is for schoolyard bullies. It is the rationale of the thug. It is precisely that craving for vengeance that has led us so far astray. What I mean by retaliation is that you attacked us now we are going to take out as many of you as possible. If for example we had killed or captured say 75% of the group that did the first WTC bombing Al Qaeda might have thought twice about attacking again. It may be schoolyard thugary but you don’t fight the big thug after watching him pound the last 5 guys that picked a fight with him. > [@elucidator](#): > > When you only have a hammer, you try to approach all problems as nails. Having the mightiest military force in human history, we look for someone to bomb, someone to invade, some way to apply this massive power. It is not only useless, it is counterproductive, it creates more enemies than it kills. And, of course, the innocent, the blithely ignored “collateral damage”. > > The answer, as in all such criminal enterprises, lies elsewhere. It lies in cunning and skullduggery, in having willing eyes and ears in the housing projects of Hamburg, in the backstreets of Tashkent. It will require patience and a nearly limitless tolerance for frustration, there will be no glory in it, no victories to trumpet from the Rose Garden. > > It is the only sensible option. Would that it were otherwise, that we could see a jet lifting off from an aircraft carrier to bomb the enemy, and it would be effective. But it isn’t now, nor will it ever be. It make us feel better, it makes other people dead, and it accomplishes nothing beyond that. You need to have the backroom cloak and dagger stuff but you also need the military aspect. The point I am trying to get across is that expecting no innocent casualities is not a reasonable expectation. My question was is how many is reasonable. Say we know that 90% of the leadership of Al Qaeda is in one place should we bomb them if its in a remote house in the middle of nowhere? I think everyone would agree that we should. But what if its in the basement of a 100 person apartment building? What about 1000? The point that the anonymous CIA Agent is making is that we need to be willing to accept more casualities. > [@David Simmons](#): > > So we attack Iraq. If that makes sense to you, then GW, Rummy, Wolfie and the like are just your type of leader. > > Read and reread Elucidator’s post. And there are others in this thread of like import. Maybe you should read and reread my post and notice that I don’t mention Iraq I mention going after terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/47 "2004-06-27T18:46:48Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The point that the anonymous CIA Agent is making is that we need to be willing to accept more casualities. Or be willing to change our policies re Israel and cheap oil. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/48 "2004-06-27T19:00:23Z")
Well, if that is the point “Anonymous” is making, he is a blithering idiot of the first water! And note well, he is saying we should be willing to accept more of _their_ casualties. Besides the moral repugnance this engenders in me, there is the matter of sheer, ruthless practicality! By such means we harvest more enemies, we do it by sowing the seeds of enmity in a profligate manner, scattering them in all directions. We already _have_ enemies. This isn’t throwing gasoline on a blazing fire, this is soaking ourselves in gasoline and flinging _ourselves_ on it! This does for stupid was Gibralter does for rocks! ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/49 "2004-06-28T00:06:29Z")
> [@Aldebaran](#): > > I’m sorry but you are wrong here and this has nothing to do with the current name or borders of the country where they are located now. It is about the locations themselves. > It is not because ‘Ali and Husseyn play a very particular role in Shia Islam that their shrines are “of no importance” for Sunni Muslims. > Their life stories are of equal importance in the history of Sunni Islam and hence their tombs have their importance for Sunni Muslims and for the history of Sunni Islam and for the history of Islam in general. (Side note: They are even in particular important for the claimed bloodlines of many Sunni and Shia Muslims equally. Today.) > \ **Aldebaran** , that was my quote you are responding to, but I think you might be misunderstanding it. My posts in this thread have been in response to Anonymous’ statement that for ‘both Sunnis and Shias’, Iraq is the ‘second holiest place’ in the world. I think we can both agree that this is a bizarre thing to say. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/50 "2004-06-28T02:11:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The answer, as in all such criminal enterprises, lies elsewhere. It lies in cunning and skullduggery, in having willing eyes and ears in the housing projects of Hamburg, in the backstreets of Tashkent. It will require patience and a nearly limitless tolerance for frustration, there will be no glory in it, no victories to trumpet from the Rose Garden. > > It is the only sensible option. Would that it were otherwise, that we could see a jet lifting off from an aircraft carrier to bomb the enemy, and it would be effective. But it isn’t now, nor will it ever be. It make us feel better, it makes other people dead, and it accomplishes nothing beyond that. I have to respectfully disagree. I understand that intelligence programs such as you suggest are necessary. But after a point, they are insufficient. What would programs of this type done about the terrorist bases in Afghanistan? How long would you have negotiated with Afghanistan to arrest and turn over OBL? I agree that we need to address many of the internation terrorist problem with diplomacy, intelligence gathering, support of friendly governments, and even greater patience. However, I think it is incorrect to suggest that the military has no role. Perhaps I am reading more into your post than you meant? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/51 "2004-06-28T02:50:16Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I have to respectfully disagree. I understand that intelligence programs such as you suggest are necessary. But after a point, they are insufficient. What would programs of this type done about the terrorist bases in Afghanistan? How long would you have negotiated with Afghanistan to arrest and turn over OBL?.. Well, tell the truth, I’m not entirely convinved the Taliban could have “turned over” ObL had they wanted to. I know, sooner or later, the odds are my Gov will tell me the truth if only by accident, but I remain skeptical. But even if I did believe it, I’m not at all sure we got what we set out to get. Seems like the number one goal was getting Osama, until Osama got away but we did in the Taliban, then getting the Taliban was the number one goal. I suppose installing a perfectly decent fellow as Mayor of Kabul counts for something. But not much. Besides, a terrorist needs a base like a fish needs a bicycle. Outside of training guys to run through old tires like at football camp, what’s the point? And I can see a lot of advantages in knowing where they are, rather than knowing where they used to be. > [@](#): > > …However, I think it is incorrect to suggest that the military has no role. Perhaps I am reading more into your post than you meant? Our military can’t be beat in its avowed purpose: state to state conflict, involving uniformed armies and lots and lots of malicious metal. Want to kill 100,000 people, well, there you go. Want to kill one _without_ killing any more, maybe not. Surgery performed with a five-pound sledge is just bound to get messy. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/52 "2004-06-28T05:51:18Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Maybe you should read and reread my post and notice that I don’t mention Iraq I mention going after terrorists. Here is your post: “What do you want the United States to do Aldebaran? Al Qaeda attacked us and killed over 3,000 people should we have done nothing in retaliation. How many innocent people dying is acceptable in destroying Al Qaeda 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? where do you draw the line?” I’m frank to say that I don’t understand your post after having read it and reread it and rereread it. What innocent people are you speaking of killing as a retaliation? Are they Afghanis, Iraqis, random people in various countries? What the hell are you suggesting in asking “… How many innocent people dying is acceptable in destroying Al Qaeda …?” How have the overt actions taken by the US that involved killing innocents had any deleterious effect on al Qaeda? You didn’t have to mention Iraq when speaking of “killing innocents.” **Aldeberan’s** reference, I believe, concerned Anonymous writing that now that we are in Iraq we should take off the gloves. That having started we shouldn’t let the death of innocents deter us from finishing the job. I’ve got to admit that I haven’t read his book so I have no idea what is his scorecard for “finishing the job.” And I’m beginning to suspect that he doesn’t either. Your question that I cited above about the number of innocent deaths that is acceptable in destroying al Qaeda makes no sense whatever in the context of what the US is actually doing with respect to al Qaeda, if anything. Oh, of course every now and then we kill a bunch of people in a Falloujah house with smart missiles based on the seemingly dubious intelligence info that some insurgent leader might be there, have been there or is expected shortly. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind to “destroy al Qaeda?” What crap. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/53 "2004-06-28T13:20:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What do you want the United States to do \*\* Aldebaran\*\*? Al Qaeda attacked us and killed over 3,000 people should we have done nothing in retaliation. How many innocent people dying is acceptable in destroying Al Qaeda 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? where do you draw the line? May I ask you why you think I would have any responsibility in whatever a bunch of lunatical murderers plan or execute? May I ask you where the foundatin is for the arrogance you show with your claim - in writing which is even worse then saying it - that my family, myself, my friends, my connections or no matter who that happens to live in a country which you perceive as “the enemy” should be “acceptable” for dying to satisfy your lust for vengeance? I had a friend in the WTC who died thanks to what is perceived as a bunch of suicidal lunatics. The fact that he was not Arab and not Muslim may make the Great Diference to you… It does not make The Great Difference to me. Hence may I ask you why you think that all the people who died in the 9/11 tragedy where US citizens? My friend for certain was not. He was married with a US citizen yet he remained citizen of the EU. About what the US “should do”. To begin with the US “should do” what other nations do without killings thousands of innocents at random while invading sovereign nations. Hint: Try to find the word “diplomacy” in a good dictionary and send its definition to your government to instruct them. I can elaborate on the question “what should the US do” for days in a row yet I am not in the right mood to even touch the issue. Nor do I have that much time available. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/54 "2004-06-28T13:26:01Z")
SimonX You have a very different reading of that article (and the intentions behind the answer of that writer) then I have. He clearly advocates random killing of innocent people, which is in fact what the US does already right now. I don’t see anywhere a reference made to “changing policies” in the way you seem to read it. In my view he only wants “changing policies” into the direction of more murders of innocent people. Outside the USA, of course. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/55 "2004-06-28T13:50:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, tell the truth, I’m not entirely convinved the Taliban could have “turned over” ObL had they wanted to. In fact they gave the message “he is no longer under our protection”. Which was the only way they could save their face in accordance with widely spread tradition that you must protect a guest against danger and that his enemy is yours. Of course the hint to make it some under cover operation went directly against the plan of the Bush Maffia for placing their puppet at the head of a post-Taliban Afghanistan. Add to this that people in the USA who have _some_ idea about traditions, customs, ideas of honour and dignity and the whole lot that is connected with that in nations outside the USA, are about as rare specimens as The Pink Unicorn Believers where I live. Of these rare US specimens there were none who could get through the thick skull of Bush Maffia and C°. There were also none of the non US’ers who could get through the “We do not negotiate with the Taliban”. Afghanistan is a greater mess then it was before the harmless US cluster- and other bombs came floating down to kill and keep killing. In addition to this renewal of the War Lord Syndrome, the Taliban are far from gone. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/56 "2004-06-28T14:09:18Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > **Aldebaran** , that was my quote you are responding to, but I think you might be misunderstanding it. My posts in this thread have been in response to Anonymous’ statement that for ‘both Sunnis and Shias’, Iraq is the ‘second holiest place’ in the world. I think we can both agree that this is a bizarre thing to say. Yes. Like I said: If that man is a CIA cooperative, it gives a good view on its stunning ignorance about Islam, Muslims and the ME in general. Yet the CIA is not alone in this and it can easily be cleared up why they still remain so incredible ignorant. At the time when Khomeiny got ready to take over Iran (If I recall well it was about a month before this actually happened) the Shah was on a visit in the USA where the President declared him to be the leader of the _only_ stable nation in that region. It seems he had come to this stunning wisdom and insight following the information he received from US Orientalists. Although the USA has some good scholars in M.E. studies it seems to me that they preach in a desert populated with blind and deaf. (I don’t have that same experience in Europe.) Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/57 "2004-06-29T00:52:16Z")
> [@Aldebaran](#): > > May I ask you why you think I would have any responsibility in whatever a bunch of lunatical murderers plan or execute? I didn’t say you did. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > May I ask you where the foundatin is for the arrogance you show with your claim - in writing which is even worse then saying it - that my family, myself, my friends, my connections or no matter who that happens to live in a country which you perceive as “the enemy” should be “acceptable” for dying to satisfy your lust for vengeance? I didn’t say anything about my lust for vengence or any other of that bullshit you attriubted to me. I asked how many people dying is acceptable in the destruction of Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups. Frankly it doensn’t matter to me whether these people are German, Chineese, Brazilian, Arab or little green men from Mars but suggesting that I am racist is very nice. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > I had a friend in the WTC who died thanks to what is perceived as a bunch of suicidal lunatics. > The fact that he was not Arab and not Muslim may make the Great Diference to you… It does not make The Great Difference to me. Ah yes calling me racist, excellent. > [@Aldebaran](#): > > Hence may I ask you why you think that all the people who died in the 9/11 tragedy where US citizens? > My friend for certain was not. He was married with a US citizen yet he remained citizen of the EU. May I ask you why you think I think that all the people who died on 9/11 were U.S. citizens? > [@Aldebaran](#): > > About what the US “should do”. To begin with the US “should do” what other nations do without killings thousands of innocents at random while invading sovereign nations Why don’t we ignore Iraq becuase it is not a part of the WoT no matter how much Bush says it is. Lets talk about at Afghanistan a nation that provided aid, safe haven and protected a large terrorist network. After 9/11 we wanted the government of Afghanistan to turn over the leaders of this terrorist orginization but they refused. At this point what do you think the United States should have done? Surely some innocent people will die if you invade at what number do you say that the invasion should not happen? > [@David Simmons](#): > > I’m frank to say that I don’t understand your post after having read it and reread it and rereread it. What innocent people are you speaking of killing as a retaliation? Are they Afghanis, Iraqis, random people in various countries? I am not suggesting that we go around and just kill innocent people in retaliation for the attack. I am asking that in the process of destroying Al Qaeda how many innocent people dying is acceptable? > [@David Simmons](#): > > How have the overt actions taken by the US that involved killing innocents had any deleterious effect on al Qaeda? Well the war in Afghanistan has forced OBL to hide in a cave in a mountain somewhere. We have removed the Taliban from power that was allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan. I don’t have any cites for innocent people dying in Afghanistan but I can’t imagine we fought a war of that scale without killing an innocent person. Heck many posters on this board claim that we have a bunch of innocent people locked up in Gitmo. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/58 "2004-06-29T02:17:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I am not suggesting that we go around and just kill innocent people in retaliation for the attack. I am asking that in the process of destroying Al Qaeda how many innocent people dying is acceptable? I guess this is where we differ. Don’t ask me how many innocent people dying is acceptable because innocent people die as a result of what seems to be your approach to “destroying al Qaeda,” that is by use of military force alone. I don’t think that will do the job. We need to involve the whole world’s financial structure in limiting their ability to finance their operations and work hard diplomatically to try to remove the causes, such as the Palastine-Israeli mess. We also need to try to make friends with as many people as possible who could infiltrate the organization so that we have some sort of reliable intelligence information to work with. If I had more experience in this area I could probably think of some other things as well. > [@](#): > > Well the war in Afghanistan has forced OBL to hide in a cave in a mountain somewhere. We have removed the Taliban from power that was allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan. I’m not sure the news of late supports this claim. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/59 "2004-06-29T02:33:33Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I guess this is where we differ. Don’t ask me how many innocent people dying is acceptable because innocent people die as a result of what seems to be your approach to “destroying al Qaeda,” that is by use of military force alone. I don’t think that will do the job. We need to involve the whole world’s financial structure in limiting their ability to finance their operations and work hard diplomatically to try to remove the causes, such as the Palastine-Israeli mess. We also need to try to make friends with as many people as possible who could infiltrate the organization so that we have some sort of reliable intelligence information to work with. If I had more experience in this area I could probably think of some other things as well. I’m not saying that the military is the only option or even the first option. I am saying that the military has to be a part of it and with all military operations you run the risk of innocent people dying. What I asked specifically of Aldebaran is how many innocent people dying he thinks is acceptable. You and him have both managed to dodge the question artfully. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940/60 "2004-06-29T02:54:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not saying that the military is the only option or even the first option. I am saying that the military has to be a part of it and with all military operations you run the risk of innocent people dying. What I asked specifically of Aldebaran is how many innocent people dying he thinks is acceptable. You and him have both managed to dodge the question artfully. I don’t think that I am obligated to answer a question just because it was asked. I have never opposed the original operation in Afghanistan. Collateral death there is unfortunate but not unexpected. I can’t quantify how many of them have to occur before the point of diminishing returns and I don’t think you can either. In typical GW fashion Afghanistan was left half-done and is daily becoming a more uncertain operation. Iraq is another matter as in my opinion that adventure was unecessary to the so-called “war on terrorism” and ill advised on any grounds so all killing of any kind there is, and was, unjustified in my opinion. In any case, your original post, _“What do you want the United States to do Aldebaran? Al Qaeda attacked us and killed over 3,000 people should we have done nothing in retaliation. How many innocent people dying is acceptable in destroying Al Qaeda 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? where do you draw the line?”_ puts retaliation for the 9/11 attack and destroying al Qaeda into the same paragraph which makes it all one thought. I believe your current instance that you were only talking about destroying al Qaeds is disingenuous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-cia-analyst-book-says-bin-laden-is-telling-truth-the-us-is-the-rhetorical-bser/251940.md?page=2)