# Should we bomb during Ramadan? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2001, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712 "2001-11-11T01:10:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/21 "2001-11-11T21:00:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > On the other hand: One should at least get the hands right: > [@](#): > > The terrorists have already shown the “fuck 'em, we will do what we want” attitude (with their attacks on 9/11 and previously), and bombing on Ramadan isn’t going to change that, and The terrorists and al-Qaeda are not the audience of agitprop, the wider Muslim world is. That itself doesn’t make a strategic scale back of bombing to tactical support the right call, but it does make this observation rather irrelevant. > [@](#): > > If we stop bombing during Ramadan as a PR move, we are showing as clearly as possible that we _will_ respond to propaganda, encouraging the Taliban and those who support them to step up the pressure, and I’m afraid the basic logic of this observation escapes me. Engaging in PR moves hardly means one is rewarding propaganda, it means one is responding to the real need to win hearts and minds. Of course this has to be balanced carefully, seeking hearts and minds while losing other ground is not sensible, but the mere assertion that this is repsonding to “propaganda” is both nonesensical and illogical. The concerns about bombing during Ramadan are widespread among Muslims, and indeed the bombing campaign has not won much praise outside of the USA. Taking strategically appropriate measures to shore up support which also maintain tactical advantage is both logical and sensible. Insofar as the Afghan winter means things pretty much grind to a halt and that support in the Pashtun south is key for a real, workable solution, dismissing a Ramadan scale back as “rewarding” the Taleban is simply ignorant. > [@](#): > > We are making the Viet Nam mistake. Military actions should be undertaken to achieve military goals. The purpose of bombing is to kill people and break things, not send messages. If a military objective remains to be achieved thru bombing, bombing it will have to be. Ah the Vietnam mythology. Let me repeat my post in another thread, the reference to protestors of course is of marginal relevance here. Winning military objectives to lose one’s political goals makes not one whit of sense: > [@](#): > > As for Vietnam, no I don’t actually agree that protestors were in fact the cause. They were the symptom of a poorly concieved strategy that fundamentally misunderstood the political costs and consequences of what was ultimately a marginal strategic interest. > > “Winning” militarily in Vietnam --and the domestic protestors had nothing to do with this-- would have required the US to engage in what might be fairly termed near-genocidal bombing of North Vietnam or invasion. > > I am sure policy was modelled on the lessons of Korea. They were partly false ones. I base my comments on readings in re Ridgeway, the war and my own father who served there during the war, in front-line combat. > > (a) While the South Korean government which we backed did have problems with a significant % of Japanese collabos, our presence and backing had some indigenous legitmacy as liberators from the Japanese and our strong backing for Korean nationalists. We were the folks who humiliated their oppressors. Buys baraka. > (b) Physically, the DMZ and Korean geography generally allowed the formation of a militarity secure and stable line. > © The international political situation was markedly different, the US was still wearing a mantle of anti-colonial rep from snubbing the European colonial powers. Further, radical tiers-mondisme and colonial nationalism are just getting off the ground in the 1950s. > > By difference, Vietnam, we foolishly backed the French return – whose presence was not only hated, but thoroughly discredited by their conduct under Japanese hegemony. They were, after, Vichy in Vietnam. > > Further, there was the China issue. From Korea, we knew that invasion and drive towards the North would provoke a dangerous Chinese response. No love lost between China and Vietnam, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. > > Then there is the nature of the Southern government. A large presence of French collaborating Catholics whose corrupt governing practices made them all the more susceptible to nationalist-communist agitprop. > > Further, the borders with Cambodia and Loas were not of a nature which one could control them and create a stable line between the North and South. > > Finally, the very presence of our troops. One easily forgets that the USA funded the staggeringly unsuccessful French war in Indochina until their collapse. French troops had US uniforms, they were made up of white and black troops (Legion, sub-Saharan African and North African) who didn’t look too different from the US. > > We plugged right into the old framework of the struggle against the colonial oppressor with very, very few advantages. > > The moment US policy makers understood that the Southern government could not stand on its own (i.e. without large scale direct US troop intervention) they should have cut it loose and gone to shore up perhaps Cambodia. Of course there is the objection that one should not abandon friends in need. True, very true, but when your friend (ally) is a clear fuckup, there is time where you step back and say, he, he’s a fuckup and that’s why I’m just going to support my competent friends. > > I will say though that I don’t particularly care for the anti-American aspects of the anti-War movement and a lot of easy rhetoric which goes on to this day demonizing one’s own country. That said, I don’t believe the movement was wrong in its goal of ending a war that simply was not well-concieved, had not a chance of achieving any rational policy, political or military goal. To win the war just to prove one can win is not policy, not warfare, it’s either madness, stupidity or pure childishness. Were al-Qaeda located in and destroyable by destroying them in Afghanistan and were the Taleban an easily identifiable force, then I would say have at it. But al-Qaeda is diffuse and we need to achieve goals outside of Afghanistan in fighting them. Goals which requires at least some level require cooperation from Arab nations and on-the-ground assets. Unnecessarily alienating these people does little good. That is not per se a good argument for a cessation of bombing or hostilities. It is a good argument for taking a different tack during Ramadan and not responding with a fuck you attitude which gains us marginal value at what cost? I believe Tom and I have outlined at least a logical and useful policy which moves the onus onto the Taleban, and lets fellow Muslims, the Northern Alliance make some calls (or rather give cover) as Jihadists themselves. > [@](#): > > Dropping food packets on one part of the country while bombing another hasn’t bought us any brownie points in the eyes of the world, and acting as if the Taliban were legitimate Muslims isn’t going to either. Again, false dichotomies. The gesture towards providing aid has limited our downside. Without making such gestures the backlash would easily be worse. We give our defenders at least a leg to stand on. Because a policy doesn’t magically transform the world into folks who love you doesn’t mean it has failed. Second, our or your judgement about the Taleban’s legitimacy as Muslims matters not one fuck. Further, quite clearly folks other than the Taleban themselves will suffer during Ramadan bombing. Including Pashtuns we need to win over if we are to have any hope of having a situation stable enough to track down al-Qaeda. > [@](#): > > Ramadan sayeed, camel f\*\*\*ers. Ramadan sir? Anyway, donkey & sheep fuckers would be more appropriate. They aren’t Gulfies you know. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/22 "2001-11-11T22:00:55Z")
the muslims attacked israel on Yom Kippur (the Yom Kippur war). They obviously don’t respect other people’s religions, so why should theirs be respected? Oh, that war was started during Ramadan. So, if irony isn’t enough for you, try some hypocrisy. There is no valid reason why we should not continue to bomb them during their little ramadan. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/23 "2001-11-11T22:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > \*\*the muslims attacked israel on Yom Kippur (the Yom Kippur war). They obviously don’t respect other people’s religions, so why should theirs be respected? > > Oh, that war was started during Ramadan. So, if irony isn’t enough for you, try some hypocrisy. There is no valid reason why we should not continue to bomb them during their little ramadan. \*\* Except for the fact that we aren’t at war with “the Muslims”. We are at war with a terrorist organization and a group that shelters them, who just happen to be Muslim. Meanwhile we are allied ( however loosely ) with other Muslims. A point that has been brought up repeatedly as the key ( or a key ) to this whole discussion. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/24 "2001-11-11T22:22:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > the muslims attacked israel on Yom Kippur (the Yom Kippur war). They obviously don’t respect other people’s religions, so why should theirs be respected? I don’t know, **Kalt** , I am sure the moderately literate who read over the thread can think up a few perfectly self-interested reasons. > [@](#): > > Oh, that war was started during Ramadan. So, if irony isn’t enough for you, try some hypocrisy. There is no valid reason why we should not continue to bomb them during their little ramadan. Yes, indeed not one. Thanks for giving the complexities of the situation such a close and interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/25 "2001-11-11T22:44:28Z")
Wow. You guys are great. As you know, this issue has been on the news a lot lately. I have mixed feelings about it. I came on in here to see what the Dopers had to say about it and found (much to my surprise) that there was no thread about it. So I started this one. Tom and Collounsbury make excellent points. My rational self agrees with them. There is a big part of me, however, that does say “fuck 'em and bomb.” Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. The reason I find this so interesting is the irony of it. Al-Qaeda perpetrates terrorism in the name of Islam. Yet, the Muslim world wants us to back off in the name of Islam. Of course Al-Qaeda’s and the Taliban’s brand of Islam is certainly not the same as that of mainstream Islam, but I still find it quite ironic. ---
**Author:** ![completely-knackered](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@completely-knackered](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/completely-knackered)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/26 "2001-11-11T22:47:10Z")
We got creamed during TET. And we have Washinton crossing the Delaware on a holy day, which we put on stamps we’re so proud of it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/27 "2001-11-11T23:39:36Z")
I’m afraid I do not see your point, **Kalt**. We _need_ the support of the man-on-the-street in Egypt, Syria, Indonesia, probably Iran, certainly Pakistan and Uzbekistan. They can be as hypocritical as we are (in general terms), but deliberately offending them will not make them our allies. Choosing an approach that limits the Taleban’s ability to _claim_ that the U.S. is attacking Islam would seem to be a good way to avoid destroying future alliances or calls for solidarity. President Bush proclaimed within two days of the WTC/Pentagon attacks that this would be a prolonged war taking years to defeat terrorism. We will certainly overwhelm the Taleban by next summer. Where do you think the next fighting will occur, and how much help do you think we will get, then, if we alienate the moderates of the region, now? * * * **completely-knackered** , Tet was a _military_ victory for the U.S. (just as was the Battle of the Bulge), but our intelligence failure to recognize that it was coming caused it to appear to be a defeat. Unlike the Battle of the Bulge, we had no Bastogne to defend with memorable quotes (“Nuts.”) or George Patton to widely and loudly proclaim to the press our eventual victory, so it is generally recognized (correctly) as the first massive _ **PR** _ defeat of the Vietnam War. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/28 "2001-11-11T23:56:57Z")
Oh yeah, I forgot that there are people who think this is not about Islam. Salman Rushdie explained it pretty well: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday\_review/story/0,3605,586471,00.html](http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,586471,00.html) Anyway, this IS about islam. The Islamic World (not to be confused with every single muslim in the world) has declared war on the US a long time ago. The battle has finally begun. Until the Islamic World accepts American imperialism and Zionism as a fact of life, this war isn’t going to end. When Islam declares war on and attacks the US, and when the US returns fire - we are at war with Islam, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound. Just because there are some muslims living here in the USA who don’t agree with the Anti-American sentiment of the Muslim World (by that, I mean the middle east - the center of islam), doesn’t mean this is not a war against Islam. There were Japanese living in america during ww2 (some of which were unfortunately put in internment camps - one of our darkest moments), yet that doesn’t mean we were not at war with Japan. As for the coalition building argument for not bombing during ramadan - as far as I know, we are not bombing pakistan or any of the other “ally” muslim nations at the moment. If we are, then by all means, we should stop bombing them - and not bomb them during ramadan (they probably won’t stay friendly to us if we don’t). But as far as afghanistan goes, we are at war with them (not to be confused with being “at war against terrorism” which is nothing more than a catchphrase). Prudence dictates that you dont give your enemy a month long break during a war to regroup, re-load, rest, and re-organize. That’s simply moronic. (yes, i’m ready for those people who disagree with me to call me ‘moronic’… bring it on) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/29 "2001-11-12T00:09:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyway, this IS about islam. The Islamic World (not to be confused with every single muslim in the world) has declared war on the US a long time ago. Nonsense and piffle. It is not at all difficult to find Muslims who have no general axe to grind against the West ot the U.S. or against Christianity or anything else. Engaging in paranoid “They’re all against us!” rhetoric may make one feel better about condemning them, but it is not accurate, it is ignorant. Splitting hairs that “Islam is against us” even though “Not all Muslims are against us” is only valid if you can demonstrate that some overwhelming number of Muslims embrace the attitude that you claim for them. In fact, an overwhelming number of Egyptians are _not_ “against us,” a majority of Pakistanis are _not_ “against us” (although a large and loud minority of Pakistanis are), a majority of Iranians are, surprisingly, not “against us” (although they have a deep-seated distrust of the U.S. government). I’d be really curious what your claim that “the Islamic world. . . has declared war on the US a long time ago” came from. Any actual conferences or assemblies or such where this declaration was made? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/30 "2001-11-12T00:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > Oh yeah, I forgot that there are people who think this is not about Islam. > > Salman Rushdie explained it pretty well: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday\_review/story/0,3605,586471,00.html](http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,586471,00.html) Yes, well, it would be nice if you understood the whole breadth of what he said, no? My reading of his essay seems rather different. Salman is point towards a political sickness in much of the Muslim world, above all the Arabo-Farsi Muslim world, and distinguishing between the Islamists, a la Osama bin Laden and even conservatives. Hardly a support for your “Islamic World is at war” argument. > [@](#): > > Anyway, this IS about islam. The Islamic World (not to be confused with every single muslim in the world) has declared war on the US a long time ago. No, the Islamic world did not declare war on the US a long time ago. Not be any stretch of some illiterate imagination. The Islamic world has been self-conflicted for a long time. Muslims both like and dislike America and the West for a variety of good and bad reasons. Even with that conflcit and despite US support for Israel, the US has long enjoyed a reservoir of at least moderate good will. Arab states are largely at least only mildly anti-American to vaguely pro-American, while the “street” again reflects conflicted feelings. Only a minority are --as of when I left early September-- vehemently anti-American to the point of being at war with America. There is no thing which I can reasonably, rationally describe as “THE” Islamic world in the context of a statement rather devoid of understanding, except the Khalifal wet-dream of Osama bin Laden. In essence, our dear Kalt is saying Osama is right in his conception, despite evidence to the contrary, notably the lack of political support for ObL in grosso modo. Indeed his denunciation of the UN and Kofi Annan went down like a rock. > [@](#): > > The battle has finally begun. Until the Islamic World accepts American imperialism and Zionism as a fact of life, this war isn’t going to end. Well, I would not except “American Imperialism” nor “Zionism” as a fact of life. I suppose it would be helpful to define one’s terms, yes? American hegemony? Well that’s not the same thing as imperialism – words do have meanings you know-- and structurally can be quite different. Cooperative hegemony is a hell of lot less costly than attempts at domination. As for Zionism, if we mean the Israeli state, much of the Arab world and even Iran has come to grudgingly accept its presence. The key issues of land, Palestinian rights (and conversely Israeli security) and al-Quds, the Islamic parts of Jerusalem are things that need to be worked out in a manner which both sides secure their minimum needs. Dictat simply will continue a bloody cycle. That is no good for anyone if it can be reasonably ended. And it can, with the right mix and firmness. And fairness. Fuck you attitudes, poorly informed, poorly concieved and even more poorly expressed just drag one deeper into a morass. > [@](#): > > When Islam declares war on and attacks the US, and when the US returns fire - we are at war with Islam, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound. Politically incorrect sounding? No, stupid and staggeringly ignorant sounding. Rather the Osama bin Laden level of analysis. Islam did not “declare war”, some extremists did. They are not even a majority. The majority is the hostile neutrals who can be won over to at least cooperation if not real friendship. And should be. > [@](#): > > Just because there are some muslims living here in the USA who don’t agree with the Anti-American sentiment of the Muslim World (by that, I mean the middle east - the center of islam), doesn’t mean this is not a war against Islam. Just because you have not the slightest clue as to Middle Eastern sentiment and are talking out of your ass does not mean that the Middle East is at war with the United States. At worst, segements are in hostile neutrality. A hostile neutral is not the same as at war. Further, to confuse Arab sentiment with Muslim sentiment is to commit a ignorant blunder that has been dealt with more than once here. One would think that some folks might build a somewhat vaguely more sophisticated understanding of the issues in the past few months instead of spewing ill-founded generalizations. > [@](#): > > There were Japanese living in america during ww2 (some of which were unfortunately put in internment camps - one of our darkest moments), yet that doesn’t mean we were not at war with Japan. Japan is a nation state. Islam is religion. Japan has a central authority. Islam doesn’t even have a generalized system of clergy. For a properly constructed analogy that does not do violence to both facts and logic, one should make some attempt to think about comparing things with similar properties. Let me give you a hand. Asians as an ethnic group. The United States went to war with Japan, a specific subset of Asians. Lot’s of Asians did not care that much for America, as “White” imperialist power in the region. (one can argue this, but the point is perception) Many like the US as a counterpoint to Japanese power, especially once they experienced the Japanese. Japan tried to sell a pan-Asian solidarity while engaging in blood-thirsty war against fellow Asians. US not at war with Asians, at war with Japan. Get the drift? Here, another helping hand. Al-Qaeda et al: subset of Islam. Many Muslims do not like the USA. Many Muslims do like the USA (sometimes at the same time) and do see it as an offset for extremists. Al-Qaeda et al try to sell pan-Islamic solidarity while engaging in terrible, bloody actions against fellow Muslims. (I refer you all to the mosque massacre by al-Higra wa Takfiir this past December) US not at war with all Muslims, at war with subset of Muslims. Should do its best not to give al-Qaeda a propaganda victory and give it allies it need not have. I also refer the readers of this thread to the current issue of The Economist for a penetrating article on the PR war. > [@](#): > > As for the coalition building argument for not bombing during ramadan - as far as I know, we are not bombing pakistan or any of the other “ally” muslim nations at the moment. Allied. The adjective is allied. Well, since you have not grasped the point quite as yet, and I suppose that holding out the hope that you would is probably an exercise in the sheerest optimism, let me try once more. We need cooperation. Cooperation to fight the tendrils of al-Qaeda. Cooperation to put in place forces so that we can effectively do battle with the Taleban et al on the ground in Afghanistan. To obtain cooperation, one has to engage --engage being a verb which indicates some degree of compromise without necesarily selling out the farm-- the sensitivities of host, allied, vaguely countries in the region so that we have a stable, secure area to operate in. Operate effectively and without undue cost. While the playground level of analysis is sure to think that we could simply occupy everything, it rather abstracts away from the cost. Cost in lives, cost in time, cost in lost effectiveness, cost in lost reputation in the rest of the world, not just the Muslim world. Criticisms of bombarding have not been restrained solely to the Muslim world, as one excepts you would not be aware of. Now, of course none of this is to say that just because there is criticism one should back down. Quite the contrary, one should not. However, if one can find ways to address criticisms while also advancing one’s interests (and that I think was what Tom and I were suggesting) then one should consider that. Else one comes off as a self-centered idiot and one loses long-term, necessary cooperation. > [@](#): > > If we are, then by all means, we should stop bombing them - and not bomb them during ramadan (they probably won’t stay friendly to us if we don’t). But as far as afghanistan goes, we are at war with them (not to be confused with being “at war against terrorism” which is nothing more than a catchphrase). We are at war with the Taleban. They are not all of Afghanistan and as argued above (and I detect not the slightest engatgement with the ideas) we need Pashtun support in the South to more effectively and more quickly achieve our real aims, not the playground aims. > [@](#): > > Prudence dictates that you dont give your enemy a month long break during a war to regroup, re-load, rest, and re-organize. That’s simply moronic. (yes, i’m ready for those people who disagree with me to call me ‘moronic’… bring it on) Prepping the martyr role are you? I’d be much happier if you would put in the effort to actualy read, follow and understand the arguments presented rather than a whole string of poorly concieved straw men. In any case, prudence dictates that you select a strategy which gets the payoff that you want. If a scale-back in bombing --and again, this Afghanistan, not an industrialized war machine-- to tactical support for Northern Alliance troops can be profitably exploited to win PR points and shave off Pashtun support and give rise to a Pashtu rebellion against the Taliban, then we save. Now that’s the question which is hard to answer. I can’t say that it is automatically the case. However, sitting back it does strike me as something to try insofar as our Pashtun allies that we want to insert in the South have opined that bombing in the Kandahar area has done more to solidify Taleban support than hurt the Taleban. One nightmare one should try to avoid is a split Afghanistan between the NA north and a Pashtu-Taleban south with no good way to establish order and hunt al-Qaeda. So, we can go with a rational analysis based on best-guess cost-benefit analysis, or we can go with uninformed emotional bomb the towel headed fuckers I don’t even know the difference between the brown bastards approach. I would like to note that an argument that the payoff for a Ramadan scaleback is not enough to offset possible potential gains by the Taleban is certainly a different argument that yours. One would hope, however, that it would be informed by some area knowledge. And of course it would be nice to see some vague engagement with the actual argument Tom and I set forth (and which I remain myself somewhat divided about). ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/31 "2001-11-12T00:56:08Z")
If OBL didn’t want to get bombed and chased from one cave to another during Ramadan he shouldn’t have started a war back in September by bombing NYC and DC. If the Taleban didn’t want to get bombed during Ramadan they should have turned over OBL after we spent three weeks telling them that we were so pissed off at OBL & Co that we were going to come and get him (and them) if they didn’t. If anyone says we shouldn’t have given such an ultimatum - excuse me, even our _enemies_ stated that we had every right to defend ourselves and bring the perpetrators of September 11 to justice, including hunting them down like dogs. If the less-than-pond-scum that started this whole ruckus are upset at being attacked on Ramadan - well, there are consequences to every action, and that is the consequence of _their_ actions. You can’t attack a country and not expect retaliation. It’s that simple. Now, what, exactly, we do during Ramadan… that depends on the situation at the time the Holy Month starts. If we can hold back on the bombing maybe we will. On the other hand, the Northern Alliance (our allies, remember?) may not want us to slow down the air campaign. But it would be foolish to announce two weeks in advance “we’re going to do X” regardless of Holy Months or ordinary months. You just can’t telegraph to your enemy what you plan to do, it’s bad strategy. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/32 "2001-11-12T01:06:19Z")
On re-reading the Rushdie comment in **Kalt** ’s link, I noted several different passages: > [@](#): > > These Islamists - we must get used to this word, “Islamists”, meaning those who are engaged upon such political projects, and learn to distinguish it from the more general, and politically neutral, “Muslim” - include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the bloodsoaked combatants of the FIS and GIA in Algeria, the Shia revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. . . This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, “infidels”, for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest-growing version of Islam in the world. Fastest growing, as in not yet dominant. > [@](#): > > This is not wholly to go along with Samuel Huntington’s thesis about the “clash of civilisations”, for the simple reason that the Islamists’ project is not only turned against the west and “the Jews”, but also against their fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there’s little love lost between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim nations run at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations’ resentment of the west. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks, Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist “hijack” of their religion. Yesterday’s hotheads (among them Yusuf Islam, aka Cat Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as today’s pussycats. An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: “The disease that is in us, is from us.” A British Muslim writes that “Islam has become its own enemy”. A Lebanese writer friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the aftermath of September 11, public criticism of Islamism has become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need for a reformation in the Muslim world. I read Rushdie’s commentary and note direct parallels to the similar struggle occurring within Christianity, in which the most Fundamentalist groups (often the most paranoid and anti-intellectual groups within Fundamentalism) have waged a 30 year war to claim Christianity as their own. Given our generally more secular society and the fact that the U.S. is on the top of the economic pile–making recruitment to the extremes more difficult–the struggle is not as loud and it does not have the same penchant for leading to violence. However, nothing in Rushdie’s article establishes a “war” between all of Islam and anyone else. He describes a civil war within Islam that has spilled over onto the world’s stage. While it may very well be true that the current mess is “about Islam,” that is a very different claim than that “Islam is at war with the U.S.” In fact, given Rushdie’s points regarding the struggle _within_ Islam, it would seem that we should make _more_ effort to bring as many moderate and secularist-leaning Muslims to our side, rather than dismissing them and forcing them to join our enemies. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/33 "2001-11-12T01:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > If OBL didn’t want to get bombed and chased from one cave to another during Ramadan he shouldn’t have started a war back in September by bombing NYC and DC. > > If the Taleban didn’t want to get bombed during Ramadan they should have turned over OBL after we spent three weeks telling them that we were so pissed off at OBL & Co that we were going to come and get him (and them) if they didn’t. The Taleban and al-Qaeda are not the issue. The issue is found elsewhere. I think it has been adequately explained above, if one care to actually read what was said. > [@](#): > > If anyone says we shouldn’t have given such an ultimatum - excuse me, even our _enemies_ stated that we had every right to defend ourselves and bring the perpetrators of September 11 to justice, including hunting them down like dogs. You’ll excuse me if I note that this does remotely describe the situation. It is all quite comforting but in fact the USA did not recieve carte blanche from the world. Even our closest allies have wavered recently. That is the British. Now, what does that suggest? That suggests that chest-beating and loud proclamations of you’re with us or against us are not going over well too well. It suggests the USA has to do a better job of selling itself now that the shock is over. I am New Yorker, I know I feel but I don’t expect the rest of the world to. I know that to achieve real aims one has to engage the situation. Not trumpet. Win over others, prevent the image of the bully from taking hold. > [@](#): > > If the less-than-pond-scum that started this whole ruckus are upset at being attacked on Ramadan - well, there are consequences to every action, and that is the consequence of _their_ actions. You can’t attack a country and not expect retaliation. It’s that simple. Rhetoric, empty rhetoric. We have long term aims. That requries long term strategies. > [@](#): > > Now, what, exactly, we do during Ramadan… that depends on the situation at the time the Holy Month starts. If we can hold back on the bombing maybe we will. On the other hand, the Northern Alliance (our allies, remember?) may not want us to slow down the air campaign. But it would be foolish to announce two weeks in advance “we’re going to do X” regardless of Holy Months or ordinary months. You just can’t telegraph to your enemy what you plan to do, it’s bad strategy. I invite you to read what Tom and I actually said and discern where we argued about announcing aims in advance. The point was whether there was merit to an idea of scaling back bombing for Ramadan or changing strategy for that month. I submit that a rational case was made for our scenario (which indeed does specifically include tactical air support for Northern Alliance and I’ll extend that to a Pushtun revolt). I believe neither Tom nor I have advanced the idea that it is flawless or riskless. I am not convinced myself that benefits outweigh costs. However, it certainly is good enough to be considered in the context of a menu of rational options, as opposed to chest beating. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/34 "2001-11-12T01:13:25Z")
OK, this time **Collunsbury** got here, first. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/35 "2001-11-12T01:25:52Z")
**Tom and Coullounsbury** both make exceptionally valid points. The US effort isn’t going to be de-railed by a month off. The Taleban had a month to prep themselves for the attack after 11 September, and it didn’t assist them against the American bombing campaign. A month off for Ramadan is not going to make much strategic difference. But it would win a lot of brownie points in the Middle East, where the US is clearly losing the propaganda war. I read CNN’s website, and then I read other non-American websites, and I’m amazed by the difference in tone (see for example [here](http://atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ20Df01.html). If the US is serious about making sure that this isn’t perceived as a crusade aginst Muslims, some respect for the holy month would severely undermine US critics in the Middle East - and in doing so, undermine support, both popular and financial, for extremists determined to do battle with the godless West. Arguments I’m seeing from those in favour of bombing during Ramadan reek of: 1. bitter vengeance against Afghanistan for 11 September; 2. fear of losing like in Vietnam, because of losing the initiative. Vengeance is an emotive factor which can’t win this. And Vietnam was 30 years ago. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/36 "2001-11-12T01:39:55Z")
I hesitate to add that neither Tom nor I advanced a total stop and sit back with thumbs up our asses approach. We both advocated a strategic shift in emphasis. Tactical air-support to allies, massive aid program in keeping with Ramadan’s symbolic signficance. With secure lines consolidation of the North, insertion of coalition troops to help keep the peace in the back and set up photogenic assistance-- and real assistance of course. Etc. Simply stopping bombing and expecting to get showered by praise is inane. Frankly, we have done a piss-poor job of getting our PR machine geared up, and **addressing others**. The homefront is not what needs to be addressed. The rest of the world needs to be addressed in a language and manner which speaks to them. Condi Rice’s appearance on al-Jazeera was all fine, but we need people on al-Jazeera 24/7 speaking in Arabic and prepared to meet our critics head on. None of this fucking stupid censorship crap or whining about al-Jazeera or CNN broadcasting the voice of the enemy. Use his motherfucking words to hang him. It can be done. Bloody hell. Well shortly, shortly. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/37 "2001-11-12T02:17:50Z")
**Collounsbury** > [@](#): > > Allied. The adjective is allied. You really ought to stop with the spelling/grammar jabs while you’re behind. > [@](#): > > Have reading skills dropped precipiously in the past few months? Apparently, your spelling skills have. Not to mention the thread where you said I “implicitely and explicitely” implied something. > [@](#): > > OK, this time Collunsbury got here, first. Do your arms hurt from all the mutual back-slapping going on here? Sheesh, you guys are getting as bad as Elucidator and Stoid! I wish you would take DDG’s advice, and just go make cheese. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/38 "2001-11-12T02:22:10Z")
Milroyj, since you don’t have any on-point comments, why don’t you open a pit thread about me? That’s where off-topic carping belongs, after all. I’m sure you’d be happy to express yourself more fully. Otherwise, I could give fuck what you want. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/39 "2001-11-12T02:37:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > **Milroyj, since you don’t have any on-point comments, why don’t you open a pit thread about me?** Because I don’t care to contribute to your craven attention-seeking. A Pit Thread was done, and nobody came. Poor Collounsbury. > [@](#): > > **That’s where off-topic carping belongs, after all.** Like your spelling/grammar jabs against other posters? > [@](#): > > \*\*Otherwise, I could give fuck what you want. \*\* Likewise, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712/40 "2001-11-12T02:47:10Z")
Collounsbury, I guess I forgot that it is only a teeeny weeenie itsy-bitsy smidgen of a scintilla of an iota of a small minority of muslims who actually hate america. 99.999999% of Muslims _love_ America. They love Israel too. None of them would EVER want any harm to come to the innocent and caring American people (or Israelis). Islam is peace! Thanks for reminding me. When I turn on the TV and see all those “Muslims” over there in the Muslim World dancing in the streets with guns celebrating 9/11, cursing america, blaming everything on the West and the Jews, and advocating jihad/death/holy war against every non-muslim, I tend to forget that it’s only a dozen or so people who really feel that way. Islam is really a peaceful religion (by gosh, the word islam means ‘peace’! How beautiful! What a beautiful religion!), without any history of warmongering, intolerance, or terrorism. Yeah, I forgot that the muslim world is a very peaceful place, where everybody loves one another, values life, and doesn’t go around cutting off body parts and torturing people. America has a few serial killers, and the middle east has a few terrorists… yeah, that’s the ticket. Thanks for reminding me. Coalition schmoalition. “Building a coalition” is a euphamism for sucking up to less-motivated terrorist nations to try to dissuade them from attacking us in the future. We do not need anyone’s help, nor anyone’s permission to go into Afghanistan and do what needs to be done - whether it is during ramadan or not. We shouldn’t be buying off terrorist nations either. If Pakistan doesn’t “approve” of what we’re going to be doing in Afghanistan, they can simply fuck off. Oh, and I mean that in the most diplomatic sense possible. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorist nations. Doing so simply lets the terrorists know that terrorism is a legitimate means to achieve their goals. And when we’re done with Afghanistan, it is time to move on to Iraq… regardless of what holiday it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-bomb-during-ramadan/92712.md?page=3)