To the best of my knowledge, those responsible have not voiced concern over any policies, why should you? I see lots of irrational hate and a call to Jihad. The only ‘policy’ that I find even tangentially touched upon is US support of Israel to exist. Should we re-think this one?
bin Laden doesn’t find the school of the Americas to be an issue. He does not mention the word ‘oil’. [really now, if the only US interest was oil, wouldn’t we be best served by abandoning Israel anyway? I’m sick of the simplistic rhetoric stating that US policy is all about oil] These people don’t have a legitimate gripe, don’t patronize them by looking for one.
I wish the transcript was up so I could refer to it, but I saw a very disturbing 60 Minutes recently. The story simply revolved around talking to the ‘average person on the street’ in middle eastern countries we consider friendly. No one condoned the violence, but to my horror many of them stated US policy precipitated the attack and went on to express a sick satisfaction that the impenetrable borders of the US had been breached. What policies? Well, Bill Bradley asked just that, and the only coherent answer he could coax out of them invariably contained the word ‘Jew’. Ancient hatred. Is it really surprising that unlike other policies which can be addressed through diplomacy, the expression of hate is best manifested through violence?
Lots of people have been talking about some sort of Marshall plan AFTER the terrorists have been dealt with. Where will this plan be applied? Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the whole middle east including northern Africa? What about the rest of the world? There are plenty of other places in the world that could use a Marshall plan also. Shouldn’t we help them too or do we have to wait until they start attacking also?
Quite right. Let’s abandon Israel. After all, they’ve never done jack for us. And then, the next time somebody blows up one of our buildings, why, we’ll just do whatever they want, as well. And the next time, and the next time.
We’ll live in terror. But we’ll be “safe.” Those of us who aren’t Jewish, don’t travel, and who don’t live in big cities with big buildings, that is.
Yes, capitulation. Brilliant strategy. Just keep in mind all the great civilizations that were able to endure by surrendering to their enemies.
And yes, we trained bin Laden so now we’re just getting what we deserve. We should just take it like good little boys who’ve been bad.
Scylla, how can you stand it to have your views twisted by your oppenents so much? God, I can’t even be in this thread without seething.
“Oh, he advocates force? That must mean he wants to kill everyone and destroy everything? What else could it mean?” :rolleyes:
In the thread I started I mentioned that we have knee-jerk responses to perceived knee-jerking; do you agree this continues to be demonstrated?
People
The terrorists need to die. We just don’t want them to die and take out hundreds if not thousands of others. This requires force, and knowledge of their whereabouts. It does not require knowledge of their motivations.
The only knowledge that would help us would be knowledge of how other people view terrorism, and why it continues to be tolerated, funded, have its ranks filled, and be knowingly sheltered. If our goal is to eliminate terrorism, I do not see knowing on little bit more about terrorists themselevs to help the matter any.
Clearly, the case should be a simple one to make for any of Scylla’s opponents, considering how vehement they seem to be: please demonstrate how knowing more about the terrorists themselves would help us eliminate terrorism.
There are other threads about using force, and though it isn’t my thread, I am going to ask: can we please leave it out of this one?
Elucidator and others – For the last time, BOMBS WILL NOT BE DROPPED on Afghanistan! You can’t catch terrorist with bombs. It’s not going to go down like that. No “scorched earth” policy for Afghanistan is in the works. Afghanistan will come off nearly scot-free after planned U.S. military extractions are completed.
A “Marshall Plan” would be instituted anywhere where the government is deposed as a result of military action. If only the Taliban is toppled, only Afghanistan will get rebuilt by America. If Iraq sees fit to jump in to the fray, and Saddam Hussein is deposed, we might rebuild Iraq.
Make no mistake, though, Balduran – Marshall-Plan type initiatives are not motivated by humanitarian aims. They are political tools meant to stabilize a volatile region from the bottom up.
Therefore, sovereign states that are poor, but relatively stable politically, will not be outwardly “Marshall Planned”. However, such nations routinely recieve massive amounts of aid from the USA anyway (both from the US goverment and from non-profits like the Peace Corps and Red Cross). Remember, though, that as sovereign states, the governments of poor nations have final say on who within their borders recieves aid – so the USA can’t save everybody. See Ethiopia in the 1980s.
Someone help me out here. I thought we did do something. There’s a guy here at U-M who claims he was one of the defense lawyers for one of the conspirators. So what exactly did we do and not do after the 1993 bombing? Clearly it didn’t prevent another terrorist attack (no argument there) but I’d like to know what exactly the scope of our reaction was.
Perhaps it’s the very hyperbole of Scylla’s thread title that’s throwing people off. When language like “ignorance is best” is used on a message board that’s hypothetically dedicated to fighting ignorance, perhaps some vehement disagreement may be expected.
Scylla uses such hard to misinterpret language as:
Gee, forgive me if I think maybe he means what he says in that last paragraph I quoted. It sounds like, despite some protestations that he understands the soundness of a knowledge-driven foreign policy, he is not concerned that we act from information, but is instead advocating (as Dr. Lao points out) the willful ignorance of relevant facts.
“I don’t want to know” is pretty hard to interpret incorrectly. And “please demonstrate how knowing more about the terrorists themselves would help us eliminate terrorism” is, frankly, the most asinine thing I’ve seen posted lately, and the sudden popularity of this [rul=“http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm”]argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy scares me. Two and a half weeks ago, had some dimwitted, half-coherent YEC troll asked us to “show me how studying cosmology answers any important questions”, half of this board would have leapt at the chance to deliver a bitch slap to the ignorant bastard.
Now, apparently, ignorance is just simple patriotism and “common sense.”
Ahhh. Focussing on my language choices and techniques while ignoring my central point and actual arguments.
I’ve never seen that trick before.
Here’s my central point in words that can’t be misconstrued:
Terrorists use terror to focus our attention on the issues they want us to be focussed on. We should be careful not to allow them to succeed in this, lest we demonstrate the validity of the tactic.
You mean the “trick” in which I take what you say and respond to it? Scylla, I’m focusing on your statements, not your fucking language choices. Yeah, I understand that you think we shouldn’t give attention to issues that are important to the terrorists because in doing so we’ll give the rest of the world the impression that terrorism works. Forgive me if I’m not impressed with that argument.
Here’s why I find your OP simpleminded and ineffective as a basis for action. (I’ll try not to explain this “smugly”, but if you’re dead set on finding smugness no doubt that’s what you’ll find. I hope you don’t just… stop reading.)
The issues that are important to the terrorists are without any doubt some of the same issues that are important to the US, Europe, Israel and every country in the Middle East. Seems like it’ll be tough to ignore those issues, doesn’t it? But, of course, following the Scylla Doctrine we won’t really know which issues we should avoid anyway, because we don’t care what the terrorists find important.
Every policy we were pursuing in the Middle East a month ago now faces reevaluation no matter what as a direct consequence of the terrorist attacks. Global focus on terrorism has redefined the relationships between the US and most Middle East nations. The issues those nations find important are in large part the same ones the terrorists find important. But, of course, we don’t care what the terrorists find important.
We don’t know what we don’t know. And if we don’t care what we don’t know we’ll never know more than we know, and we’ll never know if what we don’t know is worth knowing. But that’s irrelevant I suppose because (let’s say it together) we don’t care what the terrorists find important.
Well done. That doesn’t sound smug at all. Excellent use of ad hominems.
I’m still waiting to hear what issues are so important to al Qaeda that they felt they had to murder innocent Americans, perhaps you know, because as I stated earlier all I have heard is hate mongering from them.
I’m kinda sick of arguing this one silly point. I believe it’s bad policy to deliberately ignore any information about future or present enemies, but I’ll just leave it at that. The important thing is probably that we see the same enemy.
I’m done.
Waverly, if you’re in direct communication with al Qaeda, please try and get them to tell you where they are, and contact the State Department immediately.