Them’s fightin’ words! :mad:
Aargh!
If I may be so bold…
kwildcat, good post, but a few quibbles:
1 - We weren’t indifferent to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. We financed the opposition, and in doing so trained bin Laden & Co. That was the first proximate cause of 9/11.
2 - The second was our insistence on putting troops into Saudi to guard that kingdom after the Kuwait war.
In both cases, it wasn’t because we weren’t involved, or because we were indifferent. It was because we got ourselves involved, up to our necks, that we got 9/11 as blowback.
Stay the hell out, except as part of a UN initiative. We suffered, for instance, no blowback as a result of the Korean War, which was done with the UN. Kuwait was, but we should have allowed Saudi or Syria or someone to lead that charge, and minimize our own involvement. We should always minimize our involvement in conflicts between two countries that don’t directly involve us. Our insistence on involvement is what gets us into trouble, not the other way around.
Obvious, in the sense of one of the most obviously dense statement ever made on the SDMB.
America is at fault for 9/11?
Great Britain, France, and Russia is at fault for the rise of Hitler?
Not.
While I feel that the recent and continuing US war in Iraq is an enormous distraction from the ‘war on terrorism,’ there has been heavy blowback from the Korean War. Just a few choice bits from here, there’s plenty more throughout the page, such as the 1976 axe murders:
Unfortunately, I can’t see how the US could have reasonably avoided maintaining troops and bases in Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was too small to maintain large enough bases for forces sufficient to deter Iraq post ’91, Saudi forces were altogether too small to do it on their own and due to its population base couldn’t be raised to large enough numbers, and the use of Syrian troops in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia to deter Iraq was politically untenable for the US, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
The problem is that you think “fight back” = “Nuke Mecca”**
Believe me, I have an equal amount of contempt for those who advocate mass murder. **
Fine you don’t care about the safety of Americans.**
Then call me crazy.**
By Nuking Mecca? Of fucking course not.**
If any of these countries lanched an unprovoked nuclear attack at a compeltly defenceless third party non-military city, home to over a million citizens and important to over a billion people world wide. They would get the same treatment as if the US did it.**
I am starting to think it’s you who is the crazy one.
London_Calling:
That’s a view I’ve had as well. But I don’t think the Bush administration is that clever or that appeasing. If they’re clever enough to understand that they need to take those actions, they would have also understood the need to detach the U.S. from the corrupt dictatorships in the region. Buying oil from the Saudis does more to sponsor the terrorism seen on 9/11 than any terrorism born out of the Gulf War.
So why would Bush decide to only appease the concerns of Osama? I’ll forego the obligatory references to family ties.
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor
Let’s not forget that 9/11 stems from doing this very thing. Let’s not resort to hiring Middle Eastern whack jobs to do the U.S’s dirty work again.
As appealing as the idea might be, I think you would be merely handing over the world to the desires of a very crazy few. Now any lunatic with visions of a holy war could start one by detonating a nuclear weapon. And as one of my friends and I were discussing, nuclear weapon technology is 60 years old. It’s not exactly a “select few” anymore if Pakistan is making them. Hence, by threatening to destroy Mecca, you enrage the level two whackos into pulling something like 9/11 again, and you entice the level one whack jobs of hijacking the entire planet into a war of opposing mythologies.
And the big question internationally would be, what the hell did Mecca have to do with the bomb that just went off in Whatever City, USA?
In regards to the OP, I think any viable solution to reducing terrorism would go counter to U.S. business interests. But just as a hypothetical, here are some suggestions I have:
-
The US fully withdraws from the Middle East. And by that I mean all troops, all businesses, and all non-essential diplomatic and embassy staff. The smaller the footprint, the less the U.S. can be accused of being the hegemon.
-
Stop speaking out of the both sides of your mouth. You can’t proclaim to be the defender and purveyor of democracy while being buddy buddy with Musharraf, Mubarak, and the House of Al Saud. There is only one democracy in the Middle East according to most Americans and that’s Israel. That brings me to my next point.
-
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is without a doubt an illegal occupation. Even that piece of feces Sharon finally said as much (actually, he’d said it before, too). So by sending arms which the U.S. knows will be used in an illegal occupation, you give more cause and validity to the terrorists. The U.S. will clearly never stop aiding Israel. But perhaps that aid should just be in the form of cash. And if the idea can be worked even further, a complete ban on the sale of heavy military equipment altogether. Israel has a viable military and they can always buy U.S. made arms through a third party. For the U.S to be giving one billion dollars worth of weapons to them every year sends a pretty ugly message to the folks Israel is using those weapons to kill.
-
And last but not least, next time some hell breaks loose over there, stay out of it. A large majority of Americans may not be aware of what’s gone over there in their name, but the residents over there know full well. So the president loudly proclaiming “the freedom lovers of the region have no greater ally than the U.S.” is seen as nothing more than bovine fecal matter by the region’s residents.
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor: a question about the minutiae of bombing Mecca in response to the nuking of a US city…for this to arise, upon whom would it be incumbent to prove that the bomber had been a muslim? Would they simply have to be from a largely muslim country? Or would it require them to be a practising muslim? Or would we just assume that the perpetrator was a muslim? What if it proved impossible to trace the guilty party? If he/she turned out to hold, say, a French passport, would you bomb Paris?
Just wanted to clear up the little details.
**Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor,
Read_Neck,
Daisy Cutter **
Now this whole nuke Mecca and bomb them back to the stone age business:
What you guys don’t seem to grasp is that this so called war on terrorism is not a regular war. You can’t bomb someone if you don’t know where or even who he is.
Your approach would be like blowing up Timothy McVeighs neighbourhood in retaliation, hoping he’s home at the time.
Remember (I wrote this before, though not sure whether in this thread): Mohamed Atta lived in Hamburg, Germany and was trained in the US. He was trained in Afganistan, too, but not to fly - which was the kind of skill that killed thousands.
You can bomb who ever you want, you’ll never get them all. While you invade Iran, a guy will sit in his apartment uptown, building a small bomb from a gas can to blow up the local supermarked.
Think about the IRA, ETA, RAF etc. You can’t get these fuckers with marching troops!
Tell me, Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor, what exactly would you expect the gratuitous destruction of Makkah to accomplish?
If I may answer? Absolutely nothing. The threat, however, will do a lot. There’s not a single Muslim fundamentalist in the world who is willing to risk the destruction of Mecca. If he is, he isn’t a Muslim fundamentalist.
I mean, has the Cold War been over for so long that people are forgetting how the deal works? If someone threatens you, threaten something important to him and he won’t carry out his threat. It sucks, it’s brutal, but it seems to work,
Isn’t taking advice on fighting ‘terrorism’ from an Israeli a little like taking advice on healthy living from Ozzy Osbourne ?
Ups, be careful with this London_Calling. I just had to take some beating on another thread for saying something similar about one of our Indian friends talking about Pakistan…
Why ? Israeli’s have had 30 years of trauma – and, yep, I know how that bunker mentality can kick in. How can you think clearly and offer solutions when things are worse now for the civilian population than they were then ?
And some more beating for you…
And you’ve met exactly how many non-muslim Indians to feel qualified to make that statement?? No, wait… I don’t give a shit about how many you’ve met… What I really want to know is how you can accuse me of hating Muslims. After that, do go ahead and explain how you came to the conclusion that non-muslim Indians (which incidentally, aside from Hindus, also includes Christians, Buddhists, Zoarastrians and Sikhs) hate Muslims.
You’ve already stated that my opinion does count. So I’m asking you again - assume that you have no clue where I’m from and give me a reasonable explanation why you think Pakistan need not be on a a global to-do list in the fight against terror. If you have no answer, at least have the decency to proffer a proper apology, instead of the half-baked excuse for one you’ve already made.
Do you require cites which say that it is believed that Al-Qaeda is most likely hiding out in that north-western section of Pakistan which shares a particularly porous border with Afghanistan? And are you aware that the Government of Pakistan has almost no administrative control over that region? Can you put these two situations together, mix 'em up with a little time and freedom, and possibly try to imagine what the potential results of that could be? And yet claim that Pakistan is not a cause for worry?
Yes, with some luck, gloabl action taken in Pakistan might help resolve the Kashmire issue (god knows both India and Pakistan need a major butt-spanking over this). Is that too much to ask for, without having the words “biased opinion” and “muslim-hater” thrown at you?
gouda
To be found above. In case you wonder why I belive you don’t like muslims.
As for Pakistan:
This is exactly what I stated - look it up a bit down the thread. That’s why I was wondering what kind of a solution you have.
Remember?
Do you see how ridiculous this is though?
Two opposing blocs like the US and the Soviets, fine, MAD works well. But this is about non-conventional warfare and terrorism. How on earth can you threaten someone who you have not identified and simultaneously know his or her motivation for carrying out violent acts so as to determine whether or not the results of these acts will result in the destruction of Mecca??
How would you avoid abuse of the tactic?
If I were inclined to indulge in a little mischief making because, say, I’m not a big fan of Muslims, or I wanted to see a huge Middle East/US conflict rage, I could easily proclaim muslimhood, attack the US and wave goodbye to Mecca?
Could I not?
Wide-eyed, shivvering [iu]fear!*
If these vermin don’t respect us, they can learn to fear us.
I allready apologized for the comments I made above and I would like to also apologize for implying you are a “muslim-hater”.
I do not however feel a need to apologize for not having an answer on the Pakistan issue. Who does?
You think it should be on the global to-do list. Like Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and lately Lebanon? I hope not…
No, I said, “Nuke Mecca if we are nuked first.” As usual, the Euro-whiners use straw man arguments. Get some integrity, & quit lying to my face about my own words.
As opposed to your advocation of groveling & submission. Pay the Danegeld, and you never get rid of the Dane.
No, we are already unsafe, and if an atom bomb destroyed a US city, all pretence of safety is dead. Another example of you personal dishonesty in this debate.
Arguably, you are. A lack of self-preservation, and self-destructive impulses can be a sign of mental illness.
This is not the PIT. Refrain from using foul language, or I will report your post to a Moderator. I’m not kidding. That isn’t tolerated on this Board, and the only reason I don’t report you right now is the natural reaction you are having to the whole idea of retaliation. It is an unpleasant concept. But negotiators have been taken hostage in the Middle East since the 70’s, and appeasment will only lead to greater and more outragous demands.
No, they wouldn’t. Because world leaders don’t base their policies on hysteria, like you. The cruel truth, that you and your Polyanna friends don’t want to look at, much less accept, is that there are people who will come and kill you, and your family, and burn your home, and destroy your way of life, because your existance offends them. Not endangers them–no no. They will murder you and all you hold dear because of their trivial hurt feelings.You can talk peace with them all you want, but they don’t want peace. Such men can only be dealt with at swords’ point.
No, I am a realist. I accept the reality of human brutality, and the fact that not all the world wants peace. Ifr a nuclear bomb is detonated on my country’s soil, and millions die, then “From Hell’s heart I stab at thee. For Hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee. To the End, I shell grapple with thee.”
Yes, you did apologise. I read that. And in the very same post, you went ahead and called me a Muslim-hater. Which is why I called your apology a half-baked excuse for one.
And I do accept this apology.
One thing though - if you’re going to refer to qoutes, you need to post them in their entirety, or you won’t be taken too seriously on these boards. Read beyond the “I agree with that” part, and you will see that I explained that I believe that “if more moderate muslims came out and actively helped put an end to terrorism (by ratting on people involved in terrorism) instead of just condemning every act of violence, Bombay (victim of 8 bomb blasts in the last eight months) would be a much safer place.”
And you’re right, you don’t need to apologise for not having an answer on the Pakistan issue. My bad. What I’m asking for is whether you believe, or don’t believe, that Pakistan is an issue that needs gloabl attention. I’m inferring that you don’t by your easy dismissal of my opinion earlier on (for which you did apologise). Please do correct me if I’m wrong.
As for my solution: first, in the words of e-sabbath, stop the dosh. If nothing else, maybe the threat of no more foreign money will motivate the Pakistani Government to be a bit more pro-active. Because that’s whats keeping Pakistan alive. Second, apply diplomatic pressure more forcefully - it worked during Clinton’s tenure, and it probably will now as well. GWB’s method of ‘rewarding’ Pakistan for being a front-line ally hasn’t really made much of a difference in that country’s attitude.
Yes, I do think Pakistan needs to be on the list. No, I don’t think Iraq should have been on the list. Yes, I do think Iran is a cause of concern, just like I think North Korea is a cause for immediate concern. Hopefully, you think so too.