THIS IS WAR DAMMIT (part deux)

The BBQ Pit
1

Ask and ye shall receive.

Although this is more of a GD or IMHO message, I am posting to the Pit because of the strong feelings this subject has brought forth so far. I am sure the mods will move it if deemed inapropriate for this forum.

The subject is the near-sinking of the USS Cole, and what, if any, retribution should be carried out. The OP of the OT (Original Thread) took the position that an indiscriminate attack on unnamed Middle Eastern targets was the appropriate response. The vast majority of the responses to the post (that were not personal attacks on the poster) disagreed with this view. Nevertheless, the author of the OP has not wavered from her/its view. Being sadly fascinated by the tortured thought processes of this person, I would like to ask the following questions of her/it (please step forward, RosieWolf):

a) If you believe that all Arabs should be punished in some way for the actions of the terrorists who bombed the Cole, how many would have to harmed to satisfy your requirement for revenge? That is, should it be one for each member of the Cole’s crew that was killed or injured, or more than one?

b) On July 3, 1988, the cruiser USS Vincennes, on station in the Persian Gulf, fired a missile that brought down an Iranian Airlines Airbus, killing 290 civilians of various nationalities. The explanation given was that the aircraft was mistaken for an Iranian air force F-14 by the sophisticated weapons-control system of the cruiser. The USA apologized, and offered money to the families of the passengers. I ask the author of the OP, do you feel this was adequate compensation for their loss?

c) If the answer to b) is yes, does the author of the OP, think that the perpetrators behind the bombing of the Cole should simply state that they made a mistake and offer monetary compensation, to avoid further reprisal? If not, why not?

Please note that I have no personal stake in any answer, except my curiosity as to how others determine what actions are justified in conflicts of this nature. All interested posters are invited.

I’m leaving town for the weekend, so will not be able to further contribute till Monday. Play nice (yea, right).

2

Excellent questions Rocket88. I’m interested in seeing what sort of answers this thread receives as well.

3

I feel compelled to point out that there’s a significant difference between the downing of the plane and the bombing of the Cole: The Cole incident was carefully planned and there was no doubt in the minds of its suicide-bombers exactly what their target was and what they were trying to accomplish. There is no question of whether it was a “mistaken” bombing or not. For the two cases to be equivalent, one must assume that the attack on the aircraft was also carefully premeditated and not an accident, something which has not been established.

Nevertheless, Rocket88’s questions about what constitutes an adequate response in each case still stand.

4

ren has a point; I thought about that after I posted.

At present, the person most likely to have organized the attack is Osama Bin Laden, currently resident in Afganistan; speculation is the act was carried out by veterans of the Afgan civil war, of Yemeni or other nationality. Bin Laden’s views on the USA are well known. The questions stand, however: what are the upper and lower limits of retribution for these acts, and is an apology+cash enough?

5

I just had to say - I just finished reading the entire 10-page debacle that was part I. I don’t even have the words to describe what that did to me. It was like a combination of reading and bowel surgery. That has to win some kind of award. I have no idea what kind, but it’s set some sort of record.

I have to go boil my brain now.

6

Hmmmmm. This thread seems to have sunk like a stone. Interesting that the trolls attract so much more attention than a real debate. I guess if you’re goin’ fishin’, the word must be out that the fish at SDMB are really hungry…

As for the original topic, I don’t think apolgies and cash are adequate in either case, but then I don’t expect anything more to happen, given the antagonistic relationship between the parties involved. I mean, it would have been nice to see the US doing a better job of coordinating with Iranian ATC, but would either side really welcome closer cooperation? And it would be nice to see Arab governments assisting us in tracking down the organization responsible for the Cole attack, but I don’t expect that either.

It also makes me nervous how quick Osama Bin-Laden’s name came up. He may in fact be responsible, but his name seems to come up awfully quick these days whenever anything happens in the Middle East. I expect any day now he’ll be blamed for sabotaging the Middle East “peace process”…

7

I think Yassar’s quotes like “go to hell” will do that job just fine all by themselves …

8

Rocket, excellent questions - the problem is that most of the people in the original “this is war” thread disagreed with Rosie. Maybe if you put her name in the thread title she’d come and visit it? Or maybe she’s gone?

9

Rosie’s still around, far as I know, but there’s no way to tell whether she’s viewed this and has no further comments, is sulking over the way she was torched in part one, or hasn’t visited this thread yet.

It seems most of us here are well past the days of “Remember the Maine”-style jingoism, but obviously, there are plenty of people such as (hey!) RosieWolf, who want instant retribution and can’t be bothered to ask themselves the question, “Who, actually, is the enemy?” I’ve cruised by a couple of other boards where RosieWolf’s viewpoint seems to be the dominant one. Of course, a poster on one of those boards routinely includes a banner in his messages reading “KKK and NAACP agree: disarm black males”.

A fairer question might be, “Was the attack on the Cole a criminal act or an act of war?” Despite the target being a military vessel, I would argue that the act must be considered a criminal act unless or until it can be proven that an actual government entity was responsible.

10

But, Rocket88, that means that any non-government-sponsored acts of terrorism are criminal, but not war. What about cases where the acting party is part of an organized political group without a country (or within a country)? Take terrorist acts of civil war in places like Sri Lanka, for instance. We call it civil war, but is the act merely criminal?

I’m of the opinion that they’re less interested in retribution than any excuse to lash out, to make themselves feel better. Any target will do. They’re just waiting for a socially acceptible avenue for their venom. Lotsa unhappy people looking to vent…