The attack on our nation must be answered in some fashion. This is an undeniable fact, but question remains as to the appropriateness of military versus civil action. To many, this is a casus belli (cause for war). It is extremely difficult to see how it cannot be so.
It would serve us well to try and fully comprehend the motivations of terrorists. This was most certainly a terrorist act with only the slightest chance of having domestic origins. The ideological mania required of both planner and henchman to commit such a crime defies reason.
When dealing with such monsters, there is little alternative to violent retribution. Legal prosecution stands for next to nothing against such intellectual smuggery. The only thing that force respects is overwhelming force. The United States has possession of that commodity in spades.
Therein lies the rub. It is quickly learned that the terrorist mentality loves nothing more than a death feud. Vendetta is suddenly the order of the day. Therefore any retribution can be guaranteed to generate how many iterations of revenge?
So the debate is; Does there remain any way to effectively punish the terrorists responsible? Is there any other choice? Revenge will almost certainly propel another cycle of violence. However, I can see no alternative to delivering a punishing blow of stunning proportions against the perpetrators. Sheer decimation of their numbers is the only thing that will give them pause. And pause they should ere contemplating ever again anything so diabolically horrendous.
Is there an effective way to punish the parties responsible? Probably not. The terrorists have little or nothing to lose, in fact, in death they can becomes heroes to their freinds and allies.
Past efforts have had mixed results. Economic blockades and sanctions tend to hurt the populace as a whole, not the people they are targeted at. Air bombing is also less than the surgical, precise method of retaliation that the military would like to have us think. In any case, if the terrorists blend in among innocents, our hands are tied.
In many ways, it is a no-win situation.
Can we let it go unanswered, then? Of course not. If - and it is a very big if- the terrorist group can be localized, and separated from the general populace in some manner, they need to be hit very, very hard. Thde time has come for a message to be heard loud and very clear - DON’T EVER THINK OF DOING THIS AGAIN.
There are quite a few who will advocate the use of a nuke, if it can be done. Maybe - I won’t rule it out, especially under the concept of VERY STRONG STATEMENT. It would be a extremely risky step on the world stage, however. Conventional forces are still probably the most realistic.
A very strong message? Why is is that everyone is suddenly falling in love with the concept of deterrence? If you’re sufficiently committed to die for a cause, does the threat of being hit very hard make a difference? Hell no!
Hit them with everything posible as a matter of principle, but don’t delude yourself into thinking it will make a difference - deterrence just doesn’t work in the real world. And make sure when you do strike back that you’re accurate - the political ramnifications of missing the targets and causing substantial “collateral damage” in the part of the world we’re talking about are not pretty.
The problem with killing those responsible is that this serves their purposes - they WANT to be martyred, if they die in battle against what they consider evil they get an all-expenses paid trip to Paradise.
I think if we are serious about preventing this from happening again, swift overwhelming force is not going to be much of a deterrent. We need to make dying in war against the U.S. a fate too horrible to contemplate.
We need to capture as many of those responsible alive as we can, even if it involves risking more of our soldier’s lives than just wiping the terrorists out. With our extensive medical technology, I believe it would be possible to keep a person alive and in excruciating pain for months or years. After a few months of torture, tell them we will stop if they curse the name of their god. If they do, shoot them as soon as they do and broadcast tapes of it. If they refuse, give them another month of torture. If they ever get too far gone to actually do this, I’m sure our special effects and sound technicians could fake a tape of a fanatic damning himself to Hell.
Let’s see… the terrorists can blow more innocent Americans to bits than at Pearl Harbor but we had better not turn one wrong hair as we go about excising this cancer from humanity? Our citizens were going about their daily lives in a nonmilitary target. How is their “collateral damage” any different from ours?
Hogwash! Countries that knowingly harbor these miscreants should be put on immediate notice that swift and brutal retribution is soon to arrive. Decimation is the order of the day. The fewer of them there are, the less chance they will have of doing it again. They need to be told, “Do it enough times and your entire gene pool will perish from the face of the earth.”
In good conscience, I cannot advocate the use of nuclear weapons. I will freely confess that I might not too loudly lament their use, but I cannot suggest it.
Badtz: That’s a brilliant idea. I can already see every Islamic extremist being convinced by this course of action that the US is not “The Great Satan” after all…
Mate - this is just begging for repeat incidents… Forcing people to blaspheme is really going to stop religious nutjobs from commiting acts of terrorism…
Deterrence as a policy has always stuck me as fairly simplistic, but that suggestion is so stupid I can’t believe it was meant seriously.
It would work better than making martyrs of them, and they are already convinced we are evil incarnate, I don’t think anything we do will convince them otherwise. I think my idea would give at least some fanatics a moments pause - they are not afraid of dying, but only because dying has no negative consequences to them. If they see their associates breaking down and damning themselves they may wonder if the same might happen to them if they associate with those who attack the U.S.
Yeah, OK, I can see where you’re coming from. My problem is that I’m not religious (at all), so I don’t understand the depth of their fanatacism. I don’t know how much weight to give to the “instant passport to paradise” bit. Is this really the driving motivation in their acts? If so, I can understand we’re you’re coming from (I still don’t agree from a moral perspective, but I wouldn’t be as rude about your suggestions). If the driving force is more a hatred of America, anti-semitism, or any other secular motivation, then my original comment stands.
I have just returned from a day working with the TV playing horror movies, from real life. It was a tough day. I know of no one that I know personally who was lost today. I suspect that there might well be some I will eventually learn of. I am praying for a renewal of my spirit, in love, which has been so sorely tested today.
The greatest lesson is to learn that it is hatred that brought us the horror of this black day, and we must drop that hatred ourselves, lest it lead us into even more despair. I have heard today that 86 percent of those asked said that they would support going to war to punish the perpetrators of terrorism. I am not so sure, myself. I am furious. I am disgusted. But I do not know that blaming an entire people will make my hurt less.
Afghanistan did not attack me, today. Islam did not attack me, today. Hatred and bigotry attacked me, today. I am dangerously angry about it, and I am a very dangerous man, because I am one of many, and those many control a power that can obliterate anything, or anyone, or even any place.
Please help me, and all our brothers and sisters in America to remember that vengeance is not the same as justice. We must protect the sovereignty of reason over ourselves, or loose the very thing that some bigots tried to take from us this morning. Those who are dancing in the streets in celebration of our misfortune deserve our contempt, perhaps; but they cannot be allowed to lure us into mass murder on our own behalf, to satisfy anger over our losses.
Tris
“The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.” ~ Albert Einstein ~
Howevermuch the Nation of Islam did not attack us, elements of the Afghani nation did. The Taliban has long found refuge in Afghanistan and if bin Ladin is the mastermind of this monstrous act then the entire nation may find its way to the collective woodshed.
This is not out of hatred for the Afghani people. This is not out of hatred for the Islamic faith. This is merely out of the need to find criminal mass murderers and bring them either to justice or summary execution. Those who obstruct prosecution of this misdeed are accomplices and should expect to catch some of the backlash.
This is not about religion, race or national origin. This is about mass murder and the extermination of its perpetrators. If it is not done now, this entire calamity will be repeated until it is stopped by force at a later date. There is no negotiating with this sort of madman.
You can’t stop the attacks, and attacking them back will probably increase them.
HOWEVER, what you can do is take their teeth away, but taking away their support systems and funding. We’re never going to stop fanatics from car-bombing us, but we can stop them from dropping plutonium and anthrax on us, by making sure they never get the funds or support for an operation like that.
And the way to do that is to declare war. War against every terrorist on the face of the planet, AND anyone who funds, harbors, or supplies them. Make it clear that any country that tries to use terrorists as a back-door method of projecting power will be destroyed. Instead of cheering in the streets, citizens in countries that support terrorism should be quaking in fear that their government has put them in grave danger. There must be no political support for policies of terror. The governments in question must be afraid for their own personal safety if terrorists in their countries attack us. Smart bombs are a unique and terrifying weapon, because they can drop right through the bedroom window and kill an official in his bed. We should paint a big target on all of them, and let them see what it’s like to feel REAL terror.
Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s make sure that all their political goals completely backfire. If they are Arab terrorists fighting to destroy Israel, let’s park a carrier group down there, and offer Irael our best, and latest weapons. Terrorists must learn that anything they do to us will not just bring horrible retribution, and not just fail to achieve their goals, but will actively cause their enemies to be strengthened and the gains for their causes erased.
I don’t want anyone to think I have anything against Islam, or any religion. I am not religious myself, but I have some respect for anything that can command so much respect. I don’t believe in a hell or any afterlife. The only reason why I think we should consider forcing the terrorists to renounce their faith before killing them (or faking tapes of them doing so) is for it’s deterrent effect on other terrorists for whom death alone inspires no fear.
Zenster: Let’s get one thing straight here. I agree with you that an element of the Afghani nation attacked America today. Are you suggesting the entire Afghani nation responsible be held responsible for the actions of that small element?
No-one is suggesting that the terrorists be let off scot free, but the only way I can see to stop terrorism is to have the world at a point where terrorism does not occur. This means that each and every country be in a position where they no longer have any wish or reason to be a safe haven for criminals. Holding the entire Afghani country responsible for the actions and decisions of one man and a totalitarian regime is never going to stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for terrorists. Actually, it’s worse than that, it’s counter-productive.
What Sam said. The only viable alternative to that is to sterilize their country with a saturation spread of nuclear warheads, to erase it from the face of the Earth as if it never existed.
If Afghanistan is unwilling to hand over Osama bin Ladin (once we show direct evidence of complicity), then yes, they should enjoy a nice embargo of their borders. Countries need to learn that letting scumbag murderers get their hands on the tiller is a physically painful experience. That afterlife in paradise is hard to appreciate while you’re slowly starving to death. Steady decimation of the population from which they recruit they’re new little thugs is a start. A message of; “Keep it up and you’re out of the gene pool.”
Squawk about genocide all that you want. I’m talking about self preservation for the rest of the entire world. Who knows when these guttersnipes will manage to smuggle a nuclear device into a population center. Worse yet, if they can duplicate a cruise missle strike and foment WW III.
I would like to feel genuinely sorry for all the poor repressed Afghani women and kids, but I can’t. I’m too worried about our world remaining at peace and if crushing a cockroach like bin Ladin quickly and permanently gets them hurt I promise to cry a river.
And, hey, if we do end up nuking them, it’s not like we destroyed those statues.
OK… I can’t agree with Zenster, but I can see some of Sam’s point of view. You do all realise that the current mess in Afghanistan that has led to it being used by bin Laden as a safe haven is of the CIA’s making?
Now Sam thinks that people unlucky to have been born under a totalitarian regime of the CIA’s making are now due to face death on a large scale because of an idiotic obsession with the dangers of communism?
The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan because an American agency managed to have a democratically elected leader replaced with the Shah. How many innocent civilians have died under the Taliban? (Clue: a hell of a lot more than 10,000). Ever heard the story about “as you shall sow, so shall ye reap”?
I know how offensive this must sound, and I apologise for it now, but the knee jerk reactions I’m reading are beyond belief. Terrorism is never going to be stopped by punishing the guilty - it just keeps giving the terrorists more justifications for their acts.
They are not “beyond belief”. They are what anyone would expect in this situation. They are probably what I would be saying, if one of my relatives had been killed. The people making these statements will return to rationality in a few days (or maybe a few weeks), and then we’ll be able to seriously discuss our next steps.
I’m not American, so I feel the distress of what happened today at one remove. If what happened yesterday was an act of war, it was a declaration on behalf of a few individuals, not a nation or a religion.
Whilst yesterday’s actions are indefensible, I can’t see any justification of taking this out on the Afghanis – if they or Bin Laden are indeed involved.
The problem is the difference between nations that harbour or sponsor terrorism and yours or my country. You can’t explain to their citizenry that they must reject their leadership and its acts. They don’t have freedom of information, instead they have state controlled press and propaganda. Bombing/attacking these countries reinforces the message from their leadership that the US is the Great Evil. Likewise, they cannot vote out their leaders, as they are not democracies.
Acting against these nations as a whole must surely only draw a deeper divide between “them” and “us”, and increase the fanaticism of the leadership and the populace as a whole.
Unless you really can conscience utterly wiping out a nation, all its children, and its foreign sympathisers, you will not eradicate terrorism. Outside the context of a formal war between nations, I can’t think of any time when fanatics have been subdued by violent revenge against their number, or people.
I don’t think this true across the board. The cynic in me says that martyrdom is an idea planted in the underlings. A fantasy planted in the minds of the gullible. I think the bigger fish are not as keen on the idea.
I’m happy to hear that Bush will not split hairs between ‘those who planned it’ and ‘those who harbored them’. We have to hit the planners and financiers and those who offer them safe passage.