WTC Retribution Efficacy

Great Debates
21

Folks, please keep your countries straight. The Taliban is in Afghanistan, and the Shah was in Iran. Perchance neighboring, but utterly separate countries.

Muhammad Mossadeq, elected leader of Iran in 1951 (whether democratically or not is open for discussion - these were cold and hot war times - Korea - and the Soviet Union had designs on the Iran, where oil, access to the Persian Gulf and eventually all of Saudi Arabia beckoned) was toppled in a US/UK sponsored coup in 1953. Mossadeq had crossed the line by nationalizing BP. These were very troubling times, WWIII was a daily possibility, and coups against “uncooperative” leaders were commonplace , at both sides of the conflict.

It is true that the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan due to US influence, albeit at a totally different time and in a totally different way. The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. This was met by Afghani resistance. Resistance was disorganized and splintered. At several times, it was nearly wiped out. Resistance groups received massive support by the US. The war went on for 10 years. Due to the terrain, the USSR relied heavily on helicopters. Resistance groups were equipped with stinger missiles, helicopters fell out of the sky, the USSR ran out of money and left.

What followed was a civil war between Afghani factions which is going on as we speak. The Taliban, a rabidly fundamentalist group which makes Irani mullahs look like liberals, gained the upper hand. Their remaining opposition is the so called “Northern Alliance” which receives limited support from Russia, China, India and the US, all countries concerned with the spread of militant fundamentalist Islam.

Look for these countries building the core of a coalition against groups or countries harboring terrorists. A joint Russian/US operation in Afghanistan would be an irony, but history is full of ironies. Note that the first “official” call to Pres. Bush came from Pres. Putin.

22

Tris had a most valid point.

Remember that we do not yet know who were the perpetrators, though we have some strong indications.

Whoever did this has been laden with a major load of guilt for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including those whose “crime” was to go to the aid of previous victims. They should be found, and such action taken as will serve as a deterrent to anyone ever seeking to do this again – anywhere.

But let us not seek vengeance – just the incapacitation and defeat of the evil that caused this. We are a free nation in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Let’s show the world that that freedom and rule of law is stronger than any terrorist.

As for a proper punishment? Local headlines from shortly before the attack gave me a quirky idea – lock them up for life. And let Jesse Helms make speeches to them to his heart’s content. :smiley:

23

B.O., thanks for the post. For those of us (like me) who don’t know much regarding the Middle East and its factions, that’s a good capsule summary.

Thanks again.

24

I think that our brothers and sisters in the US are wrestling with a problem they have not encountered before. An enemy there is no way they can defeat.

I’ve read so many posts about how this or that retribution can ensure that it will never happen again. How to defeat terrorism once and for all! We can do this - we can do anything!

But folks - look at the evidence. In the UK, we’ve had the IRA bombing London for years. Do you think we’ve not tried to wipe the terrorists out? In Spain, Eta cause mass death to innocent civilians in Madrid. Suicide bombers take out Israeli pizzarias. In European, African and Asian countries too numerous to mention there have been atrocities carried out in the name of some fervent belief or other.

For Chrissake - an aeroplane was even exploded and crashed into a quiet Scottish town (Locherbie). It was done 13 smegging years ago.

Take it from those of us in countries who have been fighting this war since before many of you were born - there is no nice definable group you can isolate, bomb and tell not to do it again. There is no response, since the only people you can actually missile are towns full of people who probably had about as much culpability as you. There is no fix you can make to protect yourselves for ever.

You have to try of course. But remember that this isn’t new.

IPU help us all.

pan

25

kabbes:

This isn’t a damn car-bomb. We lost (probably) 5 - 10,000 lives yesterday in an attack on our country('s civilians).

What isn’t new? Attacks on the US mainland? That’s new. Oh, you must be referring to attacks on the US in general, like Pearl Harbor. Well, that isn’t new… that happened 50+ years ago.

Terrorism in general isn’t new. We’re talking about war via terrorism now. That is new.

26

I think it’s quite clear that I was saying that terrorism isn’t new, not “attacks on the US”. Don’t be so blinkered.

You see, it really isn’t. Maybe you should ask an Israeli.

And a few more things:[list=1][li]Never ever denegrate the loss of life by saying that other disasters caused the loss of more lives. Or would you like the Russians to say that all other countries’ experiences in WW2 were meaningless?[/li]
As I’ve posted elsewhere, you weren’t the only ones to lose people in that atrocity yesterday. In Tony Blair’s words “significant numbers of British people” have been killed. Not to mention the fact that many of us have American friends and family that have been killed. But that’s irrelevant. In a situation like this, the passports of the dead couldn’t matter less. People are people. I’m sorry you feel so parochial about it.[/list=1]pan

27

Did anyone watch the TV interviews last night with various Islamic leaders? Arafat did indeed condemn the attacks, and looked like he meant it. Looked frikkin’ terrified, as a matter of fact.
But the rest of the leaders shown (from Iran, Syria, and the Taliban) said, in effect, “Hey, we didn’t do it, but it serves you right. You’d better rethink your policies or it’s gonna happen again.”
Also, regarding the Taliban turning over bin Laden, they stated that they would resist doing so “to the last drop of Afghan blood.”

Agreed. But there can be no justice for this. All we can do is make it perfectly clear to anyone who would do something like this in the future that it is not worth the price you will pay.

28

The liberals on this board will be horrified, but it is time to consider assassination. A bunch of yahoos dancing in the street don’t amount to much; the thinkers and planners do.

Should bin Laden prove to be responsible, I think the U.S. should consider offering a bounty for his body, dead or alive. $1 billion cash. No questions asked.

Tris: While I don’t recommend indiscriminate bombing, the fact remains: The Taliban shelter bin Laden; therefore they are complicit in his actions. It is time to consider stepping up our aid to the Northern Alliance. Frankly, as judged by their destruction of Buddhist monuments, I don’t think the Taliban are all that different from Nazi.

Kabbes: This country is not so innocent of terrorism as you seem to believe. Remember the U.S. is the home of the Ku Klux Klan, the Posse Comitatus, numerous militias, the Zebra killers and the Oklahoma City bombings.

29

But, Peyote, not of sustained terrorism with a specific agenda.

This is not a game of one-upmanship. I just wanted to remind you that the world has learned to its cost that there are some fights that apparently cannot be won. At least, not with violence.

pan

30

A person who is willing to die for a cause is extraordinarily difficult to stop. No threats against them have meaning, no threats against their leaders have meaning. The only threat that has meaning is a threat to their cause.

Thus far, nobody has had the guts to do what is necessary against their cause, and I don’t know that anyone ever will. Kind of like Keyser Soze in The Usual Suspects, in order to ‘win’ you must be willing to do that which your enemy cannot and will not.

For instance, if the cause is a free Palestine, an effective threat would be:

For each death due to terrorist attack, 20 Palestinians will die. 10,000 died in WTC, therefore 200,000 Palestinians will die, send in the troops. Don’t like it? Want to attack again? Fine, we’ll make it 30 next time.

Brutal? You bet. Effective? I think it might be. Do I suggest this course of action? No, I don’t have the stomach for it either.

31

It’s not clear to me that invading and conquering countries that foster terrorism won’t work. I think the examples of Germany and Japan following WWII serve as evidence that you can, in fact, force something like a civilized society down someone’s throat. The terrorism originating from the Middle East and West Asia for the past 50 years pales in comparison to the acts of Japan and Germany during the war and (in the case of Japan) the years preceding the war.

However, I don’t believe the West has the willpower necessary for the complete subjugation of these countries/areas and the years - decades probably - of occupation needed to accomplish this.

32

Anyone here see that bad John Travolta movie, Swordfish?

Other than a great opening scene, the film is boring and pointless. Except for the concept at the end (spoilers to follow, necessary for the discussion).

Travolta basically kills many Americans to rob a bank for an obscene amount of money. His justification is to set up a new anti-terrorist organization that can act like no government can. This group will hunt down terrorists BEFORE they strike and wipe them out with any means necessary.

Not one group, not two… as many as possible. Basically it would send a message. At the end of the film, one terrorist leader is mysteriously “killed” and the process has begun.

Now imagine if this were real. Let’s say that in the next year, 15 terrorist organizations were erradicated? Or at least brutally attacked, the death toll in the 100’s?

And let’s face it, bin-whatshisface ins’t carrying his fortune around in cash. It has to be in a financial institution SOMEWHERE. Well, let’s take it all. Every penny. Use it to fund further operations.

Eventually it would get to the point where people would know that joining a terrorist organization would be an instant death sentence.

Israel is doing a light version of this in their targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. I think they need to intensify this, not cut it back. I can’t imagine any Americans having the guts to condemn them after yesterday’s attacks, either. It’s a tactic we can learn from.

Lastly, this technique would have to be aimed at ALL terrorist organizations. Including extremist groups in our own country. Anyone remember Oklahoma?

I don’t mean to curtail the idiotic views of white surpremacists. They can believe in anything they want to delude themselves into believing, and have the protection of free speach. Until they start planning attacks or threatening them in any way.

This needs to be attacked with no mercy for the protection of all the free world.

33

kabbes:

I most certainly did not mean to come across as sounding inflamatory. However, I felt that your first post in this thread echoed the sentiment: “suck it up America, and get used to it.”

And to that, my reply was, and remains, “I refuse to accept terrorism.” You (and your gov’t) should too. It’s the only way freedom can overcome terrorists. No one should have to put up with that.

34

This is no game, period, and there will be only one winner. However uninviting Cheesesteak’s Nazi style reprisal killings sound they are one of the few measures that represent a siginificant reprisal against people who are willing to give up their lives. If their own population is depleted before their eyes, they catch on rather quickly.

There shoud be no worrying about “descending to their level”. That is not possible, such a level cannot be reached by anything less than premeditated murder. When most societies encounter murderous individuals within their midst, such elements are usually prosecuted extensively. If a country is willing to overlook the presence of known mass murderers within their borders, then they breach the rules of civilized society.

Please do not shroud this issue with religious, philosophical or political overtones. What happened yesterday was murder, that’s all, simple mass murder. Any country able to sequester such scum within their borders should be vulnerable to immediate and intense military attack.

There is also a huge difference between this attack and the one on Pearl Harbor. Our base in Hawaii was a military base. The World Trade Center was a civilian complex! This sort of indiscriminate slaughter can only be countered by the same sort of (if not greater) measures. The only barely acceptable analogy is the setting “backfires” in order to fight a large forest fire. Some scorching may occur at the edges. It may be required to dispense with fringe populations that feed the central source of the real problem. Even modern war still has its share of collateral damage. The blow that will permanently cripple such maniacal thinking needs to be substantial, as it was in Japan and Germany. (Thanks, MemoryLeak!)

Here, the similarities to Japan’s WWII record spring easily to mind. Far too many posters have been mentioning nuclear reprisal not to once again condemn its contemplation. The thought of pursuant terrorist nuclear retribution is too hideous to consider. But any demonstration of force will have to be on an overwhelming scale. It literally required two nuclear blasts to persuade Japan to surrender. Perhaps the demonstration of a gasoline vapor bomb* in a remote corner of their country might bring them to their senses.

  • (Non-atomic bomb capable of nuclear size explosions.)

One of the only other ideas that might work is Badtz’s use of video taped, protracted torture. Sufficiently agonizing repercussions can have a deterrent effect. This one is almost too reprehensible to consider, but it is also one of the only credible threats to someone contemplating such acts. It is a certain measure of my own digust and revulsion that such things have even entered into consideration. However, if access to paradise is through a door that enters a year long corridor of extreme torture, second thoughts might be had.

This is a cycle of violence that must end, even if it must be ended with violence. However distasteful that may seem, please don’t think that the Nazis responded well to any polite requests to stop their infamy. So it is with these scum, please and thank you mean nothing near as much as the barrel of a gun. Please do not think that I enjoy this sort of hostile diatribe, it no more fun to write than to read, I’m sure of that.

Just tell me how appeasing these criminals will stop any recurrence of what we just went through? There is no giving into their stone age mentality. I think it is safe to say that all women will not wear the veil. This will remain a religiously pluralistic world and despotic maniacs who can’t deal with it are going to run hard up against the might of civilized nations.

I’d would be glad to consider peaceful alternatives to the almost inevitable military solutions that will occur. I just don’t see them. Sam Stone has painted the most obtainable, though not most likely outcome. None of this should be about vengeance, but about prophilaxis. (The theme of my soon to debut, “Hijacking Protocol” thread.)

Here’s a thought. Our current crop of politicians are self-serving enough, that I can easily see them enthusiatically passing any legislation imaginable to prevent another attack like this one. A few jets flown into capitol hill could really put a damper on the party in Washington DC. In some ways the Taliban have sealed their own doom. They have ired the most self-protective beast in creation, the American politician.

35

Kabbes: You’re right in that terrorism isn’t new, and the fight against it has been somewhat ineffective until now.

Where you’re wrong is that you are implying that it’s an unwinnable war. Perhaps the reason little progress has been made is because there has been no will to fight it to its logical conclusion, and/or because the nations who have been fighting it simply did not have the resources of the U.S., nor would they have had world opinion on their side if they took measures that would be really effective.

For example, look at the approbation Israel had come under for their policy of systematically targeting and assassinating known terrorists. I wonder how many people still feel that way today?

The problem with saying that the countries aren’t responsible for the actions of terrorists is that in many cases they ARE. Terrorism has become the way for many regimes to project their power. They know that if they directly attack the U.S. or other NATO powers that they will come under fire. So instead, they do what Arafat or Quaddafi does - issue strong words of denial, claim no responsibility for terrorists, but then quietly look the other way as they use their countries as support bases to build terrorist networks. And in some cases, they supply them intelligence and funding. THAT is what has to stop.

We will never get rid of terrorism. What we can and should do is get rid of terrorism as an extension of state power. The Taliban are a perfect example of a regime that should be toppled. They issued a condemnation of Bin Laden today, but they certainly have been allowing him to operate, knowing that he is actively plotting the deaths of people (even if they didn’t know about the WTC), because his goals and theirs are the same. He therefore becomes a de-facto arm of the state, and they become legitimate targets.

Let’s take an analogy. Let’s say that Joe Blow had said that he really wanted to kill lots and lots of Elbonians. And let’s say that Elbonia is your sworn enemy. Joe Blow has already killed hundreds of Elbonians, and they declare him to be a murderer and want him tried. Instead, you offer to hide him. You take steps to prevent people from finding him. You provide him state transportation, funding, and maybe even a few hints as to where he can find the most vulnerable Elbonians.

Then, suddenly his organization kills 10,000 Elbonians. You deny responsibility, but you also refuse to turn him over.

At what point do the Elbonians have a legitimate grievance against you? I’d say pretty early on in the game, wouldn’t you? And could you blame the Elbonians if they gave you an ultimatum to turn him over or else? Or even if they just attacked you for your complicity?

36

[Montgomery Burns]

::rubbing hands::

Yes, that’s just the sort of radical new thinking we need around here.

[/Montgomery Burns]

37

B.O.: Thank you. Re-reading my post will teach me to try and post whilst taking a telephone call, and you saved me considerable trouble in cleaning up my mess.

On a side note, that post of mine was idiotic, and I apologize and take it back.

We could always look at the cause and say - a free Palestine. Where’s the problem with that. Give them a free Palestine. No more terrorist attacks. Less people killed.

Why be reactionary in the first place? Take a look at why there are terrorists - why do some people hate the western world? Maybe there are a few aspects of our behaviour that could take modification for the better? Egocentricity and bigotry will just end in making it easier for the terrorists to find new recruits.

38

The trouble is Sam, Acco and others - the fight may include sacrifices you don’t want to make.

I heard a simple story today from an American journalist on the radio. This is not supposed to be humour, nor is it meant to poke fun. She was and I am trying to illustrate a point. She said that one day she was on the underground (train station), sitting next to a pair of American tourists. They were looking at the signs we have on all our train stations asking you to report any unattended bags. Their response? “Oh isn’t that nice! In Britain, they help you find your missing luggage.” The journalist had to point out to them that the reason for this sign is that we regularly have bombs placed in our underground train stations.

This is the mentality that terrorism fosters. Every unattended bag is a bomb. Train stations have no dustbins. CCTV cameras are accepted into every nook and cranny in order to try to pre-empt strikes. Police are given search powers you would find astonishing. It isn’t pretty. And the reason it isn’t pretty is that half the time the culprits live in your own country. After all, who are you going to bomb in return for the OKC bombing?

I know you want to paint a big bullseye on a convenient bogeyman and bomb the hell out of it. But sometimes it isn’t that easy.

Zenster - you ask

to which I can only reply - we spent 30 years trying to beat the IRA with violence. The bombing only stopped when we started talking instead.

pan

39

Retribution typically is for the benefit of the agrieved’s psyche and not for the benefit of justice itself. In other words, despite whatever consequences, despite whether it makes any objective difference at all, and despite the disparity of scale between a mass murder and an assassination — it simply makes the agrieved feel better when he knows his aggressor has been blown to hell.

40

quote:

And the reason it isn’t pretty is that half the time the culprits live in your own country. After all, who are you going to bomb in return for the OKC bombing?

First, that was not state sponsored. We absolutely SHOULD bomb the hell out of any country that sponsors terrorists. That is a blatant act of war. These terrorists moved freely between countries, a strong sign that the countries were helping them in their actions. Would you have recommended we have a nice chat with Japan after Pearl Harbor instead of attacking them?

quote:

to which I can only reply - we spent 30 years trying to beat the IRA with violence. The bombing only stopped when we started

The IRA – rightly or wrongly – was trying to kick out a foreign invader from their own country. Again, this is a foreign country declaring war on us, and there is no amount of talk that will help.

In addition, the IRA had somewhat sane, logical people in it. Theose responsible for Tuesday’s attacks are neither. They are religious fanatics who thrive on death and madness, and logic never mixes with religion. We can’t talk to them, we need to WIPE THEM OUT, and the governments that encourage this behavior must be brought to their knees. Their militaries need to be stripped from them, their arms taken away as well. Think Germany after WWII. Any bomb making facilities (ahem… IRAN with their almost-ready nukes, and Pakistan with their existing ones) need to be levelled, their bomb stocks taken, their scientists forced to stop. And if the scientists continue the development, imprison them in the US as a matter of utmost security. These people WILL use nukes when provoked, just as they have no qualms about crashing jetliners into skyscrapers.

You want to talk to them?! It WON’T WORK.