Post #10,365
9/24/01 12:50:58 PM
|
Re: Don't bother them...
Facts or YOUR preferred view of facts?
Fact is, no one here is trying to JUSTIFY the action.
Fact is, folks here are trying to show you that when emotions rules, rationale goes out the window, as shown by the terrorists, AND by the many Americans, civilians and politicians alike who called for the nuking of the whole Arab region. JUSTIFIABLE?
Fact is, up until now, the CIA and FBI have made themselves looked kinda foolish by proclaiming long dead persons and innocent "Arabic" persons as terrorist involved in the 911 incident. Yet everyone, including the Taliban "authority" are supposed to believe that their claim that OBL is involved and hand him over. JUSTIFIABLE?
Fact is, the US is AGAIN using its military and economic strength to "strongarm" other nations with "if you are not with us (US), you are with the terrorists" into submission. JUSTIFIABLE?
Fact is, you are denoucing everyone who does not choose to view the events from a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN's POV.
|
Post #10,373
9/24/01 1:25:11 PM
|
Re: Don't bother them...
Yet everyone, including the Taliban "authority" are supposed to believe that their claim that OBL is involved and hand him over. JUSTIFIABLE?
Bin Laden has been indicited, I believe, in a US court already for other terrorist activities.
That would indicate that there is certainly some evidence that he's behind terrorism. Add to that his warning, *AND* the Taliban's tacit admission he's organizing terrorist activities, and yeah, they're supposed to believe it, they're aware of it.
Fact is, the US is AGAIN using its military and economic strength to "strongarm" other nations with "if you are not with us (US), you are with the terrorists" into submission. JUSTIFIABLE?
You mean like when we strongarmed Japan from building a SE Asia empire?
Now, you're right. There is some overstatement going on.
And we have been dancing with the devil for too long - and letting the terrorists build their networks with too little impedance. Sure.
And so this is the overreaction.
But Bin Laden apparently was behind the murders of many (non-Americans) with the Embassy bombings, and apparently was the driving force behind this attack.
What is the "proper" reaction in this case?
Addison
|
Post #10,396
9/24/01 4:03:01 PM
|
Ah. There's the rub.
>>What is the "proper" reaction in this case?
I was at the airport yesterday and a couple of pilots were discussing this. One of them said, "Well, I sure am glad the election turned out the way it did. Can you imagine Al Gore handling this?" The other replied, "Yeah. He'd want us to go over and hug them to death."
I found the remarks curious for a variety of reasons (which I'll spare you in deference to yourself and Beep). However, the one thing we cannot do, imo, is allow the rage that I myself felt immediately following the tragedy, and that many others continue to feel, to dictate our response. But even that depends on what the purpose of the response is. If we only want to strike back - kill anyone or anything for fear of being perceived as having done nothing, then all this saber rattling, nuke 'em talk, etc. makes sense. But is that what we truly want? Wouldn't it be better if we diminished (to the extent possible) the likelihood that this will happen again? Thinking we can kill every like minded person in the world is a fool's errand. And unless you can accomplish that, an exclusively violent response will be ineffective.
Massive retaliation against those who "might" be "associated" with those responsible could bring even more violence, heighten anti-US sentiment and encourage even more oppressed people to believe that we are "evil", leading to more atrocious actions.
|
Post #10,401
9/24/01 4:33:30 PM
|
It is this line of reasoning...
Massive retaliation against those who "might" be "associated" with those responsible could bring even more violence, heighten anti-US sentiment and encourage even more oppressed people to believe that we are "evil", leading to more atrocious actions. ...that makes us a continued target. In their mind...this is weakness. This is how we've ALWAYS responded. Change is good. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #10,405
9/24/01 4:46:16 PM
|
So, violence, does *not* lead to more violence?
|
Post #10,413
9/24/01 5:04:51 PM
|
In this case I would have to give a qualified yes.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #10,414
9/24/01 5:07:44 PM
|
Talking past each other, I think.
- None of the people who will be prosecuting the war from the US (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) are talking about exclusively military actions.
- Those on the US side are working to make sure nothing else is done to the US or "our interests" by those responsible for the Pentagon and WTC attacks. That's why things like crop-duster-restrictions are in place; today's freezing of assets of suspected terrorists, etc.; etc.
- Just about everyone recognizes the risks of poorly targeted attacks by the US. That's why they're stressing intelligence help from other countries so strongly.
It's not a matter, in my mind, of being against violence versus being against terrorists. We're against both.
IMO, the overriding objectives have to be, in this order:
1. Stopping attacks by the specific group responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. If that means that the guilty group has to be terminated, then so be it. The US must be able to defend itself.
2. Working with allies to root out similar terrorist organizations.
3. Working with allies to reduce the appeal of violent fundamentalism by improving the economic and political situation in countries around the world (including places like Saudi Arabia which are our nominal allies).
If these 3 things can be done simultaneously, then great. But #1 has to be completed first.
You can't put out a fire in your house by worrying about whether the water from the fire hose is going to make your carpet mildew....
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #10,400
9/24/01 4:30:32 PM
|
Interesting...
...that you give all sorts of reasons why we should have expected something to happen...yet deny that the list indeed gives some culpability to the US in these acts.
Funny how I can't let that little slip in logic pass.
And you rail on facts versus "my view" of the facts. Et tu TTC?
What is your solution? Should we just sit back and wait for DNA evidence on a wire transfer of funds from a Bin Laden bank account to a terrorist cell?
These folks are COUNTING on the fact that we will act as we always have acted...with weakness.
What was our response to Lockerbie, the USS Cole, the african embassies? Was it one of strength or weakness. NOT FROM YOUR POV...but pretend to be a terrorist...just for a second. You sponsored the killing of nearly 10,000 civilians in the past 4 years...and the best that the "enemy" has come up with so far was the destruction of a pill factory and the capture of a couple of terrorists who will view life in prison as a tribute to Allah.
Fact is I am denouncing anyone who wishes to continue the trend of pussyfooting around the terrorist issue. Yes we should use all of the combined might of the United States and anyone who care join Mr Sam in a quest to hunt down and punish anyone involved in this action...either directly or by implicit support. Lets see if you think this a "patriotic" issue if the next target is somewhere closer to your home...or if the next attack happens to be biological...and kills millions (perhaps billlions) worldwide.
And please let me see a link to these "long dead persons and innocent Arabic persons" that we've blamed for these attacks. Certainly innocent people have been questioned in relationship to this case. If I were to commit some heinous act...I'm sure than many who knew me (completely innocently) would still be questioned...its called "investigation".
And are you attempting to make us believe that the Taliban would hand Bin Laden over >even with incontrovertable evidence<?
I somehow doubt this.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
