Re: Don't bother them...

Post #10,373 by addison 9/24/01 1:25:11 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 4:03:01 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 9/24/01 4:33:30 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 9/24/01 4:46:16 PM Reply	So, violence, does not lead to more violence?
Post #10,413 by bepatient 9/24/01 5:04:51 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 9/24/01 5:07:44 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!