Post #9,576
9/18/01 2:39:22 AM
|
I guess that's a "no".
Per the Pakistan request for handing over Bin Laden.
[link|http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=ODMMATE5RJBKSCRBAELCFFAKEEARKIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=227020|Afghanistan's ruling purist Taliban movement has announced a jihad, or holy war, against the United States]
|
Post #9,577
9/18/01 3:37:38 AM
|
Wow...that was a foolish move....
in more ways that one. Outright refusal will cause the U.S. to go to war with ANY evidence - which a large segment of the US wants right now. I expect we'll see tanks moving into Afganstian within the next month or so. As such, Taliban officials life-expectances will not be high.
Considering their life-expectances had they double crossed bin Laudin, I suppose it's to be expected. But I am shocked that bin Laudin isn't turning himself over to a 'neutral' country and hold the whole mess up in the courts.
Oh well...this solution may be neater.
|
Post #9,584
9/18/01 6:58:21 AM
|
Their Soviet experience made them brave
They are just giving the US a "solid" target. Before, it would have been like going after the Mafia, now it is like going after a State.
They did have a legit complaint that they have not seen any evidence that points to Bin for these attacks. However, there may be something from the prior attacks.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #9,610
9/18/01 10:21:45 AM
|
Living in afganistan made them brave.
Its not just the Soviets. And, in fact, the Soviets *took over* Afganistan, pretty easily.
Lest we forget, only Pakistan, and the US support to both Pakistan and the rebels allowed them to keep any pressure on the Soviets.
This time, they don't have *any* border to run across to hide - just to try and hide in the population.
The population of Afganistan is trying To Get Out. They saw the last war. This one will be much much much worse.
Addison
|
Post #9,585
9/18/01 7:07:02 AM
|
It's a trap.
I'm leaning towards the paranoid view, next.
Given the 'post-NY' plans captured/ planted in Asia - I'd guess they know our style. We may be on schedule to frighten the usual allies and even more so - the real Muslims we'd hope would collaborate.
Dubya is becoming more bellicose and more general in tone - he thought today, dead or alive.. sufficiently clever and appropriate, to - repeat it. Anyone dressing funny - Sikh, Indian whatever is a potential target of our redneck contingent, including a 69 year old man in CA (speculative thus far, on that one).
I wonder if we could.. behave otherwise than is being apparently, counted on (?) Other atrocities could keep us "on schedule": we all know what Else might have been done / can be, next.
:[
A.
|
Post #9,609
9/18/01 10:09:57 AM
|
That's my conclusion so far.
And Bin Laden will continue to bait us until we walk into his trap.
He needs us to unite Muslems into a Holy War.
If we can band together with the Muslems to fight him and terrorists worldwide then it will be a great day for humanity.
|
Post #9,614
9/18/01 11:07:03 AM
|
Nobody knows. We must be clear-headed about our actions.
Hi Brett and All,
We don't know how the Muslim world will react to any action being planned. Remember that similar warnings were made in the Gulf War - no Muslim state would support us because we supported Israel, there would be tens of thousands of Allied casualties, Sadam had a trap to spring on the Allies, etc., etc.
Yes, we must be careful. Very careful.
Yes, we must carefully consider the possible reactions of Muslim states and groups. We must consider how the populations in Allied nations react. Having Pakistan's government fall to Taliban supporters, and having the Taliban get access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons (at minimum their nuclear weapons technology) is certainly a nightmare scenario...
But we can't be paralized by what might happen. We shouldn't let the terrorists' luck in achieving their goals make us believe that they've considered every contingency. We've got to be clear headed and work toward achieving our long-term goals, not merely strike out at the parties responsible for Tuesday's attacks.
Remember that [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/alqaeda.html|Al-Qaeda] is only a few thousand, or maybe a few tens of thousands of people at most. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. It's a small group. It's not clear that any sort of mass uprising or war between Islam and the West is in the offing.
Remember that the West has defeated terrorist cells before. You don't hear much about the Red Brigades any more, for example. Or the Symbinaese Liberation Army.
We need to understand bin Laden's appeal. [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html#alqaeda|This] interview provides one view.
I'm heartened that we haven't struck back yet. It's going to take a while to get the information necessary to make sure that any actions we take support our long-term goals. I'm confident that the people in the US and Allied governments realize this.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #9,657
9/18/01 10:58:35 PM
|
Pakistan has good reasons to support U.S.
- They see the Taliban gaining strength in Pakastan. If the Taliban takes over, there is no place for the current government. Better to take them on now while help is available.
- Protection from India. While the U.S. has a major presence in Pakistan, India is unlikely to do anything rash. It would mean a cut-off of their programming and tech support industry at the very least. The protection would probably be long lasting.
- Boost to economy. If U.S. bases are semi-permanent, there will be money flowing.
- Debt forgiveness. Do the "right thing" and a few billion in red ink can sort of evaporate.
- Not getting "colateralized" by the U.S., since it needs to go over someone to get to Afghanistan.
- "Technology tranfer": might learn a thing or two.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,695
9/19/01 10:07:16 AM
|
U.S. has nuclear reasons to support Pakistan
It looks like we need each other.
The terrorists may have hoped to overturn the Pakistan government and get control of the 20 or so nuclear bombs?
They need a united Afghan/Pakistan Taliban group in order to get that control.
Fortunately, the U.S. has not walked into their trap yet and dropped bombs on their soil. They need us to unite their people in a Jihad against all non-Islamic people.
|
Post #9,699
9/19/01 10:28:02 AM
|
Er, too late (dropping bombs, that is.)
Fortunately, the U.S. has not walked into their trap yet and dropped bombs on their soil. You're forgetting the 70 or 80 cruise missiles we sent to bomb the Afghan terrorist camps in 1998 - for less reason. Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, Thomas, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
|
Post #9,600
9/18/01 9:07:09 AM
|
Well, now comes the ugly part.
The Taliban has declared war. That's a bigger target than bin Laden, and presumably easier to hit.
Even so, a government in a place like that is less a political infrastructure than a collection of mouth-foaming f***wits. We can obliterate their buildings, but they can just opt to be elsewhere. Hell, they can do what they do with an army tent, a PC a shortwave radio set up for packet Internet, and a Saudi billionaire's debit card.
Which reminds me - can we do anything to seize bin Laden's bank accounts? Cut off their air supply.
We might attack their building without warning, in an attempt to catch them flatfooted, but then there's the problem of non-combatant casualties. And no, I don't regard members of this kind of government as non-combatants. They had their chance to be neutral, and they turned it down.
Ultimately, we may need to invade, after destroying as much as possible of their ability to resist by precision bombing. I'm thinking we let the Pakistanis handle that bit. In exchange, we let them keep the whole damn country. Plus sweeten the deal with some financial aid, because the country probably isn't worth much to them.
The mouth-foamers will look silly yammering about American imperialism when the country is still owned by Muslims. That won't stop them, but they'll look silly.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,616
9/18/01 12:27:12 PM
|
Ummm...
>>Ultimately, we may need to invade, after destroying as much as possible of their ability to resist by precision bombing. I'm thinking we let the Pakistanis handle that bit. In exchange, we let them keep the whole damn country. Plus sweeten the deal with some financial aid, because the country probably isn't worth much to them.
The Taliban *are* Pakistanis. They were originally from a Paki fringe group that moved to Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union.
Some deal...
|
Post #9,617
9/18/01 12:44:25 PM
|
They declared the jihad...but the question is ... why?
We haven't attacked them. We really haven't threatened them. So...WHY are they declaring war on us? I think this is important. I think this represents (in a way) bin Laudin's ultimate goal - he wanted to attack the US...and for us to knee jerk back and slam Afganistan. If we had done that...according to some, muslim countries would've come together in a war against us. And that may have been bin Laudin's ultimate goal - to unite the Islamic countries under him. If so...Bush's tactics are REALLY working against him. Getting Pakinstan to agree (demand) bin Laudin be turned over really alienates bin Laudin. The only pressure he can place now is on the Taliban.
|
Post #9,619
9/18/01 1:53:46 PM
|
Some terrorist organizations have already denounced Laden
... according to one report I heard a couple days ago.
They may be feeling the heat from Bin Laden's "victory".
|
Post #9,716
9/19/01 2:29:55 PM
|
Yeah, they're pissed because he didn't target Statue of Lib.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
