posted on September 23, 2001 02:00:04 PM
I am sure that the majority of the Afgans are not realy interested in the politics of terrorism - they just want to live day to day like people here.
However they have allowed these terror supporting people to rule them and have not thrown them off or out.
Is there no responsibility for that?
If they come to harm because they allow such scum to live among them and rule them have they not brought their destruction down upon their own head?
That is what the Bush administration is saying that those that harbor them will be treated the same - but they don't have the nerve to do it.
Iraq has listened to the US statement that you are either for us or against us and continued to denounce the US in harshest language. So what does that tell the world?
Looks pretty much like you can stand tall and say yes - we are against you and there is no cost.
I think that you could make semantic distinctions between the two but essentially the end results are the same though the cause is individual or limited in scope. Regardless of the cause, the acts argue for greater security.
posted on September 23, 2001 02:33:36 PM
How is it that no one will acknowledge even the possibility that the policies of this country which apparently serve only to protect our ability to continue to derive oil from the middle east have brought the terrorist acts upon it? These terrorists, for the most part, do not appear to be irrational madmen. They act more as patriots determined to regain a control of their own destiny. We, on the other hand, are interlopers meddling in what should be rightfully their affairs.
A pretty well written article, below, makes the case better than I can, but I would submit that were the tables turned somehow and it was this country which had suffered from another state what this one has brought to others, there would be a fair number of terrorists posting here if able to do so.
"Besides figuring out how best to respond, we ought to ponder why
we were attacked last Tuesday. For George Bush and most of the
media establishment, the answer is simple. We are the victims of
unfathomable hatred from radical Arabs or Muslims, people who just
hate freedom. "Freedom and democracy are under attack," is how
the President put it. Others point more broadly to an implacable
Islamic hatred of the West, a hatred that knows no reason. They, the
Arabs, or Islamic fundamentalists, hate us for "who we are"
Few in the American political class question these bromides
Islamic suicide bombers are not targeting Ottawa or
Zurich, Paris or Rome—all located in countries as free, democratic
and "Western" as the United States, and all possessing as much or
more "separation of church and state." So why us?"
I know, who cares why they hate us, look what they did. Somehow it's an odd thing to see people here posting in that vein who have also posted that the actions on this continent against the native american original populace is a shameful blot on our history, or justifying the position of the secessionist states during our civil war.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:04:52 PM
Nothing -- no cause, no creed, no grudge, no gripe -- can justify or rationalize what they did on September 11. It was a mind-blowing mass murder. That's why nobody cares what they're about -- because in the wake of more than 6,000 innocent deaths, it all becomes moot.
If anything, the terrorists made Americans less inclined than ever before to want to understand or sympathize with their position or anything else that goes on in the Middle East. Right now most Americans just want them dead, their nations conquered, their history erased. Thanks to the acts of the sick, selfish men who carried off this plot, the world will suffer.
Stop trying to portray these murderers as patriots. They are not heroes or freedom fighters, not by any definition. Their actions have gained nothing for their countries or their religions. They have brought death and destruction down upon their people -- and ours. They are a curse upon all mankind.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:13:33 PMkrsThese terrorists, for the most part, do not appear to be irrational madmen. They act more as patriots determined to regain a control of their own destiny. We, on the other hand, are interlopers meddling in what should be rightfully their affairs.
Yes, these patriots have soften my heart also. I feel a meeting where we can consider a list of their needs will go a long way to bringing America to being a upstanding member of the international community.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:14:50 PM
That said, I want to add that I agree with your viewpoint -- understanding the disease so that it can be cured altogether is preferable to just treating the symptoms. But at the moment, the symptoms are raging out of control and if they aren't brought to heel soon, who knows if there will be anyone left in the end to determine what the disease was all about in the first place.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:22:31 PMThese terrorists, for the most part, do not appear to be irrational madmen.
What precisely is rational about slitting women's throats and stabbing hapless airline passengers to death? What is rational about crashing a civilian airplane full of women, children, babies? What is rational about crashing two jets into buildings occupied by 20,000 people? What is rational about targeting and killing over 6000 people? People (except for the Pentagon) who were not affiliated with the military or diplomatic corps. Please explain to me how these acts are not "irrational" nor the acts of "madmen". Please.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:27:51 PM
They are murderers here, but only because they murder Americans. Had they been Americans acting in support or defense of any aspect of this country's ideals or goals they would be heroes and patriots.
Don't tell me, Spaz, to stop anything or to stop trying to portray these people as anything. That isn't at all what I'm doing. What national arrogance it is to believe that this country is right in all things for all other peoples. What gives this country the unquestioned right to affect the destiny of any other country in any way, and then whine 'foul' if they object?
posted on September 23, 2001 03:38:53 PM
Bin Laden considers Saudi Arabia an American puppet. He warns other muslims not to trust them.
I agree the US has influence in Saudi Arabia but they sure regulate how we come and go and are awfully stingy with allowing as few Americans to be there as will accomplish the common goal and then are in a hurry to get them out before anymore cultural contaimination happens than need be. This is a puppet?
For this much influence thousands of innocents should die?
What of all the help the Afgans were given to oust the Russians? Then did the US rush in to establish a presence in Afganistan and contaiminate their precious culture?
They don't even appreciate the $170 million dollars of food the US has sent a year.
For feeding them we get no credit and killed?
Sorry - but like all stories this has two sides.
I would not feed people who harbor people vowed to kill me. Just doesn't mke sense.
We are not allowed to seek our own interest to get oil but we can feed them thank you and that is their due? No.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:41:49 PMHad they been Americans acting in support or defense of any aspect of this country's ideals or goals they would be heroes and patriots.
Please tell me when the last time Americans, military or otherwise targeted hijacked 4 planeloads of civilians with the sole purpose of crashing them into densely poplulated cities with the sole goal of murdering as many people as possible. Go ahead and use McVeigh, but remember we executed him.
What national arrogance it is to believe that this country is right in all things for all other peoples.
Pretty broad brush, but regardless, I think it's pretty well agreed by all Americans that mass murder is not the way to legitimize any "political/religious" viewpoint. It's irrational. It's insane. It's intolerable.
posted on September 23, 2001 03:46:35 PM"You call slamming planes into buildings full of people an "objection?"
Yet you would, and have done, support the indiscriminate murder of many multiples of the number of people in the towers, equally innocent civilians, by calling it an acceptable level of collateral damage, because this country objects to that action, or other lesser actions. Bomb the entire country into oblivion for the act of a few criminals?
"I think it's pretty well agreed by all Americans that mass murder is not the way to legitimize any "political/religious" viewpoint."
What about car bombings backed by the CIA that kill dozens people in an attempt to get one or two individuals? Nobody seems to care about that. Justified mass murder?
posted on September 23, 2001 03:55:16 PM
A great deal of misunderstanding results from the use of the word war, which isn't really a war, but might become a war, but still won't be a war quite like any other war. Talk about Orwellian.
posted on September 23, 2001 04:03:24 PMWhat about car bombings backed by the CIA that kill dozens people in an attempt to get one or two individuals?
Oh yes, of course you have some factual information to back that up? And no, the National Enquirer doesn't count.
posted on September 23, 2001 04:10:22 PMYet you would, and have done, support the indiscriminate murder of many multiples of the number of people in the towers, equally innocent civilians, by calling it an acceptable level of collateral damage
Show me, krs. Show me one instance where I have joined in the genocidal nuke-em chants so prevalent in this forum since September 11. Show me where I have advocated bombing Afghanistan or any other country as payback for the terrorist attacks. Show me where I proposed anything but a cautious, well-considered response.
posted on September 23, 2001 04:16:16 PM
Yes, Spaz, I meant the all-inclusive 'you' and nearly edited knowing what your reaction would be but didn't only because I was sure that it was too late.
posted on September 23, 2001 04:24:40 PM
Ken, anyone who thinks bombing Afghanistan into oblivion is an appropriate or even plausible response knows nothing about Afghanistan. There's precious little to bomb. No real "infrastructure" to take out. The Taliban number about 50,000 and they are extremely lightly armed. While it won't be a piece of cake, it can -- and must -- be done.
The Soviets weren't trying to destroy a dominant militia. They were trying to occupy the country. We must learn lessons from Soviet mistakes, but the fact is our objectives aren't the same. That's why I believe we aren't headed into the same exact quicksand that they were, although sticky it will be.
We have no choice, really. Or will you wait until the Taliban foment a revolution in Pakistan and we then have Iran - the Sequal, only with nuclear warheads?
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 23, 2001 04:26 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2001 04:43:23 PM
Oh I know, James. That's most likely why there's such energy devoted toward expanding the enemy bowl. Afganistan doesn't warrant the use of even one carrier battle group and there are now four of those hovering around, along with some B-52 squadrons and all of the rest of our might for right. Sometimes I wish that some of the people here could find a way to see the destruction that can be brought by even a single flight of those bombers. It would just amaze anyone.
But I think that there's a very real chance that our action in Aganistan may well bring about that revolution in Pakistan if we aren't very careful, whether there's an Afganistan still or not. This country's actions in the middle east outrage arabs across the board and have done for quite some time. They do not all think that any of our 'behaviors' toward Iraq, for example, are justified at all. The entire region is gradually becoming very fed up with US involvements there, and that, of course, is what much of this is all about.
Now Saudi Arabia balks at allowing belligerent flights from their airbases. Bummer, but we'll do it from somewhere else. However, don't we all hope that the strained relations with them over this doesn't put a stop to Enronn's (whatever) $26 billion oil deal due to be completed within a month or two?
posted on September 23, 2001 04:45:34 PM
Ok, I have an idea. What if we take all women-children-eldery (not sure how to handle grown men) out of their country single file, search them, handcuff them, load them on a big cargo plane and fly them to...ummm...Alaska wilderness to fenced compounds. While they are there, we will feed them, clothe them, treat them kindly, show them compassion; go to Afganistan, wipe out what's left; clean up the mess we made there, then put them all back. Very tidy.
Only solution I can think of. Would probably cost about the same as the current plan.
How many people are we talking about anyway?
I think it can be done. Shoot, we are AMERICA.
T
posted on September 23, 2001 05:09:23 PM
jt - very nice very civilized. So you are going to feed and take care of all those women and children after you round up every adult male?
Should be able to do that for 4 or 500,000 casualties.
And in these camps you are going to "re-educate" them? Or just hold them for a life sentance? maybe carefully interview each to see who is a good guy and who is a terrorist? Do a polygraph?
How about wait until the weather is right and deliberatly ground burst a line of nukes up wind in a line so the entire region is uninhabitable. No need to target anything directly. Bomb the enpty desert.
layer enough fallout on the whole region you either leave or die. Their choice.
posted on September 23, 2001 06:25:32 PMBomb the entire country into oblivion for the act of a few criminals?
These people should be policing them self's.
I argued way back for a "police action", but we all (should) know where that road leads. If we could enlist the help of the Chiness, and Russians, it would help. Do Afganistan like they did to post war Germany, (Afgani's are already "post war" ) split it 3 parts, and police it. Ten years later, maybe, we can give them their "Destiny" back.
Didn't we have a link the other day about bringing the Afgani King back?
posted on September 23, 2001 07:53:58 PM
According to Pakistan's The International News advance units of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions are already in Pakistan.
They also say the British SAS had a small dust up with the Taliban Militia.
