posted on September 16, 2001 02:24:40 PM
What has America or, more accurately, the rich West, done to make people so upset and angry that they rejoice at American pain?
Osama bin Laden is a madman, as is Timothy McVeigh. For some reason, there are more people prepared to follow bin Laden that McVeigh - how have we contributed to that.
If we go overseas and create 100,000 more terrorists in a bombing campaign, who will have won? I say hate will have won, on both sides.
posted on September 16, 2001 02:51:58 PM
My point was that the Arab-Americans here are being targeted for hate crimes because of this - and that is wrong.
I can also say with some certainty that there are many Islams not on American soil who condemn terrorist attacks and condemn loss of life on any grounds.
Again, a few sick individuals have twisted the religion to fit their goals - these are the ones that present a threat. These are also the ones that get media attention, so the whole religion is portrayed as hateful.
posted on September 16, 2001 02:55:13 PM
gr8ful2bhere
We actually had a hand in creating bin-Laden. We courted him way back when under the theory of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. To a lesser degree, we condoned his means as long as they aided our goals. He wasn't quite as bad then, but we tolerated his deplorable actions.
posted on September 16, 2001 03:23:19 PM
We also "created" modern Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and South Korea.
That our CIA had any connection with bin Laden during the USSR's invaision of Afghanistan is irrelevant and has no rational connection with what this terrorist network has done. The CIA's contact with bin Laden was minimal, he was a "Johnny come Lately". The main contact and operative with the CIA in the USSR's invaision is the leader of those in revolt against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Sounds like the CIA chose who to deal with quite well.
Pakistan installed the Taliban and bin Laden was deported there by Sudan.
The CIA has had connections with thousands of people, and they don't attack us.
I suppose we should hold all parents responsible for what their adult children do since they created and raised them.
posted on September 16, 2001 03:44:32 PM
Reamond -
I never once said that we are responsible for his actions - I said that there was a time that we condoned him - and had friendly relations with him - I don't understand exactly when we became a great evil in his eyes - it had something to do with us being in Saudi Arabia, but I'm not sure what.
I do think that we should not have even have been on friendly terms with him as he has always been a bit off-balance.
Please don't put meanings into my words that aren't there.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:27:32 PMYou make it sound as though the armed soldiers on the streets of Israel are off duty service men and woman just out for a stroll, when in fact they are STATIONED at these places.
If you're talking about within cities, yes they are on leave or pass.
There are military check points and mandatory ID cards in Israel. Those internal check points have tanks and APCs at them.
Yes, there are check posts, though not within cities. There are also border patrols.
The airlines suffered a blow, but they were in bad shape before. As far as government wiretapping, I don't see that total annihilation will solve that problem.
Will we get to the point where the citizenry is drafted en masse, or there are armed guards in movie theaters? I doubt it. Man walks into theater with briefcase, walks out without briefcase. Very simple, very effective. Or bus station. Or supermarket.
You can make an argument that some governments support terrorism, therefore they are our enemies. But are we basing that solely on the location of the terrorists at any given moment? Much of the planning of this operation took place within America. Obviously we can't bomb Florida simply because the pilots received their training there. Terrorists are not stupid. What if they hole up in France? Do we bomb France?
There are several approaches we might study. One would be large scale bombings in hope of intimidating terrorists or the governments that harbor them. Another would be focused covert operations. The first alternative is safer for us, but would result in many innocent civilian casualties (and I emphasize innocent). The second would require more intelligence than America can muster on its own.
Another question is whether America has the fortitude to really wage a war that might last years or even decades. Right now patriotism is high. After we see thousands of civilian casualties on CNN, perhaps Americans will decide that enough is enough.
I personally believe we should use whatever approach is most effective. If we depose certain governments, we should make sure those governments are replaced with stable democracies. I do not believe air strikes alone will get at the root of terrorism.
It may be that we can intimidate a dozen nations into really renouncing terrorism. By, say, bombing the crap out of them. That will NOT end terrorism. We must remove the leaders of the Islamic Jihad. That can not be done from the air.
