Understanding the Impact and Perception of Terrorism in the United States

[outsider]

Completely incorrect. You are simply spouting what people want you to spout. We are NOT telling them how to live. We are allowing them for the first time in a long time, to decide HOW they want to live. I really doubt many Iraqies liked living under a dictator that has killed 300,000 of its population under his reign. The HUGE difference between us and them is that we came into kill an opressor and bring about wanted change while the terrorists attacked us simply to bring the downfall of a nation and to cause chaos.

hmm... i can hear the sergeants voice for some reason... with some kinda twang... haha jk

I know your intentions... and if you read my previous post, I agree that we should apprehend and disarm any threats.

To be quite honest, I don't believe bin laden or whoever the are after today is alive anymore, nor do I care... capturing the leaders of terrorists will not end this war... We are made to believe that we are fishing for something and we believe we should stick to our guns to get restitution, when this war is simply to gain control of a strategic part of the world. It's all a game really.

Unfortunately I do not have an unlimited budget to propogate this way of thinking with fancy commercials and cable news and so it is unlikely this will ever become popular opinion.

So, just the same, I disagree with you pretending to speak for the intents of the Bush Administration because you can be just as wrong as I am. You believe propoganda that you are served, and I make it up using alternative news, intuition and tangy bbq sauce. Oh yes, and there are Iranians at my flying school who I talk to as well... I get perspective from them.
Good people!

Your obvious hatred of the US is starting to show. We go in and defend a nation from people who have made it their intention to kill anyone who likes hte US and we are the terrorists? You would have been laughed at if you were in france after D-Day and you called a British Para a "terrorist". What you fail to realize in the most horrible way possible is that we are not trying to kill Iraqies or Afghan citizens, we are trying to kill people who want to force other people to live in dictatorships or in fear for their own economic or ideological purposes.

I don't think JT hates the US, because I can see his perspective and I personally don't hate the US. I measure everything according to lessons I've learned in school, church, work, organizations, and just plain living my life.

1) Think about playground bullies... most of us grew up as nerds / geeks... did we appreciate the bully? No
2) If we could, we would've beat up the bully... I know I wanted to.
3) When the bully beats up your friend you all team and beat up the bully... that's if you have a network of nerds.

I'd rather the US just stop picking on the world. I have some really bad stories in my life (that I don't want to talk about), but after defeating the bully my network of nerds & I began our own "gang" and it goes downhill from there until I had to hide out and go through some serious thinking.

Right now the Bush Admin is the Bully. This will not last forever as nothing does. He will no longer be accountable when the world's unpopular countries get tired of the bully. Contrary to what most Americans believe, to the so called "evil" countries, America is the "evil" one.

If America is holding a gun and comes over to my house to tell me how to teach my kids? You best believe I will at least tell him I have a bigger gun (even if I don't). And in this case, America should just walk away and mind his own business. Yes, we should back down... I think the terrorists and the good guys are the same group. There are so many things that I refrain from saying in these discussions simply because there might be military / political strategists monitoring... here goes nothing:

Please Mr. Bush, bring American troops back and just say it was a misunderstanding. Most of the world will accept a blunder from you. You will not lose any more respect than you already have.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Well I feel like a pain in the neck now. I've gone and let my ego take control of my arguments. I guess I was arguing devil's advocate. I don't fully agree with some of the things I said in this thread. I engage in a daily Jihad against my ego. It's tough to control myself sometimes, as I said before, I'm a sensitive person, and it makes me come off as insensitive some times... (yeah, that's the ticket, keep telling myself that (sarcastic)) Anyway, I don't think I've helped at all with answering the main question tonight. Is terrorism worth it? I would say yes, but not the way we've gone about doing it. It would have been worth fighting if we did it a different way. Now that we're at this point, I would undo all the radical changes that were made to our government, and make new radical changes like that military branch I mentioned before. I would use that to ease the transition to a free society in Iraq, and I would make sure that we'd get cheap oil out of the deal. Them I'd take Halliburton to court, I'm sure they did some illegal things. I just don't like the fact that the halliburton truck drivers get paid a lot more than our troops and our troops have to defend them.

 

[outsider]

What makes you so sure of that? how are you not the narcissistic one? Did I strike a nerve?

I never said that I know how to stop terrorism did I? Nor did I say that I thought I knew how to stop it.
Like I said before, I don't believe terrorism can be stopped. I don't know why everyone is so headlong on this idea. No matter what happens, there will always be someone who feels like they want to strike fear into other people. Wether it be them or us. A campaing against terrorism is terrorism to those being campaigned against. I bet you're the type that thinks that you can kill off a belief.

I think he does too. People who think that winning by force is the answer and just reigning supreme as top dog they will never come down. They have yet to live to understand. Many people are too naive to realize that violence only perpetuates more violence.

Pengwuino, suppose I killed your mother... wouldn't you come to get revenge? The answer is yes (due to his belief of retaliation for 911)...

but what if the reason why I killed your mom was because your mom killed my mom?... Then obviously there must have been a justifiable reason why your mom would do such a thing. right? (nods pengwuin head)

Yes, suppose your mom killed my mom just so your mom could win mother of the year award to make you proud.

Wouldn't I be justified to kill your mommy?
Would you still be justified to kill me in retaliation?
Would you expect any other part of my enormous circle of friends / family to get revenge against you?

Please think about this. I have met many different types of people in my life. Criminal types, I am very happy I no longer make acquaintence with. But this is what the crime world is like. An eye for an eye... you should know the rest.

 

[Archon]

... your kidding right? These organizations are not exactly newly formed and combatting terrorism did not start on 9/11.

He described his reasons when he replied to your question. So I assume that it's unnecessary to respond to this.

No... its simply a more public extension of activities being conducted by the US government against many of the same people we have been fighting for decades. Bin Laden didn't just pop up on our radar on 9/11... he's been around for decades and the world has had its eye on him for a long time. I remember... in 7th grade, we were watching footage or something where bin laden was brought up. Our teacher paused to his face and goes "This guy is considered by some, the greatest terrorist threat to the United States". This of course, was before 9/11... so as you can see, many of these people are old news so to speak.

It is a war against Islamic terrorism. That's why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, why we're after Bin Laden, and why we aren't invading non-Islamic countries known for terrorism (name one).

Nope, it was a war. What was the atomic bomb? Just one big bomb. Worse acts of destruction had been done before it... just took longer (and was even worse at times! firebombings are, from most accounts, horrible things to live through as opposed to a quick and instant death for many people in the attacks).

Then what's your definition of terrorism? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:
a) aimed at civilians (or at least aimed with the certainty that many thousands of civilians would die)
b) intended to intimidate and strike fear into the heart of the Japanese government.

The fact that this occurred during a war isn't very important: if the 9-11 attacks had happened during a period of war with Afghanistan, we would still call it an act of terrorism.

Seeing as how Iraqi military units have consitently attacked US fighters patrolling the no-fly zone and Saddam has openly invaded other nations before... I don't see the humor... unless of course your not a fan of history.

Tell me: if Iraqi fighters started patrolling the borders of the U.S., how do you think American military units would react?

And of course Hussein is the only dictator currently in power ever to have invaded another country. (If you don't count Bush, who has at least managed to invade a country or two, even if he isn't a dictator yet).

 

[Hurkyl]

I think the terrorists and the good guys are the same group.

You think the people knocking down skyscrapers and blowing up subways are good guys?

Please Mr. Bush, bring American troops back and just say it was a misunderstanding. Most of the world will accept a blunder from you. You will not lose any more respect than you already have.

Do you know the difference between Iraq with American troops and Iraq without American troops?

Hint: it's more than the lack of American troops, and it's not "peace and harmony for all".

Many people are too naive to realize that violence only perpetuates more violence.

And many are too naive to realize that sometimes it takes violence to stop violence.

 

[Entropy]

And many are too naive to realize that sometimes it takes violence to stop violence.

Well, humanity has been using violence since it's birth and it doesn't seem to be working.

 

[outsider]

Seriously. I think a lot of people who want war are just looking for excitement. Take it from someone who has lived close enough to tell you from experience ok? Most Internet dorks sit at home a lot and watch movies that glorify violence. (Glorifying sex is ok by me because sex is glorious!) But all these people who are idle and don't know how they can make a difference or make themselves significant to the equation are all for GUNS & POWER. The media tries to make Americans (and Canadians) power hungry. We learn to understand why people do what they do by watching Reality TV. We see people compromising morals and making multiple backdoor alliances to win a prize. It's all really a sign of desperation. I guess no one can really help that.

The people who come away from violence know that it's not the answer. Some think that there is no other way or there is nothing we can do. Some never stop to think and so they just become soldiers of their cause.

I used to be a "die for my brother" type in my younger days. I realize that the only brother I really have is my brother by blood and we can live in peace without disturbing anyone else.

Peace is a choice

 

[The Smoking Man]

You think the people knocking down skyscrapers and blowing up subways are good guys?

LOL ... No, America just proboked a like reaction for your previous activities in the middle east.

You brought them down to your level.

Do you know the difference between Iraq with American troops and Iraq without American troops?

Hint: it's more than the lack of American troops, and it's not "peace and harmony for all".

Do you know the effect of Saddam WITH American support and WITHOUT American Support?

We'll never know will we because you were in there messing with other people's politics well before what is currently happening.

You would do well to remember that all this started well before 9/11.

Yes ... I condemn 9/11 just as I condemn all the actions perpetrated in the middle east that caused this REaction.

BUT let's not forget an older history born out of an America that still believed that 'negros should be segregated' and other races were inferior. Remember the fate of http://www.jebhemelli.org/Mosadegh/English-Mosadegh.htm

And many are too naive to realize that sometimes it takes violence to stop violence.

Yes, but who has the right to use the violence to stop what violence?

If you play with matches, you just might get burned.

You've been playing in the middle east and now the fires are starting to follow you home.

 

[Hurkyl]

TSM: I'm somewhat perplexed.


If you don't think that the people knocking down skyscrapers are good guys, then why would you attack me when I express astonishment that outsider would say that they are?


And when I pressed outsider about whether he's considering the consequences of pulling out American troops, why would you attack me on an entirely unrelated point?


And since I suspect that you don't believe violence is never the answer, why would you attack me when I tell outsider that violence is sometimes the answer?

 

[The Smoking Man]

This region went decades before striking back at America.

In Iran, it went from 1953 to the revolution of 1979.

So let me ask you a question.

If you Invade Iran or bomb them, do they have the right to bomb more buildings in NYC?

 

[Archon]

And many are too naive to realize that sometimes it takes violence to stop violence.

Sometimes, I think violence is justified. For instance, I think the U.S. was justified in invading Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks, because the Taliban had directly attacked and threatened America. Iraq is an entirely different matter, because Hussein didn't attack or threaten America in any significant way.

You could argue all sorts of things, like that he was killing his people and that he was a threat to sovereign nations, but then how do you justify the fact that we haven't "liberated" any of the other, more oppressed, nations of the world? Why not go for North Korea? Maybe because they might have nukes, and we can't risk the casualties. But this leaves us with only diplomacy, which leads us into my next question: if diplomacy is feasible in North Korea, then why wasn't it feasible in Iraq?

Terrorism is not something that can be stopped with violence: see Iraq for more details. It hasn't worked over the past few years, so I think it's time to try something different. This is something the most advanced military in the world should be able to do, right? Adapt?

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM: I'm somewhat perplexed.


If you don't think that the people knocking down skyscrapers are good guys, then why would you attack me when I express astonishment that outsider would say that they are?


And when I pressed outsider about whether he's considering the consequences of pulling out American troops, why would you attack me on an entirely unrelated point?


And since I suspect that you don't believe violence is never the answer, why would you attack me when I tell outsider that violence is sometimes the answer?

People here are too simplistic.

You're all looking for a John Wayne movie with black and white hats.

Violence is disgusting. But to condemn others for an expected reaction and then block the cause from the argument is heinous.

America is under attack for reasons and they don't include the words "They hate us because we're free."

America has to realize that they brought this all on themselves by attacking them first.

I defy you to point to a single action in history where the middle east started any of this by attacking the continental USA.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sometimes, I think violence is justified. For instance, I think the U.S. was justified in invading Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks, because the Taliban had directly attacked and threatened America. Iraq is an entirely different matter, because Hussein didn't attack or threaten America in any significant way.

Er? Sorry!?

The TALIBAN attacked?

Is this more revisionist history?

 

[Archon]

You think the people knocking down skyscrapers and blowing up subways are good guys?

That depends on your defintion of good. I personally don't think they are "good" guys. But if they aren't good guys, it doesn't necessarily follow that Bush is a "good" guy.

We could compare deaths of civilians: how many civilians have terrorists killed in relation to the number of civilians the U.S. army has killed (unintentionally, but tell that to the victims).

Do you know the difference between Iraq with American troops and Iraq without American troops?

Hint: it's more than the lack of American troops, and it's not "peace and harmony for all".

This is a good point, but the truth is, at some point Iraq is going to have to take control of its own future. As long as there are American soldiers in Iraq, there will be terrorists trying to kill them and make them leave. Staying there isn't going to accomplish anything in the long term: we have to train Iraqis to defend themselves from terrorist attacks, and this is going really slowly, to say the least.

 

[Archon]

Er? Sorry!?

The TALIBAN attacked?

Is this more revisionist history?

Mea Culpa.

It was, in any case, responsible for supporting/sheltering/etc Osama bin Laden. The point being that Afghanistan and Iraq are different stories entirely.

Incidentally, where is the first example of revisionist history?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Mea Culpa.

It was, in any case, responsible for supporting/sheltering/etc Osama bin Laden. The point being that Afghanistan and Iraq are different stories entirely.

Incidentally, where is the first example of revisionist history?

Probably pre-dates the Bible.

Ive also got a bit of a problem with the above statement though.

There are terrorists in Iraq right now ... are they being sheltered?

Bin Laden is in Pakistan now ... Is HE being sheltered?

The CIA hauled a man out of Italy and shipped him to Egypt for torture ... was he being sheltered?

When 9/11 happened, the Taliban simply said, show us your proof in extradition hearings and we'll give you bin Laden.

America refused and invaded.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm simply dumbfounded.

Since I can't seem to figure out how to phrase myself, maybe you can help me.

I wanted to call outsider on the fact he said the terrorists are good guys.

How should I have gone about doing that?

And what was wrong with what I said? I simply cannot figure out what was so wrong with my choice of words that inspired everyone to leap to outsider's defense, accusing me of seeing the world in black and white, and of calling Bush a good guy.



The black and white accusation I'm most curious about, I don't understand it at all. I didn't label anyone as "good" or "bad". I didn't advocate taking a course of action without considering the consequences. I argued against an absolute considering the use of violence...

So how the heck did I get accused of looking for a John Wayne movie??

 

[Smurf]

I'm simply dumbfounded.

Since I can't seem to figure out how to phrase myself, maybe you can help me.

I wanted to call outsider on the fact he said the terrorists are good guys.

How should I have gone about doing that?

I would've done it by stating that those responsible for 9/11 were, despite any provokation, still guilty of causing much death and destruction, and that is not by any means a force of good.

 

[Smurf]

And what was wrong with what I said? I simply cannot figure out what was so wrong with my choice of words that inspired everyone to leap to outsider's defense, accusing me of seeing the world in black and white, and of calling Bush a good guy.

You may not have intended to subscribe to a good vs. evil context when you stated that the 9-11es were not good, but the wording of your post, and the post to which you were responding suggested such a context. So it was assumed that by stating the terrorists were not good, that you thought they were bad guys and that the USA was good.

I think the terrorists and the good guys are the same group.

Notice 'the' in front of 'good guys' sets their context as a group with an opposition to it (in this case, the bad guys)

You think the people knocking down skyscrapers and blowing up subways are good guys?

You simply implied a difference of opinion, without adding more information, so the same context was assumed.

That, and you're next statement showed support for the USA.

Do you know the difference between Iraq with American troops and Iraq without American troops?

Hint: it's more than the lack of American troops, and it's not "peace and harmony for all".

... I think

 

[Archon]

Probably pre-dates the Bible.

I meant by me. You said "more revisionist history," which implies that this isn't the first example you've come across.

Ive also got a bit of a problem with the above statement though.

There are terrorists in Iraq right now ... are they being sheltered?

Bin Laden is in Pakistan now ... Is HE being sheltered?

The CIA hauled a man out of Italy and shipped him to Egypt for torture ... was he being sheltered?

When 9/11 happened, the Taliban simply said, show us your proof in extradition hearings and we'll give you bin Laden.

America refused and invaded.

There is, nonetheless, a difference: not only was the Afghan government repressive, but it was associated in some way with Al Qaeda, which gives the attack at least some legitimacy. Even if they gave us bin Ladin, what reason would we have to believe that they would actively seek to eliminate the actual terrorist organization? Because bin Ladin is not al Qaeda: the people following him are al Qaeda, and the real dangers to the U.S.

As I'm sure you know, the attack on Iraq was basically unprovoked, and in many ways, unjustified. The presence of a repressive government alone is not enough to justify invasion. If one argues that it is, then a problem emerges: if the government alone was cause enough to invade Iraq, then why not invade Iran, or North Korea, etc?

In short, the former attack can be justified, while the latter really can't.

 

[Smurf]

That's not justification for the Afghanistan invasion. "They might not have fought Al Quaeda" doesn't justify not even trying and going straight to war.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I meant by me. You said "more revisionist history," which implies that this isn't the first example you've come across.

Well, yes not necessarily by you though

There is, nonetheless, a difference: not only was the Afghan government repressive, but it was associated in some way with Al Qaeda, which gives the attack at least some legitimacy. Even if they gave us bin Ladin, what reason would we have to believe that they would actively seek to eliminate the actual terrorist organization? Because bin Ladin is not al Qaeda: the people following him are al Qaeda, and the real dangers to the U.S.

As I'm sure you know, the attack on Iraq was basically unprovoked, and in many ways, unjustified. The presence of a repressive government alone is not enough to justify invasion. If one argues that it is, then a problem emerges: if the government alone was cause enough to invade Iraq, then why not invade Iran, or North Korea, etc?

In short, the former attack can be justified, while the latter really can't.

I have yet to see any proof that the Taliban were complicit in the attack on the WTC or that they were even aware of the plan.

Do you have proof of this as you imply? As far as I am aware, even other terrorist cells in the same organization are kept unaware of the activities of other cells so how does the 'Taliban' government become responsible for the attack when indications are that they were merely using the provisions of world law in requesting extradition proceedings.

If this IS true then we have to begin to question the motivations of Pakistan where the Taliban originated and where bin Laden is supposed to be 'holed up'.

What we seem to have defined here is that If the 'government' of a region is offensive to us it is different than when the 'people' of another nation offer him support. Just a few short years ago, the Taliban was also a guest of Texas millionaires while Shrub was governor. (Shrub also has personal ties with other repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia)

Or does it have something to do with the land of the former was valuable to the 'Caryle Group' and they were also not a nuclear power?

Now if the opposite IS true and they were NOT complicit and were unaware of the plan, was the USA correct in setting aside the sovereign status of another country and invading simply because they were weak.

Since the CIA is now implicated in violating the sovreignty of Italy, can we say that US interests are now considered to outweight the rights of all other countries in the world and that mere suspicion now allows the USA the right to go anywhere and do anything they want by vitrue of their superior power?

Please observe that you have also condemned many people in Afghanistan simply because of 'membership' in an organization rather than any crimes they may have committed.

 

[Archon]

I havn't heard anything suggesting the afghanistan invasion was justified at all. All you said was that the Taliban might not help fight Al Quaeda, but you didn't even try, you went straight to war, so we won't ever bloody know will we.

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I have the chance to lead "my" country into war.

Anyway, does this indicate that there is a reasonable chance that the Taliban would have helped deal with the actual problem?

There, bin Laden quickly established ties with the fledgling Taliban group, led by Mohammed Omar, and by providing funds and weapons at a crucial time helped the group rise to power. Thereafter al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense.

and

It is understood that Al Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The generally accepted view in the West is that the Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections.

and also

24 hours later the U.S., aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military action against the Taliban, in October 2001. The stated intent was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and in retaliation for the Taliban's aid to him.

(emphasis mine)
Even though I don't so much agree with their reasoning, Al-Qaeda was definitely based in Afghanistan, would definitely have continued to exist with bin Ladin's leadership, and would not have met with sufficient pressure from the Taliban alone (I mean, come on. They were part of the army and Ministry of Defense. What, are they going to fight themselves?) This makes the invasion of Afghanistan justifiable, which is a contrast to the invasion of Iraq, which in turn is the only point I was really trying to make.

Finally, an analogy:
Imagine what would happen if Bush invaded Canada, and was repelled and defeated by a coalition of other countries. Tell me: if the U.S. offered to give you Bush, but not any of his associates, and showed no interest in dealing with the real problem (Bush's fanatical supporters), would you be satisfied? Would the Canadian (or any) government be satisfied? Would you accept this?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm simply dumbfounded.

Me too. That's twice in 3 days I've had no words. TSM - wow. Just wow. Heck, even Smurf! Were you guys asleep for the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

I invite both of you to read some of the UN resolutions on the matter. The international community had no such doubts and split no such hairs about the Taliban's complicity in Al Qaeda terrorism.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm

 

[Smurf]

Anyway, does this indicate that there is a reasonable chance that the Taliban would have helped deal with the actual problem?

It certainly doesn't refute it. All you've shown is that the Taliban was very close to Bin Laden who they offered to hand over.

 

[Smurf]

Finally, an analogy:
Imagine what would happen if Bush invaded Canada, and was repelled and defeated by a coalition of other countries. Tell me: if the U.S. offered to give you Bush, but not any of his associates, and showed no interest in dealing with the real problem (Bush's fanatical supporters), would you be satisfied? Would the Canadian (or any) government be satisfied? Would you accept this?

That's just silly. Al-Quaeda is not a soverign nation with a civilian government. The Taliban did not attack anyone. You weren't at war with anyone. You could have made a counter offer, you could have entered negotiations, you didn't you went straight to war.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Me too. That's twice in 3 days I've had no words. TSM - wow. Just wow. Heck, even Smurf! Were you guys asleep for the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

No, were you when the Taliban said, "Show us the proof and we'll hand him over"?

 

[Smurf]

Me too. That's twice in 3 days I've had no words. TSM - wow. Just wow. Heck, even Smurf! Were you guys asleep for the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

Yeah.. actually. I distinctly remember being woken up from an afternoon nap when Jimmy ran in screaming "The US is invading Afghanistan!"

 

[Archon]

Well, yes not necessarily by you though


I have yet to see any proof that the Taliban were complicit in the attack on the WTC or that they were even aware of the plan.

Do you have proof of this as you imply? As far as I am aware, even other terrorist cells in the same organization are kept unaware of the activities of other cells so how does the 'Taliban' government become responsible for the attack when indications are that they were merely using the provisions of world law in requesting extradition proceedings.

If this IS true then we have to begin to question the motivations of Pakistan where the Taliban originated and where bin Laden is supposed to be 'holed up'.

What we seem to have defined here is that If the 'government' of a region is offensive to us it is different than when the 'people' of another nation offer him support. Just a few short years ago, the Taliban was also a guest of Texas millionaires while Shrub was governor. (Shrub also has personal ties with other repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia)

Or does it have something to do with the land of the former was valuable to the 'Caryle Group' and they were also not a nuclear power?

Now if the opposite IS true and they were NOT complicit and were unaware of the plan, was the USA correct in setting aside the sovereign status of another country and invading simply because they were weak.

You make an important and unacceptable assumption through all of this. You assume that the government of Afghanistan would have done something to deal with the actual problem. I realize that they were willing to turn bin Ladin over, but were they willing to fight Al-Qaeda to a sufficient extent that the invasion was unnecessary? This is the point: I can contend that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to deal with Al-Qaeda, and have shown evidence to the effect that the Taliban would not have dealt with this organization effectively (see previous post). If you can show me that the government of Afghanistan would have dealt with Al-Qaeda, and not just bin Ladin, then perhaps you are right. But until that time, you aren't.

Since the CIA is now implicated in violating the sovreignty of Italy, can we say that US interests are now considered to outweight the rights of all other countries in the world and that mere suspicion now allows the USA the right to go anywhere and do anything they want by vitrue of their superior power?

I don't see the connection. Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan. There was no suspicion involved, except the (very reasonable) suspicion that the government of Afghanistan would not have done enough to prevent another attack on U.S. soil without "assistance."

Please observe that you have also condemned many people in Afghanistan simply because of 'membership' in an organization rather than any crimes they may have committed.

How so? Do you mean the militant Islamicist organization with well-documented terrorist ties? This is sort of like condemning members of the KKK because of their affiliation: people don't skip a beat. I think it's a fair generalization that most members of Al-Qaeda would have supported the attack, at least those close enough to bin Ladin to be specifically targeted by the invasion. In any case, if some Al-Qaeda members don't agree with the attack, they could surrender rather than fight when U.S. soldiers appear, right?

 

[Archon]

It certainly doesn't refute it. All you've shown is that the Taliban was very close to Bin Laden who they offered to hand over.

More importantly, I've shown that the Taliban was very close to Al-Qaeda, which they didn't offer to hand over or fight. Again, Bin Laden himself is irrelevant in the sense that Al-Qaeda would have continued to function in spite of his absence.

That's just silly. Al-Quaeda is not a soverign nation with a civilian government. The Taliban did not attack anyone. You weren't at war with anyone. You could have made a counter offer, you could have entered negotiations, you didn't you went straight to war.

Okay. Then consider it with this change: what if an American terrorist organization attacked Canada and killed several thousand Canadian civilians. Then, Bush offered to hand over the leader of the terrorist organization, but not to deal with the organization itself (i.e. the real problem). Would you be satisfied by this offer?

Don't forget to check Russ's link. I can't access it myself (No Authorization ), but you might find something of interest. Apparently including the support of the U.N. for this attack. Does this lend no legitimacy to the action?

Also, stop saying "you." I'm not a U.S. citizen, and I don't agree with most U.S. policies. I don't have any say in deciding matters of U.S. Policy. My presence here is incidental, if anything.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Remember all of this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/03/extradite.htm

11/03/2001 - Updated 07:27 PM ET


Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said Saturday. Prince Turki al-Faisal, who left his post a few days before Sept. 11, also said he is convinced bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda network were behind the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0110/S00046.htm[QUOTE] Taliban and Bin Laden Agreed to Extradition
Tuesday, 9 October 2001, 4:29 pm
Press Release: ARROW
The Smoking Gun: The Taliban Agreed To Extradite Osama Bin Laden To Another Country

ARROW Anti-War Briefing 5

8 October 2001

In the aftermath of 11 September, we now have a 'smoking gun'. But it is not evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in relation to the atrocities of 11 September. It is evidence of Government lies about the basis for the current war against Afghanistan. This is an unnecessary war.

According to the Prime Minister, it is impossible by any nonviolent means to secure the extradition from Afghanistan of the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden who the British Government holds responsible for the 11 September atrocities. This is why force has to be used to destroy bin Laden's infrastructure in Afghanistan, and to retaliate against the Taliban regime which harbours him. But this argument is completely undermined by a report in the Daily Telegraph, which appeared on the day Tony Blair set out the Government's 'evidence' in Parliament.

There are three main questions in this war: What is the evidence against bin Laden? If he is guilty, are there nonviolent methods of securing him for trial? Is the force being used by the Government legal? [/QUOTE]http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/18_APextradition.html[QUOTE]Updated: Tuesday, September 18 - 8:30a

Source: Bin Laden Extradition Possible

AMIR SHAH
Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan's Taliban rulers discussed conditions for possibly extraditing Osama bin Laden to a country other than the United States, a Pakistan government source said Tuesday, hours after the Taliban urged Afghans to prepare for a holy war.

The conditions, including international recognition of the Taliban government and the lifting of U.N. sanctions, were discussed Monday in Kandahar, headquarters of the Islamic militia that rules most of Afghanistan, the official said on condition of anonymity.

No final agreement was reached. The Pakistani team had delivered a blunt message to the Taliban: hand over bin Laden or face certain attack by a multinational force led by the United States.

The Pakistan delegation, which is currently in the Afghan capital of Kabul, was to return to Pakistan later Tuesday, the official said.

A grand council of Islamic clerics was gathering Tuesday in Kabul to discuss the ultimatum. But the ruling Taliban have said bin Laden was wrongly implicated in last week's terror attacks on the United States.

Warning of a possible U.S.-led attack, Taliban's leaders urged Afghans to prepare for a jihad, or holy war, against America, the official Bakhtar News Agency reported Tuesday.

``If America attacks our homes, it is necessary for all Muslims, especially for Afghans, to wage a holy war,'' Mullah Mohammed Hasan Akhund, the deputy Taliban leader, said Monday, according to the state-run Radio Shariat. ``God is on our side, and if the world's people try to set fire to Afghanistan, God will protect us and help us.''

Since taking control of most of Afghanistan in 1996, the Taliban have declared holy wars against the northern-based anti-Taliban alliance, Russia and Iran, but never the United States.

Hundreds of Islamic clerics were converging on Kabul.

``About 300 ulema (clerics) have already arrived. We expect about 700, and we hope we can start later this afternoon,'' said Mullah Hamdullah Nomani, the Kabul mayor and convener of the grand council of Islamic clerics. The council includes clerics from across the country and is summoned whenever the Taliban government wants help in making key decisions.

Bin Laden and his network of Islamic militants are the prime suspects in last week's airborne assaults on New York's World Trade Center twin towers and the Pentagon near Washington. The United States believes bin Laden has played a role in a number of attacks, including the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa.

It seemed unlikely the United States would accept a plan for bin Laden to be extradited to another country and tried there for the crimes Washington has accused him of committing.

Within hours of the Sept. 11 attack on the United States, the Taliban's foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, condemned the violence and said it would have been impossible for bin Laden to carry out the assaults because he doesn't have the facilities for such an elaborate operation. [/QUOTE]Yeah, we remember what was happening there, Rip Van Waters.

Do you?

 

[Smurf]

More importantly, I've shown that the Taliban was very close to Al-Qaeda, which they didn't offer to hand over or fight.

They could've asked.

Okay. Then consider it with this change: what if an American terrorist organization attacked Canada and killed several thousand Canadian civilians. Then, Bush offered to hand over the leader of the terrorist organization, but not to deal with the organization itself (i.e. the real problem). Would you be satisfied by this offer?

Not enough information. Has the US condemned the actions? Has Canada asked the US to co-operate in dealing with the US it's self? Does the US offer this on the basis that nothing else will happen afterwards?
There are a million and one things I would fully expect Canada to do before resorting to war, if it is to happen at all.

Also, stop saying "you." I'm not a U.S. citizen, and I don't agree with most U.S. policies. I don't have any say in deciding matters of U.S. Policy. My presence here is incidental, if anything.

Okay then, but you do realize you identify yourself with the US (in this context) when you defend their actions.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You make an important and unacceptable assumption through all of this. You assume that the government of Afghanistan would have done something to deal with the actual problem. I realize that they were willing to turn bin Ladin over, but were they willing to fight Al-Qaeda to a sufficient extent that the invasion was unnecessary? This is the point: I can contend that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to deal with Al-Qaeda, and have shown evidence to the effect that the Taliban would not have dealt with this organization effectively (see previous post). If you can show me that the government of Afghanistan would have dealt with Al-Qaeda, and not just bin Ladin, then perhaps you are right. But until that time, you aren't.


I don't see the connection. Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan. There was no suspicion involved, except the (very reasonable) suspicion that the government of Afghanistan would not have done enough to prevent another attack on U.S. soil without "assistance."


How so? Do you mean the militant Islamicist organization with well-documented terrorist ties? This is sort of like condemning members of the KKK because of their affiliation: people don't skip a beat. I think it's a fair generalization that most members of Al-Qaeda would have supported the attack, at least those close enough to bin Ladin to be specifically targeted by the invasion. In any case, if some Al-Qaeda members don't agree with the attack, they could surrender rather than fight when U.S. soldiers appear, right?

LOL ... Here again is that American double standard of Guilty until proven innocent for foreigners.

 

[Archon]

LOL ... Here again is that American double standard of Guilty until proven innocent for foreigners.

It's funny that you say "American," because as I said earlier, I am neither American, nor do I identify with many American principles. In other words, your generalization is wrong.

Now, point out any examples of "guilty until proven innocent" you see, so I can address them one at a time. I can't read your mind. If you want the discussion to progress, please write out your feelings and ideas in full.

 

[Archon]

They could've asked.

I didn't say that I agreed with everything about the way this situation was handled. I merely pointed out that the invasion could be justified. I know it probably sounds unreasonable, but you really have to consider the American perspective of shortly after 9-11: a major attack had just occurred on U.S. soil, and peole were afraid that another would be forthcoming. Can you understand their unwillingness to seek a diplomatic solution to the problem? Again, I don't so much blatantly agree with the invasion as believe that it wasn't entirely unreasonable.

Not enough information. Has the US condemned the actions? Has Canada asked the US to co-operate in dealing with the US it's self? Does the US offer this on the basis that nothing else will happen afterwards?
There are a million and one things I would fully expect Canada to do before resorting to war, if it is to happen at all.

Take your pick of any and all things except for these: you have no assurances that the organization responsible for the attack will be dealt with, and you have every reason to suspect that given the chance, it will execute another act of terrorism.

Okay then, but you do realize you identify yourself with the US (in this context) when you defend their actions.

Hence the word "most." This is like some sort of empathy applied to countries. You can't argue either way for a certain course of action until you understand it. And just as you can't understand why a person acts a certain way until you "walk around in his shoes," you can't understand the actions of a country until you understand its motivations and collective thoughts (if such things exist).