Understanding the Impact and Perception of Terrorism in the United States

[Archon]

I've had the chance to think on this topic a bit more, and I suppose I need to clarify my (new-ish) position. I'm personally neutral with respect to the invasion of Afghanistan: I don't believe it should have happened as it did, but there are certainly ways to justify it. What I originally wanted argued in this thread (way back when it was still on topic) was that the invasion of Afghanistan can be justified, while the invasion of Iraq really can't. I still believe this is true. In fact, the very nature of the argument we're having indicates that the former statement is true.

I think you'll understand how this justification is constructed if you consider the problem from the perspective of post-9-11 America. I addressed this in my last post, so I won't repeat it here.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

Okay:

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?

Nope they were never given a chance and they were punished for exerting their right as a sovereign nation.

 

[Smurf]

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.

It certainly isn't as bad as Iraq, but that doesn't make it acceptable or reasonable. A government is not justified in going to war simply because they're angry. Especially not one as powerfull and influencial as the US.

(and to no one in paticular: YES I am holding America to a higher standard than a third world dictatorship because it damn well should be better than one.)

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.

I said co-operate not "get them to agree to do it for you". If you're in the country working with them to solve it then you do and can know exactly what's going on and how well you're dealing with it. This is possible even under tension between the two groups and hopefully the relations would improve as a result of it.

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).

Understanding is one thing, shrugging it off and saying it's OK is something else. I have a decent understanding of the possible motives behind murder, that doesn't mean I'm going to condone it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

Can YOU understand that the rest of the world holds not the kneejerk reaction of an angry people but the emotional response of a supposed 'world power' and their 'warriors' to hold their emotions in check while there is a diplomatic solution on the table?

What happened to the philosophy of meeting force with equal force?

They blew up two buildings and 4 planes.

America 'razed a country'.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I was writing a reply to something and I got confused... Smurf, did you make a post recently and delete it? I think I'm confused.

 

[Archon]

Okay:Nope they were never given a chance and they were punished for exerting their right as a sovereign nation.

There are situations in which a country may not have the time necessary to make absolutely certain of these things, in spite of the need. For instance, there was a very reasonable fear in America after 9-11 that Al-Qaeda would strike again. The Taliban were known to have a friendly relationship with Al-Qaeda: in particular, Al-Qaeda was involved in certain military and defense capacities for the government, and in general exercised a significant amount of influence in the country. It was not within the power of the Afghan government to hand all of Al-Qaeda over to the U.S. Given this information, and the fear of another attack by the organization (not leader) hiding in Afghanistan, maybe the invasion was reasonable.

And don't forget to respond to Russ's link. How do you interpret the approval of the U.N. if not as a legitimization of the invasion?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It certainly isn't as bad as Iraq, but that doesn't make it acceptable or reasonable. A government is not justified in going to war simply because they're angry. Especially not one as powerfull and influencial as the US.

(and to no one in paticular: YES I am holding America to a higher standard than a third world dictatorship because it damn well should be better than one.)

Especially since there are now 'third world dictatorships' using it as an excuse to acquire nukes.

They fear a loose canon, emotion driven world power who does not negotiate. They just invade.

As far as attacking to erradicate the terrorism of Al Qieda ... do you think it has worked or has the prophesy that George Bush is the best recruiting Sergent money couldn't buy has come true?

One thing about the Taliban ... they kept the poppies down.

 

[rachmaninoff]

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

Which particular UN resolution were you referring to? I read through some of the ones in your link, there are too many for me to find the specific one you were thinking about.

 

[The Smoking Man]

There are situations in which a country may not have the time necessary to make absolutely certain of these things, in spite of the need. For instance, there was a very reasonable fear in America after 9-11 that Al-Qaeda would strike again. The Taliban were known to have a friendly relationship with Al-Qaeda: in particular, Al-Qaeda was involved in certain military and defense capacities for the government, and in general exercised a significant amount of influence in the country. It was not within the power of the Afghan government to hand all of Al-Qaeda over to the U.S. Given this information, and the fear of another attack by the organization (not leader) hiding in Afghanistan, maybe the invasion was reasonable.

So you think that this organization is operating solly out of Afghanistan?

This is a terrorist organization and they have contacts in the Philippines, operatives throughout Europe AND in America.

Put it this way, Afghanistan is 'Gone' and you're still being attacked ... was the loss of innocent life worth it?

This is a Hydra and they dealt with it entirely the wrong way.

 

[Archon]

Have either of you read my post #71? As I said there, I'm neutral with regard to the invasion of Afghanistan. In light of this fact, I really can't continue to argue the "conservative" viewpoint, since this requires that I fully justify the reasons, methods, and effects of the invasion. And if I was able to do this, I wouldn't be neutral on the matter. So I propose that we end this argument, perhaps move it to another thread, and recommence here the discussion of "How Dangerous is Terrorism." In any case, I won't be participating again until my opinion on the invasion changes.

I know that there are many things that are difficult to rationally justify about the invasion of Afghanistan, but I still hold that such as justification is possible.

Anyway, thanks for the practice. Arguing the conservative viewpoint can be good fun sometimes. You should try it. Except for the massive holes in logic, now that I think about it. Like the idea of cooperating with the Taliban to defeat Al-Qaeda: the only response to this that I can think of is rather speculative. Why didn't the Taliban propose this plan rather than repeatedly offer bin Laden? If they really wanted to be cooperative, why not propose this sort of cooperation?

 

[Smurf]

I was writing a reply to something and I got confused... Smurf, did you make a post recently and delete it? I think I'm confused.

Yes. limit

 

[rachmaninoff]

Why didn't the Taliban propose this plan rather than repeatedly offer bin Laden? If they really wanted to be cooperative, why not propose this sort of cooperation?

I find it highly probable that the Taliban did not want to cooperate. Just a reasonable assumption. They were 'cooperating' in the sense that Bill Frist offers to 'cooperate' with the democrats. And of course they [taliban] were fully expecting to go into military conflict:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/september01/taliban_9-21.html

Mr. Zaeef also asked the United Nations to investigate the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. He reiterated that the Taliban government was prepared to defend Afghanistan against attack.

"If they want to show their might, we are ready and we will never surrender before might and force," Zaeef said. "It has angered Muslims of the world and can plunge the whole region into a crisis."

 

[Smurf]

There are situations in which a country may not have the time necessary to make absolutely certain of these things, in spite of the need. For instance, there was a very reasonable fear in America after 9-11 that Al-Qaeda would strike again. The Taliban were known to have a friendly relationship with Al-Qaeda: in particular, Al-Qaeda was involved in certain military and defense capacities for the government, and in general exercised a significant amount of influence in the country. It was not within the power of the Afghan government to hand all of Al-Qaeda over to the U.S. Given this information, and the fear of another attack by the organization (not leader) hiding in Afghanistan, maybe the invasion was reasonable.

Invading Afghanistan didn't make America safer from another 'immediate' attack though did it!? And there was no reason to think it did. If you feared a second attack it would make a lot more sense to close the border (to an extent of course) and continue grounding flights until higher security was in place.

And don't forget to respond to Russ's link. How do you interpret the approval of the U.N. if not as a legitimization of the invasion?

I intend to respond to the UN thing after I've researched a lot more than just Russ' link.

 

[Smurf]

Have either of you read my post #71? As I said there, I'm neutral with regard to the invasion of Afghanistan. In light of this fact, I really can't continue to argue the "conservative" viewpoint, since this requires that I fully justify the reasons, methods, and effects of the invasion. And if I was able to do this, I wouldn't be neutral on the matter. So I propose that we end this argument, perhaps move it to another thread, and recommence here the discussion of "How Dangerous is Terrorism." In any case, I won't be participating again until my opinion on the invasion changes.

Okay. I think we've exhausted it now anyways.

Anyway, thanks for the practice. Arguing the conservative viewpoint can be good fun sometimes. You should try it. Except for the massive holes in logic, now that I think about it. Like the idea of cooperating with the Taliban to defeat Al-Qaeda: the only response to this that I can think of is rather speculative. Why didn't the Taliban propose this plan rather than repeatedly offer bin Laden? If they really wanted to be cooperative, why not propose this sort of cooperation?

One step at a time? If america refused bin laden why would they accept all of al-quaeda?

 

[Smurf]

I find it highly probable that the Taliban did not want to cooperate. Just a reasonable assumption. They were 'cooperating' in the sense that Bill Frist offers to 'cooperate' with the democrats. And of course they [taliban] were fully expecting to go into military conflict:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/september01/taliban_9-21.html

Nothing wrong with that. They anticipated an American attack and wanted to know that America had proof Bin Laden was guilty before doing it. The fact of the matter is the Taliban still went a lot farther than the US did as far as negotiation is concerned.

 

[outsider]

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??

Alright, I've been away from the computer for a few hours and I'm reading all this stuff from Hurkyl and after rereading some of my own posts, I actually come off more extreme than I actually feel (or perhaps people are reading it this way and putting this slant on my posts, whichever).

I don't think that so called "bad guys" should get away with bad deeds without reprimand. If they indeed attacked without just cause, then we should let them know that they can't just do that.

BUT, why did they attack? Does anyone REALLY know? As mentioned, the relationship of Bin Laden and the Bushes goes back in history. So, in my experiences with people "there's a fine line between love & hate". The people who you love most are also those who can hurt you the most. (If you don't know by now, the world's politics is based on personal & strategic relationships... if you have never ruined a relationship, you probably will not know what this can entail.)

I don't want to say that we don't want to fight for our rights as that is allowing others to steam roll us and that it's not right to just lay down. It is right to stand firm in your beliefs and not retaliate, but be gracious and understanding.

I do understand the gold ol american way, which is why I too can fall back to resorting to violence myself. It is hard to unlearn and find a new way of thinking and know how long and hard that road was for myself. I can only know what I know. Perhaps it will take some living or some introspect or intuition about people for other (especially younger) people to understand. The media has done a number on the youth of today and it's unfortunate that they will not realize this because they have not seen the world any different from what they've seen.

I hope you all can eventually come to realize that you can only get away with so much in life and when you cross the line, there is hell to pay... and when you pay for hell, you will want to perpetuate it on others... misery loves company and to break the cycle takes a lot of understanding.

The terrorists are the same as the good guys. My explanations as follows and I leave it for your interpretation:

1) The side of "good" is a matter of perspective. Everyone fights for something which they believe is good.
or
2) Those who want to control the world are both sides, one in the same. Corrupted officials work with criminals; therefore if you call the criminals terrorists then they are the same as the officials (good guys).

I want the stable and reliable world to restore the world to some level of peace. This doesn't mean that the USA is going to be on top, or that America will take over anyone. It means that America will remain America. I believe that this can happen without war.

The Bush Admin made decisions without the approval of the UN. This was a very bad move in the eyes of the world. It gives the impression that America is "above the law". Next every nation will disrespect the UN and then there is no point for mediation. Yes, world war comes shortly after that because the people who are trying to keep this whole thing together have also given up trying.

I do appreciate everyone who understood my position.. u know who you are

 

[rachmaninoff]

The terrorists are the same as the good guys. My explanations as follows and I leave it for your interpretation:

1) The side of "good" is a matter of perspective. Everyone fights for something which they believe is good.
or
2) Those who want to control the world are both sides, one in the same. Corrupted officials work with criminals; therefore if you call the criminals terrorists then they are the same as the officials (good guys).

This is moronic. You don't even have a ghost of a point here - everyone is good, so terrorists must be good?

BUT, why did they attack? Does anyone REALLY know? As mentioned, the relationship of Bin Laden and the Bushes goes back in history. So, in my experiences with people "there's a fine line between love & hate". The people who you love most are also those who can hurt you the most. (If you don't know by now, the world's politics is based on personal & strategic relationships... if you have never ruined a relationship, you probably will not know what this can entail.)

Likewise. Bin Laden loves Bush?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Nothing wrong with that. They anticipated an American attack and wanted to know that America had proof Bin Laden was guilty before doing it. The fact of the matter is the Taliban still went a lot farther than the US did as far as negotiation is concerned.

I don't thing either side made more than a token effort to 'negotiations'. All I've seen here is that the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden, if given extrensive proof. Yet they had in fact tried to evict bin Laden from Afghanistan (see my previous link) before September 23rd, which would have made extradition impossible even if the US had taken up their offer. So it was kind of worthless.
Did they make any other attempts at cooperation, and do you have links for those?

 

[outsider]

Invading Afghanistan didn't make America safer from another 'immediate' attack though did it!? And there was no reason to think it did. If you feared a second attack it would make a lot more sense to close the border (to an extent of course) and continue grounding flights until higher security was in place.

You know, I never thought about it like this... you make an excellent point.

This kind of logic from the current leaders doesn't surprise me though. They were all too ready to attack. And they probably got drunk one night and decided to declare war and told a few people that they would do it... then they couldn't turn back on their word... now it's just a matter of pride.

 

[outsider]

This is moronic. You don't even have a ghost of a point here - everyone is good, so terrorists must be good?

LOL! yoU're MoronIC.

Likewise. Bin Laden loves Bush?

Perhaps... can you disprove it? There was a gay guy that got murdered because the guy who he "loved" didn't feel the same way... do you remember? It was in the 1990s and was really contraversial at the time.

I don't know if Bin Laden is gay or straight... nor does it matter to me...

As for your opinion, it only displays what you CAN see, and what you CHOOSE to see... What qualifies your opinions? You make no real comments other than (and I paraphrase :) "F U Man! This is Dumb! You're a traitor! I can't believe this! What a Moron!"

Well done... this is what I would expect in Grade 5. Unfortunately, it is also what I can expect from most Americans because they only get one set of news and they live in the US everyday and talk to other Americans exclusively.

What kind of response would you expect? I already gave you a much better response than you deserve in my opinion... the response I wanted to give you was:

"F-U Man! You are an idiot! Did you go to school on the short bus?"... yes you see that ignorance begats more ignorance. This is purely for demonstration purposes. No ill will was intended. But if you and I were sitting in the same room, and I were as ignorant as I once was, I would have had a gun in your face just for disagreeing with me...

DO YOU GET IT YET?!

 

[Smurf]

I don't thing either side made more than a token effort to 'negotiations'. All I've seen here is that the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden, if given extrensive proof. Yet they had in fact tried to evict bin Laden from Afghanistan (see my previous link) before September 23rd, which would have made extradition impossible even if the US had taken up their offer. So it was kind of worthless.

And the states thought they could do it better than the native governing body... WHY? A moot point, not going to war would've saved so many people's lives and accomplished the same, possibly more, but we'll never know now.

Did they make any other attempts at cooperation, and do you have links for those?

Does it really matter? As far as I'm concerned it was up to the USA to try negotiating before going to war, not up to afghanistan to convince America not to attack them.

 

[Smurf]

This kind of logic from the current leaders doesn't surprise me though. They were all too ready to attack. And they probably got drunk one night and decided to declare war and told a few people that they would do it... then they couldn't turn back on their word... now it's just a matter of pride.

Well. I suppose that's one explanation. I tend to subscribe to the theory that they had other motives.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Does it really matter? As far as I'm concerned it was up to the USA to try negotiating before going to war, not up to afghanistan to convince America not to attack them.

True; but you claimed that

The fact of the matter is the Taliban still went a lot farther than the US did as far as negotiation is concerned.

I'd like to know if this is still true, partially true, or just a moot point.

 

[Smurf]

What I meant by that was that the Taliban offered to try to extradite Bin Laden. What did the US do?

 

[Hurkyl]

1) The side of "good" is a matter of perspective. Everyone fights for something which they believe is good.

Acting in the name of a noble cause does not make the action noble.

When people speak the attitudes that allow the current form terrorism to exist and thrive, they mean precisely this: people who are willing to tolerate (even praise!) their actions, simply because they are done in the name of a good cause.

In other words, you are part of the problem.

And like most, I don't think you intend to be: you do seem to genuinely prefer that there would not be any terrorism. So, the thing I'm hoping that you will see is that your attitude towards the terrorists softens their image, which makes it easier for people to be recruited into terrorism.

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

soldiers from my country were sent to iraq. they are known as gurkhas by english pronountation and gorkhali by ours. my country opposed that but there is a treaty between england and mine so we had to remain quite. then 12 people from my country ie. nepalese were killed. one was behaded. he was slowly cut and it took more than 1/4 hour to be dead by loss of blood suffering. others were shot dead. a clip was shot it can be found in internet but i don't want anyone to see it. from then my country has its muslim citizens being killed dailay by hindus and muslims killing hindus. i by no means mean offence to any community but this is terrorising my country.
gurkha-war-horse

 

[klusener]

And the Maoist rebels are killing both the Hindus and Muslims.

 

[motai]

soldiers from my country were sent to iraq. they are known as gurkhas by english pronountation and gorkhali by ours. my country opposed that but there is a treaty between england and mine so we had to remain quite. then 12 people from my country ie. nepalese were killed. one was behaded. he was slowly cut and it took more than 1/4 hour to be dead by loss of blood suffering. others were shot dead. a clip was shot it can be found in internet but i don't want anyone to see it. from then my country has its muslim citizens being killed dailay by hindus and muslims killing hindus. i by no means mean offence to any community but this is terrorising my country.
gurkha-war-horse

Providing some links from google for reference:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2076
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/

gurkhawarhorse, is there still violence and conflicts between those groups? If so, it sounds like more serious a threat to daily life than acts of terrorism in western countries (exception to the recent violence in the UK), as the probability for collateral damage is much higher.

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

gurkhawarhorse, is there still violence and conflicts between those groups? If so, it sounds like more serious a threat to daily life than acts of terrorism in western countries (exception to the recent violence in the UK), as the probability for collateral damage is much higher.

to the killing of nepalese in iraq:

Nepalese responded to this atrocity by venting their anger by assaulting the Muslim minority in Nepal. Hundreds of infuriated young men surrounded Katmandu's one mosque on Aug. 31 and heaved rocks at it. Violence escalated the next day, with five thousand demonstrators taking to the street, yelling slogans like "We want revenge," "Punish the Muslims," and "Down with Islam." Some attacked the mosque, broke into it, ransacked it, and set fire to it. Hundreds of Korans were thrown onto the street, and some were burned.

Rioters also looted other identifiably Muslim targets in the capital city, including embassies and airline bureaus belonging to Muslim-majority countries. A Muslim-owned television station and the homes of individual Muslims came under attack. Mobs even sacked the agencies that recruit Nepalese to work in the Middle East.

The violence ended when armored cars and army trucks enforced a shoot-on-sight curfew, leaving two protesters dead and 50 injured, plus 33 police, and doing an estimated US$20 million in property damage.

this is not the way it should be.
gurkha-war-horse

 

[outsider]

Acting in the name of a noble cause does not make the action noble.

When people speak the attitudes that allow the current form terrorism to exist and thrive, they mean precisely this: people who are willing to tolerate (even praise!) their actions, simply because they are done in the name of a good cause.

In other words, you are part of the problem.

And like most, I don't think you intend to be: you do seem to genuinely prefer that there would not be any terrorism. So, the thing I'm hoping that you will see is that your attitude towards the terrorists softens their image, which makes it easier for people to be recruited into terrorism.

No, my attitude is non-violence, which would educate people enough to not join in the chaos... have you ever been in a mosh pit?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Acting in the name of a noble cause does not make the action noble.

When people speak the attitudes that allow the current form terrorism to exist and thrive, they mean precisely this: people who are willing to tolerate (even praise!) their actions, simply because they are done in the name of a good cause.

In other words, you are part of the problem.

And like most, I don't think you intend to be: you do seem to genuinely prefer that there would not be any terrorism. So, the thing I'm hoping that you will see is that your attitude towards the terrorists softens their image, which makes it easier for people to be recruited into terrorism.

You know Hurkyl, there are a lot of Moslems who say EXACTLY the same thing when talking about the USA.

Except for the fact that people are still signing up for their cause.