News Understanding the Impact and Perception of Terrorism in the United States

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Complete narcissism. You are saying that as a single person with no knowledge about the real world, you know exactly how to stop global terrorism? You have already displayed that you have no clue as to how far terrorism extends. How could you even think that you know how to stop a problem rooted from a time you probably weren't even alive in that is in complete opposition to the methods used by people whos lives revolve around this.

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.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

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.

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 fail to realize our intentions, but I also don't fail to realize our failures. I also recognize that many of the people in their culture find our failures to be offensive, and many of them thank us but want us out of there. Even If I did hate the US, which I don't (I hate the administration), can you justify that as being a bad thing? Are you just trying to make me look like a bad person because I'm trying to sympathize with the culture of the people in Iraq? Is it bad for me to try to understand why the terrorists don't like us?

 

[Entropy]

Japan was ready to lose every single Japanese citizen so that they wouldn't ever have to declare defeat.

Evidently not because they surrendered.

At no point did anyone think "Ok, we are losing too many people, let's tell Germany they can have France"

YES THEY DID! Germany did start taking land and the English said: "We aren't sure we want to start another world war, let's just let them have Czechoslovakia." They knew that Czechoslovakia wasn't worth starting another world war. It was only until they finally invaded Poland did the English declare war.

Well the problem is the world can live with mass gum stealing. When we start talking about say, bank robberies.. then yes, you will start consuming millions of dollars to stop you. We realize we can live with gum stealing. We also realize however, that we can not live with mass bank robbings. We also realize that we cannot live with mass terrorism.

Why do you call it mass terrorism? Is it really that massive? That is what I'm aiming at here. Maybe we can live with it. Hey, maybe if we leave the Middle East alone, maybe they won't want to kill us anymore and we won't have to worry so much about terrorism.

Ok there's a MAJOR difference in "not liking someone" and that certain someone bombing your towns and bringing tanks into your country destroying everything they see. Sure, in a sense, France didn't like Germany at that particular point but the overwhelming consensus was that you start firing your guns and launching your aircraft simply because those Germans are trying to end your life and destroy your country.

By your logic you're justifing the insurgency in Iraq.

The Allies did not fight Hitler because they felt losing a few million people was "worth it". They did it because they had to bring things back to normalcy and show future generations that you cannot go on mass genocides or constantly invade France

OMG. Re-read what you just wrote here and think about it. The allies fought because they thought it was "worth it" if they died and brought peace and normalcy to Europe. Just like Americans say "Freedom is worth fighting for." I don't understand what on Earth you are thinking here.

 

[Entropy]

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.

They have always had that ability. Iraqi civilians outnumber the military 100 to 1. Hell America did it in the Revolutionary War, why can't Iraq?

Complete narcissism. You are saying that as a single person with no knowledge about the real world, you know exactly how to stop global terrorism? You have already displayed that you have no clue as to how far terrorism extends. How could you even think that you know how to stop a problem rooted from a time you probably weren't even alive in that is in complete opposition to the methods used by people whos lives revolve around this.

And the United States government knows any better?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

They have always had that ability. Iraqi civilians outnumber the military 100 to 1. Hell America did it in the Revolutionary War, why can't Iraq?



And the United States government knows any better?

Thanks Entropy. However, I'm not fully siding against P-dogg, I'm just trying to get him off his high horse.

sorry Pengwuino, I'm not the best at keeping to my argument, I admit that you're getting me to re-think many of my stances. I don't want you to think that you're on a really big high horse, but I think you're on a small one at least... I guess the same can be said about me too though.

 

[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.