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

[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).

 

[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?