We mourn with you USA

Tom1939 · Post by **Tom1939** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:15 pm

My view about what happened, and what should happen:

I'm hungarian but my brother lives in new york, manhattan (he is fine) so you can't say I'm not involved. There is absolutely no sense in striking back. You can only strike back if you can destroy the opposition. Now the sure thing is the Laden orginastion cannot be completely destroyed (and I do not question if he did this horror, what's he done already justifies killing him). So Laden would only become a martyr for the fanatics...

And c'mon the U.S. goverment did kill a lot of innocent people as of course every power did in history...

So the situation cannot be solved with military and I doubt it can be by CIA.

So the U.S. strikes back real hard, the fanatic maniacs will get even more violent, the U.S. strikes much more harder and so on...

Why are so many fanatics on the world? Where are they coming from? From the poorest they can recruit and train a lot of fanatics.

So the poorest have to be given a chance to live in conditions good enough for a human being. I don't say U.S. standards! In Hungary our GDP I think is about 1/6th of the U.S. (so I feel I do have human conditions). Even 1/10th of the U.S. GDP makes a normal life possible! You don't starve, you have some medical care! That's the goal!

But right now that's impossible, I understand... But that's a slow process that has to start somewhere. I think it will take more then a 100 years, but if we say that we cannot help, we have to live with evil fanatics who have only one goal for their life: kill as many as they can from us well living. They might have different ideologies but that is the result...

I did not want to insult anyone, and I do believe the guilty must be punished, but not for the price of more innocent people's death.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:53 pm

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
Its correct that USA partly is the target because the support to Israel but thats not the only reason. Its also important to remember that during the last decades the US supported not only Mujahedin and the talibans against the russian, also IRAQ power was built up by american miltary aid. Why??? Because it suited US economic interests and was anti-Iranish.

We were fighting the Cold War when we helped the Mujahedeen.

Iran's fundamentalist regime was extremely anti-US and began supporting terrorism. We sought to help those who could block Iran's desire to extend their brand of Islam to its neighbors.

In what way do the rich world help the poor people in afghanistan after the soviet retreat?

The UN has been there for years trying to help, despite the problems they have with the Taliban (Taliban doesn't want women to work for example), and we've partially supported that aid. The problem Afghans have is not with the US, but with a violently extremist Islamic fundamentalist government which lacks much concern for its own people. It is unconcerned with the millions of Afghans who've fled the country in the last couple of years to refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. It is more interested in destroying the remainder of resistance to it, and more concerned with destroying Buddhist's statues than feeding its own people. They were cynically letting the UN do the job they themselves should have been doing.

Why was the US so anxious to help Kuwait?

Oil. I never liked our involvement there, but if Saddam really had been planning to go after Saudi Arabia or Oman or others, then we had no choice. If we would develop our own energy sources we wouldn't be so dependent on oil.

Ok. You could then begin with paying up the debts you owe to United Nations.

We are but only when the UN starts improving its bueracracy so it isn't wasting so much money. This happened awhile back, we are paying back the debt now.

You think the debt will make that much difference in the Third World? We're not talking about a couple of billion dollars here, and we're not the only ones in arrears with the UN.

Ed, I will never give in on this one. The U.N-blocade of Iraq much intiated by america has caused 2 million children and women dead!

Ok, remain a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein. This operation is not soley controlled by the US, its by the UN, and the UN could end it if security council members wanted to do so. They have not dropped the sanctions because Saddam refuses to do the things it needs to do under UN resolutions. If there were major countries opposed to this, the US could be forced to back down.

As for the problems in Iraq, these are the result of Saddam's utter lack of concern for his own people. It is in his best interests to see his own people suffering because he can then invite foreigners in and show them the misery and say its all the fault of the US and the UN, and some gullible people believe this. From the very beginning Saddam had the opportunity to sell oil for the things his people need. There was no restriction on this. Saddam could have stopped the suffering AT ANY TIME. He and his family prefer to use this opportunity to make money in smuggling operations, instead of helping his own people. So I don't buy Saddam's theory of what is the real problem here, a story you've apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

Saddam Hussein regain power and his military is beeing built up to the old levels.

Ask yourself how Saddam could be rebuilding his army despite the sanctions against him. Ask yourself what the money he's spending on rebuilding his military could do for his own people. Ask yourself why he's opposed to a change in the way that sanctions work to help his own people but strengthen the sanctions against the things he wants to get. Ask yourself why in the world Iraq would have a "baby milk plant" whose employees are wearing uniforms written in ENGLISH. That was one example of how Saddam was cynically trying to deceive the world during the conflict. Why do you accept what Iraq says without suspecting that it may be a lie. Think about it Kuniworth. Think.

The Israel-matter is delicate. But let us never forget who the weak part is. Palestinian youth is throwing rocks against israelian tanks and helicopters. USA could pressure Israel harder but unfortunately to little. So the conflict rages on...how do you intend to solve it? The hardline that Sharon supports have been tried before and never worked.

Palestinian youth throwing rocks is no longer the conflict that is happening. From the very beginning the Palestinain Authority has been using its weapons in their attacks on Israel. Most of the fighting now is in the form of gun battles with armed Palestinians. The Palestinian youth have a completely twisted sense of history, because the extremists make sure the youth are taught to think of things their way. Given that, what can be done?

on...how do you intend to solve it? The hardline that Sharon supports have been tried before and never worked.

Why do you assume it is the US's responsibility to stop this? Why do you assume its the Israelis who must compromise and not the Palestinians? The Palestinians are demanding things they know Israel can't give. Only a fool believes the Israelis would sacrifice their ability to protect themselves against a military attack in order to get just a promise from the Palestinians that the violence will stop.

They cheer because they see their enemy feeling the same pain they do every day. Yes its outrageous but ask your self WHY is always the USA the main target? You cant for all the penny in the world say that your actions in the middle-east only been done for freedom and peace.

Who else is as close to Israel as the US is? Like I said, they attack us because we are a friend to Israel.

Israel is willing to negotiate because the US is pressuring them to. Israel is not the 53rd State in the American Union however, we can pressure them but that doesn't mean they'll listen to us.

Why don't we talk about the actions in the Middle East by Arafat's Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the Hezbollah that have "been done for freedom and peace". Your position is hypocritical Kuniworth. The US is not responsible for all the world's ills.

Your attack on me follows much of your earlier aggresive posts against others in this forum. Im NOT anti-US on the contrary!!! But why the hell can´t you see that something is very wrong here. And believe it or not much of the blame lays not only at arabic dictators but also on USA.

Your implied accusation that the US deliberately targets civilians is responsible for my "attack". You should not be surprised when Americans react angrily to your insults. There's a lot of things that are very wrong, but that doesn't justify terrorist attacks. Ramming hijacked US planes into US skyscrapers is not going to make Israel surrender to the Arab world nor will it make us force Israel to surrender.

What is wrong is the bizarre belief that terrorism will lead to peace. It won't, it leads to the victims reinforcing their original position, and uniting in opposition to whatever the terrorists are demanding. The other bizarre belief is that the US can singlehandedly end the Middle East violence by forcing Israel to accept a plan that destroys its ability to protect itself.

If the talibans not step down the US will be in war with them. You can of course do some surgical strikes but that will most likely also kill innocents. Thats what happened in 1998 and that will happen now.

If you'd listen to what the West is saying you'd know surgical strikes will not be the only response. In fact, airstrikes alone will not only not be the sole response, but may never happen at all. There is likey to be ground actions to get Laden or the Taliban leadership that protects him.

As for the innocents, yes, some die when war occurs. War is messy, thats why everyone wants to avoid it. We do not target innocents however Kuniworth, despite your warped idea of how we think, and by the way, the 5,000 in New York were innocents too.

Sure som bad crooks will die but the terrible taliban state will remain. You´re dreaming if you dont realise this.

Putting an end to the Taliban state is not our goal. At the moment, we're interested in getting bin Laden, not destroying the Taliban or invading and occupying Afghanistan. If the Taliban try to protect him, then they will get themselves killed, and may force us to go after the Taliban's leadership in addition to bin Laden, but that doesn't mean we're going to try to take Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Besides, why are you so sure its a dream? We could go in and destroy the Taliban if they chose to confront us using conventional tactics, or they could slip into the hills and fight as guerillas, in which case we turn it over the Northern Alliance and let them deal with the rest of the Taliban.

I know a lot of moslems. Most of them are non-hating people who wants to live in peace. But violence feeds violence.

I know a lot of muslims are non-hating as well. So what do you think Israel and the US should do in response to terrorists? Just turn the other cheek? That didn't help the Jews of Europe during Hitler's reign. Israel learned from that reality. They know you can only survive as a country surrounded by enemies by attacking anyone who attacks you. Sometimes force must be met by force. So yes, violence will be met by violence, the terrorists of the world do not give us an alternative.

Over the last 50 years the gap between the rich world and the poor world has steadily increased.

We are well aware of the gap here too.

If you dont agree that social misery and starving feeds disappointment and hatred I see no point discussing.

Yes, some will look for someone to blame for their own poor position, that is common. That does not lead to terrorism in every case though.

Besides, the Palestinians are not starving, they are not in a misery like the population of Sudan for example. In fact, they were very well off in '48 yet there was terrorism then too, on both sides even, and the Jews of Palestine at that time were not in a horrible situation either.

The point beeing that it is harder to commit terrorist-actions against a friend that tries to help you not bomb you. All terrorist-experts Ive heard have agreed on this - why don´t you Ed?

They don't consider us a friend Kuniworth. The terrorists attacking Israel want its destruction. That is not going to happen. So trying to befriend these people will only get you stabbed in the back.

And please provide proof that every terrorist expert believes that turning the other cheek would work. That's bull. I've seen quite a few terrorist experts on TV since Tuesday, and they are not saying what you claim.

We all got a responsible, so does Sweden. But beeing the nr 1 super-power of the world more should be expected from you.

What should we be expected to do? We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year for humanitarian efforts, in foriegn aid, or to help other countries strive towards a better economic position through investments. However, WE CANNOT HELP THE WHOLE WORLD, no matter how rich you think we are Kuniworth. Money alone will not bring the Third World up to our level. For many of them, there are other reasons why they are part of the Third World.

Yes but why do they commit this kind of action. Why is the terrorist attacks against USA steadily increasing? Just a coincidence?

Of course not, how many times do I have to tell you, WE ARE A TARGET BECAUSE WE ARE A FRIEND TO ISRAEL. The only foreign terrorists attacking us are doing so because of Israel.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:03 pm

Originally posted by Tom1939:
I did not want to insult anyone, and I do believe the guilty must be punished, but not for the price of more innocent people's death.

You do realize that by this logic, the US should never have gone to war with Hitler?

murx · Post by **murx** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:54 pm

Ed, the remark on US entrance into WWII is wrong, after Monroe doctrine they needed to go into WWII as a united Europ would make an invasion of NorthAmerica possible - same reason US needed to enter the war against Japan even if Pearl Harbour never happened. The loss of any Ocean east or west of US would trigger a US war at that time.

And how to counter terroriest - the only way to get rid of an enemy is
a) extinguish him, just another holocaust, but it never worked in history completely (Ok, Spanish Conquistadores succeded and other minor tribes in America were extuinguieshed as in some Indean Ocean islands)
b) make him a friend. At least in Europe it worked more or less, be it the Holy Roman Empire - many German lesser nations hated each other but forged a greater nation, or after WWII due to the Marshall-plan, WestGermany became an ally to its former enemies, and even now former USSR nations and Russia itself is no longer an 'enemy' but more like a friend, even to USA)

Why do most terrorist come from very poor nations ? Not Egypt, Marocco, Algerien ? Those nations still have 'local' terrorist groups, like the Turkish have, even Spain has terrorist problems. But the BIG international terrorism - mainly against US of A - gets its ressources from the poorest nations.

I think a solution (not short but long term) to this terrorism would be a massive Marshall plan to build up the Islamic nations, and withdraw unwanted military forces there. It is a both sided sword to give them more money - yes it can be abused - but on the other hand it is a 'trap', give them something so they have something to loose. Right now they have nothing to loose but their life, but will they throw it away if they have work, family, a safe home and food, maybe even entertainment - a REAL life ?
There will still be terrorist yes, but their number will decline.

murx

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 9:38 pm

The only unwanted military forces I am aware of are those flying over Iraq. Most others are quite wanted. As are the Russian military bases in most of the -istans.

MagnusOlsson · Post by **MagnusOlsson** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:41 pm

The reason for why the gap between rich and poor countries grow is the LACK of more countries with policies like the US.
The free trade capitalism is the only working way to make money. And making money, not taking someone elses or stockpiling existing funds, is basically an american invention (or at least an unmatched american speciality). A lot of people in Europe has still not realised that you can make a lot of money and be very rich without having to take someone else's funds or property.

The attack on US is directed against this system and these values by people who clearly won't understand any language but that of violence.

/Magnus

http://www.free-market.net/
http://www.cato.org/main/home.html
http://www.der-markt.com/
http://www.timbro.se/

MagnusOlsson · Post by **MagnusOlsson** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:46 pm

I forgot to say that this was a comment to Kuniworth's earlier post.
I realise it's getting a bit off topic for this forum, so if someone want's to continue on this one, please move it to a more appropriate place.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 5:00 am

Originally posted by murx:
Ed, the remark on US entrance into WWII is wrong, after Monroe doctrine they needed to go into WWII as a united Europ would make an invasion of NorthAmerica possible - same reason US needed to enter the war against Japan even if Pearl Harbour never happened. The loss of any Ocean east or west of US would trigger a US war at that time.

FDR was well aware of these threats, but could do little to overcome isolationists. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that if XYZ happens the US will go to war. In fact, FDR had a real dilemma about Germany. They had been attacked by Japan, and Congress agreed to a declaration of war with Japan, but not Germany. He talked to Churchill about this, and was concerned there would be serious opposition to a declaration of war on Germany. Fortunately for all of us, Hitler solved that problem for FDR.

And how to counter terroriest - the only way to get rid of an enemy is
a) extinguish him, just another holocaust, but it never worked in history completely (Ok, Spanish Conquistadores succeded and other minor tribes in America were extuinguieshed as in some Indean Ocean islands)

You can't compare a fight against terrorists to the wars and destruction and genocide of one ethnic group or nation or tribe on another. No one is saying we can stop terrorism, but we can weaken it, by attacking the most prominent and sucessful terrorist networks.

b) make him a friend. At least in Europe it worked more or less, be it the Holy Roman Empire - many German lesser nations hated each other but forged a greater nation, or after WWII due to the Marshall-plan, WestGermany became an ally to its former enemies, and even now former USSR nations and Russia itself is no longer an 'enemy' but more like a friend, even to USA)

Excuse me, but none of your examples above are terrorist networks, all of your examples are nation-states.

BTW, the merging of small German states to form a united Germany had much more to do with the iron fist of Bismarck, rather than any idealistic plan of the smaller states.

Why do most terrorist come from very poor nations ? Not Egypt, Marocco, Algerien ? Those nations still have 'local' terrorist groups, like the Turkish have, even Spain has terrorist problems. But the BIG international terrorism - mainly against US of A - gets its ressources from the poorest nations.

The poorest nations? Name them murx. Let's see, I've never heard of an anti-US terrorist network in Haiti, or Bolivia, or Ecuador, or Guyana, and lets not forget Zambia, or Paraguay, or the Central African Republic, or Chad, or Togo, or Cameroon, or .... well, you get my point. The truth is I could name dozens of other nations from Central and South America and Central and Southern Africa here. The only anti-US terrorists operating today are from the Middle East or the Far East, they are almost exclusively Islamic fundamentalists (some claim to be Islamic like the ones in southern Philippines but seem to be more interested in making money by ransoming captured tourists or running drugs), and they attack the US because of America's relationship with Israel.

I think a solution (not short but long term) to this terrorism would be a massive Marshall plan to build up the Islamic nations, and withdraw unwanted military forces there. It is a both sided sword to give them more money - yes it can be abused - but on the other hand it is a 'trap', give them something so they have something to loose.

murx, you actually need to listen to some of the rhetoric these fundamentalist nations say and do. They do not want our money, they do not want a secular society, they do not want our culture, they do not want an open society based on capitalism. They have learned to hate all these things because these things are what Israel and the Great Satan have. In Afghanistan, music is banned, no dancing, no discos, absolutely no mixing betweeen boys and girls, women are private property and their owners can do whatever they want with them. Do you honestly believe a nation like this will suddenly hug us and call us friends if we, the Great Satan, gave them money? murx, you need to take a harder look at what is going on in the Islamic world. You and Kuniworth's idealistic vision of how to solve all the world's ills does not match the reality on the ground. Most Islamic states would take our offer as an insult, and in most cases there are other reasons why many of these countries remain poor, and none of these problems are America's creation. One thing we have learned here in the US, and elsewhere, is that there are many problems that can't be solved by throwing money at it. Besides, the Marshall plan was to help our allies in Western Europe, all were states with similar governments, economies, and values as we have.

There will still be terrorist yes, but their number will decline.

There have always been terrorists, and there will aways be terrorists in the future because your premise that the terrorists are all poor souls trapped in misery simply isn't true, for one thing Laden is a multimillionaire. Some of his terrorists lived for several years in the US and Germany, they lived a middle class life here. They were intelligent (they had to be to learn how to fly a jetliner), they lived well, they bought computers and TVs, but after all those years living a good life in civilized countries, they chose to kill themselves in the hope of taking as many Americans with them as possible. This is *NOT* about being poor.

The difference is that of all the terrorists dealt with so far, none of them have been as sucessful and as ruthless as Laden and his network. The first World Trade Center bombings, the Kobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and now the destruction of the World Trade Center, plus other attempts which were foiled in some locations such as Jordan stopping an attempt to bomb the US embassy there, or the guy trying to cross the Canada-US border with enough explosives to equip an army. It only took ~18 men willing to die to inflict more than 5,000 casualties, and more than a 1,000 of them were not even Americans. We are not the only ones he's after, the Saudis, his home country, would like to get their hands on him as he's hostile towards the Saudi government too. He has proven that he is the most dangerous terrorist the world has seen so far, and not just dangerous to us and Israel. Taking him and his network down will make a big difference, for everyone.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 6:57 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

In Afghanistan, music is banned, no dancing, no discos, absolutely no mixing betweeen boys and girls, women are private property and their owners can do whatever they want with them. Do you honestly believe a nation like this will suddenly hug us and call us friends if we, the
Great Satan, gave them money?.................

Ed

That section of your post also points to the well documented way many goverments hold and continue to hold power. Through the church and state working together to make sure the people are only educated the way they(the leaders) want. Educated to uphold bigotry, ignorance and hate as the norm and to have that hate directed to an EXTERNAL enemy. Who makes the best target?
The tallest poppy there is. And yes, the tallest poppy that is also a friend of Israel.
But more so it is a hate directed at the one type of system that would mean the end of their power base. A place with a constitution that says that all men are equal, All religions are equal and where you can stand up in public and say that the leader is a bastard and should be got rid of without dying for your words. (and is full of people who say it every day)

Nick

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:16 am

Hi Nick

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

That section of your post also points to the well documented way many goverments hold and continue to hold power. Through the church and state working together to make sure.....

I agree. One thing that disturbs me about the Taliban is I don't see a church and state. It is a pure theocracy. Even Iran has separate entities for the Church and State, but not Afghanistan.

Its hard to fathom for me. Why is it Islam that creates the most radical unbelievable fundamentalists? We have our own fair share of extremists over here too, but nothing from Christianity or Judaism compares to the Taliban. The realy sad thing is the mainstream Muslims are right, Islam is not inheriently more violent than any other religion. Like Christian extremists, the Taliban use only the parts of the Koran that they agree with, and ignore the rest.

I honestly feel for the Afghan people, they have one of the most repressive governments in the world. As for their women, well, I hear the suicide rate among Afghan women is just sickening.

I also fear for Pakistan. The Taliban was born among the radical religious schools along the northern border with Afghanistan that served the Afghan refugees. In northern Pakistan there is much support for the Taliban. The Pakistanis risk open civil war to support the US. Pakistan, remember, has nukes. [shudder]

g00dd0ggy · Post by **g00dd0ggy** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:49 pm

Thing about terrorism though is that it does work to some extent.

To take some heat out of this, take Ireland. The IRA (or rather Irish Catholics) have some legitimate grievances about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland. The RUC (Northern Police Force) was/is largely Protestant. There is discrimination against Catholics (though there are laws making this illegal). The Republicans also wish to unite the country. This may ultimately happen.

In the meantime the UK government has agreed to allow Sinn Fein (IRA's Political wing) to share power with the Protestants, we have released all terrorist prisoners (murderers,bombers...the lot, both from Protestant and Catholic sides) ultimately Sinn Feinn will probably become the major power in the North due to demographics...the Protestant politicians are required to share power with the murderers of yesterday (many of Sinn Feinn's members are former senior IRA activists).

WHY? Essentially because the UK is sick of it all and just wants to be rid of the problem. Would this have ever happened without the IRA's terror tactics? I cannot think so. There is a victory here for terrorism - but they still won't put down their weapons. The UK wants to pull out, period. We have had enough.

There are plenty of other examples, the attacks in Beirut changed US policy there leading to a military pull out.

Bin Laden wants the US to pull out of the Middle East (notably Saudi) - that is the Fatwah. If the US cannot stop these terrorist activities, will the US pull out of these areas? Quite probably. If the US puts its military in harm's way that simply increases the likelihood of body bags and a change of policy. If it weren't for the oil we (the West) wouldn't give a monkeys anyway.

I hope Bin Laden is taken out. I wish the West every success in its "War against Terrorism" (well, very selected terrorists)but at the end of the day I wonder if we will care enough to keep losing loved ones or just leave them to themselves - we couldn't care less about most other areas with similar problems - no oil...no Israel there.

MagnusOlsson · Post by **MagnusOlsson** » Wed Sep 19, 2001 12:33 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Hi Nick

Its hard to fathom for me. Why is it Islam that creates the most radical unbelievable fundamentalists? We have our own fair share of extremists over here too, but nothing from Christianity or Judaism compares to the Taliban.

We've had them. the spanish inquisition, the crusades etc. There has been a lot of bad things done in the name of Christianity. Main difference is that we have had the enlightenment, something that not yet has happened in other part of the world.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Sep 19, 2001 10:52 am

Originally posted by g00dd0ggy:
Thing about terrorism though is that it does work to some extent.

Right, some will give in depending on the specific situation.

To take some heat out of this, take Ireland. The IRA (or rather Irish Catholics) have some legitimate grievances about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland. The RUC (Northern Police Force) was/is largely Protestant. There is discrimination against Catholics (though there are laws making this illegal). The Republicans also wish to unite the country. This may ultimately happen.

In the meantime the UK government has agreed to allow Sinn Fein (IRA's Political wing) to share power with the Protestants, we have released all terrorist prisoners (murderers,bombers...the lot, both from Protestant and Catholic sides) ultimately Sinn Feinn will probably become the major power in the North due to demographics...the Protestant politicians are required to share power with the murderers of yesterday (many of Sinn Feinn's members are former senior IRA activists).

WHY? Essentially because the UK is sick of it all and just wants to be rid of the problem. Would this have ever happened without the IRA's terror tactics? I cannot think so. There is a victory here for terrorism - but they still won't put down their weapons. The UK wants to pull out, period. We have had enough.

I agree generally, but there is a bit of difference here. For one thing, at least in the beginning, Catholics in NI had a strong point about being discriminated against and under threat of violence by radical Protestants (Loyalists). The other thing is that most of what the IRA demanded was within realm of possibility. If compromise was completely impossible than there would be no need for a political wing of the terrorist group. Even the ultimate move of joining NI to Ireland could possibily happen in 2 or 3 decades, as the Catholic population in NI is growing faster than the Protestant population. Eventually, Catholics will outnumber the Protestants in NI.

Laden's group doesn't have a political wing. No one but the Taliban speak for him, and we know what kind of people the Taliban are. He himself doesn't want one anyway since he has no intention of compromising with anyone. When he moved to Afghanistan he declared war on the US (he was already at war with Israel), and in this war both sides demand the unconditional surrender of the other side, leaving no room for negotiation.

There are plenty of other examples, the attacks in Beirut changed US policy there leading to a military pull out.

The government sent Marines into a known dangerous place, a place that was in the backyard of several hostile terrorist groups. They were part of a larger multinational force, which was invited in by the Lebanese government. The government/military failed to foresee the danger, did not adequately protect these troops. The pullout however didn't happen immediately, it wasn't an immediate reaction to the barracks bombing. The mission parameters changed but the situation just got more dangerous with US forces close to being drawn into the factional fighting. Before things got worse, Reagan ordered the Marines out in '84-'85. These casualties were soldiers sent on a (flawed) mission to the other side of the world. They were not American civilians massacred by the thousands at home in New York City.

Same thing for the USS Cole. They never should have been in Yemen, another stupid military mistake. The sailors though, know what could happen, that risk is a recognized part of the job. I know.

I don't think the US population is going to pull the plug at the first sight of casualties. This is different I think (hope). As I tried to explain to Frank earlier, this is *personal*. That was my World Trade Center, NYC is my city, and the murdered are my people. As long as *some* progress is made, I think Americans will support this longer than outsiders think.

Bin Laden wants the US to pull out of the Middle East (notably Saudi) - that is the Fatwah. If the US cannot stop these terrorist activities, will the US pull out of these areas? Quite probably.

His fatwa in Feb '98 also calls for the "liberation" of the Middle East's 3 holiest sites: Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. The US isn't in the first 2, but elsewhere in Saudi Arabia. As for that last one, I think Israel will have an objection. In March '98 he formed the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against America and Israel". AND ISRAEL. He's been anti-West since his upbringing, and clearly focusing his attention on America now, but if we left Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, I don't believe he would stop. We'd still be a target because of our alliance with Israel. Given that, I don't see a way to avoid a confrontation with him.

If the US puts its military in harm's way that simply increases the likelihood of body bags and a change of policy. If it weren't for the oil we (the West) wouldn't give a monkeys anyway.

Yes, there will be body bags, how many no one can say. The planning and strategy is not known to anyone outside the Pentagon. I'm not so sure it will come out the way you think. The US clearly understands it will take a different approach to dealing with him, and I don't expect a full scale invasion of Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to hand him over. I don't even expect airstrikes on their own. Its possible we may simply ignore the Taliban altogether, and not waste time bombing tents in the desert. The only Taliban we need to worry about are the ones where bin Laden is. Finding him is the hard part. Once we know where he is, getting him, dead or alive, won't be a problem.

I wonder if we will care enough to keep losing
loved ones or just leave them to themselves - we
couldn't care less about most other areas with
similar problems - no oil...no Israel there.

This sounds like surrender. I agree about the oil, but that is not what is behind the terrorism. Of course, its Israel, but the absolute last thing the US should ever do is abandon Israel. That would *destablize* the Middle East and we'll never be trusted by anyone again. Besides, I don't like some things Israel has done, but Araft needs the US, otherwise there would be no pressure on Israel to talk peace at all. Remember, on occasion, Clinton had to shove them back to the negotiating table.

I suppose this depends on where you live. If you're in a neutral location its easy to say no to going after terrorists, if they rarely or never attack your own people, your own country. If you're in the West however then what you need to realize is we are still going to lose loved ones NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. Terrorism isn't going away, but right now we face the most dangerous terrorist network in modern history. Destroying that network, killing bin Laden, will make a big difference to the world, it will, I believe, save a lot of lives, maybe even ones in your country. Last I heard, the casualties in NYC include people from ~40 different countries.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

g00dd0ggy · Post by **g00dd0ggy** » Wed Sep 19, 2001 4:13 pm

Ed,

Don't disagree with much of what you say either and you are clearly well informed.

The Fatwah is vs the US though as I understand it - so if US troops pull out of Saudi that would be the end of it (no US troops in Israel). The Fatwah would then against Israel only (although given the level of US support for Israel I suppose bin Laden might argue that support had to end too). No real reason for US troops in Saudi really - they could withdraw. So one could argue that the terms of the Fatwah could be fulfilled quite painlessly.

I'm not saying this is the right thing to do - any more than the attempts to sort things out in Ireland is, but if you get tired enough of the whole thing it can happen - who needs it?

As to the war against terrorism - when was the IRA (Real) made illegal in the USA? A few months ago? As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The difference here is the scale of the attack and clearly others will be in the firing line
(especially the Brits who are named in the same breath as the great Satan very often) and bin Laden has to go, but some rethinking as to policy in the Mid East would seem sensible to me. Israel in particular needs to start observing UN directives - if it doesn't, why the hell should the Arab countries?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:09 pm

Originally posted by g00dd0ggy:
Don't disagree with much of what you say either and you are clearly well informed.

As are you, I found the exact text of the fatwas and they do indeed not mention Israel. However, check this quote from an interview with bin Laden:

"We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel."

He's always had it in for Israel, like all other Islamic terrorists, but the western presence in the Middle East after the Gulf War got most of his attention since.

The Fatwah is vs the US though as I understand it - so if US troops pull out of Saudi that would be the end of it (no US troops in Israel).

No, because....

(although given the level of US support for Israel I suppose bin Laden might argue that support had to end too).

....exactly.

No real reason for US troops in Saudi really - they could withdraw.

True. I don't want them there either.

So one could argue that the terms of the Fatwah could be fulfilled quite painlessly.

When Israel voluntarily pulled out of Lebanon, the Hezbollah no longer had any reason for its own existence, as it was formed to kick Israel out of southern Lebanon. Instead of disbanding, they declared the Sheeba Farms area adjacent to Syria as belonging to Lebanon, and demanded that Israel withdraw from it. That wasn't true, even the UN says that area was part of Syria before the war when Israel took it in '67. In other words, the Hezbollah concocted an excuse to keep on killing Israelis. I have no doubt at all that Laden will find an excuse to keep attacking America as long as America continues to support Israel.

As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

True. There are a lot of folks in the Middle East who think of Laden that way. Of course it helps to be anti-Israel, thus anti-US, to begin with.

but some rethinking as to policy in the Mid East would seem sensible to me.

What should be done besides moving our troops out of the region? As I say above, this won't stop Laden. In fact, I don't think he could stop it if he wanted to. His organization is a loose confederation, many of the groups working with him are not directly under his control and many of these groups are violently anti-US and will not stop attacking the US. I'm convinced that as long as the US remains the backer of Israel, he won't tell these people to stop, and will continue to support them.

Israel in particular needs to start observing UN directives - if it doesn't, why the hell should the Arab countries?

True, they definitely should stop building settlements in Palestinian land, and remove the ones they've built since '67. There is no justification for this, other than appeasing the radical, militant Jews in Israel. On the other hand, back in '48, it was the Arab nations that chose to ignore UN resolutions.

I suppose its easy to look at only what has happened since '73, when the balance of military power clearly shifted to the Israelis, and see Israel as the villian. Unlike most people outside Israel though, the Israelis remember the dark times in '45 to '67, when the situation was almost a mirror of now. Then it was the powerful Arab nations ignoring the UN because they believed they could push the Jews back into the sea and destroy Israel by war. Having said that, this is not an excuse for the bad and incredibly dumb things Israel has done recently.