Gumption - Apologies for pooling 2 replies into one but the thread is so slow that it speeds things up. Plus getoffmylawn may have something insightful to add as well (including his/ her comments in #100).
I understand what you're saying, and I know that you're not someone to just blindly call for blood. I can see why the US would feel that they had to do something; but if it's not the right 'thing' then it could cause even more problems.
The people of Afghanistan (the probable target) are already suffering horribly and the vast amount of refugees moving through Europe are Afghans trying to escape the Taleban. They are not the enemy, and bombs do not discriminate.
If this was Bin Laden then he and those involved should be hunted down, but he is not representative of the Aghan people. He is, however, supported by a huge number of Islamists around the globe, many of whom are motivated more by their dislike of the US than by Bin Laden himself.
Even if there was a military response, who would be the target? Why would it be acceptable to kill any innocent people as punishment for something they had absolutely no control over? Besides which, it would just make things worse and be followed by more attacks both on the US and elsewhere.
Killing people doesn't solve anything. This was a terrorist attack; the West should not lower itself to respond with more terrorism. The only way forward is to look closely at why this happened, find and punish those responsible, and then review the entire approach by the US towards the rest of the world.
Recall troops from the areas where they should not be deployed such as the Balkans; scrap the missile defence plans (which are totally redundant anyway); deal with other countries with greater respect and readiness to listen rather than just 'kick ass'; and work with all countries to redress the balance of global security. That includes sticking to the Charters that have worked so well since WWII, which e.g. specified that Nato should be a defensive organisation and not attack other countries unless a member was under attack and requested support.
America, under Clinton, saw fit to break a number of charters and conventions and do whatever it chose. Of course that's going to stoke up hate and violence.
Osama bin Laden was appointed as the Commander in Chief of the Afghan Army just a couple of weeks ago. That would seem to make him a representative of the Afghan government and, as such, makes that country a legitimate target.
News/Current Events Front Page News
Keywords: BIN LADEN AFGHANISTAN
Source: United Press International
Published: 08/30/01 Author: United Press International
Posted on 09/12/2001 22:47:03 PDT by Rightwing Conspirator1
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported. Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
Sounds like a legitimate national target to me.
News/Current Events Front Page News
Keywords: BIN LADEN AFGHANISTAN
Source: United Press International
Published: 08/30/01 Author: United Press International
Posted on 09/12/2001 22:47:03 PDT by Rightwing Conspirator1
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported. Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
Sounds like a legitimate national target to me.
Why should we go after the subhuman that perpetrated this mass murder when, as you apparently believe, we deserved it? Why not just drop it?
Why should we ignore the ones who gave these murderers a safe harbor in which to terrorize the civilized world? Are you aware that your proposed response to the killers is Chamberline-esc. You sound like appeasement is the ultimate answer to the problem of terrorism. How would terrorists achieving there goals end the terrorism problem? Wouldn't they be encouraged if we pulled back as a response to their terrorist activities?
Name a country that doesn't have a problem with terrorism so we can emulate them. You can't. Even France hasn't appeased the terrorists enough to stop the bombings. That tells me appeasement doesn't work.
Has the US done a lot wrong? Yes. But the good we have done far outweighs the bad. Are you suggesting the USA should be perfect, never make poor decisions? Well that's the only way to not piss any group off. My country is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. We only do the best that we can. We will continue to do the best that we can. We will not cower in the corner. We will do our best to rid this world of all those responsible for this incomprehensible deliberate attack against unsuspecting civilians. And that means those that knowingly harbor and/or finance them, and you are either with us, or against us. You have made your choice, and I have made mine.