posted on September 16, 2001 04:00:37 PM new
OK, I realize I'll probably get flamed for this, so let me say up front that I think that terrorism is just plain wrong, there's absolutely no justification for it, and those who perpetrated this atrocity need to be hunted down and punished.
Having said that, though....
The U.S. has tried to play "peacemaker" in a number of instances where terrorism was involved, including the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the troubles in Northern Ireland. And in each case, we have basically gotten both parties sides together and said "look, you both have legitimate grievances against each other, but the only way for this madness to end is for each of you to be willing to compromise." And this in spite of the fact that one side in each of the conflicts has employed terrorist acts, including suicide bombings, killing of innocent people, etc.
I remember during the Gulf War when Iraq started sending SCUD missles into Israel. The Israelis were prepared to respond in kind, but the U.S. basically begged them not to do so, fearing that the whole conflict would escalate beyond control.
Well, now the U.S. is engaged in a conflict against an enemy who is waging a war of terror against us. But instead of saying that both sides have legitimate grievances and that both sides need to make compromises, all I hear from the politicans is that these people are madmen, they're religious fanatics, they hate us simply because we are a free country, they can't be reasoned with, and that the only possible solution is to wipe them off the face of the earth. I've even heard people say that it's OK if innocent civilians get killed in the process, since the entire culture involved teaches people to hate and kill from birth, so there's really no such thing as an "innocent" civilian in the first place.
My biggest fear is that we will end up engaged in a long term struggle where neither side wins, where everybody lives in fear, and where innocent civilians are constantly targeted by terrorists. The Israelis have always taken a "hard line" approach to terrosism, returning each attack with swift and deadly retribution, in the belief that doing anything else would be a sign of weakness and invite further attacks. Well, guess what? 40 years later, they are still being attacked.
I realize that it is exceedingly unpalatable to try and make peace with people willing to commit acts like this. And perhaps, as Prime Minister Chamberlain discovered in the early days of WWII, it isn't even possible. But I do think we need to at least acknowledge that the U.S. has made some mistakes in our foreign policies and be willing to discuss the issues instead of just "declaring war".
We need to find who did this and stop them from doing it again. Perhaps the best way, however, would be to find them and let the international courts of justice try them as criminals instead of taking military action that can only serve to escalate the conflict. It is, after all, what we tell the other victims of terrorism to do when they are attacked.
posted on September 16, 2001 04:08:45 PM new
Barry - I have thought similar thoughts myself. But in this case, what would we compromise about? There are no stated grievances. Are we supposed to assume that if it's Bin Laden, he wants us to do XYZ and we should consider it?
I keep thinking about it, and I feel certain in my heart that what is necessary is to stop terrorism and maybe there are means other than going out and killing more people. But so many countries have shown for decades [millennia?] how hard it is to stop people from wrecking havoc if they have given their whole hearts to doing it, for whatever reason.
I worry so much about the "why" of this episode. Did 19 men really decide they were willing to die in order to take out the WTC and Pentagon? Or did they have some bigger purpose in mind, and if so what was that? How can we respond if we don't know for sure what we are responding to..?
posted on September 16, 2001 04:09:00 PM new
Yes, we have encouraged others to find a peaceful solution to acts of terrorism carried out against them.
It is different when it strikes home.
To answer your question, we will most certainly be preceived to be "hypocrites" by someone, somewhere. That's politics! When this is all over, if it is ever all over, we may have to think twice before "asking" someone to find a "peaceful" soulution to their own problems.
I used to really get upset when someone (usually my Dad) would say "do as I say, not as I do"!!!! Even in jest, it made no sense to me and I found it most frustrating!
I hope those in charge take a long deep breath before proceeding.....
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Sep 16, 2001 04:25 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 04:10:55 PM new
I think this is beyond what any court will handle at this point.
What punishment could you give this man who already lives in caves prison would be like luxury.
on the other hand Death would be concidered his ticket to heaven and posiably make his control some how stronger in death then while he lived.
Then again Just how will diplomacy work just what kind of deals could you cut to fix your differences do you offer this group X amount of human american lifes yearly for peace to temper his hate ????
posted on September 16, 2001 04:15:09 PM new
If we want to stop these attacks without military tactics, we need simply to withdraw support of Isreal, develop our own energy sources and let the middle east kill each other off without us. According to the terrorists this is the only way they will stop their attacks. Are we willing to do these things?
posted on September 16, 2001 04:20:32 PM new
Barry, we're not being hypocrites. We're being awoken. I hope.
The best thing to do is to pay attention to what they say about what they do and why they do it. Then, crack open a history book and learn how many centuries ago this conflict began. It has nothing to do with "imperialism" or "nationalism" or "communism" or "zionism".
We know exactly what we are responding to. We are responding to a force that seeks to roll back 1000 years of history; the rise of the West and the setting of the East. It's not "just Osama bin Laden". It's not individuals. It's several regimes. The Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan governments. To you, we are modern 21st century people living our mundane little American lives. To them we are Crusaders.
Do a little research. There is a tendency to dismiss Islamist rhetoric as "flowery, typically middle eastern, mere rhetoric". That's not only condescending but it's false.
Deliteful, Israel is viewed by these people as nothing but a sattelite state of the West, artificially implanted into their midst. As they say (and they do -- read up), first the Saturday people and then the Sunday people. You'd best believe it.
posted on September 16, 2001 04:23:20 PM newBut in this case, what would we compromise about?
You're right, it's hard to know exactly why we were attacked without knowing who attacked us. But people like Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussain, as well as the various other Arab terrorist groups, have been lodging the same complaints against for years. That we support Israel, who they feel is their enemy. That we support whichever side of a conflict is most likely to give us oil. That we disregard the culture of other countries and use our economic muscle to force our cultural ideals on everyone else. that we break long-held treaties whenever we no longer find it convenient to follow them.
And the list goes on.
Are we guilty of all these acts [or are these acts even things we should feel ashamed of]? Probably not. But neither are we entirely innocent. And instead of acknowledging these complaints over the years, we simply ignore them and say that the rules don't apply to us because we are AMERICA.
Well, I'm proud to be an American, and I think this is the best country on earth, bar none. But I don't think we are perfect, and if we're not willing to be flexible in a global political arena, we are going to continue to make enemies and invite attacks against us.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 16, 2001 04:26 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 04:30:56 PM new
Barry, listen to what they say. Not what our own guilt laden pundits say and assume their motives are.
The goal is to reastablish the Caliphate ;the 'Golden age of Islam' when Islam was the rising force in the world. This is why pan-Arab nationalist figures like Saddam, and before him Nasser are popular amoung the Arab 'street'. This is why Arab people all across the Middle East cheered when Saddam swallowed up Kuwait. Didn't that strike you as odd? Why should they be happy about that?
These would be Caliphs threaten Arab governments, governments which are artificial creations of Western imperialists. There is no particular allegiance to borders drawn by England and France in the Arab world.
It is the Hashemite King of Jordan who is threatened by Saddam. It is the Saud family who happens to own Saudi Arabia who are threatened. Not the people. These people, Saddam (and even Qadaffi) posit themselves as modern day Saladins. They actually use the metaphor to describe themselves. They use the terminology of the Crusades to refer to current events. Back then, 1000-1300 years ago, they eventually forced the Crusaders back into Europe. Back then Islam was conquering Spain and Sicily and going deeper into Europe. Europe was in a dark age and Islam was fulfilling the historical mission that the religion calls for. According to their theology, they are supposed to be the rulers of the world. Not the West.
Listen to what they've been saying. Tuesday may have surprised some Americans but not all.
Barry, the people who are putting it the way you described it have been educated in Western universities in England and America. They are savvy enough to put it that way, to make a case even while they plan things like Tuesday. Even the Taliban has a cute young apologist lawyer chick in Washington who lobbies for them. I read all about her, in the NY Times I think it was.
Barry, do you follow what they say to each other in Arabic?
I didn't think so.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 16, 2001 04:39 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 04:40:19 PM newjamesoblivion: If what you are saying is true [and I have no way of knowing whether it is or not], then the only solution is for the Western nations to wage all out war against the nations of Islam. I believe this would be called "Armegeddon". The phrase "global thermonuclear war" also springs to mind. "Genocide" would also be an apt description, I would imagine.
And maybe you're right, and that this is all leading to a massive war between the East and the West. If so, it really doesn't matter what we do, since the world will shortly be coming to an end anyway.
But just in case you're NOT right [and I sincerely hope you're not], a little diplomacy probably couldn't hurt.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 04:41:08 PM new
Sending bombs is the wrong answer and will only result in retalitation because the root problem has not even been addressed. I can understand the need to find and bring the terrorists to justice but I cannot understand killing innocent people.
Bin Laden is a political criminal and the people of Afganistan will be scapegoats for his crime. In spite of his billions, the people of Afganistan live in abject poverty. Their buildings have already been bombed by the Russians and they are living in rubble. Hospitals and health care are already gone. Even food is scarce. There is an awesome number of orphans in the country right now.
These people have nothing left to lose. They have been oppressed, abused and ignored.
Why give bin Laden another excuse to terrorize the world.
posted on September 16, 2001 04:46:25 PM new
Some people don't seem to get it - It is us or them - better some Islamic Afghans womans Child to die than mine. Sorry it has to be that way, but thats the way it is. Thats survival on Planet Earth.
posted on September 16, 2001 04:51:21 PM newartdoggy: Oh, I get it, believe me. But if what James says is true, then it's not just a matter of "some Islamic Afghans womans Child". We'd pretty much have to be willing to kill them all. And even if mass murder on that scale doesn't make you sick, keep in mind that they are not likely to let it happen without a fight to the death. You did know that many of these nations have nuclear weapons, right? And, last I checked, we still haven't worked out all the bugs in our missile defense system....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 04:51:51 PM new
Barry, it's not entirely true. There are certainly many people who desire to live peaceful lives. There are periods of Islamic history that can be pointed to in which the attitudes I've described haven't been the prevailing norms.
However, Islamist fundamentalism, which is what I described, has had a huge resurgance in popularity amoung the so-called 'street', particularly in the past thirty years.
Truly, the greatest hope in the long-term is the ending of the regimes that I named and the introduction of democracy or some related form. Attitudes must be changed. It's possible. Take Europe. Europe practically invented slavery, but Europe ended that institution. Racism, woman's rights -- all of these are intense ethical issues that the West has at least come to terms with and are struggling to overcome. In many instances we have overcome some of those things. Attitudes can change.
Turkey is a shining example of an Islamic country that is democratic, prosperous, peaceful and productive. There certainly can be others. The solution to this conflict doesn't involve genocide but it will involve the toppling of regimes to begin with.
My essential point is that it is not us who is declaring war but us who is responding to forces that will destroy us if they can. That would be, to be exact, 3-5 years from now when Iran develops nukes according to projections. None of these countries have nukes yet. Better that we were awoken today then tomorrow. Sixty years ago their was similar ideology that was a very real threat.
Let me stress; I do not advocate genocide, nor do I think anything that can be decribed as genocide is necessary to accomplish this goal. Can you describe it as "war". Definitley. We may sing Give Peace A Chance but that will only means something if the other guys are singing it too.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 16, 2001 05:00 PM ]
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 16, 2001 05:01 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 05:00:50 PM new
I could give a hoot about European Slavery. I don't care about anything but they bombed my country PERIOD - These people are not fundamentalist, that would imply they are concerned about religion. The religion is just a platform for people who love to kill to have an excuse. Its war. I don't care about Turkey I don't care about anything but going in there and smoking the rat out of his hole and killing him dead, then droping the dime on Iran.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:04:05 PM newThe solution to this conflict doesn't involve genocide but it will involve the toppling of regimes to begin with.
and
It's not individuals. It's several regimes. The Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan governments
And how do you propose to topple the "regimes" of all these countries without either (a) allowing them to strike back or (b) bombing the entire countries into the ground? Do you think it is enough to simply remove the current leadership? Would a little judicious assasination take care of all our problems? Or are these "regimes" popular enough with their own people that you would need to wipe large chunks of the population before they would no longer wish to ever retaliate? And if only some of the civilians are sympathetic to the goals of the various "regimes", how would you propose we figure out which ones are which and also prevent these types of ideas from arising in the future?
As Albert Einstein once said [and I may be paraphrasing], "I don't know with what weapons World War II will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
As I said before, I can't say whether your opinions are right or wrong. I'm not an expert on Middle East politics, and I don't read Arabic. And even if I were and did, I'm not a mind reader and can't say what the majority of the Arab population think about the subject. But if you are right, we're all pretty much screwed and there's really not much we can about it, so I can only hope that you are wrong and there is another possible solution open to us other than simply waging war on all the countries you mentioned above. As we have found time and time again, you can't wage war on a "regime" without waging war on the country in which that regime sits.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 05:04:57 PM new
My, you are a thoughtful person, aren't you, Artdoggy?
Barry, I don't pretend to have answers as to the hows but it is our historical imperative to meet a challenge. As I alluded to earlier, sixty years ago we were met with another challenge that amounted to the same thing. It sucks, but it will not go away if you cry "make it stop!"
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 16, 2001 05:06 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 05:07:22 PM new
Why is there a need in us to magnify an opponent?? For years the catch word was "Oh, My God!, We can't do that. The Russians might not like it!" Meanwhile the Russians moved with absolute impunity until Nixon was elected. A few years ago, it was "the Iraqis have the 5th largest army in the world". Ho-hummm. The military knows the complexity of the task, but I'm sure there's no plans soon to move Congress to the bunkers. At least Vietnam taught us that the military should run such matters and "political" wars are useless.
You destroy the infrastructure, the support and the money and it doesn't matter if a goat herder on a mountainside is angry.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:10:39 PM new
I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that the remedies of the past have not worked so something new must be tried.
We either fight on some level, we totally isolate ourselves and hide from the world, or we surrender????
posted on September 16, 2001 05:11:25 PM newJames: Sorry -- I thought your "thoughtful person" comment was addressed to me. thanks for the clarifying edit....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 05:11:29 PM new
I am a thoughtful person. I am not going to sit by and watch my civilazation be destroyed by worrying about collateral damage. That is the nature of war. The next attack they launch may be so deadly that we would be even be able to rebound to even fight them. You will not be able to type your human kindness of your computer, on auction watch, because there will not be a auction watch. There will be no western civilization. The freedom you enjoy right now required collateral damage in past wars. You better start thinking in terms of survival and forget about the innocent people or the only innocent people who will be dead will be your own.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:11:32 PM new
As far as the popularity of these regimes -- Syria. Look up the city of "Hama" in an internet search engine and find out how the Assad family rules Syria.
Saddam -- look up the reasons why the north and south of his countries are "no fly zones". Hint: it's because of the people who live there and what he does to them.
There is no such thing as "popularity" in these countries. They rule through a fist so iron you'll be very, very shocked by what you read.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 16, 2001 05:12 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 05:19:44 PM newartdoggy: Again, I hear what you are saying. But are you prepared to go to war against basically the entire Middle East? And keep in mind that the collateral damage that occurred during past wars is NOTHING compared to the loss of life [on both sides] a conflict such as this would likely cause.
In our past involvements in the middle East, we've been content to sit back and send in high-tech bombers with little or no fear of retribution. But that's because we actually had the support of many of the other Arab nations at the time. To do what James suggests, we would have to wage war against most of the countries in the Mid East. Could it be done? Of course. And perhaps we could even get the other Western nations to join in with us. But I can pretty much guarantee you that these various countries do indeed have access to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc., and they wouldn't be afraid to use them if faced with extinction.
If what James says is true, this may in fact be necessary. But we're basically talking the war to end all wars here, in my opinion, and I'm not sure there'd be much of a world left to live in when we were through.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[edited for spelling...]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 16, 2001 05:20 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 05:25:23 PM new
Barry is the most awful person to debate with. He never stops telling you he understands your position, however... How aggravating!
posted on September 16, 2001 05:32:04 PM new
That Ok the funny thing is I understand his poition on this and to a degree I agree with it the problem is what could bring this ideal poition into being.
To be honest this battle in the middle east has been going on for over well over a thousand years and even more tears.
