Terrorism Debate

[jn.loudnotes]

I'm disappointed to have missed some of the debate on the US's reaction to the WTC attack, but I just want to add my own 3 or 4 cents.

It seems like everyone seems to have an opinion, but to quote pyschoassassin, "where are the voices of reason?"

We Americans are hurt and angry over the attack, but why is there so much talk of war?  Having read through some of the threads here, I can also quote another apt comment - it seems as though some of us have yet to fully evolve.  Quite simply, what possible good can come from further bloodshed?

Why is it that [in this week's Newsweek poll] 71% of Americans support an attack on countries that harbor terrorists, regardless of an civilian casualties?  In our blind rush for revenge, have we lost all respect for human life?  Isn't this a time when we ought to value it even more so?

In all of the world's history, war has never been successful when the enemy is not fully defined, and often leads to further innocents' casualties.  When America entered the highly controversial Vietnam war, the enemy was uncertain.  When a soldier entered a ravaged village, there was no way to know if he were surrounded by friendly supporters or 6-year old children aiming handguns.  War has no true rules.  If we enter a 'war' against Afganistan, intending to root out and 'eliminate' all the terrorists, how will we know who is the enemy?  Are the curious citizens on the street innocent, or do they make dark plots when we do not look?  Are their lives important?  Should US troops kill these potential terrorists?  How can we know?

Perhaps I have not voiced these concerns as clearly as some might, as I am but a na?ve 14-year old.  However, I do not wish to live in a world in which people will be massacred by the supposed greatest nation on earth, simply for sharing a religion, a homeland, or a culture with evil.  There is no simple solution to the threat of terrorism, but it seems clear to me that retaliatory violence serves no purpose and further increases the body count. If we attempt to eradicate all terrorists from the world, it will give legitimacy to their cause among those dispirited people with which they live.  America does not need to give itself further cause to be seen as the enemy, we need to instead do more to be the hero.  We give aid money, yet we continue to ignore the oppressive regimes that sap the region.  If we must take action, let it be to completely reform and if necessary replace the government of much of the Middle East....we have the power to do so.

Please add your opinions to this....I am tired of hearing bloodthirsty fools rushing to sign up to "kill the Arabs" [sic].  Although perhaps one of you, and I have seen a few on the forums, can explain to me why a radical viewpoint makes sense.  If you cannot, I certainly hope our nation's leadership can....or will choose a more sensible path than the one I fear they are undertaking.

[?{RiP}? Vapor]

Very well said.

[jn.blackhand]

Loud, your comments are well thought-out, but your logic is skewed.

Retaliation on terrorists and countries that WILLINGLY harbor and SUPPORT them is the right and only course of action.

There will be innocent people who die. There will be bloodshed. Sadly, this in unavoidable.

There is no negotiation with terrorists. There is no way we can get them to stop unless we capture or kill them. We can?t let an attack on thousands of innocent people go unpunished. If we do, it will mean thousands of more people will die.

What is the difference between any retaliatory actions the US will make versus the attacks of the terrorists? US attacks are made in the hopes of saving thousands of potential lives. Terrorist attacks are made in the hopes of destroying and murdering thousands of innocent people.

[?{RiP}? Vapor]

Black brings up a very good point. You don't think that innocent people will die in this? Of course they will, but that's the price we have to pay.

The president said, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and the country that harbors them..." Like Bush said, we aren't not going to allow a country to harbor terrorist who have killed thousands just go unpunished.

[Grifter]

Loud,
very good points, and great use of color ;P

Blackie, I don't think it's "the only course of action and right thing to do" ?I think it's A course of action and not the worst thing. ?But if we could go in, only get the ones that were guilty, that would be the best thing.... now, if only someone knew how to do that. ?

The most important lesson to learn here is that life is all about compromise. ?No solution is ever really perfect for everyone. ?This is the underlying concept that our country is based upon.... that never gets talked about. ?So, to end the effects of terrorism in America (and hopefully the world), many people are going to have to give things up. ?Some will give up freedoms, some will give up safety, some will give up lives.... what's important is that we weigh them all, and make the best decisions going forward. ?After all.... is the life of an innocent American more valuable then the life of an innocent Afghan, or Canadian, or anyone?

Just to throw more food for thought...... as if we didn't have enough.

And remember boys and girls, it's very American to voice your opinions on these issues.  Questioning the government was kind of what started the whole American Revolution way back when, you know.  And that's why Freedom of Speach is what it is.  If it was only meant for the popular ideas.... it wouldn't be freedom.  Please remember that when calling each other names (this doesn't apply to this thread.... yet... but it does in many others).

[?{RiP}? Vapor]

Like Grift said, sometimes America thinks that we are more important then others, but are we really? I mean what makes us so much better then them, just cause we have a well built government? Well, none of this really matters to me, because in my opinion, the US can do just about anything and I will support it.

[!~eFyL~!]

Blind support of a corrupt nation, very nice Vap.  

How does that differ from the blind faith of many Muslims who are followers of fanatical Sheikhs.  Hmmm?

Hypocrisy abounds in this day and age.

[jn.blackhand]

Grift, I wasn't suggesting bombing an entire nation. I was suggesting taking action against those who are guilty. However, if it comes to it, a few missles directed at a terrorist camp that kill a few innocent people is much better than another WTC attack.

[Grifter]

I know what you were saying Blackie.... all I was saying was..... "what is a few".  If we kill one more innocent then they did.... what does it make us?  Is that really worth it.  What if we kill just a few less innocents to get to 'em.....  does that justify killing innocents?  Why is it ok for us, but not for them?

I'm not saying at all that it isn't worth a little bloodshed to bring down these evil bastards.  What I'm saying is that if we aren't careful... we'll be those evil bastards in a lot of eyes.

[jn.loudnotes]

I saw an interesting idea in an email forward today...

Someone suggested that we 'bomb' Afganistan with an airlift.  Essentially, drop thousands of care packages with American goodies.  Bring the people food, clothing, pro-American propaganda, everything western possible.  If the people learn that America is truly not the enemy, they will support us and American-supported governments in the country, not crazed militant Taliban dictators.

Perhaps the best part of this would be that it could be done in such a large scale that it would be impossible to avoid.  Think about how many packages of food or medicine could be airlifted for the price of one cruise missile.

Think about it....we spend millions of dollars on complicated hunks of metal that would feed an entire nation for a day.  Perhaps most appealing, there would be zero loss of life, unless somebody got hit on the head

[Black Sheep]

naw chances are the taliban would tell everybody that it was the evil, greedy, rich, Americans trying to make them think America is their friend, before the invasion. or something like that.
even worse the plan could backfire, and the taliban would be all:
anyone who goes within 10 feet of those crates of food gets shot.
there would be a large loss of civillian life.

on another note, what the hell was with Bush completely ignoring the existance of Canada during his speech to congress??
hes talking about a couple of indians praying at their embassies, and he doesnt even mention the fact that Canada held a huge memorial at Parliament Hill with thousands of people attending, or the fact that canadians in every city turned up in droves to donate blood to the red cross to help with the shortage, and nothing about how our fire fighters headed to New York to help with the crisis. It feels like America gave us the cold shoulder, even after we gave so much help.

[Grifter]

Loud,
I know that three things working against the airlift of care packages are:

1) It didn't work for us in any other conflict we tried it in.  The tried that sort of thing often in Vietnam.... and the practice goes back to WW2.
2) To do it with the right amount of effort that you speak of would mean also supplying the terrorist camps themselves.
3) As to the "no loss of life", methinks they would be shooting down a plane or three that crosses into their airspace.... they wont want us there.... and I'm sure they've purchased a few SAM's.  We'd have to go take those sites out first...... which would mean loss of life.

But Loud, at least you are thinking "out of the box".  Looking for solutions that fit in with your beliefs.  That takes a certain amount of conviction and courage.  I respect that.

Black Sheep, as to Bush ignoring the great white north, eh.  You gotta remember that he has a small amout of time.  He was thanking those individuals mentioned for a specific reason.  To prove a point.  Saying to the American people (his number one audience) that our friends up north are shaken and angry at this...... we all already know that.  It wont make me feel any better to hear Bush say it.  Now, to tell us how people in the middle east are reacting negatively to it, that stops some of the blind hate directed at all middle eastern peoples.

So, thanks Canada!  I will officially never play the "Blame Canada" song again, in honor of your stand with the USA on this."

[/color]

[jn.loudnotes]

Thanks for for pointing those out....

By the way, what is the "blame Canada" song??

[Grifter]

The "Blame Canada" song was from the South Park movie.... from where the US declares war on Canada.  Funny enough, the song was up for an Oscar.

[Precious_Roy]

Black, It's good to have someone with jingoist rantings in every thread.  Needless to say, your wrong.

The "smart bomb" allegedly used in desert storm never was used in large quantities.  most of the bombing occured from slightly upgraded b-52s.

Cruise missles have been proven ineffective in submissifying (i know its not a word, shut up) a country over and over again.  they arn't as accurate as we like to think, and they  don't have the power necessary to be truely useful.

How then do you suppose we retaliate?

We could put in a spec ops team.  A jolly good idea, save for the more than 150 handheld SAMs in the possesion of the taliban.  Any one of which can take out a helicopter.

There is always full scale invasion.  But krustchev might suggest that that doesnt work.  LBJ, god rest his soul, would no doubt agree.

Im not saying we cant do it with force, and im certainly not saying we wont.  But its just not wise, or humane.


As for this "package" thing loud speaks of, well, thats just ridiculous.

Do you know what the surefire way to have zero casualities, and stop the attacks on the US?  Withdraw all troops for the middle east, cut aid to isreal.  That however, is giving into the terrorists, which is just sick.

Why do i feel like I'm repeating my other posts?  O well.  Im all for exhausting our diplimatic options  first, and meanwhile, getting more intelligence on usama's whereabouts and organization.

[jn.blackhand]

Mort, so essentially your ideal course of action is...wait...you don't have one. You haven't suggested a solution, just tried to pick apart and prove that eveyone else's are not going to work.

I'm all for gathering intelligence and having a strategized political attack on the terrorists, but there's no way in hell the US won't retaliate with force.

As I already said, the terrorists aren't going to put down their guns and walk into their local US embassy and asked to be arrested. We won't be able to use politics to get the terrorists, which is why an attack on terrorists is inveitable.

Bottom line, whether we use a political attack or a armed forces attack, the terrorists are going to get pissed and will start making more and more attacks on America. In other words, we're going to get hit either way, and we might as well hit back harder, quicker, and with a bigger bang.

and finally, if people actually listened to your ideas, the US would most likely be in a heated war with Iceland. yep. it's sooo true.

[Ace]

Ok, I guess it's time for me to end my weekend long sabbatical and chime in with my opinions. Where to begin.

I'll start with the only truly viable idea in the thread, blackhand's. You guys have to be realistic about a few things:
A) We MUST retaliate hard against the terrorists. There is absolutely no room for a debate on letting this go. We are the United States of America. You do not do this to us and get away with it.
B) There may be a small loss of innocent life, but this is pretty much inevitable in combat. Even sending in the special forces would result in the loss of life. GRIFT touched on the point of whether the life of an American is more valuable than the life of a foreigner. I say that this is almost wholeheartedly true (Britain and Canada have always stuck with us. I have a great amount of respect for both of those nations, and I afford their citizens almost the same respect I do for Americans) If it comes down to sacrificing the lives of 100 Afghans to save 50 American soldiers, there is no choice in my mind.

Loudnotes, I must admit that your solution was creative, even if it wasn't realistic. I would like to make it clear that airlifting has worked in one war time situation, but this was under very different circumstances. When the USSR cut off access to West Berlin, we airlifted food, water, and even toys (hey, you can't have Christmas without toys) for the West Berlin people. This was a huge success, and the USSR was forced to back down.

Mort, I almost knew you would come up with the Vietnam comparison, but this situation is different. Our technology is far more advanced, and our goals are completely different. We wouldn't be trying to beat the entire country into submission like Nam. We would be searching out Bin Laden and possibly Taliban leaders/strongholds. Also, we aren't incompetent like the USSR in the 80's. Plus, the USSR had to go up against our supplies in the 80's. No one will give that kind of aid to Afghanistan today. They will be using... the same supplies we gave them 20 years ago.



On a final note, I would like to add to GRIFT's comment about the "Blame Canada" song. I used to be the biggest Canadian basher around (Rogue can attest) However, Canada gained a huge deal of respect with their efforts to help us in this. I have not made a Canadian joke since, and I hope I won't be making any for a long time.

[Grifter]

Ace, how did I forget about the Berlin Air Drop of goods.  Good catch.

The big differences between what can happen now, and what happened to the US in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan are:

• The other superpower will not be backing them this time.  The USSR and China backed Vietnam with supplys and weapons.  The US backed Afghans in the same way.  Not to mention training, intellegence, etc.
  
• This will not be a half-assed attempt.  The public is behind this campaign... and will send in enough support to get the job done (whatever the job is).
  

Now, that said, I still say that it is the responsibility of the US to ensure that we do not sink to the level of terrorists ourselves..... the wholesale slaughter of innocents must be avoided.  Will there be some, without a doubt.  But to be proud of being an American, we have to make that as small a number as possible.  Let's face it, the average Afghan person, could probably care less.... and just wants to stay out of the way.  We should let them.

And finally, my blood cries out for vengence and justice as much as the next guys.... maybe more.  I just know there is none to be found in snuffing out the lives of those that had nothing to do with it.
[/color]

[Precious_Roy]

If it comes down to sacrificing the lives of 100 Afghans to save 50 American soldiers, there is no choice in my mind.

Fuck you Ace.  A human life is a human life.  Nearly any other country in the world (save canada and memberrs of the EU) would rather sacrifice 100 Americans to save 50 of their soldiers.  Nicely done with your racism there.

The west berlin airlift is a totally different issue.  We were supporting what were essentially our citezans, not propagandaizing another sovreign nation.

Douf:  I did give a solution, exhaust our diplomatic options first, and simultainiously aquire more intelligence.  you may have been confused by the diction... I used "exahust" because im not to optimistic that it will work.  But no one elses plans seem to be that reasonable either.  

No one expects the terrorists to surrender, but enough pressure on the taliban could force them to turn the terrorists over, at least usama.

Ace/grift:  The Afgans don't need a superpower to back them, they have the terrain.  Why do you think hitler never attacked switzerland?  Because he liked chocolate, watches, and knives?  No, the answer was that the Swiss had the ability to defend every mountain pass the nazi's attacked.  An attack by THE premier army of 39, 40, and 41 against a tiny neutral nation armed  with rifles  would have failed, or if Hitler was lucky, successful at tremendous cost.

The terrain is the same, the discrepency in manpower and technology, comperable.  An attack by the premeir army of 99, 00, and 01 will  no doubt be successful, but only in oxidizing the middle eastern people against us.  The cost will be tremendous, and yet, there is no way we can wipe every terrorist out.  In fact, our involvement will no doubt breed MORE afgan terrorists.

I'm sorry if I compare this to Vietnam so much, but the resemblence is striking.  You can fight a nation, but not a people... and yet that is where we are headed.

[dave-s]

Surely if America wants to tackle terrorism and any one who aids terrorists in any way it should first look internally and stop the funding to the IRA, something which seems to have been kept fairly quiet.

Also [sorry if has been mentioned] bombing Afghanistan would make any difference they havnt got anything of value anyway, The dropping supplies is a good idea but wouldnt work.

Anyway just my little bit to add.