What Osama bin Laden wants

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Assuming Osama bin Laden is the major figure behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks, I think he is well-pleased at everything that has happened so far, including the American reaction.

Here is what I think is going on.

First, it is important to grasp that bin Laden is playing a long shot. He may have millions of dollars, but that is a small bankroll for what he wants to accomplish. More than the money, he has a plan. With some luck, he wants to set events in motion that will lead to the emergence of a strong, unified Islamic power - not just to rival the West, but to overshadow it, just as we have overshadowed Islam for several centuries.

Everything is going exactly as he expected. Maybe even a bit better than he hoped for.

The coordinated attacks of Sept. 11 were meant to be massive enough in their effects to enrage us, galvanize us, make us bellow with pain and to make us leap into action. He did lose one plane over Pennsylvania, but the spectacular collapse of the WTC and the sense of crisis that engendered was too good to be true.

So far, so good. He wanted that.

He must have known that most of the governments of the world, including the moderate Islamic governments would line up behind the USA to come after him. After all, he saw the coalition during the Persion Gulf war. Rather than be upset, I am sure he wanted this.

From what I can see, bin Laden despises the moderate Islamic governments. He sees them as weak, as puppets for the West, as un-Islamic and the biggest obstacle to the Islamic power block he wants to catalyze into existence.

Bin Laden is counting on his belief that these moderate governments are ripe to be swept away by the same sort of revolution that took place in Iran. He sees them as so many Shahs waiting to be toppled. Bin Laden believes that the ordinary citizens of Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and other Islamic countries are already disgruntled at their government's pro-West policies and their oppression of dissent at home.

How can he stir up these populations? He won't. He wants us to do the job for him.

Osama bin Laden is hoping and praying that the USA , in its rage and in the arrogance of our power, will over react to his deliberate provocation, overstep all limits of respect and decency, and overplay our position of strength so badly that our actions will backlash against us in the Islamic world.

In fact, this is his confident expectation. He feels certain we will act the part he has planned for us.

If we behave badly enough, if we bomb indisriminately enough, if we trample on Islamic pride arrogantly enough, we will be doing his work in the world. Then we will see the pro-Western Islamic governments completely discredited by their association with us and start to fall.

The more the Islamic world united behind fundamentalist governments, with ourselves as the enemy, the more bases he will have to operate from, the more fires we will be forced to put out. If Osama bin Laden can manage to spark revolt in places like Saudi Arabia (oil) or Pakistan (nuclear bombs), he will be more than halfway home. He'll have us by the short hairs.

You gotta admit, for man starting with a few million dollars and a few hundred fanatical recruits, he has figured out a plausible path to get where he wants to go: a billion Mulims united against the West, controlling most of the world's oil and protected by nuclear bombs. And our power vastly diminished.

Have you seen anything happening yet that shows he is much off course? I don't.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 24, 2001

Answers

Please answer on this thread and ignore the other thread - maybe Unk can eliminate the duplicate before both versions accumulate replies. Thanks.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 24, 2001.

LN, I disagree with your premise implying we will behave badly, overracting, bombing indiscriminately. The current administration hasn't indicated any of this in any way. Further even if we did react as you have laid out and forced certain governments to side with Osama, great for us. We'd then have more clear targets as opposed to clandestine ones. And Pakistan's little arsenal of nukes doesn't even come close to 'protection' against the coalition of the West. I'm afraid the only 'home' Osama wants contains 70 virgins just for him.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 24, 2001.

Besides Bush is probably splitting the profits with Osama right now. He is taking BILLIONS to fight a secret war. How much you want to bet that we never get Osama? and how much you want to bet that Bush keeps coming back for more and more money for the secret war?

-- The cat is out of the bag (I@wonder.com), September 24, 2001.

I smell a conspiracy theorist in da house. Tell me, are you afraid to touch doorknobs also?

-- but wonderin=====sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 24, 2001.

LN, your analysis makes sense to me.

Maria, LN isn't saying that he expects us to overreact, he is saying that bin Laden may be expecting that. In regard to your view that an eruption of hostilities may give us more clear targets, if the article posted on An Afghan-American speaks (from salon.com) is on the mark, we might just end up with many more clandestine ones.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 24, 2001.



"LN, I disagree with your premise implying we will behave badly, overracting, bombing indiscriminately."

Uh, Maria, if read a bit more carefully, you'll see this was not my premise, but a premise I ascribed to Osama bin Laden. It is one of the factors he is counting on in order to bring his long shot home.

My attitude is that the actions of the Bush administration so far have been fairly reasonable and restrained. Good. But the rhetoric all across America, including Bush and Congresscritters of both stripes, has vowed to deliver a level of violence and revenge that would be hard to satisfy without a goodly amount of carnage - including bombs galore and a body count in the tens of thousands.

Our leaders did the whole chest-beating thing in spades. Now they have put themselves in a position where the world will either see they were blowing a lot of hot air, or they must escalate the violence rapidly to meet the level of their rhetoric.

I prefer to think that they will act rationally, deliberately and in our best interest, and not worry too much about what they said in the heat of anger.

But it is still too early to know if they will succumb to the temptation to use overwhelming force or against whom they will direct it. We're still in the very early stages of this "war". It is a long road that has no turning. The next few years will be fraught with dangers.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 24, 2001.


So you say you are surmising what Osama thinks. The resultant premise is that we will behave badly. Whether it's Osama who believes this or you believe that Osama believes this is not relevant since the outcome is the same.

I recall Bush saying that we (the public) may never know of some our actions because of their covertness. I don't recall the sec of defense or state saying 'let's get the bastards'. As a matter of fact, they hold back on the exact plans and rightfully so. I don't hear much 'chest-beating' but rather 'let's get our ducks in order'. They have indicated a difference between terrorists and other Mulims wanting to live in peace. That doesn't sound 'indiscriminate' to me, but rather purposeful and directed. But that's just the difference between your opinion and mine. (If we did an immediate response, THAT would be overreacting and 'chest-beating'.) Your view is an expected one from someone who knows nothing about the military and the very many different venues it can take. You can bet it won't be broadcast the way Vietnam was. Remember Granada.

David, that article came out last week. I don't recall one cabinet member melding all followers into one. As a matter of fact, Bush called upon all Americans to not fight each other, in the wake of a store owner's murder.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 24, 2001.


Nipper:

You've cut to the kernel of terrorism, I think. A small response (as we've done in the past) indicates weakness and lack of national will. A large response is that of a bully. A response halfway between these will be interpreted as *both*, as occasion demands. A lose-lose situation. Terrorism is like vandalism -- doing nothing invites more, and jail is overkill. And we are not about to reach "hearts and minds", these being pretty well committed one way or another.

But it's not clear what manner of response you think would be most effective. Effective at what? Exactly what should be our goal here? To exact suitable revenge? To remove specific terrorists and require their (rapid) replacement? To depose certain governments, risking worse ones in their stead? To improve our intelligence capabilities so as to better defend ourselves?

These are critical questions, because the goals dictate the means of reaching them. I take it from what you've written that you don't prefer the "equivalent dead civilian count" response. But what DO you see as appropriate?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 24, 2001.


"Whether it's Osama who believes this or you believe that Osama believes this is not relevant since the outcome is the same."

Uh? Yes? The outcome is that Osama is the only person to whom the belief is ascribed. Osama's belief is not the same as my belief about his belief.

Your earlier response did not demonstrate that you understood this distinction. You said:

"LN, I disagree with your premise implying we will behave badly, overracting, bombing indiscriminately."

Just to make this clear in your mind, let's say (for example) that I live next to a crazy old man who wears a raincoat every time he leaves the house. Furthermore he is always holding out his cupped hand and peering up at the sky to see if it is raining, even when the sky is blue.

I surmise that this crazy old man expects rain even when the sky is cloudless and blue. I come here and write a humorous piece about this man who expects rain from a clear blue sky.

In your reply to this, we'll pretend you write "LN, I disagree with your premise implying that rain will fall from a clear blue sky."

I point out that rain from a blue sky was his premise, not mine. And you reply:

"So you say you are surmising what this crazy old man thinks. The resultant premise is that rain will fall from a clear blue sky. Whether it's the crazy man who believes this or you believe that the crazy man believes this is not relevant since the outcome is the same."

Uh? Yes?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 24, 2001.


Isn't this exactly what I already pointed out in this post a week ago?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006Q4X

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 24, 2001.



Ooops...



-- Zzzzz (
asleep@the.wheel), September 24, 2001.


Double ooops...

Why we are better than terrorists (Bemused, and_amazed@you.people, 2001-09-18)

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 24, 2001.


LN, I think your question trivializes what has happened, ie a huge act of war has been committed on this nation. The ideal response would be to apply precisely the amount of force (conventional military, special ops military, political, economic, psychological, whatever) for precisely the right amount of time to defeat the unknown enemy that has attacked us. Unfortunately that is not possible. It never is.

The first responsibility of a government is to provide for the common defense. Like Flint said "what DO you see as appropriate?" What about after the next outrage? And the next?

Personally, I could not care less why "they" did it. Thing is they did do it. They will do it again and again until we stop them

They hide among their own people, so there will be "collateral damage". That's how much they give a shit for their own people.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 24, 2001.


THIS WAR,will be a loooooong loooong war,leading to a world [charismatic] leader,who seem's too have all the answer's for world-peace.yes a true wolf,in sheeps clothing!! a viper ,in a basket of fruit!!

DECEPTION,will be the trap-set,for the final-age!!!

do a study,of the tower of babel=confusion. and remember=there is no profit[for GREEDY merchants]in JUSTICE FOR ALL!! somebody gotta be the slave.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 25, 2001.


LN, "Your earlier response did not demonstrate that you understood this distinction." Too bad you can't see beyond that first sentence of mine. I began with that as the starting premise; excuse me for calling it a premise. If I had known you would be disecting that word, I wouldn't have bothered to try to discuss any of this. I had many more thoughts than my first sentence which disagreed with you.

Your scenario starts with our next move and us behaving "badly". Our leaders have yet to indicate "bad" behavior. If you're done analyzing my word "premise", can we move on to that sentence. Tell me how our administration has demonstrated any hint of "behaving badly".

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 25, 2001.



Maria: "Tell me how our administration has demonstrated any hint of 'behaving badly'."

Maria, go back. Read what I said: "My attitude is that the actions of the Bush administration so far have been fairly reasonable and restrained. Good."

You see, I clearly said that "our administration" has acted in a "fairly reasonable and restrained" manner. My words. Read them. Why are you insisting that I defend something that I already said I don't believe is true?

Pardon me if I don't feel like following this line of questioning. It only makes me tired and accomplishes nothing.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


Lars: "LN, I think your question trivializes what has happened..."

If you can show me what I said that trivializes the enormity of these attacks, then I will gladly apologize and speak with more care in the future. But I don't understand what you are reading in my words.

Lars: "Personally, I could not care less why 'they' did it."

No amount of 'understanding' could possibly justify this atrocity. If you think that I was attempting to write an apology for the attacks, or to excuse them in any way, then you are failing to understand my purpose. I had no such idea in mind. None. The word 'inexcusable' isn't nearly strong enough. No words could be strong enough to condemn what these men did to more thaqn 6,000 innocent people.

As a result, we are at war. In war, you must understand your enemy's strengths and weaknesses, his strategy and his tactics, his aims and his means, his hopes and his dreams. You do these things in order to probe for his blind spots, to lull his suspicions, to surprise and to baffle his expectations. You do this so you can win and win at the least cost and danger to yourself and your friends.

It is a mistake not to care about our enemy. It is a mistake to think that he hasn't carefully studied us in this way and is prepared to exploit our own weaknesses and blind spots for his own advantage.

Most of all, it could be a fatal mistake to think we have no significant weaknesses or blind spots that can be turned against us. As any martial arts novice could tell you, every strength contains a weakness. You can't separate them.

As a nation, what we think, say and do affects our leaders and the policy they make. If we put revenge ahead of thought, if we demand quick action for the sake of quick action, then we are likely to get it. There is an old saying about being careful what you ask for because you might get it.

That was my purpose in writing about what bin Laden wants us to do. Not to trivialize the attacks, or the deaths of the dead, or the grief of the grieving, or the heroics of the rescuers. I hope that is clearer to you now.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


LN, "Have you seen anything happening yet that shows he is much off course? I don't." Your hypothethical "Osama" plan is nothing more than stupid remarks on your part. You speak about what has taken place. Ok fine, thanks for the stroll down memory lane.

Then you come up with Osama's plan and how "he has figured out a plausible path to get where he wants to go: a billion Mulims united against the West, controlling most of the world's oil and protected by nuclear bombs. And our power vastly diminished." Where is this 'plausible path' that you've laid out? Oh never mind; it's smoke and mirrors.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 25, 2001.


It was Bush that began using the word "crusade" in connection with all of this, on world wide TV. Simply brilliant of him. Brilliant. "Crusade" translates directly into "Jihad". Just what they wanted to hear.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 25, 2001.

Flint and Lars have asked what I think is an appropriate course of action to take in response to the attacks. I will try to give an answer to this question.

First I want to start with a disclaimer. I am sticking my neck out. I know what happens when a neck is exposed in this forum - it gets chopped. It will scarcely matter what I say - there will be someone to attack it.

This is a complex subject. Planning for this war will be the work of many thousands of trained and paid experts in the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA. These people have been thinking about this problem in many cases for over a decade. I have been thinking about this answer for a couple of hours at most. Don't expect it to be complete.

I would also like to suggest to both Flint and Lars, that as the ones who requested that I expose MY neck, you might want to honor my willingness to do so by refraining from chopping too vigorously until you have shown an equal amount of willingness to stick your own necks out.

Or is that too much to expect?

Now, on to my answer.

It seems to me that the problem divides into two parts: dealing with the terrorists themselves and dealing with the nations that have covertly used terrorists as cat's paws for their own national policies.

The terrorists who carried out the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon - whether bin Laden or others - must be hunted down and killed. I would prefer that this be done with the fewest lives lost among non-combatants as reasonable precautions can ensure.

This goal should be announced as explicitly and widely as possible. It wouldn't be tipping our hand at all. Everyone in the world expects us to kill the perps if we can. That is simple justice. I would also anticipate the need to justify our choice of targets by offering evidence that they bear some responsibility.

If I were Bush, I'd be asking some of our Islamic friends (such as the Kuwaitis) to mount their own covert operations, fully independent of us, to kill bin Laden. If they want our help or assistance, that's fine, too. Carte blanche.

I see and fully approve of Bush's moves to choke off the funding for terror groups.

I would hope that he is also conducting a lot of secret negotiations with our allies to arrive at mutually-agreed secret memos of understanding that outline how we shall coordinate our intelligence and operations. No need to publicize those agreements.

I would also hope that someone in the Bush administration is tasked to consider the propaganda war and how to win Islamic hearts and minds away from hatred. Our Israel policy must change. Our Palestinian policy must change. They must become more explicit and more forceful. Toward both sides.

As for nations that sponsor terrorism, they present a peculiar challenge. They use terrorists as mercenary soldiers in a shadow war, and disclaim responsibility for the actions of their proxies.

The peculiar challenge here is that the USA has long been addicted to waging war in precisely this same manner. We have hired proxy armies to kill for us all over the map. In the case of the Contras, we raised an army of about 40,000 soldiers, paid them, equipped them and let them kill tens of thousands of Nicarauguans for us, while disclaiming responsibility for them.

If we condemn Syria, Iran, Lybia or Iraq for these acts, the entire world (beyond the borders of the USA) will instantly see the rank hypocrisy involved. The more righteous our condemnation, the more we shall condemn ourselves. I know this is a very unpopular fact to bring up at a time of national mourning, but it is simply, unavoidably true. And it has a direct bearing on this new war we have dclared.

The only possible way to negate the effects of this fact from robbing us of valuable moral high ground is to face up to it. If we announce a new set of rules for conducting proxy wars and try to apply them to our enemies, we are going to have to acknowledge a long past of flauting those rules ourselves and then deal with it openly. Lies make bad propaganda. So does bald hypocrisy.

Deeds, however, make excellent propaganda. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of Afghani civilians near starvation, due to drought and deep poverty. I would step up food and medical aid there. And figure out how to maximize the propaganda effect.

I would be working the State Department very hard in the coming months, burning up the lines with diplomatic communications. This DOES NOT mean that I would be seeking some negotiated "settlement" with either terrorists or the nations who sponsor them. But rather I think we need to keep our friends and allies and neutral nations fully informed - and to keep ourselves informed about them. Surprise is for the enemy, not for our allies in a war. A steady stream of "carrots and sticks" should be articulated for the consumption of the neutral nations.

Iraq should get some special consideration. We badly need to end Saddam's ability to blame the USA for sanctions, while at the same time negating him as a military or terrorist threat. We haven't gotten rid of him. I'd open secret negotiations and test out what combination of incentives and threats might keep him neutralized.

I'd be perfectly happy to let him have a PR victory, if at the same time I knew he was effectively neutered and would not act against us. I am not at all sure what incentives could accomplish this. I only know that in war, you consider all the options.

I would reserve the option of conventional or nuclear war, but keep it as far out of sight as I could - until it became necessary to bring it to the fore. An attack on the USA or on a NATO ally using any Weapon of Mass Destruction would instantly bring that option to the forefront. One nuke from them should bring twenty from us. And EVERYONE needs to know this up front, as in the Gulf War.

These thoughts at least indicate the tenor of what I think is an "appropriate" way to conduct this war. Not every thought is fully considered or fully developed. This list does not exhaust the options I would consider pursuing. I reserve the right to rethink or rescind any of them. And in the end, nothing I say here will matter much, I suspect, except to stimulate discussion among a small group of opinionated people.

Anyone else want to stick his or ger neck out?

Oh, and I love you all.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


I thought I had been sticking my neck out, I always do. But I'll do it again.

I think there are three targets in this war. The first is the terrorists themselves, and I agree that they should be ferreted out and exterminated. I doubt we have this ability, but I doubt we'd have much trouble snagging a few Arabs, blaming them, and killing them. I *strongly* believe that if we could kill every single terrorist in bin Laden's organization, we would not really slow down terrorism itself much at all. As I wrote on another thread, you can't get a creationist to believe in evolution (or vice versa) by putting a gun to his head.

The second enemy is the political power within those countries that support terrorists as proxies. Not just the decision makers, but their key financial and social supporters. These are the most important people to be eliminated, because without them terrorism is defanged. IF we really had the ability to do this, and they knew we had it, then a few careful applications now and then might suffice.

The third enemy is the public perception within those target countries. What politicians might agree to do privately, they simply cannot afford to admit to publicly. They have invested heavily for too long in deifying themselves and demonizing the US, and cannot be perceived by their constituencies as secretly acting in cahoots with the devil.

So maybe the best approach is to ask them nice, kill a few key supporters quietly to show we mean it, and then use their assistance to round up some terrorists while keeping their role quiet to save their faces. Then make a big show of killing terrorists to keep the US population happy.

And if they refuse privately, then it becomes necessary to undercut them publicly. This means nukes, period.

But all of this assumes our goal is primarily to reduce terrorism. If the primary goal is something different (i.e. to win the next presidential election, to control our oil supply directly, etc.) then different approaches might be called for.

I think all this business about hypocrisy and moral high ground is simply silly. Governments are amoral, terrorists are fanatics, citizens can't remember since yesterday. The hearts and minds are long since indelibly spoken for. Those hearts and minds will invariably bite the hand that reaches out to them because that's how they've been trained since infancy. Most of them will do as told when it's clear we will kill them otherwise, but that's the best we can hope for. And we have to kill a whole bunch of people, VERY publicly, to get their attention and make our willingness clear.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 2001.


"Most of them will do as told when it's clear we will kill them otherwise, but that's the best we can hope for. And we have to kill a whole bunch of people, VERY publicly, to get their attention and make our willingness clear."

What would this look like in practise?

About all I can derive from this is that the USA has no effective choice other than nuking one or two places like Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, and then loudly proclaiming that, if we are attacked again, we'll just reduce a few more countries to radioactive glass. Then we keep this course of action until the attacks stop.

If we were the only country with nukes and nerve gas, this kind of strategy might work. We aren't.

If I were not an American and I saw America embark on this violent grasp at utter world domination, I might be tempted to conclude that the only chance at safety in this world would be the annihilation of America as soon as possible.

Since this course of action is likely to lead very swiftly either to a dead world or an enslaved world, I think you must have something else in mind. I just need more details to figure out what that would be.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


Nipper:

I think we are operating from different conceptions of human nature. You seem to believe that if we are only real real nice to everyone and keep turning the other cheek, they will all love us and leave us alone. You also seem to believe that there is no such thing as deterrence. Your chain of assumptions leading to a dead world assumes that criminals commit crimes *because* they are punished, and if only we taxed the productive to subsidize them, they would lead lives of virtuous gratitude.

The only problems with your assumptions is that, in practice, they have all proved false. In some cases, your assumptions imply the exact opposite of observation. But I've been reading your politics long enough that this does not surprise me.

I think most people understand that when one side breaks the unwritten rules, their victim is permitted to retaliate in kind. Not to *initiate* the hostilities, mind you. But to react appropriately to the attack.

Through my eyes, the terrorists are not motivated in ANY WAY by past US hipocrisy or foreign policy. They are motivated by the global success of our culture, by the threat that our way of life presents by its very portable popularity, by the speed with which we foment change of all kinds around the world. The enemies of the Western Economic And Technology Engine are reactionaries of all varieties.

The most devastating response we can (and will) make is to keep on inventing, keep on researching and developing, keep on pushing the envelope of what's socially acceptable. The terrorists are desperately trying to cram the genie back into the bottle, unable (for example) to convince their women any longer that they CAN'T have opinions, and demanding instead that they BETTER NOT have opinions. They are losing this battle, worse all the time.

The rest of this "war" is all politics. No matter what response we make, we cannot help but demonstrate to all the world what the wages of terrorism really are. So I guess we both wait and watch to see what kind of example gets set.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 2001.


Flint, your opinion of my politics is all well and good. Your dim view of my view of humannature is mighty interesting. But you did not answer my question.

You said you favored killing "a whole bunch of people", but you were a bit slack on the details.

Will ANY people serve equally well for this demonstration of our ability to kill people?

There seems to be excess population in China. Do you think maybe that would be a good place to start?

Or would this "whole bunch" of corpses have to be Arab? Iranian? Afghani? Iraqi? A random smattering of all of these chosen by throwing darts at a dartboard?

I don't ask much. Just a clue as to what you think should be done in Real Life(tm). "A whole bunch of people" lacks particularity. If you gave that kind of order to the military, god knows what they'd do.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


We'll never resort to nukes, we just won't. That's not even on the administration's table or open to discussion, I'd bet my very last dime on that. Those are reserved exclusively for the "saving" of vast armies that are about to be overwhelmed (ours, I mean) or as "Second Strike" retaliatory instruments; i.e. you do it to us and we'll do it back.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 25, 2001.

Nipper:

You seem remarkably short on imagination this evening. Surely goading for the fun of it is beneath you?

After some rereading, I don't exactly find your description of what I wrote to match the words themselves. But anyway, I have been reading that we have a pretty damn good idea which regimes harbor and support terrorists. I won't be so cynical as to suggest that we'd pick some such opponent purely on the basis of their domestic unpopularity and inability to fight back, but who can say? I'm willing to believe in all good faith that the named countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc.) have at the very least made less than a sincere effort to evict terrorists.

Maybe more to the point, I believe the governments of each of these countries could be instrumental in helping weed out such creatures, if they should happen to be suddenly and agreeably cooperative. Where we differ is, I don't believe that they will find our "moral high ground" all that persuasive in changing their tune so drastically. At least, not in our lifetimes.

But as I suggested, why not give them the opportunity to do so, out of their public's eye so as to save face? If they refuse privately, ask publicly (and very strongly). If they still refuse (as we know they must), THEN bring out the heavy artillary. Make it clear both to other governments AND their citizens what happened -- that the opportunity to do it the easy way was offered, and will be again. And that the hard lessons only get taught to the slow learners.

In any case, I notice you continue to ignore what I consider the real problem, namely the global popularity of our culture. Do you intend your silence to imply we should tone our cultural vigor down?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 2001.


"After rereading, I don't exactly find your description of what I wrote to match the words themselves."

Do some more rereading. I did not 'describe what you wrote'. I was careful to say this was all I could derive from what you wrote, due to the paucity of details indicating what you meant.

Further, I explicitly said, "...I think you must have something else in mind. I just need more details to figure out what that would be."

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.


No amount of 'understanding' could possibly justify this atrocity. If you think that I was attempting to write an apology for the attacks, or to excuse them in any way, then you are failing to understand my purpose. I had no such idea in mind. None. The word 'inexcusable' isn't nearly strong enough. No words could be strong enough to condemn what these men did to more thaqn 6,000 innocent people.

LN--

If this is how you feel, then that is good enough for me. My initial reaction to this thread was that you were reducing the atrocity to an intellectual parlor game. The fact that you recently published a blame-America-first screed by the execrable Tom J Wright conditioned me to mistrust the intentions of this thread. However, I accept your point about understanding our enemy as best we can.

I am not qualified to make specific suggestions about we proceed beyond saying that we must get these people somehow and soon or terror attacks will happen again.

I have posted before that I'd oppose having the regular US army on the ground in Afghanistan. IMO, anything else (except for nukes and bio-chem is fair game). If they use nukes and/or bio-chem on us, I say retaliate in kind, civilians if that is "in kind". At that point it becomes total war.

In the meantime, I advocate rooting out the terror cells in the US. Deport them, put them in concentration camps, I don't care. Their claim to civil liberties is moot. I would like to think that Special Ops could be effective on the ground in Afghanistan but I defer to Zzzzzz's greater knowledge of what is possible with Special Ops. I believe we should make common-cause withf Taliban's enemies (such as the "Northern Coalition"), Iran, whoever. There may be many groups who would cooperate with us without saying so publically. They may not be the nicest people but these days an enemy of our enemy is our friend.

I say isolate Taliban and the terror network politically and economically. I say use dirty tactics, assassinations, sabotage, espionage. At the very least, keep them on the defensive.

Taliban allowed someone to burn down our embassy yesterday. IMO, there is no longer the slightest distinction between Taliban and Bin Laden.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 26, 2001.


Right on Lars.

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ