I've TRIED to get across on this forum that Osama bin Laden was NOT the enemy in this "war on terrorism". I've TRIED to get across that even if we had his head on a stick, terrorism is already melded into some cultures. This man [in and of himself] means NOTHING. For that matter, Saddam Hussein means nothing.

While watching CNN yesterday, I noticed the little scrowl lines down at the bottom of the TV screen stating that Ashcroft stated that the terrorist threats represented a virtual spider web of activity across the globe. This thought represents the thoughts in several articles I read in the past few days regarding "networking". The "networking" [articles too lengthy to post] has already been done. Cells in countries all over the world have already been trained, and can train others at their whim.

Short article on all of this

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001

Answers

Leave it to Buckley to use a word like "pustulation". If obscure words could kill, he would be a mass-murderer.

I think his point is valid but incomplete. Bin Laden is not the but he certainly is an enemy. Putting his head on a spike would not be a bad idea.

I think Pres Bush and team are very aware of the totality of the threat we face. I would not be surprised if we strike Saddam. For the time being, let him think we are fixated on bin Laden. "Vengeance is best served cold".

Ultimately we must penetrate the terrorist groups on the ground in this country. We can do that but it will take time.

Anita, are you prepared to support a hot war on Saddam? You seem to believe he is the key, but I don't think you like military solutions. Neither do I and I don't even have a son who is draft age.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 08, 2001.

linkM/a>

The people living in these "extreme" regimes are NOT represented. Knowing that they have nowhere to go with their rage, they lean towards the fundamentalist/far-out factions. I guess one might compare the scenario to the street gangs in the U.S.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Forgive me a minute while I test out this thread, Lars. I have NO idea what I did wrong in the above, and reviewing the source left me with no clues.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Well, it looks like I only fucked up MY post, which is good.

Hot war? Pfft. Saddam's been sitting there doing his thing [for how long now?] and I'm supposed to support a hot war against him? I don't think so.

My point, Lars, is that this whole thing is kindof like gang warfare, only more sneaky because the people involved have brains. It's not LIKE there's a "head of it all" to take out. The message has been sent, and the cells will do what they want REGARDLESS.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Anita, you neglected to place the "less than" symbol before /A> (your closing instruction). I think you you accidently blaced a b in plsceog it.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 08, 2001.

I agree with that. What is your conclusion? That we have no choice but to sit here and take it? I believe that we must be vigorous, short of Gestapo techniques, to root out domestic terror cells. I also believe that we must take the battle to their home.

In Saddam's case, we need to destroy his nuke and biochem weapons manufacturing ability. I hope this does not mean American troops on the ground in Iraq but it might.

Should we have finished the job against Saddam ten years ago? Easy to second guess. Recall that Bush pere was granted permission (barely) by Congress only to evict Iraq from Kuwait and to prevent Iraq from overrunning Bin Laden's Saudi Arabia. He did that, got a "peace treaty" and left.

I think Schwartzkopf wanted him to finisdh off Iraq. Powell did not.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 08, 2001.

whatever plsceog means in my language~~~~

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 08, 2001.

What is your conclusion?

Well, it sure isn't blasting out at civilians [or even depriving Americans of rights to privacy.] More Nikita's and Michael's, perhaps? On a more serious note, Lars, we really DO need to improve intelligence techniques.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Anita,

We haven't been blasting at civilians. We've been blasting at the Taliban. The civilians have been receiving humanitarian aid from us.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 08, 2001.

"...this whole thing is kindof like gang warfare, only more sneaky because the people involved have brains. "

It's way different, 'Nita, because the goals are completely different.

Lars, they left him there because he was convenient.

-- flora (***@__._), October 08, 2001.

Stephen: I wasn't suggesting that the US was. AFAIK, the US has been quite careful to avoid civilians.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Flora: Elucidate, please.

The way *I* see it, a number of "prophetic leaders", ranging from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to Iman Mughniyeh have [I guess it's okay to use the word] "indoctrinated" young people into a state of mind wherein they feel that the "family" of the jihad [for lack of a better word] is where they belong. How, exactly, does this differ from the tactics used by gangs to recruit young people who feel "lost"?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Anita,

You have an interesting premise, but I disagree with it.

Let's take the most obvious solution, which I am NOT proposing, and which no one with an ounce of civilization WOULD propose: suppose we were to tell the terrorists, "if you strike at us, we'll strike at you. We'll nuke your families, your children, your friends and your neighbors."

One reason why terrorists do what they do is because they DEPEND on civilized societies saying, "we can't indiscriminately wipe them all out or we're no better than them."

... which I happen to agree with. So, Bush is doing the next best thing: take it one day at a time. Eliminate their money and their training bases. Eliminate their money and make it clear that we will hold any government that knowingly and willingly harbors terrorists responsible.

Then, we eliminate their money. :)

It's hard to be a slick, Carlos-type international terrorist when you don't have the money to buy air fare.[g]

By the way ... I strongly suspect that Iraq will be next. Interesting to see how the French react to THAT, seeing as how THEY were the ones who begged us to leave Sadaam alone the first time ...

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 08, 2001.

Anita,

Well, let me rephrase that and delete that first sentence. (If this was my forum, I'd edit the post.[g])

I don't disagree with you across the board. In fact, your comparison to gangs has some merit if I understand you; are you comparing gang thuggery to terrorists? If so, I agree wholeheartedly.

In fact, it's an excellent comparison. While there are obvious differences, the *psychology* (belonging to a group that makes you feel larger than yourself) is similar.

We also have to eliminate the root causes of the disatisfaction, by giving these poor people some sort of a life. (It works with gangs, too.) Bush is handling this whole thing like a master violinist, IMNHO: replace the Taliban, do as many "aid strikes" as air strikes, then help the Afghans build a real economy.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 08, 2001.

'Nita,

The tactics are the same as the Boy Scouts, the goals are different.

-- flora (***@__._), October 08, 2001.

are you comparing gang thuggery to terrorists?

Yes...very much so. If you've seen ANY of the documentaries regarding the purported schools in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and even some other countries, you'll see one recurrent theme: The people house them, feed them [food] and feed them what they want them to believe. This is FAR more than they ever received from their natural families. They're both committed AND indebted.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Anita, they're indebted only as long as the money holds out. I've heard them refered to as the "rent-a-terrorist".

Why the objection to calling this a war? You don't get it, do you. You think the military is only for 'humanitarian' missions. The military is trained to destroy enemies foreign and domestic. This is a war even if congress doesn't declare it. War was fought in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia and other places around the world even though congress didn't declare it. The objective this time is to rid the world of these terrorist cells, especially il capo, Osama.

Unlike what I think you're trying to say, Osama is the main brick and mortar holding these cells together. We get him and we get maybe 60-75% of the terrorist nerve center. No we don't get all of it. We get his lieutenants and we get another 20%. We get that other nut Saddam and we get another 20%. Yes it's like a spider web and we destroy it a little at a time.

Rest assured your points have gotten across. You just don't place that much emphasis on Osama. You're wrong; he's smart and charismatic. That goes a long way into getting the troops to follow him. No many of his followers are as smart or 'charming'. You don't understand the nature of a 'military' structure.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 09, 2001.

Maria,

If I may, how do you "know" that Osama is that smart? By most all accounts I have read the man isn't the brilliant deviant he has been painted to be.He does however have very deep pockets with which to buy the knowledge and services he requires to achieve his goals.His charisma however does seem to be the driving force within the radical Islamic movement.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 09, 2001.

capn, you're right I haven't measured his IQ. But based on his education I'd guess he's smarter than your average 'bear'. And he's smart enough to organize his network, just as any other 'general'.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 09, 2001.

Maria: I'll only address the point of bin Laden's charisma, which can really be applied to the charisma of anyone.

We're dealing with an ideology here with Osama, Saddam, and MANY others. Did Christianity die when Jesus was killed? Did Marxism die when Marx was killed? Does China [for the most] not still look at the teachings of Mao? Do Hindus not still follow Buddha? Does Islam [for the most] not still follow Muhammed? All were very charismatic teachers, but their "disciples" continued to spread the ideology after their deaths, oftentimes THOUSANDS OF YEARS after their deaths.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Flora: You've piqued my curiosity on the Boy Scout analogy. Will you elucidate on that thought, please?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Unlike what I think you're trying to say, Osama is the main brick and mortar holding these cells together. ...

Don't forget one major point, here - Bin Laden represents the willingness of legit governments to sponser terrorism in their states. By attacking him via the Taliban, we show other states what will happen to them if they are harboring terrorists - now or in the future.

We get him and we get maybe 60-75% of the terrorist nerve center...

That would be nice, but it almost doesn't matter if Bin Laden is really an impotent wack-job with two followers and one camel; Our point will be played out in spades, and other governments will take notice.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), October 09, 2001.

Bemused,

I agree with the latter paragraph wholeheartedly.

Not only is it difficult to be a Slick International Terrorist with no money, it's hard to run an organization when you *know* that every single government on Earth will be doing its dead-level best to catch you if it can.

This doesn't mean we'll stop all of them. But like Maria said, this is a war of percentages. Nick here, cut there, and eventually it starts to add up.

Right now, there are places in this world where terrorists can operate with virtual impugnity. If we send a message to those governments that give shelter to these people, and back it up with action if they don't respond within a reasonable period of time, they'll get it eventually.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 09, 2001.

Anita, I'm not sure I'd liken Osama's religion to Christianity. I wouldn't liken it to Marxism (that died of its own weight). I don't think of Osama and his teachings anything close to Moslem. His 'ideology' seems to be based on hatred and killing. Will we stop people from hating to the point of killing those they hate, no of course not. But if not organized (such as Hitler's hate), it doesn't go too far.

I believe that Osama's teachings will be held at bay at the end of this war. Just like there are cells of Nazi followers, there will continue to be followers of Osama's teachings and they will be closely watched. They will be confined. If we can reduce the terrorist factions to this, I would claim success. Is that where we differ?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 09, 2001.

How smart and well financied can a guy be who lives out of a cave in the middle of nowhere?

If you are buying what CNN and company are serving, you probably think like Maria.

More to this than the bs they are serving.

-- (truth@unks.here), October 09, 2001.

Smart enough to kill 7,000 people with no expenditure of their own weapons and a box cutter.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 09, 2001.

Maria: I'm sure that our differences go FAR beyond anything expressed in this thread or any others. Here's an article by the now infamous Andrew Sullivan. I would think that as a conservative you would agree with HIS views, even if you don't agree with mine.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Anita, yes our differences are wide. However I do recall agreeing twice in one week, once upon a time. Couldn't get to your article, sorry. So I assume we disagree on more than just on the definition of success here.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 09, 2001.