BOMBING WITHOUT THINKING: A Rational Alternative

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

Thursday October 18 02:29 PM EDT

BOMBING WITHOUT THINKING:

A Rational Alternative

by Ted Rall

NEW YORK

Beware collateral damage, for today's hey-nothing-personal victims give rise to tomorrow's terrorists. As this goes to press, a bestiary of bombs-a few 500-pounders here, some "bunker busters" there-is falling on Afghan cities. Gulf War (news - web sites) mythology of ordinance IQ notwithstanding, 21st century bombing is hardly a precision art. Smart or dumb, some bombs will always go off-course. And bombs hit things that then blow up, killing people who weren't themselves targets. Sometimes civilians hang out where they shouldn't. And sometimes information about bombing targets is just plain wrong or out-of-date.

The bottom line is this: Ordinary Afghan people, men and women and children who have never done anything wrong to anyone, are getting mangled and killed by American bombs. The innocents have spouses, parents and friends, and these spouses, parents and friends may quite naturally end up hating those who mangled and killed their loved ones. That hate festers, and some of these people will eventually be persuaded that vengeance will soothe their pain. And one day they'll fly planes into office buildings or blow themselves up in shopping malls or do something else we haven't dared imagine yet.

Needless to say, getting even for the 9-11 attacks doesn't do much good if our vengeance only creates more terrorism, which we will then feel compelled to avenge.

And yet: the right-wingers are absolutely correct when they assert that doing nothing is not a viable option. Whether September 11th was something we "had coming" or not, giving peace a chance is not something we can imagine at the moment: there is no peace to give a chance to. And no nation is worthy of the name unless it's willing to react to the murder of its citizens with force. Bush is, like it or not, doing something. People respect that, even if that something later turns out to be counterproductive.

There is, however, an intelligent middle ground between mindless bombing and mindless pacifism. A thoughtful solution - neither "liberal" nor "conservative" -- can be found by applying what we Americans are best at: simple common sense.

The Objectives

Like the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty", a "war on terrorism" is too vast, vague and nebulous to "win". Our first priority ought to be to bring the surviving perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon (news - web sites) and World Trade Center to justice; if they end up dead in the attempt, so be it.

Second, while we'll never eradicate the possibility of terrorist attacks on American soil we can minimize their number and their intensity when they do occur. This requires a delicate combination of force and tact: We must be kind as well as forceful.

What To Do

Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s Taliban regime is at most indirectly involved with the September 11th hijackings. (The Bush Administration admits that it couldn't indict Osama or the Taliban on the evidence it currently possesses.) Follow the passports: 18 out of the 19 hijackers were Egyptian; 1 was Saudi. The smart money points to one of the Middle East's most venerable militant Muslim organizations, Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Group. Founded by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Gama'at al-Islamiyya is best known for the November 1997 massacre of 62 tourists at the Temple of Luxor in Egypt and the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981. Though the Islamic Group is composed of numerous splinter cells whose ideologies vary, they share a common aim: the replacement of the secular government of Hosni Mubarek by an Islamic theocracy. The Islamic Group resents the U.S. for propping up the Mubarak government, and for its support for Israel.

According to most reports, Egyptians are the main suspects for September 11th. So why are we attacking Afghanistan? American intelligence should work with the Egyptian government to track down any members of Gama'at al-Islamiyya who had anything to do with the New York and Washington attacks and put them on trial for mass murder. Arresting murderers ought to take precedence over bombing the places where they trained.

A targeted approach would demonstrate to all but the most fanatic elements in the Arab world that the United States is a nation whose retribution is measured and just. It would also serve to destroy the one network to have drawn the most American blood-and reduce the odds of a repeat performance.

Though we should continue providing economic and military assistance to Israel, that aid ought to be predicated on several conditions. First, all Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories ought to be closed. Second, Israel should guarantee an end to its more egregious human rights abuses, such as the demolition of Arab homes and rocket attacks on civilian targets. Finally, internal border blockades of Gaza and the West Bank should be permanently halted. This bilateral policy-supporting Israel while refusing to tolerate religious apartheid-would show that we stand behind our friends but only to the extent that they behave in a civilized fashion. Best of all, it would end the absurd state of affairs in which a superpower is repeatedly manipulated by a resource-free desert nation the size of New Jersey.

We should drop sanctions and military action against Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for verifiable assurances that neither nation will harbor terrorists who target the United States. Then we should pour in humanitarian assistance to show ordinary Muslims that Americans care about their plight. Let a co-opted postwar Taliban root out Al Qaeda and other groups in their territory; it's a hell of a lot easier to let the locals do the dirty work than to send in American ground troops.

But first, let's stop this stupid bombing.

-- (brains@not.brawn), October 19, 2001

Answers

WRONG. The bottom line is this:

Ordinary American people, men and women and children who had never done anything wrong to anyone, got mangled and killed by Radical Islamic airplane-missiles. These innocents have spouses, parents and friends, and these spouses, parents and friends quite naturally ended up hating those who mangled and killed their loved ones. That hate festers, and many of these people are persuaded that vengeance will soothe their pain. And one day they'll kill bin Laden and the Taliban or do something else we haven't dared imagine yet.

Please show restraint, Taliban and apologists. For your own sake, do not sow the wind that ye may not reap the whirlwind.

-- (Infinite Justice@the.ready), October 19, 2001.


I read that article this morning and thought it a good one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.

Needless to say, getting even for the 9-11 attacks doesn't do much good if our vengeance only creates more terrorism, which we will then feel compelled to avenge.

Why don't the chest-thumping war-mongers ever respond to this? Why do they naively and wrongfully think we'll somehow magically escape the "cycle of violence"? Why can't they see that retaliation is a two-way street with casualties on both sides of the fence? I guess when you're blinded by rage your brain implodes and you don't think rationally.

-- Food (For@Thought.com), October 19, 2001.


Writing and whining without knowing…

You chicken shit pacifists need to stay inside dammit: THERE’S A FUCKING WAR GOING ON!!!!!!

-- Head (for@the.hills), October 19, 2001.


You chicken shit pacifists need to stay inside dammit

Heh. Funny how I only hear these words from people too old to actually serve. If there's a war going on that extends beyond the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", and all the others we've seen flouted in several years, let me know. I need the advance knowledge, ya know, to get my draft-age son out of the country.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.



Do the country a favor and go with him!

-- Head (for@the.hills), October 19, 2001.

That hate festers,

Mr Diillion, is that true, do they hate me?

-- (Festus@Miss Kitty's.cat house), October 19, 2001.


Someone who agrees please explain how we go about doing this, "Our first priority ought to be to bring the surviving perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon (news - web sites) and World Trade Center to justice; if they end up dead in the attempt, so be it."

"Arresting murderers ought to take precedence over bombing the places where they trained." Why? How does arresting murderers stop terrorism? We recently sentenced four to life in prison. Did that stop terrorism?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 19, 2001.


To start with, I disagree with the statement that the Administration has said that there's not enough evidence to indict Bin Ladin. Both Downing Street and the White House have said the opposite, in fact; the Administration has been pondering the formation of a special Grand Jury to do just that. But that's an aside.

Pacifists and leftists ALWAYS think that they have the moral high ground; that THEY are the ones who are really THINKING about things. They arrogantly believe that everyone else is a little slower, a little dumber and (typically) just acting out of mindless hate.

Believe it or not, I don't hate Osama Bin Ladin and his followers. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing the need to stop him from doing what he's doing.

If someone comes into my house with a gun and the intent to do my family harm, I won't "hate" them, either, but I'm going to stop them. Cold. We can discuss my "attitude" toward them AFTER I stop them.

When someone demonstrates that they are evil, you stop them FIRST, then try to reason with them. That's the mistake Chamberlain made with Hitler (and which essentially caused WWII). If, on the other hand, Chamberlain had made Hitler *FEAR* the rest of Europe, there is no doubt that Hitler wouldn't have acted. (He was genuinely surprised when England honored its treaty committments, rather than continuing to "negotiate," as he'd hoped and expected.)

It's time for us to stop worrying about whether these people hate us, are mad at us, or want to get revenge. They hate the Russians too, but they won't attack THEM.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY *FEAR* THE RUSSIANS.

It's just that simple.

They DON'T fear us.

(I don't buy these scenarios that say that Osama *expected* us to retaliate as we did, hoping to "inflame" the Muslim world. I think the opposite is true: he expected another stirring speech or two, a couple of hundred cruise missiles and some economic sanctions, and then back to business as usual. He *NEVER* expected us to do this, because he thought that we'd be *AFRAID* to.)

We need to teach them that we'll be a friend to a friend and the most fearsome animal in the world to those who would do us harm. Americans have historically been slow to stir, but once they DO stir, they pursue war with a single-mindedness unparalleled in modern history.

I hate that we have to teach the world that lesson again, because innocents WILL get hurt. But from time to time, because of the stupidity of people like Osama Bin Ladin, we *HAVE* to do it.

Finally, as far as reacting from "blind rage" rather than "deep thought," I assure you that I have history on MY side. And I'll wager that what you just read is the majority viewpoint in this country, judging from the polls: I don't ENJOY what we *HAVE* to do, but the operative phrase is, "HAVE TO." We have no choice.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 19, 2001.


The profession of teaching is to be honored and respected. However, these outspoken pacifist university educators are not people who ever DO anything. Their job is to prepare OTHERS to DO something and they should not be taken too seriously. ACTION is not their cup of tea for they drink at the well of THOUGHT and SUPPOSITION. The Bin Laden’s of this planet are part of the PHYSICAL world and will not be dealt with by WORDS or PEACEFUL THOUGHTS. Fortunately, the liberal protesters are not running the show.

-- Head (for@the.hills), October 19, 2001.


Some of you obviously missed this paragraph...

"There is, however, an intelligent middle ground between mindless bombing and mindless pacifism. A thoughtful solution - neither "liberal" nor "conservative" -- can be found by applying what we Americans are best at: simple common sense."

When you still insist on labeling everyone else as a liberal pacifist, simply because they think a common sense approach would be better, this only reinforces the fact that your views are too extreme in the other direction, unintelligent, and likely, more dangerous in the long run.

-- (get@grip.rednecks), October 19, 2001.


Common sense?

You think Bin laden and his bunch will listen to ‘common sense’? Moron.

-- Head (for@the.hills), October 19, 2001.


Anita,

I really don't think sitting around the bonefire singing Kum-ba-ya will stop terrorist. We turned the cheek enough under Clinton, did it stop the terror?? NO. Wipe them out and severely hamper future generations from getting their hands on us again!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), October 19, 2001.


When you still insist on labeling everyone else as a liberal pacifist, simply because they think a common sense approach would be better, this only reinforces the fact that your views are too extreme in the other direction, unintelligent, and likely, more dangerous in the long run.

BRAVO! Well spoken!

-- Food (For@Thought.com), October 19, 2001.


Glinda,

Once again you prove that you are too ignorant to read, you simply blow your ignorance out of your Neanderthalic ass as usual!

For the record, since you are too stupid to educate yourself, Clinton killed more members of Al Qaeda in one night than Dumbya has in over a month.

-- (glinda a.k.a. gary = @ one. dumb motherfucker), October 19, 2001.



"There is, however, an intelligent middle ground between mindless bombing and mindless pacifism. A thoughtful solution - neither "liberal" nor "conservative" -- can be found by applying what we Americans are best at: simple common sense."

This is too funny! No middle ground about it; the 'thoughtful solution' is to go to Egypt and bring them to trial. Sounds pretty much like 'pacifism' to me. Why can't you guys (liberals) read? If it walks and quacks like a duck, guess what the 'rednecks' conclude?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 19, 2001.


fuck you.

Just NUKE the motherfuckers

-- Your Worst (nightmare@come.true), October 19, 2001.


Nuke 'em?

It's a good thing you only have the ability to speak your mind on an obscure Internet bulletin bored. Ha, ha. No one listens to you in public. That's cause you're full of hate and vile and your stupid.

-- (little@people.are frustrated), October 19, 2001.


I always love the classic, "your stupid".

The delicious irony never fails to make me laugh.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2001.

J: Yeah. I laugh at that one, as well. I think that's part of why I love this place.

Gary: The poster following you is correct. Clinton did everything he could to catch Osama. His efforts were thwarted for multiple reasons, some of which I found in an article this morning. If you haven't yet found information on this yet, I can post a link.

Regarding Kum-ba-ya, I don't know the words. Do you? I also think you missed THIS part in the article:

And yet: the right-wingers are absolutely correct when they assert that doing nothing is not a viable option. Whether September 11th was something we "had coming" or not, giving peace a chance is not something we can imagine at the moment: there is no peace to give a chance to. And no nation is worthy of the name unless it's willing to react to the murder of its citizens with force. Bush is, like it or not, doing something. People respect that, even if that something later turns out to be counterproductive.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.


Anita, you are a war protesting, peace symbol toting, left-wing rhetoric spouting, feminist agenda propagating, tree-hugging, pollyannish kook, but you are my kind of war protesting, peace symbol toting, left-wing rhetoric spouting, feminist agenda propagating, tree-hugging, pollyannish kook.

-- bogsworth (running@on.8cylinders), October 20, 2001.

Heh. Thanks, Bogsworth.

Gary: Here's that article I read this morning: For what it's worth

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.


Give me a break! Bill Press commenting on Clinton? Now there’s a balanced view from a flaming liberal who has always fawned over Clinton, NOT. Word has it that Monica had to crawl over Press to get at Clinton’s cock. Keep em’ coming Anita.

-- All (liberals@are.fools), October 20, 2001.

The record on Clinton's actions during his administration regarding Osama and Al-Qaeda is a public one. One needn't take the word of Press or anyone else. Regarding Press and Monica, I doubt very much one will find anything on that unless one reviews Rush Limbaugh transcripts from the period.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.

bOMB THOSE SAND NIGGERS WITH NO THOUGHT. KILL THEM ALL NUKE THIER CITIES ITS TIME TO GENOCIDE THOSE BITCHES KILL THEM ALL MOTHER FUCKERSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NIGGASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS KILL EM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE !!!

I HOPE EVERY LAST INNOCENT SAND NIGGER IS DEAD.

-- HAHA (fuck@YOU.COM), October 20, 2001.


Can we drop the volume a bit here? Some folks may have kids sleeping, ya know.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ