GOP: Taliban

[Asha'man]

About John Walker Lindh: I haven't heard anything about how he's being treated. I think he should be summarily shot and buried in an unmarked grave. Traitor scum.

Asha'man

Editted for Continuity --<B>--

[Ciryaher]

I'm not sure whether the American Taliban should be shot, but he should certainly not be given the cushy sentance of life imprisonment. Exile to one of his lovely Arab countries would just let him regroup with them... Well, come to think of it, let's just shoot him on the desolate crater in NYC that his little friends helped to make.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, the Abortion issue doesn't need to be about religion at all. Approached explicitly from a Constitutional point of view, and what the Founding Fathers intended, then one can see that any group of men who wrote "Insure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.." (Posterity meaning, then as now, the generations yet to come) then one can easily assume that the last thing they thought was that anyone would think we were insuring such blessings by letting our posterity be killed before birth. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a "Right to Privacy" issue and was "...defined in the Penumbra of the 14th ammendment.". Now I have a nice shiny nickle for the first person who can point out the "Penumbra" of anything on the printed page, let alone why such a ruling never took into account the Privacy of the Unborn Infant.

As for this punk who joined up with the Taliban, he's no worse then any member of the Manson Family or the SLO who conspired to kill Americans, and should be tried as the same type of criminal scum. Although I AM rather sick of hearing how horrible it is that such a "Young Boy" is being treated like this when there are so many Men and Women his age and younger serving to protect the country they love by taking up arms and putting their lives at risk against idiots like this guy and his fanatical friends...

Actually, Exiling him to an Arab Nation would be a good punishment. We make it known that we are going to do so, then we insert several electronic instruments in him that let us track him by GPS...we make it known widely that we have done so, and that we will be randomly checking up on him from time to time, with or without his or anyone else's knowlege. He would find that his Radical Fanatic buddies no longer have any interest in having someone around capable of sending out signals that a smart bomb could home in on...

[Dengen-Goroth]

It has come to my attention that some feel that the abortion topic is both to private and to large an issue to discuss on a forum. So let us drop that, and I apologize for bringing it up or those who feel offended. In addition to the topic you are all discussing of the American who converted to Islam and joined the Taliban, I would like to know this. What is the next step in our "war" on Terrorism and how far may we go. For instance, thee have been a number of speculations concerning entering Iraq anew, or Somalia. Should Russia be given military aid in Chechnya, as that there is a concentration of Terrorists there. I know, a good deal of topics, but because of the State of the Union address I felt a bit inspired.I was goin to throw one more topic at you all, but decided to save it for a few days from now, or whenever this gets stagnent.:)

[daisy]

As a Canadian, I am also very interested about the next step that will be taken in this war on terrorism. I think it is also important to remember that there are many different countries involved in this initiative. The U.S has some hard choices to make. If they decide to make some moves without the agreement of their allies, what will happen? There is already international outrage over the treatment of the prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, the Liberal government is in big trouble right now in Canada because many people here do not want our tropps to hand over afghan prisoners to U.S. troops, but now we have this big photograph of Afghani prisoners being hustled off a plane by Canadian soldiers. Do you know why we know they are Canadian soldiers? Pathetically, the Canadian government sold all of their desert fatigue gear two year ago and we only have the green camouflage stuff. So these guys coming off the plane were in these green camouflage things- not conducive to combat in a desert-like nation.
So anyway, I wonder I guess how far the United States is going to go. I mean, does anyone really believe that terrorism can be wiped out?

wondering daisy

[Bill the Pony]

With this post I know I am going to make myself very unpopular, but it's still my opinion on this topic so I'll post it anyway. Please don't take it personally if I offend anyone.

First of all: terrorism should definitely be fought. Killing of innocent people to achieve some 'higher' goal is not acceptable to me. What I do wonder about is if using military force is the answer to terrorism. One of the themes in LOTR to me is: If you try to fight evil using the same means as that evil (i.e. the Ring), even if you have the best intentions to start with, in the end the Good will become the new Evil (If Aragorn had used the Ring, he would in the end have become a new Dark Lord).
Translated to this world, if we use violence to fight terrorism, doesn't that make us (a little bit) evil as well? According to some sources more innocent people have died in Afghanistan by now than people in the world trade center. That worries me a lot.
A second thing that worries me is how many new Bin Ladens were created in the past months, because they feel the US is attacking their freedom. (I am NOT saying that they are correct in thinking this, all I am saying is that some people might think so, and draw the conclusion that the US (or the west for that matter) are evil and need to be fought). If this is indeed the case, then we might end up in a never ending cycle: terrorist attacks, US retaliates, new terrorists stand up, several years later new attack, etc. As Daisy said: Is terrorism really going to be wiped out in this way?
Killing of innocents and creating new terrorists are my main two reasons for advocating a non-military solution.
Of course the weak point here is what such a solution should be, and I have to admit that I do not know. There are a few things that come to mind. Bin Laden claims that his reasons for hating the US have to do with: 1. US troops in the Holy country Saudi Arabia, 2. Sanctions on Iraq resulting in millions of people dying 3. the Palestinian issue.
Even though I doubt that Bin Laden really cares about this, these are the issues with which he recruits new terrorists. Maybe if these issues are addressed diplomatically, it would be more difficult to find someone who is willing to blow himself up for the Good Cause. Of course these are very difficult issues (although I am not quite sure what's wrong with reducing the military presence in Saudi Arabia to a much smaller force, can anyone tell me?). So I do not know how to solve them. I just feel that it's worth to try this road first, before embarking on another bombing session.

just my opinion, don't shoot me for it... :)

[TheJospeh]

I'm about to make your position ten-times worth. I agree with you, up The Joseph agrees with Bill the Poney. Man, are you in trouble now!

Doesn't America base its policy on Christianity? Well, go to the bible for the solution. Turn the other cheek. Crack down on internal U.S. stuff, like airport security and so on and solve the international issues diplomatically. America--as horrific as it would be--could survive a World Trade Center attack every year for the next 60 years. And even if it couldn't better to die moral than live immoral.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Ciryaher]

The Bible doesn't advocate doing nothing when 3000 people from more than 50 nations get blown up out of pure hatred.

These terrorists knocked down the WTC because we DID try to be diplomatic. Oh yes, good ol' Slick Willy and his foreign policy. Much like appeasment with Hitler. They just think you are a coward and get even braver. Had we done nothing militarily in response to 9-11 something much worse would have already happened.

[TheJospeh]

You're right the bible doesn't advocate doing nothing in such a situation. The bible advocates turning the other cheek. I really don't want to quote scripture at you because I'd have to drag out my bible and go through most of Matthew to find the quote! But, trust me, it's in there.

There is a world of difference between what I suggested and appeasement with Hitler. You seem to understand only the language of violence since you attribute diplomacy with doing nothing. Diplomacy doesn't mean we give them whatever they want. It means the problem is settled without resorting to violence.

Something worse would have happened? Well, what about the fact that more innocent afghannis have died than people at the WTC? Isn't that something terrible?

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Courtney]

I agree with both Bill and Joseph.
I think the only rational way to solve the problem with terrorists is by talking and not fighting. I personally think it is much more cowardly to drop bombs from planes, than it is to discuss our differences openly. How much courage does it take to fight a war from a safe distance where you are sure not to get hurt yourself? It takes a lot more courage to stand up and say "Hey, we screwed up, but we are willing to work things out."

[Beorn]

No offense or anything, but would you like to try that? How would you arrange a meeting with a Taliban or other terrorist group official?

[Ciryaher]

We DID try to give them a chance to give OBL up. They refused. We gave them more than enough chances to avoid confrontation, but they kept us occupied long enough for the Coward to go into hiding somewhere in the wide world.

No, terrorists love your idea of 'diplomacy'. It gives them the perfect opportunity to have their way. I prefer the Big Stick method.

[Courtney]

Mike, that is exactly what I mean. It would be much more difficult to talk with the Taliban than to just bomb them. I thought ALL men were created equal. Including the Taliban. It's easier to hate people you don't know, but once you have talked to them you have to admit that they are people as well and deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[TheJospeh]

Yeah, I remeber hearing about US diplomacy on the news.

US: We don't YET have any proof that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with Sept. 11th but unless you hand him over right now we're going to war.
Taliban: Give us proof and you've got him.

Mind you, I'm sure the Taliban were lying and wouldn't have given him up, but the US weren't reall negotiating they were dictating.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Ciryaher]

Hey, we'd just lost 3000 INNOCENT people of all races, religions, and nationalities. We don't have to tip-toe around trying to please that bunch of Islam-twisting barbarians if they'll play nice and give us their little Saudi.

You try convincing a government that hates America and Americans to deal straight and work it out. It isn't going to happen folks. Snap out of your pacifist dreams and come back to Earth.

[TheJospeh]

I guess if something is hard, maybe even impossible you get to do whatever you please then. I hadn't realized it would be tough dealing with the Taliban. Let's just kill them all then, why worry about their innocents they didn't worry about ours!!!!!!! Sadly, that wasn't even an exaggeration. A United States senator actually said that last part about innocents.

The reason you try and be peaceful or only you use force as little as possible is because you are better--supposedly--than those other countries. Call youselves better if you want America but live up to your own description. Those in power owe it to everyone to be more careful than those who are weaker.

It's a matter of human goodness.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Gloer]

I would like to point out that Bill the Pony has a good point:

Diplomacy is the only solution.

1. No regime has ever beaten terrorism in direct violent confrontation - ever. It is not possible.

2. The only way to stop terrorism is by incorporating the interests of the terrorists with the main stream society. Cutting the support of the most dissatisfied portion of the population is the only way to stop terrorism.

There is very little military can achieve. USA is depleting it's resources if it tries to uphold law and order outside of it's own territorial borders to the extent the Bush administration aims to do. This is the type of streching out that has led to the eventual down fall of most of the great empires during history. Only remember the British Empire.

The ancient Romans outlasted many empires before and after. Historians have concluded that there are some key factors in their policy that helped them: 1. Divide et impera - keep your neighbours divided to be the dominant force 2. Let the local government stand and ally with the strongest local force.

I suggest that one possible strategy US can take is to creation of a strong arabic and islamic state that has structured support from the local population and ally with this state. Iran is the best choice at this moment. It is not arabic but it has functioning channels for both the popular opinion and the islamic authority.
Saudi Arabia is a bad choice since that the population has already been lost to extreme islam and the ruling monarcs are more and more dependent on de facto guarrantee of american occupation.

The fuel of anti-american action:
1. Palestinian situation. USA is seen supporting Israel.
2. Iraqi people are suffering from trade embargo.
3. US troops in Saudi Arabia. Why are those troops in Saudi Arabia anyway? Is the local government only ruling because of US support?

Get rid of these sentiments and there is much less terrorism against americans.

[Ciryaher]

How do you explain the fact that a lot of these extremists don't really have an agenda and just want to kill infidels such as we? I agree that armed conflict is not always the best answer. I agree that we should do more to help nations in the Middle-East. I also think that there is absolutely no effective way through either peace or violence that can truly lessen terrorism. Peaceful methods may appease many of the less 'hard-core' terrorists, but others would see it as a sign of weakness and take advantage of that apparent weakness (which is the case in 9-11). A violent or military approach would alienate more people and cause those already favorable to terrorists groups to go to their side; however, the elimination of certain leaders, forces, and assets does cripple these organizations.

I, personally, would use precision military strikes to eliminate the militants (such as Hussein and the Taliban) and help the people that have been lied to and cheated (like the Afghani or Iraqi people).

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Mike B
No offense or anything, but would you like to try that? How would you arrange a meeting with a Taliban or other terrorist group official
Well, in the months prior to the attacks, government officials met a few times with Taliban officials about an oil pipeline (or so it's said). Apparently, talking was not too difficult back then.


Originally posted by Ciryaher
Hey, we'd just lost 3000 INNOCENT people of all races, religions, and nationalities. We don't have to tip-toe around trying to please that bunch of Islam-twisting barbarians if they'll play nice and give us their little Saudi.


Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but you're saying that if you're angry about something it's ok to start killing innocents.
In the view of the terrorists they had just lost HUNDREDS of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Palestine, because of the actions of the US. So in their opinion they don't have to tip-toe around trying to please a bunch of US barabarians, and play nice and do nothing. So they kill as many innocents as they can get. 'That will teach them'
Note: I am not saying that their perception is right, but their reasoning is exactly the same as the reasons you just used to justify the US bombings of Afghanistan. Isn't that scary?


Ciryaher, just read your last post.
I'm not sure I understand you if you say most terrorists don't have an agenda. Do you have an example? Definitely Bin Laden has an agenda. He even wrote a manifesto about it a few years ago.
I agree with you that taking out the leaders would cripple an organization in the short term . I have two 'buts': (1) For the long term it is only effective if you don't create new leaders and a lot of followers in the process. Thus, eliminating leaders only works of you don't kill innocents in the process, and if you give the caught leader a fair trial. (2) So far, the terrorist leaders have not been caught, and a lot of innocents have died. It is true that their safe haven Afghanistan won't be so safe for them for a little while, but will that stop them?

Precision military strikes to take out only Hussein may sound great, but it seems that that is not yet possible (the US claims it used precision bombing, and still lots of civilians were killed, many places were bombed by mistake). I agree fully with the education part of your answer.


PS Thanks Gloer, Courtney and Joseph, I'm very glad there seem to be more people who feel the same as I do. Living in the US with this opinion has been difficult and a little bit scary sometimes.

[Ciryaher]

I don't think thousands of innocents have died, as some might imply. Surely many more Al-Qaeda [sp?] and Taliban forces have been killed than 'civilians'. I do not believe that the accidental loss of life if any less saddening than the intentional destruction of life, but when you fight a war, innocents get killed.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have gone on a wild streak of bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, but these things have to be done. I personally think we should have simply assisted the North and Eastern alliance forces on the ground rather than risk carpet-bombing the few friends we have there.

[Bill the Pony]

originally posted by Ciryaher
I don't think thousands of innocents have died, as some might imply. Surely many more Al-Qaeda [sp?] and Taliban forces have been killed than 'civilians'

Keep in mind that the news that is reported in the US is rather different from that reported in the rest of the world. If you look for example at newspapers in England (or the Netherlands), you get a very different picture of the number of civilian casualties, than if you look only at the US newspapers.
There is a professor Herold (http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/) who did a count of only civilian deaths based on newspaper reports from all over the world. On nov. 23. came out on 3006. On the same page there is a picture (http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/dossier/cumulative.gif) with the cumulative deaths, that ends up at 3700. Unfortunately it does not state what day that was. I have no clue what is the number of Al Quaida or Taliban casualties is, but those numbers might even be reported by the Pentagon...
Of course you're free to believe this or not. I can not tell what is true and what not in this war anymore, but this guy claims he did things very carefully, only counting deaths if they are reported in more than one newspaper.

[Ciryaher]

I don't know if I'll believe a Brit newspaper ;) , but I would certainly place the Afghani civilian casualties in the upper hundreds (based on what I know of the tactics and weapons in use).

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Bill the Pony
Well, in the months prior to the attacks, government officials met a few times with Taliban officials about an oil pipeline (or so it's said). Apparently, talking was not too difficult back then.

Key words: Back then.



As to innocents dying. It is expected. Of course it is going to happen! This is war. Yes, there have been a few screw ups, but that is also expected. A lot of the weapons being used have not been used a lot before, so problems occur.

I don't believe those numbers posted. They cannot be true. There are/were an estimated 50,000 Taliban, spread out in small pockets across Afghanistan. We've cleared them out of all their strongholds. According to those numbers, 600 Taliban have died. As for 3000 civilians: that can't be true either. I've heard of three misaimed missiles, causing about 50 deaths each....

[Bill the Pony]

Even though I started this, I think a discussion about how many casualties there actually are, is not that important. The fact that so many people seem to take it for granted that a lot of innocent people have to die, that's the scary part.

Like I said, you're free to believe whoever you choose. For myself, I have given up believing anything, because I get different numbers, different accounts of events, depending on what newspaper I read. But I think it is good to be aware of the propaganda war that is going on in the US right now, and be really careful to draw conclusions just from the American media.

As an example, just one thing I heard on NPR this week, from an American journalist/cartoonist who visited Afghanistan for 2.5 weeks
"I really did expect quite a bit of lying and spin on the part of the US government and the mass media, but I really have to say that I came back with a heightened level of cynicism about how extensive the lying was. For instance we had all these stories about precision bombing by F16’s when in fact all I ever saw were these B52’s carpet bombing cities that had been firmly in NA hands for many many weeks. We saw hundreds and hundreds of civilian casualties. We saw journalists die because the US refused to medivac them back to either Pakistan or Tadzjikistan, even though they were sending empty choppers back
The war, quite frankly is obscene, and the American people, if they knew only one tenth of what was going on, I doubt any but the most hardened right wingers would be supporting it."


I don't think I believe this guy, but why would he lie? Even if the truth is somewhere between what the government wants us to believe and what this guy says, it's still pretty bad.

[Dengen-Goroth]

Of course it is "bad". All wars are bad, everything is atrocious which deals with destruction. I have to add my opinion, because this debate is very interesting. Now of course some of the numbers may be dilluted. That is expected, as the Government may not want the public to lose support, and our dear pretzle-choking President is very aware that before this occured he was under great scrutiny:economy plummiting, international policies crude and destroying much which was built in Clinton's era, took month long vacation in the middle of it all, etc. Afterwards he finds himself at all time high, rallying the nation and knowing full well that now all support him and if the bmbings continue the Presidency for another 4 years is basically his. Isreal, in my opinion, has gone to far with it's relations to Arafat. Restricting him from attending Christmas Mass, bombarding his security centers. Are they in control, can they make demands of him? Is Palestin(sp) their country? No, and they would not dare commit any of these actions without or jolly President and Cold-War era cabinet behind them. Now that i've gone of the topic a bit, back to the casualty issue. Do not forget Vietnam, and the rallies and undermining of the National Government. In WWII where were the rallies? The peace demonstrations? We were fighting a threat which was cruel and just to destroy. Korea, Vietnam, even Somalia simply show how untolerant the American Public is to seeing their soldiers returning amung the dead. Somalia was a disaster, and the Gulf War ended quickly ithout much ado. Bush is not as much a fool as many believe, he knows to keep his statues up he must keep the war going, but without revealing the truth of what occurs there. The answer you might ask? I little word called spin.