Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:12:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Eric,
> > > What do you think pacifism at a time like now is going to get us?
> > > All it will get us is more innocent Americans (among others) killed.
> >
> > And your evidence for that is ... ?
>
> This one is easy...
>
> First you have the origional WTC Bombing (not directly tied to bin Laden).
> Second you have the two bombings at the US embassies in Africa (tied to bin
> Laden)
> Third you have the attack on the USS Cole (also tied to bin Laden)
> Fourth you have 9/11/01 (decent chance it can be tied to bin Laden)
>
> There is a history, and each time they get more bold. I can't imagine
> anything
> worse than last week other than a wides spread chemical or biologic attack, or
> God forbid a Nuclear attack.
>
> The history is there. If we do nothing it will get worse. Unfortunately if
> we
> do something it may get worse in the short run as well but in time, with the
> use of the military, and by cutting off their funding, we can reduce the
> threat
> as much as possible.
I find "pacifism" a gross mischaracterization of the US reaction to
islamistic terror in the past. True, not every attack got its direct
military response, but pacifism is not one of those things you can switch on
and off on a monthly basis.
I have also outlined on my Posting "Still more perspectives on the tragedy",
what else it takes in my opinion, in addition to NOT striking back
militarily. Maybe pacifism is not exactly the perfect term for that concept
either, and I shouldn't have jumped in on your first statement without
further explanation ...
> > > I do think our military, whether that be bombs, special opps, or full scale
> > > invasion is required
> >
> > ... to reach which goal exactly?
>
> 1. capture or kill bin Laden.
> 2. capture or kill his next in command.
> 3. capture or kill any other identifiable leaders and their next in command.
> 4. Probably removal of governments like the Taliban that support them as well.
There is some evidence from recent history that military action is not very
effective at all of these. Maybe special ops could work best among these,
but given bin Laden's fellowship of an estimated few thousands, this is
going to be the largest special op I ever heard of ... actually sounds more
like invasion to me.
> > > and unfortunately when that happens innocents will more
> > > than likely get in the way.
> >
> > ... and those who survive will refuel the terrorist camps your strategy
> > missed -- and my guess is that this will be most of them.
>
> I agree, but, you have to first cut the head off. You then need to take away
> their funding.
I would actually suggest the other way round ... I see no point in "cutting
the head off", because the terrorists seem to be organized in a pretty
decentralized way. As a thought model, how would you try and "cut the head
off" the Internet? Same situation with bin Laden, I fear ...
> > Basically, this issue is simple. Nobody can offer a solution that will work
> > for sure. That doesn't make a strategy that is doomed to fail any more
> > attractive. And I simply don't see how bombing Afghanistan should hit bin
> > Laden. Or how invading Afghanistan should work. I don't even know whether
> > bin Laden is still there ...
>
> Hey I don't know he is still there either. There are now roomers he may have
> fled to Indonesia, a hugh country with thousands of little islands. That is
> definitely a worse place to have to hunt him down. That said I think we need
> to do everything we can to try and locate him and once we have his location we
> have to take him out. We can't be happy with that either.
Exactly. The problem remains to locate him. This didn't work in the past,
and, given the shape of secret services that just begins to surface, I am
not optimistic this will change soon ...
> We have to use every weapon can and that includes political, financial, and
> technilogical weapons as well.
Very true. I am just trying to sort those out which won't work. Catching bin
Laden and putting him into court is one thing we should try, but not at any
expense, and probably not with first priority.
> It is looking more and more like someone (or several someone's) tried to
> profit
> from this attack through transactions in stock markets around the world. It
> started with the short selling of insurance resellers in Germany and right now
> it looks like something similar happened in the US with the Airlines. I hope
> that this was the terrorists biggest mistake in all of this. I hope it leaves
> a clear trail back to the people involved and their financial resources so we
> can cut them off from their financial resources.
I sure hope the same. It would be very sad to see they even make money from
the attack, quite possibly to be used in the next.
> So you know where I am comming from... My father had 2 co-workers on American
> Flight 11. This is a small company in terms of head count and it hit them
> real
> hard. They went to one wake and funeral last week and then the entire company
> drove to NYC to go to another wake and funeral. I still don't think my father
> has recovered and to tell the truth I worry a bit for his health. My mother
> also had a client who's "significant other" was also on flight 11, and my
> Brother-in-law who is an elementary school teacher has a student who's mother
> was also on flight 11.
>
> I, fortunately, don't personally know anyone from the flights but I have
> experianced the pain just as every American has and I have also seen the pain
> in the eyes of people directly affected by this. The last couple of weeks
> have
> been hell for all of us (freedom loving people everywhere). I just can't sit
> by and let this continue.
I think I understand what this means for you, and yes, that also helps me
understand your viewpoint on the issue.
> We have to do everything in our power to stop
> (greatly reduce) the threat. If that means we can do it without taking a shot
> then I am all for it but I don't think that is the case. At some point in the
> future our soldiers are going to have to be put at risk. For me, and many
> others, that is a risk I am willing to take.
I think to really take that risk, there must be a huge chance to actually
succeed. Otherwise, it would be foolish to take it. I just happen to not see
this chance right now ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) This one is easy... First you have the origional WTC Bombing (not directly tied to bin Laden). Second you have the two bombings at the US embassies in Africa (tied to bin Laden) Third you have the attack on the USS Cole (also tied to bin (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
