Quote:
Originally posted by Ryanamur:
Yes, I'm guessing. But, we the lack of true evidence, aren't we all. For your information, Osama Bin Ladden and the Al-Queada network, as never taken responsibility for an attack. He always warned before and he always praised the attackers but, he never said "We did it". Why, I don't know, but I'll speculate because of the implications it would have in an Muslim court.
You're right, I know just as much as you. Ironically, we just so happen to know just as much as the media... who don't know alot  . Of course we all speculate, that's what's "fun" (it's not the word I want to use to describe this but it'll have to do). However, I try to put my self in Osama's shoes and I ask myself: "Can we trust a Caucasian to help us in this operation?". It's funny that the paranoiac me always come up with one simple reason why not: "It could be a law enforcement agency trying to infiltrate us". I know it sounds corny but the fact remains that he could not possibly deal with Caucasians (I know, I generalize again) because he runs the risk of having is operation exposed and the attack would fail.
Again, I try to think like a terrorist and ask myself: "which action will bring America down the most with killing as many Americans as posible?". Those are the 2 central elements of his goal (again, according to the taped messages that we both have seen in the medias ): 1- bring the USA down 2- kill as many Americans as possible. Now, thou an Anthrax attack achieves 1, it doesn't achieve 2 unless a more potent string of anthrax is being used.
Plus, Osama seems to make a show: WTC, Pentagon, Capitol as an intended target, USS Cole, Ambassies in Africa... though terrorizing Americans (and other nations) on their own soils works, it's not something that people can see on the other side of the world. He need to give them something be for them to SEE that America is coming down (even if it isn't)
Anyway, we can debate from sunset to sundown about "was it Osama's" and still not come to expose the truth. The bottom line still remains: 1- Osama (and al.)must be killed and be killed quickly 2- Something must be done quickly to quash the anti-western civilization sentiment present in the Middle East and Africa.
Quite frankly, I don't believe that taking the Talibans out will acheive neither 1 or 2. That's why I don't agree with bush's idea to go after the countries involved. We've exposed a viper's nest that realisticly, we cannot fully control or handled.
Dropping food and supplies with a big American flag and "this is from the people of America" is not the solution. Neither in the short run but especially not in the long run.
Killing people to put a puppet government in place will not work either. Again, IMO, the bombing of afghanistan is a mistake. What we cassually label "colateral damage" here, is labelled "friends, familly, agencies that try to help us" there.
Now, you tell me if this would work: Al-Queada destroyed the WTC and a wing of the pentagon. They killed about 7,000 people in the span of a few hours. Now, they are labelled with an anthrax scare. Do you think that if Al-Queada was to drop food or money that it would fix the situation, would it make us love them?
Thou we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's actually an appropriate one. Over the years, the Western world has been labelled (maybe rightfully, maybe not... but the fact remains that perceptions are stronger than reality) as the bad guys. We have been labelled responsible for the death of MANY. If we go and inflict "colateral damage" when we drop food or supplies. Will that help us or hurt us?
|
It just seems you enjoy saying, "it's Americans", "it's your fault", and "you brought it on yourselves." We don't have all the evidence, so why would you imply Americans on a guess, knowing it's inflammatory.
Saying that Osama would not use Westerners in an international operation is naive. He's evil, but that doesn't mean he isn't very intelligent and cunning. I don't think Westerners are in his "inner circle", but it would be amazing if they weren't involved on some level. Westerners "generalizing" is probably as big a reason for anti-western sentiment as anything you listed in your previous posts.
Trying to think like a terrorist probably isn't very effective because you couldn't (I hope) get into the mentality that you are just in your actions so it doesn't matter what you do as long is the death toll is high. I'm sure their hopes for the anthrax attacks death toll was much higher, just as I think their "success" rate for the WTC is probably above and beyond their greatest expectation.
People see the anthrax scare overseas as clearly as they saw what happened September 11. Whether they find out about it through television, written work, or by word of mouth. Actually, if anything, we've learned that word of mouth is probably the best method for these kinds of criminals because they always exaggerate their results while downplaying the retaliation. Bottom line, if they know about the WTC why wouldn't they know about stopping the session of Congress? This is a huge coup!
To kill Osama quickly, as you stated, we have to send in troops. The Taliban is harboring him, and since we have to get to him to kill him, this is the only way. Going after all countries involved may be too broad a goal in the long run, if the world doesn't have the stomach for it, but with Afghanistan it is certainly the only option that applies.
Killing people to put in place a puppet government is not what's being done. Removing a regime that harbored, with knowledge, international murderers is an action the world community has embraced. An it's the world community who is trying to figure out what type government to install. The European Union met last week to discuss plans for this very thing.
BTW, only 3 nations in the world recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghany government prior to September 11.
Collateral damage is a fact of life in war. Afghanistan is at war with the US because of their actions or lack of actions.
As to your comparison of Osama's group dropping food and giving money to make up for the problem..........
"we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's really an appropriate one."
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF? It is not "decent" or "appropriate" and you know it. It is nonsensical!
They needed both food and money from US prior to September 11, and they need it today. Obviously, giving it too them didn't do much to make them happy before September 11th, but we still try to help. We were helping before and we're helping now. I remember from your earlier post you think it's token, and not enough, but we were doing it before, so it's not something new since the bombing began.
------------------
"The Martyr" (excerpt)
There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.
--Herman Melville (written after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln)
[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-21-2001).]