I think this article is one of the most poignant and perceptive pieces I have read yet about this whole sorry sad mess that is only going to get worse :

---

Quote:

Interviewing Chomsky
Radio B92, Belgrade

Why do you think these attacks happened?

To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the
Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views,
and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of
information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most
eminent correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious
fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" (_London Times_ correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These "Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out
terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against Muslims.

The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not
object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them.

The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow
and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the
Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.

Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and
destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British
assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the
gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international
consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-
democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes."

Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as
commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts.

The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.).
That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a
fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases.

What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American self reception?

US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe
international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity.

As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the
answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the world?

The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.

After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?

Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin
Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.

The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to
terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in
passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents.

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect
throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society.

Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove
the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.

"The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?

The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.
During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US;
hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture.

It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome.

Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more humane and honorable course.

---

This is what I fear the most:

"Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove
the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent."

It rings true. We have to go in and get bin Laden without killing a lot of innocent Moslems. Otherwise, he wins even as he dies, I think.

Yep I think eliminating Bin Laden is the No.1 priority.

What worries me is what is going to happen next ? There are literally hundreds of terrorist groups spread around the world. If this US operation bogs down into a military campaign that results in innocents being killed I think we are all in for a world of hurt.

Let's hope the US has their targets firmly lased before they fire their cannon.

Does anyone really think the WTC incident was the one and only major attack that will happen in the US ? No way. This is just the start of a continuing terror campaign that will only get worse. I'd advise everyone living near a major US city to purchase a gas mask.

I'd also advise everyone to look carefully at their neighbours comings and goings - they could be the next "sleeper" terrorist awaiting "activation".

But I don't think we should get overly cautious. Listen to what you're saying. I don't know if you mean it this way, Sean, but it sounds like you're advocating a "trust no one" policy -- which I think is the vastly wrong move. I also think that this attitude, in excess, is what leads to the pounding of innocent Arab-Americans. I know that's not what you're advocating, but -- it kinda sounds like it, to me, if I didn't know better.

You're right, though -- we're likely to see more terrorist attacks if we don't act decisively. No wants war, but, to quote Sean Connery in what was apparently the worst movie ever "Sometimes there is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war." Very appropriate, for these times.

---

Quote:

Sean, but it sounds like you're advocating a "trust no one" policy -- which I think is the vastly wrong move. I also think that this attitude, in excess, is what leads to the pounding of innocent Arab-Americans. I know that's not what you're advocating, but -- it kinda sounds like it, to me, if I didn't know better.

---

Oh, I know that you weren't advocating that. But, you sound awfully suspicious, and I'm not sure that that's the course that Americans should take.

But, then, I'm not sure that it's not, either.

When I think back on some of the most successful campaigns for a cause in the last century. The two that first pop into my mind are the struggles of Mahattma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

As I look at the situation that our country is faced with at this time, I wonder if we couldn't take a lesson from them. Now please, I'm not talking about going to the sea and making our own salt or having sit-ins at Woolworth's. All jokes aside, I wonder if there could be some sort of non-violent, justice-oriented response to this situation. I believe that it is the _only_ way of not starting a war against Islam as a whole. I'm not wise enough to offer a way up. I'm looking for ideas, though. Any thoughts?

When I think about more innocent people being sacrificed on the altar of terrorism I feel empty inside.

Eapen

im so glad i started reading this boards... people here are much more mature than my eq guild board... my last posts on 2 other topics here were mainly trying to convey similar message, of course with much less authority, bases and 'bluntness'...

like i said, those people do not hate americans, they hate something else... i hope after reading this article, you will all see things differently...

if u kill bin laden in any ways, he will become che guevara in middle east, those folks already dont like the american foreign policy much, his death may not trigger a war immediately but the hatred will brood for sure.

"if u kill bin laden in any ways, he will become che guevara in middle east"

We may not have a choice. He may chose to die rather than be captured, and after the 9/11 events we have to go after him.

Yeah, we really have no choice. It is either go kill him or hang out and wait for the next attack. There really is no middle ground. Despite what that article says I see nothing majorly wrong the US has done recently. We support Isreal but we have also been working on creating peace in that region for 20 years or more. I don't see us suicide bombing thousands of innocent civillians in muslim countries either.

-- Xaroc

"if u kill bin laden in any ways, he will become che guevara in middle east"

That's not a bad parallel actually. It'd be better if he can somehow be humiliated and then eliminated.

On a side topic, my sister-in-law is a staunch anti-death penalty crusader. Nothing wrong with that and I'm not trying to bash those who are anti-death penalty at all. She's very much in favor of killing "those responsible" now though.

I suppose most things truly are relative.

-Andrew

Bon Jovi.

I meant to post that in the best concert ever thread. But enjoy anyway.

"When I think back on some of the most successful campaigns for a cause in the last century. The two that first pop into my mind are the struggles of Mahattma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. As I look at the situation that our country is faced with at this time, I wonder if we couldn't take a lesson from them."

Rama (Eapen?),

I don't mean to single you out -- I realize your comments come from good intentions -- but it strikes me as pointless to bring up the great leaders of civil disobedience in a situation like this. Unfortunately, you're not the only one doing this.

Appeals to non-violence are good and well, but they have their limitations. The reason MLK and Gandhi were successful is because they were working within the context of a government that recognized the value of human life. You would have never heard of Martin Luther King if he had stood up against Nazi Germany. Gandhi would have been a non-entity in Guatemala, China, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Bosnia-Herzegovina.

I appreciate the lessons both men taught the United States and the British Empire, but I question whether they have any relevance here.

-Tom

'Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and.....'

My ass he is. Did Chomsky actually read any of those articles he mentions? Bin Laden doesn't give a shit about Palestine.

Ignoring that, Chomsky's the perfect example of the new appeasement left. "We should give the terrorists what they want so they should stop blowing us up."

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/100101/trb100101.html

Interestingly, this link says that the reason Iraq is suffering under sanctions is because Saddam is *re-exporting* food shipments, if you can believe it. The Kurds in the north aren't starving, because he doesn't really have them under control.

Letting Saddam continue to run Iraq was debatable enough back in 1991 on regional balance-of-power terms, but it's a horrid idea now. Is the CIA even vaguely attempting to start a democratic revolution there?

Tom,

Excellent point. There was context of government that recognized Gandhi and MLK. Not knowing anything about the world court, I was thinking that a legal solution might be in order. Could something like this attack be considered a crime against humanity (even though not during a war situation)? I guess that when I hear the banging of the war-drums coming from all different sides, I was thinking that some other solution might exist. It's not that I'm going to denounce the idea of violence as a response, I just feel like if we can't first make Bin Laden's protectors realize his guilt, we have no way of ending the escalation of violence. There are so many great brains of our country thinking about how to kill this man, I wonder if there is not some other solution.

Eapen (i'm going to quit using my handle now).

We could never show the Taliban enough evidence of Bin Laden's guilt for them to turn him over. Wanting proof is just a line. They don't want to give him up cause they don't want to give him up. And even if we couldn't prove his involvement in the attacks on 9/11, we know for sure he was involved in many other terrorist attacks, there's evidence and he takes credit for them. That alone should be enough for any government to turn him over for prosecution (either in the US or an internation tribunal or something). But the Taliban doesn't give a flying fuck if he's a criminal or not. They don't like being told what to do and they like what Bin Laden does.

Besides, even if the Afghanis were going to apprehend Bin Laden I think it's unlikely he could be taken without a fight.

Brad Grenz

It's also worth noting that Bin Ladin is a war hero there and considered a champion of sorts. His fame brings in fighting men and his wealth helps keep the government afloat.

Bill Gates isn't the richest man in Afghanistan.

We need to clean up that cesspool, IMHO. Afghanistan will only continue to attract the most radical elements and serve as a haven until a new government and economy are established. We're partly responsible for what that country became and the situation her people are in.

But as I've said before, we need to limit military operations to Afghanistan for the time being. Talk from Washington about countries "being with us or against us" and bringing down entire governments (in plural) could be setting that stage for something we really don't want to get into. A Crusade, not against terrorists, but against Islam. That's how alot of folks will see it if we go berserk in the Middle and Near East regardless of what we might say.

Unfortunately, I don't think a peaceful solution is an option. Ignoring that it's likely bin Laden and the Taleban, if we don't show the world that people will not be allowed to get away with crap like this, then we'll just be sitting ducks for more terrorist attacks. We need to strike at the heart of the problem.

Hopefully this can be handled in such a way that "collateral damage" is minimized, so as not to stir up too much trouble over there. Bin Laden certianly doesn't need any more sympathizers.

I just got back from church and the minister had an interesting thought... why not bombard the Afghan people with food (since the Taliban doesn't really feed people), medicine, and information about other views of Islam. His idea (or the idea that he quoted), was to put down so much humanitarian aid and information that the Taliban wouldn't be able to take it and hide it.

Any thoughts on that?
Eapen (yes, still looking for other ideas! - I can be persistent!)

Ultimately, all wars are economic wars.

I agree that reaching the people with food, medicine, and cable TV broadcasts of "The Golden Girls" is effective. After just a few broadcasts, the female population in any Islamic country would realize that they're getting screwed, both figuratively and literally. No wonder all these cultures hate western influences, and lock out all outside media. Once the people saw how badly they were being treated, It wouldn't take much to stir them up into full-scale rebellion.

It also looks like we're also going the typical route of supporting the armed opposition groups. I'm beginning to wonder if that "coincidental" attack by Afghan opposition forces on the day after the bombing was really so coincidental after all.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010923/wl/attack_afghan_fighting_dc_2.html

Eapen,
Your minister may be on to something. I've wondered what effect a Western based propaganda war might accomplish. Hard to counter the words of men the people think are "holy" though.

If we invade Afganistan we must spend millions providing for the people. They're so desperate there a full Marshall Plan might work wonders.

-Andrew

I really was intrigued by some of the points that my minister made. I think that the biggest point that he made was not that the propaganda was of the utmost importance, rather that just dropping food out of the sky (curtousy of the U.S. of A), might make the biggest effect of all.

Hell, when I'm mad at my girlfriend, she can cook me dinner and it all melts away... hee hee.

peace?
eap

eapen,
thats a possible way to do it. killing people in retaliation wont stop the hate. im sure u guys can kill bin laden, and many more bin ladens after him, but hes only a man. it isnt a single person that u needa stop, its the general idea of how they think of u as a nation. military might of course can bring people on the knees, not their will.

It's not like there haven't been humanitarian relief efforts in Afghanistan. But the Taliban routinely seizes control of things like operations bringing in free food to the peasants. And it's not as though there aren't people in the country who don't know what a raw deal they have gotten. The country is still embroiled in a civil war. And peasants who try to stand up for even the most basic of rights are frequently executed on the spot, their head blown off.

http://www.rawa.org/

This isn't a conflict we can win with love or positive reenforcement. Even if we overthrow the Taliban, that won't cause every terrorist out there to stop, or give up. A peasant uprising would be a massacre (see: Iraqi rebels). The Taliban is very well armed and has a great deal of popular support. Dropping a bunch of flyers in the country telling the people their that their life sucks, isn't telling them anything they don't already know. Certainly after a potential invasion of Afghanistan there will be a great deal of humanitarian aid, but the Taliban is an evil regime who should be removed from power and there's no one willing, who is capable of such a task other then the United States of America.

Brad Grenz

I'd like a peaceful option as much as the next person. But peace is a little out-of-touch at the moment, it having been buried in the rubble with 6,000 innocent bystanders last week.

I fear we have the awful choice of war or becoming a police state. And if history teaches us anything, it's that there is no defense that cannot be breached, so police state isn't an option I want to see.

I think we should buy one of those nice comfy king sized beds, some extra big pillows, a nice comforter. Make a really big turkey meal with all the trimmings. Bring it over to bin Laden and serve him the big meal and let him go to sleep and the big bed we brought him. Maybe someone from here could read him a bed time story. He will be so sleepy and comfy he will never, ever both us again.

Wake up. I am getting disgusted with some of the crap on here and on other internet forums. Should all murderers be given jobs and new homes? Maybe the next time someone robs a bank we should buy them a car!?!? All shoplifters get new coats!!! We can buy it for them all!! We want to be victims!!!!!!!!!

Chet

I'm sorry if my search for an alternative to violence offends you, Chet. I think that it is important to think about alternatives to dropping bombs on innocent people. I also think that America has been doing this kind of stuff for years. I didn't believe it then or now. It doesn't mean that I don't love my country or appreciate the nigh-perfect existence that I have always known. I don't think that the average-Yusef in Afganistan had anything to do with the attack on the US. I've been thinking about feeding him because that is quite probably one of his (or her) biggest concerns right now. (besides getting to someplace that won't get bombed to dust)

I apologize if I offended you, but I won't apologize for questioning the direction of my nation.

Eapen

This isn't exactly related but it's an old article (1986) from The Atlantic Monthly that puts the perspective of terrorists in an interesting light.Terrorism.

Another article I really liked came from Reason Magazine. What Happens Next?. Here's a pretty rational editorial about our options if stated in a slightly irreverent, shell-shocked, way. It's a bit out of date: from before we decided on a full-blown and open-ended 'crusade'.

Here's an interesting article from Salon that discusses how our media is totally missing the 'why' in assessing motives and rationales. At the end of The Media's Islamic Blind Spot there are additional links to related topics.

'I think that it is important to think about alternatives to dropping bombs on innocent people.'

Hey, when they stop doing it to us, we'll stop doing it to them.

It's pretty sad that I've been looking to conservative publications like the Weekly Standard for thinking material lately. Here's an article detailing the national sovereignty/international law case for invading Afghanistan because they can't control the terrorists living there:

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/magazine/mag_7_3_01/rabkin_art_7_3_01.asp

It's an interesting article but it lends itself to statism and nationalism more than I'm comfortable with. If no state can judge another state and any state that claims it is threatened by another state has the right to invade - we're setting the stage for serious ugliness.

His technical legal arguments may be correct for all I know but the framework he's employing is rather primitive, and from a US standpoint, self-serving. This system seemingly works great for us because we can kick anyone's ass we want. In the short term. In the long term, it doesn't do a whole lot to alleviate the conditions that give rise to terrorism in the first place.

The world can't keep on going like this with a headless horseman leading the charge into nowhere in particular. There need to be more international understandings not less of them. There needs to be a world court with teeth not just a shallow mockery that we use when it's useful. We need some central bodies that can help us deal with international criminals - whether they are terrorists or bankers.

Nationalism simply can't handle globalism. We have two choices. We put on the nationalist blinders and let the globalists frame our future without our awareness or we can come together and try to shape a destiny we can all live with.

That's the dealio.

"Hey, when they stop doing it to us, we'll stop doing it to them. "

Jason, I respectfully ask: when does it all end?

Brian, I like your point about globalism vs. nationalism. I think that it is pretty scary to give up a small part of national identitity to set up a larger organization for justice. Personally, I think it's a good idea. I'm encouraged by the House's approval to pay the second installment of our overdue UN dues. Getting it through the Senate might be kind of tough... but an unanimous vote in the House might go a long way to getting it passed without a whole lot of changes.

Eapen

"I'm sorry if my search for an alternative to violence offends you, Chet. I think that it is important to think about alternatives to dropping bombs on innocent people. I also think that America has been doing this kind of stuff for years. "

Yeah we are bastards. Go to Somalia to for humanitarian relief - get this shit kicked out of us - we bombed them. Hell we have nuked what is it 5 or 6 countries now. Do you remember when we set our puppet regime up in Iraq? good stuff! We rock.

Yeah.

Of course we should have American soldiers die as we try to be so precise in who we kill, after all, all the afghans are innocent and we are guilty.

Nationalism is always bad when it is about the USA and always good when it is about any other country. That is the thinking man's rule to calling patriotic American's rednecks.

Chet

A world court wouldn't be a bad idea if it was limited to democratic countries. Which, of course, it wouldn't be; we'd doubtlessly have the silliness of third world countries and China indicting the West for their own failings.

Multilateralism for its own sake it's any better than nationalism for its own sake.

'Jason, I respectfully ask: when does it all end?'

When the bastards of the world are converted to nice, fat, happy people by democracy.

"Nationalism is always bad when it is about the USA and always good when it is about any other country."

Amen. I'd like to sit on a hill with the whole world with a Coke and teach it to sing, but the world doesn't seem to work that way.

Yeah, let's pay our U.N. dues. They've been really quick to jump in and condemn these terrorists activities and the countries enabling them. They've been nothing buit action on this affair. They're a lot happier if they're doing something that requires the U.S. to apologize (for being wealthy, for having slavery 15o years ago, etc, etc.) An international court would no doubt be another forum for the rest of the world to tell us why we should be ashamed of ourselves (while still keeping one hand stretched out for a few more billion dollars in aid, food, etc.)

I've grown weary of hearing how we have to be so sensitive to some groups of Muslims who may object to us fighting back to both punish (yes, punish) and eliminate those who bombed our country (those planes were huge bombs) and killed thousands of our people, who have killed our people numerous times in the past and will continue to attack and kill our people as long as they can. If there are groups who would be offended that we will fight back, and with a vengence - too frikken bad. Bin Ladin and his ilk are not poor downtrodden religious people with no recourse - they're madmen. Bin Ladin's response as to why he cheered the killing of Americans who were trying to bring in food to starving Somalians: it was a ruse for Americans to kill Muslim women and children. There ARE poor downtrodden people in the world - we spend billions of dollars trying to help feed them, aid them, provide them with medicine and doctors, send in workers and teachers, etc. I'm not some ignorant backwoods uneducated yahoo - I've studied world religions and theologies, social systems, lived in a few countries and regularly travel across the world. And only in the U.S. would we wonder whether we should try to understand how the poor terrorists FEEL when they kill thousands of our people and proclaim their desire to continue doing so. I mean, after all, Germany in the 30s was poor, the economy was in shambles, the people were depressed and felt humiliated from their treatment by the rest of world. So who can blame 'em, right? Gotta understand the poor Nazis.

Just as a note of explanation, I am completely sarcasm free. When I write posts like what I wrote, please try to read it without any sarcasm whatsoever. It just isn't in my nature.

I guess, I've opened a can of worms here. I'm going to respectfully disagree with you (plural) here. I don't think it is un-American to question foreign or domestic policy of the US. I also don't think that it is bad to try to understand the reason's behind people's actions and by saying that, I don't mean that everything is based on the fault of America. Furthermore, I don't think that searching for a less violent response (or possibly, a very, very, very specific violent response) to this terrible attack is wrong.

"Wake up. I am getting disgusted with some of the crap on here and on other internet forums. Should all murderers be given jobs and new homes? Maybe the next time someone robs a bank we should buy them a car!?!? All shoplifters get new coats!!! We can buy it for them all!! We want to be victims!!!!!!!!!"

I fight hate with love.

Sure, let's nail the terrorists with our cumulative nationwide Counter-Strike training. But I have no beef with the poor, desperate people of Afghanistan. Let's try to do something good for the people so they don't allow regimes like this to come into power in the first place.

At some point, we have to treat the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

My take is simply that we need to get in and then get out with fewer enemies, not more.

If we want to risk no American lives, why not nuke the mountains in Afghanistan? How is that any different than bombing the shit out of the country with conventional bombs?

It's a difficult situation, and no matter how much we feel we're in the right, it does us no good if our actions end up creating more enemies in the Moslem population than we had before.

We have to go after bin Laden and break up his organization, but we have to weigh our actions. There's nothing wrong with being sensitive about how our actions will be perceived by Moslems in the Middle East. It would be stupid to not factor that into the equation.

"why not nuke the mountains in Afghanistan? How is that any different than bombing the shit out of the country with conventional bombs?"

Minor little things like radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, unity with our allies, etc.,

-Andrew

'It's a difficult situation, and no matter how much we feel we're in the right, it does us no good if our actions end up creating more enemies in the Moslem population than we had before.'

This seems to be the basic logical anti-war point. I kind of agree with it, but isn't it logically inconsistent? The Taliban's chief funder killed 6,000 US citizens. They won't hand him over. Every possible response we have, short of completely ignoring the incident, will piss off the Muslim world even more, and ignoring it will embolden them to do it again, but worse.

What possible response can we have that will make them *not* attack us? Completely withdraw from the region, more-or-less handing it over to Chinese and Russian control? Is this a serious suggestion?

We can:

Kidnap Bin Laden. Nightmarishly difficult to pull off; you'd might as well order the body bags now. The Arab world will be pissed at us for violating Afghanistan's sovereignty.

Kill Bin Laden, either through assassination (see kidnapping difficulty), or cruise missiles (doubtful we'll ever be able to kill him). Same POed Arab world as above.

Apply diplomatic pressure to isolate Afghanistan, sanctions, and so on, in the hopes this will end up forcing them to turn him over. I think it's insanely unlikely this would work; they don't care about international opinion and the lack of aid or foreign trade won't do anything.

Unless I'm missing something, those are all the sort-of-pacifist options. None of them will keep the country from producing another Bin Laden, and every one of them is absolutely worthless in terms of appropriate response level. That leaves the military options:

Invade Afghanistan, kill/kidnap Bin Laden, overthrow the Taliban, and install a moderate democracy. This will probably work, at an unknown cost in casualties on both sides.

Enable the anti-Taliban rebels through funding in Afghanistan to overthrow the government for us. I'm not overly certain how this one would work out.

The war options aren't good, but they're the only ones that are better than zero.

You know, a lot of people talk about civilian casualties as if we'll be aiming for innocents. We most certainly will try our best not to kill uninvolved civilians. Of course, the terrorists themselves killed could very easily be reported as civilian casualties. They're violent criminals, but technically not members of a nation's army.

If this goes down america is not going to go in bombing hospitals and ophenages left and right. And there will be an increased sensitivity about civilian casualties at home, which I think will surely result in more judicious use of long range cruize missles.

Brad Grenz

'Let's try to do something good for the people so they don't allow regimes like this to come into power in the first place.
At some point, we have to treat the cause of the disease, not the symptoms. '


Maybe some people don't get it. Our existence is the cause. Our wealth, our power. Should we give that up just so some halfwit on the other side of the world won't hate us? They hate us for helping them. They hate us for helping their friends, they hate us for bombing them and they hate us for not bombing them. They are the green eggs and ham of national diplomacy - they hate us for every reason and for everything.

Even the taliban themselves now admit it was islamic terrorists - just not their terrorists.
http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010926/world/afp/Taliban_leader_says_attacks_were_to_avenge_US__cruelty_.html

Chet

"Maybe some people don't get it. Our existence is the cause. Our wealth, our power."

It's more complicated than that. We're supporting Israel, we have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, we're a superpower with our hand in the doings of the Middle East, etc.

I'm not advocating not going in, by any means. I'm just concerned about the scale of our war effort. I don't think attacking Kabul is a good idea, for example, but it looks more and more like we may have to.

I'm pretty much on the same page, Mark, but I wonder what we can do to win our stated 'war on terrorism' if we don't play a gentle hand in rebuilding and modernizing the very states we've played a part, if indirectly, in oppressing or destabilizing. Alright, in the case of The Taliban's Afghanistan a very firm hand. Our deeds and our image abroad count a great deal in this conflict. This is psychological warfare on a theatre scale.

Any long-term plan has to include some kind of initiative to deal with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Maybe making Jerusalem into an international city and relocating the United Nations there will help. Instead of trying to divide it between Israel and Palestine, take it away from them. Make it open to all faiths. I think that might be more palatable to the Arabs, and I like the idea of the U.N. being at ground zero of any conflict there. They'll wo

And yeah, we probably have to pump money into Afghanistan after the Taliban are deposed, if that happens. That's how you turn an enemy into an ally.

The problem is we're dealing with religious fanatics. How do you dissuade them from violence? I don't know if it can be done. We can't stop religious nuts from shooting doctors at abortion clinics here in this country.

I dunno -- the point I wanted to make is that we can't just go in with guns blazing and saying to hell with it. It's not about knuckling under. It's about being smart, having long-term goals that look to undercutting some of the issues that give rise to terrorism, and so on.

Mark, what we should have or could have done 50 years ago is gone. We can't take back or change our past policy in the mideast. As it stands now - these countries are brainwashed into the evils of the USA. Look at the egyptian nut who lost his son who was flying the plane - he blamed the USA. In Somolia we were part of the UN peacekeeping troops - who was the bad guy? We could cloth and feed the poor of afghanastan and they would just call it cultural imperialism.

And if we help a bunch of moderate muslims take control - does that mean we win anything? In the long run does that really do us any good? I'm not sure.

Chet

Tony Blair told the UK press that the effort would very much be a "bombs and bread" campaign: going in and taking out very specific targets, while simultaneously finding ways to provide more humanitarian aid to the general Afghan public. It will be interesting to see how that works in practice.

As for the complications of our image - it really fascinates me that Americans are so concerned about what people abroad think about us. I never hear anyone in France or Saudi Arabia worrying about what the U.S. thinks about them, certainly not to the point of constantly judging policy decisions on whether the U.S. will like it or not.

Lastly - as to the issue of our way of life, etc. I'm putting together an article for a local newspaper in which I'm interviewing 3 different Muslims, from three of the several sects of Islam (as an aside, Islam is somewhat unique in that it's very beginning were fractured, since Muhammed died without naming a successor, thus leading immediately to the different factions. And the Quran is so thick and complex (it's about two feet thick and not put together in any real order) that most Muslims have never read the whole thing.) Finding a couple of folks from the more mainline sects who were willing to discuss things on the record was pretty simple, and the answers are fairly much what you would expect: yes, this was terrible; no, this is not what Islam teaches; in spite of their differencs, Christians and Jews are recognized as "people of the book" of Quran, although misguided; Yes, there is resentment that we support Israel, but they also note that we provide aid and help to Muslim nations; etc.

However, finding a Shi'ite who was willing to be interviewed was more difficult, and I ended up with a fellow who lives in France. And the difference was quite marked (and remember that Bin Ladi represents an even more extreme sect than the standard Shi'ites.) He quoted at-Taubah 9:34.13, which says "O ye who believe! Lo! many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings, O Muhammad, of a painful doom." His claim is that this and other passages he has quoted are explicit instructions that true Muslims have an obligation to inflict "doom" on the U.S. as the most capitalistic of nations. He said that our way of life is a blight on the world and an offense to Allah every day that we exist (citing our shameful practices of allowing women to disgracefully expose themselves and participate in business, mixed race marriages, and a host of other lifestyle examples.) I specifically asked him if the U.S. were to withdraw support from Israel, would that change anything. Let me look as his specific email response.... "that is another example of how blind you Americans are. Do you really think that we would not realize that this was another mere subterfuge? By history, and by the Quran, Christians and Jews will always be tied together, will always be an enemy of Allah and Islam. Your actions cannot change what Allah has dictated. If you were to join Mr. Arafat's persecuted peoples and oppose the Jews, in the end you would only use that as a manner to kill Muslims. It is as Allah wills it, and it is Allah's gift to true believers, as it gives us focus and a pure path to our Allah's will."

I'll post the link when the article's done and published; the editor doesn't want me to say anything until they publish it, but it will be in a newspaper in a Major Michigan City. ;) But I think we may be trying to apply a western mindset to a group of people to whom that logic does not apply. The rational thought process that the people behind the terrorism will become less ardent in their efforts if we change our policies in some way is, I believe, wishfull thinking.

FWIW.

I'm only worried about how Moslems view the U.S., not how anyone else views us -- well, sort of. We can't be isolationist in our foreign policy, so it does matter how other countries view us.

I just think it would be blindly stupid to engage in these activities without taking care to minimize the damage we'll do to our relations with the Moslems in the world -- that's my concern. We don't want a situation to arise where for every terrorist we eliminate, two more rise in his place.

So far I'm pleased with the way Bush has handled things. Going after specific targets is the right way to handle this. I don't know what he's going to do if bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan anymore, though.

As to your example from the Shi'ite, there's not much we can do about that, other than to help some of these countries modernize and hope that the people see the benefits of not being extremists. Even the Shi'ites can find passages in the Quran to support modifying their behavior if they look for them, I'm sure.

Jeff- excellent post. Thanx for sharing. It pretty much sums up what I've been saying for years- you can't change a zealot's mind. If they hate or despise your beliefs, you are doomed and there's not a damn thing one can do about it.

As for the Koran-Quran- it's great reading. Too bad some religious extremists muddy its interpretation and intent, then take things to the extreme. I guess no matter what religion we're talking about, extremists await our doom.

Raphael

I understand what you're saying, and it would certainly be stupid to choose a path that hurts previously good relationships and nudges neutral relationships in the wrong direction. If we have a choice. If the choice is that the only way to effectively eliminate or minimize the identified network of murderers will piss some people off, I think we have to piss some people off. I don't mean that in a Bubba or Rambo way, but from a pragmatic point of view. I do believe, however, that Bush has shown restraint and judiciousnous (sp) and that we will do our best to not unneccessarily antagonize civilized folks. However, it's also been made clear that we will not allow other nations to dictate how we will defend ourselves. I have a teenage son - I have no desire to see him die in a few years in a desert war in the Middle East. But I also have no desire to see him or his loved ones die in a bomb blast or in a mushroom cloud in the U.S.

As for the extreme Muslims, they are the ones who make up the threat. They are no more representative of the Muslim people than David Koresh or Adolph Hitler is of Christians. They are not even a majority of the Shi'ites - yes, the Shi'ites hate the U.S., but most would not condone unleashing a nuke or bio or chemical weapons on millions of people. I wish that modernization would cause extremists to change their stripes, but I really don't hold out any hope for it.

As long as we can pass the test of decency for civilized people - that we will seek to punish and eliminate those who seek to kill us and that we will make every attempt to avoid hurting innocent people in the process - I'm not real concerned what the rest of the world thinks. As Ugly American as that may sound. What has our concern for what the rest of the world thinks about us gained us so far? Do other countries line up to help us politically, economically, militarily?

"What has our concern for what the rest of the world thinks about us gained us so far? Do other countries line up to help us politically, economically, militarily?"

In this case, I'd say it has helped us. Had we responded initially by bombing Kabul, for example, I doubt we'd have the cooperation of Pakistan that we're now getting.

So yeah, judicious restraint and being smart can pay some dividends.

I realize that we're going to make some Moslems unhappy. I was never arguing that we wouldn't -- just that we take care to minimize it.

I think we're probably on the same page, Mark - I've just got ornery old fart disease that makes me sound like a super-hawk sometimes. ;)

On the earlier discussion of radical Islamic motivations, I present a link I ripped off Slate. It's quite good.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

Before this all happened to US women were going to be tried for preaching christianity in Afghanastan. If found guilty there punishment would have been death.

Mark, there are not only 6 or 7 bad crazies running the show there. There isn't one big bad terrorist. There are a nation filled with people who hate the USA and think we got what we had coming. When we were attacked at pearl harbor, did we react with the carrot or the stick? I just don't think going in with the carrot first is going to help a damn thing. If anything it will weaken our ability to play hard ball politically there. I hated Reagan, I really did, but there is something to be said for striking fear in the enemy.

They have no fear now. Hell we just arrested 10 guys with fake ids to transport hazardous chemicals. Why not? If they succeed, we are showing them, we won't hurt mommy and daddy back in the homeland, oh no. If you hurt us, you go to allah and we will buy your mommy and daddy a nice new house.

The carrot only works after someone has been wacked around with a damn big stick or are scared they are going to get wacked with a damn big stick.

Chet

Girlie Girls Run USA
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010925/ts/attack_name_dc_2.html

Germany just called. They want to know if we can rename World War II to Hitler's Revenge. They hope this would better reflect the cause of the war being the world's mistreatment of Germany following WWI. They were forced to try for world domination and cannot be held accountable for any deaths during WWII

Chet

I can't remember where Timothy McVeigh was from, but if we applied that logic to the bombing in Oklahoma City, shouldn't we arrest, try and convict all of the people of McVeigh's hometown? The Taliban is definitely part of the problem, I am still of the mindset that the people of Afganistan are more concerned with where they will get their next meal and if their starving children will live through the night.

Of all the arguments for an attack on Afganistan, that one is the hardest for me to swallow.

Eapen

I don't think I've seen anyone in the administration hint at a general strike against Afghanistan. There's a reason that nothing has happened so far (as opposed to the knee-jerk symbolic actions we've taken in the past) - I believe they are truly trying to target, as specifically as possible, those who are truly "the enemy." I would bet this will be combined with increased aid to the population of Afghanistan.

>>>I can't remember where Timothy McVeigh was from, but if we applied that logic to the bombing in Oklahoma City, shouldn't we arrest, try and convict all of the people of McVeigh's hometown?


You are kidding me right? You cannot see the difference here? Wow. I don't mean this as a cop out - but I am too stunned to have any kind of logical comeback to an idea so absurd as to compare the two.

Maybe I missed it when New York (mcveighs home state) declared holy war on the USA, but that could really explain alot.

Chet

Oddly enough, Reagan's record isn't that strong in the specifics. Think Beirut, '83. In addition to the Embassy and Marine barracks getting bombed, we lost a plane or two in strikes on the heights overlooking the city. Our total response was a few ineffective air strikes, a few off-target lobs from the 16" guns offshore, and eventually a withdrawal.

Not that I'm blaming ole Ronny completely; we never should have been in Beirut to begin with, particularly not without some vague clue of why.

http://www.americanpresident.org/KoTrain/Courses/RR/RR_Foreign_Affairs.htm

'In June 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon in an effort to destroy the PLO. The Palestinian organization was headquartered in Beirut and thousands of Palestinians lived in southern Lebanon. Reagan dispatched several thousand marines to help keep the peace in Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal.'

This and Grenada were both slightly kooky, but understandable.

I agree, Bob. Although some will argue that when we attacked Lybia from the carrier, we didn't see much more activity from Khaddafi for quite some time. Still, Reagan, Clinton, it really doesn't matter who was in office - our response has been to make rather quick retaliatiory strikes and then feel as if we had made our point (at least as far as what we have seen publically.) That's why I'm impressed with the current proposed response - it sounds as if we are going to actually try to do something that is intended to make a difference, even while acknowledging and preparing the American people that this will be a very difficult task. Which is why I think the terrorists made a HUGE strategic mistake. As long as you kill some Americans stationed abroad, or even just a few here in the U.S., America was effectively willing to tolerate your existence. Now you have a whole lotta power - militarily, politically, and economically - coming down on you in a manner that has not yet been seen before. Dumb, dumb move.

I dunno Jeff,
seems to me their getting exactly what they wanted and expected. Maybe it was dumb, probably so, but this is the reaction they were provoking. Kinda like a bratty kid who wants attention. First he breaks something and gets a reprimand. Next he tortures the cat or something worse... Terrorists, even this new breed, want attention and they got the media, the world, all paying attention.

Why?
-Andrew

A dumb move strategically, yes. But, isn't the point of making such terrorist attacks is to gain attention. They wanted to make a point. It has really brought the attention of Americans to the situation of the middle east. I've talked to some people who on September 10, 2001 couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Now they can't get enough information on how long and how far the US has been involved.

Bin Laden himself claimed to wanting a large strike against Americans, the likes which we have never seen. They wanted to say, "Here we are! Look what we can do."

I'm sure they probably took into consideration US military/political/economically retaliation. Perhaps not on the world-wide scale that it currently is (though I think some are jumping on the US band-wagon for selfserving reasons like having certain sanctions lifted). I believe destroying the WTC towers and killing many Americans is only part of their victory. We are now spending in excess of $20B for this war ($40B including relief (anyone still worried about dipping into the SS fund?)), our civil liberties are being looked at more closely than ever, regardless that life goes on - we are making changes to our own way of life and freedoms we took for granted.

Whatever we do against them, they have made their point.

"They wanted to make a point. It has really brought the attention of Americans to the situation of the middle east."

That's not the point they were making though. Traditionally terrorism has tried to make that point but Bin Laden wants us out of the Middle East, not for us to be "aware of their plight." If anything his goal is likely to force our hand, force us to react strongly and unite the Arab world against us in a Jihad.

Saddam Hussain had the same goal when he called for an Arab coalition and "The Mother of all Battles". It's probably inconcievable to Bin Laden that Allah wouldn't favor the righteous against all out might.

He's looking to make a martyr out of himself, out of the Taliban, and he's looking to prove to the world that America is assaultable. Touchable. Those are the points he made and those are likely his goals.

-Andrew

Why?

Terrorism, by definition, is deliberate attacks on innocent persons and innocent third parties in an effort to coerce the oppossing party, government, or persons into some desired political course of action. Basically, terrorists play to an audience hoping to strike fear and terror in that audience. Terrorist acts, by nature, are designed to "make war" on innocent persons, and so doing, terrorists hope their deaths and injuries will shock the opposition into concession so they may focus on the terrorist's political cause. Terrorists consider the innocent persons as unimportant by-products of the struggle and/or attack. They consider fate, and not human acts, as the reason for their deaths and injuries, and therefore, are detached from the inhumanity of the act. Remember, the goal of the terrorist is to frighten the entire body politic. For the most part, terrorists are looking to destabilize the enemy, by creating a sense of unrest, insecurity, and instability.

As a result, terrorists welcome free publicity. Getting the media to broadcast information about their cause to a global audience becomes a vital part of the act itself. It is usually divided into two phases: Tactical-- short term gains, and Strategic-- long term gains. The media coverage is often the goal of a terrorist act, itself. Unfortunately, the media tends to, unwittingly, become a terrorist's best friend. Just watch how the Jesse Jackson episode plays out in the next few days.

Raphael

(Jesse already turned them down.)

I agree Raph, but these terrorists are different, yes? What are their motives? What is their agenda? What cause are they promoting? And most tellingly, why haven't they come forward to claim the credit? Wouldn't the media just LOVE to broadcast a statement from whomever right now? Wouldn't the world be listening raptly?

I agree with Tom Chick's assertion on the 13th that the most alarming thing about this, aside from the deaths, is the way it was so well choreographed. One plane hits Tower 1. All eyes on the towers. Second plane hits. Show video for days. But what cause are they promoting?

-Andrew

Hrm... I should have made myself more clear. They're "plight" so to speak is the fact that they don't want us there, and why they don't want us there (or anywhere for that matter).

They've made their case that the US is satan incarnate or something. I didn't mean that they wanted to show us how rough a time they are having financially/socially/etc.

I agree with Tony. It's a culture war, more or less; the Israel/Palestine situation is just an inflammatory situation for a larger conflict.

Last I heard, Jackson is still considering his options.

But what cause are they promoting?

I think they've already stated their cause in the past: The complete removal of all western influence from Islam, Islamic nations, (ie Iraq), and the destruction of Israel. We'd be hearing more if it weren't for enormous worldwide mobilization against these terrorists. I do agree, these are unprecedented acts of terrorism. We'll have to wait and see how this unfolds.

Raphael

"Last I heard, Jackson is still considering his options."

Not according to CNN at around noon today. He took the advice of Colin Powell.

-Andrew

Looking back on that... yeah, terrible example. I'm not too proud to acknowledge that. I just can't come up with a good example... I'm just going to look forward to this cultural war not getting out of hand... I'm creeped out by this whole thing.

The first rule: never get into a land war in asia...

Eapen

Not according to CNN at around noon today. He took the advice of Colin Powell.

Excellent news! Letz see if they go another route...

Raphael

I dunno -- if what you guys say in true in this case -- (though I agree that with "typical terrorists" you're right on the money) they would have claimed this attack. They would have welcomed attention. Bin Laden would be standing on the borders of his country, screaming "Here I am George!! Come and get me!!"

I don't know. I think this was meant as an incredible strike (which it was), but I don't think they're getting the reaction they wanted/expected.

Yes, I think they expected to completely disrupt social order in the continental United States. We were supposed to have lost ourselves in panic. Mayhem in the streets, looting, hate and fear based violence, hoarding of food, water and fuel, the complete inability of the government to maintain order. An ineffectual declaration of marshal law... Real apocalyptic stuff. Didn't happen, of course.

Brad Grenz

I've been hearing alot about the 'death of irony' and cynicism in the wake of the attack. Still, in some ways I've come to better understand the role of cynicism and the ability to recognise irony. They're innoculations, insulation, against knee-jerk reactions and panic in a culture - they also preserve ideals that, if left unshielded in the face if reality, might wither entirely.

If folks are pretty aware of the greys of mundanity and the daily hypocracies of their world they'll be less likely to assume that either the obvious answers are the best ones or that the apocalypse is near when disaster strikes. A society with fewer suckers is likely to fall prey to a terrorist's attempts to terrorize it or a politician's attempts to capitialize on the tragedy.

But I do think cynicism is ablative. Once faced with real issues and threats, like we have been, it burns off under continued stress. Folks need to look to the principles they've had, which have been so bitterly disappointed, to make them cynical in the first place. In real times of genuine crisis those idealistic values seem to emerge from that protective, worldly, cocoon.

It occurs to me, as we discuss potential motives and expectations of the terrorists, that just as we have a very difficult time understanding the thinking of these extremist Muslims, they probably have just as difficult a time understanding our way of thinking. I personally think they miscalculated. Bin Ladin, in all of the interviews you can find of him, talks about what cowards Americans and their soldiers are. He constantly discusses how Americans ran away from "the first signs of resistance" in Somalia. As they sit around the campfire and discuss what fat, lazy, cowardly "paper tigers" Americans are, they very well may have expected that this attack would weaken the country, make the population demand that we give in to whatever demands they have, pull support from Israel, and just generally go hide in a corner, cowering. I find it hard to believe that they expected to have to be running for their lives, to have the Taliban that shelters them under physical attack, to have Pakistan give full aid and support to the U.S., to have an intense economic war waged in addition to special forces teams wandering the countryside, etc. After all - we have never responded like this in the past. And I doubt it is what they wanted or expected. Again - I think it is as difficult for them to understand us as it is us, them.

The death of cynicism and irony in our culture would have one needed side effect. It would make movies better. Isn't everyone sick of horror, westerns, sci-fi, etc., that continuously wink at the audience and say: "Yes, we know this is stupid. Just sit back, we're all in on the joke."

I've really come to enjoy the seriousness of films from the 60's. Compare the original Planet of the Apes to Burton's recent self-aware nonsense. Sadly, a movie like "The Magnificent Seven" could never be made today. Well it could, but it'd piss me off.

-Andrew

It's just a cultural cycle. Seriousness will rise again, and when it becomes far too annoying for its own good it'll be replaced by Disaffected Ironic Edginess again.