War (against countries that support terrorism)

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Troll
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:15 AM

What's yer point, Aimless?

troll***BG***

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:03 AM

You guys are fucking nutso, ya know that? Nutso!!

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: X-Ed
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 05:43 PM

Oh my..........

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:31 PM

Guest03: no need to satirically wait for orders - there are hundreds of domestic attacks on Arabs right here in the US. Maybe the Gynocologists office will be a safer place to be while self appointed GI Trolls are out hunting native Arabs.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,03
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:24 PM

Right on Ed, let's take 'em out!! I am still waiting for your orders. Just give me a Gilley (memory clouds my spelling) suit and an old .300 Weatherby with a night scope and I'll bring you some scalps back from Afghanistan, big guy. Of course, those Arabs are all so retarded and primitive that it doesn't matter if I take out some women and children as well. Besides, they all look alike at 600 yards at night...

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: X-Ed
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 11:41 AM

Iraq expected the nations of Islam to come to its aid. The closest ally they had was Iran when it allowed the Iraqi air force refuge. Why would they do this after a 10 year war with Iraq where chemical weapons were deployed? Answer: The Arab world is full of retards. The ones that are not usually elect to immigrate to the west. They can't even pick an enemy! If you are next to them they will eventually attack you.

T.S.Lawrence: "The Arabs are a barbaric people."

I am reminded of Serbia. We are still trying to end a 600 year war. The Middle East conflict goes back to B.C. times. The fact is they wanna go at it. Talk has not and will not end this. Maybe next time Israel wants to go kick ass we'll let them.

I'm tellin' ya, we gotta take'em out. If we don't, I assure you they will attack us with whatever means they acquire. Kick'em hard enough and they may lose the will to fight. If we try to negotiate, they will attack anyway. The one that wants to negotiate is holdiing the weaker hand.......

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM

The reality of war is always coming up with new rhetoric and terminology. I am still trying to get over collateral damage.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 06:21 PM

Bombs for peace are expensive. Perhaps we should use our new microwaves of mercy to cook their brains at a distance or at close range employ the throat razor of reconcilliation or the super sonic suppository?

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 06:11 PM

Amos, the one thing that Bin Laden has repeatedly stated in his announcements and that appears to have enraged him the most is the deployment of US troops on Saudi soil. Hes not the type to be going around letterwriting and protesting with a placard. Youre talking about someone with an extreme belief system and trying to apply rational western logic doesnt always work. (Especially when religion is involved) If logic was used they ought to be thankful for the help the US gave the mujahedeen - by training and arming them during the Soviet conflict. Or he should have been outraged at Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, gasing the Kurds etc I mean the few cruise missiles that Clinton lobbed at the training camps in Afghanistan (which in retrospect, was obviously shooting from the hip) is what really got them all enraged?

I think actually the suggestion above that the US (as well as the west help the Afghani citizens ie. food and medical supply drops (and possibly wind up radios and send out anti-Taliban broadcasts (say by the Northern Alliance - while jamming the Talibans broadcast) - would make it a lot more difficult for them to gather support against the west and unite against an invader. (in this case the US could take a lesson from El Cid who fought the Moors in Spain and instead of catapulting rocks and fire at the besieged target he lobbed loaves of bread) giving him the ultimate victory (right now I cant remember the name of the city.)

At the same time they could launch surgical strikes at Taliban targets with the help from the North.

The US has absolutely no interest in invading Afghanistan or attempting to hold something that cannot be held. (the Russians thought they could hold the country by holding the cities and ended up doing neither. (They were also falling apart as a state.)

also any wider conflict where there are heavy civilian casualties would increase anti US sentiment in the Muslim world which is what Bin Laden wants.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: X-Ed
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 04:48 PM

An essay forwarded by a UC Berkeley professor: > > Dear Friends, > The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim Ansary. Tamim is an > Afghani-American writer. He is also one of the most brilliant people I > know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I listen. > Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we are in. > -Gary T. > > Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread: > > I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the > Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this > atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What > else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing > whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." > > And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am > from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've > never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who > will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. > > I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no > doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in > New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. > > But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the > government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant > psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political > criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you > think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of > Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not > only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They > were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone > would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of > international thugs holed up in their country. > > Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The > answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. > A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 > disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. > There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these > widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the > farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons > why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. > > We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone > Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. > Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? > Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their > hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from > medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. > > New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at > least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the > Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away > and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they > don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over > Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the > criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making > common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've > been raping all this time > > So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with > true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there > with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what > needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill > as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about > killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's > actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some > Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin > Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any > troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let > us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will > other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're > flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. > > And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he > wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's > all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might > seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam > and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a > holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to > lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably > wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the > war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but > ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else? > > Tamim Ansary

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner at work)
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 07:18 AM

Guest Pete. My point was to be observed and advertised as responding to the Afghan people (Pathans) during this crisis. American generosity is not being questioned here,it is well known. I merely wish to point out that one should be shown providing aid to the innocent, and preparing to attack the guilty. Most of the people demonstrating against America do not have access to the internet and cellphones, or even decent unbiased media. Such actions speak louder than words, and are noticed by thinking people. Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 10:50 PM

Being outraged at the Saudis inviting American tropps onto their soil is a political issue. Appropriate responses might include letter-writing, sign carrying, graffitti, discussion with representatives, protest rallies, chanting, etc.

The American soldiers in Saudi Arabia are not harming them, nor denying them their freedoms, not preventing them from communicating.

When the outrage instead leads to murder then it is no longer an acceptable explanation. It should be instantly obvious that it was not the true reason. Human beings do not resort to murder because they are irritated by a political situation, in the absence of other much deeper causes.

Such other causes historically include various forms of abuse and psychosis and, typically, the unseen presence of strong influence from individuals seeking power, control, wealth, or other private gain and seeking to use others to acheive such ends. Often, this scenario involves the use of highfalutin religous or political rhetoric, inflammatory and confusing, in order to get others to act in blind passion.

A

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Troll
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 10:26 PM

If they are going to be outraged about American troops on sacred Islamic soil, let them be outraged at the Saudi Government. The troops are there at their request.

troll

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,pete
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 08:12 PM

to Dave above, one fact rarely mentioned (certainly not by Taliban) is that AMerica just a few months ago gave 42million $ in aid (food, medicine delivery systems etc) Someone said possibly in another thread that you cant possibly guard against all forms of terrorism what if the next attack is a suitcase nuke in a large American city, I think it would be safe to say that pretty much of the Islamic world would be reduced to dust in a few hours including their holy cities. Since one US submarine carries enough warheads to do this. Maybe there is some deterrent to these people who are outraged by American troops being stationed in Saudi, defiling their soil - since there wont be any holy soil left to defile.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: X-Ed
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 07:33 PM

I know, let's move in some "golden arches" and some "W-marts!" Then, these guys will learn to love Americans. No problem has ever been solved through armed conflict. Hmmm?

This debate upon who is a terrorist and who is the enemy is rhetoric. In the eyes of the world, people are judged by the actions of their nations. Seems the bad is always the focus. This 35 some odd year war needs to end. Sadly, we can not remain nutural. Should we have merely watched as Japan attacked Hawaii (which wasn't even a state then)? Gee, why did they do this? Let's talk about it.

Gen. MacArthur: "The soldier above all wishes to avoid war, for they must bear it's deepest wounds."

Now be polite:)

I know the popular media image of military people is that they are warmongers. I never met one.

If these people and governments in other nations are interested in freedom and prosperity they will shut the terrorists down. How would the U.S. react to her citizens going out and committing atrocities in other nations? Would she ask why? No, she would say, "you can't do this," and end it.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Troll
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 04:06 PM

Dave (the a.m.) Good idea.

troll

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:57 PM

Martina Ryan: View it anyway you wish. I'm just not in the mood to argue or to fight today. Too nice of a day outside.

DougR

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner at work)
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 06:58 AM

One way of showing the people of Islamic faith that we (the west) are not at war with a country, or people, would be to supply aid to the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. We have no desire to destroy or occupy their nation, but must stamp out the terrorist infrastructure. This means the Taliban support of common murderers. This means closed borders, control of all assets belonging to such infrastructure, and a host of other methods including the final option, military attacks on specific targets. America must get this idea out to the common people (most of whom do not have celphones and internet) that their attack was directed at America, but they missed and hit the world. Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Martina Ryan
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 06:27 AM

DougR - you say "it is difficult, I believe, to arbitrarily separate a democratic government, as Israel is , from it's people.". This seems to imply that you view critising the actions of any government as a form of racism. For example, in 1985, French security forces bombed the Greenpeace ship The Rainbow Warrior. Many people around the world regarded this as an act of state terrorism. No-one who had this view was ever accused of hating all French people as a result! Does this leap only occur when we're talking about Israel? If so, why? Martina.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 01:12 AM

Martina: you may read his/her remarks in the first sentence of his/her third paragraph of his/her message as you choose, of course. I reserve the right to view it the way I read it. It is difficult, I believe, to arbitrarily separate a democratic government, as Israel is , from it's people.

DougR

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:32 AM

I am firm in my convictions, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed idiot.
Definitions...

troll

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 06:11 AM

Why is it seen as anti-semitic to say that the Israeli government carries out terrorist actiions, but not anti-semitic to say that the Palestinian Administration colludes in terrorist actions?

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Martina Ryan
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 05:52 AM

DougR, I feel that I have to defend Reynardyne from your implication that (s)he is anti-semitic. Being anti-semitic means that you hate Jews. It is completely different matter entirely to state that you oppose the actions of the state of Israel. Just like to criticise American foreign policy over the years does not imply that you hate Americans. I'm Irish, but I would regularly disagree with policies of the Irish government. Having contrary opinions is fundamental to any democracy. When you resort to name calling to stifle criticism, you are being anti-democratic. Martina

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:54 PM

THe key thing to watch in the days to come is the response from the Islamic world. Even though many in those countries despise the west in an all out conflict with the West they do not have a chance.

Pakistan must shut down the Koran and Kalahnikov training schools that have been providing many of Talibans fighters as well as Bin Ladens Al Qaeda. My guess is, if there is any surprise military strike from the west this is where it will be. These are all openly funded from Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries. THis must stop. Mullahs and other leaders openly advocating killing of Americans should be targeted, just take a hint from the Mossad. Then they might think twice before they open their mouth. We havent heard a lot from Khadaffy for a few years. Even Iran has been moving to a more moderate (seemingly) rule. I doubt very much that there will be any major military attack with massive troop movements, rather commando raids etc.

The vast majority of Afghan people probably dont support the Taliban, (I doubt they want to live in the 13th century) and I dont think they will be around for long.

We are probably going to know very little about the counter measures taken against the terrorists and their support groups, for obvious security reasons.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:52 AM

Why, Bill D.?

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:50 PM

Orrin Hatch is almost as dangerous as Allen Dulles was in his day

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,Pete M at work
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 09:28 PM

Unfortunately there are parts of this and other related threads which demonstrate only too well the fundamental problems of deciding who is a terrorist. I don't know of anyone at the 'cat or out of it that is not appalled by the loss of life in the attacks on the US. I would hope that even any adults shown as rejoicing at the news, (in the clips I saw there was I think one woman who featured prominantly, and one gentlman in the background, the remainder were kids who were reacting the same way as kids everywhere to the presence of a TV crew.) would on reflection be appalled at the loss of life if they were considered as individuals rather than symbols of US Aggression / dominance etc.

So that's the first problem, seeing others as people, not symbols, and one the "bomb them back to the stone age' proponents need to be fully aware of.

Secondly, even on the 'Cat; which probably can't be taken as representative of the populations of our respective countries, as despite everything we still listen to each other and generally don't loose our cool; there has been several intemperate defences of people's "just causes" and even a completly spurious argument that "My groups terrorism isn't as bad as their's, we tell you before we blow you up.".

Either we oppose terrorism, in all it's forms wherever it occurs and for whatever cause it is perpetrated, or we are merely trying to wrap up revenge in sophistry.

As to politicians and their motives, I wonder if Senator Hatch is still willing to stand by his statement made after the bombing of the WTC, that "supporting (ie providing training, arms and money from the CIA to prosecute the war against the Russians despite that acknowledged fact that he and the other Mujahadeen leaders hated the US) to Bin Laden was justified and he would do the same again.

As Bill says politicians are generally speaking no better or worse than the rest of us, but they will always behave like politicians.

Pete M

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:43 PM

" governments *love* war, and will exploit any and every insecurity of the populace to mobilise them."

...that is such an oversimplification and ridiculous generalization!....'Some' men who happen to be in positions of power find it all to easy to let their testosterone rule, and 'some' men would sell their grandmothers for a few shekels....but you ignore how many wars and battles were NOT fought because people resisted the temptation!

It is easy to make lists of actions by Israel **and* the Palestinians (as well as by various groups of Irish!!!) and demonstrate hateful and violent behavior. And it is easy for either side to take those lists and edit them until they 'prove' who started it. What does not seem to be easy is for someone to say "this is NOT working and we need to stop".

In these days of senseless acts of violence, murder and revenge, there are always enough hot-heads on BOTH sides to keep passions high and tempers flaring. And as Nietzsche indicated in "Zarathustra", there are always old women to say..."Of course it was a just war...my son died in it".

BOTH sides in the Middle East have painted themselves in a corner until continous cycles of violence is all they can concieve of....and THREE religions claim the area as THEIR holy ground. (I know, I'll just go over there and explain to them rationally that they should share both land, government and religious sites!)..........do I sound cynical?...it's been a rough week here.........

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 07:07 PM

You're not anti-semitic, Reynardyne? Hmmm. Seems to me you make a pretty good case for it. Or perhaps you are not aware of the atrocities committed against the Jews for generations. There have been.

DougR

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: reynardyne
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:33 PM

Anyone see that article by Richard Delevan in the Irish Times a few days ago? He said Ireland should give up her neutrality and join with the US. Fool. Fintan O'Toole's article, by contrast, was excellent.

Tower Records in Dublin have just got a whole load of Noam Chomsky books in. Hmmm...

To everyone clamouring against 'terrorism'; define it. Some might call supporting a state that murders its political enemies and rockets and bulldozes police stations and homes alike terrorist, but some call it Israel. I'm not anti-Semitic, but I'm against the exploitation of the innocent for political and economic gain, and the US government is guilty of that. It's a shame that its crimes have been avenged on the American people.

'unless we do something totally stupid' - that's looking more and more likely, Bill D. As I've said, governments *love* war, and will exploit any and every insecurity of the populace to mobilise them.

john in hull; well done! You spotted my mistake. I'd send you the prize, but I clearly specified that answers were to be on a postcard. Ha ha! I didn't mean to re-post, by the way; I was just too slow with the 'Stop' button.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:24 PM

There's a funny part of the musical "Pippin", where Pippin, after killing his father the King, is faced with invasion and war from the Huns. Pippin refuses to fight like his father and opts for a meeting to talk and discuss an agreement. Messengers are sent to the Huns and return half-dead, stated that the Huns' leader has agreed to talk...though only on one condition--that the messengers bring him Pippin's genitals in a leather bag before negotiations could happen....

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 06:17 PM

What makes us think, while we are making our plans to go-get-'em, smoke-'em-out-of-their-holes, not-stop-until-we-eradicate-this-evil, that their organizations and the countries that harbor/encourage/fund them will sit back and wait for us to come? We know that some of those countries have nuclear capabilities, some have biological/chemical capabilities- if they fear or even, God forbid, desire a world conflagration, wouldn't it be more likely they would try to get us before we even land on their soil?

Perhaps the only way to avoid total chaos is to meet with ALL the civilized world and have everyone of the nations agree on the unacceptability of terrorism as a tool for change and together notify every one of the nations that do not subscribe to this view that they will be isolated and ostracized until they surrender to it.

And then, maybe we in the western world can explore the reasons for the despicable measures that have been taken.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 05:26 PM

enlist?..fight? against whom?...we are at war with an attitude, not a country. There may well be some military actions, and some heightened civil defense at home, but we 'seem' to be gaining an agreement with Pakistan, and unless we do something totally stupid, we also have the sympathy of much of the world.

Palestine is sure not going to attack us in any way that will require mass mobilization...nor is Afganistan or Iraq or Sudan...nor are we likely to make the mistake Russia did in Afganistan...

we need to prepare for a variety of things, but War no longer means masses of ground troops.......

Please, G.W.....don't prove me wrong

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,Are you gonna go?
Date: 16 Sep 01 - 02:43 PM

I am curious. How many of the people who are currently howling for blood and full-scale war are going to quit their jobs and enlist when the shit hits the fan. I am as pissed as anybody. However, if we are faced with full-scale mobilization, my 21 year old brother is going to be draft bait, and he is not the type who needs to be chasing veteran guerilla fighters thru the mountains. In that case, my only hope is that my 35 year old body (if some branch of the military will actually take me) will make it thru boot camp so that my brother may be deferred thru some sort of surviving son loophole. Kinda scary...

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 09:36 PM

Germany is looking into an insurance "scam"(maybe not a scam????). It appears bin Laden financed his latest activities by investing in short selling of insurance stocks just before the earlier attack on the WTC. Beating us at our own game.

I am more than a little concerned. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, the US trained Afgan rebels including bin Laden in terrorist activities. Iran, too, used our training against us. Now we are trying to convince Pakistan to stand with us against Afghanistan. I am assuming there will be something in it for them - maybe flight training on commercial jets?

Given that the US has apparently been harboring as many terrorists as Afghanistan, where does that leave us?
Sorry for the cynicism.
Mary

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 09:28 PM

Spaw: yes I did hear the former NATO commander on Fox News Network this morning. He is proposing a cautious approach and I certainly agree with him. Not to pick on Clinton, but I thought when he immediately tossed missiles at bin Laden and missiles at Bagdad, we were shooting from the hip.

I do expect Bush to take a more cautious approach and that he will take time to build a consensus so that we are not acting alone. I don't think they will try to hit any targets until they have proof that such a response is justified.

Dicho: I totally disagree that GWB will do as you suggest (surprise, surprise). It would seem to me that anyone who has viewed the president's MO, building his ego is not one of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 09:26 PM

(From Time Magazine - online)
(Article written by Tony Karon

How to Beat Bin Laden
How Osama Bin Laden operates — and what it will take to defeat him

Thursday, Sep. 13, 2001 Washington may never have declared war on Osama Bin Laden, but he has been at war with America for the better part of a decade. Now, with the Saudi terrorist-financier a prime suspect in the World Trade Center attack, President Bush has vowed that the U.S. will devote all necessary resources to beating Bin Laden. This is no easy task. If Bin Laden is in fact responsible, the most important thing is to know right now is: who is he? How does he operate? And why does he seem to have so much support?

Understanding the enemy
This will be a protracted, complex and unconventional war in which many of the tactics of war as we know it are superfluous. The "Powell Doctrine" — the theory that wars are best won by deploying "overwhelming force" — doesn't apply here, for the simple reason that the enemy has hardly any visible military assets or civilian economic infrastructure, and may not even be ultimately dependent on his current territorial home base. And applying such force in territories where he has sought support or shelter could open up a protracted, costly and difficult conflict. The battle with Bin Laden is more likely to combine conventional military tactics with unconventional ones. Because Bin Laden is no ordinary foe.

Osama Bin Laden is a man, not a state. And he wields very little by way of conventional military power. Estimates of the number of men under arms in his Afghanistan camps at any one point seldom range above 2,000. But those men are extremely well-trained, well-funded and have shown a fanatical willingness to die in order to inflict pain on their enemies. Technology and globalization have made their reach almost boundless, and they are linked to a vast network of terrorist groups throughout the Muslim world from western China and the Philippines all the way across to Algeria.

Bin Laden's is hardly the first terrorist group to operate well beyond home base, but it is the first truly global terror operation. And where Cold War-era terrorist groups invariably relied on the support of "rogue" states, Bin Laden's is independent. It is able to finance itself and provide sophisticated training to its own men — and build its operational alliances by providing such training to like-minded groups. And it has already demonstrated an ability to relocate its headquarters from one country to another.

Targeting America
The foundations of Bin Laden's network were laid during the Afghan war, during which the wealthy Saudi heir had been the prime organizer of volunteers for the 'jihad' against the Soviet invasion. That made him a key player in an effort backed by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to funnel aid, equipment, training and volunteers to the Afghan mujahedeen. Many of the "Arab Afghans," as the volunteers became known, had been radical Islamist dissidents in their home countries, and their pro-Western governments were only too happy to ship them off to fight the Russians. But the 'jihad' experience forged unprecedented bonds among the world's radical Islamists, turning them in spirit and in direct combat experience into a single army of 'holy' warriors.

Bin Laden emerged from the Afghan experience determined to overthrow Saudi Arabia's pro-Western rulers and institute a radical brand of Islamic rule. And when those rulers invited U.S. troops onto Saudi soil to defend them against Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden began to call for a global 'jihad' against the U.S. because of its support for Israel and for moderate Arab regimes.

He set up camps in Afghanistan and the Sudan — two states that the end of the Cold War left in conditions of near collapse — to keep his "Arab Afghans" together. And he combined his own personal fortune with funds raised throughout the Arab world to maintain his "Al Qaida" ("The Base") organization, which began sending fighters to Bosnia, Chechnya and to Muslim insurgencies all over East Asia. Bin Laden also extended his reach by turning his camps into a terrorism college providing highly specialized training to Islamist fighters from all over the world.

Bin Laden began attacking the U.S. in 1993, claiming responsibility in retrospect for the ambush that killed some 17 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu that year. Although he had no direct role in the first World Trade Center bombing, he later sheltered its perpetrator, Ramzi Yousef, after the attack.

The U.S. hits back
The U.S. military finally put Bin Laden in its sights following the 1998 East African embassy bombings. President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on camps associated with Bin Laden in Afghanistan and on a factory linked with him (possibly erroneously) in the Sudan. But those strikes did little to impair Bin Laden's operational ability, and the U.S. reverted to containing his operations through cooperation with Arab intelligence agencies to foil planned attacks and round up and prosecute the perpetrators of the embassy bombings. Washington also sought to use Pakistan's close relationship with the Taliban to press Bin Laden's hosts into extraditing him, but to no avail.

The Bush administration has promised a full-blown war against Bin Laden following Tuesday's attacks, but the key to winning that war and eliminating the terrorist threat may lie in the extent to which the terrorists can be isolated.

Isolating Bin Laden
Without the layers of support he has mustered in the Islamic world, Bin Laden would be nothing more than a crazy killer who could be hunted down and brought to trial or simply eliminated. Instead, his relatively tiny organization has menaced the world's largest military power largely because of its ability to capitalize on growing anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.

Reports of funds interdicted en route to Bin Laden in recent years suggest that he continues to enjoy the support of some wealthy Arab businessmen, who either directly support his beliefs or else are inclined to hedge their bets on the outcome of his battle with the U.S.

Anti-American anger on the Arab streets — fueled by the ongoing campaign against Iraq and by Israeli military actions against the Palestinian uprising — provides Bin Laden with a growing pool of potential recruits, often highly educated and skilled young men who are willing to die for his cause. And the passions on the street also make it more difficult for even pro-U.S. governments in the Arab world to be seen to be working too closely with Washington.

Isolating Bin Laden may require ongoing efforts to repair and maintain Washington's relations with its Arab allies, whose security services remain the front line of the battle against Bin Laden.

Building a coalition
While NATO's support improves the U.S. striking power and widens political and diplomatic consent for any counterstrike, the crucial allies in the battle against Bin Laden remain the governments and security services of the Islamic world — because it is intelligence, rather than air power or armor, that wins the war on terrorism.

Despite the ability of U.S. satellites to intercept cell-phone and email messages, human intelligence remains the most effective way of staying forewarned of Bin Laden's plans and movements. That's not going to be easy. There are distinct limits on the ability of U.S. agents to directly infiltrate Bin Laden's networks, which are often based on family and other kinship ties. Such operations would require agents able to blend in ethnically and spend years away from their American lives in the extremely harsh conditions of Bin Laden's mountain camps. Plainly, the U.S. needs the active support of allied security services closer to the action. And the need to maintain such alliances also affects the range of options for responding to the latest outrage.

Why not simply bomb Kabul?
Although the U.S. will very likely seek to punish the Taliban for hosting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Afghanistan long ago ceased to function as a state. The Taliban are simply its dominant militia, and to the people of Kabul, they are outside occupiers.

While determined to hit hard against both the perpetrators and their protectors, U.S. officials will also be mindful of the danger of taking actions — particularly any that cause suffering among innocents — that widens the anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world on which Bin Laden feeds.

Invasion?
Others have asked why the U.S. doesn't simply round up a Gulf War-style posse to invade Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and putting an end to the country being used as a safe haven for terrorists. But that would require tens of thousands of allied troops deployed in an open-ended commitment to keep a heavy troop presence in an extremely unfriendly environment. If the decision is made to take down the Taliban, that may be more likely to be attempted in concert with its regional enemies — including Russia and possibly even Iran — in support of the Northern Alliance opposition forces.

The Pakistan dilemma
The trickiest aspect of the Bin Laden equation may be Pakistan. Despite being a close ally of the U.S. during the Cold War, Afghanistan's nuclear-armed neighbor is also a hotbed of anti-American Islamic radicalism. Pakistan has reportedly promised full support for a U.S. retaliation against Bin Laden, including allowing Pakistani airspace to be used by U.S. planes to strike Afghanistan. But President Bush's comment that Washington would have to wait and see what that means suggests the U.S. is not sure of the extent of Pakistan's commitment to the battle against Bin Laden. But Pakistani intelligence agents are probably closer than any other to Bin Laden's operations on the ground, and their cooperation may be acritical element of the war against terrorism.

A war not won in a day
"Let's not think that one single counter-attack will rid the world of terrorism of the kind we saw yesterday," said Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday. Indeed, it is to be anticipated that the Bush administration will develop a layered response of short-term and long-term actions to bring to bear military, economic and political pressure to isolate and neutralize not only Bin Laden himself, but the movement that would almost certainly seek to continue even if he were eliminated. And that's a war in which the U.S. needs its allies more than ever.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM

Yes, agreed I guess...but....then we have their sympathizers to deal with.

How do we define the terrorists? Those who seek to destroy the U.S. and their allies?

Obviously lines will have to be drawn in the sand so to speak, and it will essentially come down to "you're either for us, or you're against us."

It's going to get really ugly.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:52 PM

Presumably an all out war against all terrorist organisations would have to try to eliminate Afghanis who were trying to overthrow the Taliban, or people fighting against Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:46 PM

This thing was planned for a LONG time and the planners were very patient. The ground work may very well have begun after the attempted bombing of the WTC back in '93, or maybe perhaps after the Sheik (sorry can't remember his name) and his henchmen were arrested and put on trial.

The most recent news I've been reading in that two of the terrorists emmigrated to Florida with their families from Saudi Arabia; were conspicuous but low profile (didn't make any attempts to hide their identities or conduct what could be construed as "suspicious activities" -at least according to their neighbors); had jobs/income, lived in nice middle class neighborhoods; their kids went to school and had friends; the men went to bars, restaurants, etc.. and basically for all outward intents and purposes lived an "American" life style. Their neighbors have said that they wouldn't have known in a million years what these guys were up to, in their position probably neither would you nor I.

A few days before the attacks, their families promptly left Florida, and left most of their possessions acquired here behind, and returned to Saudi Arabia.

Short of creating a completely Orwelian society here, just how in hell can you prevent something like this from happening again and again?..regardless of the reprisals from the U.S/Nato?

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:31 PM

Killing people in Afghanistan might have some symbolic meaning. But if there is an organised bunch of people who ran this, and having been blown up, they'll probably be somewhere in America or Western Europe, very likely in some country that hasn't the least intention of harbouring them.

As I understand Bin Laden's only way of keeping in touch would be sending messages by courier, which is good for secrecy, but a bit slow. I can imagine maybe they might sned him a message saying "This is what we are planning, do you think it's a good idea?", and possibly if he said it wasn't they might have another think. Or not.

But it hardly seems likely that wiping out him and all his friends and supporters in Afghanistanis going to do anything to affect whatever operational command structure they have. (Always assuming that it is a Bin Laden Enterprises operation to begin with.)

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:07 PM

To give an even clearer perspective on just how insane/fanatical the Taliban are, they are completely prepared to sacrifice their entire country and population, and are amassing an "attack force" to exact revenge on any bordering countries who offer the U.S./Nato access to their air space, or their land as a staging ground for ground troups -- ALL to protect their "guest" and his henchmen.

(I don't think they're going to have sort of "attack force" left to exact their revenge.)

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: little john cameron
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 07:47 PM

When Alert Einstein wis asked"How will world war 111 be fought?" he said"I don't know,bur www 1v will be fought with rocks and sticks" ljc

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 07:30 PM

Bush probably will authorize the killing of some Afghanis to boost his popularity and to say that he has done something about terrorism. It won't stop terrorism, just increase the likelihood for more of it. I dispair of any rational solutions being implemented. This moron xed has broached his defecatory ideas in more than one thread. Please, no more bites.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: Gloredhel
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 06:36 PM

I certainly hope that something will occur to prevent future military action, but the U.S. certainly is gearing up for military action--a former schoolmate of mine is in the Navy, and he shipped out two days ago, along with a few thousand others.

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 06:20 PM

Yeah Mac.....Doug, I just use that as the thought line of the military bombing approach which will go nowhere. BTW, have you listened to the former commander of NATO talk about this? The last thing he suggests is the military approach. The time may come for that action, but I hear way too much talk about it being the first approach from some.

Spaw

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 06:06 PM

"Make a crater of their country" comes pretty close, and we've had that.

Zero tolerance for any country harbouring or supporting terrorists isn't as simple as it might sound. On some definitions the USA would qualify, and so would most countries.

What were the contras but terrorists? What about an Israeli government that plants bombs that kill the families of people identified as targets? Who trained Bin Laden in unconventional warfare techniques, and supplied him with weapons when he was fighting the Russians?

And so on and so forth.

Again, I'd say that the people who are harassing Asians in the wake of the atrocity are acting in a sense as agents of Tuesday's terrorists, since that kind of things helps their cause. Which(since racial attacks are in themslevs terrorist) makes them terrorists twice times over. Currently being harboured by the USA, or the UK or wherever. (My son just told me a mosque in Southend-on-Sea where he works has been vandalised.)

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: DougR
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 05:47 PM

Spaw: Who is proposing that we kill 'em all and sort it out later? I've read most of the threads and I haven't seen anyone proposing that?

DougR

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 15 Sep 01 - 02:50 AM

D'ye think, maybe, our "guest" played the lead in "Rambo" and let it affect his thinking?

Subject: RE: WAR.........
From: GUEST,What about
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:12 PM

"The seeds are in the colonials past and the Crusades."

I believe that both of these events were preceded by the birth of Islam followed by attempts to conquer the known world in the name of Islam.