View Full Version : This was not a crime!

09-11-2001, 05:32 PM
This was an act of war. The appropriate response is for America to declare war on those who plot acts of mass destruction against us, and the nations who support them. Our response must not be constrained by the safeguards of our criminal justice system to protect the rights of the accused. The nations who have provided sanctuary, training, and financial support to these terrorists should be made to understand that they will pay a terrible price if they persist.

While we greive, we should also realize that thousands are rejoicing in our loss.


09-11-2001, 06:06 PM
In terms of saving future American lives its probably best if we don't do a damn thing. On the other hand Bush will be under intense political pressure to "make someone pay" and no doubt a good counter strike against any nation populated with light brown skinned people will soothe the collective feelings of loss and anger among us Americans.

I can understand the emotional need to kick some ass but I'm not convinced that it will promote US interests of protecting american lives.

09-11-2001, 06:25 PM
A mere strike would be insufficient and would undoubtedly have exactly the results you suggest.

What is needed: the free world launching an all-out war against terrorism and terrorist organizations, their leaders and cronies. In six months they could be virtually eliminated.

It is the unspoken policy of allowing them to fester for so many years that has resulted in their increasing boldness and in the growth and power of their organizations. If NATO does what it probably should, then shortly bin-Laden, Hamas and other major terrorist leaders/organizations will be resting in: A) peace B) the Hague C) Hell D) any combination of the above.

Make no mistake, we need to defend ourselves, but we also need to destroy these organizations, because their raison-de-etre is to harm and destroy us in any way possible.

09-11-2001, 06:29 PM
How many massacres of American civilians would you be inclined to passively accept before taking action?

09-11-2001, 06:42 PM
"A mere strike would be insufficient and would undoubtedly have exactly the results you suggest."

I agree. For that reason, I hope that the cruise missiles that are reportedly landing in Aphganistan at this time are not American. An appropriately scaled response would surely require more time to coordinate.


09-11-2001, 07:21 PM
Agree with you here Michael Sykes. I said something along these lines in response to Andy Fox's post below before reading yours. You said it more succinctly.

Must disagree with Boris above. The response to terrorism must be forceful and direct. They will not treat our weakness as noble or as sign to leave us alone. We must make the price for killing American civilians in this kind of attack very high indeed.

09-11-2001, 07:54 PM
I suspect our administration may not agree with us. President Bush made an announcement to the effect of "hunting down" the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. The attorney general has announced he has mobilized the resources of the criminal justice system to investigate this "crime."

Contrast this rhetoric to the actions of Clinton, who early in his administration, bombed Iraq in retaliation for their suspected connection to a failed assassination attempt on the former President Bush. There was no trial, no public presentation of evidence. Sometimes, the president must act as judge, jury, and executioner.

I have little doubt that President Bush will succumb to political pressure and launch some type of military response. I hope it is not just a limited, symbolic strike which would only make matters worse.

09-11-2001, 07:58 PM
Please explain how to effect a "forceful and direct" response to terrorism. Has anybody figured out how to do it? Israel has been trying for years and gotten nowhere. The more people we kill the more powerful will be anti-US terrorist groups. We are not dealing the Nazis or commy USSR and we need to adjust how we are going to deal with these events. Declaring war against a dozen arab nations is not going to have any positive outcome. It will not save US lives. It will not save foreign lives. The long term consequences would be terrible for our country and the world as a whole. The only truly effective military response would be a nuclear strike(s) and the cost of such action is probably more than we are willing bear.

09-11-2001, 08:19 PM
I think we should consider strikes against any terrorist group to begin with. "Oh, you're not really with Bin Laden. Sorry." (Picture Belushi in Animal House saying sorry after smashing the hippie's guitar.)

We might then demand the production of terrorists that have been protected by governments.(even though I'm not big on the trial idea.) On very short notice. If the government did not hand them over, we should retaliate against the state upon which we made the demand. We can pick our spots, but should make it very bad for states who sponsor terrorist activities against us. A nuclear response could create more problems, but if we could swing it we should consider a full attack on any country harboring the terrorists who did this, with our goal the complete destruction of their government and infrastructure. I don't know if we could get our troops in position to do this, but say we could achieve military superiority akin to the advantage we had in Iraq. I would destroy the army and industrial capacity of the country and control whatever natural resources the country had instead of letting them off the hook like Iraq. If they had oil, we should take it all, forever. Then the other oil producing states would have to be careful, because we could bust their cartel if things went well.

I realize that this type of plan my be impossible militarily. But we should rule out options only because we can't do them, not because it would be mean. Or in the case of a nuclear attack, whether anyone can retaliate in kind against us. Terrorists do not think like we do, or even like despicable nations. So we must punish any nations who help these people to the fullest extent possible. But I know I will never know all the facts, because the juicy ones should be kept secret. So we may never know what is possible or why a given action is ill-advised or impossible.

09-11-2001, 08:33 PM
We would not declare war against a dozen nations, and probably not even against any one named nation. However, we can make an example of the one nation which evidence indicates was most involved in this massacre. Hopefully, we can form a coalition with other nations to fight terrorism and pressure terrorist nations to cease and desist.

09-11-2001, 09:13 PM
Hitting at other innocents has never deterred terrorists. Not even when eh innocents were their mothers, sons or friends. Terrorists must be dealt with differently.

What you're suggesting is the hot-headed tactic used by regular armies against obnoxious and persistent guerillas who refuse to "stand up and fight it out" like the "book" says.

But you're right that this is not a crime. It is war. Only, it is declared by whom exactly?? And how do you declare war against someone you cannot know?? The United States are already involved in a war they are losing because they are using all the wriong methods, the war against drugs. If they act stupidly enough, they will lose the war against terrorism as well.

Although it's too early yet, and it's a time best dedicated to mourning the lifes lost, please remember that some of the potential suspects os this barbaric act have been nourished and helped by a succession of American Administrations:

The Afghani taliban have been armed, trained and financed by the U.S. through Pakistan because they were anti-Soviet. The Islamic fanatics like bin Laden are flesh and blood of the U.S.-supported "royal" family which rules dictatorially and barbarically over the vast oil fields known as Saudi Arabia. And, to turn to the drugs war again, the poppy mafias of South East Asia are all descendants of CIA-run operations in cahoots with local tribes against Charly.

If you create a friendly monster to fight your enemy monster and the enemy monster loses and dies, YOU ARE NOT SAFE .

09-11-2001, 09:26 PM
War on Afghanistan sounds good but with should learn from the Russians whose invasion of Afghanistan was a total flop.

09-11-2001, 09:59 PM
I don't think we would need to go to war with Afghanistan itself. If we give the Afghani government the choice of turning bin-Laden over or bearing the consequences when we go in to get him, I think we won't have too much opposition from them once they see the serious buildup of forces. At the very least they will probably "get out of the way." They might like harboring bin-Laden for any number of reasons, but they should know from recent history (Panama, Iraq, Serbia) that they would be foolish to stand in the way. The Afghani government is not itself bin-Laden's group, they just harbor him and may sympathize somewhat with him (and probably receive compensation in some form).

09-11-2001, 10:17 PM

Go in and get bin-Laden. We did it in Panama with Noriega (rightly or wrongly), we overpowered Iraq which had the 4th largest army in the world and massively complex air defenses, and we can do it in Afghanistan too.

There's the "forceful and direct response" to terrorism.

After that, NATO and the U.S. can and probably should do it with other terrorist leaders and their lieutenants worldwide. No need to declare war on a dozen Arab nations, just tell them that the free world will no longer tolerate terrorism and that they can hand these guys over or bear the consequences when we go in. No world war here, just taking a stand against terrorism which should probably have been taken long ago.

As each year passes, the sophistication and technologies available to terrorists increases as does their potential ability to cause great harm. Therefore it becomes increasingly imperative that the free world take steps to destroy these organizations which have no purpose other than to inflict pain, misery and death on innocent civilians. Hunt them down, catch the leaders, even assassinate the leaders...these are unfortunately necessary and desirable actions because terrorist organizations are avowed deadly enemies of innocent people worldwide, and will stick at nothing. In their fanatacism, they are intractable to reason. Their sole purpose is to inflict death on innocent persons. This should not be tolerated any longer. The free world should unite and eliminate these groups systematically.