[procure]

Honestly, do you think that is their only motivation? Is that your answer?

When did I say that was their only motivation?

[procure]

He didn't suggest shooting every plane in the sky down, that would be silly if it weren't so sick. I don't know much concerning this, but I do know planes have to file a flight path. If they're off that path, make contact, find out what's going on, and take them down if there is a threat. We don't just shoot planes out of the sky normally, right? We have rules of engagement...policies we follow. Your comment on shooting down all planes was not (i believe) what Metsfan was saying at all. It was going from one extreme to the other. That is what I was commenting on. I do agree these decisions are not so simple.

I was being facetious when I said to shoot down every plane. My point is that's it's not easy identifying which planes are hijacked, and then making the decision to shoot them down. To expect someone to do this in 7 minutes is ridiculous.

[Tribalenvy]

I was being facetious when I said to shoot down every plane. My point is that's it's not easy identifying which planes are hijacked, and then making the decision to shoot them down. To expect someone to do this in 7 minutes is ridiculous.

I was hoping you were, procure. As others with links have pointed out, we had far more than 7 minutes (wasn't that after the 2nd plane hit, not sure) to respond, but had communication issues with the powers in charge. Also, 7 minutes is not representative of how much time we had to react, just how long bush remained in the classroom (again, never saw the movie just going by what I've heard until I can.) That 7 minutes could have been put towards taking action, not the total time possible to do it in. In an emergency situation, every minute can count. I believe these were the arguements used. See the difference?

I think most parties have moved on from this arguement now. I can certainly see your point as well as to the difficulty of assessing hijacked planes.

[clulup]

Because those Muslims are working with or supporting infidels, as opposed to trying to exterminate them. For these terrorists, it's not enough to be Muslim, you have to want to destroy everyone else. You can't negotiate or reason with them.

The driving agent is certainly not the goal of exterminating infidels, some sort of religo-cide, even if you may find quotes of Bin Laden that point into that direction. Bin Laden left his path as more or less "normal" fighter (against the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets) when after the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam, the Saudis did not respond to his offer of protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam but allowed the US to use Saudi Arabia as a military basis.

Of course his motivation stems from his religious beliefs, but is goal is to get rid of US (Western) power and influence in the Arabic world, not killing all infidels simply because they are not Muslims.

Do you guys actually condone terrorist activity?

I guess you agree that this is not a very clever question, but an unfair personal attack. If indeed you were serious about it: the answer is no, never.

[heberman]

I guess you agree that this is not a very clever question, [condoning terrorist attacks] but an unfair personal attack. If indeed you were serious about it: the answer is no, never.

In fairness, I think some people get so wrapped up in anti-Americanism that many of these people (not you clulup) actually do favor terrorist attacks. Their reasons usually are one or more of the following:

1. Big tough America is bad and too strong
2. The poor, oppressed people in country [fill in blank] have no other choice but to commit terrorist attacks
3. Bush is mean
4. Americans support Israel, which shouldn't be there in the first place
5. Americans keep country [fill in blank] down and they should fight back
6. They are really just "freedom fighters"

[Sherv]

In fairness, I think some people get so wrapped up in anti-Americanism that many of these people (not you clulup) actually do favor terrorist attacks. Their reasons usually are one or more of the following:

1. Big tough America is bad and too strong
2. The poor, oppressed people in country [fill in blank] have no other choice but to commit terrorist attacks
3. Bush is mean
4. Americans support Israel, which shouldn't be there in the first place
5. Americans keep country [fill in blank] down and they should fight back
6. They are really just "freedom fighters"

I think you would be very hard pressed to find an educated individual who would favor any form of violence because of those six statements. It's one thing to UNDERSTAND why a populace is so hate-filled, it's another to condone it or even forgive it. While I have my views on Israel's inception that are in favor of a Palestinian state, I have nothing but utter contempt for the suicide bombers who continue to kill innocent people; likewise with the muslim nations and their hatred towards us.

[heberman]

I didn't say the reasons were from educated, or even thoughtful, individuals. They are from people so wrapped up in hatred of the US or western values that they lose their good judgment.

[snerdy]

6. They are really just "freedom fighters"

I didn't say the reasons were from educated, or even thoughtful, individuals. They are from people so wrapped up in hatred of the US or western values that they lose their good judgment.

Actually, "freedom fighters" was what our government called the Mujahideen, the Sandanistas and the Contras.

[mjw]

What makes the enemy tick? Zealous belief that killing innocent people in the name of Allah will bring them a multitude of virgins in their next life?

So those women suicide bombers from Chechnya this week must have been motivated by the possibility of winning themselves the reward of a multitude of virgin men?

[treobk214]

for whatever motive these terrorists have for attacking our society, are you saying that because of whatever those reasons are, you condone their attacks? so if they punch us in the face, and we get ready to punch them back, you will stand there and tell us not to punch back for fear of inflaming certain people over their? is that the message being said through all these speculations as to how it was the us or russia who caused them to think the way they do against us? if that's the message, its a losing position. they,ve now attacked us. for whatever reasons, they've attacked us. the acts are heinous. and will not go unanswered if we are to have any interest in having a future.

[clulup]

so if they punch us in the face, and we get ready to punch them back

I have seen an interview with a female Chechen who was very close to becoming a suicide bomber. She described what the Russians had dont to some of her relatives, and how they had tortured her brother to death. The best girlfriend of the woman in the interview had been in love with her brother, and then because of that decided to become part of the commando that took the hostages in the musical theatre in Moscow, and was killed there. The woman in the interview said the only reason why she hadn't become a terrorist and suicide bomber was that Allah did not allow killing innocent people. So apparently the views of Musylims differ on that point.

Chechnya wanted to become independent from Russia after the fall of the USSR. Jeltzin said no, Putin still says no. Both hit back hard after the rebellion started. The county is in ruins, not that much left to hit. Was it good or bad not to allow Chechnya to become independent? Probably not, but I don't know all the details. However, it does not seem to me that the way the Russians handled the situation did much to increase the safety of Russians.

It is ok to hit terrorists hard, but if the population suffers too much from the process, it will only cause more, and more fierce terrorism. I don't think all this has a lot to do with Al Qaida, why Al Qaida started and how it can be stopped, but interesting nevertheless.

[snerdy]

so if they punch us in the face, and we get ready to punch them back, you will stand there and tell us not to punch back for fear of inflaming certain people over their?

Previously on Treocentral, we called foul on analogies just like this one: a punch in the face is a small thing compared to, say, knocking buildings full of people down by flying jet planes into them. However, as before, the analogy is instructive. Sure, if someone punches you in the face, you should punch them back. Let's look at some of the probable outcomes of that scenario:

1) You're much stronger than the person who punched you. You're so strong, in fact, that you knock them silly. Their nose is crushed and they lose a few of their teeth, permanently disfiguring their face. Luckily, they know a good lawyer and they sue you. You wind up paying for very expensive facial reconstructive surgery.

2) You're weaker than the person who punched you. They get a hearty laugh out of your feable attempt to injure them and proceed to stomp your guts out. Later on you sue them for expensive gut replacement surgery.

3) You're both about the same strength. You beat away at each other until you're both exhausted, have a good laugh about whatever the original misunderstanding was and sit back down for another round of beer. Good times all around.

In some ways, this is what Clulup is getting at -- yes, we need to "punch back," but we've got to figure out how to do it with a similar strength to how we were originally "punched." The U.S. is obviously the strongest contestant in the ring right now and we could easily beat the other guy's face into a bloody pulp. If we do that, though, we should be held accountable. (I would also like to point out that while some contestants right now aren't stronger than the U.S., some of the other guys are carrying some scary looking sticks.)

Let's also look at how our situation differs from simply being punched in the face:

After being attacked by suicide bombers there isn't anyone left to punch back. Not in an immediate sense, anyway. The best we can do (and this would be a very good thing to do) is find the people who actively supported them and hold them accountable for the attack. Unfortunately, what we find when we try to do this with any sort of precision is that these suicide bombers are supported by three kinds of people: 1) their immediate cohorts (some of who are, most likely, still alive), 2) their leaders, and 3) the general populace.

Now it makes sense that we would want to find the suicide bomber's cohorts and lock them in prision for a few lifetimes or, perhaps, just kill them. The problem starts to become more difficult when we're trying to hold the leader of a group of people accountable for these crimes. Basically, this is "foreign relations," and, no matter how you slice it, that's a tricky subject to navigate for various reasons.

Finally, it starts to become completely unreasonable to imagine that we're going to be able to hold a general population accountable for the activities of a few individuals. We can judge their values however we want, but the problem is that we have to find a way to change those beliefs. At this point, punching the enemy in the face simply doesn't work -- we'd be spending the rest of eternity punching them in the face. Over and over. We'd have to punch their children in the face, as they're most likely going to resent our punching their parents in the face. And their children's children. And so on. Clearly it would be easier if we could simply ...I don't know, kill them all ...but that really isn't an option. Aside from the moral problem, it's just not a practical solution. I mean, it just wouldn't be possible to kill them all. We would most likely miss a few and then we'd be right back where we started. On top of which, we'd probably have a few people over here saying stuff like, "I don't know, I think I agree with them," and then we'd have to kill those people, too. No, killing them all just becomes too much work.

We have to find another solution for this general populace problem. We'll round up and imprision or kill the individual criminals, sure. We should count on our leaders to figure out this "foreign relations" problem (that's their freakin' job, after all). But the third part of the problem is going to take some work from all of us.

...Oh, I should explain why we all have to work on it. The concept is very simple: we don't have a solution. No one knows how to solve this problem. This means that no one knows if someone else's idea is wrong. So we all talk. We all say what we think and discuss various ideas. Someone will, hopefully, speak the truth. If we are all being open minded when the truth is spoken, in theory we will recognize the truth and the problem will be solved.

That is, incidentally, exactly why the most treasured freedom we have in the United States is freedom of speech.

It's also worth pointing out that we're all using that freedom right now, even Clulup, who lives in Switzerland. God frickin' bless America.

[treobk214]

well spoken, snerdy. I understand where you're coming from.
its true that hatred for america will be taught for generations to come, especially in those societies that teach martyrdom. even little kids want to me martyrs - "heroes - in their minds"
you are right in that the solution for this is not going to come with one fell swoop. my gut feeling tells me we are going to have to live with this for a good many years - in much the same way as israel and the palestinians have been dueling for years.
we have to try to make it not worth their while to try attacking us somehow. rooting out all active al qaeda cells first and than strengthening our security to the point of making it very difficult for them to infiltrate us. but I agree, the answer will not be just that simple.

[mjw]

for whatever motive these terrorists have for attacking our society, are you saying that because of whatever those reasons are, you condone their attacks? so if they punch us in the face, and we get ready to punch them back, you will stand there and tell us not to punch back for fear of inflaming certain people over their?

Of course I do not condone the attacks of terrorists. And if you have a way of eliminating the actual terrorists themselves with minimal collateral damage then I'm all for a counterattack. But you are making an assumption that we are striking back at the terrorists who attacked us. The reality of the situation is that when we invaded Iraq there were few if any Al Quaeda terrorists living there. Almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Even now the vast majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi nationals, not foreign al-Quaeda operatives as the coalition would like you to believe.

It would be more accurate to apply your analogy in the following way -
Someone punches us in the face, but when we come around to fighting back we find that we can't find our assaillant. So instead we look for someone else to take revenge on. There's a guy who beat up one of our friends (Kuwait) about 10 years ago. We gave him a beating back then and put him in his place, but there's a rumour that he's started weight-training recently (WMD's). So we intercept him on the way to the gym and beat him to pulp. Unfortunately it turns out that he had nothing to do with the attack on us, the real culprit is still at large and we have now made more enemies and increased the likelihood of being attacked in the future.

[treobk214]

mjw, are we going back to the iraq attack yet again?

look, I have explained my position on this several times. how if saddam was in any way an intelligent life form he could have avoided the entire iraq invasion altogether.
im not going into it again. just continue on with your argument. you obviously aren't listening.

[snerdy]

Someone punches us in the face, but when we come around to fighting back we find that we can't find our assaillant. So instead we look for someone else to take revenge on. There's a guy who beat up one of our friends (Kuwait) about 10 years ago. We gave him a beating back then and put him in his place, but there's a rumour that he's started weight-training recently (WMD's). So we intercept him on the way to the gym and beat him to pulp. Unfortunately it turns out that he had nothing to do with the attack on us, the real culprit is still at large and we have now made more enemies and increased the likelihood of being attacked in the future.

This description of our current war in Iraq reminds me of The Big Lebowski, for some reason. It's very likely that this idea germinated from an article in Slate by Chris Suellentrop on the Republican National Convention, in which he writes: "Like The Dude's rug in Lebowski, 9/11 really tied Bush's presidency together." ...which I thought was pretty funny. (I would also like to point out that I find that comment funny as satire. Satire is, in general, a good way of getting a different perspective on a subject but a poor way of presenting truth or any kind of reaonsable argument.)

[PeterBrown]

Something I've just found out, the Republicans seem to be criticising John Kerry for 'flip-flopping' on issues. The NRA (I know they're not the Republican Party and don't represent other Republicans, but wouldn't it be fair to say that most members would vote Republican?) criticise him for being consistent! Consistently anti-guns that is. Oh, the irony.

[treobk214]

what's even funnier pete is that im listening to a radio station centered on who to vote for - and everyone is saying bush - bc non one knows what the hell kerry stands for..... that's funny

[treobk214]

the quotes are" too many snakes in the grass on the other side" oh the irony

[treobk214]

many saying why have a president who can't make a decision without other countries giving him the green light to do so.
he has no real platform