US Response

[Finmandos12]

What do you all think we should do if Osama Bin Laden did it? I say we tell Afgan to give himup or we invade.

[olorin]

I cannot imagine any country, even Afghanistan, harboring him if he did it. Maybe when he bombed the US Embassy in Tanzania, but this is so much different, so much worse, and on American soil too. Whoever it was, the hardest part will probably be finding them, because any country will surely surrender them peacefully.

[Ben]

You notice in Bush's address he said that the same treatment would be given to the countries harboring terrorists in addition to the terrorists themselves.

Go all out against Afghanistan. Perhaps a nuke would be excessive but they should at least make sure Bin Laden can't escape.

[ringbearer]

The weird part about all of this is We helped the current government of Afghanistan take control...they should hunt him down and all of his followers and surrender them...or pay the consequenses. Wether you worship Jesus,(as I do), Jehova(likewise) or Allah...this kind of act should be shunned. None of these religeons promote violence...it is the madmen who use them as an excuse for their madness!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem...and the world!

[galadriel]

I agree that, if we can completely prove that bin-Laden did it and that Afghanistan is harboring him, we should attack them. But we absolutely cannot jump to conclusions, or else we'll end up making a whole bunch of people who don't like us in the first place even angrier. I'm sure the terrorists would like nothing better than America having even more enemies.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I have been doing some reading up. You know, I don't know what the government is in Afghanistan, but the Taliban seems to rule. This country is so premative and its people so pathetic, it is as if they are scared of this faction or whatever it is. They threatened any country that aids the U.S. in this attack. Not the so called government of Afghanistan, but the Taliban. Is there a difference? I wonder. Hmmmmmm! BTW, I heard that Mr. Bin-Laden headed for the hills. He is in the mountains somewhere. What a brave soul. Attack and then run and hide. He did this even before he was accused too. what does that say?

[Mathron]

The Taliban currently IS the gov't in Afghanistan.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Mathron
The Taliban currently IS the gov't in Afghanistan.

They weren't always though. Were they? They sound like a terroristic government. from what I can make of them, they took over. Right?

[Mathron]

I've heard such, but most reports do indicate the US, if indirectly, put them into power.

[Varda]

Just thought you'd be interested... for those of you who mention invading Afghanistan...

>An Afghani-American’s view
>
>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 [in the US] 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 withnothing left to
>lose, and 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
>

[Mathron]

Remember, though - invading Afghanistan, and bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age, are not necesarily the same thing...

[Varda]

the point being that we have to remember that afghanistan is not a worthwhile target in itself... and i don't see the point in threatening them in the event that they would not give up bin laden.... seeing as they are controlled by the taliban and all...

[XRogue]

We don't need to nuke Afghanistan. We need some of those OTC bombs or whatever they call 'em that produce a similar effect without the radiation. Whoever we go after for this, the rest of us still have to live on this planet afterward. No need to foul our own nest and live with nuclear fallout.

But yes, we need to hunt down the perpetrators of this criminal act, whether it's Bin Laden or someone else, and take down their whole network. And we need to make good on our word to take down those who harbor these people, of course. A criminal act has been perpetrated, and our citizens ( and the citizens of other countries, because it wasn't just Americans who died in the WTC, you notice) deserve to have justice done on their behalf. We don't need to get all shook and whiny, we need to act with resolve, and in accordance with our laws, with international laws when applicable and with the standards of human decency in spite of the fact that these criminals behind this horrific act obviously understand neither law or decency. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done. Letting these perpetrators go free would serve no purpose. It would not prove that we are more humane than our attackers. It would prove that we no longer believe in humanity, in our founding principles, or in the rule of law.

[Mathron]

Now, here is the question - are you suggesting bombing *just* the Taliban headquarters, or all of Afghanistan? Remember that those Afghan citizens are just as innocent as those who died at the WTC.

[XRogue]

By no means should all of Afghanistan be bombed. Just the
Tailban headquarters and bases around the country, and that only if we have good reason to believe they are harboring the terrorists that did this or supporting their network. I am not blind to the fact that the Afghani people have suffered under the rule of the Taliban for years. The Taliban is not performing the functions of a government, unless you count permitting Afghan citizens to starve, forbidding widows to find decent honorable work to support their families, and perpetrating executions sans trial, governmental functions. That would be why they are having a civil war ATM. The Afghanis do not deserve suffering or death at our hands, with the exceptions of any Afghan citizen who has participated in the planning of the terrorist attacks in NYC, or those Afghans who harbor those who did. We are talking legal cause for action, here, after all. We tried and executed Tim McVeigh for killing hundreds in an act of terrorism on our own soil, and he was one of our own citizens. Are you saying that we cannot punish a citizen of another country who commits murder, property damage, and terrorism on our soil?

[Mathron]

Nope. I certainly recognize the need. Still, even then innocents will die. It still may well be necesarry, however

[Selwythe]

The Taliban captured Afghanistan in 1996 after a long war against Russia sponsored by the US and a civil war against the Northern Alliance.

I believe the Taliban movement started around 1994. After the overthrowing of the Soviets two years ago, rival warlords vied for power. A man pleaded help from Mullah Mohammed Omar for two girls who got captured by a local commander and got their heads shaved and sent to a military camp, where they were raped. Omar led 30 students and 16 guns and attacked the base, freed the girls and hanged the commander. Omar's fame spread and he became a Robin Hood, attracting recruits all over, eventually receiving military support from Pakistan.

Mullah Mohammed Omar is now known as the leader of the Taliban militia and "supreme leader of the Muslim faithful".

[XRogue]

I know more innocents are bound to die in these actions against the terrorists. Believe me, I also regret it. Criminals are not worth one innocent life.

[samwise of the shire]

Yes we need to wipe the evil off the face of the earth but not because we want revenge but because JUSTICE is deserved.We are a country under GOD and GOD is JUSTICE not REVENGE and as a country under God we need to show that justice to the world.
Bombing wont do anything, if we reach out to squeeze the Royalty it's the poverty as feels the pinch. The sicko who did this deed does'nt give a dang if children and women die just as long as their point is made. Men will need to be sent to where-ever and attack on FOOT, the question is NOT How? But Will we have the stomach to send our fathers,brothers,nephews,husbands,uncles and friends into battle to DIE so that our country and our children will live free lives? America needs to be strong, we need to shake off"the war is NEVER neededättitude and send our family members into battle to die for their God, Their country, and their families.
Sam

[Darkhalcyon]

I think Bush has bitten off more than he can chew this time. Samwise says that justice needs to be served. This is true, but to whom are we serving justice?

The problem with terrorism is that it's a faceless enemy. When pearl hoarbor was attacked, we knew who the culprit was and where to attack. If it was in fact, bin Laden, well, it wasn't just him. It was a group (al Queada, right?) that isn't based solely in Afghanistan. So do we bomb all those countries, too? My opinion is we should hunt down all those involved in terrorist groups, and prosecute them in international court for crimes against humanity; just as they did to the Nazis.

The problem with that is, we might end up martyring bin Laden. . . This is already escalatining into a holy war.

Sorry that was so l ong ^^; i hope you all were able to weed thru my typos...