OSDev.org

Whether Afghanistan would be punished or not would be up to its government and its people, quite frankly. Many non-terrorists know the location of at least some terrorist forces. If America threatened war for the sole purpose of exterminating the forces, the government would be pressured to find them as soon as possible to avoid bloodshed. There are some 18 million people in Afghanistan--a haystack for the needle of terrorism. But if every straw in the stack searched for the needle, it would be found in no time. If they don't search, why shouldn't they be punished?

Naturally, hadn't we withdrawn our spies in a (foolish) gesture of goodwill, we wouldn't be here today.

For terrorism to stop, the governments of many countrys will need to stop threatening, making dodgy foreign policy, etc.

Yeah, those Ahmeds got too many massdestruction weapons.

Isn't it ironic...

Got to get in on this:

Resources they have that we want can easily result in war -- the native americans were slaughtered and treated like dirt for really no better reason than that they had land the U.S. wanted.

I also saw a normal number of cars on the road on the 11th where I am. I must point out that any attempt to "eliminate" terrorism will fail, as will any attempts to pressure the people of "nations that harbor terrorists". The former will fail for many reasons, the most simple being that terrorists can exist anywhere, even in countries that don't willingly harbor them. The latter will fail because people don't like to be pushed around (which is also why terrorism itself is a blunt instrument for effecting changes).

Expecting threats of war to make everyone "shape up" and do what the U.S. wants them to do is just like expecting threats of prison to make people into law-abiding citizens. For some it will work. For most it won't. The threats of war are much more likely to breed resentment for the U.S. and its allies than to have any actual effectiveness.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0904attacking.htm


-Kon-Tiki-

Joel wrote: The latter will fail because people don't like to be pushed around.

The threat of constant war is a powerful thing...Let's say the people who destroyed the world trade center were attempting to make the US do something, say withdraw support in Israel. One attack will not make us budge. But if they demolished building after building on the first of every month in a random city, the government would be pressured to either put a stop to it or submit to their demands and withdraw their troops in Israel. Naturally, the former would be the plan of choice, but let's say it was a country that was much bigger and stronger than ours, like the ratio that the U.S. is to Afghanistan. What would we do?

Blowing up civilian Afghanistanian buildings is not a morally healthy idea, but impairing their standard of living with the (serious) threat of war can accomplish a surprising amount...

How do you define 'Terrorist'?

-Kon-Tiki-

Grover wrote:
The threat of constant war is a powerful thing...Let's say the people who destroyed the world trade center were attempting to make the US do something, say withdraw support in Israel. One attack will not make us budge. But if they demolished building after building on the first of every month in a random city, the government would be pressured to either put a stop to it or submit to their demands and withdraw their troops in Israel. Naturally, the former would be the plan of choice, but let's say it was a country that was much bigger and stronger than ours, like the ratio that the U.S. is to Afghanistan. What would we do?

Blowing up civilian Afghanistanian buildings is not a morally healthy idea, but impairing their standard of living with the (serious) threat of war can accomplish a surprising amount...

That may be true, but you're overlooking the fact that what you want is not all that you're going to accomplish. By doing something like that, you will also accomplish making lots of people hate the United States for bullying weaker countries who don't conform to U.S. demands, and you will most likely also accomplish making the people of Afghanistan generally support the terrorist organizations, even if they have to do it covertly. You don't honestly think the people of Afghanistan would blame the terrorists for their troubles if the U.S. started bombing the hell out of them in an effort to coerce them into rooting out the terrorists themselves, do you? Maybe that works in theory, but not in real life.

It doesn't even work in theory. I've gone through that thinking very carefully, and couldn't find anything logical in it. There are terrorists because USA is harassing their people, so to solve that out, USA is going to bomb those people.

-Kon-Tiki-

To further my point...think about how you would feel in this situation:

a militant anarchist group is based in the same state as you...they make a terrorist attack against the U.S. government -- the U.S. gov't and state gov't have no success in catching the members of this group. Another attack happens, so the U.S. gov't decides that this has got to stop. They tell you and everyone in your state that if the terrorists are not found they may very well decide to bomb random cities, towns, whatever in the state until the terrorists are found. Hey, if everyone searched, they'd be found in no time. And if you don't search, why shouldn't you be punished?

Now, even if you agreed that what the terrorists were doing was wrong, would you blame the terrorists for those bombs falling on you?

It's not a matter of bullying--Did we bully Germany in world war II? Whether it's persecution of a people or random attacks, attacking a country that is doing harm would, in my eyes, not be considered bullying. I think it's somewhat naive to believe that the Afghanistanian government has nothing to do with terrorism and that they had no clue there was a fleet of very rich extremists living within their boundries--it just wasn't a pressing matter to anyone until something as enormous as the world trade center got hit.

I think that in the situation of war the mentalities of people change. The primary objective for most normal people is to do what they can to get back to peace--others remain belligerent. But there will be people that will fold under pressure, and some of these people will give the whereabouts of the zealots. Nothing is so important to a nation that they'd be willing to watch it be destroyed.

An interesting theory that I read was that America should aim missles at Mecca with the threat to fire at a certain date unless certain terrorists are brought into American custody. If they call our bluff, we should just go ahead and launch.

Of course, this is a really bad idea for a number of reasons, but, assuming we didn't get any flak from other nations, you'd have to wonder if it would work.

Joel wrote: ...the U.S. gov't and state gov't have no success in catching the members of this group. Another attack happens, so the U.S. gov't decides that this has got to stop. They tell you and everyone in your state that if the terrorists are not found they may very well decide to bomb random cities, towns, whatever in the state until the terrorists are found.

The difference is that in our own state, the government has an unbelievable amount of control. If they knew that the group headquarters was located in, say, Oregon, they could bring in the MP, the police, and the FBI, among many others, to sweep the state, as well as encourage everyone who lives there to bring forth any knowledge and offer a fat reward. America has this power within America--not in Afghanistan. Considering the financial status of Osama Bin Laden and the loyalty his men have to him and the hatred they have for America, we can assume that the members of his group would not respond to rewards. We don't have the abliity to search in a foreign country with the number of people that we'd be able to search here. So what is left? Threatening is not the first act upon a cooperating nation, but Afghanistan is far from that.

We're all busy with the loose ends now. We're talking about terrorists, People who don't like other people, etc. To get the best view on the situation, try to look at its roots. It's not 'Why do the Iraqi and Afghani hate America?' and 'Why is America so eager to attack Iraq?'. It's more the question of 'What has America done so that the Iraqi and Afghani hate them?' and 'What has the Iraq done to make America so eager to attack Iraq?'. Even more accurate would be 'What have the Iraqi and Afghani done to make America do that what makes the Iraqi and Afghani hate America?' and 'What has America done to make Iraq do something to make America eager to attack Iraq?', but that would be a bit too complex.
Please consider this. It'll give a better view on the situation.

-Kon-Tiki-

Kon-Tiki wrote: There are terrorists because USA is harassing their people, so to solve that out, USA is going to bomb those people.

When the thirteen colonies were being harassed, did they get attention by terrorizing England civilians?

There are other means of getting people off your back--terrorism is one that we should not put up with. Most likely this will never happen, but it's a possibility that the people who commit terrorist acts will realize that it's not working and move to different, more effective forms of retaliation.

I'd rather not get involved with this, however...

Grover wrote: It's not a matter of bullying--Did we bully Germany in world war II? Whether it's persecution of a people or random attacks, attacking a country that is doing harm would, in my eyes, not be considered bullying. I think it's somewhat naive to believe that the Afghanistanian government has nothing to do with terrorism and that they had no clue there was a fleet of very rich extremists living within their boundries--it just wasn't a pressing matter to anyone until something as enormous as the world trade center got hit.

Actually, IIRC Germany became a very poor nation after WW1, due to the fact that they had to pay for the damages they'd done in WW1... It was not the main cause, but it sure created a certain climate...

Grover wrote: An interesting theory that I read was that America should aim missles at Mecca with the threat to fire at a certain date unless certain terrorists are brought into American custody. If they call our bluff, we should just go ahead and launch.

Of course, this is a really bad idea for a number of reasons, but, assuming we didn't get any flak from other nations, you'd have to wonder if it would work.

It wouldn't... It would be suicide for the whole world...

But anyway, first of all, I'm against an attack... I do not think it's about oil... Also the terrorism they all talk about is something completely else, regarding Iraq... Iraq has nothing to do with the recent events in America, but with a longlasting, old conflict... I think America's timing sucks in this case...

In any way, it sure seems like a loss-loss situation... If an attack is made, it'll piss off many people and create a bad atmosphere... If they don't and Iraq does develop their weapons, they could easily attack other Arabic states they have interest in (like Kuwait, Bahrain), since they have an nice insurance...