Suspects

[Frozen]

This quote from Sky news:

Five suspects have been identified as responsible for carrying out the terrorist attacks on the United States.

US officials said the hijackers who carried out the world's worst terrorist atrocity, killing possibly thousands of people, may have had links to Osama bin Laden.

They believe names of suspected terrorists who can be linked to the Saudi dissident were on passenger lists for the hijacked planes and have so far identified five names.

"There are indications that people with links to bin Laden and the al Qaeda organisation may have been responsible," one official said Bin Laden is suspected of masterminding the US embassy bombings in Africa and is said to have warned three weeks ago he would "attack American interests in an unprecedented attack, a very big one". He has denied responsibility.

I leave you to draw your won conclusions...

[James Harvey]

While it is still a bit early to draw conclusions, I wouldn't be suprised if this rings true.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Bin Ladin said he was going to try something big at the U.S. itself for some time as mentioned, and he also is one of the few who can have the supplies to plan this.

Still, whoever this is, Bin Ladin or not, I hope will be caught soon...and punished...

[Trent Lane]

Supposedly, the UN and other outsiders have left Afganastan, I'm guessing they know something's gonna go down. But NOW Pakistan is saying they don't want anyone to attack Afganastan. I'm sorry, I think it's time for a BBQ. This crap has gone too far. We aren't starting a war, the war's been on for years. The war against terrorism will probably never end, but through this latest situation, I hope that one of terrorism's biggest leaders is brought to justice. I'm 100% sure that the whole thing will be handled right because I've got confidence in our government and our country. JMHO...

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Dick Grayson
While it is still a bit early to draw conclusions, I wouldn't be suprised if this rings true.

Same here.

But flhero, you must keep in mind the Taliban are a small group of fundamentalists and terrorists wreaking havoc Afghanistan. I think it wouldn't be fair to atttack the whole country.

[James Harvey]

Check out cnn.com for constant updates on this. It seems that the US may be closer than reported to finding these people responsible...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Salvor

Same here.

But flhero, you must keep in mind the Taliban are a small group of fundamentalists and terrorists wreaking havoc Afghanistan. I think it wouldn't be fair to atttack the whole country.

Yeah. That would be tantamount to killing a bunch of innocents in a certain country just because you don't like its politics.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo


Yeah. That would be tantamount to killing a bunch of innocents in a certain country just because you don't like its politics.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

there is a difference between justice and retaliation.

and then's there revenge...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo


Yeah. That would be tantamount to killing a bunch of innocents in a certain country just because you don't like its politics.

It is worth observing that in a war, innocent people--those not responsible for the acts that led the start of the war--will inevitably be killed.

From this fact one consequence or the other follows:

1. War is always evil and must never be practiced. The proper response to the atrocities and aggression of the Nazis, for instance, would have been to issue subpoenas and wait for an international tribunal (a few superannuated judges and their law clerks) to defeat the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht through the clever deployment of legal briefs.

2. Recognize that war is a great evil not to be undertaken lightly, and only when there is no other recourse. The question then is, are there recourses in the present circumstances short of war that would satisfy the need for justice, deterrence, and the destruction of those with the capacity to repeat this atrocity?

[optimal321]

This is a really stupid question, but i've never understood why they do this. So, what do these Middle Eastern terrorists have against the good 'ol US of A? Did we do something really bad? I just don't understand.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by optimal321
This is a really stupid question, but i've never understood why they do this. So, what do these Middle Eastern terrorists have against the good 'ol US of A? Did we do something really bad? I just don't understand.

where to start...

a. Islam is one of 3 religions which teach ethnic hatred as faith. (Roman Catholicism (Jews) and Mormons (blacks) are the others)
Specifically, it teaches that an 'evil scientist' type bred a race of demons in the caves of Europe to torment the faithful. Thus the term 'Satan' in ref. to the US.

b. Israel was created by the US and England (because of guilt over having done nothing to stop the Holocaust) by seizing the country called Palestine and re-naming it, and then putting the Arabs' ancestral enemies (Jews) in charge.

c. The US's continued support of Israel in face of its escalating attacks on the ethnic Palestinians has incensed even the 'moderate' Arab gov'ts, and has fueled anti-US sentiment to its highest level ever.

welcome to the real world...

[Trent Lane]

Take my stuff back. Pakistan is telling them, basically, not to screw around with the US. When you look at the list of nations leaning toward and on our side, you can understand why. I'd imagine if Afghanistan was smart, they would hunt down Ladin and hand him over, if he is indeed on their soil. It's amazing, though, that they are begging the US not to attack them. I guess we should have been allowed the chance to beg these terrorists not to attack us...

[optimal321]

Thanks. I just wanted some historical facts. We don't get much modern history in school.

And, i understand that people hate for no reason that i could understand, sometimes. I'm not that naive. But thanks.

[Maxie Zeus]

Some relevant reflections on the kind of people and organization that would have to be behind the attack:

This act goes well beyond terrorism as we have previously understood it. It's been repeatedly demonstrated to us that a single plane can be hijacked by a small, well-prepared group backed up by the right logistics support. Hijacking [four] planes, on a tight timetable, from multiple locations, to hit multiple targets within 90 minutes of each other is simply a completely different scale of organization. This act required logistic support and coordination involving hundreds of people, with major-league funding.

Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly, and it's unlikely that a commercial pilot could be persuaded to fly into a building--even at gunpoint. This means that the perpetrators needed to find [four] adequate pilots, which in turn means that they needed to know in advance which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for. . . .

Further, this is a very difficult attack to defend against. Suppose you *did* have a SAM (surface to air missile) handy in New York, and you saw the plane coming in time to use it. Do you shoot down a plane over a major >metropolitan area, or do you let it crash? Which will cause greater destruction? While you figure it out the opportunity passes.

The attackers picked planes that were scheduled for
cross-country flights, and would therefore be loaded with JP (airplane fuel). JP burns very hot, and is relatively easy to set on fire. Because these planes were loaded with fuel, they could be relied on to spread the fuel through the buildings on impact, maximizing damage and hampering rescue efforts.

The planes were hijacked from major U.S. airports. Security at these airports may not be the tightest in the world, but neither is it sloppy. In this case, it was systematically beaten in several locations at once. This required time, money, thought, and preparation.

What we have here is an attacker who has said not just "I can attack anything I want", but "I can attack lots of things, all at once, and not only can't you stop me but you can't even detect a very large organization that is doing the preparations--even when we tip you off three weeks in advance!"

On the whole, it seems fair to say that this entire action was carefully thought out, planned in careful detail, and (at least from the attacker's perspective) well executed. It required access to significant information resources.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


It is worth observing that in a war, innocent people--those not responsible for the acts that led the start of the war--will inevitably be killed.

That doesn't mean it should happen. If you are looking for one criminal in a crowd of 20, you do not mow down the crowd. You pick the criminal out. This is how I see this particular situation--it requires precision and swiftness. It requires a method that sets an example to everyone that Americans have gone beyond "sum it all up" acts and widespread discrimination. Terrorists thrive on violence--whether it be them executing it or the government. Guys like McVeigh thrive on attention. He wouldn't have cared if we had tortured him, and he certainly didn't care that he was to be executed. Terrorists aren't afraid of pain, or to die. So revenge and justice may not always satisfy us, as they (the Terrorists) won't give us the satisfaction. When McVeigh was executed, what feelings were there around North America? A lot of it was bittersweetness and unsatisfaction. He didn't cry, or anything. It was like, "He's dead...how come it doesn't feel better?"

This may be war, but I have a feeling it is a war unlike anything we've experienced before. This is not a physical presence, an enemy defined by borders, as Bush said. It is unseen, an enemy in the shadows. If it was a whole country, a simple A-Bomb could do the trick. But terrorism is not a country. It is everywhere. You clamp one group down, another pops up.

Normal Islamic religions DO NOT teach ethnic hatred. Those are only extreme groups (which are simply becoming more prominent these days). Ancient Islam was less discriminating than many western nations in those days.

It's too complex for me to go into, but there were several areas in the Middle East that taught religious acceptance once, and some still do. History time: Saladin was one of the most revered figures in world history, much of it due to his tolerance for other races. In the Middle Ages, he fought back spreading Crusaders, who had massacred every Muslim and Jew they could find. And when he defeated them in Jerusalem, in contrast to the Crusader bloodbaths from before, his army did not murder or loot the Christians while occupying Jerusalem. He allowed Christian pilgrims to go in and out of Jerusalem at will after the conflict. His style of administration and "mercy to his foes" policies went down in the history books and tales by Dante. Many recent rulers like Saddam use his name as a medal, but they miss the point of Saladin's legend, and many people simply forgot about him.

Anyway, the point is that Islamic religion has changed too much and has too many aspects to sum up as one thing.

Hatred? Many reasons where this could have come from. For one thing, some nations look at their economy and they look at the U.S. economy. Or someone in the U.S., like McVeigh, had a hard time and their discontent turns to insanity. U.S. bombings in the Middle East area are often remembered well by those living there, as the U.S. is a big nation. They see a bully. We see a necessity. They see a bully. We see a necessity. And it goes on and on and on....

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
That doesn't mean it should happen. If you are looking for one criminal in a crowd of 20, you do not mow down the crowd. You pick the criminal out. This is how I see this particular situation--it requires precision and swiftness. It requires a method that sets an example to everyone that Americans have gone beyond "sum it all up" acts and widespread discrimination. Terrorists thrive on violence--whether it be them executing it or the government. Guys like McVeigh thrive on attention. He wouldn't have cared if we had tortured him, and he certainly didn't care that he was to be executed. Terrorists aren't afraid of pain, or to die. So revenge and justice may not always satisfy us, as they (the Terrorists) won't give us the satisfaction. When McVeigh was executed, what feelings were there around North America? A lot of it was bittersweetness and unsatisfaction. He didn't cry, or anything. It was like, "He's dead...how come it doesn't feel better?"

This claim presumes that this was the work solely of a handful of people, most of whom are already dead. If so, then there is no point in pursuing the matter any further. Instead of trying to "take out" a perpetrator with laser precision, we can only bury the dead.

And if it is the work of a sophisticated group, most of whom are still at large, in contact with each other, intending to continue these kinds of attacks, then it is the duty of the government to find and destroy them. If that group was operating in the territory of a nation that had no cognizance of their presence and activities, then we can not only spare that nation our wrath, but expect its help in destroying that group. "War," in any form, would again not be an option.

But if that sophisticated group is part of, or supported by, the government of a sovereign nation, then that government is equally responsible and must be held to have acted against the United States. Since the act was made with the deliberate aim of causing physical, emotional and economic harm to the United States and its citizens, that act qualifies as an act of war: an assault upon the soil and citizens of another country.

If in that circumstance one is opposed to pursuing violent means against the offending country, I think it legitimate to ask, "When would you be in favor of doing so?" As I noted, wars inevitably have as a byproduct the harm and death of "innocent" people; if this fact argues against any war of any kind then someone who accepts it can only end by advocating passivity in the face of aggression. For action of any kind on a large scale would run a risk you seem to find intolerable. At the risk of becoming redundant, this principle is inconsistent with the conduct not only of unjust wars, but those whose cause we consider "just" as well: World War II, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War. In every one of these wars innocent people died, and in every one it was obvious before it started that such would be the outcome.

But terrorism is not a country. It is everywhere.

Terrorist organizations are capable of low-level activity or high-level, based upon the size and sophistication of the operation, and the kind of support it receives. It is like the difference between catching a mugger, and breaking the Mafia. "Crime" is everywhere; the mob is not. "Terrorism" is everywhere; the organization that perpetrated yesterday's horror is not. Saying that we must treat this organization the way we treated McVeigh is like saying that we must treat the Mafia like we must treat a gang of teen-aged shoplifters. One is far more professional, far more lethal, and far harder to crack than the other.

Again, when we discover which organization it is and what that organization looks like, we will have a much better idea of how to respond. But there is no point in ruling out certain options in the meantime.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo Normal Islamic religions DO NOT teach ethnic hatred. Those are only extreme groups (which are simply becoming more prominent these days). Ancient Islam was less discriminating than many western nations in those days.

It's too complex for me to go into, but there were several areas in the Middle East that taught religious acceptance once, and some still do. History time: Saladin was one of the most revered figures in world history, much of it due to his tolerance for other races. In the Middle Ages, he fought back spreading Crusaders, who had massacred every Muslim and Jew they could find. And when he defeated them in Jerusalem, in contrast to the Crusader bloodbaths from before, his army did not murder or loot the Christians while occupying Jerusalem. He allowed Christian pilgrims to go in and out of Jerusalem at will after the conflict. His style of administration and "mercy to his foes" policies went down in the history books and tales by Dante. Many recent rulers like Saddam use his name as a medal, but they miss the point of Saladin's legend, and many people simply forgot about him.

Anyway, the point is that Islamic religion has changed too much and has too many aspects to sum up as one thing.

Since I took such great issue with the opening of your last note, I want to go out of my way to emphasize my agreement with this one. An anti-Muslim hysteria is the LAST thing we want to see come out of this.

References to Saladin are in fact irrelevant; Islam is a great and humane religion in its doctrines, teachings and tenets, not in the accidental whims of particular Muslim rulers. Any nation has its leaders who are despots and those who are saints; the test of the religion is in the behavior of its ordinary adherents, uncorrupted or unintimidated by secular power. The rich fabric of Islamic history is one of peace, tolerance and love.

The evil men who carried out this act, if they are Muslim, have soiled its great name; they should not be confused with the religion itself any more than the bombers of abortion clinics should be confused with the Christian faith they attempt to profess.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Actually, the things you've said are what I've covered before. The conversation has merely morphed into something else, and I have been required to shift gears into this possible scenario. Other than the way you see this "war" and I see it, I am in agreement with you. I think this is too different a war to compare to past wars, and considering this century, whole new rules have to be devised. You compare this war scenario to past wars and refer to World War II and the Civil War. We are both speculating, of course. But evidently that's our take.

As for my post on Islam, well, okay. I refer to Saladin for the specific reason that I can attach a human face to something a lot of past Islamic legend tried to follow. I find it makes for a less dry reading. You make good points, though I'm surprised you did not mention this in your post before my post, as you have some very insightful material that I would liked to have read before devising my response to Happyheathen.

Or gosh darn it, maybe you just like talking to me directly.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Actually, the things you've said are what I've covered before. The conversation has merely morphed into something else, and I have been required to shift gears into this possible scenario. Other than the way you see this "war" and I see it, I am in agreement with you. I think this is too different a war to compare to past wars, and considering this century, whole new rules have to be devised. You compare this war scenario to past wars and refer to World War II and the Civil War. We are both speculating, of course. But evidently that's our take.

As oldtoonguy mentioned in another thread, a lot of this may be semantic quibbles--we are probably only words apart, not worlds. Perhaps I can put it this way:

I completely agree with you that terrorist organizations are very hard to fight, and that the "war" analogy is hard to apply. One reason it has been such a problem in the last 40 years is that we do not really know how to fight small organizations. If this is the work of such a small group, then we will not know what to do.

The suspicion in the present case, though, is that this act was done by a group that had ties to a government, or was based in a territory who tolerated and encouraged their presence. That is why the "war" scenario is not so difficult to invoke, because this act would represent an unorthodox tactic, but easily fit into a ready-made paradigm. One can even compare it to WW2 directly: This may have been a "kamikaze mission" carried out with the connivance of an unfriendly government.

The difference may only be in our relative willingness to see the latter as a possibility, and thus as a legitimate analogy.

As for my post on Islam, well, okay. I refer to Saladin for the specific reason that I can attach a human face to something a lot of past Islamic legend tried to follow. I find it makes for a less dry reading. You make good points, though I'm surprised you did not mention this in your post before my post, as you have some very insightful material that I would liked to have read before devising my response to Happyheathen.

Oh, gosh. Well, I certainly didn't mean my word "irrelevant" to reflect badly on you, and I apologize if it sounded like I did. In fact, I meant it to amplify the deep truth of your remarks. You are absolutely right that Saladin stands as an exemplar of Muslim humaneness and charity; I only meant to make clear that this humaneness was not an accidental quality of the man himself, but a quality of the vast majority of Muslims because it is a central pillar of that faith.

As for replying to you rather than HH: Being a mod I'm bouncing all over the place; I'm just as happy to see someone else reply as to do it myself.

Or gosh darn it, maybe you just like talking to me directly.

Well, that's true too, as I think my close attention to your posts makes clear. I love a clear thinker and good writer, and you qualify in spades.

[Maxie Zeus]

Here is a link to a scholarly 1995 National Interest essay which lays out the evidence that Iraqi intelligence agents were responsible for the first bombing of the WTC in 1993.

Most frightening conclusion (not reached in this article, but clearly relevant today): The US govt is likely to totally botch this investigation, because the Justice Department and FBI, as a matter of policy, categorically refuse to share evidence with national security agencies. The attitude of those charged with investigating these attacks is: It doesn't matter who organized and orchestrated the attacks; we only want the dupes who actually carried it out.

Bottom line: Bureaucratic pride and folly of a colossal order back in 1993 may have left the way open for yesterday's madness.