I have heard everyone (President, congressmen, etc) say that we will find and punish the terrorists who were involved in this act. I still don't exactly know what our response would be.

If Bin Ladin is involved and he is in Afghanistan, do we go after him or him and the country? We used missiles after the African embassy attack without too much success.

Do we send our special forces troops to try and capture/kill him? Afghanistan is a land locked country surrounded by countries that probably would not let us set up a base of operations for such an attack.

Will we put our soldiers at greater risk to exact a higher damage? We have gone to great lengths in the past few years to minimize loss of life and equipment in our military manuvers perhaps at the cost of doing less damage to the target.

I just keep running through these things in my head without much satisfaction in any of the results. Any military tactics experts out there care to provide some insight.

-DavidCPA

I would suspect that in the light of recent events that India or Pakistan would allow us passage through thier airspace.

Regardless, I believe if the President, Congress, and the American people view this as an act of war they will allow quite a larger margin of risk than in the past.

Jeff

If Bin Laden did it, I'd assume we'd at the very least demand he be turned over.

If Afghanistan has been supporting him, we'll probably somehow kill/destroy/capture the Taliban and turn the country into a client state. I'm all for it.

Ground troops. Unbelievable.

A lot of conservatives have pointed out that we really shouldn't be handling terrorism through the existing criminal justice apparatus, and I actually agree with them. Arresting someone for this seems a bit ludicrous.

We have to go all the way on this one. This is the ultimate provocation. It's not the whole answer or a satisfactory solution but a limited response won't be much of a deterrant. We've seen how effective that route has been in the past.

Long term it wouldn't hurt to examine our role in historical events that has brought us to this point.

Yeah, you fight fire with fire I guess.

That bad movie Swordfish had this angle. That's what the Travolta character wanted -- lots of money to fund illegal para-military operations against anti-US terrorists.

I would calmly broadcast on the news that there was a trident submarine off the coast of India, carrying several Tomahawk cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads. The country of Afghanistan has 24 hours to produce Bin Ladin or his body, or they will receive one missile per hour until their country is a plate of glass. The first missile will be launched in the 25th hour, and will be a conventional warhead - just to let you know we're not fooling. 12 hours after that, and each hour following, we will launch another, nuclear, missile.

I think that would be sufficient "convincing". Of course, this pretty much begs for Russia and China to threaten launch against us and escalate into the full-on armageddon we've all been waiting for - so perhaps a more diplomatic solution should be tried first :-)

Remember folks, when I run for President, a vote for me is a vote for nukes.

"12 hours after that, and each hour following, we will launch another, nuclear, missile."

and then the world ends when Russia retailiates for the nuclear holocaust we've inflicted upon them. Yippee!

Another fucking moron.

Anonymouse gibbered:
"and then...ouk, ouk, ahh, ahh, [scratches butt]."

Oh look, the coward is lurking again, and lo' what intelligent comments.

You are exactly one of those "general public" people I comment about in other thread. You are wasting valuable air and food. Please shoot yourself.

Jeff

"I would suspect that in the light of recent events that India or Pakistan would allow us passage through thier airspace."

Pakistan is one of the only countries in the world that officially recognizes the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan, so I kinda doubt they would aid us in an assault on that country. India might be another matter.

Pakistan will go along to get along. The military government there has some ties to our military I remember reading. They may not be willing to host bases, as they don't want to rile Muslim allies or the people, but I think they'll steer clear of intervention on the Taliban's behalf.

"Please shoot yourself. Jeff"

How old are you, six? Don't you have any respect for the gravity of yesterday's events? You really just seem to be treating war and conflict like it's isolated to a video game. Sensible human beings don't want to kill people, or belittle the deaths of people, they don't even know. You're casually dismissing mass murder, or blindly advocating additional, potentially mistargeted deaths. Because you like the fact that we have some big guns and want to see some neato video coverage?

I'm posting anonymously because I really don't want to have do deal with morons like you, ever again, after walking away from this thread. People died because zealots couldn't see the difference between attacking someone that had personally wronged them (regardless of justification, or the accuracy of that perception) and innocent people who were unknown to the zealots, but happened to be at work or flying to the particular destination.

Quit prejudging individuals you don't know.

Oh, and in the event you are as mentally handicapped, or as young, as your statements suggest and are incapable of realizing that you're acting like an imbecile, please just go back to your video games and shut up.

Haha!
Like we can't track you through your IP? How's the weather over there?

Wow, are you naive.

Please tell me...is the sky in your world blue?

Jeff

I have no problem with people posting anonymously, especially when they write things like this:

"Sensible human beings don't want to kill people, or belittle the deaths of people, they don't even know."

But I wish the anonymous would at least adopt pen names to differentiate themselves. How can I keep this Anonymous straight from last month's goofball with 'unimpeachable credintials'?

-Tom

Well, my point is this... you can't catch the man who did it. You can't have him surrendered. Economic sanctions cannot touch a country with a zero-economy.

At that point, all you can do is make a firm example that any country that harbors this sort of business will be eliminated, wholesale.

The next attack, whenever and wherever it comes, will almost certainly be nuclear in nature. Can you imagine sitting there watching it on TV as a group of 5-10 men holds L.A. hostage for several hours... just to make sure the world is watching when they pull the trigger on some "misplaced" russian plutonium?

I can see it now... the live feed from the channel 3 chopper, then a bright flash, and static before they cut to Dan Brokaw, weeping.

We need to end this shit, decisively. The only way to do that is for every NATO country to come down like a hammer on any country that terrorists strike from. Every time.

Tom Chick wrote:
"I have no problem with people posting anonymously, especially when they write things like this:

"Sensible human beings don't want to kill people, or belittle the deaths of people, they don't even know." "

Ya, know that may "sound" good but the words are so hollow and meaningless in the "Real World".

I question the truth to those words everyday I hear about another meaningless killing or some government that has commited a "limit action" against some group. We live in a vicious and brutal world. A world where, in the end, violence solves all the problems. A world where governments hold their citizens accountable to the very crimes they commit in the name of freedom or national security. It's hypocrisy on a wholesale level and we buy into it every day because in truth we are too afraid what it would say about us if we accept it.

Sensible human beings don't want to kill people? What a laugh. I argue that anyone of us right now if we were given a gun and chance to put a bullet through the head of the madman, who planned these terrorist acts against us, we would pull the trigger with pleasure, no...bigoted glee.

Jeff

I'm probably one of the few people who will say this, but I said this yesterday, and I continue to say it today:

Any middle-eastern country who harbors terrorists should burn.

Sorry if that's extremist, but right about now, I'd take becoming a "Nazi" and committing genocide, than becoming a "Jew" and being killed over time.

That's a very bad analogy, but it works. My point is like I said above: Either you turn them over, or your country, and your people, men, women, children, surrender. However, I doubt if they don't want to turn over the terrorists, they won't surrender.

And since you won't surrender, you die.

Bombing Afghanistan is a limited option, too. I heard one commentator dryly state that bombing them back into the stone age would only require about 3 bombs.

The Taliban earlier today sent a public plea for the US to not attack Afghan territory or kill their leaders. Apparently, we are using the Pakistanis as go-betweens, which is good of the Pakistanis, given their tender place between the rock and a hard place in this, if it is the Afghanis.

Has anyone considered the possible scope of this? I mean, what if NATO decides to really go to war on terrorism, and hits Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, and maybe Lybia? What if this turns out to not just be an isolated thing, and these terrorists were aided by several countries as they moved towards the US and their day in infamy?

On the subject of the legality or morality of retribution for this act...

"I would sooner be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

>I mean, what if NATO decides to really go to war on terrorism, and hits Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, and maybe Lybia?

The only way we'll be able to get to people like bin Laden is if countries are afraid to protect them. And sadly, that means immediate and forceful military responses to acts of terror. Not two or three missiles, but extensive bombing, insertion of ground forces, and if need be, assassinations of key military and political figures in those countries. A message needs to be sent that no matter where people hide, we will find them and kill them.

Beyond the military response, Bush needs to send a strong message to Americans that everything is under control, that it's safe to resume living our lives. My wife works at a Hyatt in San Francisco, in the sales and catering department, and nearly all of their booked meetings and banquets for the rest of the month have been cancelled. As a result my wife is being forced to take her vacation days and many people are taking a week or more off without pay. I'm sure the same scenario is playing out across the country. Getting that end of the situation under control is just as important as the eventual military response.

This all sounds very bloodthirsty I dont think mass slaughter of civilians would be neccecary. Actually first you really believe Nato would agree to that? Even if they didnt and we went it alone I dont see the executive branch justifying nuclear attacks on civilian targets.

Personally I'd rather we went in and used conventional warfare on what ever countries assisted in this terrorist action. The only way to really deal a major play to terrorism as I see it is to take out there power bases. Without funding and entire countries to hide them terrorists wouldn't be nearly the threat they are now. Besides if we ended up taking out half the middle east that might solve the problem with are dependency on there oil and alot of those nasty little ethnic cleansing issues that spring up from time to time.

Please note I realize not a goddamn bit of that is going to happen at best they will probably focus alot more on infiltrating terrorist orginizations and indivisual cells and useing special forces and missle strikes to take them out.

I believe Afghanistan has some form of nuclear weapons that they purchased from the Soviet Union. If this is true what are the chances that they could use them on there surrounding neighbors. The nukes could never reach American soil, but if we have tropps positioned in the middle east, a lot of soliders could die. Also, I know that India and Afghanistan don't care for each other, so they could attack India with nukes, which in turn could damage Europe and the middle east.

Also, Bin Laden is not going to be a easy man to catch. He's very mobile and has a ton of support in the middle east. in addition, if he is captured will he be portrayed as a hero to the middle east. just a thought.

"I believe Afghanistan has some form of nuclear weapons"

Benjamin,

I think you're confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan doesn't have much at all. Hell, they don't even have huge statues of Buddha or female schoolteachers anymore, much less nukes.

-Tom

I think Tom's right - Pakistan and India are the ones who hate each other, and I do believe that Pakistan has some nuclear capability.

Afghanistan has lots of rocks. Rocks that may be a lot smaller before too long.

"Also, Bin Laden is not going to be a easy man to catch. He's very mobile and has a ton of support in the middle east."

Doesn't America already have the capability to intercept his phone transmissions? If so, wait until he talks again, triangulate, then nuke him.

Actually, Afghanistan has some stuff we sold them during the fight against the russians. Last I knew, stinger missiles don't carry expiration dates.

Actually, Afghanistan has some stuff we sold them during the fight against the russians. Last I knew, stinger missiles don't carry expiration dates.

Stingers are effective missiles, but keep a few things in mind.

1. They're tactical, man-portable. Unless you fly at lower altitudes to the ground, they can't nail you. Our boys can plink a can on the ground from 30,000 feet. And we fly low to the ground, because they have plenty of AAA, but again, that can only hurt you when you're low.

2. We built those Stingers, and we know exactly what their performance and capabilities are. These are also earlier models, so they're less sophisticated than the new versions.

3. Compared to Iraq and Yugoslavia, Afghanistan would be a cake walk for our air force. They have a few SAM batteries, but they do not have the coordinated, air-defense system that Iraq and Yugoslavia had. That means, they don't have anywhere near what would be considered a sophisticated defense system.

Like they've been saying, it's not too hard to bomb Afghanistan to the stone age right now, it'd only take about 3 hours. This country has been ripped itself over the past 20 years. First by the Soviets, then by the civil wars. There is hardly any infrastructure. That's kind of a bad thing; how do you cripple a country that doesn't have electrical grids, bridges, refineries etc, etc? So the question is, if we're going to threaten, what do we target? I would be for totally, and I mean totally, supporting the rebel forces in Afghanistan (who was assisinated last week.) They're much more moderate than the Taliban.

Let's see if this link works:
"The Counterterrorist Myth" - The Atlantic July/Aug 2001
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/gerecht.htm

It says our intelligence gathering in the Middle East is one big joke. It talks about Afghanistan, how the USA started the Bin Ladin, and how the CIA are a bunch of pussies.

"Sensible human beings don't want to kill people? What a laugh. I argue that anyone of us right now if we were given a gun and chance to put a bullet through the head of the madman, who planned these terrorist acts against us, we would pull the trigger with pleasure, no...bigoted glee"

You're too fucking stupid to tell the difference between what you just wrote -- which is an understandable human reaction (wanting to strike back at the assholes who planned and carried out this attack) -- and your early post, which belittled the deaths of a bunch of members of the "general public," as a step in the right direction in your "final solution."

Seriously, how old are you? 15? 18? You really sound like an infant who hasn't encountered much of the world. Who are the members of the "general public" that were brutally murdered worthy or your compassion, in your "enlightened," bigoted-ass opinion? Firemen? Policemen? CEOs? Are accountants o.k, but the secretaries in the building should burn? Save a few lawyers, but laugh at the death of some construction workers?

Of course, since you didn't know a single affected individual, we all know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but by all means, enlighten us, asshole.

While I'm all for justice, I personally don't have any desire to see more innocents killed. Let's get them, but not stoop to their level. I hate the term, but some innocents will undoubtedly be "collateral damage" -- but, please, let's keep it to a minimum.

Justice will be supported almost world-wide. Mindless slaughter of innocents could lead to World War 3. Or nuclear holocaust. Remember, that's what got us here.

Kill the bastards that did this, but, for Heaven's sake, spare the innocent men, women, and children. Retain some humanity.

Immediately after Pearl Harbor what did the US do? If you remember your history we bombed Tokyo to let them know they were in a war they could be hit back at - and quickly. What would be the harm of bombing some of his known camps right this second, knowing there will be much more to follow?

Sure. But, that was already a full-fledged war. It may be a small difference, but in my mind, it counts. Yes, they attacked us, and yes, there MUST be retribution. But I don't want to see more innocent people killed.

I'm a little rusty on my history, but if I recall correctly, when we bombed Tokyo, wasn't it a fairly concentrated attack? I mean, didn't we avoid hitting innocents as much as possible? That's all I'd ever ask.

"Sensible human beings don't want to kill people? What a laugh. I argue that anyone of us right now if we were given a gun and chance to put a bullet through the head of the madman, who planned these terrorist acts against us, we would pull the trigger with pleasure, no...bigoted glee"

I'm neither law enforcement, a soldier, nor a murderer. Sorry.

"Well, my point is this... you can't catch the man who did it. You can't have him surrendered. Economic sanctions cannot touch a country with a zero-economy."

We'd probably go through Pakistan, starting in India, to get there. Stranger things have happened.

Amusingly, 43% of the people going to http://gheos.com/atlas/index.php today looked at Afghanistan.

World Tribune says that Isreali intelligence is fingering Iraq for the funding & Laden for the implementation:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Israeli intelligence tends to release info that supports, well, Israeli political needs and desires. I'd trust them about as far as I could throw them--not because they'd necessarily tell outright lies, but because they've never told the whole truth, only that which aids their cause. "Manipulative" doesn't begin to describe our Israeli friends. Don't get me wrong, Israel is an important ally, but it's one that comes with a lot of baggage....

In terms of responses to the terrorist attacks, you really have two phases or distinct goals. One is a response that is rapid, flashy, and satisfying, to assuage the nation's anger and to reassure allies and scare enemies by showing that we mean business. The other is a long-term effort to erradicate terrorism like this (admittedly a difficult if not impossible task, in that there will always be some terrorists somewhere). That will require international cooperation, with diplomatic, economic, and military action over time.

As others have pointed out, if indeed bin Laden and Afghanistan are at the center of this thing, our options are limited, though not necessarily non-existent. Afghanistan is rugged, isolated, and little more than a bandit kingdom, with an infrastructure resembling something from the Dark Ages. What's to bomb? To be truly effective we would need to send in commandos to capture/kill bin Laden and the Taliban leadership--in Afghanistan, specific people are more valuable than any installations or locations in terms of target value. That would require us to, in all likelihood, base out of Pakistan, which in turn would require some heavy duy pressure on the thugs running that country--thugs who have nukes. I think it can be done, but it'd be risky, and there's no guarantee of success. Still, lobbing any number of missiles at Afghanistan is fairly useless, and given that it's like a zillion miles from international waters, and there are no US bases nearby, conventional air ops are not a viable option either.

I agree with the President when he says we hold those who harbor terrorists equally responsible for the actions of the terrorists. I also agree that once we identify who is behind this we need to deliver ultimatums to those harboring them to turn them over, and if those demands are unmet, we need to commence military operations against the countries involved. But that is going to require far more than a few cruise missiles. It's going to require international diplomatic and economic support, and extensive military committments, including ground forces ultimately. We can't do this with just air power and missile strikes.

In the long run, we have to get the rest of the world--not just NATO, either--to agree that countries that support and harbor terrorists are anathema, and isolate and punish them accordingly. That will be difficult, as many nations, once the shock of the attack wears off, will revert to their priorities of not disturbing lucrative trading arrangements. Some of our erstwhile allies will also not want to concede the leadership advantage to the US, and will covertly work to undercut our efforts--many nations actually hope we fail, and want to move us out of the Middle East so they can fill the vacuum. It's a snake pit we're getting into, and I just hope we have the right snakemasters.

Here is waht we will do. nothing.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/NewYork.html

"Israeli intelligence tends to release info that supports, well, Israeli political needs and desires."

Heh, yeah.

I don't think a military solution will do much to reduce worldwide terrorism in the long-term. You need to change the way people think before you can change the way they act. No guerilla/terrorist force can survive without an ideological support base. That's where the real effort needs to be directed.

In some sense, I think the terrorists won a small victory by altering the way we think about the world. I can't condone the way that change in attitude was brought about, but what's done is done.

- Alan

In the old days, during the Cold War, when "counterinsurgency" was a big deal and we were scrambling to understand how the Viet Cong fought and operated, we eventually came up with a whole slew of precepts that were pretty accurate--among them, influenced by the writings of Mao and Guevara and others, was the idea that terrorists or unconventional warriors needed a support base. That was true in Vietnam, and in Latin America, but is it true now?

Not in the case of fundamental Islam, or at least, not in the sense that we understood it way back when. These people are already pariahs in most places. They are as much a danger to Arab and Islamic states often as they are to the West, if not more so. Yet they survive. They do have a base, but it's diffuse, it's not a single class in a single country, or even a single country as a whole. It's a class or group of people throughout the world who share elements of the same ideology. That is why these people flow from the Sudan to Afganistan to Libya to Iraq to Iran to Pakistan to Lebanon and beyond.

In this context, I can see no way to change the way people think. In Vietnam we could (and did) win the "hearts and minds" of many of the people that the VC depended on. By the time we withdrew, the Cong had been decimated and in many cases discredited among the peasantry. Didn't do us much good, given the committment of the North to dominate the country. Today, there's no way I can see to change the minds of religious fanatics around the world.

"I don't think a military solution will do much to reduce worldwide terrorism in the long-term. You need to change the way people think before you can change the way they act. No guerilla/terrorist force can survive without an ideological support base. That's where the real effort needs to be directed."

Maybe. Imagine, oh, for example, that we invaded Afghanistan, set up a Afgah-led democracy, and stuck around for a few years to get it to work.

Sure, they might just keep blowing us up, but I don't think it's coincidental that terrorism is sponsered strictly by non-democratic nations. Democracies have better things to worry about, the absurdly poor residents of Afghanistan not excepted.

Well, what worries me is this... if ANYBODY were able to afford a nuke, it would be this guy. Now, maybe he can't get it over HERE, but he damn sure has it over THERE.

Now, when the mass ground assault is closing in on where we "strongly suspect" he is (but isn't) he has one of his glory-boys punch the trigger on 30 megatons. We lose 80% of our military in one fireball.

In response, we start tossing back. Then, everybody starts tossing.

That's what scenario worries me.

There is a danger of real war. Like WarGames Matthew Broderick stylee global
thermonuclear war.

Shall.. we.. play.. a.. game?

"Sure, they might just keep blowing us up, but I don't think it's coincidental that terrorism is sponsered strictly by non-democratic nations. "

I've heard that this bin Laden was supported and trained to be a terrorist by the CIA after the Sovietunion attacked Afghanistan but after a while he turned against the US and not the Sovietunion.

--Fulopke

This article just hit me like a brick.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/19990123gallucci3.asp

and this

http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/News/Lebedbomb.html

Its the world we live in now. Sometimes i think we are a little naive of the real possibility of these terrorist having nukes.

I believe its possible that Laden might actually have one of these suitcased size nukes.


etc