Originally posted by U2girl:
Before the debate starts, let me bring out a few facts i read in an interview with an expert on Middle east affairs:
- Arabs never had their own country. They were promised to get a state in WW 1 by the British, should they fight against the Turks. They fought bravely, yet didn't get anything. Further more, when British left, they didn't take care of things whatsoever.
- Of course, there's the whole Israel/Palestinan question. The expert said that founding the state of Israel (and US supporting it) is the biggest wound to the Arabs.
- There's a sacred ground in Saudi Arabia (can't remember the city's name now), where apparently Koran was written and Muhammed stayed a while. It is an incredible offense if a foreigner sets foot on that ground, and US troops have been there for years.(and Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian)
- US used to support Bin Laden, when he was fighting against the Soviets - because he was useful to them as a protection from communism.
Not to justify terrorist actions, just to point out how complicated things are.
But back to the topic: is bombing the right way to deal with it?
Personally, i think it should have been done differently. For example, closing terrorist accounts in international banks or international diplomatic pressure would be/was a better solution.
I mean, sure, you can destroy terrorist camps but you won't destroy the whole terrorist network (because it's internationally spread) or bring down the Taliban regime (because it will take ground troops for a long-term control of the country, plus someone needs to put together a goverment people will be pleased with-that will probably take time).
Also, who says that when the Taliban regime is replaced, there will no longer be any terrorists?
Also, why not try using special forces and try to capture Bin Laden and the leading officers of Al Khaeda in a secret operation?
