Originally posted by U2girl:
- 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.
See my other reply where I address you and Theu2; thanks!
- 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.
TRUE: a huge gap which the post-WW2 establishment of the Jewish state of Israel left to fester into a large open wound is "what about Palestine?" Well, most of the lands that should have been set aside were instead split up among Egypt (Gaza Strip), Jordan (West Bank), and Syria (Golan Heights). They should have been made contiguous and established as a Palestinian state. During the Arab-Israeli War up until 1967, Israel took these lands back because they (Israel) didn't have immigration limits for Jewish settlers who wanted to return to the "Jewish homeland;" not a good neighbor if you ask me, and I agree Palestine should be established as a state geographically resmebling an assemblage of these areas.
- 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)
You are basically giving credence to one of the most religiously descriminatory practices that is allowed in the world today: the "holy state" of Saudi Arabia. The strict Wahabi brand of Islam prohibits religious freedom outside of Islam, therefore, a tree worshipper could not worship his or her trees there, just as I could be prosecuted for entering the nation with a Bible. And our military was invited there when Saddam Hussein was making aggressions toward Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
- US used to support Bin Laden, when he was fighting against the Soviets - because he was useful to them as a protection from communism.
We supported (training and supplies) the muhajideen, which faught alongside The Osama during the Afghan-Soviet Conflict. In fact, The Osama disdained the presence of the U.S. in this conflict and was never a true allie of the U.S. The muhajideen was comrised of forces which in the 1990s splintered off into several groups including Northern Alliance AND the Taliban. The Osama was basically a free-agen, a mercenary if you will, who had no home as he had been banished by the Saudis. So he took up residence amongst other thugs such as the theocratic factions in the muhajideen and the slave-holding thugs in Sudan.
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?
Bombing their infrastructure and intensive cave/bunker network is the most practical way to drive them out and force a surrender or, worst case, make a ground war more feasible. We are NOT targeting civilians and I do not think the civilian casualities are going to be as high as many of the anti-bombing interests are telling us. Also, remember that in a nation like Afghanistan where the official, internationally-recognized government is in exile elsewhere, the line between "civilian" and "military" is quite blurred, as the ruling regime pretty much forces whomever they can round up into some standing militia.
And we have been closing their accounts since shortly after 9/11.
They do not acknowledge/recognize "diplomatic pressure." Please remember that Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, and embassies are the structural symbol of "diplomacy."
No, we will not be able to destroy all of the terrorists, but this is a start.
And yes, special forces have been on the ground and more willbe going in soon.
But we can't just round them up and bring them to some prison; that is when their buddies hijack more planes and use their imprisoned goons as ransom for civilian airline passengers. Terrorism, if you will.
~U2Alabama