Join 3,513 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


US rallies the west for attack on Afghanistan,
September 12, 2001 11:33 PM   Subscribe

US rallies the west for attack on Afghanistan, while NATO draws up plans for invasion. (And maybe, just maybe, Iraq! Note that tiny detail in the 4th graf.) Could we be going in? Is there really that much in Afghanistan to go into in the first place?
posted by aaron (12 comments total)

 
I know this has been debated ad nauseam in other threads, but as someone who lives here, and someone who has wrestled with wanting to retaliate and to see no more damage come to us, right now I feel broken.

I want to concede and say "you've won," and just pray they don't kill anyone else. It's foolish, I know, but I just can't see repercussions on our part not being met with retaliation in turn. And what will the next rung on the escalation ladder be? Chemicals? Germs? Nuclear?
posted by Sinner at 11:43 PM on September 12, 2001


Yes...I'm sure by being there one would feel "broken" ..and after reading most comments on threads that revolve around the carnage and seeing the pictures, well let's just say that I feel broken and grief as well.....but when you say,... ok "you've won".....what exactly is it that you're conceding....what exactly have they won......is there a point that has been made?.....more importantly....we know what it is that we've lost..but what was it we were playing?.........and are we still playing it?.....
posted by studiovector at 11:56 PM on September 12, 2001


Is there really that much in Afghanistan to go into in the first place?

They kept the Soviet Union occupied for ten years, probably as important a factor in the downfall of the USSR as anything else .

Oh well, at least there are no jungles in Afghanistan, not like Vietnam.

Since they want to provoke retaliation, the most effective way to tell them they've won would be to go a-bombing.
posted by Grangousier at 12:02 AM on September 13, 2001


β€œThe harder and more crucial question is why. Why does the US continue to be a target for Islamist attacks? The US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the World Trade Centre in 1993, the al-Khobar bombings in 1996, the USS Cole bombing last year, what is it about the US that makes it a magnet for Muslim militants?

β€œ... if previous bombings have not shocked the US into self-reflection it is unlikely that even this, the biggest attack on its shores since Pearl Harbour, will do so. The likelihood is that Washington will order its spin doctors to steer the public gaze well away from itself and towards intensified military efforts to snuff out Bin Laden.”

β€” Faisal Bodi
posted by raaka at 1:28 AM on September 13, 2001


Thank You raaka.
posted by crasspastor at 3:17 AM on September 13, 2001


Excuse me, but has anyone found 100% proof that Bin Laden and other Islamic people are behind this? Yes, there is evidence, but to invade Afghanistan based on heresay? Doesn't this fucking scare anyone? That's just going to start a war, and I don't want war on our soil, that's for sure.

If 100% proof has been found and I just haven't heard of it, I apologize for this post.
posted by bryanzera at 3:54 AM on September 13, 2001


One of the few positives that could come from this would be a global spotlight on american foreign policy.
How dare america ask the UN for help, when they allow themselves to get behind in paying their membership fees?
In 1999 the richest nation on earth owed $550m in arrears. This makes them look like they don't respect the UN, and by extrension the rest of the world.
NB Link may not work as is to an .asp database file.
posted by asok at 4:26 AM on September 13, 2001


Is there really that much in Afghanistan to go into in the first place?

Yes, even after 20 years of conflict. And for its strategic importance, it might come across better if you think of it in terms of the Khyber Pass.

I'm abandoning cynicism here: after eight months of ducking out of treaties, it's good to see the NATO alliance working well: because the more nations that lend their support, the less likely it is to see something precipitous happen.
posted by holgate at 5:42 AM on September 13, 2001


Since 1991, American-led sanctions against Iraq and the effects of depleted uranium have killed 1m children.

I've seen this statistic numerous times, and it's extremely suspect, as I described previously.

The U.S. has to respond militarily to this. As many as 20,000 of our people may be dead, and the economic consequences of the attack are a national security risk of their own. I have no doubt in my mind that terrorists will eventually try to detonate a nuke here -- we can't just let countries harbor and support terrorists like Osama bin Laden. They're not going to stop attacking us.
posted by rcade at 5:58 AM on September 13, 2001


Afghanistan has already noted that they will extradite Bin Laden if he is found to be responsible for these attacks.

This is not, however, what the majority of Americans want. They want revenge and they want many people to suffer.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what type of body count you are looking for) it is very possible that a very small number of people acted in these attacks and that no nation provided support.

If this is the case I am am relieved no more innocent people will be killed but I am worried as to how the US will attempt to find justice.
posted by futureproof at 6:14 AM on September 13, 2001


Has anyone contemplated the implications of extraditing Osama bin Laden and locking him in one of our -- or --anyone's jails? The untold horrors that his brothers-in-arms would unleash to see him set free? I can imagine millions being killed just to see him released from prison.

If it is him and we have to act, I hope he and many of his confederates are killed quickly and decisively, although I can't imagine how the response to that would be anything less than short of catastrophic, either.
posted by Sinner at 6:35 AM on September 13, 2001


"it might come across better if you think of it in terms of the Khyber Pass."

It might come across better if you think of it in terms of the Khyber Flats!
Or how about:

It might come across better if you think of it in terms of the Khyber Crater.

This, my friends, is the current atmosphere in much of America today. Can't say as I blame them either. A great monster has been awakened. The only question left is who will pay the price?

Terrorist groups:
Islamic Jihad?
Osama's groups?
IRA?
Tamil rebels?
Right To Lifers?

Those who support terrorist groups:
Iraq?
Iran?
Syria?
Lybia?
Afghanistan?
Southern Baptists?
The US government? It makes sense if you consider that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan and the US is the major financial contributor to the Taliban. 135 million dollars so far this year. The Taliban provides refuge for a known terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. We're guilty....

How can we possibly declare war against terrorism around the world and hope to achieve that victory when we don't have a working definition of who a terrorist is? Some may actually be freedom fighters against an oppresive goverment in many eyes.

And another thing, how will we track down and destroy these terrorists around the world when we still haven't tracked down and arrested Eric Rudolph in our own country?
posted by nofundy at 6:55 AM on September 13, 2001


« Older World wide "lock-down" of major parts of major cit...  |  Guns selling briskly.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments