September 21, 2001

1:52 AM

Taliban to U.S.: Go ahead, make my day.The Taliban has refused, as Bush demanded in his speech, to turn over bin Laden without evidence of wrongdoing. Unclear whether he's still "uninvited" to remain in Afghanistan. I thought Bush's refusal to consider a deal with Afghanistan was rash -- we can't afford to create martyrs in this war.
posted by mattpfeff (21 comments total)

Invitation to discuss (English): Who benefits from the attack on WTC and Pentagon? (click my name or url)
--------------
Uitnodiging voor discussie (Nederlands): Wie heeft er baat bij de aanval op WTC en Pentagon? (klik op mijn naam of url)
posted by furitsu at 1:56 AM on September 21, 2001

CNN also broadcast (around 1:00 a.m. PST) a news conference in Afghanistan in which Taliban leaders declared they would call for a jihad against any Muslim country that supports U.S. action against it. But I can't find it anywhere on the bleeping Web. (Maybe I dreamed it?) In any case, it's ironic -- there's a chance the WTC attack, which has brought the West together, will destroy Muslim unity instead. I mean, I don't exactly see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan et al. committing political suicide in order to defend the Taliban and bin Laden.

And they said irony was dead....
posted by mattpfeff at 1:58 AM on September 21, 2001

Well, the problem is if the Pakistani government gets so far out ahead of (pro-Taliban, anti-U.S.) popular opinion that civil unrest leads to civil war.
posted by Chanther at 2:07 AM on September 21, 2001

I thought Bush's refusal to consider a deal with Afghanistan was rash

Why should America deal? Why? They're harboring a man responsible for the death of thousands. What deal would that be?
posted by owillis at 2:22 AM on September 21, 2001

owillis, the obvious reason is that Afghanistan is not the Al Queda. Assuming the Taliban was to play ball a deal to arrest all known members of the Al Queda and bring them to justice would be a good start. This would also include Taliban members who knew of any planned US attack, be it WTC, USS Cole, or the embassy bombings.

They're harboring a man responsible for the death of thousands

Correction, they are harboring men that are responsible. Bin Ladin is not some comic book supervillian. There are many guilty parties and each deserve to be brought to justice.

This almost irrational focus on one man is a nice way to ignore how complex the situation in Afghanistan really is.
posted by skallas at 2:35 AM on September 21, 2001

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't US Courts frequently refused to extradite IRA terrorists to Britain to face charges, based upon either a perceived lack of evidence, their status as 'political', or doubts about their access to a fair trial? Given that other courts in the US are currently suspending trials of Muslims because of doubts about jury's objectivity, there would appear to be some hypocrisy here.

Of course, the US may indeed have masses of evidence pointing to Bin Laden's complicity - I don't have any either way (and gut feel is that he is involved). But for the Taliban to want to see it before handing him over is no more or less than what other countries would do. And you don't expect to be bombed for taking that stand.
posted by snowgum at 3:07 AM on September 21, 2001

The Taleban cannot arrest Bin Laden even if they want to. They have neither the necessary military strength (as compared to Bin Laden) or a consensus from their own people to even try. If they attempt to capture him they will be toppled. Not to mention that they probably won't know where he is, especially since he is likely to be already out of the country altogether...
posted by talos at 3:12 AM on September 21, 2001

As an example of the bullshit: Bin Laden convinces the suicide guys they will be martyrs and go to heaven. Then, confronted, instead of giving himself up so he can be a martyr and save his adopted country, he hides or flees. Why not become a martyr if your colleagues think they are and do a good deed in your naughty world.
posted by Postroad at 3:23 AM on September 21, 2001

Why should America deal? Why? They're harboring a man responsible for the death of thousands. What deal would that be?

Is there some new proof that it was Bin Laden, or is this simply more speculation?
posted by Jairus at 5:19 AM on September 21, 2001

Postroad: If the purpose of the attacks was to provoke the U.S. into attacking Afghanistan and igniting a civil war in Pakistan, Bin Laden's refusal to admit responsibility and efforts to evade capture make sense.
posted by rcade at 5:40 AM on September 21, 2001

There's an old maxim in diplomacy that "delay is the deadliest form of denial". By trying to set conditions and drag negotiations out, "maybe" effectively becomes "no". Remember the peace negotiations during the Korean war where they spent weeks just discussing things like what shape and size the table should be?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:10 AM on September 21, 2001

The scale of devastation transformed this terrorist bombing into an act of war. There are no negotiations because using terrorism as a political platform is over - period. No more dragging out extradition with discussion. The world has to understand that these are new rules with no gray areas. Bin Laden has already been found guilty of bombing the WTC once before! What more do you people want? Do we want this to become a long, drawn out IRA type dialogue that goes on for decades? How about trying appeasement? I don't know how much more clear our reasons can be. At a certain point, it must be accepted that the Taliban have a radically different understanding of morality and history than ourselves. Poor nazis - they were overly punished in WWI! They only want a little of their dignity back. We should negotiate. Surely they can see reason? I wish this was the case too, but it clearly is not.

One more thing. I don't think that the U.S. expects Bin Laden to be physically handed over. All we are asking for is the country's support in getting him. Remember how little is actually being asked.
posted by xammerboy at 9:14 AM on September 21, 2001

There are always grey areas. This is one big smoking crater of a grey area, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. This is something new, and neither "terrorism" nor "war" adequately describes it.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:27 AM on September 21, 2001

Is there some new proof that it was Bin Laden, or is this simply more speculation?

Personally, I don't care whether or not bin Laden was responsible for this. The guy has issued a declaration to kill American citizens, for God's sake. Now we have an excuse to go after him, because terrorism is obviously a real threat to us and the rest of the world finally "gets it."

Therefore, we don't need any evidence right *now*. Let's just agree that we're starting with bin Laden, and going from there.
posted by fusinski at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2001

We did actually demand that the Taliban hand over bin Laden: Demand No. 1 from Bush's speech was "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land."

I of course agree we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. But we made these demands of another sovereign nation, not the terrorists themselves. We could have simply made the demands without ruling out negotiation. There was no need to box ourselves into a corner prematurely. That's all I was saying -- I just think it was needless and, hence, rash.

If we turn out to be wrong about something (maybe someone else did this; maybe ousting the Taliban without negotiating with them will enrage the other Muslim nations and inspire them to all go to war with us after all; maybe we just shot Pakistan's position to hell (after all, they are now on the side of vengeful psychopaths who are about to rain terror on the poorest nation in the world without even trying to find a more humane solution); maybe I can't even imagine the worst-case-scenario yet) -- if we turn out to be wrong about something, we could have created a nasty situation that will provoke 2 more generations of terrorism and set our economic and societal development back 50 years.

This isn't some war game. The world is watching and listening, and our macho posturing can very well set us up for a nasty fall.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:32 AM on September 21, 2001

I'm guessing this isn't what the reverse consequentialists had in mind?
posted by RichLyon at 12:29 PM on September 21, 2001

Now we have a target! Thanks Taliban leaders!
posted by Sal Amander at 12:38 PM on September 21, 2001

RL: I take it by reverse consequentialists you mean people who think they can control events by acting so as not to provoke the response they wish to avoid (i.e., don't be aggressive and the terrorists won't act against us), like the rats in Saletan's article?

Then, no, I'm not making such an argument. I'm not at all saying we should back off and accept the terrorists' view of things.

We should do everything we can to eliminate whatever support terrorist groups have from host nations. We should find them and try them for their crimes. And we should continue to support those policies we feel are right -- supporting Israel, trying to broker peace with Palestine, discouraging nuclear weapons development, sanctioning Sadam Hussein's regime -- unless we find valid evidence that they are wrong.

But we should also begin long-term programs to bring economic viability and stability to Muslim nations. It will take generations, but eventually they can create opportunity for their citizens to freely coexist with the rest of the world. There will always be terrorists. But if fewer Muslims (or anyone) feel ground under the heels of the Western world, there will be far fewer terrorists.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:53 PM on September 21, 2001

mattpfeff:

To accept your conclusion, we also must believe that the Western world is grinding Muslims under its heel. Otherwise, how exactly can we change how they "feel"?
posted by argybarg at 5:16 PM on September 21, 2001

argybarg -- I sincerely hope not. Granted, you might be right, which, I think, would mean that there will always be terrorism attempts and we can only hope to contain them.

But I think Muslims feel that the Western world is against them largely because their own political leaders (including the ones using religion to build political capital) tell them so, and even as those same leaders spend their countries' meager resources waging war instead of creating opportunity for their citizens. I think those political leaders, with some combination of diplomatic (and military) pressure and economic support, could be encouraged to revise their propaganda, to focus on internal growth instead of external hatred. Sadam, of course, will probably never change, but I hope he is an exception.

But then again, maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist. I dunno.
posted by mattpfeff at 5:54 PM on September 21, 2001

Therefore, we don't need any evidence right *now*. Let's just agree that we're starting with bin Laden, and going from there.

I sincerely hope this is NOT the general thinking, anywhere.

The guy has issued a declaration to kill American citizens, for God's sake. Now we have an excuse to go after him

If we go after EVERY individual who has made such a statement, then we are indeed in for a long haul. Very, very long.
posted by Rastafari at 1:03 AM on September 22, 2001