Afghanistan declares holy war....
September 18, 2001 12:15 AM   Subscribe

Afghanistan declares holy war....
posted by outsider (52 comments total)
 
Didn't they already declare war some time ago? Isn't that why they did what they did last Tuesday? Hey, if you are going down you might as well go in a blaze of glory.
posted by MaGoo at 12:24 AM on September 18, 2001


why is MSNBC the only one reporting this? i heard it hours ago, but all the other stations only speak of the economy..
posted by afx114 at 12:31 AM on September 18, 2001


I am a pacificst, I abhor violence. I ache that there will undoubtedly be innocents, people who are as much victims of the Taliban's cruelty as we here in New York are, who will be killed.

But their declaration of war is an admission of guilt, in my opinion. And the proper, just sentence, according to the morals of most people I know, is that they be killed for their evil.

I don't believe in the death penalty, I would still prefer these people be captured and somehow emotionally dissected to understand how acts so evil could occur to a human. But I know that's not the way the world works. So I hope, for the sake of all of us, and for the safety and well-being of the greatest number of people in this world, that we swiftly and strongly kill the people responsible for this madness.

I ask their innocent neighbors and children to forgive us the unavoidable tragedy of innocents dying. I ask future generations to please forgive us the brutal, inelegant means with which we pursue justice right now.

But it's time. Kill these men. I will grieve that people have to die. But these may be the few people on earth whose passing I will not, and can not mourn.
posted by anildash at 12:32 AM on September 18, 2001


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010918005650_1.htm

This seems a bit desperate. They are declaring war before anything has even been done. As far as I know, there are no US troops even in the area. I suppose Bin Laden won't be handed over at this point and a ground war is inevitable.

At least W isn't making the fist move, which should quell the charges of american warmongering. Still the "dead or alive" and "crusade" comments probably should have been avoided.
posted by phatboy at 12:36 AM on September 18, 2001


Reuters concurs. Nothing on AP yet.
posted by sylloge at 12:37 AM on September 18, 2001


Thought this old news from the BBC would interest readers of this thread:
A senior Taleban leader on Monday announced a jihad, or holy war against the US, but Taleban authorities later fiercely denied the claim, saying a jihad would only be declared if the US attacked.
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:47 AM on September 18, 2001


Afghanistan declares holy war....

Is there any other kind?
posted by justgary at 12:50 AM on September 18, 2001


Future headline after multinational force invades:

Afghanistan declares HOLY SHIT!
posted by phatboy at 12:53 AM on September 18, 2001


Just checked Bloomberg, which writes:

The Taliban denied reports it will resume its holy war, or jihad, against the U.S.
posted by phatboy at 12:58 AM on September 18, 2001


But their declaration of war is an admission of guilt

no, it's an admission of reality.

this report says the government is telling its citizens to be prepare for a holy war, which is exactly what president bush is telling us right now.

(did you see david latterman tonight? it scared me to hear him and dan rather talking. they've decided we're at war and they've decided with whom.)

from CNN:
Afghanistan's supreme leader, who was warned by Pakistani officials to either turn over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden or face a U.S. attack, said on radio Monday that Afghanistan's top Islamic clerics will meet Tuesday and "they will decide."

there is still hope. not that most people want that....
posted by rebeccablood at 1:00 AM on September 18, 2001


end italic
posted by rebeccablood at 1:00 AM on September 18, 2001


end, I say!
posted by rebeccablood at 1:02 AM on September 18, 2001


anil, I'm surprised at you....
posted by rebeccablood at 1:03 AM on September 18, 2001


"I am a pasificst"
"we swiftly ... kill"

Um, okay.

Y'all pasificsts and hippies and punks and Christians and other fakers...get with it.

The hard part is loving your enemy. That's why it's not easy to get to Heaven/Nirvana/Whatthefuckyoucallit. Pray for your enemy. Pray for the one who wants to kill you.

Yeah, that's crazy. That's Christianity.
posted by Sr_Cluba at 1:05 AM on September 18, 2001


Reuters story updated. (Taliban insists war would depend on attack.)

Agence France-Presse, cited by phatboy's Bloomberg link, is also reporting that Saddam Hussein will be making an address to the American people (no known link)...
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:16 AM on September 18, 2001


Actually, this AFP page seems to be worth visiting for timely wire news from the Middle East right now.

Besides the Saddam story (in the upper-right ticker), they are carrying another development:
A meeting of Islamic scholars from across Afghanistan to decide whether to extradite Osama bin Laden, wanted "dead or alive" by the United States, has been postponed, a senior Taliban source said.

"There will be no meeting today (Tuesday). Maybe the meeting will take place tomorrow or the day after," the source told AFP, explaining that some of the participants had not yet arrived in the capital.

posted by Zurishaddai at 1:21 AM on September 18, 2001


Yes. I am becoming more and more repulsed by this "terrorist" attack. They attacked us in a form of which if one looks closely...will notice that we are also terrorists as well. The hell with Mr. Ladin; it doesnt matter if we kill him, or call him public enemy #1.
It upsets me because if people would retort history as it is,..would understand that a retaliation is useless. It only brings more pain,..agony, so on and so forth. An "eye for an eye" is not going to solve the issue. The Taliban/"unvoiced populous" wants war...they want to fight out this war that has been going on for years against us;..and they want our society to understand them by any means necessary. BUt how can we fight/defend our freedom?...
By compromise,..maybe.. the simple highly intellectual, highly compassionate human?...a finer understanding of of our existence..(maybe meteors headed right for this great planet...)
IMagine that, eh?

In the end, we will fight for a long time, until the meaning of the "Human" is understood.

Im sick of the TV; sick of the lies, hidden meanings, ambigous teachings and perspectives. No one seems to know the truth anymore, or cares to find out.
There is no suprise that this happened, for we are the United States.
Therefore,...
it all comes down to beliefs and substance; life as we can show it.
posted by Kodel at 1:57 AM on September 18, 2001


Apparently, they're also considering extradition to a neutral country. Would the US back off if bin Laden was extradited to, say, Switzerland?
posted by benbrown at 2:40 AM on September 18, 2001


That's a very good question, ben. That may very well be the only course of action that spares innocent lives. I doubt the US would go for it, but, damn, it would be really great if they did.
posted by Optamystic at 2:50 AM on September 18, 2001


We'd be suicidal fools ourselves if we backed off after ONLY dealing with Osamar. Why not just blow ourselves up and get it over with?

Not sure where on here I got the debka.com link, but I wanted to thank whoever posted it.
posted by HTuttle at 2:59 AM on September 18, 2001


From debka.com:
-----
In an extraordinary encounter in Washington Friday, September 14, Arab ambassadors bombarded Secretary Powell and other administration officials with questions about the nature, form and objectives of the planned US military retaliation. US officials rapped out that they did not want questions only a single answer from all the Arab governments: Were they for or against America.
-----

I hope that's true.
posted by HTuttle at 3:04 AM on September 18, 2001


A pacifist who says it's time to kill these men?

Anil, you know how much I appreciate you but if this is your definition of pacifism, I am the Pope (or better yet, I'm Osa...)
posted by kchristidis at 3:07 AM on September 18, 2001


That may very well be the only course of action that spares innocent lives. I doubt the US would go for it, but, damn, it would be really great if they did.

Optamystic, You cannot be serious? This isn't about where he lives. It's about what he does, what he's done and what he'll always continue to do. And what others dangers like him who share the same lack of respect for decency will do if they see we allow those involved in this tragedy to get away with it scott-free.

Oh yeah - Well done up the top there Anil. Good to see honest statements from within rather than the endless miles of internet pollution of short inferences by others who feel it's not a waste of space to signal their disapproval of peoples attitudes without explaining why. Those who wont go out on a limb and spill their true feelings because it might lead to opportunities for others to disagree. And for anyone reading this who conveniently washes their consciences and hands of this situation and the worlds reality by just settling for saying things that amount to 'peace, people who kill are bad' and those bastards who imply America only has itself to blame for last Tuesdays events, your empty and weak and if your Grandads handled situations that way you'd be speaking German. That's assuming you're blue eyed, cuz otherwise you probably wouldn't have been born. As for me, i ain't shying out of an opinion on the war, but with it being 11am and me not having slept since yesterday, i can only point you to the most recent examples of it. Goodnight.
posted by Kino at 3:15 AM on September 18, 2001


Yeah, I'm serious. Peace is better than war. It would seem that's a pretty radical idea these days.

I stand by my statement. There is no such thing as "acceptable loss of life". Arabic or American. This whole deal sucks, and nothing we can do will make it better. Nothing. But there is a helll of a lot we can do to make it worse, and I fear that we are about to start doing it.
posted by Optamystic at 3:59 AM on September 18, 2001


anildash - I won't contest your right to argue your point, but damn it, what you say makes me just want to give up, and go back to pure misanthropy.

(I know it's not about me and what I think)

Either human life is sacred, or it's not. Either we beat one another's brains in with antelope bones, or we don't. Either you are a pacifist, or you aren't.

(feeling bad about ganging up on anildash...)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:09 AM on September 18, 2001


Either human life is sacred, or it's not. Either we beat one another's brains in with antelope bones, or we don't. Either you are a pacifist, or you aren't.

How can a society continue to hold human life sacred after being attacked so viciously? To watch on television as their innocents are brutalized?

We have no choice but to respond. To not respond is an admission of impotence, and that simply is not an option for the last remaining superpower. The Afghani government had the opportunity to show that they could reach beyond their dislike for America and do the right thing, as Pakistan did. They chose not to. We can talk all day about pacifism and collateral damage, but realistically the US has no other reasonable choice but to retaliate. To not do so is to surrender the freedom and security of 280 million Americans to a small group of fanatics, and that is simply something our government cannot do. Individuals have the privilege of embracing pacifism, but our government does not.

Anildash is absolutely right. We can hope and plan to make sure that as few innocent Afghans as is possible are killed. But they have sealed their fate, and their largest mistake is not realizing the political limitations America must act within.
posted by UncleFes at 6:55 AM on September 18, 2001


Anil: You can't have it both ways. Either you are against violence or you are for it. Or you find a position somewhere in between (e.g., thirsting for the blood of the terrorists who did this abominable act, which seems to be the common response to this).

For my own part, I am, for the most part, a pacifist. I am opposed to the death penalty. And I have been trying to wrestle with feelings, attempting to separate vengeance and anger from sorrow and equanamity. And I cannot subscribe to this vengeance. The men who did this should be punished, but it should be done in front of an international tribunal, not at the expense of innocent Afghan or U.S. lives. Many of the former are dying right now as we speak and are unable to escape their war torn country.

The Talebin is making a foolish decision by not handing over Osama bin Laden. But despite my abhorrence for their government, I can certainly understand why they are making demands. The sanctions have devastated the Afghan people. They wish to rule Afghanistan with an iron fist and an international recognition of their government would certainly aid them in doing so. We have a history of trivializing the Middle East. And while I am not advocating a no questions asked recognition of the Talebin, our frontier justice arrogance is moving us further away from any kind of peaceful resolve. It's time for us to at least TRY cutting a deal here before unleashing the vengeful beast of war from the cage. We have reached a point in human history when we either (a) go into an almost certainly bloody war with heavy casualties on both sides or (b) swallow our pride and try and work out a compromise, facing a complete revamping of our "We're #1" attitude.

We as a country are making the common mistake of obfuscating government with people, whether in the States or in Afghanistan. Just as the cooperative spirit of fellow New Yorkers being there for each other, a basic compassion involving human beings helping one another, is being confused with a government that HAS been just as abominable in its military strategems in the past, deliberately targeting civilian facilities in Iraq and keeping CIA training camps open and money flowing into Afghanistan after the Soviets lost big time there, so too are we immediately looking upon the Talebin juntas as representative of the Afghanistan people. That so many are trying to escape, that so many are trapped: this in my eyes is a sign that, in a nation with some amorphous form of guilt as yet undetermined, there is still some kind of innocence amongst the Afghanian people.
posted by ed at 6:58 AM on September 18, 2001


You can be a pacifist in this context, yet also believe in justice. However hard it is to swallow, we all do things that we don't like, but may find necessary. And if we found those responsible, it would probably be risky to keep them as political prisoners. It's just like the opposite, by saying you can be a soldier yet have compassion for your "enemy."

Yet what I feel we need to do, instead of throwing ourselves into a military engagement, is to somehow influence and change the atmosphere in Afghanistan much like how it helped Japan. I am led to believe that U.S. officials are being bullheaded, but if we could somehow win at least some respect or favor with the Afghanistan people, we would both have much better leverage against the Taliban. The first step in my opinion, which we're screwing up on, is to remove the fear. Next is to help them rebuild.
posted by samsara at 6:59 AM on September 18, 2001


The first step in my opinion, which we're screwing up on, is to remove the fear. Next is to help them rebuild.

Laudable goals. But vague and unrealistic, I think, given today's religious and political environment. There is an element of time pressure as well, since there are likely to be several dozen terrorists still in the US (there's a pleasant thought, eh?). Politics remains the art of the possible, and some actions are simply not currently possible.
posted by UncleFes at 7:04 AM on September 18, 2001


I stand by my statement. There is no such thing as "acceptable loss of life". Arabic or American. This whole deal sucks, and nothing we can do will make it better. Nothing. But there is a helll of a lot we can do to make it worse, and I fear that we are about to start doing it.

One of the most certain ways to make things worse is to do nothing.
posted by rcade at 7:23 AM on September 18, 2001


Laudable goals. But vague and unrealistic, I think, given today's religious and political environment.

Actually, I tend to disagree. We aren't in conflict with an entire country or form of government as much as we are against an ideal. During WWII, the ideal was nazism. Later on, there was communism. This is no different. Instead of kindling a fire, I am suggesting that we focus on the ideals at hand. At first we were facing terrorism, then the Taliban, then the entire country...next would be neighboring countries perhaps? I don't expect peace, that's simply unattainible. But we do need to avoid polarizing other factions than the Taliban against us. The only way to do that is to isolate them as the main cause of fear.

. There is an element of time pressure as well, since there are likely to be several dozen terrorists still in the US (there's a pleasant thought, eh?).

Yep. We're in for a rocky ride. It's a good time to think on what we can acheive long term.
posted by samsara at 7:38 AM on September 18, 2001


My life and those of my family and friends is sacred. The lives of those who threaten us isn't worth the dirt on my shoes, and same goes for anyone who gets in the way.

If any religious or ethnic self-concept, any political agenda or gripe, however justified, is a culprit, it, too, has to go the way of the dinosaur, before one hair on my wife's head be mussed.
posted by MattD at 7:41 AM on September 18, 2001


I said : Either human life is sacred, or it's not. Either we beat one another's brains in with antelope bones, or we don't. Either you are a pacifist, or you aren't.

I've spent most of my life arguing that there are shades of grey, that posing questions in terms of binary choice is a sign that the poser of the question isn't really all that clever. I withdraw what I said, and apologize. I was thinking more about how the words sounded than the degree of truth behind them.

It's way more complicated than On/Off, Christian/Muslim, East/West, Kill/Love.

I don't know if I agree with anildash, but I my facile response to his words was knee-jerk.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:42 AM on September 18, 2001


FYI - Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, have declared war on the U.S. They have said that they will declare war if we attack them.
posted by preguicoso at 7:46 AM on September 18, 2001


Would the US back off if bin Laden was extradited to, say, Switzerland?

I'm worried that the US will back off no matter what the Taliban decides. Even if they could come up with bin Laden, Saddam, and Jimmy Hoffa while ending the ethnic struggles in Israel, the Balkans, and Northern Ireland.

Anil: You can't have it both ways

Hey guys, guess what? We just witnessed someone questioning their beliefs. This attack has obviously affected Anil to such a degree that he's thinking maybe some of his principles are flexible in these kinds of situations. Instead of blasting him for admitting his internal contradictions, why not support his right to feel that way?

I guess I'm also a pacifist, though I've never thought of myself that way. I don't think we should go to war with Afghanistan. The very thought sickens me. I don't believe in the death penalty.

But like rcade said, we have to do something. If we keep doing whatever we've been doing, this is just going to happen again and again. What's the right solution? I have no idea, but I haven't liked any of the options I've seen presented.

I'm inclined to believe that despite his disgusting and downright evil methods of expressing it, bin Laden and the fundamentalist Muslim world do have a legitimate beef with the US and its interventionist and (dare I say it?) imperialistic policies. (Though you could argue, probably rightly so, that they aren't attacking the US on principle, but rather because it's a convenient enemy.) On the one hand, I think we should change and back down our influence in the area--heck, in most parts of the world. But if we do that, what's to stop them from continuing to attack to get more compromises out of us? If we leave them alone, maybe in the future they would demand that we, the "richest country in the world", should give them aid, but with no strings attached. And if we don't? Maybe then more terrorism.

There's no good solution, but one of the worst is attacking an individual for re-examining his own opinions.
posted by daveadams at 7:50 AM on September 18, 2001


During WWII, the ideal was nazism. Later on, there was communism. This is no different.

But it is very different. If we were facing off against Islam, the analogy would hold, but we are definitely not doing that - if anything, we are trying hard to differentiate bin Laden, terrorism and the Taliban from mainstream Islam, rightfully so, and doing a pretty good job of it, too.

Your ideas seem at cross purposes. Fighting the ideals you mention cost millions of lives, and that is far too high a cost for the elimination of terrorists. And as for isolating the causes of the fear, terrorism is about generating fear. If the causes were easy to isolate, we could do exactly that (and I think we would); but by it's very nature - pan-national, cellular, extremist - terrorism blocks attempts to isolate it, because if you can name a fear, you can fight it (hence all the bin Laden talk, when realistically he is personally likely to only be remotely involved in the actual bombings). Terrorists don't like to fight - they're not soldiers. They like to be anonymous, slippery, hidden, because that serves their needs better.

All this must necessarily frame and affect the American response. I think it was a coup to get Pakistan to petition the Afghans for bin Laden, because it showed that a country that actively dislikes America can put aside its dislike to accomplish a goal. That is a mark of reason. But when the Taliban declares jihad, that proves that they are unwilling to do the same, and it is that action that ends up defining our response. Our actions as a country are driven more by what Afghanistan does than by what Americans think should be done. That is the political cost of being the world's last remaining superpower.
posted by UncleFes at 7:55 AM on September 18, 2001


I'm inclined to believe that despite his disgusting and downright evil methods of expressing it, bin Laden and the fundamentalist Muslim world do have a legitimate beef with the US and its interventionist and (dare I say it?) imperialistic policies.

Since the end of the Cold War, the argument could be made that the world is more free and democratic than it has ever been before. One of the supports under that continuing trend towards world democracy has been the rule of law - the UN, the World Court, all these things bring the rule of law to the world. Because of that, it has been increasingly easy for foreign governments to bring their grievances with the US to light, both at the UN and in the court of world public opinion. The world is smaller and better reported on. The US is far less able to act unilaterally than it was 20 years ago, and has less justification and approval when it does. We haven't been able to hide our machinations for some time.

This makes the terrorists attack all the more heinous, since they could have just as easily made their grievances known on the world stage and looked to international law for rectification. I think that maybe the war against terrorism is already being fought and won - with the rule of law and the ability of smaller, poorer countries to act on the world political stage.

I don't think bin Laden attacked because of grievances Islam has with the US; I think he attacked because he sees that his place in the world, his reason for living, is being marginalized by the encroachment of freedom and law worldwide.
posted by UncleFes at 8:02 AM on September 18, 2001


One of the most certain ways to make things worse is to do nothing.

Are you sure?

If retributive violence made things better, don't you think the world would be in a state of transcendent bliss by now? We've only been trying this "hit 'em back, harder" strategy for thousands of years now, after all.

America could have, in fact, done nothing, and I believe that would have been the best thing it could have done. We could have put our energy into dealing with the attack - rescuing & treating survivors, comforting the bereaved, re-examining security precautions to make this less likely in the future - and not wasted breath and energy ranting and raving about evil terrorists and whatnot. We could have discreetly assembled a team of detectives/spies to search the evidence and determine who was responsible (a fact which, I would like to point out, we still do not know). And then we could have sent a squad of some elite soldier group to go arrest the suspect and haul him back to the U.S. for a trial. Following this trial, the suspect(s) could be put in jail for some long amount of time, probably the rest of their lives.

That's what I would have liked to see happen: complete frustration of the terrorists' political goals. A refusal to dirty ourselves with their kind of war. An emphatic stop to the escalation of violence.

What's the good of being the most powerful nation on earth if you still have to jump when a terrorist calls?

The human race can supply new terrorists much faster than the United States can dispatch military expeditions to assassinate them.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:08 AM on September 18, 2001


UncleFes : What you say leaves the possibility open that we're growing up as a species and that perhaps, even after the bombs start to fall, as they inevitably will, that perhaps we can recover from the spike of violence more quickly than before. I pray (well, no not really, but you know what I mean) that this will not end in a new conflagration, that Dan Rather's prediction on Late Nite, that it will be a long war, 3 or 5 or 10 years, is totally wrong.

It seems pretty clear that more people are going to die, guilty and innocent both, but maybe reason will win the day, and it will be fewer than the nightmares suggest....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:12 AM on September 18, 2001


I do not speak Arabic, but it seems clear that "jihad" translates closer to holy struggle than holy war. There are certainly several levels of jihad. A jihad can be a war as we define it in English or simply a political opposition.

Let's not let poor translation and media sensationalization blow this out of proportion.
posted by username at 8:36 AM on September 18, 2001


What you say leaves the possibility open that we're growing up as a species and that perhaps, even after the bombs start to fall, as they inevitably will, that perhaps we can recover from the spike of violence more quickly than before.

I truly believe that to be the case.

I heard someone say during the immediate aftermath "Today, all the world is American, and all Americans are New Yorkers." With the media, net, TV, satellites, we can see that the huns are not eating babies. They are us - we are them. When I can see Palestinian children wearing Nike shirts like my own son wears, how can I dismiss their suffering any more than I can dismiss that of my son?

We will attack Afganistan because politically we don't have any other choice. But by doing so, and doing so deliberately, with our reasons public, and with the law behind us, we further the causes that wili eventually eliminate terrorism. There will always be murderers, but when one sees the example of Pakistan this last few days, hope for the future is imeasurably bolstered.
posted by UncleFes at 8:39 AM on September 18, 2001


My life and those of my family and friends is sacred. The lives of those who threaten us isn't worth the dirt on my shoes, and same goes for anyone who gets in the way.

i can save you some typing: "it's only sacred when i say it is."

i think this demonstrates that it's a completely arbitrary decision to declare that life is sacred, so let's stop talking about how valuable life is when we're also talking about how it's ok to kill some innocents as long as we get the bad guys too.
posted by tolkhan at 10:49 AM on September 18, 2001


No Jihad Against US says Taleban according to the latest update in the premiere Pakistani english daily, The Dawn.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:51 AM on September 18, 2001


It's not really that we're growing up, it's that our perspective has changed over the last few hundred years. Violent conflicts are shorter because our weapons are able of mass destruction and the fear is greater of self defeat. Ideas and arguments propagate faster due to availability of instant communication. We've invented the ideas of economics and built complex rules to govern them. The last quick war that we fought was greatly in our favor due to technology and sheer numbers of troops. The war occurring in the Middle East has been lasted since biblical times. I hope that we treat this differently as the WTC bombing was a criminal act, not an act of war (at least in the traditional sense...it is a war on our ideals).

UncleFes: But it is very different. If we were facing off against Islam, the analogy would hold, but we are definitely not doing that - if anything, we are trying hard to differentiate bin Laden, terrorism and the Taliban from mainstream Islam, rightfully so, and doing a pretty good job of it, too.

I think we're on the same page. When I gave broad generalizations about ideals, I was illustrating how we have identified our enemies in the past. If we provoke a war with Afghanistan, we WILL be facing off against Islam in the long run unless we can keep clean from causing doubt in our objective....to soley attack terrorism.
posted by samsara at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2001


No, the current war in the Middle East goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Zionist movement of the late 1940s. Unless you're talking about something other than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of course.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:11 AM on September 18, 2001


You're right. I was thinking Middle East holy wars in general. Sorry bout that.
posted by samsara at 11:14 AM on September 18, 2001


Whoo. Went to bed with my heart aching, woke up a hypocrite. To sum it up for everyone, since I did a poor job earlier...

"I am a pasificst"
"we swiftly ... kill"

Um, okay.


I would prefer that no one dies. I am just being realistic, the American public won't stand for no one being killed for this, so I was hoping it would be as few people as possible.

Sorry for explaining it poorly.
posted by anildash at 11:28 AM on September 18, 2001


I'm neither a Christian nor a pacifist, but I'm struck by how many people seem to be denouncing the Biblical statements about "turning the other cheek." As in "we aren't going to turn the other cheek this time, in fact it would be folly." (and I agree, BTW, which shows I'm neither).

Another thing. This stuff about Osama bin Laden being extradited or not. From the most reliable sources, it seems that the true culprit is not most accurately Osama bin Laden, but his loose organization as a whole. It would serve neither the purposes of revenge, justice, nor pragmatic anti-terrorism to punish him as an individual.
posted by Charmian at 11:52 AM on September 18, 2001


of course, we weren't planning on doing only that charmian: rather, the US seems poised to wage a war on the whole of terrorist cells.
posted by moz at 12:01 PM on September 18, 2001


Does anyone think we should not fight back? I mean if a group of terrorists attack the U.S., and we don't, what does that tell the world about what we stand for? I, for one, think it would be a huge mistake not to retaliate. If we don't, then the next terrorist who decides that he wants to promote his cause by killing Americans will be more than willing. Unless we take care of the problem, then there will be more terrorist acts against our country. Now, I am not one of those who thinks that the war will be a walk in the park, far from it. These people are illusive and trained. Hopefully, our superior numbers and technology will overcome the fact that we will be fighting on their land. Anyone have any ideas?
posted by Uncle Joe's Brother at 12:07 PM on September 18, 2001


"we aren't going to turn the other cheek this time, in fact it would be folly."

Remember, if everyone turns the other cheek, we'll all soon be cheekless!
posted by kindall at 12:09 PM on September 18, 2001


Thank you phatboy for that bit of levity! Holy shit, indeed!
posted by misangela at 3:20 PM on September 18, 2001


« Older   |   Fake Hate Crime Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments