From this morning's Herald comes this quoting Seymour Hersch (who one might recall broke the AbuGhraib story).
The Bush administration has sent undercover forces into Iran, and has stepped up secret planning for a possible major air attack on the country, according to the renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
...
One option under consideration, Mr Hersh reports, involves the possible use of a B61 nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb against Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.
That thought, just on its own, put me off my oats completely this morning.
No. No one could be THAT stupid. Oh. Hang on. That assumption presumes that there is a human in charge.
If there is the slightest truth in this article, to be published in the next issue of New Yorker Magazine then we, all of us, need be VERY VERY afraid if this is the level of "thinking" within the American administration.
15 comments:
If a conventional weapon is not sufficient to overcome the defenses at a nuclear centrifuge site, why should not a nuclear weapon be considered.
I am sure you are against any attack against Iran nuclear or conventional, but put that aside for a moment and assume that military action to stop Iran's nuclear development is desirable.
In that situation why is using that sort of munition wrong?
1. The only nation that has EVER used nuclear weapons in anger is the US.
2. The US lied about the reasons then.
3. It ratchets up the reasons to obtain nuclear weapons for ALL nations that are "different" from the US ideal model.
4. It brings China to the fore as the only other nation holding nuclear technology on a scale that might give the US reason to think.
Remember the Charles Atlas advertisements? The skinny little kid kicking the sand in the face of the school bully?
If the US persists in its long (60 years and more) history of being the school bully, then the reason will always be there for the skinny little kids to get whatever means there might be to defend themselves. Look at the list from just the American continent - Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada - all of them states where the US has seen fit to interfere or overthrow the democratically elected government. All of them just happened to be socialist.
Why should NZ not choose to obtain nuclear weapon capability if we see the US as a positive threat to our nation, our way of life, our democratically elected government? That choice becomes an imperative if there is a threat to use nuclear weapons against us.
Same with Iran.
Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?
Yeah, I know. You believe the fairy tales of the neocon set that Iran is hell bent on world domination.
What is the US doing?
1) Certainly the U.S. is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons.
2) I dispute that the U.S. lied about the reasons, even if it were true, I don't see how it is relevant.
3) I find it unlikely that U.S. use of a tactical nuke would make owning nuclear weapons more desirable. Nuclear deterence forces are not usually based around a tactical model.
4) The Russian nuclear arsenal vastly outstrips the Chinese. Beyond that, I also don't see the relevance of this point.
Personally, I would have no issue with New Zealand being a nuclear power. That is of course very unlikely to happen, but the only thing about it that would bother me is it would signal that the nuclear non-proliferation idea is clearly dead. That will happen quite soon anyway though, so there is reletively little concern on that score.
I would argue that U.S. willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike would make owning a nuclear arsenal less, not more attractive. If you believe that your weapons can survive any attack that will be used against them they are far more desirable as a deterence then if you believe they will be wiped out. Unless you can protect your weapons from a tactical nuclear device, their utility is far more limited and thus they are a less desirable asset.
I won't get into the whole the U.S. is the only evil in the world with you. I think we can both agree that such a discussion would be futile.
"I won't get into the whole the U.S. is the only evil in the world with you."
That, Dave, is something I have never said. It is something that I will not say unless it were true.
The US does things that I think are wrong. The US does things that are F***ing stupid as well. That does not make for evil.
Pointing out the defects, criticism of decisions and actions, is NOT being anti-American, in the same way as I view similar criticism of Israel as not being anti-semitic. Others disagree.
Why China instead of Russia? Simple! The Russian threat is gone. It is (and always was) a shadow of what US intelligence thought was there. The only nuclear threats that Russia poses now are from nuclear warheads going missing and the pollution threat from the number of nuclear reactors wrapped up in rapidly rusting submarines in the Arctic Ocean.
If NZ threatened to counter illegal trade barriers with direct attacks on "US interests" then the situation between our nations might be quite different. As it is, we tend to meekly accept (as we are expected to do) that the US will honour international agreements only as far as it suits the interests of the US. I do not see that changing.
But, one has to admit, the US record of interference in the affairs and governance of other nations, even democratically elected governments, does make one wonder at the honesty of American dealings.
When that doubt is compounded by the fundamental dishonest international dealings of successive Presidents (Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nuked as "military targets" even though all military installations had long since been wiped out) then the ROW must be forgiven for a persistant and nagging sense of scepticism about the US intentions in relation to ANY proposed action.
So far you have not addressed any of my points, instead diverting into the evils of the United States.
You have not addressed why, in the situation I described, using tactical nuclear weapons would be wrong.
It seems that this issue is irrellevant to you, eclipsed by the idea that Iran is justified in pursuing nuclear weapons and, apparently, you are convinced that this is a lesser evil than U.S. military action to prevent that from happening.
Apparently you are convinced that Iranian nuclear weapons are less dangerous than U.S. nuclear weapons since unlike the U.S. Iran has never used nukes and the U.S. lies. Somehow, China and trade disagreements figure into this equation, although how remains murky to me.
I have to wonder, what you think the results would be if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. What problems do you foresee with this development?
So far you have not addressed any of my points, instead diverting into the evils of the United States.
You have not addressed why, in the situation I described, using tactical nuclear weapons would be wrong.
It seems that this issue is irrellevant to you, eclipsed by the idea that Iran is justified in pursuing nuclear weapons and, apparently, you are convinced that this is a lesser evil than U.S. military action to prevent that from happening.
Apparently you are convinced that Iranian nuclear weapons are less dangerous than U.S. nuclear weapons since unlike the U.S. Iran has never used nukes and the U.S. lies. Somehow, China and trade disagreements figure into this equation, although how remains murky to me.
I have to wonder, what you think the results would be if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. What problems do you foresee with this development?
"You have not addressed why, in the situation I described, using tactical nuclear weapons would be wrong."
Dave, there are by my count (and assuming the Russian Federation is one and not many) eight nations holding nuclear weapons. There is still only one nation that has used nuclear weapons against a foreign target.
What your argument says is that any of the other seven could, justifiably and if they had a mind, use nuclear weapons against a foreign target. That frankly scares me even more sh!tless than before. How is about Pakistan drops a couple in Kashmir, or India lobs one or two into the Punjab? Justifiable? Of course!! All you need is a dirty-assed reason that sounds half believable and have at it!
It seems that this issue is irrellevant to you, eclipsed by the idea that Iran is justified in pursuing nuclear weapons and, apparently, you are convinced that this is a lesser evil than U.S. military action to prevent that from happening.
At the most fundamental level, NO nation should hold nuclear weapons. Regrettably that demon from Pandora has been let out and we have to live with it.
If antagonists (let's use Pakistan / India again) ratchet up tension by threatening the use of nuclear weapons, it merely reinforces the justifications each use for having nuclear weapons. It does nothing to moderate the possibilities of their use.
To make sure that you understand that -
If the US threatens Iran with nuclear weapons, why the F*** do you think Iran wants to have nuclear weapons? DON'T give chicken/egg arguments to rebut this, they do not wash at all.
If Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and Iran sees Israel as a direct threat to its survival (however paranoid and delusional YOU might think that to be), then "Cold War" rules apply; MAD, Dr Strangelove and all that.
Apparently you are convinced that Iranian nuclear weapons are less dangerous than U.S. nuclear weapons since unlike the U.S. Iran has never used nukes and the U.S. lies.
Turn it around. US nukes are no less dangerous than Iranian nukes might be. They have the potential to kill just as many people, if not more.
That the US is free with the truth does not help.
Somehow, China and trade disagreements figure into this equation, although how remains murky to me.
You confuse (intentionally I suspect) two things.
FIRST, if the US uses nukes in Iran, I have very little doubt in my mind that China will not stand and applaud. I have little doubt that the first event following that would be China invading Taiwan, if for no other reason than provocation when the US would be under extreme international pressure and condemnation. After all, if the US can do it, why not China?
SECOND, I was trying (and it is obviously too subtle for you) to draw a "Mouse that Roared" picture of NZ using nuclear weapons in response to US illegal trading methods.
I have to wonder, what you think the results would be if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. What problems do you foresee with this development?
Honestly? Little more than Pakistan and India.
Just let Iran know that the use of nuclear weapons will always result in overwhelming response. Let them know that response would come not just from the US, but Russia, China, Pakistan, and India as well. Get them signed up to it now...
"What your argument says is that any of the other seven could, justifiably and if they had a mind, use nuclear weapons against a foreign target. That frankly scares me even more sh!tless than before. How is about Pakistan drops a couple in Kashmir, or India lobs one or two into the Punjab? Justifiable? Of course!! All you need is a dirty-assed reason that sounds half believable and have at it!"
You do realize, I hope, that we are talking about tactical bunker busting weapons, not turning Iran into a sea of glass.
Nuclear weapons are fearsome not because they are nuclear but because they are big. Tactical Bunker Busting bombs are not particularly big, they are able to deliver a more concentrated blast than conventional weapons but they are not going to destroy a city.
Granted, there is some small degree of nuclear radiation, but this seems fairly unimportant if you are bombing a nuclear enrichment facility.
I will admit that I look at nuclear weapons much like any other weapon. We could achieve nuclear level destruction of a city with purely conventional methods if we desired. Doing so would be no better, and no worse, than using a nuclear weapon on a city. Dresden was worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If the only measure of a weapons 'evil' is the destructive power of the weapon, and not the nature of the owner, than yes, the U.S. nuclear weapons are far more dangerous than Iran's. I don't find that formulation convincing however.
A knife in the hands of a psychopath is, in my opinion more dangerous than a gun in the hand of a cop. It isn't just the weapon that matters.
I find your prediction that China would invade Taiwan in response to a U.S. nuclear strike in Iran to be fairly out there. By that logic, why wouldn't China invade Taiwan in response to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel? Both are equally connected. I would imagine that U.S. willingness to use tactical nukes in Iran would in fact give China pause.
I would certainly never advocate an act of war over a trade dispute, whether or not you use nuclear weapons. The concept is so far out there for me that I am having trouble even addressing it. I will say, that if you think that an appropriate level of response to such a dispute, I may have to rethink my feeling about New Zealand being a nuclear power. Hopefully, you are in the distinct minority.
"You do realize, I hope, that we are talking about tactical bunker busting weapons, not turning Iran into a sea of glass."
That argument Dave, goes down just as well as "It was just a small dose of clap", or to take the WMD argument "It was just a small bottle of anthrax".
"...they are able to deliver a more concentrated blast than conventional weapons but they are not going to destroy a city."
Reminds me of -
Neutron, neutron, you're a real estate bomb,
The property stays but the people are gone...
No, Dave, you entirely miss my points, and I am beginning to think it intentional rather than just plain plank nature.
Why was it so imperative that Saddam not have WMD's? Why is it so imperative that Iran not have nukes? The American answer is that we (the global village) can not afford to have such weapons in the hands of madmen. I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment. I just wish that others would see the colour of the pot that is doing the calling.
"A knife in the hands of a psychopath is, in my opinion more dangerous than a gun in the hand of a cop. It isn't just the weapon that matters."
No, but when the cop is a psychopath what can the law-abiding citizen do? Oh yeah. That is where RKBA starts, huh! Well, if that is how it works then the sooner the ROW has nuclear weapons to hand the better. And that includes the Saddams and Ahmenabijads of the world.
Am I calling Bush a psychopath? Well no, but I can see the jury retiring to consider that possibility in the not too distant future.
"I will say, that if you think that an appropriate level of response to such a dispute..."
OK, that begs the question of when you would consider the use of nuclear weapons to an appropriate response.
Should Kennedy have blinked over the Cuban missile crisis?
Should Roosevelt or whoever have lobbed a few into Pyongyang in the early '50s?
How about taking Hanoi out?
That I think is the difference Dave. I can not find ANY justification of using "tactical nuclear weapons" (which BTW in the 60's was the term used by the US to describe "nuclear artillery shells", probably now known as "DU weapons", not the same thing at all as is being discussed now.)
Nuclear artillery is also a tactical nuclear weapon. I have never heard of DU shells being referred to as a nuclear weapon. Nuclear artillery, like bunker busting bombs result in a nuclear explosion.
As I have stated previously, I don't really have a problem with other nations having nuclear weapons. The parallel between the RKBA arms is a good one. Law abiding countries whose people are sovreign (democracies) should have, in my opinion, the legitimate right to nuclear weapons. I trust them with those weapons. On the other hand, criminal regimes (and yes, I think any non-democratic country or nation without basic freedoms is unjust by definition,) like criminal individuals, should lose their right to certain weapons.
I know that you are against individual ownership of firearms, one of our frequent points of disagreement, so I find it perplexing that you support, because of this principle, countries like Iran or Iraq under Saddam, having these weapons. It seems to me that you are the one lacking in consistancy. Perhaps you are trying to indicate that you consider Saddam and Ahmenabijads to be law abiding citizens of the world (clearly you are less convinced about Bush,) if that is your world view I am afraid that our perceptions are so different it will be difficult to arrive at any agreement.
There are many cases when I think nuclear weapons would be an appropriate response. If conventional weapons were unable to stop an aggressive power, for example, I would support a nuclear attack. This was U.S. policy in the event of a massive communist invasion of Europe during the cold war, and I think it a correct one.
I would also, as I have indicated, support using low yeild nuclear weapons to prevent criminal regimes from obtaining nuclear capability if other methods would not work.
Like many, I also support nuclear retaliation for a WMD attack.
The first consideration in war is how just the war is to begin with. That is a requirement whether we use nuclear weapons or sticks and stones. Another portion of just war is whether the damage we will do is proportionate. How the damage is cause, whether by nuclear weapon, or a million people with sticks and stones, doesn't really enter into the equation.
If a nuclear weapon will destroy an enrichment site and just kill those directly involved with it, I would find that a better choice than killing millions with sticks and stones on a march to the enrichment site to shut it down.
You mentioned that you cannot see any reason to use a nuclear weapon. Given that you seem to be against most uses of force, whether nuclear or not, that is unsurprising. Perhaps it would be more productive for you to explain when (if ever) massive use of non-nuclear force is justified and then explain why nuclear force is uniquely not justified in such a situation.
If, at the core, you don't believe force is justified at all, than the anti-nuclear arguements are just a red herring.
"I know that you are against individual ownership of firearms, one of our frequent points of disagreement, so I find it perplexing that you support, because of this principle, countries like Iran or Iraq under Saddam, having these weapons."
Dave, the answer is in there.
Perhaps it is because I live on the bottom of the globe (we are trying to change this at present...) but to many including yourself thinking down this way seems to be "inverted".
The possession of nuclear weapons by the likes of Iraq and Iran is totally not acceptable.
The parallel exists and is valid simply because the ROW sees the same kind of madness and irrationality in the present leadership of the US. That was the reason for my paranoid policeman comment (which you missed or ignored), the "beach bully" comparison, and this which again you missed or ignored -
Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?
Yeah, I know. You believe the fairy tales of the neocon set that Iran is hell bent on world domination.
What is the US doing?
Clear now?
And I am sorry, I tend to be a Connoisseur of wines rather than nuclear weapons. For me a bomb is a bomb; some make a bigger bang than others; all have the same purpose.
Do I think that GWB is a paranoid psychopathic maniac? I am not qualified to determine that. I am sure that sooner rather than later someone will come up with the answer...
Yes I ignored your paranoid policeman and beach bully comment. I am aware that you characterize the U.S. that way. I disagree. It seems unlikely that one of us will convince the other.
Do you believe that if the U.S. gave up its nuclear arsenal that Iran would abandon its quest for nuclear weapons?
I do not believe that. It would, I think, make ownership of nuclear weapons more, not less desirable. They are useful regardless, but they are really useful if you are the only one who has them. During the breif period when the U.S. was the only nuclear power it could have, if it desired, wiped out the Soviet Union (or pretty much anyone it wanted to.) It didn't do that of course, but I am not sure that all nations would be as benevolent if they had that sort of option.
You said, "The possession of nuclear weapons by the likes of Iraq and Iran is totally not acceptable."
I will take you at your word with that. I have to wonder though, what actions would you support to prevent such a thing. It seems clear to me that you don't think a military option is acceptable, so what do you advocate we do?
You seem far more interested in claiming that Iran's desire for these weapons is reasonable than advocating a course to prevent such a thing.
Dave, a very simple question to start -
When you say "we", do you mean "we" as America alone, or is it "we" as including the ROW?
Y'see, it makes a very great difference to how the ROW feels on this (or any other) topic involving America. How to win friends and influence people does not start with the premise "You are either with us or against us in this".
If the "we" is inclusive, and I have part of the debate then I thank you and ask with respect that there are other alternatives that could be examined and considered.
The paranoid policeman came from your example, the beach bully was mine. There let that rest.
Do you believe that if the U.S. gave up its nuclear arsenal that Iran would abandon its quest for nuclear weapons?
Wrong question Dave. The US nuclear arsenal is a fact of life. There is as much chance of that disappearing as there is of Mugabe becoming a political saint or Ahmenabijad the next Pope.
The question that should be asked is -
What do you believe would entice Iran into abandoning its nuclear weapon ambitions?
A good start would have been to NOT label Iran as "axis of evil" just because the mullahs made an easy target for the rhetoric of the time. Treating them as equals, as people with intelligence instead of "ragheads" might have helped. But I fear that we are destined to hear far more of that over the months ahead. The words were said, meant and intended. They and the insults that went with them are beyond recall. WE have to overcome the consequences.
Think on this for a moment -
Is there any significance to the fact that Iran's military nuclear ambitions were silent, not on the scene, until after the publication of the "Mohammed" cartoons?
Actually doing something about Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine instead of giving tacit if not active approval might have helped, might still help. No, not to the extreme of "abandoning Israel"; like recognising the Palestinian government, requiring Israel to observe the intent of international law even if it does not apply, even to putting pressure on the Israeli government to relinquish the areas occupied in 1967 - Jerusalem? dunno.
Seeking Islamic assistance in getting your sorry asses out of Iraq might help. Indonesia might be willing, given enough assistance and support at home. So might the likes of Yemen, UAR, Brunei or even Saudi Arabia. The difficulty there is of course that none of the Islamic nations have any incentive to help. After all, they all have been well and truly tarred and feathered by the extreme right wing in America. Why should they help?
Behind all of this would have to be a paradigm shift - from the present "do as I say but not as I do", to "OK, we might not agree on the rights and wrongs, but this is totally wrong on both sides and we both have to find the right."
There used to be a principle in this world - it led to co-existance if not peace. It led to partnerships, not hatreds. It led to understanding, not bigotry.
It changed at 9/11.
Tolerance went out the window. Diplomacy went out the door. Consensus was flushed down the toilet.
It was replaced by nationalistic self-interest. It was overcome by political expediency. It was abandoned in the heat of patriotic grief and anger.
DON'T tell me that I do not understand.
NZ suffered at the hands of government sponsored terrorism long before 9/11. Only one person died, that is true. The ROW just didn't know, and only shrugged if they did. It didn't matter. And the perpetrator was a good buddy (at that time) of the US. But NZers felt the bombs. We saw the Rainbow Warrior sunk at her berth. We waited for the investigation and justice to take its course. We were glad when finally the French government acknowledged its action - kinda.
I CARE when I see a great nation beating itself to death in a vain attempt to extract some measure of petty revenge for the actions of a few criminals.
I CARE when that great nation takes on the visage of the worst of its enemies.
I CARE when the leadership of that great nation seems hell bent on repeating the same mistakes again and again.
And I CARE when ordinary people are misled and duped into believing that there is only one way.
The 'we' in, "so what do you advocate we do?" Is as inclusive as you want it to be. What do you advocate America should do? What do you advocate the ROW should do? What do you advocate you and I should do?
If there is some other 'we' that is confusing you please let me know.
The 'you are with us or against us' had very specific context. Bush never said you are with us or against us on Iraq. He has never said you are with us or against us on Iran. He did say you are with us or against us in fighting terror.
This is a signal that we would consider state sponsorship of terror, or states allowing terror groups to operate with impunity from within their borders (such as Afghanistan's relationship with Al-Qaida) to be a causus belli.
I happen to think that this is a very good policy. Allowing a global terrorist group to operate with impunity and commit acts of war upon another nation should be the same as if the allowing nation itself committed the act of war.
Regardless of that though, saying what we should not have done isn't very useful. Unless you have a time machine handy, we can't change that.
The U.S. has in fact put considerable pressure on Israel. Our official position is to promote the roadmap and work toward a 2 state solution. Internal politics in Israel have made this difficult, but progress is being made. The Palestinian negotiating posture has not been helpful at all though. I highly doubt that Iran would decide that it didn't need nuclear weapons if the 1967 boundaries were restored in full (and those boundaries are not entirely sensible in any event)
I don't think any nation that wanted to help in Iraq has been refused. I don't think you are at all correct in supposing Muslim nations not wanting to help is primarily a result of any right wing rhetoric from America. I think it much more a result of having little to gain and a lot to lose by joining in. Most Muslim nations don't have a lot of excess military capacity and would be threatened by internal extremist elements if they joined in. We are of course cooperating with many of the nations you mentioned in anti-terrorist activities.
I don't know where you get the idea that Iran's nuclear ambitions were silent and not on the scene before the publishing of the mohammad cartoons. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been a major concern for years and the subject of feverish diplomatic efforts by the Europeans. The issue was catapulted onto the front pages of the papers again in Jan. due to a decision by Iran to resume enriching uranium. Are you implying that the concern over Iran is artificially manufactured because of the cartoon controversy and their is a conspiracy involved? What are you trying to say here.
"There used to be a principle in this world - it led to co-existance if not peace. It led to partnerships, not hatreds. It led to understanding, not bigotry.
It changed at 9/11.
Tolerance went out the window. Diplomacy went out the door. Consensus was flushed down the toilet."
If this is true, and before 9/11 everything was wonderful and we were all at peace, why did they fly those planes into our buildings?
Perhaps before 9/11 the world was not as wonderful as you think it was.
You solutions don't seem to me to be solutions at all. Basically, you make a premise that if the U.S. was just nicer, all the bad guys would become good guys. I don't think that is realistic.
The Israeli-Palestinian struggle will probably take decades to resolve. Whatever faults Israel has done, it is also perfectly clear than many, not the least of these being the President of Iran, would not be satisfied with any 'peace' that didn't include the destruction of Israel and a restoration of all that territory to Muslim control.
Have you ever heard of Al-Andalus? Are you aware the return of Al-Andalus do Islamic control is also a goal of Al-Qaida? After we abandon Israel, should we abandon Spain?
I don't think that the Rainbow Warrior sinking went unnoticed. It was big news at the time. I also don't think your characterization of France as a good buddy of the U.S. in 1985 is very accurate. France was not a member of NATO at that time. Certainly France wasn't an 'enemy' of the U.S. but they were not precisely an ally either.
Beyond that, while I don't condone the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, I do think you are making a rather too much of a big deal out of it. The guy that died wasn't even a New Zealander and if seeing a sunken boat promoted lifelong trauma in you perhaps you need a bit stiffer of a constitution. While France should not have done what it did, it is also important I think to remember that they did not intend to cause any deaths and their purpose was not to cause 'terror' but to simply prevent the Rainbow Warrior from demonstrating against their nuclear tests.
They were not justified in doing so, and tradgedy resulted but I am not sure if it is accurate to call it 'state sponsored terror' rather than state sponsored sabotage with tragic results.
You say we are out for revenge. I disagree. I believe we are trying to prevent such things from happening again. You other characterizations seem just as facile. It is particularly odd that you worry about us 'repeating our mistakes' while at the same time saying we need to look at things the same way we did before 9/11.
That would be, I think, repeating a mistake.
"Bush never said you are with us or against us on Iraq. He has never said you are with us or against us on Iran. He did say you are with us or against us in fighting terror."
The equate [WOT]=[Iraq] has been there for as long as the equate [Iraq]=[depose Saddam]. Listen to what GWB and Rummy are saying still. It is not between the lines - it is said outright and openly.
Perhaps before 9/11 the world was not as wonderful as you think it was.
In the very limited form of "the US was not out actively invading other nations on pretexts that were at best flimsy and vague, yes it was "better".
You say we are out for revenge. I disagree. I believe we are trying to prevent such things from happening again.
P.O.D. There are, there HAS to be better ways of redcing terrorism in the world. I say that now with sadness rather than anger because it is impossible to retrieve the position the world had before 9/11.
However, one might like to consider how long the Sri Lankan government has been trying to "prevent" suicide terrorism in its own country. That is how difficult the problem will be. Hmm, BTW I believe that the Tamil Tigers were the first to use suicide bombers as a weapon.
"It is particularly odd that you worry about us 'repeating our mistakes' while at the same time saying we need to look at things the same way we did before 9/11."
No, quite the reverse. We are still looking at "things" (particularly terrorism and its causes) in the same way that we did before 9/11.
We are still NOT looking to the real causes behind terrorism. We limit our thinking to "war against America". The protagonists using terrorism against America use this as their catch-cry as well.
But WHY did AlQaeda start? WHAT WAS in OBL's mind when he began his war? WHEN did that seed begin to germinate?
It is certain that OBL set out long long before 9/11. It is certain that events within two years prior were not the initial trigger...
Post a Comment