>>>If the report is true, could it be viewed that the attacks were not terrorism, per se, but an act of self-defence ? In the event that the Afghan government (or any other, for that matter) had issued threats of unprovoked military action against the US, would it have been acceptable for the US to take action to weaken that government - including attacks against that countries military & financial centres ?
>>
>>Len,
>>
>>The fact that information is coming out that shows that the attacks have been being planned for 4 years would mean that the Afghan government must have one hell of an oracle on their intellegence force.
>>
>>Are you making this point to stir things up? I just came back from NYC and if you saw what I saw and spoke to the people I met I don't believe you ever would have posed this question.
>>
>>Renoir
>
>I think there are many questions that need answering before more people start dying - and your President has admitted that this is going to involve deaths of more Americans in the process, it's not just a one way thing. Surely you want to minimise the number of additional dead Americans, or doesn't it matter how many more of your countrymen die.

Len, you can do better than use sophmoric debating techniques: I could respond "Surely you want to minimize the number of innocent women and children murdered by terrorists, who will certain continue to murder more if they are not stopped, or doesn't it matter to you how many innocents die?" Easy to do, but adds more heat than light.



>
Your government is also wanting to use other countries military, those countries should be asking questions before putting lives of their nationals on the line.

Your big assumption is, of course, that they have not and are not currently "asking questions." Do you know for a fact that they have not? The 'asking questions' ploy is a favorite harassing technique to stymie action even when the identity of the bad guys are well known.

>
It may have been just one man behind it all, but don't fall into the trap of believing that eliminating him, or even ousting the Taliban government will solve anything.

How do you know it is a 'trap'? Do you have insider knowledge of the plans of the terrorists that would suggest another billionaire radical muslim is standing by, ready to take Ben Laden's place? And if he does, so what? Have you so soon forgotten that Bush declared that this is a war againsts terrorists, plural, and it will be fought on all fronts, militarily, politically, and financial. We are going after them, all their assets and all their friends, be they individuals, organizations or countries, including Iraq, or Iran, or even Russia or China, if the trail leads there.

Like Bush said, either you are for the fight against terrorism or your are for the terrorists. There is no middle ground anymore.


>
Given the immense failure of you security services of the last 4 years, can you guarantee that an inappropriate response at this time will not lead to another atrocity in your own country.

So, if we do nothing to retailiate can you guarantee that the terrorists won't strike again? Of course you can't. In fact, given their past deeds and claims another attack is most likely regardless of what we do or don't do. By the way, if your country's security and spy networks are so great, did your country withhold information about the pending WTC attack? (No, I don't believe they did, but criticisms and attacks of the nature you're making are so easy as to be brainless.)

This criticisms reminds me of those made against pilots during VietNam. Did you know, Len, that the CIA as a spy agency was effectively made deaf, dumb and blind by US Senator Frank Church, who asked many 'questions' and confused enough people about who are the good guys and bad guys in the world, and that as a spy agency it has never yet fully recovered. You might think that is a good thing, but 6,433 people from America, including hundreds from other countries, including yours, might disagree, if they were given a chance. As far as 'guarantees', Len, can you guarantee that you or your country won't be on the target list? No? Neither can we. If it happens again, it happens. We are at war. My chances of being a victim in another atrocity is at least 6,433/270,000,000 or 1 out of 41,971. One lightening casuality occurs in the US for every 86,000 flashes, but you don't see people living in terror when ever a cloud floats overhead. Do you?


>
>The attack may have been 4 years in the planning & dry runs may have taken place, but that is no reason to believe that it would have taken place. Your armed forces have done many training exercises & have plans for use of nuclear weapons, does that mean that you are going to use them or just be ready in the event that you need to use them.

Excuse me? An attack having taken place is "no reason to believe that it would have taken place". What is going on in your brain? Are you smoking crack? By the way, your country, like mine, maintains military preparedness by utilizing training exercises. These exercises do not include targeting pre-emptive strikes on civilians in commerical buildings in the middle of density populated metopolitians. Even in the Gulf War allied forces took great pains to minimize danger to civilians and, thanks to much maligned smart weapons, were able to do so, except in those cases where Iraq officials housed their non-combatants in military targets in an attempt to protect the targets, not the civilians.


>
>To a large extent, yes, the comments are made to stir things up - to make people think about things. If some of those things are immensely uncomfortable to you, that does not mean they should not be discussed.

Don't flatter yourself. Your arguments are neither very original nor very lucid.

There are many people in the world who believe that American actions & attitudes are to some extent the reason behind the hatred, and this comes from many people who agree with the actions you are now prepared to take. If you close your eyes & ears to these views, & use specious arguments such as if I'd been there "I don't believe you ever would have posed this question", then you will never get the peace you claim to be looking for.

First, if this thread were reviewed the three monkey paradigm could best be used to describe your 'concerns' and no arguments could be more specious than those you have made. Perfect Chamberlin.

And, Len, there are many more who don't believe what you choose to believe so uncritically. When you remove radical muslim fundamentalists and their supporters, supporters of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine and those critics in Russia and China who do you have left? The usually crowd of leftist malcontents whose continual deconstruction of history and current events evidence some amazing mental gymnastics in support of their dogmas.

I am curious, Len, what is your opinion on America's actions in Somolia. Should we have left them to starve? When we did send aid, should we have left our aid workers undefended against Somolian warlords? And when the attacks on the soldiers began, should we have not armed them, but allowed them to be slaughtered? Ah, you say, we should have piled the grain on the docks and left, leaving the Somolians to distribute it. But, who would have made sure the grain didn't become the personal wealth of the warlords? Remember Ethiopia during the famine that starved several million? The USA sent hundreds of tons of grain to feed their starving. That grain sat on the docks and rotted while the Etheopian gov unloaded arms and munitions (from non- USA ships) with which to kill their own citizens. We were the bad guys then too, weren't we?