I got to work at 4:30 am today since we were ordered to report to work on time at 6:30 am and it took me a couple hrs yesterday to get through the security gates at the base I work at. But it doesn't bother me the least, and neither would having a harder time getting onto a plane due to increased security measures. What happened was horrible, I'm still at a loss when realizing how many people must have lost their lives. Think about how a couple thousand people look like if they were to be standing in front of you. And then imagine them no longer being there. And for the ones who lost their lives saving the lives of others, we must never take for granted their bravery for what they feel is simply doing their jobs.
Now on to the subject. I've browsed through many of the thoughts on retaliation from "flipping nukes" (both literally and metaphorically) to the current thoughts on ground war. From the beginning I'm sure all of us realize how difficult it is to accomplish what we're trying to do. Terrorists do not constitute a clearly defined bunch of ppl like a country. Although Afghanistan has been brought up in the media a lot, I read a BBC report on their website that contained a few words from a Kabul resident... the resident mentioned that not everyone in Afghanistan necessarily likes the Taliban or Bin Laden. When it comes to retaliation, you don't really want to cause these ppl to have a reason to hate you also. We want to punish the ones who are responsible, and then as the current idea goes, to fight ALL terrorism. Yet picking them out may be as difficult or more difficult because terrorists transcend the usual personal identifiers when it comes to war (race, uniform, skin color, etc.) Without evidence pointing directly to particular people, you face problems similar to figuring out who was Viet Cong and who wasn't. And you must agree that identifying them by the fact that they are the ones either shooting at you, or the ones who just tossed a grenade at your buds is insufficient. I don't think we can rely on the media to tell us either. As Bin Laden is a prime suspect, it was pointed out by several who were interviewed that getting him doesn't necessarily mean the end of terrorism in the middle east. Yet you have to wonder when the media continually mentions these key words and names in various contexts whether their intended points get lost.. you know, like mentioning that Bin Laden is a prime suspect, then after a while of continual droning this will be taken to mean that Bin Laden is responsible. To me, the media has that effect if you take what they give you without any thought. However, the media should be given credit for at least trying. I've read another BBC report where Bin Laden is more like a major sponsor of terrorism.. sort of like where different independent groups come to him with an idea or proposal and he provides his support though funding/equipment/manpower. This brings us to another form of retaliation which may be simultaneous with methods of force.
Where do they get the money to get plane tickets, education, and equipment? Without money, a lot of this "long range" terrorism is not possible. Does anyone know if there may be bank accounts (presumably Swiss?) where they store/withdraw/accumulate funds? Seizing their money would be one way of "starving them out." It wouldn't eliminate the problem, since there are always other ways to accomplish objectives, hence this in conjunction with other measures can be adopted. This also doesn't do much for those whom we can't identify, especially ones who have some means of funding these activities on their own, for example some may have acquired jobs locally (which brings us back to the identification problem).
So what are your thoughts on the identification/retaliation problems?
mauser
