> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
>
> I am not going to get into this debate.
>
> After all, you and others will write:
> "John, some very terrible and awful things have been done in the name of
> the United States in the past."
>
> And I will respond:
> "Yes, in the past the United States has made some very terrible decisions
> and mistakes while trying to do what we thought was best for the
> world. In
> so doing, the United States came perilously close to participating in the
> very sort of evilness we were trying so desperately to fight.
> Yet, as bad
> and as wrong as these things were, they did not constitute active
> state-sponsored terrorism."
Basically OK with what you say. And I sure don't want to start/contribute to
a slanging match.
What you've written above would be nice to hear from the US government
actually.
snip
> To be state-sponsored an act must
> consciously and deliberately either carried out on behalf of, or supported
> by, a government.
I fully agree with this definition.
>In the case of the United States, whenever any actions
> that have come close to meeting the above defintion, and were carried out
> in our name, have been brough to our attention, the United States, its
> people and government have universally reacted with revulsion. We have
> never supported the kililng of random innocent civilians in order
> to spread
> fear and terror among an entire populus of innocent civilians.
>
While querying the two words "universally" and "never" I agree that in
almost all cases this is correct. And gladly so.
> This reaction of the United States stands in stark contrast to
> the reaction
> of Afghanistan and Iraq, whom at bare minimum, have publicly supported the
> vicious acts of terrorism carried out on September 11th. Moreover, it is
> almost certain that both governments plan to aid and abet those people who
> did this in their attempts to do this again.
I am yet to be convinced that the Taliban as a unit has provided direct
support consciously and directly to bin Laden for this attack. Bombing a US
warship (USS Cole) might have been supported, I doubt that such an attack on
this against the civilian target of the WTC will have been actively
supported.
The Taliban have undoubtedly let bin Laden build training centres in their
territory. I doubt they are fully aware of what goes on there. That is, it
is possibly something like the Branch Dravidian compound at Waco. That bin
Laden sends recruits to fight for the Taliban is probably seen as a bonus.
It is most likely that bin Laden does far more to support Taliban than they
do to support him. He has money, they do not.
>
> The difference between the United States and Iraq and Afghanistan in
> regards to terrorism is so stark and clear, I know that it is not
> arguable.
> So, I will accept this point of agreement that Iraq and Afghanistan have
> plunged to a new low in terms of state-sponsored terrorism - and leave the
> examination of how much support the United States actually gave to every
> brutal act carried out in its name to another time and another place.
>
Apart from, the link between this attack and a "consciously and deliberately
(supported attack) either carried out on behalf of, or supported by, a
government" has not yet been proven.
If bin Laden is shown to be the perpetrator, then Afghanistan should be
asked to hand him over. If they refuse, a military incursion - SAS/Special
Forces style, not Desert Storm style - is justified. Unless "direct and
conscious" Afghan government involvement is similarly proven, no action
other than in direct support of the military incursion - such as taking out
whatever command, control and communications in the area Afghanistan still
has - should be taken against them.
Brett
