Let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands

Ted Koppel: Nine years after 9/11, let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands

You may be required to logon.

Renaud wrote: Ted Koppel: Nine years after 9/11, let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands

You may be required to logon.

I'll get to the link later, but here's my 2 cents...When you're in a fight and you get punched in the face, you don't go down to the ground and start screaming "Oh that hurt! It hurt so much! Oh my god that hurt!"...Thats what this country and these "tough talking" republicans here did..When you get sucker punched you don't let em know it hurt! Have you republicans ever been in a fight in your lives!?

I have been shocked and embarrassed by my countries reaction to 911...

America- land of the used to be free and home of the cowards

VL,

You could not be more wrong.

Though... I do think there was a better way to respond to what happened nine years ago today.

Forget hunting in the desert, forget risking lives, forget harboring futitives in the name of liberty and worrying about civil rights for individuals who, for all intents and purposes, should be considered POWs. Give them Geneva, and nothing, not even a smidgen, more.

We should have retaliated like the country that we are. We should have lashed out with the full force that our country can muster and wiped out the threat in a calculated wave of destruction that left no question what will happen to an individual or group who decides that they think attacking us is a good idea.

How do you win over a dog whose attitude is to attack first? How do you train a primal animal that relies on insticts? You convince the dog of your dominance, whether through force or a show of force. Understanding its feelings and trying to be nice to an animal is all well and good, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. Respond with force, and allow the primal understand that you are dominant and this fact will not be questioned. Retaliate in a way that puts fear into the hearts of those that would stand against you, and win the war. No rebuilding, no assistance, not even a moment's hesitation.

What we've done is show that by harming America, you'll throw us down a long and winding road that leads to spending billions of dollars on rebuilding other countries to your benefit; and hide in a cave long enough, and we'll rebuild the country right around you... all while furthering the hated of America.

There *was* a better way to respond, but we've long since missed that opportunity. The next time around, (and there will be a next time, it's now a matter of when) I hope we have a President who will step up and show the might of the United States. Defeat the monster by becoming a monster. It may not be "moral", it may not be "right", but it will lead to the fewest lives lost, and the most nationwide security, period.

Thoughtful and spot on article.

I agree. We did most of this to ourselves, pushed by fear mongers.

From the article:

The insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such "missiles" with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq, and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned.

RCCL wrote: VL,

You could not be more wrong.

Though... I do think there was a better way to respond to what happened nine years ago today.

Forget hunting in the desert, forget risking lives, forget harboring futitives in the name of liberty and worrying about civil rights for individuals who, for all intents and purposes, should be considered POWs. Give them Geneva, and nothing, not even a smidgen, more.

We should have retaliated like the country that we are. We should have lashed out with the full force that our country can muster and wiped out the threat in a calculated wave of destruction that left no question what will happen to an individual or group who decides that they think attacking us is a good idea.

How do you win over a dog whose attitude is to attack first? How do you train a primal animal that relies on insticts? You convince the dog of your dominance, whether through force or a show of force. Understanding its feelings and trying to be nice to an animal is all well and good, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. Respond with force, and allow the primal understand that you are dominant and this fact will not be questioned. Retaliate in a way that puts fear into the hearts of those that would stand against you, and win the war. No rebuilding, no assistance, not even a moment's hesitation.

What we've done is show that by harming America, you'll throw us down a long and winding road that leads to spending billions of dollars on rebuilding other countries to your benefit; and hide in a cave long enough, and we'll rebuild the country right around you... all while furthering the hated of America.

There *was* a better way to respond, but we've long since missed that opportunity. The next time around, (and there will be a next time, it's now a matter of when) I hope we have a President who will step up and show the might of the United States. Defeat the monster by becoming a monster. It may not be "moral", it may not be "right", but it will lead to the fewest lives lost, and the most nationwide security, period.

You just don't get it- Weve been in their sh** for years, and the first time they retaliate you act like were under attack. You know all about the crimes of others but you no nothing about our crimes...You're ignorant

Al Quaida hates us for many things, and even if we stopped 90% of them, they would still attack us because of something we did decades ago. Even that poor Euro cartoonist is still hiding out.

Vice Lord wrote: You just don't get it- Weve been in their sh** for years, and the first time they retaliate you act like were under attack. You know all about the crimes of others but you no nothing about our crimes...You're ignorant

I see you and Ward Churchill must have a lot in common, huh?

I'm not ignorant, I know the facts. I don't see it how you do, though, that much is obvious. We were attacked on 9/11. Terrorism is a clear and constant threat, it always has been. Before, however, it's been mostly outside our borders, anymore... not so much. I'm not saying we should police the world, but I'm not for isolationism either. This particular instance has left us promising to rebuild countries and getting no vengeance, and deterring very little terrorism long-term.

We could offer an apology, flowers, money, long term peace, 40 acres & a mule, and safe passage, and I'll guarantee you those who hate America and its people will still find reasons behind the terrorism they will inflict upon us. We have discouraged nothing, we will discourage nothing. There should have been only one course of action.

Good point RCCL

The Israelis have been very good at defending themselves from conventional warfare because of nuclear weapons. In essence, you invade Israel, we will nuke your capital. So even though they are surrounded by millions more intent on erasing them off the map, no one has invaded since the 1970's. But although the Jews have stopped the armies of their enemies, terrorists still continue to attack and fire missiles.