Well, someone, here or in another thread, talked about "massive retaliation" and something like global warfare in the middle-east in order to erradicate terrorism for ever. To me, that sounds very much like "arbitrarely murdering tens of thousands of innocents".
Whats the difference between that and terrorism?

To me, sending the troops and the bombs in not the solution.
The best way to get ben Laden is to send your spies to infiltrate his network, or pay an assassin. You know he's hiding in the mountains as we speak and no plane or tank can get to him.

This is war Paxx, not a law enforcement issue.

Most everyday Germans and Japanese in 1944 were probably good people. But many suffered. But not arbitrarily.

If you kill one dictator or terrorist another will simply take his place. The saying "if you cut the head off the body will die" is relavent. If you simply kill just Bin Laden then another person will take his place. By going after the government that supports the terrorists then we will in essence be cuttin off "the head." Or at least one of the main heads.

BTW frogboy that picture of the eagle is powerful and on my desktop.

One mans terrorist is often anothers hero. 1776 the British called Colonials terrorists. The Israelies before 1949 often used terrorist tactics against the Occuppying powers. Terrorism is often called the only weapon a poor nation has against a rich nation. This all sounds cruel but this is the way it is in our world. Most of the young people who are terrorist are deluded into this type of action by their leaders who stay safely behind the lines. They have very little to look forward too and can be manipulated into such actions by believing they can do some good for their own people. No I will not hate these people but I do believe that justice should be served. The British have a neat little contraption named the "Gibbet" that could be useful for the likes of Bin Landan. Anyway - may God,Jesus,Allah,Muhhamad,Confuscious,Budda, Keep us safe from each other. I believe they all are shedding a tear of two tonight.

I live in Australia. I woke up at 7am Wednesday morning (about 5pm Tuesday in the US) to find that every channel had "America Under Attack" on it. I was absolutely shocked that a terrorist attack of that magnitude could ever happen in the United States, and especially on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I just hope that the sick people who did this (I think bin Laden) get what they deserve, even if it means war. And if it does, we Aussies will be side by side with the Americans. God bless the victims of this tragedy.

Issues of world politics and agenda and culpability are too complex to be appropriately debated on a website forum.
My simple comment is.......

I am a human being, as are these terrorists.
Of that, I am ashamed.

I'm sorry, but bombing Afgan cities, buildings, hospitals, schools, to me, it's just arbitrarely as two planes crashing into the WTC... But you're right, it's called war. But I ask again, what the difference between war and terrorism? In both cases, innocent non-military people die. Both are based on punishment, and have for objective to terrorise the opposing country.
Attacking Afga cities would help in nothing. All might happen is the victim and tyran roles might change sides in the international opinion. And what would most definetly follow is more and worse terrorism to avange the dead ones. If the Afgan cities are bombed, I am almost certain some that the worst of terror will have yet to be seen in NY.
Bomb the training camps, sure, bomb Afgan military installation, fine, but bomb the civilians, make 10,000 innocent victims yourself and you become no better than the monsters who provoked you.

Nothing can justify such a horrible and cruel attack against people of different nationalities. My prayers go to the family and friends of the innocent victims of such an evil act.

I quit this descussion.
It is _paxx_ only, who understand the US policy -- bomb Jugoslavia (hiting chinese embassy) for it's inner affairs, support terrorist (thinking the guns will never be turned against US), planning the leveling of Afgan (or maybe Palestina) thinking the terrorists are somwhere in there.
Don't you all see the difference? There is no difference.

Bye.

SSL_tin,

Then that is unfortunate. Reading all the comments I think you will see much call for moderation and a focused approach to justice (not retaliation ... not revenge).

There are occassion extreme comments, but short term they can be excused to some extent due to anger, as long as in the longer term the approach is more rational.

Comments here are made on latest information. It has not been confirmed who carried out the attacks and therefore no specific reference to people or nations will be entirely accurate at this time.

_Martin_ - The UK media is definitely focussing on the international tragedy, but the way to avoid to mentality of "it was an attack on the US" is to strike home the local impact.

craeonics - Many of you would not have lost one moment of sleep over this, had it happenen in say, Cambodya.

in a sence this is the point i was trying to put into words. this tragerty has just clarified my perspective on this. it seems that one uk death is more news worthy (in the uk) than several deaths in france, and any number of deaths in a 3rd world contry.

i would like to think that this is just the way the media works, but i have the suspision that a lot of people think this was as well, even when all the people involved in a tragerty are strangers.

on the slightly different front of a reaction, i have encountered bullies over the years who would only respond (i.e. leave me alone) in the face of overwhelming threat. i found i had to either accept being a victim, or give the impression i was prepared to kill to make them go away. based on this, i can see the logic of devistating retaliation.

however, my actions were based on the fact that the bullies i was facing didnt want to die, and were ultimately weak. i stongly suspect that the threat of death would be far less effective against a group that has members prepared to make suicide attacks.

for this very reason i do hope that any american response is "sensible", and doesnt inflaim the situation. what i dont want to see is the "terrorists" acting in retaliation to a retaliation to a retaliation . . .

this seems to be what has happened with the terror groups in ireland, and such cycles can be self sustaining and esculating. and their real tragerty is that it is mainly (presumably) inocent bystanders who suffer

Feline,

Agree entirely. Most people cannot relate to this sort of thing, and obviously never will be able to unless directly involved.

I don't think that anyone here could honestly say they would feel the same if this tragedy was somewhere they had barely heard of involving people they cannot easily relate to. I'm not saying this is a correct attitude, just that it is true.

The more the press can more the incident a 'local' issue the more people can relate, the more they can sympathise

I saw the observance at Buckingham Palace yesterday. It was symbolic and very touching. I felt moved on a personal level. I just want to thank all of our friends across "the pond."
Not to leave anyone out, but Canada has also been very supportive, as well as Israel.

The Skins Factory and Frogboy, you seem to be very keen on going to war.

I don't think you have any clue what war means, probably you imagine it to be a video game where your weapon is a joystick. War means exactly what happened in New York, death and destruction. It usually happens somewhere else, that is why you are so shocked. Well, most of the world must live with this kind of shock on a daily basis and in most cases all this suffering is perceived by those people as being caused by US. If you understand this, then may be you will understand why some palestinians where happy.

To what extent suffering in today's world is really caused by US is a different question. Those people really believe this in the same way that US citizens really believe that their government is actually out there to help them. I think that both are extremes and that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

So, The Skins Factory and Frogboy, if you want to go to war, the first thing you should do is understand your enemy. Who is he? What makes him tick? Why is he your enemy? Why does he hate you? How is he perceiving you?

The media's response to these questions is that they are some religious fanatics that hate freedom and democracy. Really? Isn't this rather simplistic? Why are they after you and not somebody else? Do you know what those people's life is like?

Did you get a chance to read the Guardian article? Here is the link again:
guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551086,00.html

mariuss, this discussion is impossible in present times. To have an impartial position, one needs to be completely cold-headed, and right now you can't ask that of anybody.
Lets let some water under the bridges and discuss this at a later time.

mariuss this is war. You must be assuming i'm some little kid who is just spouting off. I am not. I know who is America's and the free world's enemies are. I know their views on our foreign policies and why they have anger towards America. I read. While some of their anger may be legitimate, there will never be, NEVER BE any justification for the murder they have committed. I firmly support any action that rids our world of people who consider random murder, hate and violence a justifiable means to voice their anger. For the governments who support these kind of people i will watch their countries fall and consider it justice.

typo: was supposed to read who consider violence a justifiable means to express their anger.

"While some of their anger may be legitimate, there will never be, NEVER BE any justification for the murder they have committed. I firmly support any action that rids our world of people who consider random murder, hate and violence a justifiable means to voice their anger."
This is my point as well, I totally agree!

The reason I am posting on this thread is because I see most of the people here expressing they anger through violence, and that saddens and scares me.

Mariuss:

Your doctrine of non- or limited-violence is simply wrong. You're speaking from the point of view of someone who believes this violence to be wrong, and think that if the causes of this hatred are addressed then the violence will stop.

In the view of these Muslim fanatics we are not evil because of what we've done, we're evil because of what we are. We've sided with Israel and for that simple reason must be destroyed. Changing that will not change the attitude, because we are still infidels whose government is not ruled by Islam.

In many interviews Osama bin Laden has criticized his own home of Saudi Arabia because the government does not prevent evil behaviour like drinking. This is one of his main themes, and he blames the US for SA's policy on this. He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.

Do you see that this has less to do with policy than it does with ideology? As Americans we strive (not always successfully) to secure freedoms in many ways. In the fanatical Islamic culture every aspect of life is overseen by your knowledge of scripture, and if you're unsure you must consult an elder to interpret for you. These views are diametrically opposed.

It takes two to make peace, but only 1 to make war. Nothing we can do will secure us, short of eradicating the threat. I'm sorry, but this is basic human nature.

################################################
He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.
#################################################
Women being submissive is in almost all religions. Take this guy and his camp out. You will only do a favor to all. Being Mosmel I know this guy should be punished by the people around him. Instead, they are lawding him. This will be a favor to all including Moslems.

Correction:
*Mosmel
Moslem
I had family friends killed in that attack. And I'm not gonna get over this soon.

datarat,

Yes, it takes two for peace and one for war.
Yes, dim Laden is a monster.

So you go to war against Afghanistan. You will use Pakistan as a base. After hundreds of thousand killed through bombings and starvation, you will be satisfied (with or without killing bim Laden). After you leave there is going to be a war for many years between Afghanistan and Pakistan, more killed. At the end there will be millions dislocated, with their lives destroyed. Now you can turn to the families of the 5000 victims from New York and tell them: you are revenged, you should feel much better now.

As for those millions, all are potential terrorists.

So what do you achieve? You just proved that you are the toughest gorilla in the jungle. Because other than satisfying your ego, you do nothing. As somebody else mentioned here, eventually you will have to nuke the whole planet to get rid of terrorists. I hope that there is another way.

If you really care about those 5000 victims, and not your ego, then you won't be so hasty to kill again.

As for bim Laden, after all he was trained by CIA and he was a business partner of your leaders for many years (same story with Sadam). As long as he serves your interests he's fine. When he turns against you he suddenly becomes a monster. Well, he was a monster all along, but he terrorized some other people and probably he was called a partisan at that time.

JUST IN A FEW MONTHS OR EVEN DAYS WE WILL BE AT WAR . WHO KNOW MIGHT THIS BE THE END OF THE WORLD. AFHGANISTAN IS THE TARGET NOW KNOWN BUT THE ENEMY IS NOT. BIN LADEN IS SURE A CRAZY MAN TO US. BUT DO WE KNOW THAT THAT TERRORIST MIGHT BEFORE WE ATTACK HIM OR THOSE WHO SUPPORT TERRORIST ACTIONS ATTACK U.S.A. AGAIN. BIN LADEN HAS CURRENTLY ABOUT 300 MILLION DOLLARS BUT HE OFTENLY LIVES IN CAVERNS AND EATS VERY LITTLE. HE HAS MEN THAT ARE PROBABLY VERY WELL TRAINED AND ARE WILLING TO DIE JUST TO KILL THOUSANDS OF THEIR ENEMYS. THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST WAR IN HISTORY OF MAN BUT IT WILL NOT BE THE LAST I REGRET. I HAVE FEAR THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE DESTROYED AND THAT PEOPLE INNOCENT HAVE TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT SINNERS HAVE DONE.
WELL THAT IS ALL I HAD TO SAY.
AND I HOPE THE VICTIMS DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER. AND THE ONES THAT DIED R.I.P.