While relatively new to this forum many have recognized my position opposing both terrorism and tyranny regardless of the source. I universally condemn both even when it means condemning the actions of my own government. This is not a recent position that I have taken and I would like to share an editorial that I wrote which was published in our local newspaper ten years ago in Aug 1998. It reflects my position at the time and that position has not changed although many events have occured since then.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

What, 37 people have read this thread and not one person disagrees with it? While it is certainly my view I am surprised that not a single Neo-Con has responded by saying that killing more people (i.e. tyranny) is the answer to terrorism.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

Well said, but I do have one question for you.

Should we continue to find and capture Osama Bin Laden or should we let him go?

__________________
Youth Politics

Email: crowtche@juniorpolitics.com

I can only offer my opinion and I do not profess to be a wise man.

There is a criminal indictment against Osama bin Ladin for the 1998 US embassy attacks so of course we should continue our efforts to apprehend him and bring him to justice on those charges. But realize, terrorism is a criminal offense that is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department and, because of the international issues, the State Department.

We believe that bin Ladin is in Pakistan and the State Department should be working with the Pakistani government in their efforts to apprehend him. As we know this relates to a region in Pakistan where the government has little control but they have been increasing their influence and control of the area recently. He may never be brought to justice but bringing him to justice is the perfect solution with one caveat (I'll address that).

What we don't want is the US military invading Pakistan from Afghanistan and killing bin Ladin. That only makes him a martyr which increases the influence his message has had on millions of people. It would also enrage millions of Muslims if the US invaded Pakistan as well also reinforcing the message of al Qaeda instead of neutralizing it which is what we really need to do.

If Pakistan can capture bin Ladin then we could extradite him to the US for trial. It needs to be a public trial with all of the Constitutional rights of the accussed being enforce. It cannot appear to be a kangaroo court if you understand my meaning. Hoepfully we can obtain a conviction but it we did then I would highly recommned against the death penalty (my caveat). Unquestionably he deserves it but one again that would probably make him a martyr in many peoples eyes and we don't want that. Sentencing him to life imprisonment without possibility of parole would amaze the Muslim world because most of them would think that all we wanted to do was kill him and had jury-rigged the trial. Life without parole would show great mercy and would defuse any "blowback" against the United States.

This, IMHO, is the right thing to do but doing the right thing doesn't always provide the results you might desire. Bin Ladin may never be captured but at least we could not be condemned for our efforts because we would be adhering to the Rule Of Law.

Remember, one of the things the US is condemned for the most, especially by bin Ladin and al Qaeda is the hypocracy of America. Americans have rights but US governnment routinely violates the rights of others in foreign lands. We need to stop doing that and our government should treat all people, anywhere in the world, the same. Our ideals are praised even by bin Ladin but if we don't live by them we're cited for our hypocracy which is evident to everyone.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

The same attitude with respect to terror the US also
assumed in Kosovo. Until the end of 1998 they declared --
rightly -- the Kosovar Liberation Army UCK was a terrorist
organization, a drugs gang. Still the US decided to support
the UCK since their terror was in the interest of the West.
The increasing violence between Kosovars and Serbs procured
Nato a pretext to bombard Yugoslavia and invade and occupy
Kosovo.

Afghanistan

From 1979 till 1989 a guerilla war was waged against the
Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan. The insurgents were
armed by the United States with Stinger rockets and
financed by the Saudi wealth of Ben Laden (9). However,
after having dislodged the Soviet army the Afghan Shiite
national bourgeoisie of president Najibullah leant towards
Iran, which was a thorn in the flesh of the United States.
The US and Saudi-Arabia therefore supported the Taliban, a
Sunnite Muslim organization operating from Pakistan (10).
In October 1996 the Taliban captured the capital Kabul and
Ben Laden became a national hero. The Taliban since advance
on the north and now threaten the neighbouring country of
Uzbekistan.

As I noted in my 1998 editorial the motivation for terrorism is overwhelmingly based upon the perception of tyranny (oppression) by those that commit such acts. Obviously I reached this conclusion by listening to what they were saying and my beliefs have been reinforced by our own National Intelligence Estimate which cited exactly those factors.

While I generally refer to tyranny as the actions of governments and terrorism as actions of individuals that isn't completely true. A government can be both tyrannical and terroristic. Of course I am referring to war where both of these occur because the entire basis for military conduct in war is to be both tyrannical in their actions and to instill terror into the enemy. Carpet bombing with a B-52 is intended to strile terror into the hearts of the enemy and having been close to one it does... even when they're no your side it can scare the crap out of you.

But I degress and my point is that you cannot defeat an enemy that is responding to a perceived act of tyranny by commiting more acts of tyranny. You can not justify being opposed to terrorism if you support terrorists.

We also, as Americans, have to realize that we cannot stop terrorism in the world. At best we can stop terrorism against the United States. We can only do that by removing the reason for terrorism against the United States and that demands that we stop commiting acts that can even be perceived as acts of tyranny. We need to stop our involvement in wars in the Middle East. We need to remove our troops which are reflective of tyranny to those that currently target us. We need to disassociate ourselves from regimes that are judged to be oppressive or tryannical.

The NeoCon response is typically, "You can't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy" and my response is, "They're not." Do Americans really want to be associated with tyrannical regimes? Are they reflective of our values? Do we really support the oppression of People by governments?

We, as people, are often judged by the company we keep and there is no difference when it comes to nations. If we form tight relationships with tryannical regimes we will be judged to be tyrannical even if we do nothing. We will be "perceived" to be tyrannical by association.

That does not mean breaking off diplomatic relations with those countries and, in fact, we should reach out diplomatically to those nations we shun or call enemies today.

And when our act is cleaned up and we have diplomatic relations with all nations we should be highly critical of any oppression or tyrannical actions by any nation. I don't care if it Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China, or the Britian, if they screw up the United States must be highly vocal in protest. But we must be even handed and cannot ignore the actions of a "friend" while condemning virtually identical actions by an "enemy" because that is hypocracy.

We are a superpower and all nations will listen to us but only if we are honest in our dealings with all nations and if we live by the ideals that America is founded upon both domestically and internationally. And our enemies will listen to us because we will have established a diplomatic dialogue based upon our ideals and because we actually live by those ideals.

No, such a change in our policies are not dictated by the terrorists, they are what we should do if we truly believe in the ideals of America. End the hypocracy and we will no longer have to fear the terrorists. Other countries will but they reap what they sow. If they are tyrannical they will be targets. If they stop being tryannical they will stop being targets. It is the ultimate solution to the threat of terrorism...

But perhaps I live in Fantasyland. How many Americans truly believe in those ideals upon which America was founded. How many are willing to put their agendas subordinate to those ideals?

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

The instances where the United States has supported organizations which engage in acts of terrorism are too numerous to list. This act of supporting terrorism while at the same time condemning it is rightfully seen as hypocracy.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

I'm somewhat amazed that those neo-cons that support US military interventionism haven't addressed the editorial I posted on this thread. They often talk about addressing the threat of terrorism but when the matter is logically addressed showing that the War on Terrorism based upon military interventionsim is doomed to failure they don't seem to want to respond.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

You're asking ideologues questions that require thought. I've always thought terrorism needs to be fought as we did the mafia or kkk. Below are few pieces you may find interesting.



Nationalism not religion

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-21.htm

and

"The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said."

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741/

__________________
"We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible." Barack Obama