How should we have gone after those responsible for 9/11?

[trumad]

There are quite a few DUers, etc out there that were and still are opposed to the attack on Afghanistan and our current presence in that country.

After 9/11, I recall the Taliban government giving us the big FU and protecting al-Qaeda in their country.

So how should we have gone after those responsible?

[Wednesdays]

1. Impeachment.

nt

[WritersBlock]

22. That was my first thought, too. GMTA. n/t

[baldguy]

2. With Pres Gore in office, there have been no attacks.

[H2O Man]

6. I agree. n/t

[rfranklin]

3. Maybe actually determine who was responsible?

I know it's a radical idea but there has yet to be a credible investigation of who was behind the attack. Initially tall, thin Osama bin Laden said he was not involved. And the "confession" by the short, fat Osama bin Laden is highly suspect.

[planetc]

10. Yes, precisely

And I agree (sorrowfully) with you that it is still a radical idea to find out first exactly what happened that day. Having established that, we could have gone on to target our efforts at preventing another such attack at those who were actually responsible.

The response of the Bush administration, and of virtually every member of Congress was to do the obvious thing to confront the announced enemy. But who announced the enemy? On what evidence?

As we can see from the many unofficial investigations that followed the events, we have at this moment no idea of either what happened exactly, or who caused it to happen.

All we know for sure is that it provided great cinema--the spectacle of the burning and collapsing towers was outstanding, humongous. It certainly deserves an Oscar. The perpetrators deserve all our attention and a suitable punishment.

When will we be able to interest our leaders in finding out who was responsible?

[frylock]

21. word up!

Cheneyco fought every step of the way to prevent the events of 911 from being investigated.

[maine_raptor]

4. 9/11 was a criminal act, not a declaration of War.

First off, let me say that I'm a "let it happen" believer, ok?

When bin Laden ordered/approved the attacks, he committed a crime. When the attacks happened another crime was committed.

This should have NEVER been called an act of war. Doing so gives political credence and recognition to your opponent that they actually do not deserve. And by treating it as a criminal matter, you demean the "prestige" that any results of the attack give the attacker.

When the Tailban gave us and the world, I might add, that big FU, then they were guilty of a crime.

Had 9/11 been treated solely as a criminal act, then the world would have been in a far better state than it is today.

[jschurchin]

5. Well since 15 of the 19............

hijackers were Saudi nationals. I still don't believe we have addressed the nation responsible for the attacks.

[roody]

7. With a criminal investigation.

[Richard D]

9. Exactly. (nt)

[Junkdrawer]

16. Investigate the links between Big Oil (Cheney), the perps (Saudis) and the Rogue CIA...

Like all murderers, they'll do it again if they think they need to.

[BushOut06]

8. Same way we handled Libya and the Pan-Am bombing

We knew that Libya was harboring the terrorists who planned the Pan-Am bombing. Yet we didn't attack Libya, and we most certainly didn't invade them or try to overthrow Qadhafi. We imposed sanctions on Libya, and eventually they handed over the suspects to stand trial.

What has our invasion of Afghanistan really accomplished? Both Bin Laden and Moammar Omar are still free.

[windbreeze]

11. the first thing we

should have done, was consider we were being lied too...who told us the Taliban was responsible? There should have been an impartial and thorough investigation into the whole situation, BEFORE we attacked anyone...hell, Bush had given Afghanistan a $43 million grant in May of 2001....the Taliban were the ruling class in Afghanistan at that time, and BinLaden was the undisputed leader....why the hell would they (he)then turn around and attack us us less than 4 months later??? yes, it was supposedly for humanitarian aid, but it makes no difference, you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg...
windbreeze

[Bigmack]

12. How to go after those responsible for 9-11? Quietly...

After 9-11, Dumbya made a speech in which he said we were going to war with those responsible, and that a lot of our retaliation would be quiet and covert.

I had hopes that Dumbshit would actually be subtle and clever. Wrong!

The US should have gone slowly and methodically, finding those responsible and killing them or capturing them and bringing them back for trial. It would have taken time to build our intelligence and investigate the case, but the Boy Texan doesn't like all that moseying or pussyfooting or whatever the real men call it. Nothing would have quieted terrorism like the sudden disappearance/death of hundreds of leading figures in Al-Quieda.

You think the subtle (but brutal) approach sounds impossible? Think Mossad. Think Eichmann. Think Entebbe. Strong measures, but not the bull-in-the-china-shop approach Bush has used.

Shit... if we had offered the Israelis the contract... and paid them $200 billion... the job would have been done in no time and cheap, to boot.

Instead, we send in a military ill-equipped for anti-insurgency, an intelligence service ill-equipped for anything, and Halliburton.

I'm not an Israel booster.... just saying their subtlety has worked better than our invasions. Where Israel has failed recently is in their seeming acceptance of the heavy-handed US-style approach.

Note: All of this presupposes that I believe the mis-administration's explanations of what actually happened on 9-11. I don't. I'm a LIHOP supporter, tending toward MIHOP..... kind of an EIHOP (Encourage It to Happen).

[bigtree]

13. CIA, FBI, infiltration, stealth, leading to some targeted airstrikes, perhaps

think of the potential for isolating of the suspected perps without the invasions and occupations stirring up hatred and recriminations.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[leftofthedial]

14. a legitimate investigation for starters

followed by the impeachment of those responsible.

As for the relatively minor problem of real terrorists, terrorism is a crime that is best addressed through intelligence and law enforcement, not large scale military action.

But if we invaded anyone post 9-11, it should have been Saudi Arabia.

[KansDem]

15. Well, we could have turned our attention to the real culprits: the Saudis

...then on to the Bush Family.

I don't know what we would have found out, but it sure beats the Hell out of bombing Iraq into oblivion...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Hmmmmm..the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third party country

and the US wouldn't buy it.
That aside, Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden. It was about the UNICAL pipeline.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

[treestar]

18. Continue Clinton's plan to get OBL

The reason he couldn't get OBL up till then was that he was surrounded by civilians, but 911 changed everything, so now it's OK to kill civilians who are in the way. :sarcasm:

Supposing it is not possible to punish anyone. That can be the case sometimes. The 19 hijackers can't be punished. What to do about it? It may not be possible to punish anyone.

We aren't even sure OBL is guilty. Though I would think any attempt to go after him would have been sympathized with internationally at that point. If the Taliban would not hand him over, go in and get him but focus on him, not on taking it out on the farmers, etc. of that country.

[Bushwick Bill]

19. Start with Pakistan.

Seeing as how the ISI chief, their fucking CIA director equivalent, directed a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta...I dunno, that might be a good lead.

The war on terror has always been a farce because Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were not held to account for their ties to 9/11.

[TripleD]

20. "Taliban government giving us the big FU"

If I recall correctly, we almost negotiated the extradition of bin Laden.

There was pressure put on the Taliban right after 9-11 to turn over bin Laden. At first the Taliban said they had no idea where bin Laden was, but eventually said that they'd put bin Laden on trial themselves.

With Bush still threatening to invade, they then said they'd hand him over to an Islamic country for trial.

Rather than continue pursuing these negotiations which might have led to the extradition of bin Laden, and like with Iraq, once diplomacy started to yield a result that might avert war, Bush cut it short and invaded.

[jus_the_facts]

23. Not much you can do about the Pentagon....

...or NORAD!!! Amazin' how 19 hijackers with boxcutters beat our 400 BILLION DOLLAR Defense System!! :eyes: