RE: Why the "War on Terror" is (still) Nonsensical

>>>>> "jack" == Jack Bornstein <[email protected]> writes:

  >> Clearly, leveling the World Trade towers, thus killing several
  >> thousand people counts as terrorism, though it's unclear what the
  >> terrorists in question were trying to coerce the U.S. to do,
  >> apart from provoking it to war.

  jack> Unclear? I thought it was pretty clear that the Taliban wants
  jack> the U.S.  to withdraw forces from the Gulf and end it's "bias"
  jack> against Palistinians.
  jack> http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2001/092801/taliban_withdrawl.html

Whatever the validity of that source, this *has* been something that
there's been widespread dissensus about in the mainstream media.

That is, some commentators have suggested, as Jack does, that al Qaeda
hit the US because of bin Laden's stated, long-term grievances. This
set of commentators seems to break into two subsets: 1) those who
think he really wants those demands met and would cease terrorist
actions if they were, and 2) those who say that he makes the demands
mainly because he knows the US will not cede, will bomb hell out of
everything if he terrorizes, and that all of this is done knowingly so
as to build his army.

Another group has reacted strongly to this suggestion, saying that,
no, bin Laden is the knife's edge in all this clash of civilization's
stuff, that he's just rejecting the modern world as an extreme
Islamist.

Still another group suggests that since the US, under Clinton, stepped
up its effects to assassinate bin Laden, he's just playing catch up.

I think, given the clarity of the contrasting term, Dru is fairly
justified in saying that it's unclear. (In other words, "classically",
a terrorist says, "give me a plane to Cuba, $250,000 and free Ali
Wahid Abdul Rahman from prison, or I'll kill everyone with this bomb"
-- that's pretty clear compared to bin Laden, who hasn't publicly
claimed responsibility. And likely won't.)

Kendall