Al-Qaeda's biggest target? Other Muslims

[Taraz]

Very interesting blog post by Juan Cole about how Al-Qaeda works. He has been studying and following religion in the Middle East as a professor since 1984.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/al-qaeda-as-anti-muslim-movement-al.html

[Bill Haywood]

Thanks!

[Taraz]

I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked anyone could be remotely suprised by this.

but then people keep thinking its a religous fight rather than a political one so perhaps I shouldn't be shocked.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked anyone could be remotely suprised by this.

but then people keep thinking its a religous fight rather than a political one so perhaps I shouldn't be shocked.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this and you know this, but it seems like it's lost on the vast majority of people in the United States. Everyone is trying to claim that Islam is just a violent religion and that explains it all. I just wish this information would be publicized more.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is trying to claim that Islam is just a violent religion and that explains it all. I just wish this information would be publicized more.

[/ QUOTE ]


That view of Islam doesn't explain "all", but it explains "a lot". However applying that view to Islam as a whole is not as correct as saying that view is a correct conclusion derived from a literal wording of parts of the Koran, and the interpretation of same by important Islamic clerics, and the uneducated masses as whole *not including* Moslems in western countries for the most part.

But the point you make about AQ targeting various Moslems as well as westerners and western countries really doesn't detract from that view. It just means that when various groups of Moslems intepret "unbeliever" to include Moslems who either don't belong to their specific sect, and/or don't adhere to their worldview. So the bottom line is that radical Islam is a threat to western countries and democracy, but they just happen to also be a threat to some Moslems/Moslem countries, that don't believe exactly as they do.

And I want to make another point that I have often. Which is that even *if* it is true that a majority of Moslems don't adhere to the radical/violent interpretations and views of terrorist organizations, if they also refuse to publicly and vigorously fight those views within their own religion, then the protestations of some, and especially western apologists, that the majority of Moslems don't think/act that way, not only can't be taken at face value, but also can't be the basis of foreign/defense policy.

To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them, just because they claim they don't condone terrorism, when all the while hiding or enabling terrorists. And the same goes for the citizens of any dictatorship of any ideology. The fact that to speak up or act might endanger their own lives doesn't change anything about this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nonsense to say that these villagers are analagous to aiders and abetters.

Worse when you treat them as such and justify attrocities against them, your enemies are laughing fit to bust.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nonsense to say that these villagers are analagous to aiders and abetters.

Worse when you treat them as such and justify attrocities against them, your enemies are laughing fit to bust.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]



You got it dead backwards. They howl in laughter/glee when people like you maintain the above view that they can perpeterate their terrorist deeds and then "melt" back into their neighborhood and that be openly known there, but that we are supposedly caught in an ethical catch-22 where we can't do anything about it just because those neighbors, for whatever reason, choose not to act/inform against the terrorists. And this is all the more so if the terrorists are actually conducting their actions from that very area, instead of fleeing there from another one where they committed same. And the fact that some people or governments might over-react doesn't change the above.

To use a further not so hypothetical example, a government knows that persons in a given village are committing certain terrorist acts. So let's look at the various actions they might take in response *after* they ask for help/information and are denied same by the villagers:

1) Bomb the village and wipe out everone - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's not right to kill innocents (defined by you) who didn't actually commit the deed!";

So then they say how about

2) Bulldoze some houses of the families of suspected terrorists - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's just not right to implement mass punishments, even when the villagers knowingly are harbouring the terrorists by refusing to inform on them!";

So then they say how about this

3) Build a fence around the village so that the terrorists in it can't travel to areas where they habitually commit their acts - "Oh no!" you cry - "that still is mass punishment because those villagers can't travel to work and do other stuff!".

So then the government asks, "you mean if the villagers just choose not to help, whether because they support the actions of the terrorists or are afraid of them, we can't do *anything* unless we get lucky and catch the terrorists red-handed?"

And you say, "yep that's right!".

And the terrorists say, "hahahaha. What fools and weak persons these westerners are who inisist on these ethical interpretations, leaving us free to continue to do our dirty deeds. HAHAHAHAHA!"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bomb the village and wipe out everone - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's not right to kill innocents (defined by you) who didn't actually commit the deed!";

[/ QUOTE ]
That's besides the point. What happens to the hearts and minds of the people whose support your enemies thrive on?

Do they think 'fair enough BluffThis & co are wise and just' or do they think 'BluffThis!'s enemies were right all along BluffThis & co are bad bad people'?

The reality is that the terrorist groups can only thrive in an environment filled with a deep sense of injustice (doesn't matter whether the grievence is real) and the only ways to deal with this are containment or dissipation.

I don't like containment but its acedemic because it isn't possible. The resolution is to work against the sense of injustice and blowing up villagers many of whom are no friends to the terrorists is a disaster.

The rest is all the same nonsense. You're doing the job of your enemies for them.

[ QUOTE ]
And the terrorists say, "hahahaha. What fools and weak persons these westerners are who inisist on these ethical interpretations, leaving us free to continue to do our dirty deeds. HAHAHAHAHA!"


[/ QUOTE ]
It is a problem for liberalism that those with facist tendencies think its weak but they are very wrong. Also you have a very strange idea of what your enemies are trying to achieve, generally they don't carry out their activites just for the sake of it.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them, just because they claim they don't condone terrorism, when all the while hiding or enabling terrorists. And the same goes for the citizens of any dictatorship of any ideology. The fact that to speak up or act might endanger their own lives doesn't change anything about this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the innocent villagers have some obligation to turn their violent neighbours in to some external government (however they are supposed to do that) even under threat of immediate retribution?

[Taraz]

BluffThis,

Imagine if a group of US citizens were accused of perpetrating some terrorist act in Japan. And then that the Japanese government demands that they be brought to justice. If our government was like the government of many of these countries, we would have no resources to find these terrorists. So then Japan says, too bad we have to kill thousands of innocent American citizens so that these terrorists are killed and brought to justice. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with the Japanese government imposed these restrictions on you personally?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Also you have a very strange idea of what your enemies are trying to achieve, generally they don't carry out their activites just for the sake of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.



bunny said:

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the innocent villagers have some obligation to turn their violent neighbours in to some external government (however they are supposed to do that) even under threat of immediate retribution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's a radical notion to you that people are responsbile not only for their actions, but ommissions as well. But it's not to me. They are THEIR neighbors, and it's THEIR duty to do something about them, even if it involves short term risk to their lives. WE should not have to suffer for their cowardice and their focus on the short-term, nor accept such excuses when the case is often actually that they support the violent actions of the terrorists.


Taraz said:
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if a group of US citizens were accused of perpetrating some terrorist act in Japan. And then that the Japanese government demands that they be brought to justice. If our government was like the government of many of these countries, we would have no resources to find these terrorists. So then Japan says, too bad we have to kill thousands of innocent American citizens so that these terrorists are killed and brought to justice. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with the Japanese government imposed these restrictions on you personally?

[/ QUOTE ]


If any group of people or a government, lacks the resources to deal with their own people, then they can and should allow outsiders to do so, *and fully support them with information at the very least*. And in the case as with a dictatorship, where the country isn't going to allow outsiders in to oppose the actions of that dictatorship, those people still have an obligation to oppose their government even at the risk to their lives. After all it's THEIR country, and citizens of other countries shouldn't have to suffer because the citizens of the dictatorship can't effectively oppose their own government. The other countries are still going to have to put a stop to that dictatorship, and unfortunately, despite reasonable attemps to limit collateral damage, there will in fact be casualties of other than the leaders and soldiers of that country. And those other countries can't allow themselves to be hamstrung and suffer further casualties of their own just because of the unfortunate fact that it isn't possible to use pinpoint targeting and still be *effective*.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how this thread is on topic for Science, Math, and Philosophy, except maybe for the Philosophy or Art of War. Certainly, in the Art of War you want to understand your enemy thoroughly. His motive, intentions, tactics, strategic plans, emotions, reasoning process, sources of strong support, sources of more indifferent support, physical and sociological resources, etc. Everything and anything about what makes him tick is important in crafting the best possible plan to defeat him.

PairTheBoard

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing people like you aren't running the NSA, CIA, FBI, and state department. Oh, wait...

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how this thread is on topic for Science, Math, and Philosophy, except maybe for the Philosophy or Art of War. Certainly, in the Art of War you want to understand your enemy thoroughly. His motive, intentions, tactics, strategic plans, emotions, reasoning process, sources of strong support, sources of more indifferent support, physical and sociological resources, etc. Everything and anything about what makes him tick is important in crafting the best possible plan to defeat him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


PTB,

That is obviously correct in the need to understand one's enemy *for the purpose of defeating him*. That is not however the purpose of "understanding" him that others often mean, where they just want to provide an excuse to appease terrorists and dictators instead of suffering the necessary short-term casualties and sacrifices to defeat them.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how this thread is on topic for Science, Math, and Philosophy, except maybe for the Philosophy or Art of War. Certainly, in the Art of War you want to understand your enemy thoroughly. His motive, intentions, tactics, strategic plans, emotions, reasoning process, sources of strong support, sources of more indifferent support, physical and sociological resources, etc. Everything and anything about what makes him tick is important in crafting the best possible plan to defeat him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


PTB,

That is obviously correct in the need to understand one's enemy *for the purpose of defeating him*. That is not however the purpose of "understanding" him that others often mean, where they just want to provide an excuse to appease terrorists and dictators instead of suffering the necessary short-term casualties and sacrifices to defeat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't want to understand them enough to defeat them either. It is clear that you have no idea why these terrorist attacks are occurring other than some nebulous idea about how "they hate our freedom".

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

If any group of people or a government, lacks the resources to deal with their own people, then they can and should allow outsiders to do so, *and fully support them with information at the very least*. And in the case as with a dictatorship, where the country isn't going to allow outsiders in to oppose the actions of that dictatorship, those people still have an obligation to oppose their government even at the risk to their lives. After all it's THEIR country, and citizens of other countries shouldn't have to suffer because the citizens of the dictatorship can't effectively oppose their own government. The other countries are still going to have to put a stop to that dictatorship, and unfortunately, despite reasonable attemps to limit collateral damage, there will in fact be casualties of other than the leaders and soldiers of that country. And those other countries can't allow themselves to be hamstrung and suffer further casualties of their own just because of the unfortunate fact that it isn't possible to use pinpoint targeting and still be *effective*.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you're basically saying an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life. How many dead Iraqi civilians do you need before it's not worth it?

Second, do you not realize that revolution takes time? And that our actions our actually hurting many of these revolutions? Look at Iran. There is an enormous tide of discontent within Iranian youth over the ruling parties. The country is on the brink of a revolution. But when we go around calling Islam a violent religion, invade a country without any international support, and say that Iran is part of the axis of evil, we don't win any allies among these revolutionaries. They think we're about to invade their lands. People of the region look at the situation and say, "well, we're sure as hell not with you guys . . ."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how this thread is on topic for Science, Math, and Philosophy, except maybe for the Philosophy or Art of War. Certainly, in the Art of War you want to understand your enemy thoroughly. His motive, intentions, tactics, strategic plans, emotions, reasoning process, sources of strong support, sources of more indifferent support, physical and sociological resources, etc. Everything and anything about what makes him tick is important in crafting the best possible plan to defeat him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


PTB,

That is obviously correct in the need to understand one's enemy *for the purpose of defeating him*. That is not however the purpose of "understanding" him that others often mean, where they just want to provide an excuse to appease terrorists and dictators instead of suffering the necessary short-term casualties and sacrifices to defeat them.

[/ QUOTE ]
No-one looking for an excuse to appease anyone in this thread. Its a pure strawman on your part - maybe just a lack of understanding /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions? I'll pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how this thread is on topic for Science, Math, and Philosophy, except maybe for the Philosophy or Art of War. Certainly, in the Art of War you want to understand your enemy thoroughly. His motive, intentions, tactics, strategic plans, emotions, reasoning process, sources of strong support, sources of more indifferent support, physical and sociological resources, etc. Everything and anything about what makes him tick is important in crafting the best possible plan to defeat him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


PTB,

That is obviously correct in the need to understand one's enemy *for the purpose of defeating him*. That is not however the purpose of "understanding" him that others often mean, where they just want to provide an excuse to appease terrorists and dictators instead of suffering the necessary short-term casualties and sacrifices to defeat them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all wrong, at least as it pertains to pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's a radical notion to you that people are responsbile not only for their actions, but ommissions as well. But it's not to me. They are THEIR neighbors, and it's THEIR duty to do something about them, even if it involves short term risk to their lives. WE should not have to suffer for their cowardice and their focus on the short-term, nor accept such excuses when the case is often actually that they support the violent actions of the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no rational here for acting in the way that furthers your enemies cause. Exactly what is your objective?

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's a radical notion to you that people are responsbile not only for their actions, but ommissions as well. But it's not to me. They are THEIR neighbors, and it's THEIR duty to do something about them, even if it involves short term risk to their lives. WE should not have to suffer for their cowardice and their focus on the short-term, nor accept such excuses when the case is often actually that they support the violent actions of the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no rational here for acting in the way that furthers your enemies cause. Exactly what is your objective?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Does his reasoning apply to Americans as well, or just ferrners? Am I morally obligated to peak into my neighbors windows, to make sure they are on the up and up? Is there some governmental agency I can be reporting to, on the comings and goings of the undesirables that live next to me? What if I heard some of them muttering something about a Worker's Party?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nonsense to say that these villagers are analagous to aiders and abetters.

Worse when you treat them as such and justify attrocities against them, your enemies are laughing fit to bust.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]



You got it dead backwards. They howl in laughter/glee when people like you maintain the above view that they can perpeterate their terrorist deeds and then "melt" back into their neighborhood and that be openly known there, but that we are supposedly caught in an ethical catch-22 where we can't do anything about it just because those neighbors, for whatever reason, choose not to act/inform against the terrorists. And this is all the more so if the terrorists are actually conducting their actions from that very area, instead of fleeing there from another one where they committed same. And the fact that some people or governments might over-react doesn't change the above.

To use a further not so hypothetical example, a government knows that persons in a given village are committing certain terrorist acts. So let's look at the various actions they might take in response *after* they ask for help/information and are denied same by the villagers:

1) Bomb the village and wipe out everone - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's not right to kill innocents (defined by you) who didn't actually commit the deed!";

So then they say how about

2) Bulldoze some houses of the families of suspected terrorists - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's just not right to implement mass punishments, even when the villagers knowingly are harbouring the terrorists by refusing to inform on them!";

So then they say how about this

3) Build a fence around the village so that the terrorists in it can't travel to areas where they habitually commit their acts - "Oh no!" you cry - "that still is mass punishment because those villagers can't travel to work and do other stuff!".

So then the government asks, "you mean if the villagers just choose not to help, whether because they support the actions of the terrorists or are afraid of them, we can't do *anything* unless we get lucky and catch the terrorists red-handed?"

And you say, "yep that's right!".

And the terrorists say, "hahahaha. What fools and weak persons these westerners are who inisist on these ethical interpretations, leaving us free to continue to do our dirty deeds. HAHAHAHAHA!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been an American my entire life. I just wanted to say that the above thoughts on how to deal with "villagers" are NOT the way we all think.

This thought process, to me, illustrates a LOT of what is wrong with our government, and to some extent, society.

I can't wrap my head completely around this thought process (since it's actually foreign IMO), but I THINK that Americans who think like this believe that the villagers must do what's right...by American standards.

Yet, these same people never grew up in these countries, and have no idea what it would be like to literally risk their ENTIRE FAMILY'S LIFE to do what America wants them to do.

Their options seem to be:

1. Rat out the insane, suicidal, pervasive, terrorists that can be anywhere at any time, ready to saw your freaking head off.

2. Hope that the American's, despite threatening to just blow up/bulldoze/imprison the whole area, decide to understand their situation a little better. Incidentally, if a fence was built around the entire area, it would be just as deadly...you really think the terrorists would be taken alive? lol

If I'm them, I choose 2 100% of the time. It wouldn't be that I'm helping terrorists, it would be more along the lines of trying to preserve mine and my family's lives.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you have a very strange idea of what your enemies are trying to achieve, generally they don't carry out their activites just for the sake of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you want to stop them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you have a very strange idea of what your enemies are trying to achieve, generally they don't carry out their activites just for the sake of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. So now you think we need to "understand" the terrorists and their intentions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you want to stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you get it? Understanding them is the equivalent of throwing them a party and giving them all handjobs.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny said:

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the innocent villagers have some obligation to turn their violent neighbours in to some external government (however they are supposed to do that) even under threat of immediate retribution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's a radical notion to you that people are responsbile not only for their actions, but ommissions as well. But it's not to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I think if you fail to act and that failure causes harm you have committed some sort of immoral act (EDIT: This is obviously poorly worded but I hope it's clear what I mean). It's a side issue but there does seem to me to be a difference between sins of commission and sins of ommission. However, I think that difference stems from the fact that we all inevitably commit millions of sins of ommissions all the time - clearly not the case with sins of commission.

[ QUOTE ]
They are THEIR neighbors, and it's THEIR duty to do something about them, even if it involves short term risk to their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
There seem to me to be two problems with this view:

First seems to be an assumption that American goals are always morally right. What if America was doing bad things and Good Guys in another country were opposing them. It seems you are claiming that the Good Guys' neighbours have a moral obligation to dob them in to the bad US Government which just seems wrong. Presumably it's because you feel that the current actions of the US are right and the tactics of its opponents are wrong - but how can a villager on the other side of the world tell the difference, especially with what is limited access to information and informed debate? (It's hard enough to get unbiased information even with the benefit of wealth and education).

The second is that you seem to be requiring them to do something which is impossible (or at least effective suicide). Wherever Osama bin Laden was living at the time of 9/11 for instance. What could a villager have done? As members of rich nations we are used to instant communication and ease of access to information as well as reasonable levels of protection through the legal system. How would you have informed the US government of his location if you were spending most of your waking life struggling to live in an isolated, strongly anti-US country, surrounded by people who would kill you and your family in the blink of an eye? I think you are requiring too much of them - it doesnt make sense to me to say someone is morally obliged to do something which is almost impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
WE should not have to suffer for their cowardice and their focus on the short-term,

[/ QUOTE ]
So they have a moral obligation to "see the big picture" and give up their lives and the lives of their families if that will lead to averting greater evil elsewhere? Do you subscribe to the same high moral standard? (I'm thinking the "make your family live in poverty to feed hundreds of starving africans" kind of argument)

[ QUOTE ]
nor accept such excuses when the case is often actually that they support the violent actions of the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I am only talking about your initial scenario when the villagers are not actively supporting, nor condoning the violent actions. It is obviously different if they are actually supporting the actions but pretending not to and pleading innocence.

[Dale Dough]

BluffTHIS,

Your attitude in this thread disgusts me.

It's THEIR neighbors, yada yada.

Americans can't find and kill the terrorists. Villagers can't, either. But somehow the onus of doing so is on them. I could turn this around argue that the Americans can't find the terrorists because they're incompetent. Why should the villagers, who would otherwise go unharmed, suffer for that?

Villagers can, it's just difficult and risky? But it's worth it, so they should eat that risk? Well if you want them dead so badly, put some American spies there to do the task.

Bombing whole villages is an option, if the US chooses that option then that's their choice, can't stop em. But don't come here and tell us it's moral.

Oh and something tells me you've been watching too many patriotic speeches. 'We don't negotiate with terrorists!!' What a joke, makes me sick.