(# 1 of 68)
Je crois que ce qui s'est passé le 11 septembre a New York est tragique. Toutefois, il me semble injuste envers la population afghane de reagir par la violence.les missiles ne vont pas punir les terroristes, cachés dans la montagne, mais des innocents qui ont deja beaucoup souffert.
De plus je ne comprends pas pourquoi il a fallu attendre ces attentats pour punir les talibans, alors qu'ils font souffrir le peuple Afghan depuis longtemps.
la réaction americaine me parait donc egoiste.
(# 3 of 68)
Bonjour a tous,
En fait je ne peux pas exprimer de veritables reactions a propos des evenements du 11 septembre compte tenu de leur atrocite.Par contre,quelques choses qui m'effraie est l'assimilation de plus en plus faite par certains entre musulmans et islamistes.Ainsi je voudrais savoir si elle est vraiment reelle aux usa compte tenu de ce que disent les medias.
Je voudrais réagir sur le fait qu'il ne faudrait pas associer l'ensemble de la communauté musulmane à ces attentats, qui sont en fait l'oeuvre d'une minorité d'intégristes. Ces attentats sont avant tout un bon prétexte pour les occidentaux les plus racistes de critiquer les Musulmans.
Comment cela est-il perçu aux Etats-Unis?
Bonjour à tous !
Les attentats du 11 septembre sont un sujet sans doute très douloureux et difficile, et la vision que l'on peut en avoir de chaque côté de l'Atlantique est sans doute relativement proche.
La France, tout comme L'Europe dans sa majorité, a proclamé sa solidarité avec les Etats Unis, tout en précisant qu'elle ne souhaitait pas par là cautionner la politique étrangère américaine. Je voudrais demander dans quelle mesure un tel évènement éclaire la vision des américains sur la politique étrangère de leur pays : est il facteur de réflexion sur celle-ci, ou conforte il les citoyens et leur gouvernement dans leurs positions ?
Merci pour vos réponses et vos points de vue.
Je voulais réagir aux évènements du 11 Septembre. Je trouve ça dommage d'en arriver à ce point. Les guerres de religion sont d'un autre âge et ne devraient plus avoir lieu. Pourquoi se massacrer au nom de Dieu? Le principe même de liberté sous-entend que chacun est libre de choisir sa religion et de la pratiquer comme il l'entend. On ne doit pas imposer ses idées aux autres.
Tuer des civils ne sert à rien. Il ne sont pas responsables de ce qui se passe dans le monde. La violence ne fait qu'engendrer la violence. J'espère que cette guerre ne va pas dégénerer de représailles en représailles. Les civils Afghanes n'ont pas à souffrir des attentats qui ont frapper les Etats-Unis. Que pensez-vous des frappes qui pourraient toucher ces hommes et ces femmes?
bonjour tout le monde,
Je suis tres touchée par les attentats du 11 septembre pour plusieurs raisons:
- je suis revenu des etats unis ou j'avais passé mes vacances d'ete trois jours avant les attentats.
- Mon oncle travaillait au 62 eme etage de la premiere tour du word trade center qui a ete touchée et heureusement il est sain et sauf.
J'ai vraiment suivi les evenements avec une grande emotion et j'ai pensé tres fort à mon oncle pour qu'il s'en sorte.
salut à tous.Inutile de dire à quel point les évènements du 11 septembre nous ont touchés, ici en France... ca a été un choc énorme pour tous, je pense. Nous avons reçu beaucoup de messages pour envoyer des dons à des comités de soutien...
Je ne suis pas très régulièrement les informations, mais je me demande si il est possible que nous en arrivions à un véritable état de guerre ?? Est-ce qu'en Amérique, vous vous sentez mobilisés et réellement engagés dans une guerre? C'est surement un peu naif, mais je n'arrive pas à croire qu' une VERITABLE guerre va avoir lieu, contre des civils et toute une population...
5 personnes que j'ai rencontré durant mon séjour à NY en Août sont mortes dans le World Trade Center. D'autres amis, plus proches, n'étaient pas présents sur leur lieu de travail ce jour-là ou bien ont pu s'en sortir... Je suis certes passé par un état de révolte et de grande tristesse. Je n'ai rien pu dire à mes amis au téléphone. Je n'ai pu qu'écouter les pleurs et les incompréhensions.
Faut-il pour autant agir avec la même violence et répondre au terrorisme par un nationalisme exacerbé??? C'est peut-être rassurant pour le peuple américain. Malheureusement, des civils innocents vont mourir. Il faudrait peut-être faire la différence entre des groupuscules de fanatiques, et les pays arabes...
On ne peut nier que ce qui s'est passé le 11 septembre soit horrible.
On aurait pu espérer que cela fasse enfin réfléchir les USA sur leur politique internationale. Mais malheureusement je crois que ça ne sera pas le cas...
La riposte va être dramatique pour le peuple afghan qui doit déjà subir l'oppression talibane. Et qu'on ne me dise pas que les USA font cela pour aider le peuple afghan puisque ce sont eux qui ont mis en place les talibans pour se débarasser du "grand satan" soviétique.
De même il est maintenant connu que Ben Laden a travaillé main dans la main avec la CIA...
Donc le gouvernement américain a recueilli le fruit de sa politique étrangère irresponsable. Trop d'innocents sont morts ce 11 septembre mais des innocents meurent tous les jours en Irak, à Cuba ou en Palestine...et on ne fait pas de minute de silence pour eux.
Il faut essayer de construire la paix et ce n'est pas ce que vont faire les USA et les autres puissances occidentales (comme la France, j'en suis conscient).
je voulais juste vous dire que de l'autre coté de l'Atlantique ces événements nous ont également beaucoup touché pour différentes raisons.Quant à moi,c'est parce que j'étais encore en Israel quelques jours plus tot, à Jérusalem,et que je m'attendais à un événement pareil mais en Israel .En effet lorsque j'ai quitté le pays la tension était à son comble ,il y régnait une véritable paranoia ,une phobie de se trouver sur une place publique en grand nombre, de peur d'etre une cible parfaite pour d'éventuels kamikazes.Une fois arrivée en France je pensais que cette mentalité n'avait plus lieu d'etre car en Europe et aux Etats-Unis "nous étions en paix avec tout le monde" ,ou tout du moins "nous avions les moyens d'éviter ce genre de catasrophe"(un peu naif..).Mais la preuve est faite que non,cependant j'ai peur que cette soudaine confrontation à la réalité ne se transforme en une paranoia générale destructrice.
Salut à tous...je suis entièrement d'accord avec ce qui a déjà été dit . Les Etats Unis on trop à coeur le mot 'vengeance' sans s'interroger ne serait-ce qu'une seconde sur le mot 'paix' . Leur position économique n'y est peut être pas pour rien, étant donné que c'est incontestablement la premiere puissance . Je pense que l'attaque sur l'Afghanistan (officiellement sur les talibans...hum)est sinon injuste, du moins assez irréfléchie.
Hello everybody, I wanted to share my thoughts on some of the questions that were raised about American foreign policy and the reaction of the American public. First of all, like most people in the U.S. I live here under the assumption that international political and ideological conflicts will not affect my day to day to life. After the events of the September 11th, I still believe that we are right to assume such security, and outraged at the fact that some one/some group out there feels entitled to use civilians (Americans and foreigners) to make a point about U.S. foreign policy. I can respect the fact that these people themselves may feel angry (justifiably or not) at the disruption of their own civilian
lives. However, anger is one thing, and uncontrolled expression of that anger is quite another. Yes, American foreign policy has not always been flawless (neither has that of any other superpower in history), and certainly we should be learning from our mistakes, not justifying the follies of the Cold War. However, I think the most predominant feeling among the public here is that we do NOT negotiate with terrorists. Clearly global peace and autonomy are the eventual goals, but we will never achieve these while being at the whim of a crazed group of fanatics who have no respect for life, let alone for peace
This is a point of view of an international:
The tragic events in NY and Washington came as an awakening to many people here. Most of the Americans hadn't been aware of the the magnitude of the anti-american sentiment in the world, and some still don't realize the resons to it.
I personally think the anti-americanism is a direct consequence of not only the USA being the #1 power and a "splinter in the eye" of the rest of the world (as some in the US like to believe), but also of its aggressive foreign policy in the past years that led to a build-up of tension worldwide.
Anyhow, little can be done now. There is a crazed group of people ready to cause a war, and the provoked US, forced to either attack or defend.
Question for Binita: does this still justify the attacks and killing of the Afghan civilians? After all, they are just innocent people with very bad luck.
Question for everyone: could the US government do better? It seems that there are very few alternatives now - They have to act fast, since Bin Laden's group is so well organized, if they want to avoid more losses in the States and perhaps a conflict of a much larger scale...
"Yes, American foreign policy has not always been flawless (neither has that of any other superpower in history),"
Oui mais les Etats-Unis sont sensés être une démocratie contrairement aux superpuissances auxquelles tu fais allusion.
"and certainly we should be learning from our mistakes"
Justement le gouvernement aurait l'occasion de réléchir à sa politique et là il s'enfonce encore plus.
"However, I think the most predominant feeling among the public here is that we do NOT negotiate with terrorists."
Mais je suis d'accord mais bombarder l'Afghanistan ne servira à rien !! Tu crois quoi ? Que tous les terroristes islamistes sont en Afghanistan ? Il y en a partout et sûrement un bon nombre est déjà sur le sol américain et le gouvernement américain est en train de leur donner des raisons de continuer leurs actes inadmissibles...
"but we will never achieve these while being at the whim of a crazed group of fanatics who have no respect for life, let alone for peace "
Là tu parles de fanatiques religieux qui imposent leurs opinions...mais réalises-tu que les Etats-Unis imposent leur vision économique au monde entier ? L'OMC, le FMI vont toujours dans le sens américain au détriment des pays pauvres...C'est un peu le même shéma...
"Question for everyone: could the US government do better? It seems that there are very few alternatives now - They have to act fast,"
Le problème c'est que je pense que la réponse américaine ne sera pas ciblée. Il y aurait moyen de coincer Ben Laden mais je ne pense pas que ce soit avec des porte-avions etc...Ils bombardent n'importe comment croyant qu'ils vont toucher les leaders...
"since Bin Laden's group is so well organized,"
La CIA fait bien son travail :))
I'm a Lebanese international student at MIT and, as such, I've been observing the American viewpoints on the September 11th events from the perspective of both an outsider and an arab.
President Bush's clear comments regarding Islam were extremely well formulated. Though not a muslim myself, I have lived around muslims all my life, I have taken part in their culture and have experienced their daily way of life. As many of the INT students have said, these terrorist activities do not in any way reflect islam. They reflect the crazed desperation of a group of angry people. I am quite relieved to say that anti-arab sentiment, at least at MIT, has been, for the most part, directed only at the arab terrorists who carried out the horrific attacks. I have not heard of any serious incidents on our campus against arabs and arab americans.
Nevertheless, there is much anger in this nation, anger steaming out of the government and the people. A generation has lost its sense of security and its sense of innocence. The people seem to want some form of action, anything, just to fight back and say "we will win..." I am afraid that such action is being carried out in a most unsuitable manner. I cannot imagine what good can come out of the attack on Afghanistan. Innocent lives, already living under great opression, are being destroyed.
Many INT students commented on America's foregin policy and I agree with many of their points. The only conceivably good thing that can come out of the events of the 11th of September would be this: that there might be a greater sense of humility in this nation. America is a fine nation, a great nation, but it shouldn't misuse it's economic and political power, especially in areas of foreign policy.
Hello, voici Rachel et Anne "on line"...
On est d'accord sur le fait qu'une riposte s'impose, mais l'implication du peuple afghan dans cette "vengeance" nous choque vraiment... Est-ce que ça ne risque pas d'aggraver la situation ?? Est-ce que vous soutenez cette politique, et vous sentez vous vraiment impliqués et proches des évènements politiques ? Ici en France, on vit ça de loin, en attendant les (mauvaises) nouvelles, et sans trop savoir quoi faire...
Merci pour vos réponses et à bientôt...
I am a Spanish citizen at MIT.
First let me point out that I am very deeply touched by the terrible events of September 11th. It is not only the fact that so many innocents died, but also the idea that there still exists so much hate between peoples.
It seems the events have prompted a finger-pointing response in the US. It is important to exact justice for what has been done and I understand the feeling of anger present in the US. However, I agree with my French counterparts in that bombing Afghanistan will prove to be of little success in stopping terrorism. In fact, it may probably be counterproductive with the killing of innocent civilians, the destruction of a country and its infrastructure, and the result of a new refugee problem. More importantly, it will create even more tension between the arab community and the west which may aggravate the situation further.
On a more personal level, the events have made me reflect upon why there exists so much hate between people. I believe that we, in the developed world, are all guilty of the attacks to some extent. The large differences in wealth and living standards between the developed world and the developing countries is perhaps a great factor fueling the hate. I also consider the West's and particularly NATO's military response a sheer abuse of power, which perhaps reinforces the need of these terrorists to resist and fight back.
J'ai l'impression que presque tous les étudiants de l'INT sont d'accord entre eux: il faut éviter de prendre les civils comme cible de représailles, ça ne fait que justifier les terroristes dans leur action. En fait les étudiants du MIT ont l'air de partager nos doutes. Est-ce que ce sont de vrais Américains??? je veux dire par là: sont-ils représentatifs de l'opinion publique américaine?
"" "since Bin Laden's group is so well organized,"
La CIA fait bien son travail :)) ""
Unfortunately. There is certain irony in the idea of the American
product, bin Laden and al Qaeda, getting "wild" and turning against
It also hits the very root of the problem in the way the government
works: pursuit of current interests (in this case
getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan) using any ways and means,
without thinking about the long-term concequences of such steps. Such
selfishness and short-sightedness backfires sooner or later, and this
applies to many political systems, not just American.
What is unique to the US is the size of those concequences, as they
are felt in the whole world.
The story repeats again: the air-strike on Afghanistan is perhaps in the
best current personal interest of the American figures in charge,
since they are the first to be blamed if something goes wrong or if the terrorists attack again.
However, it does not solve any problem really, nor does it promote the
world piece and understanding, and is therefore not to the benefit of
either America, or the rest of the world.
The irony comes up again, as the politicians themselves are the part
of our world and will eventually feel all the negative nus-products of
their own actions.
So why do they always choose to make the wrong decision? Why don't
they for once surprise us with a different scenario?
Claire wrote: <>
I think you hit the fact that MIT is not really your tipical US college. 8% of our undergraduates and about 41% of the graduate students are international. To make things even worste, it is more common for international students to take language courses. I hope this helps to aswer your question.
As a side note: Many american friends of mine think the same way we do, so I would invite people in this forum not to make crude generalizations because they rarely serve any point.
It seems to me that many of the INT students feel that America's campaign in Afghanistan unfairly penalizes the nation as a whole, while failing to penalize those terrorists responsible for the attacks in America. While I feel unqualified to place a value judgement on the validity of the United States' military actions, I do feel that an important point has not been covered in the assessment of our aggression: that in a very real way state-sponsored terrorism is an act of war on the part of the state. A nation chooses to sponsor terrorism when it lacks the resources to mount an overt military campaign against an enemy group. Hence, they mount a covert campaign through the support of terrorists, and they reap a double reward: they can watch their enemies suffer, and they can do so without shouldering direct responsibility for their act.
So what can or should a nation do when it finds itself the victim of state-sponsored terrorism? Hold the terrorists responsible, certainly, but also blame the nation that supports them. In this case, we can see that the Taliban not only harbors Mr. Bin Laden and his many terrorist training camps, but they also give him access to the communications tools-- fax machines, satellite phones, etc. that he needs to perpetuate his private war against America. Because of this are they not equally responsible for the attacks on America-- attacks they supported and whose outcome is in keeping with their wishes? And if so, should they not also inherit the repercussions of their actions?
So basically what I guess I'm saying is that there will always be fanaticists ready to crawl out of the woodwork and terrorize those they hate, but they cannot do so unless some larger entity empowers them to, even through the passive act of not stopping them. So the victim nation can choose two paths toward achieving security: attempt to stem the never-ending supply of fanatics, or prevent the supporter state from supporting them. The US has chosen a two-pronged approach aimed at achieving both of these ends, and while I can neither condone nor condemn its actions, I can't think of anything else that would serve its goals better than an attack on Afghanistan.
CLAIR: I would like to address these remarks to your question.
In fact, many of the comments that you have read on this page do
not represent the mainstream opinions of the American people. Many of the MIT students are foreigners or they are the sons and daughters of foreigners, and some of the Americans at MIT (like myself) have a perspective that is somewhat at odds with mainstream public opinion. To be perfectly blunt, I am routinely horrified by the rhetoric that I see and hear on television and radio. On radio talk-show programs, many of the callers are very much in favor of our military response, and many even consider the deaths of innocent people to be acceptable in the cause of, in their words, achieving justice.
BUT PLEASE BE AWARE, and please tell your friends and families that there is nevertheless a minority opinion in the USA who is against the war, and who is very critical of American foreign policy. NOT ALL OF US are blithely unaware of American crimes, of American imperialism and its victims, and not all of us support the retaliation which, in my opinion, can accomplish nothing except worsen an already dangerous situation. That there ARE dissenting voices in the USA, even among bona-fide American citizens, is one of the more important lessons to take away from this exercise.
Any dissenting opinion in the U.S. right now has to be prefaced with the following statement, and since my American colleagues might disagree bitterly with some of my opinions, I have to mention the following: of course the killing of innocent New Yorkers is not in any way justified by American's crimes abroad. Governments and terrorists should be held responsible, and never innocent people, no matter who they are or where they live.
The political climate in this country has become rather stiffling since the attacks on the 11th. American flags are now ubiquitous. In discussions with fellow Americans about this crisis, I have tried to accomplish three things: (1) to encourage an alternative conception of nationhood and national pride and identity that is divorced from our government and its policies -- i.e., that is based instead upon our accomplishments as individuals (artists, writers, scientists), our unique characteristics (some of them cultural), and even some of the accomplishments of our institutions. The difficulty is, often the American sense of nationalism or patriotism is wrapped up in a somewhat distorted conception of our government institutions and our history. By divorcing these, hopefully political dissent might seem less incompatible with a sense of respect and even pride in being American; (2) to inform Americans who aren't aware about of America's repeated violations of international law, of its support for brutal and repressive regimes who do not encourage the institutions and ideals that we purport to represent, and even just the vast quanitity of innocent civilians who have suffered and died as a direct result of U.S. policies; (3) to put the moral arguments aside (since, even though some people find them persuasive, many do not), and make a practical argument: IF WE DO NOT change our policies so that fewer people like Bin Laden resent us so profoundly, then American cities will start to *disappear.* It is a fact that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons are proliferating, and that terrorists will soon possess these capabilities if they do not already. Even just for PRACTICAL REAONS it is essential that we reverse many of our policies toward the middle east. Otherwise, countless millions of Americans will die.
I would like our French counterparts to understand also that Americans cannot really be blamed for not realizing the magnitude of America's crimes. The media in this country presents a very distorted picture of our role in world affairs. (To take a cynical but accurate view, such as that of MIT professor Noam Chomsky, "it is very important that, in powerful democratic societies, the media must paint a distorted conception of the nation's role in world affairs, since otherwise the citizens might become appalled and attempt to change the policy." [that is a paraphrase]) Many Americans do not realize that we have "thrown the first several punches."
It is important to remember always that America is a nation of immigrants and recent-immigrants. As I said, many of the Americans in our class have parents who have come from abroad. In my case, my mother happens to be from Chile. To my mind, "September 11" also refers to SEPTEMBER 11, 1973, when the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende was deposed by a CIA-sponsored coup d'etat (just because he was a Marxist, and because American foreign policy at that time was often directed toward quashing alternative forms of political development). As I'm sure most of you know, thousands of innocent Chileans were killed by the military government that followed. My own family survived, but narrowly. PLEASE BE AWARE that many Americans are cognizant of the crimes that our government has committed, but we feel utterly helpless to change the course of our government's policies. PLEASE BE AWARE that the others, who don't share this view, are this way because they don't know what has happened, and to what extent American political, economic, and cultural agendas are imposed upon other cultures, and that this happens often with disastrous consequences.
To my American colleagues who disagree: I am not anti-American, I am not unamerican -- I am simply afraid.
P.S. To my French counterparts, you are quite welcome to respond to my comments directly to my e-mail address as well, if you wish.
Il est vrai qu'en France, nous avons peut-être une vision des Etats-Unis un peu trop influencée par les médias. Néanmoins, il semble en France qu'une majorité des Américains considèrent la "riposte" en Afghanistan comme une réelle attaque contre le terrorisme.
Comment cette "riposte" pourrait-elle porter vraiment atteinte au terrorisme islamiste? Les terroristes sont maintenant partout: en Allemagne, en France et surtout aux Etats-Unis! De plus, ce ne sont pas des frappes aériennes ou terrestres, une enquête policière ou l'action des services spéciaux qui conduiront à changer notre politique vis-à-vis des pays arabo-musulmans. Le terrorisme actuel est avant tout le résultat de l'écart économique croissant entre les pays occidentaux et orientaux, des difficultés économiques et politiques des pays proche-orientaux.
Nous sommes aujourd'hui en état de choc! C'est pourquoi, cette riposte n'est sans doute pas la meilleure réponse que peuvent apporter les Occidentaux aux attaques terroristes. Ce n'est certainement pas une politique à court-terme qui solutionnera nos problèmes politiques actuels.
You say that the US will kill innocents in its strike against the Taliban. At the same time you also say that the US should not have waited till it itself got attacked. It should have punished them when they were terrorising their own people. I do not understand how the US could have done that without killing innocents, as you say is happening now. It is really funny that you oppose something and then propose a solution that precisely does what you oppose.
Could you explain? This is important as many oppose these strikes on the basis that there will be civilian deaths. Lots of civilians were killed in Hitler's Germany. Should we not have gone against them. In fact the prevarication of European powers like France and Britain really aggravated the problem.
Should the US wait and do nothing? Do you think that would stop the terrorists? Perhaps it should create peace and prosperity in the poor world as many say. I agree with this - a well to do country will probably produce fewer people willing to risk all. But how does one produce peace and prosperity for the Afghans under the Taliban. The Taliban has to go, and I hope that this time they do not leave the work half done like in Irag, which has led to great misery for its people.
The US has made it clear that the war is not with muslims and Arabs, but with the minority of terrorists. I do not know if the media abroad is correctly reporting the US view.
What happened in NYC and Washington was incredible,
unimaginable and horrible. There are a lot of people
who died or were injured. There are many more who have
lost their loved ones and are very sad.
In any case, how should we understand what happened?
What happened should not necessarily be so surprising
because there are many people in the world who hate
the US for its hegemony, its support to Israel and
generally for cultural differences. In some sense, I
would say that if the US had a more balanced policy in
Israel/Palestine, the chances of such acts would be
less. The US needs to support Israel, but it should
try to prevent it from building settlements in
occupied lands, and it should also try to understand
the Palestinian side better.
This is not to say that the US should become soft now.
One cannot give in to terrorism, otherwise such acts
would be encouraged and the country would be perceived
as weak. So this brings us to the question - What
should the US do?
There are two parts to this question - one short term
and one long term.
In the short term, the US should identify the
attackers and their supporters. It should then
mercilessly punish/exterminate them. This is necessary
for both justice and deterrence. This is what it has started doing. But bombing will not be enough. Destroying buildings is not going to work, these camps can be reconstructed. They will have to go in with ground troops, exterminate the Taliban, which would also be a mercy for its people. And then try to establish a broad based democratic government. The world should then help the country rebuild like in Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII. There will be civilian casualties, but doing nothing will result in even greater casualties. The US did not do much after various terror attacks in the 80s and 90s. In fact it withdrew from Lebanon, where it had gove to protect the Palestinians, and from Somalia, where again it went to protect muslims, after Americans were killed. There is a perception now that Americans are weak, the West does not like casualties. Even Osama bin laden has said the same. One cannot buy peace with weakness and abdication. Yes, the US needs to change policy but not at gunpoint.
In the long term, the US should make more friends than
enemies. It should build a multilateral coalition in
the world against such acts of terror. This would
entail some rethinking on foreign policy, especially a
more balanced approach in the middle east, greater
friendship with Russia and china and less emphasis on
Apart from greater friendship with others, it should
also try to help poorer regions to develop and reduce
economic disparity in the world. Terror comes from
poorer people not rich ones who have a lot to lose.
People with money and jobs and families generally do
not become terrorists. Stable rich societies do not
produce terror in general. Only people who have
nothing to lose like the Palestinians/Afghanis have
the greatest incentive for terror.
Fighting poverty is not enough. If poverty were the only problem, the Africans would be bombing France and other European countries, and there would be Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian terrorists in the West. The problem is deeper - one of religious fundamentalism. Christianity had this problem before. Now it is Islam. A reform movement has to come from within. However, the rest of the world should also help in fighting religious
fundamentalism and try to explain and promote the real
and peaceful teachings of different religions.
Finally, the West and the rest of the world should
have greater transparency and control over financial
transactions, so that criminal financing becomes
difficult and also they should try to control and
prevent the sale of weapons as much as possible. Also they should not harbor violent organizations who collect funds in their countries for fights abroad, for example the LTTE in Canada and England which terrorizes the Sri Lankans.
I fully support the United States' actions in Afghanistan. It will greatly benefit the entire world when the Taliban regime is destroyed. Make no mistake, they have brutalized an entire nation, particularly women and the Hindu minority. They are a major destabilizing force in Central Asia, from the threat of an expansion of Islamic fundamentalism into former Soviet Republics, to their hostility towards Iran. And--despite the fact that doves everywhere wish to blind themselves to this clear fact--their destruction WILL be a major blow against organized terrorism worldwide.
Granted, terrorists outside of Afghanistan will not be directly affected by the end of the Taliban. But, the functioning of organized terrorist groups is based solely and completely upon support from nations, and, besides eliminating one of the largest regimes that does sustain terrorism, eradicating the Taliban will also put severe pressure on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. when these nations see that the United States has both the ability and the determination to end governments that fund terror.
Across the United States and, it seems, the rest of the world, anti-war demonstrations preceded any military action and continue today as though this were another Vietnam, or even another Yugoslavia in 1999. But the mere allusion to the first is absurd, and the differences between Afghanistan and the second are tremendous, as well. This is NOT some open-ended 70-day-long bombing of populated areas with no clear goal. Indeed, the goal is clear: The end of the Taliban and the crippling of Al Qaeda, two groups which are so intertwined, their fates are inexorably linked. This is not a vengeful bombing of civilians! In just 5 days--with far fewer heavily populated areas hit than in previous campaigns--the backbone of the Taliban regime is nearly broken. Civilian casualties? Think of the thousands of single Afghan women the Taliban bar from working, slowly dying as they desperately and futilely prostitute themselves for a pittance in the hopes of buying a scrap of food.
We can, with smugness, a magnificent sense of irony, and a plethora of clichés, point out that the CIA once helped Bin Laden and that the USA and other NATO powers have been far from perfect in their Middle Eastern dealings. Or, we can recognize for a moment that the most pragmatic, the safest, and even the most humanitarian action to take is to make sure the Taliban no longer exist to support Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
In response to Christopher
I agree. I don't think that bombing will be very effective in bringing bin Laden to justice. I am sure that he is safely hidden away in a strong bunker somewhere. However, the bombing of the training camps will hopefully hinder the terrorists somewhat. This is a very difficult situation because we are "at war" only with certain people and not with the entire country of Afghanistan.
Hello, everyone. I have a question for the French students. Suppose the attack had been on Paris. What would you have done? What would you want the French government to do in a similar situation? I think it's very difficult to criticize the American reaction until you have thought about it from our perspective. Although I do not personally think that the program of air strikes is a moral or effective response, I can understand why to some it seems a necessary reaction. Surely we cannot simply sit here and do nothing, but what are we to do? I don't think there's any easy answer, and until you can offer a better alternative simply criticizing the government's chosen response is not productive.
"we can see that the Taliban not only harbors Mr. Bin Laden and his many terrorist training camps, but they also give him access to the communications tools-- fax machines, satellite phones, etc."
Je pense pas que Ben Laden ait besoin des talibans pour se fournir des fax et des téléphones...
Sinon je sais pas si tu sais que les talibans ne sont pas un régime représentatif de la population d'Afghanistan. Les civils afghans n'ont, pour la plupart, rien à voir avec eux. Et ils vont subir les conséquences des bombardements.
"The US needs to support Israel"
"Apart from greater friendship with others, it should also try to help poorer regions to develop and reduce economic disparity in the world. Terror comes from poorer people not rich ones who have a lot to lose. "
Je suis d'accord avec toi mais à ce moment-là on est pas sur la bonne voie...
"The problem is deeper - one of religious fundamentalism. Christianity had this problem before. Now it is Islam. "
Ouais mais les pro-life qui mettent des bombes dans les cliniques et tuent des médecins ils ne sont pas musulmans.
"I fully support the United States' actions in Afghanistan. It will greatly benefit the entire world when the Taliban regime is destroyed. Make no mistake, they have brutalized an entire nation, particularly women and the Hindu minority. They are a major destabilizing force in Central Asia, from the threat of an expansion of Islamic fundamentalism into former Soviet Republics, to their hostility towards Iran. And--despite the fact that doves everywhere wish to blind themselves to this clear fact--their destruction WILL be a major blow against organized terrorism worldwide."
Mais c'est plein d'hypocrisie ça !!!
C'est maintenant que tu te rends compte de l'oppression qu'exerce les talibans sur le peuple afghan. Il a fallu que des avions s'écrasent sur le WTC pour ça ?
Maintenant les USA se prennent pour des justiciers qui vont défendre les opprimés ! Et ce sont eux qui ont mis en place les oppresseurs...
Est-ce que tu supportais l'action des USA quand ils voulaient virer d'Afghanistan les sovietiques ?
"I have a question for the French students. Suppose the attack had been on Paris. What would you have done? What would you want the French government to do in a similar situation?"
As-tu entendu parler des attentats de 1995 ? Je ne me rappelle pas qu'on ait bombardé l'Algérie...
I think that what is going on in the world is horrible. Who would have thought that starting with a random day in September, we would be in a war, and such a dangerous one. So maybe, the few (in comparison) innocent poeple died in the attacks on Afganistan, but what about all those that died in the attacks against the US. What is the America left to do?? We can't just sit here and take it. If the attack had happened 30 days prior, I would have been there. That idea really scared me! Yes, it is horrible that innocent poeple were hurt in the process but American has to at least try to get the terrorists and end these terrorists acts. How many more cases of anthrax or bombed buildings will we have before this is over? I can't think of anything else American can do right now. If you have any better ideas on how Americans can protect themselves and try to find Bin laden and ALL his supporters, I'd be very iterested. But I don't think there are any perfect solutions.
je ne me suis probablement pas exprimée suffisamment clairement dans mon message précédent: en fait je sais qu'il existe des Américains et des Américaines qui s'informent, remettent en question les décisions du gouvernement et contestent le pouvoir de désinformation des médias. De France on a l'impression que vous êtes une minorité mais on sait que vous existez quand même (par exemple, on peut voir les films de Michaël Moore à Paris), c'est pourquoi je suis très contente de pouvoir discuter avec toi. Ce que je me demande, c'est: ne seriez vous pas mieux représentés au MIT que dans la population américaine totale? si oui, ce ne serait pas très étonnant, car comme tu le dis toi même, faire des études permet d'avoir une meilleure connaissance du monde et de prendre davantage de recul par rapport à la façon dont sont traités les événements de l'actualité par les médias.
En France, nous n'ignorons pas que parmi les militants anti-OMC présents à Seattle il y avait beaucoup d'Américains, et en particulier d'étudiants américains. De plus, nous sommes très conscients que dans notre société aussi, les médias ont une place très importante et que l'opinion dominante n'est pas toujours la plus éclairée...
Il est vrai qu'après le Christianisme, c'est aujourd'hui une certaine forme d'Islamisme qui pose problème. Je voudrais juste ajouter que si certains islamistes en sont arrivés au terrorisme, cela montre avant tout qu'il en sont vraiment maintenant à un point de non retour, ce qui n'excuse en rien leur comportement. Leur cheminement a dû tout de même être long avant d'en arriver là et nous n'avons certainement pas su les entendre.
Hello! I think the events that occured Sept. 11 are a very sad thing. It's crazy that someone would want to stage an event that would kill so many people at the same time. Hopefully mankind will open their eyes and learn to accept each other regardless of nationality.
Bonjour Sarah, voici ma réponse à ta question: je ne sais pas si tu le sais,
mais la France a été victime d'une vague d'attentats pendant plusieurs mois
en 1995. Elle a commencé par l'explosion d'une bombe dans le métro en plein
coeur de Paris. D'autres ont suivi sur les marchés et ailleurs. La police française
a mis en place un plan de protection et d'action contre le terrorisme. Ainsi,
plusieurs bombes ont été désamorcées avant d'exploser et beaucoup de terroristes
ont été arrêtés. Ce qui est terrible, c'est que la plupart sont des jeunes hommes
musulmans nés en France ou qui y ont habité pendant longtemps. Cela signifie
que l'intégrisme a fleuri dans nos rues: peut-être ai-je été en classe avec
des futurs terroristes. C'est pour cela que bombarder un pays ne nous parait
pas une réponse appropriée face à ce problème. Je pense que la première chose
à faire, c'est de couper les vivres aux réseaux terroristes qui ont montré qu'ils
sont très riches. Leur fortune est à l'abris dans des paradis fiscaux qui protègent
leurs clients et sont donc responsables en partie de la criminalité mondiale.
Beaucoup d'hommes politiques ne semblent découvrir cette évidence que maintenant.
SARAH wrote "I have a question for the French students. Suppose the attack
had been on Paris. What would you have done?"
I was thinking about this myself. In my country's case (I am from Spain) we have been suffering from the effects of terrorism for more than 25 years. The terrorists group is known as ETA and fight for the independence of the Northern Spanish (and Southern French) region known as Euskadi. In fact, only yesterday the terrorists set a bomb during a military parade in Spain's capital with 30 kilograms of dynamite. Of course, the attacks we suffer are of much smaller magnitude than those experienced in New York, but they have been much much more prolonged.
So how does Spain react? Spain does NOT get its army and bomb every single suspicious town in Euskadi. Instead, in the true spirit of democracy it even grants those who agree with the terrorists the right to express their views and organize politically. That is, they have their own political party which is in fact one of the most popular in the region and indirectly endorses or agrees with the terrorists actions.
Indeed, this may appear ridiculous to most Americans but it just goes to show how differently people can think about how to react to terrorism. It is not a matter of not having felt it in our own flesh, as Sarah seems to suggest.
What do the French think? How do you think France would have reacted? I doubt that it would have bombed Afghanistan. Also, this goes to show some of the double standards in the world today. The attacks have had massive repercussions only because they were effected against the world's richest country. Had the attacks happened elsewhere, I doubt whether they would have arisen such an interest and response worldwide.
Salut Gerardo. Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi lorsque tu dis que si l'attentat avait eu lieu dans un autre pays qu'aux Etats-Unis, les répercusions n'auraient pas été les mêmes. Les Etats-Unis ont l'armée la plus puissante au monde et aiment en faire usage. Cette réaction militaire ne serait pas possible en France pour la simple raison que nous n'en n'avons pas les moyens. A l'image de l'Espagne, nous préferons lutter contre les terroristes sur le long terme. Depuis maintenant de nombreuses années la police s'efforce de démanteler les réseaux terroristes qui se forment un peu partout. Je pense que c'est beaucoup plus efficace. Bombarder les camps terroristes en Afghanistan est une chose. Mais ceci n'arrêtera pas les autres camps de fonctionner, en Afrique par exemple. De plus je pense que le plus URGENT serait de lutter contre les terroristes à l'interieur même des Etats-Unis. Ce sont eux les plus dangereux. Pour détourner des avions ou envoyer des lettres contenant des bactéries, il faut déjà être sur le territoire.
Je pense que le gouvernant c'est fait dépasser par un problème qu'il n'avait pas prévu. Je ne suis pas sûre qu'il avait déjà envisagé de lutter contre des terroristes sur son territoire même. Qu'en pensez-vous?
I agree... I think most of the American people have gotten wrapped up with the attacks on Afghanistan, many have seen it as a feasible countermeasure against terrorism. I think it's more of a statement.. a way to get some kind of revenge against the terrorism group that caused the horrific events of the 11th of September. Many argue that this is for the betterment of the Afghani people... as many of the INT students have noted: why did America have to wait so long to do something about the Taliban? It is hypocritical for Americans to say they are doing this to stamp out the Taliban and help the Afghani people because that is not the primary objective of these strikes. Indeed, despite what the media seems to be saying I think most Americans would agree that the reason behind these attacks is not to free the Afghani people from an oppresive governement but to secure American lives, to make sure "something like this doesn't happen again."
With that said, I turn to your point Capucine. Does attacking Afghani terrorist camps really help stamp out terrorism on American soil? I don't think so... like you said, the danger lies in America, not in Afghanistan. There are crazed terrorist groups operating here in America. As far as I've heard no one has linked the Anthrax attacks to any terrorism groups... there are desperate people from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds ready to commit violent acts agains the American people. Not all of these people are muslims... in fact some of them are Americans.. just look at the Oklahoma City Bombing...
I think many Americans find it hard to believe that terrorists could be so entrenched in their own country. True a lot of the American sense of security has been lost since the 11th of September, but I think many Americans still cling to that reassuring sentiment. I have heard very few people talk about eradicating terrorist groups in America and the topic hasn't been discussed in the media very much at all! I imagine the American government is doing much to prevent these terrorist groups but I find it disconcerting that the American people are more obssesed with attacking the Afghani terrorist groups than with securing their nation. I begin to feel more and more that the attacks on Afghanistan are simply for revenge, a show of might, and that these attacks do not solve the immediate problem: getting rid of terrorist groups currently active in America.
I might be wrong about this. There might be a huge amount of activity being taken by the FBI 24 hours a day to rid American soil of terrorists, but I can be sure of one thing. Amerian's aren't talking about that. They're talking about bombing Afghanistan.
La CIA fait bien son travail :))
Yes, this is something that I worry about now. It seems that in the past, America has trusted Bin Laden for help agains the Soviets. And now, it's trusting the Pakistani government against the Taliban. Even though it seems convenient now to use their help, it might turn against them later.
There is a crazed group of people ready to cause a war, and the provoked US, forced to either attack or defend. Question for Binita: does this still justify the attacks and killing of the Afghan civilians? After all, they are just innocent people with very bad luck.
Afghani civilians are not being 'attacked' as payback for American deaths. I think the US government is doing everything it can symbolically to show it has no quarrel with the Afghani peoples. It is not the statement against terrorism that justifies the loss of their lives but the hope that the Taliban will be dismantled as much for their good as that of the international community. I detest the glorification and romanticization of war in the media. Unfortunately it plays a certain role in preserving public opinion long enough allow to allow a dirty job to get done. And as several people have already explained on this forum, this attack appears to us to be the least of the evils we have to choose from.
Mais c'est plein d'hypocrisie ça !!! C'est maintenant que tu te rends compte de l'oppression qu'exerce les talibans sur le
peuple afghan. Il a fallu que des avions s'écrasent sur le WTC pour ça ? Maintenant les USA se prennent pour des
justiciers qui vont défendre les opprimés ! Et ce sont eux qui ont mis en place les oppresseurs... Est-ce que tu supportais
l'action des USA quand ils voulaient virer d'Afghanistan les sovietiques ?
Certainly, it is a disgrace to the entire civilized world that the Taliban's abuse of the Afghani population was tolerated for so long in the first place... that Afghani deaths themselves were not good enough to warrant the world's attention despite the outcry of hundreds of human rights and womens groups. However, now that the issue has come to the forefront isn't it high time that we deal decisively with the Taliban? No, I don't think that U.S. support of foreign insurgents in nonaligned countries around the world was particulary admirable or beneficial in the past. Hind sight is always 20-20. However, while we cannot change the past we can influence the future. I share Maria's concerns about the installation of yet another stooge government in Afghanistan. I think the true test of American magnanimity will come after the bombing is over. Dropping food packages is much easier than providing the sustained aid and peacekeeping troops required to oversee a stable transition to a government that truly represents the interests of the Afghan people, not those of the CIA, Pakistan etc.
So how does Spain react? Spain does NOT get its army and bomb every single suspicious town in Euskadi.
No, that's what Saddam Hussein would do! There have been instances in history where a 'democratic' government has stamped out terrorism very effectively e.g. in Punjab, without outright bombing the civilian population. Of course, there were associated human rights abuses along the way, but India's answer to the world was that it was an 'internal issue'. Now we're seeing international terrorism on a growing scale. No one government has the absolute control needed to correct this. Osama Bin Laden was expelled from 2 countries for his nefarious activites, but just moved on. Now he seems to have found a supporter in the Taliban regime. Are there any provisions in international law and arbitration to deal with nations that sponsor terrorism as distinct from nations that openly declare war? This time it's only Afghanistan (for that matter, the Taliban don't admit to supporting Bin Laden). Other times it's a much more powerful country !
Response to David's message:
" Civilian casualties? Think of the thousands of single Afghan women the Taliban bar from working, slowly dying
as they desperately and futilely prostitute themselves for a pittance in the hopes of buying a scrap of food. "
The US is NOT fighting Taliban to help the oppressed and the starving,
but for much more selfish reasons, so there's no need for such preaching.
The self-declared universal judge and justice-deliverer is a role many time used
and abused by the US, and has no place in this story.
"Indeed, the goal is clear: The end of the Taliban and the crippling of Al Qaeda, two groups which are so
intertwined, their fates are inexorably linked. This is not a vengeful bombing of civilians! In just 5 days--with far fewer heavily populated areas hit than in previous
campaigns--the backbone of the Taliban regime is nearly broken. "
Why are you so sure about this? What is your source of information
(the US media are not a good one)?
About breaking Taliban so soon, I'm not sure it is possible just with
air-strikes. It didn't work in Yugoslavia, where after 2 months of bombing
only a fraction of military targets was destroyed, so it probably
won't work here either, in a much larger Afghanistan.
The attacks cannot and will not be a way of a fast solution to
the terrorism, and that is one more reasons to question the acts of
the American government.
Je ne crois pas qu'un simple petit mot puisse énormément vous toucher car cet événement étant des plus tragiques, peu de mots peuvent consoler .Cependant,je suis très loin de rester indifférente.
Au revoir et à binetôt.
"the few (in comparison) innocent poeple died in the attacks on Afganistan, but what about all those that died in the attacks against the
Le nombre d'enfants morts de malnutrition en Irak depuis 91 à cause de l'embargo : 1 200 000.
C'est vrai que si il y a des comparaisons à faire (mais c'est de mauvais goût) je crois qu'il y a pas photo.
Salut tout le monde... Après avoir bien lu tous les messages, je dois dire que je suis étonnée
par l'impression que j'ai eue sur les différences entre les étudiants pro- et anti-riposte...
Est-ce si mal vu que ça d'être critique face à une politique étrangère si "radicale" ?? Sur le
coup, j'ai pensé aux régimes dictatoriaux, et aux "camarades", aux bons citoyens et à tous
les problèmes de désinformation et de censure ... Pourquoi parler d'une minorité éclairée ??
J'ai du mal à croire que la majorité de la population américaine ait des oeillères et refuse
toute opinion critique sur le cataclisme en train de se produire ... Les attentats de 1995 ont
été pris en exemple et je trouve ça bien dans le sens où les réactions de chaque pays sont
représentatives de l'image qu'il cherche à donner... Ce n'est pas par une démonstration de
force que les USA vont tout régler : il y a un énorme réseau à démanteler , implanté dans
le monde entier, et aucune bombe ne peut en atteindre toutes les ramifications ...
Quoiqu'il en soit, je trouve vraiment ça bien d'avoir un point de vue direct sur ces
évènements ; merci pour tous vos mails....
@ + , Anne
Hello Everybody. I would like to begin by saying the following: For the first time in 19 years, I do not feel as though I live in a country that can be catagorized as a "superpower." Superpower to me represents invincibility, without ever having to question the degree of security or safety within a nation, and right now, as we correspond transatlantic, my country, my home, the United States of America, is vulnerable to anyone and anything. Those of you are 100% right in saying that this type of terrorist behavior has been going on for so long all over the world, and now, just because all of a sudden terrorism hits close to home for us Americans, there is a massive state of emergency in the U.S. and we expect everyone to come to our country's aid period. I believe that the most important issue lies within our own territory, as some of you have pointed out as well. If our own ground is struggling, how can we expect to succeed on turf other than our own? For instance, bombing Afghanistan is honestly useless if those held responsible for the heinous terrorist attacks of September 11th have already infiltrated our home ground security. Punishing those who are guilty as well as innocent in Afghanistan MAY or MAY NOT have positive repercussions BUT I am certain that the recent acts of the U.S. government will do nothing in immediately removing the people and things (such as anthrax) of which we are susceptible today, this second in our own neighborhoods. Which brings me to another concept: How can the U.S. government expect us Americans to unite and trust eachother in this time of need, when they have yet to inform us of the "truth"- and by that, I mean clean, untouched, unmanipulated, cold hard facts. I think many of you would agree with me when I say, I am sick and tired of finding things out, such as major details regarding the extent of involvment of other countries in this situation with Afghanistan, or even such facts as the negative actions that our own government has been responsible for in these past few weeks, through international media. Why must our country blind us of the truth? This is the reason why I have begun to question the actions of the U.S. government. Never before would I have had the nerve to do so, but when I expect to know what is going on in retrospect to the entire world, and I cannot get this information from my own country's media and have to turn to international sources, well then, there is obviously a problem. And lastly, I would like to reiterate the suggestion that there must be another way to condemn and rid ourselves of these terrorist groups who have attacked the U.S., and may possibly attack the entire world. It has crossed my mind, that maybe, we are looking at this situation in a completely wrong way. Have you ever asked yourselves why is it that Bin Laden has yet to confess to the September 11th attacks, especially after the U.S. government has supposedly more than enough evidence to be 150% sure that it was him? How do we know for certain that the United States' involvement in international affairs regarding the Muslims have not been affected by outside parties? ~Shirley
I agree with Shirley about the lack of information within the United States. I wondered for long why a nation that believes to be the example of democracy, so many times has been against democracy elsewhere without so much as questioning the fact that this is the land of the free. I think this happens only because the media is so censured. Otherwise, there's no way Americans could really believe this. But on the other hand, I think one reason the media does not tell more about what goes on outside of the United States is because MOST (not all) Americans don't care. I find it hard to believe that if there was a demand for good coverage of international news, the government would be able to avoid it.
And one thing that concerns me is that being the most powerful country in the world, comes with a huge responsibility toward weaker and poorer countries. When the American people elect a president, they are not just affecting their country (where actually there's probably not going to be much change) but the rest of the world. So, when people don't vote or vote without being well-educated about the issues at risk, it is an act of carelessness and selfishness.
Balzac once wrote "How natural it is to destroy what we can not possess, to deny what we do not understand, and to insult what we envy." (I apologize in advance for not finding the original French). My message is directed at the pacifists who insist that military action is unjustified. Is there anyone out there so naive as to believe that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were single, isolated events, and that terrorism of such magnitude would cease if we chose not to respond? I honestly hope not. If we could guarantee that we could end terrorism by quietly enduring the Sept 11 attacks, I have no doubt that we would give this option serious consideration.
However, anybody can see that this is blatantly untrue. Has anyone considered the possibility that the US was the victim of these attacks because we possess what the terrorists can not have? As Balzac said in the quote above, some may hate us because we are a prosperous, powerful, if not somewhat stubborn, nation. They hate us because they know they will never enjoy the freedoms we do. They would rather try to destroy our country than rebuild theirs. Any attempts by the terrorists to conceal their true intentions behind Islamic fundamentalism are absolutely ridiculous. Everybody here knows the Islamic faith is peaceful and does not condone terrorism. This war the terrorists have begun is not a war on Islam. It is a war on terrorists. But the truth is, many of those terrorists, stripped of their blind submission to a warped leader, would move to the United States in an instant if offered the chance.
If the US had a better action to address the situation, I am confident we would consider it. Sadly, however, in this day and age the only power universally respected by all is military action. If we politely inform the Taliban we disapprove of Mr. bin Laden's subversive actions, they would laugh in our faces. If we must bomb terrorist camps to achieve eventual peace, I feel we have little choice. If we fail and the terrorists destabilize our government and the United States dissolves into anarchy, who will the terrorists choose to hate next? France? Britain?
"Has anyone considered the possibility that the US was the victim of these attacks because we possess what the terrorists can not have?"
N'importe quoi. Comment tu sais ça ? C'est Balzac qui l'a dit ?
"They hate us because they know they will never enjoy the freedoms we do."
Sûrement. Moi aussi je rêve votre liberté (c'est de l'ironie) mais comme jamais je ne pourrai l'atteindre je vais m'écraser en avion sur les USA...
"would move to the United States in an instant if offered the chance. "
Mais c'est grave ce que tu dis. T'as pas compris qu'il y avait justement des terroristes dans ton pays en ce moment même ?
"If we must bomb terrorist camps to achieve eventual peace, I feel we have little choice."
Mais le problème c'est que ce n'est certainement pas en bombardant l'Afghanistan qu'on en finira avec le terrorisme. Essaie de comprendre. Crois-tu franchement qu'une fois les camps terroristes bombardés en Afghanistan (et les nombreux dommages "collatéraux"...) il n'y aura plus de terroristes ?
It seems that two of the major arguments against this bombing are that the USA is at fault for putting the Taliban into power, and that this bombing is solely retaliatory in nature, with no other goal than revenge.
I find the first statement to be ridiculous. First of all, it is a gross distortion of the facts to presume that the United States actively helped the Taliban. And, to the notion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda use US-made weapons, well, so does the Northern Alliance. In fact, the closest American ally during the anti-Soviet campaign was Masood, effectively the Northern Alliance's leader until his death September 9.
But, more importantly, WHO CARES?!! The USA's role in the Afghanistan from 1979-1989 can go on the list (one that I think is pretty long) of bad mistakes and wrongs in the its past, but those actions have not the slightest effect on the legitimacy and morality of the USA's actions today! Having done wrong in the past does not eliminate the possibility of doing what is right in the present.
To the second argument, that the USA is only bombing Afghanistan for revenge, I would say that in the minds of the majority of Americans, this is probably true. However, once again, it is actions, not intentions, that matter. No, I don't think that the USA's aim is to help the repressed Afghan women and Hindus, but if that is the end result, what does it matter? While I certainly wouldn't put it past some former American leaders to bomb indiscriminately, the statements that the USA is doing so and that there can be no benefits from this military action simply do not fit the facts.
How can we say that international terrorism will not be hurt by destroying a regime which has devoted so much of its resources to funding it? How does the obvious statement that not EVERY terrorist will be captured or killed by eliminating the Taliban imply that there will not still be a great benefit to counter-terrorism from the destruction of that regime? And, even if the USA's intentions are separate from helping the Afghan people, does it make the fact that it is helping them, does it make the help that they receive, any less real or relevent?
"First of all, it is a gross distortion of the facts to presume that the United States actively helped the Taliban. And, to the notion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda use US-made weapons, well, so does the Northern Alliance. In fact, the closest American ally during the anti-Soviet campaign was Masood, effectively the Northern Alliance's leader until his death September 9."
Non. Ben Laden a eu le soutien de la CIA. Mais tu dis qu'il ne faut pas tenir compte des erreurs du passé...C'est un peu facile. Si on ne réléchit pas à ses erreurs on ne progresse jamais. Et là je sens la grosse erreur venir...
"How can we say that international terrorism will not be hurt by destroying a regime which has devoted so much of its resources to funding it?"
Beh oui peut-être ça va un peu déstabilisé le terrorisme.
"How does the obvious statement that not EVERY terrorist will be captured or killed by eliminating the Taliban imply that there will not still be a great benefit to counter-terrorism from the destruction of that regime?"
Tu crois vraiment que tous les terroristes islamistes sont afghans ???
Tu crois que c'est eux qui ont inventé le terrorisme ? Mais je ne pense même pas que ce sont les talibans qui maîtrisent le terrorisme !
Des terroristes potentiels il y en a partout, même à Boston...
"And, even if the USA's intentions are separate from helping the Afghan people, does it make the fact that it is helping them, does it make the help that they receive, any less real or relevent? "
Le tout est de ne pas se faire passer pour des défenseurs des opprimés quand on est de simples revanchards...
Comme Shirley et Maria a dit, qui est-ce qui a le prouve que Bin laden ou les Taliban ou Al Qaeda est responsible pour les attentats? Il y a beaucoup de manifestation partout dans le monde en ce moment contre les mesures prises par les états-unis en Afghanistan. Comment voulez-vous faire croire à ces gens-là que ce sont des "bonnes mesures" qui sert à éliminer térrorisme quand on n'a même pas une idée claire sur le but des états-unis? On entend toujours Mr Bush ou Mr Blair qu'ils sont des prouves contre Bin Laden, mais pourquoi pas nous les dit?? Pourquoi s'étendre ce misère partout dans le monde (je parle des manifestations violentes dans le monde) en nous cachant la vérité?
j ai personnellement l impression que les USA se lancent aussi rapidement dans une guerre plus pour des raisons de politique interieure qu' extrieure ;je m explique ,l'offensive contre l affganistant a ete tellement rapide qu'il me semble que c est plus pour satisfaire l opinion publique americaine et sont besoin de vengence apres des evenements aussi dramatiques....qu est ce que vous en pensez???
Salut à tous !
Les messages deviennent vraiment intéressant, avec ce "duel épistolaire" entre patriotes et pacifistes (on se croirait revenus à l'époque du Viet-Nam...).
Tout d'abord, il y a une chose qui me frappe : a-t-on bien précisé que, parmi les objectifs de ces bombardements, aucun n'est réellement "altruiste", pour servir le bien des peuples et de la planète, mais uniquement pour protéger les intérêts de quelques pays occidentaux ? Je veux dire que par ces opérations, certains croient pouvoir se débarasser du fléau terroriste... A t on précisé aux militaires qu'ils ne bombardent que des cailloux ? Qu'aucune de leurs bombes ne parviendra à servir la cause "démocratique" qu'ils défendent ? Qu'ils se ridiculisent aux yeux du monde entier en larguant une fausse aide humanitaire qui ne permettra pas d'aider 1% des populations déplacées du fait de leurs gesticulations ?
Passé ce moment de défoulement sur l'aveuglement de la force militaire, un autre détail me frappe : on a parlé du soutien des Etats Unis aux talibans qui, n'en déplaise à David Seif, fut réel. On a par contre très peu parlé du fait que, le Pakistan, nouvelle puissance nucléaire, régime qui a mis en place celui des talibans et qui l'a soutenu jusqu'à il a un mois, soit soudainement devenu l'allié des Etats Unis. Comment celui qui a nourri au sein le régime désormais diabolique, et qui l'a soutenu jusqu'après le 11 septembre (sans même que l'on s'intéresse ici à la nature du régime pakistanais, car un tel allié n'est sûrement pas glorieux) a-t-il obtenu cette place ? Comment peut on déresponsabiliser à ce point ceux qui ont fourni l'énorme majorité des combattants qui sont aujourd'hui en Afghanistan ? Le prêt d'un espace aérien et de quelque bases est-il à ce prix ? L'Amérique schizophrène croit-elle que personne ne la voit ?
Jacques Dutronc, dans L'Opportuniste, semble être l'exemple de la politique extérieure des Etats Unis : "je retourne ma veste, toujours, du bon côté."
Jusqu'à quand ?
"Ben Laden a eu le soutien de la CIA."
...but not to kill thousands of our innocent people!
"Mais je ne pense même pas que ce sont les talibans qui maîtrisent le terrorisme !"
Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly as there are a few translations for the word "maîtriser," but do you really feel that the Taliban government does not endorse terrorism? It protects terrorists!
I guess I just want to say more generally that the situation the United States is in is obviously a complicated one, & there is no simple answer to it. I'm just sick of being told that our country is being selfish for doing something to eventually eliminate terrorism in the world. The U.S, has watched many unfair things happen in various parts of the world and is finally standing up to do something about it. At this point, yes, it's only attacking the Taliban strongholds. But this effort is something that will continue for a long time and in many places. Maybe it is impossible to entirely root out terrorism, but the U.S. is going to try its hardest to reach that end.
"Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly as there are a few translations for the word "maîtriser," "
J'ai peut-être utilisé un mot pas forcément approprié...
"but do you really feel that the Taliban government does not endorse terrorism? It protects terrorists!"
J'ai pas dit le contraire...Ils protègent le terrorisme...mais ce n'est pas LE terrorisme. (je ne sais pas si la nuance passe bien en Anglais)
"I'm just sick of being told that our country is being selfish for doing something to eventually eliminate terrorism in the world. "
Ils n'élimineront pas le terrorisme même s'il rase l'Afghanistan.
Bon puisque personne ne répond à mes messages je m'y réponds moi-même...
On m'a fait remarquer que cette phrase n'était pas très claire :
"Ils protègent le terrorisme...mais ce n'est pas LE terrorisme"
Je veux dire que si on élimine le régime taliban le terrorisme, même islamique existera toujours. Le régime taliban n'incarne pas le terrorisme contrairement à ce que certains messages laissent à penser.
Voilà j'espère que je me suis mieux fait comprendre...sinon dîtes le moi.
Bah... Pourquoi plus personne ne communique sur ce forum... cest pourtant un sujet très intéressant... Pliz, vos réactions...
I don't (completely) mean for this to sound snide, but I doubt that residents of Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Taloqin, etc. etc. etc. are still upset over the bombing. However, I'm sure, too, that few who initially were against the bombing in Europe and the USA have changed their minds. Am I wrong? Has anyone decided in the wake of recent developments that this bombing actually seems to be having success?