>But isn't such a sustained campaign of terrorism exactly what the
>overthrow of the Taliban (and probable future campaigns in Somalia
>and Sudan) is supposed to prevent? Isn't the point of it all to put
>governments of nation-states on notice that it is too dangerous for
>them to allow wholesale terrorist groups to use your country as a
>base?
Here are some questions for you Brad:
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of potential targets for serving as a significant source of funds for terrorists? And if SA is indeed off the list, doesn't that mean that terrorists will continue to have at least a financial base?
Are there any limits on the steps that can be taken to combat terrorism? If there are innocents between our forces and the bad guys, do we have to give any consideration to the innocents caught in the middle? Is the US responsible for the murder of 3,000 Afghan civilians? If not, why not? Are there any rules of engagement the US should adhere to?
I would very much like to hear your answers to these questions. I understand that 9-11 was a horrific crime, but you seem to think it can be used as justification for any sort of retaliatory strike. At least I have yet to see you claim "doing X would be going too far," whatever X might be.
Brett
P.S. Does Somalia even have a governement? I thought it was still basically ruled by various warlords, each controling a part of the country.