Max S. writes:
>If we are being empirical and practical, let's spin it from the >no
military response position. What is the practical >implication of that? As
KW says, it's an incentive
>to more attacks from a wider circle of nut-jobs. More >specifically, the
notion of no response begs the question of >the attackers' motives. If we
grant them some
>degree of rationality, we need to consider that their desire >is in fact
for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan. Why else pull >the tiger's tale? Why
expect anything else
>by doing so?
Actually, logically speaking, it's you Max who are 'begging the question'. You are assigning all the guilt and motives to the Taliban and/or OBL and the Afghan Arabs. Presumption is always the undoing of an argument.
Let's just follow your beg though. You could say the anti-terror violence started with Clinton having a load cruise missiles dumped on Afghanistan, which killed a considerable number of people. That really showed them, didn't it?
Still, I do not think it was any plan of the Taliban to bring down the wrath of the US. They hadn't yet secured control of all Afghanistan and if anything their aspirations were regional: a fundamentalist Sunni theocracy for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indian Kashmir.
It might be they got suckered by OBL on the deal. But yet again, I have to say, all the criminality and traces of conspiracy start in the US, go back to W. Europe and go back to the 'moderate' Arab states. If a S. Asian state is involved it seems more likely Pakistan than Afghanistan.
Charles Jannuzi