Do you agree that countries that harbor the people that committed this act of war on the USA should be held just as responsible as the terrorists?

No, I don't think that someone harboring a terrorist are just as responsible. I think there is a difference in exactly the same way that there is a difference between a murderer and an accessory to murder. I think it's a crucial difference to remember.

When President Bush (I think that's the first time I've called him that) said something along the lines of this question, not as a question but as statement of fact, I cheered. Whomever is responsible is NOT going to get away with this.

Not really, but the U.S. should hold them as suspects for the attack just as well.

People who harbor the people that committed this act of war on the USA should be put on the Reader's Digest mailing list. >

Hare Krishna!

Yes. If it is Afghanistan, they hide him and should be punished. These countries know what they're doing.

I am not sure, but I doubt whoever performed the acts of terrorism worked alone without a plan or conspiracy.

I do not believe that a second act of violence against civilians of another country for this reason is justified.

YES!!!!!
But I don't know what I should reccomend to do...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't know.

LOL
Much needed comic relief!
Thank you!

I never liked Bush before this happened and now I like him fine. The only thing I did not agree with that he said is when he quoted from the bible. I think it is not right to mix religion and politics.

Agree. Public officials shouldn't tell me to pray, let alone quote the bible.

Yes. But I don't know what to do about it. I don't want a war, but I think it was their fault.

I agree with you on,when Bush quoted from the bible.& also I didn't get that sing along part of "God Bless America" by congress? What was that about?? & what made that news worthy?? A group of stuff shirts sing in the middle of a crisis? I don't get it?Maybe I missed something.............

Anyone who harbors killers of innocent human beings should be punished.They're just as evil,as the people directly involved in the attack.Cowards!!!!

I think that,if the United States were to harbor terrorist(not that the U.S. would do something as stupid as that),the country that had been attacked,wouldn't like it either.We would loses a lot of allies,& would probably be left standing alone,with the terrorist.

I don't know what should be done with them either,but even a little punishment,is better than nothing being done.

That made me mad when he did that. There was no reason for him to preach his faith on tv.

They could have sung the national anthem. That would have been better. I don't even know the words to god bless america.

Yes, yes, yes!

No. American law has this "conspiracy" charge that puts too many people in jail for next to no reason! This same "conspiracy" charge may kill many more innocent people! This "conspiracy" attitude should stop! If Afghanistan offers to extradite (no jerking around), this Osama bin Laden (should it be proven that he is behind this attack), then spare the innocent people of Afghanistan- let's not forget that they are under siege by their own government. If you think that American civilians should not pay for their governments policies, then why should the Afghani people?

I emphatically do not agree...

Yes.
But we should also remember that by "country," in this case, we're talking about the government, not the rest of the citizens of the country. It's not like the Afghanis elected the Taliban.

It would very seriously be in the Taliban's best interest to hand Bin Laden, if he is indeed responsible, and all his associates over.

I'm sorry Justina and Hare, but I'm still not up to making light of this situation.... I know we must move on but let me brew in my grief and despair a little more.

Funny that I should write such a comment though, I'm always the 1st to make light of any serious situation; we all must move on and get it on. I guess I'm still reeling from the amplitude of the event - it was just too close to home! Maybe, as a Canadian (with our pacifistic attitude) I am still in shock; as a people, Canadians are very non-confrontational, I'm having trouble dealing with this!

Hare Krishna to you both!

I agree with you, Enheduana!

If the country knows of and condones these acts then yes...If they did not know or support these terrorists then no.

what if they continue to hide them?

level them.....*sighs*

The problem with terrorists, and those who harbor them, is that they don't play by our rules. It's all well and good for us to talk about our lofty democratic, life-respecting ideals, but we have to realize when we do that we're just not speaking the same language terrorists are. That's what makes them terrorists. And while we shouldn't stoop to their level, we would be stupid not to realize that we have to change our game-plan.

yes, if it is harboring with the definite knowledge that they are there and not just because they happen to be in a country. if they are hiding and protecting them, then yes.

Forgive me if I offended you, and I'm not saying that facetiously.

I know! I know! I wasn't offended; I just was telling you guys that I guess I'm not ready just yet for funnies! Give me a little time...
Love on ya, Justina! (and Hare too!)

Yes. This terrorism has to be stopped one way or another. I hope innocent people can be spared, but we can't just sit around and wait for more of this type of thing to happen.

Yes, absolutely. It's called aiding and abetting.

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

Don't you think that's a bit harsh? Hare Krishna!

Up to a point. I think we need to be careful to distinguish between a dictatorship that is holding a country in oppression, and the country itself. So I wouldn't support indiscriminate bombing of, say, Afghanistan, because that would kill yet more innocent people. But I would support actions that would remove the Taleban government of Afghanistan and replace it with a government that recognises human rights. If we attack Afghanistan in punishment, but leave the current regime intact, then all we do is give them even more reason to hate us.

No. What if they were US citizens? Do we bomb ourselves?

I imagine at the terrorist-central.org website there might be a survey like "should countries that harbor global capitalist exploiters and media corrupters of purity be held just as responsible as the infidels they harbor"? I don't even remotely sanction terrorism, but I do suggest that at least their own turf should be respected. From what I hear, the general Islam belief is live and let live. I also heard tonight that their religion is even against art or media because it detracts from the purity of God. I imagine if an entire country feels that way, they might not worry that they harbor those who might destroy int'l MTV and Coca-cola sales executives.

Back in the Grenada days I came up with the idea of a global confederacy run by a united nations like trade-charter democracy. Whenever a country was seiged in a war, they would have the option of joining the global democracy until some future time when all countries belong to the same global democracy.
btw you've been doing a quite commendable job on discussing this issue.

It depends what you mean by harbouring. There are currently over a dozen separate terrorist organisations here in the UK. We're not harbouring them, they're just here. Because terrorism is not necessarily attached to a nation state, it exists in almost a liquid form as opposed to the solidity of a nation state, and as such it is very hard to wage war against it. In 30 long years, and after many deaths, the British government has been unable to put a stop to terrorism in Northern Island. If the terrorists behind this atrocity are found to have originated from Afghanistan, and are believed to still be there, it is not fair on the Afghan people to be persecuted because of the actions of a minority hiding "somewhere" within their borders.

there is a definition of harbor in the survey

Yes, I know. That's the definition in the survey. But is it the definition implied by Bush? It's as if he implied that there is no distinction between the terrorists and the people who live in their vicinity. This distinction in my view is wrong.

I think in the next few days, these distinctions will become increasingly important. It is of upmost importance that a clear distinction be made between terrorists and people who "look Arabic". Already, people from across the globe have been showing a side of themselves they should be ashamed of. Muslim children on their way to school in Australia have had stones thrown at their bus, an Islamic community centre in Chicago has been firebombed. Death threats have been recorded on the answering machine of a Mosque in Virginia. People are understandably angry about this atrocity. The media has given them Osama bin Laden as a focus for that anger (irrespective of whether he is involved or not). But this anger should not turn to racism.

Yes thats what bush meant. Afghanastan has refused to give him up to us to be prosecuted for the embasy bombings in kenya and riobi(sp?) so the harbor (hide him and give him refuge) and they are the reason he is free to do whatever he wants.Think about it they brought this on themselves by giving him and his followers safe haven. If they don't wish to be bombed which I feel is going to happen they need to turn him over imediately.

Osama Bin Laden is an honoured guest of the Taleban regime, an extreme religious/political movement that has seized power in *some* parts of Afghanistan. The reason the Taleban did not "hand him over" after the US embassy bombings of Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, is because the US couldn't prove that the four men that were convicted of plotting the bombings had anything other than a "link" with Bin Laden. They couldn't prove that Bin Laden was either directly or indirectly involved with the planning of the embassy attacks.
Again you have used the word "they". Does "they" mean the leaders of the Taleban regime, or does "they" mean the innocent Afghan people, who have in no way brought it on themselves, but would be the most likely casualties in any air strikes launched by the US military. In a regime where most forms of non-state media have been outlawed (only certain religious "teachers" are even allowed to access the internet), and the education of women has been banned, there are Afghani people desperate to leave their homeland. They don't want to be bombed anymore than you or I do, and like you, they have very little influence on what their government actually does.

They refers to the government in Afghanistan. They must want to go to war.

To apply a standard which would hold up to all terrorist attacks, it must be demonstrated that those harboring terrorists were reasonably aware of terrorist activities (planning, training, execution) or contributed to those activities.

Imagine for a moment that an IRA sympathizer residing in the USA plans, trains or executes a terrorist attack against Britian. Would we feel it appropriate that the USA suffer British retaliation for the acts of the person residing in the USA? I think not.

Having said that, given the history of WTC/Pentagon strike's main suspect, there is NO nation on earth which should have NOT been aware of his potential to plan, train and execute terrorist acts while residing the that nation. Be it any of the Muslin nations.

Therefore any nation harboring, aiding or abetting should be held accountable, especially if the harboring, aiding or abetting continues.

Turning the suspect over to US officials would mitigate, but not eliminate complicity of any nation.

No, freedom is good. If they the exact people who harbor them should. What if a group of Africans were harboring terrorist from Norway in Norway, and the Norwegians had nothing to do with it?
See my point.

Not just as responsible, but they should know that they are in danger for doing so.

Politics was started by religion.
"...one nation, under God..."

One nation under God was added by President Eisenhower. Try again.

*If* a particular nation refuses to give up whoever masterminded and organised all this, I would be inclined to think that they were very much involved. But as ASB and SueBee have been reminding me, civilians cannot always be held to be responsible for their government.

If US civilians living in the "land of the free" with freedom of information of major importance, have little to choose between for their government and little effect on its policies, what chance do Afghans (for example) have of influencing the Taleban? How can they be held responsible for the acts of their government?

America cannot bomb a country into the ground (as I have heard some call for) because of a decision made by a minority.

But if a government refuses to give up the terrorists to justice, I'm not sure what should be done. I believe in peace. I believe in life. I'm not convinced that there can be a peaceful resolve if this is the case.

If governments harbour the people that committed this act I think that they should be held partly responsible for the act. But the people themselves should not be punished. How do you do that? How do you stop justice from being revenge?

I don't know what I think.

I'm sorry for getting mad in qual. I hope you read my apology

It is understandable that everyone is a bit tense. it is ok.
I think that the people who were celebrating because of our loss should be shot. Fudge them why is any death something to celebrate?

damnit! I'll have to study again.

The murders of some innocent citizens do not justify the murders of more innocent citizens.

I agree 100%.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

Because they feel that their deaths are being ignored by the West, if not caused by the West. They hate us and they are glad to see their enemies fall.

There are Palestinians disgusted by what happened too though. I saw several interviewed in Palestine on the news. It isn't the religion either - my school is very diverse and we have lots of Muslims. They are very upset that anyone might think they are glad.

But the US government wasn't hiding them. They probably came in through Canada. Does that mean Canada is going to be bombed?

The pilots lived here for a year during training. I was speaking as a general principle. Regardless of where it turns out they were from, if it's not right to bomb the US because they hid here, then it's not right to bomb some other country either.

If they harbor them, it is providing the terrorists time to regroup and mount an attack. No justice is being served for all the people killed.

It's not like they're cheering in the streets like new years celebrations; The TV clip shows a dozen people or so, probably about as many people as those americans throwing rocks at mosques. Shoot all violent or malicious people as a global policy would be our planets suicide.

i am not sure there is a way for america to win this war

I agree with you on that point also.At least it would have sounded more patriotic rather than to mix church & state.

Also I do believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right,but we can not just stand by & let terroristic group or any country do this heinous act on us or any other country again.

I'm kinda glad that I don't sit in Bush's hot seat right now.I would hate to make the wrong decision.

I think Bush enjoys it. Not the fact that there is a tragedy but I think he is kinda excited about the chance to declare war.

He does seem a bit sadistic doesn't he?

Okay now the last time that we were at war his dad was in office.A republican.

Now we my be on the brink of war again,like father like son.

maybe that was why he wanted to be in office

Dang macho thinking men.............I don't think women,would have to go to war,to prove how strong they can be.

From the very start of his campaign I was disturbed by all the 'God bless america' with fighter jets in the background sort of stuff. Nationalism of any sort disturbs me, though I'm all for geographic democracy. The flag prayer thing continues. My neighbor tells me that Bush has suggested they wear red, white, and blue at her entertainment industry job. Our leaders basically seem to be saying were going to have to kill masses of people in response to this. Perhaps 200 people were behind this; why should thousands more die? This whole planet surface is under video surveillance. I find it hard to believe that we don't have a second by second account over the past decade of all known terrorist leaders. That we don't even know where to find those responsible seems unlikely.

Any time.

What's happening in your part of the World?

Hare Krishna!

What time is it where you are now?

Hare Krishna!

Maybe.

Hare Krishna!

So what are we supposed to do? Sit around here and passively wait for more terrorist attacks?

Imagine for a moment that an IRA sympathizer residing in the USA plans, trains or executes a terrorist attack against Britain. Would we feel it appropriate that the USA suffer British retaliation for the acts of the person residing in the USA?

Would we not gladly hand over someone like that to the British government if they asked?

Well, my city's still collapsing, it's raining like God is mad right now, I'm afraid of Bush's visit to NYC later today (14th), because I'm afraid they're REALLY gonna let us have it, with two prime targets right in the same place and I'm paranoid about my personal safety right now and I can't leave this place and today's my birthday and I'm no mood whatsoever to celebrate and I can smell the World Trade Center smoke and it stinks like nothing I've ever smelled before (well, it's subsiding now with the rain, at least) and oh it's just all a mess.

Oh, and I can't stop drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes! Why is it that when people are under stress, so many of us resort to bad things that actually physically increase the stress? That's so odd. I should want herbal tea and fruits and vegetables, all I've living on since Tuesday morning is Wavy Lays, Marlboro Lights, and coffee. Lots and lots of coffee. Whooooole lot of coffee. Yup. God I'm jittery. This stuff is like crack.

(((HUG)))

Birthday hugs and kisses. I'd been living off coffee, cigarettes, and nacho flavored chips myself. Tonight I'm finally cooking a real meal, Salmon in wine and spaghetti sauce (tons of other stuff too). You have to do things to amplify joy instead of wallow in misery. I also got around to garden work today. It was sad to ignore my cats and fish that normally feed off my enthusiasm.

God! Any other time, I would have salivated at Salmon in sauce, but, I don't know. Food isn't doing it for me. I've NEVER not had an appetite. I ran to the corner store and bought a frozen pizza, which I usually LOVE late at night, cooked it, let it get cold, and threw it out.
A drunken friend of mine just called (at 2:15 in the morning, mind you, ringing phone scared the CRAP out of me (I'm so tired of my blood running cold)) and promised the best birthday ever. I'll try to have a good time, but I'm not really not in the mood. And I don't want to get drunk, that would be very bad for me psychologically right now. Physically, too, of course.
And getting drunk is what my friends mean when they promise a good time.
I think we should all just hide under my bed.

Would we not gladly hand over someone like that to the British government if they asked?

Yes, the US government probably would. But even if the government didn't, it wouldn't make you personally responsible. That's why we need to make a distinction between

a) The terrorists themselves
b) The government and officials of the country where they are
c) The citizens of the country where they are

We obviously have a right to go after anyone in group (a). If those in group (b) attempt to hinder that, then they also become a legitimate target. But that still doesn't justify indiscriminate attacks that kill people in group (c).

Getting drunk now seems wrong to me too. Reschedule your birthday for a month or 6 months later, and make sure you have a big bash. I hear chinese adults celebrate their birthdays by giving gifts. I thought that was so neat. I'd recommend either volunteer work (30 years from now you may feel compelled to do so and not have the health for it) or take trips into clear space like the mountains or oceans.
Don't hide under your bed. xox

It boggles my mind that that isn't international policy. Why it is considered foul play to assassinate a murderous dictator, but fair play to bomb civilians in a war because of that dictators policy is beyond me. There should be an international court offering safe harbor. The laws for int'l leaders or independents should be clear. Ones failure to show up (or at least communicate by video tape) should be an indication of their guilt. Once guilty they should be an international target of justice and a nation intentionally harboring them should be cause to be cut off from all int'l affairs. If they are a leader in power, their quarters should be raided, but their nation should be instructed that no one else will be harmed except in self-defense.

Of course not. The US Government should no more sit back passively than the Spanish Government does when ETA bombs buildings and civilians, or the British Government does when the IRA bombs buildings and civilians. They should use every available intelligence resource to find out who actually planned this, and just as importantly, who financed it. The people that did this are dead, but since the US borders were effectively closed in the wake of this atrocity, I would guarantee that some members of the terrorist cell that helped carry this out are still somewhere inside. Given the resources of the FBI and CIA, its only a matter of time before they are found in what is clearly the largest manhunt in history. As for Osama Bin Laden, I'm not saying for a minute that he's squeaky clean. The guy has an obvious vendetta against the US. He has clearly said that he wishes to restore the purity of the Islamic nations by ridding them of all non-believers (ie getting rid of unwanted US military bases stationed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere since the Gulf War). However, I think that at the moment he is being used by the Government and media as an easy target. "Here's a guy that up until a week ago, most of you hadn't heard of. He dresses funny, has a weird sounding name and lives far, far away. Hate him". I think this tactic is quite clever for two reasons, one it gives the American people a focus for their anger, and two it gives the FBI, CIA and everyone else time to do their job by finding out if it really is him.

Some women like a fight to....You never know.

Happy Birthday Justina. I hope you can find a way to get rid of your fears today. ((huge hugs)) Life must go on and you can't live scared. I know it was a horrible thing that happened but we all must work together to get through this. I hope your day is filled with hope and joy

Of course, we have extradition treaties with many nations.

My point is that we would find unreasonable a "retaliation" against the USA for the actions of the terrorist. It is a matter of supportable or documentable evidence of "haboring" as justification for a retaliatory action.

Please recall the second portion of my comment. In the case of Osama Bin Laden, the Taleban regime is fully aware of his tendencies and having such knowledge is guilty of harboring him. Thus giving justification for an action against Afghanastan.

The reason I bring it up at all, is that if we use the "harboring" argument to attack others, then by logical deduction others can use that same argument to attack us in the event a terrorist might use the USA as base for his activities against another nations.

Wow, Rich, that's the most spiteful I've ever seen you be! Please Chant!

I think that the US including NATO should attack a country if its found that they are harbouring the terrorists. However, they have to be certain they have the right terrorists, certain the country is harbouring them and to hit Governement targets hence minimilizing the death of innocent civilivans. At the end of the day, most of the civilians in countries such as Afganistan have no TVs, newspapers etc. Its not them we should be punishing!

OK, ignore my other comment about a drink! Sorry.
If you can get out of New York and want to come to Boston for a little break, you have a place to stay.

I agree, although I admit that in my anger I sometimes forget that part. I guess I just can't imagine how we can get group A and group B (if necessary) while completely sparing group C. I hope it can be accomplished.

Okay, I see your point.

Sorry Richard, I just now saw your comment. It's 12:15 pm, but it looks like I'm about a day late answering you. There are so many conversations going on here that it's hard to keep up with everything.

It isn't right to bomb any country. There is a difference though. The US didn't know they were here. Another country may have.

I AM feeling better, actually! My mood is lifting, and tonight I will be ready to see friends and celebrate EVERYONE'S birthday!

Whoo hoo!

Or, it could be all this coffee I've been drinking...

Thank you for your sweetness!
But I bet trains are packed!
I think I'm just about ready for a drink!

Hey Sue Bee Honey! I got your birthday card, but this link didn't work!

I bet it was really cute, and, again, thank you for thinking of me!

I'm ready to celebrate life now!


Boy it's been a long time since I typed a smiley face!

I don't get what your saying. I'm glad you don't believe in bombing countries though.

I know Kristal & picked up on that also,at the time I didn't really pay too much attention to it,maybe that should have been a reality check? I totally agree......

Hummmmmm,I was thinking more in the line of heads of state kind of women. You know like the Queen of England.But,then again I totally get your drift...

Oh poop! I'm sorry it didn't work. It was a cute little animation of lots of birthday candles chasing a little stick figure guy all over the place, behind trees and under rocks, and it said "Birthdays: You can run, but you can't hide". Wish you could have seen it.

I'm so glad your spirits are lifting! I hope you enjoy yourself tonight!

Happy Birthday!!

Some countries know that the terrorists are in their country and they hide them from other governments. Isn't that what they mean by harboring the terrorists? If the US did not know the terrorists where there, them they weren't really hiding them were, they?