1998: Terrorist Retribution Forewarned After US Terrorist Attacks : Indybay

Can U.S. Bombs Police the World? To The New York Times, Aug. 23, 1998 (as published). An Aug. 21 editorial asserts that “the United States has every right to attack suspected
terrorists if there is credible evidence showing that they were involved in attacks against American citizens or were planning such attacks.” No state has the right to exact retribution through an armed attack on
another country. Even the Security Council of the United Nations can order an attack only in the interest of restoring peace and security, not to punish. Nor does any country have the right to launch missiles against a country it
believes to harbor terrorists. President Clinton’s bald assertion that the strikes were justifiable because the Sudan and Afghanistan have consistently failed to heed United States demands to eject Osama bin Laden and
others is extraordinary. President Clinton and his defenders argue that the “target was terror.” I disagree. The real victim was a world in which rules matter and those responsible for acts of violence are brought to
justice, not simply killed. James C. Hathaway, Ann Arbor, MI Beware in This Tit-For-Tat World To The New York Times, Aug. 23, 1998 (as published). Secretary of
State Madeleine K. Albright’s comments after the bombings of the Sudan and Afghanistan notwithstanding, mass destruction of the sort carried out by the United States can have only one consequence in today’s tit-for-tat world: an
equal or greater measure of violence from the other side (front page, Aug. 21). If terrorists understand only the language of force—a premise I reject—then it is inevitable that they will respond to our actions with
more terror. The answer to the global crisis of terror is nonviolence and the firm and consistent application of international laws. Carl-David Birman, Brooklyn, NY 
A Matter of Simple Fairness To The Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1998 (as published). Have I missed something in The Post’s
commentary [“In Self-Defense,” editorial, Aug. 21]? True, the United States could not have bombed Sudan’s alleged manufacturing of a component of nerve gas without destroying the pharmaceutical factory. But Sudan still will be without enough pharmaceutical supplies. The United States should donate the drugs that would have been made by the factory.
This is a matter of simple fairness and of improving relations with the people of Sudan and elsewhere. In attempting to show that the plant made only drugs, Sudan is presenting the United Nations with recent bills it
sent out for its drugs. These bills will make it easy to estimate what drugs would have been made in the future and which need to be provided. Richard Wendell Fogg, Director of the Center for the Study of Conflict,
Inc., Baltimore, MD The Shadow Enemy To The Washington Post, Sept. 2, 1998 (as published). President Clinton’s missile raids into Afghanistan and Sudan raise a serious
question: How can we claim to be a civilized nation when, in the name of fighting terrorism, we use the same violent tactics used by our enemies? Mr. Clinton’s attacks indiscriminately killed at least 21 people in
Afghanistan and at least five more people in Pakistan. Because of unprovable suspicions of chemical weapons production, he destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, a facility which was producing life-saving drugs,
including malaria medication, to that famine-stricken nation. President Clinton made no diplomatic effort to try to catch the terrorists. He rationalized that the Afghan and Sudanese regimes would not be helpful in
prosecuting such individuals. Yet the result of his actions will be that these governments will be less likely to cooperate with us in the future. There is no justification for the embassy bombings. However, the
United States should critically examine policies with which Arabs have legitimate grievances. The U.S./U.N. sanctions against Iraq, by the United Nations’ own estimates, have caused the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis,
including more than 700,000 children. Our Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements. Why do we refuse to see the flaws in these policies? Is it easier
to demonize those in the Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from our own mistakes? There will be retaliation against the United States without doubt. Even more tragic is the damage that will be
done to our credibility. It now will be more difficult to get cooperation on Iraqi weapons inspections, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the extradition of terrorists, because Arab leaders will see U.S. rhetoric condemning
violence for the hypocrisy that it is. Nancy A. Hey, Hyattsville, MD

1998: Terrorist Retribution Forewarned After US Terrorist Attacks

Donate

Get Involved

Publish