Fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the U.S.S Cole

  1. Norfolk, Va (AP) - A ceremony Wednesday at Norfolk Naval Station will mark the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the U.S.S Cole that killed 17 members of the crew.
    http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1005/268080.html

    "A documentary re-creating the bombing that premiered Sunday on The History Channel called it a precursor to the attacks on September eleventh, 2001."

    I saw the documentary on Sunday..if anyone gets a chance to see it please do, it's really worth the time. IMO
    •  
  2. 18 Comments

  3. by   Mkue
    2000: Suicide bombers attack USS Cole
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4252400.stm

    The United States Navy Has Brought Home Its Own
    http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_cole.html
  4. by   Roy Fokker
    Thanks for the reminder Marie.

    This news tempers the good enws that I got today - my buddies will for certain be making it home sometime in November.

    FOr some unknown reason, everytime USS Cole is mentioned, I can't but help be reminded of Beirut (Marine barracks bombing).
  5. by   Mkue
    Wonderful news Roy..:hatparty:

    I'm so glad your buddies are coming home in November

    marie
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    I used to write political commentary: this is what I wrote after the Cole and a year before 9/11. It's long:

    Commentary 10/13/00

    Foreign Policy: Retribution
    One Nation, Under God, Indivisible...

    Foreign policy can best be defined as the art of diplomacy tinged with the threat of war. In order for diplomacy to work, we must have both the ability and resolve to back up our words with actions. This is a time for Retribution.

    There are two foreign policy issues today that require a measure of American retribution. . . The second is our reaction to the bombing of the USS Cole. . .

    Regarding the USS Cole, Our projection of power in the World is both tactical and strategic. From a tactical point of view, power is projected by use of force. Strategic projection stems directly from that tactical resolve: the fear of tactical intervention as a means to accomplish goals without the direct use of force. It is vital and necessary to occasionally use tactical power to develop the strategic capital to stand one's own ground.

    Our lack of consistency has cost America a measure of its strategic clarity. We have muddied the waters of our strategic message, inviting the untoward testing of that message. We have bombed aspirin factories to divert attention from the domestic problems of an embroiled Administration. We have played in the theater of law when our enemies are lawless. The bombing of the USS Cole is proof of an unmitigated strategic disaster: We have sent the wrong message.

    It is now time to send the right message.

    There is a time when a government must temper its response to a crisis. This is not that time. From a strategic point of view, the bombing of the USS Cole represents a failing best remedied by a severe, tactical re-education issued to our enemies and proclaimed to the World. The United States of America is a Superpower ready and willing to exercise its power to protect itself. Let the World beware any misunderstanding of that resolve. We are Indivisible.

    Today, America cries for her fallen. We must and should take this time to remember the ultimate sacrifices of our heroes. Christian doctrine teaches that the sure road to heaven is the giving of one's own life for others. This is not the same as saying that it is sweet and honorable to die for one's country. These deaths were unnecessary. We must remember and avenge, that is our rightful retribution.

    There are two prevailing cliches that represent the flip sides of our foreign policy coin. First, there is the cliche that America is the world's lone superpower, a fervent belief and mantra of our government and her allies. The second cliche, a mantra, if not belief, of our enemies abroad is that America is a paper tiger. This Administration, or the next, must strongly remind our enemies abroad of the former and disabuse them of the latter.

    * * *

    10/13/05: I consider the USS Cole the tipping point - the point that convinced our enemies that a 9/11 was possible. We COULD have gone on the offensive then and there and, quite possibly not only prevented 9/11, but prevented the need to go to Iraq.

    Caligula was fond of saying: Let them hate us, so long as they fear us more.

    Alas, history shows that we remained asleep at the switch after the USS Cole - that we made no substantial effort to instill fear in our enemies - and 9/11 and its aftermath, including Iraq today, is the result.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 13, '05
  7. by   Mkue
    another great post Timothy
  8. by   mwbeah
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    From a strategic point of view, the bombing of the USS Cole represents a failing best remedied by a severe, tactical re-education issued to our enemies and proclaimed to the World. The United States of America is a Superpower ready and willing to exercise its power to protect itself. Let the World beware any misunderstanding of that resolve. We are Indivisible.
    All I can say is "you da man"

    Mike




    "Torment the tormentor" :angryfire
  9. by   URO-RN
    Quote from mwbeah
    All I can say is "you da man"

    Mike




    "Torment the tormentor" :angryfire
    100 ITA.
  10. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Excellent and articulate article Timothy.

    Although I can not agree on the context. SOMEwhere it has to end.
  11. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    10/13/05: I consider the USS Cole the tipping point - the point that convinced our enemies that a 9/11 was possible. We COULD have gone on the offensive then and there and, quite possibly not only prevented 9/11, but prevented the need to go to Iraq.

    Caligula was fond of saying: Let them hate us, so long as they fear us more.

    Alas, history shows that we remained asleep at the switch after the USS Cole - that we made no substantial effort to instill fear in our enemies - and 9/11 and its aftermath, including Iraq today, is the result.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Just for arguments sake (don't ya just looooove me? :chuckle )....

    .... I could say that it probably started with the withdrawl from Beirut. Somebody blows up 241 US Marines and the response is the withdrawl of US troops from the region.

    Using the logic of "staying the course", I'd say THAT incident set the precedent.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Just for arguments sake (don't ya just looooove me? :chuckle )....

    .... I could say that it probably started with the withdrawl from Beirut. Somebody blows up 241 US Marines and the response is the withdrawl of US troops from the region.

    Using the logic of "staying the course", I'd say THAT incident set the precedent.
    Oh no, ITA.

    It was a long chain of events that led us to 9/11, but our inaction in the face of 1. '93 attempt, 2. embassy bombings, and 3. USS Cole, I believe, led those that wished us harm to believe that ANY level of terrorist attack would meet w/ a meek reaction from the US.

    IF we had responded tougher at any junction, we might have headed it off at the pass.

    It's kind of like the chain of infection. Any break in the link breaks the chain. And this chain started in Beirut and led to NY/DC/Penn. It could have should have been broken sometime before that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    It was a long chain of events that led us to 9/11, but our inaction in the face of 1. '93 attempt, 2. embassy bombings, and 3. USS Cole, I believe, led those that wished us harm to believe that ANY level of terrorist attack would meet w/ a meek reaction from the US.

    IF we had responded tougher at any junction, we might have headed it off at the pass.
    Probably... but as you might have already guessed/figgeredout.... I'm of the camp that believes that actions predating even Beirut lead us to 9/11.

    The day we decided to babysit the world and nanny every little tinpot dictator with a funny hat was the day we set down this path.

    And ofcourse, I'm a cruel heartless heretic for saying so



    (Not y'all, but I've had plenty tell that to me to my face. I respect 'em for it... atleast they tell it to my face )
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Probably... but as you might have already guessed/figgeredout.... I'm of the camp that believes that actions predating even Beirut lead us to 9/11.

    The day we decided to babysit the world and nanny every little tinpot dictator with a funny hat was the day we set down this path.
    Ah ha!

    As a libertarian, I should have guessed your isolationist streak.

    While I don't totally agree - I certainly understand - I think isolationism is a great concept, but a practical impossibility. (Although I agree we have a tendency to babysit thugs - to our ultimate disadvantage.)

    We have been 'engaged' since WWII - we attempted isolationism then and were brought into the war, regardless. It was the fruits of our efforts there that made America a world leader and that led us to obligations that can't simply be severed because of the end of the cold war.

    The Middle East is a different story. But to the extent that we have been 'engaged' in Israel, we have attempted to counterbalance that engagement with aid to Egypt, Jordan, etc.

    It could be argued that a little more isolationism there would have been a good thing. But I disagree that that would have limited our current need to ‘engage’ terrorists. Our current problems don’t stem from our involvement in the Middle East – any ‘grievance’ against us on that pretext is simply an excuse.

    The extremist elements of the Islam culture believe that interaction with other religions can only have 3 outcomes: conversion, subjugation, and/or extermination.

    Look at Jerusalem. The Temple Mount has been religious Holy Ground since Joshua led the exiles into Canaan – nigh 3 plus millennia ago. Islam built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in the 500’s AD(?) for two reasons: to subjugate Judiasm and to exterminate the site from the possibility of rebuilding the Temple.

    To hear it from the Muslims, the Dome of the Rock is their 3rd most sacred Holy area, after Mecca and Medina. But the reason WHY is because it is their greatest achievement in subjugating another religion to date. (The reason why Jews have Rabbis and not Priests is because you need a Temple to have Priests.)

    I agree with the concept of isolationism – but it is not our lack thereof that has led us into the current conflict w/ fundamentalists. It is because we are a vastly successful, predominately Christian culture – that alone is enough to stoke the ire of the Usamas of the world.

    And that is why I believe that extermination should be a two-way street. We, as a nation, are happy to live in peaceful co-existence - but when others brook no choice - when they argue for a fight to the death - I'm resigned to the concept of serving it up to them, as frequently as possible.

    At some point, mainstream Islam is going to have to get off the fence and decide which world it wants to live in – the world of extremists (that will come after them next because Sunni and Shia are not Wahabi) – or the world where civil people can choose their form of religious expression without that choice itself being an affront.

    But I do agree that history is a meandering river – any point lies along the linear stream - and leads to the next point.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 15, '05

close