The Answer is Violence?
Seiu
violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
attacked and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
us, let's kill 100 of them!"? That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
It's disappointing.
Fred Stone
J&S
"Seiu" <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BA050...@yahoo.com...
As far as I can tell there ahven't been any retaliatory strikes yet, so that
line is a dead end.
And when we find out who did it, what do you suggest? A tea party?
Silas
Carl Wilson
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
There *is* no "why". There is *no* justification for such an attack.
The only questions now are "who did it" and "how to best exterminate
them".
[...]
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
JB
<pacifist screed snipped>
So what do you suggest? That we cower in bomb shelters and take no action?
That we let this go and avoid retaliation for fear that something else might
happen? Roll over and die? Well, fuck that. Wake up and smell the fucking
coffee! That's exactly what these assholes want us to do. There's something
the pacifists don't seem to understand. These people are insane. There's no
negotiating with them, there's no "peaceful solution." Nothing will stop
them short of total capitulation or total annihilation. They're
single-minded fanatics who don't give a damn about human life, including
their own, and your idealistic naivete' isn't going to stop them from
slitting your throat and dancing on your corpse. They must be dealt with in
kind. It's the only thing they understand or respect.
John Kang
news:3BA053E1...@earthlink.net...
Terrorists are dime a dozen. There is no possible way to get them all. You
kill one and one, maybe even two will take his/her place. Going off on a
killing spree will only get more people angry and create more terrorists.
Although I'd have to admit, not all people who get angry will commit
something of this scale. However, there are a lot of messed up people out
there. To be truely the better people we need to stop focusing on revenge
and start focusing on how to stop this kinda thing in the future. We were
caught with our pants down. Clinton may have been able to pull off a
presidency without much national security because he had high diplomatic
skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer our
strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick".
We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
people comming in to this country, and most of all, find out why those
people hate us so much that they'd would disregard any fabric of moral
integrity in them, if such thing existed, to do this.
Fred Stone
Who said anything about a killing spree?
I said, we find out who planned this and we take them out.
And this time, we don't settle for a few missile strikes.
We make damn sure we get Bin Laden and his whole cadre.
Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
have the same pressure to stop short, either.
Bill Thacker
Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
Unless we take it to an extreme and become like Switzerland.
I'm not willing to do that.
>Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
>dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
>have the same pressure to stop short, either.
Bush Sr. left office disgraced by the outcome of the Gulf War,
an economic downturn, and breaking his "no new taxes" promise.
I'd like to point out, however, that he was a much better
leader than this legacy suggests. His diplomatic skills
were critical in forming the alliance that attacked Iraq;
people credit Eisenhower for holding the British, Americans, and
French together as a team in WWII, but Bush's job was more difficult
than that. He also maneuvered the UN into supporting the attack.
And his experience in the CIA and contacts there were no doubt
valuable, as well.
His only failure, failing to actually arrest Hussein and bring down
his government, came because he refused to exceed the UN mandate.
In other words, he followed the rules our allies agreed to.
I have no doubt that Bush Sr. is very much involved right now.
Our diplomatic effort to forge an aggressive, anti-terrorist
alliance is a carbon copy of what he did before the Gulf War.
I'm very much reassured by his involvement.
As for GW... well, his unpredictability is probably an asset right
now. Our foes fear what he is capable of, and for that matter so do
our allies.
I think our leadership is a good fit for this task.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
"Our governor can beat up your governor." - Minnesota bumper sticker
Fred Stone
> In article <3BA0765C...@earthlink.net>,
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
> >Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
>
> Unless we take it to an extreme and become like Switzerland.
> I'm not willing to do that.
Switzerland is a very interesting case.
I don't think the US could emulate them even if it was a good idea.
> >Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
> >dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
> >have the same pressure to stop short, either.
>
> Bush Sr. left office disgraced by the outcome of the Gulf War,
> an economic downturn, and breaking his "no new taxes" promise.
> I'd like to point out, however, that he was a much better
> leader than this legacy suggests. His diplomatic skills
> were critical in forming the alliance that attacked Iraq;
> people credit Eisenhower for holding the British, Americans, and
> French together as a team in WWII, but Bush's job was more difficult
> than that. He also maneuvered the UN into supporting the attack.
> And his experience in the CIA and contacts there were no doubt
> valuable, as well.
>
> His only failure, failing to actually arrest Hussein and bring down
> his government, came because he refused to exceed the UN mandate.
> In other words, he followed the rules our allies agreed to.
Bloody allies. Almost worse than enemies sometimes. ;-)
From the accounts of Desert Storm, we actually were racing
to get as much of the Iraqi army rolled up as possible
before Baghdad surrendered and we were forced to stop.
> I have no doubt that Bush Sr. is very much involved right now.
> Our diplomatic effort to forge an aggressive, anti-terrorist
> alliance is a carbon copy of what he did before the Gulf War.
> I'm very much reassured by his involvement.
>
> As for GW... well, his unpredictability is probably an asset right
> now. Our foes fear what he is capable of, and for that matter so do
> our allies.
>
> I think our leadership is a good fit for this task.
Yeah.
Alex
Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3BA050...@yahoo.com...
> I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism.
I agree that violence is definitely not the answer. People should rent "The
Terrorist" to see how these organizations operate. The people that die in
service of their cause are worshipped by the surviving members, adding to
their furor.
The best response would be to find these people and put them in jail in
their own country. And throughout the process, to be calm and rational.
Terrorism's goal is to cause terror. Once their actions inspire no such
thing, this kind of activity becomes useless to them.
I remember a passage from Childhood's End, where a rogue nation decides it's
a good idea to launch a couple of nuclear missiles on the ship hovering over
their city. The response from the aliens? Silence. Nothing. The implication,
of course, is that the nuclear attack was so minor to them that it didn't
warrant a reaction (even if it *did* kill some of them). Now, I'm not saying
these people should go free - but to react in a violent way gives their
compatriots evidence that the Great Devil has been seriously hurt. The
message *should* be that the Great Devil is annoyed.
Robert Templeton
news:4zZn7.122069$nh4.15...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
And as a pacifist and passivist, I still agree with you. This atrocious act
was methodically planned and enacted. These were not acts of desperation in
a hope for some sort of resolution. These people were your supposed
"neighbors" from abroad, watching football and drinking a brewsky with you,
all the while plotting the most despicable act in recent history. Many are
estimating that this act was culminating over the period of one or two
years. This was a cold, calculated mass murder.
When did these people send us a diplomat saying, "Please help us or we will
resort to desperate terrorist acts."? Never. We, the western world, and
America in particular, are seen as a Great Evil against their god and way of
life. As can be seen by attempts to alleviate problems with
Palestinians/Israelis, there is no peaceful solution.
One more time, this was the worst terrorist attack in the history of the
world, with the most lost lives and destruction ever. Luckily, if one can
say this, their attempts to drop passenger planes, full of passengers by the
way, into the buildings of congress and president (which I believe were the
real targets, in an attempt to wipe out the government and financial
institutions together) failed. Imagine not only the loss of those in and
near the WTC, but that of the president, cabinet, representatives, and
senators. Nevertheless, this was an act of war.
Robert Templeton
Fred Stone
> Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3BA050...@yahoo.com...
> > I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> > violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism.
>
> I agree that violence is definitely not the answer. People should rent "The
> Terrorist" to see how these organizations operate. The people that die in
> service of their cause are worshipped by the surviving members, adding to
> their furor.
One first notes that if there are no surviving members, there won't be
such a problem.
One next notes that even terrorists are afraid of
something; I don't recall too many terror attacks on the Soviets.
Mainly because they knew full well what would happen.
> The best response would be to find these people and put them in jail in
> their own country. And throughout the process, to be calm and rational.
> Terrorism's goal is to cause terror. Once their actions inspire no such
> thing, this kind of activity becomes useless to them.
Indeed. If we can do it that way, that would be great.
But one way or another, we must get them.
> I remember a passage from Childhood's End, where a rogue nation decides it's
> a good idea to launch a couple of nuclear missiles on the ship hovering over
> their city. The response from the aliens? Silence. Nothing. The implication,
> of course, is that the nuclear attack was so minor to them that it didn't
> warrant a reaction (even if it *did* kill some of them). Now, I'm not saying
> these people should go free - but to react in a violent way gives their
> compatriots evidence that the Great Devil has been seriously hurt. The
> message *should* be that the Great Devil is annoyed.
A disorganized, panic stricken violent reaction would do what you say.
A cold-blooded overwhelming assault with a coalition of our
allies will send a very different message. That we are not to be
messed with, and anyone who tries it will pay a higher price
than they can afford.
Pacifism might be nice for space aliens in movies.
On Earth, we must defend ourselves or we don't deserve to live.
Kamian
I take exception to your post here; not that it matters, but I have
the following comments.
Can one really be so short-sighted as to compare the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict to NATO-Sanctioned, appropriate U.S.
retribution on the parties responsible for planning, abeiting and
carrying-out the absolute-worst terrorist attack in recorded western
(and probably *world*) history?
My middle-eastern acquaintances (on both sides of the struggle, both
atheist) are going to laugh their asses off at the notion that the
struggle for their independence and sovereignty is in any way similar
to the pointless, right-wing fanatical display of terrorism unleashed
on Human beings in New York and Virginia by *religious* kooks this
Tuesday.
Such a seemingly dense, liberal view of societal conflict (above)
proves that idealistic, impractical views skew the ability to reason,
strategize, and resolve disputes with a minimum of concessions and
potential loss of life.
You may rant all you like about violence, disappointment,
sensationalism and the emptiness of revenge, but unless you offer up
*any* practical solution to terrorism that does not include weighed,
measured, and peer sanctioned retalliatory violence please pardon your
adversaries for laughing 'you' out of the think tank.
Good day.
John Kang
Not just settle for a few missles? You don't need a missle to kill Bin
Laden, just a gun, knife, launch him into space and let his blood boil, etc.
> Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
>
> Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
> dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
> have the same pressure to stop short, either.
That's not very comforting.
--
"What does God want with a starship?" - Spock, Star Trek V: The Final
Frontier.
chib
Of course we do. The first school or hospital taken out with a smart
bomb will deflate our resolve and bring a call for the end of
hostilities.
If you expect that this is going to be in any way "clean," you're
mistaken. Civilian men, women and children will be killed. American and
European boys will be killed. There's no such thing as an antiseptic
war, and this one looks to be dirtier than most since we don't even
know where our enemy is.
-chib
--
_Una onza de madre vale una tonelada de sacerdote._
-Spanish proverb
(Email: change out to in)
Fred Stone
Oh, no, I expect this will be bloody as hell.
I also expect that Americans are just fucking sick of terrorism
and will be just as glad to kick some ass, even if we see some
shocking sights on TV. They won't be as shocking as Tuesday
morning.
There's plenty of pacifists, we've heard them ready to wimp out
before we do anything. Let them whine while we take care of business.
Dave W
> I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
> first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
> revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
> something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
>
> Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
> attacked and work from there,
>
justification for their action. Holding out your hand in hope of
reconciliation with diplomatic means is suicide. Look at where it has
gotten us so far, with the exception of our assault on Quaddafi 15? years
ago. We have taken the judicial, rational so called civilized route. We
may as well grab hold of our collective ankles and let the terrorists
start drilling for prostate.
Our only recourse to let the world know that we will not abide any
terrorist action on our soil or citizens. Any group of people that would
celebrate the death of innocents deserve every ounce of wrath we can
muster.
--
Dave W, Technician
EAC Telecommunications Technical Services
Taos Hum Engineering Group
Ted King
Isreal has been knocking the snot of "terrorist"* organizations in the
West Bank for decades. Every time they hit hard they create more
"terrorists". If there is no peaceful solution, then there is only the
prospect of never ending and/or escalating violence. I don't think the
search for a peaceful solution means that we should not seek to find
those responsible for the recent attacks and have them tried in courts
of justice. But I think a peaceful solution involves trying to rectify
the root problems. Comprehending those problems and finding the right
prescription will be very difficult and call for great patience and
understanding - and it will require compromises that are hard to
swallow. South Africa has done as well as it has since the end of
white minority rule because they swallowed hard and gave amnesty to
most of the white and black "terrorists" who committed horrendous acts
of brutality.
Ted
*I put "terrorist" in quotation marks because one person's terrorist
is another's freedom fighter; e.g., the British once offered a $50,000
reward for the capture of the Isreali terrorist Menachem Begin, later
Prime Minister of Isreal, who was responsible for attacks against both
military and civilian targets.
FaithHH1
<ca...@alt-atheism.org> writes:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:23:54 -0700, Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
>
>There *is* no "why". There is *no* justification for such an attack.
>The only questions now are "who did it" and "how to best exterminate
>them".
>
I think we all know their "why." and it is not acceptable.
ClaySkye
#4
Head of EAC Dept. of Education/Re-education
BAAWA-BB section 1
Rune Børsjø
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
First of all, it's pivetal that the global community (and not just the US)
punish people who think they can get away with murdering innocents, and
civilians in *any* place in the world.
Secondly, the guilty *must* be punished. Do the crime, do the time. To give the
victims, not just those dead, but those still alive, perhaps even *all* of us, a
sense of justice.
And finally... it's critical that we do everything in our power to stop this
from ever happening again. This whole catastrophy has revelaed huge holes in our
security for air commerce, a form of transportation that doubles in span every
few years and one day will be more common than driving. We've been looking for
bombs, while these bastards have been killing people with plastic knives.
--
(please note that this has been my sig for the last 3+ months)
Useful Phrases to Know when Traveling in The Middle East:
Akbar khali-kili haftir loftan - Thank you for showing me your marvelous gun
Steve Knight
snippage
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
You might be over-reacting to the posts. The event is still fresh
and you can't watch television without seeing the planes crash in the
background while some talking head drones on.
I think the worse is yet to come. My guess is, after an official
death toll is announced, no Arabic speaking person is going to be
safe. I also think that's why the government has resisted saying
anything.
As to meeting violence with violence. That's the way the species
is. Sure, we can sit down and talk and talk and talk. But from what I
can see, it seems to be a political hand job for the public.
My solution would be to quietly hunt down every terrorist and kill
them in their sleep. Turn the idea of terrorism against them instead
of us. The German's faced a similar action in North Africa during WW2.
An Arab would sneak into a camp at night, cut the throat of every
sleeping soldier except one. You can imagine the moral after something
like that.
Sure, you can say it's outright murder. Of course. But talking to
these guys isn't working. It never did. And dropping bombs where you
'think' the bad guy's are will take innocent lives. There really are
bad people in this world. The sociopathic theists are a threat to our
safety and peace of mind.
The recent events at the WTC is the straw that broke the back of
diplomacy.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Killner
> news:3BA050...@yahoo.com..
>
> <pacifist screed snipped>
>
So bomb everyone out of their tents, creating even more martyrs for
their stupid fanatic beliefs? Ofcourse they need to be hunted down.
But the right thing to do is to catch them and give them a fair trial.
Revenge isn't going to stop a hate-spiral, just punishment could. As
it worked with the Lockerby-terrorists, it probably will now. It's not
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"-OT, nor is it "Turn the other
cheek"-NT (I still don't understand why gawd changed his opinion on
that one). Drag 'em before a secular court (I doubt they would
recognize christian judges...) and let them have what's coming to 'em.
(Capital-punishment would be nice...)
JB
>
> Oh, no, I expect this will be bloody as hell.
> I also expect that Americans are just fucking sick of terrorism
> and will be just as glad to kick some ass, even if we see some
> shocking sights on TV. They won't be as shocking as Tuesday
> morning.
>
> There's plenty of pacifists, we've heard them ready to wimp out
> before we do anything. Let them whine while we take care of business.
The odd thing is I happen to *be* a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. I
understand that there's a time to turn the other cheek, and there's a time
to kick serious ass. This is the latter.
stillsunny
<snip>
>> Who said anything about a killing spree?
>> I said, we find out who planned this and we take them out.
>> And this time, we don't settle for a few missile strikes.
>> We make damn sure we get Bin Laden and his whole cadre.
>>
>> Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
>>
>> Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
>> dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
>> have the same pressure to stop short, either.
>
>Of course we do. The first school or hospital taken out with a smart
>bomb will deflate our resolve and bring a call for the end of
>hostilities.
>
>If you expect that this is going to be in any way "clean," you're
>mistaken. Civilian men, women and children will be killed. American and
>European boys will be killed. There's no such thing as an antiseptic
>war, and this one looks to be dirtier than most since we don't even
>know where our enemy is.
I've been thinking about this all morning. It makes me sadder, if
possible, than the attack on the towers. It's not that it's more
empathy for those who are sure to be harmed -- it's that we are no
longer innocent. We would like to believe that the world is nice, and
if we play nice, they will. We would love to be the good guys on the
block who really work hard not to kill civilians, the guys who send
troops to help bring food, the guys who send aid to countries who are
starving, who are our ideological enemies. We would like to be that;
we would like to see ourselves that way. The rest of the world does
not see us that way.
We are facing the prospect of having to act in a way that does not
reflect what we are, and what we would like to be. We have suddenly
had to realize that, in many ways, we are *them*. Under all our high
ideals, under all our lofty speech, under all our naive hope, it comes
down to one more time to a basic level -- kill or be killed.
I do trust that, under it all, there will be more care taken; I also
trust that, no matter how much care, someone's going to get hurt who
should not, and there's not a damn thing we can do about that.
Because if we fail to address it, or if we fail to be stern enough and
strong enough, then it will happen again and again and again and again
and again...
Thinking about history, real peace, lasting peace, is almost never
realized through diplomacy alone. Real peace evolves out of a very
strong, very stern, and even very harsh rule; and then, when the dust
settles, there's enough strength and purpose to *keep* peace while
society, and all the things we love about it, has a chance to flower.
It's like being a split personality. I hope we do as we must,
intelligently and carefully, but with sufficient strength; and I hope
we never, ever forget who and what we are in the process. There may
be a chance here, a real one, for establishing some lasting peace,
some bridges between countries who have been antagonists. I'm going
to hold onto that hope, that this is an opportunity, not a curse.
I don't ever want to forget what we are. I'm going to trust my
government to do the very best it can in uncertain circumstances,
trust that we've learned at least something from our previous
engagements. I can't do anything else. I don't know if we'll *win*.
I do know that, at this point, a sure way to lose is to fragment
before we even get started.
Sunny
who is venting, just like everybody else
>-chib
Carl Wilson
I know what you mean, but to me their "why" is nothing more than a
sick and twisted delusion. There is no real "why".
John Popelish
> The odd thing is I happen to *be* a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. I
> understand that there's a time to turn the other cheek, and there's a time
> to kick serious ass. This is the latter.
You have stated your conclusion. Care to inform me of your reasoning?
--
John Popelish
John Popelish
> I know what you mean, but to me their "why" is nothing more than a
> sick and twisted delusion. There is no real "why".
You have stated the reason why, and in the same sentence, denied that
it is a reason. Just because the reason is not reasonable to your
mind, does not imply that it is not reasonable to other minds. When
we are willing to admit that the delusion is a more important long
term problem to be dealt with than the particular minds that are now
controlled by it, we will have made some progress toward making such
atrocities less likely in the future. The challenge it to alter
memes, not to kill those infected with them.
--
John Popelish
Mark Gradwell
> I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
> first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
> revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
> something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
How is more important don't you think. So we can stop it happening again.
>
> Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
> attacked and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
> us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
Lets just get on with the anger, grief, frustration, terror etc. Lets let
off some steam so we can think rationally.
> That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
> violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO.
Anger is ignorant but it does have its place. Just after something like this
has happened.
> In fact, it
> sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
> mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
No. We say we are fellow humans just as prone to emotional outbursts like
this as they.
>
> Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
> in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here?
"Inside" is absolutely right. We are all insiders in this case. The
buildings in New York were called the World Trade Center for a reason. They
created wealth for everybody in the world. Now theyr'e gone everybody will
suffer to some degree.
> How
> many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
> trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc.
They'll pay for their crimes just as these have if they commit any.
> It just seems to
> me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
> logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
> It's disappointing.
<ad hom alert>
I sense from the tone of these last two sentences you aren't. I'm
dissapointed in you actually.
--
Mark
aa#1478
ath...@home.com
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
The why is irrelevant at this point.
The act is inexcusable.
We can deal with the why later.
>Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
>attacked and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
>us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
First find out who "they" are and who supported their efforts and kill
*all* of them.
No mercy and no quarter.
If however we decide we are justified in killing innocents as
retribution for the killing of innocents we will be no better than the
killers.
We have to make sure that terrorists have no place to plant their feet
or lay their heads.
Fear is the only thing they understand and when the leaders of the
nations who fund or support such barbarity in any way are made to
understand that they too will be held accountable the terrorists will
have nowhere to turn.
>That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
>violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
>sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
>mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
We don't generally gloat over the killimg of innocents.
>Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
>in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
>many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
>trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
>me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
>logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
>It's disappointing.
And if America decides to drop a nuclear bomb on a populated city I
would hope the outcry is loud and firm that it will not be tolerated.
atheist@home#1554
DJ Nozem
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
I'll grant you that.
>Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
>attacked and work from there,
The question 'why?' has a virtually unlimited scope and depth. What do
you want to know? The social processes that produce kamikaze pilots?
The geopolitical processes preceding this attack? We might equally
conclude from these considerations that we have to overthrow islamic
fundamentalism as we might conclude that America should go back to its
isolationist foreign policy of the interbellum.
Personally, I believe in the first option. The only long-term solution
to this problem is the spreading of democracy and democratic values,
which has its own requirements in turn.
On the short term we have to prevent similar attacks from taking
place. Talking to terrorists is not an option right now, because of
the general feeling in America, because the demands they are likely to
make will be entirely unreasonable. These are brainwashed fanatics.
They are also hurt by America's foreign policy, but the dumb fact is
that you can't be friends with everyone if you're a global superpower
with quite a few interests of your own. The US should think thrice
before funding another rebellion, but that can't be made undone now.
This leaves us with violence. I see no impossibility in seriously
reducing the capability of terrorist networks like Bin Laden's to make
attacks against American targets through violence, if it is directed
and executed in the right way, i.e. against the leaders. We should not
be shy in this as the terrorists themselves have not proven themselves
unwilling of doing this, besides of which these are not government
leaders.
We can of course analyse for years and years, but there comes a time
for action. When that time comes, and I believe it to be soon, it is
important that we act as one and that we act in a way which harms our
long-term policy as little as possible.
>instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
>us, let's kill 100 of them!"? That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
>violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
>sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
>mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
Outcries like "let's bomb the hell out of them" are simple gut
reactions. Foolish, but understandable. This unthinking rashness needs
to be pointed out, but there are more subtle ways of doing this than
the way you are. Remember, the people you are talking to are in deep
pain in one sense or another, unlike those Palestinian idiots. This
makes their reaction more likely to be a defensive one.
>Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
>in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
>many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
>trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
>me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
>logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
>It's disappointing.
Would it be that unfair to say that your statement too is a deeply
emotional one?
The question, I would say, is not whether we are being emotional or
logical, but how thoughtful we are in relating to this tragedy.
Emotions need not get in the way of this thoughtfulness, however often
they do.
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
dj.n...@soneramail.nl
chib
<nos...@dontbugme.net> wrote:
[Referencing the terrorists}
> These people are insane.
No, they're not. That's a mistake you shouldn't make when framing *any*
response to them.
-chib
--
No, I don't have a webpage.
No, I don't have a number.
I do believe I'll have another beer, though....
JB
"John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3BA0E532...@rica.net...
Merely venting, John. Take it with a large grain of salt. I'm as frustrated
as nearly everyone else at the thought that, realistically, there may be
nothing we *can* do. On the one hand, there's the possiblilty that taking
little or no action will give these people the impression that they can
attack us with impunity, without fear of significant reprisal. Not a
desirable outcome. On the other, there's the possiblitly that any
retaliation may mistakenly be directed against people who had nothing to do
with these atrocities. Again, not desirable. It's difficult to fight a
faceless enemy who strikes without warning and then disappears. As I said,
it's frustrating, so what do you do? You can vent your outrage, as many of
us have chosen to do, or you can, as a few have apparently chosen, sit in an
intellectual ivory tower and pretend to be above it all. I've never been
very good at pretending. You asked what reasoning led me to my conclusion.
Sadly, and as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, not everything that
happens in this world is governed by reason. If that were the case, the
events of Tuesday morning would never have occured. You don't "reason" with
a hungry tiger, and you don't "reason" with fanatical mass murderers. Like
it or not, we are at war, or soon will be, and there is no such thing as
"civilized warfare." Sometimes you simply have to let go of reason, put on
your bearskin and dance around the fire. That's not logical, but it's often
true.
>
> --
> John Popelish
maky m.
> > > Seiu wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> > > > violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
> > > > first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
> > > > revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
> > > > something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
> > > >
> > > > us, let's kill 100 of them!"? That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
> > > > violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
> > > > sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
> > > > mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
> > > >
> > > > in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
> > > > many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
> > > > trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
> > > > me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
> > > > logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
> > > > It's disappointing.
> > >
> > > the WTC attacks. We find out who planned this, and we
> > > take them out. ALL of them, not just the leaders.
> >
> > Terrorists are dime a dozen. There is no possible way to get them all. You
> > kill one and one, maybe even two will take his/her place. Going off on a
> > killing spree will only get more people angry and create more terrorists.
> > Although I'd have to admit, not all people who get angry will commit
> > something of this scale. However, there are a lot of messed up people out
> > there. To be truely the better people we need to stop focusing on revenge
> > and start focusing on how to stop this kinda thing in the future. We were
> > caught with our pants down. Clinton may have been able to pull off a
> > presidency without much national security because he had high diplomatic
> > skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer our
> > strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick".
> > We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
> > regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
> > people comming in to this country, and most of all, find out why those
> > people hate us so much that they'd would disregard any fabric of moral
> > integrity in them, if such thing existed, to do this.
>
> I said, we find out who planned this and we take them out.
> And this time, we don't settle for a few missile strikes.
> We make damn sure we get Bin Laden and his whole cadre.
hahahahahahahahahaha.
yeah, that's feasible without retribution - remember how well that
worked last time?
> Pacifism isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism.
but perhaps revamping foreign policy will.
> Bush is going to do just fine. He's got the same advisors his
> dad had when they got the Gulf War going. This time, we won't
> have the same pressure to stop short, either.
yeah, dumbya will do fine - getting this country into a crisis... who
knows, ww3 may be just around the corner...
John Popelish
>
> "John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message
> news:3BA0E532...@rica.net...
> > JB wrote:
> >
> > > The odd thing is I happen to *be* a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. I
> > > understand that there's a time to turn the other cheek, and there's a
> time
> > > to kick serious ass. This is the latter.
> >
> > You have stated your conclusion. Care to inform me of your reasoning?
>
> Merely venting, John. Take it with a large grain of salt. I'm as frustrated
> as nearly everyone else at the thought that, realistically, there may be
> nothing we *can* do. On the one hand, there's the possiblilty that taking
> little or no action will give these people the impression that they can
> attack us with impunity, without fear of significant reprisal. Not a
> desirable outcome.
If they do not fear death when causing the destruction, they may not
be motivated by fear after our reprisal. The big problem is that they
already fear god more than any power on Earth, and they think we
offend god by our way of life, and specifically by our foreign
policies, and that they do god's bidding by these acts, and get
rewarded with a wonderful eternity. Trying to use fear against that
mindset is absolutely pointless.
> On the other, there's the possiblitly that any
> retaliation may mistakenly be directed against people who had nothing to do
> with these atrocities. Again, not desirable.
Agreed. At that point, we have not beaten them, but joined them as
terrorists.
> It's difficult to fight a
> faceless enemy who strikes without warning and then disappears. As I said,
> it's frustrating, so what do you do? You can vent your outrage, as many of
> us have chosen to do, or you can, as a few have apparently chosen, sit in an
> intellectual ivory tower and pretend to be above it all.
I am not above it all, I am just trying to think of something that is
effective, rather than counter productive. And that will take getting
inside the minds and motivations of terrorists, not just reacting to
their actions.
> I've never been
> very good at pretending. You asked what reasoning led me to my conclusion.
> Sadly, and as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, not everything that
> happens in this world is governed by reason. If that were the case, the
> events of Tuesday morning would never have occured. You don't "reason" with
> a hungry tiger,
If you can imagine the thoughts and motivations of a tiger, you can
quite effectively alter its interactions with yourself.
> and you don't "reason" with fanatical mass murderers.
Again, not without facing the mental states of such mass murderers.
> Like it or not, we are at war, or soon will be, and there is no such thing as
> "civilized warfare." Sometimes you simply have to let go of reason, put on
> your bearskin and dance around the fire. That's not logical, but it's often
> true.
If you are willing to wipe out everyone who thinks at all like the
terrorists, and all who will be persuaded to begin to think like them
in reaction to out actions, you may be effective. But you would have
to be a god to do this without causing several times as many deaths in
collateral damage. I am not prepared to support such drastic moves.
Remember that these people do not see themselves as criminals or as
doing anything evil, but as the avenging angels of god carrying out
god's justice, and reaping their reward. That concept is what is at
the root of out conflict, not just some small group of malcontents who
everyone would be glad to be rid of. They are heroes to a huge number
of people that believe in the same superstitions.
Look how the Taliban resents every aspect of modern society, and how
the U.S. epitomizes everything they fear and hate. You could kill
millions of such believers, and if a dozen survived, they could pull
off a similar stunt every few years, indefinitely. Destruction is
easy. For them as well as for us.
--
John Popelish
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer our
>strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick".
>We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
>regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
>people comming in to this country
You can't defend against every plot they can come up with. We have to
attack the other end - make them not want to attack us.
> and most of all, find out why those
>people hate us so much that they'd would disregard any fabric of moral
>integrity in them, if such thing existed
It doesn't. Their only "moral fabric" is to inflict as much damage on
us as they can.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
>Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
>attacked
We know why, all we need to find out is a) who and b) what price do
they consider too high?
> and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
>us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
Or 1,000, or 10,000 - whatever it takes to make them think the price
of attacking us is too high to ever do it again.
> That kind of attitude only perpetuates the violence
So Japan attacked us after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When?
>Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
>in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here?
If it's an inside job, we won't be attacking any other countries, will
we?
> How many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
>trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc.
That's why we have to find out what they consider too high a price to
pay, and show them that we're willing and able to charge them that
much.
> It just seems to me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
>logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
It's purely logic. When you raise prices you lose sales. If you
raise them high enough, NO ONE wants your product that badly.
We just have to find out who the customer is, and how much he's not
willing to pay.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3BA050...@yahoo.com...
>> I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>> violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism.
>I agree that violence is definitely not the answer. People should rent "The
>Terrorist" to see how these organizations operate. The people that die in
>service of their cause are worshipped by the surviving members, adding to
>their furor.
Which is why we have to find out what price they consider too high -
and exact it from them.
>The best response would be to find these people and put them in jail in
>their own country.
And we die laughing, leaving the U. S. to them? How long do you think
the Taliban will keep bin Laden in jail? Long enough to close the
door?
>Terrorism's goal is to cause terror. Once their actions inspire no such
>thing, this kind of activity becomes useless to them.
Bull. they'll just keep doing it over and over again, until we make
them WANT to stop.
>I remember a passage from Childhood's End, where a rogue nation decides it's
>a good idea to launch a couple of nuclear missiles on the ship hovering over
>their city. The response from the aliens? Silence. Nothing. The implication,
>of course, is that the nuclear attack was so minor to them that it didn't
>warrant a reaction (even if it *did* kill some of them). Now, I'm not saying
>these people should go free - but to react in a violent way gives their
>compatriots evidence that the Great Devil has been seriously hurt. The
>message *should* be that the Great Devil is annoyed.
The message should be "attack the Great Devil and the price you pay is
too horrible to contemplate".
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
> And when we find out who did it, what do you suggest? A tea party?
>Silas
Maybe Seiu would like to resurrect Chamberlain.
*nemo*
news:dlm1qt0682ml3rau9...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> >If you expect that this is going to be in any way "clean," you're
> >mistaken. Civilian men, women and children will be killed. American and
> >European boys will be killed. There's no such thing as an antiseptic
> >war, and this one looks to be dirtier than most since we don't even
> >know where our enemy is.
>
> I've been thinking about this all morning. It makes me sadder, if
> possible, than the attack on the towers. It's not that it's more
> empathy for those who are sure to be harmed -- it's that we are no
> longer innocent. We would like to believe that the world is nice, and
> if we play nice, they will. We would love to be the good guys on the
> block who really work hard not to kill civilians, the guys who send
> troops to help bring food, the guys who send aid to countries who are
> starving, who are our ideological enemies. We would like to be that;
> we would like to see ourselves that way. The rest of the world does
> not see us that way.
Sadly, it might just be that the world sees a sinister side to America
because we have dealt in sinister fashion with people in the past.
>
> We are facing the prospect of having to act in a way that does not
> reflect what we are, and what we would like to be. We have suddenly
> had to realize that, in many ways, we are *them*. Under all our high
> ideals, under all our lofty speech, under all our naive hope, it comes
> down to one more time to a basic level -- kill or be killed.
>
The possibilities I can dream up for the long-term consequences are not
pretty. I only hope other paths are taken.
> I do trust that, under it all, there will be more care taken; I also
> trust that, no matter how much care, someone's going to get hurt who
> should not, and there's not a damn thing we can do about that.
You can trust that care will be taken, sure. But history indicates that such
care is a rare thing when military operations are going on. Whether that's
"right" or not is open to debate, but rest assured, survival of our troops
will be the highest priority.
> Because if we fail to address it, or if we fail to be stern enough and
> strong enough, then it will happen again and again and again and again
> and again...
>
> Thinking about history, real peace, lasting peace, is almost never
> realized through diplomacy alone. Real peace evolves out of a very
> strong, very stern, and even very harsh rule; and then, when the dust
> settles, there's enough strength and purpose to *keep* peace while
> society, and all the things we love about it, has a chance to flower.
This is closely related to things I read in "Starship Troopers." I recommend
it to all.
>
> It's like being a split personality. I hope we do as we must,
> intelligently and carefully, but with sufficient strength; and I hope
> we never, ever forget who and what we are in the process. There may
> be a chance here, a real one, for establishing some lasting peace,
> some bridges between countries who have been antagonists. I'm going
> to hold onto that hope, that this is an opportunity, not a curse.
>
> I don't ever want to forget what we are. I'm going to trust my
> government to do the very best it can in uncertain circumstances,
> trust that we've learned at least something from our previous
> engagements. I can't do anything else.
At this point, I think you're right. I agree that *something* must be done,
by our government, and its allies. The ramifications of whatever they do may
take generations to work out.
> I don't know if we'll *win*.
> I do know that, at this point, a sure way to lose is to fragment
> before we even get started.
Winning is going to become a *very* slippery term very shortly.
>
> Sunny
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
A little hedonism never hurt anybody...
**************************************************
raven1
(Note: for clarification, please understand that my remarks below are
not directed at Moslems in general, but at the fanatical
fundamentalist fringe).
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
I would like to point out at this juncture that when a mad dog is
attacking you, you don't ask "why?", you shoot it...
>
>Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
>attacked and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
>us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
We already know the answer to that: religious fanaticism. Even if
Israel were to disappear from the face of the Earth tomorrow, we would
still be the "Great Satan" in the eyes of the fundamentalist Islamic
world. To them, even the secular governments of Moslem countries are
the tools of Satan, and as the most powerful non-Moslem country in the
world, we represent evil incarnate. Unfortunately, nothing is likely
to change that. You can't reason with a religious fanatic, much less
with one who thinks that you are the servant of Satan.
> That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
>violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
>sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
>mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
You're thinking like a Westerner. Fundamentalist Moslems don't. There
are very real cultural differences between us in terms of our values
and our aims. The West would be perfectly willing to co-exist with
Islam. Fundamentalist Moslems don't reciprocate such sentiments. Their
struggle against the US will end when Western civilization is
destroyed or assimilated into Islamic culture. Failure to understand
that is a large stumbling block to arriving at any kind of solution to
a very real problem.
>
>Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
>in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
>many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
>trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
>me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
>logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
>It's disappointing.
It's equally disappointing to see apologetics or calls to understand
the actions of a small fringe of religious extremists on alt.atheism.
Ted King
I don't think that is the situation with Islamic "terrorists". We are
not in a life and death struggle with them. Each of us, individually,
is probably in just as much danger from our own home grown
"terrorists" (e.g., Timothy McVey) as we are from Islamic
"terrorists". There is nothing the Islamic terrorists can do that can
destroy our way of life unless we become so obsessed with preventing
*any* terrorism that we destroy our open and free systems to stop
them.
Why do we think we will be successful in cowing Islamic "terrorists"
with attacks on them when Israel hasn't been successful at stopping
them from doing so from the West Bank even though they have
practically unlimited ability to go into the West Bank and clobber
whoever they want - and do so often. As long as many Arabs see an
unrectified injustice there will always be others to take the place of
those who we kill.
The FBI and CIA have done a pretty good job of minimizing attacks so
far, but over time it is inevitable that some groups are going to find
cracks in the system to exploit. We must be diligent to do the most we
can to prevent terrorism but without destroying our freedom. There
will always be some group with a grievance and with intelligence and
money who will be able to pull off tragic attacks. The price of
freedom is that we must accept risk of harm from terrorists.
> I do trust that, under it all, there will be more care taken; I also
> trust that, no matter how much care, someone's going to get hurt who
> should not, and there's not a damn thing we can do about that.
> Because if we fail to address it, or if we fail to be stern enough and
> strong enough, then it will happen again and again and again and again
> and again...
>
Until the Arab-Israeli dispute is basically solved it doesn't matter
how hard we hit Arab terrorists, attacks will keep happening again and
again and again.
(Personally, I have never understood the proposition that supporting
Israel has been in the US's strategic self interest - events have
repeatedly shown that that is not true. But Jewish citizens,
exercising their legitimate rights, have been able to lobby national
leaders into pronouncing that it is. Though no Israeli takes the
smallest joy in what happened, they know that this has strengthened
their position vis-a-vis the US, and I think that is unfortunate. Any
pronouncements by US leaders of a recognition that it is not in the
US's strategic interest to support Israel almost unconditionally will
be seen as caving in to the Arab terrorists.)
> Thinking about history, real peace, lasting peace, is almost never
> realized through diplomacy alone. Real peace evolves out of a very
> strong, very stern, and even very harsh rule; and then, when the dust
> settles, there's enough strength and purpose to *keep* peace while
> society, and all the things we love about it, has a chance to flower.
>
If real peace means no threat of terrorism then no society that has
been open and free has been able to have both peace and open freedom.
But we can have mostly peace and mostly freedom without resorting to
very strong harsh rule. If the US strives to deal with terrorism as
criminal acts that lead to court trials for the perpetrators who get
caught, it will truly be leading the world into a more mature way of
us all dealing with each other. We will not be destroyed by taking
that tactic, we all will be strengthened over the long run.
> It's like being a split personality. I hope we do as we must,
> intelligently and carefully, but with sufficient strength; and I hope
> we never, ever forget who and what we are in the process. There may
> be a chance here, a real one, for establishing some lasting peace,
> some bridges between countries who have been antagonists. I'm going
> to hold onto that hope, that this is an opportunity, not a curse.
>
> I don't ever want to forget what we are. I'm going to trust my
> government to do the very best it can in uncertain circumstances,
> trust that we've learned at least something from our previous
> engagements. I can't do anything else. I don't know if we'll *win*.
> I do know that, at this point, a sure way to lose is to fragment
> before we even get started.
>
> Sunny
>
> who is venting, just like everybody else
Me too. : (
Ted
Mike Ruskai
>I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
>violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
>first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
>revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
>something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
I have no interest in "justice", "punishment", or "vengeance".
I want to eliminate these people from the face of the earth so that they can
never do anything like this again.
That means killing the terrorists themselves, and the governments that
knowingly support them.
A side effect will be that conditions will no doubt improve greatly in the
guity countries, when sensible and responsible governments are put in
control.
The short answer to your question, of course, is "yes". Violence is the
answer. There is no other mechanism by which we may remove this threat to
humanity. There are no buttons we can press to make them disappear into thin
air.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
John Kang
news:d3b2qtgvuip44rjun...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:49:07 GMT, "John Kang" <ia...@home.com> posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer our
> >strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big
stick".
> >We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
> >regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
> >people comming in to this country
>
> You can't defend against every plot they can come up with. We have to
> attack the other end - make them not want to attack us.
Unfortunately, as long as the US exists, there will always be people who
hate it. We are one of, if not the most powerful country in the world and
that makes some people frightened, others, angry, especially when we start
to take sides. You an eliminate every single person in the mid east and
there will still be people who will try this kinda thing.
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>
>> I know what you mean, but to me their "why" is nothing more than a
>> sick and twisted delusion. There is no real "why".
>
>You have stated the reason why, and in the same sentence, denied that
>it is a reason.
What I'm saying is that it is nothing more than an excuse, not a
legitimate reason.
> Just because the reason is not reasonable to your
>mind, does not imply that it is not reasonable to other minds.
Any mass murderer might think his actions reasonable. That doesn't
mean I have to accept his actions in any shape or form.
> When
>we are willing to admit that the delusion is a more important long
>term problem to be dealt with than the particular minds that are now
>controlled by it, we will have made some progress toward making such
>atrocities less likely in the future. The challenge it to alter
>memes, not to kill those infected with them.
How do you propose that we do that? Should we do whatever they want
us to do, sending them the message that they can determine our
policies by the threat of terrorism? Perhaps we should offer them
free counseling services? What do you suggest?
Seiu
> >attacked
>
> We know why, all we need to find out is a) who and b) what price do
> they consider too high?
They did it for religion? For retribution? For what exactly ... and when
that is answered conclusively, we can find a more permanent solution
than 'zotting' people off the face of the earth. Changing a person's
mind can be more productive than killing them, don't you agree? How to
accomplish that though, before you ask, I won't pretend to know.
> > and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
> >us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
>
> Or 1,000, or 10,000 - whatever it takes to make them think the price
> of attacking us is too high to ever do it again.
I don't see how that will work. If I was a suicidal zealout, killing my
comrades would only strengthen my resolve. Killing the "innocent"
civilians could force the goverment into taking action, however, that
would make the US stand hypocrital. Example; would 5,000 additional
kamikaze deaths in the US make us change our minds about taking revenge?
I doubt it. So how will that work as a tactic for us?
> > That kind of attitude only perpetuates the violence
>
> So Japan attacked us after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When?
You mean like all our combined air strikes eliminted the threats in
Korea and later in Vietnam, correct? Killing their civilians certainly
lead to victory for our armed forces in both those wars.
> >Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
> >in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here?
>
> If it's an inside job, we won't be attacking any other countries, will
> we?
Hopefully that can be accurately determined, yes.
> > How many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
> >trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc.
>
> That's why we have to find out what they consider too high a price to
> pay, and show them that we're willing and able to charge them that
> much.
Say I was an American soldier on enemy soil. If my country suffered
severe loss of life from the enemy I was fighting, that wouldn't lower
my morale enough to surrender. It would likely have the opposite effect.
That's why I disagree with this particulal piece of reasoning.
Seiu
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:23:54 -0700, Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> >violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
> >first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
> >revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
> >something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
>
> The why is irrelevant at this point.
> The act is inexcusable.
> We can deal with the why later.
The "why" IS important though. If you discover and understand the things
that motivate your adversary you can gain the foresight to defeat them.
Together with the military, you can have justice. Otherwise, it is
simply murder.
> >Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
> >attacked and work from there, instead of this cry for "They killed 10 of
> >us, let's kill 100 of them!"?
>
> First find out who "they" are and who supported their efforts and kill
> *all* of them.
> No mercy and no quarter.
During the early stages of the last world war, those sentiments were
popular with both European sides. When the soldiers and civilians were
directly exposed to the consequences, they eventually changed their
minds.
> If however we decide we are justified in killing innocents as
> retribution for the killing of innocents we will be no better than the
> killers.
> We have to make sure that terrorists have no place to plant their feet
> or lay their heads.
> Fear is the only thing they understand and when the leaders of the
> nations who fund or support such barbarity in any way are made to
> understand that they too will be held accountable the terrorists will
> have nowhere to turn.
I agree totally with that. Changing the mindset isn't as easy a solution
as "Let's kill them" but in the end it's better to try to work it out.
At least we could say that every opportunity was given. And yes, I'm
being idealistic.
> >That kind of attitude only perpetuates the
> >violence, and comments like that sound rather ignorant IMO. In fact, it
> >sounds very similar to the chants I've heard on the News from Arabian
> >mobs. Hmm, can you say hypocrisy?
>
> We don't generally gloat over the killimg of innocents.
Some are calling for the death of non-combatants here, but not all. I
doubt those demonstrators dancing in the streets represent 100% of the
arabian populace either. Neither one of those is justification to
crusade through their towns with missiles.
> >Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
> >in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here? How
> >many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
> >trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc. It just seems to
> >me that many of you are being ruled by your emotions, instead of the
> >logic from which I've come to expect from this group over the years.
> >It's disappointing.
>
> And if America decides to drop a nuclear bomb on a populated city I
> would hope the outcry is loud and firm that it will not be tolerated.
Hopefully we can avoid that possiblity altogether.
John Popelish
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:03:15 -0400, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Carl Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I know what you mean, but to me their "why" is nothing more than a
> >> sick and twisted delusion. There is no real "why".
> >
> >You have stated the reason why, and in the same sentence, denied that
> >it is a reason.
>
> What I'm saying is that it is nothing more than an excuse, not a
> legitimate reason.
A delusion is very different from a conscious excuse. I believe that
our enemy in this case is the delusion, itself. And that delusion is
that the United States is an agent of Satan and is the enemy of God
fearing Muslims. Killing any small fraction of those infected with
this delusion will strengthen the infection in the survivors.
> > Just because the reason is not reasonable to your
> >mind, does not imply that it is not reasonable to other minds.
>
> Any mass murderer might think his actions reasonable. That doesn't
> mean I have to accept his actions in any shape or form.
You don't have to accept his reasons as reasonable ot you, but if you
intend to change a cultural acceptance of mass murder for "a good
reason" (see above) then you have to understand that culture in order
to change it.
> > When
> >we are willing to admit that the delusion is a more important long
> >term problem to be dealt with than the particular minds that are now
> >controlled by it, we will have made some progress toward making such
> >atrocities less likely in the future. The challenge it to alter
> >memes, not to kill those infected with them.
>
> How do you propose that we do that?
If I had it all figured out, I would have run for president in the
last election.
> Should we do whatever they want
> us to do, sending them the message that they can determine our
> policies by the threat of terrorism? Perhaps we should offer them
> free counseling services? What do you suggest?
Surely you can think of more than just those two possibilities. Keep
thinking. This will take real creative thinking, if we are to really
improve the long term situation with our actions.
--
John Popelish
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:d3b2qtgvuip44rjun...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:49:07 GMT, "John Kang" <ia...@home.com> posted
>> in alt.atheism:
>> >skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer our
>> >strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick".
>> >We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
>> >regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
>> >people comming in to this country
>> You can't defend against every plot they can come up with. We have to
>> attack the other end - make them not want to attack us.
>Unfortunately, as long as the US exists, there will always be people who
>hate it.
They can hate us all they want. We just have to make the cost of
attacking us so horrendous that they'll be content to hate us from
afar.
>You an eliminate every single person in the mid east and
>there will still be people who will try this kinda thing.
You make it expensive enough and no one will. Everyone has a price
beyond which he won't go.
--
Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve freedom.
Extremism in defense of liberty is *not* a vice.
NEVER FORGET THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON!
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<psyched...@flashmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:23:54 -0700, Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I would like to point out at this juncture that when a mad dog is
>attacking you, you don't ask "why?", you shoot it...
Unless your name is Chamberlain. Then you let it gnaw off a few
fingers, in the hope it'll be satisfied with that.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>If they do not fear death when causing the destruction, they may not
>be motivated by fear after our reprisal. The big problem is that they
>already fear god more than any power on Earth, and they think we
>offend god by our way of life, and specifically by our foreign
>policies, and that they do god's bidding by these acts, and get
>rewarded with a wonderful eternity. Trying to use fear against that
>mindset is absolutely pointless.
Fear of their own deaths, certainly. But every man fears something on
this earth. Family? Some phobia? We have to find it and use it.
>I am not above it all, I am just trying to think of something that is
>effective, rather than counter productive.
We find out who "they" are. We have some co-conspirators, so why
don't we "ask" them?
> And that will take getting
>inside the minds and motivations of terrorists, not just reacting to
>their actions.
Bingo.
>Look how the Taliban resents every aspect of modern society, and how
>the U.S. epitomizes everything they fear and hate. You could kill
>millions of such believers, and if a dozen survived, they could pull
>off a similar stunt every few years, indefinitely.
I don't think there are that many rabid Taliban.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:23:54 -0700, Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> posted
>> >Wouldn't it be wise to first determine /exactly/ why we have been
>> >attacked
>> We know why, all we need to find out is a) who and b) what price do
>> they consider too high?
>They did it for religion? For retribution? For what exactly
Bin Laden hates the Great Satan (us) for corrupting Moslems. (They
want what we have - he considers that desire corruption.) He's stated
this many, many times. He makes no bones about it. And he's stated
that he sees no difference between military and civilian targets.
> ... and when
>that is answered conclusively, we can find a more permanent solution
>than 'zotting' people off the face of the earth. Changing a person's
>mind can be more productive than killing them, don't you agree?
So can making that person never have been born. How about a practical
solution? (If you think like you, instead of thinking like him,
you're already defeated. They DON'T think like we do.)
> How to accomplish that though, before you ask, I won't pretend to know.
Since he considers negotiation to merely be a sign of weakness, you
CAN'T know, because there's nothing TO know.
The only way to 'change his mind' is with a bullet, but that wouldn't
stop anything, so changing his mind, in that sense, or in the sense
you meant it, isn't the answer.
We have to make him change his own mind. Everyone has a price - we
just have to find his. Read 1984. Especially the end.
>> Or 1,000, or 10,000 - whatever it takes to make them think the price
>> of attacking us is too high to ever do it again.
>I don't see how that will work.
Will you buy milk for $3/gallon? Will you buy milk for $5
million/gallon?
Will you attack your enemy if you'll get a paper cut? Will you attack
your enemy if you'll lose your soul (if you believe in souls)?
> If I was a suicidal zealout, killing my
>comrades would only strengthen my resolve.
How about killing your children slowly (stoning)? Your parents?
Raping your wife and not allowing you to kill her? There's SOMETHING
beyond which any man just WILL NOT go.
This is war, not a game of "Who wants to be a nice person".
>Killing the "innocent" civilians could force the goverment into taking action, however, that
>would make the US stand hypocrital.
Assassinating the government would do the same thing, but if soldiers
do it during battle, it's not called assassination. And doing it
until the new government (or the next new one, or ...) learns how to
stay alive (turn over ALL terrorists within your borders - or their
bodies) gets us a nice civilian extradition.
>Example; would 5,000 additional
>kamikaze deaths in the US make us change our minds about taking revenge?
>I doubt it. So how will that work as a tactic for us?
We find what they aren't willing to pay. Then we charge them that
much.
>> > That kind of attitude only perpetuates the violence
>> So Japan attacked us after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When?
>You mean like all our combined air strikes eliminted the threats in
>Korea and later in Vietnam, correct?
No, I mean we make the price of fighting us greater than they're
willing to pay.
>> >Besides, if this was an "inside" job, don't you think a massive strike
>> >in country X could potentially bring an equal retalliation here?
>> If it's an inside job, we won't be attacking any other countries, will
>> we?
>Hopefully that can be accurately determined, yes.
We're not attacking anyone, are we? What do you think the government
is doing? Waiting for Halloween?
>> > How many insiders may already be in the states, dormant, waiting for a
>> >trigger to poison water supplies, bomb, set fires, etc.
>> That's why we have to find out what they consider too high a price to
>> pay, and show them that we're willing and able to charge them that
>> much.
>Say I was an American soldier on enemy soil. If my country suffered
>severe loss of life from the enemy I was fighting, that wouldn't lower
>my morale enough to surrender. It would likely have the opposite effect.
Then we find out what price *IS* too great for them to pay. Naming
things that aren't is meaningless and defeatist.
--
Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve freedom.
Extremism in defense of liberty is *not* a vice.
NEVER FORGET THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON!
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
stillsunny
>stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.com> wrote in message news:<dlm1qt0682ml3rau9...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 05:53:34 -0700, chib <ch...@outreach.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> We are facing the prospect of having to act in a way that does not
>> reflect what we are, and what we would like to be. We have suddenly
>> had to realize that, in many ways, we are *them*. Under all our high
>> ideals, under all our lofty speech, under all our naive hope, it comes
>> down to one more time to a basic level -- kill or be killed.
>>
>
>I don't think that is the situation with Islamic "terrorists". We are
>not in a life and death struggle with them. Each of us, individually,
>is probably in just as much danger from our own home grown
>"terrorists" (e.g., Timothy McVey) as we are from Islamic
>"terrorists". There is nothing the Islamic terrorists can do that can
>destroy our way of life unless we become so obsessed with preventing
>*any* terrorism that we destroy our open and free systems to stop
>them.
I know, Ted. I phrased it poorly, and I apologize for that. It's
simply that for the longest time, even with occasional abberations, we
have been armchair quarterbacks, people who looked from a distance at
foreign terrorism and pontificated on what everyone else should do.
Now, it becomes what *we* should do, and all our high ideals about
caring for everyone, or considering everyone, go out the window, and
must.
>Why do we think we will be successful in cowing Islamic "terrorists"
>with attacks on them when Israel hasn't been successful at stopping
>them from doing so from the West Bank even though they have
>practically unlimited ability to go into the West Bank and clobber
>whoever they want - and do so often. As long as many Arabs see an
>unrectified injustice there will always be others to take the place of
>those who we kill.
I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
> The FBI and CIA have done a pretty good job of minimizing attacks so
>far, but over time it is inevitable that some groups are going to find
>cracks in the system to exploit. We must be diligent to do the most we
>can to prevent terrorism but without destroying our freedom. There
>will always be some group with a grievance and with intelligence and
>money who will be able to pull off tragic attacks. The price of
>freedom is that we must accept risk of harm from terrorists.
Unfortunate, but true.
>> I do trust that, under it all, there will be more care taken; I also
>> trust that, no matter how much care, someone's going to get hurt who
>> should not, and there's not a damn thing we can do about that.
>> Because if we fail to address it, or if we fail to be stern enough and
>> strong enough, then it will happen again and again and again and again
>> and again...
>>
>
>Until the Arab-Israeli dispute is basically solved it doesn't matter
>how hard we hit Arab terrorists, attacks will keep happening again and
>again and again.
We won't know until we try to find a solution. I heard an interesting
thing this evening on the radio, although I have no idea who was
talking -- apparently one of the "experts" that crop up every time we
have a crisis. He said that Islam's problem with us is not Israel;
its problem with Israel is us. Further, that the nature of the jihad
isn't only against the west, but against Buddhism and something else I
missed because a car was passing. I think I need a really good book
or two.
<snip>
>If real peace means no threat of terrorism then no society that has
>been open and free has been able to have both peace and open freedom.
>But we can have mostly peace and mostly freedom without resorting to
>very strong harsh rule. If the US strives to deal with terrorism as
>criminal acts that lead to court trials for the perpetrators who get
>caught, it will truly be leading the world into a more mature way of
>us all dealing with each other. We will not be destroyed by taking
>that tactic, we all will be strengthened over the long run.
It's a great thought to hold onto.
>> Sunny
>>
>> who is venting, just like everybody else
>
>Me too. : (
Vent away. I enjoy reading what you have to say quite a bit.
Sunny
>Ted
Carl Wilson
wrote:
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:03:15 -0400, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Carl Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know what you mean, but to me their "why" is nothing more than a
>> >> sick and twisted delusion. There is no real "why".
>> >
>> >You have stated the reason why, and in the same sentence, denied that
>> >it is a reason.
>>
>> What I'm saying is that it is nothing more than an excuse, not a
>> legitimate reason.
>
>A delusion is very different from a conscious excuse. I believe that
>our enemy in this case is the delusion, itself. And that delusion is
>that the United States is an agent of Satan and is the enemy of God
>fearing Muslims. Killing any small fraction of those infected with
>this delusion will strengthen the infection in the survivors.
Actually, I'm not in favor of killing just a small fraction. I'm in
favor of killing all those responsible. If anyone else wishes to join
in their ranks, then so be it.
>> > Just because the reason is not reasonable to your
>> >mind, does not imply that it is not reasonable to other minds.
>>
>> Any mass murderer might think his actions reasonable. That doesn't
>> mean I have to accept his actions in any shape or form.
>
>You don't have to accept his reasons as reasonable ot you, but if you
>intend to change a cultural acceptance of mass murder for "a good
>reason" (see above) then you have to understand that culture in order
>to change it.
This culture has changed little in the last 1400 years or so. I doubt
if we can do much to change their tribal mentality and their beliefs
in their god of war any time soon. What we can do is defend
ourselves.
>> > When
>> >we are willing to admit that the delusion is a more important long
>> >term problem to be dealt with than the particular minds that are now
>> >controlled by it, we will have made some progress toward making such
>> >atrocities less likely in the future. The challenge it to alter
>> >memes, not to kill those infected with them.
>>
>> How do you propose that we do that?
>
>If I had it all figured out, I would have run for president in the
>last election.
>> Should we do whatever they want
>> us to do, sending them the message that they can determine our
>> policies by the threat of terrorism? Perhaps we should offer them
>> free counseling services? What do you suggest?
>
>Surely you can think of more than just those two possibilities. Keep
>thinking. This will take real creative thinking, if we are to really
>improve the long term situation with our actions.
Unfortunately, the only other solutions I can think of at the moment
involve terms like "GB Nerve Agent" and things of that nature. But
I'll keep working at it.
John Kang
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 01:11:10 GMT, "John Kang" <ia...@home.com> posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >news:d3b2qtgvuip44rjun...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:49:07 GMT, "John Kang" <ia...@home.com> posted
> >> in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >skills. We can't say the same for Bush. If diplomacy is no longer
our
> >> >strong point, then as Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big
stick".
> >> >We need to tighten defenses, put budget back on the national defenses,
> >> >regulate transportation and immigration more. Do background checks on
> >> >people comming in to this country
>
> >> You can't defend against every plot they can come up with. We have to
> >> attack the other end - make them not want to attack us.
>
> >Unfortunately, as long as the US exists, there will always be people who
> >hate it.
>
> They can hate us all they want. We just have to make the cost of
> attacking us so horrendous that they'll be content to hate us from
> afar.
>
> >You an eliminate every single person in the mid east and
> >there will still be people who will try this kinda thing.
>
> You make it expensive enough and no one will. Everyone has a price
> beyond which he won't go.
These people on the plane were willing to sacrifice their lives. If you
know lunatic fanatics, you'll know there's nothing they won't give up in the
name of their "cause".
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:37e4qt4iptm6fhn6c...@4ax.com...
>> You make it expensive enough and no one will. Everyone has a price
>> beyond which he won't go.
>These people on the plane were willing to sacrifice their lives.
So personal isn't too expensive for them.
> If you
>know lunatic fanatics, you'll know there's nothing they won't give up in the
>name of their "cause".
Everyone has a maximum price. It may be something we don't want to
even contemplate charging, but either we do or we die. We've been
there before. All we have to find out is what that price is, and to
whom to send the bill -and it's NOT "Islam".
Ted King
> On 13 Sep 2001 17:23:56 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>
>
> >stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.com> wrote in message news:<dlm1qt0682ml3rau9...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 05:53:34 -0700, chib <ch...@outreach.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> We are facing the prospect of having to act in a way that does not
> >> reflect what we are, and what we would like to be. We have suddenly
> >> had to realize that, in many ways, we are *them*. Under all our high
> >> ideals, under all our lofty speech, under all our naive hope, it comes
> >> down to one more time to a basic level -- kill or be killed.
> >>
> >
> >I don't think that is the situation with Islamic "terrorists". We are
> >not in a life and death struggle with them. Each of us, individually,
> >is probably in just as much danger from our own home grown
> >"terrorists" (e.g., Timothy McVey) as we are from Islamic
> >"terrorists". There is nothing the Islamic terrorists can do that can
> >destroy our way of life unless we become so obsessed with preventing
> >*any* terrorism that we destroy our open and free systems to stop
> >them.
>
> I know, Ted. I phrased it poorly, and I apologize for that. It's
> simply that for the longest time, even with occasional abberations, we
> have been armchair quarterbacks, people who looked from a distance at
> foreign terrorism and pontificated on what everyone else should do.
> Now, it becomes what *we* should do, and all our high ideals about
> caring for everyone, or considering everyone, go out the window, and
> must.
>
I'm not much of a patriot, though I did my military bit when called
on. I try my best to see the world beyond the perspective of "being an
American", though I know I don't always succeed. Though "crimes" are
usually thought of as breaking the law of a constituted government, I
do believe in the concept of "crimes against humanity" even though
that is vague and in great need of definition. The actions of the
Islamic fundamentalists to cause planeloads of people to crash into
buildings full of thousands of people go beyond breaking the laws of
an individual country. The way these people act on their sharply
narrow view of Islam makes them a danger to the world community and in
a way, then, international criminals IMHO. Those accused of crimes,
and might be prepared to perpetrate further crimes, need to be
apprehended - or at least full scale efforts need to be put forth to
apprehend them. But I think anyone that is accused should only have
the assumption of their innocence put aside in a fair trial.
I think that having the perspective of those suspected of causing the
events of Sept. 11 as being potential criminals is better in the long
run than the "war" talk we hear. I have little doubt that the Bush
administration's decision to cast this situation as a "war" (supported
by Democrats) is not just for the purpose of assuaging domestic
sensibilities. In war the normal considerations nation-states give
each other are suspended, "legitimizing" actions that would not be
acceptable in the normal course of pursuing criminals. I also have
little doubt that the people in the Bush administration are convinced
that the risk of proceeding under the guise of a war are less than not
doing so. I don't agree with that assessment. I think the risk of
things escalating are not worth the possibly reduced chance that there
will be fewer attacks. Already we are seeing some of the risks in
tickling the war dragon in the way that many investors and consumers
are acting. Any measure of hysteria that takes effect (affect?)
amongst these groups of people can cause economic consequences that
would make Ussamah Bin Laden happy and could easily be considerably
beyond the direct economic consequences of the attacks of Sept. 11.
> >Why do we think we will be successful in cowing Islamic "terrorists"
> >with attacks on them when Israel hasn't been successful at stopping
> >them from doing so from the West Bank even though they have
> >practically unlimited ability to go into the West Bank and clobber
> >whoever they want - and do so often. As long as many Arabs see an
> >unrectified injustice there will always be others to take the place of
> >those who we kill.
>
> I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
But I feel strongly that the ability of these groups to gather support
from individuals and governments is greatly fasciliated by our (not
conditional enough) support of Israel. If the US had taken a truly
balanced view of the case of the Israelis and the Palestinians through
the last several decades, I am convinced that the likes of Ussamah Bin
Laden would have had a very much more difficult time getting the
support they needed to pull off the kinds of actions they have. And
there are many terrorist actions against the US that are tied directly
to our support of Israel; e.g., the killing of the marines in Beirut.
> <snip>
>
> >If real peace means no threat of terrorism then no society that has
> >been open and free has been able to have both peace and open freedom.
> >But we can have mostly peace and mostly freedom without resorting to
> >very strong harsh rule. If the US strives to deal with terrorism as
> >criminal acts that lead to court trials for the perpetrators who get
> >caught, it will truly be leading the world into a more mature way of
> >us all dealing with each other. We will not be destroyed by taking
> >that tactic, we all will be strengthened over the long run.
>
> It's a great thought to hold onto.
>
I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists. And I believe history has
shown that more often than not we are ill served by going with what
appears to be a pragmatic expediency of the moment at the expense of
our basic values; e.g., putting Japanese-American citizens in camps in
WWII and supporting the oppressive regime of the Shah of Iran.
> >> Sunny
> >>
> >> who is venting, just like everybody else
> >
> >Me too. : (
>
> Vent away. I enjoy reading what you have to say quite a bit.
>
> Sunny
>
I'm aware my posts are not anywhere near as refined as many in this
newsgroup are capable of producing (I continue to learn so much from
them), so I am really grateful that you think what I have to say is
worth reading.
Ted
stillsunny
>stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.com> wrote in message news:<6rk5qt48tnv8icdj1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 13 Sep 2001 17:23:56 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
<snip>
>> >I don't think that is the situation with Islamic "terrorists". We are
>> >not in a life and death struggle with them. Each of us, individually,
>> >is probably in just as much danger from our own home grown
>> >"terrorists" (e.g., Timothy McVey) as we are from Islamic
>> >"terrorists". There is nothing the Islamic terrorists can do that can
>> >destroy our way of life unless we become so obsessed with preventing
>> >*any* terrorism that we destroy our open and free systems to stop
>> >them.
>>
>> I know, Ted. I phrased it poorly, and I apologize for that. It's
>> simply that for the longest time, even with occasional abberations, we
>> have been armchair quarterbacks, people who looked from a distance at
>> foreign terrorism and pontificated on what everyone else should do.
>> Now, it becomes what *we* should do, and all our high ideals about
>> caring for everyone, or considering everyone, go out the window, and
>> must.
>>
>
>I'm not much of a patriot, though I did my military bit when called
>on.
I've been trying to focus on posts of those who have actual military
service under their belts. I think too often those of us who have no
real experience in that area tend to not understand as well as we
might what's going to be involved in any course we choose. What
branch did you serve in?
<snip>
> But I think anyone that is accused should only have
>the assumption of their innocence put aside in a fair trial.
I wholeheartedly agree. If we can't be an example of the things we're
wanting to encourage, we've abandoned all we are, anyhow.
<snip thoughtful comments on war v. crime>
>I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
>so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
>incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
>will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
Perhaps not end. Perhaps, though, judicious use of carrot and stick
will work where other ways have not.
<snip>
>I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
>grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
>Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
>influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
>But I feel strongly that the ability of these groups to gather support
>from individuals and governments is greatly fasciliated by our (not
>conditional enough) support of Israel. If the US had taken a truly
>balanced view of the case of the Israelis and the Palestinians through
>the last several decades, I am convinced that the likes of Ussamah Bin
>Laden would have had a very much more difficult time getting the
>support they needed to pull off the kinds of actions they have. And
>there are many terrorist actions against the US that are tied directly
>to our support of Israel; e.g., the killing of the marines in Beirut.
Your mention of Beirut is timely. I want to check back on some things
before I comment further, but I wanted to leave it in as a reminder,
or perhaps a springboard for other people's comments.
<snip>
>I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
>it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
>from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists. And I believe history has
>shown that more often than not we are ill served by going with what
>appears to be a pragmatic expediency of the moment at the expense of
>our basic values; e.g., putting Japanese-American citizens in camps in
>WWII and supporting the oppressive regime of the Shah of Iran.
I'd agree about expediency not serving our basic values. I'm not sure
I agree with how history will see this. I keep thinking about the
increasing assaults by barbarous tribes against the Roman Empire,
although my analogy may be flawed.
Sunny
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>I think the risk of
>things escalating are not worth the possibly reduced chance that there
>will be fewer attacks.
We've been there - it works the other way. What do you want them to
destroy next time? Manhattan island? No thanks. I'd have to travel
by ferry to anywhere.
> Already we are seeing some of the risks in
>tickling the war dragon in the way that many investors and consumers
>are acting. Any measure of hysteria that takes effect (affect?)
>amongst these groups of people can cause economic consequences that
>would make Ussamah Bin Laden happy and could easily be considerably
>beyond the direct economic consequences of the attacks of Sept. 11.
And doing nothing (anything short of war with these people is doing
nothing) will end in our not having an economy to worry about.
>> I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
>I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
>so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
>incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
>will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
If we make the price of terrorism something that they're unwilling to
pay, they won't be interested in paying it. We just have to develop
the stomach, and quickly.
>I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
>grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
>Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
>influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
So has our freedom of religion, our freedom of dress, our freedom for
women. Either we give those (and more) up, or we have terrorism.
>I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
>it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
>from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists.
Isn't that about what Chamberlain believed about Germany?
> And I believe history has
>shown that more often than not we are ill served by going with what
>appears to be a pragmatic expediency of the moment at the expense of
>our basic values; e.g.
E.g., bombing Japan. Nope, I guess that didn't work. Or did they
lose all interest in fighting us?
The time for pacifism and nicey-nicey is over. Or the time for
civilization is. Your choice.
Apostate
If we don't get the extradition by our stated deadline (trying not to
smirk while pronouncing the latter) we offer $5M per Taliban severed head,
to the first taker. Then we offer $20.00 for bin Laden's body, or $10M for
him, live and healthy, but helplessly bound.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
I doubt, therefore I might be.
NOTICE : Due to budgetary constraints, the light at the
end of the tunnel will be shut down until further notice.
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg
Woden
<save...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 06:23:33 -0700, Seiu <seiuo...@yahoo.com> posted
(snip)
>>Assassinating the government would do the same thing, but if soldiers
>>do it during battle, it's not called assassination. And doing it
>>until the new government (or the next new one, or ...) learns how to
>>stay alive (turn over ALL terrorists within your borders - or their
>>bodies) gets us a nice civilian extradition.
>
> If we don't get the extradition by our stated deadline (trying not to
>smirk while pronouncing the latter) we offer $5M per Taliban severed head,
>to the first taker. Then we offer $20.00 for bin Laden's body, or $10M for
>him, live and healthy, but helplessly bound.
>
Actually, we should pay just as much for his body. While it would reduce
the chance for Americans to enjoy watching him suffer, politically, it would
be better. If we can convince a fellow Muslim to turn in his body for a few
million, he doesn't become a martyr, just another dead intersect rival.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Vossen
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:23:54 -0700, Seiu wrote:
>
> >I'm surprised at the number of people here who are suggesting that
> >violence is the only answer to the recent terrorism. I admit that my
> >first reaction to the video clips was one of anger and a desire for
> >revenge. Those feelings however were soon replaced with "why?", which is
> >something few of the posters seem to be doing in alt.atheism.
>
> I have no interest in "justice", "punishment", or "vengeance".
>
Peace is not the absence of violence, it is the presence of justice - Martin
Luther King
>
> I want to eliminate these people from the face of the earth so that they can
> never do anything like this again.
>
> That means killing the terrorists themselves, and the governments that
> knowingly support them.
>
Pinochet
Saddam Hussein
Fidela
Osama bin Laden
Montesinos
Noriega
Were all supported by .......
Morale: pick your friends with care.
> A side effect will be that conditions will no doubt improve greatly in the
> guity countries, when sensible and responsible governments are put in
> control.
Once the Russians controlled Afghanistan.
The West aided the islamic freedom fighters.
How much freedom did the Afghan women receive from our good support.
They were brought to slavery.
Salvador Allende was killed (11 september 1973, history is ironic isn't it).
Then Pinochet came into control, and lots of people started to disappear
Wasn't this very much supported by .......
> The short answer to your question, of course, is "yes". Violence is the
> answer. There is no other mechanism by which we may remove this threat to
> humanity. There are no buttons we can press to make them disappear into thin
> air.
Violence is the last resort of the incapable.
> --
> - Mike
Regards,
Rob
Ted King
I was a draftee into the army. (For those who know this kind of stuff
my MOS was 13E20. At the end of basic training they lined all of my
company up, maybe a hundred guys or so, and called out people to go
off to advanced training - after everyone else was had been called out
to go infantry, cook school, etc., there were three of us left
standing there wondering what the heck they were going to do with us.
The sargeant walked up and said "You guys are going nuclear." I could
have crapped my pants - I just wanted to put in my two years doing
nothing special and get the heck out. Turned out I was given a Secret
clearance because I was going to be trained to do computations for
field artillery and that involved using Secret documents on nuclear
artillery rounds.) No big deal really, I spent most of my time
checking the oil in our armered personnel carrier on a small base in
Germany. I did have a temporary scare when we painted our vehicles
desert camouflage during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
In some respects I think mothers understand better than their sons
what's involved in military conflict.
> <snip>
>
> > But I think anyone that is accused should only have
> >the assumption of their innocence put aside in a fair trial.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. If we can't be an example of the things we're
> wanting to encourage, we've abandoned all we are, anyhow.
>
> <snip thoughtful comments on war v. crime>
>
> >I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
> >so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
> >incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
> >will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
>
> Perhaps not end. Perhaps, though, judicious use of carrot and stick
> will work where other ways have not.
>
Yeah, I think the tricky part is figuring out what is judicious and
what isn't.
I don't think bin Laden and his close cohorts themselves constitute a
viable threat to the greater fabric of American society unless we
over-react. But the extreme fundamentalist movement in Islam in
general can potentially cause much greater problems because they may
have the ability to continue to take power in Islamic countries. One
of my larger concerns is that if the US reacts too strongly in
response to the events of Sept 11, it ironically could lead to the
fundamentalists having much greater influence in Islamic countries.
Precipitous military action by the US could easily have a crystalizing
polarizing effect in which large numbers of Moslems become
disenchanted with moderate Islamic voices. That should not be
surprising - it is quite evident how this happens from seeing the
strong rise in nationalistic patriotism that has crystalized in this
country since Sept 11 and how frustrated many people are toward those
of us who counsel for patience and understanding.
If we can keep our passions in check enough to act smartly I think
over the long run fundamentalist Moslems will lose strength; I think
that is already happening in Iran. I think few people have the zeal
for sustained zealousness; I think most people everywhere want to
spend most of their time enjoying their families, friends and
avocations and will do so unless they feel some type of provocation.
(Except, perhaps for a great many young males and some young females,
who are attracted to zealousness like moths to a flame.)
Ted
Ted King
> On 15 Sep 2001 18:02:13 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >I think the risk of
> >things escalating are not worth the possibly reduced chance that there
> >will be fewer attacks.
>
> We've been there - it works the other way. What do you want them to
> destroy next time? Manhattan island? No thanks. I'd have to travel
> by ferry to anywhere.
>
In the full context of what I said above I believe you will see that
what I was implying is that large scale military action, especially in
Moslem nations on the part of US could easily become
counterproductive. I have no problem with a greatly scaled up
intelligence effort so that small groups of commandos acting in
cooperation with effected countries whenever possible can go in and
"take care of" terrorists. Especially if this is done with sanction by
the United Nations then it is, in my mind, more like a police action
than a war.
> > Already we are seeing some of the risks in
> >tickling the war dragon in the way that many investors and consumers
> >are acting. Any measure of hysteria that takes effect (affect?)
> >amongst these groups of people can cause economic consequences that
> >would make Ussamah Bin Laden happy and could easily be considerably
> >beyond the direct economic consequences of the attacks of Sept. 11.
>
> And doing nothing (anything short of war with these people is doing
> nothing) will end in our not having an economy to worry about.
>
If you mean by war large military actions then I'm afraid I do not
agree. If you mean by war a greatly expanded intelligence effort with
actions taken by small tactical forces in conjunction with local
authorities whenever possible then I can agree.
> >> I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
>
> >I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
> >so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
> >incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
> >will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
>
> If we make the price of terrorism something that they're unwilling to
> pay, they won't be interested in paying it. We just have to develop
> the stomach, and quickly.
>
I don't understand what price people who willing to kill themselves
would not be willing to pay. Perhaps you mean something like
threatening to brutally torture and kill their families - that might
deter a few of them. I don't think I'll ever develop a stomach for
that.
> >I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
> >grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
> >Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
> >influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
>
> So has our freedom of religion, our freedom of dress, our freedom for
> women. Either we give those (and more) up, or we have terrorism.
>
25,000 people a year die in car accidents but we haven't given up the
freedom of driving our own vehicles. I think we are quite adept at
accepting some risks for our freedoms.
> >I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
> >it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
> >from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists.
>
> Isn't that about what Chamberlain believed about Germany?
>
I don't think the militant Islamic fanatics have even remotely near
the capability to attain their goals that Hitler's Germany did; hence,
my conclusion that the US is not in any mortal danger from them.
> > And I believe history has
> >shown that more often than not we are ill served by going with what
> >appears to be a pragmatic expediency of the moment at the expense of
> >our basic values; e.g.
>
> E.g., bombing Japan. Nope, I guess that didn't work. Or did they
> lose all interest in fighting us?
>
I don't think the choice to use atom bombs was necessarily counter to
our values. If the analysis that hundreds of thousands of American and
Japanese lives were saved by using the bombs, then by the dreadful
calculus of numbers of human lives saved it may have been the best
choice and not inconsistent with our values. In reference to the part
you snipped above, though, putting Japanese-Americans into camps was a
violation of what should be considered the basic rights of any
citizen. (Madison once wrote to Jefferson that he had high hopes that
the Supreme Court would always be a solid bulwark against a popular
intent to infringe on individual liberty but he was afraid that when
it would be most needed it would fail to do so. It seems his fears
were justified.)
> The time for pacifism and nicey-nicey is over. Or the time for
> civilization is. Your choice.
I'm sorry, but I see that as a false dichotomy. There is a middle
ground of trying to dry up their money supply and aggessive increase
in intelligence used in conjunction with tactical small cammando units
when necessary that I think has a good chance of optimizing our
chances of reducing terrorism and also reducing the risks of inciting
even more anti-American feelings in Islamic countries.
Ted
Carl Wilson
>I was a draftee into the army. (For those who know this kind of stuff
>my MOS was 13E20.
Well imagine that! I'm an old 13E myself. Feel like going through a
HB/MPI registration just for old time's sake? ;-)
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Actually, we should pay just as much for his body. While it would reduce
>the chance for Americans to enjoy watching him suffer, politically, it would
>be better. If we can convince a fellow Muslim to turn in his body for a few
>million, he doesn't become a martyr, just another dead intersect rival.
Rival of a corpse. How long do you think the guy who turned him over
would live? Not long enough to collect a "thank you", let alone any
money.
Woden
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 02:47:07 GMT, wo...@charter.net (Woden) posted in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>Actually, we should pay just as much for his body. While it would reduce
>>the chance for Americans to enjoy watching him suffer, politically, it would
>>be better. If we can convince a fellow Muslim to turn in his body for a few
>>million, he doesn't become a martyr, just another dead intersect rival.
>
>Rival of a corpse. How long do you think the guy who turned him over
>would live? Not long enough to collect a "thank you", let alone any
>money.
Not my problem, man. ;-)
I'd just as soon not see him become a martyr, that's all.
Ted King
> On 17 Sep 2001 19:29:44 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>
>
> >I was a draftee into the army. (For those who know this kind of stuff
> >my MOS was 13E20.
>
> Well imagine that! I'm an old 13E myself. Feel like going through a
> HB/MPI registration just for old time's sake? ;-)
>
>
Sheesh, I have no memory of what that means! That's not surprising
since, I'm embarrassed to admit, I spent quite a bit of my time there
in an altered state of consciousness.
Ted
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>>Rival of a corpse. How long do you think the guy who turned him over
>>would live? Not long enough to collect a "thank you", let alone any
>>money.
>Not my problem, man. ;-)
>I'd just as soon not see him become a martyr, that's all.
Nope. LOOOONG prison sentence, no record between his prisoner number
and his name, and let him die of old age making license plates. Him
and all terrorists who want to die at their enemy's hand.
--
Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve freedom.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not peace talks with a madman.
Jeff Young
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<lvgaqtg078f5tv8ur...@4ax.com>...
> > On 15 Sep 2001 18:02:13 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) posted in
> > alt.atheism:
> >
> > >I think the risk of
> > >things escalating are not worth the possibly reduced chance that there
> > >will be fewer attacks.
> >
> > We've been there - it works the other way. What do you want them to
> > destroy next time? Manhattan island? No thanks. I'd have to travel
> > by ferry to anywhere.
>
> In the full context of what I said above I believe you will see that
> what I was implying is that large scale military action, especially in
> Moslem nations on the part of US could easily become
> counterproductive. I have no problem with a greatly scaled up
> intelligence effort so that small groups of commandos acting in
> cooperation with effected countries whenever possible can go in and
> "take care of" terrorists. Especially if this is done with sanction by
> the United Nations then it is, in my mind, more like a police action
> than a war.
Well, we've been there before too. And the result was not pretty nor
very productive. How would you feel about the term "surgical war"?
> > > Already we are seeing some of the risks in
> > >tickling the war dragon in the way that many investors and consumers
> > >are acting. Any measure of hysteria that takes effect (affect?)
> > >amongst these groups of people can cause economic consequences that
> > >would make Ussamah Bin Laden happy and could easily be considerably
> > >beyond the direct economic consequences of the attacks of Sept. 11.
> >
> > And doing nothing (anything short of war with these people is doing
> > nothing) will end in our not having an economy to worry about.
>
> If you mean by war large military actions then I'm afraid I do not
> agree. If you mean by war a greatly expanded intelligence effort with
> actions taken by small tactical forces in conjunction with local
> authorities whenever possible then I can agree.
As long as the result is absolutely decisive. Which may well exclude
local considerations. And change "small tactical" to "special", and
add in surgical and space-based munitions, and I'm with you. :-)
> > >> I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
>
> > >I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
> > >so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
> > >incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
> > >will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
> >
> > If we make the price of terrorism something that they're unwilling to
> > pay, they won't be interested in paying it. We just have to develop
> > the stomach, and quickly.
>
> I don't understand what price people who willing to kill themselves
> would not be willing to pay. Perhaps you mean something like
> threatening to brutally torture and kill their families - that might
> deter a few of them. I don't think I'll ever develop a stomach for
> that.
You're right. How uncomfortable would you be with a policy of pre-emptively
wiping out anyone willing to kill themselves anyway? Granted that's hard
to determine in general. But in this case it is becoming quite clear what
kind of training is occurring in particular camps and cells.
> > >I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
> > >grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
> > >Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
> > >influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
> >
> > So has our freedom of religion, our freedom of dress, our freedom for
> > women. Either we give those (and more) up, or we have terrorism.
>
> 25,000 people a year die in car accidents but we haven't given up the
> freedom of driving our own vehicles. I think we are quite adept at
> accepting some risks for our freedoms.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean preventive measures in light of newly-
evidenced risks aren't acceptable, right?
> > >I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
> > >it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
> > >from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists.
> >
> > Isn't that about what Chamberlain believed about Germany?
>
> I don't think the militant Islamic fanatics have even remotely near
> the capability to attain their goals that Hitler's Germany did; hence,
> my conclusion that the US is not in any mortal danger from them.
Unless they grow like Hitler did. Did you miss that point?
> > > And I believe history has
> > >shown that more often than not we are ill served by going with what
> > >appears to be a pragmatic expediency of the moment at the expense of
> > >our basic values; e.g.
> >
> > E.g., bombing Japan. Nope, I guess that didn't work. Or did they
> > lose all interest in fighting us?
>
> I don't think the choice to use atom bombs was necessarily counter to
> our values. If the analysis that hundreds of thousands of American and
> Japanese lives were saved by using the bombs, then by the dreadful
> calculus of numbers of human lives saved it may have been the best
> choice and not inconsistent with our values. In reference to the part
> you snipped above, though, putting Japanese-Americans into camps was a
> violation of what should be considered the basic rights of any
> citizen. (Madison once wrote to Jefferson that he had high hopes that
> the Supreme Court would always be a solid bulwark against a popular
> intent to infringe on individual liberty but he was afraid that when
> it would be most needed it would fail to do so. It seems his fears
> were justified.)
>
> > The time for pacifism and nicey-nicey is over. Or the time for
> > civilization is. Your choice.
>
> I'm sorry, but I see that as a false dichotomy.
Absolutely right. And it's exactly that type of dichotomized thinking
that has caused the current mess.
> There is a middle
> ground of trying to dry up their money supply and aggessive increase
> in intelligence used in conjunction with tactical small cammando units
Now you're talking. :-)
> when necessary that I think has a good chance of optimizing our
> chances of reducing terrorism and also reducing the risks of inciting
> even more anti-American feelings in Islamic countries.
It's not anti-American feelings, it's anti-American actions which are
the problem. Pakistan is a great example of the former and _not_ the
latter. We don't require admiration, simply respect. And needless to
say we've been disrespected in a most vile and extreme way...
Jeff
Ted King
> lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote in message news:<9d8c6e9e.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<lvgaqtg078f5tv8ur...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 15 Sep 2001 18:02:13 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) posted in
> > > alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > >I think the risk of
> > > >things escalating are not worth the possibly reduced chance that there
> > > >will be fewer attacks.
> > >
> > > We've been there - it works the other way. What do you want them to
> > > destroy next time? Manhattan island? No thanks. I'd have to travel
> > > by ferry to anywhere.
> >
> > In the full context of what I said above I believe you will see that
> > what I was implying is that large scale military action, especially in
> > Moslem nations on the part of US could easily become
> > counterproductive. I have no problem with a greatly scaled up
> > intelligence effort so that small groups of commandos acting in
> > cooperation with effected countries whenever possible can go in and
> > "take care of" terrorists. Especially if this is done with sanction by
> > the United Nations then it is, in my mind, more like a police action
> > than a war.
>
> Well, we've been there before too. And the result was not pretty nor
> very productive. How would you feel about the term "surgical war"?
>
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the efficacy of what I
suggested. Would you agree that if the actions that are taken are of a
nature that leads to the toppling of moderate Islamic leaders that
such actions would be counterproductive?
> > > > Already we are seeing some of the risks in
> > > >tickling the war dragon in the way that many investors and consumers
> > > >are acting. Any measure of hysteria that takes effect (affect?)
> > > >amongst these groups of people can cause economic consequences that
> > > >would make Ussamah Bin Laden happy and could easily be considerably
> > > >beyond the direct economic consequences of the attacks of Sept. 11.
> > >
> > > And doing nothing (anything short of war with these people is doing
> > > nothing) will end in our not having an economy to worry about.
> >
> > If you mean by war large military actions then I'm afraid I do not
> > agree. If you mean by war a greatly expanded intelligence effort with
> > actions taken by small tactical forces in conjunction with local
> > authorities whenever possible then I can agree.
>
> As long as the result is absolutely decisive. Which may well exclude
> local considerations. And change "small tactical" to "special", and
> add in surgical and space-based munitions, and I'm with you. :-)
>
Would you agree that without solid intelligence that is nearly sure to
lead to "getting" terrorists that we could look pretty foolish and
could tick a lot of people off for no real gain. I am thinking of how
damaging it would be to send any kind of forces into Afghanistan and
have them tromping all over the place in a futile attempt to find
terrorists, the whole time risking a larger conflict with the Taliban
and destabilization of moderate Islamic leaders and looking foolish in
the process.
> > > >> I wish I knew. I do know that doing nothing doesn't work.
>
> > > >I agree that those accused of crimes should be pursued with all vigor
> > > >so that they can be put on trial. But I think too many people are
> > > >incorrect in feeling that if we hit these groups hard enough that that
> > > >will end the terrorist acts by these groups.
> > >
> > > If we make the price of terrorism something that they're unwilling to
> > > pay, they won't be interested in paying it. We just have to develop
> > > the stomach, and quickly.
> >
> > I don't understand what price people who willing to kill themselves
> > would not be willing to pay. Perhaps you mean something like
> > threatening to brutally torture and kill their families - that might
> > deter a few of them. I don't think I'll ever develop a stomach for
> > that.
>
> You're right. How uncomfortable would you be with a policy of pre-emptively
> wiping out anyone willing to kill themselves anyway?
If there was conclusive evidence that such persons would likely kill
many innocent people, I wouldn't feel comfortable about killing them
but would think it might be necessary.
Granted that's hard
> to determine in general. But in this case it is becoming quite clear what
> kind of training is occurring in particular camps and cells.
>
> > > >I agree that the US's problem with Islamic fundamentalists is not only
> > > >grounded in our support of Israel. Certainly things like putting the
> > > >Shah of Iran into power and supporting him had some significant
> > > >influence on the attitude of the fundamentalist Muslims toward the US.
> > >
> > > So has our freedom of religion, our freedom of dress, our freedom for
> > > women. Either we give those (and more) up, or we have terrorism.
> >
> > 25,000 people a year die in car accidents but we haven't given up the
> > freedom of driving our own vehicles. I think we are quite adept at
> > accepting some risks for our freedoms.
>
> Absolutely. That doesn't mean preventive measures in light of newly-
> evidenced risks aren't acceptable, right?
>
Depending on what you mean by "preventive measures", no I wouldn't.
But I think we need to keep the scale of old risks that we have
already accepted in mind when evaluating "new" risks. If we declared
"war" on drunk drivers by putting them in jail for a very long time we
could probably save many more people per year than were taken in the
tragedy of Sept 11 . My point is not to equate drunk drivers with
terrorists (though the carnage they inflict on our society is at least
as bad) but to point out that we allow behaviors that we could go much
further toward stopping if we wanted to, that result in at least as
much damage as any terrorist inflicts, without feeling that the whole
fabric of our society is at risk.
> > > >I truly believe that from the perspective of a thousand years from now
> > > >it will be seen as obvious that the US is not in any mortal danger
> > > >from a thousand Islamic fundamentalists.
> > >
> > > Isn't that about what Chamberlain believed about Germany?
> >
> > I don't think the militant Islamic fanatics have even remotely near
> > the capability to attain their goals that Hitler's Germany did; hence,
> > my conclusion that the US is not in any mortal danger from them.
>
> Unless they grow like Hitler did. Did you miss that point?
>
Well, I didn't see that that was the point. He mentioned the real case
of Chamberlain and Hitler, not some hypothetical of what might happen.
I will say that it strikes me that a way to assure that they will grow
like Hitler did is to act so precipitously that the Islamic peoples
feel an injustice is being done to them by the US; much like the
Germans view that they were treated unjustly after WWI that probably
lead to the rise of Hitler.
Our CIA was able to put the Shah of Iran into power and the US
continued to support him even as his regime got more and more brutal.
Can we blame a generation of Iranians for feeling we disrespected them
in a most vile and extreme way? That created great anti-American
feelings and Iran has probably been the greatest supporter of
anti-American terrorists of anybody. I believe there is a high
correlation between anti-American feelings and anti-American actions
and that correlation is not an accidental - one leads to the other.
Push too hard against Pakistani sentiments and the consequences could
easily be that fundamentalist clergy might get so much clout that we
could no longer count on assistance from the Pakistani government.
What would we do then, try to bomb them into respecting us enough to
cooperate?
Ted
Carl Wilson
>Carl Wilson <ca...@alt-atheism.org> wrote in message news:<eeodqt40ntq6nv5l8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Sep 2001 19:29:44 -0700, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I was a draftee into the army. (For those who know this kind of stuff
>> >my MOS was 13E20.
>>
>> Well imagine that! I'm an old 13E myself. Feel like going through a
>> HB/MPI registration just for old time's sake? ;-)
>>
>>
>
>Sheesh, I have no memory of what that means!
"High Burst/Mean Point of Impact" registration. I doubt if I could
fumble my way through the computations anymore either. ;-)
> That's not surprising
>since, I'm embarrassed to admit, I spent quite a bit of my time there
>in an altered state of consciousness.
Ah! Viet Nam era eh? ;-)
Jeff Young
> jyo...@steptools.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<eabba4d0.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> > lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote in message news:<9d8c6e9e.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > In the full context of what I said above I believe you will see that
> > > what I was implying is that large scale military action, especially in
> > > Moslem nations on the part of US could easily become
> > > counterproductive. I have no problem with a greatly scaled up
> > > intelligence effort so that small groups of commandos acting in
> > > cooperation with effected countries whenever possible can go in and
> > > "take care of" terrorists. Especially if this is done with sanction by
> > > the United Nations then it is, in my mind, more like a police action
> > > than a war.
> >
> > Well, we've been there before too. And the result was not pretty nor
> > very productive. How would you feel about the term "surgical war"?
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the efficacy of what I
> suggested. Would you agree that if the actions that are taken are of a
> nature that leads to the toppling of moderate Islamic leaders that
> such actions would be counterproductive?
Not necessarily. As you yourself note below, leaders which are not
aligned with their people constitute a dangerous disrespect of those
people. It's time to draw bright lines and have people show their
true colors. Allowing shadowy machinations is another thing that has
got us into the current mess. Obviously _we_ will not work to topple
moderate leaders, and we may even work to _support_ them if challenged.
Unfortunately, stability is a luxury that was forfeited as soon as the
first plane hit WTC. There are other much higher priorities now (clarity).
> > > If you mean by war large military actions then I'm afraid I do not
> > > agree. If you mean by war a greatly expanded intelligence effort with
> > > actions taken by small tactical forces in conjunction with local
> > > authorities whenever possible then I can agree.
> >
> > As long as the result is absolutely decisive. Which may well exclude
> > local considerations. And change "small tactical" to "special", and
> > add in surgical and space-based munitions, and I'm with you. :-)
>
> Would you agree that without solid intelligence that is nearly sure to
> lead to "getting" terrorists that we could look pretty foolish and
> could tick a lot of people off for no real gain. I am thinking of how
> damaging it would be to send any kind of forces into Afghanistan and
> have them tromping all over the place in a futile attempt to find
> terrorists, the whole time risking a larger conflict with the Taliban
> and destabilization of moderate Islamic leaders and looking foolish in
> the process.
I totally agree as to intelligence and danger of ineffectiveness despite
high cost. I totally disagree that "_looking_ foolish" (or _looking_
ineffective) is part of that cost. There will be a lot of invisible
(to the world at large) results here. Bush has publicly said as much.
<more in other posts>
Jeff
Jeff Young
> jyo...@steptools.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<eabba4d0.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> > lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote in message news:<9d8c6e9e.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I don't understand what price people who willing to kill themselves
> > > would not be willing to pay. Perhaps you mean something like
> > > threatening to brutally torture and kill their families - that might
> > > deter a few of them. I don't think I'll ever develop a stomach for
> > > that.
> >
> > You're right. How uncomfortable would you be with a policy of pre-emptively
> > wiping out anyone willing to kill themselves anyway?
>
> If there was conclusive evidence that such persons would likely kill
> many innocent people, I wouldn't feel comfortable about killing them
> but would think it might be necessary.
Do you think the WTC action is itself evidence that there are specific
other persons who would likely kill innocent people?
> > Granted that's hard
> > to determine in general. But in this case it is becoming quite clear what
> > kind of training is occurring in particular camps and cells.
> >
> > > 25,000 people a year die in car accidents but we haven't given up the
> > > freedom of driving our own vehicles. I think we are quite adept at
> > > accepting some risks for our freedoms.
> >
> > Absolutely. That doesn't mean preventive measures in light of newly-
> > evidenced risks aren't acceptable, right?
>
> Depending on what you mean by "preventive measures", no I wouldn't.
> But I think we need to keep the scale of old risks that we have
> already accepted in mind when evaluating "new" risks. If we declared
> "war" on drunk drivers by putting them in jail for a very long time we
> could probably save many more people per year than were taken in the
> tragedy of Sept 11 . My point is not to equate drunk drivers with
> terrorists (though the carnage they inflict on our society is at least
> as bad) but to point out that we allow behaviors that we could go much
> further toward stopping if we wanted to, that result in at least as
> much damage as any terrorist inflicts, without feeling that the whole
> fabric of our society is at risk.
Absolutely. I agree fully that part of getting a perspective on the
WTC destruction _has_ to be _some_ recognition that it is part of the price
of having a free society that these things can and do happen. Same with
automobile accidents. That recognition changes the attitute toward the
perpetrators (in both cases) but by no means diminishes the determination
to take decisive action. (And obviously the actions to be taken in the two
cases are completely different due to the natures of both the crime and
the perpetrators.)
> > > I don't think the militant Islamic fanatics have even remotely near
> > > the capability to attain their goals that Hitler's Germany did; hence,
> > > my conclusion that the US is not in any mortal danger from them.
> >
> > Unless they grow like Hitler did. Did you miss that point?
>
> Well, I didn't see that that was the point. He mentioned the real case
> of Chamberlain and Hitler, not some hypothetical of what might happen.
Huh? Hitler grew in power after Chamberlain as well as before. And some
of that growth was _due_ to Chamberlain's missteps.
> I will say that it strikes me that a way to assure that they will grow
> like Hitler did is to act so precipitously that the Islamic peoples
> feel an injustice is being done to them by the US; much like the
> Germans view that they were treated unjustly after WWI that probably
> lead to the rise of Hitler.
Wrong analogy. There hasn't been war yet. We're at the appeasement-or-
containment stage. You seem to favor appeasement. May I call you
Chamberlain? :-)
Slippery slope. Those who are reasonable will remain reasonable in
their anti-US activities. It's time to flush out those who are
unreasonable enough to become extreme in their actions. Because they
will act eventually anyway, whatever we do.
> What would we do then, try to bomb them into respecting us enough to
> cooperate?
Ted, Ted, Ted. Calm down. Our target is not Pakistan, it's terrorism.
If Pakistan simply refuses us assistance, we'll just have to go around them.
(Refusal of assistance by itself does not constitute disrespect of course.)
If they end up _supporting_ known terrorists it's a different story.
Jeff
Ted King
Rather than go through this bit by bit I think we need to acknowledge
a basic difference in our hunches. Your hunch is that by pushing hard
to get the terrorists clarify who is will be for us and who will not
be for us and who will be against us. And anything short of pushing
hard will send the message that we are weak and want to appease them -
a strategy that will have the effect of strengthening them. Obviously,
that is not the way I see it. I see that what you call "clarifying"
the issue will push people into polar positions that they may not
otherwise to be choose to be in. I think that pursuing the path of
pushing really hard on Islamic countries will be to fall into a trap
that bin Laden and his ilk have worked to set. My hunch is that they
know their best bet at gaining strength is by the polarization that
would result from the US over-reacting. Neither your or my position is
bereft of plausibility and we could go on about them for quite some
time, with occasional digressions into things like the applicability
or nonapplicability of certain analogies. But I think we have pretty
much already stated the major assumptions behind our positions and
perhaps time will reveal which was more accurate, if either.
My guess is Bush is going to try to steer a course between your view
and mine. If that is the way it goes, I hope it works. 'Nough said by
me on this.
Ted
Jeff Young
>
> Rather than go through this bit by bit I think we need to acknowledge
> a basic difference in our hunches. Your hunch is that by pushing hard
> to get the terrorists clarify who is will be for us and who will not
> be for us and who will be against us. And anything short of pushing
> hard will send the message that we are weak and want to appease them -
> a strategy that will have the effect of strengthening them. Obviously,
> that is not the way I see it. I see that what you call "clarifying"
> the issue will push people into polar positions that they may not
> otherwise to be choose to be in. I think that pursuing the path of
> pushing really hard on Islamic countries will be to fall into a trap
> that bin Laden and his ilk have worked to set. My hunch is that they
> know their best bet at gaining strength is by the polarization that
> would result from the US over-reacting. Neither your or my position is
> bereft of plausibility and we could go on about them for quite some
> time, with occasional digressions into things like the applicability
> or nonapplicability of certain analogies. But I think we have pretty
> much already stated the major assumptions behind our positions and
> perhaps time will reveal which was more accurate, if either.
>
> My guess is Bush is going to try to steer a course between your view
> and mine. If that is the way it goes, I hope it works. 'Nough said by
> me on this.
I agree, mostly. I think we are way too smart get caught in any such
"trap" as you suggest (including the trap of arrogance BTW). (We've
learned our lessons in that regard, witness the Gulf War.) And I
think that their _only_ strength comes from remaining in the shadows,
which is why I favor shining the bright light (intelligence) in there.
(I take issue with you're implication that any internal divisiveness
of ours (weakness) automatically constitutes strength on their part.
Perhaps that's not what you meant though.) And finally, yes, let's
hope that Bush pursues _anything_ from either approach that proves
fruitful.
Thanks for helping me clarify my own position on these issues.
I think it's safe to say that we are in thorough agreement on the
desired result, whatever our disagreements on the details, and that is
very comforting right now. Thanks again.
Jeff