Why understanding terrorists matters
David Friedman
up with creative accounts of what they think I must believe about
dealing with terrorism, none of which, I think, have had any resemblance
to what I do believe. For that reason among others, I thought it would
be worth discussing what the policy implications are of different views
of the terrorists.
I will start with a composite picture that I think represents, at least
roughly, the view of Fred, Ken, and those supporting their position in
these arguments. It probably does not correspond exactly to what all of
them believe, and they are of course free to point that out if relevant.
1. The terrorists are fundamentally nihilists. They are motivated by a
hatred for life, happiness, wealth, productivity. They wish to destroy
both their own lives and ours. (nihilism threads)
2. This nihilism, while it may or may not be a correct interpretation of
Islam, is at least a sufficiently plausible misinterpretation so that it
is easy for fundamentalist Muslims to make it. (Koran snippets thread)
What do these two propositions imply?
There are roughly a billion Muslims. If we accept proposition 2, it
would be very optimistic to assume that as few as one in a hundred
accept the nihilist version of Islam. That would give us ten million
nihilist terrorists, actual or potential, as a very conservative
estimate.
The WTC attack directly involved about twenty people. Allowing for
additional people providing support, planning, etc., a team of a hundred
seems like a high estimate for the number required--especially since
terrorists have a strong incentive to keep down the number involved in
order to minimize the risk of leaks. Hence there are enough terrorists,
actual or potential, for at least a hundred thousand such
attacks--probably many more.
If we accept proposition 1, we cannot deter such terrorists, since they
are all delighted to die for their cause. Hence there appears to be only
a short list of alternatives for the U.S.:
1. Kill essentially all Muslims--about a billion people.
2. Make terrorist acts impossible, even for people happy to die in the
attempt. This is almost certainly undoable, short of a radical
conversion of the U.S. into a fortress society. For a roughly comparable
problem, think about how difficult it is to prevent mass shootings by
madmen.
3. Accept a continual high level of terrorism. If they can maintain
their current kill ratio, we will run out of Americans before they run
out of terrorists.
4. All convert to Islam. That probably wouldn't do it, since if they are
really nihilists first and Muslims second they will be eager to kill
happy American Muslims too. In recent decades, Muslims have killed far
more Muslims than non-Muslims. Perhaps if we all convert to Islam and
become poor and miserable that will do the trick.
I doubt that either Fred or Ken is in favor of any of those
alternatives, although Fred may be willing to give serious consideration
to 1. Yet those are the alternatives implied by the view of the
terrorists that they are arguing for.
Let me compare their view to mine. In my view:
1. Most of the terrorists are sane and rational, in the conventional
sense of the words--their actions have some reasonable connection to
their objectives, although both may be (indeed, in my view, are)
mistaken. It doesn't follow that they are rational in the much stronger
sense of the word that objectivists might prefer--have rationally
derived both their objectives and their vew of the world.
2. There may be a few lunatics among them, but by themselves the
lunatics are not a very serious threat. And while some of them are
willing to give their lives for their cause, most would much prefer not
to.
It follows that terrorism can be sharply reduced in two different ways:
A. Make it dangerous for the individual terrorists. If being a
terrorist--in the U.S. or abroad--results in a high probability of being
killed or imprisoned, many fewer people will be willing to do it. I am
not talking about the handful of terrorists who are willing to blow
themselves up, and so not likly to be deterred by the threat of death,
but the (I suspect) much larger number who provide support and
organization and money for such attacks but don't expect to get killed
in the process. This is the main way in which we currently try to deal
with ordinary homicide. I include in it infiltration, entrapment, and
the like.
B. Act in a way that will convince the terrorists that their actions
will not have their desired result. How we do that depends on what we
think their desired result is. Three plausible possibilities occur to me:
i. They want to frighten the U.S. out of its involvement in the mideast.
ii. They want to make themselves popular with the Islamic masses by
showing that they can strike back against an America which the Islamic
masses dislike, primarily because of its foreign policy. The ultimate
objective on this theory is to get political power in Muslim states.
iii. They want to drive the U.S. into acts that will make it, and
governments allied with it, much more unpopular in Muslim states than at
present.
These different objectives have different impliations for what our
policy should be.
If i is what is going on, we can respond either by entirely withdrawing
or by making it clear that terrorism will result in increased rather
than decreased involvement. The disadvantage of the former response is
that it encourages other people in the future to try to alter U.S.
policy by killing lots of Americans. The disadvantage of the latter is
that such a foreign policy is likely to get us involved in other foreign
quarrels in the future. The optimum may to do both--first get more
involved and then, when it is reasonably clear we have won, disengage,
in the Mid-East and elsewhere, but I doubt that will be politically
practical.
If ii is going on, then the two things we should do are to publicly
minimmize the importance of the attacks--treat them as irritating
mosquito bites rather than a knock out punch--and do things that make
the terrorists look weak and incompetent.
If iii is going on, then we need to do whatever we reasonably can to
avoid making this look like an anti-Muslim struggle.
I suspect that all three of these objectives exist to some degree among
the terrorists, but I don't know enough to judge their relative
importance. The current administration is clearly trying to deal with i
and iii, less clearly with ii. Obviously its task is complicated by the
fact that it has to take account of responses to its policy by its
citizens as well as by terrorists.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
John Shafto
in message news:ddfr-04C3A4.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> Several people in the threads on terrorism, nihilism, et. al. have come
> up with creative accounts of what they think I must believe about
> dealing with terrorism, none of which, I think, have had any resemblance
> to what I do believe. For that reason among others, I thought it would
> be worth discussing what the policy implications are of different views
> of the terrorists.
>
> I will start with a composite picture that I think represents, at least
> roughly, the view of Fred, Ken, and those supporting their position in
> these arguments. It probably does not correspond exactly to what all of
> them believe, and they are of course free to point that out if relevant.
>
> 1. The terrorists are fundamentally nihilists. They are motivated by a
> hatred for life, happiness, wealth, productivity. They wish to destroy
> both their own lives and ours. (nihilism threads)
>
> 2. This nihilism, while it may or may not be a correct interpretation of
> Islam,
I don't believe anyone is interpreting Islam as nihilistic, just
that the religion is being used to foster such thinking for
political reasons.
> is at least a sufficiently plausible misinterpretation so that it
> is easy for fundamentalist Muslims to make it. (Koran snippets thread)
>
> What do these two propositions imply?
>
> There are roughly a billion Muslims. If we accept proposition 2, it
> would be very optimistic to assume that as few as one in a hundred
> accept the nihilist version of Islam. That would give us ten million
> nihilist terrorists, actual or potential, as a very conservative
> estimate.
I think this premise for the rest is faulty, humans, all of us, have
a certain willingness to feel vicitmized, and 'leaders' use this as
a political motivator. Marxism thrives on it, as did Naziism, and
many other movements throughout human history. Different people
accept this victim mentality to different extents, and those who are
most vunerable take it all the way to sociopathic nihilism.
I think this number is probably on the order of 1%. While up to
25% may accept the vicitim mentality, they are not willing to
abandon reality completely, so they have lesser degrees of
sociopathic nihilism, and will not do things that are self-destructive.
Their reason beats their nihilism.
> The WTC attack directly involved about twenty people. Allowing for
> additional people providing support, planning, etc., a team of a hundred
> seems like a high estimate for the number required--especially since
> terrorists have a strong incentive to keep down the number involved in
> order to minimize the risk of leaks. Hence there are enough terrorists,
> actual or potential, for at least a hundred thousand such
> attacks--probably many more.
>
> If we accept proposition 1, we cannot deter such terrorists, since they
> are all delighted to die for their cause. Hence there appears to be only
> a short list of alternatives for the U.S.:
>
> 1. Kill essentially all Muslims--about a billion people.
My God man! Why would anyone want to do that?
Muslim != Terrorist.
The very point of calling the terrorists nihilists is to point out
what drives them, and it is not Islam, it is sociopathic attitudes
that exist in many philosophical/idealogical movements.
--
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Fear nothing. Live free. --1001001
John Shafto
in message news:ttbs30t...@corp.supernews.com...
> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
> in message news:ddfr-04C3A4.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> > would be very optimistic to assume that as few as one in a hundred
> > accept the nihilist version of Islam. That would give us ten million
> > nihilist terrorists, actual or potential, as a very conservative
> > estimate.
>
> I think this premise for the rest is faulty, humans, all of us, have
> a certain willingness to feel vicitmized, and 'leaders' use this as
> a political motivator. Marxism thrives on it, as did Naziism, and
> many other movements throughout human history. Different people
> accept this victim mentality to different extents, and those who are
> most vunerable take it all the way to sociopathic nihilism.
> I think this number is probably on the order of 1%.
Uh, I just blew what I was saying by simply repeating
what you said. :)
I think the number of terrorists in on the order of LESS THAN
1% (of those people who accept victim mentality).
In short, I was trying to say that I think your estimate is very high.
David Friedman
John Shafto <_john_@_shafto.org_> wrote:
> > If we accept proposition 1, we cannot deter such terrorists, since they
> > are all delighted to die for their cause. Hence there appears to be only
> > a short list of alternatives for the U.S.:
> >
> > 1. Kill essentially all Muslims--about a billion people.
>
> My God man! Why would anyone want to do that?
>
> Muslim != Terrorist.
>
> The very point of calling the terrorists nihilists is to point out
> what drives them, and it is not Islam, it is sociopathic attitudes
> that exist in many philosophical/idealogical movements.
I think if you go back through the logic of my post, you will see why
that is one of the alternatives suggested by the position I am arguing
against--not necessarily yours. If nihilist/terrorists cannot be
deterred and, as a practical matter, terrorist acts cannot be made
impossible, then killing all nihilist/terrorists is the only way of
preventing terrorism. If being a nihilist/terrorist is in some
fundamental way linked to being a Muslim (the other thread, with Ken
quoting snippets from the Koran but not bothering to read the text they
were from, plus parts of the nihilist thread) then unless you have some
way of telling which Muslims are nihilist/terrorists, the only way to
kill all nihilist/terrorists is to kill all Muslims.
I'm not arguing for doing so--on the contrary. I am pointing out where a
particular view of Islamic terrorism can lead you
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
JoeOrrion
>
>are all delighted to die for their cause. Hence there appears to be only
>
>a short list of alternatives for the U.S.:
>
>1. Kill essentially all Muslims--about a billion people.
This does not follow. It is often easy to tell the bad muslims from the good
muslims. I don't want to go through some statistics bullshit with fake
numbers, but depending on how well we filter, we might be able to kill only a
few times as many muslims as there are bad muslims, and have a good chance of
killing almost all the bad ones. I mean, we'd have to continue to kill the
suspicious ones all the time, and certainly become the worst murderers in
history, but who cares? By the time they write the history, you'll be dead and
I'll be old and I'll say I was opposed to it.
>If ii is going on, then the two things we should do are to publicly
>minimmize the importance of the attacks--treat them as irritating
>mosquito bites rather than a knock out punch--and do things that make
>the terrorists look weak and incompetent.
I disagree. If they want political power, then we can make sure they don't get
it and lose the power that they have now. We are doing this, right now. (ii)
is the easiest one to handle.
Joe Teicher
Owl
> 2. This nihilism, while it may or may not be a correct interpretation of
> Islam, is at least a sufficiently plausible misinterpretation so that it
> is easy for fundamentalist Muslims to make it. (Koran snippets thread)
> There are roughly a billion Muslims. If we accept proposition 2, it
> would be very optimistic to assume that as few as one in a hundred
> accept the nihilist version of Islam. That would give us ten million
> nihilist terrorists, actual or potential, as a very conservative
> estimate.
There may be multiple possible manifestations of nihilism, only one of which
is terrorism. Also, not all who believe a course of action to be justified
actually participate in it. For instance, I suspect that most Americans
believe war against Afghanistan is justified, but are not interested in
joining the army. Similarly, news reports have implied (I don't know how
accurately) that many in the mid-east approved of the WTC attack, though
surely few of them are actually terrorists. Also, human minds are often
messy and complicated, and may contain conflicting beliefs and other
motivations.
Whatever the reason, it does not seem plausible that there are as many as
ten million Muslim terrorists out there. If there were, there should have
been much more terrorism already. Thus, we should stop the line of argument
here and go back.
David Friedman
1. The nihilists of the theory I was describing are in favor of both
themselves dying and us dying, so the usual reasons for people not to
volunteer for combat don't apply.
2. I am in favor of abandoning the theory--that was what I was arguing
for in the threads that led to this one. In this one I was merely
pointing out that, in addition to being inconsistent with the data, that
theory led to rather unattractive conclusions.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Strong liberty
>Most of the terrorists are sane and rational, in the conventional
>sense of the words--their actions have some reasonable connection to
>their objectives
Perhaps, but I have yet to see anyone articulate a rational (even defined
broadly) objective which could have been furthered by the 9/11 attacks. It's
all confusion and chaos right now but a part of me wonders whether the attacks
were the result largely of a sick, very wealthy man, manipulating a group of
people with intense but nonrational hatred into committing an insane act--a
horrific equivalent of a child trashing the game board because he is losing.
Dean Sandin
This denies the scope, wellsprings, and seriousness of the crisis.
One "sick, very wealthy man" does not "manipulate" a sophisticated
network of thousands of committed, well-coordinated people into
being. What he does is to help find like-minded, educated, Muslims
who see the blasphemy of jahiliyya everywhere in the world and
believe in the cause of wiping us infidels out. He helps fund
their efforts. He acts as a charismatic figurehead and spokesman
for them. Insanity and childish emotions have nothing to do with
it. They ALL know what they're doing, know its meaning, and are
coolly doing their damnedest to destroy us, with clear intent and
full volition, to their dying breaths.
--Dean
Strong liberty
>One "sick, very wealthy man" does not "manipulate" a sophisticated
>network of thousands of committed, well-coordinated people into
>being. What he does is to help find like-minded, educated, Muslims
>who see the blasphemy of jahiliyya everywhere in the world and
>believe in the cause of wiping us infidels out. He helps fund
>their efforts. He acts as a charismatic figurehead and spokesman
>for them. Insanity and childish emotions have nothing to do with
>it. They ALL know what they're doing, know its meaning, and are
>coolly doing their damnedest to destroy us, with clear intent and
>full volition, to their dying breaths.
>
>--Dean
>
If this description is accurate, then what's the rational objective towards
which the 9/11 attack was a rational means? And how was it rational for the
suicide attackers? Was it because they really believed the bit about the
posthumous carousing with 72 virgins? Then what were they doing in strip
clubs? Does all of this pass the test of sane, rational action?
I don't claim to have the answers, but am skeptical of overly confident
accounts of the terrorists' motivations, mental states, etc., which are so far
from and opposed to our own (as in, anything close to typical American thought)
understanding of the world.
David Friedman
Strong liberty <strong...@aol.com> wrote:
That's possible, but I don't think it is one of the more plausible
explanations.
One possibility is that he believed the attack would cause a U.S.
response that would make us and governments friendly to us much less
popular in the Islamic world. Eventually we would declare victory and
withdraw, at which point insufficiently Muslim (from his standpoint)
governments of Muslim states would be overthrown, establishing proper
fundamentalist Muslim governments. I'm not sure that is how things will
actually work out, but it doesn't strike me as an absurd projection.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Acar
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
Another and in my opinion not unlikely explanation is the realization that
despite their lack of technological capabilities, it is realistically
possible for them to bring this nation down and the rest of the western
world with it. Our great bridges, tunnels, railtracks, power plants
including nuclear plants are optional targets, not to mention the many
variations of the biological option. Oddly enough the most effective element
of these modes of attack is fear. Fear would play the most critical role in
bringing down the economy. A serious depression in the US would depress the
entire Western world.
Carmichael
x
x
x
x
x
x
David Friedman
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
I think you greatly overestimate the amount of damage they can do. The
WTC attack killed a lot of people, but not a noticeable fraction of the
U.S. population. And it was a well designed effort to do maximal damage
at minimal cost to the attackers.
Compared to a real war, the amount of damage they can do with anything
other than biological weapons is pretty small. The one thing that does
worry me is the possibility of an attack with smallpox or something
similar. That's one reason why understanding them matters. A very large
reason not to try to start a smallpox epidemic (assuming they can get
the necessary material to do so) is that, once started, it will not
limit itself to the U.S., and mortality rates are likely to be much
higher in the Islamic world than here. Whether that will deter them
depends to a considerable extent on what their objectives and view of
the world really are.
Other than that, the biggest problem is the damage we can do to
ourselves in the process of trying to defend against terrorism.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
jawaid bazyar
bin Laden is trying to provoke the United States into a conflict of a size
where he can claim that the US is attacking Islam. Then he will have not
twelve thousand soldiers, but millions. Already, Pakistan nears the boiling
point as its own Islamic radicals (the same breed who make up much of the
Taliban) agitate and are causing concern over the stability of Pakistan's
military government.
I'm not sure bin Laden actually believes he is a "real Muslim" (inasmuch as
that is even definable). I am however quite sure that bin Laden's objective
is the establishment of a multi-national Islamic state with himself either
at the top, or pulling the strings (as is the case with the Taliban).
Whatever we do, we must not give bin Laden what he wants. We have already
given him his training (in Afghanistan against the Russians) and his wealth
(via abdication of US oil properties in the Middle East).
While the attacks on New York and Washington were high-profile, tragic and
certainly deadly, and while they have hopefully shocked the United States
out of its complacency regarding world events (and the world is becoming
ever so much smaller), the fact is that the attack was incapable of harming
the US in any significant way. The effects on the stock market were
temporary and out of fear rather than a rational assessment of the
situation. The US's economic and military power are unaffected.
And this can not escape bin Laden -- his evil notwithstanding, he is clearly
a brilliant strategist and charismatic leader. bin Laden knows that with his
army of 12,000 Arabs inside Afghanistan, he is capable of doing nothing but
terrorizing Afghanis. (And he is doing a stellar job of that, by all
accounts). The Taliban are his puppets - his first test case, as it were.
Taliban conscripts who escaped the Taliban laughed at the American demands
on TV that Mullah Omar hand over bin Laden. "It is actually bin Laden who
could hand over Mullah Omar" they said.
But if America accepts his provocation and engages in widespread war with
Muslim nations, he will get exactly what he wants - millions of soldiers
ready to die for Allah -- at bin Laden's command, as a surrogate Allah. I do
not know if the Administration understands this, but I would be extremely
surprised if they do not.
Among the Islamic terrorists is commonly voiced the claim that national
boundaries are meaningless, that Islam *will be a single nation* and that it
will cover half the globe. This is the vision of bin Laden - again, with
himself at the head of this state.
You are right, bin Laden is manipulating these people. But he's not doing it
because he's acting like a child losing a game. He is manipulating religion
for a cause rather common throughout history - his own power. (See: Hitler,
Christian Rome, etc)
Jawaid Bazyar
p.s. I recently finished re-reading 'Dune', by Frank Herbert. For those of
you who have also read it, pay particular attention to the manipulation of
the zealously religious yet highly intelligent "Fremen" culture.
"Strong liberty" <strong...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011028175548...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Chris Cathcart
year or so? Statements of the obvious mixed in with some speculations about a
guy's motives?
Wow, we really missed out on a lot, not having you around.
Go on now, shoo.
In article <3k5D7.207$j14....@wormhole.dimensional.com>, jawaid bazyar says...
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
--
Chris Cathcart [email suffix: yahoo dot com]
"Language is a powerful tool in the hands of the learned, and
a disaster in the making for the untrained." -- Thomas White
Robert J. Kolker
jawaid bazyar wrote:
> How's this:
>
> bin Laden is trying to provoke the United States into a conflict of a size
> where he can claim that the US is attacking Islam. Then he will have not
> twelve thousand soldiers, but millions. Already, Pakistan nears the boiling
> point as its own Islamic radicals (the same breed who make up much of the
> Taliban) agitate and are causing concern over the stability of Pakistan's
> military government.
If bin Laden's boys sneak a tac nuke into New York City and destroy
a good part of Manhattan, how do you recommend that we respond?
If we cannot trace the nuke to a particular government, what options
does that leave us. Should we nuke all third world countries whose
government has funded the development of nuclear weapons? If so,
that means we must nuke both India and Pakistan and strictly speaking
also China. Well that won't do. If we nuke Chine we start WW3 and if
we nuke Pakistan (which is a Moslem country) then we have made
millions of enemies, as you aptly point out.
If we do not respond to a nuclear attack then there will be another
and another and another until we are ruined.
So we must respond somehow. What would you recommend?
My proposal is to deploy a method of killing a billion Moslems,
(guilty and innocent). That way we will get them all. But there are
problems with that.
1. It is immoral
2. It is not clear we can do the job thoroughly, morality ignorned.
If we cannot clear the Earth of third world Moslems then we are
back to where we started.
Again what would you recommend?
Shall we lift up the U.S. and move it to another part of the Galaxy?
Nice thought, but we do not have the technology.
If we up against an implaccable foe (call it the Terminator) there
are only a few options.
1. Destroy the Terminator
2. Run and hide from the Terminator.
3. Put the Terminator in an unbreakable box
4. Submit to the Terminator
5. Be destroyed by the Terminator.
What would you recommend?
Bob Kolker
Charles Novins
news:3BDD64F7...@mediaone.net...
> If bin Laden's boys sneak a tac nuke into New York City and destroy
> a good part of Manhattan, how do you recommend that we respond?
CHARLES NOVINS:
I am extremely curious to know how people feel about this. Under current
circumstances, I must say I don't cognize "plan Speicher" and the like. But
what if we're nuked? And, unlike Bob's (deleted) assumption, we know Iraq
or Iran is behind it. In retrospect, would any of you concede (1) we ought
to move forward with "plan Speicher", and moreover, (2) we should have done
it before?
BOB KOLKER:
> If we do not respond to a nuclear attack then there will be another
> and another and another until we are ruined.
>
> So we must respond somehow. What would you recommend?
>
> My proposal is to deploy a method of killing a billion Moslems,
> (guilty and innocent).
CHARLES NOVINS:
Okay, we're obviously speaking theoretically and worst-case, so everyone
remain calm: Now wouldn't plan Speicher be much more sensible than this? It
worked with the (admittedly different) Japanese.
BOB KOLKER:
> 1. Destroy the Terminator
> 2. Run and hide from the Terminator.
> 3. Put the Terminator in an unbreakable box
> 4. Submit to the Terminator
> 5. Be destroyed by the Terminator.
>
> What would you recommend?
CHARLES NOVINS:
It seems to me the one, glaring, obvious alternative is:
6. Unequivocally and mercilessly destroy some part of the terminator, thus
establishing a beyond-doubt threat, and maintain that threat. Demand that
the terminator (and all terminators) give you his control codes.
James Cameron's actual Terminator, of course, would simply force you into #1
(because he's a machine), but humans can be often be persuaded, if not
reasoned with, as with the Japanese..
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> It seems to me the one, glaring, obvious alternative is:
> 6. Unequivocally and mercilessly destroy some part of the terminator, thus
> establishing a beyond-doubt threat, and maintain that threat. Demand that
> the terminator (and all terminators) give you his control codes.
The Terminator does not bargain or feel fear. It either acts or dies.
The threat of death does deter the Terminator.
Dropping the analogy, we are dealing with fanatic Moslems who
do not mind dying.
Now what?
Bob Kolker
Phil
> do not mind dying.
>
> Now what?
Kill as many of them as it takes before the collateral damage to
people do DO care about their lives inspires them to join in to
locally eliminate from power those who do not.
--
Philip Oliver
The works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM
www.Objectivism.net
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker"makes an important point--that reality doesn't
guarantee satisfactory solutions. But a couple of details are still
worth pointing it:
> If bin Laden's boys sneak a tac nuke into New York City and destroy
> a good part of Manhattan, how do you recommend that we respond?
My understanding is that suitcase nukes, the kind that were designed to
be fired from cannon and the like, are pretty small--roughly the
equivalent of a couple of 18 wheelers filled with high explosive. I am
by no means sure that the total explosive power is as big as that of the
two planes that crashed into the WTC. If so, although they could kill a
lot of people, they couldn't destroy "a good part of Manhattan."
> If we cannot trace the nuke to a particular government, what options
> does that leave us. Should we nuke all third world countries whose
> government has funded the development of nuclear weapons?
That makes no sense at all, since none of them could be the source of
such a weapon. Making very small nukes is a very high tech business; I
doubt anyone but the U.S. and the Soviet Union has ever done it.
Countries such as India and Pakistan test big, heavy, bombs, and I think
they usually do it on platforms, not even as air drops.
Have you read _Syndic_? It poses a similar problem, although the
terrorists happen to call themselves the U.S. government. An old book,
but a good one.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3BDD64F7...@mediaone.net>,
> "Robert J. Kolker"makes an important point--that reality doesn't
> guarantee satisfactory solutions. But a couple of details are still
> worth pointing it:
>
> > If bin Laden's boys sneak a tac nuke into New York City and destroy
> > a good part of Manhattan, how do you recommend that we respond?
>
> My understanding is that suitcase nukes, the kind that were designed to
> be fired from cannon and the like, are pretty small--roughly the
> equivalent of a couple of 18 wheelers filled with high explosive. I am
> by no means sure that the total explosive power is as big as that of the
> two planes that crashed into the WTC. If so, although they could kill a
> lot of people, they couldn't destroy "a good part of Manhattan."
Consider the consequent radioactive dispersal of materials, making
a good part of NYC unliveable, for at least a while. The real down
side of nukes is the radioactive debris. It is the gift that keeps on
giving, for a while at least.
Now assume the question was, suppose bin Laden and his boys release
plague or smallpox are an effect aerosol of anthrax killing 100,000
people in NYC. What then?
Bob Kolker
Tom S.
"Phil" <new...@objectivism.net> wrote in message
news:WnfD7.105166$My2.57...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote
> > Dropping the analogy, we are dealing with fanatic Moslems who
> > do not mind dying.
> >
> > Now what?
>
> Kill as many of them as it takes before the collateral damage to
> people do DO care about their lives inspires them to join in to
> locally eliminate from power those who do not.
>
CMIIW, but those "collateral damage" people do not mind dying either. Don't
they all consider themselves martyrs?
It may sound flippant, but I think the solution is going to involve pork.
Tom
--
"Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the
tiger will become a vegetarian." -Heywood Broun
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Consider the consequent radioactive dispersal of materials, making
> a good part of NYC unliveable, for at least a while. The real down
> side of nukes is the radioactive debris. It is the gift that keeps on
> giving, for a while at least.
I'm not an expert, but my impression is that the tiny nukes are pretty
clean. They were designed for battlefield use.
> Now assume the question was, suppose bin Laden and his boys release
> plague or smallpox are an effect aerosol of anthrax killing 100,000
> people in NYC. What then?
It is my understanding that there was an unplanned experiment on Anthrax
conducted by the Soviet Union. A factory producing the stuff blew up,
and the plume went over a medium sized city. Only a few hundred people
died. It's possible that terrorists could do a more effective job, but
I'm not sure there is a good reason to think so.
Smallpox is the one that currently worries me. As I suggested in another
post, the question is whether there is anyone who both can get at it and
is crazy enough to use it, given the consequences. A plague isn't likely
to be contained, and quite aside from any U.S. retaliation, a smallpox
epidemic would kill a lot more Muslims than Americans.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
> to be contained, and quite aside from any U.S. retaliation, a smallpox
> epidemic would kill a lot more Muslims than Americans.
God is Great! Al Hamdu L'illah.
HOWEVER, the fear of blowback will not stop your fanatical
Moslem who years and pants to go to Paradise and fuck his
72 houris.
Bob Kolker
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
But one of the things I don't know is whether the people actually
organizing the attacks fit that pattern.
As best I recall, the Old Man of the Mountain died old.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
> As best I recall, the Old Man of the Mountain died old.
Hassan ibn al Sabah died old but his acolytes died young
and that is what we need to worry about.
Without kamikazes bin Laden is nothing. With them, he is
a Force of Nature. That is why we have to kill the lot of
them.
Bob Kolker
Matt Ruff
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> Consider the consequent radioactive dispersal of materials,
>> making a good part of NYC unliveable, for at least a while.
>> The real down side of nukes is the radioactive debris. It
>> is the gift that keeps on giving, for a while at least.
>
> I'm not an expert, but my impression is that the tiny nukes
> are pretty clean.
Although another alternative that doesn't require nearly as much
technical expertise is to get a truckload of radioactive waste and use
explosives to disperse it in the middle of a city.
-- M. Ruff
Owl
> broadly) objective which could have been furthered by the 9/11 attacks.
It's
The obvious motive would be to induce the United States to withdraw from the
Middle East.
It worked in Somalia.
John Fast
.340...@mediaone.net>...
> The Terminator does not bargain or feel fear. It either acts or dies.
> The threat of death does deter the Terminator.
>
> Dropping the analogy, we are dealing with fanatic Moslems who
> do not mind dying.
>
> Now what?
Ahem. In case you didn't notice, a while ago (on another thread) I
mentioned Joel Rosenberg's story of "Operation David's Sling," in
which Israel explained that, if the country were overrun, the IDF
would nuke Mecca (and "a good Moslem would have to pray in all directions").
On a more environmentally-friendly level, we could simply threaten
to cover the Qaaba with pork fat.
Literally.
--
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net>
ENTJ/1w2 "Raise consciousness, not taxes."
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
But whether they try to start a smallbox epidemic won't be determined by
the spear carriers but by the people at the top.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Strong liberty
Strong Liberty:
>> Perhaps, but I have yet to see anyone articulate a rational (even defined
>> broadly) objective which could have been furthered by the 9/11 attacks.
>It's
>
>The obvious motive would be to induce the United States to withdraw from the
>Middle East.
>
>It worked in Somalia.
"It" worked in Somalia but 9/11 wasn't "it." In the Somalian case, the US
military was attacked on foreign soil, in a place where we had only recently
developed a presence, with no vital ties. 9/11 seems more like Pearl Harbor
than Somalia in its effect on the US and the American public's acceptance of
military involvement and intervention overseas. Japan, of course, was hoping
to paralyze the US with one fateful blow; she knew enough to fear the US would
become a relentless, overwhelming foe if the first strike was not decisive.
For obvious reasons (oil/Israel) there does not appear to be any reasonable
possibility that the US will pull out of the Middle East, and if anything the
nature of the 9/11 attack would seem to draw us closer to Israel. Perhaps 9/11
was another example of terrorism designed to polarize key actors (and
eventually move Middle East states against the US), but the perpetrators may
end up forcing the US out of the Middle East in the same way that the Japanese
forced the US out of East Asia.
David Friedman
Strong liberty <strong...@aol.com> wrote:
> Japan, of course, was hoping
> to paralyze the US with one fateful blow; she knew enough to fear the US
> would
> become a relentless, overwhelming foe if the first strike was not decisive.
I don't think that is correct. My memory of the history was that the
navy told the government that they could provide about a year of
victories, and then hold on for another year. Presumably that was
assuming Pearl Harbor. They knew they wouldn't get the Atlantic Fleet,
and they knew we could greatly outbuild them.
I think a more plausible interpretation is that they thought that we
would settle for a compromise peace if it looked like a hard war,
especially because of the more important war in Europe. For all I know,
they would have been willing to give us back the Phillipines, provided
they got to keep Indonesia with its oil and have a free hand in China.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Acar
Bin Laden spoke about attacking the financial centers. He also spoke about
how Americans would be living in fear, with airplanes raining from the sky.
I don't believe that his action was symbolic or isolated, or just
non-directional vandalism. It would take only a couple of hundred Al Qaeda
operatives in the U.S. to send the economy into a deep spin. I wonder if you
would agree in respect to the economy. When terrorists want to survive a la
Unabomber any major act of sabotage is very difficult. But when the
terrorirst is prepared to die, he is virtually unstopable. It is not
facetious to imagine a scenario in which major bridges across the country
are blown up, railroad tracks and subways are damaged in separate locations,
power plants are blown up or sabotaged, causeways are destroyed, underwater
tunnels are blown up, etc. etc. Pathogenic spores can be shaken into
mailboxes to be carried all over the nation. They could be spread in
airplane rest rooms and transportation terminal rest rooms. There would be
attacks and spread of spores in shopping centers.Make sure that many lives
are lost in trains, buses, airplanes, causeways. All of this and more can be
accomplished relatively easily by terrorist if they are prepared to die if
and when the project requires it.
What would bring down the economy (IMO) is not the physical damage or the
loss of lives, but the level of fear which would be paralyzing. People would
be reluctant to fly or travel by plane or by bus. The stock market would
plummet. No one would want to invest. Perhaps you would agree that the
effect on the economy would be devastating.
I am inclined to think that something along those lines could very
realistically have been the intended game plan. At least it would be my game
plan if I were bin Laden. :-). It is possible that the reaction of the
Administration may have put a damper on such a master plan.
I believe that the threat of smallpox, although very scary, is one that
could be handled and controlled before it reaches devastating proportions. I
also think that a highly contagious disease is not as desirable for reasons
that you mentioned. Spores are ideal. They are easy to carry undetected and
easily planted in strategic locations without recourse to the suicide
option; and they travel well.
In any case I believe that this is indeed a survival issue in view of the
nature and mentality of the enemy. I believe that "line in the sand"
diplomacy should be rigorously applied regardless of need to drastically
re-align alliances. This of course does not include the incineration of the
inhabitants of Teheran. I said "drastic" but rational, not crazy.
Carmichael
> Compared to a real war, the amount of damage they can do with anything
> other than biological weapons is pretty small. The one thing that does
> worry me is the possibility of an attack with smallpox or something
> similar. That's one reason why understanding them matters. A very large
> reason not to try to start a smallpox epidemic (assuming they can get
> the necessary material to do so) is that, once started, it will not
> limit itself to the U.S., and mortality rates are likely to be much
> higher in the Islamic world than here. Whether that will deter them
> depends to a considerable extent on what their objectives and view of
> the world really are.
>
> Other than that, the biggest problem is the damage we can do to
> ourselves in the process of trying to defend against terrorism.
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Why understanding terrorists matters
It would not involve the entire nation at once. The US Health Services are
equipped to handle mass vaccinations in several large population centers at
once. As we speak they are increasing that capability. The damage would be
great but it could be contained. The fear however would be even worse than
the physical damage.
Carmichael
--
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
> But whether they try to start a smallbox epidemic won't be determined by
> the spear carriers but by the people at the top.
Then it is a good idea to kill the people at the top, if we can.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
> It would not involve the entire nation at once. The US Health Services are
> equipped to handle mass vaccinations in several large population centers at
> once. As we speak they are increasing that capability. The damage would be
> great but it could be contained. The fear however would be even worse than
> the physical damage.
At this minute - now - Oct 30, 2001 we do NOT have enough
vaccine for the country and smallpox spreads like the proverbial
wildfire. This spread is made worse by the mobility of americans.
The disease will be carried by planes, trains, and cars. Also the
disease can be spread from a victim who is asymptomatic.
To put it bluntly, we are in the middle of a window during which
a smallpox epidemic could lay the country low. If such a thing
happens, it will be necessary to nuke the part of the world where
Islam lives. We will need to kill between a half billion and a billion
people to get some payback.
I realize that murder on this scale will not save us, but it will absolutely
guarantee that we do not get a "sucker's payoff" and that our adversaries
will fare worse than we. Getting Even is the most important thing to
do.
Bob Kolker
Matt Ruff
>
> Smallpox is the one that currently worries me.
The key here is not to accept any blankets from strangers. If someone
you don't know sends you a quilt or comforter in the mail, don't accept
it.
-- M. Ruff
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Why understanding terrorists matters
>
>
Early quarentines can moderate that risk.
You are killing people indiscriminantly. Even war needs to be conducted
rationally. (Oxymoron?)
Carmichael
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Why understanding terrorists matters
>
>
We are trying. We could have done it 2 hrs. after they rejected the
ultimatum. Now they are doing a Cheney (undisclosed secure cave).
James A. Donald
> I think a more plausible interpretation is that they [the
> japanese government] thought that we would settle for a
You are making the classic chamberlain error of interpreting
ideological enemies as rational people with bounded and reasonable
aims, a flaw of reasoning characteristic of economists.
The Japanese launched the war with no exit strategy other than total
world domination in alliance with Hitler. Given the evaluations they
had in front of them,it was insane to launch the war, and insane for
Hitler to declare war on the US. Nonetheless they did, and they did
not concoct the seemingly rational justifications that you invent for
them.
> For all I know,
> they would have been willing to give us back the Phillipines
This was regarded as unthinkable and unspeakable.
You start out from the assumption that they were reasonable, decent
people, and ask yourself "what reasoning would lead reasonable decent
people to launch that war", and then attribute that reasoning to them.
We, however, have records of their reasoning, records of their plans,
debates, and discussions, and they did not reason in that manner.
They were like dogs with rabies. They found liberty and tolerance
incomprehensible, mistaking it for weakness and fear. They simply
thought that they could and would win, regardless of the vast material
and numerical superiority of the US. They dismissed the material
evaluations that you cite as irrelevant, because they thought
themselves spiritually superior -- superior because of their eagerness
to kill the powerless and the defenseless.
They were evil people, and wrongly thought that evil was strength, and
virtue fear and weakness. They thought we were contemptible and
afraid, and so they ignored the evaluations that you cite.
Destroying powerful evil people is of course a public good problem --
the only public good that I find at all plausible, and is thus an
argument for the existence of governments. My assessment is that an
anarcho capitalist west would have had serious, probably fatal,
problems had it existed in 1940, and possibly fatal problems had it
existed in 1970, but our technological lead is now so great that an
anarcho capitalist west would have no problems if it existed today,
and that technological lead would rapidly increase.
Meaghan WW
BFB...@worldnet.att.net>...
Thats one of the best laughs I have had since Sept 11.
Thanks Matt
Yer Friendly Neighborhood Savage and Cruel Indjun
MWW
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> Early quarentines can moderate that risk.
> You are killing people indiscriminantly. Even war needs to be conducted
> rationally. (Oxymoron?)
No it doesn't. Look at the Punic Wars. Look what Rome
did to Carthage. Cartago delando est. They made a
desolation and called it a victory.
Bob Kolker
Dean Sandin
> Dean Sandin wrote, in part:
>
> >One "sick, very wealthy man" does not "manipulate" a sophisticated
> >network of thousands of committed, well-coordinated people into
> >being. What he does is to help find like-minded, educated, Muslims
> >who see the blasphemy of jahiliyya everywhere in the world and
> >believe in the cause of wiping us infidels out. He helps fund
> >their efforts. He acts as a charismatic figurehead and spokesman
> >for them. Insanity and childish emotions have nothing to do with
> >it. They ALL know what they're doing, know its meaning, and are
> >coolly doing their damnedest to destroy us, with clear intent and
> >full volition, to their dying breaths.
>
> If this description is accurate, then what's the rational objective towards
> which the 9/11 attack was a rational means?
I just named it. The objective is to wipe out the modern, secular
life that our modern, secular lives are leading, because it's an
abomination in the eyes of Allah.
If what you mean is, what more concrete goal was it aimed toward,
that's unimportant in this context. An ideological crusade will
have a plan. A plan will have steps, milestones, flexibility for
contingincies, etc. The important thing is the nature and
foundations of the ideology. Whatever paths the Islamicists may
choose to follow in eventually achieving our destruction (such as
concentrating on taking over the entire Islamic world as a vital
milestone), their intent is our destruction.
> And how was it rational for the
> suicide attackers?
I hope what you mean is not "rational", but "instrumental". They
are fundamentally irrational. Meaning, their philosophy and values
are fundamentally irrational.
Anyway, the answer is that they understood the manner of their
deaths to be the way to accomplish their goals, and so they
embraced their own annihilation that it required. The goal is
Allah's. They have no life or will of their own that is not simply
an instrument of Allah. Holding to any value of their own lives
apart from Allah's will would be ultimate blasphemy. For them to
die for Allah is to be part of Allah's glory, thus indescribably
wonderful.
> Was it because they really believed the bit about the
> posthumous carousing with 72 virgins?
Ask _them_ about such an irrelevancy.
> Then what were they doing in strip
> clubs?
Who cares? Why do some priests express their inherent sexuality
through perverted channels when their chosen way of life denies
its rational role in their lives? Psychology probably says a lot
about this, but, again, in this context, who cares? (Unless it
should turn out that strip clubs provide an ironic way of helping
the Feds hunt them down!)
--Dean
David Friedman
Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I just named it. The objective is to wipe out the modern, secular
> life that our modern, secular lives are leading, because it's an
> abomination in the eyes of Allah.
And you think they believe they can wipe out our lifestyle by using the
most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one fifty thousandth of
our population? They may be nuts, but I doubt they are that nuts.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> We, however, have records of their reasoning, records of their plans,
> debates, and discussions, and they did not reason in that manner.
>
> They were like dogs with rabies. They found liberty and tolerance
> incomprehensible, mistaking it for weakness and fear. They simply
> thought that they could and would win, regardless of the vast material
> and numerical superiority of the US.
Apparently you have read different records of their debates than I have.
The ones I remember show the navy informing the government that it could
produce victories for about a year, hold on for another year, and would
then lose.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
So that they will be replaced by spear carriers crazy enough to try to
start a smallpox epidemic?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> A plague isn't likely
> > to be contained, and quite aside from any U.S. retaliation, a smallpox
> > epidemic would kill a lot more Muslims than Americans.
>
> It would not involve the entire nation at once. The US Health Services are
> equipped to handle mass vaccinations in several large population centers at
> once. As we speak they are increasing that capability. The damage would be
> great but it could be contained. The fear however would be even worse than
> the physical damage.
You are an optimist. We currently have vaccine sufficient for under ten
percent of the population.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Mark Sieving
>
>The Japanese launched the war with no exit strategy other than total
>world domination in alliance with Hitler.
The Japanese had a fairly clear strategy, and it didn't involve
"total world domination". Their main objective was to conquer
China, and for that they needed oil. The Pacific War was
launched to get that oil, after the US, Britain, and Dutch had
embargoed oil sales to Japan. The Pacific War strategy was:
1) Take Malaya and the Philippines, and attack the US Pacific
Fleet at Pearl Harbor, to prevent the US and Britain from
interfering with Japan's other objectives in the opening moves of
the war.
2) Occupy the Netherlands East Indies, to gain access to the oil
deposits there.
3) Occupy Burma, to cut off the supply route to China.
4) Establish a defensive perimeter in the Pacific strong enough
to convince the US that it would be too costly to try to push the
Japanese out of the territories they had conquered. Japan could
then negotiate a settlement that would let them stay in China and
keep access to the oil fields in the NEI.
All in all, a fairly reasonable strategy, except that they
underestimated US resolve. But considering the depths of
isolationist sentiment in the US in the years leading up to the
war, that estimation was, at least, understandable. The
Japanese's biggest blunder was attacking Pearl Harbor before they
had made a formal declaration of war. Without the sneak attack,
it's possible, though unlikely, that the US would have accepted a
negotiated settlement.
-- Mark Sieving
msie...@ameritech.net
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
>
> So that they will be replaced by spear carriers crazy enough to try to
> start a smallpox epidemic?
What makes you think the current leadership wont?
Actually, I think we should kill ALL of them, but that
might not be technologically possible.
The greatest generation removed the scourge of Nazi
and Japanese fascism from the Earth. The new Greatest
Generation can rid the Earth of radical Islam.
Bob Kolker
>
>
> --
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
> And you think they believe they can wipe out our lifestyle by using the
> most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one fifty thousandth of
> our population? They may be nuts, but I doubt they are that nuts.
What will you say if (or better when) they unleash smallpox on us?
Bob Kolker
David Friedman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
That would be a catastrophe for us, and an even bigger one for them. But
twenty years later, our lifestyle wouldn't be all that different.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Jawaid Bazyar
.77D9...@mediaone.net>...
> If bin Laden's boys sneak a tac nuke into New York City and destroy
> a good part of Manhattan, how do you recommend that we respond?
> If we cannot trace the nuke to a particular government, what options
> does that leave us. Should we nuke all third world countries whose
> government has funded the development of nuclear weapons? If so,
> that means we must nuke both India and Pakistan and strictly speaking
> also China. Well that won't do. If we nuke Chine we start WW3 and if
> we nuke Pakistan (which is a Moslem country) then we have made
> millions of enemies, as you aptly point out.
Hm, see below.
> If we do not respond to a nuclear attack then there will be another
> and another and another until we are ruined.
>
> So we must respond somehow. What would you recommend?
I would recommend building a time machine and going back in time to
stop the Russians from getting nukes.
Oh, you mean what would I recommend outside a science-fiction novel?
> My proposal is to deploy a method of killing a billion Moslems,
> (guilty and innocent). That way we will get them all. But there are
> problems with that.
>
> 1. It is immoral
> 2. It is not clear we can do the job thoroughly, morality ignorned.
Maybe you can convince non-nutball Muslims to find the bad guys for
you.
> Shall we lift up the U.S. and move it to another part of the Galaxy?
> Nice thought, but we do not have the technology.
I might consider just moving ME to another part of the galaxy ;)
> If we up against an implaccable foe (call it the Terminator) there
> are only a few options.
>
> 1. Destroy the Terminator
> 2. Run and hide from the Terminator.
> 3. Put the Terminator in an unbreakable box
> 4. Submit to the Terminator
> 5. Be destroyed by the Terminator.
We could identify unstable countries with nukes and give them an
ultimatim - you will allow immediate verification and dismantling of
all your nuclear weapons or you will face immediate action.
The world was a dangerous enough place when it was just the US and
Russia with nukes. Now every two-bit nutball can get his hands on one.
Since once the bombs are in the hands of crazies we cannot track nor
stop them, perhaps we should find all the existing ones, destroy them,
and apply appropriate techniques to ensure nobody but us can ever
build another one.
On the other hand, there can't be more than a small number of such
bombs in the hands of rogue or potentially rogue states. If we take
steps to bottle up the raw materials so no more can be made, and keep
a close eye on all the ones known to exist, the risk should be small.
The enemy in the modern age is not states (who are becoming too
entrenched with the US economically and politically to risk
nation-to-nation warfare) but individuals. It's relatively easy to
make war on a state. They're big, well-defined, on every map, and
labelled so that even the slowest doughboy can figure out where to put
the bomb. Desert Storm was a piece of cake for this reason.
The trouble with Afghanistan is that it's not a state, it's an
anarchy. The enemy is a small number of people inside a very large
territory.
What we need to do is get very good at tracking, locating, and
exterminating the individuals who declare war on us. Perhaps that will
induce a deterrence effect in the easily-led masses.
> What would you recommend?
I haven't thought about this much, and these are off-the-cuff. Take
them appropriately.
jawaid bazyar
"Chris Cathcart" <cath...@SEE.SIG> wrote in message
news:LZ5D7.4224$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
> Wow, is THIS the kind of great insight we've been missing out on for the
past
> year or so? Statements of the obvious mixed in with some speculations
about a
> guy's motives?
>
> Wow, we really missed out on a lot, not having you around.
>
> Go on now, shoo.
Fred Weiss
"Mark Sieving" <msie...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:2qnuttcqlbkcrva1j...@4ax.com...
> All in all, a fairly reasonable strategy, except that they
> underestimated US resolve. But considering the depths of
> isolationist sentiment in the US in the years leading up to the
> war, that estimation was, at least, understandable.
Don't you suppose the terrorists are thinking somewhat along the same
lines - that we don't have the resolve? In my view, they have very good
reason to think so.
Fred Weiss
Mark Sieving
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ttvsh52...@corp.supernews.com...
About 25 years ago, I read a very interesting book, _Why Nations Go To War_,
by John Stoessinger. Stoessinger's thesis was that the misperception of the
enemy's willingness to fight was behind every war of the 20th century. I
thought he made a pretty case for his idea.
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Don't you suppose the terrorists are thinking somewhat along the same
> lines - that we don't have the resolve? In my view, they have very good
> reason to think so.
Their reasons for thinking so are just as good as in 1940 and
just as wrong. If Americans are pushed, they will absolutely
insist that we go nuclear.
In the 1940's the Greatest Generation lifted the curse and
scourge of Fascism from the Earth (if only for a brief
period). In the year to come the new Greatest Generation
will lift the curse and scourge of Radical Islam from the
Earth. If we have to kill all of them (except for the tame
Moslems who can be allowed to go on breathing) we will
do so.
Kill the lot, and let Allah sort out the corpses.
Bob Kolker
James A. Donald
> most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one fifty thousandth of
> our population? They may be nuts, but I doubt they are that nuts.
Reading their (or their sympathizers) usenet postings, I think they
are that nuts.
Remember they have god on their side, so they expect miracles. Also
they think we are weak, cowardly, and easily frightened.
Tom S.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.01103...@posting.google.com...
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message ...
> > And you think they believe they can wipe out our lifestyle by using the
> > most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one fifty thousandth of
> > our population? They may be nuts, but I doubt they are that nuts.
>
> Reading their (or their sympathizers) usenet postings, I think they
> are that nuts.
>
> Remember they have god on their side, so they expect miracles. Also
> they think we are weak, cowardly, and easily frightened.
If they base their assumptions on what the media puts out, such as going on
now, they have good justification. To read Charles Krauthammer's article, they
have a lot of justification and read our politicians like a book.
Also Neal Gabler's article (
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000080118oct07.story ) and
Binswanger's speech at Columbia, make a good case that Americans really don't
have a clue. Americans are "united" around our economic prosperity, but
haven't the slightest comprehension of the source of that prosperity.
Are we going the way of Singapore?
Tom
--
"Ask not, what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
country"
"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the
ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first
premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf'
Tom S.
> > do not mind dying.
> >
> > Now what?
>
> Kill as many of them as it takes before the collateral damage to
> people do DO care about their lives inspires them to join in to
> locally eliminate from power those who do not.
>
CMIIW, but those "collateral damage" people do not mind dying either. Don't
they all consider themselves martyrs?
It may sound flippant, but I think the solution is going to involve pork.
Tom
--
"Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the
tiger will become a vegetarian." -Heywood Broun
Don Watkins III
>CMIIW, but those "collateral damage" people do not mind dying either. Don't
>they all consider themselves martyrs?
>
>It may sound flippant, but I think the solution is going to involve pork.
Pork? What are you implying? "Fuck 'em"?
Don Watkins
Robert J. Kolker
Don Watkins III wrote:
> Pork? What are you implying? "Fuck 'em"?
As in spraying their Mosques and the Kabba with pork fat.
I proposed the Pork Bomb as an anti-moslem weapon ten
years ago. But nobody listened.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Tom S." <tms...@phx.qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3gZD7.5$wL5....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:96dc81b9.01103...@posting.google.com...
> > David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message ...
> > > And you think they believe they can wipe out our lifestyle by using
the
> > > most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one fifty thousandth
of
> > > our population? They may be nuts, but I doubt they are that nuts.
> >
> > Reading their (or their sympathizers) usenet postings, I think they
> > are that nuts.
It's hard to say. They may have that as a - delusional - longterm objective.
I think it's enough that they want to radicalize the Muslims around the
world, get us out of the Mideast, and control all the gov'ts there -
including, and most especially, the oil.
As to David's comment, they don't need to kill more than a very small
fraction of our population to provoke so much fear that it could effect our
lifestyle. Everyone who walks in a bad neighborhood doesn't need to get
mugged to provoke most people to be afraid to walk there. (This is the same
error he made last year when he dismissed concerns about terrorism because,
after all, "how many Americans had actually been killed by terrorists".
However that wasn't the stupidest comment on this subject. That award goes
to Owl who commented soon after 9/11, "why is everyone so worked up about
the 5,000 dead at the WTC - more people than that die from natural causes on
a given day." By that reasoning, then surely no one should be concerned
about the relative handful of people who are murdered every day. )
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BE015EB...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't you suppose the terrorists are thinking somewhat along the same
> > lines - that we don't have the resolve? In my view, they have very good
> > reason to think so.
>
> Their reasons for thinking so are just as good as in 1940 and
> just as wrong. If Americans are pushed, they will absolutely
> insist that we go nuclear.
Apparently it will take a lot of pushing, if 9/11 wasn't enough (plus
everything leading up to it).
>
> In the 1940's the Greatest Generation lifted the curse and
> scourge of Fascism from the Earth ..
They didn't have to contend with CNN broadcasting pictures of dead and
maimed women and children on the nightly news.
Our current generation is led by the former hippies and yippies of the 60's
and 70's - remember the "Peaceniks", plus the current nature worshipers
(which is the reason we are dependent on Mideast oil). Plus our current
administration has the backbone of a jellyfish. Plus our colleges are
dominated by the "everything is tentative and relative" people, like
Friedman and Fish. I wish I could share your optimism.
It's a question in my mind of how much of the "American spirit" which you
refer to still remains.
We'll see.
Fred Weiss
James A. Donald
> > reasoning, records of their plans,
> > debates, and discussions, and they did not reason in that manner.
> >
> > They were like dogs with rabies. They found liberty and tolerance
> > incomprehensible, mistaking it for weakness and fear. They simply
> > thought that they could and would win, regardless of the vast material
> > and numerical superiority of the US.
David Friedman:
> Apparently you have read different records of their debates than I have.
> The ones I remember show the navy informing the government that it could
> produce victories for about a year, hold on for another year, and would
> then lose.
I recollect the same evaluations. I also recollect the response to
that evaluation -- that because of spiritual supriority, such
evaluations, being based on mere men and material, were irrelevant.
You ignore the army reasoning, because that mad dog mentality is alien
to you.
They went to war because the army believed that spiritual superiority
would result in victory, even though many in the navy believed that
material inferiority would result in defeat.
James A. Donald
> > The Japanese launched the war with no exit strategy other than total
> > world domination in alliance with Hitler.
Mark Sieving:
> The Japanese had a fairly clear strategy, and it didn't involve
> "total world domination". Their main objective was to conquer
> China, and for that they needed oil. The Pacific War was
> launched to get that oil, after the US, Britain, and Dutch had
> embargoed oil sales to Japan. The Pacific War strategy was:
>
> 1) Take Malaya and the Philippines, and attack the US Pacific
> Fleet at Pearl Harbor, to prevent the US and Britain from
> interfering with Japan's other objectives in the opening moves of
> the war.
>
> 2) Occupy the Netherlands East Indies, to gain access to the oil
> deposits there.
>
> 3) Occupy Burma, to cut off the supply route to China.
This is total bullshit. They seized considerably more land than that,
and attempted to seize vastly more. They sought to take Australia,
and in their propaganda claimed that they had done so.
> 4) Establish a defensive perimeter in the Pacific strong enough
> to convince the US that it would be too costly to try to push the
> Japanese out of the territories they had conquered. Japan could
> then negotiate a settlement that would let them stay in China and
> keep access to the oil fields in the NEI.
They made no effort to define, let alone establish, a defensive
perimeter. They just kept on advancing until they ran into people
able to stop them. If they had a defensive perimeter in mind it must
have encompassed far more of the world than you describe, must have
been intended to be far forward of what they were actually able to
take.
> All in all, a fairly reasonable strategy, except that they
> underestimated US resolve.
A strategy based on killing large numbers of people, and confiscating
vast amounts of wealth and power, from numerous enemies all of them
considerably stronger than oneself is not a rational strategy.
The Japanese strategy, to succeed, required that the west be crushed
and shattered, presumably in large part by Hitler. The Japanese
strategy was based on, presupposed, and required, world domination by
totalitarian powers.
When the US was off fighting Germany, the Japanese were unable to
defeat Australia. They probably would have won in the end, but even
with America absent, they found themselves fully extended. Indeed,
since their basic strategy was to advance until stopped, they found
themselves fully extended by design. Had they taken Australia, they
would have found themselves fully extended somewhere else.
Chris Cathcart
>
>Would someone mind closing the window? There's a dog barking.
That's nice. Now, do you have anything useful, interesting or witty that you'd
care to offer the newsgroup?
Being that you're an ARIan, you have some deficiencies to make up for qua U
senet
poster. Let's not disappoint, hmmm?
Otherwise, shoo.
--
Chris Cathcart [email suffix: yahoo dot com]
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Benjamin Franklin
"Baseball is only further proof." --Me
Tom S.
> to Owl who commented soon after 9/11, "why is everyone so worked up about
> the 5,000 dead at the WTC - more people than that die from natural causes on
> a given day."
Are you sure? I remember that originating from someone else.
Tom Scheeler
--
"The World Trade Center should...because of its importance, become a living
representation of man's belief in humanity, his need for individual dignity,
his belief in the cooperation of men, and through this cooperation his ability
to find greatness."
World Trade Center architect Minoru Yamasaki (1912-1987)
Tom S.
> Our current generation is led by the former hippies and yippies of the 60's
> and 70's - remember the "Peaceniks", plus the current nature worshipers
Did anyone catch the Acura commercial on TV with the yuppie driving out to the
site of Woodstock?
Tom
--
"Wisdom is the integration of knowledge" -- Eratosthenes
Fred Weiss
"Tom S." <tms...@phx.qwest.net> wrote in message
news:Rl%D7.44$wL5....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > That award goes
> > to Owl who commented soon after 9/11, "why is everyone so worked up
about
> > the 5,000 dead at the WTC - more people than that die from natural
causes on
> > a given day."
>
> Are you sure? I remember that originating from someone else.
>
> Tom Scheeler
The very same Owl who hooted:
"Overweighting Concentrated Harms
People have a systematic tendency to overweight concentrated harms and
ignore diffuse harms. This often makes us shoot ourselves in the foot by
implementing policies with much greater costs than benefits.
The World Trade Center attack was an example of a concentrated harm: the
victims each suffered a very great harm (death), and the harm happened all
in one place and time. This is now almost the entire focus of the nation's
attention. This sort of harm can arouse deep and intense emotions.
An example of a diffuse harm would be the 21,000 annual homicide deaths in
the United States: these occur at different times, spread all over the
country. This harm, though its total magnitude is several times greater than
that of the WTC bombing, is not generally reported on the news or paid
attention to. (How many of you knew this statistic?) In addition, 2.3
million people (6,300 per day) die annually from all causes, but the 6,300
non-terrorist deaths on September 11th were not reported on the news,
because they occurred in different places. (Source: National Safety Council,
Injury Facts, 1999 edition.) ....
The point here is not that we don't need to worry about terrorism. But we
need to keep some perspective on how much sacrifice we should be willing to
make to stop terrorist attacks. Undoubtedly, we need to go after (and kill)
the individuals responsible. But it is not worth starting a major war (wars
typically kill at least hundreds of thousands of people); nor is it worth
compromising our Constitutional freedoms or fundamentally altering our way
of life.
--Michael Huemer "
These hoots can be found on his very own web perch at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/terrorism.htm
Fred Weiss
Jawaid Bazyar
0...@www.newsranger.com>...
> In article <O0MD7.250$j14....@wormhole.dimensional.com>, jawaid bazyar s
> ays...
> >
> >Would someone mind closing the window? There's a dog barking.
>
> That's nice. Now, do you have anything useful, interesting or witty that
> you'd care to offer the newsgroup?
I already did offer such a thing. In fact, I said basically the same
thing as David Friedman as to the motive of bin Laden. I hadn't seen
his post on the subject (haven't used Google to read news like this
before).
But I must have missed your pointless ad hominem flame of Friedman's
version of the same idea.
Oh, silly me, there ISN'T one. Because you weren't attacking the
ideas, you were attacking the man!
I suggest you consult a therapist about your compulsive need to prop
up your ego by obsessively setting up imaginary "bad guys" (that exist
only in your mind) and then attacking them.
> Being that you're an ARIan, you have some deficiencies to make up for qua
> Usenet poster. Let's not disappoint, hmmm?
>
> Otherwise, shoo.
Actually, while I could be considered a descendant of Arians, I'm not
sure what you mean by "ARIan" other than "You're someone whose views I
do not wish to actually think about and therefore I will pigeonhole
you into a convenient little box which I have already labeled as
'bad'."
You of course have offered nothing even resembling views in this
little exchange, therefore I am under no obligation to give you one
whit of respect. And I don't, you little pissant second-hander. (As
in, you exist to attack others).
Chris Cathcart
trolls...
Is this the kind of useful, interesting and witty material that we may come to
expect from you?
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Don Watkins III
>I proposed the Pork Bomb as an anti-moslem weapon ten
>years ago. But nobody listened.
Too cute. I hope some military guys with a sense of humor stuff a few ham
sandwhiches into some of those care packages we're dropping in Afg.
Even in times of war, it is important to chuckle.
Don Watkins
John Fast
02...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > David Friedman wrote:
> > > But whether they try to start a smallbox epidemic won't be determined by
> > > the spear carriers but by the people at the top.
> >
> > Then it is a good idea to kill the people at the top, if we can.
>
> So that they will be replaced by spear carriers crazy enough to try to
> start a smallpox epidemic?
*Obviously* what he meant was "Then it is a good idea to be able to
kill the people at the top, and make sure they know they will die if
they do anything stupid, like starting a smallpox epidemic."
Or, possibly, "Then it is a good idea to be able to kill the people
at the top, in case they are already crazy enough to try to start a
smallpox epidemic; and also a good idea to know how crazy they are."
--
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> Nonspammers email me at Telocity or Cybergate.
ENTJ/1w2 "I don't know, but I've been told/Hassan-i-Sabbah, he died old . . . "
John Fast
02...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > What will you say if (or better when) they unleash smallpox on us?
>
> That would be a catastrophe for us, and an even bigger one for them. But
> twenty years later, our lifestyle wouldn't be all that different.
The effect on our lifestyle depends on how big a catastrophe it is,
i.e. whether it kills 10% of the population, or 30%, or 80%.
What was Bruce Sterling's story about the terrorist who infected
Tom Boston with some disease, by snorting infected cocaine with him?
--
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> Nonspammers email me at Telocity or Cybergate.
ENTJ/1w2 "Raise consciousness, not taxes."
David Friedman
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message news:<ddfr-2B2693.164915301
> 02...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > David Friedman wrote:
> > > > But whether they try to start a smallbox epidemic won't be determined
> > > > by
> > > > the spear carriers but by the people at the top.
> > >
> > > Then it is a good idea to kill the people at the top, if we can.
> >
> > So that they will be replaced by spear carriers crazy enough to try to
> > start a smallpox epidemic?
>
> *Obviously* what he meant was "Then it is a good idea to be able to
> kill the people at the top, and make sure they know they will die if
> they do anything stupid, like starting a smallpox epidemic."
>
> Or, possibly, "Then it is a good idea to be able to kill the people
> at the top, in case they are already crazy enough to try to start a
> smallpox epidemic; and also a good idea to know how crazy they are."
This started by my saying that it would be a good idea to know how crazy
they are, because that is relevant to whether they would try to start a
smallpox epidemic. Then Bob asserted that the suicide bomber types were
obviously crazy enough. I replied that they weren't the ones making the
decisions, the ones at the top were. He replied "Then it is a good idea
to kill the people at the top, if we can."
I was pointing out why that was a non-sequitur.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
James A. Donald
> the most ingenious attack they can think of to kill one f
> they are that nuts.
Bin Laden said:
: : We believe that God used our holy war in
: : Afghanistan to destroy the Russian army and the
: : Soviet Union. We did this from the top of this
: : very mountain on which you are sitting and now we
: : ask God to use us one more time to do the same to
: : America, to make it a shadow of itself. We also
: : believe that our battle against America is much
: : simpler than the war against the Soviet Union
: : because some of our Mujahedin who fought here in
: : Afghanistan also participated in operations
: : against the Americans in Somalia and they were
: : surprised at the collapse of American morale. This
: : convinced us that the Americans are a paper tiger.
So yes, he is that nuts.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1545aAE4gwncm1/Gaw51313tt3RzcOidUYeS8L38
4eYkluBr6NXLW3Mv0YO+NBL4jh3JE1TCnc/3SOX7r
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Mark Sieving
>James A. Donald:
>> > The Japanese launched the war with no exit strategy other than total
>> > world domination in alliance with Hitler.
>
>Mark Sieving:
>> The Japanese had a fairly clear strategy, and it didn't involve
>> "total world domination". Their main objective was to conquer
>> China, and for that they needed oil. The Pacific War was
>> launched to get that oil, after the US, Britain, and Dutch had
>> embargoed oil sales to Japan. The Pacific War strategy was:
>>
>> 1) Take Malaya and the Philippines, and attack the US Pacific
>> Fleet at Pearl Harbor, to prevent the US and Britain from
>> interfering with Japan's other objectives in the opening moves of
>> the war.
>>
>> 2) Occupy the Netherlands East Indies, to gain access to the oil
>> deposits there.
>>
>> 3) Occupy Burma, to cut off the supply route to China.
>
>This is total bullshit. They seized considerably more land than that,
>and attempted to seize vastly more.
Where?
> They sought to take Australia,
>and in their propaganda claimed that they had done so.
The Japanese never had any plans to invade Australia. If their
propaganda claimed that they had done so, that just goes to show
you can't always believe propaganda.
>> 4) Establish a defensive perimeter in the Pacific strong enough
>> to convince the US that it would be too costly to try to push the
>> Japanese out of the territories they had conquered. Japan could
>> then negotiate a settlement that would let them stay in China and
>> keep access to the oil fields in the NEI.
>
>They made no effort to define, let alone establish, a defensive
>perimeter.
The first line of defense ran through the Marshall and Gilbert
Islands towards the east, and Rabaul and New Guinea in the south.
A second line of defensive positions was established in the
Marianas and Caroline Islands.
>The Japanese strategy, to succeed, required that the west be crushed
>and shattered, presumably in large part by Hitler.
No, it just required that the US decide that rescuing British and
Dutch colonies wasn't worth the trouble.
-- Mark Sieving
msie...@ameritech.net
Mark Sieving
>Don Watkins III wrote:
>
>> Pork? What are you implying? "Fuck 'em"?
>
>As in spraying their Mosques and the Kabba with pork fat.
I'm sure that would annoy Muslims. Petty vandalism is usually
annoying. But pork fat cleans up with a little soap and water.
-- Mark Sieving
msie...@ameritech.net
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.01103...@posting.google.com...
>
> This is total bullshit. They seized considerably more land than that,
> and attempted to seize vastly more. They sought to take Australia,
> and in their propaganda claimed that they had done so.
It was close. I visited their caves in Timor, just across from Darwin.
They had their own currency printed to replace the Australian currency, and
bombed Darwin. A submarine was caught in Sydney harbour, amoung other
attacks.
--
Arnold
Joel Rosenberg
63f2...@posting.google.com>...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BDD7E63
> .340...@mediaone.net>...
> > The Terminator does not bargain or feel fear. It either acts or dies.
> > The threat of death does deter the Terminator.
> >
> > Dropping the analogy, we are dealing with fanatic Moslems who
> > do not mind dying.
> >
> > Now what?
>
> mentioned Joel Rosenberg's story of "Operation David's Sling," in
> which Israel explained that, if the country were overrun, the IDF
> would nuke Mecca (and "a good Moslem would have to pray in all directions").
>
It's an interesting idea, but it's not one of my stories. The closest
thing in my stuff is "Operation Theda Bara", a bit of backstory in the
Metzada books, where a (presumably relatively small) asteroid was
dropped on Mecca.
> On a more environmentally-friendly level, we could simply threaten
> to cover the Qaaba with pork fat.
>
> Literally.
It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder how observant
Muslims -- both good folks and bad -- would react to, say, the 82nd
Airborne dropping on the Kaaba and slaughtering a pig there, every
day, until Bin Laden is turned over.
Robert J. Kolker
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder how observant
> Muslims -- both good folks and bad -- would react to, say, the 82nd
> Airborne dropping on the Kaaba and slaughtering a pig there, every
> day, until Bin Laden is turned over.
Bad Woggy. No Haj for you.
Bob Kolker
David Friedman
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder how observant
> Muslims -- both good folks and bad -- would react to, say, the 82nd
> Airborne dropping on the Kaaba and slaughtering a pig there, every
> day, until Bin Laden is turned over.
They would conclude that Bin Laden was correct in describing the
conflict as one between Muslims and Christians.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Robert J. Kolker
David Friedman wrote:
>
> They would conclude that Bin Laden was correct in describing the
> conflict as one between Muslims and Christians.
If bin Laden does his worst (the other shoe is yet to drop,alas)
that is exactly how it will play out. It will be an utter disaster
for Moslems.
Bob Kolker
John Fast
12...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> > It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder how observant
> > Muslims -- both good folks and bad -- would react to, say, the 82nd
> > Airborne dropping on the Kaaba and slaughtering a pig there, every
> > day, until Bin Laden is turned over.
>
> They would conclude that Bin Laden was correct in describing the
> conflict as one between Muslims and Christians.
Damn! Good point. :-[
Okay, what could we do that would annoy only Bin Laden and his
followers/supporters, without annoying all other Muslims?
--
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> "Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Nonspammers (even Fred Weiss) can email me at Telocity or Cybergate.
Lon
>
>David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message news:<ddfr-81A382.102553071
>12...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
>> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>> > It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder how observant
>> > Muslims -- both good folks and bad -- would react to, say, the 82nd
>> > Airborne dropping on the Kaaba and slaughtering a pig there, every
>> > day, until Bin Laden is turned over.
>>
>> They would conclude that Bin Laden was correct in describing the
>> conflict as one between Muslims and Christians.
>
>Damn! Good point. :-[
>
>Okay, what could we do that would annoy only Bin Laden and his
>followers/supporters, without annoying all other Muslims?
We could try to get a peace process in Israel which resulted in
a stable Palestinian state. I suspect that would greatly irritate
Bin Laden and his followers without annoying other Muslims.
We can also work on making Afghanistan a better place to
live after our attacks than it was before. That more than anything
may be what determines whether the current war will be seen
as a war against terrorism or a war against Islam.
Lon
David Friedman
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Okay, what could we do that would annoy only Bin Laden and his
> followers/supporters, without annoying all other Muslims?
Assassinate bin Laden--but we probably aren't capable of doing it.
Making war on the Taliban is probably as close as is practical, since
although it annoys many other Muslims it pleases others--most notably
the Northern Alliance and the Iranians.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Emami
12...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
One theory I've heard is that a major reason the Iranian government is
leery of our attacks on the Taliban, despite their mutual hostility,
is that they're afraid that we might do in Iran what we're doing in
Afghanistan: give air support to an opposition uprising, turning
something that could easily be crushed into something that has a good
chance of succeeding. And once we drive the Taliban out, we would be
in a much better position to conduct airstrikes inside Iran, since
we'd have no problem getting permission from the (presumably pro-US)
post-Taliban government to use bases in Afghanistan.
Robert J. Kolker
David Emami wrote:
> we'd have no problem getting permission from the (presumably pro-US)
> post-Taliban government to use bases in Afghanistan.
Iraq should be the priority target. That is where Osama is
getting his technical support. Osama is also getting indirect
support from the ISI in Pakistan and that is something that
will have be stopped in the near future. If Pakistan is destabilized
it will be necessary to make war on Pakistan also.
Bob Kolker
John Fast
12...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Okay, what could we do that would annoy only Bin Laden and his
> > followers/supporters, without annoying all other Muslims?
>
> Assassinate bin Laden--but we probably aren't capable of doing it.
Even worse, our policy (at least until recently, because IIUC it has
been *slightly* changed) actually prohibits assassinations!
> Making war on the Taliban is probably as close as is practical, since
> although it annoys many other Muslims it pleases others--most notably
> the Northern Alliance and the Iranians.
To clarify, what I meant was "What can we do that will only annoy
Bin Laden, his followers and supporters, and other people who are
pretty scummy, without alienating non-scummy Muslims?"
Anyone who is annoyed simply by the fact that we are trying to hurt
Bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and/or the Taliban, is scummy.
Someone who is
upset because they [probably mistakenly] think we're not doing enough
to minimize innocent civilian casualties is non-scummy, at least
assuming their standards for minimizing civilian casualties are
reasonable -- and they are willing to apply them equally, e.g. they
condemn Bin Laden's terrorism as far worse than our accidentally dropping
bombs in the wrong place, and they also condemn Palestinian bombs which
kill Israeli civilians.
--
John Fast <cal...@spamcop.net> "Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Nonspammers (even Fred Weiss) can email me at Cybergate or Telocity.
David Friedman
David Emami <ema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The version I have seen is that they are concerned, not about the
destruction of the Taliban (which they would be glad to see), but the
permanent installation of an American presence in Central Asia, on their
eastern border. That would presumably include not only Afghanistan but
the Muslim states just north of it, which are currently supporting our
side of the conflict.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/